So, obviously, I’m new here and (also obviously) I bring with me a perspective from outside of the community. And not just from outside of this community here, online, but from outside of the aspie community in general.
What I wish to respond to is the perception that NT’s have something over and/or against ND’s. This is just something I’ve observed, both here on the forums and on a couple blogs off the forum I’ve read, as well as in my more general web surfing on the topic of autism. My intention is to be helpful, not critical, and to offer a reply that may help the truly curious individual think about this in a different light.
<<If you just want the simple answer, scroll down to the last paragraph.>>
Let’s say we are all pebbles on the beach. Some pebbles are round, and some are oval. The pebbles make up the composition of the beach. The shape of the beach, however, isn’t determined by the existence of the pebbles. The shape of the beach is determined by what all of the pebbles are doing. Some pebbles are dry and resting on the beach. Some pebbles are damp, getting splashed by the crashing ocean waves. And still some other pebbles are tumbling around, over and over, being defined and shaped by the processes that brought them to this shoreline.
Let me translate that.
Let’s say we are all individuals in a crowd. Some of the individuals are NT’s, and some of the individuals are ND’s. The individuals make up the composition of the crowd. (And if you were to survey the crowd, each individual would most likely be ignorant of the internal qualities of the hundreds of other people milling about them.) The shape of the crowd—whatever it is the crowd is doing (say, standing in line at the stadium)—isn’t determined by the existence of the individuals. Rather, the shape of the crowd is determined by the forces that brought these individuals together (a soccer game).
Let’s step this up a conceptual notch.
Societal norms are established by the shape of the forces that bring people together. In a very abstract way, those norms are ignorant of the qualities possessed by the individuals. The shape of these societal norms (on a Freudian understanding, following Rieff) is through its permissive and remissive functions. These permissive and remissive functions are, in turn, determined, enforced, and maintained by the society’s normative institutions—i.e., family, government, educational facilities, policing mechanisms, & so on. Societal norms don’t care about anything—they’re just norms (i.e., norms just being things, and things have no ability or capacity for taking independent libertarian free will agency [LFW]). Therefore, societal norms as defined by the worldview of the culture at large have no engagement with the individual, per se, but do determine each individual’s valuation of concepts such as right and wrong, good and bad, and so on, through the civil structure imposed upon the individual. (To a varying degree. LFW allows the individual to accept or reject those norms. Whether or not this is permitted, and to what extent the individual’s response is permitted, depends on the permissibility and flexibility of the overarching societal norms, as carried out by the society’s social institutions.) Now, according to Freud, when a society’s permissive and remissive functions come into an imbalance, what results is a flip-flop of permissive and remissive functions. (For example, we see this strongly at work today in the USA on multiple levels.)
How does this relate to the issue at hand? Do NT’s truly have something over and/or against ND’s?
If pebbles could know, then one pebble could only know so much about the pebbles surrounding it. It’s not so much that the people we bump up against in life respond to us out any hidden agenda but, rather, they respond to us out of the crashing waves of societal norms that shape us. Thus, ideally, change the culture, change the response. (Consider Pancho Villa’s education campaign.)
However, there is only so far adjustments to any single normative institution can take us. Remember the save-the-whales campaign? (It was big in the 80’s.) Remember the Atkins diet? (90’s.) Each was, in the history of humanity, short-lived. Our overriding, prevalent Western philosophy is 2,300 years old, with checks and balances being made along the way. Our current interpretive structure is much more recent, becoming more or less the dominant worldview since the 1950’s. But the normative structures those interpretive structures attempt to interpret are hundreds of years old.
It’s my observation—an opinion currently based on very little knowledge of autism but on my own observations of the autistic community and how I’ve observed that it functions and relates as a subgroup to the community at large—that it is due to the adoption of the most recent interpretive structure that autism has become an topic (read this as neither good nor bad—it just is). This current interpretive structure is a reductionist movement, made in response to what Freud called the authoritarian structure, which gives primacy of place to the individual’s needs, wants, and desires (the therapeutic analytic—a type of social constructivism). So, in a very real sense, the existence of this group has a lot to thank the current ideological environment for.
(Another way to say this is, the waves crashing along the shoreline tumble every pebble, irrespective of size or shape…the social norms at work are oblivious to the plights of the people they superintend.)
In short, NT’s likely have no idea that ND’s exist, much less purposefully intend any division or harm toward ND’s. But every NT an ND meets, that becomes an opportunity to educate the NT. Just keep in mind, and irrespective of the facts, that the manner in which this is done will have a profound impact on whether the NT will respond favorably or not.
What I wish to respond to is the perception that NT’s have something over and/or against ND’s. This is just something I’ve observed, both here on the forums and on a couple blogs off the forum I’ve read, as well as in my more general web surfing on the topic of autism. My intention is to be helpful, not critical, and to offer a reply that may help the truly curious individual think about this in a different light.
<<If you just want the simple answer, scroll down to the last paragraph.>>
Let’s say we are all pebbles on the beach. Some pebbles are round, and some are oval. The pebbles make up the composition of the beach. The shape of the beach, however, isn’t determined by the existence of the pebbles. The shape of the beach is determined by what all of the pebbles are doing. Some pebbles are dry and resting on the beach. Some pebbles are damp, getting splashed by the crashing ocean waves. And still some other pebbles are tumbling around, over and over, being defined and shaped by the processes that brought them to this shoreline.
Let me translate that.
Let’s say we are all individuals in a crowd. Some of the individuals are NT’s, and some of the individuals are ND’s. The individuals make up the composition of the crowd. (And if you were to survey the crowd, each individual would most likely be ignorant of the internal qualities of the hundreds of other people milling about them.) The shape of the crowd—whatever it is the crowd is doing (say, standing in line at the stadium)—isn’t determined by the existence of the individuals. Rather, the shape of the crowd is determined by the forces that brought these individuals together (a soccer game).
Let’s step this up a conceptual notch.
Societal norms are established by the shape of the forces that bring people together. In a very abstract way, those norms are ignorant of the qualities possessed by the individuals. The shape of these societal norms (on a Freudian understanding, following Rieff) is through its permissive and remissive functions. These permissive and remissive functions are, in turn, determined, enforced, and maintained by the society’s normative institutions—i.e., family, government, educational facilities, policing mechanisms, & so on. Societal norms don’t care about anything—they’re just norms (i.e., norms just being things, and things have no ability or capacity for taking independent libertarian free will agency [LFW]). Therefore, societal norms as defined by the worldview of the culture at large have no engagement with the individual, per se, but do determine each individual’s valuation of concepts such as right and wrong, good and bad, and so on, through the civil structure imposed upon the individual. (To a varying degree. LFW allows the individual to accept or reject those norms. Whether or not this is permitted, and to what extent the individual’s response is permitted, depends on the permissibility and flexibility of the overarching societal norms, as carried out by the society’s social institutions.) Now, according to Freud, when a society’s permissive and remissive functions come into an imbalance, what results is a flip-flop of permissive and remissive functions. (For example, we see this strongly at work today in the USA on multiple levels.)
How does this relate to the issue at hand? Do NT’s truly have something over and/or against ND’s?
If pebbles could know, then one pebble could only know so much about the pebbles surrounding it. It’s not so much that the people we bump up against in life respond to us out any hidden agenda but, rather, they respond to us out of the crashing waves of societal norms that shape us. Thus, ideally, change the culture, change the response. (Consider Pancho Villa’s education campaign.)
However, there is only so far adjustments to any single normative institution can take us. Remember the save-the-whales campaign? (It was big in the 80’s.) Remember the Atkins diet? (90’s.) Each was, in the history of humanity, short-lived. Our overriding, prevalent Western philosophy is 2,300 years old, with checks and balances being made along the way. Our current interpretive structure is much more recent, becoming more or less the dominant worldview since the 1950’s. But the normative structures those interpretive structures attempt to interpret are hundreds of years old.
It’s my observation—an opinion currently based on very little knowledge of autism but on my own observations of the autistic community and how I’ve observed that it functions and relates as a subgroup to the community at large—that it is due to the adoption of the most recent interpretive structure that autism has become an topic (read this as neither good nor bad—it just is). This current interpretive structure is a reductionist movement, made in response to what Freud called the authoritarian structure, which gives primacy of place to the individual’s needs, wants, and desires (the therapeutic analytic—a type of social constructivism). So, in a very real sense, the existence of this group has a lot to thank the current ideological environment for.
(Another way to say this is, the waves crashing along the shoreline tumble every pebble, irrespective of size or shape…the social norms at work are oblivious to the plights of the people they superintend.)
In short, NT’s likely have no idea that ND’s exist, much less purposefully intend any division or harm toward ND’s. But every NT an ND meets, that becomes an opportunity to educate the NT. Just keep in mind, and irrespective of the facts, that the manner in which this is done will have a profound impact on whether the NT will respond favorably or not.
