Responding to Doyle's notion that looking of a genetic basis of autism is merely about eugenics, I wrote: >> But there's also the bit about warning parents >> of what to expect and how to prepare for the possibility of having a >> kid with autism. Genetics might help here.
Doyle responded: > Ignorance is no solution to genetic understanding. Whether or not science > is used for the people as social benefit or NOT of course is central to > questions about capitalism and doesn't need to be obscured by a hope that > genetics will solve problems an unjust society makes. The first sentence makes absolutely no sense. The second is a _non sequitur_. I think it's a mistake to blame capitalism alone for discrimination against people with autism. Capitalism plays some role, I'm sure, but it's also a matter of everyday people trying to deal with a bad situation without complete knowledge or the needed emotional resources. Knowledge helps deal with part of the latter, but is likely insufficient. In any event, I never said that genetics would solve problems an unjust society makes. Rather, it's the _study of_ genetics which can _help_ people cope, with no guaranteed results. (Note that I used the word "help" above. Please read what I write.) It's possible that capitalism -- or at least the capitalists as a class -- would prefer the _integration_ of people with autism into the wider labor force. After all, they're always looking for new sources of labor-power. On the other hand, I don't see how capitalists can use the phenomenon of autism as a tool for "divide and rule" in any kind of significant way. Of course, it's a mistake to reduce the operations of actually-existing capitalism to the functional needs of capital or the collective interests of capitalists: the struggles of people to survive, prosper, and/or resist capitalism also plays a role, as do other structures of domination (patriarchy, racial supremacy). As far as I know, by the way, autism wasn't handled any better by the actually-existing (or actually-once-existing) socialist states than under capitalism. Does anyone know anything about this issue (if I'm allowed to appeal to "professional knowledge")? me: >> BTW, do you respond to these abortions by advocating restricting >> abortion rights? Doyle: > Yes. Parents do not have a right to abort female children is the first > restriction I would place on abortion. It's okay to abort male ones but not the female ones? Doyle, you've opened a jumbo-sized can of worms. > An absolute right to abortion on > demand is very heavily laden with bad consequences that regulation ought to > address.... There's a difference between demanding abortion "on demand" and demanding abortion _per se_. The former says someone (the government?) should help women have abortions, while the latter says that women should be _allowed_ to have abortions, with or without help. I was referring only to the former. Doyle: >... a rights movement based upon Autistic rights opens a > door about issues that are more than just simply nature or nurture. The > social connection people make (class society) is being opened up by asking > why Autism is a threat. "issues that are more than simply nature or nurture"? what are those? isn't class society a source of much of the nurture (however warped) we receive, along with social relations of patriarchy and racial supremacy contributing? Is autism a "threat"? I don't think that most people think about it at all, unless it turns out that one of their kids gets it. It's not like the "yellow peril" and similar phenomena. Is there a political movement of geneticists who want to wipe autism from the map? I doubt it. Doyle: > Community grassroots movements supersede professional knowledge. > Professionals cannot stand for social meaning. That's more of a slogan than a contribution to our thinking. If movements are democratically run and work in solidarity with other groups rather than getting into turf wars and NIMBYism, then we might talk about them "superseding professional knowledge." I guess what you're talking about is the principle of popular democratic sovereignty (i.e., that it should be the people as a whole that's in charge). That might "supersede" professional knowledge, but only in the political sense of "who's in charge" of decision-making. But professional knowledge should not be rejected in a know-nothing way; instead it should inform popular democracy. I like the attitude of a lot of the parents who have kids with autism: instead of sneering at professional knowledge and referring to abstract "community grassroots movements" that hardly exist in reality at this point, they try to learn as much professional knowledge as possible, including all of the different sides of the professional debates and try to have dialogues with the professionals. I guess that this effort might be thought of as one kind of "community grassroots movement." The members of that movement should try to work cooperatively with the members of the "autistic dignity" movement. Among other things, a community grassroots movement made up of children with autism could hardly get off the ground, so that the parents will always play a major role. They can't be shuffled off to Buffalo. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
