Cited by 95Disability Rights and RepresentationAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchHistorical Psychiatry and Medical Practices

Autism, “Stigma,” Disability: A Shifting Historical Terrain

Grinker, Roy Richard·2020·Current Anthropology

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

Crossref · 10.1086/705748

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

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
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