Susan Senator

I posted a question yesterday on one of my autism email groups (which consists of autistics and non-autistics, some of whom are also autism parents). I was wondering, as I often do, about how we figure out who are children are and what they are feeling. How much is projection, and how much is observation/reality? This question applies to any of one’s children. But I was especially thinking about Nat, and how I have come to think of him: as my Innocent, my Good Egg/Hard Worker, and my most Spiritual Child.

It was fascinating and illuminating hearing back from some list members. What I heard was that although it is harmful to cast your child in a negative projection/concept, e.g., a “Devil Child,” my “Bad Seed,” “Brat,” etc., it is just as harmful to cast your child in a simply positive projection, especially if you believe that your child is only this one thing, for example: “Angel,” or “God’s Child,” things like that. That you do your child a disservice by seeing him in just this one way, positive or negative, because you deny his human complexity. Any person may be all of those things and more, at some time or another. It is impossible to fully know another human being.

I agree with this, because I know how horrible it is to be summed up and then often dismissed. I hate when people think they know me, just based on a few signs. But just as horribly, I am guilty of it all the time. I do that with all of my children — maybe with all of my loved ones. It is wrong; but it sure makes life easier. I think of Ned in particular ways, whether he agrees or not. And Max and Ben, of course. I think of one of my best friends as “Stable,” and God bless her for that, at least one of us is. And the thing is, I don’t think of Natty as being able to communicate with the angels or anything like that (I don’t even believe in angels!). It’s just that he always jumps up to go to synagogue, when the other two of my boys sulk about it. And he knows all the prayers, and happily endured a bar mitzvah. So he is my Spiritual one, simply because he is moreso than Max and Ben. But he is not just that.

I guess that the danger with getting to know an autistic human being is that the signs I go by typically with others for information, are not necessarily there with Nat. He does not necessarily smile even if he is happy. He talks to himself when he is happy but when he talks to us he becomes anxious. There is clearly a lot going on inside him, and that is the part that is both wonderful and tragic: that he is every bit a multifaceted young man as Max; but it is so much harder for me to discern his unique parts.

I believe that we are all human and so even if the signs Nat sends out are sometimes not what they appear to be, I think that I can interpret what I see through my own filter, because that’s all I’ve got for now. I think it is better to try and interpret and even be wrong, than not to try at all. Trying to connect is better than not, in my opinion, though I’m sure there are those who do not see the value in connecting. And of course you always have to keep in mind your large margin of error, and continue to try to understand what he means when he does or says something, rather than what you think he means.

Does this make sense? Your thoughts?