By this logic we should dispense with the labels “Asperger's”, “autistic” and “neurodiverse” and have only a morass of individual differences, with the nuances of all our genetic and socialisation influences taken into account each time we encounter someone. Why don’t we just tear up the DSM and all social and psychological categories while we’re about it – narcissist, borderline, sociopath, psychopath, drug addict, alcoholic, geek, cool normal, ADHD, bipolar, autistic, bully, victim, abuser, abused etc.
But many people derive solace from these labels, knowing there are others like them. Labelling is a double-edged sword: it enables you to belong with others who are like you and to realise that you aren’t alone, but it also separates you from others who aren’t like you.
Usually we have so many cross-cutting categories – gender, sexual orientation, social roles, work roles, religion, culture, ethnicity, SES, neurological hardwiring, mental illness, particular life experiences, physical characteristics, abilities – that it’s difficult to treat anyone we come across purely on their group identity, since they have many competing group identities.
The label “neurodiversity” only has meaning by distinguishing it from what it’s not: “neurotypicality”. “Asperger’s" and “autism” came about because their cognitions, emotions and behaviours distinguished them sufficiently from “neurotypicality” to warrant creating those social/clinical categories.
The fantastic ‘colour-blind’ democracy you have in mind, with everyone free to waft around in their individual differentness, free from any categorisation, let alone judgement, sounds great on paper – but it’s arguably unrealistic, due to historical, psychological and behavioural differences. It also suggests a fear of being judged: ‘Phew – what a relief: none of us can be held accountable for anything because we are all individuals who chose neither our genes nor our socialisation experiences.’ This is akin to a failure of courage to be. It is also anti-science, since science tries to find patterns in things e.g., what makes someone a serial killer, for example. If we know what causes it, we could potentially control and prevent or fix it. Yet you demonise such "stereotyping".
I would rather confront reality head-on: (1) different types of neurological hardwiring exist (as the wealth of literature on ASC attests), just like different cultures, ethnicities, and socio-economic classes exist; (2) use this differentness and social comparison as a mirror to see ourselves more clearly, that is, identify the shadow-sides and the positives of each way of being.
The bias in the field to date has been to focus on (1) the unquestioned normality of NTs and (2) the unquestioned problems of ASC individuals. I would like to balance out this picture by emphasising more of (3) the positives of ASC and (4) the shadow-side of NTs. To date there have been many NT researchers and therapists putting ASC under the microscope and holding up that type of neurological hardwiring for scrutiny and in-depth analysis. For example:
https://autismandempathyblog.wordpress.com/a-critique-of-the-extreme-male-brain-theory-of-autism/
I think it can be fruitful to have the reverse process as well: looking at those doing the looking, since all social categories are relative. The categorisation of people is overwhelmingly with reference to self.
Unfortunately, the physical dimension of this world requires that we use words to communicate, and words by definition divide up the world into categories, whether you like it or not. The trick is to be balanced and nuanced in our thinking about categories, rather than abandoning categories and labels altogether – which would be tantamount to abandoning language. I would rather call for a balanced approach: focusing both on the
individual in the group AND the
group in the individual.
To not categorise anyone might solve one problem but it would create another: it would deprive individuals of communities, like this one, with whom to belong.
This echoes the debate in the UK about whether to have a multicultural society, with a proliferation of diverse identities, or everyone united under a single British identity. I am arguing for pluralism (within reason - everyone has to at least agree on the categories); you are arguing for non-distinction or hyper-distinction - I'm not sure which.
Btw, I often refer to Aspergers and NTs alike as "they" and "them" (both as out-groups), as I strive to write objectively about both categories. Many people find this off-putting - they want to know clearly which box I'm in before they evaluate my ideas - am I friend or foe? Am I 'one of us' or 'one of them'? I would rather my views be evaluated for themselves than based on my identity. To judge ideas by WHO is saying them is a kind of 'argument from authority' and therefore fallacious.
P.S. You are emphatic about NO ONE (sic) being stereotyped, bullied or criticised, yet you describe views that go against yours a "rant". I feel criticised. Like the 7 billion individuals you talk about, my argument is multi-faceted, yet you seem to have engaged superficially with only one small part of it. I'd be interested to know which of my premises or inferences you find unfair, unreasoned, unsubstantiated or unbalanced - to warrant calling it a "rant".
