6. Conclusion

In my opinion, the success of this summer camp is due to the following factors, which are usually neglected or misunderstood, and which our “experiments” have verified, as you have seen with the case examples (section 3).

6.1. The human environment / The need to reduce or eliminate “mental harms” (in French: “atteintes mentales”)

6.1.1. The acceptance of autism as a natural characteristic of the person

This is really the most important point, and unfortunately it is also the least understood, which is why there are so many problems.

It is not just a “theory” that would be debatable or a simple “question of point of view”, or a kind of ideology that would consist, for example, in denying the existence of difficulties (which is a usual confusion as soon as we talk about the acceptance of autism.

In order to understand this, we need to start at the beginning, i.e. by making a distinction between “autism” (which is a natural feature existing at least from birth), and “disorders” or difficulties, which are related to autism, it is true, but which are NOT what “autism” is.
These disorders can be subjective, i.e. it is the social environment that judges a behaviour as a “disorder” (such as not “socialising” much, or not knowing how to lie, when it is rather the social system that has “a problem” here); and they can also be objective, such as difficulties in doing vital things, or crises, and here we need to look at what I call “impairment”.

Confusing “autism” with “autistic disorder” is like saying that being left-handed is having difficulty writing or acting with the right hand…
No, being left-handed is being left-handed, it’s not a disability;
and being autistic is not a ‘lack of non-autism’.
We don’t say that being right-handed is having difficulty writing or acting with the left hand.
If you live in a social environment that allows you to write or act with both your right and left hands with the same ease, then left-handed people have fewer difficulties.

You can find out more in the page of explanations about autism according to the Autistan Diplomatic Organization.

So, in this summer camp, the basic principle of our approach was a positive attitude towards autism, which was done in a relaxed, natural and even unspoken way, since for us it is a given, not an “ideological theory”.

This was greatly facilitated by my initial explanations (at Zhanat’s house in February 2016, then in the conference), and by the discussions we had during the course of the camp, to review the day or a child.
Zhanat already had this ‘positive’ view of autism for a long time, and it was absolutely essential, otherwise she would never really have listened to me.
Regardless of whether I was there or not, this camp could not have existed (so effectively) if Zhanat had not had this “right and natural approach”.

My explanations and analyses of situations and problems allowed Zhanat (and the rest of the team) to increase their “confidence in this positive approach”, and as we saw every day or week that it worked, there was no need to insist on this “positive approach” and “acceptance”: it all happened naturally, and it’s so simple, once you remove from your mind any prejudice about autism (or about other “differences”, as there were not only autistic people in the “different children”).

So, as there were no negative attitudes (e.g. in looks and judgements) about the “different” children, who were treated like the others (unless a particular difficulty or need arose), then these children could feel this acceptance (or they could feel the absence of rejection or negative judgements), and so, inevitably, they were much more comfortable than usual, and for most of them it was the first time.

There is a very very big difference between a life where you are constantly rejected or put aside or criticised, and this stay where none of that existed, and where all the children accepted each other, without having to make an effort to do so.
It should be like that everywhere…

So it was really an indispensable factor, because how can you expect changes or progress, if the children are not comfortable, or if they feel “inferior”, if they see that the others are treated more favourably, and that for the “different” there are restrictions of activities?
(If different children have more difficulties than others in activities, what is the problem? It is much better to have “difficulties” than to be excluded. Especially since it is not by being excluded that one can learn, i.e. reduce these difficulties).

6.1.2. The necessity of a non-medical approach to autism

This is obviously very close to the previous chapter, but it is really important to stress the necessity of not having a “medical” or “defectological” vision and attitude.

The reasons are numerous and this would deserve more explanation, but here are some elements.

First, since autism (to clearly distinguish from “disorders”, as said above) is not a disease, there is simply no reason to have a medical approach.

Regarding “troubles”:

– “depression” is not specific to autism;

– “oddities” have nothing pathological and can be explained without any medical knowledge (as with the example of spaghetti);

– “specific interests” have nothing to do with the “medical” (or the “psychiatric”), and can be qualities (but if they become obsessions, this can be reduced by analysis and by reduction of the factors that generate them);

– the difficulties of communication and social relations are simply due to the fact that we do not use the same “system” (autism uses a vision which is “natural”, whereas “non-autism” uses a vision which is “denatured” (artificialized, with abstract, vague, fluctuating “conventions” which are generally erroneous, perverted or dangerous), so here you have to “learn the social system”, as one would learn a foreign language, and that has nothing to do with a deficiency or a “medical” problem: if you land in a village in central China and you don’t speak a word of Chinese (and therefore you have “problems”), no one will tell you that you are sick and that you need to be treated, it will simply be said that you do not speak Chinese (and therefore there are adaptations to be made);

– associated pathologies (“comorbidities”), such as epilepsy, are not specific to autism.

One of the problems with the “medical approach” is that it prevents from seeing the qualities of autism. Indeed, how could a disease have qualities?

Conversely, when we see that autism has many qualities, it shows that it is not a disease.

It seems difficult to find a disease that would have qualities or benefits.

Another problem is that this leads parents to have a negative and defeatist attitude, which obviously cannot promote the personal esteem of their child (and therefore his thriving development), and which, by considering him as “sick”, necessarily leads them to seek “treatments” (or, worse, “drugs”).

Regarding the (non-medicinal) “treatments” that exist:

– either it is about things which consist in “correcting” or “curing” or “removing” autism, and in this case it is a medical approach, which generally confuses autism with the disorders and which therefore ignores the qualities of autism, and which presents “non-autism” as necessarily virtuous and the only model good to follow, which is absurd and which can have dramatic consequences (such as for example suicide because of the confusion that is made between “(natural) self-esteem” and “self-esteem obtained through the opinion of others”);

– either they are “softer” things, which I would qualify “learning” (and not “therapies”), which must “teach the social system” (like a second language), which is therefore education, not medicine.

On this subject, to do well, it would also be necessary that these teachings “teach autism” (not to be understood, therefore, as “to teach autistic disorders”, which does not make sense).

It has been a long time since I would like to set up something that I named “Autismology” (the science and teaching of autism and non-autism) because it is essential that autistic people (and non-autistic people) understand the non-autistic functioning and also the autistic functioning, but I never had the time, and every time I mention it, it is despised or gently mocked.

(I couldn’t do better than registering the internet domain. This is a project that would need some help, as it is not possible to do so many things “in the desert”.)

Maybe certain medicines can reduce certain “troubles”, but it’s superficial, because if there is a problem it is that there is a deep reason, and it must be found and solved, instead. to “hide” things with drugs that only calm down without solving the root causes.

And since these causes are generally external to the person (ie “sensory or mental or other harm”), then the mechanism of giving medication to the person to calm them down (believing that they are “sick” and that therefore the causes of his “troubles” are only “internal” to him or her), this will prevent to search what are those external causes.

So, unless we want to medicate people all their lives (and transform them into “vegetables”), I think it is preferable, on the contrary, to oppose any medication, and to accept that there will be problems and crises (to reduce little by little), BUT by analyzing them to find the causes (usually external) and to solve the problems “at the source”.

All this is impossible with a medical approach which not only does not search “outside” of people (whereas this is where you have to look, and to make corrections and adaptations on the part of “other people” and “systems”), but who, in addition, will try to find “external” problems “inside” the person (which is impossible), and who then will simply declare that the person has “problems” and that autism is a “mysterious” problem.

Obviously, if one looks in the wrong place, one cannot find, and it is not the autistic people that must be blamed, but the doctors, who confuse autism and “disorders”, and whose “professional formatting” “prevents them from seeing the truth, which is quite simple.

In addition, another problem with the medical approach is that it prompts parents, who trust doctors, to try all kinds of drugs or more or less “miraculous” substances (which cannot work because it is necessary to understand and treat the sources instead of the effects) which are often dangerous for the health of their child.

In conclusion, the medical approach to autism is a bit like attempting to get a computer to work properly using automotive garage tools …

It doesn’t work like that …

First, one has to sit down, think, and try (humbly) to understand how the computer works.

I wrote these few “thoughts” for people who would still be tempted to believe in a medical approach, but now about the summer camp (Pioneer), we didn’t even have to think about it all, it was so obvious that the medical approach had no place here.

I hope that by reading the above report, with the sometimes very detailed descriptions, one understands that a “medical” vision (about autism) would have ruined everything, and that it was not necessary.

If we have a “medical” attitude, then we can no longer treat “special” children on an equal basis with others, we necessarily have a negative bias (since we see them as “sick” or “deficient”) and therefore this negatively influences everything we do, and it prevents positive attitudes, which obviously give positive results, as we see from the examples mentioned with those children.

6.1.3. The necessity for parents or educators to try many different and new experiences

One of the other benefits of this summer camp was that the principle of the camp itself allowed for a big change, by living outside the family environment, and having to live with other “human references” (such as camp instructors, or with other children), which obviously helps in learning to adapt to all kinds of different people, and this is what we were able to observe with these children, especially with the “special” ones who adapted to the others quite quickly, whereas the “normal” ones didn’t really need to adapt.

Moreover, during the stay, there were all kinds of different activities, and in general they had never been practised by the “different children”, since usually they are not offered to them (assuming that they “can’t do them”), or these special children are not included in collective activities (assuming that there will be “problems”).

(As already explained, the prospect of problems or difficulties is not a sufficient reason to “forbid”, which is the best way to maintain these difficulties, since it is then never possible to experiment).

So, in short, we had replaced a “not possible” mentality with a “possible (even if more difficult)” mentality.

It is really important to offer the autistic person as many different and new experiences and things as possible.

Indeed, for all children (and even for adults), it is necessary to discover and to know many different things, to better understand the world and to have a more open personality on the world and on the others, to be more adaptable and less introverted or shy.

What is life if not a long series of discoveries and experiences?

This also applies to autistic people, and even more so to them, as they tend to remain withdrawn.

Parents often do the opposite, i.e. they avoid any change because of their autistic child’s “resistance to change”, which can be manifested in crises.

But what we need to understand here is that it is not really the “change” itself that is irritating, but the fact that it is imposed by others, and especially because it is not justified.

(As a reminder, the notion of “justification” is extremely important when analysing problematic situations or crises with autistic people: in the case of what I call “mental harm” (in French: “atteinte mentale”), what is unbearable for the autistic person is almost always an injustice (or an incoherence or an absurdity), and therefore one has to be very aware of this to try to find out what the injustice is, which is usually subtle for non-autistic people, otherwise they would quickly see it. Not seeing an injustice or a problem does not mean that there is none, but that one is not able to see it.

And to reason like this, one has to get rid of the “medical approach” to autism, which allows one to believe that everything is “autism’s fault”, without looking for the causes of the problems in the social or material environment).

Then, another reason to make many new experiences and discoveries, is because the autistic person does not live in a “standard mould”, he/she can only blossom after having found his/her very particular and unique life path, to continue to build it afterwards, in his/her own way.

The autistic person does not follow collective things, “ready-made” things, already planned by others, that he/she would just have to copy, it is not interesting for him/her.

So, in order to start moving forward on a “personal life path”, one has to find it, and it is not by staying like a green plant in a pot that one can achieve it.

Unfortunately, very often autistic people remain “stuck” and have a very uninteresting life, because their entourage wants to “protect” them and “avoid crises”, whereas it is the opposite that should be done, but taking care that the “changes” (and experiences and discoveries) are made in a “gentle” way, and doing one’s best to make it seem “justified” (or at least interesting) from the autistic person’s point of view.

There is a French adage that says that “travelling trains youth”, and it is true.

I would even say that this is indispensable for autistic people, so that they can finally “discover and build their life”.

If you consider the success stories of autistic people who started out as “very disabled” and who have become very autonomous, sometimes globetrotters, university professors, lecturers, etc., you will see that, very often, these people have been lucky enough to have their parents make them do a lot of different and new things, and in particular travelling.

Sometimes these experiences and travels are not proposed by the parents (before the age of 20 for example), but life may exposes the person to situations that force them to make experiences (sometimes painful, but all the more instructive).

The benefits of travel for autistic people would deserve a separate text, and our autistic friend Josef Schovanec has written a book on the subject.

All this is not just “theory”, it is really important.

On the other hand, autistic children (or adults) who always stay in the same routines end up getting stuck in them, and the more time passes, the more difficult it is to change anything. Unfortunately, this is the case for the vast majority.

And the worst is of course the autistic people who are sent to “live” in specialised institutions, where they are separated from “natural social experiences”, and where, of course, there is no chance that they can find their “personal life path”, which necessarily involves “unplanned” experiences and/or encounters provided by “the diversity of life”, things that are absolutely impossible to find in these institutions since everything is planned and controlled, and since even in the case of outings or walks outside the institution, there is supervision and not enough freedom.

Freedom is an absolutely essential condition for a life worthy of this name, and it is not only a question of “human rights”, it is a vital necessity.

Without freedom, one is almost an object, one cannot really have any desires or plans (apart from the really simple things) since this will be subject to the appreciation (and often the rejection) of someone else: this is not a life.

And in these conditions, it is not surprising that the autistic person won’t evolve.

How is it possible to expect “changes” (i.e. positive evolutions) if the social environment is opposed to any change?

All this is absurd.

It is clear from these explanations that if one has a “good understanding” of autism, i.e. “if one uses the binoculars from the right side”, things seem logical, constructive and positive (and it only takes to put all this into practice to see that it is true).

On the other hand, if you have a “medical approach”, it is not even possible to think about the things I have just mentioned, whereas they are essential.

And with such a vision, autistic people are locked up (in their homes, and/or in “routines” that nobody changes, or – worse – in “specialised places”, i.e. places where there is no chance to learn about life or to find one’s own life).

Lastly, another reason for proposing a lot of different changes is that it is very useful for analysing the behaviour of the autistic person.

Indeed, by doing a lot of observation, on all the factors (including in the past), and by using the “correct understanding of autism” as a “reading key”, we can come to understand what are the difficulties, the problems, the root causes of the person’s suffering.

Even if you think that all this is theory, you simply have to try to see that it is true. And if you think that it is not so easy to have a “correct understanding of autism”, here are two very important and useful “keys”:

– regarding what I call “sensory harms” (in French: “atteintes sensorielles”), you have to look for ” incoherences” or “disharmonies”;

– concerning what I call “mental harms” (in French: “atteintes mentales”), you must look for “injustices” or “absurdities”.

Incoherences, disharmonies, injustices, absurdities: these are all very similar, and it is mainly these things that are unbearable for autistic people. They can be “subtle” and difficult to detect, but it is precisely by doing many different experiments, and by “crossing” the analyses and the results, that we can find the explanations, that is to say the deep sources of the problems or the sufferings, which we then just have to remove.

It is almost like a police investigation. But a police investigation can hardly make progress with a single clue, it needs several ones.

And it is even more difficult if you don’t even look for clues.

That is to say, if we do not even understand that one of the main characteristics of autism is “coherence”, then these “investigations” are not possible.

And the medical approach to autism really cannot use this mode of thinking.

Always try new things, always go further and higher, even when the result is uncertain or when you don’t succeed in the first attempts.

6.1.4. The essential importance of the accurate and complete analysis of the situations and the problems, based on a “correct understanding” of autism

Even when the autistic person lives in conditions that take autism correctly into account (i.e. the acceptance of autism as a natural characteristic of the person, the non-medical approach, and the reduction of “sensory harms” (mentioned later)), there can still be problems or difficulties.

This is where my presence at the summer camp was useful, because regarding the rest, i.e. the general mindset, it was easy to establish and there was no need for me ( nor anyone else) to constantly remind it.

So, in any case, and even more so when the living conditions are not favourable to autism (i.e. the general case), when problems or crises arise, we have to find out how to reduce them and how to prevent them from happening again.

To do this, it is obviously essential to know the root causes of the problems (which are often “subtle”, and very difficult to see if one does not sufficiently understand the mechanisms of autism – which I try to show in this text).

As said above, we must find the causes of the problems in order to eliminate them “directly at the source”, instead of believing that the causes would be a “disease” (autism) which would inevitably lead to problems for which we would not know what to do, and which, at worst, we would try to reduce by drugs or other treatments which are inadequate since they are ” defectological “, superficial, and which do not understand autism.

In order to find the “root causes” of problems and crises, one must search for them.

It would be difficult to explain here how to do those “investigations”, but the few examples given with some children (in section 3) can be useful, and it is important to analyse all the details, even and especially those that “normally” do not matter.

And to do this analysis, it is necessary to know which are the things that can be considered disharmonious, incoherent, absurd or unfair by the autistic person, knowing that autistic people are particularly sensitive to these problems (which are never justified), and also knowing that autistic people do not necessarily have an “intellectualised” awareness of the problems they suffer, which does not prevent these problems from causing suffering.

So, in any case, given that very often the autistic person cannot express these problems, the social environment has to do some sort of investigation, based in particular on the things I am trying to explain here.

Moreover, in the quite rare cases where the person manages to express his problems, he/she is usually not listened to, because these problems do not seem like problems to “normal people”, or he/she is not believed, because “normal people” do not see any problems, which means for them that there are none, or that the person imagines them, and of course in this case the medical approach to autism “explains everything”, but it does not bring any solution, since it is wrong.

(It may happen, however, that autistic people imagine problems where there are none, and of course in this case they must be shown their error, but this mechanism does not come from autism but rather from “non-autism”, i.e. in relation to the fact that autistic people are “forced” to learn certain non-autistic characteristics, notably the “fear of everything” or the “fear of the unknown”, or the mechanism consisting in “guessing” the thoughts and intentions of others, which autistic people do very poorly, and which they should not have to do.

On the other hand, some autistic people may live in an imaginary world, disconnected from reality, and this subject deserves special study, but these are not “problems” that can lead to crises).

Let us note here that during this summer camp, with the exception of Nurzhan who was obviously suffering from a harsh medical treatment, there were no “crises” properly speaking (i.e. with screams or agitation) since the conditions were favourable and since we were trying – successfully – to reduce the difficulties as soon as they appeared, which was in fact rather rare.

6.1.5. The need of autistic people to experience outside of standard or “normal” limits, in order to discover and follow their own “life path”

(This is a topic too long to elaborate here, but it is important to mention it, and the previous explanations may give some idea about it.)

6.1.6. The necessity for parents or educators to teach how to live in society while respecting (not erasing) autistic qualities and creative or potentially useful interests

(This is a topic too long to elaborate here, but it is important to mention it, and the previous explanations may give some idea about it).

6.1.7. The absolute need to avoid overprotection and to allow freedom, with reasonable security (not with irrational paranoia) and to reject the “dictatorship of judgment by others”

Here as well, this is a very important subject: it is obvious that “overprotection” is opposed to many of the needs that have been mentioned in the previous chapters.

But it is a topic that is too long to cover here, and it may disturb some parents who read this.

One thing is certain: the parents who trusted the Pioneer Mountain Resort summer camp had the good idea of avoiding the trap of overprotection, and they did not regret it.

It is likely that many other parents were interested in the concept, but gave up because of “the fear that something would go wrong”, which was expressed by almost all the parents at the beginning or before the stay.

(My role was also to explain and reassure. When parents trusted us, they often agreed to give the green light for their child’s stay, and when they didn’t trust us enough, they didn’t do it, and maybe they thought it was better like that, i.e., generally without changing anything, and maybe hoping for “miraculous” methods or medicines).

I’m not blaming the parents, because they generally don’t know what to do, and so it’s quite legitimate for them to use the ” principle of precaution “, which consists in avoiding doing things for which the results can’t really be predicted.

However, when it comes to autism, one has to accept to remain open to the unknown and the unexpected, otherwise one gets “stuck”.

This is obvious since the “paths of autism” are not “well-known” or “standard” paths.

Autism does not work (or works very badly) with the “standard” things, and it is a very big mistake to try to conform autistic people to standard functioning, by doing it without nuance and by trying to “suppress autism” completely.

It is possible to respect the autistic nature, the need for freedom, the unexpected (or with uncertain outcome) experiences, while keeping a sufficient security.

As with everything, excess is never good, and therefore the maximal “super-protection” is ultimately synonymous with the maximal “blocking” of the autistic person.

The autistic person must be accompanied towards freedom and independence on his or her own life path, thanks to the “experiments”, discoveries and adventures that I have briefly mentioned (and by avoiding “harms” (in French: “atteintes”) so that these experiences go well).

We must not “overprotect” because of the ” principle of precaution “, which obviously cannot give positive results, and which, moreover, is really dangerous because it locks the autistic person into routines and behaviours which in adulthood become extremely difficult to correct.

There is also another issue that I would like to mention in this chapter, as it also relates to preventing the autistic person from doing things: it is the problem of the ” fear of judgement by others “.

This problem is almost a kind of “generalized social psychosis” that affects most of the people on the planet (but not the “most autistic” autistic people, fortunately).

I could give many explanations about this problem (from my point of view, of course), but it would be too long here.

(I have developed this subject in a text intended for France).

In summary, it can be observed that parents often do not want to “participate in social life” (e.g. in transport, shops, leisure activities…) because they are “ashamed” or because they are embarrassed.

There are two main causes for this:

– because the look (or sometimes the comments) of strangers in the street, in transport, in shops etc., can indeed be unpleasant or problematic, when one is accompanied by one’s autistic (or Down’s syndrome) child (or adult), for example;

– and also, in the case of autism, because there will often be a doubt, in the parents’ mind, consisting in wondering whether “people” (strangers crossed in public) might think that if the child is like that, it is perhaps the fault of the parents (which is obviously very disturbing).

Here, it should be remembered that autism is present at least since birth (and that there is necessarily at least one of the two parents who is more or less autistic (sometimes without “troubles”)), and that concerning the “troubles”, the idea of “parents’ guilt” is not appropriate, but, as for any other field, there are things to do and things not to do.

To go a little more into detail, we can distinguish here two aspects of the behaviours of autistic people in public, accompanied by their parents (or by their family):

– Regarding what I call “objective troubles”, i.e. behaviours that are really problematic, that actually annoy the public, here one should try to reduce these troubles by finding the “root causes”.

For example, if there is too much noise or too much light or too many people or too much heat in a shopping centre, with a little organisation you can always find adjustments or solutions, and this is what you have to do, instead of simply avoiding the experience – that is, avoiding almost any participation in social ordinary life.

One must make these “adjustments” to avoid disturbing other people, it’s true, but only for things that are really and concretely disturbing (like shouting, meltdowns…), and NOT just for questions of “judgement from others”.

– This brings us to the second aspect, which I would call “subjective troubles”, i.e. simply “abnormal” behaviours (postures, gait, attitude, manner of communication…).

These behaviours, since they are “not normal”, are bound to attract the attention of other people (which is already rather disturbing).

Then, the accompanying parent will notice the attention from “unknown people”, and will feel uncomfortable, or “at fault”, and will imagine the whole list of negative assumptions that can occur in the thoughts of those unknown people.

And so, to avoid such unpleasant experiences, the parent will avoid those participations in public.

The problem here is that these things are unpleasant for the parents, but not necessarily for the autistic person, and on the contrary, these activities of “socialisation” and experimentation are useful for him/her.

It is therefore very important not to confuse here the “suffering of the parents” with the “suffering (potential, supposed or invoked) of the autistic children.

If there are no “mental or sensory harms” (in French: “atteintes mentales ou sensorielles”), then autistic people won’t not suffer from that.

It is the parents who suffer from the gaze of others, but autistic people are not affected by this problem.

So it is unfair to prevent them from having these useful experiences, just because of the parents’ discomfort.

But the problem is even more complex than that, because in those ” participations in public “, there is always a risk of ” concrete problems “, that is to say of irritation of the autistic person, which can lead to agitations or crises.

So it is legitimate that parents wish to reduce this.

But this “risk” should not be used as an argument to avoid these participations altogether (avoidance which also allows to avoid personal discomfort).

I’m not implying anything here because parents do what they can and they do their best, I’m just saying that distinctions need to be made, and that instead of avoiding social experiments, one should do them (with reasonable precautions if necessary, but by actually doing things, instead of just “thinking that they should be done”), even if this may generate some difficulties at the beginning.

Indeed, these experiences allow the autistic person to learn how to socialise, and to make unexpected and random experiences and encounters (which he/she needs so much to evolve positively), and furthermore, these experiences, when they generate difficulties, allow subsequently to analyse these difficulties to find “the root causes” and thus to reduce them, which then allows to do more “social participation” and so on.

(It should also be noted that the autistic person has the right to be left in peace and not to be exposed too much to the crowd, but there is a middle ground, extremes should be avoided).

One has to learn how to put oneself “above judgement by others” (it is very easy, one just has to decide), and if one has difficulties in doing so, probably it can be made easier by thinking that it is good for one’s own autistic child.

(Note here that one of the benefits of staying at this inclusive summer camp was that since the parents were not present, then they didn’t have to worry about what the people at the camp (such as the staff) might think of them.

And also, the fact of seeing all this “acceptance of autism” with us, in a positive way and not “ashamed”, and even with the presence of an “autistic counsellor” from another country, it obviously helped to reduce this kind of “shame reflex”, which shouldn’t even exist because there are simply things to do and things not to do, and there’s no point in feeling guilty, what’s needed is to act and experiment, even a bit randomly, and above all not to remain in immobility and “blind overprotection”.

Even with the best intentions, because in reality the effects are disastrous.

The idea that entering a shopping mall (for example) would be ” bad for the autistic child “, because ” he will probably suffer ” or ” there will probably be problems “, is a erroneous idea.

What is bad is exclusion, it is the fact of forbidding things or forbidding oneself, because it is the best way to hinder evolution.

Of course, when we do these “experiments”, there will be difficulties and problems, that’s for sure: and so what? It is not so important, since it allows the evolution to take place.

This is always preferable to avoiding any potentially problematic situation, avoidance which amounts to condemning your child to live in a “cocoon”, where he or she will never be able to learn autonomy, and above all by taking the risk that this cocoon will become an unbreakable shell in adulthood.

In short, overprotection is really a dangerous thing.

It is always possible to do a lot of things, while keeping a basic security.

One cannot at the same time have the absence of risks or “social” problems (i.e. a life separated from the world), and at the same time expect one’s child to evolve, to learn to live in society, to acquire autonomy: this is not possible, it is a simple question of logic.

6.2. The material environment / The need to reduce or eliminate “sensory harms” (in French: “atteintes sensorielles”)

Like with “mental harms” or ” problems of direct social origin “, it is really essential to understand ” sensory harms “, which are generally ” problems of indirect social origin “, that is to say that these sensory harms result from material nuisances (noise, heating, air-conditioning, obstacles made to sensory protection, knocks or ” tactile aggressions “, lights or smells…) which are created by the social (or socio-generated) environment.

In short, these nuisances are artificial, that is, they do not come from nature. And in general, they are unnecessary and absurd.

I could go into detail on this topic, providing examples and even demonstrations, but it would take too long here.

After all, this is a report on a summer camp, not a thesis on autism, and I can’t write everything that should be written (even if it is so important).

And anyway, in fact, in this inclusive summer camp I think there were NO sensory harms (which is not the least of the advantages).

I think this is due to the fact that it was taking place in the natural environment: according to “my theories”, nature is harmonious and cannot produce these “sensory harms”.

I could explain these things further, but you can also find out more by reading the ” explanations about autism according to the Autistan Diplomatic Organization”, which presents the notion of “natural referential” (cf. autism) and “artificial referential” (cf. “non-autism”), which is in fact the basis for understanding “my theories” or my approach, which were undoubtedly verified in practice during this summer camp and it is a pity that so few people are interested in these ideas, which would be so beneficial for any autistic person in any country.

Thank you for reading.

This dog, whom we didn’t know, followed us all the way up even though we hadn’t asked him to…
He was not afraid.
He just tried 🙂

This is Freedom.
This is Nature.
This is what autistic people need.