Tony Attwood recently defended himself from various criticisms on Donna Williams' podcast. I certainly approve of Attwood's decision to express himself through a podcast run by an actual autistic people--as oppossed to a parents' group or partners' group. However, I feel that he remained rather disingenuous--and at times, said things which are quite simply falsehoods. This is the start of a series which will critique Attwood's commentary and explain why it is rather lacking from the perspective of (many) autistic self-advocates. I also think this series is a good way in which to explore various issues which arise in autism advocacy. This post will address the disparagement of "extremism" and "politics."
First, a few words of wisdom from vastly different sources:
"“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
--Barry Goldwater, whose political views I generally do not share
"Was not Jesus an extremist for love -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice -- "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ -- "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist -- "Here I stand; I can do none other so help me God." Was not John Bunyan an extremist -- "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist -- "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice--or will we be extremists for the cause of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill, three men were crucified. We must not forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thusly fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment."
--Martin Luther King Jr., whose religious beliefs I do not share.
To the podcast:
-Beginning: Attwood and Donna discuss the history of autistic-to-autistic communications via the Internet. I feel like they're setting up a false "golden age of autism on the Internet." That's the fallacy of nostalgia. In any case, Attwood and Donna disapprove of "militancy" and "extremism." My selection of quotes should indicate how I feel about that. Simply put, Attwood and Donna (hereafter abreviated as A&D) are engaging in an ad hominem attack by casting their ideological opponents as "extremists" rather than engage with the issues or actually explain what is so "extreme" about their (our) views. Using the "extremist" label does not make for serious engagement and argumentation. It rather reminds me of our vote-grubbing politicians.
Throughout the interview, A&D repeatedly cast themselves as "moderates." Donna in particular insists that just because her views are often moderate does not mean she doesn't have convictions. Okay, fair enough. But it is too easy to fall into the opposite trap: argument to moderation. (Also known as "the fallacy of the middle ground" and, my personal favorite, "the Goldilocks fallacy.") Just because a position is between two "extremes" does not make it correct. "Extremists" have been completely right before, and they will be completely right again. It is too easy to confuse moderation with ethical and intellectual correctness.
-A&D also refer (somewhat disparigingly, IMHO) to the "political" wing of autistics, by which I can only assume they mean us neurodiversity folks. Now, "politics" as a concept has a bad reputation in our society. The word rather conjures up images of smarmy and corrupt men making shady backroom deals and hoodwinking the public. But political practices, I would argue, extend beyond these stereotypes. Maybe I'm a victim of my liberal arts' education, but I believe that most things--indeed, almost all things--are in some way connected to politics. Granted, some things are more obviously political than others. But few matters of substance are completely devoid of political content, and the idea of an individual somehow resting "above" politics is a myth. Tony Attwood and Donna Williams have particular opinions, opinions which might be described as political. They are part of the public, political discourse around autism. It really is that simple, and it is folly to pretend otherwise.
I and other neurodiversity advocates are quite sincere in our desire for constructive dialogue. When we're pilloried for being "political," "militant," and "extremist," that can't happen.
Posts
9 comments:
Yes S.,
I couldn't help but notice the repeated ad hominem attacks by Attwood and Donna's repeated use of the word "nazi" to describe Attwood's detractors.
If demanding to be treated with respect and, equality under the law is extremism, then I'm happy to be tarred with that brush.
I can't speak to the podcast as I haven't heard it but 'cat in a dog's world' had me reeling! I have one of those too.
Best wishes
Every civil rights group that has ever existed has been accused of political extremism by its opponents. It's not the most convincing claim, as you accurately point out.
I was surprised by their characterization of Jim Sinclair as "militant". Jim Sinclair isn't militant - unless your definition of militant is thinking that Autistic self-advocacy should mean something more than selling books to parents and speaking at parent conferences, I don't see how that flies. You get the impression from this that she thinks that everything would be dandy if we just all set around drinking tea all day.
This "golden age" they speak of seems to have existed only for those who were willing and able to make a career as "professional autistics". Even if we all could take that route, I think many of us with self respect prefer trying to build something for our own community and for our own people. We will always have allies and friends amongst parents and professionals but, as Ed Roberts said, "the greatest lesson of the civil rights movement is that the moment you let someone else speak for you, you lose."
Nothing About Us, Without Us.
You become militant and extremist the minute you stop being docile and passive. Stepping out of your assigned role can terrify other people. I think my family genuinely thought I was some sort of monster just because I asked them to treat me better.
And this "I'm a moderate" business reminds me an awful lot of "I'm not a feminist" apologies by women who want equal rights but don't want to upset anyone.
These are all excellent points. People often claim extremist are the ones speaking up because they themselves are afraid of discourse. They conveniently dismiss the idea that things need to be acted on in extreme ways because they won't believe that the problems being acted on are extremely bad.
Also in the sense that politics means negotiation, which of course includes compromise, many who, as you say, are claiming to be above politics in the moral sense are not acknowledging that they are part of a very small minority who has any voice and as many unjust comprises that are made in politics are also made by those above politics.
Most people are below politics, not in a moral sense but in the sense that there is so much discouragement for people without the "proper" resources to have their voice heard most people don't speak up.
Sometimes this discouragement is subtle and sometimes it's not so subtle. Either way though, I think it is arrogant of those whose voice is acknowledged to not understand their privilege and be careful not to make compromises with the voice with the voice they have been granted that continue to encourage this type of exclusion.
Thanks for all the comments!
Socrates, I noticed the deluge of Nazi references as well and will mention it in subsequent posts. When you invoke Godwin's Law that many time, you're pretty much ceding the argument. Argh.
Ari, I completely agree with you on the whole "professional autistic" issue and Williams' characterization of how online autism discourse "ought" to be. I was very put off by her implicit message of, "this is what I did/still do, and therefore all autistic people should adopt this model." A lot's changed in both the autism world and especially the online world since 1997, and fond reminisces of the good old days are most unproductive.
I think it interesting that he chose to do this solely via a podcast so far, which naturally is less accessible to those of us with auditory processing issues...
I certainly never would have considered Jim Sinclair as Militant either, more of an inspirational writer and therist.
Militant is just one of those epithets one throws around to characterise certain people in a negative light.
Convinced, persistent and dedicated would do much better.
I think the measure of Tony Atwood is in his response, it is too offhand, too trivial and suggests that he does not care until it hits his audience figures.
It is perfectly acceptable for someone to have supported the wrong cause in error, and then to have repented honestly without trying to deny ones past, but I don't see any Damascus moment here.
Post a Comment