Faulkner’s novel, The Sound and the Fury, is narrated through the three brothers of the Compson family: Benjy, Quentin and Jason. The narration that catches the most focus of the novel is Benjy’s. Benjy is described as a speechless idiot who the family treats as a tiresome burden in their everyday lives. When analyzing the character through a disability and autism lens, one can argue that Benjy displays symptoms on the autism spectrum. Although Faulkner wrote this novel in 1929 before the first autism diagnosis in 1943, it does not negate the possibility of Benjy being autistic. People with autism diagnoses are often not considered capable of complete thought, communication or comprehension because of their mental disabilities. Common signs of autism include: delayed speech and communication skills, reliance on routines, unusual reactions to smells, tastes, sights, sounds or touch, and excellent memory; however, most cases of autism are never the exact same and can vary from mild to severe. The Compson family believed Benjy lacked the abilities to think coherently, understand and comprehend what was happening around him. However, as readers we are able to see that Benjy in fact did understand the world around him, maybe even better than his brothers, Quentin and Jason, could. Benjy demonstrated through his narration in the novel that he was indeed capable of all these things, he interpreted and understood the world differently but just as richly as the people around him. 

Throughout the novel there are many indicators that lead to the idea that Benjy Compson could be diagnosed on the autism spectrum. The initial symptom the reader first notices is that Benjy is a mute, his family often refers to him as a “speechless idiot” or “looney”.  Unable to communicate with words, Benjy uses moans, cries and bellows to show when he is upset. He also knows simple terms and names like his sister’s, Caddy; however, he cannot distinguish the differences between different words that sound the same but have different meanings like “Caddy” and “caddie”.  One sees this through his interchangeable spelling and use of the two words in his narration. His inability to communicate not only frustrates his family but it also frustrates and upsets him, “I opened the gate and they stopped, turning. I was trying to say, and I caught her, trying to say, and she screamed, and I was trying to say and trying arid the bright shapes began to stop and I tried to get out” (Faulkner 45). As Benjy tries harder to speak the more frustrated, blurry and distorted the world becomes around him. Another characteristic resembling a symptom of autism is his reliance on routines and order that creates structure and stability in Benjy’s life. This reliance is shown when Luster drives Benjy to the cemetery and takes a different route, “Luster hit Queenie again and swung her to the left at the monument. For an instant Ben sat in an utter hiatus. Then he bellowed. Bellow on bellow, his voice mounted, with scare interval for breath….. “Don’t you know any better than to take him to the left” (Faulkner 320). Patterns and routines are crucial to developing Benjy’s sense of order in the world. His outbursts are derived from the abrupt interruptions of his repetitive behavior. Benjy also demonstrates this fear of change when Caddy leaves the Compson home, “Miss Caddy done gone long ways away. Done got married and left you. You can’t do no good, holding to the gate and and crying” (Faulkner 51). Benjy becomes overwhelmed when his patterns and routines are disrupted and the only way he can communicate his discomfort is through cries and moans. 

The last two symptoms Benjy exhibits relating to autism are his unusual reactions to senses, particularly his sense of smell, and his excellent memory. Through his narration one can see that Benjy relies heavily on his senses for structuring his thoughts and memories. Out of all his family members, Benjy receives the most affection and patience from his sister, Caddy. Benjy often associates his sister with the smell of trees or leaves multiple times throughout the novel, “She opened the gate and came in and stooped down. Caddy smelled like leaves” and “Caddy smelled like trees and when we were asleep” (Faulkner 6).  Once Caddy eventually moves out of the family home, Benjy starts to disassociate her with the earth-like smell. Benjy is also noted substituting his sense of touch for smell seen here, “I could smell the cold” (Faulkner 6). The last symptom that corresponds with Benjy being on the autism spectrum is his memory. Not only does Benjy have an excellent memory, but his narration of the past is the most organized out of the three brothers. His ability to keep his memories straight also comes from his unusual responsiveness to his senses. Using his sense of touch, Benjy is able to go from one memory to another after catching his pants on a nail, “You snagged on that nail again. Can’t you never crawl through here without snagging on that nail” (Faulkner 3). Immediately after this incident, Benjy’s conscious jumps to a memory from the past with his sister unhooking his pants off the same nail, “Caddy uncaught me and we crawled through” (Faulkner 3). This ability to associate sensations with long-term memory is also demonstrated by Amanda Boggs, who is autistic, “My first memories involve sensations of all kinds. Colors. Sounds. Textures. Flavors. Smells. Shapes. Tones. These are short words, but the meaning of them is long, involved, and complex. Some things caught my attention, others did not, but all of them were absorbed into my mind” (Baggs). Benjy uses his recollections along with his senses to compensate for his lack of language and communication skills to form a comprehensive narrative. 

In conclusion, Benjy Compson’s narration in The Sound and the Furycan be analyzed through an autistic and disability lens. Benjy’s lack of speech, reliance on routines and unusual sensory responsiveness all point to signs that he could be diagnosed as autistic.  Benjy is a mentally disabled character in the Compson family who is treated as an infant at thirty-three years old. Although he is perceived as an idiot, Benjy is one of the few characters who can understand the world around him. Because Benjy interacts with the world in a different way, he is seen as unable to comprehend events going on around him. Baggs also relates to Benjy in this aspect, “the most important things about the way I perceive and interact with the world around me can only be expressed in terms that describe them as the absence of something important” (Baggs). Through Benjy’s narrative, readers can see that he is capable of understanding the world maybe even more than his “normal” brothers can. 

Word Count:1130

Works Cited:

Baggs, Amanda. “Cultural Commentary: Up in the Clouds and Down in the Valley: My Richness and Yours.” Disability Studies Quarterly, The Ohio State University Libraries .

Faulkner , William. The Sound and the Fury. Vintage Books , 1984.

I pledge

Autism: The Rift Between Parent and Child

Found within Craig Romkema’s “Perspectives” and also Jim Sinclair’s Don’t Mourn For Us, is the problem of an existing gap in understanding or consensus between an autistic child and their parent(s). Through analyzing these two pieces, it can be established that to bridge this lack of understanding between parent and child the first thing that must be done is to formulate some kind of communication that works and also avoid separating the child from their autism. The manner of what medium this communication may be exhibited through and the level of sophistication/understanding that is brought forth due to this communication is irrelevant. The goal in this establishment of understanding, without envisioning an autistic child as not having autism, should help parents to understand their child’s situation more clearly and overall make their relationship stronger.
In Romkema’s “Perspectives” he begins the poem by presenting the explanations for his autistic behavior through the eyes of “experts”,”Eastern Mystics”, “Psychologists”, “Optometrists”, and “Researchers”. This variance of explanations leads readers to conclude that we truly don’t know why exactly people of an autistic nature do the things that they do, whether they fall under any one categorization of autism (verbal, nonverbal, etc.). In presenting the measurements of his physical processes and body, “…measuring my head, the tightness of my muscles, the tracking of my eyes, the dysfunctions of my stomach.”, Romkema exhibits to us implicitly that there is no singular point of explanation for the nature of autism; mankind cannot yet express the etiology of autism. This lack of explanatory signs is one of the main reasons for parents separating their child from it’s autism, when people don’t have an explanation for behavior they would rather detach that behavior from the “reality” of things such as a living, breathing person. Romkema introduces an important point in saying that some of the researchers who were supposedly trying to help him “overcome” his autism were wrong from the beginning in thinking that as a nonverbal autistic, he could not understand a thing they were saying. Not only is this extremely demoralizing to any sort of person but it brings up the almost obvious solution to this gap that parents of autistic children oftentimes miss, communication. “…somehow we would find each other / connect.” is utilized after this to show that without reciprocation from their child, parent’s can feel discouraged and think that possibly their child has a disconnect from them; that their child is unable to relate to them thus viewing the autism as a barrier in the formulation of their relationship. Romkema then turns his role around in this poem establishing himself as a “researcher” rather than being seen as a victim of autism which is implicit in the beginning of the poem. This idea of an autistic as their own researcher for the disorder brings up an idea differing from what is generally done in medical research, since there are no completely proven reasons for how and why an autistic person acts we can learn best from them since they are the ones who perceive the world through an autistic lens. The idea of communication here acts as a catalyst, the establishment of some form of communication between an autistic person and the people around them is what paves way for the conception of self-research. This communication does not only give an autistic person the ability to make themselves heard but it also lets them be seen as a person with their own individual thoughts and feelings. The idea of seeing an autistic person as an individual with their own desires is seen through Romkema’s repetition of, “Watching my fingers, / Doing nothing, / Down in my room.” Since he established that he is fully able to comprehend the world around him, he earned his right as a person to be left alone to do what he pleases without constantly having to put up with studies and people disrespecting him to his face. Finding a form of communication within this poem offers a solution to the problem of parents, or even random people, in the lives of autistics not letting them decide what they wish for themselves.
Don’t Mourn For Us by Jim Sinclair establishes a very clear theme of parents of autistic children not understanding their words and treatment to these differently abled kids. Sinclair opens the short piece by describing parents initial reaction about finding out that their children are autistic by stating it as, “the most traumatic thing that ever happened to them” (Sinclair, 1). Parents of autistic children feel that the greatest tragedy they could have been given is having a child who expresses differently than what they originally expected. In a sense, the parent is selfish in their way of thinking by seeing this child as a detriment to their life solely based on the fact that that their current autistic child did not meet their preconceptions. Sinclair breaks down his short story into three different categories outlining important messages to parents of autistic children.
“Autism is not an appendage,” is Sinclair’s first important message that signifies to parents that they need to expel the notion that their child may someday be “normal” (Sinclair, 1). The child is autistic and will always be autistic, so the exploration of possibly “relieving” the child, but mostly the parents, of the disorder is a waste of time. Unfortunately, trying to wish that the child did not have autism translates as wishing, “the autistic child I have did not exist, and I had a different (non-autistic) child instead” (Sinclair, 1). This leaves these autistic children feeling unworthy and under appreciated for what they have to offer. This mindset in parents of children who have this disorder is a huge setback for positive representation in the autism community and for their autistic child.
The second representational message states, “Autism is not an impenetrable wall,” showing that parents of an autistic child may not connect the same way they expected (Sinclair, 1). Parents were prepared to interact in a certain manner with their new child and did not come to terms with having to communicate in another fashion. “It takes more work to communicate with someone whose native language isn’t the same as yours,” which makes it difficult for some parents to understand (Sinclair, 1). A new form of communication and interaction needs to be established with both parent and child to help create bonds that the autistic child needs and that the parent hopes to institute. This will help mend the bridge from parent to child by introducing an open understanding that each works differently than how originally expected.
Sinclair’s final message reaffirms that, “Autism is not death,” and should not be characterized as such (Sinclair, 1). Parents have this idealized notion that their child should be “perfect” and that somehow this disorder wrecks them of any future they could have possibly held. Parents always feel that they lost a child to autism, but in reality they “lost a child because the child [they] waited for never came into existence” (Sinclair, 1). Parents of children with autism need to comprehend that autism is not a tragedy or the worst thing that could ever happen to the child. Death is the most tragic incident that could happen to the child and autism does not worsen the child, but changes the parents’ label of “normal” and how normal should be described.
When this preconceived notion of what the “normal/perfect” child should is expelled, then children who are labeled with disorders will not be deemed as less. Mending the gap between parents of autism and autistic children themselves can help expand a new, more efficient range of communication. In analyzing the two works, it is made clear that every child reacts differently in any given situation, so a set standard for normal cannot realistically be sanctioned. In turn, parents acceptance of the child’s disorder will increase the bond between the two parties.

We pledge.

Word Count: 1340

Sources:
Sinclair, Jim. “DON’T MOURN FOR US.” Don’t Mourn For Us, www.autreat.com/dont_mourn.html.

Romkema, Craig. “Perspectives” Perspectives

Word Count: 1,056

Lauren C. Magee

Disability and Literature Final

Professor Foss

5/2/19

Claiming the Transformative in Retrospective Diagnosis

Ill-informed neurotypical analysis of the autistic mind and body has been the unfortunate standard for practically all of the modern era. Centuries of abuse and pain have naturally followed, manifesting in scale from the eugenics movement to common microaggressions today, such as the practice of speaking to an autistic person’s caregiver instead of the autistic person themselves. Misconceptions surrounding autistic people’s expression are unfortunately common. The message is the same: the neurotypical lens is the correct one to view autistic forms through, and autistics cannot be trusted to control their own narrative. This has led to movements such as the slogan “Nothing About Us Without Us,” increasingly widespread autistic self-advocacy, and a portion of the disability rights movement as well. In the introduction of her book Autistic Disturbances, Julia Miele Rodas uses a section to examine one of these neurotypical analyses, specifically through the concept of “retrospective diagnosis.” Rodas makes the well-informed point that in reading fictional or historical characters as autistic, the concept can quickly become an unfortunate game of sorts that seeks to further divide autism from the imaginary normal. However, in her examination of retrospective diagnosis, the author missteps in only considering the angle of neurotypical analysis, and not the possibility of transformative representation.

While Rodas’ original point is correct, it should not be used to limit the potential of autistic empowerment and creativity that results from an autistic person’s reading of otherwise “normal” characters. She uses the concept in the first place to discuss the messy history of autistic diagnosis. Diagnosis as a list of categorizations has been around since the first iteration of the DSM. The book itself has also been constantly updated to change our modern standards of what a person’s disorder should entail. As Rodas also states, narrowing the definition of autism to one unquestionable set of rules is nearly impossible, and further, is in some ways problematic. Examples can include the complex social norms that dictate the labels of “high-functioning” and “low-functioning,” and the subsequent challenges to them. The allure of fitting autism into a box only further separates the community by questioning other’s validity and concepts of personal identity—essentially, who is “really” autistic. But recent attempts have been made to queer the narrative, removing gatekeeping when it is needless. Surrounding this, as a cultural phenomenon (and when done by and for autistic persons) retrospective diagnosis can become a function of empowerment. It is important to state the difference in the readings of fictional versus historical characters, however. Retrospectively diagnosing a once-living person introduces more subtle questions of morality and agency that a text-focused fictional character simply does not have. As such, to clarify the intended message, only readings of the fictional are discussed.

Rodas discusses retrospective diagnosis as a performance of sorts to find an imaginary autistic baseline. Taken in the context of an autistic person looking for the self, however, the connotation changes. Now more than ever in media we see calls for more frequent and accurate representations of diversity that reflect the real world. The narrative of identifying with or being empowered by a character is increasingly spotlighted at all levels of our entertainment culture. And we are living now in an age of transformative works—instead of an author’s word being taken as final law, we are increasingly encouraged to reflect more critically on the text, even re-writing or changing certain aspects of it. At the more extreme end of reading a character as “self” is the notion of tongue-in-cheek declaring a character with a minority you yourself represent, regardless of solid textual proof. This simply because the personal connection to the story finds this type of interpretation comforting. After all, who gets to decide which interpreted traits are autistic expressions?  Rodas references Sherlock Holmes, one of the most popular figures commonly interpreted as autistic. When a list is made of theoretical evidence to attempt to find the autistic traits of the character (cold, socially inadept, savant) Autistic Disturbances is right to call out the fall into stereotype. Yet when interpreted by autistic person, the goal becomes not to claim false diversity but to celebrate the connection to self. As in, a neurodivergent reader who suffers from generalized anxiety disorder might pick up a character’s nervous tendencies and read them as having GAD to further establish the joy of having a hero reflected in themselves. The same can be said of autistic readings, and intersectionally: the gay reader might want to find representation in a homosocial relationship, the non-white reader might interpret a never-stated appearance as close to their own. Culturally diverse consumers of media have long been surviving on scraps. To purposefully seek out representation instead of waiting for change cannot be compared with neurotypical analysis of stereotypes.

Furthermore, establishing such beloved, well-known characters as autistic shifts the frame of comfortable normalcy in a dominant neurotypical culture. Autism by the general population is still misunderstood, demonized, and often seen as uncomfortable to interact with. By pushing a reading of popular characters as autistic and otherwise neurodivergent, the perspective changes. The question becomes not why but why not? and encourages discussion. Neurotypical readers are nudged into becoming proximate with an otherwise distant idea, and proximity to divergency results in acceptance: common ground becomes recognized. In addition, the more of this that there is, the more aspects of autism are explored in fiction. Standard cultural figures purposely written as autistic such as the “Rain Man” can now be understood as single pieces in a larger tapestry of identities falling under the same label. Rodas includes a section from Sonya Freeman Loftis discussing how public perception of a character can in itself contribute to dominant stereotypes, as the character is then used as the standard for interactions with actual autistic individuals. This is upheld only in a society that allows for just a few popular representations of autism in the first place. Allowing autistic interpretation to, within reason, blur the lines of this standard boosts representation and deconstructs the idea of the imaginary normal.

At the heart of the matter, the disability rights movement is one in a long series of conversations on how the minority can be accepted by the majority. The neurotypical analysis of retrospective diagnosis offers assimilation to the dominant culture, and therefore it is rightfully distrusted by scholars such as Julia Miele Rodas. It seeks to unearth the “abnormal” traits of a character and prescribe autism to them, othering further an already marginalized community. But the autistic analysis of retrospective diagnosis brings revolution, rejecting assimilation. It shows that transformative interpretation helps the definition of autism stand alongside other social constructs. It is either our many facets of human identity exist together in equality, or slowly some identities will be forcibly pressed into the mold of the larger ones. Anything that disrupts the latter narrative should be seen as legitimate.

Works Referenced

Rodas, Julia Miele. “Introduction,” Autistic Disturbances. 2018. PDF File.

Word Count: 1144

Pledge: “I hereby declare upon my word of honor that I have neither given nor received unauthorized help on this work.” -Lauren C. Magee

Samantha Meyers

Dis and Lit

05/02/19

Word Count: 1,242

Autism and Life

         In many instances, there are individuals who insert their opinions into outside narratives. While many have good intentions behind their desire to research, many individuals have difficulty realizing that certain things are not within their realm of understanding. Stuart Murray’s Autism and Melanie Yergeau’s “Introduction: Involution” from Authoring Autism”, show the dangers of depicting autism as a condition and how the abled speak for the disabled without completely understanding their experiences.

         Murray provides many details on why the public should be careful about how they depict autism and individuals with autism. The ways in which the medical community presently classifies autism is problematic. Murray states that, “the idea of improvement in the future automatically characterises autism in the present as first and foremostly a ‘problem’ and something that requires change” (9). This mentality is dangerous and implies that the present doesn’t matter if there will be a cure for autism someday. It can also be connected to how people see the everyday life of an autistic individual. When people demonize the concept of autism, Murray says that, “it also makes the idea of ‘everyday autism’, the daily business of a life lived being autistic, one that is difficult for any individual to sustain or justify” (14). The autism experience is one that many people believe individuals suffer from. Many don’t believe that autism is enjoyable for the person who has it and, in fact, the public tends to believe that, “suffering is integral to the manifestation of the condition” (21). The continual use of ‘condition’ perpetuates the stigmatizing belief that autism is something that a person suffers from.

         There are many dangers of ‘curing’ autism. Some people believe that autism is a separate entity stuck inside someone that can be flushed out through many different means. Murray says, “where those that champion curing are definitely in the wrong is in their idea that somehow the autistic and the human can be kept apart, and that to eradicate the former is to liberate the latter” (109). Not only does this dehumanize autistic individuals, but the people who think that they are freeing their loved one from autism are strongly misguided. Murray references another author and says, “to ‘cure’ someone of autism […] would be to take away the person they are, and replace them with someone else” (102-103). There is a large discussion about the ways in which people want to find a cure so that they can find the real individual within their loved one. This mentality is dangerous since this shows that people cannot accept autistic individuals without fixing them in some way. Murray tries to understand individuals who believe in this mentality and says, “maybe those who believe in curing will come to say that they actually mean ‘changing’, eliminating the worst features of autism to preserve the best, and that ameliorative treatment programs may come from this” (109). This, of course, is impossible and only serves to dehumanize autistic individuals when people aren’t able to accept them unless they are able to eradicate the horrible parts of the disability.

         Able bodied individuals tend to place a hero trope on people with disabilities especially individuals with autism. There is this belief that an autistic person cannot exist unless they have triumphed over their disability and has essentially assimilated into society. Murray shows this when he says, “the weariness comes from having to experience endless narratives in which autism, seen as a tragedy, is the subject of ‘heroic’ overcoming” (103). Media and news sources alike show this hero trope implying that the public cannot publicly accept a neurodivergent or autistic individual into society unless they overcome their disability through a heroic act. Time and time again, authors use this trope in many of their stories to display a disabled individual as a champion of their disability. This brings Melanie Yergeau’s personal experiences to the surface. Yergeau states that, “Media accounts of autistic people communicate the sensationalism of savant-beings who are at once extraordinary yet so epistemically distant and critically impaired” (2-3). Not only do people, especially autism parents, impose their own opinions onto autistic individuals, they make it known that this diagnosis is a horrible tragedy that they wish hadn’t happened to them. Yergeau says that, “many parent narratives echo this line of thought and speak of autism as something happening to them, as though their entire family had been struck by lightning” (7). This reaction to a diagnosis is all too familiar and, although the public has improved, there are still people who react like this. They believe that the person they could have known is lost within their autistic child or friend.

Within the heroic trope, both Murray and Melanie Yergeau mention the problematic ways that neurodivergence is displayed in the media. Murray gives reasons as to why Rain Man is a problematic representation of neurodivergence while Yergeau mentions it in passing and mentions other media representations that are improvements. Murray says that, in the movie, Raymond displays talented abilities which depicts autism as a ‘spectacle’. He says that, “this sense of performance, heightened by the fact that Hoffman was performing of course, connected autism to an idea of behavioral display” (75). When this movie shows Raymond essentially ‘performing’ and ‘rising above’ his disability, this shows that individuals with autism have to perform in order to be accepted by the general public. They have to suppress their true selves.

         The general public, as well as loved ones, like to generate inaccurate narratives for individuals with autism. Melanie Yergeau, an autistic individual, experiences this firsthand. She shows the ways in which people have projected their own definitions of autism onto her without much description about herself. She says that, “instead, my body is reduced. Erased. Medicated” (13). This goes back to the issue of overmedicating neurodivergent individuals in an effort to find a cure. Not only do abled individuals publicly push their own opinions of individuals with autism to the forefront, they do so while putting down the very people that they are pushing. Yergeau states that in her experience, “[they] are conditioned that [their] selves are not really selves, for they are eternally mitigated by disability, in all of its fluctuations” (10). So, essentially, she is saying that caretakers and the general public make autistic individuals feel that their disability will always interfere with them as a person. She goes on to talk about involuntary logics as people who are under the impression that autistic individuals cannot make decisions for for themselves so they do it for them. Yergeau talks about how these ‘logics’ forcibly removed her from high school and institutionalized her. She says that these people, “are the logics of overmedication, eugenic future, institutionalization; they are the logics that narrate shit smearing as brain gone awry” (9-10). This involuntarity notion encourages people to make decisions for autistic individuals based on the assumption that these individuals cannot voluntarily do so for themselves.

         Stuart Murray and Melanie Yergeau show the dangers of depicting autism as a condition both through research and personal experience. While the public still has varying opinions of autism, there are many who are cognizant of their impact on the community and the ways in which they can help. There is still a long way to go with showing people the autism community’s agency, but these two writers helped to display the dangers of handling autism the wrong way even while doing so with good intentions.

Bibliography

Murray, Stuart. Autism. New York, 2011.

Yergeau, Melanie. Introduction: Involution from Authoring Autism. n.d. PDF.