February 20, 2017 - 11:14
The two videos “I stim, therefore I am” and “The Loud Hands Project” connected very well to Melanie Yergeau’s essay, Clinically Significant Disturbance: On Theorists Who Theorize Theory of Mind. All three seemed to center upon autistic self- advocacy, pushing against traditional philosophical theories and societal constructs of what is “normal”. Yergeau’s essay gave me my first introduction to the theory of mind (ToM). Yergeau draws from her personal experiences, producing a compelling narrative on how destructive ToM is to autistic individuals by calling into question their humanity.
Yergeau stated, “Philosophers invoke ToM to probe the meaning of selfhood and morality and what it means to live a ‘good life’.” This brought me back to Harriet McBryde’s chapter, Unspeakable Conversations. I have trouble understanding how someone can call into question the humanity of an individual because they don’t fit into their a strict definition of what it means to be human. It feels like such a backwards way of thinking, and I’m shocked that today people still use narrow definitions to exclude others from society.
Like Katie, I found the following quote to be extremely emotionally powerful and moving:
“What does it mean, in practice, in real life, beyond the pages of a book or medical chart, to deny the autistic’s capacity for empathy, for perspective-taking, for self-reflection? “We” have abstracted bodies and minds both from real autistic humans and, in the process, have rendered them inhuman”
As someone who has always been interested in the medical field, I think it is extremely important to not get too caught up in the medical definitions and diagnosis of various mental/physical disorders. Yes it is important to have this medical approach to disabilities, but that does not give someone the right to deny a person the title of “human” because they don’t fit a set of standards designed by men hundreds of years ago. We are ALL humans.