Cassuto approaches Oliver Sacks’ case studies in a literary sense, breaking down the different genres that Sacks works within or around. Cassuto suggests that disabilities have long been represented in “two arenas of human objectification,” the freak show and the medical field (326). The freak show provides a parade of people classified as “them” or “the other” that the NT community is fascinated with because of physical or mental differences. The medical field shares that same sort of fascination, but in an attempt to be more correct, it instead objectifies the subjects in case studies that examine in minute detail their differences and disabilities.
Cassuto places Sacks somewhere in between, as mix of the traditional case study with a hint of wonder and preoccupation. He likens Sacks to a detective from the traditional crime novel, but rather than attempting to solve the crime as “science generally claims to have ‘solved’ the freak,” he simply investigates various stories (330). Cassuto also terms Sacks’ ability to bring “together the two uses of the case study: the medical and the literary” as a romantic science that “privileges difference and emphasizes personal connection” (330). Sacks, therefore, is no longer a typical scientist conducting an objective – and frankly – cold case study, but a humanist who writes with a “sympathetic voice” and shifts “the case study away from traditional medical narratives of pathology and toward an account where the condition is an inextricable part of the person” (331).
As a result, we are readers are left with the impression that Sacks does more than blur lines between genres – case studies, crime, and freak narrative. He questions the system of classifying people in different categories simply for being different. His case studies are narratives rather than inquiries into a disease and humanize people who are not considered “normal.” Do we have the right to say one person is lesser or abnormal or unusual simply because they have a disability that the majority of the community does not? Or do we need to learn to identify these differences as inherently intertwined with personality and physical difference?
Great job here in summarizing and highlighting the main points in Cassuto’s essay. Good use of quotes and paraphrasing.
In response to the questions you pose at the end, I’ll answer in parts (and apologies ahead of time, because I might have misunderstood them). Do “we” (I would just note to be careful using this word) have the right to say one person is lesser? No. Never this, never “lesser.” But do people have the right to point out what is abnormal or unusual in regards to disability? Simply, yes, but I’ll explain more on that later. As for the second question about whether disabilities should be compared/treated similarly to personality and physical differences as they are “inherently intertwined” with a person (at least, that’s what I paraphrased—I might have parsed the question incorrectly), I would say that, yes, that too should be the case. But I should explain more on that as well.
I guess I’m taking a semantic argument here. Basically, I don’t think the word “difference” need be associated with a negative connotation, one that is a bit reflexive to make (same sentiment for the words “abnormal” or “unusual”). So yes, pointing out, discussing, and elucidating difference disability in a community should be done, as I would argue understanding and exposure to an “other” decreases animosity for that perceived other. However, I think it’s also worth noting that disability/difference (whether mental or physical) is intertwined with a person and is a component of who that person is and how they may act.
From Sack’s use of narrative rather than a strictly traditional medical standpoint makes the characters that he writes about more human rather than to appear like lab rats or test subjects. It makes me think of the diseases/disorders as if they are a part of the person, rather than an illness that has consumed the person. If cases like “The Landscape of His Dreams” was written like a strictly traditional medical journal, I would have found myself only focusing on the disease/disorder rather than focus on Franco and how he reacts and deals with it. However, I will say I don’t have too much experience reading other case studies – I only have preconceived notions of what a case study from a strictly medical perspective would be like.
I don’t think anyone has a right to say they are better than someone else because they are more “normal” because nobody is. Even though many people can be classified as neurotypical, every person has quirks about them or do things that might not seem “normal” to other “normal” people. You would have to have some kind of list of qualities, personality type and physical appearance to really define someone as normal. Society has created an idea of normal, I’m not really sure what that is and it varies person to person but there are those moments that you just “know” that someone is off mentally by the way they look or act, but who’s to say they’re not the normal ones? What if they are really normal and neurotypical people are the freaks? Nothing in this world is perfect and neither are people, but neuro atypical people can be even more perceptive and bright, creative and understanding than neurotypical people and that makes them normal and above whatever the standard is. To answer the other question you posed about identifying difference, I agree. We have discussed with Sacks that both the illness and the person needs to be treated. The way our society treats mental illness is like you have a problem and we need to fix you because there is something wrong, or something is wrong and we need to fix it and the person is left out of the equation. Being able to help a people cope with themselves and whatever illness they may have will ultimately help them fit into society and change the way we see mental illness. By learning and understanding that everyone is different in some way is what children need to learn when they are young so as they grow up and reach our age they will be more understanding, knowledgeable and compassionate humans. Nowadays I believe people lack understanding and compassion for various things they don’t understand. I think that changing it one step at a time, one generation at a time, one life at a time things will get better, and as science develops further we might know what goes on in people’s brains.