Asperger's Syndrome is Not Necessarily a Disorder

Post Reply New Topic

I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome yesterday. Whether or not I should be labeled with it isn't an issue, and I do share many traits with those who do have it.



However, I've been reading about it over the past year and it seems there is little consensus among people and researchers whether or not it should be a "Disorder" or a "Syndrome".



I think it should be a syndrome. Disorder implicates negativity and generally makes anyone and anything branded with it look negative even if the actual "Disorder" is very minor. Also, disorder implies that something is "Wrong". How does one determine right and wrong?



Those who live and perceive with Asperger's are different. The only disorder in my life is that there are not many people I seek to be around or share common activities with, and I don't place any value whatsoever in the sentimental and stereotypical "I love you"s of family life. A family and the way it "Should" be is entirely dependent on the actions of each individual in it. The disorder in my life is caused by the inability of others to accept my difference and live with it the way it is.



Asperger's is not a disorder. Authoritative personality is.

True.

I agree with you on syndrome.

You can count me in.It is a syndrome not a disease or a disorder.

'Syndrome' makes it sound like a disease.

It's an abnormal kind of brain which has negative effects on the way a person acts. Definitely a disorder.

Asperger's is being deleted from the DSM, in place of AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER. Why would you need to be diagnosed with it if you weren't impaired?

Also, if you called that a syndrome the acronym would be ASS.

I agree with MONKEY.

This question opens a can of worms which has been debated many times before-- is Asperger's a bad thing? Is it a disability? Should it be called one?

All of these are different questions. I think the natural tendency is to assume that they're the same question and should all have the same answer. But they're not.

There's an idea called the social model of disability, which basically says that disability is functioning in the wrong way for your environment, and is an interaction rather than something inherent to the individual. Sort of like how someone in a wheelchair is less disabled here than they would be someplace with more staircases, but more disabled than they would be in a society which attached no stigma to using a wheelchair and made sure to make everywhere wheelchair-accessible.

Disability might even be a trait that would be a positive somewhere else. Dwarves have problems... here. In a society built for dwarves, you'd be bumping your head on ceilings all the time and probably eventually getting concussions, which would be seen as, oh, people with Excessive Height Syndrome are also more prone to concussions; how terrible it is that they're so malformed.

So... yes, many people on the spectrum have a disability here and now. In another world, NTs could be the disabled ones, but in this world, they're not.

Which doesn't actually answer the question of whether Asperger's is a bad thing. All it is, by itself, is a specific brain wiring; it's not even a "difference" unless you compare it to something it can be different from. Comparing it in the abstract to NT wiring without taking into account environment, it is just a difference. In some environments, an Aspie will suffer where an NT would not; in other environments, an NT will suffer where an Aspie would not. This society was build by and for NTs, to minimize their suffering, without a thought for someone whose needs are different. Hence, there are many more of the former type of environment than the latter.

There's another way to look at whether it's a bad thing or not, and that is what it can do for society at large. Aspies certainly bring things to the table which NTs do not. We do not bring any less to the table inherently, but years of suffering and ostracism experienced while NTs are learning valuable things we're never taught mean that we often bring less to the table in reality. We also sometimes bring more. But that is generally just a tool; look at what Einstein did. Good? Bad? I don't presume to say. Aspies can benefit the world for the better, or bring evils upon the world. The only thing that's certain is that they have a different potential to do so from NTs. They may achieve the same results. In some instances, they may even go about it the same way. But generally speaking, we do things differently. Not better (but it can lead to results NTs could never achieve). Not worse (but totally untrained and with self-confidence beaten out, versus NTs who've been taught from the beginning how to succeed...).

In this world, it may even be that we are more valuable because there are fewer replacements available-- if for whatever reason, I needed to round up as many NTs as possible, I know where to find more than I can count on both hands, and that's just on my block. If the same applied to Aspies, I'd have myself and my dad, and then I'd have to track down a married couple who probably live nowhere nearby, and one more person if you count HFA, and then I'd have to leave the city to find two more who might not even be Aspies, one six hours away. Then there's someone halfway across the country from me who might not even be an Aspie, and then I'd have to start tracking down WP members. Clearly, if you need what only an NT can give, it will be easier to acquire than if you need what only an Aspie can give.

Which to my way of thinking is itself sufficient answer, besides the other satisfactory answers, to the question of whether we should exist.

But then what to call it. "Disorder" gets services. "Difference" doesn't. In this society, where disability is viewed as something inherent to the individual or nonexistent, we pick the alternative that gets us free stuff.

First of all, Rosennoir, I think it's great that you have so quickly come to this realization. Many people, myself included, feel so emotionally jarred at first that it takes us a while to realize that having Asperger's isn't such a problem.

As for the disorder/syndrome/difference/disability/disease question, I have my own perspective on the matter. First, I would consider it difficult to classify Asperger's as a disorder, as nothing about it seems dysfunctional. The term "syndrome" is a rather vague term, which just means "collection of symptoms that tend to all happen together." This describes Asperger's fairly well. It certainly is a difference, and is not a disease, as a disease must be harmful or pathological.

Recently, many groups have begun classifying Asperger's, and autism as a whole, as a disability. However, many groups that classify it as a disability still recognize the right of those on the spectrum to remain on the spectrum if they wish. This, at first, seems problematic. How can one call oneself disabled, and object to other people's trying to fix them? In the words of Jake Crosby, many people and groups classify autism as a disability, but not "in the classical sense of the term."

I would like to draw attention to the United Nations convention on disability rights, specifically article 30, section 4. Here, the right to retain one's disability is recognized, with no implication of waiving the rights to services upon invoking the right to retain the disability. This would suggest that the "classical sense" of disability, as Mr. Crosby calls it, is an incorrect sense. Using the United Nations convention, there is no reason not to classify Asperger's as a disability.

yeah disorder is bad...

Autism Spectrum Disorder

Should be Autism Spectrum

and wow.. welcome to the label

I know I researched...... a lot when I first I found out I had aspergers when I was 19

I'm OK with "syndrome".

Disability or not... a lot is vs environment. If you need to hunt to survive and you have poor vision you are disabled. If you don't see so well (I have pretty lousy eyesight even with glasses), it doesn't affect me much in this kind of setting.

I feel Asperger's is kind of the same. I know with another environment and other kinds of people around me, I'd be OK. But this world is BAD BAD for me so that is why I'm disabled.

syndrome or disorder is okay with me; just not disease.

I think "syndrome" is a term that is indicative of a collection of symptoms or traits. So it's not like a definitive diagnosis or something, it's more a case of if you tick this box and/or this box and/or this box and/or this box. And I think that's accurate in so far as Asperger's is concerned, in that there's a number of different diagnostic criteria and you don't have to meet *all* of them.

I feel the same way about the term "disorder" though, it does have negative, pejorative connotations, like it's something that's wrong as opposed to just different.

I feel more affinity with the idea of the social model of disability than the medical model, personally speaking I don't really think of Asperger's as a disease or medical condition, more of a natural variation in terms of neurodiversity.

I consider the mindless sociability of many 'Neurotypicals' to be fairly disordered and far more dangerous than Asperger's Syndrome could ever be.

The philosophy I adhere to in regards to AS/autism is that it is a "difference" and not a "disorder." I have AS and I do not regard myself as a disorder. I do have challenges that are the result of AS. But let it be known that NTs have challenges due to their being NT. It takes both we autistics and NTs to make the world effective.

What if 99 out of 100 people on this earth had autism? And what if only 1 out of 100 people on this earth was born NT? Guess what? The professionals would be calling autism "normal" and being an NT as a "disorder."

I agree with calling it a syndrome.