The Analysis Study of How Autism is viewed within Social and Cultural Settings in Korea and America

The Analysis Study of How Autism is viewed within Social and Cultural Settings

in Korea and America

Kim, Keon Hee

I. Introduction and the aim of the study

Disability Studies is an academic field involving the inquiry into the meaning of disability and critical understanding of disability in social, political and cultural contexts (Linton, 1998). The ultimate goal of disability studies is“to formulate the epistemological foundation for viewing disability as a critical category of analysis, the absence of which weakens the knowledge base”(p. 120). This viewpoint challenges the“medicalization of disability”and regards disabled people as mem bers of a minority group (Linton, 1998, p. 2). Disability Studies is about people with disabilities taking back the power to define and describe their own experiences and resisting discrimination on the part of the dominant, non-disabled culture.

According to Barnes, Mercer and Shakespeare (2003), the social model of disability is the“central inspiration”for disability theory (p. 67). This model criticizes the naturalized view of disability as a physical or mental condition by showing how social environments create disabili ty. It views disabled people as“an oppressed social group,”a minority group which has a collective identity and which experiences discrimina tion like other social groups. Disability is not a characteristics of disa bled people perse, but rather, beliefs, structures, and practices in socie ty that create conditions that exclude or limit people with disabilities (Oliver, 1990).

Barnes et al. (2003) states, regarding the social model,“any meaningful solution must

1) Instructor, College of Education, Delaware State University 교신저자

( : [email protected])

요 약

< >

본 연구는 한국과 미국의 사회문화적 환경에서 자폐유․ㆍ아동을 바라보는 시각의 차 를 문헌으로 분석하고자 하였다 분석방법은 크게 사회적 구조 비교문화연구 의학적. , , 모델 경쟁모델 한 미문헌조사의, , , 5가지로 나누어 분석하였다 연구의 결과 한국과 미. 국의 교사들은 의학적 모델을 일반적 자폐행동 해석의 중요사안으로 생각하였다 그러. 나 자폐의 특징 중 하나인 사회적 행동은 보편적으로 사회적 규준이나 문화 사회적 기, 대를 바탕으로 해석하였으며 특히 교육에 있어서는 교육의 내용이나 지식과 경험 사회, 문화적 배경을 기초로 하였기 때문에 자폐의 행동은 의학적 모델로서 자폐를 보는 시 각과는 달리 양국 간에 차이가 있었다 이에 자폐의 사회적 행동을 바라보는 시각에 대. 해서는 의학적 모델이 아닌 사회적 맥락에서 자폐를 보아야 할 필요가 있다.

핵심어 : 비교연구 자폐 사회문화적 모델, ,

be directed at societal change rather than individual adjust ment and rehabilitation”(p.

27). The social model“highlights the barriers and constraints erected by disabling society”(p. 67) and focuses on changing the external environment, such as imposed obstacles and limited opportunities to disabled people, as opposed to the medical model, which emphasizes changing and normalizing the individual.

The social model is a new trend in disability studies that addresses the issue of physical barriers. It considers the social environments of decisive power which can create disability. Social exclusion comes, according to this model, not from individual characteristics, but from external factors. Barnes et al. (2003) observe that the social model argues that externally established“obstacles”limit the possibilities of par ticipating in society. Based on this logic, they argue,“measures of disability should provide a way of monitoring the effects of physical, social and economic disabling barriers experienced by disabled people their social exclusion – – and the impact of anti-discrimination policies”(p. 30). The external environment divides a population into two groups, in a binary opposition based on fitting into a strict structure. A flexible environment, a possibility this idea presents us with, namely an environ ment that provides appropriate communicative circumstances and strate gies for people labeled with autism, allows for the nullification of the concept of disability, or deficit of communication. This compelling argu ment, which this study corroborates, reverses the equation of disability and finds the problem with, and hence the answer in, the social environ ment.

The dichotomy disabled/abled is rooted in social conditions, not only physical conditions but also social norms. Physical environments in society create barriers for others; social norms or social expectations create invisible barriers for some people. Buildings with stairs can exclude people who cannot negotiate stairs;

likewise, social norms or social expectations exclude people who do not fit them.

Schools follow social ideologies in order to educate individuals to fit into society, and educators of students labeled with autism reflect the ideologies of their cultural context. This research is interesting in knowing how teachers negotiate social ideologies in inclusive classrooms. It is important to know what kinds of educational environments or materials cause stu dents labeled with autism to be set aside as disabled by medical professionals. The teachers’interpretations that inform this work reject the concept of deficiency in autism.

Ⅱ. Analysis of Literature on Autism in Koreaand in America

1. Social construction of autism

This analysis takes a social constructionist viewpoint on disability. Social

constructionist studies, especially those concentrating on the label“disability,”have

sought to analyze how“impairment”as a category is being constantly negotiated in relation to institutional, cultural, medical, and community politics. Thomson (1997), in her groundbreaking work Extraordinary Bodies, suggests that“disability”is“another culture- bound, physically justified difference to consider along with race, gender, class, ethnicity, and sexuality”(1997, p. 1). She claims that individual bodies have socio-political meanings through social or cultural expec tations or social processes.

Social environments create“impairment”of the human body (p. 60) based on physical differences. Similarly, Kliewer (1998) claims that“the ideal student and the defective student”are not static entities. The labeling is located according to historical or cultural interpretations, which change in accordance with changes of“relationships of power and control”(p. 15). The concept of“impairment”is given meaning by social or cultural processes.

Gordon and Rosenblum (2001) note that“a social constructionist perspective has been so often and so productively applied to these other master statuses [race, sex, gender and sexual orientation], what might be learned by including disability in that same frame? This should be a logical step for American sociologists, who would then be expanding on the work accomplished by others … who locate‘disability’in societal processes rather than within physical or cognitive parameters”(p. 5). Indeed, disability is typically constructed in social science and common sense practices as‘illness,’despite the fact that most people with disabilities are healthy. While some diseases do cause disabling conditi ons, there is no necessary equation of disability and ill health, just as there is no necessary equation of aging and disability”(p. 14).

Along with Gordon and Rosenblum’s claims, Kluth (2003) writes that“[m]any individuals with autism will tell you that‘it’is real, that they do experience things in different ways, that their bodies are uncooperative, or that they have sensory or communication problems”(p. 19). Despite this real dimension, Kluth also says that“autism is in some ways exacerbated by an inflexible society. That is, autism is a social construction; it is a phenomenon that is created and recreated through culture, interaction, and social circumstances. For instance, people may feel more or less disabled on any given day based on whether approp riate supports are provided for them or whether they are expected to communicate in a conventional way”(p. 19).

Social conformity determines which behaviors are accepted and which are not. In the dominant view, people labeled with autism are considered as not being able to demon strate social conventional social behaviors because of their uncontrollable movements and difficulty with expressing themselves. On the other hand, when people do not question a certain behavior or interaction, it is not treated as“abnormal.”In regard to communication, when letter boards or communication devices are provided, or when people know how to read an individual’s gestures, those who have difficulties with verbal expre ssion do not feel deficient or disabled.

This study focuses on how teachers in the United States and South Korea construct

the meaning of autism while they are educating students labeled with autism on a

daily basis. In educational settings, teachers approach students labeled with autism differently and similarly, depending on cultural expectations, conformity.

2. Cross-cultural studies on autism

One form of research that implies a social construction viewpoint is cross-cultural studies. We need this clarification not only in order to understand case studies from Europe and North America but also because Western (or Northern) concepts, organizations, and practices are carried over to other contexts and because culturally specific assum ptions are often implicit in our analyses.” The primary construction of autism in Western society is a medical model based on scientific paradigms.

Bilu and Goodman (1997) call attention to the lack of consideration of cultural factors in the study of autism. Only a few cross-cultural studies on autism have been conducted, and most embrace the medical viewpoint. Daley (2002) describes the need for such work.“Given the wide range of culture in which the disorder has been reported,”she suggests,“one would expect to find a rich and extensive international research literature; instead, surprisingly little is known about autism within a cultural context”(p. 532).

From an empirical standpoint, the bulk of available literature is in the form of case reports and overviews, with little connection between different lines of research.

Recent research appears to be drawing more from the international field of autism, such as testing various assess ment in other cultures, but the hallmark of this body of research still is the use of a cultural sample without any explicit discussion of cultural factors. (p. 534)

She also notes:

The reports from the diverse countries noted speak only to the presence of autism throughout the world, and leave many questions unanswered – perhaps most strikingly, to what degree the clinical prese ntation of autism is consistent across cultures. The lack of research may reflect the fact that some researchers have assumed that autism is rare in non-Western countries.(p. 537)

As Ingstad and Whyte (1995) remind us in their introduction to Disability and

Culture,“[a]ttempts to universalize the category‘disa bled’in the past ran into

conceptual problems of the most fundamental sort”(p. 5). What is considered a

deficit in one culture might be of little importance in another. Groce (1999) has

demonstrated how pertinent the word“culture”is by reminding us that“studies from

northern Mexico and Botswana report that the birth of a disabled child is viewed as

evidence of God’s trust in specific parents’ability to care well for a delicate

child,”and argue that the treatment of people labeled with disabilities is always

related to“cultural beliefs about how and why they became disabled”(p. 756).

3. The medical model of autism

The dominant conceptualization of autism in the United States and South Korea is based on a medicalized perspective. In 1943, Kanner created the category of autism to identify children who have difficulty interacting with other people. He stated,“it is also difficult to imagine that it [autism] did not cut deeply into the development of language as a tool for receiving and imparting meaningful messages.”In this way, Kanner sees autism from the medical perspective as a deficit, based on what a child should do in his own language development. A few months after Kanner, Asperger, an Austrian pediatrician, published similar findings. He defined students labeled with autism as“abnormal human beings”(Asperger, 1991, p. 37). Kanner, as well as some other medical doctors and psychologists, judge children labeled with autism through an authoritative, one-sided ideology based on observable behaviors.

Some doctors and psychologists treat children labeled with autism as objects separated from contexts. For example, they identify what people labeled with autism cannot do, but they do not explain in what contexts, such as where or what social expectations are.

This deficit-based orientation shows in the terms doctors and psychologists use for autism. For example, negative use of language by positivists includes the words impairment, poor, unusual, retarded, not meaningful, abnormal, disturbance, severe impairment, poor eye contact, lack of pointing, lack of pretend play (Asperger, 1991; Downey, Mraz, Knott, Knutson, Lolte, & Van, 2002). These terms come from binary ideas such as not meaningful/meaningful and normal/abnormal.

The medical deficit model of autism theorizes where the defect originates. In the 1940s, the problem was thought to be biological (Prater & Zylstra, 2002). In the 1950s and 1960s, it was thought to come from“pathological parenting.”In the 1970s, the medical establi shment considered that biological deficits were responsible (Prater & Zylstra, 2002). Even within historical moments, Williams (1992) points out that professionals in different areas describe and diagnose autism in different ways based on what the professionals main concerns are (Grandin, & Scariano, 1986; Barron, J. & Barron, S.,1992; Rubin, 2001; Jackson, 2002). These changes in the medical model perspectives on autism are rooted in the idea that autism has a negative meaning, because the causes are described by pessimistic terms.

In the medical perspective, autism is mainly considered in terms of deficits of communication and social skills (Asperger, 1991; Baron- Cohen, 1996; Prater &

Zylstra, 2002; Riccio, 1999; Stone, 1990). For example, Simpson (1999) reports that

students labeled with auti sm“co mmonly have difficulty responding and initiating

appropriate contact with others; they present with a variety of communication

problems”(p. 218). Some scholars state that children labeled with autism have limited

ways of communicating compared to their peers, which can lead to difficulties in

social interaction and acquisition of adequate social comm unication skills (Hancock, 2002). The emphasis here is mainly on verbal communication. When a student labeled with autism uses other modes or channels, some people assume that he or she lacks the ability to communicate, which similar-aged peers can do. The idea of the limita tion of communication also carries some assum ptions, such as that children labeled with autism cannot understand other people’s speech and emotions (Baron-Cohen, 1996; Howlin, 1998).

The medical model expects children’s communication to meet certain criteria based on social conventions. The idea held by doctors and psychologists is that children should fit within their theoretical models or social norms; otherwise, they are considered to be abnormal. Chil dren who do not meet standard criteria are seen to require intervention (Gernsbacher, 2003; Baron-Cohen, 1996). Stone (1990), Rogers (2000), Simpson (1999) emphasize the importance of social interven tion. Many researchers who adopt the medical model address how to improve the communication skills of children labeled with autism and focus on changing an individual’s communicative strategies toward those used in the dominant culture.

In addition to deficits of communication in autism, the behaviors of students labeled with autism are often considered undesirable and problematic. Simpson (1999) states“they frequently display stereotypic, self-stimulatory, and other problem behaviors; and it is common for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) to be hypersensitive or hyposensitive to sensory stimuli”(p. 218).

However, Duchan (1998) notes that when professionals describe children labeled with autism, they include descriptions of behaviors that they can’t accept, behaviors that they consider undesirable or deviant. They measure people’s behaviors against certain social conventions and standards, such as developmental levels among same-aged children. He claims that the interpretation of behaviors is based on social conventions and standards.

4. The competing model of autism

The deficit model was the dominant model of communication for students labeled with

autism up to the 1980s, when it was challenged by the discovery of facilitated

communication (FC).“Facilitated commu nication training”is basically a teaching

strategy where a communication partner-facilitator helps the user of a communication

device like a keyboard and a monitor to surmount“physical problems”and build

up“functional movement patterns”(Crossley, 1994, p. 3). When Biklen visited

Australia, he met people labeled with autism who were using facilitated communication

and realized that people who cannot speak may have the competence to communicate

by using alternative means of communication, and he brought the technique to the

United States. As a result, in the 1990s, researchers began to recognize that the

verbal performance of people labeled with autism does not demonstrate their

competence in intelligence or cognition, nor does it necessarily indicate difficulty with understanding others. Biklen argues that people labeled with autism may have problems with“speaking,”or“enacting”their thoughts and ideas, suggesting that the lack of expression does not reflect the degree of understanding (Biklen, 1990). According to him, the issue of expression is more about physical barriers than lack of understanding.

By saying that the person with autism has a problem with praxis we do not presume a deficit in understanding, but rather in expression. This interpretation also presumes that while there may be peculiarities in vision and learning, such as involuntary attention to light or acute sensitivity to certain sounds, these do not necessarily reflect or create cognitive problems.(p. 303)

The expressiveness of students labeled with autism expands with the use of facilitated communication (FC). When Biklen encountered Cro ssley’s students in the Dignity through Education and Language (DEAL) program, he (1990) wondered about the implications this competence would have for transforming the social environment of people labeled with autism.

“[W]ould the DEAL[Dignity through Education and Language] students change as a result of their new-found communication and, if so, how? Equally important, would the ability to communicate lead to changes in their families, schools, and other environments? Did the success of students like David and Jonathan portend a dramatic transformation in how we think about and define autism?”(p. 293)

Biklen indicates the expanded communication ability brought up different perspectives on autism such as relationships with people around students labeled with autism and the meaning of autism. This relates to one of my findings that many interviewed American teachers in the study discover competencies of their students and participation through expanded communication in their classroom. Also, Biklen (1993) emphasized the importance of using“a means”in order to create“the opportunity to find out what they think and feel and, in a deep sense, who they are.”(p. 130) Through the mediation of FC, people who had not been able to communicate had the chance to reveal their ideas and feelings (Rubin et al., 2001;

Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson, 2001). Biklen emphasizes the value of expanding communication, improving relationships with other people around them, and changing the students’themselves.

More recent research in support of this model considers the important role of the environment for developing and aiding communication. Kluth (2003), an important advocate of this argument, asserts that,“different augmentative and alternative communication”is needed since“supporting a student’s communication is critical”(p.

109). This perspective focuses on facilitating communication for students labeled

with autism by crea ting appropriate environments. If communication fails, the

environ ment, rather than the student, is seen to be responsible. In this perspec

tive, an inclusive educational environment creates diverse opportunities for all

students by creating dynamic interactions between teachers and peers.

Kluth and Darmody-Latham (2003) emphasize the use of“different types of expression and communication across activities”in order to“reach all students,”such as changing the phrasing of questions. They assert that it is important for teachers to be aware that all children have the capability to learn, so that there is more than one way to approach them. This implies that teachers should try to understand the multiple modes of expression deployed by students with autism rather than try to force one single mode, namely speech. It is important to note, however, that these ideas do not exclude commu nication through speech. Also, this underscores the importance of cross-cultural studies in communication, because being aware of different types of communication in different cultures might lead to more diversity in communicating. For example, helping students to express themselves explicitly is valued in the United States. It would be good to sensitive to it in South Korea. On the other hand, reading nonverbal expression is important in South Korea (Park, 1998; Lee, 1997; Yang, 2003). It would be helpful to be aware of it in the U.S.

Gillingham (as cited in Kluth, 2003, p. 109) asserts that “the role of the teacher is not to teach communication but to find it, listen to it, and build sharing and understanding between the person with autism and others.” This points the importance of constructing communication and discovering the communication modes of students labeled with autism in inclusive classrooms.

From a constructivist perspective of communication, successful commu nication

depends on the participants’regulating the situation with one another. Furthermore,

when communication fails, people have a tendency to blame the unprivileged

participant. For example, in a society dominated by verbal communication, people

who cannot speak very well are blamed. Also, people who are not able to speak in

a dominant mode are considered lacking. In the observations, in Western cultures,

the speaker is considered to be more responsible for successful commu nication

than the listener. This makes some people labeled with autism who have difficulty

expressing themselves in conventional ways vulne rable to blame. Kliewer (1998)

asserts that special education has long held onto a model that suggests

communication is an act that involves two or more parties in which information is

encoded, sent, received, and decoded. Each of these elements of communication is

considered a distinct aspect of an individual’s intrinsic communicative ability. If a

misunderstanding emerges within the act of communication, we tend to fault the

party with the least amount of cultural privilege and proceed to clinically identify

which element of that individual’s communi cation is responsible for the

misunderstanding.(p. 94)

This blaming is a linear way of perceiving communication. However, there are more factors involved in successful communication, such as familiarity, reading non-verbal language on both sides, and comfortable environments where both sides communicate well, which means that the breakdown of communication is not the fault of one party.

Another way of looking at the communication situation is through the construction of the meaning of the act of communication. Blumer (1969) states that“[i]n most situations in which people act toward one another they have in advance a firm understanding of how to act and of how other people will act. They share common and pre-established mea nings of what is expected in the action of the participants, and accordingly each participant is able to guide his own behavior by such meanings”(p. 17). This view of the communication situation points to the importance of constructing of meaning in context. In other words, “pre-established meaning”in verbal and nonverbal communication leads to successful communication, and interactions between people are important for establishing shared meanings in a certain context.

Familiarity is considered as another factor in the construction of meaning by the participants in communication. Shapiro (1986) identifies the importance of familiarity between two people rather than the speech itself. Communication can be effective if speakers and listeners are familiar with each other’s modes of communication (Goode, 1994; Shapiro, 1993). Familiarity plays an important role in successful commu nication in South Korea which is a high-context culture (Ha & Lee, 2003;

Park, 1998; Yang & Kang, 2003).

5. The South Korean literature on autism

Most of the Western and all of the South Korean literature consider children labeled with autism in a manner that is separated from cultural context.

Researchers treat autism as an absolute condition. For ins tance, most of the South Korean literature reflects a model that is reminiscent of older Western medical views, which see problems as characteristics of an individual rather than of a social setting.

In 1982, Suh reported that autism had been little studied in South Korea in comparison to other countries. He pointed out that students labeled with autism had always been confused with children labeled with mental retardation, emotional disorders, and speech disorders, and categorized thus, had been neglected in both research and care.

In more recent considerations, autism is recognized, but as a deficit; in turn, it has

been seen as a developmental disorder, a cognitive deficit, or a social impairment

that is in need of a cure, much in the way the label was viewed by educators,

doctors, and other professi onals in America up until the challenges presented by

disability studies in the 1970s and 1980s.

Many South Korean researchers view autism as a developmental disorder (Lee, 1997; Oh, 1985; Seo, 2000). Seo (2000) clearly classi fies autism as a pervasive developmental disorder. She examines the issue of“classification and diagnostic criteria of pervasive developmental disorders”in her article (p. 160) and points out that“autistic-like disease; Asperger, pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise sp ecified”is not clearly categorized under the umbrella of PDD (Pervasive Developmental Disorder), whereas autism is the only clear diagnosis in this area.

Seo (2000) argues that the main characteristics of PDD are the impairment of social skills.

Kim et al. (2002) point out that the concept of developmental disorder is changing from indicating developmental delay to indicating a condition with the possibility of intervention.

Some other researchers are interested in viewing autism as a cognitive deficit.

Bang (2000) lists some cognitive deficits of children labeled with autism: failure to establish a joint frame of reference for an interaction; failure to observe social norms or take a listener’s feelings into account; and exclusive reliance on limited stereotyped expressions, followed by elaboration of some idiosyncratic interest or echoing of previous statements. She states that a lack of cognitive capability is related to deficits of communication and social interaction, and indicates that the capability of language acquisition of children labeled with autism is related to the level of cognition. This is similar to the model of“mind blindness”proposed by Baron-Cohen (1996), who judged children on the basis of developmental stages; for example, he explains that a child labeled with autism has“mind blindness”(p. 60), because children labeled with autism cannot pass tests of“what people might know, think and believe”(p. 60). Bang cites Baron- Cohen’s idea that deficits of social skills are related to deficits of cognition.

Han (1990) states that in the past children labeled with autism were considered to have average cognition and were thought to perform poorly on intelligence tests because of their emotional status. However, he explains that this idea is challenged by Dawson and Mesibov, who state that about 70% of children labeled with autism are mentally retarded.

In the South Korean literature, social impairment is typically recognized as a

significant aspect of autism. Kang (1991) points out that children labeled with

autism have difficulty with social interaction. He indicates that difficulties with

social skills are related to perspective-taking ability [the ability to take other

people’s pers pectives] (p. 5) rather than intelligence or age. Han (2000) indicates

that children labeled with autism are abnormally developed in social interaction and

communication. She asserts“social interaction and communication with purpose are

essential for the emotional development and health of children. Nonverbal children

with autism represent abnormal development in both aspects; they need

augmentative and alternative communication systems”(p. 264).

Ha and Lee (2003) indicate that development of language and commu nication should be regarded as an important element.“Numerous studies of children have demonstrated that speech and language problems in autism are secondary to underlying impairment in reciprocal social interaction and social cognition”(p. 220).

They examined“recent studies which indicated that most children with autism do not lack communica tive intent but rather show limitations in the ability to use communicati ve signals for a full range of purposes, including social purposes”(p.

220). They point out a shift in language education; from 1970 to 1980 the approach changed from a traditional behavioral approach to an emphasis on successful communication reciprocity. They argued that life function-centered language and communication education should be emphasized.

Park (2002) observes that children labeled with autism are interested in other people, just like peers at a similar age, although there is some degree of difference which leads people to see these behaviors as deviant. She emphasizes the importance of intervention using social stories in order to increase social behaviors.

Seo (1991) notes, “South Korean autistic children may be more soci alized and less disturbed in their development than their American counterparts”(p. 108). Her quantitative study shows“cultural influences on the symptoms of 100 autistic individuals aged 4 to 20 in South Korea and in the United States”(p. 108) and points out that“significant differences were found in social impairments and developmental distur bances”(p. 108). She comments:

[T]he findings of the present study are comparable to those reported by Ney, Lieh-Mak, Cheng, and Collins (1997), who found that oriental autistic children showed more social behaviors than Western autistic children (p. 110). Their major finding was that Chinese and non-Chinese autistic children are very similar in most symptoms except that Chinese autistic children had close interpersonal relationships, especially closer emotional ties to their parents than did their Western counterparts.

The authors tried to explain the differences in social responses in terms of cultural differences such as the highly integrated pattern of Chinese family life and the close proximity of people in overcrowded Hong Kong. The Chinese autistic children had more opportunities for physical contact and socialization and they were more social and socialized . . . This explanation can be applied to the findings of the present study that South Korean autistic subjects are more sociable than American autistic subjects. In South Korea which, like Hong Kong, belongs to the Oriental culture, family ties may be stronger than in the U.S. and population is more concentrated. More people share the same area than in the U.S.; therefore, autistic children and adolescents may have more physical contacts and social demands than their U.S. counterparts (p. 111).

Seo indicates that“an interesting finding was the interaction of age and autistic

symptoms. At younger ages, U.S. autistics were rated to have more problems than

South Korean autistics in all behavioral areas. However, at older ages, South Korean autistics were rated to have more behavioral problems than their U.S.

counterparts”(p. 109).

In one of Seo’s findings, people labeled with autism in South Korea were perceived to be more“socialized”than their counterparts in the United States. However,“when the two groups were compared at three different age stages, at an older age level the American autistic group was more socialized than the South Korean autistic group [in self- stimulatory behaviors and language areas]”(p.115). Also, she points out that people labeled with autism in South Korea manifest increased behavior problems, in contrast to those in America, and that this comes from the lack of appropriate education and services in South Korea. Seo notes that“the South Korean autistic group functions better in social responses, interpersonal relationships and self-help skill areas and are less disturbed in development than the American autistic group. The conclusion drawn is that South Korean autistic children may be more socialized and less disturbed in their development than their American counterparts”(p. 110). Seo points out several limitations of her study. One“major limitation of this study was the extent to which the subjects were correctly diagnosed and whether these diagnoses were based on similar criteria in the two countries. Unlike in the U.S., autism is a comparatively lesser-known disorder in South Korea and the qualifications of educational evaluators in the South Korean school system are questionable. Thus, the validity of the diagnoses of autism in South Korea is uncertain”(p. 110).

Furthermore, Seo states that:

Ney, Lieh-Mak, Cheng, and Collins (1979) were not sure whether the results they found were a reflection of actual differences between Chinese autistic children and their Western counterparts or a reflection of different expectations of children’s social responses between parents in Hong Kong and in Western countries. Because Chinese parents may place high value on academic skills and relatively less importance on interpersonal relationships, they may expect less social responses from their children. As a result, the same amount of affection may be noticed more by Chinese parents than by Western parents.(p. 112)

Seo (1991) cites Ney, Lieh-Mak, Cheng, and Collins (1979), who sug gest that parents’perceptions of children labeled with autism may be influenced by“different expectations of children’s social responses between parents in Hong Kong and in Western countries”(p. 112). A conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the same response from an individual labeled with autism can be interpreted differently due to social or cultural expectations.

Ⅲ. Conclusion

The interpretation of behaviors depends on when and where the interpreter sees an individual. Time, space, and knowledge matter in the way people construct meanings.

the question of what autism is as a question inseparable from culture, Most of observations conducted in both Eastern and Western countries led us to question not only the dominant understandings of autism, but how these cultures construct autism and what each culture might help the other create new possibilities for understanding, as well as develop new settings for students labeled with autism.

While this research explores the meaning of autism in both countries, it is interested in understanding autism in a cross-cultural, reciprocal conversation.

The interpretation of social behaviors can be based on culture, social norms, or social expectations. Recognizing abnormality or normality is one way a society interprets the person. How we interpret social or communicative behaviors is likely to influence how we treat a person. Furthermore, in education, how teachers think of students’behaviors could be based on the content of their own education, their knowledge and experiences, and their social and cultural backgrounds. For example, in both the United States and South Korea, most teacher education is centered on the medical model of autism.

In sum, this study reviewed a cross-cultural study of autism, related to the

interpretation of communicative and social behaviors. We could get understanding

how teachers conceptualize autism in South Korea and in America, what issues they

have in their classrooms, and how they communicate with children with autism. The

analogy of cross-cultural miscommunication, like the social and cultural models of

disability, provides a means of looking at the behaviors of children labeled with

autism in terms of social or cultural differences instead of deficiencies or lack,

involving teachers’perceptions within a culture, as well as across cultures.

참 고 문 헌

Asperger, H. (1991).‘Autistic psychopathy’in childhood. In U. Frith (Ed. & Trans.), Autism and Asperger syndrome (pp. 37-92). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Bang, M. (2000). Cognitive characteristics of children with autism and instructional strategies. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 16 (1), 139-157.

Barnes, C., Mercer, G., & Shakespeare, T. (2003). Exploring disability : A sociological introduction. Cambridge : Polity Press.

Baron-Cohen, S. (1996). Mindblindness : An essay on autism and the theory of mind. Cambridge : MIT Press.

Barron, J. & Barron, S. (1992). There’s a boy in here : A mother and her son tell the story of his emergence from autism. NY : Simon & Schuster.

Biklen, D. (1990). Communication unbound : Autism and praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 60 (3), 291-313.

Biklen, D. (1993). Communication unbound. New York : Teachers College.

Bilu, Y., & Goodman, Y. C. (1997). What does the soul say? Metaphysical uses of facilitated communication in the Jewish ultraorthodox community. Ethos, 25, 375-407.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism : perspective and method. New Jersey : Prentice-Hall.

Broderick, A. & Kasa-Hendrickson, C. (2001).“Say just one word at first”: The Emergence of reliable speech in a student labeled with autism. The Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Disabilities, 26 (3), 13-24.

Crossley, R. (1994). Facilitated communication training. New York : Teachers College Press.

Daley, T. (2002). The need for cross-cultural research on the pervasive developmental disorders. Transcultural Psychiatry, 39, 531-550.

Downey, D., Mraz, R., Knott, J., Knutson., Lolte, L., & Van D. D. (2002). Diagnosis and evaluation of children who are not talking. Infants and Young Children, 15 (2) , 38-48.

Duchan, F. (1998). Describing the unusual behavior of children with autism. Journal of Communication Disorders, 31, 93-112.

Gernsbacher, M. A. (2003). Is one style of early behavior treatment for autism‘scientifically proven?’J ournal of Developmental and Lear ning Disorders, 7, 1-8.

Goode, D. (1994). A world without words : The social construction of children born deaf and blind [Health, Society, and Policy Series]. Philadelphia : Temple University Press.

Gordon, B. & Rosenblum, K. (2001). Bringing disability into the sociological frame : a

comparison of disability with race, sex, and sexual orientation statuses. Disability &

Society, 16 (1), 5-15.

Grandin, T. & Scariano, M. (1986). Emergence labeled autistic. Novato, CA : Arena Press.

Groce, N. (1999). Disability in cross-cultural perspective : rethinking disability. The Lancet, 354, 756-757.

Ha, Y. & Lee, H. (2003). A case study on the problems of understanding in the 아스퍼거 장애아의 의사소통시 나타나는 이해 특성 연 communication of Asperger. [

구]. Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 112 (2), 207-225.

Han, H. (1990). Teachers’and parents’views of autism. Emotion and Learning 정서 학습장애연구

Disabilities Studies [ ㆍ ], 6 (2), 85-89.

Han, K. (2000). Augmentative and alternative communication intervention for

자폐성 장애 아동의 보완 대체 의사소통 지도

nonverbal children with autism[ , ].

과

Communication Disorders[ 難聽 言語障碍 ], 23 (2), 263-279.

Hancock, T & Kaiser, A. (2002). The effects of trainer-implemented enhanced milieu teaching on the social communication of children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22 (1), 39-54.

Howlin, P. (1998). Practitioner review : psychological and educational treatments for

autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines,

39 (3), 307-322.

Ingstad, B., & Whyte, S. R. (1995). Disability and culture. Berkley : University of California Press.

Jackson, L. (2002). Freaks, geeks & Asperger syndrome. New York : Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Kang, W. (1991). The relationship between perspective-taking ability and social ability in autism of pre-school age. Psychology Research[ 심리연구 ], 8, 4-11.

Kim, J. & Kim, B. (2002). The history of special education in Korea with photographs. Seoul : Special Education Publishing.

Kliewer, C. (1998). Schooling children with Down syndrome : Toward an understanding of possibility. New York : Teacher’s College Press.

Kluth, P. & Darmody-Latham, J. (2003). Beyond sight words : Literacy opportunities for students with autism. Reading Teacher, 56 (6), 532-535.

Kluth, P. (2003). You ’ re going to love this kid. Baltimore : Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Lee, S. (1997). A Theoretical inquiry on behavioral specificity of auti stic children.

인문과학연구

The Journal of human science[ ], 5 (1), 135-164.

Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability : knowledge and identity. New York : New York University Press.

Oh, H., Im, J., Jeong, Y., Eun, Y. Kim, S., Sim, E., & Whang, H. (1985). A review of the literature of autism. Shinhak, 18, 103-105.

Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement : A Sociological Approach. New York : St. Martin’s Press.

Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London : The MacMillan Press.

Park, K. (1998). Communication patterns of Koreans : Transitional analysis of chemyun, noonchi and gibun. Journal of Korean Communication, 6 (1), 249-285.

Park, J. (2002). Special education in South Korea. Teaching Exceptional Student, 34 (5), 28-33.

Prater, C. D. & Zylstra, R.G. (2002). Autism : a medical primer. American Family

Physician, 66 (1), 1667-1680.

Riccio, M. (1999). Understanding autism. Current Health, 26 (4), 28-29.

Rogers, S. (2000). Interventions that facilitate socialization in children with autism.

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30 (5), 399-400.

Rubin, S., Biklen, D., Kasa-Hendrickson, C., Kluth, P., Cardinal, D., & Broderick, A.

(2001). Independence, participation, and the meaning of intellectual ability.

Disability & Society, 6 (3), 415-429.

Seo, G. (1991). Cross-cultural study of autism in South Korea and the United States. (Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1991).

Seo, G. (2000). Current controversies in classification and diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Rehabilitation Psych ology, 8 (1), 159-177.

Shapiro, J. P. (1993). No pity : People with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. New York : Times Books.

Simpson, R. (1999). Early intervention with children with autism : The search for best practices. Journal of the Association for Person with Severe Handicaps, 24 (3), 218-221.

Stone, W. & Caro-Martinez, L. (1990). Naturalistic observations of spontaneous communication in autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20 (4), 437-53.

Thomson, G. (1997). Extraordinary bodies : Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. New York : Columbia University Press.

Williams, D. (1992). Nobody nowhere. London : Doubleday.

Yang, S. (2003). The Conflicts of inter-cultural communication, with a focus on Korean and American culture. Thesis. Yunsae University.

Yang, J. & Kang, S. (2003). Conflicts of inter-cultural communication, with a focus on Korean and American culture : Based on Hofstede ’ s cultural dimensions . Thesis.

Yunsei University. Seoul. Korea.

<Abstract>

The Analysis Study of How Autism is viewed within Social and Cultural Settings in Korea and America

Kim, Keon Hee

This research is interesting in knowing how teachers negotiate social ideologies in inclusive classrooms. It is important to know what kinds of educational environments or materials cause students labeled with autism to be set aside as disabled by medical professionals. The teachers’interpretations that inform this work reject the concept of deficiency in autism. This analysis takes a social constructionist viewpoint, cross-cultural studies, medicalized perspective and deficit model on disability. this study reviewed a cross-cultural study of autism, related to the interpretation of communicative and social behaviors. We could get understanding how teachers conceptualize autism in South Korea and in America, what issues they have in their classrooms, and how they communicate with children with autism. The analogy of cross-cultural miscommunication, like the social and cultural models of disability, provides a means of looking at the behaviors of children labeled with autism in terms of social or cultural differences instead of deficiencies or lack, involving teachers’perceptions within a culture, as well as across cultures.

Key Words : comparative study, autism, social-cultural model

논문접수 : 2008. 2. 4 / 수정본 접수 : 2008. 3. 11 / 게재 승인 : 2008. 3. 17