Schalk_Reevaluating-the-Supercrip_JLCDS-2016

The article analyzes the term supercrip within disability studies, arguing for a nuanced understanding of its diverse representations.
Supercrip has become a common term but often lacks the specificity required for rigorous analysis.
The conclusion emphasizes the importance of narrative mechanisms, type, and context for analyzing supercrip narratives in popular culture.

Definition of Supercrip: The term is critiqued for its existing meaning, which serves as a dismissal of positive representations in disability narratives.
Scholars argue that it is crucial to avoid simply labeling a narrative as supercrip without detailed analysis.
Questions posed include what intellectual work the term provides and how altered approaches could uncover narrative complexities.
Critique of supercrip representations is politically relevant, yet scholars need to apply the term with precision to engage meaningfully with disability studies.

The article discusses how supercrip represents a broad range of narratives rather than a monolithic concept.
Builds on ideas from scholars like Amit Kama, and analyzes how varying supercrip representations interact with mainstream culture.
A move towards more specific terminology within the supercrip framework enhances understanding of cultural significance and audience impact.

Generally understood as stereotypical representations in journalism, television, film, etc.
Defined by Joseph Shapiro as inspirational figures who are excessively lauded.
Examples provided by Eli Clare demonstrate the supercrip as predominantly focused on individual success, often overlooking systemic barriers confronting disabled people, such as societal and material limitations.
Exploration of the supercrip term's historical lineage shows roots in earlier narratives about exceptional disabled individuals.

The supercrip concept can be traced back to publications from the early 1900s that promoted blind individuals' agency and abilities, altering perceptions of disabled lives.
Historical ties exist between supercrip narratives and the legacy of freak shows, which emphasize the wonder and heroism of disabled individuals.
Conceptually, the term supercrip appears to have emerged as a pejorative within the disability rights movement in the 1970s to critique overachieving disabled figures.

The article posits that supercrip should not be viewed as a static category but rather as a narrative mechanism.
Key narrative mechanisms identified include:
- Superlative Language: Use of exaggerated positive descriptors.
- Examination of Body/Mind: Scientific views on the disabled.
- Comparison to Nondisabled Norm: Standards that govern societal expectations.
- Suppression of Negative Emotions: Refusal to acknowledge the emotional struggles of disabled individuals.
- Emphasis on Individual Attributes: Focus on personal triumphs rather than systemic changes.

The need to differentiate between types of supercrip narratives is emphasized:
- Regular Supercrip: Accomplishes mundane tasks viewed as extraordinary due to disability (e.g. playing sports).
- Glorified Supercrip: Achieves exceptional feats (e.g. climbing mountains).
- Superpowered Supercrip: Characters whose abilities relate to their disabilities, often found in fiction.
Each type carries distinct implications regarding societal attitudes towards disabled individuals and their achievements.

Recognizing the medium and genre context enriches the understanding of supercrip narratives, suggesting that representations should not be viewed in isolation but as part of a wider conversation in disability studies.
Analyzing across genres changes the perception of supercrip narratives, urges care in labeling based on narrative context, and explores how genre conventions shape expectations and representations.