💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › lexi-linnell-this-machine-kills-ableism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:07:58. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: This Machine Kills Ableism Author: Lexi Linnell Date: Nov 2016 Language: en Topics: ableism, neurodiversity, philosophy, anarcho-transhumanism Source: http://anarchotranshuman.org/ Issue #3
The relationship between modern analytic and continental philosophy is
an interesting one. Philosophers in each camp often believe the other
camp to be inherently reactionary. The continental philosopher is
advocating mysticism and anti-science, while the analytic philosopher is
advocating imperialism and transmisogyny. However, I believe that
discussion and cross-fertilization between the camps can be fruitful. In
particular, there are cases where each camp holds one piece of the
truth. One of these cases is neurodiversity. The idea of neurodiversity
certainly isn't unique to continental philosophers, but the idea does
have distinctly continental overtones. Modern continental philosophy
delights in breaking down the platonic categories our society has
inherited, so this should come as no surprise. The point I wish to make
is this: To the extent that neurodiversity grows out of continental
philosophy, it is necessarily incomplete. To complete it, we must add to
the mix a philosophy associated with the analytic tradition – namely,
transhumanism. Two of the core principles of transhumanism, after all,
are cognitive freedom and morphological freedom. These freedoms must
include, by definition, the freedom to change one's neurological makeup.
If we wish to assert that neurodiversity is a good thing, why limit
ourselves to the diversity we were born with? The body modification
community certainly knows better than that. In a sense, body
modification is simply the engineering of diversity.
There are two practical upshots to this approach. The first is that the
defender of neurodiversity must not defend it solely on the basis that
it is incurable. Indeed, I often see people defending those on the
autism spectrum by noting that autism can't currently be cured, and that
attempts to cure it often do more harm than good. These points are
entirely valid, but they miss something important: even if autism could
be cured, it would not imply that we should attempt to coerce these
people into taking the cure.
One can draw an analogy to a similar argument within the transgender
community. Often times, one sees defenses constructed on the basis of
transmedicalism. Trans people must be allowed to transition because they
suffer an unbearable dysphoria that cannot be relieved otherwise. Trans
women are a perfectly natural occurrence because all people undergo a
process of defeminization in the womb, anyway. These facts may all be
true, say the critics of this approach, but not all trans people
experience dysphoria – yet they should still be allowed to transition
anyway. The latter argument is made for good reasons, as it is an
expression of morphological freedom.
So it is with neurodiversity. If someone with any form of
neurodivergence wishes to become neurotypical, they should have the
ability and the right to do so. This includes the mandate that people
who wish to research the possibility of such a cure be able to do so.
However, this principle also applies in the opposite direction. As much
as I'm sure this will annoy many in the community, if a neurotypical
person wishes to become atypical – for example, by being on the spectrum
– they should be able to do so as well.
The second upshot is that ableism itself no longer has any way of
inserting itself into the conversation. People can still debate over
whether or not the concept of mental illness is socially constructed,
but it no longer matters. Even if the advocates of neurodiversity were
wrong, and mental illness was a purely biological construction, the
ableist would still be full of jet exhaust. In a world of cognitive
freedom, the concept of shaming people for the way their minds are
constructed is completely foreign.
From the perspective of the transhumanist, there is not and cannot be
any such thing as human nature. Is there some part of your “nature” that
you'd rather do without? Perfectly understandable – and it's now a mere
engineering problem.
But what of the eugenicist who explicitly rejects the concept of
cognitive freedom? What of the green who thinks vaccines are causing an
autism epidemic but has no problem calling for state-mandated population
controls? Of course, this is where the difference comes in between
anarchist thinking, and every other way of thinking. One could point out
that societies that allow significant amounts of freedom tend to develop
ideas faster. One could point out the epistemological problems in
attempting to control a society from on high. One could even take the
deontological standpoint and cry that taxation is theft. In all cases,
the argument against ableism has been reduced to the argument for
freedom in general – and appealing to people's sense of freedom will
often be easier than arguments about the nature of neurodiversity.
Anarcho-transhumanism is the machine that kills ableism.