Citation
Hypercomp

Material Information

Title:
Hypercomp crafting a hyperactive rhetoric through disability and glitch theory
Added title page title:
Crafting a hyperactive rhetoric through disability and glitch theory
Creator:
Keedy, Griffin Denay ( author )
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (pages) & : ;

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of arts)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
Department of English, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Sociology of disability ( lcsh )
Disability studies ( lcsh )
Composition (Language arts) ( lcsh )
Composition (Language arts) ( fast )
Disability studies ( fast )
Sociology of disability ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
Disability perspectives and disability studies are shifting how we compose, design, consume, and interact. Yet despite increased awareness, presence, and access, we are too infrequently questioning the politics, subjectivities, and limitations of writing practices. Instead, many institutions and purveyors of textual culture approach rhetoric and composition processes uncritically. This thesis, following scholarship in disability studies, seeks ways of creating and utilizing a hyperactive rhetoric or hyperactive rhetorical approach that challenges normalizing writing practices. I argue that, by following a rhetoric suggested by ADHD perspectives and traits, we might approach writing (and teaching writing) with the intention of complicating, destandardizing, misusing, and revealing, to ourselves and to audiences, the power of (dis)abilities.
Review:
In combination with these disability studies practices and philosophies, I draw from glitch theory, deconstructionism, and new technological capabilities to argue that we, as new media writers and writers with disabilities, never simply compose and consume in the universal manner tradition leads us to believe. I argue not only for a model of creating and consuming media (textual or otherwise) that resists normalizing conceptions of revision, polished (finished) writing, coherence, and linearity, but also one that embraces irregularities and glitches as essential, inherent features. Finally, I provide examples of how to perform these models and practices, which I call glitch writing and hyperactive teaching.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
Griffin Denay Keedy.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver Collections
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
985108623 ( OCLC )
ocn985108623
Classification:
LD1193.L54 2016m K44 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
HYPERCOMP: CRAFTING A HYPERACTIVE RHETORIC THROUGH
DISABILITY AND GLITCH THEORY
by
GRIFFIN DEN AY KEEDY B. A., University of Texas, 2009
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of the Arts English Program
2016


2016
GRIFFIN DEN AY KEEDY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
n


The Thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Griffin Denay Keedy has been approved for the English Program by
Amy Vidali, Chair Michelle Comstock John Tinnell
Date: July 30, 2016
m


Keedy, Griffin Denay (M.A. English, Rhetoric and the Teaching of Writing)
Hypercomp: Crafting A Hyperactive Rhetoric Through Disability and Glitch Theory Thesis directed by Associate Professor Amy Vidali
ABSTRACT
Disability perspectives and disability studies are shifting how we compose, design, consume, and interact. Yet despite increased awareness, presence, and access, we are too infrequently questioning the politics, subjectivities, and limitations of writing practices. Instead, many institutions and purveyors of textual culture approach rhetoric and composition processes uncritically. This thesis, following scholarship in disability studies, seeks ways of creating and utilizing a hyperactive rhetoric or hyperactive rhetorical approach that challenges normalizing writing practices. I argue that, by following a rhetoric suggested by ADHD perspectives and traits, we might approach writing (and teaching writing) with the intention of complicating, destandardizing, misusing, and revealing, to ourselves and to audiences, the power of (dis)abilities.
In combination with these disability studies practices and philosophies, I draw from glitch theory, deconstructionism, and new technological capabilities to argue that we, as new media writers and writers with disabilities, never simply compose and consume in the universal manner tradition leads us to believe. I argue not only for a model of creating and consuming media (textual or otherwise) that resists normalizing conceptions of revision, polished (finished) writing, coherence, and linearity, but also one that embraces irregularities and glitches as essential, inherent features. Finally, I provide examples of how to perform these models and practices, which I call glitch writing and hyperactive teaching.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Amy Vidali
IV


DEDICATION
For Pete, who showed me that the raddest, most worthwhile of people and things are the freaky, irreverent, odd, cheeky and often overlooked.
v


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Heaps of thanks and love to: my first mentor, an endlessly patient collaborator and the reason I undertook a thesis, Amy Vidali; kindred spirits and sources of endless support, The Leopards; Chaz, my favorite; rad scholars and fierce movers of the DS movement, Stephanie Kershbaum, Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson, Margaret Price, Jay Dolmage, Brenda Jo Brueggemann, etal.; a powerful and beautiful woman to reckon with, my mum; and rowdy beautiful, Kendall Elizabeth Youngblood.
vi


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCING.......................................................1
II. MONSTER SUIT......................................................3
Constructing Disability Constructing ADHD.......................3
ADHD as Invisible Disability......................................8
ADHD In Popular Discourse........................................11
Overcoming/Comorbidity...........................................14
Pedagogy, Learning, Teaching, Universal Design and Multimodality.17
Writing Pedagogy............................................18
Learning....................................................19
Teaching with Disability....................................23
Universal Design (UD) and the Role of Multimodality.........25
Concluding Review Bits...........................................28
III. 9000 FEET........................................................30
Disability Studies Methodology...................................30
Reflexive Methodology............................................32
Moving Toward an ADHD Methodology................................33
IV. GLITCH MONKEY....................................................35
Celebrate the Spontaneous & Seditious............................36
Traditions of Writing as Process.................................37
Glitch Roots.....................................................40
Glitch Meets Rhetoric & Composition..............................41
Glitch Writing...................................................42
Un-Finis hed Writing through Glitch..............................46
vii


Revision as Normalizing Agent.......................................49
Interrupting Ableism Through Glitch.................................50
Some Specific Manifestations of Glitch Writing......................53
Nonlinearity/Recombinatory Texts..............................53
The Side Pool.................................................55
Screencasts...................................................57
Spasmodic Writing/Rhetoric....................................58
Collaborative Authorship......................................59
Concluding Glitch Bits..............................................61
V. COTTON CANDY........................................................63
Teaching as a Subversive Act........................................64
The Hyperactive Teacher.............................................66
Grievances..........................................................68
Concluding Hyper-Bits...............................................69
VI ARBITRARY NUMBERS (WITH AMY VIDALI)...................................70
Our Collaborative Introduction......................................70
Spasmodic Business (#1).............................................71
Humor Me (#2).......................................................74
Normative Chatter (#3)..............................................76
Killing It (#4).....................................................78
Concluding Chaotic Bits.............................................80
viii


REFERENCES..............................................82
APPENDIX................................................88
IX


LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This advertisement used by Shire Pharmaceuticals in 2009 suggests ADHD be understood as a sort of monster suit and under this exterior layer of ugliness, stupidity, and abnormality is the lovable and normal child (or person) that embodies an ideal...................................................5
Illustration from the Thousand Plateaus Drawing Series for paragraph 19b by Marc Ngui...............................................................44
Text, glitched text, repetition, and allusion as used in The Medium is the Massage by Marshall McLuhan (23)...........................................45
This is the audio clip of a short conversation set before the song Like a Monkey from the 1981 album Songs of Pain by Daniel Johnston. While not directly related to the songs content, Daniel and an unknown friends brief exchange speaks to a notion of over examining something youve created and the inevitability of ruining either its authenticity or your enjoyment/interest in it, or both. Clip can also be accessed here:
https y/drive. google. com/file/d/0B0sp_ZDnK3R5MndPZGFpbmJsaE0/view?usp=s haring............................................................47
Monkey in a Zoo song clip from Songs of Pain by Daniel Johnston; 1981.
Excerpt lyrics as follows: I use to be happy/I can remember those days/But I sold my freedom/For free room and board/Like a monkey in a zoo. Clip can also be accessed here:
https://drive.google.eom/file/d/0B0sp_ZDnK3R5OE9TQSlwTm9CWDQ/view7us p=sharing.........................................................48
A non-digitally composed recombinatory text created on two pages of an antique textbook (original text illegible here). Background of the new piece is simple, thatched ink (top half blue/bottom half pea green with a jagged line separating the colors and also alluding to a mountain line on the horizon). Foreground of the new image is collage, here the Roman coliseum (photo) with an astronaut on a moonwalk (illustration black and white) standing atop; the two icons in surreal relative sizes (astronaut is to coliseum as Griffin is to coffee table).55
Example of my own use of the side pool from this chapter in early April 2016. A black and white screen shot showing a box of semi-related ideas like glitched sub headers created experimentally by me, a rejected McLuhan page selection (pg. 29), the lyrics to Never Relaxed by Daniel Johnson (song also replaced with another selection), and a list of orphaned quotes, which is my not-so-politically correct titles list of source quotes that seemed relevant at some time (all may or may not have made it through to the chapter as it exists here)..................56
Largely anecdotal but this image is a still from a screencast I made showing the process of glitching a short piece of text (in this case a chapter title for this thesis). In addition to showing my hesitations, distractions, and habits through the movement of the cursor, the screencast also reveals information like the time, the authors desktop choices (image, organization, component sizes, etc.).58
x


9 Black and white and mad basic sharks done in pencil. These sharks are meant to
work as a metaphor for the components of writing I am discussing herein to show how these approaches, while subversive, can still feel like fighting a shark and I choose the approach to engage at a given moment similarly to how I might choose which color/type of shark I want to fight first..........................59
11 A still captured from the short film/music video Fjogur Piano showing Shia
LaBeouf s eerily intimate facial expression at close range (smile + tears + beard + bathrobe + prolonged eye contact)........................................60
12 Abstract blot painting with superimposed, surreal collage of an artichoke-like
flower blooming out from the top of an antique pharmacy bottle. The bottle and flower are black, white, and gray, while the background is a mostly-unreadable, textbook-like page. Mustard yellow and bloodish red are splattered on the page (but not the bottle and flower)..........................................81
xi


CHAPTERI
4'NTR£2DUC4'NG
Learners who are not completely comfortable (or successful) in traditional modes and environments of public education experience misunderstandings and sometimes exclusion. The admittedly ceaseless clicks of my ball point pen led to a segregated desk facing away from where instruction took place and toward other students modeling quiet, motionless normalcy. The eventual diagnosis of attention hyperactive deficit disorder (ADHD) provided an explanation, but the resulting improvements in my student performance were largely due to my meta-awareness as a learner and the still-evolving ways I embrace and critique my preferred methods of leaming/writing. I didnt expect instructors or the school itself to shift fundamental practices, but I did believe for a moment that the diagnosis might mean new opportunities for multimodality in the classroom and maybe even increased flexibility in assignment expectations. My real issues as a learner and writer (and now teacher) lie in the literacy practices and expectations of the classroom I find the definitions of learning and teaching writing and demonstrations of that learning extremely narrow.
The notion of ADHD is created, recreated, diffused, and complicated through representation and rhetorical construction. And so, to truly consider ADHD is to consider not a set of symptoms or some diagnostic criteria but an idea. The idea of ADHD, and learning disability (LD) in general, is powerful and inextricably linked to cultural norms and values to ideology and language. Unlike DSM-Vdefinitions,^ which are crafted diplomatically, discreetly, and even arbitrarily, rhetorical definitions and constructions of ADHD are messy and contradictory. These messy contradictions are at odds with over-simplified policies and practices of academia.
The importance of this thesis lies in its challenge of writing practices that normalize writing and writers. Such practices include standardization, timed writing, formulaic and linear writing
1 The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. For more information, visit: http://dsm5-reform com
1


processes, revision requirements, and more. To realize these goals, I use existing scholarship and my personal experience to explore the restrictive, limiting nature of composition pedagogies (from both sides of the desk). Further, I use my frustration and my ADHD/LD to generatively suggest new practices and embrace the many opportunities disability provides to complicate and expand composition pedagogy.
This thesis is organized into five chapters. Chapter II reviews scholarship in rhetoric and composition, disability, and ADHD to extend understandings ofhowLDis rhetorically/socially constructed and why. I also explore constructions of ADHD in popular sources. Chapter III specifies the methodologies informing this project. I question coherence, predictability, and linearity as essential pillars of academic writing, including this thesis, by offering a reflexive, disability studies methodology. In Chapter IV, my first analytical chapter, I question the metaphor of the traditional step-based writing process through a suggested pairing of two concepts: glitch and disability. I develop a hyperactive rhetorical approach through glitch writing which emphasizes the power of breaking patterns and embracing mistakes. In Chapter V, I explore the notion of the Hyperactive (Writing) Teacher in terms of subversive teaching methods and the social/collaborative nature of creative expression. This chapter draws on the idea of teaching as a subversive act. Finally, Chapter VI, my concluding chapter, takes a reflective stance on this project, and is a collaborative piece by Amy Vidali and I that provides a metanarrative on the creation of this thesis and speaks to the role of disability in graduate writing and advising. This addition to the project further reveals my own approach to academic demands and my style of writing.
2


CHAPTER II
m6)Oo,)Nc))S6)t6)E6')Rc)) So)Uc>)i6,)t6)
[The] realization that minds are best understood in terms of variety and difference rather than deviations from an imagined norm, is aligned with a theoretical and activist stance called disability studies (DS). According to DS scholars and activists, disability is popularly imagined as a medical problem that inheres in an individual, one that needs to be fixed (cured) and is cause for sorrow and pity. DS countermands this popular belief by arguing that disability is a mode of human difference, one that becomes a problem only when the environment or context treats it as such. (Price, Mad 17)
In this thesis, I rely most heavily on scholarship in the field of disability studies (DS), a field particularly concerned with rhetorical constructs and resulting ideological impacts. DS employs rhetoric to better negotiate the ways that discourses represent and impact the real experience of disability. In this chapter, the works I consider complicate categorical ideas of LD and ADHD and how individual identities intersect with broader categories. While I can convey my own ADHD experience and perhaps those of several others close to me to show how we each embody different kinds of ADHD and develop differences in our ADHD perspectives, this would only be part of the story. Disability identity must be understood through both these individual embodiments and through its practical communicative acts/contexts. In other words, I find consideration of both the individual lived experiences (my own and otherwise) and the conceptualized experiences culturally communicated essential to the conversation this thesis initiates.
Constructing Disability Constructing ADHD
In lunbodied Rhetorics, James Wilson and Cy nthia Lewiecki-Wilson explain, "The goals of disability studies cannot be achieved without rhetoric" and conversely, that "disability studies contributes to an understanding of... rhetoric as an embodied rhetoric of difference" (9,18). The idea here and at the heart of disability studies in rhetoric and composition is that disability is rhetorical and shapes ideology. A disability perspective may produce a non-normative history of rhetoric (Dolmage 2013), and such a history seeks to recirculate and redistribute power and refuses the sexist, ableist body image of rhetoric, an image we have chosen from our (Western. Greco-Roman) versions of history (Dolmage 193). This area of research looks at disability constructs in their current usages and
3


their origins/evolution. Understanding how disability is rhetorically constructed is key to my project because these constructions perpetuate unquestioned traditions in writing practices and pedagogy.
In Mapping Composition: Inviting Disability in the Front Door, Jay Dolmage looks at traditional means of justifying inequality in universities through ideological and rhetorical constructions of disability. In academia, inequality is validated by standardized assessments and by assigning individual blame. Dolmage asserts three basic patterns of societal response to disability as follows: a rhetoric of diagnosis and stigmatization for the ends of sorting and othering, a rhetoric that implies students with disabilities are taking unfair advantage, and a rhetoric of charity in which accommodating and retrofitting are emphasized as acts of kindness to help students overcome (22). As explained by Linda White in Learning Disability, Pedagogies, and Public Discourse, the intersect of LD and these three core rhetorics further supplements the conventional beliefs about schooling that are needed to justify inequality by providing an explanation for failure, failure that is unexpected and, therefore, doesn't require social change (726).
Deborah Gallaghers Disability Studies Quarterly article, Hiding in Plain Sight, supports Whites explanation of the role of LD, concluding that the creation of learning disability was nothing short of a sanctioning of social and educational inequality (13). This rhetorical and ideological landscape has resulted in university systems of accommodation, which sustain tradition by keeping disability and accommodations rhetorically located within the abnormal body of the individual.
All of these rhetorical acts and traditions locate abnormality (disability) and the responsibility to adapt solely with the individual (also see Jung; Dudley-Marling/Paugh). Institutions maintain control of the levels of conformity and the criteria for demonstrating knowledge, leaving little room for individuality. This research is important to consider because it is reflected in the normalizing idea of writing as universal and process.
The work in this area is varied and variously frustrating; however, I do think ADHD rhetorics also represent an opportunity for thoughtful, generative use. The work in this section specifically sets the foundation for a hyperactive rhetoric, which is ultimately concerned with ADHD constructions and metaphors not only in academic discourse but in discourses more common/familiar outside DS,
4


including medical and popular discourse. My aim here is of course to examine the rhetorics of ADHD presented in field-specific sources, but it is also to take a careful look at those at cultural pieces such as the pharmaceutical advertisement show in figure 1.
Figure 1: This advertisement used by Shire Pharmaceuticals in 2009 suggests ADHD be
understood as a sort of "monster suit and under this exterior layer of ugliness, stupidity, and abnormality is the lovable and "normal child (or person) that embodies an ideal.
An academic subset of scholarship in disability and rhetoric focuses on how notions of ADHD form, evolve, circulate, and sustain. The area of scholarship concerned with these metaphorical and rhetorical constructions of ADHD includes works by Scot Danforth, two of his coauthors Virginia Navarro and Taehyung Kim, as well as James Christian and Jared Berezin. These scholars are of particular relevance as they locate some of the most central issues of ADHD in higher education inviting the additional steps I will take later. While scholarship in disability studies is changing the nature of ADHD rhetorics in the academic arena, there continues to be a wide continuum of work.
I want to linger on the work of Scot Danforth because of his sustained, specific focus on discourses of ADHD and examinations of how they are "internalized, refashioned, and opposed
5


(Danforth/Navarro 168). In "Hyper Talk: Sampling the Social Construction of ADHD in Everyday Language, Scot Danforth and Virginia Navarro create a way to empirically chart how harmful tropes in ADHD construction are established and maintained by analyzing discourse samples ranging from familial exchanges to media broadcasts. By analyzing the language events collected, they identify two generally dominant discourses surrounding ADHD: "medical (appropriating the /ASM-/Vrhetoric and deficit-based) and "school (characterized as identity construction sites and based on notions of school meritocracy)^ Medical discourse of ADHD is most dominant. The symptoms historically and currently listed in the DSM are broadly and loosely appropriated for everyday use, leaving the prerequisite details of an ADHD diagnosis out (177). In opposition to medical constructs, Danforth and Navarro establish the prevalence of language associated with moral accountability, which includes the familiar framing of ADHD as an "excuse for poor behaviors/performances and/or as a way of gaining unfair advantage through accommodation. These discourses reveal the traditions of education systems that prioritize and reward conformity and competition (179). They conclude that "medical and educational professionals must remain ever attentive to the possibility that a discourse can limit the opportunities for parents, teachers, and community members (172-4; 169).
Danforth's book, The Incomplete Child: An Intellectual History of Learning Disabilities,is well-known in the field of disability studies in education (DSE) and gives the "history of ideas... that produced the symbolic complex that we now know as learning disability" (23). Danforth argues that attempts to define LD has lasting consequences for those diagnosed and those who are not, because "the childhood disorder that was packed with latent mental assets and possibilities for future success was the learning disability. Plucked from the dead-end of misdiagnosed mental deficiency, the learning disabled child could grow and achieve (195). While this comprehensive work reveals much
2 In 'Tracing the Metaphors of ADHD, Danforth and co-author Taehyung Kim use the collective works of Dr. Russell Barkley, a founding voice of ADHD discourse from social science, to locate two primary metaphorical constructions of ADHD: "the brain as a kind of cybernetic control system and "people with ADHD as prisoners who are doomed without outside intervention (casting medical professionals and/or medications as the heroes) (52-57). The assumption behind these two primary metaphors seems to be that "normative requirements are fixed rather than negotiated meanings evolving in daily culture (62). It is easy to see these conceptions echoed in current ADHD rhetorics and consistently denies diversity of individuals and experiences.
6


about the evolution of the LD concept, what I find most compelling is what Danforth terms amelioration, which became the goal of defining learning disability (as Danforth explores through Kirks work and role in this during the 1960s), there are always those who will not qualify for the support afforded that category (186). Those individuals are then literally left behind due to current systems of standardized testing and their high stakes. Thus, Danforth questions whether its possible to separate assessments of functioning from a contextual position by looking at how the individual is expected to perform Danforth poses and encourages his readers and the field in general to model this strategic positioning because he feels the long term pedagogical goals of DS depend on it.
The larger problem Danforth acknowledges is the unreasonable and inflexible standards for behavior and literacy, which put pressures on those with ADHD that lead to self-doubt, diminished self-esteem, and perceived failures. This is an important take-away from ADHD construct research in general; one that takes priority in pieces by James Christian and Jared David Berezin. In the 1997 article The Body as a Site of Reproduction and Resistance, Christian suggests that the concept of ADHD and the practices associated with it are better understood as away in which schools reproduce a body management system. Christian invokes Pierre Bourdieus work wherein the body is posited as part of the transference and monitoring of hegemonic dispositions and thereby comes to argue that an individuals preferred capital relates to knowledge, relationships, desires and intentions to perform dominance and normality (38).
Christians concept is picked up in Jared Berezins 2015 article Disabled Capital, which helps us understand ADHD as personal and at odds with fundamental academic expectations. This piece uses personal experience, specifically his segregation from classmates when a primary school teacher moved him to a large desk facing not the front but the rows of other students (as happened to me). The result for Berezin was that, Instead of struggling to learn and adopt certain capital, I was unable to successfully perform the cultural and social capital already in my possession, as he found himself unable to focus and perhaps most importantly, unable to perform the role of a focused student. Therefore, capital is compromised when located within the disabled body, and thus, The disabled individual who possesses dominant forms of capital can be coerced through verbal and
7


behavioral social cues to segregate from and define himself in relation to the dominant able-bodied class (Berezin). The intersection of ADHD and the oppressive standards of the academic environment create a place where people with ADHD cannot easily succeed. Berezin joins the conversation via Christians piece to show that this model forjudging and separating difference continues to heavily affect and shape the identities of individuals with ADHD and the collective ADHD identity. This research necessarily complicates notions of ADHD and its discourses; the meaning of ADHD changes as it intersects with various social and institutional contexts. This part of the scholarship shows the difficult rhetorical terrain negotiated by people with ADHD. The subsequent notions of LD and ADHD suggested by them influence the identities of those with LD and ADHD in a very real way.
ADHD as Invisible Disability
ADHD is an invisible disability and one often framed by common misperceptions that make it difficult to choose actively disclose or come out. As the scholarship demonstrates, the rhetorical choice to disclose or not disclose any disability is complicated by questions of empowerment by which I mean that claiming disability can mean redefining oneself with positive recognition and embracing community and thereby a larger process of rejecting the brutality of normal. Invisibility is an important consideration for me because of the constantly shifting, contested definitions of ADHD as a disability and the general social scrutiny that rejects identity without "proof something Ellen Samuels argues ADHD does not and will not have (233). ADHDs very existence has long been called into question and so there is tension between the appearance and identity of those with ADHD. This tension is a powerful part of the ADHD experience. In characterizing invisibility, Samuels points to the constant and invasive surveillance of non-visibly disabled bodies. She argues that its the result of a convergence of complicated cultural discourses regarding independence, fraud, malingering, and entitlement; the form it takes almost always involves a perceived discontinuity between appearance, behavior, and identity (247).
8


DS research on passing and disability disclosure is about the significant impact of all rhetorical acts of (nondisclosure on the individual. ADHD often comes with the option to pass and that option, temptation even, is ever-present. The habitual passing can translate into denial, insecurity, and a lack of self-advocacy. Important to this research is the idea that harmful constructions can actually exist in both rhetorical acts of disclosure or claiming and those of nondisclosure or passing. The research concerns these two senses i.e. on either side of a decision to disclose and includes primarily important work by Brenda Jo Brueggemann (with various coauthors). Also of relevance here is work by Simi Linton, David Connor, Stephanie Kerschbaum, and Tara Wood that attends to empowering and/or impairing potentials in such acts. It's relevant to think of these issues in an ADHD context because ADHD traits, experiences, and perspectives can inform the writing process and challenge traditional notions in the university but not when ADHD rhetorics and perspectives are silenced by others or by those with ADHD.
Brenda Jo Brueggemanns research is particularly concerned with functions of passing and while not focused on ADHD, is relevant because it provides insightful analysis of some core concepts surrounding all invisible disabilities and identities. Becoming Visible: Lessons in Disability, critically assess and disrupt notions of writing and composition. Brueggemann et al. believe its necessary to keep moving away from discourses suggesting LD is not necessarily real (an assertion particularly common in ADHD rhetorics) and recognize that an accurate understanding of learning disabilities is essential to highlighting and utilizing writing abilities for those with LD. These are the abilities traditionally dismissed or overlooked (374). Brueggemann explains through example that, being shamed is a prominent feature [in essays] by people with LD, whose stories provide vivid accounts of the way impairments become disabilities (373).
The complicated rhetorical nature of invisible disabilities is further explored by Connor who is specifically interested in the power dynamics reflected in LD research. In a study concerned with student transitions into college, David Connor points to the problem with orientation, saying, The lack of research on students self-initiated actions is a critical gap in the literature because its absence reinforces traditional notions of students with LD being passive, waiting for or being directed toward
9


assistance (2). Attempts to improve the rhetorics of ADHD andLD (nondisclosure often start with (or slip into) deficit discourses. Strategic rhetorical positioning and DS scholarship helps shift viewpoints toward a more accurate and supportive place a place capable of understanding ADHD and LD from a strengths-based approach. A common move in DS, the attempt is to shift focus from extrinsic to intrinsic, from disability to ability, in order to illustrate that notions ofsuccessare highly contextual and also, especially concerning LD and ADHD.
Stephanie Kerschbaum suggests that claiming disability identity is a rhetorical act where the person disclosing makes an argument about herself. Her research focuses on acts of claiming disability, or coming-out, through written texts in particular, arguing that, Written disclosures function kairotically as individuals face the moment of writing disclosure, and pieces composed at different times and in different places reflect not only the authors imagining of an audience but also the circumstances surrounding the genesis of that text. Thus, over time, authors may differently address the function of disclosure (65). Tara Wood, in Overcoming Rhetoric concludes, Understanding how particular disclosing rhetorics either impair or empower is paramount to constructing a critically conscious classroom environment. Not only do teachers need to be crucially aware of the ethical issues surrounding evaluating personal writing that discloses identity performance... they need to be theoretically versed in the rhetorical consequences for particular subaltern groups (49). Amy Vidalis research in Texts of Our Institutional Lives: Performing the Rhetorical Freak Show-Disability, Student Writing, and College Admissions focuses on college admissions essays and other student writing in genres that explicitly or implicitly encourage disclosure of their disabilities. The article is powerful because it ultimately reveals that there remains a significant personal risk and as well as larger concerns regarding the possible reaffirmations of negative stereotypes of disability (such as the overcoming of disability at all costs) (635). A culture of awareness regarding performances of disability identity and acts disability (nondisclosure is essential to foster empowerment.
10


ADHD In Popular Discourse
Having established the nature of ADHD andLD as socially constructed in academic discourses, the more familiar and resonating version of ADHD exists in mainstream, popular discourses. The pervasiveness here is far-reaching. Despite common assumptions that learning disabilities have a neurological basis, there are no physiological tests to diagnose learning disabilities (White; Barkley). Historically, definitions of LD and ADHD change frequently while diagnostic procedures remain largely exclusionary and misdiagnoses fairly common (White 5-8). Put simply, diagnosing ADHD and most LDs is very problematic so much so that the medical profession by and large "admit| s | that there is no reliable way to diagnose the condition (White 708). Further complicating notions ofLDis an acknowledgement that not all learning problems are automatically LDs. It seems undeniable to me that some learning problems are simply features of diverse learning styles. However, these popular discourses ultimately use positivity to conceal or re-purpose some deficit-based models in the ADHD tradition.
I find it interesting (and super awkward) thatLD and especially ADHD seem to the general public to be fairly concrete concepts, and this assumption reveals itself in three primary patterns that I interrogate in this section. First I examine positivity-based texts asserting the creativity mystique by Archer, Bernstein, and Kaufman, as well as mainstream TED Talks that use newer positivity-based discourses and constructs. Second, I attend to texts concerned with risks and comorbidities that rely on (sometimes questionable) statistical evidence that create fear and internalized hopelessness. And finally, I engage the concept and function of overcoming as it relates to ADHD in an HBO documentary, and the ethos of organizations like ADDCA and CHADD, which are problematic because they create new ways of reaffirming old oppression.
Attempts to flip the discourse of ADHD are well-intentioned but often problematic in new ways that are less evident. While I do think ADHD has value and offers certain aptitudes, my concern here is that these attempts to flip the discourse actually create or perpetuate newly and/or traditionally problematic rhetorical constructions. Such positivity-driven discussions of ADHD use successful, iconic individuals with ADHD to celebrate the traits (hyperactivity, hyperfocus, etc.) that contributed
11


to that success. Some even argue that these individuals are successful not in spite of their ADHD but because of it. The ADHD-as-advantage texts include personality-based claims of endless curiosity and adventurousness, bold risks-taking, and unusual resilience (see Archer, Christakis, and Anyaso). Other ADHD-based advantages engaged by these texts include metacognition/self-awareness regarding learning, creative giftsVcreativity, and faculty for hyperfocus.
Scientific researchers, writing for public audiences in the form of op-eds, blogs, and brief online articles, are often vocal about the link between ADHD and creativity. 3 While ADHD clinical and scientific researchers largely write only to publish and analyze study findings, the scientist-authors I am referring to here are far more controversial and haphazard with evidence, and their online presence can be huge. One article is often posted on two or more sites (sometimes with different titles) and these type pieces often gamer social media attention. Scott Barry Kaufmans work on creativity and ADHD has received a great deal of attention largely because he takes a radical stance on the need to redefine intelligence to include the value of spontaneous thought (daydreaming, implicit learning strategies, etc.) (2014, 2015). One of Kaufmans widely read articles, ADHD Brains Are the Most Creative: Why Do We Treat It Like a Disability? appeared on both the Scientific American andAllernel websites. Kaufmans claimhere is that clinical research has supported the notion that people with ADHD characteristics are more likely to reach higher levels of creative thought and achievement than people without these characteristics (1). He cites a lot of research but I quickly noticed that the studies were cursorily related to ADHD or overstated. I find Kaufmans appropriation of clinical research somewhat irresponsible in that some of these pieces have the most far reaching impacts.
Coming from a founding and influential ADHD researcher in the social sciences, Russell A. Barkleys public response to Kaufmans article is an apt criticism of the rhetorics of ADHD advantage. Barkley writes, By all means, let us celebrate, encourage, and support the talents of individuals, but let us not romanticize them as arising from a serious neurodevelopmental disorder
3 Also see The Creativity Mystique and the Rhetoric of Mood Disorders by Katie Rose et al in
Disability Studies Quarterly.
12


such as ADHD. He further explains that people with ADHD range across the entire spectrum of creativity, variously measured, as does the general population (Barkley qtd. in Pera ADHD Roller Coaster). The word romanticize is well chosen here. The simplistic opinions expressed by Kaufman are misrepresented as factual and backed by hard evidence, a common occurrence in the scientific area of popular discourse (also see Shellenbarger example from The WSJ). The unfortunate effect of these texts and those like them further confuses the publics notions of ADHD with hope and romanticism All of these artifacts are very much in the public domain, directly shaping identities and influencing popular notions of ADHD. The popular audiences and distribution of the works here certainly influence the rhetoric, and the trend toward positivity and putting a shine on it characterize the ADHD discourses in play.
TED Talks and memoirs function almost as self-help sources, especially for the recently diagnosed and parents of ADHD kids. I find TED Talks to be an interesting medium to add to discussions of ADHD for two primary reasons. The first is that the TED stage is aimed at such a mainstream audience. TED Talks have the tagline Ideas Worth Spreading and the TED acronym stands for technology, entertainment, and design. The distribution of a particular TED Talk is dependent on the popularity of the topic and ADHD is a popular topic. Partly due to audience and distribution, these lectures are general overviews and tend to be critical but with an overall or concluding message of hope. Despite the topic, the emphasis is on the hopeful future possibilities of X and ADHD is no exception. Stephen Tontis talk is personal, convincing, and represents the basic TED Talk pattern. Tonti is super critical of how ADHD is met by society specifically Tonti discusses the standardized testing and teaching methods in public education, over-medicating of children too young to take the side effects, and the dismal statistics about the successes of people with ADHD because he also maintains the optimistic, positivistic message of hope. ADHD topic speakers on the TED stage emphasize ideas like the metacognition those with ADHD gain about themselves as learners and gifts of resilience, impudence, and hyperfocus, which I discuss further (see also Hession, Siggelakis). The important take away from TED stage discourses of ADHD is that with some societal shifts in thinking and thereby in education institution policies, some elements of
13


ADHD are then reconstructed rhetorically as potential sources of strength, success, etc. And beyond this rhetorical shift, the result is more importantly development of the capabilities (in addition to the language) to recognize the qualities and the lived experience of ADHD.
TED Talks are not unlike memoirs in that the TED speakers rely on personal experience (or experiences with/of those closest to them see Hession). ADHD memoirists use similar positivistic rhetorics to put a shine on ADHD. They generally highlight the humor of ADHD, which unfortunately tends to rely on long traditions of deficit models of ADHD and common stereotypes (see Taylor). Stacey Turis, the self-deemed expert on being weird, titled his memoir Heres to Not Catching Our Hair on Fire: An Absent-Minded Tale of Life with Giftedness & Attention Deficit: Oh Look! A Chicken! The same is true of many popular ADHD memoirs easily found with an Amazon.com search; for example, Blake Taylors widely readADHD & Me: What I Learned from Lighting Fires at the Dinner Table.
The popular ADHD memoir and its discourses, like those of the TED Talk stage, subvert some traditional understandings of ADHD, as the personal experiences and stories of success complicate stereotypes productively and use humor to help de-stigmatize. The texts are valuable, especially to those establishing their own ADHD identity. For me, it is difficult to reconcile. It is hard, as someone with ADHD, not to welcome the new positivity and the empowerment, confidence, and strength of spirit it implies about those of us with it. And yet, I have to wonder if these positivistic discourses are just creating anew package, anew method of dispersal, for old notions of ADHD as a prison, a limitation, a source of endearing personality traits, etc.
O VERCO MING/CO MORBIDITY
In various forms, ADHD and its increasing diagnosis rates is blamed on things such as too much television and video games, food additives, bad parenting, lack of discipline, single mothers, opportunistic drug-seekers, etc. It is no surprise that such constructions, even when presented as theories or even jokes, shape societys collective consciousness. This is one method of perpetuation using scapegoats and the supremacy of the biological explanation/construction of ADHD. Like
14


individualistic and meritocratic rhetorics in the university, the idea that those with ADHD must overcome or succeed despite their abnormality or deficit is a common storyline. Public figures with ADHD/LD are congratulated and their stories of overcoming adversity are put forth as exemplary. Making it necessary to overcome ADHD and ADHD as limitation or metaphorical prison is truly problematic, as it allows the discourse to simultaneously blame the individual for her failures while also creating an occasion to sound sensitive and encouraging of those with ADHD and their experiences.
Research on the lives of people with ADHD and ADHD comorbidities is bleak and often introduces convincing statistical evidence that people with ADHD fail more often than they succeed. While most people with ADHD know that these statistics may not be accurate, this dark reality is tough to deal with. Again, such mainstream, extreme ADHD discourses shape identities both directly and indirectly (via the attitudes of others). Results of a study on ADHD comorbidities by Barkley and Murphy are reported at length in an early article titled Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Adults: Comorbidities and Adaptive Impairments, which in part shows the development of Barkleys theories comprising his later book on ADHD and self-control. Russell A. Barkley and Kevin Murphy compared 172 adults with ADHD to 30 adults who did not have ADHD. Those with ADHD show significantly higher rates of oppositional conduct and substance abuse (also see Hession). The adults with ADHD self-reported many more psychological instabilities, driving risks/speeding violations, employment changes, and histories of poor educational performance/school disciplinary actions (1). Whether these findings are accurate or somewhat skewed due to traditionally narrow understandings and discriminatory expectations of those with ADHD, these findings also become internalized by those with and without ADHD, perpetuating policies and rhetorics that may be harmful.
Barkleys research develops into the resonating theory of ADHD detailed in the book ADHD and the Nature of Self-Control. This work argues that the disorder is fundamentally a developmental problem of self-control, and that a deficit in attention is a secondary characteristic allegedly representing a radically different understanding of ADHD at the time. Relying on the metaphors
15


that consistently underlie his research (see earlier review on metaphors of ADHD by Danforth/Taehyung Kim), Barkley explains how normally functioning individuals are able to bring behavior under the control of time and orient their actions toward the future while those with ADHD (in the prison of ADHD) are unable. With this construction of ADHD, those with it are in need of professional intervention, likely medication, and certainly encouragement stemming from general pity. The encouragement and praise-gamering success stories often find their way into literature from groups like CHADD and pharmaceutical companies presented as educational materials. These materials are likely familiar as the strategic use of financially successful cultural icons and celebrities like Ty Pennington are not uncommon. Such materials create an illusion of sensitivity and further ideas of overcoming.
Similarly, new sources and platforms of the overcoming trope, likely influenced by the Barkley tradition and metaphorical constructs, are perpetuating this contradictory pattern (see Danforth/Kim). A short documentary film by HBO called I Cant Do This But I CAN Do That: A Film for Families About Learning Differences gives the stories of several kids with LDs and accompanying limitations. Despite the titles suggestion of a social model of disability, the film relies heavily on traditional constructs (like Barkleys) and celebrates that the kids are overcoming or have overcome their disability and are now able to function at school normally. In the film, this means that the children with LD are no longer missing out on recess or other group activity because they need extra study help or disciplinary action (HBO). They overcame adversity and now they fit in or pass. This and other inspirational artifacts in the public domain do a disservice. The film shows people with LD avoiding stigma only by removing or hiding learning differences (see also Kamenetz; Dunn).
This pattern is also present in ADHD education and coaching organizations that indicate a growing, quite profitable industry. These services use self-help style systems to save ADHD damaged individuals from horrific daily life challenges" (ADDCA.org. Coaches in Action page). They use stories of overcoming and survival (usually meaning surviving the period of undiagnosed ADHD) to characterize individuals with ADHD and to sound empowering when unfortunately, the
16


underlying assumptions are as damaging as ever. Simi Linton provides a helpful DS critique as she explains the implications of overcoming, "The ideas imbedded in the overcoming rhetoric are of personal triumph over a personal condition. The idea that someone can overcome a disability has not been generated within the community; it is a wish fulfillment from the outside" (18). The reality as established beautifully by many DS writers that people with disabilities live with their disabilities rather than overcoming them (see Linton; Longmore; Garland-Thorns on, Extraordinary).
Diagnoses and definitions of ADHD are dubious at best. The concept of ADHD can feel overwhelmingly negative and I think that negativity at least in part explains the quick acceptance and internalization of fundamentally flawed work on ADHD advantage and overcoming rhetorics. It is difficult to criticize and/or reject any good news regarding ADHD, especially for those of us with personal investment. From this section of review, the takeaway is that these positivity-driven rhetorics demand as much (or more) scrutiny as deficit-based rhetorics because behind their seeming resistance to traditional power dynamics created through rhetoric, there are fallacies present. While subtler, how they actually are constructing ADHD perpetuates tradition.
Pedagogy, Learning, Teaching, Universal Design and Multimodauty
While this may sound like a sweeping and broad area of research, these are the primary issues surrounding ADHD/LD and the Academy and are therefore intimately connected. Further these issues are equally important areas of study and, I find, equally complex. I will first briefly discuss scholarship concerned with the pedagogical choices made with the intent to meet disability in college composition courses. This is followed by a survey of work concerned with learning diversity in general (positing the use of a more realistic and more practical notion of a continuum of learning abilities), an important look at research concerned with teaching with disabilities and the complicated rhetorical nature of disability (disclosing, claiming, passing, coming out, etc.), and last I look at disability studies work on universal design (UD), the philosophies behind it, and its overlap with multimodality. All these topics are fundamental to my analysis as ADHD and those with ADHD
17


struggle to find a place within university systems. This struggle will inevitably occur on all four of these fronts.
Writing Pedagogy
The scholarship at the intersection of DS and classroom practice insists on acknowledgment and anticipation of the power of identity rhetorics. Composition programs need to be attentive here because the rhetorical constructions of identity encountered in these foundational writing classes have real resonance. Composition courses almost always engage identity somehow, providing inexperienced writers (and identities) some occasions for personal writing and therefore becoming a key place to engage critical discourse analyses of disability (see Yergeau).
In a review of the LD literature through 2000, Li Huijan and Christine M. Hamel, establish a pattern in the research. The pattern is essentially that writing problems are believed to exceed the other academic challenges faced by students with LD (20). Their analysis of the research up to this publication, and in most cases after as well, locate the sweeping problems overall to be: using LD as blanket term and neglecting to examine the complex, varied experiences in learning; study samples are not representative of student populations and arent comparable; across the disciplines writing is not acknowledged and there should be a focus on getting instructors outside of composition programs to also anticipate student writers with LD; not enough studies looking at specific instructional strategies and their effectiveness for students with various writing abilities; and an oversight amongst the claims of collaborative learning strategies as effective for students with LD. Since their call for more attention to the array of LD experiences and to specific instructional strategies for LD,the field of disability studies and LD research have made significant progress (also see Alden/Carmichael. Corbett, Ceraso).
In Mad at School Rhetorics of Mental Disability and Academic Life, Margaret Price centers on the question: What happens to higher education faculty and students when their ways of being differ from that which is considered typical? Price focuses specifically on the intersection of higher education and mental disabilities (a term discussed at length and defined to include intellectual and
18


developmental disabilities, autism, learning disabilities, and psychosocial disabilities and mental illnesses) (9-20). I find it relevant that Price includes ADHD under LD under mental disabilities. While not a specifically addressed disability, the theoretical foundation Price lays in Mad at School is certainly intended for application to ADHD. Price finds settings in higher education, including classrooms, conferences, interviews, etc., have often unacknowledged obstacles for those with mental disabilities. Price examines a series of topoi (presence, participation, productivity, independence) to show that higher education should be redesigned in order to become truly more accessible. For example, Price suggests more explicitly mapping unscripted parts of classroom communications (discussions etc.) so all students can have a clearer sense of instructors definition of and means of accessing participation. The opportunity exists in composition course design to push students toward self-awareness and skills for identifying, considering, and changing ideologies in their writing and their belief in the power of writing^.
Learning
An important vein of research attends to the role of ADHD in learning processes. The scholarship I discuss in this section interrogates a range of tasks, occasions, and styles, and includes foci like collaboration and feedback utilization, as well as phase-aimed inquiries interested in ADHDs role in specific parts of the process like drafting, revising, etc. Its important to consider ADHD in the context of pedagogical methods and structures because the educational patterns of meeting disability are a big influence on the students with disabilities. This thread of research on LD and ADHD writers in part imagines ADHD as generative in the creative process and insists that LD college students are in need of fixing and intervention. While the former argues that diverse learning styles and abilities should be used to inform pedagogical practices and expand compositions
4 Writing from Normal represents a different approach as Price analyses her own disability-themed composition course created by student writers. This study takes narrow scope to the broader problem in disability discourse, as the title acknowledges the ways her students (and society at large) draw on the privilege of being nondisabled or normal (71). The observation-based study focuses on how students position themselves through rhetorical choices and shows how the dominant culture norms pervade the rhetoric, even when students did not consciously hold stereotypes and were specifically taking disability studies perspective.
19


stringent definitions of writing and learning, the latter attempts to identify common features, process challenges, and error patterns of ADHD/LD student writers. This intersection includes work using varied strategies such as statistics, narratives and case studies, suggest that anticipation of diverse learning styles is essential. Learning from Diverse Learners by Catherine Luna uses case studies and university standards to suggest that we should be inviting LD students, to participate in shaping academic contexts, and developing, with them, both shared understandings of what counts as learning in the classroom and creative strategies for demonstrating that learning (603). This familiar idea takes new significance in its connection here to students with learning disabilities, which she specifically defines as, a socially constructed category indicating mismatches between diverse learners'abilities and specific academic demands (597). Luna describes practices that can limit the access of neurodiverse students and have great influence in the identity shaping that occurs there. The deficit rhetoric of the university reveals two underlying assumptions: the merit of standardization and the individual responsibility for failure. These assumptions inform such practices as timed test taking and the narrow definitions of literacy and text. Luna asserts that the power structures between students and faculty, in conjunction with standardization and time constraints, also play a role perpetuating assumptions and limiting the exchange of ideas. This speaks to research in disability studies on teaching with disability to be a focus in a later section. Lunas piece seeks to convince academia to meet an exigency (learning disabilities) by reevaluating standardization practices and challenging discourses that disempower those with disabilities. In the end, the goal is to create an institution that welcomes methods, which allow diverse learners to communicate effectively and utilize their strengths.
LD in the context of rhetoric and composition studies is an area Patricia Dunn works in almost exclusively and she advocates a combination of multisensory and traditional linguistic methods in the classroom, which will be more useful for learning disabled, and perhaps all, students. TwoofDunns books, Learning Re-Abled: The Learning Disability Controversy and Composition Studies and Talking, Sketching, Moving: Multiple Literacies in the Teaching of Writing suggest approaches that subvert expectations and engage students visually, kinesthetically, and orally. The
20


novel quality of the mediums proposed (email journals, mp3 recordings, and other digitizations) has faded but Dunn highlights the limited definition of literacy that is still standard in composition courses. Talking, Sketching, Moving is a call to experiment with braver, broader conceptions of knowing, text, reading, and writing and to expect students to develop what may be for them lesser-used representational systems (talking, moving, sketching, etc.) (1-4). From a disability studies perspective, the use of multiple channels of communication is a crucial element of anticipating diversity and further, Dunn argues, an element (like meta-knowledge of oneself as a learner) that certainly benefits people with ADHD/LD but would benefit all learners.
Luna and Dunn both also touch on a specific, practical advantage that those diagnosed with ADHD or other LD often gain the metacognition they have as learners. When diagnosed with LDs, individuals are given and/or actively seek assistance, information, technologies, etc. to understand their own learning styles and locate effective strategies. Such metacognition or thinking that allows understanding, analysis, and control of ones cognitive processes is valuable and becomes an asset, an asset which could be equally useful to those with and without LD diagnoses. Like other strategies employed to meet the abilities of diverse learners, all students benefit when encouraged to experiment, explore, and engage with learning processes and to utilize those that work best.
A sub-section of the research in rhetoric and composition sees calls inclusivity and anticipation of diverse learners as overstated. This area includes work by Kimber Barber-Fenley and Chris Hamel and asserts that the reaction to LD in the composition classroom should instead involve separating and specializing ADHD andLD students. Such alternative assistance programs are justified by the claim that it is impossible to establish a neutral or equal playing field for LD students in the writing classroom. Barber-Fendley and Hamels article A New Visibility: An Argument for Alternative Assistance Writing Programs for Students with Learning Disabilities proposes a semispecific plan of alternative assistance (housed in composition programs) for students with learning disabilities in an effort to purposefully resist the underlying metaphors of accommodations (i.e. leveling the playing field) using a supplementary program, complementing and enhancing first-year composition, one that offers assistance year-round to LD students, rather than simply
21


accommodating when theirdisabilities overcome their abilities(505). This position that, LD scholars should boldly, assertively declare students with LD will receive alternate assistance, special treatment, unique opportunities, singular advantages that mainstream students will not receive is a repackaged but traditionally harmful ideology (Barber-Fendley 532). InDiscourses of Disability and Basic Writing, Amy Vidali questions Barber-Fendley and Hamels claim thatLD students should be separated from the writing classroom clarifying thatLD students would then benefit from the structural support systems afforded basic writers in all their various diversities. Discourses of Disability and Basic Writing makes a convincing case that basic writers, writers with LD and students without LD should be interacting and learning in the same environment. Like Vidali, Dunn, White, and Corbett (Learning Disability and Response-Ability), many in DS and DSE strongly believe that accommodations developed for students with LD have really just highlighted the flaws in education and that the best strategies for teaching students with LD are strategies that work for all students.
Some of the research on the learning process seeks to identify blanket challenges of students with ADHD/LD and often suggests both cause and solution. As Dev Bose sees it, ADHD students have a very hard time communicating in groups despite common collaborative instruction (135). Because students with ADHD dont believe they are prepared for peer workshops, the collaborative occasions in composition courses are not as productive. To remedy the problem pattern he identifies, Boses dissertation makes the case for using assertiveness training that would help students with ADHD understand and control their own ability to stand up for themselves and get their message across in a clear manner (42). Such assertiveness training can help students learn to focus on review that will help revise the paper, a conclusion he reaches via work with student research subjects. Another work emphasizing the responsibilities of the individual student rather than those of the university attends to the transition of students from high school to college. Actively Navigating The Transition Into College: Narratives Of Students With Learning Disabilities by Connor also uses limited case studies but he asserts that too much research is concerned with extrinsic supports for those with LD and instead argues that students with LD need agency and must strategize for their
22


own success in this transition. Both Bose and Connor assume that what students with ADHD/LD lack
is self-advocacy.
While I understand the importance of self-advocacy and the need for individuals to embrace their own identity and engage with it productively, I see scholarship that denies or ignores the role the university plays in silencing and disempowering those with disabilities, to some extent, as extensions of past operatives. By constructing the individual as lacking the assertiveness or confidence composition coursework demands, these pieces perpetuate the institutional tradition of denying responsibility. This scholarship ultimately critiques students as merely failing to overcome their dis ability/the consequences of that disability, allowing the university to justify stagnation.
Te aching with Dis ability
A shift from student to teacher perspectives and their rhetorical acts changes the ADHD conversation profoundly. Such a shift suggests the intersection of composition instruction and teaching with ADHD (or LD more generally). Existent research at this intersect is minimal and therefore I find it an inviting area of focus, and part of my analysis focuses on teaching with ADHD.
Much of the work on the topic of teaching with disability focuses again on disclosure (especially when it comes to invisible disabilities such as LD) and draw parallels between coming-out discourses of sexuality and disability. In discussions of teaching with disability, it is useful to view the rhetorical act not so much as a functional disclosure but as a strategic performance. There is an opportunity here to reverse the shaming and silencing that plagues gay, lesbian, transgender people, and people with disabilities. Research here suggests that teachers must strategically put themselves at risk in order to ask the same from their students. In The Disability Closet: Teachers with Learning Disabilities Evaluate the Risks and Benefits of Coming Out, Jan Valle, David Connor, Santiago Solis, and Donna Volpitta argue (again through narratives) that to come out sometimes means to be publicly disclosed as deviant from the norm Teachers are conceived of as purveyors of the norm and so deviation of educators is especially scrutinized. Given this deficit understanding of LD, it is easy to
23


understand why teachers withLD may choose to hide their disabilities for fear of being seen as less than capable to perform their responsibilities.
A person with LD or other invisible disability must also be aware (and spread the awareness) that harmful constructions and perpetuation of them, both old and new, can take the form disclosing disability and of not claiming disability and passing. Brueggemann and Moddlemog further explore ideas of passing and (nondisclosure in Coming-Out Pedagogy. They discuss the association of the coming-out discourse of sexuality and disability such as the shared, traditional risks of coming-out as anything other than able-bodied or hetero. Risks of coming-out or claiming range from feelings of vulnerability to more destructive professional impacts. Each act of coming-out is a new rhetorical situation with specific risks and each new rhetorical situation is negotiated differently but deliberately. Brueggemann further explores teacherly coming-out as performance itself. Such a performance, she argues, is an absurd act because to come-out or disclose an identity is conditional to social constructions and their normative traditions. What she means here is that the situation for such a rhetorical event is never the same. Brueggemann and Moddelmog argue that all identity is performance:
From this perspective, moreover, passing marks the site of an ethical choice. We can perform our identity in such a way that it seems to match a norm while resisting being read as deviant or we can perform it in such a way that it seems to match a deviancy, and, in the process, we resist being read as the norm (311)
Just as (nondisclosures are rhetorical acts by nature, they too are performative acts. Brueggemann et al. explain how this performance has often been referred to as coming-out but if all identity is a presentation attained through repeated performance, then... both kinds of performance are forms of passing (311). By conceiving of both acts as performance of an identity that is not static and is conditional.
An aspect of this thread of the research that I find particularly meaningful is a call to action for teachers to interrogate these traditions of marginalization from their own perspectives. Jan Valle and her co-authors illustrate this concepts importance in creating a culture of awareness, and further, self-awareness. Positingthe idea that teachers with disability must trust their own experiences, Valle
24


et al claim, When teachers withLD remain undisclosed for fear of dismissal, misunderstanding, or ridicule, students with LD are deprived of important role models and, consequently, denied an opportunity to equate themselves with success (16). This idea of incorporating one own disability identity as a teacher (and I would argue instructor, supervisor, co-worker, etc.) can generate new rhetorics of disability and may be essential to rewriting the university through rhetorical action (see Erevelles; Ferri).
This scholarship as a whole implies that people in positions of authority, such as instructors, should incorporate their own identity as honestly as they hope students will and approach discussions of identity, at least in part, with the critical lens of disability studies. Valle et al. ask, If it is so difficult for adults with LD to negotiate within our schools, what must this mean for students with LD who are not given the choice of disclosure? (16). This is a fantastic, resonant question that speaks to the perpetuation of marginalization and the rhetorical shift required for such a pervasive system in university culture to change.
Universal Design (UD) in Academia and the Role ofMultimodality
Research on universal design and multimodality in rhetoric and composition generally asserts that higher education should be redesigned in both micro and macro ways to become more accessible for all. Examining such work is crucial because my aim in this project is to reject traditional notions of writing and point out the limitless possibilities of inclusivity. Rather than separate and/or specialized accommodations for people with disabilities, scholarship on UD and multimodality suggests that integration into general education is essential and accommodation is a shared responsibility, not an individualized problem Closely related to parts of the UD theory, scholarship on multimodality attends to accessible versions, new media and digital rhetorics, as well as the potential dangers of creating new inhospitable learning environments only using new modes. Its relevant to think of these issues in an ADHD context because multimodality is a place of potential prosperity for people with ADHD as modes and versions of texts engage more complexly and on more sensual levels.
25


These shifts in approach cannot only create inclusive environments for those with ADHD but also one that allows ADHD to be a generative part of learning and demonstrating that learning. From a disability studies perspective, college courses founded on the use of multiple channels of communication are crucial to anticipating diversity and are a powerful way to engage those with ADHD. The scholarship on UD attends to the sad system of accommodation used in most universities^ and to the connectivity of writers with disabilities, basic writers, and all writers because we all have styles, strengths and preferences. It's relevant to think of these issues in an ADHD context because ADHD perspective and experience is about finding generative elements from both necessary extra steps and from uncommon characteristics or approaches. Designing classes and pedagogies to be more inclusive might reduce the stigma some students feel by asking for special accommodations at the same time it increases learning opportunities for all (Dunn; Dolmage Universal Design;
Yergeau; Brewer et al). This body of research broadly (and the article Creating a Culture a Culture of Access specifically) asserts the urgency for Compositionists to see these efforts and obstacles as shaping the values in our field, rather than representing special (read: marginal) exigencies
(Brewer et al 152). For those with ADHD, universal design and multimodality has powerful implications and the use of strategies that follow in Chapters IV and V would certainly be good examples of design tactics for composition pedagogy.
By embracing accessible curriculums and universal design elements, which originated in disability studies, composition programs rise to the challenges of accessibility (which benefits all) over accommodation (which benefits some but often creates stigma and rhetorical isolation) and thus model a multicultural approach. The insight of these pedagogical practices provide ways of rethinking and redesigning composition courses so they become spaces, both digital and physical spaces, where identity considerations are engaged by both form and content. Composition pedagogies resulting are then founded on communications essentiality in idea conveyance and social
5 American institutions of higher ed generally meet disability through an office of disability services, which requests and reviews documentation of disability, selects and approves appropriate accommodations (for example: free use of computer during classes, extra time on timed exams, etc.) and gives students letters they are to distribute to their instructors to self-identify.
26


change/activism In Disable All Things, Melanie Yergeau says, I'm asking us to trade in our retrofits for a disability-inflected reconception of participatory design, a reconception that is activist in nature (65). The accessible texts crafted and consumed are then capable of more meaningful exchange.
Again, Elizabeth Brewer and co-author crew of impressive DS scholars collaboratively create a formative piece on modality titled Creating a Culture of Access. The work is largely concerned with conferences and the field of DS practicing multimodality as fully as it could and should. The article has expansive views of access as a collective responsibility (in the conference context it envisions conference organizers, presenters, attendees, and everyone responsible for creating a culture of access that transforms work in the field and opens still further possibilities). This DS research team writes that the DS field is, too often remains attached to a vision of access that has more in common with helping the Other consume inaccessible texts than it does with radical transformation of the profession (153). While access that is consumptive works and satisfies the legally based collegiate system of disability accommodation, this is still using a strategy of retrofitting. Brewer et al aptly conclude that allowing consumption is quite different from reconceiving notions of what allowing consists of (154). Shannon Walters takes a more focused approach to engage multimodal strategies but she also concludes that, Pedagogically, this study of multimodality and UD showed me that impairment-specific solutions to dis/ability are not equivalent to an accessible pedagogy for disabled and nondisabled students (450). The take-away here is that this cannot be an afterthought or genre use that demands direct, absolute, inflexible versioning. Requirements for future use of and work in this area require intuitive use of modes and/or versions, fundamentally present modality options, and finally abandonment of attempt to base or pair mode with impairments.
It is necessary to acknowledge that new media pedagogies have distinct hazardous tendencies like all others. It is possible to reproduce methods of exclusion that have long perpetuated a harmful tradition in our educational institutions. The result is just multimodal inhospitality, a phrase Stephanie Kerschbaum employs to describe what occurs when the design and production of multimodal texts and environments persistently ignore access except as a retrofit (23). This can be seen in multimodal
27


texts that do not balance meaning across modes, that are inaccessible, and that cannot be manipulated by users. Despite all the potential digital rhetorics have for positive change in composition instruction, the reality is that these modes can also be perpetuate marginalization as we have seen in previous modes. Still, in and out of the university classroom, basic strategies of universal design and multimodality represent the greatest potential to actually change the traditions much of the ADHD research locates as particularly harmful and limiting for those with ADHD. UD seems capable of meeting the needs of diverse learners and engaging diverse learning styles and further doing so in ways that rattle even the most ingrained assumptions.
Concluding Review Bits (orOversimplifying It Further)
By looking at rhetorical constructions of disability and ADHD, Universal Design and multimodality ideas, theories of ADHDs role in the learning process, and the experience and the important role of teachers with disability, I have necessarily complicated the notions of ADHD. I attended to the social and rhetorical constructions of disability, mainly through the DS scholarship in particular, to gain some insight on the role of ADHD rhetorics. I think its important to consider how the constructs of ADHD and their resulting policies are rhetorical in nature. The rhetorics of ADHD, as I conveyed throughout, have a huge impact on the issues presently surrounding ADHD. The field of disability studies has been significantly expanding the conversation and honing in on fundamental flaws in the societys ways of meeting (or more often not meeting) disability.
The literature I selected for review is foundational to a hyperactive rhetoric. The remainder of this work then, suggests anew approach to ADHD discourse that cultivates cognizance of experiences on a molecular level, provides opportunity to interpret and then reinterpret those experiences, and contextualizes them within culture through analysis of carefully chosen works from it. This rhetoric extends and complements DS rhetorics and offers a means for me to convey the details of an ADHD perspective and experience with language. Further, I hope to build on the scholarship I have engaged here to not just rely on personal experiences or personal accounts of
28


others but to use the theoretical and conceptual work on ADHD to craft a rhetoric thats also generative and flexible beyond any limitations I have or set for it in this work.
29


CHAPTER III
9 "0 "0 "0 "I ~K ~E "I
The project began with the idea that ADHD rhetorics represent an opportunity. The methodology I use here has been constructed as the means for me to convey ADHD perspectives and experiences with language and as generative in learning to write and teaching writing. In understanding my method, its important to see the project as an attempt to leam about its own place in the field and to invent or pastiche a method for that, rather than attempting to replicate an existent method. I use a reflexive and reflective approach to research, learning, and teaching that models a postmodern epistemology allied with disability studies. Here I discuss existent methods in disability studies and then I look at how this project engages with reflexive methodology and how it works toward an ADHD methodology before concluding with some guiding principles to keep in mind moving into the analyses in the next chapters.
Disability Studies Methodology
Like DS scholarship more generally, DS methodology aims at a radical reshaping of relations of power (Price, Disability 2). DS attends to all bodies, not solely those with disabilities, and is therefore particularly focused on the critique of normalcy and challenging the ways society constructs disability as deviance. ADS methodology, or accessible methodology, is not a single, definable or homogenous approach. DS research does not necessarily attempt to replicate certain methodologies but seeks to leam about its own place in the circuitry and invent a method for that (Hawk 248). With this project, I aim to contribute to the field of DS and therefore, like many other DS researchers, I struggle to meet these complexities and contextual challenges while consciously allowing the critical lens of DS inform my practices. DS researchers, as Price writes, must attend to the ethical and activist opportunities in their projects (5). But more specifically, DS research and methods must consciously avoid creating or perpetuating harmful constructs of disability. Therefore, method sections and researchers must avoid any ab/normal binaries and attend to disability-tinged metaphors, pronoun usage, and the risks of universalizing or defining disability (both of which negate
30


complex lived experiences). DS methods must create or suggest a reflexive and reflective approach to research and to teaching, recognize and utilize disability as rhetorical power, and pursue access/accessibility in any and all ways possible within a project.
DS research methodology has much in common with feminist and other forms of research aimed toward social justice. There is much DS method gleans from feminist research since both the female and the disabled body commonly experience objectification via gaze that is male, medical, and/or scientific. Scientific research commonly uses gaze, instruments of measurement, and taxonomies to posit subjects as lesser, passive objects to be examined. Objective research methodologies tend to invalidate the outlier by reifying representative samples anduniversals.
Douglas C. Bayntonis well known for his work on Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History that interrogates the landscape of disability as one of the minority groups historically assigned inferior status. As Baynton explores at length and Dolmage/Lewiecki-Wilson discuss in "Refiguring Rhetorica: Linking Feminist Rhetoric and Disability Studies, it is essential that DS researchers, understand the ways in which disability is used to stigmatize almost all minority groups (34). So, DS research must come with ready awareness of how forms of oppression are played off one another in order to avoid incomplete challenges of discrimination, by which I mean work that stops after recuperating the construct of gender or of certain disability identities.
A primary concern of DS research lies with the dangers of universalizing disability. Universalization occurs sometimes indirectly and via rhetorical construction. Inadvertent construction of disability as universal is not uncommon. This occurs when disability is conveyed as an add on to other identities or as something we all are. Such constructions are more often than not the unintended inference of works like mine that attempt to thoughtfully engage disability perspectives and lived experiences. My concern here has largely been with finding ways to emphasize the power and utility of ADHD-inspired practices of learning and teaching for those with and without ADHD and/or other LD. And further, doing so without implying that ADHD as something everyone experiences to some degree or diminishing ADHD as standalone identity.
31


Finally, unlike scientific research (and heaps of research in general that tends to take disabled people as subjects), the researcher-subject or researcher becoming subject is a frequent occurrence in DS research. Use of the researcher(s) personal experience, observations, reflections, etc. might be the only somewhat expected element of DS methods^. While I admittedly rely heavily on my own experiences, I have tried to engage the perspectives of others through the works in the literature review and through those I have had the privilege to work with, the aim of which is to complicate and challenge my own perspective and experiences.
Disability studies as a field is without methodological uniformity and instead emphasizes accessibility in all affective forms to research. I think DS does not restrict or limit research methods so as to foster the use of disability as rhetorical power. Thereby, my methods are first and foremost experimental and in understanding my method its important to know that it emerged out of a specific contextualization and its story then merely serves as a place to display the ideas, theories and practices.
Reflexive Methodology
Because my argument begins with the idea that writing is inevitably chaotic and its products inevitably flawed, my analysis requires some textual exposure on my part. I follow the example of Steven Hammer in that the text, from time to time, embraces errors and disruptions. Sometimes these errors are intentional and sometimes they are accidental; but they are always rhetorical and illustrative (Dissertation 2). In my analysis that follows this will mean things like glitched text, unrevised passages, unexpected artifacts for examples, and unfamiliar embedment. While I use textual exposure^ to describe primarily mechanical/physical attributes, the project also requires some exposure of context.
This work grew from an idea and plan developed with the help of Dr. Amy Vidali while taking Rhetoric of the Body, a disability studies survey course, during the spring of 2015. I composed
6 By expected I do not mean obligatory, only that its present more often than not.
7 By textual exposure here I mean the molecular and graphic disruptions to the text appearing on the pages of this thesis.
32


primarily using Microsoft Word and Google Docs with some additions provided by or edited in iPhoto, Adobe Reader, and an online text glitching program Before or outside digital composing, I useaPentelGT pencil and mini Hemisphere color-coded notebook, Legos, collages, and Apple iPhone voice record software. Throughout the projects research, textual production, and textual alteration, I regularly ingested substances, some prescribed and some not, for ADHD and anxiety. Other substances intended to enhance creativity and humility were used intermittently. I write on the floor of a cabin located in Silver Plume, Colorado some 35 miles west of Denver with an altitude of about 9,000 feet. As much as Id like to continue this potentially endless list, these are the factors I consider particularly impactful on my present states and in the production/product at hand.
Moving Toward an ADHD Methodology
The method I subscribe to follows an open, circuitous path and anticipates unpredictable outcomes. I see my methodology as the absence of an existent, familiar, cohesive methodology. This may seem like a choice I made but only in the sense that choice means the refusal of an intolerable option (Price, Mad 228). Objective research methodologies represent specific problems in a DS context. These methods often reify the idea of the representative sample and the universal as well as invalidating the outlier (and therefore the independent researcher). Price argues that the rejection of these traditions by the disability scholar may be empowering and generative to scholarship; the realities are the risks of systematic denial by the system (228). This rejection of traditional methods creates the need to consciously and carefully redefine methodologies. Pushing and expanding methodologies for DS, as I see it, is an opportunity that should be met boldly but also with an awareness of what is at stake.
The general organizing principles of learning (Chapter IV) and teaching (Chapter V) reflect my own experiences with ADHD. I have long been hyper-aware of my own learning abilities and habits and so when I began teaching (with ADHD) the new role began demanding a similar kind of self-assessment. These two sections, each of which stem from a particular positing (learning/teaching) as it relates to the rhetoric. Any uniformity implied between the two chapters is unintentional since
33


the sections are significantly different in fundamental ways. I preemptively want to point out some such differences. Chapters IV and V show significant variation in their length, artifacts of critique, structure, and modalities. This is purposeful for two reasons: first, to allow each section the autonomy to accomplish its own specific goals through the most effective means and second, to model the approach to writing suggested by hyperactive rhetoric and glitch theory. Nowhere else in this project is experimentation more evident or allowed more influence than the analysis. I articulate the theories and rhetorical practices of the rhetoric while simultaneously using and performing them My method is to highlight these practices by using them to the fullest of my abilities for textual production (drafting, revising or lack of, etc.) and manipulation of the text (glitching the physical words/letters, varying modes, etc.). Further pursuit of authenticity and chaotic ADHD texts yielded the italicized monologues that begin many sections of Chapter V and the multi-purpose screencast videos of my processes. I understand the demands such experimental methods put on the audience. As such, I hope these strategies prove instructive and that they provoke further applications of a hyperactive rhetoric. It is my hope that future research might develop the impacts of glitch theory and hyperactive rhetorics on disability studies and perhaps for rhetoric and composition research more generally.
Using disability as rhetorical power and conveying an expansive, sustainable conception of what constitutes rhetorical ability began and remained primary foci of my work here. I value and pursue experimentation and unorthodoxy throughout the project, which took concerted effort because I could often see the tempting ease of traditions alternative. I adopt a subject-researcher role, experiment with content and form, and include compositional details because this project values individuality, spontaneity, flexibility, and diversity. I flesh out explanations of these values but I hope to have also exhibited them The analyses that follow are the results of the conceptual and theoretical demands of my research. I hope this layered, illustrative approach is clear and effective.
34


CHAPTER IV
GLITCH M(0NKE4O
Rhetoric is uniquely capable of challenging ideological power structures. Obviously this applies to works that might meet our ideas of traditional writing (linearly composed and polished to finality) but this quality is also true of, and potentially more so, subversive works. College composition programs teach a sanitized version of writing that effectively curbs rhetoric's subversive power. Our field instills standardized notions of the writing process and its textual products. And further, we largely negate the hugely generative nature and powerful effects of things like impulsivity and a-textual composing (composition work using mediums outside basic written text, whether in place of it or in conjunction with it).
Writing's pedagogical practices are normalizing agents. I see them as such in the university, which is my focus here, but this functionality definitely begins much earlier potentially from the inception of writing in the classroom, disability studies research stresses the value of multiple literacies and modalities. Digital rhetoric research stresses the reality and necessity of them. In this chapter I challenge those writing practices directly concerned with normalizing writing and writers. These embedded practices are brought into question in a DS context and explored through a suggested pairing of the concepts of glitch and disability. The intense coupling of these two concepts is significantly dynamic, which I illustrate in this chapter in two parts, each drawing on a primary tenet of my rhetoric.
The common misconceptions and assumptions (the embedded notion of ADHD) that negate the value of ADHD perspectives and experiences are incredibly tired. But staler still is to be hindered and silenced by them. The aim of a hyperactive rhetoric is then to pursue opportunities created by ADHD perspectives and experiences for rhetoric and composition. These opportunities are the tenets, and in them I do not hide that enjoyment that comes with exploring the complexities and the value of ADHD perspectives. As the methods chapter considers, I also directly and indirectly model many of
35


the strategies and manifestations put forth in the chapter. Here I will focus on how to celebrate the spontaneous and seditious, which I achieve through the following sections:
A new metaphor for writing (glitch)
Traditions of writing as process
Defining glitch
Glitch writing
Interrupting ableism through glitch
Revising is normalizing
Finished writing (notions of finished/unfinished)
Manifestations of glitch writing
Expanding glitch (thoughts toward further/future applications)
For me, the most persistent and provocative insights from glitch theory for the field of rhetoric and composition speak to the impulses most undervalued, overlooked, and discouraged in writing practice and writing pedagogy: the productive error and individuation (individual, collective, and the space between). Glitches disrupt and surprise, providing evidence of the inventive possibilities within the structures of determination.
Celebrate the Spontaneous & Seditious
The glitch is the digital orgasm, where the machine takes a sigh, a shudder, and with a jerk, spasms. These moments have been integrated into... our own physical action, impacting how we interact with our own bodies, and how we explore our deepest fantasies and desires^ (Russell)
True spontaneity and naked sincerity exists in the unrevised, unedited, and unrepressed. It is the chaos of composing and the "shitty first drafts that bring the symptom of impulsivity to life rhetorically. The actual experience of creating and interacting with texts is chaotic. The metaphor of writing as process and the accompanying steps that constitute the writing process are so ingrained in our culture that those interrogating its merit and accuracy are like the fish that asks, "What's water? I focus on the inadequate definition of writing and the fallacy of the writing process metaphor, its universality, and its steps each so carefully posited as necessary. I mean to emphasize particularly that obligatory revision is not always valuable and that the binary/hierarchy of unfinished and finished writing is neither useful nor accurate. Throughout this chapter I examine the tyranny of the process metaphor and articulate a new metaphor glitch writing. Glitch posits writing as an invitation
36


of chaos, such a chaos that cannot be produced or controlled. Glitch writing pursues disruption of linearity, of writing symbols, of ableism, of mode.
First, this is for me an approach rooted in attention deficit hyperactive disorder and DS. I began by revisiting assumptions about ADHD traits namely that they are strictly limiting and is rooted in what I believe to be their generative power for composition. The traits suggest a more erratic writing experience one more accurate and useful than traditional writing process theory. I use ADHD traits like hyperactivity, hyper-focus, irregularity and risk-taking to inspire a writing approach that engages ADHD writers but also challenges all writers, particularly those only familiar with process writing and only successful in traditional modes. The approach I suggest acknowledges first that composition is complicated and messy. Invention can be unpredictable, collaboration volatile, and revision counterproductive. The messiness is disconcerting for some made more so by the expectations of a simplistic, linear, formulaic process approach. I see the mess as inevitable and enjoyable. It is a relief to anticipate and accept the realities of composing and powerful effects are bom of doing so.
Traditions of Writing as Process
Except for those rare moments of inspiration or genius when the perfect ideas expressed in the perfect words in the perfect order flow gracefully and effortlessly from the mind, all experienced writers revise their work. (Guevarra)
Notions of writing as process pervade composition pedagogies and reverberate through popular discourse. Process theory has led to a principal definition of writing as a simplistic, linear set of steps that is both the proper and necessary method for achieving effective, polished text. Discussions of the writing process (stemming from and building on Murrays 1972 article) emphasize three distinct stages of pre-writing, writing, and rewriting. Prewriting consists generally of invention strategies and outlines while writing covers draft creation and rewriting is all revisions and editing (see Anson et al; Matsuda; Tobin). In fairness, as Tobin laments, the writing process has become an entity, even an industry, with a life of its own, certainly a life apart from its first theorists (8). One of Murrays tenets of writing as process explicitly says, There are no rules, no absolutes, just
37


alternatives. What works one time may not another. All writing is experimental (5). Still, this most successful movement in composition led to that linear series of steps as the most common construction of writing of the writing process in current use.
Denying the chaos in composing might be, in part at least, a reflection of the difficulty of teaching the chaotic versus the uniform but the function of this metaphor is much more complex. The writing process is normalizing as it endeavors to make everybody write similarly and adhere to a somewhat rigid method. Process pedagogy then negates the diversity of writers and like many standards of academia it speaks to and works for a select demographic. My own conflicted experience with the writing process reflects this. Resisting, fighting innate approaches and forms of my writing was for me writing early on and for a long time. I was often unsuccessful, leading to feeling of failure and disappointment. My resistance tapered off with age and the confidence that grew as I got to know myself as a learner and writer. The point Im making is that my attempt to write normally and methodically as I had been taught was quite harmful.
My story illustrates how the process metaphor fails writers with ADHD/LD. It also shows how the process metaphor can actually decrease comprehension and adaptation of composition courses. Dolmage argues that, the process of normalizing (making typical or natural) the process of writing is used in service of exclusionmarking out the abnormal (Mapping 19). Traditions here create unreasonable, harmful expectations of writing rather than allowing writing to be a truly individual creative act. If a writer does not produce texts via this strict progression of components, she can then be considered deviant. So too is her writing then deviant for its unexpected attribute(s) and its reflections of her non-traditional process.
I see what is now called post-process theory not as rejection of the writing process but as pushback to the loss of complexity that occurred in process-based pedagogy. Post-process theory claims to demonstrate the inaccuracy of writing as a process of fixed steps in a neat, linear movement. It conceptualizes the writing process instead as overlapping parts of a complex, recursive process that might be repeated multiple times. In this theoretical model for writing, writers should anticipate possibilities like editorial changes triggering invention, mechanical correction, and interrupting
38


drafting that somewhat blur the boundaries between the prewriting, writing, and rewriting stages. While slightly less static than process theory, the necessary components of writing remain intact. The order is more flexible or open to cyclical use but writers must still somehow engage invention strategies, drafting, revising, etc. Further, while post-process theory arguably made some useful progress, the striving toward an ideal textual product remained intact (Anson 224-5).
In what might also be seen as post-process, Sire promotes an avant-garde approach to composition pedagogy through the idea of composition as happenings. The goal of this concept is to return and encourage exuberant, unpolished expressions in writing, which he sees as having been removed through pedagogical practices intensification of feeling, the play of instinct, and a sense of festivity (Sire 220). Similarly, radical, Ulmers Applied Grammatology articulates Derridas theoretical grammatology by elaborating on both his theory of writing and the aesthetic-rhetorical strategies. This work develops Ulmers premises and prospects of an applied grammatology that, in response to Derridas work, seeks to rethink humanities pedagogy for the emergent, audiovisual scene of writing. Ulmer describes Derridas redefinition of writing as a method that combines writing and epistemology in the questions it formulates. The condition for the emergence of grammatology is the undoing of logocentrismthe model of the line [and its mundane concept of temporality] (122). The theories of both Derrida and Ulmer represent the kind of radical re-conceptualizing I suggest with the pairing of writing and glitch theory.
Ideological shifts are the major contribution of post-process. As John Trimbur wrote in Take the Social Turn: Teaching Writing Post-Process, the 1980s social turn in composition was a postprocess, postcognitivist theory and pedagogy that represents literacy as an ideological arena, and composing as a cultural activity by which writers position and reposition themselves in relation to their own and others subjectivities, discourses, practices, and institutions (109). Post-process theory has tried to acknowledge the social, public, situated, and interactive dimensions of writing. This is perhaps the most important influence of post-process research and these dimensions are essential to my theories of writing. I use the ADHD experience as the inspiration and the lens of disability studies but my critique of standardization in writing and writing pedagogy continues a common refrain of
39


rhetoric and composition theorists Dolmage argues that writing process pedagogies push students towards something clean, and straight, and cohesive, adding that the more that students can streamline or evenhide evidence of labor, the more they are rewarded (Writing Against, 113-114). Certainly, the field of composition has historically favored texts that hide evidence of the messy labor of writing. But, like Dolmage, I see the greatest opportunities of expression and interaction in the breaks and in the lapses. Composing the actual experience of creating and interacting with texts is about the chaos and the disruptions or the glitches.
Glitch Roots
The genre of glitch art moves like the weather: sometimes it evolves very slowly, while at other times it can strike like lightning. The art works within this realm can be disturbing, provoking and horrifying. Beautifully dangerous, they can at once take all the tensions of other possible compositions away. These works stretch boundaries and generate novel modes; they break open previously sealed politics and force a catharsis of conventions, norms and beliefs. (Menkman 341)
Glitch studies attempts to balance nonsense and knowledge (Menkman 345). At the heart of glitch writing is a purpose Menkman clearly articulates in her Glitch Studies Manifesto: Find catharsis in disintegration, ruptures and cracks; manipulate, bend and break any medium towards the point where it becomes something new (346). The concept of glitch and glitch as writing metaphor can inform new rhetorical practices and further, practices that are specifically subversive and powerful.
If art (McLuhan) and glitch (Menkman) are exactly what you can get away with, why does writing persist so largely on the opposite plane? Writing is more characterized by what we cant get away with and becomes this formality that we collectively agree it to be and strictly conform to. Whereas other artistic mediums recognize the beauty of failures and flaws, writing forbids flaws and conditions us to recognize only the flawless, the polished.
Glitches are commonly understood as the result of miscommunication or mistranslation when transferring data from one environment to another. Glitch as a term first appears in 1962 used by Astronaut John Qenn while describing problems they were having, saying, Literally, a glitch is a spike or change in voltage in an electric current. The term glitch came to be associated with music in
40


the mid 90s to describe a genre of experimental/noise/electronica. Shortly after visual artists like Tony (Ant) Scott began to embrace the glitch as an aesthetic of the digital age. In the introduction to her Glitch Studies Manifesto, Rosa Menkman mentions A Colour Box (1935) by Len Lye and MagnetTV (1965) by Nam June Paik as examples of mechanical and digital noise in art, which are the precedents of glitch. Iman Moradi is arguably the first glitch theorist with extensive work on glitch visual art, most notably Glitch: Designing Imperfections published in September of 2009. The genre of glitch art grew within various communities of artists online with little traceability or regularity.
Glitch Meets Rhetoric & Composition
Glitch composition ignores the clear, legible signals in favor of that which interrupts, disrupts, and corrupts the order of the object or system in question. Such deviations are of paramount importance... in reconstructing the narratives of control, precision, and intentionality in the composing process. (Hammer 11)
While the what or whom for glitch arts initial experimentation remains unclear, glitch theorists now document and articulate the movement usefully. Conceptually glitch art arose as an expression of technological anxiety by embracing the expressive possibility of malfunctions, or glitches, in computer code (Mason 41).
The glitch concept in rhetoric and composition research is the dedicated focus of a small handful of scholars who build largely on the philosophies of Bakhtin, Sire, Latour, and Lanham. Contemporary glitch researchers Boyle, Hammers, Reid, andCloninger provide a challenging theoretical foundation for my project. In general, they position glitch so as it assumes error as an underlying condition of possibility for invention (26). On a broad scale, their glitch-focused scholarship includes a crazy wide range of conceptual applications, modalities, and innovatively glitched forms. For me, their collective work illustrates the potential I locate here. There is definitely room and need for further work on glitch in both rhetorical and compositional contexts. Applying glitch to this field presents some fundamental challenges. Few rhetoric and composition scholars (or even glitch theorists really) have sufficiently defined the concept clearly or thoroughly. Further, existing definitions of glitch theory/art/studies are definitely at odds with the dominant
41


pedagogies and theories in rhetoric and composition (Hammer, Zaum 6). By this I mean the great tradition of polished textual products and the (alleged) methodical, predictable means of creating them
Glitch Writing
Glitch upsets the proper; it is a gesture of non-compliance. (Manon 12)
What makes good glitch writing is that it maintains a sense of wildness. Glitch writing is usefully thought of as non-compliant writing. I see the effects of embracing ADHD traits and perspectives in writing as a pursuit of noncompliance. This, I believe, is a useful pursuit because noncompliance and deviance in writing means text that reflects the individual.
There are multiple ways of glitching writing and I adapt some basic categories introduced by Hammer in Technoculture, which are as follows: additions such as the acknowledgements of the context and personal disclosures included in chapter II; performances of the processes and strategic practices such as the inclusion of screencasts, side pools, unrevised writing, and disruptions such as molecularly glitched words (all of which I discuss further). I think these categorical ideas alone begin to suggest the fundamental connection between glitch writing and digital modes.
The cursory scan of any composition programs website reflects the centrality of the process metaphor. Multimodality emphases are at least as dependent on process pedagogy as predecessors. In my experience, multimodality in composition coursework, rather than adapting to new mediums/new media, retains expectations of traditional text essays. Qualities such as linearity and process-based creation (emphasizing revision as a primary indicator of quality and effort) carry over when they dont necessarily apply (or at least dont apply in the same way).
Similarly, many digital spaces/texts assume normative bodies as default. Kerschbaum explains, multimodality is valuable because of the way it engages multiple senses at once, thus immersing users more fully in an environment or amplifying the communicative resources of a text (Mode). She also explains what she calls multimodal inhospitality, explaining While many of us celebrate multimodal richness, when considered from a disability perspective, multimodality can be a
42


problem rather than an asset as inaccessible multimodal spaces are too often remedied by a problematic turn to the retrofit (Mode). In composition courses and in society in general, digital inclusion and accessibility is essential to social participation. Hyper and cyber spaces reflect the designers attitudes about its users and affect attitudes about who belongs in certain spaces/texts, in addition to how those spaces/texts look and function. Unfortunately, government and web-standard organizations that seem to continue to see and create digital spaces for the able-bodied, which creates the need to retrofit for those with disabilities.
In this thorny area, glitch writing pursues more radical changes that do not merely perpetuate traditional patterns and habits. Multimodality in writing (traditionally) might allow hypertext or online publication. Glitch writing might instruct us to illustrate our views on abortion using Star Wars Legos. This fundamental shift of expectation for modality is whats critical here. Glitch studies scholar Manon speaks to what I see in the shift from multimodal writing to glitch writing as such: Glitch art does not dirty up a text, but instead undermines its basic structure. Glitch damage is integral, even when its effects manifest at the surface (8). Glitch writing goes beyond multimodality and implies more creative, mind-blowing, and expanding modes.
Figure 2 shows a methodical interpretation of one paragraph (19b) of A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia by Delueze and Guattari. Artist Ngui illustrates the first two chapters of the book paragraph. To help make the connection, part of the text this illustration responds to is the following:
The problem of writing: in order to designate something exactly, an exact expressions are utterly unavoidable. Not at all because it is a necessary step, or because one can only advance by approximations: an exactitude is in no way an approximation; on the contrary, it is the exact passage of that which is under way. We invoke one dualism only in order to challenge another. We employ a dual- ism of models only in order to arrive at a process that challenges all models. Each time, mental correctives are necessary to undo the dualisms we had no wish to construct but through which we pass. Arrive at the magic formula we all seek PLURALISM = MONISMvia all the dualisms that are the enemy, an entirely necessary enemy, the furniture we are forever rearranging. (Delueze/Guattari 20-21)
This modal translation is not a standalone artifact and therefore might more accurately be
termed a modal transformation. It supports and projects the content so as to engage multiple
43


literacies. Glitch, in composition, subverts modal practices and approaches multimodality, not as simple translation or accommodative alternative, but as method for complex interaction and interplay.
Figure 2:
V

o o

AHJrJr*
K>
w i>.,.
I \
A A
* X o
. .
A

Illustration from the Thousand Plateaus Drawing Series for paragraph 19b by Marc Ngui.
44


Printing, a ditto device Printing, a ditto device
Printing, a ditto device confirmed and extended the new visual stress It provided the first uniformly repeatable 'commodity,* the tirst assembly finemass production.
It created the portable book, which men could read In pnvacy and in isolation from others Man could now inspireand conspire
Like easel painting, the printed book added much to the new cult of individualism The private, fixed pomt of view became posable and literacy conferred Ihe power of detachment, norv-mvolvernent
Printing,
Printing,
Printing.
Printing.
Printing,
Printing,
Printing,
Printing.
a ditto device a ditto device a ditto device a ditto device a ditto device a ditto device a ditto device a ditto device
.umutua t uuuit ujiuii uiuiu
i fiio. ft mbit Dtua tp rffn boi it. jfaaantbjramt at) praagin uWnt note* pfit pifnto mat
tip ttpmli qfi moutf i a mao tjommt at) praagunttlii Dim fuararaB pmagintra tri a lUurraaCailu tt fetntna cccautr n irtriartp illie Dtua rt att.iln(it lulttpltcamttu ittplnr attain mrc ram:i Bommaiuim pifnbi no i unlanlibue alt: i uniutri raanbue put moumtut fiip m utp Dtue. fat BtDi uobte omi lain aflrantnn fattm run ttaai nmfa ligna qurlpbtt i Itmrtip erf gmraa fiti: ut lint nobis f tu the afannhuatmr.nmim unlit
Figure 3: Text, glitched text, repetition, and allusion as used in The Medium is the Massage by
Marshall McLuhan (23).
McLuhan's book The Medium is the Massage is an early work playing with forms and theories of new media (see figure 3). McLuhan's book illustrates the possibilities just with the fonn of the book and suggests the true reconceptualization of writing. Fundamentally glitch writing includes and combines the written, oral, visual, audio, tactile, gestural, and spatial in order to complicate our texts in such a way that better reflects our complex experiences and more subversive^ challenges ideological structures.
45


Un-Finished Writing through Glitch
The artisfs process is not exacting, but an invitation of chaos: one triggers a glitch; one does not create a glitch. The limited amount of control the artist maintains is evident in the resulting image. (Manon 3)
Writing towards an ideal, clean text that successfully gets its message across represents our partiality towards the linear and cohesive, leaving little room for texts or writers in the spaces between. McRuer states, written composition is focused on a fetishized final product that is straight and that communicates mainstream competency, ability, sexuality, and culture. Focusing on the messiness of writing, McRuer believes, will keep attention on disruptive, inappropriate writers and writing that suggest a future that subverts tradition (qtd. in Dolmage, Writing Against). Shared activist interests and love for a good mess further motivate my want for more complex notions of finished writing. With a more flexible definition of finished work in composition programs, there are many new possible endgames in play.
Its important to acknowledge the power of works that allow, require even, its audience bear witness to raw spontaneity as final product, rejecting revision and editing. To bear witness in such a way is to experience glitch. Dolmage believes that in revision we also perform a drama of normativity, accommodating ourselves towards elusive standards (Writing Against 112). Beyond the normalizing (and borifying) effects of revision, it is in the unrevised texts that, as Hammer put it, we become vulnerable writers unable to hide behind editing and post-production
(Technoculture).
46



Figure 4: This is the audio clip of a short conversation set before the song "Like a Monkey from
the 1981 album Songs of Pain by Daniel Johnston. While not directly related to the song's content, Daniel and an unknown friend's brief exchange speaks to a notion of over examining something you've created and the inevitability of ruining either its authenticity or your enjoyment/interest in it, or both. Clip can also be accessed here: https y/drive. google. com/file/d/0B0sp_ZDnK3R5MndPZGFpbmJsaE0/view?usp=shari ng
Vulnerability of the writer might also be described as honesty or authenticity. Revealing authentic efforts of production will inevitably reveal, or at least imply, other information about the writer. Depending of course on inhibitions or lack of, aspects of her identity and possibly even direct or indirect disability disclosures are important possibilities to consider. In any case, glitch writing means letting the act of creation and the vulnerability inherent there to remain visible.
Artists that have successfully revealed themselves in this way are often deemed "outsider artists. And this, the specific beauty of the unedited self and unapologetic creative work, is more common in music. Daniel Johnston's early home-recorded albums like Songs of Pain reflect true celebration of spontaneity and experimentation. Throughout his recordings from the early 1980s Johnston's lyrics and music seem magically unaffected by the limitations of convention. Twenty-two-year-old Johnston's recordings are raw homemade in his parent's basement or his brother's garage. There are always clicks from his pounding of the organ keys and he plays with static and feedback noise. The pain and imperfection make the tapes a powerful, complicated experience. Johnston's approach shows what is possible when an author refuses the limitations of tradition. His work experiments with final forms and contains the spontaneity of invention without revision and without restraint. The results of his style are unique. Listening to a Daniel Johnston record is a consuming experience, exceptional both in intensity and intimacy.
47



Figure 5: "Monkey in a Zoo song clip from Songs of Pain by Daniel Johnston; 1981. Excerpt
lyrics as follows: "I use to be happy/I can remember those days/But I sold my freedom/For free room and board/Like a monkey in a zoo. Clip can also be accessed here:
https y/drive. google. com/file/d/0B0sp_ZDnK3R5OE9TQSlwTm9CWDQ/view?usp=sh aring
While teaching revising and editing skills is necessary in composition curriculum, there is room for the raw, spontaneous work, which occurs in various ways to varying extremes. The most radical is the writing assignment crafted without any intent to return. This exists in the form of free writes but I definitely mean to suggest making space for larger scale works left in original form Similar to glitch art goals, the 'true value is not in the finished image or text, but in the combined understanding of how the piece was changed from its original. The art is in the process (Mason 43). There could then be many final products created by/through the revisions. Thereby the value of raw writing is not ignored and revision is in play, perhaps more usefully than in standard process. Here, the writer must examine even the micro-changes of her revision choices, which encourages self-evaluation for its general effectiveness and more importantly can be used to see the normalizing patterns. Another version involves foregoing the need of a traditional "finished product in favor of plans towards one. This still requires thoughtful revision and idea development. The often rushed final paper requirement can and I find often does limit a project's success. Further, a mediocre, obligatory version effectively kills the piece all together. The possibility for future work is likely to be lost after a crappy, obligatory final paper is written (along with any enthusiasm).
Manon's note, "34. Glitching tends to seekliminal states, i.e. a half-crashed file, ora digital image that our analog fingering has only partly ruined, taking it almost but not quite beyond legibility speaks to glitch writing as potently as it does to digital art (8). Through glitch liminal
48


spaces become spaces to be treasured and the writing that occupies such spaces the almost, the partial, the imperfect so too becomes treasured. There is a serious need to revisit old assumptions about writing with vulnerability, mistakes, inconsistencies, mechanical errors, etc. as always unfinished. The symptoms and behaviors associated with ADHD function in a similar way. These attributes are conceived of as limitations and even undesirable flaws but, like my suggestion for traditionally flawed, unpredictable, inconsistent writing, those with ADHD belong too in a space a space that includes everyone with and without disability that treasures and values the imperfect because what does the perfect really have to offer that the imperfect doesnt? We all know perfect is boring anyway.
Revision as Normalizing Agent
[The glitch practitioners] task is to critique the ways in which the given text obscures its own materiality, its own production, its noise and malfunction. By design, most texts conceal these characteristics in favor of a highly polished exterior, and the glitch critic must locate, highlight, and foreground the noise contained within each system (Hammer 14)
Revision strategies/expectations are effectively a means of subduing/normalizing in that they
are concerned with fixing those errant elements of the text. This is not to say that returning to and
rewriting writing are not aspects of creating something relevant or important or satisfying. They
definitely can and often are. However, academic tradition preaches revision, I think, shadily. Revision
strategies/requirements typically include things like precision, sentence variety, word choices, and
pronoun use as well as structural changes to the pattern, organization, and proportion balance and
uniformity. These are the calculated, molecular changes made through traditional notions of revision
to get writing to traditional notions of finished. Sometimes revision of this kind is fitting and
satisfying. Sometimes revision of this kind directly creates coherence. Sometimes revision of this
kind removes originality and character. Because revising attends to expectations (of genre, audience,
etc.), the risk is systematic removal of any moments of charm or oddity or innovation.
Revision tends to be about privileging the conventional. So beyond overuse, revision work is
actively harmful. It controls and erases variation and simultaneously spreads homogeny and defines
an other. I instead suggest writing that privileges instead those moments that revision erases. It
49


seeks honest reflections of the self through writing. It celebrates the profoundly individual nature of the creative act. And finally it uses the power of the unrevised, chaotic, and unfinished. What this means is not that there is no room for revision in glitch writing or that all polished texts are suspect. What it does mean is that the partial and imperfect have value too. The writer as individual and writing as product of that individuality is clearly one of the most interesting aspects of engaging with texts so the idea here is that we can use glitches as a way to that.
Interrupting Ableism Through Glitch
The tensions and incompatibilities glitches ... are recast as the conditions through which individuation persists as an ongoing process. It is not that those moments of disruptions are errors to be corrected or even errors that reveal operational logics, but they are instead the conditions of possibility for rhetorical action. (Boyle 20)
Several glitch researchers touch briefly on ideas of embodiment and glitch but ultimately shy
away from real confrontation. For example, Reid argues passingly, that humans are glitchy in the
sense that We lack perfect vision, perfect reason, and perfect communication. We identify our
imperfections as the limits of our agency and build technologies to overcome those limits
(Composing Objects). An exception might the more sustained analysis in a section of Cloningers
QtchLnguistx focused on the opposing concepts of noise and signal in glitch theory 8, which he
then applies to the embodied individual. For Cloninger, we assess one another as either signal or
noise signal meaning admissible (not dependent on any alignment with the listeners views) and
noise meaning inadmissible due to abnormality (11). Thereby, these value assessments equate to
political acts that negate, or filter, all noise. This sound metaphor for social exclusion of the other
is not difficult to grasp. However, the conclusions Cloninger arrives at are. He describes the decision
to accept these glitches as something other than noise to be filtered is to risk modifying my own
signal/noise" as well as my aesthetics andhuman self (12). This conclusion and the metaphor
itself (albeit pre-existing) are unsettlingly problematic from a disability studies perspective. Disability
is posited not as a lived and complex experience but wholly defined as impact on the able-bodied
8 RosaMenkman begins to apply Foucault's ideas on "madness" to the topic of signal vs. noise, which Cloninger points out as that which he wants to expand the implications of.
50


norm jeopardizing his own signal/the existence of pure signal. This combined with a central, hearing-based metaphor make the application unsatisfying.
Revisiting notions of the individual and by extension the collective via the movement of relations aligns with disability studies and activism specifically the concepts of identity as negotiated. Kerschbaumfor example defines difference as the relationship between two people that is predicated on their separateness (in contrast to something finite that might be defined or described). Kerschbaum posits a similar theory more rooted in DS: While many aspects of self and other cannot be fully articulated (or even apprehended by individuals themselves), it is with markers of difference that people create, display, and respond to changes in self and other and the perceived relations between them (Toward, 626). Implications explored regularly in DS research also mirror those Boyle locates at the intersect of glitch and rhetoric simply put, that opportunity and occasion for rhetorical action exist in the tensions, negotiations, and disruptions. One of the most theoretical and most inviting (a rare combination) pieces exploring the relationship of glitch and rhetoric is easily The Rhetorical Question Concerning Glitch, in which Casey Boyle thoughtfully approaches glitch as generative in rhetorical theory. This section began with a quote from this piece suggesting disruptions or glitches as powerful when understood not as possibility for correction but possibilities for rhetorical action. The other concept that appears in the excerpt is that of individuation. Drawing from Simondons work on the concept, Boyle emphasizes that the individual does not fully exist before/without relations and second, that individuation is ever ongoing due largely to the flux of relatives (20). Boyle and Kerschbaum both understand and the individual and difference as mutable as well as fundamentally connected with relationality. Glitch + disability studies? Indeed.
So I in part build on and in part reevaluate the initial notions of other scholars on the glitch-disability connection. Superficial parallels between ideas of glitch and disability are easily apparent. To explain perhaps unnecessarily, a simplistic but likely common association would locate glitch as a malfunction of a technology and disability as a malfunction or impairment of a body. This is obviously glaringly problematic. Notions of glitch and disability that I have put forth clearly contradict this expected connection and therefore the analogy itself. However, I still locate a powerful
51


parallel here: both disability and glitch can be conceptually engaged, and effectively so, to challenge and subvert dominant models.
Working not on glitch/disability but glitch/composition, Hammer asks, What if our disciplinary body of scholarly work was transparent in terms of technologies used, personal experiences lived, chemicals ingested, dis/abilities accounted for, and so on? Would the quality or effectiveness of the final product suffer? (19). Like Hammer, I think not. In fact, I see the effects of embracing ADHD traits and perspectives, and those of disability more generally, as generative to composing practices. The result might also be stronger writer/reader connections and possibly even a more approachable, less intimidating experience with scholarly text production.
In addition to reconceiving glitch in a writing studies context, reconceiving disability in a glitch context is likely to be equally generative. For writing, glitch is a disruption, interruption, and corruption of dominant models of text production. So for disability, glitch might be similarly applied to pursue disruption, interruption, and corruption of dominant ideological models of ableism. In university practices of accommodations and even steps and attempts toward universal design principles, the fundamentality of change is inadequate and/or an excruciatingly slow process. As Yergeausays of DS, Tor a field thats all about changing the fundamental nature of things, were really not all about changing the fundamental nature of things. Glitching ableism might be another way of meeting this challenge. In some ways, glitch writing might be seen as an art of rejection. Dolmage thoughtfully speaks to this subversive goal, writing that, Students with disabilities have a right and an insight that should allow them to re-map, re-create and re-write the world in which they leam... to re-write definitions of writing; aright I see of both students with and without disabilities (Mapping, 23).
52


Some Specific Manifestations of Glitch Writing
A glitch is a moment in time that breaks one from a predetermined flow so glitch suggests writing that is reimagined through distractions and deconstruction. To fully appreciate the value of texts, I see a need to understand the changes that the writing underwent to produce the new, remixed piece. The manifestations of glitch writing I explore here include nonlinearity, the side pool, screencasts, and spasmodic writing/rhetoric, and is far from comprehensive. Instead these specific practices as implications of this intersect, easily identified because they have always been part of writing for me in various ways/degrees. When I write now these practices are embraced, making writing much more enjoyable for me and as Ive mentioned, this was not always true. The shift from resistance to anticipation/acceptance is powerful.
In this section (after this brief intro anyway) I curate rather compose. The sub-sections below are what I see as (or what are for me) the primary manifestations of glitching writing practice. In each sub-section a manifestation of glitch writing is discussed in part directly and in part via a series of quotations, images, etc. that I have curated. The resulting discussion, both direct and indirect, supports and expands each practice usefully. The experimentation with curation became super frustrating (infinite possible inclusions with self-imposed limitations on framing/interpreting). However, the result is also satisfying because it in part justifies the experiment in the sense that, the most provocative glitch art surprises not only its beholder, but also its curator (Manon/Temkin).
This subversion of form creates an opportunity and I have pursued it by compelling the reader to more consciously create her understanding of these glitch elements 9.
Nonlinearity/Recombinatory Texts
We must abandon the myth that linear and clear and correctly formatted prose equals academic rigor and scholarly legitimacy. But these risks and discomforts may also yield the kind of freshness and creativity in scholarship and pedagogy we value and continue to call for in rhetoric and composition. (Hammer 22)
9 Flexible, subversive ways of writing is what glitch writing practices share meaning that they must be explored flexibly and subversively (at least if I want to retain the integrity of the chapter).
53


Writing and reading have long connoted a movement from start to finish. The digital rectum makes it possible to allow readers to create their own structure through hyperlinks. In some digital texts there is a discontinuous, non-linear movement; the kind of cycle common to casual internet browsing. As Hammer points out the above quote, there is a freedom in digital composing that stems from the unlimited possibilities it suggests in structuring. I see composition as now in the age of nonlinearity that Derrida predicted. Others have developed ideas for its application into practicable pedagogy, namely post(e)-pedagogy in Ulmers book Applied Grammatology. Terms such as mystory, heuretics, textshop, and choragraphy are suggested in the creation of new and experimental works of electronic rhetoric. Ulmer suggests that computers distribute ideas/memories rather than just store them and thereby allow recombinatory texts that favor the illogical, ambiguous, and surprising over the coherent, dualistic, and traditional. He even suggests a structural language that skirts linearity to instead seek organizations based on disparity, similarity, and/or theme development. The new possibilities/practices of composing through repurposing and remixing has created new genres in visual art (similar to glitch) and has broader implications. Despite the intense focus on digital composition, I think these ideas easily (obviously?) apply to analog recombinatory texts as well and speak to the many writers and visual artists composing non-traditionally but also non-digitally (see figure 6). The experimental approaches posited and performed by those like Ulmer and McLuhan allow and privilege creativity, especially in academic work. Like these writers, I see the finished product as an archive of the creative act itself. Asides, mistakes, spontaneity, etc. all have a place in composition and are all potentially generative and illustrative. Choose your own adventure.
54


Figure 6: A non-digitally composed recombinatory text 10 created on two pages of an antique
textbook (original text illegible here). Background of the new piece is simple, thatched ink (top half blue/bottom half pea green with a jagged line separating the colors and also alluding to a mountain line on the horizon). Foreground of the new image is collage, here the Roman coliseum (photo) with an astronaut on a moonwalk (illustration black and white) standing atop; the two icons in surreal relative sizes (astronaut is to coliseum as Griffin is to coffee table).
The Side Pool
Another practice suggested by hyperactivity is the side pool (of possibilities). Throughout development of a text, the writer keeps a pile of elements to the side that is in constant transition. This for me means digitally but the practice could easily transfer to physical hardcopies, notes, collages, etc. The side poof s appearance and usage varies wildly between individual writers (which is the point really). For me, the side pool is a space for my more chaotic to display and play with them This side pool exists somewhere in the thesis draft's file itself. I amnot necessarily suggesting that the concept of the side pool be a genre of writing itself but this is an idea I find intriguing and in need of further thought.
10 Created by Chaz Hager.
55


Outside quotes, inciting film or song bytes that are either difficult to place at present or unlikely to fit at all but worth keeping. There are artifacts (songs, images, etc.) that are inspiring or informing the work, which again may be engaged eventually in the text itself but are just as likely to affect the writing indirectly. I also tend to place source quotes I may or may not need in this pool. I have included a sample from this actual work's side pool as it existed in an early draft of this chapter during February of 2016 in figure 7.
Mcluhan pg. 29
Glitched Subheads:
t *LtZL
PofoOocoeoSoso woroiotoionogo
A$ n$e$Ws Lyrics:
"Never Relaxed"
Songs of Pain (1981)
There was this kid named Syd and he was born Maybe the doctor hit him a little too hard He just seemed to have gotten off to a bad start Never relaxed, never relaxed, never relaxed
Big brothers and big sisters 'came lots of attention
But Syd was a hyperactive kid
He just never seemed able to sit still
Never relaxed, never relaxed, never relaxed
Never rela-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-axed
Never relaxed, never relaxed, never relaxed
Unlike the other kids on his block Syd never learned how to walk
He just ran around acting nervous Never relaxed, never relaxed, never relaxed
He sat in school in detention Drawing funny pictures on the wall Not a moment of peace did Syd ever find Never relaxed, never relaxed, never relaxed Never rela-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-axed Never relaxed, never relaxed, never relaxed
(For me, Johnston's approach shows what is possible when an author refuses the limitations of tradition. His work experiments with form and contains the spontaneity of invention without revision and without restraint. The results of his style are unique. Listening to a Daniel Johnston record is a consuming experience, exceptional both in intensity and intimacy.)
Orphaned Quotes:
"Now illustrate your views on abortion using Star Wars legos."
Poulakos, Kairotic Elements and Contexts:
The reliance should be on situational knowledge, requiring writers to recognize "that which is possible" at certain "opportune moments" (Poulakos 36). In this method, writing is primarily concerned with context and contextual purpose,aswellasthesomewhat kairotic, spontaneous elements of writing that are introduced when we are concerned with specific situations or scenes. Sennett believes in the possibilities for productivity within mess that is created by sometimes spontaneous or uncontrollable factors.
Pumphrey, though still operating in the tradition of writing process, suggests that allowing writers, "to find pleasure In language" by encouraging expansive, exploratory writing is what will create "motivation to pursue the more mechanical aspects of language" (667).
'The rhetoric of technology obscures the fact that, within our current educational system-even though computers are associated with the potential for great reform they are not necessarily serving democratic ends" (Selfe and Selfe 484).
Figure 7: Example of my own use of the side pool from this chapter in early April 2016. A black
and white screen shot showing a box of semi-related ideas like glitched sub headers created experimentally by me, a rejected McLuhan page selection (pg. 29), the lyrics to Never Relaxed by Daniel Johnson (song also replaced with another selection), and a list of orphaned quotes, which is my not-so-politically correct titles list of source quotes that seemed relevant at some time (all may or may not have made it through to the chapter as it exists here).
56


Screencasts
Screencasts are a performative element of glitch writing in which readers witness the happenings on the desktop of a computer. Screencasting offers writing that cannot conceal its process behind the edited, revised rendered, polished, retouched etc. I suggest the screencast only general so it might be considered at several levels of usage, including: one component of a larger piece, intermittent element within the pattern of a larger piece, an entire piece unto itself, etc. In a screencast, we see the cursor move as the writer makes (and fixes) errors or changes her mind. Screencasts reveal a lot
more than the task of focus since the reader sees what program(s) are used, what time of day it is and any customizations of the interface. Even now as I introduce figure 8, the simple demo I made to illustrate the strangely intimate effect, I feel oddly exposed. In the short video clip (without audio commentary) I demonstrate the simple power of allowing a reader to watch the act of creating rather than just experiencing the finished text.
57


Figure 8: Largely anecdotal but this image is a still from a screencast I made showing the process
of glitching a short piece of text (in this case a chapter title for this thesis). In addition to showing my hesitations, distractions, and habits through the movement of the cursor, the screencast also reveals information like the time, the author's desktop choices (image, organization, component sizes, etc.).
Spasmodic Writing/Rhetoric
The genre of glitch art moves like the weather: sometimes it evolves very slowly, while at other times it can strike like lightning. The art works within this realm can be disturbing, provoking and horrifying. (Menkman 341)
Spasmodic writing suggests a composing approach that picks up work on sections variously, based on inspiration or interest rather than normalizing standards or expectations. The (intended) portions are then likely to reflect varying levels of attention throughout the creative act. A hyperactive rhetoric suggests spasmodic development because embracing the hyperactivity and the hyperfocus means allowing oneself to attend to whatever is most consuming in that time and place. It is heavily connected to the following manifestation of nonlinearity because just as the texts we create should break traditional requirements for linear progression, the writers themselves should experiment with spasmodic writing. As Hammer points out of both the Zaum movement and glitch theory, they are not
58


"shifting frameworks from the logical to the illogical; they are instead revealing that logic, clarity, and linearity are impossible in the first place ("Zaum). Controlled, segment-by-segment, step-by-step composing "process can be unpleasant and impractical if not completely derailing. I don't know which shark I want to fight until I see them (see figure 9). Figure 9 is a largely anecdotal metaphorical representation of how the "stages or sections of a piece of writing feel to me sometimes. The formulaic, normalizing approach to creating a text is not useful forme and while I realize there are many writers out there using the writing "process successfully, what I would like to see is further exploration of the possible texts and experiences to be had by writers specifically subverting this idyllic tradition. So, a hyperactive rhetoric emphasizes the importance of the messy, erratic, and unpredictable.
Figure 9: Black and white and mad basic sharks done in pencil. These sharks 11 are meant to
work as a metaphor for the components of writing I am discussing herein to show how these approaches, while subversive, can still feel like fighting a shark and I choose the approach to engage at a given moment similarly to how I might choose which color/type of shark I want to fight first.
Collaborative Authorship
Band Sigur Ros gave a dozen filmmakers the same modest budget and asked them to create whatever comes into their head when they listen to songs from the band's album Valtari. In theory, or
11 Sketch for the occasion by John William Keedy.
59


my understanding anyway, is that the idea sought to bypass the usual artistic approval process and allow artists the utmost creative freedom. The result is a rattling short film/music video/dance piece titled "Fjogur Plano (it shares the title with the song it was made for). This short film conveys the power possible in a text that is truly collaboratively authored (see figure 11). Sigur Ros wrote and performed the song, Shia LaBeouf brought his face, filmmaker Alma Harel brought surrealism and Denna Thomsen is a classically trained dancer. The piece is not restrained by reality to effectively show how the relationship works, feels, crashes. The surrealism of glowing lollipops, butterflies, and symmetry are rattling emotionally, symbolically, and contextually. The painful mess is very much achieved via all the piece's collaborators and the powerful experience is rare if not largely unfamiliar.
Figure 11: A still captured from the short film/music video "Fjogur Piano showing Shia
LaBeouf s eerily intimate facial expression at close range (smile + tears + beard + bathrobe + prolonged eye contact^).
A hyperactive rhetoric is about letting things, wanting thing even, to be complicated and messy. A good mess is a thing of value. Allowing and encouraging a mess creates possibility and opportunity rather than imposing limitation on the creative process. Exactly like a literal mess I spent the week making, there's a significant rift in the messy potential between my singular efforts and a collaborative affair. Whereas my mess might be filthy and large scale, my activities never involve paint or meatloaf entirely new mediums/layers. Second, with a solo mess show I would know the
12 = crushing it by transmitting overwhelming, awkwardly unexplainable emotional responses.
60


cause or story behind all the pieces. I lost my enthusiasm and interest in that mess before it started. This metaphor aims simply to capture the nature of collaborative practice(s) suggested by both glitch and a hyperactive rhetoric.
This massive manifestation of glitch writing could obviously comprise a chapter of its own. Instead I introduce it here to point to a few elements of specific interest to glitch theory and ADHD perspectives. Collaborative authorship as implied by glitch searches for ways that may allow ADHD perspectives to reshape or develop new, unconventional, and shared ideas about what learning looks like and creative strategies to demonstrating that learning. In contemporary composition pedagogies, collaborative activities come standard. Glitch writing however pursues collaboratively authored pieces as the goal rather than collaboration as a means to enhance individual work (commonly known as peer review or workshop).
Concluding Glitch Bits (orTying ItUpIn aHuge, Messy, Ineffective Bow)
Glitch studies is a misplaced truth; it is a vision that destroys itself by its own choice of and for oblivion. The best ideas are dangerous because they generate awareness. Glitch studies is what you can just get away with. (Menkman 346)
Accidents that emerge from contexts are the individual parts of us that are not socially constructed and cannot be predicted. (Marquard qtd. in Hawke, 255)
Like McLuhans infamous saying that Art is exactly what you can get away with,
Menkmans definition of glitch studies holds the same sentiment. Glitch theory infuses writing with
an ornery sense of possibility. It pushes back on the long-standing traditions and expectations of form
and polish. McLuhans work also consistently attends to changing relationships between bodies and
media. He suggests that, "all media are extensions of some human facultypsychic or physical
(1234). For me glitch writing and the multimedia constructions it suggests are an extension of my
hyperactive experience/perspective. Digital rhetoric, hyperactive rhetoric, spasmodic rhetoric,
disability rhetorics, etc. all have power and I see the need not for continuing or adding limitations but
for flexibility. Pursuing multiplicity is definitely more chaotic and seemingly overwhelming but so
are experiences. Glitch writing uses the new requisites of form to explore and expand understandings
of technologies and abilities. The relationalities of such currently seem endless and endlessly
61


generative, at least to me. The means, modes, and products of composition that embrace the complex relationships and chaotic connections may stand to upheave assumptions about the priority of cohesion and of the able-bodied communicator.
The paradox of my work here is that attempts to define and predict glitch as writing concept are counter to its methods and goals. I suggest and explore glitch theorys application to writing and further to disability (in writing) because I think the results are amazing and challenging. However, I do so a bit begrudgingly too because, To capture and explain a glitch is a necessary evil, which enables the generation of new modes of thought and action. When these modes become normalized, glitch studies shifts its focus or topic of study to find the current outsider in relation to a new technology or discourse (Menkman 346). It is then my hope that expanding theoretical application will be progressive rather than standardizing (and Amy Vidali both copyedits and agrees here).
62


CHAPTER V
C-OTTON CANDY^
Anyone remember how he killed himself? It was something aggressive. Maybe... Or for some reason I associate him with Elliot Smith. Any way. Anyone remember how Elliot killed himself? Stabbed himself in the heart... wait for it twice.
I have posited and examined the idea that it is through unique dysfunctions that ADHD
reveals abilities obscured by more pejorative constructions. I hope to have developed this concept
effectively as it relates to ADHD via earlier discussions of theoretical applications and composition
practices inspired by ADHD traits as glitches. The value of a hyperactive rhetoric to writing (and
learning to write) has been dealt with somewhat extensively. I want to also apply this concept to
argue that the complex, generative value of ADHD is equally strong in teaching.
Teachers are conceived of as purveyors of the norm and so deviation from that norm by
teachers is especially scrutinized. Given the insufficient understandings of LD, it is easy to
understand why teachers with LD may choose to hide their learning disabilities. There is a fear (a
rational fear) of being perceived as less than competent. As I touched on in Chapter II, Valle et al. use
Foucault to examine how power is most effective when adopted to full self-regulation (14).
Brueggemann and Moddelmog explain the significance here as such:
The act of disclosing a historically abject identity in the classroom has had significant pedagogical consequences as well. It has called into question traditional expectations of the kind of knowledge that can be shared with students, thereby redrawing the lines between the intellectual and the personal, the sanctioned and the taboo, the academic and the experiential. (312)
This idea of incorporating ones own disability identity as a teacher (and I would argue in any role active in occasions of learning, collaborating, and/or exchanging ideas) creates opportunity.
63


Teaching as a Subversive Act
So what happened since I last saw you guys ?... Well! Two truths and a lie then ? Im first.
This week I got a bat bite. Well, probably anyway which meant rabies shot. I had got mugged at gunpoint. No permanent damage done. Andlgotin an accidentwith a Baptist preachers wife. Not sure why she shared that info so immediately other than to elicit a curtsy of course, which she got. *Curtsy demo. Tsst. Shut it down. Answer: all true. End of game. Winner.
In this sense and in the reality of my classroom, disclosure is something that occurs throughout a semester as the students and I develop our group ethos (see Damiana). The ADHD diagnosis is not necessary because I, the hyperactive teacher, exist and thats what we are all dealing with. But I think this type of incorporation generates new rhetorics of disability and fosters activism.
Teachers must strategically put themselves at risk in order to ask the same from their students As Valle et al. most poignantly write, When teachers with LD remain undisclosed for fear of dismissal, misunderstanding, or ridicule, students with LD are deprived of important role models and, consequently, denied an opportunity to equate themselves with success (16). Looking again to the associated traits of ADHD and ADHD perspectives as generative, this chapter suggests a theory of hyperactive teaching and explores its potentials. The teaching role as it intersects with ADHD suggests an approach to teaching, specifically to teaching composition, which values spontaneity and employs malfunction. 13
Recognition of diverse teaching styles and lived experiences of the teachers by institutions (here I mean administrators, policies, students, other instructors, etc.) and the important function of that recognition socially is a primary focus of this chapter. Similarly, powerful though is the effect of that recognition and acceptance for instructors. Effect sounds somewhat pejorative here even because
13 These admittedly absurd asides were originally written in recollection partially through the Spring of 2016. As I reflected on the courses I was teaching thus far I began to review, with some surprise, the less planned monologues. I reveal the roots of the approach and part of the everyday manifestations. By disclosing (somewhat hesitantly) some simple, honest moments in my personal experience as an instructor, I have invited glitch into this chapter and into teaching. The glitch metaphor is not central here but I do see some initial utility for it. The punctuated monologues from my classrooms glitch the situation in two ways. In this chapter, these interruptions of form and style, of performative authorial role, and importantly, of seriousness forefront the productive error and individuation. As I examined in the previous section, glitches work to disrupt and surprise. Embracing glitch in my teaching practices means crafting a different kind of relationship and a different overall environment.
64


the reality behind the word here might begin with something like: the collection of positive and fiercely empowering forces created for and spread by instructors/their pedagogical practices. In a personal appeal to academic professionals in her article Disabling Writing Program Administration, Vidali punctuates her analysis with a personal saga that strongly supports her aim to suggest that we not view disability as a spoiler or problem to solve, but... as an opportunity to candidly assess professional inequities and how we delimit the quality of our work and ourselves (34). Recognizing and hopefully privileging diverse teaching styles holds specific potential for disability rights and accessibility due to the generative functionality for pedagogies and perhaps more importantly the rhetorical role of instructors I defined in Chapter I. I believe in the essentiality of such recognition and acceptance.
The significance of this intersect (teaching with disability in this case ADHD) comes easily when we consider the unique access teachers with ADHD have to four sources of relevant info: professional discourses on disability, mainstream cultural messages about LD, insights gained from personal experience as student, and the personal experience of teaching students (see Teaching with LD by Ferri et al.). Existent research at this intersect is minimal and I therefore found it an inviting extension to my research. While much attention is paid to student strategies for those with ADHD and/or other LD, research on practices and approaches of/for/by teachers with ADHD are minimal.
Social constructionism emphasizes the centrality of language, thought, interaction, politics, history, and culture in the making of human meaning in lived contexts. Facts are actually just the constructs granted privilege over the alternatives. Christine Sleeter, in her groundbreaking article titled Why Is There Learning Disabilities? A Critical Analysis of the Birth of the Field in Its Social Context, explains the connectivity between the rise of learning disabilities and assumed medical, explanatory facts, which she argues came about to act as a sanctioned means of distinguishing and explaining the academic failings of middle class, White students. The LD construct, according to Sleeter, thereby allows and justifies discrimination and exclusion of poor students of color (by mis-and under-diagnosing LD in these demographics). Possibilities of social change are here cast in broad sociological terms. Sleeter, as major influencer ofLD discourses and research since, posits the
65


construction of learning disabilities as culturally distant and unaffected by the rhetorics, practices, and
activism in college writing instruction. Further discouraging, the sorting of people by dis/ability and
ab/normal presents as objective or at least neutral in the academic institution instead of political acts
that reflect normalizing processes not the abilities of students and instructors. In On Becoming a
Person, Roger points out some fundamental flaws of academic institutions to point to the widening
gap between the ideals and goals of public education and the implications of its practices (for
example, that the voice of authority should be trusted and valued more than ones own independent
judgment). In portions of this work, Postman et al. use sarcasmto express many other such lessons
implied through standardized methods and normalizing practices:
One's own ideas and those of one's classmates are inconsequential. Feelings are irrelevant in education. There is always a single, unambiguous Right Answer to a question... English is not history and history is not science and science is not art and art is not music, and art and music are minor subjects and English, history and science major subjects, and a subject is something you 'take' and, when you have taken it, you have 'had' it, and if you have 'had' it, you are immune and need not take it again. The Vaccination Theory of education? (21)
I feel strongly about a primary claim Roger frequently returns to that the saddest part of these
implications and the passive reactions to normative classroom practices is that most people do not
voice or possibly even see the problems with them
The Hyperactive Teacher
Is that excessive bass? Seems excessive. I dont know whatsup. How do I change your sound settings? I mean if Im optimistically assuming that its not somethingway more crucial and basic, which Imnot. Aw crap, dont change the input. You default to VCR? Why?
Just...no thanks. How did I switch the input? Damn, letitgo robet. I dont have any VHS tapes today. In fact no one does not no times never-so drop it. Holy shit. So sorry y all. That was crazy loud. I knew I was gonna do that... and then I did it. But good news -Nicholas Jaar back in the mix.
In an article creating the concept of the deconstructionist teacher, Danforth and Rhodes
explain how deconstruction as a philosophy suggests this application:
Originally, Derrida (1976, 1979) sought to open up a text to reveal covert layers of assumed "truth," displaying the logocentricism of the text, the way the language constructs, reifies, and often conceals alternative realities through subtle but pervasive workings of power. There are conversations, voices, and possible meanings that apparently innocent texts close down and suppress. (Danforth/Rhodes 358)
66


Using a similar generative process, I suggest the possibility of the hyperactive teacher, based in hyperactive rhetoric and finding pedagogical premise in the traits and experiences of ADHD. The general goal of the hyperactive teacher as far as language use is the strategic disruption of rhetorical patterns that continue the usual hierarchy of ability and disability. Nietzsche believed that to fail as a human being is to accept somebody elses description of oneself and the descriptions or rhetorics of disability that create the constructions and metaphors pervasive at every level currently are not acceptable Teaching with ADHD is a somewhat common experience with widely varying effects both positive and negative. Although such a vague claim as that could be made in reference to teaching and anything almost.
What I see a hyperactive rhetorical approach doing for the intersect of teaching and ADHD is providing a conceptual space that actively anticipates and includes teaching styles of those with ADHD. And further, explores and encourages the engagement of the benefits of teaching with ADHD. This is not an allowance common in the university. It is easy to see how teaching with ADHD in the way I am suggesting might often result in student-instructor relationships and class aesthetics less formal and traditional. This is certainly true in my composition courses. Bernstein discusses the use of hyperfocus (a common trait/experience of those of us with ADHD to varying degrees) as a tool for teaching writing, In the classroom, as on the beach, I found myself separated from the students by categories of race, class, and education. Yet hyperfocus offered space for connection, as we concentrated on our relationships with history. The students and I met together as survivors of the twin historical upheavals of climate change and recession. We learned to listen to each other, asking each other to slow down our racing minds, and to open up our bruised hearts
(141). By allowing my ADHD and my process characterize teaching just like I would when learning or writing, course instruction becomes a much more dynamic, comfortable experience for me. I engage significantly even sometimes with hyperfocus while forming connections with students as well as while helping with their research projects (usually in a one-on or few-on environments).
When instructors with ADHD or traits that are associated have the energy and enthusiasm to get in there and really invest collaborate on students projects, not to do so is what I find
67


irresponsible. For teachers with ADHD (and likely all teachers) this collaboration and face time also means becoming more personally familiar likely due in part a refusal to create or uphold unnecessary boundaries of the academic tradition. Embracing individuality also means honoring that individuality by allowing and introducing options for composing in nontraditional modes H
Grievances
Dear eccentric hyperactive teacher,
Your quirkiness would be much more charming if you actually taught us once in a while.
Sincerely, wasting my time. ^
When I first encountered the faux letter opening this section, I was totally rattled. Its brief note to no one (me) and by no one (me?) posted to a website created as a platform for anonymous, bitchy quip style letters that are not really letters but a format for making some general point. My immediate, emotional response was self-consciousness and shame. The wretched sense that my students, regardless of how much they may like the antics of my class or me personally, may find my courses of little value. The concerns that Berezin expresses, albeit from the position of student, are similar to the concerns of teachers with ADHD, including myself. The idea that, My lack of focus and relentless energy level may be seen as a disease... to be quarantined in order to save the healthy.... is one I relate to as an instructor (Berezin 4). These insecurity-driven thoughts enter into my experience as instructor not just concerning student perceptions but those of faculty and staff, which can be significantly more rattling.
Certain student responses and opinions will be negative and as a realistic instructor, I feel I must acknowledge this is true and prepare for such occurrences. Still, my complicated relationship with this brief note stems from the very real possibility that my personal, hyperactive brand of comp
14 Examples include: iMashup for iPhone and iPad, Scratch, Timeline JS3, and Twine (an open-source tool for telling interactive, nonlinear stories. Please visit their websites for more information.
15 From website dearblankpleaseblank.com a user submission site whose Submissions are moderated by Jared's cat Louie. If your submissions aren't being approved, it's because Louie is now accepting cans of tuna fish as bribes for approvals (four cans usually gets one submission approved.) Alternately, you can try rewriting your submissions, only this time make them funny (About Page, DEAR BLANK PLEASE BLANK webpage).
68


instruction is not quite as fun for everyone involved as it is for me. This letter articulates a familiar insecurity that perhaps my hyper-teaching is less charmingly quirky and more exhaustively relentless. Objections and concerns in this vein and beyond are no doubt underway. I understand there are risks and possibly even downsides to this teaching style but it is coming out for me and the risks are the same. I dont intend to dwell on the risks because I believe the value of hyperactive teaching is there that no matter the risks.
Concluding Hyper-Bits (or Ending With a Monologue That Suggests Further Action)
Have you guys seen Harmony Korine bit of The Fourth Dimension? No? Oh man its gold.
This short has exactly that almost arbitrary structure. Its only like 20 minutes we should
probably just watch it. Cotton candy all over the world.
At the risk of predictability and following the concluding precedents in disability studies research, I will take this final moment to make a point those before me have not failed to make (Price 2011, Lott 2001, Vidali 2007). Somewhat redundant maybe but having a precedent to rely on in DS research is something special and... screw it -1 want to say the obvious its that perfectly affective yet dismal brand of appeal no less urgent or resonant with time. No matter is to be paid to that last because the take away on teaching with ADHD and practicing Hyperactive Teaching for me is that instructors with learning disabilities have more than unique opportunities for pedagogical subversivity, experimentation, etc. Teaching with LD/ADHD equates to a critical responsibility. This is a responsibility to meet notions of composition and comp instruction appropriately, by which I clearly mean hyper-activate, glitch, digitize, craft, wildify, complicate and disable because, disabled can be something we are, and disabling can be something we do, in the name of inclusion and social justice (Vidali 34).
69


CHAPTER VI
ARBjTR ARY#S (WjTH AMYVjDALj)
Continuing the experimental form of this thesis I have chosen to close the project with a chapter that demonstrates perfectly some key ideas from every chapter. The additional addition to this thesis (in the glitch sense) is a metanarrative frame. The piece to follow gives an honest presentation of graduate writing through the advisor/advisee dynamic, the incorporation of disability in such a dynamic and project, and collaborative realities of crafting a thesis. Co-authored with Amy Vidali for a special issue of Praxis, the importance of the relationship between my thesis director and I, particularly the role of our disabilities and differences, is revealed through candid transcript and oscillating responses that show the diverging personalities and senses of humor that were embraced; the element I believe most responsible for making this project successful.
Our Collaborative Introduction
Because many faculty and graduate students pursue disability studies projects in an institutional vacuum (often being the only disability studies person in a department or institution), its exciting when faculty and graduate students come together to work on disability studies projects. Such has been the experience of the two authors of this piece: a graduate student working on her Masters thesis on hyperactive/ADHD rhetorics (Griffin) and her thesis advisor, whose research area is disability studies and rhetoric (Amy). As weve worked together, weve excitedly shared the research weve found in ways that enrich both our writing projects, and weve exchanged teaching ideas to make our classrooms more inclusive. Weve had the chance to work interdependent^, including on this piece, where one of us got the project going and the other guided the creative spontaneity we needed to finish it. Further, in our case, weve had the chance to openly identify as disabled and use crip humor to navigate our work together.
70


Alongside these benefits, there are what we sincerely and euphemistically call generative tensions, which occur when access needs and desires conflict, when power dynamics re-assert themselves, and when attempts at change and adaptation fail. To parse these benefits and tensions, we write through, around, and about a recorded conversation of one of our mostly weekly thesis meetings at a cafe, about halfway through the second semester working on Griffins thesis. With a full agenda and a spontaneous decision to record this particular meeting for this project, we captured our typical routine, complete with big decisions, mis-starts, and incessant blended beverages being made in a most unsettling blender creating more unsettling noise ^
In an uncomfortable testament to our relationship, we first listened to the recorded conversation on a lazy Friday afternoon in Amys office. One of us transcribed key moments; then we independently reviewed the partial transcript and met to decide what moments warranted further attention. In line with our amusement, respect, and critique of how we work together, we eschewed traditional collaborative writing and instead selected clips of the conversation to respond to independently, then traded and responded to those responses. The result is a reflective (written) conversation about a (spoken) conversation, and we hope readers will inhabit, clarify, and refute our advising experiences within their own embodied contexts.
Spasmodic Business (#1)
A: Okay so you dont have to articulate your whole theory of glitch revision especially if
its not relevant. But in terms of our actual working process, like how do I?
G: Help me revise when I need it.
A: Y eah.
G: Definitely need it.
A: I didnt actually feel like what we did for the lit review worked that well. You know
what I mean?
G: Yeah, it was also like, torture.
16 But, were valuing the disruptive and unruly, yes? Yes. Blenders, whether functioning perfectly or defacing your food/fingers/focus, are not of value.
71


A: We werent our finest selves. But do I just wait for you to ask me? Also, I have a
hard time with your writing, I never know when its, when you feel that its at the point where I should read it.
G: Yeah, I know. Its because I draft, its crazy. Its just, I...
A: OCD Amy wants to be like, can you just finish one of these things.
G: Yeah no kidding.
A: Then I can tell you? You saw me, I start to you probably didnt get to it -1 started
giving feedback on something and then I was like, Im lost, I dont understand whats happening.
G: If theres three dots underneath something its not done. Im done, Im moving onto
the next, cause...
A: I forget, I wrote and I was commenting and then I was like, oh, this clearly is not
done.
G: Sorry, Ill be more clear about, things. Whatever.
[edit]
G: We should have done it a long time ago. I dont know why I didnt think of it.
A: And then later, thats why I said ignore my comments at the beginning, I realize you
werent handing this to me as a final product. Not that there is such a thing as a final product.
[laughter]
G: Totally, theres definitely is not. The spasmodic development thing, literally its
what I do and its way worse than how I describe it, or how Ive described it so far. Its even on a more like molecular level, where Im drafting and Im like wait, what I said that thing about, and then I go look at it and I end up working on that part for a little bit, and then I go to look up something in one of the things in the articles and then Im like, ooh, this should go over here and then I work on that a little bit. So then I end up not even with full paragraphs that are in different stages of development. Its hideous.
A: It seems very productive for you though.
G: Well its good, because I just keep moving around.
[edit]
G: Plus, my spasmodic business is, on a project thats this big, its, yeah. Its more like
just like throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. It gets pretty out of control. And an hour and a half later I was like, what was I working on when I sat down here?
Amy: When I look at this, I cant separate when were talking about our disabilities, when
were talking about the writing process, and when were talking about both. When Griffin says it
72


was also torture and I say we werent our finest selves, we are mostly referring to the struggles that characterized the previous semester for each of us, including the return of depression, a major break-up, medication difficulties, a loved ones opioid addiction, and persistent gastrointestinal chaos. But these issues were stitched into the writing process too they influenced how I advised and how Griffin wrote.
Another part of the torture was the structured way I asked Griffin to work on the literature review. While I do not have a diagnosis of OCD (and probably shouldnt reference it that way), I am widely regarded as Type A, and I provided what I thought were logical, carefully scaffolded guidelines/deadlines. But in our crip context, my attempts at structure were mostly counter-productive -1 didnt (yet) understand that Griffin works best by jumping between parts of the project, rather than marching along a linear timeline (toward a completed lit review). As I read her thesis critique of how normative expectations of the writing process flatten the benefits of hyperactivity, and as she talked about her spasmodic business in this advising session, I became aware of how normal and normalizing I am in terms of how I write and advise.
Ive succeeded and failed in providing support for Griffins writing process. But ultimately, the compromises dont feel satisfying to me; it works better when we do it my way part of the time and her way part of the time. So sometimes I write long e-comments and demand structure, and sometimes I hand her a small pink notecardwith a few suggestions, decorated with dog stickers.
Griffin: For me, the hardest thing here is Amys summary of the first semester we worked together on the thesis. It was a very challenging time for both of us. On top of these life events, writing pressures put me in an emotionally unpredictable state that was very unfamiliar since I had never engaged my own lived experience with disability so directly in my work. Maintaining my usual distance was not sustainable. The torture of these first efforts set a precedent where our disabilities were necessarily incorporated into all levels of advising.
At our next meeting (at the same coffee shop and table,) Amy really did surprise me with an entirely new and glitched approach. She had challenged herself to provide her feedback all on one pink notecard via brief bullet notes and sassy stickers. As I reflect on this, I wonder what the reverse
73


of this might be. How could I similarly switch a weekly response to embody her approach to writing/revising? Have I truly done so yet? If so, definitely not as charmingly.
I agree that the most satisfying reconciliations have come when we work completely in either her mode or mine, but several (less dramatic) practices represent regular compromise. For example, I often leave a meeting with a triage list of three areas to focus my efforts in the coming week, making the development less random. I have also come to accept that rather than listening to an album that embodies something from the thesis on the spot, it is more time-efficient to email her a subject of analysis that we can then discuss at the next meeting. These small compromises work in conjunction with the bigger shifts between doing it her way and doing it my way.
Humor Me (#2)
A: I think Ill call them the learning and the teaching [tenets in the analysis],
G: Okay cool.
A: Because referring to them as #2 and #5 when there arent other tenets...
G: Thats my favorite part about it. Ive been like intentionally doing that.
[laughter]
A: Fine.
G: I like that it implies things that arent there and you dont even know what they are. I
dont even remember what they used to be.
[laughter]
A: And re-read your monologues.
G: Okay.
A: Cause maybe, how many are there? Six? Well you call it six monologues. Six
monologues to avoid while teaching comp 2.
G: Yeah, theres definitely not six. I dont know why I put six. Sometimes I like to just
put numbers on there. I did this creative writing project in undergrad it was called The Sound of Me Talking in Five Acts. It was two. It was two acts. But I never changed the title cause I liked it.
[laughter]
74


A: Im having such a good time.
G: I have four.
A: Four?
G: Yeah.
A: Monologues. Thats pretty close.
[laughter]
Griffin: Humor is a constant way of dealing for me -1 use it to ease my anxieties about my ADHD in social contexts. At times, I find ways of embedding some of this quirk into the thesis, which I then exaggerate and perform for Amy and Is amusement. Crip humor also has an important place in disability studies, which is afield that can require overwhelmingly personal research when confronting discrimination past and present. In my conversations with Amy, this humor sometimes stems from our individual quirks and experiences, and other times, its a way of sharing our frustrations with disability writ large.
While I did/do like to have arbitrarily numbered assignments, its more accurately my way of entertaining myself during the writing process. While maybe not directly addressing disability, these moments touch on the chaotic state of my drafts, complete with seemingly random number systems, which Amy calls me on but easily accepts (even if only in the moment). Humor is not the only way we confront disability and difference but its surely the most enjoyable.
Amy: Lets be clear Griffin is a very funny person! And forme, such humor is welcome because there is sometimes too much distance between what professors/advisors know and what those new to disability studies know (or what either group thinks they know), which can foreclose playfulness and humor. When I teach disability studies, I try to invite laughter into the classroom, but it only sometimes works.
But as well as its worked for Griffin and I, I dont see that we can rely on crip humor to navigate disability access concerns in advising relationships. Conversations about access need to be regular and low stakes, which I didnt really do with Griffin (or my other advisees). Instead, I have usually mapped my previous experiences with graduate students in my classrooms onto advising
75


relationships, despite the dissimilarity of these (rhetorical) situations. Or, Ive asked about access at the very beginning, when it may feel risky for graduate students to articulate what they need. Through my work with Griffin, I can also see that I need to be clearer about my access needs as an advisor, which I never clearly articulated, except through humor.
Normative Chatter (#3)
A: I mean you could decide to organize things really weirdly too, if you want to.
G: What do you mean?
A: I dont know, like have all theory review stuff in like weird boxes or?
G: Really?
A: I figure at this point you may as well like just go for it, right?
G: Okay.
A: I mean what better...
G: I need a better program than Microsoft Word because Im already fighting Microsoft
Word all the time. Ive got to switch to something.
A: But I also dont want you to go down that rabbit hole of formatting yet.
G: I know, but I just need somewhere where I can put that stuff in...
Amy: I dont like looking at this again, because I see myself encouraging and supporting Griffin, then pulling out the rug. I encourage her to organize her thesis weirdly (my idea), then assert that I dont want her to (also my idea). Because I do this a few times in the transcript, it feels worth digging into though not defending.
Down deep, I want her to go for it, to push the bounds of rhetoric in how she formats her thesis, much as she breaks new ground with the content of her writing. But as an advisor, I worry about what happens when all the others the thesis-formatting person at the graduate school, the other members of her committee, maybe even me reject her thesis as too weird. Further, if I think that this formatting task will distract her from finishing the thesis, I worry that I am shirking my role as advisor (as motivator, time-keeper, whip-cracker). In this case, the normative chatter gets the best of me, transforming an idea she was excited about into a rabbit hole.
76


But I also pull back because I have no idea what Im suggesting, though Griffin knew exactly what I meant by weirdly and weird boxes. This is where advising in the space of disability and difference gets tricky, because I want(ed) to encourage Griffin to do what she is good at (in part because of her ADHD), while not understanding what that looks like or means (in part because of my structured nature). I want to say that I always take the risk and venture into the unknown geography shaped by our disabilities, but I dont, partly because of my own discomfort, and partly because what Im encouraging her to do is risky (shes already experienced discrimination due to her disability in our graduate program). I do wish wed talked through this issue, instead of me just shutting it down. But my bigger concern is that in this case and others, the safe road and the normative road seem to be the same, and I hate that.
Griffin: I would call what Amy does here qualifying rather than pulling out the rug. The thesis now exists because of Amys confidence in my ideas and the risks they require. Disability discrimination is quietly common but I had not been so discouraged by it until I made the decision to write this thesis and was actively discouraged by another faculty member. Still, Amys response to this moment in our conversation is somewhat darker than mine, as for me, this exchange represents the evolved state of writing support. I know that Amys knows that I am likely to hyperfocus on an idea such as the weird formatting, allowing it to consume me fully. I consider this hyperfocus to be very useful (as does Amy). It can also be very time-consuming.
The large-scale, high-stakes nature of this project have also magnified the manifestations of my ADHD and hyperactive writing habits, making me less successful at traditional, linear drafting and meeting deadlines. I have also needed to be very honest about my differently organized approach. I repeatedly agree to deadlines, and to me, the idea of striving toward a deadline makes perfect sense, though Amy wonders why I want to create deadlines I dont fully intend to meet. I have had some difficulty resolving this for her and probably never fully will. I strive for completion of our deadlines while also letting myself work where interest and creativity fall. Amy is not surprised to receive submissions that partially accomplish what was planned along with developments that were not on the itinerary.
77


Amy once asked, So is there a stage when you like... polish things? We both laughed. The answer is that there has to be, at least for almost all parts of the thesis. Amys systematic (albeit sometimes normalizing) methods make revision and polished writing possible. This is a primary area of tension for me and my ADHD, but I am comfortable discussing the practical implications of my approach and my disability.
Killing It (#4)
A: I think it would be cool to throw a section in thats not revised at all.
G: Really?
A: Yeah!
[edit]
A: That methods statement is going to be a something. But I really think part of your
methods needs to be explaining how we revise. Im not screwing with you. I dont fully know how to respond. Because I am both, you know, normal and normalizing in terms of how I write. You know what I mean?
G: I mean so ami.... Its having, this [thesis] project or this tenet is having a fun effect
on my teaching. You know, Wooh, you know, whatever your process is you go for it. I support that! [laughter] Yeah, and I know I cant do it the way youre doing it, but I love it and just go ahead and keep doing what youre doing. A couple of questions...
A: Im trying it with my class, the not having a finished project, they just have to
commit to having a certain amount done which is negotiable. Makes me very uncomfortable.
G: Yeah... I bet it does. I love it that youre doing it though. I just liked the end of your
Rhetoric and the Body course so much because well one, because you helped me develop this project but two, because rather than just having a paper and kind of being underwhelmed by it and being done with it. Well, like in [another class] I wrote a paper there havent looked at it since. Have I even read [teachers] comments on it? Nooo, because Imnever gonna go back to it because I dont care about it because I killed it with the final draft!
Griffin: As much as Amy reflects tradition in rhetoric and composition, she takes big risks as
a professor and as an advisor. It is surely clear that this is not always easy. Our advising meetings and
the thesis have explored the normative practices we both use as instructors. Amy quickly began
incorporating these ideas into her pedagogy, something I have done only casually and on smaller
assignments. I found it empowering to see my ideas implemented in her curriculum, which was
possible because of her experience and position, and is not something I couldve achieved yet.
78


I loved that she was doing this! That cant be overstated. Her experimentation with the aims of my thesis functions in several ways. I got a glimpse of what my methods look like in practical use, which I was then able to use to inform my writing. I also got a sense of accomplishment that the project might have real effects on writing instruction when its published (assuming some will have the same willingness to take risks). Amy sees her teaching style as an uneasy fit for my ideas, but the reality is that my teaching style isnt always the best fit for them either. I think most writing instructors rely heavily on the tradition of the writing process metaphor and the steps it prescribes. Disrupting this pattern is not easy for most of us.
Amy: In what seemed like a brilliant idea before and after I did it (but not along the way), I decided to try out Griffins thesis-based ideas in my own classroom (the same semester as this recorded conversation), as Griffin notes. Her thesis smartly articulates the value of in-process writing and unfinished work as more than a step toward a normative final draft, which I find both engaging and confusing. So in my senior-level argumentation class, I asked the class to work on a particular project with only suggested goals for the first two, middle two, and last three weeks of the course. More directly drawing from Griffins thesis, I did not require them to finish the project in a traditional sense. Instead, as we discussed in the first week of class, one week before the project was due, they proposed what they would finish and why.
I typically run a tight ship in terms of class deadlines and polished projects (I kill it, they kill it). But I tolerated my discomfort and regularly trumpeted how this project encouraged students to take charge of their work, begin a larger project they could finish later, and avoid the need to turn in a complete but crappy draft. And while I was pretty convinced that the whole idea was going down the tubes at the of time of our thesis meeting (with about five weeks left in the semester), in the end, Griffins ideas and enthusiasm hit the mark students were far more enthusiastic about this project than the others. In setting their own goals, students completed better quality work, and much more of it, than I ever would have asked for.
Without trying out Griffins ideas in my classroom, I dont think I would have ever fully understood her thesis concepts. I certainly wouldnt have realized how my typical, deadline-driven
79


approach must feel to some of my students (including those with ADHD), assuming it feels something like my discomfort in embracing loose deadlines and unpolished work. Whats more, talking through the uneasy fit of Griffins ideas and my teaching style disturbed the power dynamic between us. In this clip from our conversation, I say, it makes me very uncomfortable and she says, I love that youre doing in though, which, at least temporarily, reverses the typical roles assigned to us as advisor and advisee.
Concluding Chaotic Bits (orAdvis ingas Activism)
Advising with disability in mind especially around thesis writing is an activist act. Access and equity remain challenges for disabled people in higher education, including tenured faculty and graduate students who may be socialized into academic communities and function as effective selfadvocates. For even as scholars with disabilities working on a project in disability studies, we found normalizing traditions difficult to avoid, and we have found it valuable to look back at our conversation to laugh at some moments and be troubled by others. We dont pretend that our advising relationship is a model to follow, as the ways disability might impact both advising relationships and writing are as diverse as disability itself. But as weve described here, we have found articulating and challenging our own writing/advising processes, using humor, confronting normative practices beyond our advising relationship, and inhabiting complex ideas by teaching them to be advantageous when advising in disability contexts.
As we worked on this piece, we batted around the idea of productive chaos. Amy once used this term to describe Griffins writing process, and it now seems a fitting description of working with and through disability in supporting writing in advising relationships. With this particular thesis, this productive chaos involved developing a working process that was attentive to the thesis argument that traditional notions of revision and finished products are agents of normalization. For Griffin, this productive chaos was situated in the context of past experiences with academic writing, and a lifelong struggle to reconcile her ADHD and educational tradition/institutions. For Amy, such productive chaos occurred fairly far into her professional career, and in a depressive context where
80


disorganization felt threatening. In the end, productive chaos allows space for disabled bodies and perspectives, though at the same time, such chaos cannot (and arguably should not) be entirely harnessed.
Figure 12 Abstract blot painting with superimposed, surreal collage of an artichoke-like flower blooming out from the top of an antique pharmacy bottle. The bottle and flower are black, white, and gray, while the background is a mostly-unreadable, textbook-like page. Pea green, light orange and bloodish red are blotted on the background of the
page (but not the bottle and flower). ^
17 Created by Chaz Hager.
81


REFERENCES
Anson, Chris M. "Process Pedagogy andlts Legacy." A Guide to Composition Pedagogies (2nd ed.). Ed. Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper Taggart, Kurt Schick, and H. Brooke Hessler. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2014. 212-230. Print.
Anyas o, Hilary Hurd. Creative Genius Driven by Distraction: Northwestern University News.N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.
Archer, Dale. The ADHD Advantage: What You Thought Was a Diagnosis Maybe Your Greatest Strength. New York, New York: Avery, 2015. Print.
Baynton, Douglas C. Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History. In The New Disability History: American Perspectives edited by PaulK. Longmore andLauri Umansky, 33-57. New York: NYU Press, 2001.
Barber-Fendley, Kimber, and Chris Hamel. A New Visibility: An Argument for Alternative
Assistance Writing Programs for Students with Learning Disabilities. College Composition and Communication 55.3 (2004): 504-535. JSTOR. Web.
Barkley, Russell A. Behavioral Inhibition, Sustained Attention, and Executive Functions:
Constructing a Unifying Theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin 121.1 (1997): 65. tipsy cnet. apa. org. sky line, ucdenver. edu. Web.
. ADHD and the Nature of Self-Control. Guilford Press, 1997. Print.
. Tact Sheet: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Topics.
russellbarkley.org/factsheets. Adapted from Barkley & Murphys Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Clinical Workbook (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Publications.
2006.
Barkley, Russell A. and Murphy, Kevin. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Adults:
Comorbidities and Adaptive Impairments. Comprehensive Psychiatry 37.6 (1996): 393-401. Science Direct. Web.
"Become a Certified Coach." ADD Coach Academy. Web. 04 Feb. 2016. .
Berezin, Jared David. Disabled Capital: A Narrative of Attention Deficit Disorder in the Classroom Through the Lens of Bourdieus Capital. Disability Studies Quarterly 34.4(2014): n. pag. dsq-sds.org. Web. 6 Sept. 2015.
Bernstein, SusanNaomi. Service on the Beach: Hyper-Focused Lessons from Hurricane Sandy. Reflections: A Journal of Public Rhetoric, Civic Writing and Service Learning 14.1 (2015). Web. 15 Sept. 2015.
Bose, Dev K. Communication Crossroads: Assertiveness Pedagogy for College Writers with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Diss. Clemson University, 2011.
Boyle, Casey. The Rhetorical Question Concerning Glitch. Computers and Composition 35 (2015): 12-29. CrossRef. Web.
Brewer, Elizabeth, Cynthia L Selfe, and Melanie Yergeau. Creating a Culture of Access in Composition Studies. Composition Studies 42.2(2014): 151-154. Print.
Brueggemann, Brenda Jo, etal. Becoming Visible: Lessons in Disability. College Composition and Communication 52.3(2001): 368-98. Print.
. ON (ALMOST) PASSING. College English. 59.6(1997): 647. Print.
82


. Coming-Out Pedagogy: Risking Identity in Language and Literature Classrooms." Pedagogy 2.3 (2002): 311-335. Print.
Carmichael, Stephen, and Peg Alden. The Advantages of Using Electronic Processes for
Commenting on and Exchanging the Written Work of Students with Learning Disabilities And/or Ad/Hd. Composition Studies 34.2 (2006): 43-57. Print.
Caughie, Pamela L. Not Entirely Strange, Not Entirely Friendly: Passing and Pedagogy. College English 54.7 (1992): 775-793. Web.
Ceraso, Steph. Listening, Bodily Learning, and the Composition of Sonic Experiences. College English 77.2 (2014): 102-123. Print.
Christian, James M. The Body as a Site of Reproduction and Resistance: Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder and the Class room." Inlerchange 28.1 31-43. link.springer.com.
Web.
Cloninger, Curt. GltchLnguistx: The Machine in the Ghost/Static Trapped in Mouths." Gli.tc/h
Reader[ror] 20111. Eds. NickBriz, Evan Meaney, RosaMenkman, William Robertson, Jon Satrom, and Jessica Westbrook. LOCATIONS: Unsorted Books, 2011. Print.
Connor, David J. Actively Navigating the Transition into College: Narratives of Students with
Learning Disabilities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (2012): n. pag. 0-www.tandfonline.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu. Web. 8 Sept. 2015.
Corbett, Steven J. Learning Disability and Response-Ability Reciprocal Caring in Developmental Peer Response Writing Groups and Beyond. Pedagogy 15.3(2015): 459-475. Print.
Damiani, Michelle L., and Wendy S. Harbour. Being the Wizard behind the Curtain: Teaching Experiences of Graduate Teaching Assistants with Disabilities at U.S. Universities. Innovative Higher Education 40.5 (2015): 399-413. CrossRef. Web.
Danforth, Scot. The Incomplete Child: An Intellectual History of Learning Disabilities. New Y ork: Peter Lang, 2009. Print.
and Taehyung Kim. Tracing the Metaphors of ADHD: A Preliminary Analysis with Implications
for Inclusive Education. International Journal of Inclusive Education 12.1 (2008): 49-64. Print
and Virginia Navarro. HyperTalk: Sampling the Social Construction of ADHD in Everyday
Language Anthropology & Education Quarterly 32.2(2001): 167-90. Print.
and William C. Rhodes.Deconstructing Disability: A Philosophy for Inclusion. Remedial and
Special Education 18.6 (1997): 357-366. Print.
Davids, Eugene, and Markus Gastpar. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Borderline
Personality Disorder." Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry 29.6(2005): 865-877. Print.
Deleuze, Gilles, Felix Guattari, and Brian Massumi. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Print.
Diedrich, Lisa. Introduction: Genealogies of Disability. Cultural Studies 19.6(2005): 649-666. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. Web.
Dolmage, Jay. Universal Design: Places to Start. Disability Studies Quarterly 35.2(2015): n. pag. dsq-sds.org. Web. 31 Aug. 2015.
. Disability Rhetoric. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2013.
83


. Mapping Composition: Inviting Disability in the Front Door. Lewiecki-Wilson, Cynthia, and Brenda Jo Brueggemann, eds. Disability and the Teaching of Writing: A Critical Sourcebook. Boston: Bedford St. Martins Press, 2007. 14- 27. Print.
. Writing Against Normal: Navigating a Corporeal Turn. Composing(media) =
Composing(embodiment) : Bodies, Technologies, Writing, the Teaching of Writing. Eds. Kristin L. Arola and Anne Frances Wysocki. Colorado State University. Libraries, 2007. 110-126. Print.
and Lewiecki-Wilson Cynthia. "Refiguring Rhetorica: Linking Feminist Rhetoric and Disability
Studies." Rhetorica in Motion: Feminist Rhetorical Methods and Methodologies. Ed. Eileen E. Schell and K. J. Rawson. By Kate Ronald. U of Pittsburgh, 2010. 23-38. Web.
Dudley-Marling, Curt, and Patricia Paugh. Confronting the Discourse of Deficiencies. Disability Studies Quarterly 30.2(2010): n. pag. dsq-sds.org. Web. 6 Sept. 2015.
Dunn, Patricia A. Learning Re-Abled: The Learning Disability Controversy and Composition Studies. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1995. Print.
. Re-Seeing (Dis)Ability: Ten Suggestions. English Journal 100.2(2010): 14-26. Print.
. Talking, Sketching, Moving: Multiple Literacies in the Teaching of Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann: Boynton/Cook, 2001. Print.
. What Is Normal? Defining Terms and Questioning Commonplaces in Public Policy Debates. JAC 31.3/4 (2011): 736-752. Print.
Erevelles, Nirmala. Coming out Crip in Inclusive Education. Teachers College Record 113.10 (2011): 2155-2185. Print.
Ferri, Beth A. Teachers with Learning Disabilities: A View From Both Sides of the Desk. Journal ofLearning Disabilities 34.1 (2001): 22. Print.
et al. Teachers withLD Ongoing Negotiations with Discourses of Disability. Journal of
Learning Disabilities 38.1 (2005): 62-78. Print.
Gallagher, Deborah. Hiding in Plain Sight: The Nature and Role of Theory in Learning Disability
Labeling. Disability Studies Quarterly 30.2(2010): n. pag. dsq-sds.org. Web. 13 Sept. 2015.
Garland-Thorns on, Rosemarie. Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory." NWS A Journal 14.3 (2002): 1-32. Print.
"glitch, n." "glitch, v." OKI) Online. Oxford University Press, December 2015. Web. 25 February 2016.
Glitch Text Generator by stAllio! Web. 1 Mar. 2016.
.
Goosenberg Kent, Ellen. I Can tDo This But I CAN Do That: A Film for Families About Learning Difference. HBO,2011. NTSC.
Guevarra, Percival. Revising Drafts. The Writing Center at UNC-Chapel Hill. N.p., 13 Sept. 2012. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.
Hammer, Steven. Writing (Dirty) New Media/Glitch Composition. Technoculture 4 (2015). Web. http://tcjoumal.org/drupaFvol4/hammer.
. Zaum as Linguistic Glitch, Glitch as Critical Theory. stevenrhammer. 28 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
84


. Writing (Dirty) New Media: Technorhetorical Opacity, Chimeras, and Dirty Ontology. North Dakota State University, 2014. Google Scholar. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
Hawk, Byron. A Counter-History of Composition: TowardMethodologies of Complexity. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2007. Print.
Huijun Li, and Christine M. Hamel. Writing Issues in College Students with Learning Disabilities: A Synthesis of the Literature from 1900 to 2000. Learning Disability Quarterly 26.1 (2003):
29. Print.
Harel, Alma. Sigur Ros -Fjogur Piano. 2012. Film Valtari Mystery Film Experiment.
Johnston, Daniel. Like a Monkey in a Zoo 1981. mp3. Songs of Pain.
Jung, Julie. Textual Mainstreaming and Rhetorics of Accommodation. Rhetoric Review 26.2 (2007): 160-178. CrossRef. Web.
Kamenetz, Anya. Were Thinking About ADHD All Wrong, Says A Top Pediatrician. nprED (2016): Web. 13 Jan. 2016.
Kaufman, Scott Barry. ADHD Brains Are the Most Creative: Why Do We Treat It Like a Disability? AlterNet 5 Nov. 2014. AlterNet. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.
. Why Daydreamers Are More Creative. Psychology Today (2011). Web. 27 Oct. 2015.
Kerschbaum, Stephanie L. On Rhetorical Agency and Disclosing Disability in Academic Writing. Rhetoric Review 33.1 (2014): 55-71. Print.
.Avoiding the Difference Fixation: Identity Categories, Markers of Difference, and the Teaching of Writing. College Composition and Communication 63.4(2012): 616-644. Print.
Kerschbaum, Stephanie L., Rosemarie Garland Thomson, Sushil K. Oswal, Amy Vidali, Susan
Ghiaciuc, Margaret Price, Jay Dolmage, Craig A. Meyer, Brenda Brueggemann, and Ellen Samuels. Faculty Members, Accommodation, and Access inHigher Education. Profession. New York: MLA, 2013. Print.
Lindblom, Kenneth, and Patricia A. Dunn. The Roles of Rhetoric in Constructions and Reconstructions of Disability. Rhetoric Review 22.2 (2003): 167-174. Print.
Linton, Simi. Claiming Disability Knowledge and Identity. New York: New York University Press, 1998. Open WorldCat. Web. 30 Aug. 2015.
Luna, Catherine. Learning from Diverse Learners: (Re)Writing Academic Literacies and Learning Disabilities in College. Journal ofAdolescent & Adult Literacy 45.7 (2002): 596-605. Print.
Manon, Hugh S., and Daniel Temkin. Notes on Glitch. world picture 6 (2011): 118. Print.
Mason, Stacey. Glitched Lit: Possibilities for Databending Literature. Proceedings of the 2nd
Workshop on Narrative and Hypertext. ACM, 2012. 41-44. Google Scholar. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
Matsuda, Paul Kei. Process and Post-Process: A Discursive History. Journal of Second Language Writing 12.1 (2003): 65-83. ScienceDirect. Web.
McLuhan, Marshall, Quentin Fiore, and Jerome Agel. The Medium Is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1971. Print.
Menkman, Rosa. Glitch Studies Manifesto. Video vortex reader II: Moving images beyond YouTube (2011): 336-347. Print.
. The Glitch Moment(um). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, 2011. Print.
85


"Mission and History." CHADD. Web. 04 Feb. 2016. .
Pera,Gina. Dr. Russell Barkley on ADHD and CreativityADHD Roller Coaster with Gina Pern. 16 Nov. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.
Pender, Kelly. Writing beyond the Art /chance Binary: The Ongoing Debate about Techne. Purdue Web. 17 Feb. 2016.
Postman, Neil, and Charles Weingartner. Teaching as a Subversive Activity. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969. Print.
Price, Margaret. Mad at School Rhetorics of Mental Disability and Academic Life. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2011. Print.
. Writing from Normal: Critical Thinking and Disability in the College C lass room." Disability and the Teaching of Writing: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds. Brenda Jo Brueggemann and Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson, with Jay Dolmage. Bedford/St. Martin, 2007. Print.
. Getting Specific about Disability Studies Methodology: Negotiating Reciprocity, Vulnerability and Validity (and a bunch of other stuff). Society for Disability Studies. Orlando, FL. June 27, 2013.
Pumphrey, Jean. Teaching English Composition as a Creative Art. College English 34.5 (1973): 666-673. JSTOR. Web.
Reid, Alex. Composing Objects: Prospects for a Digital Rhetoric Presentation at the annual Computers and Writing Conference, Raleigh, NC, December 6-9, 2012.
Rogers, Carl R. On Becoming a Person: A Therapists View of Psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961. Print.
Samuels, Ellen Jean. My Body, My Closet: Invisible Disability and the Limits of Coming-Out Discourse. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 9.1 (2003): 233-255. Print.
Schwarz, Alan. The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder. The New York Times 14 Dec. 2013. NYTimes.com. Web. 9 June 2016.
Selfe, Cynthia L., and Richard J. Selfe. The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in
Electronic Contact Zones. College Composition and Communication 45.4 (1994): 480-504. JSTOR. Web.
Shaughnessy, Mina P. Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Print.
Shellenbarger, Sue. The Creative Energy Behind ADHD. Wall Street Journal 17 Apr. 2008. Wall Street Journal. Web. 29 Jan. 2016.
Sire, Geoffrey Michael. English Composition as a Happening. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2002. Print.
Sleeter, Christine. Why Is There Learning Disabilities? A Critical Analysis of the Birth of the Field in Its Social Context. Disability Studies Quarterly 30.2 (2010): n. pag. dsq-sds.org. Web. 8 Sept. 2015.
Taylor, Blake E. S .ADHD&Me: What I Learned from Lighting Fires at the Dinner Table. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, 2007. Print.
TEDx Talks. ADHD As A Difference In Cognition, Not A Disorder. Stephen Tonti. TEDxCMU. 2013. Film
86


. Living with ADHD in the Age of Information and Social Media: Theo Siggelakis. TEDxQuinnipiacU. 2014. Film
. Not Wrong, Just Different: ADHD as Innovators: Rebecca Hession. TEDxFortWayne. 2014.
Film.
Tobin, Lad, and Thomas Newkirk. Taking Stock: The Writing Process Movement in the 90s. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1994. Print.
Trimbur, John. Take the Social Turn: Teaching Writing Post-Process." College Composition and Communication 45 (1994): 108-11.
Turis, Stacey. Heres to Not Catching Our Hair on Fire: An Absent-Minded Tale of Life with
Giftedness & Attention Deficit: Oh Look! A Chicken! lsted. Plano, Tex.: Bohemian Avenue Press, 2011. Print.
Ulmer, Gregory L. Applied Grammatology: Post(e)-Pedagogyfrom Jacques Derrida to Joseph Beuys. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985. Print.
Valle, JanW. etal. The Disability Closet: Teachers with Learning Disabilities Evaluate the Risks and Benefits of Coming Out. Equity & Excellence in Education 37.1 (2004): 4-17. CrossRef. Web.
Vidali, Amy. Disabling Writing Program Administration. WPA: Writing Program Administration 38.2 (2015): 32-55. Print.
. Discourses of Disability and Basic Writing. Disability and the Teaching of Writing: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds. Brenda Jo Brueggemann and Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson, with Jay Dolmage. Bedford/St. Martin, 2007. 40-55. Print.
. Rhetorical Hiccups: Disability Disclosure in Letters of Recommendation. Rhetoric Review 28.2 (2009): 185-204. Print.
. Texts of Our Institutional Lives: Performing the Rhetorical Freak Show-Disability, Student Writing, and College Admissions. College English 69.6, 2007. 615-641. Print.
Walters, Shannon. Toward an Accessible Pedagogy: Dis/ability, Multimodality, and Universal
Design in the Technical Communication Classroom Technical Communication Quarterly 19.4(2010): 427-454. CrossRef. Web.
White, Linda Feldmeier. Learning Disability, Pedagogies, and Public Discourse. College Composition and Communication 53.4,2002. 705-38. Print.
Wilson, James C, and Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson. Embodied Rhetorics: Disability in Language and Culture. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2001. Print.
Wood, Tara. Overcoming Rhetoric: Forced Disclosure and the Colonizing Ethic of Evaluating Personal Essays. Open Words: Access and English Studies 5(2011): 38-52. Print.
Y ergeau, Melanie. Disabling Composition toward a 21st-Century, Synaesthetic Theory of Writing. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 2011. Print.
, Elizabeth Brewer, Stephanie Kerschbaum, Sushil Oswal, Margaret Price, Cynthia Selfe, Michael Salvo, and Franny Howes. Multimodality in Motion: Disability andKairotic Spaces. Kairos. 18.1. (2013): Web. 1 January 2016.
87


APPEND jX
Mad Resources for Access
Disability Rhetoric Site (disabling writing, in a good way) https://disabilityrhetoric.com
Adding and editing captions / subtitles. (2012). YouTube Help. Retrieved from http ://support. google. com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=100077
Automatic captions in YouTube. (2009). Google official blog. Retrieved July 26, 2013, from http://googleblog.blogspot.no/2009/ll/automatic-captions-in-youtube.html
Benetech's DIAGRAM center: http://diagramcenter.org/making-images-accessible.html
RhettandLink. (2011). Christmas carol caption fail [Video file], Youtube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY0F31G-i9Y&ob=av3e
Tedtalk on disability:
http://www.ted.com/talks/stella_young_i_m_not_your_inspiration_thank_you_very_much
University of Hawaii/Manoa. (2003). A model for accessibility. Center on disability studies. Retrieved from http://www.cds.hawaii.edu/products/model-accessibility
United Nations. (n.d.). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved July 30, 2013, from
http://www. ohchr. org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/P ages/ConventionRightsP ersonsWithDisabilities. aspx
WebAIM is a fantastic resource (and mailing list) for all things web accessibility. http://webaim org/techniques/alttext/
Other good starting places for image description: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/; https:// www. w3. org/2000/08/nba-manual/O verview. html
WebContent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG1.0) (1999). Retrieved on September 15, 2011, from http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505
WebContent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG2.0) (2008). Retrieved on February 5, 2012, from http://www.w3. org/TR/WCAG20/
XDD Y
88


Full Text

PAGE 1

HYPER COMP : CRAFTING A HYPERAC TIVE RHETORIC THROUG H DISABILITY AND GLITC H THEORY by GR IFFIN DENAY KEEDY B.A., University of Texas, 2009 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of the Arts English Program 2016

PAGE 2

ii 2016 GRIFFIN DENAY K EEDY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PAGE 3

iii The Thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Gri ffin Denay Keedy has been approved for the English Program by Amy Vidali, Chair Michelle Comstock John Tinnell Date: July 30 2016

PAGE 4

iv Keedy, Grif fin Denay (M.A. English, Rhetoric and the Teaching of Writing) Hypercomp: Crafting A Hyperactive Rhetoric Through Disability and Glitch Theory Thesis directed by Asso ciate Professor Amy Vidali A BSTR A CT D isability perspectives and disability studies are shifting how we compose, design, consume, and interact. Yet despite increased aw areness, presence, and access, we are too infrequently questioning the politics, subjectivities, and limitations of writing practices. Instead, many institutions and purveyors of textual culture approach rhetoric and compo sition processes uncritically. This thesis, following scholarship in disability studies, seeks ways of creating and utilizing a hyperactive rhetoric or hyperactive rhetorical approach that challenges normalizing writing practices. I argue that, by followin g a rhetoric suggested by ADHD perspectives and traits, we might approach writing (and teaching writing) with the intention of complicating, destandardizing, misusing, and revealing, to ourselves and to audiences, the power of (dis)abilities. In combinati on with these disability studies practices and philosophies, I draw from glitch theory, deconstructionism, and new technological capabilities to argue that we, as new media writers and writers with disabilities, never simply compose and consume in the univ ersal manner tradition leads us to believe. I argue not only for a model of creating and consuming media (textual or otherwise) that resists normalizing conceptions of revision, polished (finished) writing, coherence, and linearity, but also one that embra ces irregularities and glitches as essential, inherent features. Finally, I provide examples of how to perform these models and practices, which I call glitch writing and hyperactive teaching. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Amy Vidali

PAGE 5

v DEDICA TION For Pete, who showed me that the raddest most wor thwhile of people and things are the freaky, irreverent, odd, cheeky and often overlooked.

PAGE 6

vi ACKNOWLEDGEME NTS Heaps of thanks and love to: my first mentor, an endlessly patient collaborator and the reason I undertook a thesis, Amy Vidali; kindred spirits and sources of endless support, The Leopards; Chaz, my favorite; rad scholars and fierce movers of the DS movement, Stephanie Kershbaum, Cynthia Lewiecki Wilson, Margaret Price, Jay Dolmage, B renda Jo Brueggema n n, et al.; a powerful and beautiful w oman to reckon with, my mum ; and rowdy beautiful Kendall Elizabeth Young blood.

PAGE 7

vii T ABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCING ................................ ................................ ...................... 1 II MONSTER SUIT ................................ ................................ ..................... 3 Constructing Disability Constructing ADHD ................................ ............ 3 ADHD as Invisible Disability ................................ ................................ .... 8 ADHD In Popular Discourse ................................ ................................ ... 11 Overcoming/Comorbidity ................................ ................................ ........ 14 Pedagogy, Learning, Teaching, Universal Design and Multimodality ......... 17 Writing Pedagogy ................................ ................................ .......... 18 Learning ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Teaching with Disability ................................ ................................ 23 Universal Design (UD) and the Role of Multimodality ..................... 25 Concluding Review Bits ................................ ................................ .......... 28 III 9000 FEET ................................ ................................ ............................. 30 Disability Studies Methodology ................................ ............................... 30 Reflexive Methodology ................................ ................................ ........... 32 Moving Toward an ADHD Methodology ................................ ................. 33 IV GLITCH MONKEY ................................ ................................ ............... 35 Celebrate the Spontaneous & Seditious ................................ .................... 36 Traditions of Writing as Process ................................ .............................. 37 Glitch Roots ................................ ................................ ........................... 40 Glitch Meets Rhetoric & Composition ................................ ..................... 41 Glitch Writing ................................ ................................ ........................ 42 Un Finished Writing through Glitch ................................ ......................... 46

PAGE 8

viii Revision as Normalizing Agent ................................ ............................... 49 Interrupting Ableism Through Glitch ................................ ....................... 50 Some Specific Manifestations of Glitch Writing ................................ ....... 53 Nonlinearity/Recombinatory Texts ................................ ................. 53 The Side Pool ................................ ................................ ................ 55 Screencasts ................................ ................................ .................... 57 Spasmodic Writing/Rhetoric ................................ ........................... 58 Collaborative Authorship ................................ ............................... 59 Concluding Glitch Bits ................................ ................................ ............ 61 V COTTON CANDY ................................ ................................ ................. 63 Teaching as a Subversive Act ................................ ................................ .. 64 The Hyperactive Teacher ................................ ................................ ........ 66 Grievances ................................ ................................ ............................. 68 Concluding Hyper Bits ................................ ................................ ........... 69 VI AR BITRARY NUMBERS (WIT H AMY VIDALI) ................................ .. 70 Our Collaborative Introduction ................................ ................................ 70 Spasmodic Business (#1) ................................ ................................ ......... 71 Humor Me (#2) ................................ ................................ ...................... 74 Normative Chatter (#3) ................................ ................................ ........... 76 Killing It (#4) ................................ ................................ ......................... 78 Concluding Chaotic Bits ................................ ................................ ......... 80

PAGE 9

ix REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 82 APPENDIX ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 88

PAGE 10

x L IST OF FIGURE S FIGURE 1 This advertisement used by Shire Pharmaceuticals in 2009 suggests ADHD be of ugliness, embodies an ideal. ................................ ................................ ................. 5 2 Illustration from the Thousand Plateaus Drawing Series for paragraph 19b by Marc Ngui. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 44 3 Text, glitched text, repetition, and allusion as used in The Medium is the Massage by Marshall McLuhan (23). ................................ ................................ .. 45 4 from the 1981 album Songs of Pain by Daniel Johnston. While not directly related either its authenticity or your enjoyment/in terest in it, or both. Clip can also be accessed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0sp_ZDnK3R5MndPZGFpbmJsaE0/view?usp=s haring ................................ ................................ ................................ 47 5 ip from Songs of Pain by Daniel Johnston; 1981. accessed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0 B0sp_ZDnK3R5OE9TQS1wTm9CWDQ/view?us p=sharing ................................ ................................ ............................ 48 6 A non digitally composed recombinatory text created on two pages of an antique textbook (original text illegible here). Background of the new piece is simple, thatched ink (top half blue/bottom half pea green with a jagged line separating the colors and also alluding to a mountain line on the horizon). Foreground of the new image is collage, here the Roman coliseum ( photo) with an astronaut on a moonwalk (illustration black and white) standing atop; the two icons in surreal relative sizes (astronaut is to coliseum as Griffin is to coffee table). ........ 55 7 Example of my own use of the side pool from this chapter in early April 2016. A black and white screen shot showing a box of semi related ideas like glitched sub headers created experimentally by me, a rejected McLuhan page selection (pg. 29), the lyrics so politically correct titles list of source quotes that seemed relevant at some time (all may or may not have made it throug h to the chapter as it exists here). ............................. 56 8 Largely anecdotal but this image is a still from a screencast I made showing the process of glitching a short piece of te xt (in this case a chapter title for this thesis). In addition to showing my hesitations, distractions, and habits through the movement of the cursor, the screencast also reveals information like the time, the component sizes, etc.). .... 58

PAGE 11

xi 9 Black and white and mad basic sharks done in pencil. These sharks are meant to work as a metaphor for the components of writing I am discussing herein to show how these approaches, while subversive, can still feel like fighting a shark and I choose the approach to engage at a given moment similarly to how I might choose which color/type of shark I want to fight first. ................................ ....... 59 11 bathrobe + pr olonged eye contact). ................................ ....................... 60 12 Abstract blot painting with superimposed, surreal collage of an artichoke like flower blooming out from the top of an antique pharmacy bottle. The bottle and flower are black, white, and gray, while the background is a mostly unreadable, textbook like page. Mustard yellow and bloodish red are splattered on the page (but not the bottle and flower). ................................ .............................. 81

PAGE 12

1 CH PTER I C NG Learners who are not completely comfortable (or successful) in traditional modes and environments of public education experience misunderstandings and sometimes exclusion. The admittedly ceaseless clicks of my ball point pen led to a segregated desk facing away from where eventual diagnosis of attention hyperactive deficit disorder (ADHD) provided an explanation, but the resulting improvements in my student performan ce were largely due to my meta awareness as a learner and the still evolving ways I embrace and critique my preferred methods of learning/writing. I mome nt that the diagnosis might mean new opportunities for multimodality in the classroom and maybe even increased flexibility in assignment expectations. My real issues as a learner and writer (and now teacher) lie in the literacy practices and expectations o f the classroom. I find the definitions of learning and teaching writing and demonstrations of that learning extremely narrow. The notion of ADHD is created, recreated, diffused, and complicated through representation and rhetorical construction. And so, to truly consider ADHD is to consider not a set of symptoms or some diagnostic criteria but an idea. The idea of ADHD, and learning disability (LD) in general, is powerful and inextricably linked to cultural norms and values to ideology and language. Unl ike DSM V definitions, 1 which are crafted diplomatically, discreetly, and even arbitrarily, rhetorical definitions and constructions of ADHD are messy and contradictory. These messy contradictions are at odds with over simplified policies and practices of academia. The importance of this thesis lies in its challenge of writing practices that normalize writing and writers. Such practices include standardization, timed writing, formulaic and linear writing 1 The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM ) offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. For more information, visit: http://dsm5 reform.com

PAGE 13

2 processes, revision requirements, and more. To realiz e these goals, I use existing scholarship and my personal experience to explore the restrictive, limiting nature of composition pedagogies (from both sides of the desk). Further, I use my frustration and my ADHD/LD to generatively suggest new practices and embrace the many opportunities disability provides to complicate and expand composition pedagogy. This thesis is organized into five chapters. Chapter II reviews scholarship in rhetoric and composition, disability, and ADHD to extend understandings of ho w LD is rhetorically/socially constructed and why. I also explore constructions of ADHD in popular sources. Chapter III specifies the methodologies informing this project. I question coherence, predictability, and linearity as essential pillars of academic writing, including this thesis, by offering a reflexive, disability studies methodology. In Chapter IV, my first analytical chapter, I question the metaphor of the traditional step based writing process through a suggested pairing of two concepts: glitch and disability. I develop a hyperactive rhetorical approach through glitch writing which emphasizes the power of breaking patterns and embracing mistakes. In Chapter V, I explore the notion of the Hyperactive (Writing) Teacher in terms of subversive teachi ng methods and the social/collaborative nature of creative expression. This chapter draws on the idea of teaching as a subversive act. Finally, Chapter VI, my concluding chapter, takes a reflective stance on this project, and is a collaborative piece by Am y Vidali and I that provides a metanarrative on the creation of this thesis and speaks to the role of disability in graduate writing and advising. This addition to the project further reveals my own approach to academic demands and my style of writing.

PAGE 14

3 CH PTER II M O N S T E R S U I T [The] realization that minds are best understood in terms of variety and difference rather than deviations from an imagined norm, is aligned with a theoretical and activist stance called disability studies (DS). According to DS scholars and activists, disability is popularly that disability is a mode of human difference, one that becomes a problem only when the environment or context treats it as such. (Price, Mad 17) In this thesis, I rely most heavily on scholarship in the field of disability studies (DS), a field particularly concerned with rhetorical constructs and resulting ideological impacts. DS employs rhetoric to better negotiate the ways that discourses repres ent and impact the real experience of disability. In this chapter, the works I consider complicate categorical ideas of LD and ADHD and how individual identities intersect with broader categories. While I can convey my own ADHD experience and perhaps those of several others close to me to show how we each embody different kinds of ADHD and develop differences in our ADHD perspectives, this would only be part of the story. Disability identity must be understood through both these individual embodiments and t hrough its practical communicative acts/contexts. In other words, I find consideration of both the individual lived experiences (my own and otherwise) and the conceptualized experiences culturally communicated essential to the conversation this thesis init iates. C ONSTRUCTING D ISABILITY C ONSTRUCTING ADHD In Embodied Rhetorics James Wilson and Cynthia Lewiecki Wilson explain, "The goals of disability studies cannot be achieved without rhetoric" and conversely, that "disability studies contributes to an u here and at the heart of disability studies in rhetoric and composition is that disability is rhetorical and shapes ideology. A disability perspective may produce a non norma tive history of rhetoric (Dolmage body image of rhetoric, an image we have chosen from our (Western, Greco Roman) versions of s area of research looks at disability constructs in their current usages and

PAGE 15

4 their origins/evolution. Understanding how disability is rhetorically constructed is key to my project because these constructions perpetuate unquestioned traditions in writing p ractices and pedagogy. traditional means of justifying inequality in universities through ideological and rhetorical constructions of disability In academia, inequality is validated by standardized assessments and by assigning individual blame. Dolmage asserts three basic patterns of societal response to disability as that implies students with disabilities are taking unfair advantage, and a rhetoric of charity in which (22) Deborah Disability Studies Quarterly This rhetorical and ideological adapt solely with the individual (also s ee Jung; Dudley Marling/Paugh). Institutions maintain control of the levels of conformity and the criteria for demonstrating knowledge, leaving little room for individuality. This research is important to consider because it is reflected in the normalizing idea of writing as universal and process. The work in this area is v aried and variously frustrating; however, I do think ADHD rhetorics also represent an opportunity for thoughtful, generative use. The work in this section specifically sets the foundation for a hyperactive rhetoric, which is ultimately concerned with ADHD constructions and metaphors not only in academic discourse but in discourses more common/familiar outside DS,

PAGE 16

5 including medical and popular discourse. My aim here is of course to examine the rhetorics of ADHD presented in field specific sources, but it is also to take a careful look at those at cultural pieces such as the pharmaceutical advertisement show in figure 1. Figure 1: This a dvertisement used by Shire Pharmaceuticals in 2009 suggests ADHD be understood as a sort of and under this exterior layer of ugliness, that embodies an ideal. An academic subset of scholarship in disability and rhetoric focuses on how notions of ADHD form, evolve, circulate, and sustain. The area of scholarship concerned with these metaphorical and rhetorical constructions of ADHD includes works by Scot Danforth, two of his co authors Virginia Navarro and Taehyung Kim, as well as James Christian and Jared Berezin. These scholars are of par ticular relevance as they locate some of the most central issues of ADHD in higher education inviting the additional steps I will take later. While scholarship in disability studies is changing the nature of ADHD rhetorics in the academic arena, there co ntinues to be a wide continuum of work. I want to linger on the work of Scot Danforth because of his sustained, specific focus on

PAGE 17

6 Talk: Sampling the Social Construction of ADHD in Everyday Scot Danforth and Virginia Navarro create a way to empirically chart how harmful tropes in ADHD construction are established and maintained by analyzing discourse samples ranging from f amilial exchanges to media broadcasts. By analyzing the language events collected, they identify two DSM IV rhetoric and deficit struction sites and based on notions of school meritocracy) 2 Medical discourse of ADHD is most dominant. The symptoms historically and currently listed in the DSM are broadly and loosely appropriated for everyday use, leaving the prerequisite details of a n ADHD diagnosis out (177). In opposition to medical constructs, Danforth and Navarro establish the prevalence of language associated with moral accountability, which or as a way of gaining unfair advantage through accommodation. These discourses reveal the traditions of education systems that prioritize and reward conformity and competition (179). They conclude that er attentive to the possibility that a discourse 4; 169). The Incomplete Child: An Intellectual History of Learning Disabilities is well known in the field o f disability studies in e ducation (DSE) and gives the "history of ideas...that produced the symbolic complex that we now know as learning disability" (23). Danforth argues that attempts to define LD has lasting consequences for those diagnosed and those wh o are not, because was the learning disability. Plucked from the dead end of misdiagnosed mental deficiency, the learning disabled child could grow and a While this comprehensive work reveals much 2 author Taehyung Kim use the collective works of Dr. Russell Barkley, a founding voice of ADHD discourse from social science, to locate two professionals and/or medications as the heroes) (52 57). The assumption behind these two primary metaphors seem s evolving in daily culture (62). It is easy to see these conceptions echoed in current ADHD rhetorics and consistently denies diversity of individuals and experiences.

PAGE 18

7 about the evolution of the LD concept, what I find most compelling is what Danforth terms became the goal of defining learning disability (as Danforth explores through ork and role in this during the 1960s), there are always those who will not qualify for the systems of standardized testing and their high stakes. Thus, to separate assessments of functioning from a contextual position by looking at how the individual is expected to perform. Danforth poses and encourages his readers and the field in general to model this strategic positioning because he feels the long term pedagogical goals of DS depend on it. The larger problem Danforth acknowledges is the unreasonable and inflexible standards for behavior and literacy, which put pressures on those with ADHD that lead to self doub t, diminished self esteem, and perceived failures. This is an important take away from ADHD construct research in general; one that takes priority in pieces by James Christian and Jared David Berezin. In the 1997 ADHD and the practices associated with it are better understood as a way in which schools reproduce part of the transference and monitoring of hegemonic dispositions preferred capital relates to knowledge, relationships, desires and intentions to perform dominance and normality s concept is picked up in Jared helps us understand ADHD as personal and at odds with fundamental academic expectations. This piece uses personal experience, specifically his segregation from classmates when a primary school teacher moved him to a large desk facing not the front but the rows of other students (as happened to unable to successfully perform the cultural and social capital already in Therefore, capital is compromised when located within the disabled individual who possesses d ominant forms of capital can be coerced through verbal and

PAGE 19

8 behavioral social cues to segregate from and define himself in relation to the dominant able bodied environme nt create a place where people with ADHD cannot easily succeed. Berezin joins the continues to heavily affect and shape the identities of individuals with ADHD and the collective ADHD identity. T his research necessarily complicates notions of ADHD and its discourses; the meaning of ADHD changes as it intersects with various social and institutional contexts. This part of the scholarship shows the difficult rheto rical terrain negotiated by people with ADHD. The subsequent notions of LD and ADHD suggested by them influence the identities of those with LD and ADHD in a very real way. ADHD AS I NVISIBLE D ISABILITY ADHD is an invisible disability and one often framed b y common misperceptions that make choice to disclose or not disclose any disability is complicated by questions of empowerment by which I mean that cl aiming disability can mean redefining oneself with positive recognition and embracing community and thereby a larger process of rejecting the brutality of normal. Invisibility is an important consideration for me because of the constantly shifting, contest ed definitions of ADHD as a disability and the general social scrutiny that rejects identity without "proof" something Ellen called into question and so there is te nsion between the appearance and identity of those with ADHD. This tension is a powerful part of the ADHD experience. In characterizing invisibility, Samuels points result of a convergence of complicated cultural discourses regarding independence, fraud, malingering, and entitlement; the form it takes almost always involves a perceived discontinuity

PAGE 20

9 DS res that option, temptation even, is ever can translate into denial, insecurity, and a lack of self advocacy. Important to this research is the idea that harmful constructions can actually exist in both rhetorical acts of disclosure or claiming and those of concerns these two senses i.e. on either side of a decision to disclose and includes primarily important work by Brenda Jo Brueggemann (with various co authors). Also of relevance here is work by Simi Linton, David Connor, Stephanie Kerschbaum, and Ta ra Wood that attends to empowering and/or impairing potentials in such acts. It's relevant to think of these issues in an ADHD context because ADHD traits, experiences, and perspectives can inform the writing process and challenge traditional notions in th e university but not when ADHD rhetorics and perspectives are silenced by others or by those with ADHD. while not focused on ADHD, is relevant because it provides i nsightful analysis of some core concepts necessary to keep particularly common in ADHD rhetorics) and recognize that an accurate understanding of learning disabilities is essential to highlighting and utilizing writing abilities for those with LD. These are the abilities traditionally dismissed or overlooked (374). Brueggemann explains through example that, accounts of the way impairments The complicated rhetorical nature of invisible disabilities is further explored by Connor who is specifically interested in the power dynamics reflected in LD research. In a study concerned with student transitions into college initiated actions is a critical gap in the literature because its absence reinforces traditional notions of students with LD being passive, waiting for o r being directed toward

PAGE 21

10 Attempts to improve the rhetoric s of ADHD and LD (non)disclosure often start with (or slip into) deficit discourses. Strategic rhetorical positioning and DS scholarship helps shift viewpoints toward a more accurate and supportive place a place capable of understanding ADHD and LD from a strengths based approach. A common move in DS, the attempt is to shift focus from contextual and also, especially concerning LD and ADHD Stephanie Kerschbaum suggests that claiming disability identity is a rhetorical act where the person disclosing makes an argument about herself. Her research focuses on acts of claiming disability, or coming closures function kairotically as individuals face the moment of writing disclosure, and pieces composed at the circumstances surrounding the genesis of that text. Thus, over time, authors may differently constructing a critica lly conscious classroom environment. Not only do teachers need to be crucially aware of the ethical issues surrounding evaluating personal writing that discloses identity articular Texts of Our Institutional Lives: Performing the Rhetorical Freak Show -Disability, Student Writing, and College Admissions focuses on college admissions essays and other student writing in genre s that explicitly or implicitly encourage disclosure of their disabilities. The article is powerful because it ultimately reveals that there remains negati of awareness regarding performances of disability identity and acts disability (non)disclosure is essential to foster empowerment.

PAGE 22

11 ADHD I N P OPULAR D ISCOURSE Having established the nature of ADHD and LD as socially constructed in academic discourses, the more familiar and resonating version of ADHD exists in mainstream, popular discourses. The pervasiveness here is far reaching. Despite common assumptions that learning disabilities have a neurological basis, there are no physiological tests to diagnose learning disabilities (White; Barkley). Historically, definitions of LD and ADHD change frequently while diagnostic procedures remain largely exclusionary and mis diagnoses fairly common (White 5 8). Put simply, diagnosing ADHD and most LDs is very problematic so much so that the medical profession by and complicating not styles. However, these popular discourses ultimately use positivity to conceal or re purpose some deficit based models in the ADHD tradition I find it interesting (and super awkward) that LD and especially ADHD seem to the general public to be fairly concrete concepts, and this assumption reveals itself in three primary patterns that I interrogate in this section. First I examine positivity bas Archer, Bernstein, and Kaufman, as well as mainstream TED Talks that use newer positivity based discourses and constructs. Second, I attend to texts concerned with risks and comorbidities that rely on (someti mes questionable) statistical evidence that create fear and internalized hopelessness. And finally, I engage the concept and function of overcoming as it relates to ADHD in an HBO documentary, and the ethos of organizations like ADDCA and CHADD, which are problematic because they create new ways of reaffirming old oppression. Attempts to flip the discourse of ADHD are well intentioned but often problematic in new ways that are less evident. While I do think ADHD has value and offers certain aptitudes, my co ncern here is that these attempts to flip the discourse actually create or perpetuate newly and/or traditionally problematic rhetorical constructions. Such positivity driven discussions of ADHD use successful, iconic individuals with ADHD to celebrate the traits (hyperactivity, hyperfocus, etc.) that contributed

PAGE 23

12 to that success. Some even argue that these individuals are successful not in spite of their ADHD but because of it. The ADHD as advantage texts include personality ty and adventurousness, bold risks taking, and unusual resilience (see Archer, Christakis, and Anyaso). Other ADHD based advantages engaged by these texts include metacognition/self awareness hyperfocus. Scientific researchers, writing for public audiences in the form of op eds, blogs, and brief online articles, are often vocal about the link between ADHD and creativity. 3 While ADHD clinical and scientific researchers largely write only to pu blish and analyze study findings, the scientist authors I am referring to here are far more controversial and haphazard with evidence, and their online presence can be huge. One article is often posted on two or more sites (sometimes with different titles) and the se type pieces often garner social media attention. Scott Barry on creativity and ADHD has received a great deal of attention largely because he takes a radical stance on the need to redefine intelligence to include the value of spon taneous thought (daydreaming, Scientific American and Alternet websites supported the notion that people with ADHD characteristics are more likely to reach higher levels of re search but I quickly noticed that the studies were cursorily related to ADHD or overstated. I find have the most far reaching impacts. Coming from a founding a nd influential ADHD researcher in the social sciences, Russell A. individuals, but let us not romanticize them as arising from a serious neurodevelopmental disorder 3 Disability Studies Quarterly

PAGE 24

13 creativity, variously measured, as does the g ). The word romanticize is well chosen here. The simplistic opinions expressed by Kaufman area of popular discour se (also see Shellenbarger example from The WSJ ). The unfortunate effect of romanticism. All of these artifacts are very much in the public domain, directly shaping identities and influencing popular notions of ADHD. The popular audiences and distribution of the works here certainly influence the rhetoric, and characterize the ADHD discourses in play. TED Talks and memoirs function almost as self help sources, especially for the recently diagnosed and parents of ADHD kids. I find TED Talks to be an interesting medium to add to discussions of ADHD for two primary reasons. The first is that the TED stage is aimed at such a stands for technology, entertainment, and design. The distribution of a particular TED Talk is dependent on the popularity of the topic and ADHD is a popu lar topic. Partly due to audience and distribution, these lectures are general overviews and tend to be critical but with an overall or concluding message of hope. Despite the topic, the emphasis is on the hopeful future possibilities of X and ADHD is no e TED Talk pattern. Tonti is super critical of how ADHD is met by society specifically Tonti discusses the standardized testing and teaching methods in public education, over medicating of children too young to take the side effects, and the dismal statistics about the successes of people with ADHD because he also maintains the optimistic, positivistic message of hope. ADHD topic speakers on the TED stage emphasize ideas like the metacognition those with ADHD gain about (see also Hession, Siggelakis). The important take away from TED stage discourses of ADHD is that with some s ocietal shifts in thinking and thereby in education institution policies, some elements of

PAGE 25

14 ADHD are then reconstructed rhetorically as potential sources of strength, success, etc. And beyond this rhetorical shift, the result is more importantly development of the capabilities (in addition to the language) to recognize the qualities and the lived experience of ADHD. TED Talks are not unlike memoirs in that the TED speakers rely on personal experience (or experiences with/of those closest to them see Hessio n). ADHD memoirists use similar positivistic unfortunately tends to rely on long traditions of deficit models of ADHD and common stereotypes (see Taylor). Stacey Turis, t he self Catching Our Hair on Fire: An Absent Minded Tale of Life with Giftedness & Attention Deficit : Oh Look! A Chicken! The same is true of many popular ADHD memoirs easily found with an Am azon.com search; for example, Blake ADHD & Me: What I Learned from Lighting Fires at the Dinner Table The popular ADHD memoir and its discourses, like those of the TED Talk stage, subvert some traditional understandings of ADHD, as t he personal experiences and stories of success complicate stereotypes productively and use humor to help de stigmatize. The texts are valuable, especially to those establishing their own ADHD identity. For me, it is difficult to reconcile. It is hard, as s omeone with ADHD, not to welcome the new positivity and the empowerment, confidence, and strength of spirit it implies about those of us with it. And yet, I have to wonder if these positivistic discourses are just creating a new package, a new method of di spersal, for old notions of ADHD as a prison, a limitation, a source of end earing personality traits, etc. O VERCOMING /C OMORBIDITY In various forms, ADHD and its increasing diagnosis rates is blamed on things such as too much television and video games, food additives, bad parenting, lack of discipline, single mothers, opportunistic drug seekers, etc. It is no surprise that such const ructions, even when presented as using scapegoats and the supremacy of the biological explanation/construction of ADHD. Like

PAGE 26

15 individualistic and meritocrat ic rhetorics in the university, the idea that those with ADHD must with ADHD/LD are congratulated and their stories of overcoming adversity are put forth as exemplary. Making it necessary to overcome ADHD and ADHD as limitation or metaphorical prison is truly problematic, as it allows the discourse to simultaneously blame the individual for her failures while also creating an occasion to sound sensitive and en couraging of those with ADHD and their experiences. Research on the lives of people with ADHD and ADHD comorbidities is bleak and often introduces convincing statistical evidence that people with ADHD fail more often than they succeed. While most people w ith ADHD know that these statistics may not be accurate, this dark reality is tough to deal with. Again, such mainstream, extreme ADHD discourses shape identities both directly and indirectly (via the attitudes of others). Results of a study on ADHD comorb idities by Barkley and n ADHD and self control. Russell A. Barkley and Kevin Murphy compared 172 adults with ADHD to 30 adults who did not have ADHD. Those with ADHD show significantly higher rates of oppositional conduct and substance abuse (also see Hession). The adults with A DHD self reported many more psychological instabilities, driving risks/speeding violations, employment changes, and histories of poor educational performance/school disciplinary actions (1). Whether these findings are accurate or somewhat skewed due to tra ditionally narrow understandings and discriminatory expectations of those with ADHD, these findings also become internalized by those with and without ADHD, perpetuating policies and rhetorics that may be harmful. ating theory of ADHD detailed in the book ADHD and the Nature of Self Control This work argues that the disorder is fundamentally a developmental problem of self control, and that a deficit in attention is a secondary characteristic allegedly representi

PAGE 27

16 that consistently underlie his research (see earlier review on metaphors of ADHD by ble to bring behavior under the control of time and orient their actions toward the future while those with ADHD professional intervention, likely medication and certainly encouragement stemming from general pity. The encouragement and praise material s are likely familiar as the strategic use of financially successful cultural icons and celebrities like Ty Pennington are not uncommon. Such materials create an illusion of sensitivity and further ideas of overcoming. Similarly, new sources and platforms of the overcoming trope, likely influenced by the Barkley tradition and metaphorical constructs, are perpetuating this contradictory pattern (see Film for Families kids are overcoming or have that the children with LD are no longer missing out on recess or other group activity because they need extra study help or dis This and other inspirational artifacts in the public domain do a disservice. The film shows people with LD avoiding stigma only by removing or hiding learning differences (see also Kamenetz; Dunn). a growing, quite profitable industry. These services use self Coaches in Action page). ADHD) to characterize individuals with ADHD and to sound empowering when unfortunately, the

PAGE 28

17 underlying as sumptions are as damaging as ever. Simi Linton provides a helpful DS critique as she explains the implications of overcoming, "The ideas imbedded in the overcoming rhetoric are of personal triumph over a personal condition. The idea that someone can overco me a disability has not been generated within the community; it is a wish fulfillment from the outside" (18). The reality as established beautifully by many DS writers that people with disabilities live with their disabilities rather than overcoming them ( see Linton; Longmore; Garland Thomson, Extraordinary ). Diagnoses and definitions of ADHD are dubious at best. The concept of ADHD can feel overwhelmingly negative and I think that negativity at least in part explains the quick acceptance and internalizatio n of fundamentally flawed work on ADHD advantage and overcoming rhetorics. It is difficult to criticize and/or reject any good news regarding ADHD, especially for those of us with personal investment. From this section of review, the takeaway is that these positivity driven rhetorics demand as much (or more) scrutiny as deficit based rhetorics because behind their seeming resistance to traditional power dynamics created through rhetoric, there are fallacies present. While subtler, how they actually are cons tructing ADHD perpetuates tradition. P EDAGOGY L EARNING T EACHING U NIVERSAL D ESIGN AND M ULTIMODALITY While this may sound like a sweeping and broad area of research these are the primary issues surrounding ADHD/LD and the Academy and are therefore intim ately connected. Further these issues are equally important areas of study and, I find, equally complex. I will first briefly discuss scholarship concerned with the pedagogical choices made with the intent to meet disability in college composition courses. This is followed by a survey of work concerned with learning diversity in general (positing the use of a more realistic and more practical notion of a continuum of learning abilities), an important look at research concerned with teaching with disabilitie s and the complicated rhetorical nature of disability (disclosing, claiming, passing, coming out, etc.), and last I look at disability studies work on universal design (UD), the philosophies behind it, and its overlap with multimodality. All these topics a re fundamental to my analysis as AD HD and those with ADHD

PAGE 29

18 struggle to find a place within university systems. This struggle will inevitably occur on all four of these fronts. Writing Pedagog y The scholarship at the intersection of DS and classroom practice insists on acknowledgment and anticipation of the power of identity rhetorics. Composition programs need to be attentive here because the rhetorical constructions of identity encountered in these foundational writing classes have real resonance. Compositi on courses almost always engage identity somehow, providing inexperienced writers (and identities) some occasions for personal writing and therefore becoming a key place to engage critical discourse analyses of disability (see Yergeau). In a review of the LD literature through 2000, Li Huijan and Christine M. Hamel, establish a pattern in the research. The pattern is essentially that writing problems are believed to exceed the other academic challenges faced by students with LD (20). Their analysis of the research up to this publication, and in most cases after as well, locate the sweeping problems overall to be: using LD as blanket term and neglecting to examine the complex, varied experiences in learning; study samples are not representative of student po not acknowledged and there should be a focus on getting instructors outside of composition programs to also anticipate student writers with LD; not enough studies looking at specific instru ctional strategies and their effectiveness for students with various writing abilities; and an oversight amongst the claims of collaborative learning strategies as effective for students with LD. Since their call for more attention to the array of LD exper field of disability studies and LD research have made significant progress (also see Alden/Carmichael. Corbett, Ceraso). In Mad at School Rhetorics of Mental Disability and Academic Life Margaret Price centers on the question: What happens to higher education faculty and students when their ways of being differ from that which is considered typical ? Price focuses specifically on the intersection of higher

PAGE 30

19 developmental disabilities, autism, learning disabilities, and psychosocial disabilities and mental illnesses) (9 While not a specifically addressed disability, the theoretical foundation Price lays in Mad at School is certainly intended for application to ADHD. Price finds settings in higher education, including classrooms, conferences, interviews, e tc., have often unacknowledged obstacles for those with mental disabilities Price examines a series of topoi ( presence, participation, productivity, independence ) to show that higher education should be redesigned in order to become truly more accessible For example, Price suggests more explicitly mapping unscripted parts of classroom communications ( discussions etc.) so all students can have a clearer sense of accessing participation. The opportunity exists in comp osition course design to push students toward self awareness and skills for identifying, considering, and changing ideologies in their writing and their belief in the power of writing 4 Learning An important vein of research attends to the role of ADHD in learning processes. The scholarship I discuss in this section interrogates a range of tasks, occasions, and styles, and includes foci like collaboration and feedback utilization, as well as phase aimed inquiries interested in ADHD in the context of pedagogical methods and structures because the educational patterns of meeting disability are a big influence on the students with disabilities. This thread of research on LD and ADHD writers in part imagines ADHD as generative in the creative process and insists that LD college students are in need of fixing and intervention. While the former argues that diverse learning styles and abilities should be used to in 4 themed composition course created by student writers. This study takes na rrow scope to the broader problem based study focuses on how students position t hemselves through rhetorical choices and shows how the dominant culture norms pervade the rhetoric, even when students did not consciously hold stereotypes and were specifically taking disability studies perspective.

PAGE 31

20 stringent definitions of writing and learning, the latter attempts to identify common features, process challenges, and error patterns of ADHD/LD student writers. This intersection includes work using var ied strategies such as statistics, narratives and case studies, suggest that anticipation of diverse learning styles is essential. and university standards to suggest that we should be in academic contexts, and developing, with them, both shared understandings of what counts as learning takes new significance in its connection here to students with learning disabilities, which she practices that can limit the access of neurodiverse students and have great influence in the identity shaping that occurs there. The deficit rhetoric of the university reveals two underlying assumptions: the merit of standardization and the individual resp onsibility for failure. These assumptions inform such practices as timed test taking and the narrow definitions of literacy and text. Luna asserts that the power structures between students and faculty, in conjunction with standardization and time constrai nts, also play a role perpetuating assumptions and limiting the exchange of ide as. This speaks to research in d isability s academia to meet an exigency (lear ning disabilities) by reevaluating standardization practices and challenging discourses that disempower those with disabilities. In the end, the goal is to create an institution that welcomes methods, which allow diverse learners to communicate effectively and utilize their strengths. LD in the context of rhetoric and composition studies is an area Patricia Dunn works in almost exclusively and she advocates a combination of multisensory and traditional linguistic methods in the classroom, which will be more useful for learning disabled, and perhaps all, students. Learning Re Abled: The Learning Disability Controversy and Composition Studies and Talking, Sketching, Moving: Multiple Literacies in the Teaching of Writing suggest approaches that subvert expectations and engage students visually, kinesthetically, and orally The

PAGE 32

21 novel quality of the mediums proposed (email journals, mp3 recordings, and other digitizations) has faded but Dunn highlights the limited definitio n of literacy that is still standard in composition courses. Talking, Sketching, Moving lesser 4). From a disability studies perspective, the use of multiple channels of communication is a crucial element of anticipating diversity and further, Dunn argues, an element (like meta k nowledge of oneself as a learner) that certainly benefits people with ADHD/LD but would benefit all learners. Luna and Dunn both also touch on a specific, practical advantage that those diagnosed with ADHD or other LD often gain the metacognition they ha ve as learners. When diagnosed with LDs, individuals are given and/or actively seek assistance, information, technologies, etc. to understand their own learning styles and locate effective strategies. Such metacognition or thinking that allows understand is valuable and becomes an asset, an asset which could be equally useful to those with and without LD diagnoses. Like other strategies employed to meet the abilities of diverse learners, all student s benefit when encouraged to experiment, explore, and engage with learning processes and to utilize those that work best. A sub section of the research in rhetoric and composition sees calls inclusivity and anticipation of diverse learners as overstated. This area includes work by Kimber Barber Fenley and Chris Hamel and asserts that the reaction to LD in the composition classroom should instead involve separating and specializing ADHD and LD students. Such alternative assistance programs are justified by the claim that it is impossible to establish a neutral or equal playing field for LD students in the writing classroom. Barber Alternative Assistance Writing Programs for Students with Learning specific plan of alternative assistance (housed in composition programs) for students with learning disabilities in an effort to purposefully resist the underlying metaphors of accommodations (i.e. year composition, one that offers assistance year round to LD students, rather than simply

PAGE 33

22 scholars should boldly, assertively declare students with LD will receive alternate assistance, special repackaged but traditionally harmful ideology (Barb er Amy Vidali questions Barber separated from the writing classroom clarifying that LD students would then benefit from the structural suppo students without LD should be interacting and learning in the same environment. Like Vidali, Dunn, ), many in DS and DSE strongly believe that accommodations developed for students with LD have really just highlighted the flaws in education and that the best strategies for teaching students with LD are strategies that work for all students. Some of the research on the learning process seeks to identify blanket challenges of students with ADHD/LD and often suggests both cause and solution. As Dev Bose sees it, ADHD students have a very hard time communicating in groups despite common collaborative instruction (135). occasions in composition courses are not as productive. To rem edy the problem pattern he identifies, across in a clear manne that will help revise the paper, a conclusion he reaches via work with student research subjects. Another work emphasizing the responsibilities of the individual student rather than those of the Navigating The Transition Into College: Narratives Of Students With Learning Disabilities limited case studies but he asserts th at too much research is concerned with extrinsic supports for those with LD and instead argues that students with LD need agency and must strategize for their

PAGE 34

23 own success in this transition. Both Bose and Connor assume that what students with ADHD/LD lack is self advocacy. While I understand the importance of self advocacy and the need for individuals to embrace their own identity and engage with it productively, I see scholarship that denies or ignores the role the university plays in silencing and disemp owering those with disabilities, to some extent, as extensions of past operatives. By constructing the individual as lacking the assertiveness or confidence composition coursework demands, these pieces perpetuate the institutional tradition of denying resp onsibility. This scholarship ultimately critiques students as merely failing to overcome their disability/the consequences of that disability, allowing the university to justify stagnation. Teaching with Disability A shift from student to teacher perspecti ves and their rhetorical acts changes the ADHD conversation profoundly. Such a shift suggests the intersection of composition instruction and teaching with ADHD (or LD more generally). Existent research at this intersect is minimal and therefore I find it an inviting area of focus, and part of my analysis focuses on teaching with ADHD. Much of the work on the topic of teaching with disability focuses again on disclosure (especially when it comes to invisible disabilities such as LD) and draw parallels betw een coming out discourses of sexuality and disability. In discussions of teaching with disability, it is useful to view the rhetorical act not so much as a functional disclosure but as a strategic performance. There is an opportunity here to reverse the sh aming and silencing that plagues gay, lesbian, transgender people, and people with disabilities. Research here suggests that teachers must strategically put themselves at s with Learning Jan Valle, David Connor, Santiago Solis, and Donna Volpitta argue (again through narratives) that to come out sometimes means to be publicly disclosed as deviant from the norm. Teachers are conceived of as purveyors of the norm and so deviation of educators is especially scrutinized. Given this deficit understanding of LD, it is easy to

PAGE 35

24 understand why teachers with LD may choose to hide their disabilities for fear of being seen a s less than capable to perform the ir responsibilities. A person with LD or other invisible disability must also be aware (and spread the awareness) that harmful constructions and perpetuation of them, both old and new, can take the form disclosing disabili the coming out discourse of sexuality and disability such as the sha red, traditional risks of coming out as anything other than able bodied or hetero. Risks of coming out or claiming range from feelings of vulnerability to more destructive professional impacts. Each act of coming out is a new rhetorical situation with spec ific risks and each new rhetorical situation is negotiated differently but deliberately. Brueggemann further explores teacherly coming out as performance itself. Such a performance, she argues, is an absurd act because to come out or disclose an identity i s conditional to social constructions and their normative traditions. What she means here is that the situation for such a rhetorical event is never the same. Brueggemann and Moddelmog argue that all identity is performance: From this perspective, moreover passing marks the site of an ethical choice. We can perform our identity in such a way that it seems to match a norm while resisting being read as deviant or we can perform it in such a way that it seems to match a deviancy, and, in the process, we resis t being read as the norm. (311) Just as (non)disclosures are rhetorical acts by nature, they too are performative acts. Brueggemann et presentation attai conditional. An aspect of this thread of the research that I find particularly meaningful is a call to action for teachers to interrogate these traditions of marginalization from their own perspectives. Jan Valle and her co self awareness P ositing the idea that teachers with disability must trust their own experiences, Valle

PAGE 36

25 ridicule, students with LD are deprived of important role models and, consequently, denied an identity as a teacher (and I would argue instructor, supervisor, co worker, etc.) can generate new rhetorics of disability and may be essential to rewriting the university through rhetorical action (see Erevelles; Ferri ). This scholarship as a whole implies that people in positions of authority, such as instructors, should incorporate their own identity as honestly as they hope students will and approach discussions difficult for adults with LD to negotiate within our schools, what must this mean for students with LD who are not gi the perpetuation of marginalization and the rhetorical shift required for such a pervasive system in university culture to change. Universal Design (UD) in Academia and the Role of Multimodality Research on universal design and multimodality in rhetoric and composition generally asserts that higher education should be redesigned in both micro and macro ways to become more accessible for all. Examining such work is cru cial because my aim in this project is to reject traditional notions of writing and point out the limitless possibilities of inclusivity. Rather than separate and/or lity suggests that integration into general education is essential and accommodation is a shared responsibility, not an individualized problem. Closely related to parts of the UD theory, scholarship on multimodality attends to accessible versions, new medi a and digital rhetorics, as well as the relevant to think of these issues in an ADHD context because multimodality is a place of potential prosperity for people with ADHD as modes and versions of texts engage more complexly and on more sensual levels.

PAGE 37

26 These shifts in approach can not only create inclusive environment s for those with ADHD but also one that allows ADHD to be a generative part of learning and demons trating that learning. From a disability studies perspective, college courses founded on the use of multiple channels of communication are crucial to anticipating diversity and are a powerful way to engage those with ADHD. The scholarship on UD attends to used in most universities 5 and to the connectivity of writers with disabilities, basic writers, and all writers because we all have styles, strengths and preferences. It's relevant to think of these issues in an ADHD conte xt because ADHD perspective and experience is about finding generative elements from both necessary extra steps and from uncommon characteristics or approaches. Designing classes and pedagogies to be more inclusive might reduce the stigma some students fee l by asking for special accommodations at the same time it increases learning opportunities for all (Dunn; Yergeau ; Brewer et al ). This body of research lly) ( Brewer et al 152). For those with ADHD, universal design and multimodality has powerful implications and the use of stra tegies that follow in C hapters IV and V would certainly be good examples of design tactics for composition pedagogy. By embracing accessible curriculums and universal design elements, which originated in disabi lity studies, composition programs rise to the challenges of accessibility (which benefits all) over accommodation (which benefits some but often creates stigma and rhetorical isolation) and thus model a multicultural approach. The insight of these pedago gical practices provide ways of rethinking and redesigning composition courses so they become spaces, both digital and physical spaces, where identity considerations are engaged by both form and content. Composition pedagogies resulting are then founded on 5 American institutions of higher ed generally meet disability through an office of disability services, which requests and reviews documentation of disability, selects and approves appropriate accommodations (for example: free use of computer during classes, extra time on timed exams, etc.) and gives students letters they are to distribute to their instructors to self identify.

PAGE 38

27 Melanie retrofits for a disability inflected reconception of participatory design, a reconception that is act ivist exchange. Again, Elizabeth Brewer and co author crew of impressive DS scholars collaboratively create a formative piece on modality with conferences and the field of DS practicing multimodality as fully as it could and should. The article has expansive views of access as a collective responsibility (in the conference context it envisions c onference organizers, presenters, attendees, and everyone responsible for creating a culture of access that transforms work in the field and opens still further possibilities). This DS research team to a vision of access that has more in common system consists of (154). Shannon Walters takes a more focused ap proach to engage multimodal strategies impairment specific solutions to dis/ability are not equivalent to an accessible pedagogy for disabled and nondisabled stu away here is that this cannot be an afterthought or genre use that demands direct, absolute, inflexible versioning. Requirements for future use of and work in this area require intuitive use of modes and/or versions, fundamentally pr esent modality options, and finally abandonment of attempt to base or pair mode with impairments. It is necessary to acknowledge that new media pedagogies have distinct hazardous tendencies like all others. It is possible to reproduce methods of exclusion that have long perpetuated a harmful tradition in our educational institutions. The result is just multimodal inhospitality, a phrase Stephanie and environments

PAGE 39

28 texts that do not balance meaning across modes, that are inaccessible, and that cannot be manipulated by users. Despite all the potential digital rhetorics have for posi tive change in composition instruction, the reality is that these modes can also be perpetuate marginalization as we have seen in previous modes. Still, i n and out of the university classroom, basic strategies of universal design and multimodality represen t the greatest potential to actually change the traditions much of the ADHD research locates as particularly harmful a nd limiting for those with ADHD. UD seems capable of meeting the needs of diverse learners and engaging diverse learning styles and furthe r doing so in ways that rattle even the most ingrained assumptions. C ONCLUDING R EVIEW B ITS ( OR O VERSIMPLIFYING I T F URTHER ) By looking at rhetorical constructions of disability and ADHD, Universal Design and important role of teachers with disability, I have necessarily complicated the notions of ADHD. I attended to the social and rhetorical constructions of disability, mainly through the DS scholarship in the constructs of ADHD and their resulting policies are rhetorical in nature. The rhetorics of ADHD, as I conveyed throughout, have a huge impact on the issues presently surrounding ADHD. The field of disability studies has been significantly expanding the conversation and honing i n on fundamental The literature I selected for review is foundational to a hyperactive rhetoric. The remainder of this work then, suggests a new approach to ADHD discourse that cultivates cognizance of experiences on a molecular level, provides opportunity to interpret and then reinterpret those experiences, and contextualizes them within culture through analysis of carefully chosen works from it. This rhetoric extends and compl ements DS rhetorics and offers a means for me to convey the details of an ADHD perspective and experience with language. Further, I hope to build on the scholarship I have engaged here to not just rely on personal experiences or personal accounts of

PAGE 40

29 others generative and flexible beyond any limitations I have or set for it in this work.

PAGE 41

30 CH PTER III T The project began with the idea that ADHD rhetorics represent an opportunity. The methodology I use here has been constructed as the means for me to convey ADHD perspectives and experiences with language and as generative in learning to write and teaching writing. In in the field and to invent or pastiche a method for that, rather than attempting to replicate an existent method. I use a reflexive and reflec tive approach to research, learning, and teaching that models a postmodern epistemology allied with disability studies. Here I discuss existent methods in d isabil ity studies and then I look at how this project engages with reflexive methodology and how it works toward an ADHD methodology before concluding with some guiding principles to keep in mind moving into the analyses in the next chapters. D ISABILITY S TUDIES M ETHODOLOGY and is therefore particularly focused on the critique of normalcy and challenging the ways society constructs disability as deviance. A DS methodolo gy, or accessible methodology, is not a single, definable or homogenous approach. DS research does not necessarily attempt to replicate certain methodologies but seeks to learn about its own place in the circuitry and invent a method for that (Hawk 248). W ith this project, I aim to contribute to the field of DS and therefore, like many other DS researchers, I struggle to meet these complexities and contextual challenges while consciously allowing the critical lens of DS inform my practices. DS researchers, as Price writes, must attend to methods must consciously avoid creating or perpetuating harmful constructs of disability. Therefore, method sections and researchers must avoid any ab/normal binaries and attend to disability tinged metaphors, pronoun usage, and the risks of universalizing or defining disability (both of which negate

PAGE 42

31 complex lived experiences). DS methods must create or suggest a reflexive and reflective approach to research and to teaching, recognize and utilize disability as rhetorical power, and pursue access/accessibility in any and all ways possible within a project. DS research methodology has much in common with feminist and other for ms of research aimed toward social justice. There is much DS method gleans from feminist research since both the female and the disabled body commonly experience objectification via gaze that is male, medical, and/or scientific. Scientific research commonl y uses gaze, instruments of measurement, and taxonomies to posit subjects as lesser, passive objects to be examined. Objective research methodologies tend to invalidate the outlier by reifying repres entative samples and universals. Douglas C. Baynton is well known for his work on Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History that interrogates the landscape of disability as one of the minority groups historically assigned inferior status. As Baynton explores at length and Dolmage /L ewiecki Wilson discuss in "Refiguring Rhetorica: Linking Feminist Rhetoric and Disability Studies that DS researchers understand the ways in which disability is used to stigmatize almost all minority So, DS research must come with ready awareness of how forms of oppression are played off one another in order to avoid incomplete challenges of discrimination, by which I mean work that stops after recuperating the construct of gender or of certain disabi lity identities A pri mary concern of DS research lies with the dangers of universalizing disability. Universalization occurs sometimes indirectly and via rhetorical construction. Inadvertent construction of disability as universal is not uncommon. This occurs when disability i unintended inference of works like mine that attempt to thoughtfully engage disability perspectives and lived experiences. My concern here has largely been with finding ways to emphasize the power and utility of ADHD inspired practices of learning and teaching for those with and without ADHD and/or other LD. And further, doing so without implying that ADHD as something everyone experien ces to some degree or diminishing ADHD as standalone identity.

PAGE 43

32 Finally, unlike scientific research (and heaps of research in general that tends to take disabled people as subjects), the researcher subject or researcher becoming subject is a frequent occur rence in DS research. Use of the researcher(s) personal experience, observations, reflections, etc. might be the only somewhat expected element of DS methods 6 While I admittedly rely heavily on my own experiences, I have tried to engage the perspectives o f others through the works in the literature review and through those I have had the privilege to work with, the aim of which is to complicate and challenge my own perspective and experiences. Disability studies as a field is without methodological unifor mity and instead emphasizes accessibility in all affective forms to research. I think DS does not restrict or limit research methods so as to foster the use of disability as rhetorical power. Thereby, my methods are first and foremost experimental and in u contextualization and its story then merely serves as a place to display the ideas, theories and practices. R EFLEXIVE M ETHODOLOGY Because my argument begins with the idea that writing is inevitably chaotic and its products inevitably flawed, my analysis requires some textual exposure on my part. I follow the example of these errors ar e intentional and sometimes they are accidental; but they are always rhetorical and unrevised passages, unexpected artifacts for examples, and unfamiliar embedment. While I use textual exposure 7 to describe primarily mechanical/physical attributes, the project also requires some exposure of context. This work grew from an idea and plan developed with the help of Dr. Amy Vidali while taking Rhetoric of the Body, a disability studies survey course, during the spring of 2015. I composed 6 7 By textual exposure here I mean the molecular and graphic disruptions to the te xt appearing on the pages of this thesis.

PAGE 44

33 primarily using Microsoft Word and Google Docs with some additions provided by or edited in iPhoto, Adobe Reader, and an online text glitching program. Before or outside digita l composing, I use a Pentel GT pencil and mini Hemisphere color coded notebook, Legos, collages, and Apple alteration, I regularly ingested substances, some pr escribed and some not, for ADHD and anxiety. Other substances intended to enhance creativity and humility were used intermittently. I write on the floor of a cabin located in Silver Plume, Colorado some 35 miles west of Denver with an altitude of about 9,0 00 feet. these are the factors I consider particularly impactful on my present states and in the production /product at hand. M OVING T OWARD AN ADHD M ETHODOLOGY The method I subscribe to follows an open, circuitous path and anticipates unpredictable outcomes. I see my methodology as the absence of an existent, familiar, cohesive methodology. This intolera Mad 228). Objective research methodologies represent specific problems in a DS context. These methods often reify the idea of the representative sample and the universal as well as invalidating the outlier (and therefore the independent researcher). Price arg ues that the rejection of these traditions by the disability scholar may be empowering and generative to scholarship; the realities are the risks of systematic denial by the system (228). This rejection of traditional methods creates the need to consciousl y and carefully redefine methodologies. Pushing and expanding methodologies for DS, as I see it, is an opportunity that should be met boldly but also with an awareness of what is at stake. The general organizing principles of learning (Chapter IV) and te aching (Chapter V) reflect my own experiences with ADHD. I have long been hyper aware of my own learning abilities and habits and so when I began teaching (with ADHD) the new role began demanding a similar kind of self assessment. These two sections, each of which stem from a particular positing (learning/teaching) as it relates to the rhetoric. Any uniformity implied between the two chapters is unintentional since

PAGE 45

34 the sections are significantly different in fundamental ways. I preemptively want to point ou t some such differences. Chapters IV and V show significant variation in their length, artifacts of critique, structure, and modalities. This is purposeful for two reasons: first, to allow each section the autonomy to accomplish its own specific goals thro ugh the most effective means and second, to model the approach to writing suggested by hyperactive rhetoric and glitch theory. Nowhere else in this project is experimentation more evident or allowed more influence than the analysis. I articulate the theori es and rhetorical practices of the rhetoric while simultaneously using and performing them. My method is to highlight these practices by using them to the fullest of my abilities for textual production (drafting, revising or lack of, etc.) and manipulation of the text (glitching the physical words/letters, varying modes, etc.). Further pursuit of authenticity and chaotic ADHD texts yielded the italicized monologues that begin many sections of Chapter V and the multi purpose screencast videos of my processes I understand the demands such experimental methods put on the audience. As such, I hope these strategies prove instructive and that they provoke further applications of a hyperactive rhetoric. It is my hope that future research might develop the impacts of glitch theory and hyperactive rhetorics on disability studies and perhaps for rhetoric and composition research more generally. Using disability as rhetorical power and conveying an expansive, sustainable conception of what constitutes rhetorical abilit y began and remained primary foci of my work here. I value and pursue experimentation and unorthodoxy throughout the project, which took concerted effort because researcher r ole, experiment with content and form, and include compositional details because this project values individuality, spontaneity, flexibility, and diversity. I flesh out explanations of these values but I hope to have also exhibited them. The analyses that follow are the results of the conceptual and theoretical demands of my research. I hope this layered, illustrative approach is clear and effective.

PAGE 46

35 CH PTER IV G LITCH M ( N ) Rhetoric is uniquely capable of challenging ideological power structures. Obv iously this applies to works that might meet our ideas of traditional writing (linearly composed and polished to finality) but this quality is also true of, and potentially more so, subversive works. College composition programs teach a sanitized version o power. Our field instills standardized notions of the writing process and its textual products. And further, we largely negate the hugely generative nature and powerful effects of things like impulsivi ty and a textual composing (composition work using mediums outside basic written text, whether in place of it or in conjunction with it). which is my focus here but this functionality definitely begins much earlier potentially from the inception of writing in the classroom. disability studies research stresses the value of multiple literacies and modalities. Digital rhetoric research stresses the reality and n ecessity of them. In this chapter I challenge those writing practices directly concerned with normalizing writing and writers. These embedded practices are brought into question in a DS context and explored through a suggested pairing of the concepts of gl itch and disability. The intense coupling of these two concepts is significantly dynamic, which I illustrate in this chapter in two parts, each drawing on a primary tenet of my rhetoric. The common misconceptions and assumptions (the embedded notion of AD HD) that negate the value of ADHD perspective s and experiences are incredibly tired. But staler still is to be hindered and silenced by them. The aim of a hyperactive rhetoric is then to pursue opportunities created by ADHD perspectives and experiences for rhetoric and composition. These opportunities are the tenets, and in them I do not hide that enjoyment that comes with exploring the complexities and the value of ADHD perspectives. As the methods chapter considers, I also directly and indirectly model ma ny of

PAGE 47

36 the strategies and manifestations put forth in the chapter. Here I will focus on how to celebrate the spontaneous and seditious, which I achieve through the following sections: A new metaphor for writing (glitch) Traditions of writing as process Defining glitch Glitch writing Interrupting ableism through glitch Revising is normalizing Finished writing (notions of finished/unfinished) Manifestations of glitch writing Expanding glitch (thoughts toward further/future applications) For me, the most persistent and provocative insights from glitch theory for the field of rhetoric and composition speak to the impulses most undervalued, overlooked, and discouraged in writing practice and writing pedagogy: the productive error and individuation (individua l, collective, and the space between) Glitches disrupt and surprise, providing evidence of the inventive possibilities within the structures of determination. C ELEBRATE THE S PONTANEOUS & S EDITIOUS The glitch is the digital orgasm, where the machine takes a sigh, a shudder, and with a jerk, we interact with our own bodies, and how we explore our deepest fantasies and desires (Russell) True spontaneity and naked sincerit y exists in the unrevised, unedited, and unrepressed. It is rhetorically. The actual experience of creating and interacting with texts is chaotic. The metaph or of writing as process and the accompanying steps that constitute the writing process are so ingrained in focus on the inadequate definition of wri ting and the fallacy of the writing process metaphor, its universality, and its steps each so carefully posited as necessary. I mean to emphasize particularly that obligatory revision is not always valuable and that the binary/hierarchy of unfinished and finished writing is neither useful nor accurate. Throughout this chapter I examine the tyranny of the process metaphor and articulate a new metaphor glitch writing. Glitch posits writing as an invitation

PAGE 48

37 of chaos, such a chaos that cannot be produced or controlled. Glitch writing pursues disruption of linearity, of writing symbols, of ableism, of mode. First, this is for me an approach rooted in attention deficit hyperactive disorder and DS. I began by revisiting assumptions about ADHD traits namely that they are strictly limiting and is rooted in what I believe to be their generative power for composition. The traits suggest a more erratic writing experience one more accurate and useful than traditional writing process theory. I use ADHD traits l ike hyperactivity, hyper focus, irregularity and risk taking to inspire a writing approach that engages ADHD writers but also challenges all writers, particularly those only familiar with process writing and only successful in traditional modes. The approa ch I suggest acknowledges first that composition is complicated and messy. Invention can be unpredictable, collaboration volatile, and revision counterproductive. The messiness is disconcerting for some made more so by the expectations of a simplistic, l inear, formulaic process approach. I see the mess as inevitable and enjoyable. It is a relief to anticipate and accept the realities of composing and powerful effects are born of doing so. T RADITIONS OF W RITING AS P ROCESS Except for those rare moments of inspiration or genius when the perfect ideas expressed in the perfect words in the perfect order flow gracefully and effortlessly from the mind, all experienced writers revise their work. (Guevarra) Notions of writing as process pervade composition pedagog ies and reverberate through popular discourse. Process theory has led to a principal definition of writing as a simplistic, linear set of steps that is both the proper and necessary method for achieving effective, polished text. Discussions of the writing three distinct stages of pre writing, writing, and rewriting. Prewriting consists generally of invention strategies and outlines while writing covers draft creation and rewriting is al l revisions and editing

PAGE 49

38 successful movement in composition led to that linear series of steps as the mo st common construction of writing of the writing process in current use. Denying the chaos in composing might be, in part at least, a reflection of the difficulty of teaching the chaotic versus the uniform but the function of this metaphor is much more complex. The writing process is normalizing as it endeavors to make everybody write similarly and adhere to a somewhat rigid method. Process pedagogy then negates the diversity of writers and like many standards of academia it speaks to and works for a se lect demographic. My own conflicted experience with the writing process reflects this. Resisting, fighting innate approaches and forms of my writing was for me writing early on and for a long time. I was often unsuccessful, leading to feeling of failure an d disappointment. My resistance tapered off with age and the confidence that grew as I got to know methodically as I had been taught was quite harmful. My story illustrates how the process metaphor fails writers with ADHD/LD. It also shows how the process metaphor can actually decrease comprehension and adaptation of composition the process of writing is used in service of exclusion create unreasonable, harmful expectations of writing rather than allowing writing to be a truly individual creative act. If a writer does not produce texts via this strict progression of components, she can then be considered deviant. So too is her writing then deviant for its unexpected attribute(s) and its reflections of her non traditional process. I see what is now called post process theo ry not as rejection of the writing process but as pushback to the loss of complexity that occurred in process based pedagogy. Post process theory claims to demonstrate the inaccuracy of writing as a process of fixed steps in a neat, linear movement. It con ceptualizes the writing process instead as overlapping parts of a complex, recursive process that might be repeated multiple times. In this theoretical model for writing, writers should anticipate possibilities like editorial changes triggering invention, mechanical correction, and interrupting

PAGE 50

39 drafting that somewhat blur the boundaries between the prewriting, writing, and rewriting stages. While slightly less static than process theory, the necessary components of writing remain intact. The order is more f lexible or open to cyclical use but writers must still somehow engage invention strategies, drafting, revising, etc. Further, while post process theory arguably made some useful progress, the striving toward an ideal textual product remained intact (Anson 224 5). In what might also be seen as post process, Sirc promotes an avant garde approach to composition pedagogy through the idea of composition to return and encourage exuberant, unpolished expressions in writ ing, which he sees as having been removed through pedagogical practices intensification of feeling, the play of instinct, and a sense of festivity (Sirc 220). Similarly, Applied Grammatology theoretical grammatology by elaborating on both his theory of writing and the aesthetic rhetorical audiovisual scene epistemology in the questions it formulates undoing of logocentrism the model o f the line [and its mundane conc ). The theories of both Derrida and Ulmer represent the kind of radical re conceptualizing I suggest with the pairing of writing and glitch theory. Ideological shifts are the major contribution of po st the Social Turn: Teaching Writing Post composing as a cu ltural activity by which writers position and reposition themselves in relation to process theory has tried to acknowledge the social, public, situated, and interact ive dimensions of writing. This is perhaps the most important influence of post process research and these dimensions are essential to my theories of writing. I use the ADHD experience as the inspiration and the lens of disability studies but my critique o f standardization in writing and writing pedagogy continues a common refrain of

PAGE 51

40 rhetoric and composition theorists Dolmage argues that writing process pedagogies push students t students can 114). Certainly, the field of composition has historically favored texts that hide evidence of the messy labor of writing. But, like Dolmage, I se e the greatest opportunities of expression and interaction in the breaks and in the lapses. Composing the actual experience of creating and interacting with texts is G LITCH R OOTS The genre of glitch art moves like the weather: sometimes it evolves very slowly, while at other times it can strike like lightning. The art works within this realm can be disturbing, provoking and horrifying. Beautifully dangerous, they can at once take all the tensio ns of other possible compositions away. These works stretch boundaries and generate novel modes; they break open previously sealed politics and force a catharsis of conventions, norms and beliefs. (Menkman 341) catharsis in disintegration, ruptures and cracks; manipulate, bend and break any medium towards the point where it can inform new rhetorical practices and further, practices that are specifically subversive and powerful. Whereas other artistic mediums re cognize the beauty of failures and flaws, writing forbids flaws and conditions us to recognize only the flawless, the polished. Glitches are commonly understood as the result of miscommunication or mistranslation when transferring data from one environment to another. Glitch as a term first appears in 1962 used by sic in

PAGE 52

41 the mid 90s to describe a genre of experimental/noise/electronica. Shortly after visual artists like Tony (Ant) Scott began to embrace the glitch as an aesthetic of the digital age. In the introduction to her Glitch Studies Manifesto, Rosa Menkman m entions A Colour Box (1935) by Len Lye and MagnetTV (1965) by Nam June Paik as examples of mechanical and digital noise in art, which are the precedents of glitch. Iman Moradi is arguably the first glitch theorist with extensive work on glitch visual art, most notably Glitch: Designing Imperfections published in September of 2009. The genre of glitch art grew within various communities of artists online with little traceability or regularity. G LITCH M EETS R HETORIC & C OMPOSITION Glitch composition ignores t he clear, legible signals in favor of that which interrupts, disrupts, and corrupts the order of the object or system in question. Such deviations are of intentionality in the composing process. (Hammer 11) While the what o r expression of technological anxiety by embracing the expressive possibility of malfunct ions, or The glitch concept in rhetoric and composition research is the dedicated focus of a small handful of scholars who build largely on the philosophies of Bakhtin, Sirc, Latour, and Lanham. Contemporary glitch researchers Boyle, Hammers, Reid, and Cloninger provide a challenging tch focused scholarship includes a crazy wide range of conceptual applications, modalities, and innovatively definitely room and need for further work on glit ch in both rhetorical and compositional contexts. Applying glitch to this field presents some fundamental challenges. Few rhetoric and composition scholars (or even glitch theorists really) have sufficiently defined the concept clearly or thoroughly. Furth er, existing definitions of glitch theory/art/studies are definitely at odds with the dominant

PAGE 53

42 tradition of polished textual products and the (alleged) methodi cal, predictable means of creating them. G LITCH W RITING Glitch upsets the proper; it is a gesture of non compliance. (Manon 12) What makes good glitch writing is that it maintains a sense of wildness. Glitch writing is usefully thought of as non compliant writing. I see the effects of embracing ADHD traits and perspectives in writing as a pursuit of noncompliance. This, I believe, is a useful pursuit because noncompliance and deviance in writing means text that reflects the individual. There are multiple w ays of glitching writing and I adapt some basic categories introduced by Hammer in Technoculture which are as follows: additions such as the acknowledgements of the context and personal disclosures included in chapter II; performances of the processes a nd strategic practices such as the inclusion of screencasts, side pools, unrevised writing, and disruptions such as molecularly glitched words (all of which I discuss further). I think these categorical ideas alone begin to suggest the fundamental connec tion between glitch writing and digital modes. metaphor. Multimodality emphases are at least as dependent on process pedagogy as predecessors. In my experience, m ultimodality in composition coursework, rather than adapting to new mediums/new based creation (emphasizing revision as a primary indicator of quality and eff ort) carry over when they Similarly, many digital spaces/texts assume normative bodies as default. Kerschbaum nses at once, thus celebrate multimodal richness, when con sidered from a disability perspective, multimodality can be a

PAGE 54

43 inclusion and accessibility is essential to social participation. Hyper and cyber spaces reflect the addition to how those spaces/texts look and functi on. Unfortunately, government and web standard organizations that seem to continue to see and create digital spaces for the able bodied, which creates the need to retrofit for those with disabilities. In this thorny area, glitch writing pursues more radic al changes that do not merely perpetuate traditional patterns and habits. Multimodality in writing (traditionally) might allow hypertext or online publication. Glitch writing might instruct us to illustrate our views on abortion using Star Wars Legos. This scholar Manon speaks to what I see in the shift from multimodal writing to glitch writing as such: ic structure. Glitch damage is and implies more creative, mind blowing, and expanding modes. Figure 2 shows a methodical interpretation of one paragraph (19b) of A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia by Delueze and Guattari. Artist Ngui illustrates the first two chapters of the book paragraph. To help make the connection, part of the text this illustration responds to is the following: The pr oblem of writing: in order to designate something exactly, an exact expressions are utterly unavoidable. Not at all because it is a necessary step, or because one can only advance by approximations: an exactitude is in no way an approximation; on the contr ary, it is the exact passage of that which is under way. We invoke one dualism only in order to challenge another. We employ a dual ism of models only in order to arrive at a process that challenges all models. Each time, mental correctives are necessary to undo the dualisms we had no wish to construct but through which we pass. Arrive at the magic formula we all seek PLURALISM = MONISM via all the dualisms that are the enemy, an entirely necessary enemy, the furniture we are forever rearranging. (Delueze/ Guattari 20 21) This modal translation is not a standalone artifact and therefore might more accurately be termed a modal transformation. It supports and projects the content so as to engage multiple

PAGE 55

44 literacies. Glitch, in composition, subverts modal pract ices and approaches multimodality, not as simple translation or accommodative alternative, but as method for complex interaction and interplay. Figure 2: Illustration from the Thousand Plateaus Drawing Series for paragraph 19b by Marc Ngui.

PAGE 56

45 Figure 3: Text, glitched text, repetition, and allusion as used in The Medium is the Massage by Marshall McLuhan (23). The Medium is the Massage is an early work playing with forms and theories of ustrates the possibilities just with the form of the book and suggests the true reconceptualization of writing. Fundamentally glitch writing includes and combines the written, oral, visual, audio, tactile, gestural, and spatial in order to complicate our t exts in such a way that better reflects our complex experiences and more subversively challenges ideological structures.

PAGE 57

46 U N F INISHED W RITING THROUGH G LITCH not create a glitch. The limited amount of control the artist maintains is evident in the resulting image. (Manon 3) partiality towards the linear and cohesive, leaving little room for texts or writers in the spaces on th Shared activist interests and love for a good mess further m otivate my want for more complex notions are many new possible endgames in play. en, its audience bear witness to raw spontaneity as final product, rejecting revision and editing. To bear witness in such a normativity, accommodating ourselves tow the normalizing (and borifying) effects of revision, it is in the unrevised texts that, as Hammer put it, st (Technocul ture).

PAGE 58

47 Figure 4: the 1981 album Songs of Pain by Daniel Johnston. While not directly related to the eaks to a notion of authenticity or your enjoyment/interest in it, or both. Clip can also be accessed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0sp_ZDnK3R5MndPZGFpbmJsaE0/vie w?usp=shari ng Vulnerability of the writer might also be described as honesty or authenticity. Revealing authentic efforts of production will inevitably reveal, or at least imply, other information about the writer. Depending of course on inhibitions or lac k of, aspects of her identity and possibly even direct or indirect disability disclosures are important possibilities to consider. In any case, glitch writing means letting the act of creation and the vulnerability inherent there to remain visible. Artists artists. And this, the specific beauty of the unedited self and unapologetic creative work, is more recorded albums like Songs of Pain reflect true celebration of spontaneity and experimentation. Throughout his recordings from the early 1980s two year There are always clicks from his pounding of the organ keys and he plays with static and feedback ap proach shows what is possible when an author refuses the limitations of tradition. His work experiments with final forms and contains the spontaneity of invention without revision and without restraint. The results of his style are unique. Listening to a D aniel Johnston record is a consuming experience, exceptional both in intensity and intimacy.

PAGE 59

48 Figure 5: from Songs of Pain by Daniel Johnston; 1981. Excerpt Clip can also be accessed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0sp_ZDnK3R5OE9TQS1wTm9CWDQ/view?usp=sh aring Wh ile teaching revising and editing skills is necessary in composition curriculum, there is room for the raw, spontaneous work, which occurs in various ways to varying extremes. The most radical is the writing assignment crafted without any intent to return. This exists in the form of free writes but I definitely mean to suggest making space for larger scale works left in original form. understanding of how There could then be many final products created by/through the revisions. Thereby the value of raw writing is not ignored and revision is in play, perhaps more usefully than in standard process. Here, the writer must examine even the micro changes of her revision choices, which encourages self evaluation for its general effectiveness and more importantly can be used to see the normalizing patterns. Another version involves foreg plans towards one. This still requires thoughtful revision and idea development. The often rushed obligatory version effectively kills the piece all together. The possibility for future work is likely to be lost after a crappy, obligatory final paper is written (along with any enthusiasm). .e. a half crashed file, or a digital image that our analog fingering has only partly ruined, taking it almost but not quite beyond

PAGE 60

49 spaces become spaces to be treasured and the writing that occupies such spaces the almost, the partial, the imperfect so too becomes treasured. There is a serious need to revisit old assumptions about writing with vulnerability, mistakes, inconsistencies, mechanical errors etc. as always unfinished. The symptoms and behaviors associated with ADHD function in a similar way. These attributes are conceived of as limitations and even undesirable flaws but, like my suggestion for traditionally flawed, unpredictable, inconsisten t writing, those with ADHD belong too in a space a space that includes everyone with and without disability boring anyway. R EVISION AS N ORMALIZING A GENT materiality, its own production, its noise and malfunction. By design, most texts conceal these characteristics i n favor of a highly polished exterior, and the glitch critic must locate, highlight, and foreground the noise contained within each system. (Hammer 14) Revision strategies/expectations are effectively a means of subduing/normalizing in that they are concer rewriting writing are not aspects of creating something relevant or important or satisfying. They definitely can and often are. However, academic tradition preach es revision, I think, shadily. Revision strategies/requirements typically include things like precision, sentence variety, word choices, and pronoun use as well as structural changes to the pattern, organization, and proportion balance and uniformity. Thes e are the calculated, molecular changes made through traditional notions of revision to get writing to traditional notions of finished. Sometimes revision of this kind is fitting and satisfying. Sometimes revision of this kind directly creates coherence. S ometimes revision of this kind removes originality and character. Because revising attends to expectations (of genre, audience, etc.), the risk is systematic removal of any moments of charm or oddity or innovation. Revision tends to be about privileging t he conventional. So beyond overuse, revision work is actively harmful. It controls and erases variation and simultaneously spreads homogeny and defines

PAGE 61

50 see ks honest reflections of the self through writing. It celebrates the profoundly individual nature of means is not that there is no room for revision in g litch writing or that all polished texts are suspect. What it does mean is that the partial and imperfect have value too. The writer as individual and writing as product of that individuality is clearly one of the most interesting aspects of engaging with texts so the idea here is that we can use glitches as a way to that. I NTERRUPTING A BLEISM T HROUGH G LITCH The tensions and incompatibilities glitches which individuation persists as an ongoing process. It is not that those moments of disruptions are errors to be corrected or even errors that reveal operational logics, but they are instead the conditions of possibility for rhetorical action. (Boyle 20) Several glitch researchers touch briefly on ideas of embodiment and glitch but ultimately shy away from real confronta tion. For example, Reid argues passingly imperfections as the limits of 8 which he t hen applies to the embodied individual. For Cloninger, we assess one another as either signal or noise y, these value assessments equate to is not difficult to grasp. However, the conclusions Cloninger arrives at are. He describes the decision to acce itself (albeit pre existing) are unsettlingly problematic from a disability studies perspective. Disability is posited not as a lived and complex experience but wholly defined as impact on the able bodied 8 Rosa Menkman begins to apply Foucault's ideas on "madness" to the topic of signal vs. noise, which Cloninger points out as that which he wants to expand the implications of.

PAGE 62

51 norm hearing based me taphor make the application unsatisfying. Revisiting notions of the individual and by extension the collective via the movement of relations aligns with disability studies and activism specifically the concepts of identity as negotiated. Kerschbaum for example defines difference as the relationship between two people that is predicated on their separateness (in contrast to something finite that might be defined or described). lf and other cannot be fully articulated (or even apprehended by individuals themselves), it is with markers of difference that people create, display, and respond to changes in self and other and the perceived relations Toward 626). Implic ations explored regularly in DS research also mirror those Boyle locates at the intersect of glitch and rhetoric simply put, that opportunity and occasion for rhetorical action exist in the tensions, negotiations, and disruptions. One of the most theoret ical and most inviting (a rare combination) pieces exploring the relationship of glitch and rhetoric is easily as generative in rhetorical theory. This section began with a quote from this piece suggesting disruptions or glitches as powerful when understood not as possibility for correction but possibilities for rhetorical action. The other concept that appears in the excerpt is that of individuation. Drawing fr before/without relations and second, that individuation is ever ongoing due largely to the flux of relatives (20). Boyle and Kerschbaum both understand and the i ndividual and difference as mutable as well as fundamentally connected with relationality. Glitch + disability studies? Indeed. So I in part build on and in part reevaluate the initial notions of other scholars on the glitch disability connection. Superfic ial parallels between ideas of glitch and disability are easily apparent. To explain perhaps unnecessarily, a simplistic but likely common association would locate glitch as a malfunction of a technology and disability as a malfunction or impairment of a b ody. This is obviously glaringly problematic. Notions of glitch and disability that I have put forth clearly contradict this expected connection and therefore the analogy itself. However, I still locate a powerful

PAGE 63

52 parallel here: both disability and glitch can be conceptually engaged, and effectively so, to challenge and subvert dominant models. disciplinary body of scholarly work was transparent in terms of technologies used personal experiences lived, chemicals ingested, dis/abilities accounted for, and so on? Would the quality or embracing ADHD traits and perspectives, and those of disability more generally, as generative to composing practices. The result might also be stronger writer/reader connections and possibly even a more approachable, less intimidating experience with scholarly text production. In addition to re conceiving glitch in a writing studies context, reconceiving disability in a glitch context is likely to be equally generative. For writing, glitch is a disruption, interruption, and corruption of dominant models of text production. So for disability, glit ch might be similarly applied to pursue disruption, interruption, and corruption of dominant ideological models of ableism. In university practices of accommodations and even steps and attempts toward universal design principles, the fundamentality of chan ge is inadequate and/or an excruciatingly slow process. As r way of meeting this challenge. In some ways, glitch writing might be seen as an art of rejection. right and an insight that should allow them to re map, re create and re write the world in which they learn...to re

PAGE 64

53 S OME S PECIFIC M ANIFESTATIONS OF G LITCH W RITING writing that is reimagined through distractions and deconstruction. To fully appreciate the value of texts, I see a need to understand the changes that the writing underwent to produce the new, rem ixed piece. The manifestations of glitch writing I explore here include nonlinearity, the side pool, screencasts, and spasmodic writing/rhetoric, and is far from comprehensive. Instead these specific practices as implications of this intersect, easily iden tified because they have always been part of writing for me in various ways/degrees. When I write now these practices are embraced, making resistance to anti cipation/acceptance is powerful. In this section (after this brief intro anyway) I curate rather compose. The sub sections below are what I see as (or what are for me) the primary manifestations of glitching writing practice. In each sub section a manifest ation of glitch writing is discussed in part directly and in part via a series of quotations, images, etc. that I have curated. The resulting discussion, both direct and indirect, supports and expands each practice usefully. The experimentation with curati on became super frustrating (infinite possible inclusions with self imposed limitations on framing/interpreting). most provocative glitch art surpris This subversion of form creates an opportunity and I have pursued it by compelling the reader to more consciously create her understanding of these glitch elements 9 Nonlinearity/Recombinatory Texts We must abandon the myth that linear and clear and correctly formatted prose equals academic rigor and scholarly legitimacy. But these risks and discomforts may also yield the kind of freshness and creativity in scholarship and pedagogy we value and continue to call for in rhetoric and composition. (Hammer 22) 9 Flexible, subversive ways of writing is what glitch writing practices share meaning that they must be explored flexibly and subversively (at least if I want to retain the integrity of the chapter).

PAGE 65

54 Writing and reading have long connoted a movement from start to finish. The digital rectum makes it possible to allow readers to create their own structure through hyp erlinks. In some digital texts there is a discontinuous, non linear movement; the kind of cycle common to casual internet browsing. As Hammer points out the above quote, there is a freedom in digital composing that stems from the unlimited possibilities it suggests in structuring. I see composition as now in the age of non linearity that Derrida predicted. Others have developed ideas for its application into practicable pedagogy, namely post(e) Applied Grammatology Terms such as m ystory, heuretics, textshop, and choragraphy are suggested in the creation of new and experimental works of Ulmer suggests that computers distribute ideas/memories rather than just store them and thereby allow recombinatory texts tha t favor the illogic al, ambiguous, and surprising over the coherent, dualistic, and traditional He even suggests a structural language that skirts linearity to instead seek organizat ions based on disparity similarity and/or theme development The new pos sibilities/practices of composing through repurposing and remixing has created new genres in visual art (similar to glitch) and has broader implications. Despite the intense focus on digital composition, I think these ideas easily (obviously?) apply to ana log recombinatory texts as well and speak to the many writers and visual artists composing non traditionally but also non digitally (see figure 6). The experimental approaches posited and performed by those like Ulmer and McLuhan allow and privilege creati vity, especially in academic work. Like these writers, I see the place in composition and are all potentially generative and illustrative. Choose yo ur own adventure.

PAGE 66

55 Figure 6: A no n digitally composed recombinatory text 10 created on two pages of an antique textbook (original text illegible here). Background of the new piece is simple, thatched ink (top half blue/bottom half pea green with a jagged line separating the colors and also alluding to a mountain line on the horiz on). Foreground of the new image is collage, here the Roman coliseum (photo) with an astronaut on a moonwalk (illustration black and white) standing atop; the two icons in surreal relative sizes (astronaut is to coliseum as Griffin is to coffee table). T he Side Pool Another practice suggested by hyperactivity is the side pool (of possibilities). Throughout development of a text, the writer keeps a pile of elements to the side that is in constant transition. This for me means digitally but the practice cou ld easily transfer to physical hard copies, notes, collages, really). For me, the side pool is a space for my more chaotic to display and play with the m. This side of the side pool be a genre of writing itself but this is an idea I find intriguing and in need of further thought. 10 Created by Chaz Hager.

PAGE 67

56 Outside quotes, inc iting film or song bytes that are either difficult to place at present or unlikely to fit at all but worth keeping. There are artifacts (songs, images, etc.) that are inspiring or informing the work, which again may be engaged eventually in the text itself but are just as likely to affect the writing indirectly. I also tend to place source quotes I may or may not need in this pool. I during February of 2 016 in figure 7. Figure 7: Example of my own use of the side pool from this chapter in early April 2016. A black and white screen shot showing a box of semi related ideas like glitched sub headers created experimentally by me, a rejected McLuhan page sel ection (pg. 29), the lyrics to so politically correct titles list of source quotes that seemed relevant at some time (all may or may not have made it through to the chapter as it exists here).

PAGE 68

57 Screencasts Screencasts are a performative element of glitch writing in which readers witness the happenings on the de sktop of a computer. Screencasting offers writing that cannot conceal its process behind the edited, revised ren dered, polished, retouched etc. I suggest the screencast only general so it might be considered at several levels of usage including: one component of a larger piece, inter mittent element with in the pattern of a larger piece, an entire pie ce unto itself etc In a screencast, we see the cursor move as the writer makes (and fixes) errors or changes her mind. Screencasts reveal a lot more than the task of focus since the reader sees what program(s) are used, what time of day it is and any customizations of the interface. Even now as I introduce figure 8, the simple demo I made to illustrate the strangely intimate effect, I feel oddly exposed. In the short video clip (without audio commenta ry) I demonstrate the simple power of allowing a reader to watch the act of creating rather

PAGE 69

58 Figure 8: Largely anecdotal but this image is a still from a screencast I made showing the process of glitching a sh ort piece of text (in this case a chapter title for this thesis) In addition to showing my hesitations, distractions, and habits through the movement of the cursor, (image organization component sizes, etc.). Spasmodic Writing/R hetoric The genre of glitch art moves like the weather: sometimes it evolves very slowly, while at other times it can strike like lightning. The art works within this realm can be disturbing, prov oking and horrifying. (Menkman 341) Spasmodic writing suggests a composing approach that picks up work on sections variously, based on inspiration or interest rather than normalizing standards or expectations. The (intended) portions are then likely to ref lect varying levels of attention throughout the creative act. A hyperactive rhetoric suggests spasmodic development because embracing the hyperactivity and the hyperfocus means allowing oneself to attend to whatever is most consuming in that time and place It is heavily connected to the following manifestation of nonlinearity because just as the texts we create should break traditional requirements for linear progression, the writers themselves should experiment with spasmodic writing. As Hammer points out of both the Zaum movement and glitch theory, they are not

PAGE 70

59 and linearity are impossible in the first place by segment, ste p by which shark I want to fight until I see them (see figure 9). Figure 9 is a largely anecdotal metaphorical ns of a piece of writing feel to me sometimes. The formulaic, normalizing approach to creating a text is not useful for me and while I realize there are ex ploration of the possible texts and experiences to be had by writers specifically subverting this idyllic tradition. So, a hyperactive rhetoric emphasizes the importance of the messy, erratic, and unpredictable. Figure 9 : Black and white and mad basic sharks done in pencil. These sharks 11 are meant to work as a metaphor for the components of writing I am discussing herein to show how these approaches, while subversive, can still feel like fighting a shark and I choose the ap proach to engage at a given moment similarly to how I might choose which color/type of shark I want to fight first. Collaborative Authorship Band Sigur Rs gave a dozen filmmakers the same modest budget and asked them to create whatever comes into their he ad when they listen to songs from the band's album Valtari In theory, or 11 Sketch for the occasion by John William Keedy.

PAGE 71

60 my understanding anyway, is that the idea sought to bypass the usual artistic approval process and allow artists the utmost creative freedom. The result is a rattling short film/musi c video/dance piece titled Fjgur Pan (it shares the title with the song it was made for). This short film conveys the power possible in a text that is truly collaboratively authored (see figure 11). Sigur Rs wrote and performed the song, Shia LaBeouf brought his face, filmmaker Alma Harl brought surrealism and Denna Thomsen is a classically trained dancer. The piece is not restrained by reality to effectively show how the relationship works, feels, crashes. The surrealism of glowing lollipops, butte rflies, and symmetry are rattling emotionally, symbolically, and contextually. The painful mess is very much achieved Figure 11: A still captured from the short film/music video showing Shia LaBeouf bathrobe + prolonged eye contact 12 ). A hyperactive rhetoric is about letting things, wanting thing even, to be complicated and messy. A good mess is a thing of value. Allowing and encouraging a mess creates possibility and opportunity rather than imposing limitation on the creative process. Exactly like a literal mess I spent rift in the messy potential between my singular efforts and a collaborative affair. Whereas my mess might be filthy and large scale, my activities never involve paint or meatloaf entirely new mediums/layers. Second, with a solo mess show I would know the 12 = crushing it by transmitting overwhelming, awkwardly unexplainable emotional responses.

PAGE 72

61 cause or story behind all the pieces. I lost my enthusiasm and interest in that mess before it started. This metaphor aims simply to capture the nature of collaborative practice(s) suggested by both glitch and a hyperactive rhetoric. This massive manifes tation of glitch writing could obviously comprise a chapter of its own. Instead I introduce it here to point to a few elements of specific interest to glitch theory and ADHD perspectives. Collaborative authorship as implied by glitch searches for ways that may allow ADHD perspectives to reshape or develop new, unconventional, and shared ideas about what learning looks like and creative strategies to demonstrating that learning. In contemporary composition pedagogies, collaborative activities come standard. Glitch writing however pursues collaboratively authored pieces as the goal rather than collaboration as a means to enhance individual work (commonly known as peer review or workshop). C ONCLUDING G LITCH B ITS ( OR T YING I T U P I N A H UGE M ESSY I NEFFECTIVE B OW ) Glitch studies is a misplaced truth; it is a vision that destroys itself by its own choice of and for oblivion. The best ideas are dangerous because they generate awareness. Glitch studies is what you can just get away with. (Menkman 346) Accidents that emerge from contexts are the individual parts of us that are not socially constructed and cannot be predicted. (Marquard qtd. in Hawke, 255) an ornery sense of possibility. It pushes back on the long standing traditions and expectations of form istently attends to changing relationships between bodies and media. He suggests that, "all media are extensions of some human faculty (1234). For me glitch writing and the multimedia constructions it suggests are an extension of my hy peractive experience/perspective. Digital rhetoric, hyperactive rhetoric, spasmodic rhetoric, disability rhetorics, etc. all have power and I see the need not for continuing or adding limitations but for flexibility. Pursuing multiplicity is definitely mor e chaotic and seemingly overwhelming but so are experiences. Glitch writing uses the new requisites of form to explore and expand understandings of technologies and abilities. The relationalities of such currently seem endless and endlessly

PAGE 73

62 generative, at least to me. The means, modes, and products of composition that embrace the complex relationships and chaotic connections may stand to upheave assumptions about the priority of cohesion and of the able bodied communicator. The paradox of my work here is th at attempts to define and predict glitch as writing concept further to disability (in writing) because I think the results are amazing and challenging. H owever, I enables the generation of new modes of thought and action. When these modes become normalized, glitch studies shifts its focus or topic of study to find the current outsider in relation to a new will be progressive rather than standardizing (and Amy Vidali both copyedits and agrees here)

PAGE 74

63 CH PTER V C some reason I associate him with Elliot Smith. Anyway. Anyone remember how Elliot killed twice. I have posited and examined the idea that it is through unique dysfunctions that ADHD reveals abilities obscured by more pejorative constructions. I hope to have developed this concept effectively as it relates to ADHD via earlier discussions of theoretical applications and composition practices inspired by ADHD traits as glitches. The value of a hyperactive rhetoric to writing (and learning to write) has been dealt with somewhat extensively. I wan t to also apply this concept to argue that the complex genera tive value of ADHD is equally strong in teaching. Teachers are conceived of as purveyors of the norm and so deviation from that norm by teachers is especially scrutinized. Given the insufficient understandings of LD, it is easy to understand why teachers w ith LD may choose to hide their learning disabilities. There is a fear (a rational fear) of being perceived as less than competent. As I touched on in Chapter II, Valle et al. use Foucault to examine how power is most effective when adopted to full self regulation (14). Brueggemann and Moddelmog explain the significance here as such: The act of disclosing a historically abject identity in the classroom has had significant pedagogical consequences as well. It has called into question traditional expec tations of the kind of knowledge that can be shared with students, thereby redrawing the lines between the intellectual and the personal, the sanctioned and the taboo, the academic and the experiential. (312) identity as a teacher (and I would argue in any role active in occasions of learning, collaborating, and/or exchanging ideas) creates opportunity.

PAGE 75

64 T EACHING AS A S UBVERSIVE A CT This week I got a bat bite. Well, probably anyway, which meant rabies shot. I had got mugged at gunpoint. No permanent damage done. And I got in an accident with a wife. Not sure why she shared that info so immediately other than to elicit a curtsy of course, which she got. *Curtsy demo.* Tsst. Shut it down. Answer: all true. End of game. Winner. In this sense and in the reality of my classroom, disclosure is something that occurs throughout a semester as the students and I develop our group ethos (see Damiana). The ADHD with. But I think this type of incorporation generates new rhetorics of disability and fosters activism. Teachers must strategically put themselves at risk in order to ask the same from their students As ed for fear of dismissal, misunderstanding, or ridicule, students with LD are deprived of important role models and, associated traits of ADHD and ADHD persp ectives as generative, this chapter suggests a theory of hyperactive teaching and explores its potentials. The teaching role as it intersects with ADHD suggests an approach to teaching, specifically to teaching composition, which values spontaneity and emp loys malfunction. 13 Recognition of diverse teaching styles and lived experiences of the teachers by institutions (here I mean administrators, policies, students, other instructors, etc.) and the important function of that recognition socially is a primary focus of this chapter. Similarly, powerful though is the effect of that recognition and acceptance for instructors. Effect sounds somewhat pejorative here even because 13 These admittedly absurd asides were originally written in recollection partially through the Spring of 2016. As I reflected on the courses I was teaching thus far I began to review, with some surprise, the less planned monologues. I reveal the roots of the approach and part of the everyday manifestations. By disclosing (somewhat hesitantly) some simple, honest moments in my personal experience as an instructor, I hav e invited glitch into this chapter and into teaching. The glitch metaphor is not central here but I do see some initial utility for it. The punctuated monologues from my classrooms glitch the situation in two ways. In this chapter, these interruptions of f orm and style, of performative authorial role, and importantly, of seriousness forefront the productive error and individuation. As I examined in the previous section, glitches work to disrupt and surprise. Embracing glitch in my teaching practices means c rafting a different kind of relationship and a different overall environment.

PAGE 76

65 the reality behind the word here might begin with something like: the collection of posi tive and fiercely empowering forces created for and spread by instructors/their pedagogical practices. In a Vidali punctuates her analysis with a personal and h opefully privileging diverse teaching styles holds specific potential for disability rights and accessibility due to the generative functionality for pedagogies and perhaps more importantly the rhetorical role of instructors I defined in Chapter I. I belie ve in the essentiality of such recognition and acceptance. The significance of this intersect (teaching with disability in this case ADHD) comes easily when we consider the unique access teachers with ADHD have to four sources of relevant info: professi onal discourses on disability, mainstream cultural messages about LD, insights gained from imal and I therefore found it an inviting extension to my research. While much attention is paid to student strategies for those with ADHD and/or other LD, research on practices and approaches of/for/by teachers with ADHD are minimal. Social constructioni sm emphasizes the centrality of language, thought, interaction, politics, history, and culture in the making of human meaning in lived contexts. Facts are actually just the constructs granted privilege over the alternatives. Christine Sleeter in her groun dbreaking article Context explains the connectivity between the rise of learning disabilities and assumed medical, explanatory facts, which she argues came about to act as a sanctioned means of distinguishing and explaining the academic failings of middle class, White students. The LD construct, according to Sleeter, thereby allows and justifies discrimination and exclusion of poor students of color (by mis and under diagnosing LD in these demographics). Possibilities of social change are here cast in broad sociological terms. Sleeter, as major influencer of LD discourses and research since, posits the

PAGE 77

66 construction of learning disabilities as culturally distant and unaffected by the rhetorics, practices, and activism in college writing instruction. Further discouraging, the sorting of people by dis/ability and ab/normal presents as objective or at least neutral in the academic institution instead of poli tical acts that reflect normalizing processes not the abilities of students and instructors. In On Becoming a Person Roger points out some fundamental flaws of academic institutions to point to the widening gap between the ideals and goals of public edu cation and the implications of its practices (for judgment). In portions of this work, Postman et al. use sarcasm to express many other such lessons implied t hrough standardized methods and normalizing practices: One's own ideas and those of one's classmates are inconsequential. Feelings are irrelevant in education. not history and hist ory is not science and science is not art and art is not music, and art and music are minor subjects and English, history and science major subjects, and a subject is something you 'take' and, when you have taken it, you have 'had' it, and if you have 'had it, you are immune and need not take it again. The Vaccination Theory of education? (21) I feel strongly about a primary claim Roger frequently returns to that the saddest part of these implications and the passive reactions to normative classroom prac tices is that most people do not voice or possibly even see the problems with them. T HE H YPERACTIVE T EACHER settings? I mean tapes today. In fact no one does not no times never Nicholas Jaar back in the mix. exp lain how deconstruction as a philosophy suggests this application: Originally, Derrida (1976, 1979) sought to open up a text to reveal covert layers of assumed "truth," displaying the logocentricism of the text, the way the language constructs, reifies, an d often conceals alternative realities through subtle but pervasive workings of power. There are conversations, voices, and possible meanings that apparently innocent texts close down and suppress. (Danforth/Rhodes 358)

PAGE 78

67 Using a similar generative process, I suggest the possibility of the hyperactive teacher, based in hyperactive rhetoric and finding pedagogical premise in the traits and experiences of ADHD. The general goal of the hyperactive teacher as far as language use is the strategic disruption of rhe torical disability that create the constructio ns and metaphors pervasive at every level currently are not acceptable Teaching with ADHD is a somewhat common experience with widely varying effects both positive and negative. Although such a vague claim as that could be made in reference to teaching and anything almost. What I see a hyperactive rhetorical approach doing for the intersect of teaching and ADHD is providing a conceptual space that actively anticipates and includes teaching styles of those with ADHD. And further, explores and encourages the engagement of the benefits of teaching with ADHD. This is not an allowance common in the university. It is easy to see how teaching with ADHD in the way I am suggesting might often result in student instructor relationships and class aesthetics less forma l and traditional. This is certainly true in my composition courses. Bernstein discusses the use of hyperfocus (a common trait/experience of those of us with ADHD to varying nd myself separated from the students by categories of race, class, and education. Yet hyperfocus offered space for connection, as we concentrated on our relationships with history. The students and I met together as survivors of the twin historical upheav als of climate change and recession. We learned to listen to (141). By allowing my ADHD and my process characterize teaching just like I would when learning or writing, course instruction becomes a much more dynamic, comfortable experience for me. I engage significantly even sometimes with hyperfocus while forming connections with students as well as while helping with their research projects (usually in a one on or few on environments). When instructors with ADHD or traits that are associated have the energy and enthusiasm to

PAGE 79

68 irresponsible. For teachers with ADHD (and li kely all teachers) this collaboration and face time also means becoming more personally familiar likely due in part a refusal to create or uphold unnecessary boundaries of the academic tradition. Embracing individuality also means honoring that individua lity by allowing and introducing options for composing in nontraditional modes 14 G RIEVANCES Dear eccentric hyperactive teacher, Your quirkiness would be much more charming if you actually taught us once in a while. Sincerely, wasting my time. 15 note to no one (me) and by no one (me?) posted to a website created as a platform for anonymous, bitchy quip style letters that are not really letters but a fo rmat for making some general point. My immediate, emotional response was self consciousness and shame. The wretched sense that my students, regardless of how much they may like the antics of my class or me personally, may find my courses of little value. T he concerns that Berezin expresses, albeit from the position of student, are to save the driven thoughts enter into my experience as instructor not just concerning student perceptions but those of faculty and staff, which can be significantly more rattl ing. Certain student responses and opinions will be negative and as a realistic instructor, I feel I must acknowledge this is true and prepare for such occurrence s Still, my complicated relationship with this brief note stems from the very real possibilit y that my personal, hyperactive brand of comp 14 Examples include: iMashup for iPhone and iPad, Scratch, Timeline JS3, and Twine (an open source tool for telling interactive, nonlinear stories. Please visit their websites for more information. 15 From website dearblankpleaseblank.com moderated by Jared's cat Louie. If your submissions aren't being approved, it's because Louie is now accepting cans of tuna fish as bribes for approv als (four cans usually gets one submission approved.) DEAR BLANK PLEASE BLANK webpage).

PAGE 80

69 instruction is not quite as fun for everyone involved as it is for me. This letter articulates a familiar insecurity that perhaps my hyper teaching is less charmingly quirky and more exhaustively relentless. Ob jections and concerns in this vein and beyond are no doubt underway. I understand there are risks and possibly even downsides to this teaching style but it is coming out for me and the risks are the eve the value of hyperactive teaching is there that no matter the risks. C ONCLUDING H YPER B ITS ( OR E NDING W ITH A M ONOLOGUE T HAT S UGGESTS F URTHER A CTION ) This short has we should probably just watch it. Cotton candy all over the world. At the risk of predictability and followin g the concluding precedents in disability s tudies research, I will take this f inal moment to make a point those before me have not failed to make (Price 2011, Lott 2001, Vidali 2007). Somewhat redundant maybe but having a precedent to rely on in DS research is something special and... screw it I want to say the obvious perfectly affective yet dismal brand of appeal no less urgent or resonant with time. No matter is to be paid to that last because the take away on teaching with ADHD and practicing Hyperactive Teaching for me is that instructors with learning disabiliti es have more than unique opportunities for pedagogical subversivity, experimentation, etc. Teaching with LD/ADHD equates to a critical responsibility. This is a responsibility to meet notions of composition and comp instruction appropriately, by which I cl early mean hyper can be something we are, and disabling can be something we do, in the name of inclusion and social

PAGE 81

70 CH PTER VI R ¡ TR ¡ TH ¡ D L ¡ ) Continuing the experimental form of this thesis I have chosen to close the project with a this thesis (in the glitch sense) is a metanarrativ e frame. The piece to follow gives an honest presentation of graduate writing through the advisor/advisee dynamic, the incorporation of disability in such a dynamic and project, and collaborative r ealities of crafting a thesis. C o authored with Amy Vidali for a special issue of Praxis, the importance of the relationship between my thesis director and I, particularly the role of our disabilities and differences, is revealed through candid transcript and oscillating responses that show the diverging personali ties and senses of humor that were embraced; the element I believe most responsible for making this project successful. O UR C OLLABORATIVE I NTRODUCTION Because many faculty and graduate students pursue disability studies projects in an institutional vacuum exciting when faculty and graduate students come together to work on disability studies projects. Such has been the experience of the two authors of this piece: a gradua te student working on her including on this piece, where one of us got the project going and the other guided the creative spont disabled and use crip humor to navigate our work together.

PAGE 82

71 Alongside these benefits, there are what we sincerely and euphemistically call generative tensions, w hich occur when access needs and desires conflict, when power dynamics re assert themselves, and when attempts at change and adaptation fail. To parse these benefits and tensions, we write through, around, and about a recorded conversation of one of our mo stly weekly thesis meetings and a spontaneous decision to record this particular meeting for this project, we captured our typical routine, complete with b ig decisions, mis starts, and incessant blended beverages being made in a most unsettling blender creating more unsettling noise 16 In an uncomfortable testament to our relationship, we first listened to the recorded conversation on a lazy Friday afternoon independently reviewed the partial transcript and met to decide what moments warranted further attention. In line with our amusement, respect, and critique of how we work together, we eschewed tra ditional collaborative writing and instead selected clips of the conversation to respond to independently, then traded and responded to those responses. The result is a reflective (written) conversation about a (spoken) conversation, and we hope readers wi ll inhabit, clarify, and refute our advising experiences within their own embodied contexts. S PASMODIC B USINESS (#1) A: l working process, like how do I? G: Help me revise when I need it. A: Yeah. G: Definitely need it. A: what I mean? G: Yeah, it was also like, torture. 16 ether functioning perfectly or defacing your food/fingers/focus, are not of value.

PAGE 83

72 A: where I should read it. G: A: OCD Amy wants to be like, can you just finish one of these things. G: Yeah no kidding. A: Then I can tell you? You saw me, I start to I started happening. G: the next, cause... A: I forget, I wrote and I was commenting and then I was like, oh, this clearly is not done. G: e more clear about, things. Whatever. [edit] G: A: a final product. Not that there is such a thing as a final product. [laughter] G: about, and then I go look at it and I end up working on that part for a little bit, and then I go to look up something in one of the things in the article over here and then I work on that a little bit. So then I end up not even with full paragraphs A: It seems very productive for you though. G: good, because I just keep moving around. [edit] G: just like throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. It gets pretty out of control. And an hour and a half later I was like, what was I working on when I sat down here? Amy:

PAGE 84

73 was that characterized the previous semester for each of us, including the return of depression, a major break diction, and persistent gastrointestinal chaos. But these issues were stitched into the writing process too they influenced how I advised and how Griffin wrote. e guidelines/deadlines. But in our crip context, my attempts a t structure were mostly counter productive norm ative expectations of the writing process flatten the benefits of hyperactivity, and as she talked normalizing I am in terms of how I write and advise. and her way part of the time. So sometimes I write long e comments and deman d structure, and sometimes I hand her a small pink notecard with a few suggestions, decorated with dog stickers. Griffin: together on the thesis. It was a very challenging time for both of us. On top of these life events, writing pressures put me in an emotionally unpredictable state that was very unfamiliar since I had never engaged my own lived experience with disability so directly in my work. Maintaining my usual distance wa were necessarily incorporated into all levels of advising. At our next meeting (at the same coffee shop and table,) Amy really did surprise me with an entirely n ew and glitched approach. She had challenged herself to provide her feedback all on one pink notecard via brief bullet notes and sassy stickers. As I reflect on this, I wonder what the reverse

PAGE 85

74 of this might be. How could I similarly switch a weekly respons e to embody her approach to writing/revising? Have I truly done so yet? If so, definitely not as charmingly. I agree that the most satisfying reconciliations have come when we work completely in either her mode or mine, but several (less dramatic) practi ces represent regular compromise. For example, I making the development less random. I have also come to accept that rather than listening to an album that em bodies something from the thesis on the spot, it is more time efficient to email her a subject of analysis that we can then discuss at the next meeting. These small compromises work in conjunction with the bigger shifts between doing it her way and doing i t my way. H UMOR M E (#2) A: G: Okay cool. A: G: T [laughter] A: Fine. G: [laughter] A: And re read your monologues. G: Okay. A: G: put numbers on there. I did this creati ve writing project in undergrad it was called The Sound of Me Talking in Five Acts. It was two. It was two acts. But I never changed the title cause I liked it. [laughter]

PAGE 86

75 A: G: I have four. A: Four? G: Yeah. A: Monologues [laughter] Griffin: Humor is a constant way of dealing for me I use it to ease my anxieties about my ADHD in social contexts. At times, I find ways of embedding some of this quirk into the thesis, which I then exaggerate and perf place in disability studies, which is a field that can require overwhelmingly personal research when confronting discrimination past and present. In my conversations with Amy, this humor some times frustrations with disability writ large. entertaining myself dur ing the writing process. While maybe not directly addressing disability, these moments touch on the chaotic state of my drafts, complete with seemingly random number systems, which Amy calls me on but easily accepts (even if only in the moment). Humor is n ot the only way Amy: Griffin is a very funny person! And for me, such humor is welcome because there is sometimes too much distance between what professors/advisors know and what those new to disability studies know (or what either group thinks they know), which can foreclose playfulness and humor. When I teach disability studies, I try to invite laughter into the classroom, but it only sometimes works. But as well navigate disability access concerns in advising relationships. Conversations about access need to be advisees). Instead, I have usually mapped my previous experiences with graduate students in my classrooms onto advising

PAGE 87

76 the very beginning, when it ma y feel risky for graduate students to articulate what they need. Through my work with Griffin, I can also see that I need to be clearer about my access needs as an advisor, which I never clearly articulated, except through humor. N ORMATIVE C HATTER (#3) A: I mean you could decide to organize things really weirdly too, if you want to. G: What do you mean? A: G: Really? A: I figure at this point you may as well like just go for it, righ t? G: Okay. A: G: A: G: Amy: hen worth digging into though not defending. thesis, much as she breaks new ground with the content of her writing. But as an advisor, I worry about what happens when all the others the thesis formatting person at the graduate school, the other members of her committee, maybe even me reject her thesis as too that this formatting task will distract her from finishing the thesis, I worry that I am shirking my role as advisor (as motivator, time keeper, whip cracker). In this case, the normative chatter gets the best of me, transformi

PAGE 88

77 differenc e gets tricky, because I want(ed) to encourage Griffin to do what she is good at (in part because of her ADHD), while not understanding what that looks like or means (in part because of my structured nature). I want to say that I always take the risk and v enture into the unknown geography our graduate progr But my bigger concern is that in this case and others, the safe road and the normative road seem to be the same, and I hate that. Griffin: I would call what Amy does here discrimination is quietly common but I had not been so discouraged by it until I made the decision to write this moment in our conversation is somewhat darker than mine, as for me, this exchange represents at I am likely to hyperfocus on an very useful (as does Amy). It can also be very time consuming. The large scale, high stakes nature of this project ha ve also magnified the manifestations of my ADHD and hyperactive writing habits, making me less successful at traditional, linear drafting and meeting deadlines. I have also needed to be very honest about my differently organized approach. I repeatedly agre some difficulty resolving this for her and probably never fully will. I stri ve for completion of our receive submissions that partially accomplish what was planned along with developments that were not on the itinerary.

PAGE 89

78 Amy once sometimes normalizing) methods make revision and polished writing possible This is a primary area of tension for me and my ADHD, but I am comfortable discussing the practical implications of my approach and my disability. K ILLING I T (#4) A: G: Really? A : Yeah! [edit] A: That methods statement is going to be a something. But I really think part of your how to respond. Because I am both, you know, normal and nor malizing in terms of how I write. You know what I mean? G: A: commit to having a certain amount done which is negotiable. Makes me very uncomfortable. G: Rhetoric and the Body course so much because well one, because you helped me develop this project but two, because rather than just having a paper and kind of being underwhelmed by it and being done with it. Well, like in [another class] I wrote a paper there Griffin: As much as Amy reflects tradition in rhetoric and composition, she takes big risks as a professor and as an advisor. It is surely clear that t his is not always easy. Our advising meetings and the thesis have explored the normative practices we both use as instructors. Amy quickly began incorporating these ideas into her pedagogy, something I have done only casually and on smaller assignments. I found it empowering to see my ideas implemented in her curriculum, which was

PAGE 90

79 the aims of my thesis functions in several ways. I got a glimpse of what my methods look like in practical use, which I was then able to use to inform my writing. I also got a sense of accomplishment that the project might have real effects on writing inst the same willingness to take risks). Amy sees her teaching style as an uneasy fit for my ideas, but the i nstructors rely heavily on the tradition of the writing process metaphor and the steps it prescribes. Disrupting this pattern is not easy for most of us. Amy: In what seemed like a brilliant idea before and after I did it (but not along the way), I decided based ideas in my own classroom (the same semester as this recorded conversation), as Griffin notes. Her thesis smartly articulates the value of in process writing and unfinished work as more than a step toward a normative fina l draft, which I find both engaging and confusing. So in my senior level argumentation class, I asked the class to work on a particular project with only suggested goals for the first two, middle two, and last three weeks of the course. More directly drawi sense. Instead, as we discussed in the first week of class, one week before the project was due, they proposed what they would finish and why. I typically run a tight ship in terms of class deadlines and polished projects (I kill it, they kill it). But I tolerated my discomfort and regularly trumpeted how this project encouraged students to take charge of their work, begin a larger project they could finish later, and a void the need to turn in a complete but crappy draft. And while I was pretty convinced that the whole idea was going down the tubes at the of time of our thesis meeting (with about five weeks left in the semester), in the end, m hit the mark students were far more enthusiastic about this project than the others. In setting their own goals, students completed better quality work, and much more of it, than I ever would have asked for. driven

PAGE 91

80 approach must feel to some of my students (including those with ADHD), assuming it feels something like my dis us as advisor and advisee. C ONCLUDING C HAOTIC B ITS ( OR A DVISING AS A CTIVISM ) Advising with disability in mind especially around the sis writing is an activist act. Access and equity remain challenges for disabled people in higher education, including tenured faculty and graduate students who may be socialized into academic communities and function as effective self advocates. For eve n as scholars with disabilities working on a project in disability studies, we found normalizing traditions difficult to avoid, and we have found it valuable to look back at our end that our advising relationship is a model to follow, as the ways disability might impact both advising relationships and challenging our own writin g/advising processes, using humor, confronting normative practices beyond our advising relationship, and inhabiting complex ideas by teaching them to be advantageous when advising in disability contexts. and through disability in supporting writing in advising rela tionships. With this particular thesis, this that traditional notions of revision and finished products are agents of normalization. For Griffin, this product ive chaos was situated in the context of past experiences with academic writing, and a lifelong struggle to reconcile her ADHD and educational tradition/institutions. For Amy, such productive chaos occurred fairly far into her professional career, and in a depressive context where

PAGE 92

81 disorganization felt threatening. In the end, productive chaos allows space for disabled bodies and perspectives, though at the same time, such chaos cannot (and arguably should not) be entirely harnessed. Figure 12 Abstract blot painting with superimposed, surreal collage of an artichoke like flower blooming out from the top of an antique pharmacy bottle. The bottle and flower are black, white, and gray, while the background is a mostly unreadable, textbook like page Pea green, light orange and bloodish red are blotted on the background of the page (but not the bottle and flower). 17 17 Created by Chaz Hager.

PAGE 93

82 Anson, Chris M. "Process Pedagogy and Its Legacy." A Guide to Composition Pedagogies (2nd ed.). Ed. Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper T aggart, Kurt Schick, and H. Brooke Hessler. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 212 230. Print. n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2015. Archer, Dale. The ADHD Advantage: What You Thought Was a Diagnosis Maybe Your Greatest Strength. New York, New York: Avery, 2015. Print. by Paul K. Longmore and Lauri Umansky, 33 57. New York: NYU Press, 2001. Barber College Composition and Communication 55.3 (2004): 504 535. JSTOR Web. Psychological Bulletin 121.1 (1997): 65. 0 psycnet.apa.org.skyline.ucdenver.e du. Web. --. ADHD and the Nature of Self Control Guilford Press, 1997. Print. --Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disor der: A Clinical Workbook (3 rd ed.). New York: Guilford Publications. 2006. Comprehensive Psychiatry 37.6 (1996): 393 401. Scie nce Direct. Web. "Become a Certified Coach." ADD Coach Academy Web. 04 Feb. 2016. . Disability Studies Quarterly 34.4 (2014): n. pag. dsq sds.org Web. 6 Sept. 2015. Reflections: A Journal of Public Rhetoric, Civic Writing, and Service Learning 14.1 (2015). Web. 15 Sept. 2015. Bose, Dev K. Communication Crossroads: Assertiveness Pedagogy for College Writers with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Diss. Clemson University, 2011. Computers and Composition 35 (2015): 12 29. CrossRef. Web. Composition Studies 42.2 (2014): 151 154. Print. College Composition and Communication 52.3 (2001): 368 98. Print. --College English. 59.6 (1997): 647. Print.

PAGE 94

83 --Pedagogy 2.3 (2002): 311 335. Print. Commenting on and Exchanging the Written Work of Students with Learning Disabilities Composition Studies 34.2 (2006): 43 57. Print t Entirely Strange, College English 54.7 (1992): 775 793. Web. College English 77.2 (2014): 102 123. Print. Interchange 28.1 31 43. link.springer.com Web. in the Ghost/Static Trapped in Mouths." Gli.tc/h Reader[ror] 20111 Eds. Nick Briz, Evan Meaney, Rosa Menkman, William Robertson, Jon Satrom, and Jessica Westbrook. LOCATIONS: Unsorted Books, 2011. Print. n into College: Narratives of Students with International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (2012): n. pag. 0 www.tandfonline.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu Web. 8 Sept. 2015. e Ability Reciprocal Caring in Developmental Pedagogy 15.3 (2015): 459 475. Print. Experiences of Graduate Teaching Assista Innovative Higher Education 40.5 (2015): 399 413. CrossRef Web. Danforth, Scot. The Incomplete Child: An Intellectual History of Learning Disabilities New York: Peter Lang, 2009. Print. --International Journal of Inclusive Education 12.1 (2008): 49 64. Print --tion of ADHD in Everyday Anthropology & Education Quarterly 32.2 (2001): 167 90. Print. --Remedial and Special Education 18.6 (1997): 357 366. Print. Davids, Eugen Progress in Neuro Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry 29.6 (2005): 865 877. Print. Deleuze, Gilles, Flix Guattari, and Brian Massumi. A Thousan d Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Print. Cultural Studies 19.6 (2005): 649 666. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. Web. Disability Studies Quarterly 35.2 (2015): n. pag. dsq sds.org Web. 31 Aug. 2015. --. Disability Rhetoric. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2013.

PAGE 95

84 --W ilson, Cynthia, and Brenda Jo Brueggemann, eds. Disability and the Teaching of Writing: A Critical Sourcebook. 27. Print. --Composing(media) = Composing (embodiment) : Bodies, Technologies, Writing, the Teaching of Writing. Eds. Kristin L. Arola and Anne Frances Wysocki. Colorado State University. Libraries, 2007. 110 126. Print. --and Lewiecki Wilson Cynthia. "Refiguring Rhetorica: Linking Feminist Rhet oric and Disability Studies." Rhetorica in Motion: Feminist Rhetorical Methods and Methodologies Ed. Eileen E. Schell and K. J. Rawson. By Kate Ronald. U of Pittsburgh, 2010. 23 38. Web. Dudley Disability Studies Quarterly 30.2 (2010): n. pag. dsq sds.org Web. 6 Sept. 2015. Dunn, Patricia A. Learning Re Abled: The Learning Disability Controversy and Compositio n Studies Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1995. Print. --English Journal 100.2 (2010): 14 26. Print. --. Talking, Sketching, Moving: Multiple Literacies in the Teaching of Writing Portsmouth, NH: He inemann : Boynton/Cook, 2001. Print. --JAC 31.3/4 (2011): 736 752. Print. Teachers College Record 113 .10 (2011): 2155 2185. Print. Journal of Learning Disabilities 34.1 (2001): 22. Print. --Journal of Learning Disabilities 38.1 (2005): 62 78. Print. Disability Studies Quarterly 30.2 (2010): n. pag. dsq sds.org Web. 13 Sept. 2015. Garland NWSA Journal 14.3 (2002): 1 32. Print. "glitch, n." "glitch, v." OED Online. Oxford University Press, December 2015. Web. 25 February 2016. . Goosenberg Kent, Ellen. Difference HBO, 2011. NTSC. The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill. N.p., 13 Sept. 2012. Web. 14 Mar. 2016. Technoculture 4 (2015). Web. http://tcjournal.org/drupal/vol4/hammer --Feb. 2016.

PAGE 96

85 --Dakota State University, 2014. Google Scholar. Web. 27 Feb. 2 016. Hawk, Byron. A Counter History of Composition: Toward Methodologies of Complexity. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2007. Print. Synth Learning Disability Quarterly 26.1 (2003): 29. Print. Songs of Pain. Jung Rhetoric Review 26.2 (2007): 160 178. CrossRef Web. Kamenetz, nprED (2016): Web. 13 Jan. 2016. HD Brains Are the Most Creative: Why Do We Treat It Like a --Psychology Today (2011). Web. 27 Oct. 2015. Rhetoric Review 33.1 (2014): 55 71. Print. --College Composition and Communication 63.4 (2012): 616 644. Print. Kerschbaum, Stephanie L., Rosemarie Garland Thomson, Sushil K. Oswal, Amy Vidali, Susan Ghiaciuc, Margaret Price, Jay Dolmage, Craig A. Meyer, Brenda Brueggemann, and Ellen Profession New York: MLA, 2013. Print. Rhetoric Review 22.2 (2003): 167 174. Print. Linton, Simi. Claiming Disability Knowledge an d Identity New York: New York University Press, 1998. Open WorldCat Web. 30 Aug. 2015. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 45.7 (2002): 596 605. Print. world picture 6 (2011): 118. Print. Workshop on Narrative and Hypertext. ACM, 2012. 41 44. Google Scholar. Web. 25 Feb. 2016. Journal of Second Language Writing 12.1 (2003): 65 83. Scien ceDirect. Web. McLuhan, Marshall, Quentin Fiore, and Jerome Agel. The Medium Is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1971. Print. Video vortex reader II: Moving images beyond Yo uTube (2011): 336 347. Print. --. The Glitch Moment(um) Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, 2011. Print.

PAGE 97

86 "Mission and History." CHADD Web. 04 Feb. 2016. . ADHD Roller Coaster with Gina Pera 16 Nov. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2015. Web. 17 Feb. 2016. Postman, Neil, and Charles Weingartner. Teachi ng as a Subversive Activity New York: Delacorte Press, 1969. Print. Price, Margaret. Mad at School Rhetorics of Mental Disability and Academic Life Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2011. Print. --Disability and the Teaching of Writing: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds. Brenda Jo Brueggemann and Cynthia Lewiecki Wilson, with Jay Dolmage. Bedford/St. Martin, 2007. Print. --Getting Specific about Disability Studies Me thodology: Negotiating Reciprocity, Vulnerability 27, 2013. College English 34.5 (1973): 666 673 JSTOR. Web. Computers and Writing Conference, Raleigh, NC, December 6 9, 2012. Rogers, Carl R. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961. Print. Out GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 9.1 (2003): 233 255. Print. The New York Times 14 Dec. 2013. NYTimes.com Web. 9 June 2016. College Composition and Communication 45.4 (1994): 480 5 04. JSTOR. Web. Shaughnessy, Mina P. Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Print. Wall Street Journal 17 Apr. 2008. Wall Street Jou rnal Web. 29 Jan. 2016. Sirc, Geoffrey Michael. English Composition as a Happening Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2002. Print. in Its Social Disability Studies Quarterly 30.2 (2010): n. pag. dsq sds.org Web. 8 Sept. 2015. Taylor, Blake E. S. ADHD & Me: What I Learned from Lighting Fires at the Dinner Table. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, 2007. Print. ADHD As A Difference In Cognition, Not A Disorder 2013. Film.

PAGE 98

87 --TEDxQuinnipiacU. 2014. Film. --. Not Wrong, Just Different: ADHD as Innovators: Rebecca Hes sion. TEDxFortWayne. 2014. Film. Tobin, Lad, and Thomas Newkirk. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1994. Print. College Composition and Communication 45 (1994): 108 11. Turis, Stacey. Minded Tale of Life with Giftedness & Attention Deficit : Oh Look! A Chicken! 1st ed. Plano, Tex.: Bohemian Avenue Press, 2011. Print. Ulmer, Gregory L. Applied Grammatology: Post(e) Pedagogy from Jacques Derrida to Joseph Beuys. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985. Print. Equity & Excellence in Education 37.1 (2004): 4 17. CrossRef Web. Vidali, Amy. WPA: Writing Program Administration 38.2 (2015): 32 55. Print. --. Disabilit y and the Teaching of Writing: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds. Brenda Jo Brueggemann and Cynthia Lewiecki Wilson, with Jay Dolmage. Bedford/St. Martin, 2007. 40 55. Print. --Rhetoric Review 28.2 (2009): 185 204. Print. ---Disability, Student 641. Print. agogy: Dis/ability, Multimodality, and Universal Technical Communication Quarterly 19.4 (2010): 427 454. CrossRef Web. Colle ge Composition and Communication 53.4, 2002. 705 38. Print. Wilson, James C, and Cynthia Lewiecki Wilson. Embodied Rhetorics: Disability in Language and Culture Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2001. Print. Open Words: Access and English Studies 5 (2011): 38 52. Print. Yergeau, Melanie. Disabling Composition toward a 21st Century, Synaesthetic Theory o f Writing Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 2011. Print. --, Elizabeth Brewer, Stephanie Kerschbaum, Sushil Oswal, Margaret Price, Cynthia Selfe, Michael Kairos 18. 1. (2013): Web. 1 January 2016.

PAGE 99

88 PP ND ¡ X M AD R ESOURCES FOR A CCESS Adding and editing captions / subtitles. (2012). YouTube Help. Retrieved from http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=100077 Automatic captions in YouTube. (2009). Google official blog. Retrieved July 26, 2013, from http://googleblog.blogspot.no/2009/11/automatic captions in youtube.html Benetech's DIAGRAM center: http://diagramcenter.org/making images accessible.html RhettandLink (2011). Christmas carol caption fail [Video file]. Youtube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY0F31G i9Y&ob=av3e Tedtalk on disability: http://www.ted.com/talks/stella_young_ i_m_not_your_inspiration_thank_you_very_much University of Hawaii / Manoa. (2003). A model for accessibility. Center on disability studies. Retrieved from http://www.cds.hawaii.edu/products/model accessibility United Nations. (n.d.). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved July 30, 2013, from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities.aspx WebAIM is a fantastic resource (and mailing list) for all things web accessibility. http://webaim.org/techniques/alttext/ Other good starting places for image description: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/; https://www.w3.org/2000/08/nba manual/Overview.html Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG 1.0) (1999). Retrieved on September 15, 2011, from http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI WEBCONTENT 19990505 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) (2008). Retrieved on February 5, 2012, from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ g