FInal Exam

Final Essay

Madison Long

Dr. Foss

Disability and Literature

4/30/2020

Expecting Normal: based off of Jim Sinclair’s Don’t Mourn For Us

The first thing that really caught my attention in the article Don’t Mourn For Us, was in the second paragraph. Author Jim Sinclair talks about how parents, when they find out their child has autism, mourn for the child who they had expected to have. When you are having a child, you expect them to be normal and when it turns out that they are not, you will likely have mixed emotions. People seem to expect that everyone is normal until they are seen otherwise. The thought that I kept coming back to while reading this article was the expectation of normal. What is the expectation of being normal? Who is to say that those who are seen as other than normal are not the normal ones. All of these readings about autism and disability seem to make the reader realize that the way they are IS their version of normal. We, as a society, seem to only believe there is one form of being normal and if you don’t meet this expectation then you are looked down on. I believe that this is a naive way of seeing things. People need to open their minds to the possibility that yes, people with autism are different in many ways, but they are still human and they still have emotions like everyone else; they just show theirs differently. So I ask once more, what is the expectation of normal and why can someone who is autistic not be considered their own normal?

Expectations can be dangerous and yet it is a part of us. When we expect things to go one way and then they do not, it can crush you. The thing with expectations is that you have to allow yourself some space just in case things do not go as planned. Jim Sinclear describes giving birth to a child with autism when not expecting it as similar to having a stillbirth. You expect so much from this child, this baby, even before it is born and when you realize that these expectations are not possible, it can and will lead you to mourn the child that you did not have. Most parents expect high things of their soon to be child and when an autistic child is born instead of the child they were expecting, they might believe that this child can no longer exceed any expectations. The truth is that this is not at all true. Yes, your child may not be able to achieve those exact expectations, but that is more in your mindset than on their being autistic. The best thing to do would be to adjust your expectations to be more in tune to their way of doing things. Just because the expectations that they can achieve are different from the ones you had hoped for does not mean that they are any less than you. They are just more unique. Along with expectations, often comes the word normal.

What is normal and why do so many people spend their whole life trying to be it. What I have learned about the autistic community is exactly that, they are a community. They seem to know they are different from the rest of society in ways but that is their normal. We as humans often learn to think of life and everything in it as only having two sides. There are normal people who speak our language, think the same, see life the same way as us, that will have the same experiences as us. Then there are people who are not normal, who can not speak like us, think the same way, see life like we do, and who have different experiences from us. These “abnormal” people, we as society often think less of or pity. To them though, to those who are different and not seen as normal, this is their reality, their normal. They have their own way of speaking, of thinking, of seeing and experiencing life. These are all things that you can only understand if you are a part of them or if you try your best to understand and keep an open mind. It is not their fault that society can only seem to see it’s own reality instead of trying to see everyone’s reality.

When you put these two things together, expectation and being normal, you really just come to an unreasonable and unreachable idea of always expecting the normal. Of course there are also times when you expect better than normal. After you break down the meaning or meanings of normal do you realize that it is not fair to always expect your version of it from someone? It is ok to be excited and hopeful and expecting of a child that will soon be yours, but it is important to know that if this is not the case, if the child is not what you expected, that if they are autistic, it is not their fault and you need to learn to let go of the child you had expected. Once you have learned to let go, then start trying to learn and understand your autistic child’s version of normal.

In the end of the article Jim Sinclear has left a plea to parents of autistic children. This plea asks that you recognize the child that you have as an alien trying to navigate a new world. Not as the child that you lost because, this child never was. The child that you have needs you to do your best to understand and help them through in this world where they are different. Move forward with the child you have and stop moving backwards trying to find the child there never was going to be.

The conclusion that I have come to after reading and analyzing this article is that he wants people to see and hopefully understand the way he sees it. Autism is not something you should mourn over. What you should mourn over is what happens when someone who is autistic goes out into society and how they are treated, when treated as abnormal. But if you do mourn over this then do not just mourn, go out there and help. Change how they are seen and treated. Show society that their close-minded way of thinking is not the only way of thinking, and not the correct way.

word count: 1064

I pledge

work cited:

“DONT MOURN FOR US.” Dont Mourn For Us, www.autreat.com/dont_mourn.html.

Saunders Final Exam

Emily Saunders

Foss

ENGL384-02

Word Count: 1126

I pledge. –Emily Saunders

Rhetoricity: The Voice of Autism

Consider this: human beings have a fascination with language, with communication, and use it in every action that they take. Words are prescribed to objects, people, abstract concepts, animals, relationships, et cetera, and they are used to convey endless messages across endless modes of communication. There are very few (if any) ways in which human beings do not exist and communicate at the same time. In particular, voice (both literal and metaphorical) is often taken for granted as essential to the human experience, but what happens when that voice doesn’t conform to the standards set forth by the masses? What if your communication looks different? What if your language doesn’t match the one prescribed to you? Autism is frequently treated and discussed in ways that disregard the personhood, and therefore voice, of people with autism, despite their rich, albeit different, experiences with language.

A close look at Melanie Yergeau’s Introduction to her book, Authoring Autism, and Ralph James Savarese’s essay “Toward Postcolonial Neurology: Autism, Tito Mukhopadhyay, and a New Geo-poetics of the Body” shows an intense focus on the ways in which language and autism interact. Though they take two differing approaches to the subject—Savarese focusing primarily on the experiences and words of Tito Mukhopadhyay, and Yergeau focusing on (non)rhetoricity—both works critically engage with the topic, arguing against common conceptions and prejudices.

Yergeau spends much of her introduction discussing her idea of rhetoricity—what it is, how it’s used, and the politics of being able to participate in it. She writes, “It is not uncommon. . . for rhetoricians to claim that rhetoric is what makes one human. . . [its] precondition for humanness or personhood is typically and deeply connected to how we conceive sociality, or our modes of relating and relatedness with our (neurotypically human) surrounds” (Authoring Autism 6). By this, she means that rhetoric—or the meaning-making system by which we as social animals live—governs both our society as well as how we as individuals relate to it. This is a pretty straightforward concept but becomes twisted when brought into atypical contexts. Consider how, for example, characters representing a minority are portrayed on television. Black men are the funny guy, the athlete, the criminal, and generally angry. Black women are “crazy”, hypersexual, matriarchs, and welfare queens. Members of the LGBT community are flamboyant, dramatic, caricatures, and often victims of violence. The disabled . . . well, the disabled are hardly visible to begin with. All of these tropes are rhetorical tools used to define and confine minority groups in order for the majority (straight, cis-gendered white folk) to maintain power and control.

In the case of disability studies—and more specifically autism—this can be not only degrading but dehumanizing, which Yergeau goes on to explore in her introduction as well. People with autism are often framed as being nonrhetorical (Authoring Autism 5). But, if rhetoric is what makes us human, as we discussed earlier, then what does that mean for the autistic? Do they not compose stories, interact with the rhetoric-laden world around them, and communicate? Scholarly literature would have you believe, as Yergeau points out, that “In all things discursive, autism represents decided lack” (Authoring Autism 7). The disability, according to this literature, inhibits the autistic from being able to meaningfully interact with and produce rhetoric, despite copious evidence of the opposite. The difference is, well, difference. Autistic rhetoric may look, sound, and/or feel different than that produced and consumed by neurotypical folk. However, this preconceived idea that rhetoric—and therefore humanity—must mimic one specific kind is what keeps autistic rhetoric from being integrated into modern literature and scholarship. There’s no effort to include and explore the rhetoricity of the autistic, and that is what ultimately keeps them from being able to establish their own voice.

What, then, does autistic rhetoric look like? How exactly does an autistic person produce and consume it? Ralph James Savarese takes an interesting stance on the subject, entering the conversation through discussion of “severely” autistic author Tito Mukhopadhyay (Savarese 5). Savarese is quick to point out Mukhopadhyay’s use of language and how it starkly undermines the current conception of people with autism as being nonrhetorical, including a staggering number of quotes from the young author’s works. Mukhopadhyay writes, at only eight years old, “One day I dream that we can grow in a matured society where nobody would be ‘normal or abnormal’ but just human beings, accepting any other human being—ready to grow together” (The Mind Tree 90). By including this particular quote, as well as emphasizing the age at which Mukhopadhyay wrote it, Savarese effectively challenges the idea of nonrhetorical people with autism. The young author clearly has a voice, has rhetoric to be shared, has a way of consuming rhetoric and translating it into something he understands, and that is an important thing to notice.

On top of the words themselves, Savarese takes time to discuss the physicality of Mukhopadhyay’s language, and how the difference in the author’s proprioception (“a sensory modality that can be defined as an awareness of one’s body in space” [10]) informs his rhetoric. The purposeful manipulation of voice in his book, The Mind Tree, sometimes in first person and sometimes in the third, speaks to the disconnect felt by the author between his personhood and his body (Savarese 10). Throughout the essay, Savarese’s purpose is to highlight and underscore the unique and rich way in which Mukhopadhyay uses his voice in his book. Of course, the young author is but one person, and one voice among many that deserve to be heard.

The important thing to remember is that rhetoric—language, relations, consumption, production—is not limited to one kind of format. Similar to how different languages express similar idea, or how there are different genres of writing, of poetry, of music and media, the language of autism isn’t somehow less than that of a person without it. It’s just different. Yergeau and Savarese both attempt to point this out in their own ways throughout their works, as have many other scholars as the disability studies scholarship expands over time. One tackled the concept of rhetoricity head on, emphasizing its importance and the significance of excluding an entire group of people from it. The other delves into the specific language of one autistic author in particular, exploring the difference in special relation to that of a neurotypical person and challenging the conception that people with autism—especially those who are nonverbal—are somehow incapable of meaningfully relating to and producing language. Both of them work together and individually to break down the harmful stereotypes and de-humanization of people with autism in order to allow them to establish their own voice in its stead.

Works Cited

Mukhopadhyay, Tito. The Mind Tree. New York: Arcade, 2003.

Savarese, Ralph James. “Toward a Postcolonial Neurology: Autism, Tito Mukhopadhyay, and a New Geo-poetics of the Body.” 2010.

Yergeau, Melanie. “Introduction: Involution.” Authoring Autism, Duke University Press, 2017, pp. 1–34.

Kaitlin Bailey

Dr. Foss

ENGL 384-01

April 29, 2020

Final Exam Prompt 1: The Toxicity in Not Abandoning Expectations

As I was reading Jim Sinclair’s “Don’t Mourn for Us,” I couldn’t help but wonder why there is so much grief and mourning happening in families after the diagnosis of a child with autism, and I realized the grief stems from the expectations parents have of their autistic child that they cannot ever possibly meet. Sinclair addressed this article primarily to his parents as a declaration of his own experience, and the blunt tone and vulnerability exhibited in debunking the myths and improper attitudes that parents often have towards their autistic children is powerful. In this essay, I will use Sinclair’s article to explore how families are in fact not grieving their child’s disability, but they are grieving the loss of the dream of a “normal” child that they can no longer have. Sinclair’s article is divided into three sections, with three separate myths that he debunks throughout. These three myths are that autism is not an appendage, autism is not an impenetrable wall, and autism is not death. I want to place emphasis on the first two sections.

Sinclair invites readers to “look at our autism, and look at your grief, from our perspective,” that being the perspective of a person with autism. There is already a certain amount of grief associated with the diagnosis of any child’s disability, but unfortunately more often than not with parents of children with autism, it stems from the loss of the idealized child they have fantasized about. That being the continued source of grief causes damage and hinders the development of an authentic relationship between a parent and their child (Sinclair). Treating an autistic child like a burden to their family only reinforces negative and discriminatory stereotypes of disabled children not being equal to or as desirable as able-bodied children and is nothing but harmful. It is the punishment of a child for something that they have never, and will never, have control of.

Beginning in the first section, Sinclair expresses that autism is not something that a person has, or a “shell” that a person is trapped inside (Sinclair). It is unfair to look at a child with autism and assume that their autism is just a layer of their personal identity that can be removed and disposed of and mourning the diagnosis of a child’s autism is a parent simply mourning their child’s entire being. Sinclair expresses, from his perspective, that when an autistic child hears that their parent wishes they did not have autism, they hear that their parent wishes they do not exist and that is a valid point to be made. That is what the child hears every time a parent prays for a cure, because they know no other way to exist. Loving a child with autism means understanding that their autism is included in every action, thought, emotion, encounter, and relationship that they will ever have (Sinclair). To do otherwise proves to the child that they are unworthy of receiving the same love that a “normal” child receives.

A vital aspect of creating an authentic relationship with an autistic child is to come to terms with the fact that when you are feeling like the child does not see you or is unable to respond, it is simply untrue. Just as Sinclair narrates, autism is not an impenetrable wall. This error lies in the idea that the child is incapable of relating at all. In reality, it is just that your shared understanding of signals and their meanings are not shared by the child in the same way that it would be difficult to communicate with someone who speaks a completely different language (Sinclair). I know that the lack of validation from their child is difficult to understand as a parent. It is not easy to put previously conceived ideas of communication aside to develop a new way to communicate and receive validation, but it is not impossible. It is painful to desire a relationship and feel rejected, but often the child is the one being ostracized for being unable to communicate when communication relies on the effort of two people. The non-disabled parent is equally responsible for the lack of validation they are receiving that they are desiring from their child.

To fully communicate, one must give up the feeling of certainty that comes from being on your own familiar territory of language and be open to letting the child teach you their way of communicating and expressing language, and let them “guide you into their world.” And the outcome, if achieved, is still not going to be a “normal” parent-child relationship (Sinclair). That expectation simply needs to be fully abandoned in order to be emotionally available to the child. It ultimately just comes down to the truth that the ways of communication in a non-disabled person and an autistic person are just different, and without that understanding autistic people are being blamed for the close-mindedness of non-disabled people and their relationships can result in unnecessary resentment for reasons that were never their fault to begin with.

In conclusion, pitying autism and feeling sorry for an autistic child will never allow for a healthy relationship to be built. The relationships that feel like there is something missing in them are one-sided and a direct result of the expectations placed upon the child that can never possibly be met. That is where the greatest disappointments in the relationship comes from, not the child’s autism. Sinclair provides insightful advice and guidance from a first-person perspective for developing those authentic and healthy relationships, while also sharing what common misconceptions to ignore throughout that process. I found his words to be indisputably true; autism is not a tragedy. By mourning the loss of the “normal” child that never was, you are disregarding the existence of the child that is right in front you; a child deserving of the same opportunities to develop relationships.

Works Cited

Sinclair, Jim. “Don’t Mourn for Us.” Our Voice, vol. 1, no. 3, 1993.

I pledge that all work is my own.

Word count: 1031

Abigail’s Final Exam: Prompt 1

Abigail Weber

Dr. Foss

ENGL 384

April 29, 2020

Troubleshooting and the Undermining of Social Issues in Dystopia

The definition of “dystopia,” according to Merriam-Webster, is “an imagined world or society in which people lead wretched, dehumanized, fearful lives.” Dystopian literature is a large category, spanning classic works of required high-school reading like 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 and recent popular works of young adult fiction like The Hunger Games and Divergent. At its heart, dystopian literature forces the reader to confront a horrific possible future and contemplate what current trends in our society might lead humanity down such a brutal path. Autistic author Selene dePackh likely intended to shine a light on the disturbing trends and rhetoric surrounding autism today and how they might lead to a dystopia if unchecked in her novel Troubleshooting. However, many austistic individuals already lead “dehumanized” and “wretched” lives as a result of our current ableist and disableist society, calling into question how much dePackh really needed to change the setting to highlight anti-autistic prejudice. By setting its story of autistic oppression in a dystopian future with a dramatically different political system, Troubleshooting lost an opportunity to examine the dystopian society that many autistic and otherwise neurodivergent or disabled people experience today.

In Troubleshooting, the main character, Scope Archer, is branded with a tattoo that marks her as autistic and removes her rights without her consent. She states that “tattooed, [she] was no longer entitled to due process” or the “presumption of innocence” before being subjected to forced medication, institutionalization, experimental procedures, or electroshock therapy (dePackh 5). However, autistic children, and some adults, face the same specters of involuntary abusive “treatment” and institutionalization without due process under the system of guardianship (Autistic Self Advocacy Network 1). “Almost every country” has a system of guardianship under which disabled individuals assigned a guardian “cannot choose where to live, where to work, who to be friends with, and who to marry without their guardian’s consent,” while the guardian is free to ignore the wishes of the person in their custody (Autistic Self Advocacy Network 1). They lose the “usual rights and responsibilities” of citizens without being legally recognized as “no longer a citizen” (dePackh 4). The law does not announce it is taking away the rights of disabled and autistic people by declaring them no longer citizens or branding them with tattoos. DePackh does not draw a comparison between the tattoo system and the guardianship system; she does not discuss how one led to the other, the ableist ideas underlying both, or the similarities between the two. A reader with background knowledge of guardianship can draw the parallel, but one of the biggest problems with guardianship is how little the general public knows about it. Without this knowledge, the tattoo and its accompanying restrictions simply become more set-dressing that establish how terrible the book’s society is, without prompting introspection or reflection on its contemporary precursors.

Troubleshooting does later engage with neurotypical guardianship of autistic people, but again renders its criticism irrelevant through its future setting. Scope has trouble living independently, particularly keeping track of monthly expenses, as a result of her autism. To deal with this, she takes in and ultimately marries an allistic man who handles the tasks she has trouble with. He quickly becomes abusive and controlling, and Scope has difficulty escaping him. This is an unfortunately common situation: some estimates place disabled people at almost twice the risk for intimate partner violence compared to their non-disabled peers, and even conservative estimates place them at a significantly higher risk that others (Breiding and Armour 455). Disabled people are at risk for intimate partner violence in part because their “increased dependency on others for long-term care” makes it difficult for them to leave abusive partners (Nosek et al. 178). The University of Michigan notes that disabled or elderly survivors requiring additional resources can add yet another barrier to escaping abusive relationships alongside those, like financial dependence and the fear of retaliatory violence, that their neurotypical and able bodied peers also face (“Barriers to Leaving”). However, dePackh undercuts this important point by explaining Scope cannot escape because “new domestic violence laws [don’t] favor” her (emphasis added), making it a recent development only relevant to the society and legal setup of the book (dePackh 168). This implies that before the dystopian future detailed in the book began, Scope would have handily escaped from her abusive relationship. Scope’s relationship could have played out along similar beats in today’s society, considering the numerous barriers to leaving an abusive relationship and the disadvantages disabled people have when navigating the law and dependence. Instead, Troubleshooting ignores the complex forces that push autistic people into abusive relationships and limit their ability to escape, replacing them with a clear-cut law passed by an openly misogynistic and disableist government.

By placing her narrative against a backdrop of a dramatically different future, dePackh makes her points on the treatment of autism feel irrelevant to the present sociopolitical system. She fails to connect the issues in the novel to their predecessors in contemporary America. Although readers with background knowledge of autistic issues or disabled advocacy may be able to make these connections, the text itself fails to illuminate them. This is particularly odd because the future described in Troubleshooting is not a distant one where current ideas of autism are forgotten. The narrator and protagonist is 15 in 2031, and the book was published in 2018, meaning that the United States completely transformed over Scope’s short lifetime from our current society to the one depicted in Troubleshooting. Despite this tremendous change all occurring while she was alive, Scope treats society as if it has always been this way, which might have been a powerful commentary on how the dystopia described in the book is not so different from modern America to an autistic child in the hands of an ableist caregiver—if the novel had ever mentioned this implication of Scope’s age. The short timeline could have helped to emphasize how close to dystopia the American political system is for autistic people already, but instead it serves to detach the world of the book from the real world through distracting, improbably radical shifts in the way the United States is structured. Readers are not left realizing how close we are to the world of Troubleshooting or questioning what part they play in preventing such a future. Instead, they are simply glad the world is not like that.

Word Count: 1057

I hereby declare upon my word of honor that I have neither given nor received unauthorized help on this assignment. -Abigail Weber

Works Cited:

“Barriers to Leaving.” Abuse Hurts, Regents of the University of Michigan, 2009, www.stopabuse.umich.edu/about/barriers.html. Accessed Apr. 28, 2020.

Breiding, Matthew J. and Brian S. Armour. “The association between disability and intimate partner violence in the United States.” Annals of Epidemiology, vol. 25, no. 6, June 2015, pp. 455-457. ScienceDirect, doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.03.017.

“Dystopia.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster Incorporated, 2020, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dystopia. Accessed Apr. 28, 2020.

Invitational Summit on Supported Decision-Making and the Transition to the Community: Conclusions and Recommendations, October 18-19, 2016, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, June 7, 2018. autisticadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SDM-Summit-Conclusions-and-Recommendations.pdf.

Nosek, Margaret A., et al. “Vulnerabilities for Abuse Among Women with Disabilities.” Sexuality and Disability, vol. 19, no. 3, Sept. 2001, pp. 177-189. ProQuest, DOI:10.1023/A:1013152530758.

The Right Way to be Autistic (Final Exam)

As I was reading Ari Ne’eman’s piece on the conflicting narratives of Neurotypical and Autistic individuals, I was reminded of research I did on the book The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time, specifically in regards to the author Mike Haddon’s writing process, and how he actually did very little research when creating the character of Christopher Francis Boone. At the time of my digging into the book’s history, I was impressed by Haddon’s stance that he felt he did not need to perform in-depth research because the autism spectrum is so broad and vast that there is no singular set of requirements for an autistic individual to have, and the critical response to the book led me to believe this was a valid stance to hold. However, after reading Ne’eman’s piece, I have come to wonder if this was truly the best course of action for him. In this essay, I will use Haddon’s Curious Incident to discuss the merits of autistic consultation in media and why I believe that the story of Christopher Boone is one of the better depictions of autism, despite the ways in which it could have benefited from an insider perspective during the writing process.

Christopher Francis Boone is, in no uncertain terms, a savant; in many ways, he is a stereotype of autism, gifted in math, a personality built around the logical world which falters and fizzles out when faced with emotional spontaneity and anything he cannot reason his way through. To Ne’eman, this in and of itself might be a piece of damning evidence in condemning Curious Incident alongside other stories about autism written by neurotypical individuals, and I sought out critique of the book written by individuals on the autism spectrum, in search of a more personal view point. In researching this, I came across a blog post by Nomi Kaim, an autistic individual, which focused on her reaction to the character of Christopher. One of the first things she brought up was the ways in which Christopher is a textbook example of an autistic individual;

“Many of Christopher’s character traits fit the textbook definition of autism. He has profound difficulty communicating and interacting with people, including overly literal interpretation of language; difficulty interpreting gestures and facial expressions; and an inability to take other people’s perspectives. His speech is excessively formal, and he is incapable of social spontaneity or reciprocity. He constantly misses the big picture, or context, of what is going on. He fixates on a few themes he cannot let go of, rocks or groans when overwhelmed, and is hypersensitive to sound, smell, and touch.” (Kaim)

However, she spends just as much if not more time talking about the depths of Christopher’s character, and the ways in which he breaks the mold pushed so often by neurotypical authors. She relates to his confusion born from vague terms like “keep off the grass”, his love of animals, and the way he uses logic and reasoning to make his way through an emotional world. Yes, this is only one kind of autism, but it is a portrayal of autism that resonates with real individuals. One thing that Curious Incident succeeds in, which I think Ne’eman would agree with, is the way that those around Christopher interact with him. One of the key goals of autistic self-advocates is to the push for “both support and acceptance throughout society” (Ne’eman). This is, I feel, one of Curious Incident’s most noteworthy triumphs. Christopher’s parents, Ed and Judy, both strive to support Christopher to the best of their abilities, within realistic limitations; Ed cooks the simple meals that fit within Christopher’s particular palette, while Judy does her best to understand Christopher without allowing her own neurodivergent traits to get in the way. Judy in particular was an interesting character to me because of how far from the stereotype of a “refrigerator mother” she is.

If anything, she cares far too much, without any outlet for the ways in which she cares. Christopher, like many autistic individuals, rejects her offers of physical affection, and lashes out when she tries to touch him without consent, yet as the book progresses she makes strides in learning about Christopher and his boundaries so that she can be the best parent she is capable of being for him.

When Ne’eman talked about those who “define disability not according to its effect on individuals with disabilities, but on the basis of how it is perceived by those around them”, I was prepared to reread Curious Incident with a critical eye, remembering a good deal of time spent on how Christopher’s parents reacted to his unique sense of self, but found that their reactions to him were often background noise compared to the way the book focused so heavily on Christopher’s life and the way autism effected it. It left me wondering how Haddon had managed to write a story that seemed to succeed in its depiction of an autistic character when he didn’t even go into it with the intention of writing one. For the most part, I agree with Ne’eman’s assertion that it is the author’s moral obligation to consult autistic individuals whenever they seek to represent autism in the literary space, yet somehow Haddon created a character that resonated with many and disturbed very few, without having done so.

I am led to believe the aspect of this book which aids the most in its success in depicting an autistic character is the fact that it is told from a first-person perspective. There is never as large a focus on any aspect of the world as there is on Christopher and his perspective of it. He is the most important character, and the book frequently asserts his competence and independence, while balancing this out with his limitations, such as the times in which he is overstimulated by loud noises and foreign environments. These limitations, however, never hinder Christopher so much that he cannot accomplish his goals, which goes a long way in establishing Curious Incident as one of the more positive representations of autistic characters.

Ne’eman spends a large portion of time in his Dueling Narratives essay discussing who has the power to control the narrative surrounding autism; that is to say, whose voice is most prominent, neurotypical individuals speaking for autistic individuals, or those autistic individuals themselves. Curious Incident is a strange case in that it does not truly fall into either of these categories; though the story is told from the perspective of an individual on the autism spectrum, can it truly be considered a story with an autistic voice when it was written by a neurotypical individual? One argument I make in defense of Curious Incident is based around the following quote, also used in Dueling Narratives:

“The tragedy is not that we’re here, but that your world has no place for us to be. How can it be otherwise, as long as our own parents are still grieving over having brought us into the world?” –Jim Sinclair, Our Voices

Haddon may not be an autistic individual, and he performed the minimal amount of research in writing one, and I find this to be a fault of the book, in that Christopher is still a savant, a child so talented in mathematics that he goes on to take college levels classes as a middle schooler. However, in much the same way Ed and Judy Boone desperately try to create a place for their child to be accepted in the world, Haddon is like a third parent to Christopher, crafting a realistic literary world that is not built for him, but making sure that he is strong enough to attempt to carve out a place for himself in spite of this. The book would have benefitted from an autistic perspective in the writer’s room, and this is not a statement I consider subjective; there is always room for improvement.

However, Haddon deserves at least a portion of the applause he has received for creating a character who is far more than the few stereotypes he fits into. I agree with Ne’eman, that for the most part autistic perspective is a requirement in the creation of autistic characters, and Christopher as a character could only have benefitted from this. Curious Incident’s success is in spite of the minimal research done, not because of it, and this is a fact that I stand by.

I would love to hear any thoughts Ari Ne’eman has on Curious Incident. It would be fascinating, I think.

Word Count: 1427

Richard’s Final Exam Paper on Autism-Prompt #3

Richard Yeomans

Dr. Foss.

English 384-Section 01.

April 27, 2020

Word Count: 1225

Final Exam Essay: Prompt #3

In our society today, there is the beginnings of understanding for Autism and those who have been diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum. While we continue to see much misunderstanding within society at large, including those who fear Autism and parents who wish to blame their child’s diagnosis on an outside source such as vaccines, others chose to see the individual as a person instead of looking at them through a label from the spectrum. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, many states, including Virginia, utilized Eugenics programs as a means of punishing those whom the state saw as inferior genetically to the average person. In John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, we see hints of the character Lennie having traits which lend him to be on the Autism Spectrum, and how society viewed him as a menace because of his intellectual challenges. George would get frustrated with Lennie at times throughout, only to then see that Lennie was keeping what George taught him to heart. Yet it reflects how both historically and in the modern day, there is still much which needs to be done to raise awareness and end the negative views towards those who have been diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum.

While the novella remains a popular story for many students throughout the country, there are those who identify with Lennie and his personality. Throughout the story, he is treated as a subhuman character by others, including George at times who treats him as a mere child and not an adult. One such example near the start of the story was when George discovered that Lennie had “rescued” a dead mouse and was keeping it in his pocket as a pet. When George had thrown it away a second time, he then heard Lennie begin to cry at the thought of no longer having the mouse. George talked down to Lennie by then saying “Blubberin’ like a baby! Jesus Christ! A big guy like you” (Steinbeck 9). Indeed, Steinbeck had even dehumanized Lennie at the very beginning, comparing Lennie to a bear when he described Lennie’s dragging of his feet while walking as “the way a bear drags his paws” (Steinbeck 2).

Because Steinbeck frequently describes Lennie by his appearance throughout the novella, the reader risks developing, or ratifying, notions that Lennie is not normal. This in turn risks a subconscious determination of seeing others in a negative light based solely upon their differences to what society considers a normal human being. During the Great Depression, the reader also would have been confused about how George and Lennie were even together, as the common practice of families back in that period was to send people with disabilities to an institution. But importantly, though George at times is harsh in his attitude towards Lennie, he does care about Lennie and wishes to prove society wrong about Lennie. Though he told Lennie to be quiet, it was likely due to George knowing that is Lennie had spoken upon arrival, the ranch would have sent them away out of fear and the labels of society towards people like Lennie. George, however, wishes to prove the ranch owner, and society in general, that Lennie is just as capable of hard work, or perhaps even more capable, than the average ‘normal’ person. While Lennie is a hardworking individual on the ranch, George must guide him throughout and remind Lennie of his tasks to avoid getting fired. Lennie in turn looks at George with trust and relies upon George to help him in his daily activities and decisions.

There are several aspects to Lennie’s behavior which lends credence to the idea that his condition falls upon the autism spectrum. He is frequently seeking out the repetitive behavior throughout the story of wishing to pet soft items, which can also be thought of as self-stimulating (Murray 14). As previously noted, he is introduced to the reader with a dead mouse in his pocket which he pets frequently ass he and George are walking along towards the ranch, with George then throwing the mouse away across the river, only for Lennie to walked across and recover the dead mouse whilst fetching wood for a campfire. When George then throws the mouse away for a second time, Lennie argues that it is a comfort for him, He tells George that he “wasn’t doing anything bad with it… Jus’ strokin’ it,” which is our first view into the repetitive and comforting behavior which Lennie seeks out (Steinbeck 9). The reader is then informed by George that Lennie had destroyed a stuffed toy mouse which had been previously given to him. This behavior is reinforced by Lennie being too hard on his petting and stroking of puppies, with another character on the ranch named Slim having suggested that Lennie take a break from petting the puppies, with Lennie explaining to George that Slim told him he “better not pet them pups so much for a while” (Steinbeck 54). To which Lennie eventually kills one f the pups by being too aggressive in his petting.

Lennie continues his desire to seek out and pet soft objects when he comes across Curley’s wife and starts petting and stroking her hair. Unfortunately, when he is told to stop by her, Lennie becomes anxious and fears that she will tell George about his forcibly petting her hair against her wishes, and that George will punish him by not allowing him to pet the rabbits on their future plot of land. He acts out in a panic and ends up killing her, which then causes the realization that George is not going to be happy with Lennie and will punish him.

In Stuart Murray’s book Autism, he notes that autism “isn’t in illness” and that that fact is “sometimes lost in the labeling of the condition as a ‘disease’” (Murray 36-37). He goes on to then explain that even in the modern society, people tend to fear and misunderstand autism due to the fear of the unknown. Though our understanding has improved, there are many parents and general members of society to this day who fear autism as a disease, and are wary of those who have been diagnosed on the higher end of the autism spectrum, while certain other parents feel self-blame in their child being autistic (Murray 59).

In closing, though we as a society have made great strides with the arrival of advocacy groups intent on educating the greater public and families about autism, in the hopes of a wider acceptance of people as being equal and normal with those who are not on the autism spectrum, especially when compared to the 1930s when individuals were simply hidden from society under the guise of being “feeble-minded,” we have a long way to go unfortunately in obtaining full acceptance and equal equity to all Americans whether on the spectrum or not. Though George did work hard to try and bridge the gap between Lennie and the other workers and the owner of the ranch, he did achieve some successes along the way before the end of the story, notably with Lennie being allowed to continue working instead of being sent off upon noticing that he wasn’t “normal” in the eyes of society. And continued work will be needed to ensure full integration and acceptance going forward.

I pledge…

-Richard Yeomans.

Works cited

Murray, Stuart. Autism. Leeds: Routledge, 2012.

Steinbeck, John. Of Mice andd Men. Penguin Books, 1937.

Adam’s Final Paper

Adam Cooper

Dr. Foss

Disability Lit

26 April 2020

A Different Approach at Parenting

Jim Sinclair’s Don’t Mourn For Us outlines the perception a new parent may have upon finding out their child is autistic. In three sections it highlights the struggles parents may have with understanding the disability and how it affects the relationship they’ll have with their child. I found this to be my favorite piece in the autism unit mainly because it seems like it would be impactful to a large demographic of people. In some cases the way a child’s disability, in this case autism, is handled can actually make the effects of the disability much worse than they would be otherwise for both the parent and the child. To be a good parent to a child with a disability it is essential to not allow any grief you feel to ruin the relationship with the child, understand in certain cases it is not a curable ailment, and to learn to listen. As Sinclair explains this may mean no matter what you do the relationship will not be the normal one you had imagined but that’s not to say it won’t be a beautiful relationship regardless. This piece does a wonderful job of outlining the negative effects a parent can unintentionally have on a child with any disability, not just autism and can be related to other disabilities we’ve studied throughout the semester. In order to properly care for someone with a disability it is essential to not try to divide the disability from the person but rather to adjust the style of care given to them to better accommodate them. The big issue is trying to make the child fit into a mold the parent has created instead of changing the parenting style to fit the child. The issue becomes more about the parent and child and in trying to comfort themselves a parent may do harm to their child they are unaware of.

Sinclair recognizes that grief, in the case of a parent learning their child will have a disability such as autism, can be traumatic. But the issue comes when the trauma the parent experiences overshadows the disability itself. Caring for those with disabilities requires the caretaker to devote their time to the disabled person, not to dealing with their own feelings about disability. A distant example we see of something like this is from early in the semester when we read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. If we compare Victor to the parent and The Creation to the child it becomes a pretty clear example. Victor wanted a beautiful being and had imagined that whole heartedly. When The Creation was not what he had imagined he went into a state of grief completely neglecting the creation and letting it slip further away from him without care. The Creation genuinely just wanted to be loved and cared for but Victors own grief prevented that. Obviously I’m not insinuating that those with autism or other disabilities are “creatures” or “monster-like” but the parent-child relationship is present here along with the neglect that can be found alongside a grieving parent.

The first section titled Autism is not an appendage discusses the idea a parent may have that there’s another child within the “shell” of autism. A child that can fulfill all the dreams the parent had for them. This is problematic as attempting to uncover a person within will amount to nothing. I think a large misperception of all disabilities is that there’s a normal person within the disability who’s been caught by it. So instead of starting to understand who that person is with the disability we make their lives harder by trying to break them out of a mold we’ve imagined them being in. Take for example someone born with only one leg, you wouldn’t try to cure this as it’s clearly visible there is no “cure” and a real leg will never grow there. So you change the style of care you had envisioned giving the child. According to Sinclair, this problem is present in the relationship between parent and child when navigating autism. Sinclair says “It is not possible to separate the autism from the person–and if it were possible, the person you’d have left would not be the same person you started with.” (Sinclair) This is a clear example of how parents attempting to “free” their child from autism would create a rift in the relationship. Spending all the energy you have attempting to create a new child as opposed to parenting the one you have will never lead to a new child, rather one who is neglected and may suffer from the side effects from autism worse than they would have otherwise.

Communication is huge in any relationship, especially between a child and parent. However for someone with autism, communication can be extremely difficult. This means it’s the parent’s job to accommodate this and in turn help nurture a relationship and do their part in helping their child be the best they can be. A huge part of what we can do to help anyone with a disability is to merely listen. Far too often those with disabilities are drowned out by the hustle of everyday life and it leaves them without the assistance they need. Even in everyday life it’s easy for us to not hear what someone with any disability is saying. We go about our day to day lives not considering things from their point of view, not out of intentional rudeness but due to lack of education. For someone with autism they may not be able to flatout say what they feel in a way that a parent can hear and understand without education and changing the way they parent. Sinclar says “Each of us who does learn to talk to you, each of us who manages to function at all in your society, each of us who manages to reach out and make a connection with you, is operating in alien territory, making contact with alien beings.” (Sinclair) I think the same may apply to any individual struggling with any disability. To talk and not be heard is without a doubt extremely discouraging. Functioning in a society built for those without disability is hard enough, not being heard makes it harder.

Sinclair’s work goes a long way in humanizing those with disabilities, especially autism. Far too often we see children and adults alike who have disabilities as missing something. And in some cases this makes us grieve for them rather than care for them. In a parent child relationship this can have even more significant effects. Near the end of his passage Sinclair says “The tragedy is not that we’re here, but that your world has no place for us to be. How can it be otherwise, as long as our own parents are still grieving over having brought us into the world?” (Sinclair) This speaks not only about a parent and child struggling to build a relationship around a disability but also about everyone who lives around us with any disability in a world built for everyone else. There is no easy path for any parent and I’m sure I can’t comprehend what parenting is like but I think Sinclair’s work helps start to paint a more clear picture of what a parent can do to help their child and what we can do to help those around us.

Words: 1,230

I pledge – AMC

Sinclair, Jim. “Don’t Mourn For Us” Autism Network International newsletter, Our Voice, Volume 1, Number 3, 1993.

Rachel, James, and Lueden’s Final Paper

Rachel Mullins, James M Pryor, & Lueden Sheikhnureldin

Dr. Foss

ENGL 384-02

April 28,2020

Autism in Popular Culture

Prompt #2

In popular media representation such as on television and film, Autistic characters are overwhelmingly portrayed as males, specifically white males, and while there is a small percentage of Autistic female characters, they are also white. Visual media greatly lacks representation for Autistics of color. These shows and movies lack input from the Autistic community and are usually based on stereotypes which results in not only every character in these shows and movies being virtually the same, but also enforces the notion that only white people are Autistic. This stereotype is extremely harmful for Autistic people of color because they are invalidated constantly and can feel like there is no place in the community for them (Giwa-Onaiwu xiii). Another trope derived from the lack of Autistic input in these shows and movies is that these Autistic characters are usually there to simply ‘teach’ a non-Autistic person how to be kind, and they more likely than not have some sort of ‘bizarre’ talent or interest that is supposed to show how amazing Autistic minds are. While on the surface it sounds like acceptance, in reality it pushes the idea that an Autistic person needs some special skill to validate their existence. These negative representations of autism in movies and TV shows led to Autistic people not relating to canonly Autistic characters, but instead saying characters that they relate to or like are Autistic as a way of saying that if those characters were explicitly stated to be Autistic, they’d be better representations than what is shown now. Visual media representation is extremely important because this is where people get most of their ideas and beliefs, so by showing bad representation, it leads to harmful misconceptions of the Autistic community and makes Autistic people feel unrepresented (Ne’eman). If creators of these television shows and films used Autistic input, there would be less perpetuation of these stereotypes and more diverse representation for Autistic people.

A character that is considered the ‘blueprint’ for Autistic characters is Raymond ‘Ray’ Babbitt from the movie Rain Man. Raymond fits the stereotype for Autistic people greatly. He is a white male, is an extremely fast counter which is his ‘bizarre’ habit or trait, and as argued by many critics, his autism is not for representation, but is one of the many stories of how autism affects neurotypicals instead of how it affects Autistic people (Ne’eman). Raymond’s character is also not played by an Autistic actor. The inspiration for Raymond’s character was inspired by a man named Kim Peek who did not have autism, but had savant syndrome (Treffert). While Peek seemed to be in support of this character and this movie, this film is the cause of a lot of misconceptions of autism such as all Autistic people being savants and that autism is only present in white men. Furthermore, having a non-autistic person portraying an Autistic character makes autism seem like it is not a valid identity, but instead something one can just ‘pretend’ to be and turn on and off when needed. Having an Autistic actor is the best option for better representation because it shows how autism is a real, lived experience. A character that is the product of Autistic input is Julia from the popular kids’ show, Sesame Street. Julia is an Autistic little girl and was added to the main cast as a way to promote diversity and so Autistic fans of the same show could have a character to relate to. Julia was created with input from Autistic people such as the Autistic Self Advocacy Network who helped workshop her (ASAN). Julia was a revolutionary character, until Sesame Street partnered with Autism Speaks, an organization known for speaking over Autistic people and treating autism as something to be fixed. This completely undermined everything Julia stood for and took Julia from being great representation to another Autistic character whose sole purpose is to ‘help’ neurotypical people. What happened to Julia is more proof of how neurotypical people ruin Autistic representation for Autistic people.

In Ari Ne’eman’s Dueling Narratives: Neurotypical and Autistic Perspectives About the Autism Spectrum, he brings up several points on how parents and doctors damage the Autistic community with the way they talk about autism; saying falsehoods such as how autism “steals” children, ruins families, and is something that only people who are close to Autistic people ‘truly’ experience. Inevitably, these false narratives are translated into the media. Since autism is so villainized, these characters are portrayed as pitiful and helpless. This reason is why the savant trope is so problematic because it tells the audience that Autistic people are to be pitied, but ‘at least’ they have this talent going from them. These narratives are exceptionally harmful to Autistics of color. Neurotypical people do not get their input from Autistic people, so they make these narratives based on what they know instead which leads people of color not being accounted for in these narratives. Morénike Giwa Onaiwu’s Autistics of Color: We Exist…We Matter describes her experience as an Autistic Black woman and how both her identities have been invalidated. Some would say she is too Black to be Autistic and too Autistic to be Black. Autistics of color are only represented when they need to be seen as sad stories and examples for the community to not exclude them (Giwa-Onaiwu xii). They are rarely represented in the way white Autistic people are as people with interests and positive lives. Her experience with ableism and racism as an Autistic Black woman can be linked to the fact that Autistics of color are never seen in visual media (Giwa-Onaiwu xv). Bad representation is a vicious cycle in this case. Lack of Autistics of color in visual media leads to people thinking that people of color can not be Autistic which leads to more media without Autistics of color. This is why Autistic people being the actors, writers, creators, etc. is so important. More autistic people putting their lived experiences into something leaves less room for misconceptions and damaging stereotypes.

One positive from having stereotypical characters, is that Autistic community has found comfort in calling characters that are not canonly Autistic, autistic (Mullins). Many Autistic people had found the representation they were being given extremely offensive and found that there were many characters who were not explicitly stated to be Autistic to be much better representations than what they are given. Some of these characters are considered to be autistic coded which means the character is Autistic, but not stated by the creator for various reasons or based on an Autistic person (Mullins). While this can be a very empowering way to interact with ableist popular culture, it has its own issues such as white characters more likely to be coded as Autistic by fans than non white ones. White Autistic people can be just as guilty as white neurotypical people for the exclusion of Autistics of color (Giwa-Onaiwu xi). The problem lies in the fact that there is not enough Autistic created content or input being put into the mainstream pop culture which causes this aforementioned vicious cycle of bad representation.

Autistic representation in visual media is run by neurotypicals for neurotypicals instead of being by Autstic people for Autistic people. The harm these movies and television shows do have real world effects. The idea of autism affecting neurotypical people exclusively is only enhanced by these representations. Autistics of color being viewed as non existent is backed up by them never being what people see in movies and film. Autistic people are represented as white men who have one particular interest and if someone does not fit that image, then they can not be Autistic (Giwa-Onaiwu xv). The lack of Autistic voices causes the rise of neurotypical stories being told under the guise of Autistic stories. By not having Autistic representation that Autistic people can resonate with, they are given Autistic representation that neurotypical people can take and bend for even more damaging narratives (Ne’eman). By having more Autistic people being involved with the making of these TV shows and films, the neurotypical narratives would diminish greatly. Autistic people are not plot material and devices; autism needs to be shown as a valid identity and not simply something non autistic people experience and are completely changed by. The Autistic voice in the media should belong to Autistic people, so their stories are not told as sob stories or cure seeking.

Word Count: 1,408

We pledge

Works Cited

ASAN. “ASAN Has Ended Partnership With Sesame Street.” Autistic Self Advocacy Network, 2 Aug. 2019, autisticadvocacy.org/2019/08/asan-has-ended-partnership-with-sesame-street/.

Brown, Lydia X. Z., and Morénike Giwa-Onaiwu. “Autistics of Color: We Exist…We Matter.” All the Weight of Our Dreams: on Living Racialized Autism, DragonBee Press, 2017, pp. X-xxii.

Mullins, Christa. “Reflection: Autistic-Coded Characters and Fans in Fandom.” Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, vol. 8, no. 2, 2019, doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v8i2.495.

Ne’eman, Ari. “Dueling Narratives: Neurotypical and Autistic Perspectives About the Autism Spectrum.” The Society for Critical Exchange , 2007, case.edu/affil/sce/Texts_2007/Ne’eman.html.

Treffert, Darold. “Rain Man, the Movie / Rain Man, Real Life.” Agnesian, 2017, ttps://www.agnesian.com/blog/rain-man-movie-rain-man-real-life.

Allison Palmer

Dr. Foss

English 384-02

30 April 2020

Labeling Autism

The world consists of labels, whether on products or regarding people. Human beings create labels to identify things or create their own identification of other people. However, labeling other people can lead to misinterpretations of someone, offending someone, and is simply morally inappropriate. Labels are more often than not are inaccurate and create a misrepresentation of that person being labeled as well as offend them since they are usually negative. No matter what, labeling someone is usually morally wrong because it puts someone into a small box limited by that label and can tear someone down.There is a negative association already when it comes to Autism, however then non-autistic people label autistic individuals, enhancing the negativity surrounding Autism. The labels are inaccurate, inappropriate, and hurtful; they also place people with autism into a small group and definition about who they are. Tito Rajarshi Mukhopadhyay’s poem “Misfit” and Craig Romkema’s “Perspectives” mention being labeled by people regarding their Autism and the negative feelings tied to those labels. This paper will analyze how non-autistic people label people with autism, misinterpretations of Autism and how it impacts Autistic people, as well as the connotations involving Autism. Mukhopadhyay, Romkema and even Jim Sinclair’s “Don’t Mourn Us” alludes to the impact labels have on these individuals and how they should simply be treated and viewed as a human being because that is who they are.

Craig Romkema’s “Perspectives” is a poem that includes an autistic speaker who goes through his life facing being studied, labeled and intentionally omitted. Romkema shows the speaker being “diagnosed” or “helped” when the “Psychologists used to blame it on “refrigerator mothers”, Optometrists prescribe special exercises and glasses, Researchers recommend vitamin A.” He highlights the idea that doctors, or just people in general attempt to blame or find a way to “fix” autistic individuals as if it is this terrible thing that was caused by something terrible and needs to go away simply because they are unique. Some people are uncomfortable with anything that is not similar to themselves and they are afraid of anything that slightly differs, therefore, they think that it is an issue that needs a cure. When in reality it is simply who someone is, Sinclair addresses this in “Don’t Mourn For Us” when he says “Autism isn’t something a person has, or a “shell” that a person is trapped inside.” It is not something someone is stuck with or something that covers up someone’s “normalcy”, it is who they are and it does not need to be cured.

The poetic speaker in Romkema’s poem has labels placed upon him by non-autistic people and indicates how he feels regarding the labels; these moments of labels and his perspective is relevant to how other autistic people are labeled. In a moment he mentions how some do not acknowledge his ability and ignore the fact that he understands them “So freely did they label me retarded. Or some other variant, equally untrue.” They made a quick judgment about his abilities and attempting to create him as an outcast by devaluing his abilities and pretending he could not understand. Then similarly how they made a judgment based on his abilities they labeled him a degrading, inappropriate, inaccurate and negative word in order to devalue him even farther. This is how autistic individuals are labeled everyday, with negative terms that devalue their abilities and them as people. Some people label people with autism because they like to have the upper hand on others, especially people with disabilities who they see as easy targets in taking their power; they are ignorant and are power hungry. However, Romkema even states how inaccurate these various labels are because they are simply judgments to knock autistic individuals down to a powerless position; they do not define who they are as individuals and are not even close to the truth.

The speaker grows towards the end of the poem and gains ownership over who he is despite the labels placed upon him his entire life. Romkema states that he is “Not startlingly different in appearance or habits from that little boy so willingly labeled.” He is still outwardly similar to the little boy who was mislabeled except now he can participate in discussion posts, vote, and share his opinions. He rises above those labels with his voice and he owns who he is, showing that he is more than he appears and labeled to be. He states “now my mind is free ”, he is finally free of the labels because of his abilities and the voice he has to share his story and the accuracy. The suggestion of being free suggests the freedom autistic individuals lack due to the labels they are given because they are not free to be themselves because someone else is deciding who they are. The poem also suggests that one way to reach freedom is to own their voice and own who they are.

Mukhopadhyay’s “Misfit” and Romkema’s “Perspectives” parallel each other through the poetic speaker being an autistic individual who gets labeled and in the end there is a deeper realization. The speaker notices birds and how they knew he was “Autistic; they found no wrong with anything.” The birds knew who he was and they did not label him, try to define him, or find anything wrong, because nothing is wrong. Yet non-autistic “men and women stared at [him] nodding; they labeled [him] a Misfit(a misfit turning and turning)”; They were quick to notice something that they define as “abnormal” only because they were ignorant and labeling him misfit which means someone or something that is set apart from the others. Similar to how many label autistic individuals as misfit or abnormal or retarded or strange, they attempt to set him apart from everyone else and determine an identity for him which is that he does not belong. They labeled him a Misfit who was turning and turning, however he states “why stop turning and turning when right can be found with everything?” This final realization shows that though he may be turning and turning, that is who he is, not a misfit; he enjoys turning and turning so why stop based on someone’s opinion of him that is wrong. He realizes that just because some people want to try and find things that are wrong in the world, does not mean there are things wrong and does not mean he is wrong; a person cannot be wrong. Therefore, he is free to turn and turn because that is who he is and he enjoys it; nobody can control what someone can do, who they are because of how they want to label them.

In the end of the poem the speaker owns who he is, he knows he is autistic and he knows people are going to label him or autistic people in general, but that does not stop him from being who he is because he is a human and is right. Autistic individuals are labeled by people who do not understand who they are and they are aware of these labels, the inaccuracy, the hurtfulness, however, they still own who they are, their abilities and create their own definition of themselves because that is their right as people.

Work Cited

Mukhopadhyay, Tito Rajarshi. Misfit.

Romkema, Craig. Perspectives.

Sinclair, Jim. “DON’T MOURN FOR US.” Don’t Mourn For Us, www.autreat.com/dont_mourn.html.

“I pledge…” Allison Palmer

Word Count 1216

Madison’s Final

The History of Autism: A Shaky Foundation

To understand something in the present, it helps to look at its roots. The cultural ideas and stigmas that are held today are at least somewhat a product of history. Historically, autism has been a mystery and today there is still much we do not know about how it functions or where it comes from. However, when research first began to circulate surrounding autism, much of that information was inaccurate and ultimately harmed future understandings of autism, repercussions we are still feeling today despite advancements. The history of autism research can be seen as the driving force behind the apprehension parents have surrounding communicating with and building a relationship with their autistic child. As a result of early acclaimed researchers pointing a finger at the parents of autistic children to blame them for the condition, there has since been a culture which fears raising the autistic child and pushes for a ‘cure’ to end a presumed suffering.

Psychologists Leo Kanner and Bruno Bettelheim’s widely regarded ideas have laid the foundation for a problematic understanding of how autism functions and where it comes from. Up until the 1960’s, Kanner asserted the belief that parents are responsible for their child’s autism. Kanner once said in an interview that autistic children were a product of, “parents cold and rational who just happened to defrost long enough to produce a child” (Murray, 54). He believed that the parents of autistic children were cold and distant, thus producing similar traits in the form of their autistic child. Bettleheim held a similar viewpoint, asserting that autistic children “withdraw from the world” as a product of parents who are unable to bond with their child, and that often development was stunted in autistic children due to the parents’ own “inadequacies” (Murray 56-57). Given autism was largely unstudied and therefore not understood, Bettleheim and his work were regarded highly by the public and his opinions were taken as fact (Murray). The blame that was placed on parents by these researchers has heavily influenced the way parents today understand autism, and consequently, the apprehension they feel about building a relationship with their autistic child.

The responsibility placed on parents for causing their child’s autism coupled with the idea that a child is ‘trapped’ within their autism lead parents to push for the cure. The fact alone that blame or responsibility was placed at all reinforces that autism is not a positive presence, as if someone must be punished for its existence. And according to Kanner and Bettleheim, the blame lied with the parents. It is natural for parents to want to fix things for their child, to rid them of any suffering. Since there are inherent ideas of pain and suffering tied to disability and difference, including autism, parents have a tendency to focus on how they can end that suffering and return their child to normal. Murray writes, “For some, accepting that they were to blame was a price worth paying if it meant that their child could be ‘rescued’ from autism” (Murray, 58).The idea held that with therapy, the “lost” child could be “brought back” (Murray, 57). Of course this belief is harmful and inaccurate, as there is no “normal” child trapped within the autism, however the popularity of that notion leads parents to feel urgent about curing their child’s autism rather than trying to understand it as an inseparable piece of their identity.

The history of autism and the belief in the cure have made it easier for parents to focus their energy on who their child isn’t rather than who he/she is. Autism, much like other neurodiverse perspectives, is seen for its deficits first and foremost. Nonverbal and atypical communication is rarely seen positively, but rather as though something is lacking from the individual. This expectation of normalcy hinders parents amongst others from trying to understand autistic communication and build a relationship with the autistic child. Writers and advocates such as Jim Sinclair are helping to rewrite this history and alter the way we understand the autistic child. First, it is especially important that parents understand the inseparability of autism from the autistic child. Jim Sinclair importantly notes in Don’t Mourn For Us, “when parents say, I wish my child did not have autism, what they’re really saying is, I wish the autistic child I have did not exist, and I had a different (non-autistic) child instead” (Sinclair, 1993). Although these parents might not understand the implication behind their words, it does not change the fact that they are implying they would rather have a ‘normal’ child than try to understand and relate to their autistic son or daughter. Furthermore, it is important that parents are willing to forgo their own expectations of ‘normalcy’ in order to venture into their autistic child’s territory. He notes, “You’re going to have to give up the certainty that comes of being on your own familiar territory, of knowing you’re in charge, and let your child teach you a little of her language, guide you a little way into his world” (Sinclair,1993).

It is impossible to completely rewrite the history that is responsible for inaccurate information and ideas about autism, but we can learn to put what we think we know aside and step into the autistic perspective. Historically, parents have been blamed for what was presumed as a condition that caused their child to suffer and lack normal social and communication skills. There is no question that this past has been a catalyst for the apprehension parents still hold today about connecting and communicating with their autistic child. The belief in the normal child being ‘trapped’ and the cure have made it possible for parents to focus attention on autism as a deficit rather than a benefit. However, with more insight into the autistic perspective as shared by those on the spectrum such as Jim Sinclair, parents may be able to take agency and find the courage to meet their child where they are at. As noted, difference is not an “impenetrable wall” (Sinclair,1993), but communication can happen and relationships are more than possible.

Works Cited:

Murray, S. (2012). Autism (The Routledge series integrating science and culture). New York: Routledge.

Sinclair, J. Don’t Mourn For Us. Autism Network International newsletter, Our Voice, Volume 1, Number 3, 199.

word count: 1020

I pledge, Madison Moyer.