Minds Between Us: Autism, mindblindness and the uncertainty of communication

Abstract

This paper problematizes contemporary cultural understandings of autism.We make use of the developmental psychology concepts of 'Theory of Mind' and 'mindblindness' to uncover the meaning of autism as expressed in these concepts. Our concern is that autism is depicted as a puzzle and that this depiction governs not only the wayWestern culture treats autism but also the way in which it governs everyday interactions with autistic people. Moreover, we show how the concepts of Theory of Mind and mindblindness require autism to be a puzzle in the first place. Rather than treat autism as a puzzle that must be solved, we treat autism as a teacher and thus as having something valuable to contribute toward an understanding of the inherent partiality and uncertainty of human communication and collective life. Introduction: The 'Mystery of Autism'Autism has an enduring association with mystery. In recent times, autism has generated a great deal of intrigue in Western society. This intrigue is grounded in our ongoing fascination with the mind, a fascination that is itself rooted in our culture. We are constantly, for example, intrigued with how people think, what they think, especially of us; we wrestle with questions in relation to what children should know, how they should be taught, and how they can fulfil their potential. We are also intrigued with those minds we interpret as 'not working well' or as having 'something wrong' with them and we struggle with how to remedy these situations. We understand the mind as a mystery-a mystery that holds secrets to how it works and to what is going on in it when it does not work, particularly in ways that are not expected.Autism represents one such 'mystery of the mind'. Indeed, current mainstream conceptions characterize it as the quintessential puzzle. In the same way that the pink ribbon has symbolically come to represent breast cancer awareness, the puzzle piece has become the icon of autism awareness.

Whose Expertise Is It? Evidence for Autistic Adults as Critical Autism Experts

“…Nevertheless, the deficit- and behavior-based diagnostic criteria for autism that anchor autism research and treatment continue to locate communication problems within the autistic person (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) rather than examining how interpersonal interactions (De Jaegher, 2013) and societal factors (e.g., Kapp et al, 2013; Kenny et al, 2016) contribute to the challenges experienced by autistic people. The conception of autism as only an impairment within autistic people has been critiqued by autistic (e.g., Milton, 2012; Yergeau, 2013) and non-autistic (e.g., McGuire and Michalko, 2011; Dinishak and Akhtar, 2013) scholars and advocates for misrepresenting mutual challenges between autistic and non-autistic people, and facilitating misconceptions of and stigma toward autistic people.…”

An Expert Discussion on Autism and Empathy

“…Yergeau: Disability studies has produced some excellent critical work on autism and empathy. [19][20][21] Many of the problematic issues that have been raised so far provide exigence for disability studies scholars to undertake this work. For example, autistic people often serve as a tidy theoretical foil in philosophy and in literature.…”

Autism, autonomy, and authenticity

“…This ToM and similar observations (e.g., studies on weak central coherence theory, cf. Frith 2003) as well as critical reflections upon these studies (e.g., McGuire and Michalko 2011;Milton 2014;Verhoeff 2015), seem to indicate that autistic people do not grasp other people's goals and intentions, nor that they are able to develop or organize a way of life according to their preferences, goals and interests (Lyons and Fitzgerald 2013, p. 752). From the observation that autistic children do not grasp others' intentions and perspectives as non-autistic people do, it is assumed that they also do not grasp their own intentions and perspectives.…”