Newsgroups: bit.listserv.autism
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:30:43 CST
              <AUTISM@SJUVM.BITNET>
From:         Jim Sinclair <GOLEM@UKANVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Information about abuse

On Mon, 28 Dec 1992 09:53:42 EST Lisa S Lewis said:
>In that section, Donna credits her success in reaching "THE world" with her
>ability to create 'characters'.  However, she maintains that it was her
>mother's abusive behavior that led to the creation of the characters to begin
>with.
>
>She even goes so far as to say "thank God I had a bad mother...."
>
>When I read this, I admit to feeling an odd pang...should I now feel guilty
>for being a "good" mother, and getting every kind of intervention I can for
>my son?

No, I don't think you need to feel guilty about getting intervention per
se.  What you *should* be looking at is the appropriateness of the
interventions you're getting.  The impression I've gotten from reading
Donna's book and from speaking to her (and comparing a lot of notes about
abusive parents) is that Donna is grateful to have had a "bad" mother
because she believes that many of the interventions a "good" mother would
have gotten for her would have made things worse.  Donna and I are both
certain that many of the things promoted by Temple Grandin, for example,
would have been disastrous for us.  I think a better way to paraphrase
what Donna is saying is that it was better for her to have a *neglectful*
mother who didn't provide much intervention at all and let Donna get along
as best she could on her own (what kind of parent would let even a non-
disabled child sleep on the streets at the age of eight?!) than if she had
had a mother who well-meaningly provided inappropriate interventions that
would have interfered with Donna's ability to develop the survival skills
she found for herself.  Probably the best message for parents to glean
from this is to make sure the interventions they try aren't making things
worse.  Consider whether the proposed intervention tries to address
something that's actually a problem for your child, and consider whether
the intervention parallels something your child has already experienced,
and how the child responded to it.  And if, after a reasonable trial
period (the definition of "reasonable" being a factor of any number of
things, including the severity of any negative reactions), the intervention
seems to be upsetting to the child, stop it.  There are some interventions
that I think are inherently abusive (holding therapy, for instance), but
most of the treatments advocated by reputable and responsible professionals
are beneficial--for *some* autistic kids.  And probably most of them could
also be disastrous--for *some* autistic kids.  The difference between a
"good" parent and a "worse than bad" parent would be that a "good" (let's
use a less judgmental term like "beneficial" or "helpful" or "growth-
facilitating") parent is careful to select interventions that are good
for her or his child, while a "worse than bad" parent would indiscriminately
subject the child to anything that's touted as being good for autistic kids,
without regard for whether it's good for *this* particular autistic child,
with consequnces that may end up being worse than if the parent had done
nothing at all.  (That's just my personal view, of course; I can't speak
for Donna.)

>Serge is terribly concerned (sorry for speaking for you, but you're not in
>today!) that misguided people could read into this the benefits of abusive
>behavior towards autistic people. What a tragedy that would be.

It's not just a hypothetical tragedy; it is and has been a very real part
of the history of autism.  Things have been done to autistic people in the
name of "therapy" that would be called "torture" if they were done to
criminals or prisoners of war.  I think you'd have to go back to the
Spanish Inquisition to find a more horrific collection of practices
intended to "save" people.  Look at how many parents fought to keep their
autistic children in Matt Israel's facility!

>Any comments anyone? Was anyone else struck by these remarks?  Serge has said
>that he plans to write to Donna Williams about this.

I've talked to her about it a couple of times.  Apparently she's even used
me as another example in some of her interviews, telling people that
autistics who grew up in abusive homes have been forced to learn skills
that autistics from non-abusive families often don't learn (because they
don't need them to survive), and that's why we can do so much more than
"typical" autistic people are expected to be capable of.  I pointed out
the obvious fact that if an autistic child in an abusive home is *not*
able to learn those survival skills, the child simply doesn't survive
(either dies or remains severely incapacitated and lives down to the low
expectations).  In fact, I've had similar conversations with abuse
survivors who are not autistic: If you experience severe abuse and
survive, you end up having some survival skills that you might not have
had if you hadn't been abused.  Of course the built-in selection factor
is that if you hadn't already had the ability to learn those skills,
you wouldn't have survived the experience.  I think the quality that
separates survivors from non-survivors is the ability to find, or if
necessary create, the things they need to survive if the environment
doesn't provide for those needs.  Abusing children is certainly one way
to bring out that quality in kids who have it (and to weed out kids who
don't).  But there have to be better ways.

JS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU