Does “Masking” exist? A Wake-Up Call
🇬🇷 Ελληνικά
First of all, if we are responding to Dr. Uta and those like her: Yes, 100%. Because what the psychologist denies is that this is an autistic experience, diverting the discussion and creating a non-existent issue, since we are referring to a documented experience in order to make ourselves visible. That is what the psychologist negates. We say “we exist,” and they say “no, you don’t.”
However, the concept has many problematic points, which become even more apparent in this story (which is why we could also see it as a wake-up call, as I wrote in the previous post Could what happened with the psychologist be a wake-up call for “masking” (at least)?).
To begin with, why do we take on their inability to recognize us? It shouldn’t concern us at all. We even did them a favor by saying “yes, we hide, that’s why you don’t see us.” Is that why Asperger did not recognize Autistic girls? Historically they want Autistic women to be invisible (and nonexistent), as the more oppressed group—not because they “hide better.”
Personally, I don’t remember ever hiding. There was external coercion, which produced a kind of “camouflage” as a traumatic reaction (and not of “autistic traits”). In this way a series of reactions (neurological and physical) and emotions were suppressed (a freeze state in trauma theory), and there were more organized mechanisms that included copying patterns of behavior, trying to present an image of myself, trying to shape a “personality” according to the available tools and models for perceiving and interpreting my experience (which of course were insufficient, while the knowledge that I am Autistic was missing, and this misdirected me with very serious consequences for my life). I should also note dissociation, either immediate in certain situations or long-term, as a consequence of the above.
For these serious consequences, I—and all of us who have gone through this—should be the ones pursuing those responsible. The fact of invisibility, that we did not know, that we were not supported. Not having it charged to us on top of everything else.
Why are all of the above considered “masking”? But I will come back to this internal aspect later.
Finally, my most significant oppression did not come from within as “camouflage,” despite the immeasurable cost it had for me and for my environment. My most significant oppression remains the external conditions that block the development of my potential and my social existence—access, and every hostile social and systemic environment. These things do not magically change with “camouflage.” It is not a balance of cost and gain. We gain nothing. If we did gain something, I would be the first to benefit. I have professional training as an actor. Does the art of acting lead to burnout?
Let us look, however, at the problematic points that exist at various levels or dimensions of this issue.
1) The external level. The “big picture.” I have spoken about this dimension in the most recent texts and videos on the subject (see the post The Ableist Construct of “Camouflage”).
• Our lack of recognition is attributed to “camouflage” as an act of invisibility on our part.
• The construction of an invisible functioning level, which also becomes the goal of behavioral approaches. A direction toward the normalization of behavior rather than support.
A “level” of invisibility has been constructed and labeled as “high functioning,” serving as a goal, as treatment.
“Camouflage” is conveniently charged to us as something we do — a personal act of invisibility that some of us are supposedly “capable” of. A false status that maintains our lack of access and our oppression. And those who are seen as “not capable” are expected to try harder — or to achieve it through conversion therapies. A massive industry and system built on the promise of this false status, with long, exhausting conversion therapies that are traumatic and destructive. These practices can cause PTSD, while also making people — especially the children targeted — vulnerable to abuse and unable to assert their own will. This exposes children to numerous dangers and undermines their boundaries and self-respect.
• Denial of difference in functioning
• Camouflage as a level of functioning
The psychologist literally equates “masking” with allistic functioning. She equates camouflage with functioning or ability. And she is not saying something as outrageous as it sounds. Despite the progress that has been made in our visibility, these notions of a linear spectrum lie at the basis of the medical model and of diagnosis, and that is why this is a wake-up call. These dominant perceptions are still there—perceptions that we too have indirectly accepted (masking as ability/functioning, denial of difference in functioning).
• The primary construction of “autism” as a behavioral or nosological entity.
2) Is “masking” or “camouflage” sufficient to describe our experience?
a) The system for perceiving and classifying experience does not cover us because it is not ours. It is makeshift for us; it is general. As I wrote above, why are all these things “masking”? This is what allistics see, even though we too recognize our experience in it, because like other things it is, to some extent, a “satisfactory” interpretation that approaches it. But it is not enough.
This happens with many things for us. We adopt perceptions and interpretations that are “approximate,” but not accurate, and this is a point of divergence and misunderstanding with allistics, because one does not understand what the other is saying. In a rough way we subsume under “masking” an overall lived experience of oppression that exists in every interaction with the allistic environment. For them, however, it is a general category, and they are not even interested in the experience itself. What interests them is this meaning: “we hide our personality.” Full stop. In this way they think we gain access and success (the balance I mentioned above). (See We are not talking about “cost.” “We are able” = “we are able.” They do not care.)
At best we might encounter some compassionate soul out there who says to us, “you pay a price in your mental health for all this, you suffer, you are right, I’m with you,” and that is as far as it goes. It does not go any further. They do not understand what all this means. They do not understand the suppression of our potential, our being ignored, our social and systemic exclusion, or that “camouflage” in reality has no effect on these things. They are not connected. It refers to a more immediate situation; it does not confer any magical property, and it is not sustainable over time.
It does not work, first of all because we do not control what our “behavior” conveys. Not even a professional actor can do that. I say this with that background. I have spoken about this in a series of posts; see for example here, where there are also links to earlier ones: The misconception some people have about masking or camouflage (they are the same) is that they control what their behavior conveys,
Finally, this classification, as a system of perception and communication, contains the fundamental primary misunderstanding of “autism” as an entity—here a behavioral one. “Autistic behavior” is separated out; it can be shaped or eliminated, while we can perform another “behavior.” And it is considered a social skill that we can learn.
In their perception above, this translates as: “we put on an act and everything is fine.”
“We hide our personality,” “we wear a mask,” in exchange for some magical benefit of access and success. That is how they understand it, according to their own experience, and they project such elements onto us, while it has nothing to do with the way we are oppressed and with the demands we are expected to meet. What do we expect them to understand when it is framed this way?
Indicative posts:
The main points of the previous posts can be found in the presentation of the topic Autistic Camouflage (see below). I then referred to it in the recent text and video of the Autistic Journals Project, Deconstructing Autistic Camouflage. I have taken it down because it needed the clarification I am making here, but a significant part of it has been included in the post Three Distinct Problematic Points of the Medical Model and the Misinterpretation of “Levels”.
b) Our internal experience itself
Are all these things "masking"? More specifically, are they "autistic camouflage"? It may be “masking” in general, depending on the definition. Of course they create a non-existent issue, as I said, because we are obviously talking about our specific experience. There truly is an experience that belongs only to us—an experience that no allistic person can have. It is a performance of allistic functioning as an image. Or a coercion to perform another type of functioning that we cannot enact.
In this dimension of the issue I also place the problem that even we ourselves sometimes say “everyone masks,” because that is not the “masking” we mean. We perceive only superficially the part concerning “personality,” or treat it as if the issue were one of etiquette. I refer to this in the above post (We are not talking about “cost.” “We are able” = “we are able.” They do not care.) and in others—for example Autistic functioning is not a matter of “etiquette.” We remain within a behavioral framing.
This lived experience concerns autistic functioning; no allistic person can have it, and it leads to autistic burnout.
As this is a path for me, traced over time across the blog posts, a first gathering of its axes and key points was presented here: Autistic Camouflage – Topic Presentation.
Previous posts, indicatively:
Two keys to understanding Autistic camouflage.
Masking is an allistic concept (New label).
“Masking,” as a clearly allistic concept, derives from psychologization.
“Masking,” the performance of the image, is not access.
This happens, in summary, Part 7: Denying difference in functioning means violating our boundaries
(And many others under the label Masking is an allistic concept.)
Highlights
The coercion to adopt a different mode of functioning constitutes a violation of our boundaries, which is normalized as they deny difference.
(This happens, in summary, Part 7: Denying difference in functioning means violating our boundaries)
• It cannot be a shared experience of any allistic person.
When we speak about camouflage not (only) of “traits,” elements of personality or identity, but of functioning, it is completely different from any other “hiding” of elements of personality or identity, and it involves torment and trauma for us. No allistic person can have the same experience.
(…) It is a state of trauma, suppression of our neurotype, and violation of our being. It should not be normalized or minimized; it has nothing to do with the experience of allistic people, and absolutely nothing to do with the art of acting. And we are forced into it for our survival, directly and not as a choice for our benefit. It does not even happen consciously. It has effects on our health and on our nervous system, and leads directly to Autistic burnout. This lived experience does not correspond to the experience of any allistic person.
(Autistic camouflage is camouflage of functioning; this is torment and trauma and cannot be a shared experience of any allistic person.)
Related posts
“Masking”: an error on our side, and that is why it can change.
ABA, RFK Jr, Dr. Uta, Trump: The whole truth here.
A question to Dr. Uta and those like her.
The Problem with “Autism Levels” – Topic Presentation
Videos
Common Misconceptions About Autism Levels – What It Really Means
The Ableist Construct of “Camouflage”
Podcast Autistic Journals Project
A personal voice on the Αutistic experience, sharing a different understanding shaped by my journey. If parts of your experience leave questions unanswered, this open space for thought may be just what you’re looking for. Available in English and Greek (audio and subtitles).
Stay updated on pages New on the blog and New posts.
Σχόλια
Δημοσίευση σχολίου