What Is Autismology?

A proposal for studying, understanding, and teaching autism as such.

On this website, we propose using the term Autismology for a structured approach intended to study, understand, and teach autism as such, as well as non-autism and the interactions between them.

This proposal begins with a simple idea: it is possible to accumulate a great deal of knowledge about diagnoses, behaviours, difficulties, disability situations, suffering, or interventions without necessarily having explained what autism itself is, or how the mechanisms associated with it are organised.

Our proposal for Autismology therefore seeks to make autism an object of knowledge in its own right, and not merely an object studied through what causes problems.

It is not built against other disciplines. It proposes a particular framework of study, with a starting problem, a method, objects of study, and explicit principles.

It is in this sense that we also propose the expression “the science of autism”: not as a proclamation that an academic discipline has already received universal recognition, but as the project of constituting autism as a structured object of study, understanding, and teaching.

1. A more fundamental question.

Many phenomena may be observed in an autistic person: autistic characteristics, difficulties, reactions, suffering, acquired adaptations, consequences of the environment, associated problems, effects of personal history, or interpretations produced by people around them and by institutions.

All of this should not be automatically conflated.

The fact that a phenomenon is observed in an autistic person does not demonstrate that it is, by itself, autism.

Autismology therefore seeks, as far as possible, to distinguish:

• what belongs to autistic functioning itself;
• what may follow from it;
• what appears in interaction with the environment;
• what results from disturbances, suffering, or harm;
• what corresponds to a secondary adaptation;
• what belongs to another problem;
• and what comes from the interpretation placed on the situation.

This distinction leads to a more fundamental question than merely describing difficulties:

what is actually being studied when we speak of “autism”?

2. The problem of the reference framework.

A large part of the description of autism rests, explicitly or implicitly, on comparison with majority non-autistic functioning.

This comparison may be useful and may produce accurate observations.

But measuring the difference between two forms of functioning does not necessarily amount to understanding the internal logic of either one.

The example of languages makes the problem immediately visible.

If French were taken as the absolute reference, an English-speaking person could be described as having a deficit in French vocabulary, French grammar, French pronunciation, and understanding of French.

Those observations could be perfectly accurate relative to French.

Yet they would explain very poorly what English is.

They would mainly describe the distance between two languages.

By reversing the reference framework, exactly the same could be done to French relative to English.

The principle is therefore simple:

describing A by what it lacks in order to resemble B is not yet understanding A according to its own logic.

Our proposal for Autismology considers that this question of the reference framework must be examined when autism is studied.

The fact that a form of functioning is majority, ordinary, or consistent with dominant social norms does not, by itself, demonstrate that it is more correct, more functional, more rational, more desirable, or superior.

Conversely, the point is not to turn autistic functioning into a superior reference.

The aim is precisely to avoid choosing either one in advance as the measure of the other.

In this text, if the word “normal” is used, it refers only to what corresponds to a norm, what is ordinary, common, or majority. It does not in itself imply any judgement of value, quality, or functioning.

3. Methodological decentring.

How can two forms of functioning be studied without choosing one in advance as the reference?

Our proposal for Autismology is based on an effort of methodological decentring.

This can be illustrated through the thought experiment of the Martian.

Imagine an observer arriving on Earth and discovering two sets of human forms of functioning.

The observer does not know which one is the majority.

They do not know which one built the institutions.

They do not know which one defined the dominant social usages.

They do not know which one is usually considered atypical.

They also do not know which one has traditionally been presented as the one that needs to be explained.

They simply observe both.

They can then study their properties, mechanisms, strengths, difficulties, ways of communicating, possible incompatibilities, and the effects produced when they interact.

No human researcher can, of course, become genuinely external to all culture, experience, and knowledge.

The goal is therefore not absolute neutrality, which is probably unattainable.

It is to suspend, as far as possible, the automatic authority of already established reference frameworks and interpretations, so that phenomena can be observed before deciding what they mean.

This suspension does not mean forgetting existing knowledge. It means not allowing that knowledge to determine in advance what one is allowed to see.

4. Three connected objects: autism, non-autism, and the interface.

Autism cannot always be understood by studying autistic people in isolation.

Our proposal for Autismology therefore examines three connected dimensions:

• autistic functioning;
• non-autistic forms of functioning;
• and the interface between them.

The term “non-autism” is deliberately relational. It does not refer to a homogeneous population or to a new diagnostic category. It makes visible what often remains implicit: majority forms of functioning can themselves be observed, described, and studied.

This approach matters for an additional reason: the very notion of autism has largely been constructed and described by comparison with non-autism.

If we seek to understand a difference defined in relation to another form of functioning, it is logical to study that reference form of functioning as well.

Interactions make this necessity even clearer.

A misunderstanding cannot always be explained by studying only one person.

A difficulty with implicit meaning also requires examining how that implicit meaning is produced and used.

A mistaken interpretation of autistic behaviour also requires examining the interpretive mechanisms of the observer.

A difficulty adapting also requires examining the environment to which adaptation is expected.

Autismology can therefore study, when relevant, non-autistic mechanisms such as social conventions, implicit meanings, categorisations, generalisations, collective expectations, conformity, approximations, or interpretive processes.

The aim is not to pathologise non-autism.

The aim is to stop leaving majority functioning in the position of an invisible background that serves as the reference without ever being examined itself.

5. Understanding mechanisms and reconstructing causal chains.

Autismology seeks to go beyond the simple description of visible manifestations.

It tries to understand how phenomena occur, why they occur, and how they are connected to one another.

An essential principle is not to mistake consequences for causes.

A visible reaction may be directly related to the person’s functioning.

But it may also be the consequence of sensory harm, misunderstanding, accumulated disturbances, a relational situation, an institutional constraint, an acquired adaptation, or another problem.

Causal chains should therefore be reconstructed wherever possible.

Instead of stopping at:

visible reaction → autism,

it may be necessary to investigate:

visible reaction ← suffering or disturbance ← accumulation of events ← environmental, relational, or other causes.

This does not mean that every difficulty is caused by the environment.

It means that the cause should be investigated before it is attributed.

This approach also leads to distinguishing three operations that are often mixed together: observing, interpreting, and judging.

An observation describes what happened.

An interpretation seeks to understand why.

A judgement adds a qualification or value.

Confusing them too early can insert the presumed conclusion into the question itself.

6. Methodological autonomy, without rejecting existing knowledge.

Autismology must be able to examine a phenomenon without immediately having to translate it into an already familiar theory.

A pre-existing theory can become a filter: once a phenomenon is recognised as an instance of an available concept, there is a risk of no longer looking at it directly.

It must therefore be possible to think before comparing.

This does not mean rejecting existing research.

A study may contain very useful observations or data even when its interpretation remains open to discussion.

Research may also be technically rigorous while starting from a question already oriented by an implicit reference framework.

Measurements can be accurate, statistics solid, and correlations real, while mainly describing the gap between one form of functioning and a model chosen in advance.

Autismology is therefore also interested in the initial framing:

• What is the reference framework?
• Which categories are already being assumed?
• What is taken for granted before observation even begins?

Existing approaches can then be compared, studied, and critically examined.

But autismological study must also be able to develop within its own framework, without continuously using previous theories as a compulsory validation grid.

7. Studying, understanding, and teaching.

From its earliest formulations, the Autismology project has not concerned only the production of knowledge.

It also includes a function of teaching.

Teaching autism can be directed toward non-autistic people, so that they can understand autistic functioning beyond its visible difficulties alone.

It can also be directed toward autistic people themselves.

A person may have learned a great deal about their difficulties, their diagnosis, social expectations, or the behaviours that others want them to change, while having received very little structured teaching about their own functioning.

Autismology can therefore contribute to a genuine teaching of autism to autistic people themselves.

It can also help autistic people understand certain aspects of non-autism.

Learning non-autism does not in any way imply forgetting, denying, or replacing one’s autistic nature.

A French person who moves to Brazil may need to learn a minimum amount of Brazilian Portuguese, certain social conventions, and some local habits in order to understand the environment and live there more easily.

That does not oblige the person to become Brazilian or to stop being French.

Nor do they need to adopt all the tastes, interests, cultural habits, or foods considered typically Brazilian.

They simply learn what is useful to understand the environment in which they live and to interact with it.

Likewise, an autistic person can learn certain codes, implicit meanings, conventions, and frequent mechanisms of the non-autistic world without that learning becoming a programme of assimilation or a renunciation of their own nature.

Understanding another form of functioning does not require becoming that form of functioning.

Thus, Study – Understand – Teach is one of the fundamental articulations of our proposal for Autismology.

8. What does the word “autism” actually cover?

Autismology takes the word “autism” as a starting point, but does not necessarily consider its current boundaries to be definitive.

Study may confirm certain existing distinctions.

It may also show that some phenomena considered constitutive of autism are in fact secondary, interactional, or contextual.

It may show that several apparently separate manifestations derive from a common mechanism.

It may ultimately lead to the possibility that what is currently grouped under the word “autism” belongs to a broader or deeper human organisation.

Autismology does not decide that answer in advance.

Its purpose is precisely to produce the understanding that may eventually make such a question answerable.

The concept of autism is therefore a starting point for research, not a boundary that research is forbidden to cross.

9. Origins and genealogy of this proposal for Autismology.

The conception developed on Autismology.org has a history.

It developed within the intellectual ecosystem of the Autistan Diplomatic Organization.

In the conception presented by that organisation, Autistan refers, in an abstract and metaphorical sense, to “the world of autistic people”: what relates to autism, autistic people, and their particular ways of existing and perceiving.

The organisation presents its own understanding of the concept of Autistan, while considering that everyone remains free to understand or interpret that concept in their own way. This freedom specifically concerns the concept of Autistan itself; it does not mean that every notion developed by the organisation has no definition.

Within this ecosystem, Autismology.org was already publicly presented in 2019 as a project for the study and teaching of autism, intended for autistic and non-autistic people.

In 2021, another presentation already developed the idea of a “science and teaching of autism and non-autism”.

The current proposal therefore belongs to a continuity, while being formulated today in a more precise and methodologically demanding way.

This historical link with Autistan does not, however, require anyone to adopt the concept of Autistan in order to examine or use the autismological approach.

Autismology must be understandable and discussable in its own right.

10. A proposed definition, not ownership of the word.

A natural question arises: on what basis can we say what “Autismology” would be?

Our answer is not that we own the word, nor that we have the power to impose a universal definition of it.

The term has in fact been used elsewhere with different meanings.

We therefore present here our proposal for a definition of Autismology, developed through the history of Autismology.org and which appears to us particularly well suited to studying and understanding autism.

This proposal can be formulated precisely, explained, dated, discussed, tested, and improved.

Other people may use the same term differently.

The intellectual legitimacy of our proposal therefore does not come from an exclusive right to the name.

It must come from the coherence of the method, the clarity of its principles, its ability to distinguish levels of analysis, to investigate causes, to accept counterexamples, and to produce useful understanding.

Our position is therefore:

“Here is a proposed definition and method that appears to us particularly well suited to understanding autism; here is where it comes from, how it works, what its limits are, and anyone can examine its robustness.”

11. Autismology and Autism Studies: what is the difference?

The expressions Autism Studies and Autismology do not designate exactly the same type of thing.

Autism Studies is above all a general field of work devoted to autism. It is broad and interdisciplinary. It may include medical, psychological, social, historical, cultural, educational, philosophical, and other forms of research.

There is not necessarily one single method of Autism Studies, nor one common reference framework shared by all work that may be placed under that heading.

Some approaches are medical or clinical; others come from the social sciences, humanities, disability studies, neurodiversity, or Critical Autism Studies. Some of them explicitly criticise deficit-based or pathologising approaches.

Our proposal for Autismology is of a different nature.

We are not simply proposing a new name for “everything that studies autism”.

We are proposing a defined methodological approach, with explicit principles: examining the problem of the reference framework; seeking decentring between autistic and non-autistic functioning; studying both as well as their interface; distinguishing observation, interpretation, and judgement; reconstructing mechanisms and causal chains; and linking study, understanding, and teaching.

The difference can therefore be stated simply:

Autism Studies mainly refers to a broad field of work on autism; Autismology, as we propose it, refers to a particular way of constructing and conducting the study of autism.

The two are not necessarily competitors or mutually exclusive.

Work carried out according to an autismological method could perfectly well also be considered, in a broad sense, as belonging to Autism Studies.

On the other hand, not every work belonging to Autism Studies is necessarily autismological, since it may start from different reference frameworks, pursue different goals, or use different methods.

12. The place of Naturality and autismological theories.

Autismology may lead to the development of particular theories.

Among the notions already explored in work originating from the Autistan Diplomatic Organization are Naturality, the Natural Referential, authenticity, coherence, and harmony.

These notions may become important.

But they are not compulsory axioms of the autismological method.

If Autismology began by imposing a particular theory as true, it would risk reproducing the very problem it is trying to avoid.

The method must therefore be able to lead toward these notions if study supports them, but it must also be able to lead elsewhere if observation and reasoning require it.

A distinction should be made between:

Autismology as an approach to study;

and

the autismological theories to which this approach may eventually lead.

13. What can Autismology be useful for?

Autismology first aims to understand better.

That understanding may then have very concrete effects.

It can help distinguish autistic characteristics from consequences produced by the environment or by interactions.

It can make it possible to investigate the causes of certain forms of suffering rather than merely trying to suppress their visible manifestations.

It can contribute to better sensory, mental, communicational, relational, and attitudinal accessibility.

It can improve mutual understanding between autistic and non-autistic people.

It can help autistic people understand their own functioning.

It may also inform certain public policies, professional practices, educational methods, or forms of support.

Finally, because it also studies non-autistic functioning and the interface between different human ways of functioning, it can contribute to a more general understanding of human functioning.

14. Safeguards.

Methodological decentring does not automatically make Autismology impartial.

It can make mistakes too.

An individual experience can be overgeneralised.

An appealing intuition can be turned into a theory too quickly.

A concept can become so broad that it seems to explain everything.

A critique of the majority reference framework can itself become ideological.

Autismology must therefore apply to its own ideas the same demands that it applies to other frameworks.

It must seek counterexamples.

It must distinguish what is observed, what is interpreted, what is inferred, and what remains hypothetical.

It must accept alternative explanations.

It must not assume that all autistic people function in the same way, that all difficulties come from the environment, that autistic people are always right, or that non-autistic people are always wrong.

Its principle of caution can be stated simply:

no framework, including an autismological one, should become so self-evident that it prevents us from seeing what contradicts it.

15. Working definition.

Our proposal can therefore be summarised as follows:

We propose using the term “Autismology” for a structured approach to the study, understanding, and teaching of autism, non-autism, and their interactions, which seeks to suspend as far as possible pre-existing reference frameworks and interpretations in order to understand phenomena according to their own logic, investigate their mechanisms and causal chains, and avoid treating either form of functioning in advance as the reference by which the other should be judged.

Its central principle can be expressed even more simply:

do not try to understand A only through what it lacks in order to resemble B; do not do the reverse either; build a framework broad enough to understand A, B, and what happens between them.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Autismology already an officially recognised scientific discipline?

No.

When we use the expression “science of autism” here, we are proposing that autism be constituted as a structured object of study, understanding, and teaching.

This does not mean that a new academic discipline has already received universal institutional recognition.

The credibility of this proposal must be built through the quality of its method and its work, not through proclamation.

Did you invent the word “Autismology”?

We do not claim universal invention of the word.

The term has had other independent uses.

However, the conception developed within the Autistan ecosystem has been publicly documented for several years, including from 2019 for the Autismology.org project.

This historical precedence helps document the history of our proposal, but does not give us a monopoly over the term.

Who authorises you to define Autismology?

We do not claim to possess a universal power of definition.

We propose a definition of Autismology that appears to us particularly well suited to the study and understanding of autism.

This proposal is made explicit, argued, and open to discussion.

Other people may propose other conceptions under the same term.

Its value must therefore be judged by its coherence, its method, its results, and its ability to withstand critical examination.

Does Autismology reject science or existing research?

No.

It can use observations, data, and results produced by other disciplines.

It merely refuses to assume that their categories and interpretations must be correct before analysis begins.

Existing research may be extremely useful while remaining open to another interpretation.

Does Autismology consider everything previously said about autism to be false?

No.

Its principle is not to replace one dogma with the opposite dogma.

It seeks to re-examine phenomena, identify the reference frameworks being used, and distinguish as far as possible between observations, interpretations, and conclusions.

Some existing knowledge may be confirmed; other knowledge may be refined, reinterpreted, or challenged.

Does Autismology deny autistic people’s difficulties, disabilities, or suffering?

No.

On the contrary, it seeks to understand their causes better.

Refusing to automatically equate autism with every difficulty observed does not mean denying those difficulties.

It makes it possible, among other things, to distinguish difficulties that may belong directly to a person’s functioning from those produced or aggravated by the environment, interactions, or other factors.

Does Autismology claim that autistic people are superior to non-autistic people?

No.

It specifically refuses to choose either form of functioning in advance as the superior reference.

Analysis may later show that a particular mechanism has advantages or disadvantages in particular situations.

But that conclusion must come from study rather than being decided in advance.

Why study non-autism in an approach devoted to autism?

First, because the very notion of autism has largely been constructed and defined in relation to non-autistic functioning.

If we want to understand what is described as an autistic difference, gap, or difficulty, we must also understand what that difference was defined in relation to.

In other words, we cannot seriously study A as a difference relative to B while leaving B entirely outside the analysis.

Second, many phenomena related to autism emerge in interaction.

Understanding a misunderstanding, a social convention, an implicit expectation, or an adaptation difficulty often requires studying both sides of the relationship.

Studying non-autism therefore does not distract from autism: it helps us understand both the reference framework through which autism has been described and the interactions in which some difficulties arise.

Do you have to be autistic to practise Autismology?

No.

Autistic experience can provide particularly important knowledge, intuitions, and perspectives.

But being autistic does not automatically guarantee an autismological analysis, just as being non-autistic does not prevent one.

What defines the approach first and foremost is the method used.

Does Autismology necessarily depend on the concept of Autistan?

No.

There is a historical and conceptual relationship between the two, since the Autismology.org project developed within the ecosystem of the Autistan Diplomatic Organization.

The organisation presents its own conception of the concept of Autistan while considering that everyone remains free to interpret that concept in their own way.

But the autismological method must be understandable, examinable, and usable independently of adherence to the concept of Autistan.

Must one accept Naturality or the Natural Referential in order to accept Autismology?

No.

These notions belong to possible theoretical developments.

They may be studied, confirmed, modified, or challenged.

They are not prerequisites for entering the method.

What does it mean to “teach autism” and “teach non-autism”?

Teaching autism means transmitting a structured understanding of autistic functioning, not merely teaching a list of diagnostic criteria or difficulties.

This teaching can be directed toward non-autistic people, but also toward autistic people themselves.

Teaching certain aspects of non-autism to autistic people does not mean asking them to renounce their autistic nature.

Just as a French person living in Brazil can learn Portuguese and certain Brazilian social conventions without becoming Brazilian or abandoning their own identity, an autistic person can learn some codes of non-autistic functioning without having to become non-autistic.

The goal is mutual understanding and accessibility, not assimilation.

What is the difference between Autismology and Autism Studies?

Autism Studies refers to a general and interdisciplinary field of work on autism. This work can use very different methods, reference frameworks, and aims.

Autismology, as we propose it, refers instead to a particular methodological approach based notably on examining the reference framework, decentring between autistic and non-autistic functioning, studying their interface, investigating mechanisms and causal chains, and linking study, understanding, and teaching.

Autismological work may therefore also be considered part of the broad field of Autism Studies.

But not all work within Autism Studies is necessarily autismological.

Can this definition of Autismology evolve?

Yes.

A foundational text must provide principles precise enough for the proposal to have meaning, but it should not make the approach incapable of learning.

Definitions, methods, and theories may be refined as work progresses, provided that those changes are explicit, documented, and consistent with the critical requirements on which Autismology is based.