Before I provide my scholarly input on the reading for this week, I will further introduce myself. My name is Hannah Heebner and I am a Junior studying English and Communication studies, with a minor in Community Action and Social Change.
What sorts of realities are created by the language of science, the language of parenting, the language of recovery, and so forth?
The rhetoric used in the Lovaas autism study revolving around recovery assumes, or selects a reality in what is “normal” or “normal enough” to be considered recovered. In this way, it is deflecting the attention from another source. Perhaps, because only 47% on average respond to treatment “positively” and can be considered “recovered”, and the word does not properly cover these individuals who are simply “not recovered”. The term “recovered” also does not come with any implications of what it may mean about the outcome of the study. The rhetoric used in this study can be considered more “dramatistic”, in the words of Burke, rather than “scientific”, or expressing a provable reality.