Search for:
Jan 19 2022
Is Autopia possible? Realities of an Autistic homeland

At Aucademy we often talk of a perfect Autistic homeland, affectionately dubbed Autopia. Conceptualised as a place in which all Autistics can lead peaceful and comfortable lives, it sounds like a dream come true; but what are the realities of such a place? Is such a place even possible?

This evening I was discussing such things with a good friend of mine, and one thing became clear. Accommodating Autistics does not necessarily mean all disabled people are accommodated.

Let’s use the UK supermarkets “autism hour” as an example.

In the UK, many supermarkets have an hour a week where they reduce sensory stimuli, and encourage only Autistic people to attend to their shopping in order to reduce crowds. It helps, but there is a wider conversation about only doing this for an hour a week that needs to be addressed another time. We can, however, look at why this can’t be done all the time.

Lower lighting is great for Autistics with no particular intersections of other disabilities, but what of those with conditions of the eye that make seeing in dim light difficult? In our attempt to grant privileged access to one minority, we have removed access for another minority.

This really is the crux of the issue with creating Autopia. Autistic people live at many intersections of experience, and any attempt to accommodate everyone together, will likely marginalise another minority.

A true Autopia would require an individual approach, where each person’s living environment is adapted to there individual needs. It would require a bespoke design.

This however presents an issue with shared spaces. Autistic people represent a great deal of intersections with race, gender, disability, and so forth. The creation of a truly inclusive and safe space for Autistics would require more than sensory rooms and a living situation outside of the grasp of capitalism.

The complexities of creating shared space for all Autistics, both physically, and virtually, is still something that needs to be addressed.

Minority groups from all intersections have been telling us about the bigotry they face within our online community. Non-speakers getting attacked for their use of language when they have no access to Autistic spaces, black and trans Autistics having their experiences ignored and invalidated.

These are just a couple of examples of things that need to be addressed if Autopia is to ever become reality.

Whether we care to admit it or not, the Autistic does have unwritten rules, and some in our community react poorly when newcomers do not understand the nuances of our community. This in itself creates issues of accessibility.

This is personally why I adore neuroqueer theory. Should we not live a life true to our natural selves? We need to encourage Autistics to live authentic lives, not exclude them from our spaces.

This is not to excuse the intentional perpetuation of pathology paradigm views and bigotry, but a comment on the fact that we were all raised with problematic ideas of what it is to be Autistic. Was it not access to the community that helped us change those views, and embrace the neurodiversity paradigm.

There is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to a neurocosmopolitan society. That approach is provincialist in nature, creating privilege for some while marginalising others.

On the whole, I constantly see a great deal of positive growth and evolution from the Autistic community, but like any societal movement as it reaches maturity, the Autistic rights movement has some creases that need ironing out.

Autopia is a beautiful goal to shoot for. It’s time we came together and made it a reality for all Autistics. Together we can build a neuroqueer future, and on that basis, a neurocosmopolitan society.

Isn’t that something worth fighting for?

David Gray-Hammond 1 Comments
Dec 21 2021
Neuroprovincialism, neurocosmopolitanism, and the liminal nature of the neurodiversity movement

Before I start, I highly recommend reading Dr. Nick Walker’s book Neuroqueer Heresies alongside this blog article. In particular, the chapter on Neurocosmopolitanism. It has heavily inspired this piece, and it would not exist without it.

Liminality is essentially the point of transition between two states. If one were to walk from the living room to the hallway, the doorway would represent the liminal point between the two rooms.

The neurodiversity movement then, can be considered the liminal point between neuroprovincialism and neurocosmopolitanism.

Prior to the neurodiversity movement’s creation, the world can be considered largely to have fallen under provincialism. There is no equity, cultural neuronormativity was the standard by which everyone was measured, all that fell outside of that standard was considered deviant, or broken. The pathology paradigm ruled our viewpoint. It was a narrow-minded world lacking the sophistication of an equitable society.

The future that the neurodoversity movement ultimately works towards, is what can be considered a neurocosmopolitan society. In such a society, no single neurological identity is considered standard. Terms like “neurotypical” and “neurodivergent” cease to be relevant, because the world recognises and actively celebrates the diversity of minds. We are still a long way from that future, but change is happening.

Thus, the neurodiversity movement can be considered the liminal point between the two. It serves as a doorway between two different worlds, one in which autistic and otherwise neurodivergent people are pathologised, oppressed, and hated, and another where we are treated as equals, seen as a fact of life, and not something to be fixed or eradicated.

When we consider liminality, doorways between places, we have to consider whether that doorway is suitable for all people to use.

Some will choose simply not to pass through the liminal space. Many of us are terrified of the unknown, and stay with what is familiar, no matter how detrimental. Some will leap forth, embracing a new state of existence. But what of those for whom the door is not designed?

It is known that the neurodiversity movement still has work to be done when it comes to fully including particular minority groups. Often non-speaking members of the movement find themselves talked over, although many are working to reduce that. BIPoC individuals have long been the victims of provincialist societies racism and oppression, and sadly such prejudice and bigotry can still be found in various movements for societal change.

Simply put, it is vital for us to ensure that the doorway can accommodate all who wish to pass through. If the neurodiversity movement can not serve as an appropriate liminal space for all, then a neurocosmopolitan society will be impossible to achieve.

Each of us contains inherent prejudice, passed down from the old society. If we wish to move through this liminal place, and emerge into the light of a new world for all, we must dismantle the thinking of yesteryear.

Dismantle the egotistical side of ourselves that centres all conversation around the ‘me’, and extend our viewpoint and attention to include every voice. We all have something to say, but we don’t all have the privilege of a platform.

The first step to building any doorway, is to design one that all may use should they wish.

David Gray-Hammond 2 Comments
Verified by MonsterInsights