In clinical practice and research, we as professionals, often explain autism by using a number of definite and seemingly neutral sentences. However, can we actually know what autism is in a truly objective sense? Is it moreover justified to put forward persistently the medical-clinical perspective as an explanation?
To answer these questions, our NeuroEpigenEthics team members, Leni Van Goidsenhoven and Gert-Jan Vanaken, recently wrote an essay for Wetenschappelijk Tijdschrift Autisme, a Dutch journal for academic and clinical autism professionals.
In this piece they introduce the interdisciplinary field of Disability Studies, paying special attention to the concept of neurodiversity. Drawing on that field and its insights, they do not only unravel the multiple meanings of autism but also make an argument for an urgent understanding of autism as an ambiguous and political phenomenon. This understanding implies thinking autism in contextual and relational concepts and recognizing the mutability of the phenomenon.
Furthermore, by drawing on concrete examples, Leni and Gert-Jan demonstrate why an ambiguous and political understanding of autism is urgent, both in individual trajectories as in thinking about early autism detection and intervention. Finally, they conclude the article by arguing for an attitude of epistemic humility and offer a set of concrete suggestions on how to implement ambiguity and a political understanding of autism in a clinical and research context. The published version (in Dutch) can be found on the journal’s website. A freely accessible, post-review, authors’ version of the paper can be found here.