Let me preface this blog post by saying that I am the father of four sons, two which have been diagnosed as being "severely autistic" and are currently age 17 and 9. I make this point to establish that I have quite a lot of knowledge concerning the behavior of certain types of autistic children and that in my discussion below I feel I have some qualifications that justify my making certain observations concerning such children and the philosophical rhetoric of Mr. Locke and Mr. Rousseau.
In Julie, J.J. Rousseau discusses ideas concerning child rearing. One of the characters asserts that "all the faults which we impute to innate disposition are the effect of bad training" (29). This character goes on to argue that "Every man has his special place in the ideal order of the universe; it is a question of finding out his place, not of changing the universe." This is a wonderful myth to believe in, but it is a myth, sadly. Such Utopian idea's may well fit for a rhetorical debate involving a select group of children who have a functional range of "natural giftings" but what about the growing number of children who suffer from the wide variety of learning and social disabilities loosely labelled as Autism?
Severely autistic children are very dysfunctional in areas such as speech, behavior and social skills. Rational thinking in terms that Rousseau discusses are not part of such children's make-up. For the parents of a severely autistic child, simply getting them to use the toilet normally is often a huge victory. If the child does 'get it,' it is because of a 'breakthrough,' if not they may never understand it and no amount of reasoning with such a child, in my experience, will ever make them use the toilet correctly. Clearly, "innate disposition" has everything to do with how a severely autistic child behaves.
Later in the same text, the discussion revolves around the argument that given the proper training anyone can be molded into a model human, "we should check their passion, perfect their reason, correct their nature..." (30). Once again this is not a realistic tenant to apply to severely autistic children, unless the expectations are set appropriately. At 17 years of age, the severity of my son's autism is such that he has no comprehension that his vocalization, which consists of growls, wailing and grunts, is much too loud 90% of the time. He has no control over his passions because he doesn't even understand what it means to have passions. His mind doesn't seem to process the sensory foundations he laid down in ways that work to enable reason and rational thought. Changing the nature of such an individual using standard methods of education is like trying to scale a glacier without climbing equipment. The tools in the box don't work, we need to adapt a broader selection of tools.
The other side of the argument Rousseau presents to the idea of a universal model is one where training is individual, based on the nature of the child. Here we see some hope. This is how best to approach severely autistic children, but again one must also set the goals appropriately. As I've mentioned, I have two severely autistic sons, the younger is slowly learning to use speech, which is a miracle and involves a great breakthrough for him which occurred about 2 years ago. Naturally, the hope is for a fully functional vocalization skill set in the future. But, sitting talking to him in an adult, rational way is not the path. The training must be adapted to his nature and the pace at which he learns. Focus must be on the right connections, and how he makes them. A standard model, such as the one gentleman in the Rousseau text advocates, will never work. The old models have to adapt, and the old expectations need to be changed to reflect the true realities of all children.
Any discussion concerning Nature versus Nurture, or as Rousseau phrases it, innate disposition versus education, must take into consideration that there are people born with a nature that is so far out of the "norm" that it is ridiculous to even discuss them in terms of a standard model for education. In Rousseau's day individuals such as severely autistic children were generally "put away," that is in an asylum. Their solution to the problem was to brush it aside. Fortunately, in our society this no longer happens. But it's still as important as ever to realize that not everyone born can benefit from the perfect model of education, nor can we hold up equal standards for everyone. Rousseau argues that we should not change the universe but find the ideal place for everyone within the parameters of the one we have established already. I argue, that this is simply not possible in the case of severely autistic individuals. Does that mean these individuals should be given no chance to be part of society in any fashion? No! It means that we must push aside the limited and outdated philosophies to which we still cling and change the universe by broadening it. Because, only with the broadest possible horizon can we see the faint glimmer that shines in each and every individual no matter what their innate disposition.
One of the things that becomes clear when you read Locke or Rousseau is just how little we understood about learning and the brain in the 17th and 18th centuries. Locke was seen as radical for arguing that children don't come into the world marked by sin (and, thus, predetermined to be sinners, so why bother trying to nurture or educate them?), yet to us his ideas--and Rousseau's--seem inherently flawed and limited.
ReplyDeleteWe talked a bit in class about the intended audience for writers like Locke and Rousseau, but it might be useful to specifically consider just how limited that audience truly was, once you eliminate the lower and working classes entirely plus women of all classes. As you discuss, anyone who suffered from emotional and/or physiological issues was also excluded (heck, you can probably discount a good percentage of the nobility as well for being beyond the reach of rational education). Who's left? Upper-middle class and upper-class male children. Sure, the eighteenth century was the Age of Reason, but only if you discounted the majority of the population.
Ross,
ReplyDeleteThis quote especially stuck out to me from your blog, "Any discussion concerning Nature versus Nurture, or as Rousseau phrases it, innate disposition versus education, must take into consideration that there are people born with a nature that is so far out of the "norm" that it is ridiculous to even discuss them in terms of a standard model for education."
I think beyond people who have mental and psychological inconsistencies, such as autism, this could entirely disregard women, who were seen to have biological differences that affected their nature (see my latest post on Madwoman in the Attic). The gender divide in terms of public perception as well as medical advances would put women outside htis group of "norm" and could be seen as unfit for proper education, such as reading, writing and arithmetic
Your post spurred my curiosity and I did a little research of my own... Though some think that autism is a relatively new thing, it's said that children were seen exhibiting these behaviors as early as... da da da da da! The 18th century. It didn't become recognized as a unique condition until 1943. And from what I can tell, at the time with the limited medical knowledge (and recalling that it didn't become a recognized disease until almost the mid-20th century) from what I can gather, they were lumped in with the same group of diseases as schizophrenia.
ReplyDelete