Functioning Labels - Open Discussion

I work with children who have Special Educational Needs, the terms high and low functioning are generally used with regards to communication. That is not whether they are verbal or not, but an ability to communicate needs. It also refers to cognition, whether a child has the ability to learn, and the length of time it takes to learn a new skill. There are also other factors involved.

I'm only providing a professional perspective, nothing more, and no offence is meant by this.

As to ability to look after oneself, I have met many NTs who do not have any form of learning disability, that I'm surprised even remember how to breathe. Where the phrase " not having two brain cells to rub together" is rather apt.

Sorry, I'm struggling to understand your syntax; so, it's difficult to know what you're trying to convey in your writing. 

The term “low-functioning” dates back to 1968 and William Goldfarb, Nathan Goldfarb, and Ruth C. Pollack's categorisation of autistic children on the basis of their IQ and language. The term “high autistic” was used a few years later (1973). The criticism is that these measures are not related to autism, but to arbitrary notions of what is normal for neurotypicals.

If you use oranges as a basis for describing apples, then you will always be operating from a false analogy; and an apple will always be faulted for not being an orange.

Strictly speaking we aught to talk about autistic people vs autistic people with intellectual disability, however since the later is generally held to outnumber the former no one ever bothers to add the 'with intellectual disability' bit on the end in the same way that you rarely hear anyone refer to someone as having low functioning autism. It is unfortunate that we need to tack something on the end of autism to differentiate us from those who have both autism and I.D. but we do. Otherwise we'll never be able to educate the kind of people who go around saying 'but you don't look autistic.'

Our life courses and needs are radically different from those with low functioning autism. Consider Maslows triangle of needs. It's obvious to those around them that they need help with physical needs, food, housing, healthcare etc. By extension it becomes obvious that they need help with their social needs and while its often addressed in an infantilised way it is generally addressed.

By comparison high functioning autistic people can, assuming they have money, feed themselves, pay rent, remember to lock the door, understand how to visit their gp if they are sick etc. High functioning people can work independently with little assistance. It's actually working in a group or getting through the interview process for the job in the first place that's really tricky. High functioning autistic people have profound needs that are, very different from low functioning autistic people, and unlike them, completely non obvious. With out a label it's difficult to educate people about that.

Upon reflection maybe the term 'hidden autism' would be better.

It's got nothing to do with capitalism - it's purely about being able to look after yourself or not.

I know what you mean by this plastic, our son is considered 'high functioning' he is in mainstream school and yes compared to a lot of other people on the spectrum like you he is both 'high functioning' and 'low functioning' with certain aspects of his life, but with the problems that he does have there is no real support and you are just left to your own devices!

I don't particularly like the label "high-functioning", because it basically means "good enough at masking/able to hold down a job to be a valuable asset under capitalism". Also, it's all relative. I for example appear high-functioning because I am well-spoken, but I can't hold down a job. I prefer the terms "high support" and "low support".

But it's the internet - and it's all written words so it's impossible to get across all the intended meanings and people take things the wrong way - often intentionally - there's always going to be professional victims, white knights, trolls and the rest of the typical flora and fauna hanging around a forum.

I feel sorry for the people who are less internet-savvy and feel it's all real and take it all seriously.

It's a good reflection of society irl - if you choose to take part, prepare to get hurt. 

Plastic said:

I've never, ever heard people called high or low functioning as an insult.

Some wrote major negating comments about the low-functioning not applying themselves and the like ~ which is highly insulting for those who have broken down trying and gotten somewhat traumatised in the process too, whilst others wrote that high-functioning elitists are this, that and the other involving expletives and defamations and all that a aplenty also. :-(

These "high-functioning" or "low-functioning" labels were not created or (originally) used by autistic people.

Not quite, as Intelligence Quota scores involving people having anything from low scores to high scores gave rise to the low, medium and high social support needs criteria being mistaken for social status criteria.

They were created and used by neurotypicals to describe how well autistic people were able to fit in to their society;

Not really, as societies consist of and are proportionally embodied by neurologically typical, atypical and divergent people, rather than as belonging to or allowing any discrimination against anyone proportion of which, with every member in the UK being as such protected from under the Equality Act 2010.

to describe how easily or how well we could pass as one of them.  

Not at all, otherwise the diagnostic criteria for the most socially impaired would not apply; whilst the least socially impaired would be the most diagnosed proportion of the autistic community, rather than the least.

I've never, ever heard people called high or low functioning as an insult.

These "high-functioning" or "low-functioning" labels were not created or (originally) used by autistic people. They were created and used by neurotypicals to describe how well autistic people were able to fit in to their society; to describe how easily or how well we could pass as one of them.  

Plastic said:

Deepthought said:

who gets to call who high, medium or low functioning

It's pretty obvious in most cases - one only has to attend autism social groups to see the dynamics and who will need more support compared to others.

Of course yes when it comes to social groups involving in-person 'person-to-person' interactions, whereas on the internet it can be a very different state of affairs ~ such as for instance the most capable writers and advisors being very much indeed socially and physically disabled, and when people who are socially caustic get really jealous and frustrated about the other person's popularity and support from others on the website ~ quite malicious insults about high and low functioning can ensue with loads of people getting caught up in argumentative firestorms of fury through however many threads.

Yikes! :-(

Deepthought said:

who gets to call who high, medium or low functioning

It's pretty obvious in most cases - one only has to attend autism social groups to see the dynamics and who will need more support compared to others.

The general thing most people get upset or angry about is who gets to call who high, medium or low functioning ~ regarding each other's personal abilities, when the actual criteria is how socially impaired one is and how much social support one needs.

In a world of limited resources, labels are used to triage support availability.   

I'm very high functioning in most circumstances but very low functioning in others.    In 'normal' life, those low functioning periods don't crop up very often so I would likely receive no support whatsoever and just left to get on with it.

As we're dealing with a spectrum disorder, those at the lower end are going to need a lot more support and for a lot longer so they exist on the system's radar for a lot longer and are more likely to get the support they need..

I have no problem with all that - it's just frustrating that if I *need* support, the hoops I'd have to jump through and the waiting lists I'd be put on and the delays and cancellations I'd be faced with actually means that I'm totally on my own.

I've been wondering about that too. I don't really understand the issues with functioning labels. Maybe the high functioning label does not give the impression that the individual goes through challenges, and that the individual might not get the support systems they need in place.