Do you know what bothers me? People who assert that "real" autistics can't understand colloquialisms or other symbolic languages. People like me, according to popular lore, are not supposed to be able to understand things such as "and that's how internal combustion engines work in a nutshell." But I do. In fact, I use symbolic colloquialisms all the time in my speech and writing.
Because I'm not "supposed" to be able to do it, this makes me feel guilty. It makes me feel that I'm not a "real" autistic and that I because I'm not a "real" autistic I shouldn't be having trouble with all the other aspects which come with my neurotype. I feel fake and I feel that whatever difficulties I have reflect instead on poor character.
Here's the thing: I don't actually need to understand that "in a nutshell" refers to the fact that a nutshell is small and therefore anything in a nutshell must be small and therefore the explanation was in brief. I just need to understand that "in a nutshell" mean that something is brief and probably overly abstracted. I can use "in a nutshell" to refer to a brief explanation in the same way I could use the word "cat" to refer to a feline.
I don't even know why symbolic language and thought are seen as so incompatible with autism. Just because I might interpret something literally because I don't understand that it is symbolic does not mean that I would not be capable of understanding the symbolism behind it. I know many autistic people who are very talented in metaphor, in fact. Some autistic people I know even write poetry!
It feels like many in the general public, and even autism "experts" make the mistake of observing a minor consequence of autism and then conclude that it is a central and defining characteristic of the neurotype. It's frustrating.
I'm sick and tired of it. I need to stop feeling guilty about using colloquial and symbolic speech, period. I have much more important things to worry about.
Hello world!
1 year ago
8 comments:
I was very interested to read this post because I recently had the chance to discuss this phrase with someone who didn't understand what it meant, and I was wondering if you might have seen that.
Either way, I totally agree that you shouldn't feel guilty about using language that you like and are comfortable with. And I think it's a very good point that misinterpreting something does not mean you can't understand it when you have more information, and it certainly isn't the litmus test for autism.
That happens with my son often. He takes things very literally but enjoys learning what various phrases mean and is happy when he "gets" what somebody is really saying with a colloquialism.
I have spent so much time reading that I am pretty familiar with a lot of common phrases, and it actually bugs me when people don't use them the right way because it's obvious they never really thought about the meaning of what they are saying!
@Aspergirl Maybe: "... it certainly isn't the litmus test for autism." See, that's pretty much my case-in-point in that neurotypcial people use the colloquialism "litmus test" without having any concept of what the colloquialism refers to. I've even asked several of them about it in the past. They just use it and understand what it means.
For reference: litmus is a type dye which changes color in acidic environments and thus, when exposed to certain solutions can be used to test for pH.
Of course, I never hear neurotypcial people comment on the creativity and abstract language usage that we display when we create our own neologisms or neocolloquialisms (see what I did there!). Like my friend who references IAHS safety reports in colloquial speech: it's very symbolic. Yet when outsiders see our symbolic language it's not symbolic or creative it's just wrong because it's not *their* symbolic language.
I appreciate your response to my comment.
So if I won't use a saying unless I know how to define it because I am afraid someone will ask me what it means and I will look stupid if I don't know, what does that say about me?
Anyway, I think that a lot of the people who would say the neocolloquialisms you describe are wrong are the same people who use language they don't really understand themselves.
It may also be that people could be divided into the categories of those who enjoy metacommunicating about language and those who don't.
Of course, this also touches on the whole separate idea of stigma and preconceived notions. Many people will respond differently if someone who is perceived as a genius says something "odd" than if someone identified with a disability says the same "odd" thing.
The stereotype that autistic people don't use metaphors is terribly inaccurate, and harmful, to boot. There's certainly no need to feel guilt from taking it as prescriptive instead of descriptive (and a bad stereotype). We autistic people aren't any worse at metaphors and symbols than anyone else with a similar level of language ability, anyway (and we cover the whole range of that). The idea that any group of people can't use metaphors is ridiculous on examination.
Most of language is metaphor. If you really think about how what you mean connects* to the meaning of the words you're saying, you'll catch* metaphors you didn't even know were metaphors, and maybe-metaphors that might be but might not be. The idea that someone can communicate at all and yet have a solid impenetrable block when it comes to metaphor is patently absurd.
Also, a common symbolic meaning (e.g. "head" = "leader") is just another meaning of a word. Sometimes, it even eclipses* the original meaning, like in the case of "litmus test", to use your and Aspergirl Maybe's example. It stretches* believability that someone would be unable to pick up on* the metaphorical meaning of "litmus test" in whatever way, and yet perfectly fine with the literal meaning.
Symbolism like that is how words get their meanings, too. "Talent" originally meant a sum of money and came to mean capability through metaphor. So if someone "can't understand metaphors", can they understand is word?
So break away* from this stereotype. Toss it in the trash*. It's not even logically consistent, and more a case of (neuronormatively privileged) people not thinking through what they say than a description of autistic people.
Also, as an aside, I've known myself to make references to weird things, often in metaphor. It wouldn't surprise me if this stereotype was in fact the opposite of true, and autistic people actually tend to have a talent for inventing metaphors (either that, or the smaller inventory* of conventional metaphors some of us have make us invent our own); I hear plenty about autistic people coming up with unusual metaphors, references, and symbols (like your friend who references safety reports) on the spot*.
*Calling out specific metaphors here. These aren't all of them, just ones that caught* my eye.
Sorry for the double-post, but I realized after I hit publish that the people mentioned in your first paragraph make great Privilege Denying Dude material. I hope you like it:
http://memegenerator.net/Privilege-Denying-Dude/ImageMacro/5243102/You-cant-be-autistic-You-understand-metaphors
I've been deliberately rebelling against this idea that I can't use metaphors too, for a while now.
"It feels like many in the general public, and even autism "experts" make the mistake of observing a minor consequence of autism and then conclude that it is a central and defining characteristic of the neurotype. It's frustrating."
I have this feeling too, and sometimes even I have the impression that most of what is called "research" is made of this!
:(
Feeling guilty: yes. So many things make me worry that my autism isn't legit. I have even removed colloquialisms from my writing before because I'm not supposed to be able to use them. But seriously, I think metaphorical language can be really, really cool. I love it. And I also don't understand why people don't realize that a phrase can have a definition just like a word has a definition - your "cat" analogy. TalieC mentioned inventing our own metaphors (and I'll add similes), which is something I do, as well. I'm also a HUGE fan of analogies in order to explain concepts.
I should add that I don't always get metaphorical references, and I haven't always understood as many as I do, but I really wonder if it's just because that's what learning does: it takes you from a place of little knowledge to a place of more knowledge. If I don't know what a particular metaphor means, once I know what it means, I can hold onto the meaning and use it in my own speech or writing, if it's one I like.
Post a Comment