Points of Praxis

My Blog Reflects on Visual Rhetorical Theory and Disability Rhetoric and their Connections to Classical and Contemporary Rhetorical Theory

While this is an academic blog for my independent study course, I'm going to take the liberty to incorporate the "personal" into this discussion, as is common among those within the disability studies discourse community.  Specifically, I've been thinking a lot lately about my autistic son and his struggles in school this year.  (I'm going to call him "Charlie," for privacy's sake.  And, those of you who know him will get the reference.) 

If I can give a little bit of background, Charlie is considered "high-functioning" autistic since he vocalizes his communication, interacts with his peers and others, and makes eye contact some of the time.  There is, though, quite a bit of controversy surrounding the use of the terms "high" and "low" functioning, primarily because these designators are contingient on an autistic person's ability to verbally communicate with others.  "High" functioning autistic children are often, also, labeled as having Asperger's Syndrome; the difference here, again, has to do with language ability.  

I'm in very murky water here, but  the difference between being "traditional" autistic and "Asperger's" autistic relies quite a bit on a child's development of language skills.  According to the DSM IV, for a child to be considered "Asperger's," he or she developed language skills appropriately for his or her age; whereas, "high" functioning autistic children experienced significant language delays.  (Of course, there are other markers distinguishing between "high" functioning autistic and "Asperger's," including imaginative and academic abilities, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to focus on the distinguishing characteristic of language abilities.)  Also, there are controversies concerning the labels "high" and "low" functioning autism because "high" functioning implies "some" functioning and "low" implies "no" functioning.  The distinctions as to what constitutes "high" and "low" is determined, it seems to me, by a person's economic, social, and productive contributions to a society.  (A socially constructed scale that is, again, a topic for a whole other post.)

In regard to language abilities, a point of contention that I wish to address in regard to this distinction of "high" and "low" functioning based on verbalization is the primacy of discursive ability.   Namely, an autistic child's distinction as having "some" or "no" functioning is determined primarily on that child's ability to construct meaning either verbally or through text-based discourses.  This struggle to identify one's functioning (or worth, really) is an issue addressed throughout deaf scholarship.

Still, I don't believe that the issue here is one of verbal or written discourses; rather, this is a conflict of semiotics--the differences among the signs.   And, the priviledging of one sign system over another.   For instance, autistic children are often able to communicate their needs with the "outside" world by pointing at pictures on computers or clipboards.  Specifically, many non-verbal autistic children rely on pictures to communicate that they are hungry, are thirsty, are tired, need to go to the bathroom, or want to "sensory" break.  Whereas a N-T (neuro-typical) child might tell his mother, "I am hungry" to indicate that he or she would like a sandwich, a "low" functioning autistic child might point to a picture of a sandwich to indicate hunger.  Likewise, a picture of a glass of milk would indicate thirst, and a picture of a toliet would indicate the need to use the bathroom.  However, because oral and written discourses are, typically, priveledged, the use of pictures to convey meaning is considered "low" functioning.  The connotations are clear:  verbalization indicates "high" or meaningful functioning whereas pointing to pictures is considered "low" or meaningless functioning.

I use the term "meaningless" intentionally here because it is quite appropriate to any discussion of signs and semiotics.  According to Daniel Chandler, signs "take the form of words, images, sounds, odours, flavours, acts or objects, but such things have no intrinstic meaning and become signs only when we invest them with meaning" (Chandler 17).  The pictures that autistic children use to communicate are meaningful; however, they are not considered meaningless to a community that values verbal and written discourses.   The difference here is, in many ways, a difference of signifier and signified.  For N-T children, the signifier "I'm hungry" conveys the signified hunger.  Conversely, for autistic children, the signified concept for hunger is a picture of a sandwich--something that functions to satisfy hunger.  The signifier is the act of pointing to a picture of a sandwich.  And, as Saussure notes, the difference is purely "psychological."  Both the N-T child and the autistic child function by engaging in the act of signification, but the signification is validated and priviledged by the N-T child and autistic child's signification is considered "low."  We could look, similarly, at acts like head-banging, flapping, and spinning as moments of signification.

It's easy to understand, then, how many within the medical and autistic discourse communities commonly evoke and invoke to metaphor of the autistic child as locked away, just out of reach, and lost within the mazes of their minds.  The signification is obviously there.  Autistic children are able to communicate.  However, the recognition of that signification is what is dismissed.

In order to understand autistic communication, I think, first, there needs to be more humanities-based research on autism, disabilities studies, rhetoric, discourse analysis, semiotics, and visual rhetoric.   Second, I believe that there needs to be more academic collaboration among scholars of deaf culture, deaf communication, the deaf community and autistic scholars and the autistic community.  It seems like the autistic community could learn much from the deaf community and culture in regard to communication, constructed meaning, and making the meaning known to the "outside" world.  The deaf community has worked tirelessly to have ASL recognized as the legitimate signification system that it is, and I believe that this validation of signification as something other than verbalized speech is something about which the autistic community could learn.

posted by: rgregory at 15:49 | link | comments |

Template by motime.com  |  header image credit: Markus Gann © www.begann.de