https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo210361609.html
Danilyn Rutherford: I’m so excited to see Home Signs in print. We found out about each other a couple years ago and have been corresponding, off and on, ever since. I often felt like we were writing variants of the same book – yours about Charlie, mine about Millie, who also lives, in your lovely phrasing, beyond and beside language. And now your book is done, and it’s wonderful. Let me start with a simple question. How did you come to this project?
Joshua Reno: Thank you, I am excited about your forthcoming book as well and the correspondence we’ve had over the years has meant a lot to me. I actually wrote this book while trying to write another book about a different Charlie – namely Charles Peirce. That one was ostensibly going to be about how his ideas concerning sign use (or semiosis) relates to his “continuism,” or the metaphysical notion (to put it a bit simplistically) that all things are connected, and how that had impacted and could still impact anthropology. The initial pages of that planned book project used some examples from my life and mentioned my own Charlie a little. A smart editor noted that, in a way, the sign work I described in those passages was the real book. They were right, so this book was born from that abandoned one. I went from semiotics to home signs and, to my surprise, from engaging with the legacy of Charles Peirce to that of William James! In a way, though, Home Signs is still about how we are all connected — me to Charlie, him to me, both of us to all the people we know and even to all those we don’t.
Danilyn Rutherford: I’m intrigued by how you handle the power relations involved in the ethnographic encounter at the heart of Home Signs: your life with your teenaged son, Charlie. Like so many of us writing about disability, for better or worse, personal experience has fed our commitment to this topic. When you’re writing about people with whom your life is tightly bound, the ethical quandaries implicit to fieldwork become particularly palpable. I’d love to hear about how you managed the tension, not just between ethnography and parenthood, but also between your position of relative power (in life, in the wider world, and as author of this book) and Charlie’s position of relatively vulnerability. How did you manage the tension between what to disclose and what to withhold? I can’t help but think of Audra Simpson’s reflections on this problem. What kind of ethnographic refusal is at work in your book?
Joshua Reno: That is well said. Simpson’s take is important and in a way I did the obverse of ethnographic refusal to deal with an obvious power imbalance. I tried to do that with what I call my interruptions throughout the text to remind the reader that my perspective and privilege are behind everything said.
Indeed, as I wrote that just now, on a late February afternoon in 2024, Charlie summoned me to his side in his room by slapping his bed loudly. I was a bit annoyed because I am trying to get this interview done in a timely manner out of respect for you, Danilyn, but he is also leaving with his mother in a little to see her father. So, I say to myself maybe in an effort to believe it, that the least I can do at this moment
is to come to him when he asks for attention while she showers to get ready…
…I just got back from that. When I get there, Charlie swiftly sent me away again, taking my hand in his and sending it towards the door to his room. Maybe he changed his mind. Maybe the whole point was an experiment to see if I’d come. Maybe I misinterpreted a fun way to make noise for a home sign.
I use interruptions like that to interfere with the text, with statements made like the one I making now, that is, in a typically disembodied and authoritative tone.
But I am still that person whose wife is showering and son could make sudden demands. I am. He just did.
Charlie cannot speak or read what I and others write about him. And people will speak and do speak for Charlie all the time even if I remain totally silent: politicians, teachers, family members, doctors, activists are shaping his world as I write this. So my imperfect solution to the power imbalance is to sometimes say too much about how I, specifically, am saying it, when and where and what is going on around me as well as inside me. Throughout the book, I tried to disclose more than I was sometimes comfortable doing about myself to frame what I say about him, so that my descriptions of my disabled son are less easily mistaken for an objective view from nowhere. I am made more vulnerable in the process, if differently than he is.
Danilyn Rutherford: I’m also interested in the power Charlie wields. In writing about my daughter, Millie, I’ve found myself thematizing something I call cognitive mystery – a space of desire and speculation just shy of convention. This space comes into play in all our relationships — even when we think we understand one another, the possibility remains that we do not. As I see it, cognitive mystery opens a space for Millie’s agency. How should we think about Charlie’s agency (in your life, in the wider world, and in the writing of this book)? You give Charlie the last word. Why? How does Charlie refuse?
Joshua Reno: That is such a beautiful idea — can we just talk about your book? Anyhow, I think my argument that home signs be taken seriously, in all kinds of situations where it is otherwise ignored entirely (say with tickling or toileting) or which are typically understood differently (say with Helen Keller or Koko the gorilla), is broadly connected to the perspective on agency that you wonderfully explain. Home sign awareness is my way of giving Charlie’s actions significance, meaning that they are taken to be something more than pure reactivity or instinct on his part, as if he were trapped in his own mind and only bouncing off of an impersonal world of intransigent objects (people and things) that surround him. That is often how autism is popularly and problematically imagined. My argument is that if home signing is taken seriously, then it becomes clearer how Charlie routinely and expertly communicates with us and anyone who comes into his orbit.
I should add that Charlie refuses things quite a lot; he is an expert at passive resistance, which he does by making his body heavy and dragging his feet, remaining still or running away when called for. That does not do away with mystery, in my view, far from it. I think that because home signs are what they are, no more, no less, and they inherently involve uncertainty and confusion (like the scene I mentioned in the previous question). We do not always know what Charlie means or that he means anything at all, and vice versa. But that just makes those moments of (apparent) intentional communication so strong at the same time.
Danilyn Rutherford: Notably in this book, you steer clear of the question of the human. Non-human communicators play important roles in your story. Your reflections on communication experiments with non-human primates receive quite a bit of space in the text. Lately, I’ve been reading the older literature on freak shows and, in particular, William Henry Johnson, a Black disabled man whom P.T. Barnum marketed as an uncertain hybrid of man and monkey. When you bring humans and non-human primate into the same frame, some readers might find themselves thinking of this history; others might be reminded of Peter Singer’s notorious writings. What would you say to these readers? Why was it worth running this risk? Sunaura Taylor offers tools for responding to these kinds of questions. But it seems to me that you’re making rather different moves.
Joshua Reno: I argue in this book that home signing is a legitimate and meaningful, but not therefore an exclusively human, form of communication. So that is part of why I make the move you describe. For this reason, like others in disability studies who inspired my work, my primary engagement with the human concerns able-bodied ideologies regarding who or what counts as human, especially as this overlaps with assumptions about language. Because I am interested in the home signing that Charlie does and we all do, I want to trouble the twin assumptions that all human beings speak and only human beings speak and the related, glottocentric elevation of human language above all other forms of communication. This is not only about ableist standards that exclude people with linguistics disabilities, moreover.
Actual techno-scientific practices over the years have routinely enrolled, not only disabled humans, but also disabled and debilitated non-human animals (as well as in some cases “recaptured” humans who were raised by non-human animals as Kalpana Seshadri shows in her work). So, in every chapter, I include scenes with ordinary and exceptional dogs, cats, monkeys, gorillas, or chimps, both to challenge ableist and glottocentric ideologies as well as to show how they have been and continue to be propped up and supported through animal analogies and experiments.
These peculiarly modern projects (putting it broadly, experiments with consciousness) are not only relevant to how ideologies about language work, but have also been central to our everyday lives with Charlie. This is most obvious in the chapter where I talk about our seemingly failed attempts to do language training with him. I explain there how the origins of that language habilitation protocol, known as PECS, are similar to those for ape language experiments, as they both owe the form they take to the behaviorist epistemology of Edward Thorndike, student of James. Put differently, I am not selecting examples of non-human animals as beastly metaphors for humanity, but am instead examining how a broad episteme of American psychology, largely inspired by James’ radical empiricism, is metonymically woven into how we have been taught to help our son to speak as well as how some people have tried to teach our primate cousins to do the same.
At the same time, everyone is right to be troubled, as I am troubled, when people diagnosed with a disability are placed side-by-side with (usually captive) non-human animals. I should reiterate, first, that home signing is not somehow disabled communication but something we all do all the time — people like Charlie and carers for people like him just use them a lot. Here I am following work by people like Elinor Ochs and Olga Solomon, for instance, who characterize “autistic sociality” as a way all people relate, not as something exclusive to people with a medicalized diagnosis. Still, analogies between disability and animality have been and continue to be a source of racializing dehumaniziation in the way you describe. Here I align with Sunaura Taylor: non-human animals are, precisely for this reason, important to include, carefully, in discussions of disability since they have been part of and remain part of stories about human exceptionalism.
Danilyn Rutherford: You have written extensively on militarism, waste, and white supremacy in the U.S. How did those concerns make their way into this book? In what ways is this a book about the U.S.? How, if at all, has writing this book changed the way you think about themes from your earlier work?
Joshua Reno: While sometimes it is hard for me to step back and see continuous threads from one project to the next, I can see how a lot of the subjects that captured my interest in this book are things I have written about before that are arguably very American (having to do with crises in waste, militarism, and white supremacy), to which I add in this book, though this was not my goal originally, some discussion of a crisis in public services and health care.
So it is probably no accident that I became fascinated and troubled, as I read the vast literature on non-verbal communication, how some of this work has become entangled with policing and the national security state. So in the first chapter, I write Charlie’s seeming “aggression” but also about how seemingly “aggressive” non-verbal communication can get you killed in the U.S., especially if you are a person of color but also if you are disabled. And this overlaps in unexpected ways with the history of academic study of non-verbal communication, with some psychologists (namely those affiliated with Paul Ekman’s approach to facial expressions) training military and police to read body language for purportedly universal meaning.
It is also probably no accident that I spend a lot of time, in the penultimate chapter, talking about toilet training, which is the form of waste work I have been the most concerned with over the last two decades, rather than the landfills, biodigesters, and carbon emissions I have written about in the past. I am sure that my interest in Charlie’s toilet habilitation and the paradoxes thereof, is related to my earlier work. It is also something that people in discard studies have had much less to say about, despite the fact that all of us begin life incontinent and more than half of us will end up that way, if we are lucky to live that long. That made me want to think about the care relations associated with hygiene, which I describe as an ethical process in alliance with feminist and disabled writing on the subject.
Finally, my peculiar way of positioning myself throughout the text, as not only white but as privileged in a variety of ways, as a white, able-bodied, neurotypical, cisgender, heterosexual, upper-class, man (or a “wan chum,” as I put it throughout the book), is also shaped by work on whiteness and power I have been influenced by. It is only a little textual experiment, and in no way dismantles the many structures that maintain my privilege, but it has helped me make sense of the quasi-genre I am contributing to with this book, that of able-bodied parents writing about their disabled children. Stacy Clifford Simplican writes about the fact that this often goes unnamed as a genre, and I think she makes an important intervention. To be clear, this is no more a literature entirely of white people writing about their children than it is of cis-het men only, but it is absolutely a genre subtly shaped by the power relations you mentioned in your second question above, including by white supremacy. I argue in the preface, for instance, that one of the reasons some white men like me are drawn to write about our disabled children is that it dashes the sense of privilege we’ve otherwise come to expect (that things should basically work out for us, to put it simply). That does not mean we should not write the things we do, I just want us to call attention to the privileged positions from which we do so and how that shapes our desire to represent others whom we love and care for.
Danilyn Rutherford: If you had to choose one word to describe what this book is about, what it would be?
Joshua Reno: Imagine, reader, that I do not speak a word at all, but instead lean back, raise my right hand above my head and deliver a swift slap onto my desk, loud enough to send a sharp echo throughout the apartment.
As I do that, Charlie, who is in the next room, exclaims “baah!” as if in response. He recognizes the slap (he uses it a lot as an attention-getting gesture). He knows I delivered it even though he cannot see me right now.
What was that response? What does it say about what my slap meant to him? What does it mean that he did it again after a moment passed and his “baah!” went unheeded?
Let’s have “baah!” be the word we are left with. It is not a word (although maybe….“bah humbug”?). But I bet, whether or not you’ve heard it before, that you would respond if someone at home with you exclaimed “baah” or slapped a desk suddenly. You might wonder what they meant too or if they meant anything at all (maybe the slap sound came from them dropping something onto a hard surface by mistake, maybe the “baah!” was a vocalization made out of fear when they saw a spider on their lap). But you wouldn’t consult a dictionary in either case. You might wonder what it means for that person you share a home with and how you respond would say something about what they mean to you.
Baah. That’s home signing and that is this book.