Norm Pusher

This follows a bit from the last post in terms of being about assumptions regarding the social (and neuronormativity). Of course there have been a millions things written about why the internet has been bad for social relations but I do wonder how this relates to autism in the since that it is a form of identity politics that has a large investment in getting around standard social rules and social relations (whatever standard means in a particular context).

Basically, the fact that so much activism, or at least content about autism, has risen with the internet I do wonder how much the internet (or really social media) has seriously impeded progress of autism acceptance and other related goals. One reason this seems particularly important for neurodiversity is that separatism takes on a particular valence in online space. It is very easy to fall into separate modes of socializing on discord, for instance, because one can have closed communities where people share and commiserate. Commiseration, especially in online space, can have a reradicalizing effect (while also being a respite for some) - it can lead to giving up on the world or, in more extreme cases, to black pilling, supremacism, or giving up on life.

Furthermore, in the case of autism, because masking is such a large part of existing in a neuronormative world, this already can lean towards an assimilationist politics offline combined with a separatist politics online which is a very poisonous cocktail. Many online commentators have pointed out that the online autism community can spread misinformation and weaponize supremacy (over neurotypicals). There is even an esoteric tik-tok stream of this that argues that neurodivergent people are starchildren, or indigo children, or other shit.

The practical or pragmatic thing that falls out of a lot of online discourse is the notion of shifting norms, of pushing the thick part of the bell curve of ‘normal’ behavior away from a place that is harsh for existence. If norms don’t move then one can fall into the black pill hole mentioned above or, as in the case of too many autism parents, fall into grievance politics (or a politics of resentiment for the Nietzsche fiends out there in the woods).

There is the obvious work to be done regarding diagnosis and language (including whether we should use the word diagnosis). There’s a good interview with Luke Beardon that address a lot of the problems with terminology. But a daunting question (which doesn’t only affect autistics) is whether the typical stages of identity politics still apply in the age of the internet?

The other political impasse here (which I want to write about next time) is the relationship with the sciences. Quite a few autistic people reject any attempt to analyze autism in terms of the life sciences arguing that this will only lead to eugenics. While the tendency towards eugenics (especially in the USA) cannot be disputed sadly, eugenics is a intentional manipulation of science and scientific data and ceding the authority of biology to the fascists is not a long term strategy.

Furthermore, too much of what is considered science when it comes to autism is all too often bad philosophy of mind masquerading as science. But more on that next time.