The Autistic/Has Autism Question
August 20, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
“Autistics” simply do not exist.
writes journalist Dan Olmsted in an Age of Autism post on the use of the word “retard” in the movie Tropic Thunder. He “really can’t stand” it when the “people with autism” are referred to as “autistics,” and he sees the word as a “corollary of ‘retards’.”
Olmsted refers here to an ongoing debate in the autism community, about whether to use the adjective “autistic” or the preposition/noun phrase “with autism.” Some prefer to say “autistic” to suggest that autism is part of a person; others prefer “with autism,” as it’s thought that this phrase suggests that autism is separate from a person. More recently, autistic adults and self-advocates (as on autistics.org) have been using the word “autistic” as a noun to describe themselves. Olmsted seems to think that using “autistics” to describe oneself is not the most appropriate and expresses a wish that persons who self-identify as autistic might “rethink the matter.”
Olmsted’s “best argument” for why it’s incorrect to use “autistics” as a noun is that
“In my Webster’s, at least, there is no such use of the word.”
Words’ definitions change and evolve over time; words acquire meaning and new meanings through common usage, well before they are added to dictionaries and become “official,” and one individual can hardly be the arbiter of accepted usage. As Olmsted is not himself (as far as I know) autistic/has autism, it seems that it might be well for him to leave this matter of semantics and nomenclature to others, and in particular to those who have chosen to say that they are, yes, autistic.
I just noted Kathleen’s signout, and I like “Autizen”…I like that quite a bit.
(Americaut
. The first image that conjured was a cross between a US citizen and an…apricot).
BTW–dmknow–thank you for posting the essay by Jim Sinclair.
Usats? Usaians? USAians? USicats? USicans? I kind of like that last one.
I actually try to use “US citizen” or “People who live in the US,” but it does get awkward.
USasians.
In the Autism Nation.
What is scaring me about this is the inherent racism implicit in it all.
The debate about autistic rights has nothing to do with being an American citizen (or Canadian of whatever)
There appears to be this fundemental flaw in the Gringo Psyche that this is all there is is an English speaking anglocentric version of rights and responsibilities and from my English perspective you are no more speaking the same perspective as a catalan undertands castilian or a mandarin understands cantonese, dammit I find Geordie nigh on incomprehensible and that is just in John Bulls little Island.
At least I have the hope and endeavour that there is something beyond the US hegemony when it comes to organising things on a European scale with so manydifferent languages and cultures.
It just shocks me in these posts and replies how blind you can be. Well at least in that respect as the motto goes I am luscus, I have one eye to see.
The debate about autistic rights has nothing to do with being an American citizen (or Canadian of whatever). At least I have the hope and endeavour that there is something beyond the US hegemony when it comes to organising things on a European scale with so many different languages and cultures. It just shocks me in these posts and replies how blind you can be.
~smile~ I know what you’re saying L-rex but people from the U.S. just don’t see it. They won’t. I’d argue not from malfeasance but ignorance. People here are very isolated but they don’t know it. Most don’t even speak another language. At best, they’ll good naturedly agree, inserting the caveat that this site is based in the U.S. and let it go at that. It is only if one is raised abroad or has spent considerable time elsewhere and speaks the language of their habitat, that they’ll get a glimmer of it.And hegemony? Forget it. They won’t understand what you mean.
“Autistic is ‘relating to, or marked by, autism.’”
Hmm… that is interesting. I would not use that definition, however, because it is too broad. Way too broad. I mean, “marked by”? In all seriousness, do we say media is autistic because it has been marked by autism?
What a bloody mess. On the other hand, that’s not to disqualify the related comment; it is ridiculous to say something doesn’t exist because it isn’t in a dictionary.
But I’ll throw my hat in here, though it is similar to others.
As is apparent, what we call “person-first” language is, in fact, a basic mechanism of separation. That’s what it is, quite simply.
The logic behind doing this, some wash of “the person is emphasized first and thus is considered more” and “the person is not constrained by the label as it is separate”, are thin concealments as to hiding that. The jarring usage makes the term at least as noticeable, if not more so, and the possessive doesn’t make it less constraining than before if that was the intent (in all seriousness, “is mentally retarded” and “has mental retardation” don’t feel any different as to discussing the condition. One is not construed as more capable for the possessive).
So, of course, what we’re really dealing with is another measure of acceptability, a measure of “ok-ness”, if you will. No different than the distinction between “race” and “ethnicity” in what it is implying. (Ever notice that those denoted by “ethnicity” are of a lighter skin color than those by “race”? Yeah) It’s an obvious barrier to actually being accepted if people have to be considered ok only by not being related to a personal condition.
Thus, I pretty much disparage the usage in all forms, granted my more general views on the subject. Even with mental retardation, I find that it’s more than a simple cop out; it is an insistence that only “normal” people are ok. That’s not to say I would use “retard”, as it is an obvious pejorative, but I probably would use the functional “to be”, “is mentally retarded”. Even with negative conditions, this is a language to be avoided in my current opinion.
But I am open-minded as to that last opinion. Here’s the balance; do you decide that a condition (let’s use cancer for argument’s sake) is negative and decide that a separation mechanic is in order because it would be better without the condition, or, given the nature of the language, decide that the phrasing becomes unnecessarily judgmental and clearly so, to the point? I lean toward the latter, but I’ll put that up for thought.
Nevertheless, when you have a condition as mixed as autism, it is a very clear area where it is not for appropriate usage, the insistence of it by some advocates aside. I don’t, however, use it as a litmus test for an “us-them”… but I do to note what kind of advocacy they have been familiar with. But I find I have swayed people on the subject (not online, mind you, as much as in person), and have had people who are learning about neurodiversity and who believe it makes sense who have first heard opposition to it from me. So it’s interesting, really.
I’m not sure where I stand as to the conditions of self-determination as deciding label usage. But it’s superior by tons to other means, so I lean toward that in practice. (But am I not a US citizen because I say I’m not? Could I be a sovereign nation? Pretty please?)
On a note related to the nationality, as to laurentius-rex…
“Autistic American, oh can I have American citizenship now?”
Pfft… lord no. You see, Autistic-Americans are soulless beings, having been drained out by the all-powerful force of autism, and thus are not people. Therefor, given that the constitution was written in personal language, you’re a non-citizen. No fraction of a vote for you. Plus, only people over the age of eighteen can be full citizens, and as Jenny McCarthy can rightly tell you, there are no autistic adults. So… sorry.
As to “American”… you know, like, it doesn’t matter. We *are* the American continent. I mean, there were people here (we call them “Native Americans”, and put them in cages called reservations for observation), but *we’re* here, and that’s what matters. Canadians and Mexico, and for that matter everything south of Mexico, are there for the sake of formality, to take up space that we don’t really need. Manifest Destiny for the win!
…
Ok, don’t take the previous two paragraphs seriously, if you even vaguely thought about it. I’ve been on vacation for a week and have been of light mood. Kinda shows.
In all seriousness, it is inappropriate yet predictable that “American” is used for the imperial nation of the time. I use “US citizen” when I’m really thinking about it, and even when I’m not. As to “mondcivitan”…I just tend to go by the literal descriptor (not as an identity, though feel free to say what you will for that consideration), so it would only be used for a very unique person in my frame. As an identity, however, the qualification is one of those things where it’s pointless in its broad nature, not supposing any kind of pseudo-elitist qualification based on subjective criteria that make autism look as clear as crystal.
Which, oddly, was another point I had on the general comment thread.
“Really, the only thing that matters is that labels be used to bring people in…the question should be, ‘how can we discuss this issue and this label in the most inclusive way possible’.
Too often, labels are a way of walling off, lapsing into club-think, membership-think. And that can be necessary at times, but when the tone is exclusive, it keeps people away and becomes a self-defeating process (self defeating in that the constant attempt to rigidly define and impose a single definition…it cuts off the oxygen in any meaningful exchange of ideas; it’s the antithesis of dialog).”
Distinction does happen to be the trade in which labels, or any terms, sell. Obviously, you have to balance the particular against the universal, and I’d usually just stick with the universal as defined as distinctly yet fairly generally, even as complex and difficult as that can be with autism. But “as inclusive as possible” isn’t the goal quite either. And it isn’t the patron saint of dialogue either, if there is nothing to compare and contrast. Meaningful categories exist right between the two.
Oh… as an endnote, the “evolved humanity” thing was more mean than substantiative. A “strengths and weaknesses” rhetoric doesn’t imply that, and shouldn’t, but it is telling that it brings up that kind of speech.
Cliff
I want to learn Japanese. And Mandarin one day, but those are difficult languages to squeeze into your brain when you’ve got to speak English all day.
Maybe listening to more Japanese and Chinese music will help.
The problem with “U.S. Citizen”, of course, is wholly in its awkwardness. Unless you want to universalize it to be otherwise (and I’d be for that), it typically is in a descriptor that simply does not and cannot exist in the English language. So taking the only word that would be usable (I mean, as unfortunate as the implications are standing, insisting that you are either the only united or stately (in any sense of the word) people is quite worse) and formulating that the same way as to be appropriate, linguistically, was the way to go, as stupid as that may be.
Feels to me, though, that the focus is off. What you really should be targeting is the thing itself. That we had the nerve to become *the* “United States of America”, when that wasn’t the case, is that remnant of history that is, when you think about it, unfortunate (though I couldn’t say whether that was ignorance, expected Manifest Destiny, or flagrant egocentrism. Take your pick).
But I have to say…
“The debate about autistic rights has nothing to do with being an American citizen (or Canadian of whatever)”
Heh… I hate to disagree. As much as one would be loathe to admit it, government-granted rights have a huge impact on rights that are relevant to autistics, in no small way. So, yeah, it is kind of relevant. It’d be like saying that Arab-American rights aren’t related to national rights, and then saying that to someone in Israel. They are related to both, and not for the better in either case, but certainly not so in the latter.
Cliff
Part of the difficulty is the assumptions that everyone makes in speaking English and at the same time forgetting there are a lot of differences in usage and nuance between our two different styles of English seperated by the pond, for instance if I were to use a popular expression here and tell you that McDonalds is pants, you would be wondering what I mean, being as pants refers to underwear here and the phrase is therefore derogatory.
We still have more in common that we do with non English speakers, of whom there are very substantial numbers in the USA and Canada, probably even more so in Canada where French is an official language as well as English.
Here in the UK we are also citizens of the European Union, and I had the pleasure two years ago of speaking at an international disability conference on this very issue of person first language and the dependency of the social model on English forms of expression, using French, German and Scandinavian terms for disability, none of which have exact translations to make my point.
We just don’t know what the arguments are that are being kicked around in non English speaking communities as to whether it should be person with autism, person who has autism or autist. Different languages allow different constructions of that, notwithstanding of course that one reason why the people first bit is so wrong, is because it is so unnatural to the language that it cannot help but sound forced, drawing attention to the very thing it is trying to euphemise.
I would think however that degree of intellectual debate is beyond Dan Olmstead, and nothing to do with his innate cognitive capacity at all but more to do with his tendency to think in cliches as politicians and rabble rousers are wont to do.
In a sence we could say his language is less advanced, but that is a whole new ball game, Berstein Labov and all, and I am on the point of committing a faux pas by implying the R word without using it in that same sentence.
What is the sentence to be pronounced on me for that I wonder. Oh the wierdness of language with its multiple alternatives for the same words depending upon there context and setting, no wonder we get brain ache over it all.
I think the bottom line is that the fundamental respect due other human beings is to call each of them what they tell you they want to be called.
For the vast majority of autistic people I know, it’s “autistic person”.
But not for all of them. A man I’ve worked with briefly on some technical aspects for AutCom 2008, the upcoming Autism National Committee annual conference, wants to be called a “person with autism”, because he says his (very) nonstandard appearance and behavioral tics do so much to cause others to write him off as a person, that the extra emphasis on “person” in the person-first construction is needed as a counterbalance.
I don’t agree with his reasoning, but I think it’s far more important to respect his wishes about how he wants to be called himself.
I think there is a subtext here though, one that Jim Sinclair and dkmnow, in this thread, have both called out: a tremendous amount rides on how one perceives autism.
If autism is a bad thing, in particular a bad thing external to the self that one hopes to be rid of, then the arguments for person-first construction make sense.
But if autism is something intrinsic to the individual, and not just the sum of the disabilities it confers, but rather something that remains and informs the individual’s individuality, as fundamentally as gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and bodily physical attributes, even as the disabilities concomitant with autism are overcome through mitigation or accommodation — then “autistic person” makes much more sense than “person with autism”.
Mayfly characterizes autism as a “horrible disorder” — reducing it to exclusively those aspects of it that are disabling, and implicitly placing the locus of disability exclusively upon the individual.
Mayfly then goes on to posit a really ridiculous strawman in opposition to that — the claim that some people make that autism is a next step in evolution. No serious self-advocate or ally makes such claims.
A more realistic counterpoint is to say (as many self-advocates and allies do) that autism confers a mix of challenges and blessings, to each individual in different proportions. And that that mix changes over time, as the individual makes gains in growth, development, skill acquisition, insight, and strategy. And as accommodations are made in the surrounding societal environment.
I often use this metaphor:
People say that autism is entirely a bad thing, as surely as the sky is blue.
But the sky isn’t blue. It’s black and starry. It only looks blue when the sun is up. The intensity of its light blocks everything else from view.
The sun is like the disabilities concomitant with autism. When they are intense, they’re all you see.
Once you start to overcome them (whether through mitigation or accommodation), it’s like the sky when the sun has gone down: you begin to see the whole rest of the universe out there.
I hope Mayfly’s daughter grows and develops and acquires skills, and overcomes her disabilities (whether through mitigation or accommodation). Both for her own sake, and so that she and Mayfly and Mayfly’s family can see the positive aspects of autism currently being flooded out by the negative aspects they’re dealing with.
And similarly, I hope the man I mentioned above reaches a point (through change in himself and in the societal environment in which he lives) where he no longer experiences the dismissal of personhood that has led him to prefer person-first language.
I have an even better metaphor (I would)
It is the weather, it is there whether we like it or not, and the rain it raineth on the just and the unjust alike, but what will spoil my bank holiday will also ensure I have vegetables to put on my plate.