​​

          Fitting in is something that we often take for granted. We fit, whether we find ways to make it seem like we fit or find groups where we feel comfortable. Misfitting is often a term that leads to negative feelings. No one wants to misfit; however, in society, there are many who do not fit into the structures in place…whether those structures are social, architectural, or otherwise. Furthermore, in the words fit and misfit, there is a duality of meaning that can be negative and positive in both instances. In this essay, I will examine the poem Fit/Misfit that I wrote for this assignment and how it both reflects and, in some ways, critiques the very concepts and readings that we have examined in the fall term.

​

          While reading Rosemarie Garland-Thomson’s essay, “Misfits: A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept,” I was struck by the similarity of experience and meaning within my own life. Growing up with a stepbrother who was severely disabled, I was met with the duality of what disability meant within society. There was a “lived identity and experience of disability as it is situated in place and time” (Garland-Thomson 591) for me and my family that I was aware of, even at an early age. My lived experience as an able-bodied child afforded me the privilege of mobility in a world designed for other able-bodied individuals. The simple explanation is that I fit.

​

          As a family unit, however, the “social process of disablement” (Garland-Thomson 591) occurred, and my family was considered a misfit. With my brother, obstacles that weren’t there when I was alone became evident when we were together. Stairs couldn’t be navigated with ease, services were blocked by the lack of proper parking for our lift van, and the attitudes of individuals meted out discrimination and isolation. We were, quite simply, “a square peg in a round hole” (Garland-Thomson 593). We were misfits.

​

          My poem (Appendix A) reflects the duality of that lived experience. It explores how, alone, I could navigate the world around me with ease and without thought of how it affected others whose bodies were different than mine or not “fit for the terrain.” When read from top to bottom, the intersectionality of being a white, lower class, CIS appearing girl, and the privilege that afforded me, is seen in the passages. In the poem, I presented a question that I often asked as a child: why should I lend my voice to overcome a problem I’m not presented with?

​

          Which illustrates one of the first concepts that we discussed in class where we were asked how we bring theory and practice together. bell hooks looked at theory as liberatory practice and her belief was central to my thought processes as a child and as an adult. My “’lived’ experience of critical theory” (Hooks 2) was theory in and of itself. I was theorizing before I even realized what theory truly was and, in many ways, putting that theory into practice.

​

          This duality of thought through lived experience was seen in how “misfitting served to theorize disability as a way of being in an environment” (Garland-Thomson 594). At home, there was no misfit. Everyone in my family, including my brother, had an environment that could be navigated with ease. My brother learned to thrive in this terrain on his own and could go through the day-to-day functions of life. His lived experience was one of autonomy within his environment. At home, he fit.

​

          According to Garland-Thomson, “the performing agent in a misfit materializes not in herself [himself] but rather literally up against the thingness of the world” (594). This was experienced by my brother and my family. Outside of the home, without anyone there with him, my brother was up against that thingness and could not navigate the physical and social structures of society. Even when not alone, the very architecture, and the attitudes of those we encountered, limited the autonomy that he had at home and labelled him…and everyone with him…a misfit.

​

          This othering that he experienced is expressed within the poem when you read it from bottom to top. The way that he felt normal within our home but, outside of it, realized that he was different from others. The world wasn’t navigated with ease.

 

          One of the crucial factors of the poem is in language. When we read the poem from top to bottom, it shows an inability to understand how those who are not as able-bodied as others would find that same terrain and social expectations limiting in many ways. The language is direct; however, when we read it from bottom to top, we see that language is much more complicated. There is a duality. The very same words, said in different order, as illustrated in the spoken poem (Appendix B), shows the limitation societal architecture and attitudes present to those with disabilities.

​

          As the author of the poem, I pulled from my own lived experiences as both the fit and misfit subject. With hidden disabilities, it is easier to navigate the world; however, I find myself often “doing being ordinary” as explained by Harvey Sacks in Garland-Thomson’s article (596). Furthermore, this brings up the fact that I found myself, as both a child and an adult with a hidden disability, going through life in a performative manner as discussed in class when we explored art, specifically, classical art.

​

          Being ordinary yielded me the “the privilege or social capital conferred by accessing spaces, performing tasks, and establishing relations that enable one to exercise the rights of citizenship in democratic orders” (Garland-Thomson 596). These rights of citizenship were ones that my family had to fight for 20 years for so my brother could enjoy just a small number of them.

​

          The very duality of living as an able-bodied individual affected with the limitations of disability through extension allowed me to see the duality of many issues. While we discuss intersectionality in courses, the language is often limited to only a few viewpoints that have made it within academia. We see the need for intersectionality, but without the lived experiences of a variety of intersectionalities, it is difficult to put class theory into practice. The failing is not in the understanding, it is in the seeing, as it was in the poem. I did not comprehend, so why would I ask questions that would correct wrongs if I am not aware of the questions that need to be asked.

​

          Alone, I can navigate those stairs with ease and the obstacles that intersectionality can bring to others can make those stairs to equity even harder to navigate. The poem reflects a critique of both my own inabilities to see how my privilege can blind me to the plight of others but also critiques how the language of theory can limit our ability to put that theory into practice.

​

          Even within our universities, while efforts of inclusion have been made, there is still a “social oppression encoded in attitudes and practices,” (Garland-Thomson 594) that needs to be addressed on a wider scale, not only for those with disabilities. We need to be aware of the duality of our words, how we shape what we say and how those messages are being interpreted.

​

And that is the emphasis of the poem. The duality of words, the attitudes of society and the way that the world around us can lead us to feeling like we are a misfit amongst those who fit.

​

Works Cited

​

GARLAND-THOMSON, ROSEMARIE. “Misfits: A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept.” Hypatia, vol. 26, no. 3, 2011, pp. 591–609. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23016570. Accessed 9 Nov. 2023.

​

hooks, bell (1991) "Theory as Liberatory Practice," Yale Journal of Law & Feminism: Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlf/vol4/iss1/2

​

Photo in Poem Graphic by Carolina Pimenta on Unsplash