Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
baddad

One to think about, maybe...

Recommended Posts

I posted something a couple of days ago about historical figures now being 'back-diagnosed' as autistic, and it got me thinking...

In these days of better diagnosis, early intervention, adaptive education etc, do you think those historical figures would be able to achieve the same sort of recognition, or do you think 'official' diagnosis would have a negative impact on their lives?

I think some among them might achieve a degree of fame as 'savants' - the musical prodigies etc - but that's something of a double edged sword because it tends to overlook the talent in favour of curiosity value. A few very specialised 'experts' (maths etc) might achieve recognition in their field, but I also think the kind of 'radical' thinking that enabled them to really break through in the past would be stifled and suppressed in the modern world.

Trying to think of a couple of more recent examples:

 

Andy Warhol - could he have achieved his fifteen minutes of fame with a diagnosis in the 21st century, or would the things that made him unique in the fifties and sixties just be seen as a facet of his diagnosis? Would you buy a very expensive tin of soup from this man?

Bill Gates - would he have been in a position to make Microsoft happen, or would he have been one of the backroom boys coming up with all the ideas but never getting to steer the ship?

 

In the post I made the other day I said something about them (historical figures) not being defined by their disabilities or problems and just 'getting on with it'. Would it be possible, in this day and age to 'just get on with it'? And if not, why not?

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :unsure:

 

L&P

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Interesting topic. I think as time passes by that the pressures of day-to-life greatly increases. The current financial climate, redundancies, lower pay, debts, etc all impact on family life, people's stress levels and ability to tolerate things, etc. It's one big vicious cycle. I'm therefore inclined to think that it's more difficult for people just to get on with it, in the same way as some of those figures that you've mentioned. Sure, society has progressed in a lot of respects ie having a child out of wedlock, being gay and being able to be open about it, etc are all more acceptable now, but I still think society as a whole has taken some backward steps too. I think people are still largely expected to conform and fit into society. Anyone that's a different still faces hardship.

 

It is amazing to look back and consider some of the historical brilliant minds figures. Could be wrong, but I wonder how many of those figures were born into wealth and so were given a greater degree of acceptance and tolerance and 'safety'.

 

The one thing that I can conclude is that we need people that are different!

 

Caroline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi CMuir - yep, totally agree about needing people who are different!

I do agree with you about society taking some backward steps generally, and to a degree about the pressures of conformity.

That said, though, I think one of the major differences between (the hypothetical) 'then' and 'now' is social responses to 'difference'. No doubt there have been some major advances, as you say, but I think also there are huge disadvantages to a system that concentrates almost exclusively on the 'differences' to the exclusion of the similarities. Being 'a bit odd' or 'eccentric' - terms that might well have been applied to autistic people historically - a century or two ago wouldn't have had the same life implications it does these days. Some of those implications are undoubtedly gains, but I also think there are lots of negatives too. 100 years ago - even fifty years ago - someone 'odd' or eccentric' would have achieved (or not achieved) whatever they were going to achieve on the basis of what they did and/or how they did it. Looking at todays high profile autistics, most of them are high profile because of their autism (Donna Williams, Ros Blackburn, Stephen Wiltshire etc) rather than what they do/how they do it, and in the case of someone like SW, even the skills they have are attributed to the diagnosis - an un natural 'autistic' talent rather than what would be ascribed a 'natural' talent if they were not autistic.

One notable exception I can think of is Temple Grandin, but I wonder even here - despite the very unusual nature of her skillset - whether she could have 'broken through' today?

 

L&P

 

BD :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The society the big cooperation's and their chums in government have created, is suppressing everyone's individuality and creativity, not just those with autism. At school we'ere told we need to get good exam results so we can get a good job and work for someone else. They definitely don't want us to be imaginative, inventive or creative, as someone with freedom of thought might actually challenge this system and society they've created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The society the big cooperation's and their chums in government have created, is suppressing everyone's individuality and creativity, not just those with autism. At school we'ere told we need to get good exam results so we can get a good job and work for someone else. They definitely don't want us to be imaginative, inventive or creative, as someone with freedom of thought might actually challenge this system and society they've created.

 

I disagree with your views on school.

I am forty three.

I have two lads age 14 [NT] and 12 [AS].

I wish I had had half the oppurtunities my lads have now.

At my school there was really only one curriculum based round a limited range of options.

My lads have multiple options and could go on to further education to study just about anything.

Ben would not even have been able to write in the 1970s but now with ICT he has ben identified as a potential author or graphic designer.That is about as creative as you can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect there would have been a lot of people in the past who were held back through a lack of diagnosis and the support and understanding that could bring. Probably far more than succeeded despite having unrecognised ASD.

 

I think that many people credit the autism when an autistic person has success in their chosen field, when the things that have led to that success are probably the same things that have led non-autistic people to similar successes - an interest, a natural ability, and a lot of hard work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can remember one autistic boy from my childhood. He was in no way going to 'just get on with it'. He was institutionalised when his elderly mother became unwell. My mother and I saw him about five years after this had happened and I would never have recognised him. I'm not sure that there was more tolerance of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect there would have been a lot of people in the past who were held back through a lack of diagnosis and the support and understanding that could bring. Probably far more than succeeded despite having unrecognised ASD.

 

I'm not so sure... I suspect that some people were held back (or additionally compromised) by a lack of support and understanding, but in other cases, even without an 'official' diagnosis, they would have been supported. To assume that diagnosis = appropriate support overlooks far to many other factors - and i think, purely and simply from the diversity of opinions on this forum for example and from the largely negative views expressed regarding support services, that what equates to appropriate support is a very elastic (and subjective) concept.

 

I think that many people credit the autism when an autistic person has success in their chosen field, when the things that have led to that success are probably the same things that have led non-autistic people to similar successes - an interest, a natural ability, and a lot of hard work.

Absolutely! And it is just not good enough! And if it isn't that, it's somebody else trying to take all of the credit for their brilliant teaching/mentoring/parenting skills! :lol:

 

L&P

 

BD :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not so sure... I suspect that some people were held back (or additionally compromised) by a lack of support and understanding, but in other cases, even without an 'official' diagnosis, they would have been supported. To assume that diagnosis = appropriate support overlooks far to many other factors - and i think, purely and simply from the diversity of opinions on this forum for example and from the largely negative views expressed regarding support services, that what equates to appropriate support is a very elastic (and subjective) concept.

Well yes, I do agree that appropriate support can still be hard to find! However, I think it was probably even harder to find before autism was understood.

 

We only hear about the eccentricities of the successful people. We don't hear anything about the others because they didn't achieve anything interesting. I am sure they were far more numerous than the great scientists!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We only hear about the eccentricities of the successful people. We don't hear anything about the others because they didn't achieve anything interesting. I am sure they were far more numerous than the great scientists!

 

Yes, but they probably just got on with their lives in a way that someone with a dx of autism couldn't. I've been amazed at how many 'active but odd' people you find in classic novels - Steinbeck offers a good crop, and so does JD Salinger with the Glass family and even Holden C... Truman Capote's another one... And come to that, what about Boo Radley in Capote's mate's 'TKAMB'? They weren't necessarily the lead characters, but they were just part of the tapestry of background characters, and for the most part their idiosyncracies weren't negatively judged but just accepted. Some of them - Capote's Aunt Dolly and most of the Glass family, for example - were viewed very affectionately, but affectionately in a very genuine sense rather than the patronising way that autistic people might be portrayed in literature or on TV today.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that autistic people would have got a better deal 100 years ago, and certainly at the non-verbal more profound end of the spectrum I wouldn't even dream of suggesting it. But for those most able, those at the HFA end of the spectrum or AS, I can't help wondering whether dx actually sets up more barriers than it breaks down(?)

 

L&P

 

BD :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...