Moments in Autism Rhetoric

Autism as Rhetoric: Exploring Watershed Rhetorical Moments in Applied Behavior Analysis Discourse

In this piece, Alicia A. Broderick takes a look at three defining moments in the studies of autism and applied behavior analysis rhetoric: O.I. Lovaas’s treatment effect study and the rhetoric of recovery from autism in 1987, Catherine Maurice and her account of using Lovaas’s treatment on her children in her 1993 autobiography, and the establishment of Autism Speaks organization in 2005

Introduction:

Broderick begins by quoting Wilson and Lewiecki-Wilson’s function of postmodern rhetoric to open up discussion about how rhetoric functions when it comes to autism.

rhetoric is not a neutral "instrument" to reflect or describe the world, not the art of "rational" debate, but the art of critique, refutation, position, and action. Understanding that all language practices are positioned and interested, postmodern rhetoricians analyze and study the history of the relations between language and power. (Wilson and Lewiecki-Wilson 2)

It’s important to keep this in mind, because it essentially states, according to Broderick, that “language is not understood to be reflective of but rather actively constitutive of meaning, understand, identity, and experience of, in this case, disability”(2011). So what Broderick hopes to accomplish is to see how autism can be identified and in both language and culture by looking into the Applied Behavior Analysis autism discourse community. To do so, Broderick analyzes these three events. To further break down each one, I’m going to focus on what they did for autistic rhetoric, how it was done, and their effects on autism as a whole.

Lovaas

Broderick states that each of these moments came with “cultural shifts either in rhetorical content or concept (representations, themes, and metaphors) and/or in rhetorical strategy.” In Lovaas’ case, he has affected the autism rhetoric with his 1987 publication that introduced a possible “recovery” from autism, namely through ABA. This idea of recovery means “recovery to normalcy” from autism. Lovaas’s “Young Autism Project”(1987) used words such “recovery” and “recovered” to describe children in the study (about 47%) who have exhibited behaviors of “normal functioning.” This was accomplished through treatment that was “40 hours a week of ABA discrete trial instruction.”  The results were as followed:

The operational definition of best outcome in the Lovaas (1987) study was defined as participants achieving "normal-range IQ scores and successful first grade performance in public schools" (p. 3), and 47% of the treatment group were described as "best outcome."

Broderick concludes

“It is this rhetorical usage of the construct of recovery [to normalcy] that has been the basis of the profound impact that this study has had upon contemporary autism discourse. Thus the strategy of deploying a powerful rhetorical device in an academic report of a treatment-effect study, coupled with the narrative power of the particular rhetorical device that he employed (the notion of "recovery" from autism) together mark this publication as a significant moment in autism's rhetorical history, precisely because of the profound and prolonged cultural impact of Lovaas's rhetoric of recovery.”

I want to go back and focus on this concept of “best outcome” specifically because, as stated in the essay, many people read this as 47% children have “recovered” from autism and are “normal,” which translates to “if your [autistic/disabled/abnormal] child participates in an identical intervention protocol, he or she has nearly a 1 in 2 chance of being normal again" (Broderick 2011).

Questions

1.       Consider this quote:  “nondisabled parents' cultural fears of abnormalcy, of their child being disabled or "handicapped"—fears arising from the deeply ableist culture in which we are all immersed—are assuaged by and countered with a deeply resonating (though no less ableist) rhetorical conceptualization of hope: your child can recover. Your child can be normal again.” What are your thoughts on Broderick’s use of the term “ableist” which has not been used until the end of this section?

2.       Was Lovaas’ right to use the term “recovered” or did he jump the gun, considering that they children in the study were given up to a certain level of education? Do you think that this should have been done to other children of different grades?

Maurice

Maurice’s contribution is threefold. According to Broderick, by bringing Lovaas’s study into American popular culture through her New York Times bestselling autobiography Let Me Hear Your Voice (1993), Maurice popularized Lovaas’s rhetorical construct of recovery from autism, reiterated the link between recovering and ABA, and stated it being the only “scientific” tool to treat autism. It is a testimony, as Broderick puts it, of the effect of Lovaas’s study on a parent of autistic children. Broderick further states that it was “powerful enough even to overcome Maurice’s and her husband’s initial distaste with the thought of subjecting their children to intensive ABA intervention programs” (2011).

Maurice constructed Lovaas’s ABA treatment as “scientific.” By calling it scientific, it brought upon a meaning of “legitimate, neutral, and real.” In short, proof that autism can be treated and normalcy can be achieved. What makes it powerful is that through Maurice’s writing, she has basically stated that other methods of treatment as illegitimate.”

One thing to keep note of is Maurice’s position. By writing the autobiography, she has more or less made herself somewhat of an authority figure. So I couldn’t help asking “What made her the authority figure of autism rherotic?” Broderick answers my question

“The rhetoric of "science" figures prominently in Maurice's (1993) autobiographical text, and her rhetorical constitution of the construct appears to be integral to realizing the vision of hope she holds for her son and daughter—that of "recovery" from autism. Holding a Ph.D. herself in French literature and criticism, Maurice is no stranger or neophyte to the workings and the power of rhetoric. In attempting, somehow, to position herself, Lovaas, and ABA in general as operating outside of rhetoric, she masterfully deploys a powerful and cohesive set of rhetorical strategies throughout her autobiographical text, as well as in her subsequent co-edited text, Behavioral Intervention for Young Children with Autism: A Manual for Parents and Professionals (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996).” (2011)

The language Maurice uses in her book should be noted.

In forming a particular construct of science, Maurice uses lexical and discursive markers that clearly elicit a particular image of science in the reader's head—the constructs of "facts," "data," "validation," and "empiricism" are central to her description, as is the notion of a "corpus of knowledge." In addition to the image of a "body" of scientific knowledge in this example, elsewhere Maurice draws upon Enlightenment imagery by describing "science" as "voices of reason in the wilderness" (p. 117) and by referring to "the light of scientific objectivity" (p. 285). Maurice also explicitly impresses upon her readers a very specific image of science when she posits that "psychology could actually aspire to the rigorous methodology of a science—verifiable data, accountability, controlled research, openness to peer scrutiny…" (p. 168).

The effect Maurice’s publication had on autism and ABA was tremendous. Newspapers and magazines began printing stories on ABA. Parents of autistic children began to tell their own stories (mainly online) of their children how they were able to fund and use ABA programs. Since Maurice’s book, ABA has since been referred to as “The Lovaas method.” ABA continued to be constructed as “scientific.”

However, a big effect by referring to ABA as “scientific” is its effect on other methods, which have been deemed “non-scientific and ideological” (Broderick 2011). Maurice states that these methods are a “appeal to the emotions” versus ABA’s “appeal to reason. The language she uses to describe the other methods in her 1996 co-edited publication Behavioral Intervention for Young Children with Autism: A Manual for Parents and Professionals (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996) consists of words like "unsupported claims," "curative powers," "powers…to heal," "New Age gurus," "charlatanism," "quackery," "nonsense," "scandal," "messiahs," "moon dust elixir," and "magic bullets" (pp. 5-6).

Questions

1.       In the reading, we aren’t really given any specific and detailed “other” methods of treating autism. Why do you think that is?

2.       Does Maurice’s book rightfully make her a figure in autism rhetoric and ABA discourse for her to say that “other” methods were not useful?

Autism Speaks

Autism Speaks, established by Suzanne and Bob Wright in 2005, affected autism rhetoric on the grandest scale describing itself as “North America’s largest autism science and advocacy organization.” This would not have been said without a good reason, especially since Bob Wright has served as CEO of NBC and NBC Universal for more than 20 years.

One thing to keep in mind is that Autism Speaks indeed is a science-based organization. So by looking back at Maurice, they have continued to use science as a rhetorical tool. However, unlike Maurice and Lovaas, they have completely shied away from using “recovery” rhetoric. This is mainly due to critiques of Lovaas’s work and use of “recovery,” so much that he has since backpedaled, in Broderick’s words, their use of it.

Although AS is science-based, they tend to also shy away from other “scientific” procedures, namely those which are biomedical treatments, like chelation therapy, mercury detoxification, and nutritional/dietary regimens (Broderick 2011). However, they do maintain that ABA is “the only scientific intervention approach within the organization’s rhetoric,” but as far as “recovery” rhetoric is concerned, they do not use it at all. Consider the following quote from a document on their site:

Is recovery possible? You may have heard about children who have recovered from autism. Although relatively rare, it is estimated that approximately 10% of children lose their diagnosis of autism. The factors that predict which children lose their diagnosis are unknown...We do know that many children get better with intensive behavioral therapy. There is a large body of scientific evidence to support this theory. It makes sense to focus on getting your child engaged in an intensive behavioral program before looking at other interventions. ("How Is Autism Treated?" 2010, p. 47)

As far as their contribution to autism rhetoric, AS frames autism as an “enemy” by representing it as a “disease, epidemic, and abductor.”  Furthermore, and a more powerful contribution, is AS’s

skillful, systematic, pervasive, and global deployment of these and other rhetorical devices through its corporate-style, neoliberal, market approach to cultural and political rhetoric, deploying its rhetorical tactics and strategies more as a powerful corporate lobbying machine than as a traditional disability advocacy organization. (Broderick 2011)

What makes the latter contribution so powerful can be seen through their Autism Votes initiative, which serves as a “grassroots advocacy program” that appeals to federal and state levels of government. In a simple term: lobbying. It is important to add that Autism Votes and their lobbying has been able to push bills into laws to “require insurance companies to provide coverage of evidence-based, medically necessary autism therapies” or “behavior treatments (ABA).” So far, 23 states have done so.

Broderick states that “The positioning of Autism Votes as a “grassroots” advocacy initiative is itself an effective rhetorical strategy” as “presenting one’s agenda as a ‘grassroots’ one is clearly politically advantageous” (2011). Consider the following:

On the Autism Votes website, their "Chapter Advocacy Network" is described as "a group of elite volunteers dedicated to expanding involvement in autism advocacy." Additionally the "Chapter Advocacy Chairs…direct and activate their local community to advocate for state and federal Autism Speaks initiatives." It is left for the reader to decide whether having a group of "elite volunteers" come in to "direct and activate" local communities "to advocate for state and federal Autism Speaks initiatives" is consistent with the rhetoric of a grassroots political effort. Regardless, it seems culturally to be a powerfully resonant rhetorical strategy. Autism Speaks's representation of its work as a grassroots initiative accomplishes some degree of cultural congruence through its many "walk" events hosted in local communities throughout the country. During these walks, family members, friends, professionals, and others whose lives may be affected by autism gather to walk, to raise and to make donations to Autism Speaks and to sign petitions at the Autism Votes walk booths, "where advocacy information is shared with the walk community and signatures are collected for petitions that are then hand-delivered to Capitol Hill."

There is one thing that Broderick states that does involve some thought:

a certain amount of rhetorical incongruence arises when one notes that the funds raised within local communities do not stay within local communities; they go to the behemoth Autism Speaks (which allocates 65% of its revenues to [mostly genetic] research funding and only 4% to family services) ("Annual Report," 2008). And the petitions to state and federal legislators for which signatures are routinely collected during walks are not drafted within local communities, by local activists, in pursuit of local initiatives; rather, these petitions are drafted by Autism Speaks "to advocate for…Autism Speaks initiatives." (Broderick 2011)

Being that it is a corporate backed company, that does seem that nothing is truly “grassroots” if revenue is being made to a bigger company. To me, that defeats the whole purpose of being grassroots.

 To close out as to how AS has made an impact on autism and autism rhetoric, it has to be stated that the reason AS is put into this essay is not just the aforementioned, but merely the entire strategy that AS has implemented  to achieve it. If you consider the video I had posted earlier, it’s not very hard to tell the effect of their work.

Questions

1.       Their use of media, which wasn’t discussed at length in the essay, has to be discussed. What do you think is Bob Wright’s influence with NBC and their use of celebrities for their ads and PSA  effect on their rhetoric?

2.       I’ve attached a link that Sarah put on my earlier post about Autism Speaks their lack of autists in leadership positions
http://aut.zone38.net/2007/06/03/an-autistic-speaks-about-autism-speaks/
Do you think autists in leadership positions would help the cause and further strengthen their rhetoric?