Crip Camp and Culture Shifting

Culture, Disability, Law, Incorporation

PS140O: Projecting Power

Prof Wasow

2026-03-31

Guest Speaker: Jane (Mango) Angar

PhD Candidate, UC Berkeley Department of Political Science
Research: Disability politics and political violence, how institutions conceptualize disability
Emergence and effectiveness of disability rights movements, particularly in the Global South
Computational social science accessibility and methodological inclusivity
Co-founded Disability Research Globally: connecting scholars studying disability and health across regions

Stoddard: “Bleeding Heart”

The New Zealand Conundrum

Despite progressive laws, gay culture in New Zealand was not flourishing
Auckland felt like a large American city of the 1970s regarding gay visibility
Few businesses catered to gay people
Mainstream media avoided gay topics
Only one openly gay Member of Parliament
Most gay people remained closeted despite legal protections

The Disjunction Between Law and Culture

New Zealand had “the formal rules that ought to govern any utopia that includes lesbians and gay men”
But cultural transformation was lacking
This revealed an important insight: legal change and social change don’t always go hand-in-hand
Changes in rules may succeed formally but have modest effects on culture

“Rule-Shifting” vs. “Culture-Shifting”

Rule-Shifting: Traditional role of law in expressing formal rules for society
Culture-Shifting: Making social change that transcends mere rulemaking
- Advances rights of marginalized people
- Promotes values that ought to be rights
- Transforms society in fundamental ways beyond the rules

The Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Paradigm of Culture-Shifting Law

Established new rules banning discrimination
Accomplished much more than changing rules
Overturned centuries of discrimination doctrine
Put forward new ideas about everyday relations between individuals:
1. Each person has rights equal to any other
2. Segregation by race is wrong

Evidence of Culture-Shifting

The Civil Rights Act changed cultural attitudes
Television as a monitor of change: In 1996, diversity was visible on American TV
In 1966, integrated depictions on television were rare
American culture absorbed concepts of equality and integration as ethical framework
Outright segregationists became scarce in public discourse

Discussion: Why does Stoddard emphasize the process?

Let’s hear from: [Selected students]

When “Rule-Shifting” Becomes “Culture-Shifting”

Four factors determine when rule-shifting leads to culture-shifting:

A change that is very broad or profound
Public awareness of that change
A general sense of legitimacy (or validity) of the change
Overall, continuous enforcement of the change

All four factors must be engaged for culture-shifting to occur.

Discussion: What does Stoddard have to do with Crip Camp?

Let’s hear from: [Selected students]

“Not Just ‘About’ Disability”

Elizabeth Ellcessor (University of Virginia)
https://docalogue.com/crip-camp/

The Visability of Disability

Early observation in the film: counselor “not prepared for the visual of so many disabled people at one time”
Context: 1970s era when many disabled people were institutionalized or isolated
Contemporary parallel: film enters media landscape where disabled representation remains limited
Ruderman Foundation reports only 20% of disabled roles played by disabled actors

“The Largest Minority”

“People with disabilities are the largest minority group in the United States, but for the most part, we remain invisible. We represent about 20 percent of the population. We live in every state and in every community; we are members of all social and racial and ethnic classes; we are present in most families. But we are still often subject to the same unthinking responses to emerging problems that ignore the needs, issues or concerns of disabled persons. In most cases, we remain an afterthought.”

Invisible in Plain Sight

“Randomly look at any 50 print advertisements. You will no doubt find racial and ethnic diversity; you’ll see women and men of different sexual orientations; you will see gender fluidity and people of all ages. What you won’t see (or see very little of) are representations of disabled persons.”

Why Didn’t They Know?

“At screenings of the Netflix documentary ‘Crip Camp,’ at Sundance, audience members often asked why they had never been told the story of Camp Jened for young people with disabilities in the 1960s, and of the activism many of the campers pursued in the disability rights movement as adults.”

Why Didn’t They Know?

“One theory is this: They didn’t want to know. Historically, we have been hidden away. Disabled people can make nondisabled people feel vulnerable. We are a reminder of those fellow humans they may have avoided or shunned in the past, and of the fact that so many of us acquire disabilities as we get older.”

A Disability Aesthetic?

Refuses to cater to the stares or curiosity of a nondisabled audience
Not only about but also for disabled people
Presents a shared disabled perspective through:
- Formal elements
- Narration
- Extratextual materials

Discussion: What are some examples of not catering to able-bodied?

Let’s hear from: [Selected students]

Archival Footage as Intervention

Critics praised use of footage from People’s Video Theater (1970s)
Shows disabled teenagers as teenagers:
- Dating
- Gossiping
- Playing music
- Rebelling against authorities
More complex portrayal than typical fictional representations or news media

Centering Disabled Perspectives: Camera Work

Formal choices validate disabled perspectives
Example: Co-director Jim LeBrecht’s footage
- Shot from his wheelchair height rather than normative eye level
- Shows his progress up ramps at Camp Jened
Not explicitly discussed but powerful in literally shifting viewers’ perspectives

Centering Disabled Perspectives: Speech Representation

Treatment of speech disabilities throughout the film
Individuals with slowed or slurred speech filmed and edited like others
Talking head segments not cut short or narrated over
Open captions accompany speech, fading in/out in sync
Enhanced captions demonstrate:
- Respect for speakers
- Priority of access considerations

Narration from Within the Community

Story told by campers and counselors themselves
No (nondisabled) voice of authority
No all-knowing narrator or authority figures to “explain” disability
No doctors, parents, professors, or other “experts”
Historical figures (Nixon, Rivera) seen briefly, heard less
Education about disability history provided by those who experienced it

The 504 Protests: Educational but Not for “Others”

Second half of film focuses on the 504 Protests and related activism
Story told through experiences of people introduced at Camp Jened
Not primarily aimed at nondisabled viewers
Part of what Stacey Park Milbern called “crip ancestorship”:
- Connection to those who came before
- Offering disabled viewers possibilities for new ancestors and new selves

Discussion: Why talk about sex, sexuality, parenthood?

Let’s hear from: [Selected students]

Creating Present-Day Connections

Uses disability history as starting point to:
- Learn about disability history, community, culture, and activism
- See oneself as part of disability community
Meetings focus on disability history, disability and sex, social media activism
Explicitly invites viewers to find their own disability communities
Encourages developing political voices to carry forward Camp Jened’s legacy

Discussion: What role did media play?

Let’s hear from: [Selected students]

Discussion: How does Stoddard’s argument speak to the semester?

Let’s hear from: [Selected students]

Eugenics and Disability

Lives “Unworthy of Living”

Nazi’s first systematic victims were disabled people
“Aktion T4” program: physicians became executioners
Extermination methods tested on disabled people before Holocaust
Estimated 300,000 disabled people killed
Key connection: same personnel later established extermination camps
Ideological foundation: 1920 treatise “Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life”

Eugenics: American Influence

Eugenics wasn’t just Nazi ideology, flourished in America
Buck v. Bell (1927): Supreme Court upheld forced sterilization
Justice Holmes: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough”
American eugenics directly influenced Nazi programs
“Ugly laws” criminalized public appearance of visibly disabled people until 1974
Medical authority used to enforce social prejudice

“Resources” and Disposability

Recurring argument against marginalized groups: cost to society
Nazi arithmetic textbooks calculated “burden” of disabled people
Contemporary debates about healthcare costs for disabled people
Peter Singer’s “practical ethics” echoes eugenicist arguments
These cost calculations ignore humanity, dignity, and rights