ScholarWorks’s “recommended citation” (clearly not in MLA format):
Ryskamp, Dani Alexis (2014) “Neurodiversity’s Lingua Franca?: The Wild Iris, Autobiography of Red, and the Breakdown of Cognitive Barriers Through Poetic Language,” The Hilltop Review: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 5.
It amuses me that both of my (autistic) reviewers’ responses congratulated me on successfully rehabilitating Savarese’s concept of “neurocosmopolitanism,” which both of them side-eyed pretty hard. I understand why they think it needs rehabilitating. But my goal was never to rehab Savarese’s concept, or even to criticize it particularly. My goal was to anchor my arguments in whatever existing literature I could find in order to demonstrate that I was not in fact “just making it all up.” Which is a legitimate fear for any grad student in the humanities, and a particularly keen one when one’s neuroatypicality and its discontents have led to a lot of criticism in one’s lifetime that one’s brain products are “just made up.” (“To get attention,” perhaps?) Savarese and Chew were, frankly, just about all I could find.
I read both Savarese and Chew as making a good-faith effort to bridge the neurodiversity communication gaps, but either they are entirely neurotypical themselves, or they are setting aside whatever neuroatypicalities they do experience in favor of focusing on how they themselves are not autistic, specifically. Since I’m increasingly convinced we’re all “neuroatypical” in some way (in fact, I’m teaching a class this semester founded on this very conviction), I think the latter is more likely than the former. If so, that strikes me as one hell of a missed opportunity for them both, for reasons I explore in this paper.