Autism, “Stigma,” Disability: A Shifting Historical Terrain
Abstract
Erving Goffman’s 1963 foundational discussion of stigma has been both embraced and critiqued in disability studies and other fields. In Goffman’s interactional and ahistorical analysis, stigma was presumed to exist as a natural feature of humanity, deflecting attention away from historical analysis. This article, in contrast, argues that stigma—particularly surrounding “mental illness”—is deeply embedded in historically contingent structural conditions of modern capitalism and ideologies of individualism that shape ideals of the modern worker. Specifically, I use the case of autism—and its commodification in the United States—to show how a stigmatized “mental illness” is intertwined with a range of financial interests that come to depend on the continued production of certain diagnoses. For example, an analysis of the “autism industrial complex” in the United States reveals how economic changes set the conditions for a range of practices that promise to reduce stigma; these include special education, activism/advocacy, and self-representation. These occur in the context of a transition toward more flexible employment and the increasing value of technological and artistic skills often associated with neurodiversity. Despite the fact that a capitalist logic continues to define valuations of personhood, families and autistic self-advocates have been empowered in recent years to use a variety of strategies to decouple stigma and illness and resist conventional definitions of auti…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The neurodiversity paradigm is explicitly inclusive of all autistic and neurodivergent people, including those with the highest and most complex support needs.
“the neurodiversity paradigm is explicitly inclusive of all autistic and neurodivergent people, including those with the highest and most complex support needs (Grinker, 2020; den Houting, 2019; Ne’eman, 2021).”
From Annual Research Review: Shifting from ‘normal science’ to neurodiversity in autism science (2022) · cites this paper as Grinker, 2020
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 114 · Cited by 95
- Authors
- Grinker, R. R.
- Affiliations
- George Washington University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Grinker, Roy Richard
- Venue
- Current Anthropology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2020-02
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- S21
- Pages
- S55-S67
- ISSN
- 0011-3204 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5382
- OpenAlex
- W2981477278
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 114
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 11.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Anthropology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical Psychiatry and Medical Practices
- Keywords
- autism spectrum disorder, stigma, Erving Goffman, disability studies, mental illness, capitalism, individualism, special education, autism advocacy, autistic self-advocacy, neurodiversity, flexible employment, deficit model of autism, diagnosis, personhood, history of autism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review