“Paying lip service to the idea of tolerance at a time when gay liberationists had started marching in the streets, Lovaas and Rekers proposed that ‘society probably could afford to become more tolerant with individuals with sex-role deviations’ but insisted that ‘the facts remain that it is not tolerant. Realistically speaking, it is potentially more difficult to modify society’s behaviors than Kraig’s.’” (320).
Although the above excerpt was specifically in regards to “sissy-boy” Kirk Kraig (who eventually committed suicide [which was unfortunately just one sad instance in the book]), I find the sentiment to be … a funny one. Paraphrased, what Lovaas and Rekers said is, “It’s hard to change how society thinks even if its beliefs are intolerant/prejudiced, so we’ll just try to change the ‘odd’ individual to be what ‘society’ wants instead of trying to change the more pervasive bigotry.” However, NeuroTribes tries to rectify this, instead arguing for a change in the mentality of society and giving voice to those with autism/some form of neurodivergence.
I think one of the great things about NeuroTribes is how it bookends with Mark Rimland in the epilogue (and Leo Rosa in the penultimate chapter). In other words, I like the structure of this book, giving the final say to those with autism and what the (hopeful) future for neurodiversity will be. I’m fairly sappy, so it was nice to see a community that embraced an autistic person, and that these families that were introduced earlier into the book were able to change their beliefs on autism.
I think the book really earned posing the question “What is autism?” (469) and providing a kind of answer in the final chapter, because “autism” has been defined by various people in various contexts in various periods of time, as Silberman thoroughly fleshes out. But this certainly was a thick text, if not somewhat difficult to follow along at times.
If I were to imagine applying NeuroTribes to the research project (I don’t plan on doing so, but I’m posing a hypothetical), I might say that even though it’s written “regular” (to borrow Natasha’s word), its audience is most likely going to be those who already agree with its ideas, and/or those who want to find out more about autism. This does, unfortunately, leave out people who still want to condemn autistic people to institutions, still despise vaccines, still worship Kanner, etc. I’m wondering, then, if there’s a text/vehicle that would accompany Neurotribes, one that comes off as less abrasive to those who oppose these ideas (e.g., there were quite a few passages that were essentially bashing the other [bigoted] side) and one that is less thick. Basically, I’m trying to propose a companion to NeuroTribes, one that is an easier read and can sway opinions of those who still want to “cure” autism through unhelpful means.
That’s a great point about NeuroTribes and audience. I wonder if Amethyst Schaber’s videos might complement Silberman’s book in the way you describe.
After class, I was thinking about Natasha’s question. I assigned NeuroTribes to give us all historical and cultural context, but it could be the focus of a research project nonetheless. One distinctive feature of of its form is that it focuses on stories about individual people. We learn about historical events or medical facts through those stories. If I were going to formulate a research question about Silberman’s book, it might be something like, “Why does Silberman structure this work of cultural history as a series of personal stories? Is there a connection between this approach and his argument about autism and neurodiversity?”