Autism Online
Autistic culture online: virtual communication and cultural expression on the
Spectrum by Joyce Davidson is an article that addresses the how the Internet has opened the door to the mainstreaming of autistic culture and communication. Davidson’s primary claims are that the Internet allows for “language games” (as coined by Wittgenstein) and the spread of the Autism Spectrum, the self-proclaimed autistic culture. Davidson goes on to quote the biographies of several autistic people who have shared their views on how they view life as well as how there is a huge demand for the recognition of minority status among the population as neurologically different. Davidson claims that this is largely made possible because the Internet virtually eliminates the things that usually make “normal” communication so difficult for those with autism, ie focusing on facial expressions, body language and social aspects of conversation that don’t come naturally to autistics. Davidson is not really speaking to the autistic community in this article but is more trying to inform those possibly interested in the culture or more likely to inform those who use the Internet of what it has to offer beyond the normal realm of thinking. It is hard to know that much about Davidson, who seems to compile many thoughts and ideas composed by other people, no doubt making it an easy access to the information, but Davidson seems to lack many original ideas herself. Davidson avoids making any real controversial statements in this paper but does contribute those ideas that are divisive to others and makes comments on them. Overall it doesn’t seem that Davidson has much at stake by writing this article, only the knowledge that she is informing those who might have impressions of the autistic community without any basis.
I don’t know too much about the autistic culture or how it plays out online but I do have a cousin who is autistic and know his limitations as far as communication and how things can easily overwhelm him, so Davidson’s article seems to make sense as far as claiming that the Internet can allow those with autism can communicate better on a less personal level. I found the article extremely interesting as I had never before heard of the desire by autistics to be recognized as simply different and not disabled. Blog sites such as this or chat rooms are the perfect mediums for autistics to communicate to meet their social comfort needs as described by Davidson. The “normal” population of today, especially those around our age, are utilizing programs such as Skype, other webcams, or even ChatRoulette to communicate with others, however it appears that autistics would purposefully avoid means such as this for the very reasons we value it, for the personal “face to face” interaction.
My questions for contemplation are
1. Do you believe that adding “neurologically different” to the list of social variables would be a good idea or even valid?
2. If a cure were to be found for autism, or at least a super-effective therapy, do you believe that it should be an option to receive treatment or something that should be mandated? (as with some psychosis)
3. Do you consider autism as a disability or simply a difference? (this may require some research)
Spectrum by Joyce Davidson is an article that addresses the how the Internet has opened the door to the mainstreaming of autistic culture and communication. Davidson’s primary claims are that the Internet allows for “language games” (as coined by Wittgenstein) and the spread of the Autism Spectrum, the self-proclaimed autistic culture. Davidson goes on to quote the biographies of several autistic people who have shared their views on how they view life as well as how there is a huge demand for the recognition of minority status among the population as neurologically different. Davidson claims that this is largely made possible because the Internet virtually eliminates the things that usually make “normal” communication so difficult for those with autism, ie focusing on facial expressions, body language and social aspects of conversation that don’t come naturally to autistics. Davidson is not really speaking to the autistic community in this article but is more trying to inform those possibly interested in the culture or more likely to inform those who use the Internet of what it has to offer beyond the normal realm of thinking. It is hard to know that much about Davidson, who seems to compile many thoughts and ideas composed by other people, no doubt making it an easy access to the information, but Davidson seems to lack many original ideas herself. Davidson avoids making any real controversial statements in this paper but does contribute those ideas that are divisive to others and makes comments on them. Overall it doesn’t seem that Davidson has much at stake by writing this article, only the knowledge that she is informing those who might have impressions of the autistic community without any basis.
I don’t know too much about the autistic culture or how it plays out online but I do have a cousin who is autistic and know his limitations as far as communication and how things can easily overwhelm him, so Davidson’s article seems to make sense as far as claiming that the Internet can allow those with autism can communicate better on a less personal level. I found the article extremely interesting as I had never before heard of the desire by autistics to be recognized as simply different and not disabled. Blog sites such as this or chat rooms are the perfect mediums for autistics to communicate to meet their social comfort needs as described by Davidson. The “normal” population of today, especially those around our age, are utilizing programs such as Skype, other webcams, or even ChatRoulette to communicate with others, however it appears that autistics would purposefully avoid means such as this for the very reasons we value it, for the personal “face to face” interaction.
My questions for contemplation are
1. Do you believe that adding “neurologically different” to the list of social variables would be a good idea or even valid?
2. If a cure were to be found for autism, or at least a super-effective therapy, do you believe that it should be an option to receive treatment or something that should be mandated? (as with some psychosis)
3. Do you consider autism as a disability or simply a difference? (this may require some research)
6 comments:
In regards to your second question, I don't think forcing treatment on anyone is a good idea. Like we talked about in class on Tuesday, what we view as "normal" may not be what someone with autism desires. Who are we to say what is right and wrong and to tell others how to live their lives? I can understand forcing a medication on someone if they are a direct threat to others and the medication can neutralize the threat, but autism isn't a disorder that causes people with it to hurt others (as far as I know, at least). In my opinion, forcing someone to change simply to fit the social structure that the majority of people fit into is definitely not the right thing to do, and if a super drug were discovered it should be administered on a voluntary basis only.
I think the idea of calling someone “neurologically different” is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Americans have labeled people for years and this has led to many many problems in our country with problems regarding racism and I think this is in effect creating another “race” for us to discriminate against. Furthermore, in order for businesses to comply with government regulations they couldn’t deny someone a job and if they gave the job to someone else, then the business may get sued and this person who was unable to make money in the regular way would be happy to make money through lawsuits. Personally, I think that all the labels we place on people are crazy and cause the arguments we see in the world. If it weren’t for labels, we would be in a lot less debt since we wouldn’t have “illegal aliens” that we would have to protect the country against. However, they are so engrained into our worlds that these labels would potentially work although the problems would be enormous.
I am gonna have to disagree with Zach. I've been talking a lot about this subject in my philosophy and psychiatry class and justification for involuntary treatment is based on whether the patient is mentally capable of reserving autonomy. Granted the "In My Language" video really opened a new world for me (I was surprised how well the woman was able to express her ideas), but what it comes down to is if these people are able to take care of themselves. They may not be hurting others physically, but autistic people can require a lot of time and attention and can be financially detrimental to a parent. In situations where the person with autism seems cognitively capable of making a rational decision, and they are not a detriment to others then yes, they should have the right to choose. However, if they are unable to take care of themselves and nobody is willing to help them, then involuntary treatment is justified.
Note: The following is a little off topic, but I’ve written two other responses this week (that can be counted as my actual blogs) and I want to comment on another response…
Kaitline: I respect your vision of an ideal world where a lack of labels leads to a more utopic society, but it really just isn’t practical. Removing the label of ‘illegal aliens’ would not contribute to solving our country’s massive debt. We have to label these people because they are the cause of much of the debt (granted that the system is broken). They receive benefits from the government, but do not contribute to the “bank” that that money comes from. They are not registered, so the government cannot collect taxes from them, yet they receive medical care, can buy a house – then not pay for it, etc. One example of this type of circumstance is when my brother was in a car accident because an “illegal alien” tried to pass a snowplow on an icy road (possibly because he couldn’t read the “Do Not Pass” sign). The illegal spun out and was T-boned by the vehicle my brother was in. The illegal died and had no insurance, so we were stuck with the bills from the hospital and the ambulance. However, I do agree that race labels are a detriment to society. Providing scholarships based on race, and affirmative action are proof that racism (though untraditional) is still thriving in our society, and things would be better if these labels were removed. I guess, to tie all this in, my point is that labeling is appropriate in many cases. But, applying the term “neurologically different” would end up being a political correctness term that really has no meaning (like saying “mentally challenged” as opposed to retarded). Why can’t we just say they’re autistic? In many cases, this one included, I feel that the politically correct term is more offensive than the slang. “Neurologically different” IS the type of term that would segregate this group because of the ‘different’ label. I would just call them autistic and leave it at that.
Feel free to respond to any of my comments. I accept support and love to argue.
Cheers.
Going back to Karl, I realize that what I said was very idealized. I now see that I was acting like a hippie however, I don’t think that the term “neurologically different” is just for political correctness. In the case of mentally challenged, I think popular culture caused that to come into being since people had been using retard as a derogatory term for a while and they were trying to change the face. According to the Wikipedia page on mental retardation, people were called imbecile and moron. However, moron was used in 1910. I hadn’t even known this existed. I have never heard someone call someone else autistic who was not actually affected by the disease. I agree that the term “neurologically different” is somewhat detrimental but in this case is completely unnecessary. However, I think that if people start using the term “autistic” as a joke then perhaps a change is in order…although the callous person who does that needs to be punished in a severe way, because honestly, who would make fun of someone with a disease. (This is not to say that I don’t use the term moron, because I have and I would like to point out that popular culture can change the meaning of a word overnight, although that is a completely different discussion.)
I want to comment on the impact that the video "In My Language" had on my view of autism to answer the questions that Lauren proposed. I think that calling autism a mental disability is unfair, as "I My Language" makes very clear. While Amanda Baggs (the creator of the video) is clearly unable to communicate conventional, and has sever social limitations, her dialog and ideas show that she is in fact very intelligent. We see from this that Autism is more of a behavioral disorder, and not one affecting intelligence.
Because of this belief, initially I just followed my gut idea that forcefully treating someone with the proposed "cure" was morally wrong, but Karl makes a fantastic point when he notes that the care and treatment of an autistic child can be straining both mentally and financially on parents, and because of this non-voluntary treatment can be justified. If the treatment can allow the child to live happily and keep the parents from the unfair and undo stress of raising the child, it is moral to me.
Post a Comment