I am end of term, writing papers on technology and autism using critical theory and my interest is how we invoke these to obtain work, to socialize, but also in how these shape our existence. While technology is said to open up avenues for communication, we do not heed the critical theorists warnings of Adorno and others – that there can be “no true life possible in a false world.” The question is, how do virtual realities and mass culture, mechaniziation and so forth limit the acceptance of autistic bodies among us? It seems that work to befit the body, not the body to work. This is also a feudal notion invoked by the company Specialisterne which is a software development company providing work opportunities for autistic people.
My job is to critique these structures and life is my lab. I am a mother to an autistic son as well as a single mother and I engage (and explore) in atypical forms knowledge production with my son – I attempt to resist the standard ways of producing knowledge that in fact are, to Adorno’s critique (my interpretation), relativist – that speaks only unto itself within a frame. That is, science speaks to science and we’ve adopted its rhetoric. As such, it may shape the way we think about our lives by this framework.
We cannot examine a system if we don’t try to work from without. So, when I go online to look at the company Specialisterne, which provides work opportunities for autistic bodies, it is imperative that we question how bodies may be vulnerable to exploitation in totalizaing “autistic charactersitics” as: “able to focus for long periods of time; superior ability to recognize patterns; superior visual perceptual ability” and so forth. While autistic people need to eat, and work provides important human connection (see “emotional labour”), we have to be cognizant that we are working within a system that reduces support, devalues disabled bodies and in fact, requires all of us to work longer and harder – in fact, like machines…automated…autistic. While these characteristics that may be present for some individuals, we have to be aware of how generalities about autistic characteristics may serve to oppress people.
That said, as I do my research, I was tuned in on the marketing of Specialisterne to ask if an autistic person is a “weed or herb?” (see Specialisterne’s banner above). If we are to speak, to anchor ourselves in frames of reference for how we have come to be where we are and to think about autism, we are obliged to point out that the term came from a eugenics book Weeds in the Garden of Marriage (1931) by George Henry Lane Fox Pitt Rivers. Using this object metaphor is also explored in this paper by Gerald O’Brien in Disability Studies Quarterly.
It might be helpful for self-advocacy organizations to engage in media and marketing monitoring to ensure that dignity, respect and the history of oppression is recognized, so that we may never again re-invoke the rhetoric which belonged to the eugenics movement which rendered the segregation and sterilization of disabled people mandatory. It is curious that marketing firms would not research this thoroughly.