Diversity, (Actor's) Equity & Inclusion

PART TWO: DISABILITY DRAG

The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision.
~Helen Keller

There’s a movement building right now that “stands with” drag queens who are under assault by homophobes and far right legislators trying to prevent them from coming into contact with children—see: Drag Queen Story Hour. As a former professional female impersonator of some note, I do stand with my sisters—although I would point out: you don’t stand “with” a drag queen, you stand under her.

So, okay… Drag and performance that disguise or alter the appearance of one’s gender has a movement now. But what about “drag” that disguises an able-bodied actor so they can play a disabled character? This, I learned recently, is labeled “disability drag”—and considered offensive to disabled people. Off limits. Am I getting this dissonance correctly…?

Woof.

You know, I often console myself (and my aching brain), when tussling with the myriad contradictory terms and concepts of the Woke, by imagining I am inside their heads.

Double Woof.

In my last installment of this series about the DEI “retrofit” at Actor’s Equity Association, I shared an excerpt from my email to DEI Strategist, Ms. Danee Conley, regarding the Best Practices for Inclusive Theatre Workplaces training and my reactions to it. The section focusing on disabled theatre workers and how we can facilitate spaces and rehearsal/performance practices to accommodate their needs and empower them in the theatre workplace, was valuable and informative.

Then it got into casting and interpretation of pieces that feature disabled characters. I will again point out that Actor’s Equity members—professional actors and stage managers—do not choose the repertoire, nor do we have anything to do with casting, and directors dictate interpretation. In the Best Practices training, nevertheless, ideology came into play, demonizing and discouraging two forms of representation the training classifies as: “disability drag” and “inspiration porn.”

I was put off by the tone and the implications these terms seemed to put forth. So I asked Ms. Conley:

The information and enlightenment about the needs of disabled colleagues and how we can support them was inspiring.  Can you offer more clarity about what is considered “disability drag” or “inspiration porn?” 

For example: is the character of Nessa Rose in WICKED considered “disability drag?”  How about the role of John Merrick in THE ELEPHANT MAN? 

Is the film MY LEFT FOOT considered “inspiration porn?” And would Daniel Day Lewis’s performance be considered “disability drag?”  Is THE MIRACLE WORKER “inspiration porn?”

Ms. Conley’s response:

Disability drag is when someone who is able-bodied is cast in a role as a character with a disability. So, for example, a character who uses a wheelchair being played by someone who is not a wheelchair user. For more information on “inspiration porn,” I recommend the following resource: Inspiration Porn - Mad Lab at Cal (berkeley.edu)

Okay. So, I can only assume that Ms. Conley doesn’t address my specific theatre and film references because she’s either unfamiliar with them (I can’t help but point out that she works for a THEATRE UNION) or she doesn’t want to get drawn into a complex debate about interpretation. But here’s my take:

The definition of “disability drag” given here seems, by inference, to place a moratorium on able-bodied actors playing disabled characters. So for example, in the musical ANNIE, an able bodied actor playing Franklin D. Roosevelt and appearing, as FDR does in the musical (and as he did, um, in life), in a wheelchair, would be considered offensive and off limits, right? And, conversely, having a wheelchair-using actor as FDR would be exploitative, right? Hmm.

It’s telling that Ms. Conley simply provides a link to an obscure academic study in answer to my query about “inspiration porn,” rather than attempt to address my specific examples. The link takes one to a statement (excerpted below) from the Berkeley Disability Lab…which itself references a link to the Disability Union in the UK…and also to a link to a TedTalk on YouTube:

The definition of inspiration porn is the portrayal of people with disabilities as inspiring solely on the basis of their disability. The term was coined in 2012 by Stella Young. Young has a TedTalk that goes over her experience with inspiration porn, which is a great beginner primer on the subject.

The Berkeley statement goes on to give a few illustrations of inspiration porn, then ultimately adds:

It’s complicated, sometimes stories skirt the line. The more you look out for it and try to find it, the easier it is to spot.

So, inspiration porn is in the eye of the beholder? Is it like that old expression that you know porn when you see it because “if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…?”

I think the key words above are these: “The more you look out for it and try to find it, the easier it is to spot.”

This is what cynical-minded, fault-finding, offense-addicted, so-called social justice warriors do. They look out for offense—they try to find it—and they spot it wherever they can—often, I’d assert, where it doesn’t exist.

I mean, really? How mean and small would you have to be to see a story like The Miracle Worker—the true story of Annie Sullivan, a woman with a disability, learning how to teach Helen Keller, a woman with even more challenging disabilities, and succeeding brilliantly—as “inspiration porn?” How nasty-minded would you have to be to see an able-bodied child actor in a leg brace and carrying a crutch, playing Tiny Tim in A Christmas Carol, and think “ugh, disability drag!”

I mean, yes, of course—we don’t want to exploit or degrade people with disabilities. To me, as a theatre person and human being, this is obvious. And there should be more and more opportunities for disabled actors to play roles that have been traditionally played by able-bodied actors. Of course! The most recent Broadway revival of Oklahoma! featured Ali Stroker as Ado Annie. She was the first wheelchair-using actor to appear on a Broadway stage, and the first to be nominated for, and to win, a Tony Award. Progress.

However, it’s important to point out that, by DEI strategist Ms. Conley’s definitions and metrics, the following plays and musicals containing portrayals of characters (real or fictional) with disabilities become problematic, and could face potential excision from the repertoire, right? Remember, too, that terminal illness, mental illness, addiction, autism, etc. fall under the definition of disabilities. Okay. Look at this list. Would banning these works, in any way, be good for our Theatre? Theatre workers and fans alike, I ask you: can you live with losing all of these? And more? Feel free to suggest additional titles in the comments, and likewise, please offer, if you wish, legitimate examples of offensive or insensitive “disability drag” and “inspiration porn.”

A CHRISTMAS CAROL (and most of Dickens)

A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC

A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE

ANGELS IN AMERICA

ANNIE

CARNIVAL!

CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD

DEAR EVAN HANSEN

DEATH OF A SALESMAN

EQUUS

GREY GARDENS

KING LEAR (and most of Shakespeare)

LONG DAY’S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT (and most of O’Neill)

LOVE! VALOUR! COMPASSION!

NEXT TO NORMAL

NIGHT, MOTHER

OEDIPUS REX

PROOF

RENT

RICHARD III

SIDE SHOW

SUNRISE AT CAMPOBELLO

THE BOYS NEXT DOOR

THE COLOR PURPLE

THE CURIOUS INCIDENT OF THE DOG IN THE NIGHTTIME

THE ELEPHANT MAN

THE FATHER

THE FIFTH OF JULY

THE GLASS MENAGERIE

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME

THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE

THE MIRACLE WORKER

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA

THE ROCKY HORROR SHOW

THE SECRET GARDEN

THE WHO’S TOMMY

WAIT UNTIL DARK

WHOSE LIFE IS THIS ANYWAY?

WICKED

WIT

Oh yes!—and anything based on the BIBLE. You know—JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, GODSPELL—all that “making the lame walk and the blind see?” Such inspiration porn.

My email response to Ms. Conley read as follows:

I am most appreciative of your thoughtful response, and for taking such care during what I know is a busy time for you.

I'm afraid I will never get behind the characterization "disability drag" nor the prohibition it implies on able bodied actors playing characters with disabilities. No one but a disabled actor can play RICHARD III?? No. Just no.

No. Just NO.