Neurotypical missionaries?

Well, this is likely to be rambling and half-baked, especially as I am trying to compose it in between attending to S who is under the weather with a cold. But I have been trying to clarify for myself, for some time, exactly what I am doing for P, my AS son. Deborah Lupton describes, in The Emotional Self, "the observation and monitoring practices of the human sciences [which] construct the notion of the 'normal' self against which people are urged to measure themselves. If they are found to be deficient, individuals are encouraged to work towards achieving 'normailty'" (93). Alongside this, she notes that there is an increasing focus in contemporary western culture on "the confession of one's innermost feelings, dreams, and fantasies to other [as] a major part of the strategies of attaining self-knowledge, directed at the 'showing forth' of the 'authentic self'" (96). The focus on emotions and intimacy, and the professions that have built around these concepts, is enormous in the modern western world. And it's fine by me; I seem to have absorbed these lessons well and basically have no problem with them.

But they help me to begin to articulate a dilemma concerning my AS son's development. The notions of subjectivity that Lupton identifies, and the techniques designed for obtaining that kind of self-experience, seem almost antithetical to the way the AS people I've encountered function. Is my task to assist P towards this version of selfhood? Do I assume that he is capable of achieving, to a relatively limited degree, this kind of "self", and the more I can help him with the better for him? Or do I do it so that at least when he is older he will have some rudimentary tools for dealing with others who value emotions in this way? In some ways, I've painted a false dilemma because I've already had the tremendous good fortune of encountering the work of Stanley Greenspan, even before I knew that autism had any place in my life. And I am currently, with great excitement, making my way through The First Idea, the book he co-authored with Stuart Shanker. Their point is precisely that although autism has a biological basis, individuals can be guided through certain essential stages of emotional development even belatedly. In this view of autism, affective knowledge is not being foisted upon someone who is fundamentally at odds with this way of understanding the world; rather, access to this essential feature of functionality is opened up. Because it is not emotion for the sake simply of feeling; for Shanker and Greenspan, emotion is the key to symbolic thinking. I am finding this to be enormously fertile ground for navigating my way through the various "interventions", "therapies" and "supports" available to my son. And inevitably, it affects my thinking overall about who we all our, what notion of "self" we live with, how we believe ourselves to function. And I hope that I will be able to develop these ideas and have something a little more articulate to say down the track.