I have certainly not liked or agreed with everything that Judy Singer has said and done. The ASpar website, for example, based on a late-nineties support group, I find dreadfully one-sided and inconsistent, seeming to promote the idea that it's ok to project an entirely negative image of autistic parenting on the basis of anecdotal reports of obsessive, narcissistic or just plain callous behavior exhibited by undiagnosed parents. I was delighted to see a website featuring positive stories about autistic parents springing up as a reaction, providing some balance.
Nevertheless, if a person re-enters a discourse where she was a significant early contributor, with the intention of learning and re-shaping her views, should we not at least listen before passing judgement? Is neurodiversity as an idea so fragile that it cannot survive a debate?
Having participated in autistic communities, the autistic rights movement - whatever you want to call it - for more than two decades, I do not feel personally threatened by any discussion on the concept of neurodiversity. It was simply not there, not commonly used, back when I first got involved. We used other concepts to express the idea that our thinking and self-expression are valid and should be respected. In the Finnish community of active autistic adults, I still see neurodiversity appearing as a handy term that people have adopted, because it happened to translate well from English, rather than as something discussed at length, or used as a focal point in activism or identity politics. As a result, while I feel that neurodiversity is a very useful concept that has helped many positive ideas to emerge, I just cannot see myself as either a dedicated defender of it as a "paradigm". The ideas of autistic space, autistic rights, autistic empowerment, are equally valuable and important to me.
Here are some thoughts that I posted on Facebook, in response to discussions, on the connection between diversity and disability.
Having studied biology when I was younger, I have always considered it self-evident that diversity includes forms of life that are less than optimally adapted to their current environment; species that are dwindling, or causing another species to dwindle, individuals with lower than average reproductive success, even ones that suffer, through no action or inaction of human societies, but simply as a result of random combinations of genes and environments. All this is included in the wider framework where we see stability as a result of diversity.
When people talk about neurodiversity as a paradigm or ideology, I see them giving the word "diversity" a different meaning, excluding things they consider undesirable, pathological, or destructive. Sort of the happier half of diversity that has potential to be advantageous, or at least neutral, in human societies approximately as we know them, if only attitudes can be changed.
While people argue on the basis of fundamentally different definitions of a basic concept, I think there will inevitably be constant misunderstandings and conflict.
Someone pointed out to me that they had always interpreted neurodiversity in the same sense as "diversity in the workplace", a cultural and societal concept, not one akin to biodiversity. From their interpretation, it would make sense to take the stance that neurodiversity is all positive and must be promoted as a paradigm. The things they say might to me sound like they are unrealistically trying to pretend there is no dark side, if I don't consider their conceptual framework. To keep things clear for myself, for now, I tend to think that there is bio-neurodiversity, which is a fact, covering all variation, the benefit of the concept being that it helps us to see how *some* (but not all) of that variation should not be branded as pathology. Then there is cultural-neurodiversity, which is about asserting our right to be present, visible and appreciated as neurodivergent individuals in human societies, and not have our self-expression unnecessarily branded as pathological, or our right to self-determination questioned - while for some neurotypes, the necessity remains; no one really wants to promote the idea of letting sociopaths wreak havoc in workplace communities, for example, so they tend to be excluded from that type of discussion, or remain an insoluble dilemma.
No comments:
Post a Comment