Archangel Press
Introductory Essays
The essays included here could easily been placed under
philosophy. They are placed here at the
beginning because they seem particularly germane to understanding the
underlying premises of the various works contained in this web-site. They are, specifically, the philosophy of
literature.
To understand the written and the read, there must first come an
understanding of the writer and the reader.
While this page is ostensibly dedicated to the philosophy of literature,
it is, in many cases, impossible to separate the creator and the created—the
state of a man's mind is inextricable from his works. Owing to this, I, large fat cat in charge, have chosen to place
the Thin Man's writings on mental health here rather in a different
section. I know of no better title for
the section that the mantle he already bears:
Speaker for the Mad
On Autism and Society
One begins a
circle drawing anywhere, especially if one is Asbergian. I must approach this subject by stalking it,
circuitously tacking toward a central point that is not, in fact, a point but
rather a hedge of possible relations. I
will most likely say as many things that are wrong as I do things that are
correct because, without permission to fail, no progress can be made. I speak from a broad foundation of
knowledge, personal experience, and research.
In order to provide examples, I have chosen to reference a New York
Times Magazine article by Emily Bazelon ("What Are Autistic Girls Made
of?" NYTM 08/05/2007). It is not the only source for the
information I discuss, but it is representative of the current state of
research and it is easily accessible.
Much of what I
present is drawn from anecdotal evidence.
There is a widespread fallacy in scientific circles that "anecdotal
evidence is no evidence at all"; that the experiences and observations of
one individual are not sufficient data to draw conclusions from. Setting aside that these specific anecdotes
in question are representative observations, the root premise — that
"anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all" — is a flawed one and its
frequent invocation is a detriment to science and the increase of
knowledge. At its root, all evidence is
anecdotal. Even if I acquire empirical
results from a bank of analytical machinery, my record of these results, my
calculations, and my eventual conclusions are, in point of fact, anecdotal. All things are filtered through a singular
observer. Finally, all evidence is
anecdotal.
For my own part,
I was diagnosed late in life with a host of mental "deficiencies",
all of which may be lumped into a single category of "the boy ain't like us." I am non-neurotypical — crazy if you
will. That's really all any mental
"disorder" is:
non-neurotypical, not like the rest of us. Further labeling is pejorative and facile. As I said, I was diagnosed late in life;
every person who had known me previously responded, "So, you're the same
as you've always been, but now it's official." If I were a child today, I would be caught, tranquilized, and
relocated a safe distance from the "good" people. Instead, I grew up among people, not unlike
myself, who accommodated my idiosyncrasies (this was a time when eccentricity
was quaint rather than threatening). In
the meantime, I learned to mimic the average human and do a credible impression
for short periods of time.
I would add to
this one further personal note. Once I
could no longer maintain the mask and was forced, by the cost to my personal
health, to retire from the field, I found within the government — within the
institutions so publicly dedicated to "serving" the differently-abled
and so vocally the defendants of the downtrodden — the highest levels of
discrimination and harassment I have ever faced. At times, the situation came to resemble Camus' The Stranger
as I was punished by the system for not properly cringing and bowing, for not
giving up and dying quietly. There are
decent people within the system, but the overarching bureaucracy itself is a
condescending evil.
As a society, we still relegate our
insane to asylums. Only now, the walls
are invisible and the padding is around those who must deal with us, to protect
them from us, an insidious imprisonment of arbitrary regulations, a subtle
prejudice cloaked in platitudes of compassion.
Because they are afraid of us.
To clarify terms, autism is now
defined as social and communication impairments and restricted interests. Allow me to present this definition as it is
seen from the other side of the mirror:
doesn't tolerate inanity or stupidity well, speaks directly, and doesn't
give a damn what was on SNL last night because there are more important
things.
Autism now includes Asberger's
syndrome, considering it high-functioning autism. As the study of mental abnormality expands, it is increasingly
common for one disorder to "swallow" another in this manner. It is my own studied opinion (and I am not
alone in this), that most mental abnormalities are simply variations on a
theme. There is a continuum of
behaviors and functionalities all sliding and blurring into each other and only
severity separates one "disorder" from another. Further, the mental state of every human
being exists on this continuum and that the normal and sane have the same
potentials and traits as the abnormal, simply less pronounced. If you need further proof, I ask you to consider
the societal virtue called logical thought.
It is defined as the ability to consider a situation or problem
objectively rather than subjectively, to separate one's personal interests from
the situation. Psychology also has a
term that matches this definition:
dissociative thinking, the first symptom of schizoid behavior.
In the specific case of autism,
researchers are quick to point out that autistics, especially female patients,
suffer from tremendous levels of anxiety and depression. It is currently their belief that the
anxiety and depression arise from the situations created by the necessary
lifestyles of the autistic. Personally,
I think they overcomplicate the matter.
Autism and bipolar disorder are both stops on the mental continuum; to
attempt to divide them into two separate disorders based on cause and effect is
pure sophistry. More troubling, it is
counterproductive.
Let the hunt
begin. Observe the trail signs.
""All
I require is a purple marker," the boy said over and over again, refusing
to write with the black marker he had been given."
A small track
indicating a huge beast. If you, as a
researcher, are preparing to perform a study involving autistic patients, is it
unreasonable to expect this kind of simple resistance? Of course not. This kind of action is so common, a researcher should be
surprised if it doesn't occur in a sample population. Yet, to me, there is an even brighter warning flag waving, an
obvious question that strikes to the core of the matter. What is so important about the color of
marker the patient uses that the doctors must bring the entire proceeding to a
halt until this single individual is forced to conform to their arbitrary
decision? Why not give him a purple
marker? Why must the doctors establish
such trivial dominance, like dogs squabbling for pack supremacy? For an autistic patient, this small measure
of situational control is paramount to his comfort and his ability to continue
to function in the environment; he needs to maintain some level of control and
has chosen to express it in what is, ultimately, a very reasonable
request. He is neither disruptive not
demonstrative, merely resistant. This
kind of irrational power struggle on the part of the normals is common,
bordering on systemic, in the handling of non-neurotypicals. Why?
Is there an unacknowledged psychosis common to doctors, a kind of
deity-complex megalomania, or is it something more widespread?
"...they
[girls] often fare better than boys at an early age because they tend to be
less disruptive."
The question begs
itself: do the autistic girls fare
better or do the normals around them fare better because the autistic does not
intrude on them? Yet, that question is
never asked, never investigated. It is
a problem that the autistic faces throughout society. Docility is confused with success. Culturally, we are conditioned to the thoughtless rigors of
classroom passivity to prepare us for the drone mechanics of the industrial
world. Indeed, a quick perusal of the
writings of Horace Mann, founder of the modern educational system, makes it
clear that the entire purpose of the system is not, in fact, to educate the
student but to prepare the student to accept their place within the social
strata and industrial mechanism without thought or question. The autistic, by their very nature
challenges — must challenge — this basic presumption. By definition, they are not satisfied with social minutia or
polite small talk. They are driven to
focus on those matters that interest them.
In generations past, these traits were used to define geniuses and
future leaders, not mental disorders.
It is reasonable to speculate that, perhaps, the climbing numbers of
autistic diagnoses is due, not to an actual increase in mental abnormalities,
but to a change to the cultural fabric.
The societal bar has been lowered and, when the autistic refuses to
lower themselves, they are marginalized.
"A
psychology professor and director of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge
University, Baron-Cohen has characterized autism as a condition of the 'extreme
male brain.' His research shows that in
the general population men are more likely than women to score low on a test of
empathy and high on a test of recognizing rules and patterns, or 'systemizing.' High systemizing together with low empathy
correlates with social and communications deficits and, at the extreme end of
the scale, with autism...Baron-Cohen says that he believes that autistic girls
are strong systemizers. That quality
may manifest itself in letters rather than numbers."
Baron-Cohen may
be the leading autism researcher of our generation. In this, I find great hope for the future. Although it may not be politically correct
to call autism "extreme male brain", I believe he is correct. It is frequently noted that autistic males
have an obsession with numbers, music, and similar "arcane"
knowledge. It has also been noted that
Asbergian females are some of the leading readers and writers of fantasy and
fan fiction.
I would add to this body of evidence
my own experiences with other authors and readers, especially women. Accepting the terminology of masculine for
traits such as patterning and feminine for traits like empathy, Baron-Cohen's
observations are, in hindsight, almost intuitively obvious. I fear that his work will be obscured by
rhetoric because of phantom perceptions of sexism; but I wonder how many women
among my own fellow writers and readers recognized themselves in his
definition. Given the historic
predisposition of authors to mental illness (or vice versa), I believe this
aspect of his research lends itself not only to a better understanding of
autism but also a greater understanding of literature and especially the
current state of fantasy literature and children's literacy. In this culture of specialization however, I
fear this will never be explored, unless by a fellow non-neurotypical.
I would like to
take a moment to address the contention that autistics have communication
difficulties. This is a sweeping
generalization based on definitions created by normals. Most autistics (depending on severity) do
communicate. What they do not do is
communicate trivially. A request for
permission to an autistic that is not met with dissent is permission; they see
no need for wasteful pleasantries. A
statement that does not require a direct response will not receive one. That does not mean the autistic did not hear
or care, they just have no need to respond.
Of course, the "difficulties socializing" are co-morbid with
this minimalistic communication.
Let me say that I
have, of necessity, made sweeping generalizations regarding the condition of
autism. I understand and acknowledge
that each case is different, that the level of functional severity alters the
situation significantly. Primarily, my
focus has been on high-functioning autism or Asberger's Syndrome. I humbly admit that I am not an expert on
this situation, merely a participant, and apologize in advance if I have
offended anyone or seemed insensitive to any specific circumstance.
I believe I speak
for many non-neurotypicals when I say that I do not want
"cured". I am not a ham or a
side of bacon. There is nothing wrong
with me. There is only wrongness as it
relates to our interaction with mainstream round-peg culture. Rather, I wish to be understood and accepted
as I am. If this is not possible, which
I suspect it is not, I wish the society of normals to permit the necessary
accommodations for my people to live among you. We cannot go to your schools (I suspect that you should not go to
them either) and we cannot conform to your nine-to-five cages. This does not make us less, only different.
All I require is
a purple marker.