I'm no academic, but I think I can contribute to #ScholarComm anyways. Below is my summary of a #PoliticalPhilosophy paper by Arash Abizadeh on border control and democratic theory. The central thesis of this paper is that a democracy can't justifiably shut down its borders without violating democratic principles. This is interesting because that is usually seen as a right granted by the self-governance of democracies.

https://a-blog-with.relevant-information.com/posts/summary_democratic_theory_and_border_coercion_no_right_to_unilaterally_control_your_own_borders/

Plain language summary of "Metaeugenics and Metaresistance: From Manufacturing the ‘Includeable Body’ to Walking Away from the Broom Closet

I will start this summary by explaining the title. I usually skip that part. This time I am going to explain the title because the title is so long, and so annoying. In "Academia" (which is just a fancy way to say college), there is a joke about how professors choose titles for their papers. It's not a specific joke. But everyone likes to make fun of titles that go like this "short catchy title": "long title with complicated meaning". I choose this kind of title a lot, because I think it's fun. I don't take myself too seriously.

The first part of this title is "Metaeugenics and Metaresistance". Something-ics is a kind of science, or a way of thinking, like economics, or politics. Eugenics is a way of thinking that says there are good bodies and bad bodies, and that human beings have a moral duty to keep their bodies "good" and to only have children with "good" bodies. Eugenics also says that governments are responsible for making sure their citizens are only people with "good" bodies. Eugenic science was overtly racist and ableist.

Most people believe that eugenics is over. They believe it was a bad science that happened in the past, and that we don't believe in it anymore. The problem with believing eugenics is over is that it makes it hard for you to notice when it is still happening. When more black and Indigenous people die from a virus, some people understand that this is because of racism in medicine. But when more disabled people die, we think it is because their bodies are weaker - That they do not have "good" bodies. The truth is that disabled people are dying more not /just/ because they are vulnerable but also because we made public choices that endanger their lives.

We made these choices because we still believe in good bodies and bad bodies. We still believe that it is everyone's moral duty to make their body as strong as possible. We still believe that some people deserve to die because of the body they are in. This is metaeugenics.

For something to be meta- is for it to exist without being said or written out loud. It is important to be clear that when we say disabled people, we do not mean just white disabled people. Understanding metaeugenics helps us to understand why we are okay with so many disabled people dying. It also helps us to understand that black and Indigenous people are not just vulnerable to racism, but to ableism also, even when they are not disabled in ways that are obvious to us. Because we do not care about disabled people, we allowed black and Indigenous people to be put at greater risk from racism in public health. Metaeugenics can help us understand how racism and ableism work together.

Resistance means to work against something. In this paper I want us to think about the ways we can work against metaeugenics by paying attention to metaresistance. To notice metaresistance, you have to think differently about what you are seeing when you see people resisting something. You have to notice both what someone is directly working against, and also notice how that resistence “speaks” or does resistance against other things that are not clear - like metaeugenics. I will give some examples later.

The next part of the title is “manufacturing the includable body”.

The “includable body” is something disability scholars write about. When we talk about inclusion, we usually mean that society should be open and accessible to everyone, no matter their disability. But when we “do” inclusion, schools and workplaces usually set some rules about what a person must do or be or look like in order to be included. Some scholars that write about this are Tania Titchkosky, Sara María Acevedo, Joe Stramondo, Eunjung Kim, and Anne McGuire. When a disabled child has to “earn” their place in the mainstream classroom by graduating from certain therapies, this means they have been made “includable”.

This is one way we uphold metaeugenics. We make disabled people work to make their bodies “includable” in therapies before we will accommodate them in “mainstream” spaces. Disabled people are morally obligated to make their bodies as “good” as possible, and if they don’t, they are called “non compliant”.

If you know anything about inclusion, you might be a little confused. Inclusion is a right! In the United States, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act which means disabled people have the right to accommodations to access public life, work, and school. Unfortunately, rights and laws do not work without people doing the right thing. Even if you have the "right" to be included, who decides what counts as inclusion?

The problem with rights is that someone else is always in charge of deciding what "counts".

The United Nations has the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). In my paper, I try to explain that when you put these documents together, they show a global metaeugenic attitude toward disability. The CRPD says that disability must be recognized as a natural part of human diversity, but that adult decision makers have the authority to determine the "best interests" of a disabled child. In the CRC, adults are responsible for considering the "best interests of the Child" and children are guaranteed the right to "develop healthily". What does this mean when the child is born into a body that the world declares is "unhealthy" or "disordered"? Basically, a disabled child has the right to be "fixed". Our rights comand us to manufacture an includable body for any person whose body is not "normal".

The final part of this paper's title is "Walking away from the broom closet". Ursula K. le Guin was a famous science fiction author. She wrote a book called "The Ones who Walk away from Omelas". In this book, Omelas was a Utopic society. A utopia is a place where everyone is happy and cared for. In the story, people find out that Omelas's happiness is only possible because there is a child, locked in a broom closet, who takes on all the suffering so that everyone else can be happy.

I think that in the real world, we have lots of broom closets where we make people suffer so that we can have our happy idea of normal. I think prisons are an example of broom closets. I also think that for many disabled children, the "intensive interventions" we force them to do in their "best interests" are a kind of broom closet. They suffer so that we can have our happy idea of a future without disability.

Attitudes toward children can tell us about attitudes toward the future. If we want to ensure our children do not have to be disabled, then we must also want a future where there are no disabled people. The disabled community is large and diverse. There are some conditions which are painful and some people want treatments that help them feel at peace in their own bodies. But that doesn't mean that you can eliminate disability. Disability is a natural part of human life. The society that wants to eliminate disability can only hope to eliminate itself.

I will end this summary with some stories.

On August 2, 2018, NBC News’ Health website published an article praising Google Glass
and researchers at Stanford University for the creation of a wearable app that may improve eye
contact for children with autism (Scher, 2018).
In preschool, [he] struggled socially with other kids. One hit him in the
face with a rubber mallet and another in the shoulder with a metal shovel.
“He didn’t see it coming,” [she] told NBC News. “When you don’t look
kids in the face, you can’t see their reactions or know what to expect.”
When he was 5, he was diagnosed with autism.
[N]ow 9, [he] started working one on one with a therapist using applied
behavioral analysis, a technique to improve social behavior, but [his
mother] saw little progress.
“Nothing really changed,” she said. “Until Google Glass.”

This child was assaulted by his peers. Because he was disabled, the solution was to put him in therapy. To use technology to change his behavior. To put him in a broom closet. So that other people could be happy.

In another project, researchers made a smart watch that would buzz to notify a child that they were behaving inappropriately. In this example, even "hand flapping" was considered inappropriate. At one point, "Child 5" was buzzed. He looked up and noticed that his teacher was too far away to stop him, and he continued flapping his hands. This child is my patron saint of noncompliance. His microresistance, written down in a scientific paper, is a testimony for all to see that the researchers are focusing on the wrong idea.

There are other examples, like the children who run away from robots designed to teach them social skills, or the children who scream at their therapists.

If we pay attention to where our participants are resisting our research, we can learn to recognize these broom closets, unlock the doors, and take these children out of Omelas forever.

https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/cjcr/article/view/1976

Hashtag soup
#PlainLanguage #SciComm #ScholarComm #STS #CDS #HCI #DisabilityStudies #HumanComputerInteraction #HumanRights #ChildrensRights #CRPD #CRC #Metaeugenics #Metaresistance #Eugenics #Omelas #UrsulaKLeGuin #Autism #Disability #DisabilityJustice #TechJustice #Technoableism #ColiberationLab

Another plain language summary from the #ColiberationLab.

“I, Misfit: Empty Fortresses, Social Robots, and Peculiar Relations in Autism Research.”

In this paper, I think about autistic people and robots. Ideas about autism as robotic have made researchers do very strange things. Many autism researchers write about how autistic people are like robots, and many robotics researchers write about how robots are like autistic people! There are even studies about how to use robots to help autistic people be more “human”. I think this is very silly. The paper that I wrote is very serious. But the truth is that I laughed a lot while writing it. I also cried a little. Sometimes things that are silly are also deeply sad.

There are many studies about how to use robots to take care of other people. Care Robots are designed for elder care, dementia care, and other kinds of care that might happen in a clinic, hospital, or nursing home. This is often called “Robot Assisted Therapy”. Researchers like Andrew Bischof and Arne Maibaum have studied robotics. They write about how most Care Robot research begins by asking “How can we use a robot to solve a problem here?” This is a silly way to begin research, because you are assuming that a robot would be a good solution to the problem at all.

“Robotic Care Assistants” or Care Robots are usually made to do things that other people think are boring, like doing the same thing over and over. Ruha Benjamin writes about how we think of robots as slaves, and how this means we sometimes build technologies with racist ideas. When we build things with racist ideas, we build a racist world, even if we do not know it. I worry about how often Care Robots are built to be like servants. I worry about this because if we want robots to be servants, that means we want servants. If we want servants, we want something that hurts other people. I think some people feel that it’s okay because robots do not have feelings. I feel that it’s not okay, no matter what, because wanting servants makes us treat other people badly, even if we think we are only acting badly toward robots.

I look at studies where people try to use robots to make autistic people behave a certain way. I think the way that researchers talk about autistic people tells us about how they do not respect autistic people very much. In these studies, both the autistic people and the robots sometimes do something surprising. When this happens, it can show researchers that what they think about autistic people is wrong.

Around 60 to 70 years ago, there was a man who studied autism named Bruno Bettelheim. Bettelheim ran a school for “Emotionally Disturbed” children, where families brought their autistic children when they felt they could not take care of them. Bettelheim sometimes convinced families to send their children to his school. He told families their children were not well, emotionally or mentally, and that he could help them. Bettelheim wrote about how autistic children were empty inside. He wrote that they became empty inside because there was something wrong with how the children behave around their families.

Most researchers now do not think that Bettelheim was right about autism. Even though Bettelheim was wrong, the things that he wrote were so popular that many people still believe them. Even researchers that know Bettelheim was wrong still write about autistic people being empty or “off” in some ways. When someone says that an autistic person is “off” they mean that they don’t feel like the autistic person is like other people, and that this is bad. Autistic people are often called “misfits”. Researchers write about how autistic people move funny, talk differently, and don’t understand other people. Often, they write about autistic people being like a robot, or a machine.

I think that it is silly that researchers talk about autistic people being like robots, and then want to use robots to make autistic people act more “normal”. Researchers often try to use a robot to teach an autistic person how to act when around other people. Researchers say that if they can make an autistic person act “normal”, then other people will treat them better. Why isn’t anybody teaching “normal” people how to be nice?

Researchers think they need to fix the autistic person because they do not think the autistic person is different, they think the autistic person is broken. Researchers write that if they can fix or change the autistic person, it will be good for other people. Researchers have decided two things. 1. That robots can teach autistic people to be like other people. And 2. That this is good because it will make things easier for everyone else.

Sometimes, the autistic people in these robot studies show the researchers that they are upset, that they don’t like the robot, or they don’t like the activity. I think it’s important for researchers to notice when the autistic people in their studies are “misbehaving” because it can show the researchers that what they are studying is wrong.

It’s so funny that researchers have written that they can use the robots to notice when the autistic person is upset. The researchers know that they are bad at understanding autistic people. But then they write about how autistic people struggle to understand others! If we are willing to teach robots how to understand autistic people, why won’t we teach each other how to understand autistic people? Why do we work so hard to change only the autistic person?

In one study, an autistic person was not good at the task the researchers wanted him to do. He was not copying what the robot did the way the researchers wanted him to. Even though he was doing the task “wrong”, at the end of every appointment, he would kiss the robot on the head. I think about this a lot. There are a lot of stories about autistic people being loving toward robots. Even though researchers are wrong about autistic people being robotic, autistic people often feel friendship with robots because we are treated badly by the same people. Autistic people and robots are both treated like “Misfits.” Researchers should be more like autistic people, be more open to being friends with people who are different, and stop trying to change them.

To read more:

https://www.pdcnet.org/techne/content/techne_2021_0999_10_19_147

Or

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355516306_I_Misfit_in_advance_Empty_Fortresses_Social_Robots_and_Peculiar_Relations_in_Autism_Research

Hashtag soup:

#HRI #HumanRobotInteraction #HumanRobotRelations #RobotAssistedTherapy #SociallyAssistiveRobots #Autism #AutismTherapy #ActuallyAutistic #PlainLanguage #Research #ResearchSummary #SciComm #ScholarComm #STS #CDS #CriticalDisabilityStudies #CriticalAutismStudies

Edit: Deleted and reposted because I accidentally kept it unlisted. Sorry about the beleted replies.

Another plain language summary from the #ColiberationLab.

“I, Misfit: Empty Fortresses, Social Robots, and Peculiar Relations in Autism Research.”

In this paper, I think about autistic people and robots. Ideas about autism as robotic have made researchers do very strange things. Many autism researchers write about how autistic people are like robots, and many robotics researchers write about how robots are like autistic people! There are even studies about how to use robots to help autistic people be more “human”. I think this is very silly. The paper that I wrote is very serious. But the truth is that I laughed a lot while writing it. I also cried a little. Sometimes things that are silly are also deeply sad.

There are many studies about how to use robots to take care of other people. Care Robots are designed for elder care, dementia care, and other kinds of care that might happen in a clinic, hospital, or nursing home. This is often called “Robot Assisted Therapy”. Researchers like Andrew Bischof and Arne Maibaum have studied robotics. They write about how most Care Robot research begins by asking “How can we use a robot to solve a problem here?” This is a silly way to begin research, because you are assuming that a robot would be a good solution to the problem at all.

“Robotic Care Assistants” or Care Robots are usually made to do things that other people think are boring, like doing the same thing over and over. Ruha Benjamin writes about how we think of robots as slaves, and how this means we sometimes build technologies with racist ideas. When we build things with racist ideas, we build a racist world, even if we do not know it. I worry about how often Care Robots are built to be like servants. I worry about this because if we want robots to be servants, that means we want servants. If we want servants, we want something that hurts other people. I think some people feel that it’s okay because robots do not have feelings. I feel that it’s not okay, no matter what, because wanting servants makes us treat other people badly, even if we think we are only acting badly toward robots.

I look at studies where people try to use robots to make autistic people behave a certain way. I think the way that researchers talk about autistic people tells us about how they do not respect autistic people very much. In these studies, both the autistic people and the robots sometimes do something surprising. When this happens, it can show researchers that what they think about autistic people is wrong.

Around 60 to 70 years ago, there was a man who studied autism named Bruno Bettelheim. Bettelheim ran a school for “Emotionally Disturbed” children, where families brought their autistic children when they felt they could not take care of them. Bettelheim sometimes convinced families to send their children to his school. He told families their children were not well, emotionally or mentally, and that he could help them. Bettelheim wrote about how autistic children were empty inside. He wrote that they became empty inside because there was something wrong with how the children behave around their families.

Most researchers now do not think that Bettelheim was right about autism. Even though Bettelheim was wrong, the things that he wrote were so popular that many people still believe them. Even researchers that know Bettelheim was wrong still write about autistic people being empty or “off” in some ways. When someone says that an autistic person is “off” they mean that they don’t feel like the autistic person is like other people, and that this is bad. Autistic people are often called “misfits”. Researchers write about how autistic people move funny, talk differently, and don’t understand other people. Often, they write about autistic people being like a robot, or a machine.

I think that it is silly that researchers talk about autistic people being like robots, and then want to use robots to make autistic people act more “normal”. Researchers often try to use a robot to teach an autistic person how to act when around other people. Researchers say that if they can make an autistic person act “normal”, then other people will treat them better. Why isn’t anybody teaching “normal” people how to be nice?

Researchers think they need to fix the autistic person because they do not think the autistic person is different, they think the autistic person is broken. Researchers write that if they can fix or change the autistic person, it will be good for other people. Researchers have decided two things. 1. That robots can teach autistic people to be like other people. And 2. That this is good because it will make things easier for everyone else.

Sometimes, the autistic people in these robot studies show the researchers that they are upset, that they don’t like the robot, or they don’t like the activity. I think it’s important for researchers to notice when the autistic people in their studies are “misbehaving” because it can show the researchers that what they are studying is wrong.

It’s so funny that researchers have written that they can use the robots to notice when the autistic person is upset. The researchers know that they are bad at understanding autistic people. But then they write about how autistic people struggle to understand others! If we are willing to teach robots how to understand autistic people, why won’t we teach each other how to understand autistic people? Why do we work so hard to change only the autistic person?

In one study, an autistic person was not good at the task the researchers wanted him to do. He was not copying what the robot did the way the researchers wanted him to. Even though he was doing the task “wrong”, at the end of every appointment, he would kiss the robot on the head. I think about this a lot. There are a lot of stories about autistic people being loving toward robots. Even though researchers are wrong about autistic people being robotic, autistic people often feel friendship with robots because we are treated badly by the same people. Autistic people and robots are both treated like “Misfits.” Researchers should be more like autistic people, be more open to being friends with people who are different, and stop trying to change them.

To read more:

https://www.pdcnet.org/techne/content/techne_2021_0999_10_19_147

Or

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355516306_I_Misfit_in_advance_Empty_Fortresses_Social_Robots_and_Peculiar_Relations_in_Autism_Research

Hashtag soup:

#HRI #HumanRobotInteraction #HumanRobotRelations #RobotAssistedTherapy #SociallyAssistiveRobots #Autism #AutismTherapy #ActuallyAutistic #PlainLanguage #Research #ResearchSummary #SciComm #ScholarComm #STS #CDS #CriticalDisabilityStudies #CriticalAutismStudies

@FractalEcho I would love something like #ScholarComm

@FractalEcho Good question. In an international context, #SciComm out to be good enough, but adding #ScholarComm to the mix makes sense. Way too little attention paid to that aspect of scholarship in many contexts.

Is there a #SciComm equivalent for research that is not necessarily scientific/empirical -- like #ScholarComm or #TheoryComm or ??? There should def be #HistComm

Asking #Academic #Scholars #Histodon #Humanities #Sociology #Philosophy