Neurotypicalism as Oppression

Post Reply New Topic

In sexism, women are sometimes singled out because they behave differently. In heterosexism, gay males are frequently singled out for the same reason (holding hands, etc.). Ableism, including its subcategory of neurotypicalism, is, like sexism and heterosexism, an oppressive ideology.

Oh, ok...I now understand... neurotypicalism is not a quality possessed by neurotypicals, it is a behavior that some NTs exhibit when confronted by a non-neurotypical.

I now recall that I thought about this before. I noticed how people can identify subtle deviations from "normal" behavior and as a result of the perceived atypical behavior, a strong instinct of disgust/hate emerges. I recall a TV documentary on the subject of -isms, they said discrimination, racism, fascisms, are due to the basic human emotion of disgust - example, the Indian caste system has the Brahman and Dalits.

I know as a sociologist that you may tend to subscribe to the idea that isms- are caused by culture. Whereas, I tend to speculate that -isms maybe related to evolutionary-biological influences - that evolution has developed a set of cognitive tools designed to identify genetically different members of the human gene pool, and when they are identified...instinctual processes are evoked that act to prevent the reproduction, out-breeding etc. Thus, there is a dangerous Nazi living within all humans selfish genes. How else could millions of otherwise good people, together, perpetrate awful crimes. They were not all affected by temporary insanity, though what they did was insane - no, it is the dangerous -ism instinct.

Oppressive ideologies (ableism/neurotypicalism, racism, sexism, ageism, classism, heterosexism, etc.) are, from a sociological standpoint, social constructions, not personality traits. They are used by people, often without being aware of what they are doing, to oppress minorities. Oppressive ideologies enable discriminatory behavior.



To me, that is too speculative. I have no idea whether there is a "basic human emotion of disgust." As a nominalist (i.e., my user name), I reject universals as being more than useful categories.



I would not say that they are "caused by culture." Culture, in my view, is simply a name for our social constructions.



I do not dismiss the possibility that evolution might have something to do with it. However, I am skeptical about the utility of applying biological processes to human behavior (sociobiology, human ethology, etc.).

Hmmm, now I get it. I'd probably call it something other than Neurotyipcalism, as a lot of people would see this as a description of the state of being Neuro-Typical.

I'd call it "Aspophobia" - except that sounds like a fear of a specific breed of snakes.

Nonnuerophobia. ^^ I coin that one!

On this note, just as there can be non-sexist men, and non-racist whites and blacks, there can be NT's who dan't treat AS people badly either. ^^

Well, many white people find the term "racism" to be offensive. They assume, incorrectly, that, when sociologists use the term, most of us mean that all white people are bigots.

It seems to me like people with Asperger's have an inaccurate view of Neurotypicalism because they think that because a small percentage of Neurotypicals made fun of them in high school all neurotypicals must be like that.

If all people with Asperger's are like Mw99/Quirky and think in a robot-like fashion in which tests scores and academics are the only measure of true intelligence then I don't really see any reason to defend people with AS.

Arrogant people get what they deserve.

No, I don't feel that way. In fact, I was only diagnosed with AS this past April, and I never heard of the term "neurotypical" until I joined WP over the summer. I also treat categories, like NT and AS, as largely convenient ways of explaining neurological diversity. They are not, IMO, fixed essences or ideal forms.

Oppression has been one of my interests in sociology for many years. However, it has only been recently that I have begun reflecting on my own life experiences as providing a text for one of the categories of oppression: ableism.

I have also been considering alternative terms to neurotypicalism. Neurism, neuronism, neuroism, and neurologism all have some kind of definition. I then came up with neuricism.

Last edited by nominalist on 28 Oct 2007, 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thank you, Goche21, that is what I meant. If someone says, "These kids are picked on because they're black" or "That kid is picked on because he is a poor reader," is that blaming the victim? I was trying to describe the motivations of the bullies, not make excuses for them.

I agree. I would like to see more acceptance of neurodiversity rather that this expectation that all people have to fit a certain way of being in order to be deemed "functioning" or "normal". I believe in varied degrees of normal.

I often look back on my childhood, through which I went entirely without a diagnosis, and realize that if a child diagnosied with Asperger's was treated the way I was, it would be considered cruel and abusive. When I struggled to get out of bed in the morning (I have body clock regulation issues) my mother dragged out fire alarms and those old fashioned school bells. I locked up completely, just froze as if my entire body was a bell and someone rang it. I just vibrated, psychologically speaking, paralyzed. I tried to put it into words, and one day I finally managed to explain that when she did that, it was physically impossible for me to remove myself from bed. I became paralyzed by the noise. Her response was, "Well then get your ass out of bed quicker and I wouldn't have to do that." She didn't understand I physically battled to move in the morning, it wasn't so simple. To this day, I start shaking when I hear a loud bell.

Normal is only a word. How it is defined often reflects the power structure in a particular society. The poor, for instance, are more likely to be labelled "abnormal" than the wealthy. Commonly, those in power to make and assign the labels exclude people like themselves.

The following is from a paper I am writing. I have taken into account the comments by others, and tried to refine some of the issues I used to begin this thread:

Neuricism

As a child, and on into adulthood, I was continually being told by others, especially my mother, that I was egotistical and did not care for anyone except myself. I suppose I came to believe it. Taking into account the earlier diagnosis, which included autism, I am often perplexed as to why my mother regarded me as selfish. Still, living with persons on the autistic spectrum can be trying, and, if I am correct, my mother had to contend with, not only me, but my father, by whom I was emotionally abused continually, as well.

Outside of my family, the bullying I received, as a child and young teen (and sometimes as an adult), was deeply painful and, I suggest, would even instance a rubric of oppression. It is, in my view, largely irrelevant that the perpetrators were ignorant concerning my high-functioning autism. I myself had a clouded and distorted view of the issues facing me.

Oppression has been one of my academic interests for many years, but it has only been recently that I started reflecting on my own life experiences as providing a text for ableism, i.e., any social structure of oppression which justifies behaviors detrimental to the differently abled. While categories, such as neurotypical (NT) and Asperger's syndrome (AS), are merely linguistic conveniences (not ontological essences), they can often function as helpful tools for personal reflection and development.

I considered several designations for neurological ableism. Neurism, neuroism, neuronism, and neurologism have each been employed to delineate particular subject matter. Neurotypicalism characterizes a relative status, not the broader social construction. Ultimately, I settled on neuricism™. (I adapted it from the word, neuric, "of or pertaining to a nerve or the nerves," Oxford English Dictionary, 1971; or "Of or pertaining to a nerve or nerves; neural," inoveu.com.)

The fact is that I and many other aspies, whether diagnosed or self-defined, have, as a consequence of our neurodiversities, been subjected to traumatic and sustained abuse. This oppression of a neurological minority, as revealed in the stories we tell each other, reflects an ideology of neuricism. Like sexism and heterosexism, two additional large-scale constructions focused significantly around behavior, neuricism, which identifies that which is good with the neurologically normative, cannot be explained away as mere individual victimization.

An explanation? It's pointing at things AS victims would have done, or not done, a bit like how rape was excused with pointing fingers at victims alleged behaviour, or style of clothing. That is blaming the victim.

I suppose it's for the same reason also; people need to cling to the believe that they can prevent bad things from happening to them, they need to feel they are in control. So they (need to) believe it has to be something about the victim, or what they did, that 'explains' why victims were victimized.

Bullies bully because they can (and they want to), bullying continues because it's allowed to happen by those who could - and should - stop it, teachers, parents and peers. Bullies pick their victims because they are stronger, or outnumber the victim, who can not defend themselves (physically and/or verbally) and can not mobilize sufficient support.

===

In a peer group, bullies may become models and their aggressive behaviour is more readily imitated, and when these 'followers' perceive that the bully's aggressive behaviour is rewarding, inhibitions against their own aggressive impulses are removed, while negative consequences to the bully's aggression would enforce their own inhibitions. Additionally the sense of individual responsibility that members of a group have is reduced as more members of a group take part in the violence directed at the victim. And finally, after prolonged aggression the perception of the victim by the members the group becomes more negative, more and more they perceive the victim as a worthless individual who deserves, even asks, to be bullied.

(Although this may not (directly) fit in with the main theme of the thread, I could not let this rest)

My perception is that bullying is all about oppressive ideologies or prevailing attitudes in society. The two above - 'racism' - and 'everyone must conform to the norm'.
I don't know that adding another ism will do much. Structures within society need to change i.e the structure of education. People need to learn about tolerance and acceptance of difference. Humanistic attitudes need to be included in education to counteract the bias and intolerance of difference pervasive in society.

just my thoughts

Agreed. One thing that can help actually is the implementation of inclusive classrooms, where children with disabilities, even severe disabilities, are educated right alongside typical peers. It has to be done right, of course, but when it is, the results are remarkable, especially in terms of the effect on attitudes of children without disabilities. Some things which help ensure the success of inclusion are that *everyone* has to be invested in its success- teachers, SLPs, OTs, principals, etc. Education of classroom teachers and collaboration among professionals is also pretty important. In addition, both children with and without disabilities need to be educated and receive training in social skills. This is especially important when there are children in the classroom with severe or multiple disabilities, for instance, those with severe autism who are unable to speak or students with profound mental retardation. Classmates will need to be educated about how to engage these children and how to use their communication systems. A lot of the time, the children with disabilities need to receive social skills training in order to teach them how to initiate conversations, maintain a topic, and finally end an interaction. Help with nonverbal cues such as eye gaze, proximity to the other person, and reading facial expressions is important too (geared towards each kid's individual level of comprehension of course). Implementing a system of "peer tutors" or "special buddies" can also help build bonds between children and increase the kids' self-confidence. Inclusion tends to go awry when the adults are not making the effort necessary to make sure the children with disabilities are included as full members of the classroom, and to provide opportunities for quality interaction among all the students.

Think about how far people have come since the term racism began to be used. People know that racism is a bad thing and we are all taught not to do it. It is the same with sexism and other types of prejudices that have names given - we are taught specifically about these things growing up so we know that they are bad and that we should not behave in racist/sexist ways etc.

I agree that if a new term, neurotypicalism, was included in this list, and became part of our education growing up, we'd all learn not only that white people deserve the same treatment as black people, and that men deserve the same treatment as women, but that neurotypical people deserve the same treatment as autistic spectrum people. We would learn this as children and would have the opportunity to study it at third level along with the other topics included in the subject of Social Problems. I don't believe it would add fuel to the fire; I believe it would bring the right kind of attention to the topic and bring about more discussions and debates on the topic. There would be less stigma and more acceptance. There will always be racists, sexists and neurotypicalists in the world but their numbers would reduce. And there would be real and accessible information available more readily to the public, so misconceptions would die out too.