• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

The Social Model

That neatly sums up how I feel about ASD in general.

I don't consider myself disabled as such, but the moment we stop accepting that some people might require a certain aide to function like everyone else we call it disabled, while in fact it feels a lot more like society is enabling disability.

I can't help but draw parallels with all the documentation I have for an adjusted workplace because of my ASD. Those are hard requirements for me to function, but the truth is, many of these adaptations would actually be good for anyone, even NT's. But just because not everyone finds sensory issues for example, an issue, it's been discarded that the ones who find it an issue, actually are not functioning properly.

Suppose there's also a thing to be said about coping with things. The article points out that coping with certain things in a certain way isn't accepted and follows up about how noisy environments might leave us exhausted. Isn't this the exact same thing that happens to anyone? Coping should be a last ditch effort; I can't imagine someone coping with something that's harmful to them on a daily basis for days, weeks, months or years, will improve or stabilize their sanity. I mean, it is one thing to expect people to be able to deal with certain "stressors" but that has it's limits I reckon. Especially in employment, where it's geared towards being an effective and efficient employee, one can wonder if stress and the triggers thereof shouldn't be optional in that a healthy dose of stress works for some, but doesn't work for others. Yet that never seems to be a requirement unlike a certain degree or job experience.

Most likely, if we want to mitigate "disablity" as a whole in society, there needs to be a shift, both in mentality, and practicality. I'm not even talking about just people on the spectrum, this goes for anyone. As the article points out, by referring to someone in a wheelchair, there are probably plenty of options for someone who would be exactly the same just without the impairment and not being wheelchair bound, but we still refuse to look into options, call them disabled, put them on disability income and then complain how they are not working.
 
From the article:

"The Autistic people who say they’re not disabled frustrate me because they sound like they’re denying the existence of all the social barriers that make life difficult for Autistic people.

And it frustrates me when people blame autism for problems that are not caused by autism. The people who want to eliminate us could use this to justify their stance that autism causes suffering so it would be better if autism, and therefore Autistic people, didn’t exist."

I am a little put off by this summation, because it calls on the autistic person to tread a rather narrow path between denying social barriers and perpetuating them by misplacing blame. I can see areas in which I am not disabled by AS, but that doesn't mean I am denying any social barriers, just acknowledging that I'm not impaired in that way. We're all differently abled.

As far as blaming autism for problems, well, I think it might take a long time of self discovery, introspection, patience, and education before I'll be able to correctly place blame only on those things caused by autism. Until then, I hope I'm not giving ammunition to those who want to eliminate us.
 
"The Autistic people who say they’re not disabled frustrate me because they sound like they’re denying the existence of all the social barriers that make life difficult for Autistic people.


I can relate to this. The statement is made absolutely: "Well, I'm not disabled." Well, I don't actually know how you arrived at that, and if your little list of things that don't bother you are to be universally applied, I'll challenge that. Get your own syndrome.

And it frustrates me when people blame autism for problems that are not caused by autism. The people who want to eliminate us could use this to justify their stance that autism causes suffering so it would be better if autism, and therefore Autistic people, didn’t exist."

I agree with this too. Although suffering happens to people who aren't autistic as well, so I'm not seeing how claiming "autism causes suffering" really gets off the ground. Not being able to tolerate people different from yourself causes suffering, and wanting to eliminate them is going to cause more suffering. I cross-linked this to my blog, which started out addressing a different question, but I ended up with humanity itself being on a spectrum that, arguably, can include sapient beings that are not human.
 
I get the feeling that the original article was written from too much of an internalised NT perspective. While there are some advantages to the social model of disability, such as workplace accommodations where - or rather, if - you can get them, these address aspects about how autistic people function differently from the culture around them. But cultures aren't set in stone - they change, differ and evolve. Someone who is noticeably on the spectrum (to themselves and others) in one culture could be less noticeably so in another, without any change in who they are and how they function, based solely on the demands of their surrounding culture. Personally, I need an impairment to be more stable across changing and, frankly, arbitrary, circumstances before I declare it fully fledged disability.

Because if we do that, then truthfully, we can apply it to anyone. And that's what this article overlooks. From the article: "Autistic people have impairments, such as in language and sensory processing." There's another side to that coin that would let me say, with some justification, "Allistic people lack singular focus and require too much social and societal input into their choices and thought process in order to function."

Although it almost sounds like it, I am not advocating against the social model of disability. Nonetheless, I don't see the medical and the social model of disability as analogous, and the social model more as an auxilliary concept in order to get what accommodations we need, whenever possible, in an overbearing culture not suited to us. But I think it's a mistake to lose sight of the fact that these accommodations are needed because, and only because, the culture around us is one that prioritises different traits based on what most people can and cannot do. What's a disability and what isn't is a numbers game, in this case. If the tables were turned, then, with a period of adjustment while culture catches up, the other side might be claiming social model disability because, living in a culture not geared towards their strengths and designed to cushion their weaknesses, it would be they would who would find the shortcomings and inabilities of their neurology magnified.

The social model has its use as an auxilliary concept where absolutely needed, but I just can't get behind blanketly calling something a disability if it's as arbitrary as I've described above.

Also, I am not sure where the author of the article got enough of this opionion from in order to find it significant: "Opponents of neurodiversity sometimes describe is [sic] as the idea that autism is ‘just a brain difference’." I suspect a false equivalence, but I can't tell from this quote alone whether the people who described autism as "just a brain difference" really also identified or acted as opponents of neurodiversity or whether the author assumes that that's what they are. Either way, I don't see how you can be an opponent of neurodiversity while you're actually agreeing that there are brain differences, with or without the "just", even though I can see how the "just" can sound flippant.

I'm not willing to agree that I'm disabled under any model as long as I can work under some conceivably realistic circumstances, move without assistance and look after myself and even others without feeling a lack in my life. I'm by no means happy with everything in my life and I do suffer under the demands of the culture surrounding me. But that's where I assign the blame to. Not me. Because it's not directly necessary for survival for that culture to be this way. And it's not directly necessary for my survival to be neurologically identical to most people, even if it's hard. Where's the disability? I'm not ready to base something as big as that on flaky cultural standards.

Of course, as with any spectrum, there comes a point where working and living without assistance and looking after oneself is no longer possible. However, I am veering towards the view that that's where the medical model of disability begins to catch and the social model stops to apply: if one's neurology does not allow self-sufficient living as it is commonly understood (i.e. supporting oneself, not farming one's own food), as in - even if the surrounding culture were adjusted to one's needs self-sufficient living wouldn't be possible - then this would clearly be classified as a disease, and the medical model would apply.

I'm starting to wonder why I differ so significantly in opinion from many in the online autistic community (because online is all I have, I don't know any identified autistic people offline). Because, as far as Asperger's (my adult diagnosis)/HFA (my diagnosis in adolescence) goes, I'm not especially "mild", even if I had to learn to ape well due to the sink-or-swim situation my family of origin put me in growing up. Perhaps it's because I'm not in America (i.e. cultural differences), perhaps my strengths happen to compensate just enough for my weaknesses, perhaps not buying into being defective allowed me to be more ruthless about getting my needs met as soon as this was possible so that I didn't burn out as much as others, perhaps it's the dumb luck of having met mostly the right people and having a live-and-let-live environment, at least privately. The first is certainly true because I can work part-time on a salary with all benefits and a humble pension fund.

But I've also seen enough NTs burn out and get sick from common societal demands and pressures to believe that the tenets of social model disability are something that neurodiverse people have a singular claim to or need for, and that waters down the whole concept itself considerably.
 
I am a little put off by this summation, because it calls on the autistic person to tread a rather narrow path between denying social barriers and perpetuating them by misplacing blame.

I agree. If you don't consider yourself disabled, you don't consider yourself disabled, and shouldn't be made to. It could be a self-esteem issue, too; the word disabled is ambiguous, so for some it will be about identifying with the word and for others it will be about the situation.
 
I agree. If you don't consider yourself disabled, you don't consider yourself disabled, and shouldn't be made to. It could be a self-esteem issue, too; the word disabled is ambiguous, so for some it will be about identifying with the word and for others it will be about the situation.

This is an important distinction. While I consider myself disabled or, more accurately, impaired in social interactions, communication, organization and planning (executive function) I am very able in physical action and working out design and engineering problems. I know that my impairments have created problems and diminished success for me, even in the areas in which I am proficient. This has also led to some severe self -esteem issues. Are those problems that I can blame on AS?

I don't ask for any special treatment or accommodation due to my impairments, I just want people to show understanding and a degree of acceptance for who I am.
 
Last edited:
OnTheInside already highlighted a couple of lines of the article that bugged me, and did a terrific job saying what I would have in response to them. Here's another line that I took issue with, though my thoughts on this general subject seem to be controversial:

"I don’t think autism should be called a disorder, because to me disorder means an illness or something that’s wrong."


What "disorder" means to the author personally is immaterial. What matters is what the term actually does mean. In the clinical community, a disorder is a functional anomaly/irregularity. What is considered an anomaly/irregularity is determined by objective factors. Among clinical practitioners and researchers, "disorder" is viewed as a value-neutral alternative to "illness", not a synonym for it. I have no trouble telling people I have an autism spectrum disorder, because regardless of what causes it or what role the structure of our society plays in the difficulties it may present for me, the fact is that I have neurology that is functionally irregular by the numbers. Doctors and researchers figured all that out, so I'll go with their definition.

I like "disorder" for the very fact that by itself, it doesn't actually suggest any level of disability, impairment, or whatever other term you care to use at all. All it means is that I work differently from the norm. That's not news to me and it's not offensive to me. We load so much subjective crap on terms that weren't even coined for lay consumption. I prefer to just let words mean what they mean, and assess the intent of a person who uses them on a case-by-case basis.

"Disorder" is in no way even close to genuinely disparaging language like the n-word, "f*ggot", "retard", or "cripple". It mystifies me when people treat it like it is, whether they're the one saying it or the one hearing it.
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Top Bottom