I attended a conference last Friday put together by Autism Connections, an autism services provider based in western Massachusetts. The event was organized around two keynote speakers, Steve Silberman and Al Condeluci. I may write more about the conference itself later, but for now I just want to pull out two strands of the discussion that have been intertwining themselves in my head ever since. They have to do with culture and community.
Steve Silberman, the author of the influential book NeuroTribes, The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity, gave a two-part talk about the history and the future of autism—or I should say, the history and future of how autism has been identified and defined. As is reflected in his book, he advocated moving from a pathologizing medical model of autism and toward a more inclusive, neurodiversity-informed model, and during the “future” part of his talk he spoke a bit about the development of autistic culture.
One thing that stood out to me during this part of his speech was his experience attending Autreat (a retreat put on by autistic people for autistic people) as a neurotypical. He said that by the end, he had acclimated to autistic culture to the point that the NT world seemed very harsh by comparison. Listening to him, I was reminded of how much I have really longed to be able to attend something like Autreat, to experience that kind of autistic-friendly environment for myself. I feel like it could hit a sort of “reset button” inside me, to counteract some of the acclimation I have had to do to navigate NT culture.
The second speaker was Al Condeluci, who has done a lot of work related to supporting people with disabilities and creating ways to increase community involvement. In his talk, he spoke a lot about building social relationships that include people with different disabilities, rather than excluding them and isolating them in institutions or special programs. He pointed out that relationships are built on similarities—we seek to bridge the differences between us and find commonalities in order to relate to one another—after which we can begin to appreciate our differences.
At one point, Al talked about the process of helping someone build relationships in the community by seeking out groups that share common interests. He used the example of someone with Down syndrome who enjoys photography, and said that instead of looking for (or creating) a photography-focused social group for people with Down syndrome, it would be better to find a photography-focused social group for everyone, and introduce the photographer with Down syndrome to it in a way that made it accessible and welcoming for her. This not only allows this particular individual to build relationships within the broader population, it also increases visibility for people with disabilities instead of isolating and segregating them, as often happens.
Now, as part of a writing project I’ve been doing, I’ve been reading a lot about the Contact Hypothesis, which essentially states that positive contact between groups can (if done correctly) reduce intergroup prejudice and anxiety. There is a lot of research backing this up, and it’s one reason why it’s important to me to speak openly about being autistic. If people don’t know any autistic people—or don’t know they know any autistic people—it may be easier for them to buy into various stereotypes about us. So I am fully on board with increased inclusion and visibility for autistic people and people with all sorts of other differences and disabilities in society.
But the thing is, we also need our own spaces. This is where these two strands of thought become tangled for me. I do believe that building a more inclusive society requires more inclusive involvement, and it is clear that greater contact with minority groups can really change attitudes. (This has been studied with regard to racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities, and probably others.) But events like Autreat, or even just small get-togethers among just autistic people, can serve as a powerful reinforcement that, as a minority, our ways of being and interacting are just as valid as others.
I also think it’s important to keep in mind that, when it comes to approaches people use to reduce ingroup/outgroup tensions, members of the majority (or otherwise dominant) group tend to prefer it when everyone becomes subsumed into a single, more-encompassing ingroup—in other words, when “us” and “them” become a unified “we.” It’s sometimes called “recategorization,” but another common word for it is “assimilation.” This approach de-emphasizes everyone’s differences and, at least rhetorically, insists that we are all the same because we are on the same team; you’ve probably seen this done with appeals to a national identity to unify different ethnic subgroups.
Members of minority groups, however, tend to prefer it when integration into a single group is done in a way that allows for each subgroup’s individual differences to be preserved. Working together on the same team is still valued, but instead of “the team” being seen as one big, homogeneous group defined solely by team membership, people are seen as having dual membership in the team and their particular subgroup. (And in reality, we all have multiple group memberships that overlap and intersect, but for now I’m trying to simplify.)
So this is how I see the resolution of the issue I’ve outlined above: I want autistic people to be visible and included (and appreciated) in the larger society, and I want us to have our own spaces where we’re not constantly pressured to accommodate the expectations of neurotypical communication. Because right now, if we want to be included, we have to make those accommodations, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.