Hanrahan 1

Sociology of Autism: Understanding Autism in a Socially-Constructed Reality

People on the autism spectrum have commonly faced difficulties connecting with the

social world around them. As a result, the non-autistic, or neurologically typical, population of

society struggles to understand their autistic peers as well, creating a large barrier in the socially

constructed reality they share. Autistic individuals face ableist scrutiny from both peers and

institutions, making the subject of their social life both a personal problem and a public issue.

There are social norms and cultural expectations in regards to social interaction that American

society upholds, and lacking an understanding of these “rules” is what causes people with autism

spectrum disorders (ASD) to be outcasted as “abnormal,” or socially deviant. Looking from the

outside of the non-autistic view of the world one may grow to understand how this labeling

negatively impacts individuals on the spectrum. After examining social scientists’ research

and observing autistic perspectives, I have concluded that the detrimental stigma attached

to autism is supported by a hegemonic, neurologically-typical understanding of the social

world.

In order to explain how autistic people are isolated, one must first understand what the

autism spectrum is. People have theorized what autistic traits are, including difficulty conveying

emotions, struggle to understand empathy, sensory issues, eye contact, and repetitive behavior

(Fellows, “Invisible Diversity: A Story of Undiagnosed Autism”, 2017). Autism is considered a

spectrum because the traits that an individual experiences can vary in the extremity of their

presence. Consider a recent GAO study on autistic youth that defined the spectrum of autistic

traits by dividing them into six categories: communication difficulties, social impediments,

intense focus/interests, sensitivities, and routine and repetition (October 2016). These
 Hanrahan 2

characteristics appear in varying doses, making every autistic experience unique to the

individual.

Consequential to autism’s variety, psychologists and social scientists have entertained the

idea that there are different forms of autism, including Asperger’s Syndrome, which is

considered to be a “high-functioning” form. However, many members of the autistic

community, such as Amy Sequenzia, reject these “functioning labels” because they carry the

negative stigma of autism being a personal burden (Sequenzia, 2016). Sequenzia is a nonverbal

autistic writer and activist for disabled people, who has been considered a “low-functioning”

autistic, but defies this label by being an active voice in the autistic community and proving that

her autistic traits do not define her “functionality.” Another vocal individual on the spectrum is

Carrie Beckwith Fellows, who best explains autism as “a condition that affects how a person

communicates, how they relate to people, and how they experience the world around them.

Autistic people see, hear, and feel the world differently from non-autistic people” (“Invisible

Diversity: A Story of Undiagnosed Autism”, 2017).

Given the perspective from autistic individuals, one may observe the autistic community

as one that speaks for itself, and also find that the autistic perception is not inherently

dysfunctional. This is important information considering the frequency of autism being

misrepresented as a mental handicap that impacts the credibility of someone. Autistic people

such as Fellows and Sequenzia vocalizing about their own experiences, self-advocating, and

stressing notions of what they find to be maladaptive to their social environment exemplifies

their credibility and thus challenges this narrative. Furthermore, recognizing an autistic person’s

construction of reality as valid nullifies the hegemonic norms that tend to outcast this very group.
 Hanrahan 3

The perception of the autistic individual can especially be rationalized with the help of

symbolic interactionism, or the micro-sociological focus on interpreting meaning behind

mechanisms of social interaction. Symbolic interactionists such as Alexander Durig aim to

establish many components of “acceptable” social behavior. In Durig’s Autism: The Crisis of

Meaning, the author discusses the “social construct of meaningful perception,” and how the

autistic perception exists separately from the non-autistic perception. He theorizes an objective

way of understanding both points of view with social inferencing, which divide logical inference

into three modes: deduction, induction, and abduction. According to Durig, deductive logic is

defined by internalized expectations for hypothetical social interaction, while inductive logic is

the tested method of interpreting social behavior based on past experiences (76-78, 1996). With

this he hypothesizes, “if we can claim that Autistic perception is highly deductive perception,

then we can expect Autistic people to display behavior that is repetitive” (see previous citation).

This idea seems to define the autistic perspective as different, yet valid.

Autistic individuals are considered socially deviant or invalid because of the socially-

accepted ideas of social interaction seem to counteract with autistic traits. The cultural aspects of

society shape the environment in which all individuals are socialized, and elements of social

interaction have been normalized in American culture. This could easily be observed from the

rhetoric used in descriptions of autism used by those who are not on the spectrum. Even the the

most current, “acceptable” form of diagnosis for autism, the American Psychiatric Association’s

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), explains autistic social behavior with

the following statement: “[An example of social-emotional reciprocity difficulties ranges] from

abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing

of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions” (2013).

 Hanrahan 4

What this statement establishes with use of words like “normal,” is that there is only one way to

effectively communicate, and that the autistic perspective is inherently invalid. Given that this is

an information source that professionals refer to for a proper diagnosis, the DSM-5 holds the

power to influence people. Perhaps, this authority is partially what normalizes neuro-typical

behavior while devaluing the typical behavior of an autistic person.

I came upon supportive evidence for this claim that autistic traits are seen as inherently

“incorrect” or “abnormal” by talking to my peers. I interviewed two people: an autistic person,

McAgy, and a non-autistic person, Harvey. I asked McAgy about his autistic traits and what

kind of things he has difficulty understanding that appear to be “second nature” to his peers. He

expressed that he has a difficult time registering others’ emotions and that it is difficult for

people to “read” him (McAgy, February 2018). I then asked Harvey to share his own thoughts

and ideas on elements of social interaction based on Ivan’s examples of his struggles. In

description of emotional expression and gestures in conversation, he said, “I would say

[emotional expression] is normal. It’s common…[Gestures] are widely accepted and used...No

matter who you are, if you were to use them it wouldn’t be seen as out of place (Harvey,

February 2018)” I observed from this that these components of social interaction set autistic

individuals apart from the rest of society: what is natural from the point of view of a non-autistic

individual is normalized yet frequently incomprehensible to a person on the spectrum.

Meanwhile, it is quite possible that these are aspects of expected behavior are socially

constructed folkways rather than universal ethics.

One of the reasons people on the autism spectrum are commonly ostracized by

neurologically typical peers is because what is socially acceptable contradicts what autistic

people are naturally able to do. For example, psychologist Simon Baren-Cohen theorized that an
 Hanrahan 5

aspect of autism is a lack of cognitive empathy, or how one conveys the emotions of others.

Autistic people are still able to use affective empathy, or “the drive to respond to someone else’s

thoughts and feelings with an appropriate emotion” (2011). To lack the ability to comprehend

the emotions of others is considerably troublesome because much of our society recognizes

empathy as a virtuous trait that is often associated with kindness and compassion. Specifically,

in a TEDx Talk about his own struggles as an autistic teen, Dylan Dailor expressed his own

specific struggle with cognitive empathy and the misinterpretation of this from his neuro-typical

peers. He discussed his experience explaining his autism in the seventh grade:

When I got to the empathy part...[my classmates from seventh to ninth grade] just latched

on to the idea that I had no empathy, which earned me the nickname, ‘the serial

killer’...for all three years...It was frustrating because every single day I just...struggled

because it just made me feel different and I didn’t understand...I was like, ‘I’m supposed

to be the one with no empathy, how do you not understand how I feel? (“Empathy and

Asperger’s Syndrome”, May 2016)

Dailor’s story exemplifies the way that social norms isolate autistic people. His own experience

with cognitive empathy differs not only from that of his peers but the accepted view of empathy

itself. It could be easily observed from his classmates’ reaction that empathy is considered to be

such an essential part of the human experience, that to lack it means to be socially deviant or

morally deficient. The stigma behind autism is thus reinforced by this labeling, which greatly

secludes this group.

The counterargument for this claim that autistic people’s perspective of reality is

respectable may be that autism is a disease that needs to be eliminated. Organizations like

AutismSpeaks supposedly dedicate time and funds to curing autism. Their propaganda to
 Hanrahan 6

promote their research includes commercials that stimulate the idea of autism being dangerous.

In a 2009 AutismSpeaks commercial called “I Am Autism,” a narrator said the following:

I am autism. I’m visible in your children, but if I can help it, I am invisible to you until

it’s too late. I know where you live. And guess what? I live there too. I hover around all

of you...if you’re happily married, I will make sure that your marriage fails...I will make

it virtually impossible for your family to easily attend a temple, birthday party, or public

park without a struggle, without embarrassment, without pain...I will plot to rob you of

your children and your dreams. I will make sure that every day you wake up you will cry,

wondering who will take care of my child after I die? And the truth is, I am still winning,

and you are scared…(2009)

This perspective acknowledges autism as a burden that must be eradicated because of the issues

that it causes. However, this is backed by claims that the struggles of autism are purely from the

biological condition itself, not the social environment that allows autistic individuals to struggle.

In addition, the biogenetic aspects of autism coexist with the social factors that make autism as

difficult as this commercial claims it is (Constructing Autism, Nadesan, 2005). Therefore, it is

not the characteristics of autism that cause strain, but the lack of acceptance or inclusivity of

autistic traits in a social environment that stimulate dysfunction.

How can society adopt a much more accepting view of autism? In recent years, many

have embraced a term for the acceptance of different minds. Social psychologist Nick Walker

explains neurodiversity as,

[T]he enormous diversity among individual human minds is a product of multiple factors,

including environment, culture, family, and personal history. But human minds also
 Hanrahan 7

possess an innate diversity, which interacts with these other factors to produce the unique

individuality of each human being (2014).

This idea is important because it recognizes that there is a way of viewing the perspective of

individuals with neurological disorders like autism without invalidating them. To embrace

neurodiversity would be an important step because it would prevent the isolation that autistic

people face. By recognizing their way of perceiving the social world along with the

neurologically typical point of view, individuals on the spectrum could be empowered and much

less disconnected from reality.

Certain culturally-observed values and aspects of social behavior have been rationalized

heavily, unfortunately creating a narrative that excludes autistic people. Those on the spectrum

in American society perceive the social world in a way that is misunderstood or untolerated by

the neurologically typical. Society paints components of autism as insufficient methods of

personal connection, only strengthening the degradation and invalidation of the autistic

community. The stigma around this group of people is consequently negative, and the necessary

steps to reverse this include recognizing the narratives of those with autism spectrum disorders as

well as neurodiversity.

This is a topic that I am passionate about because I have watched many autistic people

close to me struggle with social isolation. I wanted to know if this is inherently a biological side

effect of autism, or if autistic people are actually isolated because they are misunderstood by a

neurologically-typical hegemony. As a non-autistic individual, I have observed an ableist view

of autistic people projected from the media, corporations like AutismSpeaks, the DSM-5, and

even the public education system; these social systems all seem to enforce tropes about autistic

people being childish, frightening, strange, moronic, or robotic. Until I decided to invest my
 Hanrahan 8

time in researching the autistic perception of reality, this is how I subconsciously viewed my

autistic peers as well. I have seen far too much of these falsehoods internalized by my autistic

friend. By observing autism as a social issue, I have found that acceptance and neurodiversity is

what will bridge the gap between the autistic and non-autistic. By recreating a social reality that

values and includes the human experience from an autistic perspective, the disconnection

between neurological types can be diminished.