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.
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.
Idk, I don't really agree with the "ASPD = apolitical" argument. I've been diagnosed with ASPD, and I think that it actually makes me more politically involved because I don't inherently have the same respect for laws and conventional morality, which allows me to more easily visualize changing the societal systems we live under. Also, the lack of remorse means it's easier for me to continually break rules I consider unjust, such as societal rules on gender expression. Lack of automatic empathy means it's also harder for me to be manipulated by a boss, IMO.
Obviously I can't speak for the entire ASPD population but for me, being "apolitical" would just be endorsing the status quo of society, which is unacceptable.
Overall it was an interesting and thought-provoking read, thanks for sharing!
Thank you! I would like to clarify that I don't mean ASPD people are apolitical in their choices. Only in their instincts. Lacking the instincts for politics, your every action in relation to politics is purposeful. In some ways you have far more choice than a neurotypical. You have the negative freedom to make your own political choices without your instincts interfering. But, on the other hand, you lack the positive freedom of instincts to help you in politics.
You have the potential, I should say, to be apolitical in a way a neurotypical could never hope to match. A neurotypical doesn't get a choice, they have to be political. The least explicit politics they can manage is centrism, while still having tons of implicit politics. You could go far beyond that. I'd like it if you didn't, though.
Yup! In a lot of ways having ASPD is analogous to not having guardrails or safety interlocks on your brain. It won't warn you via automatic empathy if you're about to do something messed up, so you have to check your actions and analyze yourself much more. Interestingly, most people with ASPD who are relatively "successful" (not in prison, etc) heavily use our prefrontal cortexes much more as a compensatory mechanism similar to how blind people can get really good at hearing.
‘Politics’ involve government. So the base premise of the article is wrong.
They mean ‘Ethics’
edit correct pronoun, typo
*They