Aspies For Freedom

Full Version: Discover article: "What Do Animals Think?"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
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:

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.


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 any other AFF members would like to say something about this article, here is the e-mail address for comments:

editorial@discover.com

That was a good response Bonnie, its strange that the journalist doesn't realise that computers have helped many people on the spectrum to communicate with each other, and to express ideas not always possible in everyday life. I am very grateful for their creation.
You made some very good points in your email, Bonnie. It deserves a thoughtful reply.

I tend to put quotes around the word "normal" when I use it. I think of the word as having a value neutral meaning, if something is "the norm" it is normal. The word can be given a value-postive meaning. I guess it all depends on what you think the opposite of "normal" is, is it "abnormal" or "unusual" or some other unusual characteristic that you can think of?
It's a word whispered behind closed doors and windows in quiet suburban neighborhoods: "That child isn't normal."

It's also politically incorrect in mainstream U.S. journalism when used in an article discussing either a cultural/ethnic minority group or a group of people with a disability, which is the main point I was making.  They wouldn't use it when discussing any other group, so why treat us as if we deserve less consideration?
I see your point. If I said "Some of the kids at that school are aboriginal, but most are normal." that would be very impolite.
Imagining how Animals think has been part of my spiritual practice for years.

If youre into meditaion give this a try :-

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wolfrider/shapeshift.html
Discover published a reader's anti-eugenics letter on the magazine's web site in response to the article:

Quote:
I find it interesting that autism was mentioned separately twice in the same issue (May) and that the references to each were essentially polar opposites of one another. In “What Do Animals Think?” about Temple Grandin (diagnosed as autistic as a child), we learn of the special and unique perceptions she possesses of the world around us, as a direct function of her autism. Then, later in the issue we are told that “with the birth of neural engineering, we will see the end of many devastating cases of brain abnormalities that cripple human life, including autism, depression, and schizophrenia” (Marc D. Hauser, Think Tank: Neuroscience). It is worth considering what we will be missing the day that science extends us all the privilege of being “normal.”



Rocky Semmes

Alexandria, Virginia

Reference URL's