Agency and Disabled Bodies in Coetzee’s Slow Man
“Don’t take it personally, Margaret. You asked me a question, I am trying to give a truthful answer”
But Margaret does take it personally. “I’ll be on my way now”, she says. “Don’t get up, I’ll let myself out. Give me a call when you are ready to for human society again.
In this small instance, Paul Rayment, the protagonist of J.M. Coetzee’s Slow Man, has the unique opportunity to regain his sexual prowess and prove to Margaret that he is still the man she made love to when they were lovers in his post-amputee chapter of his life. What this represents for Paul is twofold- it can represent for Paul the possibility of assuring himself that while he is considered “disabled”, his sexual potency are very much what they were before the accident, assuring himself that he is still very much his hetero-normative self, while also giving him the agency to not have to prove it to himself or to Margaret, who represents his sex-life before the accident while also being a member of the able-bodied population, making his decision-making process, as oppose to what others expect from him, define his fate and how he will live.
The story of Slow Man reveals its ideas through both the construction of the text as well as the plot. It makes so much sense for the story to begin with the accident that debilitates Paul, making him lose his right leg. The whole narrative is not about an able-bodied man who loses an element of himself that soon makes him dis-abled, then regains his status as able-bodied, but more about its opposite; it’s about man who has his own convictions, flawed as they may be, and live by them, even though the identity that was placed one him by others in regards to his appearance has now changed from able-bodied, to non-able bodied. This is most evident when we see Paul not only embrace his authority as a man who possesses a body, regardless of its condition, but demands to be heard. This act of making his voice heard represents an agency that he possesses and is making that he does not lose since it now that he, according to everyone, is not the man he once was.
A big issue in the disabled community is the significance and value of the prosthesis- a term known as “Super-crip” is used to signify someone who is disabled but has been placed or paired with a type of extension of the body that allows him/her to not only have something to compensate for what is lacking according to the able-bodied physiology, but also gives a type of ability that does more than make up for it. Several examples include the cochlear implant, prosthetic legs designed for track and field athletes, and bicycles with pedals designed to be operated by the arms. When Paul is presented with the opportunity to have a prosthetic leg, his response is “I would prefer to take care of myself”. This type of phrasing allows Coetzee to open up the possibility of Paul either wishing to reject the notion of becoming what the doctor’s what him to be or embracing the new politic of his body; whichever the case, it is Paul making the decision.
We also see how the relationships between Paul and female characters explore where his agency is present regarding him new form. The process when finding a day-nurse becomes demeaning as it is exhausting. It is Marijana who not condescending, not belittling, and especially not disrespectful. Also, When Elizabeth Costello, yes, that wonderful character Coetzee like to use again and again, offers Paul to come live with her. His decline is not out of spite, out of bitterness, or anything of the sort. It is out of Paul’s dedication to himself and his understanding of what it is to live, even if it means not having two legs, just like everyone else. His admission to Elizabeth when he says, “No…this is not love. This is something else. Something less” signifies Paul’s embrace of what is ahead of him as who he is, instead of being supported by someone who feels prepared to be his metaphorical nurse.
With the lens of disabilities studies, it is not about what Paul sees when instances of dependence are placed on him, but his perspective as someone who will live with the decisions he will make; whether or not he has his new condition in mind is not relevant, nor should we expect it, since it is Paul who will decide to live with those decisions. Instead of seeing Paul recover, he must rehabilitate his new body so he can live with it, rather than in spite of it.
Coetzee/Rubalcava 
Your choice to focus on (dis)ability in Slow Man is what interested me and prompted the following response. You emphasize the ongoing controversy surrounding disability and the “cures” that “able-body” mentality suggests to different forms of it. You bring the examples of prosthesis and cochlear implants as two such “solutions” that make a disabled person into a “Super-Crip”. You quote Paul saying “I would prefer to take care of myself” and interpret his words as his “[wish] to reject the notion of becoming what the doctor’s what him to be or [to embrace] the new politic of his body…” You explain “whichever the case, it is Paul making the decision.”
I see you have chosen to give the text, or at least this part of it, a singular versus an allegorical reading, and so my response to both the text and your commentary will also be ‘literal’. If we interpret Paul’s rejection of the prosthesis as a desire to “take care of himself”, and the latter as his rejection of “becoming what the doctor’s want him to be”, then we can consider this decision an empowerment of some sort, a subversion, if you will, of the standards set by the society of ‘able-bodies’.
You bring the example of cochlear implants, so I will focus on that, since it is an area I am personally interested in. I would argue that cochlear implants are not a good example here. If we used the same logic to interpret the rejection of cochlear implants (as we used above to interpret Paul’s rejection of the prosthesis), we would have to come to the same conclusion- that is, rejecting the cochlear implant is empowering for the deaf person. But is it really so? How is a deaf person more “empowered” without implants than he or she would be with implants? How is the inability to communicate with the majority of people empowering? How is the inability to hear music empowering? How is the inability to hear your own voice empowering? I can see how the acquisition of cochlear implants could be seen as ‘assimilation’ to the ‘hearing community’ (as you said, “what doctors want him to be”), but I have to say, given the complex nature of this disability (I am not afraid to use this word), it’s not wise to compare it with Paul’s situation. Paul’s rejection of the prosthesis leaves him with one full leg and one half leg, but had he been deaf, his rejection of the cochlear implant would have left him isolated, alienated, and I dare say,…. incomplete… For not having half a leg doesn’t keep Paul from moving around, but not having a cochlear implant will definitely keep a person (in need of it) from hearing.
H. Simonyan
November 19, 2011 at 11:43 am
Hudit,
There is quite a bit of interesting work going on in Disability Studies that poses provocative questions on these issues and, I think, speaks to the questions you raise. One article that you may find of interest is Kristin Harmon’s “Addressing Deafness: From Hearing Loss to Deaf Gain” (_Profession_ 2010, 124-130). One of Harmon’s points is that even the language we use normalizes hearing people. She asks, for example, why we don’t refer to deaf people as “people of the eye” to emphasize the enhanced visual capacities that many deaf people enjoy. This would de-emphasize deafness as loss (e.g., in such terms as “hearing-impaired”) and would not assume that hearing people are the norm. There is also a wider debate going on in Deaf Studies and in Deaf culture about whether the use of cochlear implants implies a kind of “assimilation” (you yourself recognize this) that denies the subject the opportunity to become a part of Deaf culture. All of this is by way of suggesting that your assertion that deafness is about “inability to communicate” (the emphasis on lack rather than on gain) and that cochlear implants unreservedly represent some kind of gain may be too simplistic.
Ian
November 24, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Hello H. Simonyan
I really appreciate your rspose to this blog since it is treating such a sensitive issue. I also respect and admire how you are bringing something that is so, what seems to be, personal to you.
My reference to the cochlear implant was an example that draws on its implications as a prosthesis. The device is, in turn, an extension of the body that is redefing the body politic; the cochlear implant (CI) is taking the palce of the function the ear serves, which suggests that the CI is the new ear, as a prosthetic leg would become the new leg. Determining whether or not this deice makes them a “super-Crip” would require more research including what the CI has to offer and its abilities as well as how people with CI’s feel about it.
As a student, researching what the CI does to/for people is what I do- it’s my job. As someone who has compassion for anyone who is in need or feels marginalized for something a person cannot help, I’m very conflicted. The acedemic practice uses our world, the world we live in, as a petri dish. We have to consider how and what out words do to/for the people we write on/about. I’ve written several pieces with a “disabilities” lens, but looking at this response and my experience with these papers, I have to wonder “Is what I write representing the best interests for the people I am writing about?” There is a sense of detachment when writing about a group of people one has when writing a paper if you are not writing about a commmunity that you are a member of. What do the papers say about me and how interpret that particular group?
I, in no way, mean to offend anyone or take on an authoritative role that seaks for that group of people. If there is something that I have written that suggests that, I will not hesitate to retract, since my goal to help address whatever the issue is I’m writing about. There is SO MUCH I need to know and should be aware of when representing or addressing a particular community. I may do research that can help me understand the topic, but, at the end of the day, I do not have a cochlear implant, so there will always be that space of “unlived” experience. (If I may) I don’t think there should be guidelines that tell me what I “should” or “shouldn’t” write about, but to take the voice of those who do know that “lived” experience would not be a representation that speaks for a particular community.
My question to H. Simonyan-
Is it okay for me to write a piece of fiction that speaks from a perspective that I am not a member, such as the perspective of a woman, or someone rich? Further, If I write a paper on a group of people I have conducted research on but I am not a member of that community, what should, or shouldn’t be there?
Looking forward to your response
November 22, 2011 at 10:20 am
As I read the novel, there were times when I questioned whether or not having a prosthesis would be a good thing for Paul. I made a list of the pros and cons of a prosthesis in regards to how Paul lives his life. Out of the few pros on my list, one is having a normal physical appearance. There are times when a free range of mobility with a prosthesis and without the assistance of people or crutches that would enable Paul to walk or stand somewhat normally to an outside observer. As I read further, I came to the conclusion that a prosthetic leg would not be such a good idea. If Paul went around without crutches and with a prosthesis, he would be living a lie. When it comes to having a prosthesis, the narrator explains, “Paul shudders at the thought of it; he wants nothing to do with it. Crutches are better. Crutches are at least honest” (58). Paul then goes on to say, “I don’t want to look natural. I prefer to feel natural” (59). Paul is learning to adapt in his new body, and to do this, like you said, Paul has to rehabilitate his new body. In order to accept himself after the accident and to be happy in his new body, Paul cannot receive a prosthesis. Losing a leg is symbolic of what is yet to come. He is mobile, healthy, and he still has his life. A prosthesis would be symbolic of letting go of his own life; accepting the fact that he is not in control and maybe one day he will lose everything. Without a prosthesis, Paul can be in control of his life, making his own decisions and living with a true form of himself.
Mallory Simon
November 22, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Rolando,
In your response when you claimed that “the whole narrative is not about an able-bodied man who loses an element of himself that soon makes him disabled…” created for me a whole new way to look at Rayment’s role in Slow Man. Although I am not sure about Rayment’s convictions before he was injured, it does seem to me that before his accident, he did not possess a lot of human “substance” but to live life carefully, without commitments, and to avoid convictions. I feel that we can look at Rayment as not being able-bodied until he lost his limb. Rayment loses a limb but gains the ability to want to possess convictions. He wants to be close to and love others almost in a selfless way, something he was not capable of before losing his limb. In a sense, his injury was his inner salvation. I agree with you that his final decision to reject Elizabeth Costello is proof that he treasures maintaining his own agency and independence, but I feel that is a new Rayment who does this, one who has convictions and knows what he does and does not want, something he didn’t have before. To me, Rayment went from “unable-bodied” to “able-bodied” because he has gained so much more because of his accident.
Joanne
November 23, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Rolando,
I like your analysis of Slow Man in terms of disable and able bodies. I agree that Paul changes from being able into a condition of disable physically; however, he rejects the change in his ideology by refusing to use prosthesis. As you define, prosthesis, indeed signify disability; therefore, Paul prefers hardship rather than accepts that he indeed became disabled. As you refer to his sexuality, it also denotes his power and his desire to maintain it as an able person. Thus, I see the change and the interchange occurring in the dialectics of “able/disable,” which alter their meaning while undergoing a process of transgression. Physically Paul becomes disabled from his prior condition of being an able person; and the sequence/ change within the two notions of dialectic is logically normal. However, Paul’s rejection to accept prosthesis, his desire to become godfather to Marijana’s son and family, and also his rejection for companionship with Costello in the end denote his refusal of being disabled and thus, his contradiction with the “ logical change within the two notions of dialectic.” This contradiction thus brings the notion of transgression, which by its dictionary definition means “alter in form or nature to a higher form and to go beyond the imposed boundaries and limits” (Webster’s Dictionary). Thus, rejecting the change from ability to disability, Paul instead is trying to establish a change from disability to ability and thus, provokes transgression in a change that is “beyond the imposed boundaries and limits” of what we, people, usually think and accept. Hence, Paul challenges what is logical and acceptable, and transgresses beyond the set boundaries to become “other.” If we think of a disabled person, it seems logical that he should accept prosthesis, companionship, and any assistance useful for his condition; whereas, Paul rejects all that, and with that, he thus changes our “set, predetermined expectations,” in order to be other. Jacques Derrida, in “Difference” claim that “the other sense of ‘to differ’ is the most common and most identifiable, the sense of not being identical, of being other, of being discernible, etc. And in ‘differents’ […] it is necessary that interval, distance, spacing occur among the different elements and occur actively and dynamically, and with a certain perseverance in repetition” (Derrida 283). Paul indeed actively refuses to conform the established ideas of disability, and throughout the whole novel, he repetitively rejects the acceptance of his disability.
By: Kristina Yegoryan
Derrida, Jacques. “Difference.”Literary Theory” An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin,
Michael Ryan 2nd ed. Massachussetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. 278-300.
November 24, 2011 at 6:39 am
By: Kristina Yegoryan
(posted on 11/23/2011 at 10:41 am)
Rolando,
I like your analysis of Slow Man in terms of disable and able bodies. I agree that Paul changes from being able into a condition of disable physically; however, he rejects the change in his ideology by refusing to use prosthesis. As you define, prosthesis, indeed signify disability; therefore, Paul prefers hardship rather than accepts that he indeed became disabled. As you refer to his sexuality, it also denotes his power and his desire to maintain it as an able person. Thus, I see the change and the interchange occurring in the dialectics of “able/disable,” which alter their meaning while undergoing a process of transgression. Physically Paul becomes disabled from his prior condition of being an able person; and the sequence/ change within the two notions of dialectic is logically normal. However, Paul’s rejection to accept prosthesis, his desire to become godfather to Marijana’s son and family, and also his rejection for companionship with Costello in the end denote his refusal of being disabled and thus, his contradiction with the “ logical change within the two notions of dialectic.” This contradiction thus brings the notion of transgression, which by its dictionary definition means “alter in form or nature to a higher form and to go beyond the imposed boundaries and limits” (Webster’s Dictionary). Thus, rejecting the change from ability to disability, Paul instead is trying to establish a change from disability to ability and thus, provokes transgression in a change that is “beyond the imposed boundaries and limits” of what we, people, usually think and accept. Hence, Paul challenges what is logical and acceptable, and transgresses beyond the set boundaries to become “other.” If we think of a disabled person, it seems logical that he should accept prosthesis, companionship, and any assistance useful for his condition; whereas, Paul rejects all that, and with that, he thus changes our “set, predetermined expectations,” in order to be other. Jacques Derrida, in “Difference” claim that “the other sense of ‘to differ’ is the most common and most identifiable, the sense of not being identical, of being other, of being discernible, etc. And in ‘differents’ […] it is necessary that interval, distance, spacing occur among the different elements and occur actively and dynamically, and with a certain perseverance in repetition” (Derrida 283). Paul indeed actively refuses to conform the established ideas of disability, and throughout the whole novel, he repetitively rejects the acceptance of his disability.
By: Kristina Yegoryan (KY)
Derrida, Jacques. “Difference.”Literary Theory” An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin, Michael
Ryan 2nd ed. Massachussetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. 278-300.
November 24, 2011 at 6:43 am