| Popis |
Among the metaphors and analogies recurrent in the representation of “autism”, those drawn from the field of technology are predominant (Draaisma, 2009; Hacking, 2009; Hacking, 2010; Osteen, 2010; Nadesan, 2013; Pinchevski & Peters, 2016). Their use spans various genres and discursive groups (key psychiatric texts, computer and engineering textbooks, novels, comics, etc.). In my recent research, I have argued that the discontinuities among these metaphors within psychiatric discourses reflect distinct scientific-political configurations. Building upon this pattern, this presentation will specifically examine “affect” and “affectivity” as an object of observation and diagnosis that emerged in early postwar psychiatric discourse, and on the discontinuities introduced by the expansion of the composite field of cognitive science beginning in the 1970s (Gardner, 1987; Miller, 2003; Hetmański, 2018; Leys, 2019). Following a brief overview of the concept of “affective contact” in the early diagnostic literature on autism, this paper aims to expose the problematic relationship between a specific cognitive model of autism as “affective deficit” and the emergence of affective/social robotics. Methodologically, I will seek to integrate the historical and epistemological insights of critical discourse analysis with contemporary perspectives and instances from disability studies (Williams, 2021; Nagy, 2022; Williams, 2023; McInerney & Keyes, 2024). In particular, I will focus on the case of computational affective modeling in the treatment of “social and communicational deficits” (Picard, 1997; Kaliouby, Picard, & Baron-Cohen, 2006). To highlight the intersections between “psychotherapeutic practices” and interdisciplinary discursive formations in the presentation of this material, will mean to show a mirroring configuration: the exploitation of a cognitive model of autism for the establishment of affective computing on one hand, and the normative emotional model of affective computing for the development of “emotional competence” prosthetics and training on the other. The aim of the presentations will be to argue that this circular relationship serves as a condition of possibility for the emergence of Robot-Assisted Autism Therapy.
|