Archive for Spectrum Pride

Navigating Competing Worlds: The Elusive Ideal of Normalcy

October 19, 2011 Rachel Ableism, Belonging, Community, Disabilities, Medications, Spectrum Pride

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been very busy with my job and with getting acclimated to the routine of my graduate program. I’ve formed a great connection with the little guy I care for, and in my graduate program, I’m generating lots of ideas and questions as I go along.

For one of my classes, I recently read an excellent article called Orchestrating Voices: Autism, Identity, and the Power of Discourse by Nancy Bagatell, an assistant professor of Occupational Science at Quinnipiac University. The paper is the result of the author’s nine-month process of interviewing and observing Ben, a 21-year-old college student with autism, as he engages in the iterative task of constructing his identity in the face of social stigma and the demands of normalcy. Because it illuminated some of my own struggles and gave me insight into some of the issues that we face as disabled people, I thought I’d share my observations.

In Bagatell’s study, Ben’s struggle for identity goes through three phases:

1. Pretending to be normal
2. Finding the autistic community
3. Navigating competing worlds

Sound familiar, anyone?

Pretending to be normal
Summary: As a child, Ben knows he is different, has little interest in the things his peers are interested in, and is “teased mercilessly.” He initially resists attempts by his parents and teachers to “fit in” and “act normal.” As Ben gets older and wants friends and a girlfriend, he attempts to act in the ways that his parents and teachers suggest, but he has difficulty navigating social situations. The more “normal” he tries to act, the more he feels that something is “wrong” with him, and the more isolated and depressed he becomes. (416)

When Ben goes to college, his anxiety and depression worsen. He sees a psychiatrist who prescribes medication and sends him to a social skills group and psychotherapy in order to help him “fit in.” He begins self-medicating with marijuana, alcohol, and prescription drugs in order to try to navigate social situations. In this phase of his life, Ben relentlessly attempts to control his behavior by pretending to be normal and longs for a cure for his autism. (417)

Ultimately, he finds that pretending to be normal is enormously stressful. He experiences increased anxiety and panic attacks, and he engages in self-injurious behavior. This phase finds its climax when he climbs to the top of a building, intending to commit suicide. The result is a three-day stay in a psychiatric hospital. (417-418)

My thoughts: One of the things that struck me about Ben’s story is the Catch-22 in which he finds himself: the more he tries to “act normal,” the more “wrong” he feels. That is, attempting to attain an ideal of normalcy only results in a pervasive sense of failure.

As a child, I avoided that sense of being all wrong — partly because I was a good student, and partly because I was an athlete. On both counts, success built upon success, and my self-esteem was pretty solid. The trouble started in adolescence, when social situations became more complex, and it was clear that I was not engaging them as other people were. Each year of high school, I chose a different friend to emulate, just so that I could feel that I was getting it “right.” But, like Ben, the whole time, I felt a deep and pervasive sense that something was wrong with me, and that sense only deepened as I got older.

I am very fortunate in that I didn’t end up suicidal. Oddly enough, the abuse I had experienced at home created in me a powerful desire to live. I was determined that I was not going to let the abuse destroy me.

But suicidal ideation is not uncommon for autistic people, and the beginning of Ben’s story is something of a parable about the very significant dangers of the medical model of disability. In emphasizing impairment, it rejects that idea that a disabled person is whole, and thus supports the notion that one must be typically able-bodied in order to be a complete human being with a full and meaningful life. The medical model is a self-perpetuating one: if it is taken as axiomatic that one must be “normal” to have a good life, then most of society’s resources and energy go to attempting to get disabled people cured, assimilated, or out of sight. Very few resources and very little energy go into making the society more respectful and inclusive of diversity, when doing so is the only way to actually enable disabled people to have full and meaningful lives. Ben’s attempted suicide speaks to his instinctive perception that the medical model holds no promise for him. It simply leaves him feeling that he is wrong and cannot be made right, no matter how hard he tries. Under these conditions, he feels that his life is not worth living.

Bagatell notes that Ben’s attempt to construct an identity have led him to consider suicide because he knows that he cannot be “normal” in a society that privileges the normative, and so ends up in a state of self-hatred: “Within the discourse of ‘normalcy’ Ben was a failure… Like many others with disabilities, Ben became ‘tangled up in various forms of self oppression’ (Swain and Cameron, 1999, p. 75). Ben’s attempts at self-punishment climaxed on that April day as he literally teetered on the edge.” (418)

Finding the autistic community
Summary: After he leaves the hospital, Ben attends an autism conference and learns that his behaviors and perceptions are neurologically based, rather than a question of moral will or deviance. He begins to see them as “a normal part of my experience.” Ben meets other people with Asperger’s who have stopped pretending to be normal. He rejects the need for a cure, seeing Asperger’s as integral to who he is as a person, not something that can be “separated out.” He begins to accept and assert himself as he is and to reject attempts to render him “normal.” In so doing, he makes a very good distinction between acting normal and being normal:

“There really is basically no way to teach yourself to be more normal. You can teach yourself to appear normal but you can never really be more normal. And trying to do it is just stressful. I think that’s everybody’s experience.” (419)

Ben sees himself as part of the autistic community, where he can be who he is without attempting to conform to conventional social expectations. He enters and becomes engaged in the shared experience of a world in which he is not marginalized. He listens to the voices of other autistic people who reject the need for conformity in a quest to live an authentic life. He chooses to “come out” as a person with autism and to adopt it as a “valid, positive social identity.” (419-422)

My thoughts: Ben’s experience almost precisely mirrors how I felt when I found the online autistic community. Suddenly, there were other people like me. And for the first time, I felt “normal” in a group of people. It was very empowering and very comforting.

The problem, as I soon found, was how to navigate between the larger world and the autistic community. As grateful as I am to have found this community, and as empowered as I feel by all that I’ve learned, the dissonance between my own emerging truths and the social attitudes toward disability that I’ve encountered in others have been very painful to me. It was one thing to attempt to navigate the world with an interesting neurology I didn’t have a name for; it’s quite another to have become conscious of the issues in play and find that the world is still seriously behind the game in understanding them. This is part of the quandary in which Ben ultimately finds himself.

Navigating competing worlds
Summary: After a time, Ben experiences the tension between the “authoritative voices” of the neurotypical world (in which he is perpetually reminded of the importance of fitting in and, thus, of his perpetual position on the margins) and the alternative voices of the autistic community, which welcome him and let him know that he is fine as he is. He realizes that he cannot just choose between these voices in constructing his identity, but needs to figure out how to perceive himself in both worlds.

Bagatell suggests that we form multiple identities in which to navigate multiple social and cultural worlds, and that the trick for Ben is to figure out how to have a positive identity in each one. (422-423)

For Ben, by the end of the study, the process is not going well. He experiences more agitation, anxiety, depression, and sensory overload. He tends to see both the autistic and neurotypical worlds in negative terms. He does not see autism as a positive, nor does he see many possibilities for love and marriage, even within the autistic community. On the other hand, he is more and more upset that the medical community doesn’t seem to understand autism and that his psychiatrist is constantly “experimenting” with his medications. (423) Ultimately, he seems to see that his problem is social, not medical, asserting that he doesn’t need social skills classes, but true inclusion in society: “’I am sick of social skills groups … . Why can’t someone go to the bar with me or to chess club? That’s what I need.’” (425)

My thoughts: The reality of constructing multiple identities really rings true for me. Earlier in my life, I experienced this process in forming a Jewish identity within the Jewish community, and then attempting to figure out how to navigate the larger society without losing my sense of my own culture. Within Jewish culture, I could use certain words and have my meaning be understood, because we all shared the same basic paradigm; in the larger culture, those same words could be taken to mean something quite different, and I had to choose carefully how to present myself and my ideas. (For example, the word “salvation” means something quite different in Judaism than it does in Christianity. In Judaism, it refers to being saved from suffering and injustice in this life, while in Christianity, it has to do with being saved from hell after death.)

Forming multiple identities is the challenge for people of all minorities who must live within the larger culture. How does one live within different worlds — especially when one world takes a pejorative view of the other? It’s a very complex process. For disabled people, it’s particularly fraught, because the larger society defines us in terms of what we lack, and we tend to form identity in the face of it. Along these lines, Bagatell quotes Swain and Cameron (1999):

“From the viewpoint of disabled people, then, their personal and social identities have traditionally been formed within a framework from which they have been excluded. In defining the parameters that state emphatically what disabled people are not (i.e. ‘normal’), the dominant cultural discourses determine that disabled people’s self-reference is measured against this. (p. 75, emphasis in original)” (418)

The question is, how do we disabled people define ourselves in a context that embraces the deficit model and sees us mainly for who we are not? It seems to me that we always have a choice to make: Do we take in those voices of impairment, lack, deficit, and disease, and see ourselves as people who are “less than”? Or do we define ourselves as whole, as human, as essentially fine, just as we are? And in making this choice, how do we root out the deficit model from our thinking about disability so that we can see ourselves as different, not wrong?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

—

Sources

Bagatell, Nancy. “Orchestrating Voices: Autism, Identity, and the Power of Discourse.” Disability and Society 22, no. 4 (June 2007): 413-426. doi: 10.1080/09687590701337967.

© 2011 by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg

Share

9 comments

Questionnaire on Doctor Who and the Autism Spectrum

April 29, 2011 Rachel Community, Spectrum Pride

Over the past year, I’ve become a Whovian, care of my daughter, who loves Doctor Who. We’ve been watching the latest series on Netflix, and we’ve recently started Season Five.

So, imagine my happiness and my surprise when I got the following email from my daughter this morning:

Oh my GOD, Mom, look what I just stumbled upon on Tumblr!

http://jeyradan.com/dw-autism.html

Here’s an article about it:

http://www.combom.co.uk/2011/03/important-questionnaire-about-doctor.html

Michaela Schubert, an Aspie and a PhD student at the Pennsylvania State University of Medicine, is writing a book about Doctor Who and the autism spectrum, and she has a questionnaire she’d like people to fill out. Here is what she has to say:

“I am desperately trying to get as many people as possible to tell me a little about their own experiences with the show. The absolute most important part of a project like this is to get as many different viewpoints as possible.

You don’t have to have seen a lot of it, you don’t have to be familiar with the classic series, you don’t have to have a particular spectrum condition (or any diagnosis at all). Any input at all is welcomed and greatly appreciated.”

So if you’ve watched the show, please consider filling out her questionnaire. And, if you feel so inclined, please post information about it on your blogs and other social media.

It looks like she’ll be writing a fascinating book.

© 2011 by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg

15 comments

The Misleading Nature of the Deficit Model

February 26, 2011 Rachel Ableism, Alternative Theories of Autism, Empathy, Modes of Thought, Myths about Autism, Spectrum Pride

Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music.
—Angela Monet

I’ve never been shy about my feelings concerning the deficit model of autism. I object to its focus on “impairments” and its dismissal of our gifts as “splinter skills.” I dislike the hierarchy of human value it implies and, every time it leads a parent to believe that his or her autistic child will never feel love, I want to cry.

Lately, though, I’ve come to feel that the deficit model isn’t simply prejudicial, but entirely misleading.

In my view, the language of deficit hides the intrinsic nature of autism. In my experience, autism is not a condition of deficit, but of overabundance. I’ve never viewed my difficulties as deficits, because I spend a great deal of my daily energy dealing with an experience that is laden with perception and feeling. I hear everything very clearly, with very little filtering. My eyes are constantly taking in the visual world: color, texture, pattern, and motion. I have a vivid emotional and visual memory, both for events that have just occurred, and for experiences long past. I feel other people’s emotions immediately upon meeting them, and it’s in my nature to see things from a multiplicity of points of view.

When I look at autistic people who have been deemed “low-functioning,” I see people whose sensitivities make me look absolutely wooden. Our presentation is very, very different and, obviously, I can do a great many conventional things that others cannot. But intuitively, I know that they are not dealing with perceptual deficits. I see people whose overabundance of feeling and perception is both fundamentally different from mine and altogether overwhelming to their ability to function in any kind of normative way.

It’s this relative lack of normative functioning that brings in the deficit model. And, in terms of helping people to qualify for services and obtain needed assistance, it’s not a bad model. After all, if you need a service, you need to be able to document why. The problem is that once the deficit model is in place, it becomes impossible for most people to see beyond it. If you start talking about your internal experience, you get dismissed, because what becomes important is how you appear and what you do, not who you are or what you feel.

And how you appear is generally what shows up on an assessment, because the questions are geared to the surface level, and not much else. So, for example, if one were to ask whether I hold tenaciously to my own feelings and ideas, it might appear that I have difficulty seeing multiple points of view. But part of the reason I am so tenacious is that I’ve gone through a process of looking at things from so many different points of view that I would drown in the sea of other people’s perceptions if I didn’t make a judgment as to where I stand and what I believe. In arriving at a conclusion, I work through an immense number of possibilities and, once I’ve gone through the process, I generally form a strong opinion. It doesn’t mean that my mind is closed; it means that I’m not going to be convinced out of an idea or a feeling simply for the sake of social form or expectation.

Apparently, because I hold firmly to my conclusions, I can appear to be unempathetic to those who do not think as I do. If people only knew how intuitively I bounce from one person’s perception to another, how intensely I feel other people’s feelings, and how much mental and emotional discipline it takes to parse experiences that aren’t even on most people’s radar, they would see that my way of thinking is anything but inflexible—or easy.

Fortunately for me, I can speak, write, and express my internal life to other people. Where would I be if I didn’t have words? Where would I be if I weren’t able to navigate the world in a language it understands? Then I’d just look like a walking deficit model. And people without the empathy to see what’s going on below the surface would call me unempathetic, incapable of seeing things from other points of view, and without feeling. And they would be very, very wrong.

In describing autism as an experience of abundance, I don’t want to minimize the difficulties of living a life of intense perception, especially for those who cannot function in conventional ways. What I want to do is to signal that far from lacking the basic essentials of humanity, we feel our humanity acutely, and we suffer when others choose not to honor it.

© 2011 by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg

23 comments

Positive Autism Parenting Blogs

January 11, 2011 Rachel Parenting, Spectrum Pride

All of you lovely and supportive parents who commented on my last post made me feel so much less alone. You were unfailingly respectful and affirming, and you extended yourselves without defensiveness. You understood that my intent, now and always, is never to deny anyone’s grief and pain, but to ask for sensitivity and respect regarding how, when, and where those feelings are expressed and manifested. The nuanced levels of feeling that derive both from being Autistic and from parenting Autistic children are not lost on any of us, and I’m so glad that we were able to have such a great discussion.

This morning, I decided to replace my list of “Autism Blogs” with two lists. One is called “Autist Blogs,” and it contains links to blogs by Autistic people that I regularly read. The other is called “Positive Autism Parenting Blogs,” and it contains links to autism parent blogs that have felt safe for me to enter. The divide between Autists and parents can feel very deep and wide, but I’m determined to help bridge it by highlighting blogs that I feel do an excellent job of balancing the challenges of parents with respect for Autistic people. As you’ll see, because some parents are also Autistic, some blogs appear in both lists.

Of course, every reader will want to make a personal determination about whether a site feels safe or not. We all have different sensitivities. The blogs I’ve listed are the ones that appeal to mine.

If you know of other positive and affirming autism parent blogs, please leave a link in the Comments section. Because I filter comments that contain links, your message will be moderated (or go to spam), but never fear! If you provide a link to a blog that feels right to me, I will retrieve and post it.

Thank you all for being out there.

© 2011 by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg

19 comments

Reclaiming Memory: Searching for Great-Aunt Sarah

January 2, 2011 Rachel Ableism, Disabilities, Marginalization, Neurodiversity, Spectrum Pride


In 2009, while searching Ancestry.com for new information to add to my family genealogy, I discovered the existence of a relative about whom no one in the family had ever spoken. She was my paternal grandfather’s younger sister (my father’s aunt), and her name was Sarah. During a search of census records, I learned that she had been a patient at the Massachusetts State Hospital in Canton, MA in 1920, when she was 11 years old, and at the Wrentham State School in 1930, when she was 21. In other words, she appeared to have resided in state institutions from the time she was a child.

My father’s family has a rather unusual last name, so when I came upon Sarah, I felt fairly certain that she was related to us. Because the state schools were often warehouses for people with physical and mental disabilities, I felt from the beginning that Sarah had been “disappeared” from the family because she had been disabled.

In the face of this attempt to erase her from memory, I began a quest to learn everything I could about Sarah and to bring her into the light of day.

I was saddened by everything I found.

Sarah’s father, apparently, was “vigorous, gregarious, a hard drinker and a gambler, and inclined to shirk family responsibilities.” Her mother has been variously described as “mentally incompetent, elusive, and uncooperative.” I’m not sure that Sarah’s mother was actually any of those things, since living with a hard drinker and gambler who chronically refused to take care of his family very likely explained how she presented to the rest of the world.

It’s clear that the family was desperately poor, as evidenced by their contact with various social service agencies throughout the 1920s, and by the placement of two of Sarah’s younger sisters with foster families during the 1930s. There were, in all, seven children who survived early childhood. Four others died very young. Sarah was the second eldest of the surviving children, having been born in 1908.

I soon found out that she was, indeed, physically disabled, and had been diagnosed with “congenital spastic paralysis,” now known as cerebral palsy, when she was very young. But even more interesting are the possible markers of autism: she was a nervous baby, cried continually, tore at her hair, scratched her face unmercifully, and first talked at 4 years of age.

In 1915, at the age of 7, Sarah was placed in a family home with another disabled child. In September of that year, she began in the first grade at the local public school.

In 1916, she was placed in a state home—the Massachusetts Hospital School in Canton, MA—because her foster mother could no longer afford to take care of her. A teacher at this school considered her to be “of slow mind, lacking in concentration, and having problems with attention.” (ADD, anyone?) In a painful example how easily disabled people are dismissed, it was suggested that Sarah be placed in a school for the feebleminded when she was older.

By 1920, the people at the Massachusetts Hospital School said that they could do no more for her. She was judged “not mentally competent” to compete with the children in her grade. It appears that she was placed in another family home before a space opened up for her at the Wrentham State School.

She entered the Wrentham State School in 1921, at the age of 12, with the hideous diagnosis of “moron.” As I look at a photograph of her taken around that time, I find myself amazed that anyone could have missed the focused, sad intelligence in her eyes. In fact, when I first saw the photograph, I burst into tears. She was the only person in the family whose eyes, whose facial expression, and whose look of anger and sadness at the insanities of the world reminded me so thoroughly of my own.

About 10,000 people were institutionalized at Wrentham during its history. Despite Sarah’s diagnosis, she was described as adapting herself very quickly to her surroundings, expressing herself relatively well, and displaying a full range of emotions. Apparently, she always tried to do her best and took pride in neat work—words that would have perfectly described me as a child. She was also a good singer—another trait that we share in common.

Unfortunately, Sarah began to fall apart in the late 1920s. She began to behave and talk in “peculiar” ways, becoming depressed and unhappy. She felt teased by her peers. She lost her appetite for food, and her behavior became disruptive. One can only guess at what she was going through. Had she been assaulted? Had she collapsed under the weight of chronic institutionalization? Had her longing for friends, family, and home finally become more than she could bear? We will never know.

She showed no evidence of being delusional and yet, when she left Wrentham in 1930 and entered the Foxborough State Hospital, she was given a diagnosis of “dementia praecox,” the now-defunct term for schizophrenia. It was certainly not unusual for autistic people, especially women, to be misdiagnosed with schizophrenia and other mental disorders, especially when the process of institutionalization itself created mental and sensory breakdowns. As a state mental institution, Foxborough was a dumping ground not just for physically and mentally disabled people, but also for poor non-disabled children and recalcitrant wives. In those days, it was not unusual for poor children to be placed in institutions, and for rich people to take them out and hire them as maids.

Sarah, however, never had this dubious opportunity. Instead, she entered the Foxborough State Hospital at the age of 21 and never came out. She died of tuberculosis of the lungs in 1934, when she was 25 years old. When I received a copy of her death certificate, I was horrified to learn that she had been ill with tuberculosis for ten months before she died. Ten months, suffering in hell with a wasting disease. It makes me physically sick to think about it.

Under most circumstances, the indignities visited upon the patients at Foxborough followed them into death. In general, the inmates (for that is what they were) were buried on hospital grounds, their graves marked not with their names, but with their patient numbers. As a result, if anyone in a later generation were to visit his or her deceased relative, it would be impossible to know where to look.

I was determined to honor Sarah by visiting her grave, and when I wrote to the state mental health agency to find out her patient number, I was surprised to learn that she had not been buried at Foxborough at all, but in the Arbeiter Ring (Workman’s Circle) cemetery in Boston. I have no idea who got her out of Foxborough to bury her properly, but I hope that the person is reaping untold benefits in heaven for this act of humanity. There is a non-profit agency that oversees all the old Jewish cemeteries in Boston, so I wrote to them right away to see whether they would send me a photograph of Sarah’s grave. To my dismay, I learned that there was no grave marker at all.

So Bob and I decided to get Sarah a proper grave marker, which was placed this past fall. On the marker appear her name, her date of birth, her date of death, and my favorite line from Psalms: Those who sow in tears shall reap in joy.

I hope that she has found joy in the next world.

I hope that she feels the peace of knowing that she has the dignity of a marked grave.

I hope she knows that her picture has taken its place on our wall, along with those of our other ancestors.

I hope it heals her that I am telling her story and making sure that people remember the shame and injustice of what happened to her.

My Hebrew name is now “Rachel Batya bat Sarah Channa”—Rachel Batya, daughter of Sarah Hannah. I have taken Sarah as my spiritual mother. Every Friday night at our Shabbos table, I receive a blessing, and her name is blessed with mine. She never had a chance to have a child of her own, but in some way that I don’t entirely understand, I am her daughter. I am an autistic woman, born into the same family two generations later, and I have what she didn’t have. I have the power to stand up and say, “No more.”

No more dismissal. No more shame. No more isolation. No more disappearances. No more silence.

No more Aunt Sarahs.

Not now. Not ever.

© 2011 by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg

39 comments

My Book Reviewed in The Commons

November 5, 2010 Rachel My Books, Spectrum Pride


My book just got a very good review in The Commons, our local independent weekly. The writer interviewed me by email, and I’m quite thrilled with her write-up. Check it out!

© 2010 by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg

14 comments

Neurodiversity, Self-Determination, and the Magic Pill

November 3, 2010 Rachel Ableism, Diagnosis, Marginalization, Medications, Privilege, Spectrum Pride

Every now and then, I get caught up in the whole question of a cure for autism.

It’s not that I believe that a cure is possible. I don’t. How can you cure who I am and leave me whole? How can you isolate something called “autism” when it pervades every part of me? And it’s not that I would want to be cured were it even possible. I wouldn’t. I like myself just fine. What I don’t like are the loud, insistent voices that tell me I’m not fine.

What hooks me into the discussion about a cure is the accusation that, by criticizing the overriding focus on a cure, I’m telling people what’s best for their autistic children, and that I want to take away free choice. After all, people say, what would be so bad about having a cure? You could choose to take it or not. I’m absolutely committed to the principle of self-determination for every person on the planet, so the accusation that I might be compromising that principle gives me pause and makes me examine my thinking.

What would be the consequences of a magic pill to cure autism? Certainly, some people could choose to take it, and I’m all for free choice. But free choice assumes a neutral environment in which there is no pressure to make one choice or the other. We don’t have a neutral environment. We have an environment in which professionals, teachers, lay people, and well-funded organizations tell us that we are impaired, broken, sick, diseased, tragic, disordered burdens on those we love. They say that we don’t know how to love, that we can’t speak for ourselves, and that our lives aren’t of worth equal to the lives of others.

Given this environment, no matter what our place on the spectrum, how long would it be until you or I would be pressured to take “the cure”? How long would it be before parents were pressured to give their autistic children “the cure”? How long would it be before any autistic person, self-injuring or not, verbal or not, intellectually disabled or not, were pressured to take “the cure”? In the world as currently constituted, it wouldn’t be long at all.

And what might be the consequences of refusal? What might happen to a parent who refused to cure his or her child, especially if that child had been deemed “low-functioning”? There are people who believe it is child abuse to bring a disabled child into this world. What might they think of a parent who made a free-willed choice not to give the cure to his or her self-injuring child? These are the questions that give me pause.

I have realized of late, and to my great dismay, that all of the things I’ve taken pride in all my life—my intense focus, my seriousness, my blunt honesty, my rejection of social hypocrisy, my innocence, my insistence that people follow rules, my passion for fairness, my huge vocabulary, my early reading ability, my uniqueness, my acute sensitivity, my love of patterns, my nearly photographic memory—are now all evidence of a disorder. Does anyone really believe that it’s just our so-called “low-functioning” fellow travellers who might be pressured to be cured? It’s not—not when the pressure to medicate children all along the spectrum in order to render them fit for school and life is reaching dangerous proportions. The definition of what is “normal” is getting more narrow every day, and we autistics don’t fit, no matter where on the spectrum we find ourselves. I simply can’t separate myself from anyone on the spectrum and say that perhaps they should be cured and I shouldn’t. Until everyone on the spectrum has full self-determination in an environment in which free choice is a real possibility, the choices get narrower, not wider.

Parents often accuse people in the neurodiversity movement of telling them how to treat their kids. I’m not particularly comfortable with aligning myself with any movement, for a number of reasons, chief among which is that when I do, discussions tend to become polarized and unproductive. People begin seeing one another as purveyors of an ideology, rather than as human beings, with the result that both nuance and sensitivity go right out the window. But I will be an ally of anyone who fights for what’s right, and from what I can see, the neurodiversity movement is fighting for an environment in which parents and their autistic children can make free-willed, empowering choices. I have no problem stepping up and making myself an ally in that fight, because we’re all in this together, no matter how many times some people try to dismiss autistic self-advocates by telling us that we’re not really autistic and don’t really suffer.

We suffer. We suffer from all the sickness that saturates the culture in which we live. Heal this culture from its obsession with disorders. Heal the nastiness of the “autism wars.” Heal the impact of the vitriol flung at those of us who are simply asking for someone to listen. Heal the damage inflicted on entire generations of children who will grow up believing that they are broken and need to be fixed simply because they perceive the world in non-normative ways. Heal the ignorance. Heal the privilege of defining what’s “normal.” Heal a society that turns difference into disease in the blink of an eye.

And then maybe we’ll be able to have a rational conversation about the concept of cure. Until then, the conversation is simply an excuse to take out our suffering on one another, and inflicting pain doesn’t move the process forward. So I’ll keep fighting for a world that respects and celebrates each and every person, because that’s the only kind of world in which true self-determination is possible.

© 2010 by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg

44 comments

Speaking My Mind and Heart

November 1, 2010 Rachel Spectrum Pride

Every day, I do my best to speak who I am. So today, Autistics Speaking Day, I’ll just keep doing what I do.

I am Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg, and I am autistic. I feel liberated and vulnerable whenever I choose to say both of those things together.

I am the wife of a wonderful man, the mother of an awesome nearly-18-year-old daughter, and a great good friend to people near and far.

I am always working at something. I am a writer by nature and profession. I am an artist and photographer. I am an inveterate list maker and organizer. I am an abuse survivor and a Jew.

Any form of injustice has the dual effect of outraging me and making me want to cry. I am learning to channel both feelings into sustained action.

I am highly empathic and can find myself walking in the shoes of people long since gone. I can imagine how they felt, what they saw, what they did, what they feared, and who they loved.

I have always been this way.

I look at the natural world and wonder how it is that the trees and the plants know how to be oaks and maples and tulips and honeysuckle, each one unique, year after year. I have wondered about it since I was four years old and saw my first tulip open.

I haven’t the faintest idea why anyone would want to tell people to stay off Facebook and Twitter to “mirror autistic silence,” because unless I’m sleeping, I’m not silent. I speak with my writing, my art, my voice, my body, my laughter, my tears, my passion, my fears, and my acute sensitivity.

I am rarely silent, but I am often ignored. I used to rail against being ignored as a personal affront, but now I recognize it as an experience common to disabled people. It isn’t about me. It’s about the person ignoring me. I just keep on speaking, keep on singing, keep on telling the truth as I understand it. I keep on knowing that there is always more than one way to speak, more than one way to see, more than one way to hear, more than one way to think, and more than one way to love.

The worldwide community of autistics is my extended family. I am so glad that you are all here, speaking up. Over the past two years, you’ve given me my first sense of true belonging, and I thank you for it.

© 2010 by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg

15 comments

Grieving the Dream and Living What Is

October 9, 2010 Rachel Childhood, Communication, Diagnosis, Grieving, Parenting, Sensory Processing Issues, Spectrum Pride, Speech

When I first began delving into the words written by parents of autistic children, I found myself troubled by phrases like “the heartbreak of an autism diagnosis.” At the time, I was just beginning to develop a positive identity as an autistic person, and I felt offended that people would feel heartbroken at having a child like me. At the same time, I recognized that the grief was sincere, and that I couldn’t possibly tell someone that his or her feelings were wrong. I’ve been known to argue with an outlook or an idea, but not with a feeling. Feelings, in my view, are not open to disagreement.

I’ve come to understand the grieving, I think. I’ve come to understand it because, having received a diagnosis at 50, I’ve gone through my own grieving process. And what I’ve come to learn is that my grief is not about being autistic. I don’t feel that it’s unfair to have been born autistic. I don’t feel as though some terrible tragedy has descended upon me in mid-life. I don’t curse my fate and wish I were just like everyone else. I’ve never asked who I might have been were it not for my parents’ abuse, and I have no inclination to ask who I might have been without being autistic. Being autistic is intrinsic to my life experience, to my insight, and to the gifts I bring. The One Above made me just as I am, and I respect that.

And yet, I grieve. I grieve the loss of the person I thought I was—the person who could navigate the world like everyone else, the person who could do anything she wanted if she worked hard enough. I grieve the things that I’ve always wanted to do but am physically unable to do. I grieve the loss of my apparently privileged status as an apparently neurotypical person. In short: I’m grieving what was never there to begin with. I’m grieving an idea of myself and of my place in the world. I am not grieving what is or what was. I am grieving what doesn’t exist and what has never existed, except in my own thoughts.

This understanding came into focus in the days after I met with a woman at a local civil rights organization. She works in the area of disability rights, and I approached her in my role as the leader of the Vermont chapter of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN). When we set up the meeting, I told her about my auditory processing condition and about the kinds of accommodations I need—namely, a quiet space and a slow conversational pace. She was quite welcoming and offered to meet anywhere I wanted so that the environment would work. We ended up meeting in her office, which is just five minutes from my house.

In some ways, the two-hour meeting went very well. She was very friendly and very dynamic. I learned that she works as an advocate for parents, attending IEP meetings and helping to protect the rights of children. I learned that she does a great deal of anti-bullying and anti-harassment work, running compliance trainings for schools throughout Vermont. I learned that, as a person of color, she had been through severe racial harassment as a student, and that much of her work is powered by the conviction that no child should ever go through bullying at school.

The downside? She spoke very, very fast and provided a great deal of verbal information. I was able to see, right away, that asking her to slow down would not have worked. I don’t think she would have been able to do it. Her work is very stressful, and she was clearly up to the task, but what made her so good at her work also overwhelmed my auditory processing system. As the meeting progressed, I felt more and more overstimulated, and less and less able to find the words I so badly wanted to say. And because I’ve never seen a nonverbal signal in my life, words were all I had. Without nonverbal shortcuts, the process of listening and speaking became exhausting. I probably should have cut the meeting short, but I wanted so much to make connections with other people working on disability rights that I stayed glued to my chair. Needless to say, I needed a few days after the meeting to get my nervous system back into a state of calm and balance.

Helping advocate for the rights of parents and children, especially bullied, harassed, or otherwise vulnerable parents and children, is something I’ve wanted to do all my life. I have a fire inside me when it comes to injustice, and much of the recovery work I’ve done for 25 years has been aimed at being able to go out there into the world and fight the good fight. I want to go to IEP meetings and be a supportive advocate; I want to be able to walk into any situation and do workshops and trainings. When it comes to making right the wrongs of the world, I’ve got the spirit of a warrior. And yet, no matter how patient, how brave, and how intelligent I am, I can’t make my auditory processing system do what it isn’t made to do. I can’t change, by an act of will, the way I process speech and sound. I can’t see a nonverbal cue, and no amount of explaining is ever going to get me to.

As I’ve looked at what happened at the meeting, the truth has become clear: I am an experienced and conscientious researcher, writer, and editor. I am highly intelligent. I am very sensitive. I am absolutely tenacious. But there is something I cannot do: I cannot implement my work in a chaotic or dysfunctional environment. In the quiet of my own home, I can put together a fact sheet about children’s rights. I can interview people and develop materials on bullying and its impact. I can help to create an anti-harassment workshop. I can gather large amounts of information and organize it in a myriad of ways. I can do the behind-the-scenes work, but I cannot go into the thick of things and be effective.

It’s not that I’m incapable. It’s that I cannot find an environment in which it would work. An IEP meeting is not such an environment. A compliance training is not such an environment. Any situation in which people are under stress, not at their best, and talking at cross-purposes is not such an environment. In those environments, almost by definition, accommodation for my disabilities becomes impossible. After all, if the situation were friendly, functional, and fair, there would be no need for me to be there in the first place.

This realization represents the end of a decades-long dream, and there’s sadness there. I imagine that it’s an emotion similar to what a parent feels upon receiving an autism diagnosis for his or her child; it’s the end of a dream, and there’s sadness there, too. I remember how many years I planned for the birth of my daughter, how many years I dreamed of all the fun we would have, how many times I told myself that I couldn’t determine the future and yet found myself looking forward to a multitude of things. Being autistic, I might have had an easier time with an atypical child than most, because I’ve always been the one who is different. But a typical parent has typical dreams, and there is grief in letting go.

In large part, those dreams have to do with life being safe and welcoming to a child and, as we all know, the world is often not a safe and welcoming place for autistics. I have been bullied, and ignored, and left behind, in many different ways, all my life. And yet, I don’t wish I were different. I wish the world were different. I wish that more people defended the bullied rather than the bullies; I wish that more people took the time to get to know me and find out what a great good friend I am; I wish that more people were sensitive to all the things that autistic people need in order to live our lives with more joy and less fear, more inclusion and less loneliness.

The grief I feel is for what never was and for what has yet to be. It’s not for who I am. And I imagine that, for parents, the grief is for the dreamt-for child and the dreamt-for plans; it’s for the opportunities and the safety and the welcoming that the world does not yet make possible. And it’s absolutely right to grieve that child and those plans and the state of the world as we know it. But grieving all those things is different from grieving that we are autistic. I want to say to parents, “The child who is here does not need to be grieved, any more than I need to be grieved. There will be new dreams, different dreams, dreams that are based on what is real—not on the doomsday prophecies of doctors with God complexes, not on research that barely scratches the surface, but on the child you see in front of you, whose life you are committed to nurturing. That’s the only basis for a dream—your flesh-and-blood child, longing for a way to manifest his or her reason for being in the world.”

Each of us is here for a unique purpose that no other person can ever serve. There is so much to be done. So let us grieve our dreams. Let us carry our grief with dignity. And let us get to work.

© 2010 by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg

26 comments

How Do You Feel About Coming Out?

October 2, 2010 Rachel Ableism, Community, Marginalization, Spectrum Pride

Some of you might have noticed that I’m blogging less about my inner workings and more about the discourse surrounding autistic people in the larger world. As I’ve watched this change happen, I’ve had some time to reflect on what’s going on.

Occasionally, I’ll get a new insight into the dynamics of how I work, and I’ll blog about it, but looking at the nuts and bolts of myself isn’t a topic that fascinates as it once did. Call it moving on from a special interest. Or just getting tired of myself. Either one with work.

I also seem to be suffering from “disclosure fatigue.” For the first year and a half of this blog, I talked about a number of different issues in my life, from family relationships to sensory issues to my feelings about being autistic. Lately, I’ve been needing to keep some things more private, and to create more distance between my public self and my private self. There is plenty of crossover between the two, even now, but not as much as before. I just have to pull back some.

When it comes down to it, I’m feeling vulnerable about being “out,” blogging under my real name, and self-identifying as autistic. I’m not sure where the vulnerability comes from, given that I’ve been “out” and blogging non-anonymously from the beginning, and that I substituted “autistic” for “Aspie” several months ago. It may be the feeling of getting caught in the crossfire between people who say I have no right to call myself autistic when I’m an Aspie, and people who look at the word autistic and see only the stigma. Both points of view lie at an extreme, and I know that people at an extreme are not usually open to reason. They are usually coming from a place of grief and fear.

I have to admit that I sometimes have the impulse to find some shelter from both groups by running back to the Asperger’s label, but it would just be a temporary refuge. Asperger’s and “high-functioning autism” are the same thing. If I take back the Asperger’s designation, it’s not as though the “if you can write, you can’t be autistic” crowd is going to lay off, or that the euphemism of Asperger’s is going to get the stigma of autism very far away from me. Any expectation that either will happen is just an illusion. I do my best not to live my life based on illusions.

The whole reason that I chose to call myself autistic rather than Aspie is that far too many Aspies seek to distance themselves from the stigma of autism. Trust me, I understand the impulse, but it’s just plain wrong to abandon people who are on the spectrum with us, especially people who are even more marginalized than we are because they don’t have the ability to “pass” for a moment. And the more I feel how wrong it is, the more I feel the vulnerability of the autism label. On my difficult days, I find myself fearing the judgment of others. I worry about whether people will see me as a collection of negative stereotypes rather than a full-fledged human being. I live in a community that largely accepts me and welcomes me, and yet, on a bad day, I find myself worrying about having to fight injustices that will break my heart.

I’m not sure what to do with the fear and vulnerability except to let them power me into strength and action. After all, there are two things you can do with vulnerability: you can fold or you can be strong. I’m taking the latter course, even though some days, it takes a major effort of will to move past the fear into power. There are so many times that I’d like to just call the whole thing off, to go back and erase the Asperger’s assessment, to forget about being autistic as some sort of weird dream, and yet, I can’t. This is who I am.

So I’m going to keep on fighting for us, I’m going to keep on being proud, and I’m going to keep on speaking my mind. And yes, I may very well come up against mind-boggling ignorance and injustice, but that’s the cost of bringing the world into a brighter day. Why should I shrink from them, when so many people around the planet have no choice but to face them down?

So tell me, dear readers, whether you use the Asperger’s label or not, how do you feel about coming out? Do you feel vulnerable? Powerful? Liberated? I would really like to know.

© 2010 by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg

31 comments
« Older Entries