Oct 28, 2014_TECHNOLOGY_ Reading Response

The readings for this week underline the importance of process and relationship in building a communication model to include difference. The process of first meeting the different-abled students and then working with them requires many skills different from those traditionally used in the education setting. Such skills are less concerned with systematic learning, but more about negotiating, building genuine relationships, and fostering confidence. The Communicative Competence Inventory introduced by Chung and Douglas (2014) shows a collaborative approach based on four elements that are essential to support students having difficulties in speech production: students as active communicators, peers as competent communication partners, family as involved collaborators, and educator as effective facilitators. The inclusiveness of this model comes from the fact that it involves everyone in and out of the class setting to become a part of this learning process. It gives everyone a chance to contribute and provides ownership in building an effective communication model. It is “empowerment by difference,” claimed by Kraft and Keifer-Boyd (2013). It is crucial to understand "the strength of differences and ways to share those strength for a community of learners" and convey those strength through resources and strategies. 

What has been done so far for the different abled students and what needs to be done in the future for them should be examined in depth in order to find out what works and how we can incorporate successful theories and methods into our individual fields, not only school settings but also other institutions where learning happen. Well-grounded understanding is vital in detecting the students’ needs, which will further enable the facilitator to develop and implement programs to build a platform for the individuals to fully demonstrate their potentials.

*Food for thought
http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/show/make-it-wearable-part-1-human-connection

Oct 21, 2014_(Re)present_Reading Response

What is it that advertisements want to sell? Where does the advertisement want to situate me and where do I situate myself within the context of representation? Does the advertisement’s intended scope and where I see myself within that scope come to an agreement? “Me” as the subject is asked to consume the “code” or “sign” that the advertisement is trying to sell. This code of the Dove ad discussed in Heiss’ essay intends to encompass a broader range of consumer by associating signs of “real beauty,” but “the word 'real' coupled with these nearly "normate" bodies is cause for concern because 'real' connotes 'natural' or 'authentic.'” The advertisement’s idea of “real beauty” and its act to further position “the body as a site of dichotomous evaluations” is problematic since it excludes women with disabilities that do not conform to an image of idealized body and thus re-categorizes and reinforces the notion of normative standards of beauty. By watching the ad, who would feel a sense of belonging and who would feel as being shut out? What is the relationship between representation, identity, and commodity culture? Are we still stuck in the dominant Western discourse that confines “self” within the framework of being “ordered and discrete, secure within the well-defined boundaries of the body rather than actually being the body” (Shildrick)?

Oct 14, 2014_Embodied (differences)_Reading Response

The readings for this week once again push the parameters that grounded my educational standpoint. And changing this standpoint allowed me to different sides of disability studies and how it disrupts the process of coding, marking, and normalizing by extending the limits of “thinkability.”

South Korean artist Lee Bul’s recent work deals with notions of self-reflection. In relation to her work, she states: "I sometimes have these thoughts nowadays that what we think or believe is ourselves, is actually a reflection of ourselves that we accept without hesitation. I wonder how we saw ourselves before we had mirrors in front of us." 

We should also think about embodied differences outside the framework of institutional archiving and catalog subjects, but should bring myriad pieces of mirrors to project and reflect diverse spaces within disability studies. The readings provoke me to look beyond the physical surface of the body and regard body as a site that “reject[s] the dominant binary division of the world into able-bodied and disabled or normal and abnormal.” Here, the objective singular medical gaze transforms into a subjectively experienced multiple perspectives. This aligns with how Erevelle points out that “knowledge of bodies is a social and not just a clinical event where all bodies are in a state of renewal and adjustment in changing physical and environmental contexts making bodies intensely aware, not just of their being but also of their mutual becomings in the world.” Like the fragmented mirrors in Lee Bul's work reflect different aspects of self, the focus of examining difference should focus on “exploring the subjectivities of lived experience replete with unanticipated meanings.” 

Oct 7, 2014_TRANS (Transformative Education)_Reading Response

The readings from this course are constantly and gradually expanding my thoughts and ideas about (dis)ability. Rake’s argument from this week’s readings stimulated me to take another perspective on examining the notion of disability. While claiming that the examination on intersections that feminist philosophers/theorists focus on tends to be based on their own identities and experiences, Rake cites Rowe’s idea of “cartographies of belonging” as to think how we “map the ways in which we are turned toward and away from others and how this positioning and ir/relationality are central to the construction of subjectivity itself.” Rake introduces the argument made by Clare to dig deeper into this notion of “ir/relationality” to identify the “normalizing force” that perpetuates the idea of viewing impairment as “always already disabled.” Positioning self on a map that loosens or even reduces our conceptualization within this reductive binary system is crucial in disability studies.

From an art educational standpoint, the HEARTS model, suggested by Kraft and Keifer-Boyd, presents effective ways to shift the “normalizing” perspective towards impairment by implementing “art’s ability to maximize individual differences as a strategy for empowerment.” While proposing practical methods to bring modifications for different needs, such as the utilization of digital technologies, the model also puts weight on the importance of devising directions and structure that are flexible enough to visualize or make tangible of the participant’s “strength, interests, and expressive modes” through art. By engaging both typical and different-abled participants in the process of making art, it carries out inclusion strategies based on reciprocal communications between the educator/typical-abled/different-abled students. The model fosters further thinking of how the distinctive values of art could be utilized in developing a more relational mapping of identity (an identity as an ongoing process) based upon the intersection of diverse experiences and perspectives.