Hello, and welcome back to The Autistic Writer.
Uta Frith, Autism and Epistemic Injustice
Many readers will be aware of the recent controversy following media comments attributed to Uta Frith. Her remarks have caused considerable consternation within the autistic community, and I believe it is necessary to put forward my position on this issue.
Uta Frith (1941–) is a German-British developmental psychologist and one of the most influential figures in modern autism research. She has recently been quoted as saying:
“Today, anyone of any age or intelligence level can be diagnosed with autism if they meet certain criteria.”
This is a provocative statement from an enormously influential figure. It has the potential to damage public perceptions of autistic people and to undermine the neurodiversity movement.
Frith’s comment, when considered in the context of her recent work, is effectively a criticism of modern diagnostic standards. Unfortunately, the comment reported in the media is likely to be understood as suggesting that many people who are currently diagnosed as autistic, or who identify as autistic, are not really autistic.
As a highly experienced professional in the autism field, Frith understands the power of language and how her statement might be interpreted. This is what makes her comments particularly concerning to many of us within the autistic community.
What are we actually talking about when we talk about autism?
There are, broadly speaking, two ways of conceptualising autism.
1. Neurodevelopmental difference
Some people have neurological and developmental profiles that diverge from what is considered typical. Certain clusters of characteristics, including differences in sensory processing, communication, social interaction and ways of thinking, are collectively understood as autism.
2. The Clinical Model
Clinicians have developed various theoretical models of autism and have used those models to establish diagnostic criteria. Clinicians then assess individuals against those criteria to determine whether they meet the threshold for a formal diagnosis.
These models and criteria have changed considerably over time, and they continue to evolve.
The clinical model is therefore a theoretical and classificatory construct. It is separate from the underlying neurodevelopmental differences experienced by an individual.
A diagnosis does not make a person autistic. And an autistic person does not stop being autistic simply because diagnostic criteria change.
Whenever a clinical diagnostic paradigm is developed, it necessarily involves a judgement about what should and should not be included within the category. That judgement defines the boundaries of the theoretical model; it does not define the people who happen to fall within, or outside, those boundaries.
This distinction is crucial when considering Frith’s comments.
In her recent paper, Frith argues that diagnostic criteria for autism have widened to such an extent that it has become problematic for clinical practice and research. That is a legitimate question for researchers to debate. But it remains fundamentally a question about how we construct and apply a diagnostic classification.
The danger arises when a debate about the usefulness of a diagnostic category becomes a debate about whether the people currently included within that category are somehow less genuinely autistic.
Who gets to define autism?
Frith’s position reflects the current war of ideas within autism research: the conflict between a predominantly clinical or pathologising model of autism, and approaches informed by the social model of disability and the neurodiversity paradigm.
This tension is particularly evident in debates around autistic masking, the recognition of female presentations of autism, and the diagnosis of autistic adults. These are not merely abstract questions of diagnostic theory. They affect real people.
When diagnostic criteria are changed, people do not change with them. If a previously unrecognised autistic presentation becomes better understood, those people do not suddenly become autistic at the moment the diagnostic criteria catch up with them.
And if a clinical model subsequently becomes narrower, that does not mean that the people who fall outside its new boundaries have stopped being autistic.
This is why it is so important that autistic people are not treated merely as objects of research and diagnosis, but as active participants in the process of understanding autism.
Challenges
Fortunately, Frith’s position is being challenged by a number of established professionals and researchers within the autism field.
Sue Fletcher-Watson, Professor of Developmental Psychology at the University of Edinburgh, has written a particularly powerful response. She says:
“Without autistic people there is no autism, so saying that their experience is somehow beside the point, or even actively incorrect, is bizarre to me.”
Principal Educational Psychologist Dr Sue Franklin has also challenged Frith’s position, arguing that her perspective appears to favour a return to a narrower and more pathologising conception of autism, with particularly concerning implications for the recognition of female presentations.
One of the most powerful reactions to Frith has come from Professor Ludmila Praslova, Professor of Organizational Psychology, who argues that the position represented by Frith’s recent comments raises the issue of epistemic injustice.
Praslova’s article in Psychology Today is compelling reading.
It is important that the public understands Uta Frith’s position for what it is: a particular theoretical position about how autism should be conceptualised and classified. It is not a definitive statement about who is, and who is not, genuinely autistic.
The diagnostic model may change. The people do not.
That’s all for this time. Take care.
share this article:
The Autistic Writer is a labour of love, dedicated to promoting autism acceptance, understanding, and equality. If you’d like to help support this work, a small tip via Buy Me a Coffee would be greatly appreciated. Just click the button, below.
If you like this blog, I can also highly recommend the brilliant Mortgage Advisor on FIRE, which covers financial wellbeing, mental health, and autism issues, among much more.
