One of my friends was having a difficult conversation with her friend online. You know how this ends up. We argue online with a person we used to know in high school, or an acquaintance from some meeting, or someone we don't know at all, friend of a friend. We vehemently make our points. We argue our positions vigorously. Neither party is persuaded to the other party's position. The argument fizzles.
It's still important to have these discussions. Other people are reading, not commenting, but reading. And thinking more about the issue than they would have otherwise.
But one dynamic exists that should make us consider our approach carefully. It's something most of us haven't thought about because we haven't had to.
There are people who are thought of, not as individuals, but as groups because of a characteristic that they were born with. These characteristics include certain skin colors, certain sexual orientations, physical disabilities, and certain neurologies. We think of them in noun-groups: Blacks, People of Color, Gays, Lesbians, Deaf, The Disabled, Autistics. These groups are defined by the shared characteristic, but they are also defined as the "Not-Normal." Normal is white, straight, hearing. Normal is physically able. Normal is neurotypical.
Being autistic is seen as Not Normal. Autism is defined by the ways it is Not Normal. Therapies exist to make autistic persons Normal. If we cannot stop ourselves for a minute and consider the crushing nature of being seen as Not Normal for an entire lifetime, we will never understand the pain it causes.
When you are seen as Normal, you have advantages accorded to you simply by your birth. You are allowed to move, talk, behave as you do by nature. Your thoughts and opinions are given credence because you are seen as Normal. You have access to relationships that are equal. You are not viewed as a threat. You are not a candidate for institutionalization.
For someone who is seen as Not Normal, simply by virtue of birth, access and opportunity are narrowed. People judge them, try to fix them, and make decisions for them their entire lives. Even as adults, they are told they don't know best. Scientists, researchers, businessmen, charities, and organizations can tell them what is best. If the persons defined as Not Normal speak up too much, make too much noise, demand too much, even the children, they face the threat of physical restraint, electric shock, or institutionalization.
So the idea that there is an equal position between one person who is seen as Normal and another person who is seen as Not Normal is simply untrue. There isn't an equal sharing of ideas, with the perceived Normal merely stating their opinion and the perceived Not Normal stating theirs.
There's an
underlying pain. Neurotypical persons think they're making an objective, logical argument about an issue. Autistic persons are feeling real emotional pain. This isn't just a neutral argument. It's a very real reminder that they do not have equal access
or opportunity, that they do not have the advantage of an equal seat at the table, where their ideas are granted automatic credibility, that they should be careful not to be seen as a threat. They are treated as the Not Normal. They are in real pain.
The question is
can we see that? Will we see how viewing autistic persons as Not Normal and trying to change them to Normal encourages abuse? How teachers, students, and partners pick up on that? How it fosters abuse by teachers, bullying by fellow students, abusive relationships, restrictions on how to live and who to marry and whether they should have children? Can we think about how our children, our friends have been or will be treated? How that affects their chances for an equal say in relationships, at work, in society?
We must first be able to imagine that kind of pain. Then we can do something about it.
****
I have been trying to convince an autism mom who posts online under her real name that it is not cool to talk about her teenage Aspie son's toileting problems in a thread about an Aspie roommate who makes too much noise and his roommate doesn't know how to get the point across that he needs to be more considerate. She's resorted to making fun of Aspies about Adam Lanza's diagnosis.
ReplyDeleteLove the post! An anthropologist friend and I were discussing recently how rigid we make our categories. Granted, to process the multitudes of informational input we receive every day, we categorize things. It's human nature. But, what is strange, is that though we set up the categories, we also make them rigid. While we, ourselves, want and expect to be treated as an individual, we want to put others within a rigid category. Those who do not fit the mold, end up in the "unacceptable/other/not normal" category, which is very broad. I find it quite interesting that we can allow breadth and diversity in our "discard" pile, but do not do so in our supposedly "inclusive" categories. The rigidity, which we ourselves create, causes marginality. How do we rid ourselves of this? Why do we do it? I ponder and ponder.
ReplyDeleteThere's a related phenomenon wherein if the people being talked about "can't function in society," it becomes acceptable to say practically anything about them or about what should be done to them or what should be okay to do to them, with very little challenge, because a lot of people have some imaginary idea of what that means--"not able to function in society"--without actually knowing very much at all about the people who often get labeled "not able to function in society." Or just how close a lot of people who they probably do know skate to that line of "not able to function in society."
ReplyDeleteBut confronted with the fact that someone they actually know and probably see as more or less a real and full human being has been so called--not able to function in society--or actually has difficulties that actually make them to some extent not able to function in society, they'll say something like "oh but I'm not talking about people like YOU. I'm talking about THOSE other people. You know what I mean. THOSE are the people we need to treat this way, not you."
Uh, yeah, actually you were talking about the people you thought you weren't talking about.
Brenda, this is a fantastic essay! Thank you for understanding privilege and describing it so clearly.
ReplyDeleteI have a question, however. I realize that "neurotypical" has a historical usage as the opposite of "autistic." However, other bloggers, such as Ibby Grace and Lydia Brown, have shifted their usage to "nonautistic" and "allistic" respectively. They do this to avoid lumping dyslexics and other neurological minorities in with the privileged class. (i.e. there are flavors of neurodiversity other than the autistic spectrum).
Is there a particular reason you prefer "neurotypical" or is it just force of habit? (which is pretty understandable)
Great comment, as usual, chavisory!
ReplyDeleteWe need to stop looking at people as in or out, black or white, neurotypical or not. Almost all "groups" are identified by characteristics which are on a continuum. Skin colour: range of skin colours from "fish-belly white" (that's me) to darkest ebony (my best friend). In between are many shades, generally flowing darker towards the equator. Geography aside, where does "black" begin? Or, to flip it, end? Sexuality: Gay. Straight. But also bi, and all kinds of variations. But, if completely denied access to our preference, I think a surprising number of people would "make other arrangements". As I learn more about autism, I see many characteristics of it in both myself and my husband. Probably not enough for an official diagnosis, but certainly enough to relate more closely to my son. For access to service-purposes (as opposed to diagnostic criteria), there probably does need to be a cut-off point, but for relational purposes, recognizing the spectrum is more helpful. This goes for mental health as well. We all have characteristics of this or that, some more than others, and in different areas. But no one is perfectly "normal", and with the "disordered characteristics" also come strengths. Stubborn or persistent? If we throw aside our judgements and open ourselves to be vulnerable in true relationships, all of our lives would be so much richer.
ReplyDelete-Lisa