Inequality - who is the onus on?

Post Reply New Topic

A quote from a presentation in the UK by Liz Pellicano (who has done extensive work on autism)

"Reciprocity is central to many aspects of our lives. The key to reciprocity is the notion of mutual [b]interchange, the ‘give and take’ between two parties.[/b] Despite the many controversies over the forthcoming changes to the diagnostic criteria, there is clear consensus that difficulties in social reciprocity remain one of the hallmarks of autism. Such difficulties are usually manifested as problems responding to the communicative acts of others, that is, the ‘give’ in the ‘give-and-take’ of social interactions. Good – or even ‘optimal’ – outcomes in later childhood and adulthood are indicative of significant gains in the ability to regulate the to-and-fro of social exchanges.

More often than not, the onus is on the autistic person1 to meet the demands of others. Autistic people are expected to be able to read social cues, like eye-gaze direction and gesture, to take the other’s (usually non-autistic) perspective and adjust their interaction accordingly. Rarely, however, are the expectations reversed, where the onus is instead on the non-autistic social partner to engage with the autistic person via his or her unique modes of communication and ways of interacting. Exchanges with autistic people are therefore often largely asymmetric – you could even say unequal – in nature."

This is a topic which is largely overlooked. You see a lot of examples of what LP is talking about in rants by NT spouses about ASD husbands and wives. The NT partners often show this sense of entitlement inequality (which in my view it is) which they translate to mean the modes of communication should be in accordance with their own NT preference. But that's just one example. I don't want to go there as it has been covered recently.

This topic goes to the heart of "disability politics". Who should make the accommodations? The "normocentrics" or the "disabled"? Or both? And how, in whichever of the 3 options you select as the preferred one?

This may seem a small topic, though I don't think it is. Communication is at the heart of human relationships of all kinds. It relates to all spheres - the workplace, the home, the social world, the interpersonal world.

Over to you..

Ideally, both the autistic person and the "NT" should make accommodations for each other. I think this could happen if the autistic person is able to voice his/her concerns pertaining to the person's communications needs--without expressing bitterness to the "NT" because he/she is so lucky to be "NT."

Ideally, yes. Though do you think what LP says is true, that all of the onus is on the ASD population in the current dynamics of the status quo? I tend to agree with her.

It does seem that way at times.

To an "NT," the autistic style of communication is counterintuitive--hence the need for the autistic person to gently convey his/her communicative needs in a way which is understandable to the "NT."

This involves gently educating the "NT," rather than being angry at the "NT" for not accommodating the autistic person "on the fly."

I say both

Since ASD folks have already been putting great efforts into accommodation since birth, I voted NTs.

They are also in a much better position to accommodate on a larger than individual level.

NT's also have to learn the social whirl growing up--sometimes by force.

Sometimes, it takes time, even for them, to be socially deft.

This should provide a way for them to accommodate for people with ASD's; they had similar experiences when they were young.

I chose both, because in a world where progress is concerned, equality should be the goal in matters such as this.

I feel that if I chose AS, that would mean my opinions would be similar to 'suck it up, life isn't fair'.

I feel that if I chose NT, that it places too much pressure on those without difference/disability to cater for their differences/disadvantages. This reverses the situation and (in the context of autism) would probably result in very little NTs wishing to share relations with those with AS, because of the emotional distress they would experience.

I can't see a relationship working if one person has to fully commit to changing their communication. For the person with AS it would require a lot of mental effort, and for the NT it would be emotionally draining.

_________________
Unapologetically, Norny.
-chronically drunk

Depends on the autistic individual. Some are very limited in speaking up for themselves, some need a lot more help than others.

The onus is on both - life is a two-way street and it's usually best to try and meet in the middle.

Both - easily.

My current psychologist knows I have ASD and has adapted her approach accordingly, but I do have to make a bit of effort in return as well. I'd personally be quite happy to sit there for the entire session playing games on a mini-iPad otherwise.

Also I confess to having a bias against NT-ASD marriages, having almost certainly been brought up in one myself. If my dad is anything to go by, then I am inclined to sympathise with the NT wives. I know not all Aspie husbands are like my dad and I certainly don't wish to paint them as such. But if you do happen to end up with one who has an angry, remote and authoritarian personality, then the communication issues are going to be far more complicated than the NT wife trying to bend her husband towards her preferred mode of communication; if anything, it may be the rigid ASD man who is trying to browbeat his wife into seeing the world his way.

I'm not too sure if what I am about to say is relevant to this thread because I'm not a good reader.

But from what I thought I just read, what I am about to say does seem relevant.

When I went to get diagnosed (10 years ago), I was very, very confused, broken and completely at odds with the rest of the world. I had been through so much and my brain couldn't take any more. My spirit had been completely crushed. I had a string of arrests behind me, which were crimes that I'd committed against the rest of the world.

One thing the psychiatrist said to me was "conflict and resolution". At the time I hadn't got a clue what he meant, but for some reason those words stuck in my head.

Since then (my diagnosis) I have worked so hard on myself and I have at last made my peace with the rest of society. I now understand what he meant.

In my life, nobody knows I have autism. They do know that I am "different" but it's never questioned and I am accepted these days. But back to the matter in hand, because nobody knows about me, I do feel that it is my place to be the one who accommodates. I am patient, calm, tolerant and accepting. I no longer hate and I no longer feel hated. Because of this, I have found that I am accommodated for but it has had to be me who took the first step.

I'd still take that pill though!

I am very moved by what you have written BabyBird. And so relieved that you found a decent psychiatrist, who made that helpful suggestion (funny how one apparently small thing can have a huge impact on us sometimes, changing the course of our lives).

Curiously, reading the responses, I find myself a bit in agreement with each one. The more I think about the question, which at first seemed fairly straightforward, the more complex it is.

On the one hand, yes, I certainly agree that we do need to make an effort. On the other, I can think of at least one situation (the modern workplace) where we are expected to do all the work, and that inequality is very unfair and punitive. There is a lot of room there for being met halfway, and it isn't happening (yet). The onus is on the NTs there to come to the party. On the other hand - if we don't make them aware of our needs, how can they?

NCOT, I was very interested in what you had to say. I have seen marriages like that, (though I have seen at least one A-man NT-woman that wasn't, and know both partners well).

Another aspect on this - though I understand where Pellicano is coming from - basically that all the effort should not be left to us, life is a two-way street - I fear that for some NTs, "making an effort" would be a patronising way of talking down to us as if we were a bit dim (or worse). Long ago, my very accomplished and intelligent (and long passed away) man broke his neck and was confined to a wheelchair. One of the things he found hardest was the usually well-meaning people who spoke to him as if he was brain-damaged, often raising their voices as well, as if he was deaf. That was their concept of meeting a disabled person half-way. I would hate that to happen to me as a person with Aspergers; very likely I would end up in prison too Babybird, finding the urge to belt them irresistible...

The key is to instruct people about people with disabilities.

Yes, "normal" people have assumptions--but how does one get rid of assumptions? By education--that's what. Not being angry. Being angry doesn't accomplish anything. Especially in interpersonal relations.

If I assume something (yes, everybody assumes things), I would rather be told that I'm wrong than have somebody angry at me, saying to me "You should have known this"--or something of that ilk. I don't often respond to anger. I don't believe this is a way to relate to people.

If you could hear conversation normally, just tell the person you're conversing with that you could hear conversation normally.

I don't believe educating people means there's an "onus" placed upon the disabled person. It's the disabled person informing the "normal" person about the truth.

Granted, I do think there needs to be some way to meet in the middle. But the middle seems to be 50% this way and 50% from the other side as an equal contribution. Which therefore also means that we are expected that we can actually provide the full 50% needed. It would mean that we, people on the spectrum, are functional enough, all of us, to contribute to this and jump through the hoops and ladders to that extent, which then opens the question "if you made it this far, why don't you add a bit more?". Yes, I like a challenge from time to time, but I prefer it to be on my own terms and not because the others involved actually think we should be challenged even more. And that eventually becomes a question on whether AS or NT people think they're better than each other and feel that they don't have to contribute as much and "the other side" should show a bit more effort.

And I don't even want to think about what exactly our contribution and their contribution would look like. Can we define this in a short paragraph (like 2 sentences)? Just for the sake of pulling the AS card: I think in black and white, in definitions, preferably ones that aren't open to interpretation and ambiguity.

What exactly is "my share" in this, and what is "their share"... and is this a universally accepted notion? I mean, I can get training for social interaction by therapists until I'm blue in the face, but if the people, don't act like textbook cases how much more should I add to it? Ambiguity is a thing as well as a fair few amount of people that like to twist words around; things that are clearly not part of the curriculum when it comes to social interaction in it's basics. Let alone for someone to whom it doesn't feel intuitive.

Also; the assumption that everyone on the spectrum possesses a certain form of intelligence that lines up with commonly perceived forms of intelligence feels weird. The last time I spoke to a therapist about intelligence, he pointed out that while I'm clearly intelligent enough, he also pointed out that I'm in a totally different mental zone when it comes to to thinking, learning and understanding things and it's not strange that standardized methods, for me at least, never connected.

TL:DR version; The assumption that we can meet in exactly in the middle, we can define this in short, are all able to learn what's needed to contribute our share as demanded and that this is a universally accepted rule people, AS and NT, abide by makes up for plenty of issues.