Apoliticism is a mental disability
Apoliticism is a mental disability
From this article’s title, it may seem I am accusing people who claim to be apolitical of mental disability, with the goal of transferring…
Spicy title, I know, but please read on. I'm not using the phrase "mental disability" like an ableist liberal would. This isn't an insult, it's an examination of psychology and appropriation.
You're viewing a single thread.
I think you're confusing politics, which is related to collective decision-making, with culture.
I'd also argue that there really aren't apolitical people, even level 3 ASD people who can't speak or traditionally communicate at all. Our existence is always political and collective, even if we don't perceive it that way. There is no individual without society, to pretend otherwise is neoliberal ideology.
A meltdown in public due to bright lights is political, even if it isn't a conscious, intentional protest. Reality itself is socially constructed and political, and we ASD people aren't above or beyond it.
Of course, we miss some social rules or can't adapt well to them, but that doesn't mean they don't affect and shape us. I don't feel jealousy, I don't understand monogamy at all and I think it's kind if stupid to be honest. This does not stop me from putting in some of my partners very monogamous expectations based on time spent with me or other secondary things that only make sense in monogamy, because "that's how relationships work". Except that no, that's how monogamous relationships work, but the only kind of deep relationship we're presented are monogamous and there's a lack of other frames of reference.
Politics isn't something you can miss, because it is shoved down your throat from the moment you are born, even if you don't understand it. Actually scratch that, since even abortions are at stake.
I think we're disagreeing on the definition of a "person". I'm using the word to refer to a mind and its subjective experiences inside its own head. You're using the word to refer to a body and other people's relationships with a mind. It's internal vs external. As you say, consensus reality is a social construct. If someone is not socially impressionable enough to be taught this construct, then they are not a member of reality. In consensus reality, this shadow-of-a-person, this body, is political. But the actual mind, the inside person, is living in a reality of one, which cannot be political because there are no groups.
Also I use capitalised pronouns
Sorry for the delayed answer.
I think we're disagreeing on the definition of a "person". I'm using the word to refer to a mind and its subjective experiences inside its own head. You're using the word to refer to a body and other people's relationships with a mind. It's internal vs external.
Yes. You're right. However, I would argue that there isn't such thing as a "mind and it's subjective experiences inside it's own head" without a social reality supporting it. You're coming from a Descartian point of view, and I'm going through a Hegelian one.
This is not dehumanizing high support needs disabled people who can't communicate effectively, but pointing out that they are still part of our world, and we're part of theirs. Even if neither us and them recognize that.
As you say, consensus reality is a social construct. If someone is not socially impressionable enough to be taught this construct, then they are not a member of reality.
That's where I hard disagree beyond philosophy. Because it doesn't matter if You don't understand or recognize a social construct, it will still affect you and produce reactions, ingraining itself in you. As long as someone can experience anything at all in this world, they will experience the consequences of social decisions, and by consequence, a mirror of decisions made by this society. And as long a someone can produce any behavior at all (save reflex), they can and will communicate.
This consciousness is always imperfect even with NTs, but it's always there.