[I won’t “rate” this book, but please be careful/thoughtful if you choose to read it.]
Guess I must have had some underlying basic assumptions when I saw this book was written by an openly autistic author… but maybe I should have listened more carefully to my initial alert signals at the Introduction’s opening sentence:
“My experience with autism started at 18 and has carried with me to now.”
Upon reflection, I only slightly adjusted my expectations when I read this sentence because I thought it was possible that the wording might have been a bit misleading… I assumed that the author must know that autism is inherent to the person (not acquired), and that a person is autistic in utero and across the entire lifespan, whether ever identified or not. I thought the author likely meant that they didn’t learn that they were autistic until age 18, but part of me also knew the wording wasn’t ambiguous enough to be 100% certain that the author did NOT believe they “became” autistic at age 18…
While I did find some interesting information, I often found parts of the analyses and discussions to be baffling (ex. inconsistent or even counterintuitive) to the point that it felt like gaslighting. Highlights the importance of autistic wisdom/insights, then later claims the foundations of ABA were just lovely. (!!!)
The author’s outright rejection of social models of disability and neurodiversity theory were embedded in one of the chapters (near the ABA apologist section) and in the last chapter (Ch. 10). These (clearly very strong) viewpoints had not been disclosed upfront, so I was startled both times at these seemingly out-of-the-blue hard counter-stances. They also felt incongruent with other assertions made in the book that could be viewed as informed by social models and neurodiversity theories.
I think it would be more honest and ethical to openly disclose positionality/biases (ex. anti-neurodiversity) in the introduction and in the book description and/or back cover so that reader can keep that in mind when deciding whether to read it and when interpreting/contextualizing the frameworks, analyses, recommendations, etc.
I’m unsure whether to expect similar standpoints and rhetorics from other polyvagal theorists, but it seems that this may be standard justification for this field specialization and maybe not unique to this author … which is a shame since I do agree that the nervous system is a central factor in fully understanding patterns of autistic experiences of safety and distress, including impacts on daily life as well as outcomes across the lifespan.
I’m not convinced at all that the social model of disability or neurodiversity theory are somehow incompatible with the study of autistic nervous systems. On the contrary, I think they could complement each other to further advance more ethical applied science possibilities (ex. systems-level environmental adaptations to decrease autistic distress and suffering) through methods rooted in care and justice, not forced or coerced assimilation rooted in behaviorist principles and practices.
Based on some of the (seemingly contradictory) statements made throughout this the book, I think the author might have actually come to similar conclusions about more systems-level applications of polyvagal framework concepts… if not for the misrepresentation or misapplication of certain models/theories (ex. oversimplification of social models of disability, whitewashing of documented violent histories behind ABA, etc.). :(