December 18, 2017 - 16:36
In comparing my earlier Serendip posts to my later posts, an obvious progression I have made is my increased comfort in asking questions. Initially, I struggled to make what I assumed should have been obvious connections. Using only the few sources I had available to me, I made unspecific claims and observations. As I learned more and was exposed to more sources of information, however, my attempt to make clean conclusions evolved into a process that more closely resembled hypothesis-formation. I believe this shift reflects a more nuanced understanding of the disability community, or more accurately, my understanding that the disability community is nuanced and multifaceted. Not all disability scholars have the same perspective and not all with disabilities view life with the same lens. I definitely developed the ability to lean into the discomfort of not understanding a particular author’s view or even disagreeing, though these contrary thoughts of mine were tempered by my growing comprehension that every new piece of information is not necessarily a new answer in and of itself but, instead, can be a small piece of a larger answer. While I do feel comfortable making claims about different aspects of the disability community, I also appreciate the importance of continuing to be curious about the disability community as a whole.
In terms of my development as a writer, the drafting process combined with the tutorial discussions surprised me with their effectiveness. Before this class, I rarely, if ever, created multiple drafts, nor did I ever really ask for peer feedback. Part of me feared criticism and part of me disdained it, assuming that the criticism I would get would be difficult to implement and unhelpful. In our tutorials, I have overwhelmingly been proven wrong; undoubtedly, taking the suggestions of my peers, regardless of any awkward feelings on my own part, has been incredibly successful. So often in the past I have looked at my own writing and known that there was some missing element that I just could not put a finger on. The tutorials have enabled other people to put their fingers on that element for me.
Looking forward, as a writer and fledgling disability scholar, I see so much room for continued growth. As a writer, I hope to incorporate the draft and peer-editing process into my natural writing, without needing to have mandated tutorials, perhaps through making appointments with the writing center in the future. Additionally, I hope to better strike the balance between choosing topics that are not too broad to sufficiently address within four to five pages but are also complex enough to fill those same pages without relying on overly flowery language. In terms of my future pursuit of disability studies, I am still fascinated with so many aspects of what we have learned. For example, in trying to characterize disability culture, I am intrigued by the idea that Rosemarie Garland-Thomson had about discovering empowerment through transgression. After all, so much of disability culture is the disabled participating in aspects of life that general society assumes is inaccessible. Throughout the semester, I have seen that uncompromising participation manifest as a quiet defiance and as a thunderous lack of cooperation. In all of its iterations, I am curious to further explore this theme, expanding beyond the lens of the portrait and into a pop culture understanding of the disability community. In this way, I can take the lessons learned from this class outside of a purely scholarly context, and instead explore how, in my day to day lived experiences, I can live as an ally and advocate.