Reclaiming Neurofuturism: Responding to “The Double Empathy Problem is DEEP” by Edgar, 2024
The double empathy problem has existed as a concept in some form or another since the early 2000’s, although it made it’s way into academic literature in 2012 (Milton, 2012). Discourse around the double empathy problem has often focused on social reciprocity and attribution of empathic experience to Autistic people.
Edgar (2024) explores how growing divides in society have developed an extreme form of double empathy divide, which they refer to as DEEP (double empathy extreme problem). What I believe is missing from the conversation is the intentionality in how those divides are growing.
The intentional creation of minority silos via the double empathy divide
Differences in how we experience the societal environment play a significant role in the existence of a double empathy divide between Autistic and non-Autistic social actors. As an Autistic person, I can not walk a mile in non-Autistic shoes anymore than they could walk a mile in mine. This creates a cultural expression of the two groups that can hamper reciprocal social interactions.
It has been argued that Autistic communication is seen as “disordered” because we are a minority with less privilege. In truth, it’s because of the existence of a minority with more privilege than any other minority group. These people we can conceptualise as our lawmakers, billionaires, those who have the most privilege in our society. For them, it serves their privilege to maintain and increase cultural divides between minority groups who collectively out number then by a significant margin.
This growing divide has effectively siloed minority groups, increasing divides to an extent that we can no longer collectively threaten the privilege of the few.
Truth and the double empathy problem
“Truth is singular, it’s versions are mistruths”
Mitchell (2004)
This privileged minority weaponise the double empathy divide via the dissemination of their own version of truth. In particular, lawmakers employ a sort of Orwellian doublespeak that centres the existence of minorities such as Autistic people as problematic or dangerous. Each minority group is turned on the other via the dissemination of mistruth. We are taught to fear and hate each other so effectively that our collective power is dulled.
“I can’t empathise fully with a neurotypical experience of the world.”
Despite my struggle as an Autistic person to empathise with the average neurotypical, I have more in common with them than I do your average politician or billionaire (regardless of their neurocognitive style).
The litigious nature of disabled embodiment
“The DEEP (DOUBLE EMPATHY EXTREME PROBLEM) arises from feelings of disconnect; not only from cultural, sexual, political, religious, neurodivergent, or any other cross-section of differences but also through embodiment, or lack thereof.”
Edgar (2024)
Through the creation of minority silos, the societal rhizome has been cut to pieces and spread across a great distance. The Autistic rhizome (Gray-Hammond, 2023b) serves as a good example of the pejorative effect of weaponised double empathy on disabled embodiment. To embody Autistic experience in an open way is to risk social isolation, criminalisation, or even physical harm.
Through the dissemination of aforementioned mistruths, the most privileged in society have silenced our voices and brought our bodyminds to forced stillness. It is no longer enough for them to force us to have “quiet hands”, they now require a silenced cultural expression.
By silencing our bodyminds, they have halted the growth of a Chaotic Self (Gray-Hammond, 2023b). We are no longer able to move fluidly through our experience, instead frozen like ice on an arctic tundra.
Healing the rhizome through neuroqueering into liminal spaces
“Neuroqueering is a verb; it is an act of doing and transforming intentionally through the bodymind. To neuroqueer is to seek out the gaps, the in-between liminal spaces where disconnect lingers.”
Edgar (2024)
Liminal spaces represent the point at which one state transitions into another. A doorway is the liminal point between rooms. The creation of minority silos relies upon the expansion of these liminal spaces. Each rhizome is kept as far from the other as possible. As with all liminal spaces though, this space provides opportunity for change.
In nature, rhizomes can grow in any direction. Neuroqueering, then, allows us to expand into liminal spaces and reconnect that which has been siloed from each other. We can effectively neuroqueer the Autistic rhizome by growing through the empty space towards other minority silos.
The act of connection across the double empathy divide effectively queers the masters weaponisation of our differences. The answer is not to assimilate but to connect through our differences. Connection is an act of neuroqueer becoming in a world built on individualistic pursuits. Connection does not require us to love or hate anyone, simply to co-exist. To recognise our responsibility to each other lies in our power to create better futures for each other.
Connection is the striking surface of a hammer on the walls of the masters house.
References
Edgar, H. (2024). The Double Empathy Problem Is DEEP. Medium. MoreRealms. https://medium.com/@helenrealms/the-double-empathy-problem-is-deep-2364b3412c39
Gray-Hammond, D. (2023a). The resonates why explaining my neurodivergent experience will always be flawed. Emergent Divergence. https://emergentdivergence.com/2023/10/29/the-reason-why-explaining-my-neurodivergent-experience-will-always-be-flawed/
Gray-Hammond, D. (2023b). Reclaiming Neurofuturism: Rhizomatic Communities and the Chaotic Self. Emergent Divergence. https://emergentdivergence.com/2023/04/30/reclaiming-neurofuturism-rhizomatic-communities-and-the-chaotic-self/
Milton, D. E. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The ‘double empathy problem’. Disability & society, 27(6), 883-887.
Mitchell, D. (2004). Cloud Atlas. Sceptre.
