"autistic" as a pejorative term

Post Reply New Topic

I was referring to the usage of the phrase "socially autistic" associated with technology that appears to have been used as analogy, by the young girl's resource, not the exact full wording of the statement reported used in the young girl's research paper.

I find it highly unlikely that the young girl remembered the wording exactly the way she read it in the source as (technology is "making youths socially autistic.")

Since it can't be found worded this way with a google search anywhere on the internet, except for here in this thread, per link below, the odds are pretty good that it was the young girl's unique wording of what she remembered reading that she put in her research paper, that was reported in the Op.

"making youths socially autistic"

Certain aspects of technology, like the internet, video games, and broadband access to pornography are factors that have been reported in research associated with social problems analagous to some of the symptoms associated with autism spectrum disorders, even some sources suggesting a contribution to diagnosis.

The phrase "Socially Autistic" can be found in a few other analagous contexts, though none described as used as a pejorative phrase that I have been able to find.

If it was worded exactly the way the young girl was reported to have written it, in the source that the young girl used, I would definitely agree that the source was sloppy and unprofessional, however there really is no evidence of how the phrase was actually worded, used in the young girl's source, without an actual reference provided for the source. At best it is how the young girl remembered it being used.

From my posts quoted below. I can see where my point might not have been clear, but the way I read the Op, the suggestion of pejorative use was against the source of the information, not the young girl.

It's highly unlikely an actual reputable source would use the phrase socially autistic in a pejorative manner in regard to social problems associated with technology, or wording that technology is "making" any youths have any social problems.

That would definitely be unusual use of the English language in an actual reputable source discussing the issue; likely part of why the phrase can't be found used that way anywhere in a Google search, except in this thread.

The girl is reported being tutored in remedial English, so that could be part of the issue in how she is remembering and wording the statement in her research paper.

The fact that the young girl did not have a reference for the source that she stated she used was definitely a problem as well as the fact that she didn't understand what the analogy socially autistic meant per the social problems that have been associated with some avenues of technology, but I would have to see the source to determine if there was any hint of pejorative use, per the topic of this discussion. If it was a reputable source, it's not likely.

It appeared from the original post that the girl was provided an understanding that the phrase was being used in a pejorative way. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that the right thing was done by instructing the girl to properly research the topic by properly referencing the quote per the source, and gaining a proper understanding of it. Marcia's post is agreeing with that aspect of the Op, in her response to it.

Disgusted, but not surprised. Honey, "autistic" has always been a pejorative term. Shocking, shattering, "I'm-so-sorry," a fate worse than death. It just wasn't always applied so widely.

"Autistic," "disabled," "ret*d," "developmentally delayed." All pejorative. Hell, a lot of people use "different" as a pejorative term.

Makes you wonder just exactly who has the pathology, and if there isn't something pathological about the way we decide.

And building on this idea, how about this:

"Autistic means engaged."

What 'we' (that is, imagining and speaking as a hypothetical neurotypical) might spend years trying to achieve through becoming a zen master or zen novice, an autistic person seems to just have. This might be studying everything there is to know about a topic and then moving onto another topic. This might be mere playing with string or water. In either case, in all of the above, the person is intensely focused on the here and now. And this is something the rest of 'us' (again, hypothetical neurotypical) may spend years merely approximately through a study of zen.

It doesn't seem like an outright attack, it seems to me they're trying to describe something and used the closest term they could think of to encompass their meaning. Since it doesn't seem hateful to me, but more descriptive, I'm not offended by it. PC policing doesn't work for me, half the time it just seems like needless nitpicking and makes people angry. No one owns the word "autistic" - no one owns any word. If it's not used in a hateful way, or isn't a word that is commonly associated with hate (such as the n___ word, etc.), I have no problem with it. (Even though it is a bit ignorant and lazy usage.)

Autism is associated with a kind of social inability (perspectives vary even among those on the spectrum) that I think describes pretty well what happens with overuse of technology in some NT people. I've stood next to someone in a store who was using a cell phone and thought they seemed to be in their own little world - and that is a way that some would describe autism at times. I, as an undiagnosed Aspie, have been told lots of times that I seemed to be in my own little world. And in truth, sometimes I am.

To some degree the use of autism and Aspergers in these ways, while insensitive, is also a sign that at least the terms and maybe the conditions are gaining awareness.

I think it's good that the student was corrected about leaving the use of the word as is without thinking it through and using her own words.

(My apology for all the edits after posting.)

Last edited by SpiritBlooms on 06 May 2012, 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I dislike the poll choices. None of the above. I voted "disgusted", but, I'm really not at all disgusted. I dislike it, I think it's wrong. But disgusted isn't the right word for the response.

As for the other choices, I'm certainly not ambivalent. Don't like it, no ambivalence about it. Not shocked, because I've seen that idea before.

Well, I have astigmatism & am near-sighted (or was until a botched optical rx has caused me to be far sighted! Irony by example. ) and saying someone is being myopic when they fail to see the whole issue is certainly not an insult to me.
Sometimes, I think in this Age of Instant communication we are becoming much too thin skinned. This is why I usually detest political correctness. There is no way you can not go through life without offending SOMEONE somewhere.
This is a major source of my ambivalence on this matter..

Sincerely,
Matthew

No, as I said, the quote should have been properly referenced and understood. It should have been referenced because it was a quote, not because "it was so unusual and pejorative" which is your subjective opinion.

You did overstep the mark professionally by saying that you "felt bad about the usage". How you personally felt about the quoted phrase is irrelevant. I would have thought that your job as her tutor is to ensure that she is able to construct an argumentative essay well, to ensure that she understands and can logically articulate the arguments and points she is making, use quotes and the ideas of others intelligently and in a way that contributes to her essay, and correctly to reference any works referred to or relied upon according to the accepted referencing system used.

You seem to have responded emotionally and personally to the quotation she cited, and the biased poll you have posted here seems to accord with the impression you may well have given the student.

I have astigmatism, convergence insufficiency, familial hypercholesterolemia, asthma, heavy allergies/anaphylaxis and Asperger's, and I am also near-sighted and bipolar. Plenty of terms to pick from . While I somewhat agree to your point (for one I don't agree with the very few people who claim 'idiot' should not be used the way it is since it once was a medical term), hearing 'bipolar' or 'autistic' being used as an insult (though I don't hear the latter much) still angers me somewhat. I also very much dislike terms like 'mongo' (commonly used in Norwegian, short form for 'mongoloid') being used an insult, even more than the others. At least I'm more able to fight back, if I'm in the right (wrong :p ) mood.

There's a simple reason for this distinction: Using 'near-sighted' as an insult doesn't really offend near-sighted people, everyone knows wearing glasses doesn't imply personality traits. Some people do think, however, that autistics are your stereotypical basement nerds (and that's if they're somewhat informed, and don't just think it means 'ret*d'), that bipolar people are unstable maniacs, and that people with Down's syndrome are idiots. Those conceptions are based on bigotry, while terms like 'near-sighted' are simply a part of common language. So while using 'near-sighted' as a metaphor doesn't offend people who wear glasses, since it's purely a metaphor, using terms from psychiatry or developmental/mental disabilities usually is offending, since it's not really meant purely as a metaphor in the same way. And then, of course, you have the perpetual misuse of "schizophrenic", causing people who actually are schizophrenic to have to explain over and over again that they don't have split personalities. But I guess that's just a common misconception, not necessarily bigotry.

So for me, there's an important distinction between whether the term is used purely as a metaphor or based on prejudice. I wouldn't frown on every use of the word 'autistic' outside its context, since it may be used benevolently, as a non-bigoted metaphor (or rather analogy). In that case, it wouldn't bother me. Any malevolent use of the term, however, would make me angry, just as I am angered by hearing any other group of disabled people being made fun of.



I agree to this. I also voted "disgusted", but would've preferred "disliked". In some settings, I would barely even dislike how it was used, since it obviously is an analogy. But in an academical setting, those kinds of analogies shouldn't be used. I would also tend to dislike the use of 'near-sighted' in academia, since I dislike colloquial language in non-colloquial settings.