I will discuss a small but great detail occurred audiovisual interview on the subject of an international day of autism specialist psychologist, strongly correcting the interviewer, for this, from their ignorance have been called "autistic people" instead of how to say today: "People with autism." This difference, according to of the scolding that falls on the brave lord, marks a decisive turning point of a before dark and full of pre-scientific interpretations and a light now that can give them dignity. The psychologist finally exclaims that science has come to liberate the difference autistic prejudices of ignorance, and they are now able to attend, care for them as they deserve.
This woman, of humanist, defending with passion and say that even with love, "a person who is caught and helpless in the disease of autism, and passionate critique of society evaluated, and thus does not respect the absolute difference of each person. For her, and I think also beyond it to the new trend, the distinction in the manner of appointing autism, is an essential step for separating the person from the disease. That is why the disease can be evaluated, but left intact the integrity of the individual as a value in itself beyond measure. I think it will be worth saying something about this distinction, I think is the moral basis of the ongoing rehabilitation.
All equal, all different. The basic operation of this shift, it seems clear, it is to separate "person" of "autism" and with this operation to recover the integrity, such as flying absolute of the person involved. Is to recover the loss metonymic substitution occurs at all (person) per share (autism), which as we know, referred to the significant alienation of the subject in its entry into the field, say social. And curiously to recover the loss, presents science as the great liberator, the one that supposedly restores personal integrity, which returns an absolute value and unparalleled extent. However contradictory it may be, the thing, I think that has been articulated as follows: science all equal, we are all equally different. The difference with autism, like any other, should be accepted in our society of diversity. The cohesiveness of the emerging position reflects the feature of our present civilization of the Other does not exist, ie the open series.
When this psychologist, committed attention to autism, scolds the presenter does so because it perceives as the structure still thinks the "whole", instead of releasing new structure is governed by the "not-all." Society of diversity is an open series of forms of personhood, which can not be operated with the subjective fault, just about differences. Interestingly, the extent lack disappears (in both sense and lack-of-being, and as guilt) is set to dominant the deficit (again both for the body as a biological organism and the resources of the social body .) And any reference to the presence of failure, ie imply the negativity of the individual disorders are blamed on ignorant prejudices of times passed. So while there is no subjective fault on the line, is restored to the person with autism, their integrity, and explains their changes by the deficit of its neurobiology, careful person having previously separate disease. Separate
sick person (Person "with" autism) as part of neurobiology is a contradiction maximum, while the person as such, under this perspective, is a function of neurobiology. What does this contradiction so obvious yet so hidden in the evaluation?
A little appears to reflect a clear answer, alluded to the separation operation in which autism is an object, it is processed produce. And the object reduced to pure deficit. And indeed, as we said the specialist, neurosciences do this very well. And it is clear that objectivation considering, which hides the evaluation, both appoint a person as autistic, and separate person from disease, in any case, this appointment is made by the individual concerned, but is a development professional, who is the technical system performs these operations. Therefore we are not talking about what the autistic subject to draw-it would be nice if what came to be assumed as a person distinct from the disease, but on the contrary, it is that makes the professional subject in this sense of separation speaks only of the desire of technical, and what it says is that it causes autism as object, object of his fantasy set in reality. Jose Rubio
0 comments:
Post a Comment