A tendency to obsess is, apparently, a feature of autism; but have you ever wondered if the subject, nature and intensity of our obsessions are peculiar to our essential selves, as opposed to our autistic selves? Or is there no separation between those selves at all?
There's likely no such person as a 'perfect autist' (in terms of matching every standard trait or behaviour) and many of us, no doubt, have thought while reading of classic symptoms: 'Well, I don't do that' or 'That doesn't really apply to me' almost as often as we've recognised 'red flags'...so can it be true that we have no other perspective than an autistic one? Are we, essentially, hostage to our own limited outlook (as neurotypicals are hostage to theirs)? I'm not convinced that is so, while being aware that even my view on this matter might well be restricted or skewed by autism. Irony is one of the few things I 'get'.
Take my interest in history. My obsessions/deeper interests are a loop, of sorts; something that might be telling in a number of ways. But, whether I'm aware of it or not at the time, my fascination with the Tudor era or the fate of the Romanovs or the ancient Roman Republic is always rooted in the contemplation of mortality - not the historical people or periods but the nagging questions: are their, and our, lives significant or meaningless? Is the past real or merely something I imagine? And most crucially: am I, and those I care for, really mortal?
It's always there, in the background of practically anything I think deeply about - I was so 'slow' that I was not young when I first realised people die, and I've never recovered from that crisis of realisation. I've always had difficulty in accepting it as truth, though this might just be denial on my part. It's a kind of immaturity. But while this obsession - which, curiously, does not make me a pessimistic person - so often subconsciously dominates my interests from the shadows, is it simply a result of autism or do I - we - have a mind outside of that perspective?
Is obsessiveness, or the need to obsess, being misinterpreted? And why are there always *negative* assumptions about the habit? In a tv interview, one prominent autism researcher was so crass and carelessly foolish as to link autistic obsession with the horrific deeds of the Columbine killers. That kind of glib irresponsibility won't aid or encourage the general public in their understanding of autism and autistic people. It seems convenient that a tendency to obsess should be assigned to autists, as if this tendency were completely alien to so-called normal, 'nice' people. Maybe obsessiveness is both personal and universal, and apart from being neatly boxed as 'typical autistic behaviour'.
