Neurotypical Privilege

Post Reply New Topic

My sister has been monitoring this thread (she haunts, doesn't post) and because she doesn't have a WP account and finds typing to be taxing (plus she just got her eyes dilated at the eye doctor, so computer screens currently are hard to look at for her), she's dictating and I'm typing it. The following are her words:

<<begin quote>>

To presume that my sister's views could sway how I think so drastically is frankly a bit insulting. I'm an adult and I do disagree with my sister sometimes. Also, I view learning about this as helping me become an advocate and I think that helps me become stronger overall and understand myself as a person more. I'm part of another minority group as well and advocacy for this group has also helped me take pride in my differences and accept myself rather than be someone who I'm not.

As to being set free, set free from what? What do I need to be free from? I'm not encapsulated - I talk to a lot of people other than my sister and am part of a large college campus, of which most people don't believe in any type of privilege. I'm exposed to a lot of other views and therefore I don't think I'm that subjected to an echo chamber.

I don't belief free will exists anyway, so I do believe that genetics does affect environment and vice versa, but I believe this happens to everyone, neurotypical or not.

<<end quote>>

I can't say I agree with her on everything (for one thing, I'm not sure about my beliefs are about free will), but there you go. I will add that she might be a bit older than you were thinking, to your credit. She's an adult, both in my eyes and legally.

My own comments begin here:


That is so incredibly difficult to test empirically with the given parameters, and without any stats or tests, I don't have much to go on here... The sheer lack of test-ability and the fact that this really doesn't [edited to add this, because apparently I completely forgot to finish my sentence here and I'm not sure what I was going to say, but basically know that I'm extremely skeptical of this claim.]


Personally, by the way, I didn't understand what you meant about encapsulation either - I'm guessing my sister interpreted right, but I was pretty lost when you brought that up. Considering your most recent comment (we actually wrote this whole thing before your comment and I just completely forgot to hit submit, apparently) we may have to reevalute depending on what you mean by encapsulation, because I don't think it's what my sister thought you meant (echo chamber, etc), but I still don't have enough information to understand it (I'll take you up on your offer to explain more later, though. ).

As for disorder, I think I mostly use this definition: "Mental disorder, a psychological or behavioral pattern associated with distress or disability that occurs in an individual and is not a part of normal development or culture." Doesn't completely match up to my own feeling of it, but close enough.

Illness, on the other hand, while in its broader sense includes disorders, is a synonym for disease. (Also, I think the exact phrasing I was referring to was disease...not sure, though). Can elaborate more, but I'm too tired to finish this now and if I delay again it'll be next week before I actually post this thing.

edited to add: Okay, so maybe autism might technically be a disease, according to certain people, depending on how you think of the definition that requires diseases to "affect the body of an organism." That said, professionals don't refer to it that way and nor do people in the community tend to unless they're trying to frighten people, and disorder is definitely a better label. Disease tends to have the connotation in the public's mind of indicating something which spreads, and its very definition indicates that something is physically wrong with the body. (So, depending on what you think causes autism, I suppose it could qualify - personally, it doesn't.) Mental disorder, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean something physically wrong, doesn't spread, and implies that the mind is involved. I may have to include a debate on this in the terminology section...glad you brought that up!

Thanks for checking out the website, btw! Constructive criticism and questions, such as yours, are greatly appreciated.

Last edited by BigSister on 11 Aug 2013, 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

i've always had trouble with people giving me complicated sequences of verbal instructions. early on, i started carrying paper & pen so i could write it down & refer to it (for, the way my mind works, either the later part of the instructions will erase the earlier part, or some new thought of my own will cause me to forget part or all of it), and now, even though i seldom have the same need, i still write a lot of things down that i think most NTs would count on being able to remember.

there has never been a job i've worked at, that did not favor verbal instructions over written. (sometimes they even associate having to read something written down, as punitive.)

--this is just a tiny example--

i won't even go into the massive inequality experienced in school where socialization is mostly not given via explicit instruction, at a time when acceptance is compulsively withheld for infinitesimal departures from the norm. what's weird is how little this situation gets described here in terms of privilege, instead of as a "struggle to fit in" (skin-lightening potions, anyone?). privilege is political, it's politics you can't change the channel from. it's barbed wire & attack dogs.

being naturally adept at lying & negotiating a swarm of variously-sincere statements is like being born with a swimming instinct; then some kid who doesn't know how (doesn't even guess that he doesn't know how) is thrown into the pool to sink or swim--a pool he will remain in for the rest of his life. the seeming adaptation of learning to conceal one's true feelings & opinions is at best a stricture, & at worst a kind of self-deception (they can see right through you, nine times out of ten).

--but the cruellest form of NT privilege is political theater. they use the language of ideas as if they mean something; it's all about tribes & belonging & rivalry, & anyone who wants to actually examine cause & effect in public affairs (look at Dennis Kucinich's presidental bid) is ridiculed & ignored by the media--just like the treatment in junior high.

You sound like an awesome person. I wish I had had a big sister like you growing up. I wouldn't have turned into such a misanthropic as*hole.

Anyway, I kind of agree it's a real thing. But I wish we had a better term for it because some people even who don't have autism have qualities that deviate from neurotypicality. I don't even think the term "extrovert privilege" captures it completely. Nor does "non-autistic" since I think people with Borderline Personality Disorder and ADHD (only two other neurologically based but high functioning disorders I'm familiar with) suffer from this lack of privilege too.

Thanks for your kind words! My American culture upbringing and studied Chinese culture sides are really warring with each other right now over whether I should accept the compliment or be modest and deflect it. I'll simply say that I appreciate what you said and I really hope that you don't think of yourself as a "misanthropic as*hole."

I completely agree with you about the terminology and you may have noticed some struggling for the appropriate word throughout this thread. Some people have suggested the use of ableist privilege. Personally, I've come to think that's certainly the broader category, but neurotypical privilege does seem to be a unique subset within that, and therefore I personally find the distinction useful. I myself can't think of any better word, but certainly recognize that the current choice has its shortcomings.

The way most people write about neurotypical privilege (the few that do - seriously, there's got to be some kind of paper out there somewhere!) is almost exclusively from an autist/Aspie perspective. In fact, the same can be said for the concept of neurodiversity. While it's a very all-inclusive name, the only group that seems to be really vocal about it and that makes up the vast majority of such advocates is people on the autism spectrum. I think there's likely to be a broadening of this in the future, but for now it's certainly an interesting conundrum.

I had enough with the 'white privilege' and the 'men privilege'. I refuse to victimize myself in order to get some possitive discrimination.

I don't think recognizing privilege has to be about bringing anyone down (those who are privileged) or even positively discriminating (to bring up those who aren't). I think it's about recognizing that certain groups have a comparatively privileged status in society and that other groups are treated differently (the first step: admit you have a problem), and then hopefully moving on to try to correct that problem (again, not by bringing down or discriminating). Refusal to label it doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it just means you haven't labeled it.

Also, did you check out the list of examples? They were buried in the middle of the thread, and I can't expect you to have read the whole thing, so really fast here were some of my sister's favorites, so you get an idea.

I don't think that these sorts of things would require positive discrimination to change. I think understanding, acceptance, and generally not discriminating against AS people would basically fix these. And these sorts of things, by the way, are what I'm talking about when I'm referring to neurotypical privilege.

Here is a paper I wrote on the topic:

Overcoming the Tyranny of Neuronormativity

https://www.academia.edu/3111970/Overco ... l_Approach

Abstract
Individuals with Asperger’s syndrome and other Autism Spectrum conditions are labeled as having a disorder. They are described as having deficits in social interaction because they have difficulty interpreting non-verbal, contextual, and emotional cues. This label and description are based upon neuronormative assumptions about communication that create oppressive discourses that mark and constrain those who are neurologically different from the dominant norm. This essay attempts to destabilize the privileged position of neuronormative communication and argues for a cross-cultural approach to communication between those who are neurologically different from each other based on awareness and mutual adaptation.

Last edited by here_to_learn on 13 Feb 2014, 1:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

And what about when working harder...and then working your hardest still doesn't earn you those things? But of course if you've met one aspie you've met one....As in just because you got through all of those things through sheer determination does not mean everyone else has that same ability. There are lower functioning autistics that probably have more impairments than you, and there are all the co-morbid that can add even more difficulty. Not to mention everyone can burn out after putting all their effort into things, not getting anywhere with it.

Also not everyone who has these 'privileges' earned them per say.

Not so sure I entirely agree with the staring thing....I mean if someone is doing something you find very peculiar it is quite hard not to look and maybe even keep looking. I know I've caught myself 'staring' but I am not thinking judgmental thoughts about the person...just curious as to the behavior. So it might be hard to enforce 'don't look at anyone who is doing something you find odd/intresting'. But I essentially agree with the rest.

(http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5545499.html#5545499
The above link is to a message by KingdomOfRats which I think is really good.)

People get more privilege when they can do certain things (better) and also when they are liked. This is how the world works, and there can be much unfairness and inequity around it. The solution from an individual perspective to this kind of inequity is to love all people impartially, which I try not very successfully to do, but much more successfully than before, and my personal world is transformed because of it. In my opinion the kind of paper you have posted, here-to-learn, though of course well intended and with the altruistic motivation, just makes a few more bricks to a giant tower of babble in that each human being is a product of his conditioning and is biased toward his own point of view and so cannot so easily understand the perspective of someone else, but even if a person can understand this, it does not mean he wants to spend time with a person he does not like. I think it would be a good exercise to do so, though, and to try to open ones heart to someone one does not like. This does not mean, however, that I would hire an extremely socially uncommunicative person into the work place, no matter how much compassion I feel toward him.

I think it would be much more beneficial to humanity and to autistic people and to anyone to focus more from the generalized perspective of developing compassion for all people rather than focusing on developing compassion for a particular group, as the latter is too compartmentalized, though we can learn about various people by understanding different factors about their particular brain function, conditioning and culture. Of course you have this compartmentalized specialty you are trying to develop as a "professional," which presumably gives you in society and the minds of certain people some kind of privilege, but I think it could be looked at as what is called robbing Peter to pay Paul.

At the end of the first paragraph of your paper (see link in the quote above) you write:

"Furthermore, by pointing out the strangeness of when the natives “burst out in random emotions,” the quote
destabilizes the idea that AS individuals are the locus of the communication problem."

Comment and feedback: There is more than one problem in using this statement as the opening premise of your paper, but in short, this statement lacks meaning value in that people generally tend to believe that their own understanding makes sense and that the other person's lack of understanding is the basis of any communication problem. So by not understanding, other people, his own functioning is further destabilized.You are trying to make one person's thinking or even your own thinking the basis for everyone else's thinking, and this seems to me like a theory of mind thing connected to a form of logical fallacy. You cannot destabilize person A's thinking by making the point that person B does not understand him, especially in that person A's thinking is in synch with a functioning society that is generally harmonized and person B's understanding is not. It could kind of be looked at as a form of enabling, though there is obviously good intent behind it..

Fnord powerfully described the barriers thrown and still continuously his way because of his autistic traits. Fnord said he earned his electrical engineering position on merit despite the barriers. But let assume for arguments sake Fnord is qualified to be the CEO of the firm he is working for but is not because of his autistic traits. Fnord never even got the chance to compete, he was never considered because he is "strange". Instead another slightly less qualified NT named John Doe is the CEO. Is John Doe position a privilege? It depends. If John Doe got the position because his dad owns the company then his position is a privilege. If he got the CEO position through many years or hard work and through no special favors the position was earned and is not a privilege. John Doe was treated as he should have been but Fnord was not he was discriminated against based on his autistic traits.

Should we say tough luck as Fnord suggests. The answer is no because in our hypothetical example Fnord would have been a superior CEO. Fnord does not have various luxuries he earned. Lets change the hypothesis and say Fnord is not qualified to be CEO. Maybe he would have been qualified if he had not had to spend time and energy fighting off barriers that has constantly been thrown in his way. Of course there is the price of mental and personal health. Even if Fnord was never going to be qualified he might have led a much happier life.

But saying John Doe is privileged is wrong, it implies he did something wrong or he is an abelist. In the real world of 2014 the privileged meme is a bullying tactic used to invalidate a group or person one does not like.

I wonder if this was rephrased as "the benefits of being neurotypical" or "things autistic people have to deal with that neurotypical people don't" or something along those lines if it would be so controversial?

It seems a lot of the distaste over this is about the label, since the idea of privilege to begin with (any of the privileges) has been highly politicized and polarized.

Personally, I see examining the concept of privilege as just looking at the world through a different paradigm. So if I examine one of my privileges, I'm just looking at the things I take for granted that other people don't necessarily have. I view it as a paradigm shift/learning experience that helps me better appreciate the situations of and empathize with others.

Why can't anyone just say "I'm angry that someone got something I didn't". Right now it's just a bunch of self serving bias.

Privilege is supposed to be about advantages gained through a system of oppression, either explicit or implicit, with those so oppressed having conversely disadvantages. It doesn't just mean you had better circumstances. Please keep that in mind and not knock down strawmen.

Things that are privileged:

* Being white
* Being a man
* Being able-bodied
* Being neurotypical
* Being affluent
* Being heterosexual
* Being cisgender

I am probably forgetting some things, and many of these are not simply on/off switches where it's all or nothing. What being privileged does not mean:

* It does not mean you're evil
* It does not mean you're a bad person
* It does not mean that people talking about privilege are just jealous
* It does not mean that your life is perfect and without strife or complications

What being privileged does mean:

* That because of various factors, you have institutional, societal privilege that makes a lot of things easier for you than they are for people who experience oppression along that same axis.
* That being privileged in these ways often means that you may not understand what people who do not have that privilege go through because of the institutionalized oppression directed at them.

It's not about being angry that someone got something that I didn't. It's not about jealousy. It's about rampant, pervasive injustice that benefits some people and harms others, and that there are multiple axes of benefit/harm.

Some people react very badly to discussions of privilege and oppression. Often, they're being defensive, or just downright ignorant. Whatever their motives are, they're not interested in hearing that this stuff is real, or they want to make it sound like it's nothing more than interpersonal conflict, when it is much, much more than that. It's not something any one person does - it's something that a lot of people do. For an example of white privilege and racism, to show how pervasive and institutionalized this is:

http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeli ... ining.html

Redlining.

This is one example of the way that privilege and oppression are built into the system, and the work it takes to extricate such things from the system. This practice was outlawed in 1968 with the Fair Housing Act, and the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 added more anti-discrimination requirements for loans. Yet even so, the repercussions of the 34 years of legal redlining still has a significant impact on where you can find black people living and where you can find white people living. Many would prefer to believe that these happen because of personal choices and bad decisions, not institutionalized discrimination, but that's not how it works.

Such practices do their part in encouraging racist attitudes, however, which contributes to interpersonal violence and discrimination (for example = 21 things you can't do while black: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... hile-black )

So if you do not want to think about or acknowledge privilege, that's your prerogative. No one can force you to do otherwise. But don't even try to pretend that this stuff isn't real, or twist it into some kind of frivolous grudge or jealousy. If you can't face it head on, then that's your failing, not the people who can.

There is no self victimization in accepting some people have inherent privilege because of their circumstance from birth and the culture of the area they live in.