Can we move from rugged individualism to neurologically intertwined?
A recent and rather insightful article by clinical psychologist Debra Brause challenges deep-seated societal attitudes about disability and dependence. Writing from an openly personal perspective, Brause recounts an incident that lays bare the troubling notion that disabled lives are only valuable if they meet an arbitrary benchmark of independence. When a fellow psychologist implies Brause’s autistic son has diminished worth for needing support, she exposes this statement as dehumanising and rooted in eugenicist thinking.
Brause goes on to comprehensively critique the dominant cultural paradigm in Western society that prizes self-sufficiency and stigmatises reliance on others. Whilst such internalised ableism is ostensibly about disability, she argues that true independence is a myth for all people. Drawing on her psychological expertise, Brause suggests contemporary relational theories which recognise our interdependence. She specifically references interpersonal neurobiology, elucidating how we are “neurologically intertwined.”
Ultimately, Brause makes an impassioned and reasoned case for equipping disabled people with sufficient supports to determine their own lives whilst dismantling outdated misconceptions about autonomy. This article holds up a mirror to societal prejudice about disability and dependence. It challenges us to reject convenient untruths and work towards empowerment and inclusion.
A short article full of profound themes
The article discusses the problematic notion in society that people with disabilities or high support needs are seen as less valuable or worthy of existence. Several themes emerge that I want to dive into. Here’s the outline of the major themes:
Brause recounts an experience in a therapy session where a psychologist stated it was “understandable” for a woman to not want an autistic child because “some autistic people will never be independent.” This remark deeply troubled Brause, as it implied her own autistic son”s life had less worth due to his support needs.
Brause challenges the overvalued cultural norm of independence, arguing that all people rely on supports and interdependence. Needing assistance with daily living should not be stigmatised. A more realistic goal is self-determination with support.
The disability rights movement has advocated for the right of disabled people to direct their own lives and receive necessary supports. This reflects values of dignity, empowerment, and autonomy. Healthy interdependence, not strict independence, should be the aim.
Psychological theories are shifting from individualism to relational models that recognise human interconnectedness. We are neurologically intertwined with others.
Brause concludes that dependence should be destigmatised, and every individual empowered to live a meaningful, self-directed life with whatever supports they require. The right to dignity and self-determination should not hinge on independence.
In all, the article critiques the problematic cultural attitude that disabled people’s lives are less worthwhile due to support needs, arguing instead for empowerment, dignity and relational interdependence. The goal is destigmatising assistance while upholding self-determination.
Let’s dive in
First a few declarations. I’m a Level 2 autistic adult gestalt processor (aka, non-verbal). I’m the proud parent of a beautiful adult autistic daughter who is also Level 2 autistic gestalt processor, a stunningly brilliant Level 1 autistic adult analytic processor, and four other children who all fall within the neurodivergent spectrum. Twenty years ago, when we discovered that my daughter would likely need support for the entirety of her life, my wife and I radically restructured our life, our career paths, and our financial situation. We both acknowledge the privilege of being able to make the decisions that we made. We both enjoy our daughter’s company and she’s a vital part of our household. We both realise that she will likely live with us for the rest of our lives … and we’re both absolutely fine with it. Our estate plan focuses on her support needs after we’re both gone. With all of this in mind, the article really hit home.
The recounting of an experience in a therapy session where it was stated that it was “understandable” for a woman to not want an autistic child because “some autistic people will never be independent,” reveals deeply troubling assumptions. Brause describes facilitating a therapy session where a couple were exploring adoption due to the husband’s autism diagnosis. Poignantly, she positions herself as the mother of an autistic child whilst attempting to create space for this complex personal situation. However, a seasoned psychologist colleague spectacularly misses the mark by blithely agreeing it would be “understandable” to reject parenting an autistic child, again, “because some autistic people will never be independent.”
Brause shares that this declaration immediately dehumanised her son, denying his inherent value by portraying dependence on support as denigrating personhood. Such a casually delivered attitude treats living disabled lives as devoid of meaning if fully independent functioning proves impossible, with all the ugly echoes of eugenic engineering. In elevating autonomy above all, it diminishes and delegitimises interdependence. Indeed, we all rely on support systems; recognizing this whilst providing self-determination and dignity within community seems more enlightened. Yet prejudice endures, painfully demonstrated by Brause’s peer. Through disciplined self-reflection as both counsellor and parent, Brause models rising above reductive assumptions by integrating wisdom and openness. If only wider society could emulate such patience in steadily dismantling its ableism.
Challenging cultural norms
Brause cogently interrogates the unhealthy premium Western culture places on rugged individualism and self-sufficiency. She contends this narrow conceptualisation both diminishes and stigmatises those requiring support to complete daily activities. Yet the article rightly highlights how illusionarily this mythic norm is by reflecting that we all utilise assistance in manifold areas. Whether relying upon public transport, household staff, or tradespeople, the scaffolding bolstering our lives belies the faulty logic that needing such prop-ups suggests personal failing.
Indeed, the disability rights movement outlined later in Brause's piece stands upon the foundational premise that “individuals with disabilities have the right to live their lives the way they choose, with the ability to ask for help if and when needed.” This “independent living” is misnamed given its actual focus on equipping people to pursue self-direction whilst openly acknowledging vital interdependence. Perhaps the ultimate goal should thus be nurturing environments where seeking necessary support enables rather than hinders human flourishing.
Rather than harshly judging reliance on others as weakness, Brause advocates destigmatisation such that all may craft meaningful existences with dignity intact. Independence ought not determine personhood when universal designed-in vulnerability suggests deeper wisdom. For Brause, facilitating self-determination through freely chosen interdependence offers the most ethical and enriching path … and I wholeheartedly agree.
Towards healthy interdependence
Brause upholds the disability rights movement as positively promoting the autonomy and self-direction of disabled citizens whilst recognising their interdependence. She directly quotes a Center for Independent Living mission statement outlining core values of “dignity, peer support, consumer control, equal access and advocacy.” This clearly articulates an empowering vision where those needing assistance can personalised supports to consciously sculpt lives aligned with their abilities and priorities.
Achieving such liberated interdependence relies upon discarding limiting assumptions that equate worthiness with independence alone. Instead, responsively providing reasonable accommodations demonstrates properly valuing all members of the community. Brause suggests thoughtfully designing public services, infrastructure, and workforce cultures facilitating flexible customised care. However, real change requires surmounting attitudes lagging behind progressive policies and practices.
Genuinely integrating disabled populations as empowered equals will only happen once dependency stigma is banished. But positive exposure normalising disability, showcasing achievements, and honestly illuminating challenges can shift perceptions. Education, spiritual growth, and crisis moments tend to foster compassion over judgement. Still, psychological research into relational mindsets offers some promise that wider cultural awakening is possible. As Brause concludes, by empowering self-determined lives with sufficient support, people can “live with dignity that is both self-directed and supported.” Her aims seem eminently achievable if society dares.
The problems with Western psychology and philosophy
Brause spots a heartening evolution occurring amid psychological discourse away from prioritising radical individualism towards a more holistic comprehension of our innate interconnection. She references pioneering relational frameworks spanning attachment theory, psychoanalysis, and neurobiology that appreciate the crucial impact of social contexts upon development. Indeed, the article specifically cites interpersonal neurobiology founder Dr. Daniel Siegel’s concept of “MWe,” which signifies the integration of self-identity arising from the fusion of “me” and “we.”
Siegel apparently argues that the atomisation of the individual in Western philosophy has birthed a “falsehood that the self is a separate entity,” generating considerable mental suffering. By rediscovering human enmeshment, evident through mirror neurons and limbic resonance, he believes a truer understanding of subjectivity can emerge. We are profoundly shaped by communal interactions such that selves are dynamically constructed through reciprocal meaning-making; there is no isolated core identity untainted by other.
Brause is seemingly aligned to such interpretation, given her advocacy for destigmatising interdependency and crafting cultures empowering self-determined participation. Our presumed autonomy is both shaped by and reliant upon social ecology. In that sense, we are “neurologically intertwined” within layered ecosystems despite perhaps inately striving for coherence amidst the complexity. Recognising this bond between self and systems points towards increased compassion and responsibility.
Destigmatising dependence
In concluding her thoughtful argument, Brause crystallises the primary issue as the profoundly engrained societal stigma attached to visible dependency, which diminishes the perceived worthiness of assisted lives. Yet she maintains no human should endure having their dignity or agency denied simply for requiring distinct supports compared to any fictionalised norm. Instead, she envisages a more enlightened society that enshrines respect, adjusts expectations, and adheres to the process of empowering self-directed participation regardless of specific capability limitations.
This necessitates affirming that all existence has innate meaning and legitimacy rather than harshly withholding endorsement due to adherence to restrictive standards. It seems quite reasonable and feasible that communities could ensure citizens feel valued through thoughtfully facilitating access to helpful resources. However, truly transforming culture requires sincerely appreciating the contributions of disabled populations made viable when acknowledging universal vulnerability. Resisting paternalism means upholding rights of informed risk and individually-tailored assistance.
In essence, Brause insists the only ethical measure determining one’s claim over directing their path through life should be a capacity for stating preferences combined with personal dignity, regardless of how much independence one’s body enables. Respectful solidarity must overrule reductive autonomy arguments. Her vision compels contemplating in what ways we all lean on unseen scaffolding frameworks sustaining our everyday achievements. Perhaps interdependence recognition helps prompt awakening gratitude, rather than ignorant judgement about the form other’s required supports assume.
Final thoughts
Western society’s resistance to destigmatising dependence is deeply culturally engrained, with historical strands like settler colonialism and philosophies such as Randian Objectivism cementing notions of radical self-reliance. However, emerging relational paradigms recognising universal vulnerability could catalyse transformation if awareness spreads.
Settler populations perceived subsisting through interdependence with ecology as inherent weakness, valuing only exploitation and domination. Whilst necessity forced some cooperation, self-direction and autonomy were ultimate - thus First Nations reciprocity was dismissed. Similarly, Objectivism’s reaction against communism led to reverence for rational individualism above altruistic communities, allowing capitalist hustling but demonising needing assistance.
Entwined with ableism and sanism, dependence stigma stems from these foundations framing societal attitudes and architecture. Human variability means some require more visible support with acquisitive competition and masked precarity, violating normalised notions of success. Acknowledging precariousness amidst climate catastrophe may prompt reappraisal.
However, psychological and neuroscientific discoveries regarding social interconnectedness equally debunk myths of independence, recovering intersubjective wisdoms. Settler states could respectfully learn from Indigenous kinship. Collective flourishing through honouring multiple abilities and gifts, as envisioned by Brause, seems far preferable to the anxious treadmill of striving accumulation. Perhaps the greatest resistance lies less in systemic oppression but within - confronting our inner tyrant’s fear of vulnerability.