2022/07/26
I’ve been thinking about how Disabled rage and anger – particularly in Autistic people – is seen by many people as a “good reason” to restrain us. How our anger at restraint often leads to not less restraint, but more of it, whether physical, chemical, legal, or social.
I’ve been thinking about the stereotype of the “dangerous autistic,” which would be far less pervasive if so many autistic people weren’t so regularly put in harmful situations and then penalised for wanting out of them.
I’ve been thinking about “aggressive” communication, communication that isn’t seen as communication, or is seen as intimidation – biting, screaming, hitting, etc – in autistic people. Communication that would occur far less often if our other communication was listened to.
I’m trying to live upon the very difficult line between refusing to mask my pain and anger as a deliberate act of advocacy and not being completely dismissed as an advocate because of my use of this form of advocacy.
I opened a bit of public speaking I did a few weeks ago with the words “I am here to make you uncomfortable”. I spoke calmly and respectfully in an “educated” English dialect. I made a lot of people uncomfortable. Imagine if I had sat in a chair upon a stage, and screamed. That would have been an “art piece”. But my pain, what we go through, explaining those in the way I feel the need to, the way that most gets the sheer volume of anguish and anger across… that’s not an art piece. But it’s regarded as either a danger or an artwork. It’s not regarded as merely me, communicating.
What would it take to build a place where nonDisabled people could see my rage and not dismiss it for their own comfort? The answer seems to be “A place where I wouldn’t need to express that rage – maybe one where I wouldn’t even have it”. That takes us back to square one.
Now what?