medicalized storying of lack

authoring, or what it means to invent or shape a discourse.

What Barnbaum and others suggest is that autism is a world without people, that a world without people is a world without rhetoric, and that an arhetorical life is a life not worth living—a life beyond the realm of voluntary action and intentionality.

I think we do want rhetoric, and we do need rhetoric, because we cannot afford to be denied it.

In these therapies, autism is not so much an ecology of neuroqueer experience but rather an ecology of joint and forcible prosthesis, an ecology in which the autistic is physically made to comply with the therapeutic and social demands of nonautistic publics.

In the stories we tell and encounter about biological motion, autistics and humans unfortunately operate as a clinical binary. Autistics are robots-en-organisme,

Erin Manning outlines autistic perception as “the opening, in perception, to the uncategorized, to the unclassified. This opening, which is how many autistics describe their experience of the world, makes it initially difficult to parse the field of experience. Rather than seeing the parts abstracted from the whole, autistic perception is alive wit

it’s more that autistics have too much autism and not enough autism, all at the same time, and this makes them inherently unreliable, inherently and rhetorically halved.

If rhetoric is energy to be realized, if rhetoric is ambient, if rhetoric is sticky, if rhetoric is what binds some nebulous us—does it not still have an effect?