Reframing the label ‘autistic’.
Sometimes labelling an individual ‘autistic’ may have negative repercussions – for example, people might question their ability to perform a task appropriately, even when there is evidence that proves the contrary. In truth, most people lack an understanding of what autism really is, rendering the label ineffective at times.
Labels by nature reduce the individual to the current limited understanding of the condition. People often focus on the negative aspects of the label and disregard the many positive attributes of the person and their autism. In most cases this causes the kid or adult with autism to identify with their label and hence define themselves by what they ‘can’t’ do, which results in psychological suffering and non-realization of their full potential.
In addition, given the many symptoms that constitute the label ‘autistic’, two individuals with this label may present a significantly different set of characteristics. Thus, they will have different needs that require different 1) medical treatment, and 2) ways of interacting with them to ensure they feel comfortable and hence perform at their best. Therefore, placing all individuals under one label may, for instance, lead to the implementation of ineffective strategies to manage some autistic children’s behaviour and performance at school.
For these reasons, it is important to consider reframing how we think and talk about autism. One way to do this is through describing the child’s difficulties using biological explanations, when appropriate, instead of the label ‘autistic’. For instance, the amygdala (the centre for fear in the brain) is larger in many people with autism. If you explain that your kid or pupil is often anxious because he/she has an enlarged amygdala, rather than solely because they are autistic, people are more likely to understand and react properly. This is because most people tend to take biological explanations more seriously. Moreover, it can be less overwhelming for parents to focus on the specific symptoms of their child rather than dealing with their child’s ‘autism’ as a whole on a daily basis.
I am not suggesting that we erase the word ‘autistic’ altogether - labels are not always detrimental; the appearance of the word ‘autism’ as a diagnosis was immensely beneficial for sufferers and their families, and it remains to be in many cases. However, we must become conscious of when the label will cause more harm than good and adapt our use of it to ensure all people with autism are being described in a way that truly represents who they are.
