I just posted a comment myself over at Language Log, pointing out that the whole "Internet Asperger's syndrome" is a failed metaphor on another count as well: Aspies tend to be the bullied, not the bullies...
Arg. That article on the use of the word "autism" was really intellectually dishonest; it buries a fact in a footnote something that changes the whole piece.
The fact is the word "autism" has a non-clinical meaning, same as "narcissism" does (indeed they mean very similar things, non-clinically). Taking it as a slight against people with Autism Disorder that people use the word "autism" to mean "self-involved" is like people with NPD objecting to "narcissisic" being used to mean "self-entitled".
In fact, it's backwards. The real question is why ASD activists, who have pointed out that self-preoccupation is not the underlying dynamic characteristic of the condition referred to as "autism", have not begun to wage war against the term "autism" as being a highly offensive presumptive description of their neurological atypicality. That is, the term "autism" means "selfish"/"self-involved"; why do those so labeled tolerate themselves to be called such?
There are epithets which are rehabilitatable. I don't think that's one. Finding a less negatively freighted term strikes me as an excellent pro-neurodiversity political project.
You know, I don't think that final footnote was there when I first posted this. I clicked all the other links at the end, but not the link there, and I don't recall it at all anyway.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-07-06 06:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-06 07:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-06 10:37 pm (UTC)The fact is the word "autism" has a non-clinical meaning, same as "narcissism" does (indeed they mean very similar things, non-clinically). Taking it as a slight against people with Autism Disorder that people use the word "autism" to mean "self-involved" is like people with NPD objecting to "narcissisic" being used to mean "self-entitled".
In fact, it's backwards. The real question is why ASD activists, who have pointed out that self-preoccupation is not the underlying dynamic characteristic of the condition referred to as "autism", have not begun to wage war against the term "autism" as being a highly offensive presumptive description of their neurological atypicality. That is, the term "autism" means "selfish"/"self-involved"; why do those so labeled tolerate themselves to be called such?
There are epithets which are rehabilitatable. I don't think that's one. Finding a less negatively freighted term strikes me as an excellent pro-neurodiversity political project.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-07 02:06 am (UTC)