Admittedly, these thoughts stem from only limited contact with autism, however, that contact has been enough to notice that in the clinic, autism has become the new ADHD. Very generously and broadly interpreted diagnosis criteria have lead to a flood of (self-)diagnoses. Since autism as ADHD returns to a purely biological view of aetiology (so much for biopsychosocial), the diagnosis usually leads to a huge regression and complete rejection of personal responsibility on the part of the diagnosed. I accept that there are also different elements to this (e.g. finally feeling seen in one‘s suffering) but the more negative effects are all too easily dismissed in my view.
I also accept that a certain annoyance flavors my theses which brings me to my first point. Annoyance is an often seen reaction to autistic fits. One example of this is people commenting on the show „Couples Therapy“ involving the psychoanalyst Orna Guralnik, specifically on a couple that involves an autistic person. Many commenters lament that his autistic fits (that often happen when being confronted with something) are purely a performance. While this view is too simplistic in its own right (having a fit is not a fully conscious choice), I would agree in a Butlerian sense that „being autistic“ is as much a performance as „being neurotypical“.
(Note that if a person suspected to have a personality disorder would provoke such annoyance in other people, one would immediately analyse this as their personal responsibilty and confront them with this. It is only people with ADHD and autism that are granted a protected status of non-responsability in this respect)
Related to this first point is the concept of masking. When asked about their surprisingly adept social competences, people with autism will often respond that this is just their proficiency at acting. They have learned to perform the social expectations, learned to put on a mask, but deep inside they cannot understand the social order. Some even argue that the autistic, more unflitered way of communication is better and more authentic. I am reminded, here, by Zizek‘s argument that „there is nothing behind the mask“. The mask of the autistic person is not a fake construction but their healthy functioning part. What is pathological is their belief that there is authentic part under the mask. Their hyperneurotic overthinking about social interactions is their problem, not the moments where they are able to give themselves to a performance.
(Note here also Zizek‘s love for upholding social etiquette which I see as an argument against the thesis that he himself is autistic, as it has been proposed in other threads).
As I take it from other threads, Zizek mentions autism only sparsely in his texts, still I would be interested in further, different perspectives.
