04-11-2005, 12:58 PM
The May 2005 issue of Discover Magazine includes an article called "What Do Animals Think," which is based on an interview with Temple Grandin. She describes the similarity between her thought processes and those of animals. The author repeatedly uses the word "normal" as the opposite of Autistic and broadly generalizes Grandin's experiences to the entire Autistic population.
Here's an excerpt from the article:
Here's an excerpt from the article:
Quote:
She (Grandin) laments the way schools have dropped classes like wood shop and metal shop and drafting--the kinds of classes that saved her when she was going to school and failing classes like algebra.
Those changes directly affect autistic children. But normal humans are experiencing a similar loss. We surround ourselves with television and computer games. We practically live in our offices. We inhabit a cocoon of associations and representations of the world around us--increasingly a world divorced from nature.
Those changes directly affect autistic children. But normal humans are experiencing a similar loss. We surround ourselves with television and computer games. We practically live in our offices. We inhabit a cocoon of associations and representations of the world around us--increasingly a world divorced from nature.
I sent an e-mail to the editors:
Bonnie Ventura Wrote:
I would like to comment on the language in What Do Animals Think, particularly the use of "normal" to mean "non-Autistic." I understand that the article is based on an interview with Temple Grandin and that she does not object to such usage. However, the preferred term in the Autistic community to describe a person with typical neurology is "neurotypical."
If you were publishing an article about the Deaf community, for example, you would not use "normal" as the opposite of Deaf, you would use "hearing." The same consideration should be shown to other groups in your choice of language. It is demeaning to suggest that everyone in the world is normal except Autistic people.
Also, regarding this passage from the article,
"Those changes directly affect autistic children. But normal humans are experiencing a similar loss. We surround ourselves with television and computer games..."
The use of "we" in this context assumes (incorrectly) that Discover has no Autistic readers. It is akin to the 19th century practice of writing "we white people" in books and magazine articles.
Given the subject matter of Discover, it is likely that your subscribers include a significant number of Aspies/Autistics. Many of us would appreciate the use of more inclusive language.
If you were publishing an article about the Deaf community, for example, you would not use "normal" as the opposite of Deaf, you would use "hearing." The same consideration should be shown to other groups in your choice of language. It is demeaning to suggest that everyone in the world is normal except Autistic people.
Also, regarding this passage from the article,
"Those changes directly affect autistic children. But normal humans are experiencing a similar loss. We surround ourselves with television and computer games..."
The use of "we" in this context assumes (incorrectly) that Discover has no Autistic readers. It is akin to the 19th century practice of writing "we white people" in books and magazine articles.
Given the subject matter of Discover, it is likely that your subscribers include a significant number of Aspies/Autistics. Many of us would appreciate the use of more inclusive language.
If any other AFF members would like to say something about this article, here is the e-mail address for comments:
editorial@discover.com