Yesterday, I posted that I had no idea what identity my thesis was going to take. Today, I have an inkling of what it is.
I love the concept of identity. I don’t know why, but I think it may be because my identity has never effectively fit anywhere (with the exception of rhetoric). I want to look at identity from a rhetorical standpoint, however, I don’t want to look at it from one single point of view. I want to get a panoramic view of theories on identity formation from as many places as I can. Psychology, neuroscience, education, philosophy, literary theory/criticism, feminism, disability rights, identity politics, queer theory, and all of their subparts.
It may seem pointless to do a rhetorical analysis of identity without looking directly at identity. However, I will be looking at identity directly, but from different points of view. In this way, I will gain a better understanding of identity.
My hope is to write each perspective’s theory and then try and figure out how autism fits into this theory. This may work, it also may not. Then, when I have all of them together, I believe I will be able to better understand the rhetoric of identity formation.
In order to understand how identity is formed in people with autism, I have to understand how identity is formed in neurotypicals first.