Abstract
This article explores the definition of Critical Autism Studies and its inclusion in autistic scholarship. There has been critique of recent non-autistic literature for lacking autistic authorship, leading to doubts about its epistemological integrity due to misrepresentations of autistic culture and the neurodiversity movement. This article utilises the work of Arnold, Milton and O’Dell et al. to introduce an emancipatory definition to ensure the discipline is autistic led. In the process, we discuss the nature of autism studies and what constitutes critical literature. We propose Waltz’s interpretation of Critical Autism Studies as a working definition.
What is Critical Autism Studies?
Critical Autism Studies (CAS) has come a long way since Jim Sinclair’s (Citation[1993] 2012) seminal speech with autistic activist-academics critiquing the deficit-laden, pathologising autism discourses favoured by the medical community. Autistic activists and academics Luke Aylward, Steve Graby, Damian Milton and Lyte Moon were present at the initial UK CAS seminar day in 2011 held in Sheffield, UK. The autistic voice has been a crucial factor in the growth and acceptance of CAS within Disability Studies, especially with the success of the autistic-led journal Autonomy, the Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies. Supporting the next generation of neurodivergent activist-academics adding to CAS literature are often master’s and doctorate students. The sharp rise in interest in CAS among Disability Studies scholars has helped to create multiple interpretations of CAS proposed by various academic groupings, producing three main definitions. For instance, Arnold defines CAS as follows:
It is however about critical thinking, new perspectives and a channel for further debate in future. (Arnold Citation2013, 2)
Re-interpreting different stakeholders’ contributions to Critical Autism Studies
Recently, Re-Thinking Autism (Runswick-Cole, Mallett, and Timimi Citation2016) claimed to be the first CAS book, ignoring previous work in the field and importantly airbrushing out the autistic voice in their work, contributing towards negative reviews from autistic authors (Arnold Citation2016, Citation2017; Milton Citation2016). This article does not wish to reiterate those critiques, but to use the debates to develop more clearly what we mean by CAS. Specifically, the Re-Thinking Autism Network’s narrower definition and claim that their book is the first CAS anthology would have merit if they were formally dissociating from prior works in CAS, such as Worlds of Autism (Davidson and Orsini Citation2013) and Autonomy, the Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies; however, there is no evidence of this occurring. Compellingly, various academic groupings attended the recent CAS conference, including the Re-Thinking Autism Network and autistic scholars. At the conference, autistic academics challenged CAS scholars who are only interested in talking about autism, in contrast to others (including autistic scholars) who are pursuing the emancipation of the autistic population. Hannah Ebben addressed the atmosphere of a shared pursuit to ‘outsmart’ the autistic community, expressing itself through straw men arguments and affirmative noises from the audience. Autistic academics have expressed strong interpretations of these actions (Arnold Citation2016, Citation2017; Milton Citation2016), with calls of ‘cultural imperialism’ possibly due to the attempt of the Re-Thinking Autism Network to usurp autistic influence over CAS.
The autistic rights movement and the neurodiversity movement are not the same entity; both are separate yet cooperative heterogeneous entities. Criticism of the neurodiversity movement is common to CAS and is explored by research groups other than the RAN such as O’Dell et al. (Citation2016). O’Dell et al. (Citation2016) follow Davidson and Orsini’s (Citation2013) definition and recognise autism as a diagnostic label and the autistic voice as a lived experience, which contrasts to the Re-Thinking Autism Network who envision autism and consequently the autistic voice as a non-entity (Arnold Citation2016). Despite following an inclusive definition, O’Dell et al. (Citation2016) also ignore autistic scholarship when critiquing the neurodiversity movement, which can lead to hollow arguments against it that have little validity (Milton Citation2014a, Citation2016). Particularly as the neurodiversity movement applies to many varying labels (Graby Citation2015; Strand Citation2017), spurious critique of it will affect many other labelled persons.
This could be the result of an inherent contradiction within CAS of analysing the neurodiversity movement and the possibly weak theory contained within it, while simultaneously respecting the autistic voice which supports that movement. There is a view that autistic academics should acknowledge critique of the neurodiversity movement by non-autistic academics; however, the counter argument is that non-autistic academics are not respectfully or accurately critiquing the neurodiversity movement due to the lack of use of autistic scholarship in their work (Arnold Citation2016, Citation2017; Milton Citation2016). Autistic input into CAS is crucial for its epistemological validity, to avoid a ‘silo mentality’ creeping into CAS (Milton Citation2014b) and to recognise autistic persons as CAS experts (Gillespie-Lynch et al. Citation2017). Nonetheless, the epistemological arguments ignore the historic fact of autistic leadership of CAS.
With the previously explored issues, we have vigorously debated our appropriate response, as autistic authors, to the RAN. Options considered included splitting from CAS to form another discipline, such as ‘Transformative Autism Studies’ or ‘Emancipatory Autism Studies’, or insisting that autistic authors should be counted as key authors in CAS. Either of these options could theoretically lead to inclusive academic practices as part of the Disability Studies literature, the latter in particular meaning that CAS articles would need to be inclusive of the autistic voice and to filter out non-emancipatory CAS scholarship. However, we discarded the former option because it is undesirable to surrender CAS to purely non-autistic perspectives. Subsequently, we agreed that, in addition to positioning autistic authors firmly within CAS, a more emancipatory definition of CAS is required, as is a citation survey to explore who is using autistic scholarship and whether different subcultures are emerging within CAS.
How to define Critical Autism Studies?
In order to define something, you need to know its ontological status; CAS is within Autism Studies, the interdisciplinary study of autism (Arnold Citation2013; Davidson and Orsini Citation2013). The ontological status of autism is contested. It is many varying things to each individual stakeholder; it is argued that autism is not a thing, but a debate about a thing. The Re-Thinking Autism Network suggests that autism is purely a cultural construct lacking the qualities to be a ‘natural kind’ (Arnold Citation2016; Milton Citation2016). This ignores how autism runs in families, the flourishing distinctive autistic culture and the importance of self-diagnosis to autistic persons’ sense of well-being. Autism is a diagnostic category (Milton Citation2016) distinguishing certain human behaviours, similar to how maps signpost specific geographical variations. Autism Studies is intrinsically interdisciplinary, as autism is contextualised, particularly in the dynamics of autistic persons, who often have other diagnostic labels, impairments and other myriad forms of human diversity. Hence, CAS has to be interdisciplinary focusing on intersectionality, such as how culture contributes to certain interpretations of autism (O’Dell et al. Citation2016). We have discussed the nature of autism and Autism Studies; however, we are yet to explore what makes CAS ‘Critical’ Autism Studies.
There are many interpretations and academic uses of the word ‘critical’. Merriam-Webster defines ‘critical’ as:
‘exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation’ or ‘of, relating to, or being a turning point or especially important juncture’. (Anon Citation2017)
Some argue that CAS is critical as it unsettles conceptions of autism, potentially due to the fact that autistic persons have been reviewing medical interpretations of autism (Arnold Citation2016; Milton Citation2016; Sinclair Citation[1993] 2012). Positive experiences with autistic persons can trouble and lead to critical challenging of autistic stereotypes (Gillespie-Lynch et al. Citation2017). Through such processes, CAS is literally critical, as it is a turning point, the pivotal juncture when autistic persons reclaim autism narratives for ourselves. For CAS to continue to be a transformative moment, it must allow new avenues of inquiries (Arnold Citation2013; O’Dell et al. Citation2016).
The points raised in this article highlight the many requirements that are essential for a CAS definition to be credible. A CAS definition must be inclusive, be critical, allow new lines of inquiry and have epistemological integrity; the latter is important for the discipline’s external acceptance. We can only gain new knowledge within CAS by scholarship which takes into account the emancipatory nature of the discipline. While these characteristics are separate entities, they join together on many levels of intersectionality contributing to a positive feedback loop; for instance, explaining the growth of Autonomy, the Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies within and externally of CAS. CAS must continue to explore the intersectionality of autism, situating it within local contexts (O’Dell et al. Citation2016). This section has explored what CAS is and consequently what a definition needs for it to be successful; next, we will provide a more inclusive definition.
Our proposed definition for Critical Autism Studies
We put forward Waltz’s definition as the working definition of CAS:
The ‘criticality’ comes from investigating power dynamics that operate in Discourses around autism, questioning deficit-based definitions of autism, and being willing to consider the ways in which biology and culture intersect to produce ‘disability’. (Waltz Citation2014, 1337)
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Hanna Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist, Nick Chown and Catriona Stewart for their commentary during the development of the article.
References
- Anon. 2017. Definition of Critical. Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster Incorporated: Springfield. Accessed November 14, 2017. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/critical
- Arnold, Laurence. 2013. “Introduction to the Second Edition.” Autonomy, the Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies 1 (2).
- Arnold, Laurence. 2016. “Rethinking Autism, Diagnosis, Identity and Equality.” Good Autism Practice 17 (2): 100–101.
- Arnold, William. 2017. “Review of Re-Thinking Autism: Diagnosis, Identity and Equality (Timimi, Mallett Runswick-Cole Eds.)” Autonomy, the Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies 1 (5).
- Davidson, Joyce, and Michael Orsini, eds. 2013. Worlds of Autism: Across the Spectrum of Neurological Difference. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
- Gillespie-Lynch, Kristen, Steven Kapp, Patricia Brooks, Jonathan Pickens, and Ben Schwartzman. 2017. “Whose Expertise is It? Evidence for Autistic Adults as Critical Autism Experts.” Frontiers in Psychology 8: 438. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00438.
- Graby, Steve. 2015. “Neurodiversity: Bridging the Gap between the Disabled People’s Movement and the Mental Health System Survivors’ Movement.” In Madness, Distress and the Politics of Disablement, edited by Helen Spandler, Jill Anderson, and Bob Sapey, 231–244. Bristol: Policy Press.10.2307/j.ctt1t898sg
- Hunt, Paul, ed. 1966. Stigma: The Experience of Disability. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
- Milton, Damian. 2014a. “Autistic Expertise: A Critical Reflection on the Production of Knowledge in Autism Studies.” Autism 18 (7): 794–802. doi:10.1177/1362361314525281.
- Milton, Damian. 2014b. “Autism: A Social and Medical History.” Disability & Society 29 (6): 991–992. doi:10.1080/09687599.2014.905281.
- Milton, Damian. 2016. “Re-Thinking Autism: Diagnosis, Identity and Equality.” Disability & Society 31 (10): 1413–1415. doi:10.1080/09687599.2016.1221666.
- O’Dell, Lindsay, Hanna Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, Francisco Ortega, Charlotte Brownlow, and Michael Orsini. 2016. “Critical Autism Studies: Exploring Epistemic Dialogues and Intersections, Challenging Dominant Understandings of Autism.” Disability and Society 31 (2): 166–179. doi:10.1080/09687599.2016.1164026.
- Runswick-Cole, Katherine, Rebecca Mallett, and Sami Timimi, eds. 2016. Re-Thinking Autism: Diagnosis Identity and Equality. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
- Sinclair, Jim. (1993) 2012. “Don’t Mourn for Us” Autonomy. the Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies 1 (1).
- Strand, Lauren. 2017. “Charting Relations between Intersectionality Theory and the Neurodiversity Paradigm.” Disability Studies Quarterly 37 (2). http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/5374
- Waltz, Mitzi. 2014. “Worlds of Autism: Across the Spectrum of Neurological Difference.” Disability & Society 29 (8): 1337–1338. doi:10.1080/09687599.2014.934064.