stuart murray – dis/lit 20

Gina and Rosemary’s Final Exam

Gina-Marie An & Rosemary Pauley

Dr. Foss

April 30, 2020

ENGL 384

Autism and Identity: The Cure is Repressive

Throughout our Autism unit, we have discussed the ways in which autism has been devalued. Specifically, we have read instances of how medicine and medical research impacts the quality of life of an autistic person. Part 1 of Stuart Murray’s Autism begins with a contrast between stress on medical research versus improved education and which of the two is more beneficial for the autistic community. Murray suggests that “An improvement in the quality of people’s lives will come more quickly not with high level medical science, but rather with improved education or with increased public spending on disability programs…” (Murray, 9-10). He suggests that through an emphasis on medical solutions and a cure, autistic characteristics begin to be viewed through an ableist society as a negative characteristic that needs to be changed (Murray, 10). This reinforces ableist stereotypes that autism is problematic, undesirable, and in need of change and even full erasure. Through this reinforcement, autistic persons are stripped of their identities and they are isolated in their experiences with their disability. Erasure of the disability acts as an erasure of a part of their identity, which is associated with pity and negativity and makes the value of what is so key to their personhood worthless to society.

Medical emphasis on a cure is just another way of creating a social divide between neurotypical people and autistic people. They are cast out and ostracized because they don’t fit the definition of what our ableist society sees as conventional. For many researchers working towards a cure, curing is meant to take away autistic traits and get as close to neurotypical as possible. This notion of essentially taking away a key part of an autistic person’s identity devalues their personhood and separates them further from neurotypical people. Murray sums up this problem in pushing for a cure in saying that “the word ‘cure’ is a threat, a barely disguised attempt to define difference as something inherently negative and unwanted” (Murray, 90). Curing autism insinuates that autistic people are inferior to nondisabled people, and by that standard, they should be fixed to better fit into ableist society. A cure would be selling the lie that getting rid of autism is better for those who have it when really it would be beneficial for neurotypical people who do not understand the disability to make an effort in better understanding autism and disability itself. This push for the cure can be misleading and it doesn’t target improvement for the life and environment of autistic persons, it is targeted towards erasing the disability for the benefit of nondisabled people.

Lack of consideration for actual autistic experience further stretches the divide between abled and disabled. Personal freedom and independence are lost at the cost of misguided stereotypes on the autistic community. Autistic persons are deemed as unpredictable, even dangerous, and are not given equal opportunities to be independent individuals in society. For example, in Braddock and Parish’s An Institutional History of Disability, they discuss the ways in which history has revealed wrongful treatment of disabled persons in the medical realm. The medical world is described as impersonal and sterile; case studies and primary texts ignore the personal experiences of autistic people. As political activism came to a rise with the availability of more service programs, autistic lives are further socialized and infantilized through ableist social construction. These constructions ultimately try to decide what autism is and what the label of autism means for autistic people themselves. Braddock and Parish discuss this categorization and construction, saying, “The process of categorizing persons with disabilities into the minutiae of their impairments resulted in the development of specialized treatments and residential and educational services, but also established and reinforced notions of the boundaries between normalcy and aberrance in Western society” (Braddock and Parish, 13). The autistic label is not a label that others outside of the disability deserve to construct and define for their own benefit. It is even more offensive that they push these ideas onto autistic persons themselves and tell them who they are, without listening to autistic voices and wants. Abled persons who want to have ownership of this word are minimizing autistic people’s personal ability to have choice and demeaning them to be insufficient enough to be self-determinant. Creating more restrictions for the autistic community is only silencing their voices and limiting their opportunities for personal growth. Autistic persons are a part of this world as equally as any other person and deserve to create and dictate their own narratives and experiences.

Murray describes autism as being “built into the fabric of the person who has it… it is not an illness” (Murray, 90). Ableist standards expect people with autism to want to break away from their disability and strive for a neurotypical life as a default, not taking into account how valuable their disability actually is. Autism is such a prevalent and essential piece of who they are that attempting to take away their disability is like taking away their identity. Erasing part of someone’s existence because it doesn’t match the ableist viewpoints of our society is dehumanizing and insulting to autistic people and punishes them for not aligning with nondisabled experiences.

Ableist views dictate that autism is the problem rather than admitting that the way our society treats autistic people is unacceptable, and extend this lack of respect further by pushing for a cure that erases autism altogether. It is important to recognize how this might impact autistic lives. We should strive for more representation of their everyday experiences as well as their experiences with a society that stereotypes what autistic persons are capable of. This type of prejudice continues to limit autistic experience and growth; it is dehumanizing and covertly assumes the notion that having a disability is a negative characteristic that needs to be mended. Abled people have to recognize that their disability is a major part of who they are as a person and trying to fully erase that part of their identity is insensitive. Looking inward towards ableist society and perspective can mend this awful misrepresentation of the autistic community and close the gap between neurotypical people and autistic people.

Word count: 1029

I pledge. Rosemary Pauley and Gina-Marie An

Works Cited

Braddock, David, and Susan Parish. “An Institutional History of Disability.” Disability at the Dawn of the 21st Century and the State of the States, 2002, pp. 11–68.

Murray, Stuart. Autism. Routledge, 2012.

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.

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.

The Power of Language Surrounding Disability as Presented in Stuart Murray’s Autism

Lizzie Wordham

Stuart Murray’s Autism covers a broad spectrum of topics from history of the condition to controversies surrounding it to gender statistics. In a couple different chapters, Murray touches on the dangers of certain language that is used with autism and the dangerous affects it can have. Referring to autism as an “illness” or a “disease” as opposed to a condition causes autism to be seen as something that must be healed or cured. This type of language is harmful to the autistic community, as it directs autism studies away from focuses of understanding or learning and instead towards potentially invasive procedures and a lack of acceptance by nondisabled people. This language also can make it more difficult for families to connect to their autistic family member. It is important to the wellbeing of autistic people that we think of autism instead as a unique part of humanity, instead of referring to it as something that needs to be removed.

Referring to autism as an illness puts the condition in an enveloping category that skews the true definition of autism. As Murray writes, “the baggy nature of this word allows for the easy crossover between illness and a neurobehavioral condition such as autism” (37). Thinking of autism under the terms of an illness rather than a condition influences the way it is dealt with. Instead of being thought of as something unique that can provide new information about humans and influence what we know about the qualities of humanity, this language redirects study of autism to focus on trying to fix it. This type of approach to autism, finding a cure, influences the type of care and autistic person may get. The families of an autistic person may view the condition as problematic, which in turn would affect their treatment of and attitude towards their autistic family member when that family member would have benefitted simply from being engaged in and loved by their family.

The idea of searching for a “cure” for autism has resulted in numerous organizations that seek to lessen the symptoms or actually remove the autism from a person’s body. Murray writes about one in particular called Generation Rescue (91). This organization uses language such as “heal” or “rescue” your son from autism. This type of language puts distance between the families and their autistic child. It seeks to separate the child from the condition and makes it seem as though quality of the child’s life is hindered because of it. Language like this distances a family from connecting with their autistic child, as it paints autism as some kind of barrier between them and their child’s true self. Another organization that Murray writes about, called Son-Rise, revolves around language that pertains to resurrection or exorcism. He observes that the idea of “purging the body to remove the condition… creates an idea of autism as either a toxin or some form of malevolent presence” (Murray 93). This lexicon used by organizations like this makes autism sound very negative and can result in treatment of autistic children that is uncomfortable and unnecessary.

Not only can language like “cure” or “illness” create distance between an autistic person and their family, but it can subject the autistic patient to procedures that are painful and jarring. There are rituals, injections, and creams that are meant to either lessen symptoms or remove the autism from the body, but none have been proven to work. It is the hopefulness of the family that it will work that causes them to participate in procedures and products that are not proven to be effective by scientists (Murray 94). Murray reminds his readers that “those who are autistic themselves often view the curing or healing debates with a mixture of hostility and resigned weariness” (94). This in itself implies that attempting to rid an autistic person of their autism is more the desire of the family than the autistic person. This desire of families of autistic children is influenced greatly by the types of language they have been exposed to surrounding autism, displaying yet again why it is so problematic.

Negative and incorrect language in reference to autism results in a lack of understanding by the nondisabled community. Murray points out that the autism condition is “one of developmental delay” (94). Family members of autistic children will convince themselves that certain procedures are working because they’ll see differences in their child’s abilities. What they haven’t been taught to understand is that, “like all children, children with autism will grow up” (Murray 94). If the families of autistic children instead took the time to learn about the condition instead of attempt to suppress it, they could understand that their autistic loved one will grow and develop like any other child, just on their own timeline and in their own unique way. This is why negative language is so harmful to the autistic community—its affects the way their family members view their condition and results in a lack of understanding. Autism is a human condition, as Murray reminds his readers several times throughout his book, and should be viewed as something uniquely human.

In closing, autism is a developmental condition, not an illness. Words such as “illness” or “disease” cause it to often fall under a category of illnesses that it does not belong to. Words like “cure,” “rescue,” “fix,” and even “heal” depict the condition as something that is wrong and needs to be gotten rid of. This language is harmful to the autistic community for many reasons. It results in potentially uncomfortable procedures, it prevents true understanding of autism by the nondisabled communities, and it can result in a distancing of family members from their autistic loved one. It is important that this type of language surrounding autism is changed and replaced with something that benefits the autistic community, focusing instead on understanding and acceptance. This implementation of more positive and thought-provoking language should improve relationships between autistic people and their families, direct autism studies in a more productive and progressive direction, and give autistic people the rights and treatment they need and deserve.

Word Count: 1019

Works Cited

Murray, Stuart. Autism. The Routledge Series Integrating Science and Culture, 2011.