Denial, disrespect, and abuse (or the denial and disrespect which leads to abuse) is best attained and then maintained through categorization.
There are societal barriers which often prevent people with disabilities from recognizing what freedoms they have. With autistic people in particular, the barriers are made even stronger by how the label of autism is now based the current claim of an autism epidemic.
The rigid category of this "charitable" view for autistic people is one which expects us to be either accepting of the pity we are thereby seen to deserve or willing to provide pity for those who are thereby needing it due to how we fail to meet the expectations of the standard makers.
Even claiming that autism is treatable rather than curable, opens the door for many already firmly established prejudices to be held when creating treatments if the goals of treatment are not clearly understood by everyone.Temporary solutions for permanent problems often ends in disaster. If autistic people are going to be here for a while, more of the responsibility needs to be established with how society views autism so that the goals of integration are more practical.
When stereotypes about a population are predominantly negative and the treatments have been shown to appeal more to the opportunistic rather than the practical (along with resulting in horrible and even fatal outcomes), patience and practical pursuit of a more inclusive and humane approach seems necessary.
Without knowing where you are and where you want to go, it's difficult to have much influence over where you will arrive and how you will know you have arrived when you get there.
The two most dangerous and flawed descriptions of autistic behavior are the ones which claim that an autistic person lacks empathy, and that comorbidities are natural occurrences as the result of the unnatural configuration which has also contributed to autism.
No one's behavior occurs without influence from the treatment they receive or the views they assimilate from the views of those around them. To claim that anyones biology occurs without sociological influence is an attack on the entire civilization.
To instead claim that regardless of the origin of what seems to be a similar behavior or who is displaying it that there can be a strict standard set of responses demanded or prescribed to all individuals, leads to the same trap by using different bait. You can target a larger group with such an approach but the results are ultimately never favorable.
Once a global problem has been presented, a global fix may seem practical. However, diversity is a problem for people who aren't willing to learn from their environment instead of quickly, and judiciously attempting to control it. Ultimately, people can't relate to what they don't understand, and they can't influence what they aren't willing or able (due to their lack of willingness) to relate to.
Empathy is a learned response. Learning empathy is never simply stifled by someone's biological makeup. Empathy and compassion are the result of an emotion which is based on a belief. The belief that biology is the reason for someone lacking in the ability to feel such emotions, creates less empathy and compassion FOR the people who demand such standards due to those demands.
People who think in different ways will present needed questions for society or those needed questions will often be ignored, ignorance will be promoted, and the civilization that people claim to be seeking by demanding such exclusion, will be unattainable.
Before asking how much changes in behavior are necessary for a category of people to integrate with others who think differently, it's practical to see how many of those behaviors are responses to an environment which can and needs to be altered and which behaviors have the majority of dominant thinkers established as necessary for survival.
When a particular few types of intellect or behavior are glorified as ideal, only the idealistic and those who encourage their pride (which encourages their ignorance) will continue to make the decisions about what ideals need to be. Those who aren't in one of those categories will be encouraged (if not forced) to remain silent, in order to ensure them from "interfering" with such decisions.
To claim that a civilized society requires that all the adjustments be made of the fewest people, will result in their adjustment ultimately not being smooth or voluntary. If society can't learn from difference, the result will be that the strict set of boundaries for approaching difference will become more and more narrow, society will need to make more rigid methods for approaching what they can't understand or aren't willing to include, and this will ultimately create a small rigid group of uncivilized, malcontents who can't see anything good about each other.
Comments