[PEN-L:31536] RE: Re: Re: Autism on the rise

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: [PEN-L:31506] Re: Re: Autism on the rise

> From: Doyle Saylor [mailto:djsaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Greetings Economists,
> Charles' set of articles is interesting.  However I would like to add a
> social dimension.  We tend to think of Autistics as defective.  Do we think
> that way about Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Orangutans?  The crucial element
> of course with Autism is social development that all the other primates
> can't achieve either.   The main social structure of human beings is a type
> of social interaction that arises from language use.  For Autistics language
> use is greatly affected and this is the 'problem' for them.

While problems with language (social communication) are central to autism, it's part of the problem of neurologically-based sensory overload. A person with hard-core autism may slam his hands over his ears, because he can't handle all the sounds, can't prioritize and process them. (I use "his" because this disorder hits males more than females. I understand that the ratio goes the other way for depression.) It's a mistake to equate this with the problems that the great apes face in human society. Even so, people seem fascinated with training the apes to talk.

> We use animals all the time in our society.  They can't speak and we don't
> expect them to.  But as so many people testify their love for their pet is
> greater than for their fellow human being.  So the pet is quite successful
> at doing 'love' work.  If the presumption is that language work is the
> central aspect of human existence what does that mean?  It is  social
> framework that fails Autistics in terms of every day living.  For them the
> capacity to suddenly have cognitive abilities we don't have in the language
> group of human beings is of no value from the language enabled network
> without the Autistic person participating in the framework that language
> creates.  So Temple Grandin is successful, but other Autistics are not.

of course, there are others with autism besides Temple Grandin who succeed in society.

> The obvious point then is that the framework is not working right.  One way
> to say that from an anti-disabled perspective is that Autistic people are a
> defect in the developmental process.  This focus upon genetic 'defects'
> inevitably accompanies the discussion to explain what it is we seek.
> However, as Lewontin and others might suggest it is complex relationship
> with environmental factors that makes problems for Autistics and Language
> enabled human beings.

It's right to downplay the role of genetics. All genes is to indicate predispositions and possible limits on individual human capabilities. (Our genes tell us we can't have four legs and can't run like horses do -- but, due to the creativity of society as a whole, we can do better than horses in cars and jet planes. Obviously the latter have externalities, so that speed isn't everything, but so do horses.) The failure of society is also part of the problem, of course. Society could do a better job.

> The key factor really is that Autistics don't participate in the social
> framework that language enabled humans do.  For parents of Autistics the
> distance of their children from them is particularly painful.  They don't
> respond to love that parents feel toward the children.  However, we don't
> understand what it is that the parents are doing in a labor process to
> 'love' a child.  We tend to reject emotions as non-essential  brainwork to
> which a rational mind is contaminated.

who is it that rejects "emotions as non-essential brainwork"? Is there someone on pen-l like that?

> Let me state that in a particular way.  If you shift brain resources from
> language areas in the left brain to other areas of the brain, that person
> can then do certain kinds of brain work because their resources are adequate
> for certain kinds of tasks.  (prodigious memory feats!) 

there are many folks with autism who don't have "splinter skills" such as the ability to do memory or mathematical feats. Rainman may be the exception, rather than the rule. (My wife and I have received several calls from reporters where they ask about splinter skills, because they're "newsworthy." But that misses the big picture. It expects those with autism to be "trained seals.")

> So we assume that
> the level of brainwork (language enabled) people can do is what we want, but
> in fact what we want is to build a social framework that brain work can be
> done in period.  Even now for an Autistic doing brainwork may be what is
> valued about them, Temple Grandin, or Blind Tom.  And their ability is
> recognized in terms of brainwork outside the language framework, but for
> others, the capacity to do Autistic related non-language brainwork is a
> great social difficulty because the framework which is assumed about
> brainwork includes devoting extensive human brain resources to language and
> the framework that language produces.  Which may make assumptions about
> social structure which are unexamined and impoverished as to outcomes that
> brainwork might produce were we to better understand what language work
> really accomplishes.

Unfortunately, we live in society and have little choice about it. Since we live in society, there needs to be some kind of coordination of all the individuals, so that language (among other things) is needed. Of course, society's coordination should be improved. It's not just those with autism who need treatment, but society as a whole.

 
> Of course we can provide something for Autistics so they can live a long
> life, and occasionally some Autistic does something we think worthy of our
> social system, but for the most part it is a mystery to us why Autistics
> can't 'love' us.

that is a concern, especially for parents of hard-core autistic children, but I don't see why you say "for the most part."

> Socialism is not about constructing a particular language framework for
> brainwork, it is the social whole and how it works.  Do not be fooled by
> demands of language structure into thinking it is the end-all-be-all of how
> socialism will build human society. 

I don't understand this.

> We may at some point finally come to
> the conclusion that what we want in terms of brain work is more than what
> language enabled human beings can do.  In that arena an Autistic person may
> fit well. 

are you saying that society can be coordinated without language?

> That isn't to say that is an either/or situation for language
> enabled humans.  We don't understand how the re-allocation of brain
> resources from language to other brain work could be implemented in our
> system as yet.  We don't see the framework clearly enough of
> what it is that is being built in language to understand how that framework
> could include  other kinds of brain work outside the norms of the language framework.

Jim