A Brief History
Autism is, and always has been, a very poorly understood condition. Prior to the advent of modern psychology, autism has historically been approached through a diversity of methods across various human cultures. In 18th-century Germanic, Nordic, and Celtic cultures, for instance, folklore journals described a strange phenomenon of the “changeling” child, or fairy children left in the place of human infants who were stolen by the elusive, highly mythologized fae (or fairy folk). These children were often identified by their hypersensitivity to the environment, inability to be soothed, strange patterns of speech or repetitive actions, or high intelligence. In certain Native American communities, individuals with unique speech and thinking patterns were revered as having received divine insight or wisdom from the gods. They were integrated into hyper-specific social roles that best suited their idiosyncratic tendencies: shamans, healers, storytellers, priests, and oracles. And of course, not all ancient societies were accepting of these neurological differences, with some cultures interpreting individuals with perceptive differences as being cursed by witches or punished by the gods. Even today, in the modern era with access to medical knowledge at the tips of our fingers, some individuals choose to hold onto an antiquated, prejudiced worldview regarding autism and other forms of neurodivergence. Many neurodivergent individuals report feelings of isolation, exclusion, and social stigma as a side effect of their condition. In hindsight, the myths of the changeling, the wise shaman, and the supernaturally cursed serve as a poignant reminder of how societies around the world have historically grappled with the natural variation of the human psyche.
What Exactly Is Autism?
So what exactly is autism? Is it a disease? A mental disorder? A disability? Or perhaps none of the above? While the specific categorization of autism remains up to debate among psychologists, there exists a common consensus among experts that autism can be defined as the following: a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by differences in social interaction, communication, and behavior. It typically appears in early childhood and can vary widely in its presentation and severity. Autistic individuals may struggle with social skills, engage in repetitive behaviors, or exclusively utilize nonverbal communication. Due to the distinctive, perceptive nature of this condition, autism is often diagnosed by the presence of differences in typical developmental milestones, the presence of hyperfixations or ‘special interests’, persistent deficits in social communication across multiple contexts, and an unusually high or low intelligence quota. Of course, the environment of the affected individual also plays a significant role in the management of symptoms and overall happiness. Some environments will necessitate higher or lower levels of support depending on the individual needs of each autistic person.
For instance, many individuals on the spectrum will report finding comfort in pursuing careers based around logic, consistency, and strictly regimented routines. According to the Indiana Institute on Disability, popular career choices for autistic adults include: computer science, accounting, engineering, library science, mechanical trades, and data analysis positions. These figures are based on data trends and mass surveys. While autistic interests vary greatly, and autistic individuals may find success in any given career field, these figures highlight important patterns that reveal insight into the autistic experience. It is hypothesized by scientists and autistic applicants themselves that these career fields enjoy resounding popularity among the autistic community due to their data-intensive nature, strictly regimented routines, and logical consistency. These fields not only leverage the strengths of many autistic applicants, but also offer opportunities for success and meaningful fulfillment. The estimated proportion of diagnosed autistic individuals in the US sits at a mere 2.2% of the general population. However, NASA reports that as much as 12% of its workforce is comprised of adults with autism or ADHD. The prevalence of autism in the field of software programming is even more pronounced, with about 3% of the entire industry estimated to belong to a part of the ASD spectrum.
This type of data starkly raises the question: Since autistic individuals thrive in certain environments that are tailored to their needs, is the “disorder” in autism spectrum disorder really a dysfunction of the brain, or the societal structures we have installed in place? Perhaps autistic individuals are really only considered disabled because they exist within the context of a society that is not constructed with their needs in mind.
Questioning the Nature Of Autism
In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) came to a resolution to remove Asperger’s syndrome from the DSM-5 and instead classify it under the broader category of autism spectrum disorder (or ASD). This proposal was first launched by a committee of experts who reviewed the latest clinical research and practices associated with this diagnosis. Their findings revealed several fundamental flaws with the Asperger’s diagnosis; for one, there was much overlap and inconsistency in how Asperger’s was diagnosed in varying groups of people. Secondly, the existence of a separate autistic-umbrella diagnosis implied the idea that autism can be categorized within varying degrees of “usefulness”. Those with lower support needs were diagnosed with Asperger’s, and thus were considered more “employable” and more acceptable within the frameworks of neurotypical society. Those with higher support needs, however, were not afforded these same privileges. Consequently, specialists began asking themselves “Under what criteria should an individual be classified as ‘high-functioning’ (Asperger’s) or ‘low functioning’?” After thorough deliberation, the APA concluded that such classifications should not exist within the medical field. From this decision, a new, radical proposition emerged: If the field of psychology can retire outdated classifications of people, why shouldn’t the broader society follow this same model? Perhaps it’s time we changed the way in which we perceive autism as a “disordered” variation of the human brain.
Further Considerations
Of course, this new idea will be met with considerable pushback both from neurotypical allies and autism advocates alike. For many neurotypical individuals with autistic loved ones, this idea may seem outlandish, citing their own experiences with autistic children/adults as evidence: “My youngest son has autism. He is nonverbal, intellectually disabled, and requires round-the-clock supervision. How could you possibly tell me this is not a disorder?” From the perspective of autistic advocates themselves, this rhetoric may present itself as invalidating and dismissive of the struggles that define many aspects of the autistic experience: “I can’t tolerate the feeling of clothing tags or certain textures against my skin. I struggle with severe social anxiety. I become overwhelmed easily and suffer from frequent meltdowns and burnouts. How could you possibly tell me this isn’t a mental disorder?” These points will be addressed shortly.
Regarding the first example, many of those who are caregivers to high-support autistic children or adults may feel inclined to characterize autism as a disorder due to their exposure to the furthest extremes of the spectrum. In these instances, caregivers often overlook the co-morbidities associated with their loved one’s autism, such as intellectual disabilities, executive dysfunction, and personality disorders. Consequently, these well-meaning neurotypical advocates inadvertently shape the public perception of autism in a manner that is misleading, one that promotes a collective mental image of autism that is skewed towards the most extreme cases. Furthermore, caregivers and allies may consciously or unconsciously attempt to characterize autism as a disorder in accordance with the level of support that is required to meet the needs of the autistic individual in question, rather than their overall quality of life. Why is this flawed, you may ask? Consider one crucial question: At what level of required support does an autistic person pass the threshold of “not disordered” into “disordered”? Would those who wear glasses be considered “disordered” due to their need for a visual aid? Should babies also be considered “disordered”, as they require the constant care and support of their parents to survive? To reconcile this logic, one may posit that a “disorder” may instead be characterized by its impact on one’s quality of life rather than its required support needs.
So what does this mean for autistic individuals who may choose to self-identify as disabled/disordered? And is it appropriate to correct this sort of perception of the self? The answer is nuanced and depends on a variety of factors. For what reason may someone choose to identify as “disordered”? The perception of the self is based on a combination of internal and external factors. For individuals whose autistic traits have leveraged their success in life, they may view the diagnosis as a source of pride, but for those who feel as though they’ve been unfairly disadvantaged by their condition, autism is perceived as a disorder that disrupts otherwise normal brain function. Recalling a concluding statement under the previous section, “What Exactly is Autism?”, neurodivergent individuals find opportunities to thrive in environments that are tailored to their needs. Given the advantages of being autistic in these settings, should neurotypical people be considered “disordered” in these given circumstances?
Conclusion
In a 2023 study conducted by the Harvard Business Review, it was theorized that as much as 22% of the global population may be neurodivergent, equating to roughly 1 in 5 people. The actual numbers are estimated to be higher because most cases of neurodivergence go undiagnosed, especially in cultures where the topic of mental health is approached with skepticism. This is a groundbreaking theory, as it may reveal that autism and other forms of neurodivergence are not disorders, but instead, natural variations of the human psyche. Just as vehicles are created in a variety of makes and models, human brains are also formed with a variety of neurological structures. Would it be fair to assert that 20% of the world’s brains are inherently “disordered”?
Human brains evolved in such a way that a variety of perspective differences in a given population allows for greater innovation and evolutionary success as a species. This same principle is apparent even for physical variations in the human race, such as skin tones, hair color, eye color, height, and facial structure. In our 300,000-year history as a species, we have progressed from using sticks and chiseled stone tools to using wheels, making pottery, wearing clothes and jewelry, and cultivating religions, to eventually splitting the atom, traveling to the moon, and navigating cyberspace. Given the creativity required to turn natural resources into functioning tools, it is very likely that many of these crucial inventions were innovated by autistic or neurodivergent people. After all, many of the world’s greatest scientists, such as Nikola Tesla and Isaac Newton, are suspected by scholars to have been on the autism spectrum. Perhaps it’s time we retire antiquated notions of “disorder” and societal incompatibility to reflect the nature of autism.