A pattern that can't be identified easily can tell someone as much as one that can. Sometimes people use the word inconsistency to identify such a pattern for convenience sake but the word itself is really useless as a definition of anything. It's more like a pause when someone wants to acknowledge that they feel the need to say something even when they aren't.
The recent campaign of Action For Children that used a boy's words about his autism to gain support for their cause, seems to be claiming they have found a loophole in the contract of what the disability community is demanding in terms of respect. The claim seems to be "To oppose our product and our enterprise is to attempt to shift the voice of authority from our beliefs to yours.... Or to limit free expression and free enterprise."
Claiming that non-pity is somehow related to non-caring has been tried before and caused much more trouble than it could have possibly been worth to those who were attempting to deceive the public with such antics. However, it doesn't seem to have prevented the AFC from trying to use it again. The ugly reality of the deplorable aspects of pity and what it leads to have been clearly shown by others who have "claimed" to be champions for disabled people.
The school of relativity is a school of thought but it is a school just the same in that it can be (and is) marketed as such with often very little substance beyond the glamor of escapism. What people think of as being subjective often only follows a pattern that the mainstream public can identify with. However, some things need to be seen as subjective but in a completely different context than mainstream social rules commonly dictate.
For instance, if the question had been asked 50 years ago," How many planes trains and automobiles does the United States need to be mobile and to be safe as an independent nation?" the answer may have been given with the understanding that 50 years later technology, dependence on foreign markets, and hostile foreign relations would affect the answer.
However, one of the influences that may not have been advertised was how the US leaders had decided our economy would be dependent on the use and manufacturing of steel. To advertise this would have created much more doubt in the American public and would have brought on more questions as to whether or not this needed to change. The leadership that proved to be the most dominant at that time saw this type of exploration as threatening.
Once something has been shown as a big problem to lots of people, it is often the solution that becomes the biggest danger. People often take their eyes off of their long-term goal in exchange for convenience and expediency.
Jimmy Carter asked the United States to heat their houses at below 70° and at the same time engaged in a game of "mother may I" with the Shaw of Iran is what ushered in Ronald Reagan's "solution" that was accompanied by an even larger dependence on foreign oil. In a similar way, the need to deal with the so-called "autism epidemic" may usher in the enforcement of unreasonable behavior standards as the solution.
Networking is ultimately often seen as the solution to what is defined as scarcity. Such scarcity often doesn't even need to be clearly shown as long as the answer seems convenient and expedient enough for mass marketing.
Headland School which has played a part in this campaign is working with Action For Children.
Also in March 2007 Treehouse (the ABA promoters)reported this:
Baroness Thornton’s first job was working for Gingerbread and she has retained her commitment to working with disadvantaged children, recently being appointed as a Trustee for NCH the Children’s Charity.
To what degree are the folks at Treehouse dedicated to establishing ABA is the way to treat autistic children?
It shows here that their research goals are to expand on "the evidence base of behavioral intervention for autism (1961-2007)"
Their goals toward policy and parlimentary say this:
The Policy team at TreeHouse are campaigning for all children with
autism and their families to get the services they need without their
parents having to fight for them.
There are many dangers involved in regards to these national patterns of defining and setting patterns. Autistic patterns are not just patterns that have been identified by medical specialists and those who specialize in identifying social behavior.
They just "coined" (or rather they sold) the term.The pattern is a person pattern and exists among people.... and people are more than how we are identified by anyone. When the exploration into people's individual nature is suppressed due to the formal labels that are seen as more important, it can negatively affect everyone's acceptance and understanding of the positive aspects human nature. This will of course negatively affects all of humanity.
The social model of autism is a design in progress. The medical model of autism is a commercial enterprise in progress. Every single person who is seen as being autistic will influence the social model of autism. This provides that model with the opportunity to be realistic. If that model becomes overly associated with any organization (even if their motives are liberation and justice) how realistic the model can be is potentially stifled.
Anyone with a personality or nature that has been labeled by doctors or psychologists as being inappropriate, ineffective, or in any way disordered, will either struggle to conform to medical restrictions for their treatment or they will find their liberation within the more abstract and fluid interpretation of their humanness.
A commercial definition (which is what a medical definition is) directs you to a solution that is defined for the purpose of a specific trade. The problem is defined by, and for, the sale and distribution of the solution that someone (often whichever corporation or group of corporations are the first to create the monopoly) has to offer.
The medical model of autism as a deficit and the disorder can't be accepted as having much worth beyond the commercial definition as long as bogus treatments are being promoted because of that model, research with little or no scientific backing is being funded as a result of that model's uneducated acceptance, and abstract abusive behavior treatments go unregulated due to that model.
What is commonly described as the disability community is a group of consumers that are defined by the disability related services they consume according to their insurance benefits.. The social model of disability that the vocal and visible leaders of this community have defined as the social model of disability relates to the opposing view of the medical model and how that model is used to discriminate against the consumers of the group.
The broader societal definition of disability includes a much larger percentage of people than those represented by this group and the vocal and visible representatives display a very isolated opinion of who disabled people are, and what we need. This isolation excludes the majority of people who are in need of help.
Advocates of diversity, neurodiversity, and autistic rights need to be careful of the same traps.
The excessive grooming along with the outrageous demands for solidarity and conformity are what drives and supports the commercial enterprise known as autism. The survival of the human species has always depended on abstraction and individualism. When these things threaten a commercial enterprise that was designed by humans, it's time for humans to evaluate if we have created an enterprising monster that will lead to our own destruction.
The practical opposition to this monster is not an organized or established entity with commercial interest, and it needs to remain that way if confirming the true nature of diversity is our goal. The medical model of diversity has subjected autistic people to dangerous and even fatal treatments. Institutions have been built to demean the existence of autistic people as sub-humans.
The alternative to this are diversity and neurodiversity itself, not the new enterprise to counter the old one. Acceptance of our individual diversity or the desire to alter our course is a personal decision. Engaging in the promotion of well established, commercial influence for the attainment of personal goals that have shown to negatively alter the lives of the population's majority isn't a choice. It's the lack of one....just like reverse prejudice or nonconformity. The terms exist only to promote an element of space (or commercial glitter) for the purpose of creating an illusion where there is a lack of any substance.
NOTE: For those interested, check out the many references to this campaign at the Autism Hub. Also, please join Sharon at the Voyage blog in the new Facebook group set up to combat this campaign. As a parent of an autistic child in Ireland, she is doing a great job at informing the public about the destructive nature of these ads and explaining why the ads should not be tolerated.