What should sociology undergrads think about RE autism?

Post Reply New Topic

For those of you who don't know me, I'm a sociology graduate student, at the end of my master's program, starting a PhD program in the Fall. I study critical autism theory, which is a new, pro-autism field.

I was asked to speak to an undergraduate sociology class in the spring as a graduate student researcher. The professor asked me to talk to them about "what is most important for undergraduate students to know about autism." The students in this class are likely to work as social workers, teachers, and people in HR departments. So, people in positions of power over aspies and auties. I would like for them to come away with positive thoughts.

I didn't give the professor an answer right away. I wanted to ask you guys first. What should sociology students think about when they think about autism?

That we are real people with our own experiences, skills, difficulties and interests. One person with an ASD can be completely different from another person with the same ASD. We are not walking stereotypes.

The fact that you're here participating in the community is commendable. It's an important thing to do that most researchers don't do. I get so many requests from researchers to post a request to get members to participate in a study. But the majority of researchers almost never sign up and participate in our community. Obviously a lot do but I'm saying that most researchers don't.

It might be important for people to understand that we want the same things as everyone else in the world.

We are "normal" but we are a different kind of "normal".

Sometimes we find things funny or peculiar because we have a different understanding of things but that doesn't mean that we mean any harm (I do sound like an alien now).

I'll try and think some more.

I'm trying to stay positive.

Basically as Alex said listen to thier clients. Also do not make it all about social communication deficits, but understand the important role of sensory sensitivities and need the need for repetition both in autistic people's lives and in how we present as socially untypical. Discourage the use of positive platitudes such as look at the bright side and replace that with concrete logic that demonstrates that Autism is not a curse that is going to permantly ruin their lives. Be very trained in recognizing signs of and how to respond to depression and suicide ideation.

I'm kind of more interested in what they come up with on their own. If someone can go to graduate school studying us, will they learn or infer what these conditions actually do on their terms? From a black-box perspective this seems to me like something of its' own experiment.

I would give eggsamples of how people do well at school or work with some reasonable accommodations, how small accommodations can make a big difference.

More understanding about how it really is a spectrum. The word autism can encompass people severely affected all the way to people whose struggles are able to be relatively hidden, but this doesn't mean those ones are any less in need of their own type of accommodations or understanding, or even belief of their diagnosis.

Also that it isn't an automatic stigma, and we still have more plain old "human" things in common with non-autistic people than not. We're still human beings not a completely different species who doesn't want or need the same things in life as everyone.

People should also know that we are creative thinkers, good at art and fashion. We would make for good hairdressers as well because a lot of us have to do our own hair because we can't stand the hairdressers.

We can also be very good humoured because of our view of the world. It's not all doom and gloom for a person with ASD.

We do have a lot to offer given that we are met with positive attitudes.

This, I think its one of the best way's I've seen it put....for us having autism is normal, so attempts to make us neurotypical will fail. Of course we may need support and help with things, or therapy to function a bit better but the autism does not need removing for that. Seems a lot of professionals dealing with autistics especially more severe ones get focused on making them normal or trying to eliminate the autism....rather than really treating them like individual people.

For instance if an autistic child has a stimming behavior that is harmful...like they scratch them self hard enough to draw blood its not helping them to force them not to stim....it would be helping them to teach them other ways to stim. It seems it can be calming and help with focus to stim so preventing that because its not 'normal' is the wrong approach. But yeah that is just one example of what I mean.

If you have time - a capsule summary of the history of autism diagnosis and clinical thinking, how this may affect prevalence rates, how Aspergers and HFA have come into their own and then gone again, and what you see happening in this field of academic inquiry in the future, from genetics to the emergence of an autism community. For me, at least, this kind of "framework" approach gives me a much broader understanding of phenomena.

They should not be blinded by labels. For example, I am attending a church function when I am not religious. I don't share most of the beliefs (and make it clear) but I don't view "them" as nutty church goers. They are all kind hearted, diverse, unique and have valuable opinions and I look forward to meeting with them.

I totally concur! It's like most researchers are like politicians visiting a military base or construction site: they throw the safety gear on, smile for the cameras and quickly disappear. You are that rare politician who gets in the trenches and digs those ditches alongside all the soldiers or workers. It is so refreshing to see you aren't blinded by your textbook: in my experience, most "researchers" are. Always happy to respond to your posts: you have a genuine desire to understand and help and that is commendable.

Firstly, that we're people too. I see a lot of dehumanizing of Autistics every day.

It's most definitely a social disability, in that the usual standards of society are what actually disables us. Like Babybird said above, we have our own set of "normal" behavior. If we were allowed to do our own thing without judging, I'm sure we wouldn't feel nearly as bad as what society forces upon us. The co-morbid anxiety and depression mostly comes from trying to fit in with a society that won't try to meet us halfway. (Granted, the anxiety also comes from increased perseveration, but I digress...)

I've been thinking a lot lately about how I might better describe this viewpoint. The best I've come up with yet is that Autism is a learned disability. It's deliberately a twist on the expression "learning disability." While there are definitely some aspects of ASD that are disabling in their own right (I'm looking at you, sensory over-stimulation), the majority of the things that stigmatize and disable Autistics are only learned from society and from being told that we are wrong. And so in the process of trying to fit in with the majority, we learn to feel like lesser individuals and internalize this disability. Hence, it's a learned disability. If the world were better suited for Autistic behaviors, we wouldn't be nearly as disadvantaged. It's all relative to your framing of "normal."

--

As a distinct point, I would also like to point out that a few of the stereotypes about Autistics are actually due more to co-morbidities. In this case, I am specifically taking about the stereotype that we're less intelligent than NTs. I saw someone on Facebook recently post that Autism is a cognitive disability. No. A cognitive disability would imply that our thoughts processes are inherently disabled by nature of being Autistic, which simply isn't true. Our cognitive range runs the entire gamut from intellectually disabled to genius levels. That is completely separate from our Autism. As such, we shouldn't be assumed to be dumber than the majority simply because we're Autistic. Sure, we run a different brain operating system, if you will. But the thought processes running in that system are simply different, not less.

Consider the fact that, save for those of us with an identified-as-Autistic parent, most of us have very likely never been under the authority of another Autistic person. At the same time, we're at-least-as and quite possibly more likely than most to have experienced relationships-of-authority that run counter to the cultural norm. For example most boys have experienced being under a female authority figure, in the form of mothers and teachers and other caretakers. But I suspect that it's quite uncommon for boys to experience systematic desexualization from female authority figures in an institutional setting - yet I experienced this as an Autistic adolescent in the system, and I'm sure others have as well. Similarly, it's probably uncommon for white boys to experience long-term oppression under the authority of persons of color - unless they've experience in residential treatment.

I've noticed that certain reactionary ideas, such as Men's Rights Activism and "reverse racism," seem to gain purchase among the Autistic more readily than the general population. I wonder if this is related to the above. Seems to me that a sociology student with an interest in intersectionality might find the Autistic to be a data-rich set of subjects.

I'm taken aback! Thank you, Alex and GiantHockeyFan! You made my day! I would not be able to research effectively if not for the people here helping me. Just listening to people and taking advice goes a long way.

Thank you to everyone else with your thoughts. Please keep them coming! I'm writing them down and will put them together into themes.

My initial thought, when reading the above, is that I am not going to automatically respect you simply because you have some job title or because you believe that you have a "position of power over" me. I could care less.

But that is just me. I only represent myself (and cannot speak for others).