This book troubles me. There are many contributing authors who I respect, and there is definitely good writing present within the book. They offer empowering, positive insights from the lives and experiences of people who I think have a lot to offer. However, it is packaged as an authoritative "developmental model". While there are many passages in the book which stir familiarity, the path mapped out does not represent my story. It assumes authority, but fails to retain it with reference to unreliable "facts" and a constrained model.
It is a difficult thing to challenge ideas accepted by a certain population, it means that I expose myself as a target for zealots. So let me state that I support the personal empowerment and creation of a positive environment for autistic people. As I said above there is much in the book that is good. However, there is content in the book which excludes people who remember troubling times when they were very young or have real problems as an adult. For example:
3rd Degree of autism: "The key difference between the second and third degrees of autism is that the individual does not suffer initially at the second degree stage; but later adverse environmental factors cause suffering at the third degree stage. Typically, the individual would be a target of abuse and he or she would struggle to cope with normal social conventions."
6th Degree of autism: "The fifth principle: there is nothing wrong with you"
9th Degree of autism: "Any remnants of a “deficit model” of thinking have been eliminated by this stage of the autism journey."
The model represented by the above is one where individuals are mistaken if they believe themselves to have "deficits" due to autism. Idealistically this is also seen in the thinkers who believe that every human is a natural expression of human diversity, and is therefore perfect as they are. It does not account for the fact that people do have strengths and weaknesses, likewise autism does have positives and negatives. It is possible to accept the range of human diversity as natural and also accept autism as having difficulties as well as strengths. This integration of beliefs is well presented in the excellent chapter:
7th Degree of autism: "Although this book has shown that autism exists before birth, some will still focus on deficits and impairments. Current patterns being shown by brain imaging technology in individuals with autism are indicating there are reasons for exploring our autistic strengths rather than just areas of difficulties"
Perhaps it is the inconsistencies, like the above, that trouble me? Inconsistency should be expected with different authors writing each chapter. However, these are important concepts that are being discussed and though the chapter on acceptance (7th degree) allows for people who know they have difficulties, the message is not upheld in other areas of the book. This excludes those people who recognise their own difficulties and live with required supports in place.
The chapter on the 9th degree of autism has case stories of traditionally successful people, but it (along with the 8th degree) is too prescriptive about what being valuable to world means when living an autistic life. In my opinion a better close to this book would have been to discuss quality of life and including case studies of a wider variety of people from across the autism spectrum who have found quality in living. Instead we are presented with a number of people who have achieved a fairly traditional definition of success. Included in this group are some famous historical figures whose autism diagnosis is conjecture: Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Vincent van Gogh. Inclusion of these people is unnecessary, as shown by the people prior to the historical figures, there are plenty of suitable role models in the world today. This final chapter presents autism as a blessing that confers creativity and intelligence. While it may do that for some, it perpetuates the stereotype that all autistic adults are misunderstood genius types. It is possible to be valuable and experience self-value without having these qualities.
1st degree of autism: "Most of the people who made major advances in art and science have Aspergic characteristics (a form of high-functioning autism)."
9th degree of autism: "Silicon Valley and other geographic hubs of technical innovation often are full of largely unrecognized ninth degree autistics."
Has anyone thought through the consequences of attempts to normalise autism by including most intelligent or creative people in the autism spectrum? It is an easy hypothesis to test. Take everyone in a professional workplace or university and determine the percentage that are autistic. If a significant number of them are autistic then the hypothesis is correct, however if the diagnosis rate is closer to the 1-2%, as seen across the general population, then it can be proven wrong. Personal experience suggests the hypothesis is incorrect - the majority of people around me when I studied were not autistic, the majority of people in the workplace are not autistic. So, I did a quick fact check, and found at least one study:
"we examined prevalence of ASD in students at a single university both diagnostically and dimensionally, and surveyed students on other behavioral and psychiatric problems. Dependent upon the ascertainment method, between .7 per cent and 1.9 per cent of college students could meet criteria for HFASD"
From "College students on the autism spectrum: Prevalence and associated problems" Autism, November 2011 15: 683-701, by White, Ollendick, Bray
Is this really an issue? I think so. It gives all of those successful intelligent or creative people an incorrect idea of autism when they are told they are included in the autism spectrum. It therefore allows the world to underestimate the struggles and achievements of autistic people. By holding up traditional success and Albert Einstein (etc) as the the ultimate autistic, it becomes another way for autistic people to feel they failed if their own life is less auspicious. Quality of life is a better goal than failing to meet the definition of "normal" autism this book describes.
To close, there is a lot in this book that is helpful, the chapters by Wenn Lawson and Stephen Shore are standouts. However, it needs broader analysis, better editing for idea consistency, and significant change to the content in a number of chapters to become an authoritative "developmental model". In terms of being empowering for autistic people the 2nd, 8th and 9th degrees of autism are particularly problematic - they made me feel faulty.