Autism: a diffability?

Post Reply New Topic

Author Wendy Lawson is diagnosed with autism. She has raised 4 kids and is now working on her PhD on stress and autism. She has written a book called "Understanding and Working with the Spectrum of Autism An Insider's View" in which she explains the concept of 'diffability' - different abilities. She offers this concept as an alternative to 'disability'. I like it..

Last edited by attention-tunnel on 01 Dec 2004, 8:13 pm, edited 5 times in total.

I'd like it better if it were spelled as "diffability" - when I saw this topic my first thought was, "that should be an s"; with two f's however, I would begin to think "what is meant by that"?

Last edited by echospectra on 09 Dec 2004, 7:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

i thought it was a typo

Me too.

Mich

Well it is beyond me why anyone would want to consider themselves as having 'disability' over 'diffability'. I always knew I was different, I would never have considered myself disabled.

sorry for that..

That's a great concept. I routinely tell people AS is just having different strengths.

Mish, I am looking at your avatar - this is such a nice picture. And I'm thinking - will I ever become a father? Most likely not, I stopped deluding myself that this would happen. Don't ask me why, there are several reasons. This is just one example. I look honestly at myself, and I have to admit that some aspects of human life are unattainable for me. I wish it weren't so. For me it is more than a difference. (This is what I think about myself, I don't pretend to speak for others.)

To me the word seems to say something like "a difference with a disability" or something... a bit of both.

I don't think I know the words for my position on this kind of issue (and I'm too wiped out to generate new ones), but the following article by someone else might give a partial clue as to what it is:

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/0501/0501cov.htm

I voted for the first option, but possibly not for the reasons most people associate with the word.

There's nothing wrong with having a disability; disability isn't only a medical thing, it's a political thing; disabled people (should) have the same rights as nondisabled people; people shouldn't have to prove their worthiness with any abilities, different or not... is that what you're getting at, anbuend? (Not being in linguistic-receptive mode I haven't read the whole article, but I think I get the general idea.)

I haven't voted; I like the word "diffability" because it might make people think; not about autism not really being a disability, because I don't believe that, but about the social/political connection between disability and other differences: of race, gender, sexual orientation; and about the fact that "disabled" doesn't mean "good for nothing" or "hopeless", just "different".

There's always this polarized discussion about whether autism is a disability or a difference/different culture; I tend to think of it as a way of being that causes a disability - often, both in the personal and the political sense - and also has (is starting to have?) a sort of (sub-)culture. I'm really curious what deaf/Deaf people would have to say about this issue in connection with deafness/Deafness.

Last edited by echospectra on 02 Dec 2004, 11:44 am, edited 2 times in total.

I have voted for "disability."

I think that using a phrase like "diffibility" can cloud people's understanding. Yes, we have "different abilities," but those "different abilities" do get in the way, sometimes. For some, they can be completely disabling, for others, not so much.

I see a disability as being an inability to do something. To me, if someone is disabled, that does not mean they are incapable of getting on in life. It just means that there is something they are not able to do that most others can. And that inability causes them difficulty in everyday functioning.

People with autism and asperger's have trouble reading body language intuitively. I see that as a disability.

I think that many people forget the importance of the context of AS. Many say "if society wasn't like this, we would be just fine!" Well, the way I see it, society is the way it is, people have evolved to rely on body language as well as verbal communication for quite a long time now, and we just have to accept that.

Please understand, I am not saying that a disability is completely "disabling," and that it is not something which can be overcome or compensated for, because I know there are many autistics and people with AS who are doing just that.

Perfect - thats what I wanted to say!. Can't think of anything to add to that, Civet - are you psychic?

Dunc

I understand your argument very well. I accept it. However, there are other directions of research pointing to different perspectives on the matter of non-verbal communication, for example.

For instance, aspies don't use the same area of the brain as NTs do when trying to understand facial expressions. One interpretation of this phenomena is that aspies are disabled, bcause the cannot do like the NTs. But another interpretation and research direction is that the brain area NTs use in this experiment is not responsible for non-verbal communication per se. Ratehr, it is for what people can do best. Its sort of a specialisation. NTs use it for non-verbal communication. It is suggested that aspies use it for some other speciality which is just not non-verbal communication, but something else researchers are looking for.

In that sense, it really is a different ability, and not a disability of one cannot understand body-language intuitivly. Or if you prefer disability language, than both NTs and aspies are disabled in their own ways.

Someone who uses his arms instead of his legs for getting around (e.g., a certain type of wheelchair user) has much stronger arm muscles than most walking people. My arms would hurt if I were to try that only for a few minutes. So the wheelchair user has a different ability. Fine. But does that mean he is not disabled?

In regard to the brain area involved with non-verbal communication, it may give a different ability to aspies that NTs don't have. Thus its not an impaired function NTs have, but a totally different function. In that case, i's quality cannot be meassured against NT standard brains, but only against aspie brains. To say aspies are disabled may be more like saying to fish they are disabled because they cannot walk on land. And from a bird's eye, you are disabled because you cannot fly. So what's normal here?


About the wheelchair: If you rely on a wheelchair and want to take a train and you may be disabled from entering the train if some stairs block the way to the platform. If however you can take an elavator to the train platform you are not disabled to enter the train.

Yes its very difficult for an aspie or NTs to get along in a place where most other people are different. That makes it hard to find mutual communication and understanding. I don't know what the solution is. NTs simply declare different people 'disabled' because they lack a concept of normal. Maybe the normaility could be to aknowledge people's differences and look for support and understanding rather than 'cure'. I suggest aspies have not the sort of disabilites or communication difficulties among themselves - no more than NTs have among themselves. Its just that there much more NTs than aspies. If prefer socializing in groups, you do that. If you prefer socializing in forums where you don't have to focus at so many fast changing rules around you, that's fine too. What's the point about calling someone 'disabled'?