Political morality and fairness are NOT universal, you’re right. They’re pretty rare, and recent (although basic concepts of fairness due seem to be instinctual for humans and other social primates). But the idea is that “ Political morality and fairness demand reciprocity and a basic legal and social equality, irrespective of racial/sexual/etc. categories.” That is, there’s no possible workable society for non-homogeneous cultures which don’t involve basic fairness and equality. It’s not TOTAL equality, but it’s some kind of basic civic value. The only other possibility that I can think of involves hierarchy and force and group domination… which isn’t political morality. If you want to have a working, semi-consensual society people need to have rights-ALL people (aside from maybe children and prisoners, etc). Anything else would involve some species of slavery or serfdom, which is immoral. It’s kind of a circular scheme, but that’s by design: morality involves consent and fairness and so politically moral societies must establish universal ideas of fairness and consent.
The contemporary people who would disagree with this in practice conceptualize fairness and consent in terms of group parity and categories of people but I can’t see how that could work. The (unstated) assumption seems to be that certain groups are righteous enough that they won’t dominate or abuse others, or monopolize status and privilege, but I don’t think that’s correct. No group of people is free from those temptations and I think history bears that out.
If I had far more time than I do, my magnum opus would be about how "hope" and "fairness" are the two dominant sentiments in populism, except that power is won by offering the appearance of hope and fairness, and that's frequently not the same as actual hope and fairness.
The cultural definition of "fairness" does vary widely, though, with even the divine right of kinds deemed fair in the societies that had god-emperors. As for "non-homogeneous cultures", I'd argue that there is no system at all that makes these work. Diversity is Our Weakness, and its apparent success in places like the United States actually depended on stamping out the meaningful "diversity" with assimilation.
This was fantastic. It's astonishing that anyone has to defend simple concepts like "disabilities and disease are bad," but here we are. I have major hearing problems--there's nothing terrific about it. I've learned from it. I have figured out how to manage it. I've made my peace with it, and I have built a good life. So it's okay... but I'd take perfect hearing over what I've got 100 times out of 100.
But we live in strange times, where we're not supposed to notice things. We're not supposed to notice that all cultures aren't the same. Or that nobody can change sex. We can go on and on, of course.
Noticing is, in some circles, the greatest of all sins.
Belief isn’t always about discovering reality. For many (although they don’t realize it) it’s a status game. Unfortunately these kinds of believers tend to have disproportionate wealth, privilege, and institutional access.
After months in the gender wars trenches I really shouldn't be surprised by any of this (especially the people angry with Mr Beast for curing SOMEONE ELSE'S BLINDNESS), but I still am.
As a speech language pathologist I’ve watched those self-diagnosed outliers hijack autism. The children I spent years working with did not have a super power. But a disability that would not permit them to engage fully with family, peers, education.
Add to that, many are also obese due to more factors than I care to list here. They are addicted to sugar, then behaviorists pump them with more like Pavlov’s dog. Then further sickness abounds in these households. Families trapped in this medical cycle that is killing them.
IMO, the extended definition of autism, however valid it may be in scientific terms, has left the label free to be employed far beyond what is reasonable, or healthy. The child I was would, today, be labelled as such, with a host of ramifications, not the least of which would be an internal understanding of wrong-ness. That was something already ripe as a proto-bi child, so I'm glad my mother had the wisdom to eschew the labels, even the designation "gifted." Your note suggests work with those far more debilitated by their condition...I wonder if you have thoughts on that extension of the autism spectrum and its impact on society.
I think labels can be helpful for treatment but when patients become wrapped up in identity (even aside from the status-seeking, conspicuous displays of online and in-person conversation) the labels can actually promote disability and neurosis and stagnation.
If people have autism they should be given tools to improve their lives and make themselves more functional, as much as possible. Having a bunch of people walking around calling themselves 'neurodivergent' is VERY counterproductive. The idea that people take refuge in their labels and wallow in their dysfunction might seem specious and silly, but I truly believe it's a problem. It's human nature: you need all of your efforts and motivation to tackle these problems. If you give people a way out and a justification for HAVING the symptoms and the disabilities many people will take it. I'm not just talking about weak or fragile people either... people want to avoid effort. It's almost a universal psychological tendency.
I don't have autism but I was in the army infantry and even among tough and grizzled men the label of 'PTSD' has caused a great deal of harm. WHENEVER I mention Afghanistan people ask me about 'PTSD'. I know for a fact that there are veterans whose healing and happiness has been, at least partially, thwarted by thinking of themselves as diseased, damaged. Labels can shape the people we become when we integrate them into our self-image. This isn't just about teenagers making excuses for social anxiety or claiming some psychological condition for clout online. If you tell people they are diseased or disabled and they believe you it will change how they act and see themselves. The social cost might be justified by the convenience that such labels offer to medical providers but it IS a cost. People who don't have conditions (and I would even say-don't have serious and disabling conditions) should be encouraged to think of themselves as healthy, and managing minor inconveniences. I would bet every dollar that I have that if all of the high-functioning 'neurotypical' folks out there approached life in this way the aggregate improvement would exceed what we've bought with ten years of medication and therapy. Everyone should want to be healthy, and only the people who really can't achieve that on their own should be professionally assisted, and labelled. Mental and developmental health resources and 'awareness' are, in many cases, making things much worse.
Because the autism groups have fought and r for dollars for intensive therapies that are needed - there are many who may have been diagnosed with developmental delay (we used to call Mental Retardation). The less “sexy” diagnosis is woefully underfunded. These families get fewer dollars for program and interventions. Until they get an autism Dx.
In addition, as you’ve stated, many people who would never be diagnosed and decade or more ago- and whose parents fought NOT to be labeled are now begging for a label.
Sometimes a good idea - has negative results.
It’s far more nuanced than I could state here. There are pros and cons to labels. I’ve fought for labels in order to provide the services needed for a family. But not to fully define a human being.
I wish the point about “political morality and fairness” was left off the list because that one’s not actually universal.
Maybe replace it with “2+2=4”.
Political morality and fairness are NOT universal, you’re right. They’re pretty rare, and recent (although basic concepts of fairness due seem to be instinctual for humans and other social primates). But the idea is that “ Political morality and fairness demand reciprocity and a basic legal and social equality, irrespective of racial/sexual/etc. categories.” That is, there’s no possible workable society for non-homogeneous cultures which don’t involve basic fairness and equality. It’s not TOTAL equality, but it’s some kind of basic civic value. The only other possibility that I can think of involves hierarchy and force and group domination… which isn’t political morality. If you want to have a working, semi-consensual society people need to have rights-ALL people (aside from maybe children and prisoners, etc). Anything else would involve some species of slavery or serfdom, which is immoral. It’s kind of a circular scheme, but that’s by design: morality involves consent and fairness and so politically moral societies must establish universal ideas of fairness and consent.
The contemporary people who would disagree with this in practice conceptualize fairness and consent in terms of group parity and categories of people but I can’t see how that could work. The (unstated) assumption seems to be that certain groups are righteous enough that they won’t dominate or abuse others, or monopolize status and privilege, but I don’t think that’s correct. No group of people is free from those temptations and I think history bears that out.
If I had far more time than I do, my magnum opus would be about how "hope" and "fairness" are the two dominant sentiments in populism, except that power is won by offering the appearance of hope and fairness, and that's frequently not the same as actual hope and fairness.
The cultural definition of "fairness" does vary widely, though, with even the divine right of kinds deemed fair in the societies that had god-emperors. As for "non-homogeneous cultures", I'd argue that there is no system at all that makes these work. Diversity is Our Weakness, and its apparent success in places like the United States actually depended on stamping out the meaningful "diversity" with assimilation.
This was fantastic. It's astonishing that anyone has to defend simple concepts like "disabilities and disease are bad," but here we are. I have major hearing problems--there's nothing terrific about it. I've learned from it. I have figured out how to manage it. I've made my peace with it, and I have built a good life. So it's okay... but I'd take perfect hearing over what I've got 100 times out of 100.
But we live in strange times, where we're not supposed to notice things. We're not supposed to notice that all cultures aren't the same. Or that nobody can change sex. We can go on and on, of course.
Noticing is, in some circles, the greatest of all sins.
Belief isn’t always about discovering reality. For many (although they don’t realize it) it’s a status game. Unfortunately these kinds of believers tend to have disproportionate wealth, privilege, and institutional access.
After months in the gender wars trenches I really shouldn't be surprised by any of this (especially the people angry with Mr Beast for curing SOMEONE ELSE'S BLINDNESS), but I still am.
So much truth.
As a speech language pathologist I’ve watched those self-diagnosed outliers hijack autism. The children I spent years working with did not have a super power. But a disability that would not permit them to engage fully with family, peers, education.
Add to that, many are also obese due to more factors than I care to list here. They are addicted to sugar, then behaviorists pump them with more like Pavlov’s dog. Then further sickness abounds in these households. Families trapped in this medical cycle that is killing them.
Sigh.
Thank you for this essay.
IMO, the extended definition of autism, however valid it may be in scientific terms, has left the label free to be employed far beyond what is reasonable, or healthy. The child I was would, today, be labelled as such, with a host of ramifications, not the least of which would be an internal understanding of wrong-ness. That was something already ripe as a proto-bi child, so I'm glad my mother had the wisdom to eschew the labels, even the designation "gifted." Your note suggests work with those far more debilitated by their condition...I wonder if you have thoughts on that extension of the autism spectrum and its impact on society.
I think labels can be helpful for treatment but when patients become wrapped up in identity (even aside from the status-seeking, conspicuous displays of online and in-person conversation) the labels can actually promote disability and neurosis and stagnation.
If people have autism they should be given tools to improve their lives and make themselves more functional, as much as possible. Having a bunch of people walking around calling themselves 'neurodivergent' is VERY counterproductive. The idea that people take refuge in their labels and wallow in their dysfunction might seem specious and silly, but I truly believe it's a problem. It's human nature: you need all of your efforts and motivation to tackle these problems. If you give people a way out and a justification for HAVING the symptoms and the disabilities many people will take it. I'm not just talking about weak or fragile people either... people want to avoid effort. It's almost a universal psychological tendency.
I don't have autism but I was in the army infantry and even among tough and grizzled men the label of 'PTSD' has caused a great deal of harm. WHENEVER I mention Afghanistan people ask me about 'PTSD'. I know for a fact that there are veterans whose healing and happiness has been, at least partially, thwarted by thinking of themselves as diseased, damaged. Labels can shape the people we become when we integrate them into our self-image. This isn't just about teenagers making excuses for social anxiety or claiming some psychological condition for clout online. If you tell people they are diseased or disabled and they believe you it will change how they act and see themselves. The social cost might be justified by the convenience that such labels offer to medical providers but it IS a cost. People who don't have conditions (and I would even say-don't have serious and disabling conditions) should be encouraged to think of themselves as healthy, and managing minor inconveniences. I would bet every dollar that I have that if all of the high-functioning 'neurotypical' folks out there approached life in this way the aggregate improvement would exceed what we've bought with ten years of medication and therapy. Everyone should want to be healthy, and only the people who really can't achieve that on their own should be professionally assisted, and labelled. Mental and developmental health resources and 'awareness' are, in many cases, making things much worse.
Because the autism groups have fought and r for dollars for intensive therapies that are needed - there are many who may have been diagnosed with developmental delay (we used to call Mental Retardation). The less “sexy” diagnosis is woefully underfunded. These families get fewer dollars for program and interventions. Until they get an autism Dx.
In addition, as you’ve stated, many people who would never be diagnosed and decade or more ago- and whose parents fought NOT to be labeled are now begging for a label.
Sometimes a good idea - has negative results.
It’s far more nuanced than I could state here. There are pros and cons to labels. I’ve fought for labels in order to provide the services needed for a family. But not to fully define a human being.