Unspoken Turns

I’ve always struggled with knowing when it is my turn to speak. I wrote about it six years ago in my post To speak or not to speak, that is the question. An event several weeks ago drove home to me quite forcefully that I still find the art of conversation elusive – very elusive. It was frustrating enough for me to want to write about it, but try as I may it didn’t convey the frustration that I felt. I enlisted the help of Copilot, but I still couldn’t get away from the article seeming like a ball-by-ball play of the situation instead of being about how I felt. After a lot of back and forth conversation, Copilot suggested a poem might be a better platform for expressing how I felt. So after an hour or so of collaboration, here’s the final result. Let me know in the comments how the poem resonates with you.

---

Unspoken Turns
In the crowded theatre of conversation, 
I sit, a silent actor on life’s stage, 
The script eluding my grasp, 
As others pirouette through dialogue.

To speak or not to speak? 
A riddle whispered by invisible muses, 
Their laughter echoing in my ears, 
As I fumble for cues, lost in the spotlight.

One-on-one, I stumble— 
Words tripping over each other, 
A clumsy waltz of syllables, 
And the lead remains elusive.

But in the ensemble of many, 
I am a fish out of water, 
Caught in the undertow of turn-taking, 
Gasping for air, seeking my moment.

To speak or not to speak? 
A soliloquy etched upon my soul, 
As I watch the choreography unfold, 
Wondering when my cue will come.

ESP or supernatural whispers? 
The others glide seamlessly, 
Their voices weaving patterns, 
While I unravel the threads of silence.

To speak or not to speak? 
A silent plea to the cosmic director, 
Who withholds the script, 
Leaving me adrift in this conversational sea.

And so, I observe—seven decades and counting, 
A detective of human interaction, 
Yet the clues remain cryptic, 
The secret handshake of discourse eluding me.

Next time you witness rudeness, 
An untimely interruption, 
Consider the hidden struggle, 
The desperate quest to belong.

For we, the speechless wanderers, 
Navigate your world with uncertainty, 
Our turns unmarked, our cues obscured, 
Yet yearning to dance in the spotlight.

Progress!

I notice here in Aotearoa that there is a trend away from referring to April as Autism Awareness Month. Even a trend away from naming it Autism Acceptance Month. Instead I see a new trend towards referring to April as Autism Appreciation Month. May the rend continue.

While autistic people do face many challenges living in a society built around the needs and wants of neurotypical people, we can also offer unique perspectives and skills that can benefit a diverse and accepting society.

Autism research: Nothing about us without us

In the realm of autism research, a disconcerting pattern emerges: autistic individuals are often treated more like subjects in a laboratory experiment than as intelligent contributors capable of shaping and conducting research. Our voices are rarely sought, and our active participation in studies is infrequent. This approach inadvertently pathologises autistic individuals, excluding us as if our perspectives hold no value. However, it is crucial to recognise that those most adept at expressing an authentic autistic viewpoint are we, the autistic community.

Imagine a parallel scenario in any other field of research: excluding the very group under study from shaping the discourse. Such exclusion would be deemed unacceptable, undermining the fundamental principles of rigorous inquiry and equitable representation. Therefore, it is imperative that researchers actively involve autistic individuals in research, recognising our unique insights and contributions as essential to advancing the understanding of autism and fostering a more inclusive scientific community.

To transform this exclusionary approach in autism research, researchers must actively embrace a more inclusive and collaborative model. Here are some essential steps:

1. Autistic Representation: Involve autistic individuals at every stage of research, from conceptualisation to implementation. Our lived experiences provide invaluable insights that can shape research questions, methodologies, and outcomes.
2. Co-Design Research: Adopt a co-design approach where autistic individuals collaborate with researchers. Together, we can identify relevant topics, design studies, and interpret findings. This ensures that research aligns with the needs and priorities of the autistic community.
3. Community Engagement: Establish meaningful connections with autistic communities. Attend conferences, workshops, and support groups. Listen to our stories, concerns, and aspirations. Engage in dialogue to build trust and foster genuine partnerships.
4. Accessible Communication: Use clear, jargon-free language in research materials. Provide accessible formats (such as visual aids or plain language summaries) to enhance understanding. Autistic individuals should be able to access and comprehend study information easily.
5. Ethical Inclusion: Prioritize ethical considerations. Obtain informed consent, respect autonomy, and protect privacy. Ensure that research protocols are respectful and considerate of individual differences.
6. Diverse Research Teams: Assemble interdisciplinary teams that include autistic researchers, clinicians, educators, and advocates. Diverse perspectives enrich research and challenge biases.
7. Dissemination and Advocacy: Disseminate research findings in formats accessible to the autistic community. Collaborate with advocacy organizations to amplify voices and advocate for policy changes based on evidence.
8. Challenge Stereotypes: Address stereotypes and misconceptions about autism. Research should highlight strengths, resilience, and diverse abilities rather than perpetuating deficit-based narratives.
9. Funding Priorities: Allocate research funding to projects that actively involve autistic individuals. Support initiatives that empower self-advocacy and community-driven research.
10. Shift Paradigms: Recognize that autistic individuals are experts in their own lives. Their contributions are not just valuable; they are essential for advancing knowledge and promoting inclusivity.

By embracing these principles, researchers can create a research landscape that celebrates neurodiversity, respects autonomy, and fosters meaningful collaboration.

Autism Speaks (but not for autistics)

Autism Speaks, despite its prominence as a major autism advocacy and research organisation, has faced significant criticism from autistic self-advocates. Let’s delve into the objections raised by the autistic community:

1. Viewing Autism as a Disease:
   • Autism Speaks was founded on the premise that autism is a disease that needs to be cured. Their original mission statement reflected this perspective.
   • Most autistic self-advocates emphasise that autism is not a disease but rather a natural variation in neurotype. We advocate for acceptance rather than seeking a cure.
2. Stigmatization and Discrimination:
   • By framing autism as a problem to be fixed, Autism Speaks inadvertently contributes to stigma and discrimination against autistic individuals.
   • This portrayal reinforces the idea that there is something inherently wrong with autistic people, perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
3. Lack of Autistic Representation:
   • Autism Speaks is primarily led by non-autistic parents of autistic children. This lack of authentic representation is a major concern.
   • Autistic self-advocates argue that an advocacy organisation without autistic voices is akin to a whites-only group addressing racism or a men-only panel discussing sexism.
4. “I Am Autism” Video:
   • One of the most criticised aspects is Autism Speaks’ “I Am Autism” promotional video.
   • In this video, autism is portrayed as an enemy, causing fear and perpetuating negative stereotypes. Many found it deeply offensive and dehumanizing.
5. Focus on Difficulties Over Possibilities:
   • Autism Speaks tends to emphasise the deficits and challenges associated with autism rather than celebrating the unique strengths and possibilities of autistic lives³.
6. Financial Allocation:
   • Critics point out that only a small fraction of Autism Speaks’ budget goes toward direct services for autistic individuals and families.
   • Less than 1/3 of 1% of their budget is allocated to the “Family Service” grants that fund services.
7. Autism Acceptance vs. Awareness:
   • Autistic self-advocates prefer a shift from mere awareness to autism acceptance. We advocate for understanding, inclusion, and celebrating autistic achievements.

In summary, while Autism Speaks aims to raise awareness and provide support, its approach has sparked controversy due to its framing of autism, lack of authentic representation, and focus on difficulties rather than possibilities.

Sources used in preparing this post:

• The Mary Sue: The Autism Speaks Controversy, Explained
• Psychology Today: A Reporter’s Guide to the Autism Speaks Debacle
• The Conversation: Autism advocacy and research misses the mark if autistic people are left out
• Autistic Self Advocacy Network: Before you donate to Autism Speaks, consider the facts
• Autistic Mama: 4 Simple Reasons I Don’t Support Autism Speaks
• Reporter Magazine, RIT: The Autism Speaks Controversy

On religion, spirituality, faith and God

Preamble

2023 was an interesting year particularly in how some people described me. I was described as dishonest, as having blood on my hands, as being misogynistic, as having dangerous beliefs, as being unfit to parent because I taught my children values consistent with my religion, that I’m so indoctrinated that I am incapable of understanding the harm I’m causing, that I should be ashamed of myself, and that I’m an embarrassment to human kind. And that was just from atheists who believe all religion is harmful. Christian fundamentalists used used even worse descriptions because apparently I practise the wrong religion.

Overall I find little difference in how many atheists and religious fundamentalists understand, religion, spirituality, faith, and dare I say, God. Except that one group believes it’s the absolute Truth™, while the other believes it’s all BS™. There’s even agreement on what Christianity is, although one group believes it’s the greatest good to have happened in two millennia, while the other believes its the greatest evil to have hit this planet in the last 2000 years. Both groups seem reluctant to accept there are alternative ways of understanding religion, spirituality, faith and God, and for both of these groups, whatever I believe the terms mean, I’m wrong. I suppose one positive way of looking at this is that even when it comes to religion, atheist and Christian fundamentalists do sometimes agree – even if only to disagree with me and those who hold similar ideas.

One group will quote Bible passages as the authority to support their perspective while the other will quote dictionary definitions as the authority to support theirs. I think both sides sell themselves short. So here, very briefly is my understanding of religion, spirituality, faith and God

On religion

I see religion as a human phenomenon that arises from the interaction of culture, language, and experience. Religion is not a fixed or static entity, but a dynamic and evolving process that reflects the changing needs and values of human societies. It is not necessarily based on supernatural beliefs or divine revelations, but on human interpretations of reality and meaning. Religion is a way of expressing and exploring the human quest for identity, purpose, and transcendence.

On spirituality

Lloyd Geering defines spirituality as “the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things”. I agree. Spirituality is more personal and individual, while religion is more communal and institutional. Spirituality is not dependent on any particular religious tradition or doctrine, but can be found in various forms of art, literature, music, nature, and human relationships. It is an essential aspect of human life, as it helps people to cope with suffering, death, and the unknown

On faith

Faith is a human attitude of trust and confidence in the face of uncertainty and mystery. I am not convinced that faith is a matter of accepting certain propositions or dogmas as true, or of having a personal relationship with a supernatural being. It is not so much a gift from God, but a human response to the challenges and opportunities of life. Faith is not incompatible with reason, but rather complements and enriches it. I am convinced that faith is not static nor absolute, but dynamic and relative, as it changes and grows with experience and reflection.

On God

More than 50 years ago I came to understand God as a symbol of the ultimate or highest values to which human beings aspire. I see no evidence of a personal or interventionist God, who created the world, revealed himself in history, and will judge the living and the dead. God is entirely a human construct, a product of human imagination, language and culture. It is a construct that expresses the human sense of awe, wonder, and reverence for reality. I do not view God as an object of worship, but as a source of inspiration and guidance. God is not a fixed or eternal concept, but a changing and evolving one, that reflects the cultural and historical context of human beings.

Conclusion

I accept my understanding of religion, spirituality, faith and God, is not widely held and likely rejected by many atheists and those who follow the world’s major religions, especially those in the Abrahamic tradition. Certainly in Christian US and other parts of the Americas, and in Christian and Muslim Africa, my perspective is generally viewed negatively and even with hostility – as a heresy. But I am not unique in how I understand these terms. In Aotearoa, all mainline Christian denominations have liberal/progressive congregations and/or “branches” that to a greater or lesser degree hold similar views. Then there are communities with historical ties to Christianity such as Ephesus, and Sea Of Faith in Aotearoa that are based on concepts similar to those I have described above. And of course, within my faith community, while not universally held, similar concepts are expressed more openly and frequently than what might be considered historically Christian concepts.

Being autistic in a neuronormative world

I am not a puzzle to be solved
I am not a problem to be fixed
I am not a disorder to be cured
But I am a person to be understood

You study me like a specimen
You test me like a machine
You observe me like a stranger
But you never talk to me

You think you know what's best for me
You think you can speak for me
You think you can change me
But you never listen to me

You ignore my voice and my choice
You dismiss my feelings and my needs
You devalue my identity and my dignity
And you never respect me

I am not your research subject
I am not your charity case
I am not your burden
But I am your equal

I have a voice and a vision
I have a passion and a purpose
I have a life and a story
And I want to share them with you

Ethical absolutism vs ethical relativism?

Where do you stand? I’m sceptical that there there is any moral or ethical stance that is absolutely true regardless of time, place or circumstance. And yet there are some situations where I feel there is no other possible ethical/moral stance other than the one I hold can ever be acceptable. So I ask myself is this because this is a case of ethical absolutism or is it that my experiences as an autistic person living in a largely secular and liberal society conditions me to be blind to any other perspective. I really don’t know.

According to ethical absolutism, there are objective moral values and principles that are always valid and correct, regardless of time, place, circumstance or people. For example, some people may believe that lying is always wrong, no matter what the situation is. Ethical absolutism is often associated with religious views, as it implies that moral law is grounded in the very being of a deity or deities.

There seems to be one moral principle that humans universally hold to be intuitively valid and correct, and that is the “Golden Rule”: that we should treat others as we would want to be treated. This appears to be true across recorded history regardless of culture or religion, and some might reasonably claim that this is an example of ethical absolutism. But is it?

Personal experience tells me otherwise. I have little doubt that other autistics have had similar experiences. Often when I have treated others as I want to be treated, I find myself in hot water, with responses ranging from annoyance to anger to physical violence. Similarly when others treat me the way they want to be treated I find myself between a rock and a hard place. If I act honestly, I also find myself in hot water with responses no different to those I have just mentioned, and if I hide my true self then I quietly allow myself to be subjected to treatment that ranges from unpleasant to extremely painful. So regardless of whether I apply the Golden Rule, or others apply it to me, I tend to suffer.

So I now apply my own golden rule: treat others how you believe they want to be treated, and if unsure ask. It’s one that I’m beginning to ask others to apply to me, although it’s taken me 70 years to learn how to ask. Of course there are some people who are offended by me asking – whether it’s asking how they would like to be treated or asking them to treat me how I like. But that’s another story for another day.

Getting back on topic: According to ethical relativism, there are no objective moral values or principles, but rather they are relative to some further instance, such as culture, society, individual, or situation. For example, some people may believe that lying is sometimes acceptable, depending on the context and the consequences. Ethical relativism is often associated with tolerance and diversity, as it acknowledges that different groups may have different moral standards.

It appears to me that both ethical absolutism and ethical relativism have some advantages and disadvantages (although I strongly favour relativism), and they raise many questions and challenges. Some of the issues that they deal with are:

• How do we determine what is morally right or wrong?
• How do we resolve moral conflicts or disagreements?
• How do we account for moral diversity and change?
• How do we justify our moral judgments and actions?
• How do we balance our moral obligations and rights?

I’m not sure that these questions have easy answers, and perhaps they don’t have an answer even after careful reflection and dialogue. Some people may prefer one ethical perspective over another, while some may try to find a middle ground or a compromise. What I can say is that some of my ethical views have changed over time in response to new experiences or information, while others have become more entrenched. How about you?

So, I’m becoming curmudgeonly in my old age

I’m not one for demanding others live as I do, in fact I really appreciate the diversity of the human condition. And I don’t mind how others celebrate the bringing in of a new year. As Aotearoa is the first nation in the world to bring in the New Year (if one excludes from tiny Kiribati, population 120,000), perhaps we have more reason than others to celebrate. But what I don’t appreciate is how obtrusive some folk are when they celebrate.

Fireworks can be purchased by the general public only on a few days before November 5 each year. I won’t go into the reason why here, but there seems to be a trend away from lighting them on that day, which more often than not is wet and windy, and instead putting them in storage until New Year’s Eve. Then on the stroke of midnight setting them off terrifying pets and waking the neighbourhood.

Apart from the hazards of storing gunpowder in one’s house or garage for almost two months, have any of the folk who celebrate the New Year by letting off fireworks at midnight thought about how it affects animals and humans? I really don’t appreciate being woken at that time by the sounds of exploding fireworks. Nor does our cat Frankie. Admittedly from our home perched at the top of a hill overlooking our township, the spectacle is quite amazing to watch, and if I’d been awake at that time I might have actually enjoyed it. But I wasn’t and I didn’t.

At the time of publishing, this post, the New Year arrived 12 hours and 6 minutes ago, but i’m still feeling no better now than I did when rudely woken at midnight.

Quakerism and orthopraxy (with a little help from Bing Chat)

In a recent (offline) discussion in which I was more a fly on the wall than an active participant, the question arose of whether orthodoxy or orthopraxy was most important in one’s religion. The participants were mostly Evangelical Christians, so it’s not really surprising that the conclusion was that orthodoxy won the day, even though there was some disagreement over what the “correct belief(s)” should be.

The idea that orthodoxy was related “right belief” seemed to be generally accepted, but they were less sure about what orthopraxy was all about. So I took a moment to ask Bing Chat what orthopraxy means. Its reply was:

Orthopraxy means correct conduct, both ethical and liturgical, as opposed to faith or grace. It is often contrasted with orthodoxy, which emphasizes correct belief. The word is a neoclassical compound from the Greek orthos (correct) and praxis (action). Some religions, such as Hinduism, Judaism, and Eastern Christianity, are considered both orthopraxic and orthodoxic, as they guide adherents in both practice and belief. Other religions, such as Scientology and Santeria, are more orthopraxic than orthodoxic, as they focus more on ritual performance and obedience than on doctrine and theology. Orthopraxy can also be applied to secular contexts, such as medicine, law, or politics, where correct action is valued over correct opinion.

I found this answer interesting as some Friends describe Quakerism as being orthopraxic in contrast to traditional Christianity which they describe as being orthodoxic. I’ve done it myself. However our use of orthopraxy to describe Quakerism is inconsistent with the meaning provided by Bing Chat. So I did the obvious. I asked Bing Chat if it thought Quakerism in the liberal unprogrammed tradition is orthopraxic. The answer was longer and more nuanced than I expected.

The first part of its reply indicates that a yes or no answer is inadequate:

That is an interesting question. I think the answer depends on how one defines orthopraxy and how one evaluates the practice of liberal unprogrammed Quakers.

The second paragraph was almost word for word identical to the definition of orthopraxy given above, so I won’t repeat it. The third paragraph was a good attempt at describing Quakerism in the liberal unprogrammed tradition:

Liberal unprogrammed Quakers are a branch of the Religious Society of Friends, a historically Protestant Christian set of denominations. They practice unprogrammed worship, which means that they do not follow any prearranged or structured order of events or liturgy. They sit in silence and wait for the Spirit to move them to speak or read from Scripture or other literature. They emphasize the authority of the Inner Light, which is the presence of God in every person, and their membership contains both those who identify themselves as Christians and those who do not. They are often active in service work, but generally not in missionary or evangelical activities

The fourth paragraph sets out an argument supporting the idea that Quakerism is orthopraxic:

One could argue that liberal unprogrammed Quakers are orthopraxic, because they value the experience of the Spirit over the adherence to creeds or confessions. They do not have a formal doctrine or theology, but rather rely on the testimonies of peace, equality, integrity, and simplicity as guides for living. They do not have a hierarchy or clergy, but rather respect the priesthood of all believers. They do not impose their beliefs on others, but rather seek to listen and learn from different perspectives. They do not judge or condemn, but rather affirm and support.

I go along with that. But in the fifth paragraph Bing Chat provides an argument as to why Quakerism is not orthopraxic:

One could also argue that liberal unprogrammed Quakers are not orthopraxic, because they do not have a clear or consistent standard of correct conduct. They do not have a fixed or prescribed ritual, but rather allow for spontaneity and diversity. They do not have a common or shared belief, but rather allow for individual and collective discernment. They do not have a strict or binding authority, but rather encourage personal and communal responsibility. They do not have a definite or exclusive identity, but rather embrace openness and inclusiveness.

And I go along with that too. So is Quakerism orthopraxic or not? Bing Chat is clearly of the opinion that “it depends” as shown by the final paragraph:

Ultimately, I think the answer to your question depends on your own perspective and criteria. I hope this helps you to explore the topic further. Thank you for chatting with me. 😊

I find I am growing quite fond of Bing Chat as it seems to be much more nuanced in its “opinions” than a great many flesh and blood individuals I encounter on line and in person. Hats off the developers and programmers of Bing Chat.

Lloyd Geering: interpretation of God, Jesus, the human self, and a global ethic

Lloyd Geering is a New Zealand theologian who has challenged the traditional views of Christianity and religion in general. He has proposed a new interpretation of God, Jesus, and the human self, based on the insights of existentialism, humanism, and postmodernism. He has also called for a new global ethic, which values the diversity and interdependence of all life forms.

Geering’s interpretation of God is that God is not a supernatural being who created and governs the world, but a humanly created concept that expresses the human quest for meaning and value. He argues that God is a symbol of the ultimate concern of humanity, and that different cultures and religions have used different names and images for God. He also suggests that God is evolving along with human culture, and that the modern concept of God is more immanent and cosmic than transcendent and personal

Geering’s interpretation of Jesus is that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in a particular time and place, and who proclaimed a radical message of God’s kingdom as an alternative to the oppressive Roman empire and the corrupt Jewish establishment. He contends that Jesus was not divine or miraculous, but a human prophet who embodied the values of love, justice, and peace. He also maintains that Jesus did not physically rise from the dead, but that the resurrection is a metaphor for the continuing presence and influence of Jesus in the community of his followers

Geering’s interpretation of the human self is that the human self is not a fixed or eternal entity, but a dynamic and relational process that emerges from the interaction of the human body, mind, and environment. He claims that the human self is constantly changing and developing, and that it is shaped by the cultural and historical context in which it lives. He also asserts that the human self is not separate or superior to other forms of life, but part of the interconnected web of life that constitutes the biosphere

Geering’s call for a new global ethic is based on his recognition of the challenges and opportunities that the modern world presents to humanity. He acknowledges that the human species has reached a critical point in its history, where it faces the threats of ecological crisis, nuclear war, and social injustice, but also the possibilities of scientific discovery, technological innovation, and cultural diversity. He urges that humanity needs to develop a new global ethic that respects the dignity and rights of all life forms, and that fosters the values of cooperation, compassion, and creativity. He envisions that humanity can create a new global community that transcends the boundaries of nation, race, and religion, and that celebrates the common humanity and the unique differences of all people

These are some of the main aspects of Lloyd Geering’s proposals, which reflect his non-realist, historical-critical, progressive, and pluralistic approach to Christianity and religion. His proposals have been influential and controversial, and have provoked both admiration and criticism from different quarters. His proposals have also invited further dialogue and debate about the role and relevance of religion in the contemporary world, which, not surprisingly, is the purpose of this essay.

Sources for this essay include:

• Lloyd Geering – Wikipedia
• Sir Lloyd Geering at 100: ‘I find a lot of things to rejoice in’
• Book review: Geering a religious athiest?
• A hundred years of heresy
• How my thinking has changed – by Sir Lloyd Geering
• Google Books – Christianity Without God
• God is not dead yet, Dr. Geering
• Lloyd Geering – Springer Link