Rosemarie Garland-Thomson was a key figure in feminist disability studies. Within the critical framework of feminist disability studies, disability becomes a representational system rather than a medical problem; meaning that whoever has a disability or was seen as different did not represent what was considered beautiful throughout our society. Rosemarie Garland-Thomson wrote an article titled “Misfits: A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept”, which has many strengths and weaknesses. Her essay makes three arguments: “the concept of misfit emphasizes the particularity of varying lived embodiments and avoids a theoretical generic disabled body; the concept of misfit clarifies the current feminist critical conversation about universal vulnerability
…show more content…
Visible identities relate to Thomson’s concept of misfitting in the sense that it is relational, experimental, and contingent (“Misfits: A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept”, 596). Thomson discusses Linda Martin Alcoff’s account of identity formation, like misfitting, Alcoff’s version of identity is discursive material. For Alcoff, identity does not reside in visible features but emerges from shared, dominant interpretations of visual markers on the body (“Misfits: A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept”, 596). Equal access in the world should be achieved by changing the shape of the world, not by changing the shape of our bodies; Alcoff does not aim to reshape our bodies but rather to make identities more visible. It often goes unnoticed when one fits in, as it is an ordinary experience that most of us inhabit at some point in our lives. Misfitting does not necessarily mean only those who are disabled, meaning that any of us can fit in one day and misfit the next. This final argument seems to be the most persuasive for numerous reasons. One reason being that I very much agreed and understood what Alcoff was saying, bodies should not be changed in order to bring about equal access for everyone but rather other identities that do not fit the norm must become more visible and normalized throughout our society. Again, it is very helpful that Thomson brought in another theorist for further proof of her argument. Gaining different perspectives helps one understand all the different possibilities and make an informed opinion while knowing all the
Visible identities relate to Thomson’s concept of misfitting in the sense that it is relational, experimental, and contingent (“Misfits: A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept”, 596). Thomson discusses Linda Martin Alcoff’s account of identity formation, like misfitting, Alcoff’s version of identity is discursive material. For Alcoff, identity does not reside in visible features but emerges from shared, dominant interpretations of visual markers on the body (“Misfits: A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept”, 596). Equal access in the world should be achieved by changing the shape of the world, not by changing the shape of our bodies; Alcoff does not aim to reshape our bodies but rather to make identities more visible. It often goes unnoticed when one fits in, as it is an ordinary experience that most of us inhabit at some point in our lives. Misfitting does not necessarily mean only those who are disabled, meaning that any of us can fit in one day and misfit the next. This final argument seems to be the most persuasive for numerous reasons. One reason being that I very much agreed and understood what Alcoff was saying, bodies should not be changed in order to bring about equal access for everyone but rather other identities that do not fit the norm must become more visible and normalized throughout our society. Again, it is very helpful that Thomson brought in another theorist for further proof of her argument. Gaining different perspectives helps one understand all the different possibilities and make an informed opinion while knowing all the