A VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF AUTISTICS

 

“I don't like using the terms ‘invisible’ or ‘hidden’ disability. You absolutely see my autism—you just don't code it correctly and instead you see everything about me as a character flaw.”

          - Kelly Bron Johnson

Dear Persons,

For years I’ve been thinking about using Mary Wollstonecraft’s brilliant feminist arguments about equality to make a parallel case for not only Autistic rights but also to contend, in line with her philosophical process, that the ways of thinking and “character flaws” that Autistic people are typically criticized for may actually be both correct and valuable. 

In Part I below, I echo Wollstonecraft’s archaic, academic language to make my case. In Part II, I state my case very briefly and simply, in plain language. Part III quotes the most relevant part of Wollstonecraft’s work for our purposes here. 

VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF AUTISTICS

(with apologies/gratitude to Mary Wollstonecraft, c. 1792)

I. The 1792-Style Version

In our present state of geopolitical chaos and unrest, it seems useful to look at what human qualities and behaviors might actually further the progress and peace we so desperately seek. To do so, we may well need to question the social-ethical status quo that has brought us here. 

As we will see, I’ll build my argument logically, disregarding justification based on the claim that ‘that is just how humans are.’ Like Wollstonecraft, I’ll ask straightforward questions to get to fundamental truths. 

As always, I cannot speak for all Autistics by any means, but I can quarrel with stereotypes and misperceptions, and reason from my own experience and observations to “dispute with some prevailing prejudice” (MW).

What makes humans special? 

Wollstonecraft argues that they are so because they can reason, possess virtue, and develop knowledge born of experience, i.e., wisdom. 

Yet we can all agree that it is common to see contradictions between 

• what is known to be true and right via reason, wisdom, and virtue, on the one hand,

• and what is conveniently (however subconsciously) believed or desired, and then borne out in action, on the other.

The former may be seen in rare shining examples, and exemplifies what is best in human beings; the latter, what is common in their actions. 

Are Autistic people typically as likely as the average Neurotypical person to deploy the “use of reason to justify” (MW) their self-centered behaviors in this way?  

My personal experience indicates that they are not. To wit, again and again I’ve been told things like “You don’t get complexity” or “This is a grey area,” when to my mind it’s more like I’m not willing to excuse myself or anyone else for building their thinking around rationalizing what they want. Almost invariably the gray area argued for by the gray-area advocate falls in favor of said advocate, e.g., such and such a clearly moral yet inconvenient choice is something that would be a good thing to do, but isn't actually necessary. 

Or someone will tell me I "don't get" something. Occasionally, that's true. Usually, though, I understand, but I don't accept the status quo. Think Greta Thunberg.  

Our generally shared quality of being literal tends to prevent these common types of reasoning and behavior. This is but one of many ways in which a Neurodivergent mind may differ from a Neurotypical one. 

Are Autistic people likely, then, likely to think in iconoclastic and/or highly innovative ways? 

But of course. 

Thus, I contend:

• that whereas both in their disregard for convention and the taken-for-granted, and in their lack of self-justification in conducting themselves as they wish (as is most convenient, easy, desirable, and so on) because they see the inherent contradictions in doing so, Autistic people indeed tend to be more ethical and more original;  

• that the very things they are lampooned for are in fact precious traits that not only further human progress, they further human goodness; 

and

• that their failed efforts to fit in fail because the structures of Neurotypical culture are inherently harmful—not just to we Autistic people, but to all people and to the planet;

the prevailing prejudice that Autistic people are lacking or less-than is patently false. 

Given the current ubiquity of horrible prejudices (in the face of reason), environmental-corporate devastation (against all wisdom), and spurious societal-political-personal phenomena (versus virtue), rational, logical, incontrovertible reasoning combined with original thinking may be our only recourse. 

In Wollstonecraft’s immortal words, “The mind must be strong that resolutely forms its own principles.” Such minds, such worthy human beings, must be cherished and nurtured for the good of all humanity.

Wollstonecraft holds that the apex of our rights and duties involves the “perfection of our nature and capability of happiness.” Autistic people must have opportunities to be their whole selves, and to be happy, if we are to contribute desperately needed new perspectives and ideas. 

Only with genuine equity and equality enabling full participation and self-realization will honoring the rights of Autistics bring these vital contributions to the world.

II. The Plain Version

We can use lots of completely solid philosophical arguments to come to the conclusion that not only are different ways of thinking valuable and often more logically and ethically correct than mainstream ways of thinking, but they may also be the only thing that can save this crazy world right about now. 

As likely Autistic person Albert Einstein said, ““You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.”

This means basic goodness, civil rights, and social justice are not the sole reasons for furthering the human rights and improving the lives of Autistic people. We might even help save the world. 

III. The Original [from Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Mary Wollstonecraft, 1792]

 

In the present state of society, it appears necessary to go back to first principles in search of the most simple truths, and to dispute with some prevailing prejudice every inch of ground. To clear my way, I must be allowed to ask some plain questions, and the answers will probably appear as unequivocal as the axioms on which reasoning is built; though, when entangled with various motives of action, they are formally contradicted, either by the words or conduct of men.

In what does man's pre-eminence over the brute creation consist? The answer is as clear as that a half is less than the whole; in Reason.

What acquirement exalts one being above another? Virtue; we spontaneously reply.

For what purpose were the passions implanted? That man by struggling with them might attain a degree of knowledge denied to the brutes: whispers Experience.

Consequently the perfection of our nature and capability of happiness, must be estimated by the degree of reason, virtue, and knowledge, that distinguish the individual, and direct the laws which bind society: and that from the exercise of reason, knowledge and virtue naturally flow, is equally undeniable, if mankind be viewed collectively.

The rights and duties of man thus simplified, it seems almost impertinent to attempt to illustrate truths that appear so incontrovertible: yet such deeply rooted prejudices have clouded reason, and such spurious qualities have assumed the name of virtues, that it is necessary to pursue the course of reason as it has been perplexed and involved in error, by various adventitious circumstances, comparing the simple axiom with casual deviations.

Men, in general, seem to employ their reason to justify prejudices, which they have imbibed, they cannot trace how, rather than to root them out. The mind must be strong that resolutely forms its own principles; for a kind of intellectual cowardice prevails which makes many men shrink from the task, or only do it by halves. Yet the imperfect conclusions thus drawn, are frequently very plausible, because they are built on partial experience, on just, though narrow, views.

QED. 

Thanks and love,

Full Spectrum Mama

P.S. Here's a video of a recent talk I gave on The #ActuallyAutistic Guide to Advocacy!

EQUALITY, UNITY, AND JUSTICE

For George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and their fellow human beings unjustly killed for being Black

I.

I’m about as white-skinned as it gets. 

But when I lost my still-alive white father to mental illness, a Black man—a former mentor and teacher—stepped up to fill that thankless role without even being asked. 

There are very few people of color in my current hometown.

But my daughter’s best friend all through grade school was one of them, and her family became my adopted family here. 

I’m a United States citizen.

But the first year and most formative times in my life were spent in the Darien jungle in Panama. There, my father and I were usually the only white people for hundreds of miles, amidst indigenous people, the descendants of escaped African slaves, (mostly) Spanish colonizers, and Chinese canal laborers, and combinations thereof.

My daughter is a U.S. citizen. 

But she was born in and adopted from China and is genetically of entirely Chinese descent.

Four rational reasons why I march, why I vote for equality, and why I always do my best to do right by all people of color.

II. 

My son and I are neurodivergent.

Just as a Black person may be in danger (or be bullied, or passed over for a job, and on and on) simply for “being in a black body,” my white-bodied son faces discrimination and danger for having an autistic mind. (I “pass” a little more easily, but have also dealt with plenty of neurodiversity-related issues over my lifetime!) 

Like most Black parents, many parents of autistic children teach their kids how to behave if they encounter the police. “Acting weird” or “different” is yet another way to “get yourself in trouble”—or worse. 

When we—whoever we are, whatever our skin color, etc.—say “Black lives matter,” we are in fact saying “All lives matter, because all people should be equal”; 

and we are also saying “We understand that, historically and in the present, people living in so-called black bodies have been, and are being, treated with extraordinary violence and injustice, as if they don’t matter, and we want everybody to know that black lives are of great and necessary value in the tapestry of humanity and we ally with Black people.”

If you’re “foreign,” gay, Autistic, brown, yellow, Black … in short, if you’re colored or shaped or oriented or identify differently—if (in the United States) you’re different from the dominant/“normal” white majority in any way, really—you know what it feels like to have your body and whole being seen in ways that categorize you, that relegate your existence and actions to a lesser status on the basis of a single trait. 

Another rational reason why I advocate and ally with ALL marginalized peoples.

III.

But rational reasons, even very convincing ones, aren’t the point. 

Dear persons, why must there be a reason behind understanding that we are all human beings?

As such, do we not all have hearts to care for our fellow beings? 

I once read about a U.S. senator discussing how he was grateful for the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of healthcare his sick wife received through health insurance. He spoke of how that huge amount of money would have been a stretch for him without insurance, and how he now understands why people need insurance. 

Do the math, senator. For most people, hundreds of dollars, even dollars, in out-of-pocket health expenses would be a stretch. I suppose that’s a rational reason behind healthcare coverage.

But it’s also a heart-centered reason behind caring: Do those less-affluent people care any less about their wives, children, partners, parents—or their own and loved ones’ health and access to healthcare?

Why would it take a direct experience of the need for healthcare to grasp that everyone needs healthcare—and that basic human decency demands that they get it?

Likewise, why would you have to know a [fill in the blank here] person intimately to include them in your species?

Even if we don’t have the empathetic capacity to make such a heartfelt leap of understanding, doesn’t logical reasoning tell us we are all fundamentally similar in the most basic ways? 

For instance, I think we can agree that we all want and need the same things: 

• enough food to eat 
• a safe home to live in
• to be loved and to love
• enough resources to access what we need (and, we hope, a bit more “for special”)
• opportunities for meaningful employment and/or other activities
• people with whom we can connect on what we care about
• to be known as a worthwhile being and treated with respect

I might have missed one or two items (and, of course, some specifics for particular individuals), but it seems to me these needs are 

1. widely if not universally shared,
2. reasonable, and, more importantly, 
3. achievable…if we work together. 

Let’s try this handy test:

Are you human?

Do you believe that other humans are also human?

Do you believe on some level that some humans, say, women, trans people, Black people, Autistic people, and/or members of some other subgroup, are somehow less human than other humans of another group (probably your group)? 

OR do you believe that all humans in general* have equal/shared humanity and worth?

If so, whether you came to this conclusion with your heart or mind (or both), do you believe it’s worthwhile, even imperative, to help ensure that all humans have access to the above basics? 

Do you accept that some of us have certain areas of privilege (such as being white, educated, verbal, male, financially secure, and so on)?

Can we use whatever resources, privilege(s), and/or power we’ve got to advocate for equality? 

Dear readers, I get it: It may feel like there isn’t much you can do in this isolating global crisis. You may feel angry, sad, tired, hopeless. Many of us have all we can handle with work and family alone. 

But the world is desperately in need of healing right now, and ripe for CHANGE in ways we may never again see. It’s an amazing opportunity! 

Know that every small shift toward inclusion, every friendly and/or courageous exchange between mutually human beings, can have huge reverberations. That means any little steps you can take will make the world better for all of us. 

Thanks and love,

Full Spectrum Mama

* Of course, some individuals commit acts that diminish their own and others’ humanity. I’m simply arguing against classifying any subgroup of humanity as less-than based on a single trait. 

DEAR PERSONS

Dear Persons,

Z has always laughed every time she hears or reads the word “persons.”

I finally sat her down and explained to her that “persons” is a word that has a deep and complicated history. That personhood was for many millennia and in many places reserved for only a certain type of people, such as men, or landowners, or white people, or people of a certain caste or religious faith or neurology...

I explained that even though it might seem silly or old-fashioned when you read or hear that word, it’s a strong word that carries a lot of goodness and respect. That she, as a female of Chinese descent, might -- in many settings over the course of history --  not have been considered a Full Person. That even now she will not necessarily earn as much as a man, or be accorded equal respect.

We are reading Malala Yousafzai’s autobiography, I AM MALALA, together, and she is learning how hard life can be for girls and women in many parts of the world. She has already experienced instances of racism at school. Knowing she’s a Full Person gives her grounding and power to stick up for herself.

This conversation inspired me to begin starting my posts with “Dear Persons,” because my readers are dear to me, and because they are all Full Persons.

Love,

Full Spectrum Mama