“‘Since the publication of my paper on Asperger’s work,’ she admitted, ‘I have felt like Pandora after she opened the box.'”
To compare the revision of the DSM’s criteria of Autism to the Greek myth where Pandora opens all evil onto the world seems to be a just a BIT of an over exaggeration (I’ll refrain from trash talking her). As if the rise in autistic diagnoses was seen as an “out of nowhere” type thing. The autistic people were always there, however now that the range of the criteria for autism is wider there are obviously going to be more diagnoses. If she wanted more people to gain access to the supports and benefits, why is this considered bad to her? My thoughts are that the neurotypical person’s view on autism is commonly a negative view and connotation, but this was her intention the whole time. I guess the metaphor can also be seen from the perspective that it opened up discussion of ideas that world was not familiar with and are now exploring? However, the negative connotation of Pandora’s box says that exploring autism is opening the door to trouble.
I found it strange that “The DSM-I added a couple of alternate categories to the list – ‘gross stress reaction’ and ‘adult situational reaction'” – so these young men could receive VA benefits without being branded psychopaths for life,” (382). While I understand it takes away the negative connotation that comes with the label of autism, why do psychiatrists feel they can just make a disorder seem better than it actually is? How wide can they make a disorder’s criteria before they just simply call it two different disorders? I guess I have more questions than answers here.
Lastly, I find it interesting how a NT psychiatrist’s negative view of autism differs from other works that we’ve read such as Higashida’s The Reason I Jump and Shaber’s video and their positive view of autism.
I completely agree with you on how the NT usually views the ND with a negative attitude. I feel like, as you’ve questioned, most of the opinions on the ND comes from people who don’t understand the disorders and the ND well enough to connect with them or form an understanding with them. We usually hear stories from the parents’, doctors’ and caretakers’ side but not really the ND themselves, which is why Higashida’s book stands out so much from the crowd.
I also agree with you on Wing’s choice of simile. Comparing it to how Pandora must have felt after opening the box does give off the feeling of being overwhelmed by madness. In addition, there is also a ting of regret/guilt to the simile.
I agree with both of you that there is a negative connotation attached to “Pandora’s box.” However, I don’t find it to be an unwarranted allusion. I think Lorna Wing acknowledged that changing the criteria would mark a rise in diagnoses and enable access to services for those with special needs, which are things she wanted. However, it’s hard to predict the future; for example, the chaotic mess of “services” like chelation, specialty drugs that promised to “cure” autism, and unhelpful psychotherapy are not the kinds of services Wing wanted at all. Keeping those things in mind, it’s certainly a bit of a “Pandora’s box” situation, as bad things did spring forth after changing the criteria.
Although, if one wanted to draw out the Pandora’s box allusion even further, it could be argued that “hope” is what remained in the box and hope is necessary to face the horrors of a situation.