But I knew- deep inside my gut- that it was only a matter of time before she came up and said 'hi'. After all, 'Autism Parents' are a community. We are all automatically bonded...right?
Given Sam's propensity for 'happy flapping', I knew she would spot us almost instantaneously. And I was right.
She approached me, with a big smile, and I braced myself for what I knew would be an extremely awkward conversation that would leave me feeling significantly more socially-defunct than Sam ever has been.
She was friendly enough, and immediately (predictably) launched into her 'Autism Mom' speech. Her daughter, whom she described (within ear shot of her) as an "extremely high-functioning Aspie who is so smart but is an emotional roller coaster and a total nightmare to parent" had been diagnosed at age two, almost three years ago. "It was a total shock", she said.
I didn't say much. I'm not really good with strangers.
"How about you?" she asked. "When did you know Sam had Autism?"
"Pretty much from the day he was born." was my seemingly unexpected response.
"Oh? Because he didn't make eye contact or want to be touched?" she pressed.
"Nope. He loved being snuggled and the eye contact thing comes and goes. But I just knew. When he looked at objects, he looked at them differently from other babies. He didn't just look at them, he experienced them and wanted to understand them from every angle. He was different- we always knew that. The question was whether or not Autism was the best explanation for those differences, which is why we had him diagnosed. But Sam was born Autistic."
{predicted, awkward pause}
"You mean, that he has Autism right?" {Awkward laugh.} "After all, he isn't defined by his disabilities."
And there it was. "Person-first language" in all its condescending glory.
Being relatively new to the person-first debate, I admit that I didn't say much. I nodded, agreed, and came up with some excuse to escape the situation as soon as possible. Within minutes, her daughter became very upset and needed to be removed from the space. I felt horrible for her, but extremely relieved for me. But the whole experience left an extremely sour taste in my mouth for weeks to follow.
Most of us have heard it, in some form or another:
It can take on many forms, but it seems to always come down to the same message:
"My child is more than a diagnosis. He is a person. He has autism but he is NOT autistic."
We'll all heard these arguments before. Whether you are a disabled person or are the parent of a child with a disability, you've likely had someone explain to you the importance of "person first language". They will tell you that disability, in this case Autism, should not define the child. Instead, we should focus on what the child "can do, and not on what they can't do."
Many people much more capable than I have written on this topic extensively. I would recommend taking the time to read the following articles:
So when I say that Sam is Autistic, I am neither defining him by what he can do or what he can't do; I am describing him by how his brain (probably the most fundamental part of who he is as a human being) functions and by how this set of differences sets him apart from people who are not Autistic.
I am not 'defining' Sam by his diagnosis. I am not defining Sam by anything.
Sam is a human being who has the right to define himself.
(Warning: I'm about to put on my 'sociology hat again'. Proceed at your own caution)
You see, the thing about labelling theory is that human beings have a tendency to want to classify, categorize and define everything. We like to create order out of apparent chaos. We label instinctively, usually subconsciously, and we do this to socially-control behaviour.
Labels can be grouped into two major categories: Normal (or 'abiding by social norms') and Deviant (or 'deviating from social norms')
In labelling theory, the idea is that people conform to their labels. So, generally speaking, if someone (or something) is describe in negative ways, people become stigmatized by their label and 'othered' by society. This can lead to a reenforcement of the deviant behaviour as it can be extremely difficult to reintegrate into the social world once one has been stigmatized and excluded from it.
So, you can see why we would want to be very careful about 'labelling' people in ways that promote stigma.
Unfortunately, in many cases, the zealous movement of 'person first language' actually reenforces that which it is trying to combat. By stating repeatedly that Autism is a (implied 'negative') label and should not "define" our children, what is inherently being done is underscoring the idea that Autism is something that should be perceived as 'deviant', as opposed to a naturally occurring divergence from normal.
What we are inevitably doing is highlighting the deviancy of disabilities, and reenforcing the very principles that lead to stigmatization.
This is why we don't say things like "Jane Doe is a person who has homosexuality". (Well, at least we don't anymore...up until 1974, we would have said "Zita is a person has Homosexuality Disorder." because it was classified as a mental illness, using the exact same criteria and diagnostic manual as we use for ASD. Read more about that rarely talked about tidbit here.) The normalization movement within the homosexual community (see Cass Identity Model, specifically "Identity Pride" and "Identity Synthesis") demanded that normalization happen on a global-scale and not only within the LGTBQ community.
In many ways, the process of identity formation of the Autistic community parallels that of the LGTBQ movement, and it is exciting to see how Acceptance, Pride and Synthesis are being promoted throughout massive platforms. It will take time, but the message is spreading and the norms are changing. I suspect that within Sam's lifetime, we will see a massive change in the language surrounding Autism, both in the medical field and socially. And, I suspect that I will fall on the 'right side of history'.
All of that was a really, really long winded description to get to my point.
I'm all about identity-based language.
But what I am not all about is identity-appropriation.
If you go back to my original story (assuming you can remember that far), the parent who chided me for my poor language choices was wearing an Autism t-shirt. A "Proud Autism Parent" t-shirt, to be exact.
This is a phrase you will see a LOT in the Autism community. Autism, despite being a diagnostic descriptor, is presented as being something that the entire family lives 'with'.
Not 'is affected by' or 'impacted by'.
Lives with.
Think I'm exaggerating? Think again.
In the meme above, Autism is described in entirely negative terms and the "children" are treated almost as an afterthought. Moreover, there is no indication whatsoever that these children grow up to become adults who are still Autistic. The "Autism" experience is described entirely from the perspective of the parent, with the Autistic person's experience not being considered at all.
And if you don't, let me spell it out for you clearly:
The vast majority of the dialogue regarding the experience of Autism is being had by people who do not 'have Autism' (are not Autistic).
You see, while being "Autistic" is socially perceived as deviant and a negative label, being an 'Autism Parent' is socially perceived as an admirable and positive quality (which I wrote about yesterday). So while we shun the 'Autistic' label, we freely apply and even encourage the label of 'Autism Parent' and revere those who proudly wear it.
Therein lies the horrible irony of the Autism label.
The very same people who would chastise you not to define their child by their disability define themselves by it. This, despite the fact, that they are only vicariously affected by it.
It is extremely difficult for me to put into words how not okay this is, but I'm going to try.
To do this, I need to introduce yet another concept: Cultural appropriation.
(Note to self: Maybe this should have a been a blog series instead of one colossal post? Duly noted for future reference.)
Put simply, cultural appropriation is the act of inappropriately taking and using cultural artifacts/ideas/symbols etc. from one culture (usually in a minority setting) and using them inappropriately in your own culture (usually by the majority stakeholder).
There's been a lot of writing about this lately, from Miley Cyrus and 'ratchet culture' to the hipster headdress trend.
Suffice it to say that the things that define a culture hold an important and semi-sacred value in their traditions, customs, language and history. It is not ok to use these elements without an acknowledgment and respect for their importance, nor is it ok to devalue them by negating their cultural importance.
In short, unless something belongs to you and is part of your experiential heritage, don't claim it as your own.
So, what does this have to do with Autism? Well, everything actually.
Culture is often only thought of in terms of race and ethnicity. But the truth is that, in the anthropological and sociological sense of the word, culture extends far beyond that and refers to the subcategorization of people into groups that are dictated by common phenomena beyond their physical characteristics.
Disability Culture is a relatively new concept, likely due to the fact that, up until recently, people with disabilities were not considered 'human beings' by medicine, the law, and society. However, today- as evolutions in technology have allowed for disabled people to have more access to self-advocacy and as laws/practices are starting to evolve away from dehumanization (far too slow, but that's another blog post topic), the world is beginning to recognize that there is, in fact, an entire culture surrounding the experience of being disabled. This culture is being explored through art, music, writings (political and apolitical), clothing, technology and the development of social language.
And please, stop calling yourself one too. Especially if you are not in full support of the Autistic self-identity movement or use 'person first language'.
End of story.















