Boon or bust? Heidegger, disability aesthetics and the thalidomide memorial

Abstract

Disability Studies has begun to interrogate the aesthetics of disability, both in terms of artwork and sensuous apprehension more generally. The present paper is a contribution to this burgeoning literature. Here I seek to demonstrate what the aesthetics of Martin Heidegger offer to that project. I do so in three stages. I begin by reviewing some relevant disability studies literature, highlighting some general themes in Disability Studies’ recent engagement with ‘the aesthetic’, widely defined. Next, I turn to the phenomenology of Martin Heidegger, to add some further philosophical depth to this project. In third and final section, I apply Heidegger’s aesthetics to the recently unveiled thalidomide memorial, to demonstrate the empirical worth of his analysis of artwork. I conclude with suggestions for future Disability Studies.

Keywords:

• Heidegger
• aesthetics
• thalidomide memorial
• Contergan

Notes

1. I contacted Chemie Grünenthal in the hopes of including an image of the memorial in this paper. The company did not, however, see fit to provide me with one. This is regrettable. One wonders about the benefit of a memorial that is hidden from public view. A quick search on http://www.images.google.com will provide the reader with an image of the statue.

2. See also Siebers (2010), for which the eponymous 2004 article serves as an introduction. There, Siebers argues that disability becomes an aesthetic in itself, crucial to the development in modern art. His work does not, however, engage with Heidegger’s aesthetics. Here I seek only to supplement his ambitious project.

3. I use the term ‘tragedy’ reluctantly: ‘tragedy’ seems to suggest that it is a part of past history, rather than a contemporary disability issue (as I argue in this paper). Despite my reservations, however, it is the preferred term of use by many thalidomider groups (the term preferred by thalidomide victims). This takes precedence over my weariness.

4. This is not to say that the non-German experience is either unimportant or uninteresting. The United States, for instance, did not initially admit the drug to market. Only after the discovery of the drug’s properties to treat leprosy and, later, forms of cancer (multiple myeloma) did the Food and Drug Administration grant approval for the drug’s use, and only under extremely strict conditions (for a comprehensive examination, see Timmermans and Leiter 2000).

5. From the Oxford English Dictionary: ‘a rare congenital deformity in which the hands or feet are attached close to the trunk, the limbs being grossly underdeveloped or absent.’

6. See http://www.contergan.grunenthal.info/. The thalidomide site is completely isolated from the company’s main site: http://www.grunenthal.com/. In fact, as of time of writing, if one searches ‘thalidomide’ or ‘contergan’ on the main site, the only results pertain to a Grünenthal timeline. I must state that the translation is not mine, and I regret if I attribute statements to Stock that do not match the German original.

7. Grünenthal and distributors of the drug have contributed to funds to compensate thalidomiders worldwide. This fact was highlighted in the company’s August 31^st statement. However, as outlined by the Thalidomide Trust (op cit), these funds have fallen far short of the total costs of accommodation. Further, many of the costs are born by taxpayers, rather than by Grünenthal.

8. I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this issue.

9. See http://www.thalidomide.ca/.

10. As seen in their recent submission to the Canadian Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate care: http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/humanrights/endoflife/euthanasia/Canadians-with-disabilities-we-are-not-dead-yet.