Masking and the Narrative of Autism

🇬🇷 Ελληνικά

With “masking” at the center, the narrative of “autism” and the web of ideas shaping it.

The term “autistic” originates within the medical model and was first used as a differentiated diagnosis by Sukhareva, while earlier Bleuler had used it to describe a condition that did not constitute a separate diagnosis in itself.

Until 1994, the DSM included “Autistic Disorder” as a diagnosis (along with several related diagnoses that were later removed), which according to their criteria identified very few cases. In 1994, “Asperger’s Syndrome” was included in the DSM as a distinct diagnosis. In 2013, the diagnosis was removed, and it was recognized that — together with the other related diagnoses — it referred to the same “condition” within the medical model, leading to the current diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The DSM appears to modify the diagnosis as perceptions of Autism shift. At the same time, symptoms of distress and traumatization are included as diagnostic criteria for “autism,” understood as a “disorder.” Misconceptions about Autistic being lead to contradictions that do not hold together conceptually, and to categorizations that cannot be coherently made.

Dominant perspectives that have shaped the interpretation of our lived experience:

• Denial of difference in functioning

• A linear spectrum of “functioning”

Within the same framework, the contradictions are not resolved; on the contrary, they are cynically revealed in their true dimension. The contradictions exist within a framework that denies a simple fact — the difference in functioning — and instead constructs “autism” as an entity. Anything that does not begin by acknowledging this difference cannot resolve them.

Ideas embedded in this framework, shaping and reinforcing a coherent narrative:

• “Autism” as an entity: a) nosological and b) behavioral.

At the foundation of the entire medical model framework of perception, we can identify an initial construction of “autism” as an entity: a) nosological and b) behavioral.

• Pathologization of Autistic existence. Anything an Autistic person struggles with is attributed to the pathology of “autism,” without any benefit.

• Projection of every situation onto an inherent pathologization, and dismissal of the impact of external conditions, which are therefore not seen as needing any adjustment to support the individual.

• A goal of eliminating or rendering invisible the nosological or behavioral entity, rather than providing support.

From the lack of recognition and the existence of an “invisible level” to the direction toward behavioral normalization and indifference to support, the existing system and prevailing model is full of gaps and superficiality. It is officially left to the behaviorist subsystem, to which it grants authority, while the gap is also filled by other “alternative” subsystems that exploit parents’ sense of helplessness and the real lack of support (pseudo-therapies, even dangerous ones).

The goal of elimination or invisibility rather than support — which the construction of “autism” facilitates — becomes evident in the direction toward behavioral normalization, the search for cause and cure, and the dissemination of negative stereotypes and narratives.

• Negative stereotypes projected onto the nosological or behavioral entity.

• Division into levels of “functioning” based on “high intelligence” or “normal behavior,” romanticized stereotypes, or denial of difference and of any systemic issues in access and support. Normalization and enabling of social and systemic exclusion.

The problem with “autism levels”

The categorization of the diagnosis into “levels” refers to support, but there are perceptions associated with these levels that need to be disentangled. These perceptions concern, more broadly, the framework of “diagnosis” (viewing autism as a “disorder,” and therefore a nosological entity, with levels translated as “mild” or “severe”), its historical context, and the dominant ideas and stereotypes that spread socially through the prevalence and authority of medical model approaches. They concern ideas of “high intelligence” or “normal behavior” that have prevailed as the basis for the division into levels.

Τhe word “autistic” is being redefined today within a different framework. In this framework, we speak of a mode of functioning; there are no gradations or levels within it. This does not negate any support that an Autistic person may need.

The eugenic and sexist origins of the “functioning” divide, linked to ideas of “high intelligence,” the “male brain,” and views of disability as a measure of the value of human life. From this emerged the notion of “levels” as two extremes — “high-functioning” and “low-functioning.” These ideas have influenced the medical model throughout its historical continuity and have shaped perceptions and stereotypes that continue to permeate society.

The origins of diagnosis within the historical context of National Socialism and the child psychiatry that prevailed as its continuation. The impact is evident in the predominance of diagnosis in boys and socially in the stereotype of the white Autistic boy with “high intelligence”.

Perception of functionality as behavior based on allistic functioning, reflected in ideas about “camouflage”. It involves the erasure and denial of the real difference in functioning. From this emerges the idea of “levels” as, on the one hand, pathologized “autism”, and on the other, the non-recognition of difference (and what that entails), reframed instead as a “personality type”. The behavioralization and psychologization of difference in functioning.

This is also expressed in the idea of “therapy”, behaviorism, and the behavioral practice “ABA,” aiming to change “behavior” and eliminate so-called “Autistic behavior”. If the person themselves “achieves” camouflage, they supposedly do not need anything; they are normal. Or they have mental health issues, trauma, personality disorders, and other diagnoses for which they must seek therapy or “manage” individually. 

The concept of “masking” or “camouflaging” is formed within this dominant framework:

• Masking as an ability/functionality and a capacity to overcome Autistic functioning.

• Construction of an invisible level of functioning, which becomes the target of behavioral interventions.

“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.

Internalized ableism

As Autistic identity becomes destigmatized, more and more people who consider themselves “high-functioning” realize and accept that they are Autistic. However, they separate themselves from the pathologized stereotype, which they reject as part of their own identity.

Yet depathologization does not mean “levels,” with one level being pathological and another being a “personality type.” In reality, they have not accepted it. They have accepted something else about themselves. Then the impression of a “trend” is created, and all of this is recycled without resolution, offering itself up as a show and for exploitation.

• Our lack of recognition is attributed to “camouflage” as an act of invisibility on our part.

• Camouflaging as a social skill or art.

• The assumption that behavior can be separated and shaped as an independent entity. A direction toward normalization of behavior rather than support. Camouflaging as the hiding of “autistic traits.”

Allistics see a separated “autistic behavior,” which can be eliminated or modified, and that is how they perceive “masking.”

We accepted the framework of “autistic traits.” But these are not “traits” that we hide; we can understand the convention we accepted and the fundamental misunderstanding it contains. It approaches experiences that we can recognize, but it does not truly correspond to our own experience.

• Perceiving masking as a matter of “personality,” which does not align with our experience.

• Behavioral, psychological, and moral characteristics are projected onto the difference in functioning.

• Camouflaging is seen as providing some kind of magical access or success, as if it exists on a scale of cost and benefit.

• Camouflaging as a psychological problem. The idea that our oppression comes from “camouflaging” itself, framed as a form of distress.

We call “masking” or “camouflage” every experience of oppression we live through our overall interaction with allistic environments and systems. We deal with how our mechanism tries to respond, rather than the condition causing the problem. We deal with how the individual copes with issues such as systemic inaccessibility, exclusion, and being forced into this performance. With the performance itself rather than the coercion into it.

The performance of allistic functioning is a prerequisite for anything, without any gain, to which we are forced. And while, by suppressing our natural functioning, it reduces or even entirely cancels out our performance and the development of our potential. 

The masks allistics are asked to wear and the roles they are asked to perform in their lives do not involve a real suppression of their potential or lack of access. 

The psychological dimension also exists, but even that is not shared; for us it reaches a core of existence that it does not reach for allistics.

Experiences we situate within the framework of “masking” or “camouflaging”:

• The demand to perform allistic functioning as an image.

• A traumatic response to external coercion; suppression of neurological responses and emotional expression; a freeze state within trauma theory.

• More structured mechanisms that anticipate protection and social survival, with very serious consequences, affecting our very identity and personality. We find ourselves in a disoriented struggle to construct an identity and personality that distances us from ourselves. Dissociation. 

Read on the blog

Does “Masking” Exist? – A Series of Posts

The Problem with “Autism Levels” – Topic Presentation

Stay updated on pages New on the blog and New posts.

My expertise isn’t in how algorithms work, and my focus isn't on marketing myself on social media. I create content, not distribution strategies. If you find the content valuable, your shares can help this work continue and reach more people.