Comment on this entry
Cognitive liberty and right to one’s mind
How does the concept of “cognitive diversity” relate to those of neurodiversity, neuroconformism, neurotypicality, and brainwashing? Is Aspergers syndrome and autism something we should cure or embrace?
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Darren Reynolds on 10/21 at 10:38 AM
> the right to not have one's mind altered against their will
I suspect there is a bigger issue than is presented here.
George discusses interventions that are easily recognised as alterations of the mind against a person's will, such as the former 'therapies' for homosexuals or attempts to 'cure' Asperger's Syndrome.
But all of us constantly have our minds altered against our will.
How many times have you gone into a large supermarket to buy perhaps a packet of soap, and come out with half a dozen other things that you didn't intend to buy? Eating healthily or remaining vegan is partly so difficult precisely because others persuade us to do the opposite, at times deliberately, unintentionally, overtly or covertly. Authors accused of plagiarism have now discovered 'cryptomnesia' - the act of writing something one has read previously elsewhere, without realising that the writing is not genuinely original.
So, the act of intervening to change someone is a spectrum, all the way from McDonald's using red and yellow on their signage, through using TMS or NLP on a person signing a contract, to making permanent changes to someone's personality.
Is there a point on the scale where intervention switches between OK and not OK? Or is it all OK, or all not OK?
Posted by Brenda on 10/21 at 12:25 PM
"Today there's an effort to cure autism and Asperger's syndrome:a development the autistic rights people have railed against."
My nephew has autism, and my brother has to fight for his son's rights, but he would love for his son to be cured. Who are these "autistic rights people," and what percentage of parents who have autistic children fit into this category?
Posted by Phil Schwarz on 10/22 at 03:12 AM
I have a problem with the passages above that throw pedophilia and autism into the same bucket.
Pedophilia is predatory and invasive of boundaries of particularly vulnerable victims.
While some behavior of some autistic people can be disruptive and invasive of boundaries, this is worlds apart. There is no predatory intent against vulnerable victims.
Behavior specifically due to autism that is objectionable on the grounds of disruptiveness, invasiveness of boundaries, or harm to self or others, is generally secondary to the inability to communicate or achieve desired goals through more acceptable means. These goals are generally relief from sensory distress or pain, or the communication of basic needs such as hunger, or basic emotions such as fear.
And virtually all individuals on the autism spectrum are in fact *able* to communicate at least to some extent, if supported where necessary in doing so, and if so supported and respected do *not* engage in behavior that constitutes gross violation of others' boundaries as a matter of course or willful intent.
The fundamental error in the public discourse over "curing" autism is the failure to distinguish between autism *per se*, on the one hand, and handicap or disability concomitant with or secondary to autism, on the other.
Even those adamantly opposed to "curing" autism support the mitigation or accommodation of handicap or disability concomitant with or secondary to autism. Claims to the contrary by those who feel their hegemony threatened by activism for human and civil rights for autistic people abound, but they are nothing but a pernicious strawman argument.
Autism *per se*, on the other hand, comprises the differences between autistic and nonautistic people in cognitive patterns, sensory needs and preferences, aesthetic sensibilities, socialization patterns and preferences, and emotional responses. Those who oppose "curing" autism generally oppose the eradication of these things, not the mitigation of handicap.
What the people who call for "curing" autism, and who ignore the distinction between autism *per se* and handicap concomitant with or secondary to autism, fail to understand -- or purposefully ignore -- is the thoroughly *pervasive* nature of autism *per se*. It is as formative an axis of identity as gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, or any aspect of cultural background or milieu. A true "cure", a true eradication of autism in an individual, would require a total overwriting of the individual's personality and identity: likes and dislikes, individual quirks, emotions, ways of thinking, social behavior, and so on.
17 years ago, the autistic activist Jim Sinclair wrote, in the landmark essay "Don't Mourn For Us" (http://www.autreat.com/dont_mourn.html):
"This is what we hear when you pray for a cure. This is what we know, when you tell us of your fondest hopes and dreams for us: that your greatest wish is that one day we will cease to be, and strangers you can love will move in behind our faces."
For that is what a true and total eradication of autistic characteristics entails, like it or not.
Posted by Ann M on 10/22 at 06:40 AM
Brenda, that's the biggest divide - between parents, and the individuals. Yes parents have too little help and are often so exhausted. They need help, support, money. Some autistic individuals are very hard work and unable to communicate and have very destructive behaviours, yes. Those things are known. About 10% of us. But...when asked (and most of us can communicate or learn to do so as time goes on), very very few autistic individuals (low or high functioning) express a desire for total cure. We'd generally like better accommodations, more understanding, good therapies that give us more freedom of choice and better chances - but not a cure. Why? Because autism brings us benefits as well as deficits, even if neurotypical people seem quite unable to experience, imagine or understand those benefits. Science is backing this up now. We are mostly seen as broken, useless, a burden, a problem...but that is not how we see ourselves. What is 'broken' is the parent's ideal of a 'perfect normal' child, perhaps. They are hoping someone will give them the child they yearned for? I know - I am a parent of a child with a disability too and I know the grief I first experienced. In the international world of spirituality, the innate worth of us as people is being explored and discovered. So many of us - and I do mean the majority from every observation over so many years- do not wish to wake up as 'someone else' against our will. I suspect others wouldn't either. We are all loved by God and made in His image. We should never forget it, and should seek to respect each individual with an ASC and do all we can to give them the right to choose freely if they can. And to fight for a society that sees us as people of worth.
Posted by Pendula on 11/19 at 12:54 PM
As a mother of an Aspergers child I have a very mixed feeling on this subject. I wish it were easier for my son. I wish his neuro-atypicality weren't so limiting and didn't involve so many (self)-destructive behaviors. I love his mind for it's wonder, it's innocence and it's unique perspective, but it is also vulnerable to people who want to exploit. I wish (like every parent) to protect my children and do what is healthiest for them. With his condition it is just more challenging.
Would I want a "total cure" for him? Probably not. Would I want him to have a less difficult existence, of course. I love his unique mind but wish it didn't have such a hefty price tag (both metaphorical and literal) attached.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
|
IEET Blog