The Autistic Place [A Place for Learning]

Many people assume that “autism spectrum disorder” (ASD) is a phrase from medical texts or an official psychiatric diagnosis from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Neither is the case at the present time. The use of “spectrum” began with clinicians and educators who found that individuals with different diagnoses had some similarities.

One version of the traditional spectrum is as follows:

Because Rett’s and Disintegrative Disorder involve a measurable loss of brain function, as revealed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), some have argued that these conditions are physically different from autism disorders. This is an area open to debate, however.

As Olga Bogdashina reminds us, every autisitc individual is different, whether we use the spectrum metaphor or not:

The ways in which any of the features are manifested vary from one child to another, and for the same child different aspects of the behavior pattern may vary at different ages. Usually no one person has all the characteristics at the same time or at the same degree of severity. (Bogdashina, 2006, p. 26)

Some autistic children sit silently, others are more likely to scream and run about a room. There is no one “autism” parents and educators must address, just as no two “neurotypical” children are the same.

For many parents, educators, and clinicians, the term “spectrum” refers primarily to the social and linguistic skills of ASD individuals. At one extreme, we find the child apparently isolated from the world. At the other extreme we have gifted students with curious preoccupations. Both might be considered “autistic” — though there’s little doubt they experience their worlds, especially social interactions, differently.

Clinicians and education experts use several terms to describe spaces along the autism spectrum:

As autism is a spectrum disorder and its manifestation varies from individual to individual, it is no wonder, therefore, that many ‘non-official’ but widely accepted descriptions have emerged: high-functioning autism (HFA), low-functioning autism (LFA), ‘mild autism,’ ‘moderate autism,’ ‘severe autism,’ ‘autistic traits,’ ‘autistic tendencies.’ It is necessary to note that these terms are subjective. There are no clinical definitions of words such as ‘high-functioning autism,’ ‘low-functioning autism,’ ‘mild’ or ‘severe’ autism. However, because autism is so wide ranging, professionals may use terms like these to describe where on a continuum they believe an individual’s abilities may lie. (Bogdashina, 2006, p. 27)

The terms adopted by clinicians, officially endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association or not, are attempts to capture individual differences. An ASD individual might be an example of “classical autism” or a gifted student with Asperger’s syndrome, able to “blend in” with peers.

Asperger’s specialist Tony Attwood has written about the different ways clinicians and researchers discuss ASDs. As Attwood notes, there is an ongoing effort by the psychiatric field to refine definitions and understandings of ASDs.

There was a recognition in both diagnostic manuals [ICD-10, World Health Organization 1993 and DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association 1994] that autism, or Pervasive Development Disorder, is a heterogeneous disorder and that there appear to be several subtypes, one of which is Asperger’s syndrome. (Attwood, 2007, p. 36)

Psychologist Alexander Durig’s 1996 book Autism and the Crisis of Meaning asks if there are gradations of autism. This book was published just as clinicians were beginning to adopt the spectrum metaphor.

Traditionally, we have viewed individuals as either Autistic, high-functioning Autistic, or normative. But does the gradation from Autistic to high-functioning Autistic have to stop somewhere?... In other words, could there possibly be some people with strong Autistic perception who are so high functioning that they have always appeared, for the most part, normative to others? (Durig, 1996, p. 99)

Durig’s Typology of Mind States

Durig has taken the spectrum notion further by suggesting what we consider autism is merely a “differed” way of perceiving the world. Individuals might have an “autistic perception” that gives them different insights.

[W]e might consider the notion that there is not actually such a thing as Autism as much as there is a phenomenon of Autistic perception that is experienced in varying gradations. In current terminology, a person with Autism is actually a person with very strong Autistic perception. (Durig, 1996, p. 98)

Durig’s conclusions are thought provoking. What if the underlying conditions causing what we consider “autism” are liniked to other characteristics?

The possible existence of slight Autism may explain a wide range of phenomena that are often chalked up to learning disabilities, mental illness, sociopathy, eccentricity, tempermental [sic] creative genius, or saintliness. (Durig, 1996, p. 102)

There is little doubt that dozens of “spectrums” comprise human behavior. We could, and have, developed dozens of scales describing our traits. If these scales help us understand and appreciate each other, then scales serve an important purpose. Individuals with ASDs are different. Placing a person’s traits on a scale is merely a way to explain those differences.

We must never forget that people aren’t scales, numbers, and other measures. When we treat a student as a composite of scores instead of an individual, we lose sight of the things that matter most.