Published on 12, July, 2020
So I recently stumbled across this article that really resonated with me - https://aeon.co/essays/the-autistic-view-of-the-world-is-not-the-neurotypical-cliche
It describes to negative connotations and stereotypes associated with autism and covers controversial areas, such as how autistic people lack empathy, are unable to love etc.
The scope of the article highlights how autistic people are observed and judged by neurotypicals and explains how their perceptions and prejudices are based on their own perspectives and experiences.
This may sound harsh and divisive at first, but there is a valid point throughout that due to our minority status, we rarely have a voice to explains ourselves and although I confess I could never fully understand something from a neurotypical perspective, at the same time I wouldn't expect a neurotypical to fully understand something from a neurodiverse perspective either.
What is depressing for me, is that despite that insight into each other worlds, so to speak, clearly lacking on some parts, it is the autistic person who us at fault and not a problem shared by both parties.
I shared this article with my partner and his response was, when are you going to accept life is unfair and you just have to get on with it. Of course he wants to crack on with things because it doesn't affect him! I gave the example of how it would appear should you swap the autistic person with someone who is homosexual or black - he didn't think the same thing applied and so this is why this article is so relevant for out times.
I don't want a NT and ND division, so how do we come to understand each other better?
Who is it that doesn’t understand you and who don’t you understand? And what is this division you talk about?
We come to understand each other better by talking and listening to each other, don’t we? At least that’s how I do it. I’m daily talking to people about my autism and people are always delighted to learn more.
I couldn’t understand most of the article, I’m not quite sure what it was trying to say so I’m probably not the best person to comment but it sounded like a load of drivel to me, like someone complaining and trying to fill space to promote their book.
I'm not usually very good at reading these kinds of articles myself, but I have to say that I found this to be one of the most lucid and cogent that I've read on the subject of autism, both as it is often misrepresented in the popular media (exaggerations or misconceptions based on neurotypical understanding) and in terms of how our own voices are often drowned out or passed over whenever we make attempts at explanation. Yes, you are right that we come to understand each other better by talking and listening, but the conversation often feels like it is only one way. So I will try to explain to somebody that yes, indeed everyone does suffer with anxiety from time to time, but autistic anxiety is of a completely different variety and can be caused by things that most people would regard as trivial or inconsequential. This has long been established within the scientific community, with research including brain scans and other kinds of biochemical monitors. Most often, I find that people still cannot accept the degrees of variation. I tell lots of people I'm autistic, at which I often receive comments that demonstrate varying degrees of either indifference or incredulity, or perhaps some mild curiosity - as one might be curious about seeing someone in the street with learning disabilities. Again, this is most likely because of misrepresentations that people have accepted from films they've seen or books they've read, quite often written by neurotypicals and for a neurotypical audience. The example given of 'To Siri with Love' was a pertinent case in point. I was outraged when I read that book, and even more outraged by the author's assertion that perhaps 'it wasn't written for an autistic audience'. This, it seemed, gave her licence to treat the whole thing as something to be laughed at, and her attitude was both arrogant and patronising, and did a gross disservice to autistic people. If she had written the same about bringing up, say, an adopted black or gay child, there would have been an even bigger outcry about the way she handled the subject. I'm glad you have found that the people you speak to are always delighted to learn more. I've found that quite a few people I've spoken to have been the same. The problem I've usually found, though, is that they are hearing without really listening, so they aren't really learning. It sometimes feels like I'm simply being humoured, or tolerated. I would respectfully suggest that you might want to read the article again and try to suspend your judgements about what the author is attempting to convey through it, because she does actually speak a lot of very good sense. She addresses many of the most relevant issues about 'communication deficit', which is something that most autistic people that I know personally say is their biggest challenge. It also appears to be an issue that arises an awful lot on the threads on these forums, or so I've observed during my short time here. I find none of it surprising.
I don’t really know how autism is presented in popular media as I don’t have much to do with that side of life, but I do know what you mean about one sided conversations. I seem to have a lot of those even though I do encourage others to speak as well, but they mostly seem more intrigued and fascinated and interested with what I have to say and they love learning about autism. So I don’t try to dominate conversations on purpose, people seem to just like listening to me but on the topic of autism, I find I usually know more than most people I talk to so I guess it stands to reason that I would be the one doing most of the talking.
I haven’t read the book ‘To Siri, with Love’, but if it was written for a nuerotypical audience then it wouldn’t really be for me anyway, so I probably won’t read it.
I find, almost without exception, that people love hearing about autism. They’re usually fascinated to find out that I’m autistic, as they didn’t realise it was so diverse and they had the same kind of impression that I had, before I got my diagnosis, that people with autism have some kind of learning difficulty as well. I find they really listen and they ask some wonderful questions which helps me to understand myself and them better, as well.
I haven’t really got a judgement on the article because I couldn’t understand it. It seemed like a lot of big words, to me, that didn’t really mean anything much at all, but that’s probably because I’m very blunt, direct and honest when I speak and I appreciate it when people talk to me in the same manner so I often require some support to be able understand articles like this one. I need somebody to break them down for me and put them into more simple, more direct words that I can understand.
I’m glad you found the article helpful though. It sounds like popular media needs more articles like this.
To sell a book or play, the writer needs a target audience, of course anyone in the world who has access to the book can buy it, but you can’t market to the whole world, you have to have a target audience. That doesn’t mean that only your target audience can and will read it, often books are a great surprise and are taken up by an altogether different audience. There isn’t even a publisher on this planet, apart from little ones, who would even consider reading an authors work if they don’t already have a platform because no matter how great a book is, if nobody knows about it, nobody is going to buy it. So you have to have a certain sized social media following or some kind of platform, aka, your target audience, before a publisher will even consider your work.
So she wrote it for absolutely anybody to read. I’ve never heard of an author doing that before, but there you go, we learn something new every day.
When an author publishes a book, it is public property in the sense that it is available for everyone to read. All authors throughout history, through Shakespeare, Jonson, Fielding, Smollett, Defoe, Johnson, the Brontes, Austen, Dickens, Trollope, Orwell, Steinbeck, Carver, Cheever, Faulkner, Kerouac, Rowling, Banks, Rankin, and on and on and on and on have written books (or plays) to have them published (or performed) for everyone to read (or see). Why do it otherwise? I don't understand how this could have somehow passed you by. It's what writers do. They write to communicate. And once they are published, they can't just say 'I don't want autistic people to read this'. It's out there. Which is what they want. I'm shocked that such a thing has never occurred to you before.