MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School CERTIFICATE FOR APPROVING THE DISSERTATION We hereby approve the Dissertation Of Jay T. Dolmage Candidate for the Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Director Dr. Cindy Lewiecki-Wilson Reader Dr. Kate Ronald Reader Dr. Morris Young Reader Dr. James Cherney Graduate School Representative ABSTRACT METIS: DISABILITY, RHETORIC AND AVAILABLE MEANS by Jay Dolmage In this dissertation I argue for a critical re-investigation of several connected rhetorical traditions, and then for the re-articulation of theories of composition pedagogy in order to more fully recognize the importance of embodied differences. Metis is the rhetorical art of cunning, the use of embodied strategies—what Certeau calls everyday arts—to transform rhetorical situations. In a world of chance and change, metis is what allows us to craft available means for persuasion. Building on the work of Detienne and Vernant, and Certeau, I argue that metis is a way to recognize that all rhetoric is embodied. I show that embodiment is a feeling for difference, and always references norms of gender, race, sexuality, class, citizenship. Developing the concept of metis I show how embodiment forms and transforms in reference to norms of ability, the constraints and enablements of our bodied knowing. I exercise my own metis as I re-tell the mythical stories of Hephaestus and Metis, and re- examine the dialogues of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Quintillian. I weave through the images of embodiment trafficked in phenomenological philosophy, and I apply my own models to the teaching of writing as an embodied practice, forging new tools for learning. I strategically interrogate the ways that academic spaces circumscribe roles for bodies/minds, and critique the discipline of composition’s investment in the erection of boundaries. I propose new ways to conceptualize rhetorical history, embodiment, composition’s geographies, pedagogies, and engagements. METIS: DISABILITY, RHETORIC AND AVAILABLE MEANS A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of English By Jay Timothy Dolmage Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2006 Dissertation Director: Dr. Cyntbhia Lewiecki-Wilson TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1-4 Chapter One: Disability Studies Of Rhetorical History 5-53 Disability In Antiquity 6-9 Norm, Mean, Ideal 9-16 Difference And Rhetorical Histories 16-17 Embodied Rhetorics 17-21 Prosthetic Rhetorics 21-24 Educable Bodies 24-32 Desirable Bodies? 32-35 Constructing (In)Continence 35-37 The Politics of Writing the Body 38-40 Mythological Disability, Transformative Rhetorics 40-53 Chapter Two: Metis and Cunning Historiography 54-88 Metis and Disability Rhetorics 55-58 Double Or Divergent Orientation 58-62 Metis As An Embodied Intelligence 62-63 Choosing Stories Of Disability 64-66 The Greek Myths Of Hephaestus 66-71 Asking Questions 71-78 Metis And The Stories Of Metis 78-80 The Goddess Metis 80-82 Eating Metis 82-86 Medusa 86-88 Chapter Three: Embodied (Dis)Positions 89-141 The Contingencies Of Normativity—Metissage 90-98 Wandering 98-100 (De)Constructing Disability 100-107 Embodiment And Normativity 107-110 Habitus As (Dis)Position 110-112 The Ethics Of Embodiment 112-113 The Body Image 113-116 Uprightness And The Eye 116-121 The Mobius Strip 121-123 The Phantom Limb 123-127 Emotion and Embodiment 127-128 Images, Movies, Multiple Drafts 128-131 Loops, Synthesizers 131-133 Moving 133-137 Looping Back To Rhetoric, Embodiment And Disability 137-141 ii Chapter Four: Re-Making Space 142-189 Steep Steps 145-159 The Retro-Fit 159-171 Universal Design 171-189 Chapter Five: Pursuing A Pedagogy Of Metis 190-236 Changing The Institution 191-200 Developing Curriculum 200-213 Developing Pedagogy 213-236 iii LIST OF FIGURES Image 1.1: Austin,Gilbert. Chironomia. London: T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1806. Plate 2. Image 1.2: Austin,Gilbert. Chironomia. London: T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1806. Plates 10 and 11. Image 1.3: “Normative Body.” Jay Dolmage. 2005. Image 1.4: “Two Horses in the Soul, Within the Body.” Jay Dolmage, 2005. Image 1.5: “Two Horses in the Soul, Within the Body, Within the Body.” Jay Dolmage, 2005. Image 1.6: “Sleeping Hermaphrodite.” Copy. c. 3rd-2nd cent. B.C. Terme Museum, Rome. Image 2.1: “Hephaestus” Ambrosios Painter, c. 525 B.C.E Image 2.2: “Return of Hephaistos to Olympus,” Dionysos, c. 525 B.C.E. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria. Image 2.3: “Hephaistos, God of Fire, Bronzework and of Craftsmen, Returns to Olympus.” Artist unknown. c. 590 B.C.E. Kunthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria. Image 2.4: “Skyphos, Side A, Detail of Hephaistos.” Kleophon Painter. c. 420 B.C.E. Toledo Museum of Art. Image 2.5: “Temple of Hephaestus.” Carr, Adam. 2004. Gnu Free Documentation License, September 24, 2004. Image 2.6: Phrynos Painter. Birth of Athena, 560-550 B.C.E. University of Haifa Library Image 2.7: “Birth of Athene.” Painter C. 570 B.C.E. University of Haifa Library Image 2.8: “The Stalk of the Sleeping Medusa,” Nausicaa Painter. 450-440 B.C.E. Virginia Museum, Richmond. Image 3.1: “Normative Body.” Jay Dolmage. 2005. iv Image 3.2: Detail from Frontispiece. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-Wealth, Ecclesiasticall and Civill. London: Andrew Crooke, 1651. Image 3.3: “British Social Model of Disability.” Jay Dolmage. 2005. Image 3.4: “Postmodern Model of Disability.” Jay Dolmage. 2005. Image 3.5: “Body Cut-Out.” Jay Dolmage. 2005. Image 3.6: “Mobius Strip.” Paul Bourke. MAMA 27 November 2000, p 91, Figure 17. Image 3.7: “Upright Human Body, Space and Time.” Tuan, Yi-Fu. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977. Image 3.8: “Phantom Limb Loop.” Jay Dolmage. 2005. Image 3.9: “Phantom Limb Mobius.” Jay Dolmage. 2005. Image 3.10: “Body Diagram.” Tomkin, Silvan. Shame and its Sisters: A Silvan Tomkins Reader. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Adam Frank, and Irving E. Alexander, Eds. Durham: Duke University Press, 1995. Image 3.11: “Drawing Hands.” M.C Escher. 1948. Image 4.1: Olin, Tom. “Day in Court for Americans with Disabilities Protests Planned Over Supreme Court's ADA Rulings.” March 1990. Online Image. NPR.org. January 12, 2004. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1594218> Image 4.2: “Exhibit of Work and Educational Campaign for Juvenile Mental Defectives.” American Philosophical Society. 1906. American Eugenics Archive. Image 4.3: “Wrentham School for the Feeble-Minded in Massachusetts.” 1924. The Proceedings of the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-Minded. Re-printed in Trent, James W. Inventing the Feeble Mind. Berkeley: U. California Press, 1994. Image 4.4: “Miami University From The Sky.” Miami University Recensio. 1927. Image 4.5: “Miami Merger Valentine’s Card.” Miami University Alumni Association. 2005. v Image 4.6: “Graphing the Steps” Jay Dolmage. 2005. Image 4.7: “Postcard: Approach to Rensselaer.” Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Library Archives. 1910. Online Image. Lib.rpi.org. December 8, 2004. <http://www.lib.rpi.edu/dept/library/html/Archives/gallery/approach/apphome.html> Image 4.8: “Figure 430: Retrofit the building entrance by replacing the steps with a ramp.” United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/index.htm Image 4.9: “Retro-Fitting the Accommodation Letter” Jay Dolmage. 2005. Image 4.10: “Hephaestus” Ambrosios Painter, c. 525 B.C.E Image 5.1: “Usability and Universal Design.” Jay Dolmage. 2005. Image 5.2: “Animal Locomotion Plate 167.” Eadward Muybridge. Animal Locomotion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1887. Image 5.3: “Composite Portraits, Made by Combining Those of Many Different Persons Into a Single Resultant Figure.” Francis Galton. 1879. * All images requiring copyright have been omitted from this version of the dissertation. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks first to Debbie Morner. Thanks to Sharon Thorpe for her friendship, good humor, and love, John Tassoni, Bill DeGenaro and Dale Jacobs for their friendship and encouragement, and Jim Stuart for his friendship and support. I thank Jim Cherney, Kathy Mcmahon Klosterman, Kathleen Hutchinson, Jean Lynch and Chris Wellin for bringing attention to disability issues on the Miami campus. I thank Morris Young for his critical examination of my work, and for giving me opportunities to learn from him and work alongside him. Kate Ronald deserves thanks for so much more than just her mentorship and inspiration—her understanding and sympathy helped me through the most difficult period of my life. I thank my chair, Cindy Lewiecki-Wilson, the best teacher I’ve ever had, co-author of any good ideas I’ll ever have. I thank my family–Marilyn, Jim, Matt and Leah Dolmage. I have always been the one who tags along, and this work is my effort to follow each of you. I hope I can create change, cause trouble, and teach as well as you do. And I thank my partner Heather who is wonderful. vii DEDICATION This dissertation began with the loss of my uncle Robert Sidey. Born with a disability, he was given up at birth, institutionalized, and he died of neglect at age 8. I hope this work helps us to remember his life and lives like his, and to avoid repeating this loss. This dissertation is also dedicated to the memory of my big brother Matt Dolmage who passed away in 2004. This writing is built only out of what I learned from him; it is full of him. I hope that this work extends his fight—for the right to education, for access—and the change he initiated as he rolled down the street and through the world.