On-stage dehumanisation of autistic people: All In A Row and #puppetgate

"[I]t seems that the company was advised by the National Autistic Society against aspects of the production and decided to go ahead with them anyway."

"In a discussion with the BBC, Alex Oates responded to this criticism by saying 'people are making the point that we’re dehumanizing him…and, you know, in a way we are. But that wasn’t the primary reason we chose the puppet.'"

You can read Shaun May's (excellent) full review here: https://shaunmay.co.uk/allinarow/

I am not in a position to attend the play to write my own review of it; however, this man, a senior lecturer in drama and theatre, has, and this is his thorough review of it. I'm not sure if he's autistic or not (although some of the things he says in the review suggests that he is).

I am utterly appalled and disgusted at Oates' attitude, as are many, many other autistics. He ignores advice and guidance from the NAS (they are not without problems themselves, but in this case they absolutely got it right) and has the audacity to openly admit to dehumanising us. At least he admits to this callous action, which means it is undeniable and thus he cannot attempt to backtrack and claim he didn't. But the fact that he says it "wasn't the primary reason" implies that it was a reason, which suggests that, consciously or subconsciously, Oates does not see autistic people as human. And that is horrific.

The play's Facebook page has been deleting any and every comment expressing any objections to the puppet use, which makes it abundantly clear that our voices are explicitly unwelcome and that All In A Row has no interest in representing us fairly or accurately.

Yet again autistic perspectives are silenced.

In some articles they have claimed that the reason they opted to use a puppet rather than an actor is a combination of child-labour laws here in Britain and that the subject material would be too difficult for a child actor to handle, the emotional impact too difficult. That seems like a cop-out, an excuse, an attempt to pacify the autistic community, because if that was really the primary concern, there is a simple way around it - use a young adult actor fresh out of drama school. It would be far from the first play to do so: I present to you Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. In that, we initially meet the two protagonists (Albus Potter and Scorpius Malfoy) at the age of 11, with the main action occurring at the start of their fourth year, when they are 14. They use adult actors for these roles, and because they have fantastic actors in the roles, it works brilliantly and there is no issue with suspension of disbelief (I've seen it twice, with two different casts, and never once did I find myself thinking, "They're too old", same for everyone else I know who has seen it). I even said so on a post on the Southwark Playhouse post where they try to fob us off claiming "child protection", and on AIAR's page underneath the Southwark Playhouse post; I took screenshots because All in a Row has been very vigilant about deleting each and every comment criticising their decisions and dehumanisation of us.

So All in a Row has NO EXCUSE.

[For those using screenreaders, my comment is: "If you're so concerned about issues of child protection, there's a simple solution: use a young adult actor fresh out of drama school. Harry Potter and the Cursed Child manages this fantastically well, as have other plays, so why not go down this route instead of using a creepy puppet that reinforces the dehumanisation of us autistic folk that is still so pervasive in society?

And then there's this highly problematic cover/publicity image they use:

3 yellow French Fancy cakes neatly lined up, with one blue one (for the record, French Fancies do NOT come in blue; they come in yellow (lemon), brown (chocolate) and pink (plain)) upended and out of line in front of the yellow cakes. This blue one (Autism $peaks blue, no less!) is clearly meant to represent Laurence, the autistic child character, which sends up all kinds of red flags because of the connotations blue carries when it comes to autism (ie. Autism $peaks).

Symbols are hugely important in theatre (and fiction generally), so this cannot be an accident - so if they are using blue to represent autism, either they are unaware of this link (which shows a worrying lack of research) or they do not care that the autistic community on the whole rejects blue being used to represent autism. Given their actions mentioned above regarding dismissing the NAS's recommendations and the persistent deleting of all comments expressing objections, I'm inclined to go with the latter.

Using a puppet is another symbol: in this case a symbol of dehumanisation and absence of agency. The puppet in use is, quite frankly, creepy as hell. The face is grey (and grey is often associated with blandness, dullness, apathy and other such things - hardly anything to elicit positive feelings about it) and the expression does not change, suggesting passivity, and absence of emotions, thoughts and feelings (all accusations thrown at us in the past). It feeds into the false "blank slate" concept that Lovaas (the founder of ABA) so loved to espouse, reinforcing this concept that we are not people inthe same way that NTs are. Even more so because slate is grey. Additionally, the puppet has to be operated by another person, reinforcing the notion that autistic people do not have agency, that they need to have their every move prompted by another (implicit: NT) person. Finally, it perpetuates the false idea that autism is a shell, an idea so often used by those pushing the tragedy narrative (ie. that there is a "normal" NT child "trapped" inside the "shell" of autism). In short, it creates the idea that autistic people are not fully human, do not have agency, thoughts or emotions, and are just a shell operated by another.

This is a play that could have had great potential, that could have done so much good. But instead, like so many works of fiction written by NTs that feature autistic characters, it perpetuates the tragedy narrative of autism and literally completely dehumanises us. And on top of that, it was highly inaccessible to autistic people, which makes this even worse than it already was.

It is clear that Alex Oates (and by extension director Dominic Shaw and Southwark Playhouse) have no interest whatsoever in listening to autistic people or accurately representing us. Their persistent disregard of autistic voices has become wilful ignorance and active silencing.


#puppetgate

My academic background: BA(Hons) English Literature (2:1), MA Creative Writing (Merit) from Exeter.

Locked In For Autism ableist stunt

I came across the following article on the Neurodiverse UK Facebook page earlier and it's really made me furious:
 

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/autism-charity-caudwell-calls-for-volunteer-for-50-hour-glass-box-lock-in-at-hackney-tesco-1-5094876

I've just emailed the person organising it with the response below and I will be very interested to see the response, if I even get one.

I have also, annoyingly, just realised that I also meant to say that at the end of the 50 hours, the person in the box gets to go back to their normal, everyday life, whereas us autistics live our often-marginalised lives 24/7. Ah well, it's a minor point and I said quite a bit else.

Dear Andy,

I have just learned of the above event through the Hackney Gazette and am curious about why Caudwell Children is persisting in these events (I am aware of one occurring in Burnley recently and that another is planned for one in Birmingham in August) despite the fact that many of my fellow autistics are voicing their objections to it for a number of very good and well-explained reasons. I know for a fact that the organisation is well aware of our repeated objections, which is why I was hoping you or someone else within the organisation could justify to me your reasons for continuing this stunt.

We are still persistently demonised and dehumanised by the world at large. Stunts like these do nothing to reduce that and in fact are more likely to exacerbate it.

It plays into an old, tired and inaccurate stereotype of autism. It perpetuates narrow, restricted and actively harmful stereotypes of autism.

It does nothing to improve awareness, only increasing fear and hatred of autism. We want to be accepted for who we are as we are. As autistics. We want the younger generation of autistic children to grow up accepting who they are and being okay with that, not feeling hated, feared and rejected by the world because they are neurologically different from the majority of the population. The world is hostile enough towards us as it is. We want these children to grow up into happy, confident autistic adults. There is a phrase in the Deaf community of "Deaf positive", and it means that Deaf people are accepting of their Deaf identity and are positive and confident about it, not feeling marginalised and separated from a world that views them as defective and does not accept them. Autistic children need that, not to have overhwelmingly negative feelings about their intrinsic nature; they need to know the world accepts them and does not view them as defective, need to know that they are as equally valued and wanted as their neurotypical counterparts. This stunt of yours sends a clear message that they are defective, rejected, unwanted and inferior. A cat is not a defective dog; it is a cat. An autistic is not a defective neurotypical.

Every day parents are being told that their child is autistic, and stunts like this serve only to send the message that we are frightening, separate, Other. It suggests that there is a "normal", neurotypical child "trapped" inside this autistic outer layer, and that if we break through that outer layer we can reach the "normal" child that is being held prisoner by autism. That is simply impossible, because there is no "normal", NT child trapped inside a shell of autism. Autistic *is* their/our normal and the world should accept that, and work to include us and break down the barriers, not add to them.

Persisting to carry out these events despite many objections from people who are actually autistic clearly demonstrates that your organisation does not want to hear actual autistic voices, that you are essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la, I can't hear you". It sends a very strong message to us autistics that we don't matter, that our input and feedback is irrelevant, that you consider our perspectives unnecessary. An organisation that purports to support autistics needs to listen to autistic voices and listen and act on our requests, preferences and input.

It is overwhelmingly ableist because you presume to know what we want, how we feel, how we experience the world and impose your ideas and preferences on us whilst simultaneously ignoring the voices of those who live the autistic life. The mother whose idea this apparently was is talking about *her* experience, *not* her child's; unless her child has used this description it is not applicable. By persisting with this stunt you are actively silencing us. This is completely unacceptable. It sends a message to autistics that we don't matter, that our perspective is worthless; younger autistics will learn that their voices don't matter and so will give up speaking out, and they (and the world) will suffer because of it.

There's a saying in the autistic community that needs to be taken on board by your organisation: Nothing About Us Without Us. So far all I see you doing is *everything* about us without us, and that is unacceptable.

Your organisation seems to believe it is helping us. We are telling us that you are harming, not helping, us, yet you continue with this stunt; at this point it is wilful ignoring and silencing of us.

I also find your us of the phrase "unique, once-in-a-lifetime experience" in the interview with the paper completely inappropriate, because such terms are usually used in reference to an exotic, luxurious holiday or similar and so, with the way the human brain works, people will unconsciously equate the two. It is not a holiday or anything like that, and so it is disingenuous in the extreme to use such language.

This stunt is tokenism, a pat on the back for neurotypical people to feel good about themselves. It is *not* about the autistics.

And yes, I am using "autistic" (identity-first language, or IFL) rather than the person-first language, or PFL ("has autism"/"person with autism") rife throughout the article and your interview because the vast majority of autistics favour IFL and actively reject PFL. The National Autistic Society has recent data clearly demonstrating this and the fact that you persist in using PFL is yet another indicator that Caudwell Children does not listen to autistic voices.

The article below is not mine, but it seems your organisation needs reminding of a few things on this matter.

https://acatinadogsworld.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/how-lockedinforautism-is-hurting-actuallyautistic-people/

I await your response.

30 Days of Autism Acceptance: Day 22

#30DaysofAutismAcceptance

Day 22: 

Talk about autism parents.  How do you feel about this section of the community?  Do you feel as if they speak over you?  Do you find the term ‘autism parent’ rude or offensive?

Another massive, complex topic, and one I'll explore in more depth when I have more time, with links to key articles by Amy Sequenzia and in The Establishment but I'll use today's prompt as an introduction.

I'm not sure what the autistic community (autistic, rather than autism, community) as a whole feels about whether "autism parent" is an offensive term or not; that's something I'll have to look into.

I think there's a difference between autism parents and Autism (Warrior) Parents/Martyr Parents (MPs). Note the use of capitalisation. I've mentioned Autism Warrior Parents (AWPs) in previous posts and they are the ones that cause a lot of upset, anger, frustration, hurt and other similar feelings among autistics. (Martyr Parents is another term for AWPs.)

We cannot exclude autism parents from the conversation or the autism community, because they do have valuable input and they can really help in fighting for acceptance, services, support, etc. What upsets and frustrates me is that authorities and service-providers seem to often pay more attention to the parents/carers than actual autistics, and that needs to change. The autism parents who listen to us, who accept us, are very welcome in the community and we value their support, assistance and input. I have a friend with an autistic 12-year-old daughter and she's a good autism parent - she's not able to care for her daughter herself but she's done her best to ensure her daughter has the support and care she needs, accepts her for who she is and meets her where she is (such as using Makaton and BSL), connects with her in a way that her daughter can understand and latch on to, fights for more support if it's needed, and so on.

The problem lies with the AWPs and they are the ones I vehemently dislike. They are self-righteous, superior, arrogant, aggressive, rude, self-obsessed martyrs. They vastly overstep the mark and make their child's autism all about them. Guess what? It's NOT ABOUT YOU. It's about YOUR CHILD. So far I've given them a bit of a wide berth because on the occasions I have encountered them they are truly horrific, and with fibro and ME/CFS I simply don't have the energy (or, it has to be said, the patience or temper!) to deal with them. They're the ones who scream that YOU MUST STOP SAYING "AUTISTIC"; YOU MUST SAY "CHILD WITH AUTISM" (that's a direct quote from one post about Sesame Street's Julia on Facebook, complete with their use of capitals; I got screamed at by multiple AWPs for daring to question this and point out that actual autistics prefer identity-first language). They're the ones who shut down and silence actual autistics. They're the ones who think they know better about the autistic experience than actual autistics. They're the ones who presume incompetence. They're the ones who post in-depth blogs and articles about their child's most intimate care needs, including photos and videos, without that child's consent (they say the child wouldn't understand and/or wouldn't care, but they can't truly be sure and anyway, that is NOT your call to make), all in the name of "realism" - which apparently demolishes the autistic child or person's right to privacy.

(They're also much more likely to push the vaccines-and/or-toxins-cause-autism rubbish, unproven "treatments", harmful "treatments" like MMS, etc.)

They're the ones that accuse us of not really being autistic just because we can type and blog and speak because we are "Not Like MY Child". They speak about us without us. they speak over us and attempt to invalidate our experiences. If we try to say anything that might possibly, potentially be construed as criticism or that doesn't fit into their AWP narrative, they silence us - they scream at us, they attack us, they shut us down, they bully us. They're the ones who talk about us (usually in a negative way, things like we're the reason they can't do XYZ, we make their life so hard, we're so difficult, etc) when we are there in front of them but don't have a problem with it, don't think we might be upset by it, because they assume we can't understand anyway. We are less than human to them.

They are the ones who proclaim "I accept you but not your autism" - sorry, doesn't work that way; you cannot accept one but not the other because our autism is intrinsic to who we are and how we are. Saying this sends a powerful message that you hate the way we are, which ultimately means that you hate us, however much you may claim otherwise. They are the ones who are the reason why, when a parent murders an autistic child, the world at large sympathises with the parent and becomes apologists for them, because according to AWPs, we are nothing but a burden, a tragedy, something to be despised and got rid of. They are the ones who spend all their time and resources "fighting" and "battling" autism, when that time and those resources would be infinitely better used in getting to know your child and meeting them as they are, working with, rather than against, them and improving their life.

You don't get to co-opt your child's identity for your own. You don't get to publish things, especially intimate things like personal care needs, about us without our permission. You don't get to shut us down, silence us or speak over us. You don't get to presume incompetence. You don't get to accuse us of faking our autism or of "not being autistic enough". You don't get to attack us. You don't get to blame us for all your difficulties. You don't get to use us to garner attention, publicity, sympathy or pity - that's exploitative and abusive. You don't get to separate us from our autism. You don't get to be the martyr or the victim. Your voice about the autistic experience does NOT get precedence over the voices of autistic people.

Be an Autism Accepting Parent, not an Autism Warrior Parent.

Welcome/introduction

For a while now I've been thinking about setting up an autism- and disability-specific blog, and with Autism Awareness Day/Week/Month looming on the horizon, now seemed a sensible time to get on with it and join my fellow autistic bloggers!

About Me

So, a quick introduction. I'm 32, married, no children yet (though we would like some) and Autistic. I'm a wheelchair user due to fibromyalgia, ME/CFS and generally wrecked ankles. I'm also dyslexic and have have Irlen Syndrome so severely I broke the diagnostic scale (it goes up to 19; I scored 22...!) The dyslexia is fairly mild, which probably explains why I wasn't diagnosed until the second year of my English Literature degree!

I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome in November 2012, which came as a huge relief. I'd always known that there was something different about me but I could never identify it - I'd grown up and left school before the experts realised that females can be Aspies, so I was never picked up.

If there are any Deaf readers out there I can make posts in British Sign Language for you; just ask! 

What This Blog Stands For

This blog supports identity-first language ("is autistic") with regards to discussion of autism, as the majority of autistics favour this; if an individual prefers person-first language ("with autism"/"has autism") I will use it in reference to them because that is their choice and I will respect that; however, identity-first language is the default approach here.

This blog does NOT participate in Light It Up Blue or anything to do with Autism Speaks. This blog supports Red Instead, Gold (because on the periodic table gold is Au, the start of the word "autism") and Tone It Down Taupe.

This blog does not use the puzzle piece.

This blog is Nothing About Us Without Us. 

This blog is Actually Autistic.

This blog supports Autism ACCEPTANCE over Autism Awareness. 

This blog supports Neurodiversity.