Matters of the Autistic Mind: What Is the Role of Material Objects in Social Interaction?

IF 2.6 0 PHILOSOPHY
D. Strijbos
{"title":"Matters of the Autistic Mind: What Is the Role of Material Objects in Social Interaction?","authors":"D. Strijbos","doi":"10.1353/ppp.2022.0027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Is autism a condition internal to the person that causes problems in social interaction? Or should we conceive of autism primarily at the level of interaction, as a “two-way” phenomenon (Krueger & Maiese, 2018) that develops in the relation between the person with autism and her social-material environment? Over the last decade or so, this issue has increasingly gained interest, not only in academia, but also in the field of mental health care and in the wider public domain. Much is at stake here. Framing autism as an internal deficit or rather as an interaction phenomenon has far-reaching implications for scientific research and clinical practice. It steers the focus of autism research by determining the kind of research questions we deem scientifically and clinically relevant. In mental health care, it influences the way in which we conceive of the problems people with autism struggle with and seek help for. Are the social difficulties that people with autism experience to be framed in terms of their lack of “theory of mind” (e.g., Baron Cohen, 2000)? Or should we rather start our clinical inquiry with the acknowledgment of a “double empathy problem” (Milton, 2012) that shapes the social interaction between the autistic individual and non-autistic people, health care professionals included? More generally, are the problems experienced by people with autism to be explained with reference to internal mental dysfunction? Or should rather we take as our primary diagnostic unit of analysis the structural mismatch in needs, interests, experienced salience and perceived possibilities between the person with autism and the wider social world? These background assumptions regarding the nature of autism shape diagnostic case formulations, guide treatment interventions and determine the tone of the therapeutic relationship. Beyond scientific and clinical interests, the issue also has wider societal implications. Framing autism as a difference rather than a disorder, voices in the recovery and (neuro) diversity movement have suggested that the problems experienced by people with autism are first and foremost social—or rather societal—problems originating from a failure of society to make room for autistic forms of life (cf. Silberman, 2015).","PeriodicalId":45397,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":"213 - 216"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2022.0027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Is autism a condition internal to the person that causes problems in social interaction? Or should we conceive of autism primarily at the level of interaction, as a “two-way” phenomenon (Krueger & Maiese, 2018) that develops in the relation between the person with autism and her social-material environment? Over the last decade or so, this issue has increasingly gained interest, not only in academia, but also in the field of mental health care and in the wider public domain. Much is at stake here. Framing autism as an internal deficit or rather as an interaction phenomenon has far-reaching implications for scientific research and clinical practice. It steers the focus of autism research by determining the kind of research questions we deem scientifically and clinically relevant. In mental health care, it influences the way in which we conceive of the problems people with autism struggle with and seek help for. Are the social difficulties that people with autism experience to be framed in terms of their lack of “theory of mind” (e.g., Baron Cohen, 2000)? Or should we rather start our clinical inquiry with the acknowledgment of a “double empathy problem” (Milton, 2012) that shapes the social interaction between the autistic individual and non-autistic people, health care professionals included? More generally, are the problems experienced by people with autism to be explained with reference to internal mental dysfunction? Or should rather we take as our primary diagnostic unit of analysis the structural mismatch in needs, interests, experienced salience and perceived possibilities between the person with autism and the wider social world? These background assumptions regarding the nature of autism shape diagnostic case formulations, guide treatment interventions and determine the tone of the therapeutic relationship. Beyond scientific and clinical interests, the issue also has wider societal implications. Framing autism as a difference rather than a disorder, voices in the recovery and (neuro) diversity movement have suggested that the problems experienced by people with autism are first and foremost social—or rather societal—problems originating from a failure of society to make room for autistic forms of life (cf. Silberman, 2015).
自闭症心理问题:物质对象在社会互动中的作用是什么?
自闭症是一种导致社会交往问题的人的内在状况吗?或者我们是否应该主要在互动层面将自闭症视为一种“双向”现象(Krueger & Maiese, 2018),这种现象是在自闭症患者与其社会物质环境之间的关系中发展起来的?在过去十年左右的时间里,这个问题不仅在学术界,而且在精神卫生保健领域和更广泛的公共领域越来越引起人们的兴趣。这事关重大。将自闭症视为一种内在缺陷,或者更确切地说,是一种相互作用的现象,对科学研究和临床实践具有深远的影响。它通过确定我们认为科学和临床相关的研究问题来引导自闭症研究的重点。在精神卫生保健方面,它影响了我们对自闭症患者挣扎和寻求帮助的问题的看法。自闭症患者所经历的社会困难是否可以归结为他们缺乏“心智理论”(例如,Baron Cohen, 2000)?或者我们应该开始我们的临床调查,承认“双重共情问题”(Milton, 2012),它塑造了自闭症个体和非自闭症人群(包括医疗保健专业人员)之间的社会互动?更普遍地说,自闭症患者所经历的问题是否可以用内部精神功能障碍来解释?或者我们应该把自闭症患者和更广泛的社会世界在需求,兴趣,经验突出和感知可能性上的结构性不匹配作为我们分析的主要诊断单位?这些关于自闭症本质的背景假设塑造了诊断病例的表述,指导了治疗干预,并决定了治疗关系的基调。除了科学和临床利益,这个问题也有更广泛的社会影响。康复和(神经)多样性运动中的声音将自闭症视为一种差异,而不是一种障碍,他们认为自闭症患者所经历的问题首先是社会问题,或者更确切地说,是社会问题,源于社会未能为自闭症形式的生活提供空间(cf. Silberman, 2015)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
40
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信