When do you know enough about a subject that you're able to engage in the public debate or give talks about it with good conscience? I know intellectually that it's a silly question, because "there's no tangible point" and "everyone has to start somewhere", but emotionally it's always plaguing me, and especially when I'm writing something for public consumption.
I've been reminded of this in a none too pleasant way recently, as I've been reworking Reflections, a site that grew rather organically out of a thought diary started as I was discovering autism and the autistic community for the first time. While I don't regret the things I wrote there, I no longer agree with much of the older material (now removed or being reworked), either in content or tone.
This question feels even more pressing when I give a talk to psychiatric staff about autism, as I've done a few of times in the past, most recently today. Earlier today I spoke for two hours (longest yet) to some thirty odd psychiatric staff persons, most of whom work with at least one autistic person to some degree and all of whom probably will do so at some point. The people at this particular agency take turns between giving in-home support and working as staff in a small group home.
It had been made abundantly clear, if never explicitly stated, that I was assumed to give an "inspirational" talk about my life and the ways in which I'm supposedly broken, i.e. to be their self-narrating zoo exhibit for an afternoon. This in itself wasn't surprising, after all, "that's what people do," right? Even the more sensible and experienced Swedish autistic lecturers I've heard have tended towards zoo exhibitness. Not doing that, then, both felt and was received as somewhat radical.
I tend to look on the occasional opportunities granted me to speak to staff and mental health professionals as damage control. When given (say) half an hour with such people, while I'd love to make a compelling case for the social model of disability, argue passionately for ethics, human rights and the fallaciousness of the concept of normality, I tend to focus on simple, concrete advice that hopefully will make them more likely to not hurt the individual autistic people they encounter.
It may be poor self-confidence on my part, but I find it unlikely that I'd be able to make a lasting dent on a philosophical level in such a short time, especially considering that they'll go back to being surrounded by the institutional culture and might not hear another autistic self-advocate speak for many years if at all. Thus I focus on teaching them stuff they may remember the next time they find themselves in a particularly precarious situation with an autistic person.
Things like we are human beings, we do the things we do for good reasons, be aware of potential sensory issues in the environment, provide time for real answers to be given, be aware of the difference between superficial and actual communication, verbal communication is often difficult, we self-injure for the same reasons as anyone else, make things predictable and available in writing whenever possible, stims have purpose and should not be prevented, a direct style of communication doesn't mean hostility, etc., etc.
I do try to get across that I'm comfortable with and unashamed of the way I function (not proud, pride is for accomplishments), both explicitly and through the way I approach and talk about the subject, but I have to admit that I have at times fallen into the zoo exhibit trap, as it's horrifyingly easy to do so. I think today is the first time I didn't, and I got a number of surprised compliments to that effect from listeners who've probable never heard the term but seemed very aware of its meaning.
This time, for the first time, I also had a section on the explicit and implicit forms of power staff hold over us, the damage caused by being unaware of or trying to ignore this fact, and the ways this interacts with the likely present history of bullying and abuse. This is something I'm still very much looking for words to describe properly, so it was rather... inelegant, but judging from the questions people asked at least a few of them seemed to get it. A few others seemed offended, which might mean I wasn't overly careful, so maybe that's good too.
I really, truly wish I'd had time to finish the lecture notes a good while before today, as I wanted to post them here and let you guys critique them (I wrote them in English and then translated them into Swedish; it was easier that way), but there just wasn't time. I will put it up here shortly, though, in slightly edited form. I just need to rest for a day or so first.
Note that none of this is meant to sound boastful. I'm not trying to prove how much better I am than any other self-advocate out there. Rather, I'm acknowledging the pull of the zoo exhibit role and seeking advice and feedback from others in the autistic community, as I know that many of you know a lot more about what to say and how to present it and have done so far more often than I probably ever will.
I'm just a n00b.
Update: Linguistic tinkerings.
