Update: bsking points out that Scott Alexander has just discussed the general issue of the Social Model of Disability about two weeks ago, and then took highlights from the voluminous comments to discuss the best issues further. Well do I remember in mental health going to conferences and social work meetings where people deplored the strawman "Medical Model" and invoked the name of St Thomas Szasz (and all the Family Systems folks, or RD Laing - there was actually a Laing-inspired retreat center way up north and out in the woods in NH called Burch House. It did not sustain in that form. Nice people.) Szasz cherry-picked some things that were weak in the diagnostic system vis. social adaptation to declare that all supposed mental illness was only society's inability to adapt to people who were different.
From Maggie's, a balanced Quillette article Neuroaffirmation - A Therapist's Concerns about the blind spots of the radical neurodiversity movement.
I am wary, however, of the neurodiversity-affirming movement and the zeal of some of its advocates, especially younger therapists. A perusal of their webpages reveals that many describe themselves as neurodivergent, or if that shoe doesn’t fit, as “neurodivergent allies.” Tried and tested therapeutic models are critiqued and repackaged to make them more “neurodiversity affirming,” or they are avoided altogether. In theory, this all sounds fine, but I worry about the unintended consequences of this movement, particularly when their demands are promulgated religiously and without nuance.
Most autism is at least partially disabling. Even people with Asperger's - now High Function Autism - for all the advantages of focus, emotional distance, and logic they can bring to problem-solving and inventiveness, often create difficulties for those around them. They are seldom much aware of this, which makes it even harder for the family members or coworkers dealing with it. It is a fine thing to have a long attentions span - but it can get out of hand. A focus on actual words spoken or written can encourage precision in thought and expression - but can also result in a literalness that is hard for others to work around.
A little mania is sometimes a good thing. A little depression, or OCD, or even paranoia can have its uses, both for the individual or the tribe. But that does not mean we endorse such things as generally harmless. So too with autism, even if mild, and even if accompanied by enhancing other abilities.
WRT long attention spans: Aspergers can be present along with ADHD.
ReplyDeleteMy brother and I have both displayed both: general inability to refrain from movement and stay with the program, but also complete absorption leading to single-minded hours doing hand calculations or listening to the same song. Throw some OCD suspicions in there and it is very tough to tell what is going on at a particular moment.
ReplyDeleteGiven that no two people have the same psychology, wouldn't "neurodiversity" already be a thing?
ReplyDeleteDidn't Chesterton say something about sanity being a balance?
ReplyDelete"Neuroaffirmation" is the latest (known to me, at least) of a series of social movements that tip over from pushing for kindness, decency and justice for various people to demanding that these people be regarded as perfectly all right, okay, to be celebrated.
ReplyDelete"There's nothing wrong with being black." Sure.
"There's nothing wrong with being female." Of course not.
"There's nothing wrong with being homosexual." Uh, the bits don't fit that way, and you lose your natural ability to reproduce.
"There's nothing wrong with being trans." This literally means you are unhappy in your body.
I am reminded of two quotes. Martin Luther said that humanity was like a drunk on a donkey: having fallen off on the right side, he would assuredly next fall off on the left. And, in The Great Divorce, C. S. Lewis has George MacDonald say, of extending second chances and mercy to the damned, "We'll not call yellow blue to please those who insist on having jaundice."
I think you are grossly misrepresenting Szasz. He never claimed there was nothing "wrong" with the "mentally ill", obviously there is indeed something seriously wrong with people who suffer from, say, hysterical blindness. Rather, he pointed out that most "mental illnesses" are not literal illnesses (or at least there is no good evidence that they are) and treating the conditions as if they were literal illnesses rather than metaphorical leads to stupid results, like assuming an MD is somehow useful for "treating" them.
ReplyDeleteNobody thinks Szasz is a saint, but some of us do consider him to be a bit of a hero. Because he, more than anyone else, stood up against the compulsory brutal "treatment", de facto torture (that really is not to strong a word), of people who have committed no actual crime but only exhibit some unusual behaviors and attitudes.