Add new comment

I haven't, and am most likely never going to, read Zerzans book. And I can understand how a humanist describing someone or something as inhuman can be harmful. However I don't think we should, in reaction to Zerzans dismissal of autistic as inhumane, kneejerkingly assert that they are human. This seems to me just a very ingrained moral position, to affirm other humanity. But I think descriptive Zerzan is right, or at least getting on the right track even if he takes it the completely wrong direction. Autistic people, like most if not all other marginalized identities are not seen as human. To Mt knowledge this is already commonly recognized in anti-humanist thought, no? And the autistic is no different, anti-social tendencies (not even just limited to autism) do bar one from aspects of humanity. Especially those who represent the extreme, such as those who do not communicate verbally at all, are often dehumanizing to some of the greatest extent, some even go as far as to bar them from their understanding of being alive. But it is only when one sees humanity as some goodness, as this thing we want access too, that this becomes "problematic" (which seems to be the problem in Zerzan's analysis). The reason autistic people, like other marginalized people, aren't human, is because this idea of the human, and "human society" (the systems of the human) are not built for them, and in fact are often built off extracting from them (extracting from the inhumane). And so unless I need wants to beg for liberal reforms, to get recuperated into the human, so you too can extract from the inhumane, I don't see any problem with this inhumanity. It is the human, specifically the systems built around it, that make inhumanity a problem. So we should not beg to become human, but attack the very notion of humanity.

You'd think someone who uses the term "feral" so much in a book review would've made this connection already.