Autismology: in-depth presentation, foundations and approach

Understanding autism independently of pre-existing frameworks and using that understanding to improve real-life situations.

On this website, we propose Autismology as an independent framework for understanding, explaining, transmitting and applying knowledge about autism in its own right, non-autism, and the interactions between them.

It is possible to accumulate diagnostic descriptions, statistics and information about behaviors and difficulties without understanding the mechanisms that produce them. Our approach distinguishes autism itself from its manifestations, the effects of the environment, suffering, and the interpretations attached to them.

This conception emerged from observations and detailed analyses of real situations, their chronological sequences and causal relationships. Its primary aim is not to launch an endless succession of new investigations to discover what autism is, but to share an understanding that has already been developed, make it communicable, and apply it to prevent or resolve problems arising in situations involving autism.

Historically, the project has also been presented as a “science of autism.” This expression conveys the intention to understand autism seriously, in its own right. It does not mean that an academic discipline has already achieved universal recognition, or that existing university frameworks must be adopted in order to reach such understanding.

The starting principle is simple: observe facts before classifying them; understand mechanisms before judging their manifestations; and do not allow norm-centered assumptions to dictate their interpretation.

1. A more fundamental question.

Many phenomena can be observed in an autistic person: autistic characteristics, difficulties, reactions, suffering, acquired adaptations, environmental consequences, co-occurring problems, effects of personal history, or interpretations made by other people and institutions.

These must not automatically be conflated.

The fact that a phenomenon is observed in an autistic person does not establish that this phenomenon, in itself, constitutes autism.

Autismology therefore attempts, insofar as possible, to distinguish:

• what belongs to autistic functioning itself;
• what may follow from it;
• what emerges through interaction with the environment;
• what results from disturbances, suffering or harmful impacts;
• what corresponds to a secondary adaptation;
• what belongs to another problem;
• and what stems from the interpretation made of the situation.

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

What exactly are we studying when we speak of “autism”?

2. The problem of the reference standard.

A substantial part of the description of autism relies, explicitly or implicitly, on a comparison with majority non-autistic functioning.

Such comparisons can be useful and yield accurate observations.

But observing, assessing or quantifying a difference between two ways of functioning does not necessarily explain the internal logic of either one.

The example of languages makes this immediately clear.

If French were taken as the absolute standard, an English speaker might be described as having deficiencies in French vocabulary, French grammar, French pronunciation and comprehension of French.

Those statements could be entirely accurate relative to French.

Yet they would explain very little about what English is. Above all, they would describe the distance between two languages.

If the reference standard were reversed, exactly the same could be done to French in relation to English.

The principle is simple:

Describing A in terms of what it lacks in order to resemble B is not the same as understanding A according to its own logic.

Our proposal considers this reference-standard problem fundamental to understanding autism. It calls attention to norm-centrism: implicitly taking majority functioning and dominant social conventions as the obvious reference, and then mainly describing autism as a deviation from that reference.

The fact that one way of functioning is prevalent, ordinary or consistent with dominant social norms does not, by itself, prove that it is more correct, functional, rational, desirable or superior.

Conversely, the intention is not to elevate autistic functioning to a superior reference standard. The point is precisely to avoid selecting one of the two in advance as the measure of the other.

Whenever the word “normal” appears here, it means only what conforms to a norm or is ordinary, common or prevalent. It does not intrinsically convey a judgment about value, quality or functioning.

3. Methodological decentering.

How can we examine two forms of functioning without selecting either as the reference standard beforehand?

Our proposal calls for an effort of methodological decentering, which can be illustrated with a thought experiment involving a Martian observer.

Imagine an observer arriving on Earth and discovering two groups of human ways of functioning.

The observer does not know which is the majority, which built the institutions, which established dominant social practices, which is usually called atypical, or which is conventionally treated as the one in need of explanation.

The observer simply examines both.

Their characteristics, mechanisms, strengths, difficulties, communication styles, possible incompatibilities and the effects of their interactions can then be studied without deciding the result beforehand.

No human researcher can truly stand outside all cultures, experiences and knowledge. Absolute neutrality is therefore not the objective, and may be unattainable.

Rather, the objective is to suspend, as far as possible, the automatic authority of established standards and interpretations, so that phenomena can be examined before their meaning is decided.

This does not mean forgetting existing knowledge. It means not allowing it to determine beforehand what one is permitted to see. In practice, we begin with facts, chronology, perceptions, interactions and observable causes, without first imposing a medical, psychological or social category. More general principles can then emerge from a detailed examination of situations.

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

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

Our approach therefore examines three related dimensions:

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

The expression “non-autism” is deliberately relational. It does not designate a homogeneous population or a new diagnostic category. It makes visible something usually left implicit: majority ways of functioning can also be observed, described and examined.

This is important for another reason: the very concept of autism has largely been constructed and described by comparison with non-autism. This does not mean imposing a vast separate research program on non-autism. It means understanding real situations, including the mechanisms operating on the side of the environment and the people within it.

If a difference has been defined in relation to another form of functioning, it is logical also to examine that point of comparison.

Interactions make the need even clearer. A misunderstanding cannot always be explained by investigating one person alone. Difficulty with an unspoken rule also calls for examination of how that rule is produced and used. Misinterpreting autistic behavior requires us to consider the interpretive mechanisms of the observer as well. Difficulty adapting also raises the question of the environment to which the person is expected to adapt.

When relevant, Autismology may therefore consider non-autistic mechanisms such as social conventions, implicit meanings, categorization, generalization, collective expectations, conformity, approximations and processes of interpretation.

The aim is not to pathologize non-autism. It is to stop treating majority functioning as an invisible background that supplies the standard without itself ever being examined.

5. Understanding mechanisms and reconstructing causal chains.

Autismology seeks to go beyond descriptions of visible manifestations. It tries to understand how phenomena occur, why they occur, and how they relate to one another.

A central principle is not to mistake consequences for causes.

A visible reaction may be directly related to the person's functioning. But it may also follow a sensory impact, a misunderstanding, accumulated disturbances, a relational situation, an institutional constraint, an acquired adaptation or another issue.

Causal sequences therefore need to be reconstructed.

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 assert that the environment causes every difficulty. It means that the cause must be investigated before being attributed. This analysis is not merely descriptive: once an initial disturbance or succession of harmful impacts is identified, we can try to eliminate or reduce its source and then see whether the situation actually improves.

It is also important to distinguish three operations that are often mixed together: observing, interpreting and judging.

Observation describes what happened. Interpretation attempts to understand why it happened. Judgment adds a qualification or value. Mixing them too early can smuggle an assumed conclusion into the original question.

6. Starting from facts without subordinating ourselves to pre-existing frameworks.

Autismology does not begin by selecting a theory into which observations must fit. It begins by looking at exactly what happens, examining the mechanisms of the situation and understanding sequences of causes and effects.

Disciplines traditionally concerned with autism have often been developed using categories, norms and conventions drawn from majority non-autistic functioning. Such a reference standard can shape the questions asked and the explanations considered from the outset. Even technically rigorous research can accurately measure a difference without explaining the nature of the functioning being examined.

This does not mean claiming that all previous knowledge is false or that every professional is incapable of understanding autism. It means refusing to let their conceptual frameworks determine in advance what facts are supposed to mean.

For this reason, Autismology does not have to be founded on ontology, epistemology, etiology, an ecological paradigm or any other pre-existing intellectual framework. Such fields may be useful, when needed, for comparison, discussion or presentation. They are neither mandatory prerequisites nor sources of its legitimacy. Autismology may develop its own concepts wherever they help account for the facts more accurately.

In concrete terms, the approach is to examine situations without imposed theories; analyze their chronology and components closely; identify the sources of suffering, misunderstanding and interpretive errors; and then derive explanatory principles from the patterns observed.

Measuring certain indicators or assessing a situation can be useful. Neither replaces understanding the mechanism producing whatever is measured or assessed.

Findings and observations from other disciplines may subsequently be consulted and compared with this understanding. They simply must not become the prior, compulsory filter through which every observation is made.

Conceptual independence is not a refusal of knowledge: it is the freedom to understand without first having to think through somebody else's categories.

7. Studying, understanding and teaching.

From its earliest formulations, the Autismology project has concerned more than the production of knowledge: it seeks to transmit an understanding and make it genuinely usable.

It also has an educational function.

Teaching about autism can address non-autistic people, enabling them to understand autistic functioning beyond its visible difficulties. It can equally address autistic people themselves.

A person may have learned much about their difficulties, diagnosis, social expectations or behaviors others want changed while having received almost no structured teaching about their own functioning. Autismology can help make it possible to teach autism to autistic people themselves.

It can also help autistic people understand aspects of non-autism. Learning about non-autism does not mean forgetting, disowning or replacing one's autistic nature.

A French person moving to Brazil may need to learn some Brazilian Portuguese, local social conventions and habits in order to understand the environment and live more easily within it. That does not require becoming Brazilian or ceasing to be French. Nor does the person have to adopt every taste, interest, cultural custom or culinary preference thought of as typically Brazilian. They learn what helps them understand and interact with their surroundings.

Likewise, an autistic person may learn certain common non-autistic codes, implicit rules, conventions and mechanisms without making this an assimilation program or abandoning their own nature.

Understanding another way of functioning does not oblige us to become that way of functioning.

The historical formula Study – Understand – Teach remains relevant. However, examining mechanisms serves understanding and action, rather than multiplying research projects as an end in itself. This practical vocation could also be expressed as: Observe – Understand – Explain – Transmit – Apply.

8. What does the word “autism” really encompass?

Autismology takes the word “autism” as its point of entry, but does not confuse its reality with the conventional boundaries and descriptions of existing classifications.

Some phenomena regarded as constitutive of autism may instead be secondary, interactive or contextual. Apparently distinct manifestations may stem from one mechanism; similar manifestations may also have different causes. These possibilities must be resolved by examining situations, not simply by applying a diagnostic label.

The conception presented here has emerged from many observed situations and from principles that, according to its author, already help explain numerous mechanisms and resolve concrete difficulties. Its primary purpose is to make this understanding available, not to postpone its use indefinitely pending a new academic research program.

It remains open to refinements, corrections and exceptions that new observations may require. This means neither claiming that every answer has already been universally demonstrated nor denying the explanatory and practical value gained by this conception.

9. Origins and history of this proposal for Autismology.

The conception developed on Autismology.org has a history. It arose in the intellectual ecosystem of the Autistan Diplomatic Organization.

In that organization's conception, 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 Organization presents its own understanding of the concept of Autistan, while regarding everyone as free to understand or interpret that concept in their own way. This freedom concerns the concept of Autistan itself; it does not mean that every notion developed by the Organization lacks a definition.

Within this ecosystem, Autismology.org was publicly described as early as 2019 as a project for the study and teaching of autism, intended for autistic and non-autistic people alike. In 2021, a presentation already expressed the idea of a “science and teaching of autism and non-autism.”

The present proposal therefore continues that history while formulating the approach more precisely and with more explicit methodological requirements.

This historical connection to Autistan does not oblige anyone to adopt the concept of Autistan in order to examine or use the autismological approach. Autismology must be understandable and open to discussion on its own terms.

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

A natural question arises: on what grounds can we say what “Autismology” is?

Our answer is not that we own the word or can impose its definition universally. The term has also been used elsewhere with different meanings.

Here, therefore, we present our proposed definition of Autismology, developed through the history of Autismology.org, which we consider particularly suitable for studying and understanding autism.

This proposal can be formulated precisely, explained, dated, discussed, tested and improved. Other people may use the same term differently.

Its intellectual legitimacy consequently does not derive from exclusive rights over the name. It must derive from the coherence of the approach, the clarity of its principles, its ability to distinguish levels of analysis, seek causes, accept counterexamples and produce useful understanding.

Our position is therefore: Here is a definition and a method that we consider particularly appropriate for understanding autism; here is where they come from, how they work and what their limits are; anyone may examine how well they stand up to scrutiny.

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

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

Autism Studies primarily designates a broad, interdisciplinary field of work devoted to autism. It may encompass medical, psychological, social, historical, cultural, educational and philosophical research, among many other domains.

There is not necessarily a single Autism Studies method or common reference standard shared by all work within that field. Some approaches are medical or clinical; others come from the social sciences, the humanities, disability studies, neurodiversity or Critical Autism Studies. Some explicitly challenge deficit-based or pathologizing accounts themselves.

Our proposal for Autismology is different. We are not merely introducing another name for “everything that studies autism.” We propose a specific approach to understanding and application with explicit principles: examining the reference-standard problem; decentering autistic and non-autistic functioning; considering both and their interface; distinguishing observation, interpretation and judgment; reconstructing mechanisms and causal sequences; and connecting study, understanding and teaching.

Simply put, Autism Studies mainly names a broad field of work on autism, whereas Autismology as proposed here names a particular way of constructing and carrying out the understanding of autism.

They are not necessarily rivals or mutually exclusive. Autismological work may also belong to Autism Studies in the broad sense. Conversely, not all work within Autism Studies is necessarily autismological, since it may begin with other reference standards, pursue other goals or use other methods.

12. Naturality and concepts specific to this conception.

The conception developed within the Autistan Diplomatic Organization's ecosystem already has its own concepts, notably Naturality, the Natural Reference Framework, authenticity, coherence and harmony. They emerged from a body of reflection developed independently of this article and are not simply borrowings from existing schools of thought.

Here, Naturality is not restricted to nature in the sense of landscapes or the absence of human intervention. It refers particularly to coherence, authenticity, rightness and the non-arbitrary character of things and their relationships. These concepts can help explain discrepancies between autistic nature and certain artificial social constructions.

They should be explained according to their own logic and the observations from which they emerged, rather than being forced at the outset into an ecological, philosophical or medical paradigm.

We must distinguish Autismology as a framework for understanding and transmission, the specific conception of autism presented here, and further developments that remain open to discussion. No concept should be shielded from comparison with real situations; equally, it need not be reformulated in another discipline's categories in order to be intelligible.

13. What can Autismology be used for?

Autismology is not intended merely to accumulate studies: it makes it possible to understand situations and to act more appropriately on their causes.

It can help distinguish autistic characteristics from the consequences of the environment or interactions; reconstruct the mechanisms of misunderstandings and interpretive errors; identify sensory, mental, relational and institutional disturbances; and find the origins of suffering instead of simply controlling its final manifestation.

For example, when an autistic person reacts intensely in a public place, the analysis may consider temperature, noise, physical contact, other people's interventions, misunderstandings and the chronological order of all these events. The visible reaction may then be understood as the outcome of a chain of disturbances, making solutions at their source possible.

This approach may improve sensory, mental, communicational, relational and attitudinal accessibility; encourage mutual understanding; enable autistic people to understand their own functioning better; and inform educational, professional, administrative or institutional practices.

Its horizon is meaningful access to different spheres of life, rather than merely making an autistic person conform to social expectations. Its relevance can also be demonstrated in concrete terms: an explanation that identifies a cause, prevents a harmful situation or resolves a difficulty already has practical value, without waiting for official recognition of a discipline.

14. Safeguards.

Methodological decentering does not automatically make Autismology impartial. It, too, can make mistakes. An individual's experience can be generalized too widely; an appealing intuition can become a theory too quickly; a concept can become so broad that it seems to explain everything; and a critique of the majority reference standard can itself turn ideological.

Autismology must therefore apply to its own ideas the standards it applies to other frameworks. It must look for counterexamples, distinguish observations from interpretations, deductions and hypotheses, and consider alternative explanations.

It must not assume that all autistic people function identically, that all difficulties originate in the environment, that autistic people are always right or that non-autistic people are always wrong.

The coherence between observations, explanations and the effects of solutions implemented is important when assessing the approach. It does not eliminate the need to seek counterexamples and alternative explanations.

Its cautionary principle is simple: No framework, including an autismological one, should become so self-evident that it prevents us from seeing what contradicts it.

15. Working definition.

We propose “Autismology” as an independent framework for understanding, explaining, transmitting and applying knowledge concerning autism in its own right, non-autism and their interactions. Its approach begins with direct observation and detailed analysis of situations, their mechanisms and their causal chains, suspending norm-centered assumptions as far as possible. It distinguishes autistic nature from its manifestations and the consequences of interactions with the environment, in order to derive explanatory principles and use them to prevent suffering, improve accessibility and resolve concrete difficulties.

This approach does not require rejecting existing knowledge once and for all; it refuses to make that knowledge the compulsory initial filter through which every situation must be understood.

Its central principle can be stated simply: Observe before classifying; understand before judging; do not reduce autism to its deviations from majority functioning; and use this understanding to genuinely improve situations.

The historical expression “science of autism” here signifies a serious, organized and transmissible pursuit of knowledge, not a claim to academic recognition or an obligation to continue research indefinitely.

Frequently asked questions.

Is Autismology already an officially recognized scientific discipline?

No. When we speak of the “science of autism,” we historically mean a serious endeavor to understand and teach autism, with a practical purpose as well. This does not imply that a new academic discipline has obtained universal institutional recognition. Its credibility can be assessed through the coherence of its explanations, their confrontation with facts and the usefulness of its applications, rather than through a mere declaration.

Did you invent the word “Autismology”?

We do not claim to have invented the word universally. It has other independent uses. However, this conception developed within Autistan's ecosystem has been publicly documented for several years, including the Autismology.org project as early as 2019. That history documents our proposal; it does not give us a monopoly on the term.

Who gives you the authority to define Autismology?

We do not claim universal authority over its definition. We propose a definition that we regard as particularly suited to studying and understanding autism. It is explained, argued and open to discussion. Others may propose different conceptions under the same name. Its merit must be examined through its coherence, method, results and ability to withstand critical scrutiny.

Does Autismology reject science or existing research?

No. It can use observations, data and findings from other disciplines. It merely refuses to treat their categories and interpretations as necessarily correct before examination. Existing research may be extremely useful while remaining open to different interpretations.

Does Autismology claim that everything said about autism before was false?

No. Its principle is not to replace one dogma with its opposite. It seeks to revisit phenomena, identify the reference standards used, and distinguish observations, interpretations and conclusions as carefully as possible. Some existing findings may be confirmed; others may be refined, reinterpreted or challenged.

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

No. On the contrary, it seeks a better understanding of their causes. Refusing automatically to equate autism with every observed difficulty does not deny those difficulties. It allows us to distinguish difficulties directly related to an individual's functioning from those produced or worsened by the environment, interactions or other factors.

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

No. It specifically refuses to select either form of functioning as superior in advance. An analysis may subsequently identify advantages or disadvantages of a particular mechanism in certain situations, but its conclusion must follow from the analysis, not precede it.

Why examine non-autism within an approach devoted to autism?

First, because the concept of autism has been largely built and defined in relation to non-autistic functioning. To understand a difference, deviation or difficulty defined by comparison, we also need to understand what it was compared with. We cannot seriously study A as a difference from B while leaving B completely outside the analysis. Second, many phenomena related to autism arise through interactions. Understanding a misunderstanding, social convention, implicit expectation or adaptation difficulty often requires examining both sides. Looking at non-autism thus clarifies both the reference standard from which autism was described and the interactions in which some difficulties occur.

Must someone be autistic to practice Autismology?

No. Autistic experience can provide particularly important knowledge, intuitions and perspectives. But being autistic does not automatically guarantee autismological analysis, just as being non-autistic does not prevent it. What defines the approach is primarily how it observes, understands and puts understanding into practice.

Does Autismology necessarily depend on the concept of Autistan?

No. There is a historical and conceptual connection because Autismology.org grew within the Autistan Diplomatic Organization's ecosystem. The Organization sets out its own understanding of the concept of Autistan, while recognizing everyone's freedom to interpret that concept in their own way. Nevertheless, the autismological approach can be understood, examined and used without adhering to the concept of Autistan.

Must one accept Naturality or the Natural Reference Framework to accept Autismology?

No. These concepts belong to possible theoretical developments. They can be examined, confirmed, modified or challenged. They are not prerequisites for the approach.

What does teaching “autism” and “non-autism” mean?

Teaching autism means transmitting a structured understanding of autistic functioning, not just a list of diagnostic criteria or difficulties. It can be addressed to non-autistic as well as autistic people themselves. Teaching autistic people some aspects of non-autism does not mean asking them to reject 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 certain non-autistic codes without having to become non-autistic. The goal is mutual understanding and accessibility, not assimilation.

How is Autismology different from Autism Studies?

Autism Studies is a general, interdisciplinary field encompassing works with varied methods, reference standards and objectives. Autismology, as proposed here, names a specific approach involving examination of the reference standard, decentering between autistic and non-autistic functioning, analysis of their interface, causal mechanisms and chains, and the connection between study, understanding and teaching. Autismological work can therefore fall within Autism Studies broadly understood, but not all Autism Studies work is necessarily autismological.

Must one master ontology, epistemology or an ecological paradigm to practice Autismology?

No. Such frameworks can offer vocabulary or points of comparison, but the approach does not depend on them. The essential task is to observe facts precisely, examine their mechanisms and seek causal relationships without letting a prior theory dictate the result. Autismology can develop its own language whenever doing so makes things clearer.

Is Autismology's vocation to conduct ever more scientific research?

Its primary vocation, as presented here, is to make an understanding of autism explainable, shareable and applicable. A mechanism can always be explored further, an explanation checked or a new situation examined, but that work should not become a permanent prerequisite for making concrete situations better.

How can the relevance of this conception be assessed?

By checking how closely its explanations match facts and their chronological sequence; whether they avoid confusing causes and consequences; whether they clarify different situations; and whether solutions based on them actually yield the expected improvements. Situations that do not fit the conception or suggest other causes must also be taken into account.

Can this definition of Autismology evolve?

Yes. A foundational text should specify principles clearly enough for the proposal to have meaning without making it unable to learn. Definitions, methods and theories can be refined as work proceeds, provided the changes are explicit, documented and consistent with the critical requirement on which Autismology rests.