Blaming an Autistic Person For Having a Meltdown is Like Setting Fire to a Building and Blaming The Fire

Blaming an Autistic person for having a meltdown, or holding them responsible for their actions, is like setting fire to a building and blaming the fire.

I can hear some people already saying "but we can't expect them to get away with." This is a false dichotomy. "Letting them get away with it" is not the only alternative to reprimanding them for distress behaviours beyond their control. This is an example of old paradigm thinking. There are other ways of looking at it.

Because behaviour that Autistic people display during meltdowns often offends the basic moral principles of society, it is exceedingly difficult for a lot of people to see anything but a spoiled, mean brat. We must make a concerted effort to relinquish old paradigm thinking - "bad behaviour is a choice" - and to consider the harrowing experience of the person trapped underneath their meltdown, powerless to stop themselves from behaving in a way that will inevitably lead to people judging them and punishing them; at a time they really they need compassion and understanding.

I believe it's best to view a meltdown as "viral suffering" - the suffering spreads to all those close to the person having the meltdown, who - newsflash - is suffering themselves, HENCE the meltdown.

It doesn't make sense to be angry with the person for behaviours beyond their control. It's hard enough being overpowered by your emotions in the first place.

In both a traditional paradigm and a Neurodiversity paradigm, we can all agree that meltdowns - although not violent - can be incredibly destructive to the outside. But what distinguishes the Neurodiversity paradigm is the knowledge that the inside - the person having a meltdown - too is being destroyed by the phenomenon.

Because of this, and with the knowledge that the person having a meltdown is unable to control their behaviour, and, for the record, that the meltdown itself was triggered by something in the environment, holding the Autistic person responsible for their behaviour isn't only cruel but completely wrong and insentient to reality.

This, to me at least, demonstrates that the Neurodiversity paradigm is richer in empathy, and more panoramic in perspective. We don't just focus on the damage being caused to the outside during the meltdown, we look inwardly, too. Also, we actually bother looking for causes and triggers, and don't just wrongly assume the behaviour of the child having the meltdown has "popped out of nowhere".

Finally, we don't blame, condemn or morally judge the person having a meltdown. Why? Because you cannot blame, reprimand or discipline an involuntary neurological response.

When the Autistic person ceases their explosive emotional outpouring, the fierce inner protector withdraws from view. The child's rationality returns and their shredded vulnerable authenticity, wracked with guilt and self-loathing, is all that's left, ready to receive judgment and criticism from the environment.

People are blaming the Autistic person based on the conduct of their fierce inner protector, which is still absurd in that it disappears promptly once the meltdown passes. It IS the meltdown. Equally absurd is the notion of trying to discipline a survival response that we and other animals have evolved over millions of years.

A meltdown is not the Autistic person giving you a hard time, no matter how hard a time you are having. You are entitled to sympathy because of this. But from there, it is an extraordinary leap to blame the Autistic for everything just because they happen to be the exit point of emotion-driven behaviour.

In an traditional paradigm there is refusal to accept or tolerate stigmatised behaviours, which instantly marginalises and excludes those who could be suffering. In the new Neurodiversity paradigm, the person on the receiving end is suffering, yes, but instead of blame and judgment, there exists curiosity instead. "That person is having a hard time. I don't like it - in fact, it is harrowing for me - but because we are BOTH suffering and want it to stop, let's find out WHY".

Consider how apologetic we are once the meltdown subsides. Rarely is the same afforded to us by the person who did the triggering. The triggerer will find it hard to spot any fault in their conduct when they subscribe to old paradigm notions of "good and bad behaviour" and "overreactions".

"But all I did was..." more old paradigm thinking. This thinking trivialises and downplays the traumatic experience of the Autsitic recipient. So long as you hold onto the notion that objectively harmless gestures exist, it is impossible to consider that those same gestures could be traumatic to the Autistic recipient or anyone, for that matter.

A meltdown is viral suffering. The child experiencing it is patient Zero, and they infect - not inflict - those around them who get close. Instead of blaming or punishing the child for what they do in meltdown, let's both agree that meltdowns are not ideal for ANYONE involved, and from that premise we can look for a solution to everyone's suffering.