Note For Anyone Writing About Me

Guide to Writing About Me

I am an Autistic person,not a person with autism. I am also not Aspergers. The diagnosis isn't even in the DSM anymore, and yes, I agree with the consolidation of all autistic spectrum stuff under one umbrella. I have other issues with the DSM.

I don't like Autism Speaks. I'm Disabled, not differently abled, and I am an Autistic activist. Self-advocate is true, but incomplete.

Citing My Posts

MLA: Zisk, Alyssa Hillary. "Post Title." Yes, That Too. Day Month Year of post. Web. Day Month Year of retrieval.

APA: Zisk, A. H. (Year Month Day of post.) Post Title. [Web log post]. Retrieved from

Monday, October 8, 2012

A Social Construct

Might neurotypicality be a social construct? (And does it matter if it is?)

Well, considering any one thing the norm pretty much reeks of social construction, and considering everything that is not that norm to be a problem reeks of social construction as well.
That means I think it almost certainly is.
I think that there are probably a decent number of people who realize it, too.
We have the social model of disability already, where we realize that many disabilities wouldn't be a big deal if the needed supports were commonly available, with glasses used as an example- being near sighted could be a big problem, but it's not considered a big deal to wear glasses or to sit in the front of the room or to wear contact lenses. So people mostly don't care about near sighted as being a major problem.
If AAC were similarly accepted, needing to use it would not be seen as such a big deal.
If stimming were socially acceptable, doing so would not be seen as such a big deal.
If diversity were actually wanted, being different would be OK.
If being neuroatypical were socially acceptable, people wouldn't feel the need to go to such great lengths to pass.
Different neurotypes existing, I think, it not socially constructed, but most of what has been done with this fact falls under the category of social construct. Calling one neurotype "typical" certainly is.

Unfortunately, the fact that it is a social construct and knowing this fact are not enough to make the problems go away. Social constructs have been constructed- they are there. The one really good thing about social constructs is that they can be socially deconstructed if enough people try.
That's pretty much what the neurodiversity movement seems to be doing.

1 comment:

  1. I don't think it's necessarily a social construct for one neurotype to be considered "typical" (although the use of the specific term "typical" and its connotations might be.) It's true that certain neurotypes are just more common than others. The social construct and the problem are the idea that autistic and other less common neurotypes are BAD and that people with them should be made to be like "neurotypical" people.


I reserve the right to delete comments for personal attacks, derailing, dangerous comparisons, bigotry, and generally not wanting my blog to be a platform for certain things.