Lauren C. Magee<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Disability and Literature\nFinal<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Professor Foss<\/p>\n\n\n\n
5\/2\/19<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Claiming\nthe Transformative in Retrospective Diagnosis<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ill-informed\nneurotypical analysis of the autistic mind and body has been the unfortunate\nstandard for practically all of the modern era. Centuries of abuse and pain\nhave naturally followed, manifesting in scale from the eugenics movement to\ncommon microaggressions today, such as the practice of speaking to an autistic\nperson\u2019s caregiver instead of the autistic person themselves. Misconceptions\nsurrounding autistic people\u2019s expression are unfortunately common. The message\nis the same: the neurotypical lens is the correct one to view autistic forms through,\nand autistics cannot be trusted to control their own narrative. This has led to\nmovements such as the slogan \u201cNothing About Us Without Us,\u201d increasingly widespread\nautistic self-advocacy, and a portion of the disability rights movement as\nwell. In the introduction of her book Autistic\nDisturbances, <\/em>Julia Miele Rodas uses a section to examine one of these neurotypical\nanalyses, specifically through the concept of \u201cretrospective diagnosis.\u201d Rodas\nmakes the well-informed point that in reading fictional or historical\ncharacters as autistic, the concept can quickly become an unfortunate game of\nsorts that seeks to further divide autism from the imaginary normal. However,\nin her examination of retrospective diagnosis, the author missteps in only\nconsidering the angle of neurotypical analysis, and not the possibility of transformative\nrepresentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While\nRodas\u2019 original point is correct, it should not be used to limit the potential\nof autistic empowerment and creativity that results from an autistic person\u2019s\nreading of otherwise \u201cnormal\u201d characters. She uses the concept in the first\nplace to discuss the messy history of autistic diagnosis. Diagnosis as a list\nof categorizations has been around since the first iteration of the DSM. The\nbook itself has also been constantly updated to change our modern standards of\nwhat a person\u2019s disorder should<\/em> entail.\nAs Rodas also states, narrowing the definition of autism to one unquestionable\nset of rules is nearly impossible, and further, is in some ways problematic.\nExamples can include the complex social norms that dictate the labels of \u201chigh-functioning\u201d\nand \u201clow-functioning,\u201d and the subsequent challenges to them. The allure of\nfitting autism into a box only further separates the community by questioning\nother\u2019s validity and concepts of personal identity\u2014essentially, who is \u201creally\u201d\nautistic. But recent attempts have been made to queer the narrative, removing gatekeeping\nwhen it is needless. Surrounding this, as a cultural phenomenon (and when done by\nand for autistic persons) retrospective diagnosis can become a function of empowerment.\nIt is important to state the difference in the readings of fictional versus\nhistorical characters, however. Retrospectively diagnosing a once-living person\nintroduces more subtle questions of morality and agency that a text-focused fictional\ncharacter simply does not have. As such, to clarify the intended message, only\nreadings of the fictional are discussed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rodas\ndiscusses retrospective diagnosis as a performance of sorts to find an imaginary\nautistic baseline. Taken in the context of an autistic person looking for the\nself, however, the connotation changes. Now more than ever in media we see\ncalls for more frequent and accurate representations of diversity that reflect\nthe real world. The narrative of identifying with or being empowered by a\ncharacter is increasingly spotlighted at all levels of our entertainment\nculture. And we are living now in an age of transformative works\u2014instead of an\nauthor\u2019s word being taken as final law, we are increasingly encouraged to reflect\nmore critically on the text, even re-writing or changing certain aspects of it.\nAt the more extreme end of reading a character as \u201cself\u201d is the notion of tongue-in-cheek\ndeclaring a character with a minority you yourself represent, regardless of\nsolid textual proof. This simply because the personal connection to the story\nfinds this type of interpretation comforting. After all, who gets to decide which\ninterpreted traits are autistic expressions? \u00a0Rodas references Sherlock Holmes, one of the\nmost popular figures commonly interpreted as autistic. When a list is made of\ntheoretical evidence to attempt to find the autistic traits of the character\n(cold, socially inadept, savant) Autistic\nDisturbances <\/em>is right to call out the fall into stereotype. Yet when\ninterpreted by autistic person, the goal becomes not to claim false diversity\nbut to celebrate the connection to self. As in, a neurodivergent reader who\nsuffers from generalized anxiety disorder might pick up a character\u2019s nervous\ntendencies and read them as having GAD to further establish the joy of having a\nhero reflected in themselves. The same can be said of autistic readings, and\nintersectionally: the gay reader might want to find representation in a homosocial\nrelationship, the non-white reader might interpret a never-stated appearance as\nclose to their own. Culturally diverse consumers of media have long been\nsurviving on scraps. To purposefully seek out representation instead of waiting\nfor change cannot be compared with neurotypical analysis of stereotypes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore,\nestablishing such beloved, well-known characters as autistic shifts the frame\nof comfortable normalcy in a dominant neurotypical culture. Autism by the general\npopulation is still misunderstood, demonized, and often seen as uncomfortable\nto interact with. By pushing a reading of popular characters as autistic and\notherwise neurodivergent, the perspective changes. The question becomes not why<\/em> but why not?<\/em> and encourages discussion. Neurotypical readers are nudged\ninto becoming proximate with an otherwise distant idea, and proximity to\ndivergency results in acceptance: common ground becomes recognized. In addition,\nthe more of this that there is, the more aspects of autism are explored in\nfiction. Standard cultural figures purposely written as autistic such as the \u201cRain\nMan\u201d can now be understood as single pieces in a larger tapestry of identities\nfalling under the same label. Rodas includes a section from Sonya Freeman Loftis\ndiscussing how public perception of a character can in itself contribute to\ndominant stereotypes, as the character is then used as the standard for\ninteractions with actual autistic individuals. This is upheld only in a society\nthat allows for just a few popular representations of autism in the first\nplace. Allowing autistic interpretation to, within reason, blur the lines of this\nstandard boosts representation and deconstructs the idea of the imaginary normal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At\nthe heart of the matter, the disability rights movement is one in a long series\nof conversations on how the minority can be accepted by the majority. The\nneurotypical analysis of retrospective diagnosis offers assimilation to the\ndominant culture, and therefore it is rightfully distrusted by scholars such as\nJulia Miele Rodas. It seeks to unearth the \u201cabnormal\u201d traits of a character and\nprescribe autism to them, othering further an already marginalized community.\nBut the autistic analysis of retrospective diagnosis brings revolution,\nrejecting assimilation. It shows that transformative interpretation helps the\ndefinition of autism stand alongside other social constructs. It is either our\nmany facets of human identity exist together in equality, or slowly some\nidentities will be forcibly pressed into the mold of the larger ones. Anything\nthat disrupts the latter narrative should be seen as legitimate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Works\nReferenced<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rodas, Julia Miele. \u201cIntroduction,\u201d\nAutistic Disturbances. <\/em>2018. PDF\nFile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Word Count: 1144<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pledge: \u201cI hereby declare\nupon my word of honor that I have neither given nor received unauthorized help\non this work.\u201d -Lauren C. Magee<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 … Continue reading “Lauren C. Magee’s Final Paper: “Claiming the Transformative in Retrospective Diagnosis””<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/papJgd-p8","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.chris-foss.net\/dislit19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1558","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.chris-foss.net\/dislit19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.chris-foss.net\/dislit19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.chris-foss.net\/dislit19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.chris-foss.net\/dislit19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1558"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/courses.chris-foss.net\/dislit19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1558\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1559,"href":"https:\/\/courses.chris-foss.net\/dislit19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1558\/revisions\/1559"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.chris-foss.net\/dislit19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1558"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.chris-foss.net\/dislit19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1558"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.chris-foss.net\/dislit19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}