Search for:
May 29 2023
Creating Autistic Suffering: CAMHS kills kids

This article was co-authored by David Gray-Hammond and Tanya Adkin

This article includes exerts from interviews conducted by David, all interviewee’s gave their permission for quotes to be used.

Tanya has demand avoided weighing in on this topic for quite some time. Not for no good reason. Tanya has felt torn with this topic and the potential outcome of the petition that has been circulating and included in David’s previous articles on CAMHS. This petition has been signed by nearly 190,000 people as we type this. The number is climbing. The petition shines a light on the routine refusal of services such as CAMHS to provide mental health support for Autistic children and young people.

Neither of us have ever been quiet about our opinions on statutory services for Autistic young people, Tanya especially is a firm proponent of the phrase “CAMHS kills kids”. This might sound extreme, but in our lines of work we have seen their lack of competence have life altering/ending consequences.

If this petition succeeds to its fullest extent, and the doors are flung open as tens of thousands of Autistic children across the country flood into CAMHS departments (unlikely to happen quite like this, but bare with us), what awaits us on the other side of those shiny doors? Doors that Autistic people very rarely get to see the other side of.

You’d be forgiven for assuming “support” might be found there. That’s what CAMHS is there for, right? Our biggest fear is that we are just waiting to be disappointed at best, and at worst, the mental health of tens of thousands of Autistic young people is going to get significantly worse.

What might CAMHS offer?

“Services are still being designed without the involvement of the people using them. There is chronic under-funding and under-staffing which is undoubtedly having a huge negative impact on outcomes.”

Charlotte, CAMHS Professional

CAMHS may offer:

  1. Medication–
    • This has it’s place, but 9 times out of 10, in our experience, Autistic people present with mental health issues (especially young people that have been subject to the trauma that comes from an education system not fit for purpose, and woefully underfunded) due to unmet needs. There is no amount of medication that can fill the space where education falls short. It’s akin to sticking a plaster on a stab wound.
  2. Talking Therapy–
    • If an Autistic young person has experienced enough trauma to feel they need to access mental health services, it’s highly likely that they will be alexithymic. The first thing to suffer when a child is traumatised is their interoception. If they can not express how they feel, talking therapies (usually based in CBT) are likely to reinforce the medical model view that they are broken and can not be fixed. Furthermore, they’ll mask through it. Masking is a leading predictor of suicidality in Autistic people (Higgins et al, 2021; Adkin, 2023).
    • Neuronormativity is another factor to consider, if the person who is helping the child or young person comes from a neuronormative perspective that “neurotypical” is the gold standard of being that everyone should strive for, then you’ve given a young person something else to fail at (Gray-Hammond and Adkin, 2022).
  3. Parenting Courses–
    • You can’t parent away Autistic trauma (Gray-Hammond and Adkin, 2021) or burnout, or really any other mental health concern for that matter. Not only is it extremely patronising, it also risks parents being taught harmful, outdated methods based on the lack of competence of those designing and delivering said courses. This leads nicely onto our last offering on the CAMHS shitlist.
  4. Parent Blame–
    • Institutionalised Parent/Carer Blame (IPCB) is a real phenomenon (Clements and Aiello, 2021), and the NHS is an institution. The thing about IPCB is that it covers the lack of professional competence and protects their egos by shifting the onus of responsibility onto the parent and subsequently social care. It’s also a fantastic cost-saving tool. Unfortunately, it often has devastating consequences. It’s not only the young person not getting their needs met, it’s the trauma of parents believing they are responsible for their young person’s mental health difficulties. The trauma accrued from social care involvement. The worst but not uncommon occurrence of an accusation of fabricated and induced illness (Gray-Hammond and Adkin, 2022).

” I worry about staff knowledge levels regarding up-to-date autism practice and the nature of the interventions offered”

Jenny, Parent of child under CAMHS

What do Autistic children and young people with mental health concerns actually need?

“Practitioners need to be better equipped to recognise the differences between treatable mental health difficulties, and challenges within the context of autism”

Charlotte, CAMHS Professional

They need:

  1. Sensory Integration trained Occupational Therapists
    • This is absolutely essential to understand the sensory profile of an Autistic person. It allows us to make provision and adjust the environments they exist in accordingly. This in turn reduces the impact of sensory trauma (Fulton et al, 2020). This also affords the young person and the people around them understanding of their needs. It reduces anxiety and builds self-advocacy, while simultaneously helping develop coping strategies.
    • There’s one problem with this, there are not enough qualified OT’s. There is a workforce crisis across social care and the NHS (Brexit doesn’t seem like such a bright idea after all…). This is just for regular OT’s. To become a sensory integration OT you need approximately two years extra post-graduate study (Can’t see the government finding a magic OT tree at the bottom of the garden any time soon).
  2. Mental Health professionals that will call out the school system for the trauma they cause
    • Unfortunately, it’s not considered “professional” to call out other statutory services. Health professionals are often told that they can not comment on education because it is outside of their remit. Tanya would argue that safeguarding is everyone’s remit (David agrees). We would remind professionals that physical and mental health have legal parity (Baker and Gheera, 2020). If a teacher willfully broke a child’s leg, it would be on national news. Yet, routinely restraining an Autistic child into a traumatic environment is the norm (Gray-Hammond, 2023). Or even worse, threatening parents with either social care (safeguarding) or financial penalties for non-attendance.
  3. Competence
    • As previously mentioned, we need professionals that fully understand Autistic experience and culture. Everything from masking to monotropism, burnout to community-connectedness (Botha, 2020). Without competence, you can’t have safety because the person will not be aware of their own neuronormative viewpoints. The cycle will continue.

“I remember one clinician telling me, ‘there’s not much you can do with them’ as in therapy for autistic children.”

Jane, former CAMHS Professional

Where does this leave us?

We are pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, it’s a question of supply and demand. If we demand, theoretically they should supply. In reality, how many of our children do we need to throw under the CAMHS bus until they get the message? This doesn’t stop at a petition. As any SEND parent will already be aware, this is just one rung on a never ending ladder of fighting, advocating, and holding professionals, services, and our government to account. So please sign this petition and help us place our Autistic feet on the proverbial ladder.

References

Adkin, T (2023) Mask on, Mask Off: How the common understanding of Autistic masking is creating another mask. Emergent Divergence.

Baker, C. and Gheera, M. (2020) Mental health: Achieving ‘parity of esteem’. HM UK Government.

Botha, M. (2020). Autistic community connectedness as a buffer against the effects of minority stress (Doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey).

Clements, L., & Aiello, A. L. (2021). Institutionalising parent carer blame. The Experiences of Families with Disabled Children in Their Interactions with English Local Authority Children’s Services Departments. Cerebra. University of Leeds.

Crane, L., Adams, F., Harper, G., Welch, J., & Pellicano, E. (2019). ‘Something needs to change’: Mental health experiences of young autistic adults in England. Autism, 23(2), 477-493.

Fulton, R., Reardon, E., Kate, R., & Jones, R. (2020). Sensory trauma: Autism, sensory difference and the daily experience of fear. Autism Wellbeing CIC.

Gray-Hammond, D. (2023) Restraint and seclusion in England’s schools. Emergent Divergence.

Gray-Hammond, D. and Adkin, T. (2021) Creating Autistic Suffering: In the beginning there was trauma. Emergent Divergence.

Gray-Hammond, D. and Adkin, T. (2022) Creating Autistic Suffering: Fabricated or Induced Illness, state sanctioned bullying. Emergent Divergence.

Gray-Hammond, D. and Adkin, T. (2022) Creating Autistic Suffering: Neuronormativity in mental health treatment. Emergent Divergence.

Gray-Hammond, D. and Adkin, T. (2023) Creating Autistic Suffering: Autistic safety and neurodivergence competency. Emergent Divergence.

Higgins, J. M., Arnold, S. R., Weise, J., Pellicano, E., & Trollor, J. N. (2021). Defining autistic burnout through experts by lived experience: Grounded Delphi method investigating# AutisticBurnout. Autism, 25(8), 2356-2369.

David Gray-Hammond 2 Comments
May 3 2023
Children are being seriously injured for displaying “challenging behaviour”

All statistics mentioned in this article are taken from The ICARS Report into the use of restrictive practice in England, information take from The Equality and Human Rights Commission, Human Rights as detailed by the United Nations, and The Royal College of Psychiatrists.

There is a growing belief in the world that the use of corporal punishment, ranging from smacking a child through to more archaic forms of punishment, are unacceptable. While this is a good thing, to me it shines a light on the hypocrisy that is currently at play.

While remaining a global phenomenon, restrictive practice is still widely used, and in particular it can be found in specialist settings where people work with disabled students who more likely than not have experienced a great deal of trauma. Autistic people in particular are likely to be traumatised, this is because of the way that the world is designed. There are myriad ways that the world does harm to us.

This becomes deeply problematic when we consider the way that restrictive practice takes place. While used as an intervention for perceived “challenging behaviour”, it would be more accurate to view restrictive practice as an intensive intervention for dysregulation.

Allow me to take a step back and consider the nature of such practice. Restraint is the use of techniques that restrict a person’s ability to act freely. Often when we consider such techniques, we imagine people being held to the floor, but we can see not just the use of mechanical restraints, but also chemical restraints in healthcare settings. Such restraints are employed by the use of drugs that inhibit a person’s ability to act freely.

As you can see from the off set, restrictive practice represents a significant issue in the human rights and ethics of working with disabled people. The hypocrisy lies with the people who speak out against corporal punishments while employing the use of restraint. While such practices are supposed to be “last resort”, 78% of those included in the ICARS report reported that their child had been a victim of restraint prior to the age of 10 years old.

Another concerning statistic is the number of children who were harmed by restraint. The ICARS report found that 97% of respondents were harmed, while restraint was only recorded 59% of the time (breakdown of statistics below). My interpretation of this data is that restraint is being performed dangerously, in a punitive context, and improperly recorded.

Taken from The ICARS Report into the use of restraint in English schools

The implication of children experiencing punitive restraint flies in the face of a society that is trying to move away from corporal punishment. Such brazen abuse of the position of trust and power that schools are privileged to have is simply unacceptable. Children have died and been significantly traumatised by restraint. This is, quite simply, not a practice that should be occurring in this day and age.

We must also consider the fact that restrictive practice feeds into a self-perpetuating loop, in which the child is constantly being exposed and re-exposed to the trauma of restraint. Dysregulation creates challenges, which are approached with restraint, causing trauma that once again results in dysregulation. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts that is fueled by societies pervasive desire to assimilate children’s behaviour into an “acceptable” standard.

Taken from Centre for Mental Health

According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), the UK has made a commitment to create an inclusive education environment and protect disabled people from all forms of violence and abuse. I would challenge our governments commitment to this convention on the grounds that the punitive and improper use of restraint is a direct violation of both of these commitments.

According to a report made in 2018 for the UNCRPD, 75% of Autistic students, and 70% of those with a physical disability reported bullying in school, compared with 50% of those with no disability. How can we reduce interpersonal bullying among students peers in an environment where adults are actively harming children with restrictive practice? We have, in effect, normalised the mistreatment of disabled children on the grounds that disabled embodiment is a challenge to be intervened on rather than addressing issues with the wider environment that are creating traumatised and dysregulated children.

The Universal Human Rights Index specifically mentions concerns over the UK’s use of restraint on children, stating;

“The Committee is concerned that the State party is still using techniques of restraint that aim to inflict deliberate pain on children in young offender institutions, including to maintain good order and discipline“

UHRI (Accessed May 3rd, 2023)

This indicates that the UK government is failing in it’s duty to prevent torture and ill-treatment of it’s citizens. This raises further questions about the fact that this failure specifically pertains to disabled children, a notably marginalised group in our current society.

The truth of the matter is that children’s lives are being endangered, if not by the restraint itself, then quite possibly due to it’s correlation with the 9x increase in suicide risk seen amongst Autistic people (RCPSYCH, 2018) and the significant over-representation of Autistic people in demographics that have been victims of restraint.

Disabled people deserve compassion and equal access to the world. All of the time that we are holding the threat of dangerous restrictive practice over their heads, this has not been achieved. we need to create a world in which disabled people thrive, are not met with the threat of pain and violence. Restrictive practice needs to be seen for the toruturous practice that it is, and not normalised as a means of forcing the behaviour that institutions arbitrarily believe is acceptable.

Before you go, don’t forget to check out my books!

David Gray-Hammond 0 Comments
Apr 16 2023
Neurodivergence, disability, and the politics of existence

Neuroqueer theory has been the single most important idea to emerge from the academic circles of neurodiversity into my own life. I say that with a hint of irony; neurodiversity is my life. It’s all our lives. Neurodiversity is a fact of human existence. Yet, to not perform to a cultures normative standards, neurotypically, is a disability.

The cold, hard truth of being neurodivergent is that you are disabled. This doesn’t mean that there is an issue within your body that requires fixing. It doesn’t mean that you are worth less. It does mean that the world will be a harsh place.

This is particularly problematic for those who engage in neuroqueering. The further away from that pinnacle performance of neurotypicality that we get, the more labels of pathology that society will paste onto us. To diverge from normality is to have a relationship with the world that is, at best, indifferent to your pain and, at worst, violently hateful.

In my own opinion, this has to do with the way that society frames deviation from the status quo. As soon as we decondition ourselves or fail to assimilate, we are dehumanised and discriminated against. We are told that our experiences are not valid and that our pain is our own fault.

This neatly absolves the powers that be of any responsibility for the suffering they inflict on neurodivergent people. Disability (to my mind) arises not only from obstacles in the environment but also from volatile and harmful relationships within that environment.

One of the most disabling things about being neurodivergent is the way that society frames our existence.

Our existence is able to be framed as such because there is a distinct power imbalance in our world. It’s not enough to tackle ableism and autistiphobia. We must also dismantle the bigotry and oppressive system that have infected and affected our society en masse.

You can not tackle disability as an issue without tackling white supremacy, homophobia, transphobia, or any form of bigotry. We have to decolonise in order to make the world accessible. All of these forms of hatred and discrimination play a role in the way that neurodivergent people are framed by society.

This is the nature of difference. Because society has a toxic relationship with difference and diversity, we are disabled for not assimilating.

The time has come to not just queer ourselves, but queer society. By abandoning the false hierarchies created by our capitalist systems in the west, we can embrace the anarchy of bringing the fringe to the centre. We can start this in our own communities by Embracing neuro-anarchy and breaking free of the normativity within our own circles.

The first step to decolonisation is to look inwards at our own environment.

We need to consider what parts of neurodivergent culture are helpful and what parts have arisen from the politicising of our existence. We can give rise to a society that is kinder to all, a world where difference is not a disability, but the first step is to realise our own role in that oppression.

Get access to extra content by purchasing a subscription to my Substack.

David Gray-Hammond 0 Comments
Mar 23 2023
Autistic people should not have to educate their therapist

I have had extensive therapy, as one might expect for a recovering drug addict who is also Schizophrenic. I have had mindfulness therapy, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. I’ve had Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, trauma therapy, psychoanalytic therapy. I’ve also had courses of therapy that use mixed approaches. Thanks to the NHS here in the UK, I have recieved all this for free. The problem is that while free, it was time limited.

Here is why that has been a problem for me as an Autistic person.

So often, therapists have said that they are able to work with my admittedly rather complicated profile of experiences. In particular, they will often claim that they have experience working with Autistic clients. The problem is that fundamentally, they don’t have a clue. This has left me with a difficult decision; educate the therapist or endure hours of inappropriate therapy.

People don’t come to therapy because they are in a good place. In the UK, a lot of therapy is gatekept behind “thresholds” of distress. Most (if not all) NHS trusts currently operate on a framework of crisis-driven intervention, which means that a person has to be in crisis before they receive support. Why then are we expecting Autistic people to waste their spoons and therapy sessions teaching a therapist what life is like as an Autistic person?

When we approach a therapy session, we come with the expectation that the therapist is the expert. Being faced with a professional who has little knowledge outside of awareness courses and mandatory training not only places the onus on the Autistic person to educate them; it undermines our confidence in the effectiveness of therapy. Having a level of confidence that therapy can work is vitally important to the process.

Therapists who do not understand Autistic experience will often employ behavioural strategies and infer thought patterns that are overtly incorrect. This can leave Autistic people feeling like therapy is more of an exercise in gaslighting than something there to help them. When faced with this, Autistic people will often feel forced to explain Autistic experience to their therapist. This means that time is wasted, and the process itself can often be intensely triggering, making any crisis worse.

This is why therapists need to spend time engaging with the communities that they work with in not only a professional context but also in the context of being the learner to willing educators. It is not okay for therapists to expect free labour from those in crisis.

This is perhaps one of the biggest accessibility issues in the world of therapy. Until such time that it is resolved, Autistic people are going to be left out in the cold during their time of greatest need.

David Gray-Hammond 1 Comments
Mar 3 2023
Reclaiming Neurofuturism: The disability question

Throughout the neurodiversity movement and wider into parent-led autism communities, there has been one particular question that comes up time and again: Is autism (and neurodivergence in general, for that matter) a disability?

The prevailing opinion of Autistic self-advocates and many people in neurodivergent-led communities is that, yes, it is a disability but only understandable using the social model of disability. Other groups have suggested that autism is not a disability, and use many euphemisms that neurodivergent people find patronising (no, I don’t have superpowers, and it’s definitely not a “diffability”). Then we have those parents and carers who believe that autism is a medical matter. They approach autism through the medical model of disability that views neurodivergence as something that is inherently broken in a person’s brain.

With the obvious caveat that pathologising neurodivergence is a weapon of normative violence, I believe there is somewhat of a middle ground in the way that we view disability. Perhaps we can find a way of interpreting a person’s disability that doesn’t require us to separate a person’s struggles into social issues, and medical issues.

First, let’s draw on the social models wisdom. A person’s access to the environment can often be a deciding factor in the presentation of disability. However, we have to consider what that environment consists of. Environs are made of more than objects and physical obstacles. Our relationships with those in our environment, and the power structures that exist within those relationships also form part of how we interact and experience our environment.

Having different or more intense support needs to the rest of your family will impact on how you relate to your family and how they relate to you. If your particular needs put you at odds with those you love, this will have an impact on your ability to access the environment.

Next, we have to consider the medical models teachings. Not all forms of disability come down to the diversity of minds. Autistic people especially are more likely to experience chronic health conditions. Unfortunately, under the current social model/medical model binary, they are required to separate out these parts of their identity in order to rationalise their support needs.

Consider then that under this approach, chronic health conditions and physical disability arising from traditionally medical issues also impact upon not only our access to the physical environment but how we relate to people in our environment. We can then see that the relationships and power structures in our lives are affected by not just neurodivergence but also those disabilities that are typically viewed through the medical model.

Where does this leave us?

People are not long lists of separate diagnoses that are the sum of their parts. We are whole people with diverse access and support needs, as well as undeniably interwoven relationships and power structures that impact upon our access and support needs. Regardless of the nature of your disability, the support you require will largely be defined by the way you relate to your environment and all of the people and objects within it.

In order to improve a person’s access to the world, it’s necessary to not only engineer physical accessibility features but also to engineer accessible power structures and relationships.

In my mind, I tentatively call this an enviro-relational model of disability, but I am open to suggestions.

If you take one thing away from this article, please understand that both the social and medical models ultimately fail to encompass a person’s entire experience of disability, and for this reason, we have to do further work to understand the true nature of disability in people’s every day lives.

David Gray-Hammond 1 Comments
Dec 12 2022
Has TikTok become a modern day version of the freak show?

If you are active in disability communities, you have almost inevitably come across disability TikTok. Providing brief insights into the lives of disabled people, it is the fastest growing platform available for the dissemination of information, but is there a darker side to the virality of video’s relating to disability?

From Autism, to ADHD, to Tourettes. We are giving people our emotional label to see the world through our neurodivergent eyes; for no longer than 10 minutes at a time.

For many of us, it is a place to relate to one another and feel less alone, but what of those that watch us as “entertainment”? I myself use TikTok, and have been surprised at the number of people who clearly aren’t there to learn. I stay for those who are, but itakes me uncomfortable.

Our lives are not your entertainment.

We are real, human people, worthy of dignity and respect. Our attempts to show you this should not be fetishized and mocked. If you come to disabled TikTok purely to laugh at us; you are the problem.

I don’t exist purely to make you feel better about you’re own identity. I’m not your inspiration, and I’m not a museum exhibit in a cabinet of curiosities. My life has value, a value that can’t be measured in the monetisation of followers, or the number of people that use my struggles to inflate their sense of superiority.

No.

If you come into disabled spaces sans disability, you need to be willing to sit and listen. My struggles are not an invitation for you to voice how grateful you are that you are not me. My strengths are not a source of income, or fuel for your secret desire that superheroes exist.

I’m not the concept of disability that you have in your head. I’m not a fucking concept at all. I’m a real person with a real life.

If you can’t treat me with dignity, then kindly stay out of our spaces.

David Gray-Hammond 0 Comments
Jul 19 2022
Neuroqueer: Gender Identity and Autistic Embodiment

This article was co-authored by David Gray-Hammond and Katie Munday

Neuroqueering means to subconsciously queer yourself by way of your neurology. One’s neurology is queer and therefore so is one’s Neurodivergent or Disabled embodiment (Walker, 2021). So, what does this mean for gender?

There appears to be a large overlap between LGBTQ+ identities and being Autistic, including being trans, non-binary or otherwise gender divergent (see references below). Autistic folk grow up with our own distinct culture, language and communication. Perhaps due to this that many of us are disinclined to take up prefabricated gender identities.

Our understanding of gender (like many things) is queered by our Autistic neurology. We simply do not embody non-Autistic gender. If we are male, we are Autistically male, if we are female, we are Autistically female. Whatever gender we are (or are not), we embody this Autistically.

Even cisgender Autistics have a tendency to construct our own versions of our assigned gender. “Traditional” gender roles often make little to no sense to us, especially for those of us in same gender and/or polyamorous relationships. We extend the boundaries of gender, devising a path toward neuroqueerness (Katie Munday discusses this in their article on neuroqueer cartography found here).

Exploring gender off the beaten track, starts with us engaging differently in social learning. A lot of us take an anthropological stance, studying those around us so we can better shield ourselves, challenge norms, and live more authentically. Through this deep thinking, structuring and restructuring we find where we belong, or more typically we create where we belong. We understand structures as entirely malleable and make identities which make sense for ourselves, not for other people (see Doing gender the Autistic way).      

Some of us see the binary boxes of ‘male’ and ‘female’ and run for the hills – we are both, neither, in-between, some of us are spinning around in our own genderless galaxy. ‘Male’ and ‘female’ are strange arbitrary categories used to oppress those of us who are not men, or not considered masculine enough. So, many of us look at these categories of gender and throw them out the window – they are meaningless to us.

We are neuroqueering the very perception of the self.

References and further reading

Barnett, J.P., & Maticka-Tyndale, E. (2015). Qualitative exploration of sexual experiences among adults on the Autism Spectrum: Implications for sex education. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 47(4), 171–79. https://doi.org/10.1363/47e5715

Bush, H.H. (2016). Self-reported sexuality among women with and without autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts.

George, R., & Stokes, M.A. (2016). Gender is not on my agenda: gender dysphoria and autism spectrum disorder. In L.Mazzoni, and B,Vitiello (Eds.), Psychiatric symptoms and comorbidities in autism spectrum disorder (p.121-134). Springer.

George, R., & Stokes, M.A. (2018). Gender identity and sexual orientation in autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 22 (8), 970-982.

Van der Miesen, A.I.R., Hurley, H., Bai, A.M., & de Vries, A.L.C. (2018). Prevalence of the wish to be of the opposite gender in adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 47, 2307-2317.

Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer heresies: Notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, Autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities. Autonomous press.

Walsh, R.J., Krabbendam, P., De Winter, J., & Begeer, S. (2018). Brief report: gender identity in Autistic adults: associations with perceptual and socio-cognitive profiles. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1-9.

David Gray-Hammond 5 Comments
Jul 12 2022
Neuroqueer: An introduction to theory

This article was Co-Authored by David Gray-Hammond, Katie Munday, and Tanya Adkin

The emergence and popularisation of Neuroqueer theory in the contemporary disability rights discourse and Autistic rights movement represents a significant step forward. Not only does it encourage pride in ones true self, but it emancipates the Neurologically Queer from the normative attitudes that society so often indoctrinates us into. For many people this term may be new, so in this article we will explore it’s origins and meaning.

Where did Neuroqueer theory come from?

Neuroqueer theory was conceptualised individually by Dr. Nick Walker, Remi Yergeau, and Athena Lynn Michaels-Dillon, however Walker also gives credit to Remi Yergeau for expanding on the concept. Walker has a definition of neuroqueer theory in her book Neuroqueer Heresies. She does however give the following caveat-

“I should first of all acknowledge that any effort to establish an ‘authoritative’ definition of neuroqueer is in the some sense inherently doomed and ridiculous, simply because the sort of people who identify as neuroqueer and engage in neuroqueering tend to be the sort of people who delight in subverting definitions, concepts and authority.”

Walker (2021)

Walker has an eight point definition in her book, but to summarise-

You’re neuroqueer if you neuroqueer.

What is neuroqueer?

To start, what is Queer?-

…queer as not about who you’re having sex with, that can be a dimension of it, but queer as being about the self that is at odds with everything around it and has to invent and create and find a place to speak and to thrive and to live.”

bell hooks

Neuroqueer, then, is the idea that individuals who do not to conform to neurotypical standards are neurologically queer, further queering their bodyminds. Queerness begets more queerness. Not everyone who is Neurodivergent neuroqueers, but everyone who neuroqueers is Neurodivergent. Some might question if one might be able to unconsciously neuroqueer, we will explore this further in another article.

Why do we need Neuroqueer Theory?

The neurodiversity paradigm allows Neurodivergent people to reframe our bodyminds through the lens of a minority identity, difference rather than deficit. Neuroqueer theory takes this a step further, by emancipating us from societal normativity, through intentional acts of defiance. Neuroqueer theory could inform the disciplines of Critical Disability Studies and Critical Autism Studies, as well as the Autistic rights movement, following on from the origins of the neurodiversity paradigm.

David Gray-Hammond 3 Comments
Jun 28 2022
More on Zeno’s Paradoxes and the issues with Autistic to non-Autistic communication

As you may have noticed from my most recent blog post, I am somewhat down a rabbit hole at the moment. In my previous article I discussed Zeno’s paradox of plurality and how it applies to the dehumanisation of Autistic people and the double empathy problem.

Today I would like to consider another of Zeno’s paradoxes and how it applies to the double empathy problem.

This particular paradox was known as the Dichotomy Paradox. Essentially, it explains that when travelling from point A to point B, one must first travel to the halfway point between the two. To then travel from that point to the destination, you must travel half way again. This continues infinitely when travelling towards a fixed destination and thus Zeno argued that you can never reach point B.

When considering communication across different neurocognitive styles, one must also consider what the goal is. If we presume that the goal is “successful communication” then the double empathy problem tells us that this is very difficult due to the different styles of communication. Despite this, Autistic people are always expected to be the ones to put the emotional labour into communicating. This has been discussed by Rachel Cullen, a recording of a livestream with Aucademy featuring them can be found here and here).

We then encounter the dichotomy paradox. Neurotypicals remain a fixed point in the goal of successful communication, while we as Autistics are constantly expected to move towards the goal by accommodating their preferred communication styles. It is as if we are constantly reaching the halfway point, and never reaching our destination. No matter how well we accommodate neurotypical preferences, we are caught in an infinite regression of distance, not achieving the aim.

This to me, highlights the deeper issue of dehumanisation and objectification of Autistics. Neurotypicals (perhaps subconsciously, sometimes consciously) consider themselves the pinnacle of humanity, a goal that all should be striving for. We know from the existence of the various compliance based behavioural interventions, that Neurotypicals do believe this in many cases. Evidenced by the fact that it is considered “gold-standard” to teach Autistic people to hide their Autistic nature.

As Dr. Monique Botha mentioned in their recent seminar, there is a reason why researchers and professionals insist on person-first language. “I want to eradicate autism” sounds much less like genocide than “I want to eradicate Autistic people”. However, both of those statements mean the same thing. This is justified because whether or not they overtly see it, neurologically queer behaviour and experience is seen as non-human. Remi Yergeau argued this dehumanisation was due (at least in part) to a perceived lack of rhetoricity in their book Authoring Autism.

Autistic people are viewed as husks, mindlessly performing nothing, controlled by an abstract spectre called autism. This then is perhaps why so many neurotypical people insist on person-first language, and ignore our preference of identity -first language. Why would they take a step towards the all consuming spectre? Surely it is better to leave such a thing trapped in that infinite journey towards a goal that is never to be reached.

This, then, is the appeal of neuroqueering to me. When I embrace my neuroqueer self, I no longer have to be trapped in the infinite journey towards performative neurotypicality. I escape the dichotomy paradox by abandoning societal expectations, and being true to myself. True to what nature intended for me. I am Autistic, I am divergent, and that divergence is a thing of beauty.

We need to raise up our fellow Autistics, high above the dichotomy of neurotypicality and neurodivergence. We need to embrace a world in which these words are redundant in meaning because no one group has the power to oppress another; and when our fellow Autistics are lost in the dark, we need to shine our own light, and guide them back to the daylight.

David Gray-Hammond 0 Comments
Jun 18 2022
The Zeno paradox of autism: Is this the root of the double empathy problem?

This was inspired by the book “Authoring Autism: On Rhetoric and Neurological Queerness” by Remi Yergeau.

The double empathy problem, so named, is the title given to the seeming appearance of deficits in communication in Autistic people. The double empathy problem states that Autistic people do not have a deficit in communication, but instead a different style of communication. Effectively, communication breaks down when attempting to communicate across neurocognitive styles. The different communicative styles do not combine well, and the predominant neurocognitive style oppresses the neurodivergent person by assuming a deficit.

Could this breakdown in communicative style arise from something called Zeno’s paradox?

Zeno’s paradox, more specifically, Zeno’s paradox of plurality, states that if two objects have the same attribute in common then we must assume them to be the same thing. In the same way, we can reverse this and say that if two similar objects have any difference, then we must assume them to be different things. Essentially, there is no such thing as the many, only the singular.

If we apply this to Autism and the double empathy problem, you can start to see where the problem arises. Non-Autistic people observe important differences between themselves and us as Autistic people. They then assume that we must be entirely different from themselves.

If Autistic people are assumed to be entirely different from non-Autistic people, then not only can we not have a commonality in the existence of our own culture, communities, minds, thoughts, feelings, and opinions, but essentially we can’t be people. This, I believe is where communication breaks down. Why we are assumed to have a communication deficit.

This paradox objectifies the Autistic person, and removes their agency. Therefore, why is it important to communicate on our level? Why learn our experiences and opinions? Does one listen to the opinions of a pencil? After all, if Autistics are reduced to an object, not part of the collective humanity due to our differences, then what can we possibly say that will be of importance to the human experience?

If we want to be listened to and heard, we need to escape Zeno’s paradox. We need to demonstrate our humanity. We need to demonstrate our personhood.

Until we succeed at such a cause, we will continue to be second-class citizens.

David Gray-Hammond 3 Comments
Verified by MonsterInsights