Autism as a Natural Human Variation (journal article)

Post Reply New Topic

Can't find a copy of the whole article, sadly.

Autism as a Natural Human Variation: Reflections on the Claims of the Neurodiversity Movement
Pier Jaarsma and Stellan Welin

Abstract
Neurodiversity has remained a controversial concept over the last decade. In its broadest sense the concept of neurodiversity regards atypical neurological development as a normal human difference. The neurodiversity claim contains at least two different aspects. The first aspect is that autism, among other neurological conditions, is first and foremost a natural variation. The other aspect is about conferring rights and in particular value to the neurodiversity condition, demanding recognition and acceptance. Autism can be seen as a natural variation on par with for example homosexuality. The broad version of the neurodiversity claim, covering low-functioning as well as high-functioning autism, is problematic. Only a narrow conception of neurodiversity, referring exclusively to high-functioning autists, is reasonable. We will discuss the effects of DSM categorization and the medical model for high functioning autists. After a discussion of autism as a culture we will analyze various possible strategies for the neurodiversity movement to claim extra resources for autists as members of an underprivileged culture without being labelled disabled or as having a disorder. We will discuss their vulnerable status as a group and what obligation that confers on the majority of neurotypicals.

Yes, thank you!

except, except I want us to stand in solidarity with our nonspeaking sisters and brothers.

And we're not trying to "claim" extra resources. We have a lot to contribute. Look at Bill Gates, Jane Austen, Steven Spielberg for starters. (And we need to begin finding role models of people on the spectrum who are medium successful, and who almost by definition, since they're not famous, we're not going to immediately hear about them. And then of course any kind of artistic project or entrepreneurial project, etc has a lot of luck element and a lot of external elements. The point is to both keep trying and cut yourself some slack.)

Basically, what we're asking for, if human resource department could look for reasons to hire rather than reasons not to hire, and if they could avoid so tightly and narrowly defining 'normal' and then putting so much emphasis on that as if it's so all important. That is what we are asking for.

And same for schools and universities.

----------------------------

And notice how the formality of the above abstract works against it. It's as if the two writers have tea leaves caught in their throat and can barely talk!

Uh... disability in general is normal (at minimum 1/5 of people at any one time, higher if taken over a lifetime as it approaches 1/1 in people who don't die young) human (well it happens to other animals too, who DO take it usually as normal) variation (well it's not sameness is it). Anyone who doesn't get that, doesn't really understand the way various cultures go out of their way to make it seem less normal than it is.

I refuse to look down on people or leave them behind just because superficial traits or accidents of circumstance have caused people to call them "low-functioning." If you think the neurodiversity movement should apply only to the "high-functioning" then you don't understand it.

There is a deep moral/ethical question implied here. In it's starkest form, do we choose to abandon the disabled to their own devices, regarding them as unproductive burdens, or do we value all persons, regardless of ability?

Why not let the unable die?

Why not carry them?

This dichotomy is at the heart of much of what is considered good and right. I prefer the second, not because I have needed to be carried, but because I cannot know what value may come from the carrying. Additionally, deciding that abandonment is the wiser choice creates the difficult question of where simple assistance ends and carrying starts. Who decides when it becomes a burden?

As a people, I believe we should accept that none of use is truly independent, none of us survive without some assistance from the community, and that none of us is wise enough to know who should live and who should die. Therefore we accept all people, equal in rights, even if not in ability, regardless of the cost.

This ideal does not address the other questions about disability. Should we seek to remove all sources of disability? Are some natural variants so burdensome that we should endeavor to eliminate them?

Autism seems a unique variant. It is both a limitation and an asset, sometimes both in the same person. If your were to wonder why God allowed autism to exist, perhaps it is precisely to place before us a choice - to measure us as a people. Do we remove something from our midst, relieving ourselves of a weight? Or do we allow it to persist, accepting the good with the bad, knowing that perhaps something will come from an autistic mind, something that can come ONLY from an autistic mind, that will be of such value that it more than pays back to society that which was given to carry those that could not walk by themselves?

I've always argued that if these ideas only apply to so called high functioning people then it's best never to apply them at all. All that that abbreviated version of that philosophy does, is (if taken up by all of society) simply moves a few "abnormal" people into "normal" (for lack of better words so don't nitpick the language) and those are just the ones who were really really close to "normal" anyway. So who does that help? The people furthest from the cultural norms are the ones in the most dire need of change in those norms. It doesn't help me at all if society adopts the idea that the highest achieving disabled people are okay but the rest of us are still pathological. And so it pisses me off when both proponents and critics of that view limit it to "the able disabled" or to just the fashionable disability labels like autism (but not say, other kinds of developmental disability like intellectual disability which always gets left out of these discussions or worse, blamed for why people like me need boatloads of services like "no no that can't be the autism because autism only gives you abilities or mild difficulties so it must be the comorbids!! !"). Of course I'm not much into the word neurodiversity anymore because of what both its proponents and critics insist on turning it into. It's just too loaded with potential meanings, and has turned into an ideology. I don't do ideologies.

Pretty much any innate, inherited mutation, good or bad, is part of natural human variation.

Personally, I think many aspects of what is called AS, is just inherent to me and part of my composition as a person, and I think there are many positive aspects included in that.

I also think my boundaries, though different from most NT's, should be respected, much as I respect theirs. So to this extent, I believe my differences should be accepted.

However should one's differences cause severe and negative impact on the lives of others, for example, there are those who are autistic who need 24 hour care throughout their lives, it starts to become a problem for which a solution should be found.

Also I don't think autism is unique in being not all bad. It's just the one that's most played up at the moment as being not all bad. (And this is besides various ideas about disability that shape our assessments of what's good and what's bad.)