When Sacks met Grandin
The Temple Grandin chapter of An Anthropologist on Mars was originally an article in the New Yorker.
Kanner and Asperger had looked at autism clinically, providing descriptions of such fullness and accuracy that even now, fifty years later, they can hardly be bettered. But it was not until the nineteen-seventies that Beate Hermelin and Neil O’Connor and their colleagues in London, trained in the new discipline of cognitive psychology, focussed on the mental structure of autism in a more systematic way. Their work (and that of Lorna Wing, in particular) suggested that in all autistic individuals there was a core problem, a consistent triad of impairments: impairment of social interaction with others, impairment of verbal and nonverbal communication, and impairment of play and imaginative activities. The appearance of these three together, they felt, was not fortuitous; all were expressive of a single, fundamental developmental disturbance. Autistic people, they felt, had no true concept of, or feeling for, other minds, or even of their own; they had, in the jargon of cognitive psychology, no “theory of mind.” However, this is only one hypothesis among many; no theory, as yet, encompasses the whole range of phenomena to be seen in autism.
The article was published in December 1993; there’s doubtless been a lot more research on autism in those 22 years.
He went to meet Grandin at Colorado State University, where she was an assistant professor in the Animal Sciences Department.
She sat me down with little ceremony, no preliminaries, no social niceties, no small talk about my trip or how I liked Colorado. Her office, crowded with papers, with work done and to do, could have been that of any academic, with photographs of her projects on the wall, and animal knickknacks she had picked up on her travels. She plunged straight into talking of her work, speaking of her early interests in psychology and animal behavior, how they were connected with self-observation and a sense of her own needs as an autistic person, and how this had joined with the visualizing and engineering part of her mind to point her toward the special field she had made her own: the design of farms, feedlots, corrals, slaughterhouses—systems of many sorts for animal management.
She talked rather relentlessly, and after an hour he had to stop hoping she would offer him coffee and just say he needed some.
There was no “I’m sorry, I should have offered you some before,” no intermediacy, no social junction. Instead, she immediately took me to a coffeepot that was kept brewing in the secretaries’ office upstairs. She introduced me to the secretaries in a somewhat brusque manner, giving me the feeling, once again, of someone who had learned, roughly, “how to behave” in such situations without having much personal perception of how other people felt—the nuances, the social subtleties involved.
Later they had dinner, then went for a walk.
What, I wondered as we walked through the horsetails, of Temple’s cosmogony? How did she respond to myths, or to dramas? How much did they carry meaning for her? I asked her about the Greek myths. She said that she had read many of them as a child, and that she thought of Icarus in particular—how he had flown too near the sun and his wings had melted and he had plummeted to his death. “I understand Nemesis and Hubris,” she said. But the loves of the gods, I ascertained, left her unmoved—and puzzled. It was similar with Shakespeare’s plays. She was bewildered, she said, by Romeo and Juliet (“I never knew what they were up to”), and with “Hamlet” she got lost with the back-and-forth of the play. Though she ascribed these problems to “sequencing difficulties,” they seemed to arise from her failure to empathize with the characters, to follow the intricate play of motive and intention. She said that she could understand “simple, strong, universal” emotions but was stumped by more complex emotions and the games people play. “Much of the time,” she said, “I feel like an anthropologist on Mars.”
That put her at a disadvantage with people, but over the years she built up what she calls a library of experience, which helps her be less vulnerable to cheaters.
In one plant she had designed, she said, there had been repeated breakdowns of the machinery, but these occurred only when a particular man, John, was in the room. She “correlated” these incidents and inferred at last that John must be sabotaging the equipment. “I had to learn to be suspicious, I had to learn it cognitively. I could put two and two together, but I couldn’t see the jealous look on his face.” Such incidents have not been uncommon in her life: “It bends some people out of shape that this autistic weirdo can come in and design all the equipment. They want the equipment, but it galls them that they can’t do it themselves, but that Tom”—an engineering colleague—“and I can, that we’ve got hundred-thousand-dollar Sun workstations in our heads.” In her ingenuousness and gullibility, Temple was at first a target for all sorts of tricks and exploitations; this sort of innocence or guilelessness, arising not from moral virtue but from failure to understand dissembling and pretense (“the dirty devices of the world,” in Traherne’s phrase), is almost universal among the autistic.
Whereas we “normal” people know all about dissembling, as victims and as perps. Do it to them before they do it to you.
Then he gets to the part about how her autism enables her to understand animals.
…we drove out to the university’s experimental farm, where Temple does much of her basic field work. I had earlier thought there might be a separation, even a gulf, between the personal—and, so to speak, private—realm of her autism and the public realm of her professional expertise. But it was becoming increasingly clear to me that they were hardly separated at all; for her, the personal and the professional, the inward and the outward, were completely fused.
“Cattle are disturbed by the same sorts of sounds as autistic people—high-pitched sounds, air hissing, or sudden loud noises; they cannot adapt to these,” Temple told me. “But they are not bothered by low-pitched, rumbling noises. They are disturbed by high visual contrasts, shadows or sudden movements. A light touch will make them pull away, a firm touch calms them. The way I would pull away from being touched is the way a wild cow will pull away—getting me used to being touched is very similar to taming a wild cow.” It was precisely her sense of the common ground (in terms of basic sensations and feelings) between animals and people that allowed her to show such sensitivity to animals, and to insist so forcefully on their humane management.
One more passage:
I was struck by the enormous difference, the gulf, between Temple’s immediate, intuitive recognition of animal moods and signs and her extraordinary difficulties understanding human beings, their codes and signals, the way they conducted themselves. One could not say that she was devoid of feeling or had a fundamental lack of sympathy. On the contrary, her sense of animals’ moods and feelings was so strong that these almost took possession of her, overwhelmed her at times. She feels she can have sympathy for what is physical or physiological—for an animal’s pain or terror—but lacks empathy for people’s states of mind and perspectives. When she was younger, she was hardly able to interpret even the simplest expressions of emotion; she learned to “decode” them later, without necessarily feeling them.
That’s only about halfway through. It’s a magnificent article.
Her autobiography is excellent and easy to read
Indeed, she’s made a career of designing ways of oppressing, exploiting, and killing in the name of “understanding” and “love,” which would be obvious bullshit if applied to humans. Forgive me if I don’t share the admiration. She’s an ideologue of exploitation and violence.
This can be avoided through an even smoother machinery of hiding and killing. What a wonderful world.
Good god, this is such nonsense.
Not so much that she didn’t want to make a career of designing systems for exploiting and killing them, though. If she really had such a common sense, she would object to the slaughter of billions of them – instead, she profits from it, and makes a reputation as a “humane” understander of their suffering to boot. It’s grotesque.
SC, admiration? I read it as clinical observation.
Uh… I disagree. Autistic people understand that lying is a thing people do. They understand there are advantages to it. I can even think of lies that would make situations much easier.
But. No. We *do* have a very strong sense that lying is wrong. It is not something we find trivial at all. Even when the lie itself is a trivial one… in some ways that makes it worse, to have so little regard for the truth that one would treat it as worthless.
I mean, based on my own experiences and the discussions I’ve had with friends with diagnoses, a lot of this is a bit off. For instance, social things… so many of his expectations are basically built around rituals. Why should she asks how he likes Colorado? It has nothing to do with why he is visiting her. It is small talk– a stalling him from his purpose. Is it not respectful to get him to his purpose? What neurotypicals see as brusqueness is a respect for his time and intentions. When she knows his intentions include coffee, she provides coffee, but she has not absorbed *offering a beverage* as a ritual in an interview situation.
In fact, rituals can be taught instead of absorbed, and such teaching would help not only people on spectrum, but also people from diverse cultural backgrounds including economic class differences. The upper and middle classes set expectations in terms of ritual and dress and expect everyone else to figure out how to fit in and see them as flawed if they don’t.
At least, the excerpts seem to me to reveal more about society than about autistic people.
*peers over glasses* “Then he gets to the part about how her autism enables her to understand animals.” ” It was precisely her sense of the common ground (in terms of basic sensations and feelings) between animals and people that allowed her to show such sensitivity to animals, and to insist so forcefully on their humane management.” Enables, understanding, sense, sensitivity – not particularly neutral. But let’s say it’s a purely clinical observation at all levels here: she believes she has a connection with other animals. The uses to which that belief has been put in her case are so horrific that they require a condemnatory comment whenever raised.
SC @7, yes. Yes, indeed.
(I didn’t fail to notice how you wrote “with other animals” rather than “with animals”. We are in accord there, too)
:)
I couldn’t agree more with SC. I am fascinated with Temple Grandin’s mind and think it’s wonderful what she has done in terms of figuring out how to navigate life with autism.
But she has single-handedly done perhaps more than anyone to perpetuate the myth of “humane” treatment of animals in CAFOs. And in doing so she has helped enable them to grow to the behemoth polluting factories they have become.
I wanted so much, as a vegan, to say something about the contradictions there, but you folks already said it well.
It doesn’t negate what Sacks was writing about in general, it just shows how much social conditioning overwhelmingly controls people’s perceptions of what is appropriate or ethical.
[…] people talked about this on the Oliver Sacks – Temple Grandin thread: a website about […]
On the contrary, she’s made real changes for the better.
She believes it is ethical to farm animals, and to slaughter them for food (you can read her thoughts on the subject in her book, Thinking in Pictures.) She has worked for decades to improve the way animals are treated in the process.
The raising and killing of animals for food isn’t likely to end any time soon. Surely trying to improve the quality of their lives, and make the end of their lives as painless and stress-free as possible, is a worthwhile goal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin
Daniel Imhoff, author of The CAFO Reader:
http://grist.org/article/food-cafo-reader-editor-daniel-imhoff-on-the-ills-of-factory-farms/full/
FWIW, here’s an interview with TG on this topic. She mostly rejects talking about CAFOs in general, and prefers to talk about the details of specific practices.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/12/9132717/temple-grandin
I tried really hard to read the article with an open mind. It all seems like nonsense to me because it starts with the notion of treating the animals well… in order to eventually slaughter and murder them all.
I’m cooking dinner right now, and literally in tears as i’m reminded of all the murder victims i’ve eaten in my lifetime during the years when i lived in my parents’ home and i the years i wasn’t a vegetarian.
The simplest way to prevent cruelty to animals is to leave them alone. Don’t capture them, don’t breed them, don’t murder them, don’t eat them. Leave them to have their lives, the way we want to be left unmolested to have our lives.
It’s no use pretending there’s anything more complicated about it. Only social conditioning and brutally enforced normativity are what’s keeping everybody from doing what’s right.
I’m not exactly a vegan, though I do eat very little meat. But I think Kevin Hutchins the Bellinghamster’s assertions are not as simple as one might think. Leaving animals alone clearly prevents cruelty, as defined as human-caused suffering. But the life of an animal in the wild can have plenty of suffering. Most of them need to spend a significant portion of their waking hours finding food for themselves (and often their offspring). Wild animals rarely die of old age; more likely they will die miserably, of starvation, disease, predation, or some combination of those (and predators are not particular about whether their prey is dead before they start eating, as long as it’s immobile). I fully agree that factory farming is bad, but if farm animals are well-cared for, with sufficient space and opportunities for stimulation and socialization, and then slaughtered humanely, it’s hard to argue that this is a worse situation for them.
“it’s hard to argue that this is a worse situation for them”
I would argue that if you put YOURSELF in their position, and you were held captive until you were murdered and eaten, you would not want it to happen. If it’s wrong to happen to you, it’s wrong to happen to any animal. Not sure why it could be thought of as acceptable, unless you are socially conditioned to believe that it’s acceptable. Without the training from other people, you’d probably never accept the horror. But most of us are trained, forcefully, continuously.
I’m not sure – given the choice, I might very well decide that a shorter happier life in captivity where I had adequate food, medical care, protection from the elements and predators could be preferable to a longer miserable one. And I’m not even sure it’s a reasonable comparison, since I’m not convinced that most other animals can be said to have a concept of “self” and “future” the way humans do.
I don’t believe it’s necessary to relate to an animal and concern myself with its potential senses in order to care about whether it suffers and is murdered. This is true regardless of species. Social conditioning trains people to care when it’s the human species, but that is just a societal choice. My personal choice is to care about the creature enough to leave it alone and not make it suffer and die for any of my purposes.
Your personal choices are yours. You can choose to not care about a creature suffering and dying. You have been given permission from your society to not care. I’m just trying to appeal to your compassion in the hopes that you will transcend your conditioning and decide that you could care. It’s hard to do a lot of things that are important, but NOT capturing and killing things is actually a very easy thing to do. If people care enough, they might at least go for the easy parts.