theoriesofminds: the happy things (Default)
2015-11-20 09:12 am

(no subject)

There's a particular approach to social constructionism that feels like a particular way of non-autistic thinking (not all ways of non-autistic thinking, just one specific one). It involves using social influence to try to make something socially influenceable by convincing other people that it is, through showing that it isn't identical across all cultures or time periods and saying that means it's socially constructed, and meaning, though not always explicitly stating, that socially constructed = amenable to interpersonal influence.

That feels cultish and gaslighty to me. It's extremely susceptible to being used as a tool to deny other people's actual realities. In addition to being a really impoverished view of how culture works.

Also, I don't think anybody talks about "importing Western diagnostic categories" into other cultures for things they think are actually real. There are important conversations to have about how diagnostic categories change over time, and how some diagnostic categories map onto reality messily, and how people using those diagnostic categories often apply them unevenly based on demographics, and about how other cultures' ways of breaking up the world can sometimes reflect underlying phenomena better than the DSM-5 or ICD-10. But I don't want to talk about those in ways that are susceptible to to the idea that if it's different in other cultures, maybe it's not actually real here either and can be made to go away by deciding it's not real.

Edit: And of course to how some things are developmental, and develop differently based on how your culture treats them. Or how you're treated in your culture.