Beyond Inclusion: Using the Power Threat Meaning Framework to Reframe Autism in Monopoly Capitalism
In recent years, the landscape of autism advocacy has undergone a significant transformation. Across social media platforms and public forums, autistic voices have become increasingly prominent, demanding support, rights and genuine inclusion. Despite this surge in visibility, the lived experiences of autistic individuals remain largely unchanged. The prevailing approaches, rooted in medical (majority) and social (minority) models of disability, have proven insufficient in addressing the complex realities faced by the autistic community. These models, whilst valuable in their own right, fail to fully capture the nuanced interplay of societal power structures, systemic threats and individual meaning-making that shape autistic experiences. As we grapple with these limitations, a more comprehensive framework is needed—one that can adequately address the multifaceted challenges faced by autistic individuals in a world dominated by monopoly capitalism and neurotypical norms. It is time to consider a paradigm shift in how we conceptualise and approach autism advocacy.
The Power Threat Meaning Framework: An Overview
The Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF), developed by the British Psychological Society, offers a refreshing alternative to traditional models of understanding human distress and behaviour. Unlike the medical model, which underpins much of current autism research and frames autism as a disorder to be diagnosed and treated, the PTMF eschews pathologising labels. It instead explores how power dynamics, threats to our wellbeing, and the meanings we construct from our experiences shape our responses to life’s challenges. This approach stands in stark contrast to the social model as well, which, whilst valuable in framing much of contemporary autism advocacy, often falls short in addressing the complex interplay between societal structures and individual experiences.
The PTMF posits that our behaviours and emotional responses are fundamentally shaped by four interrelated aspects: the operation of power, the threat that misuse of power may pose to us, the meaning we make of these experiences, and our learned threat responses. This nuanced perspective allows for a more comprehensive understanding of autistic experiences than either the medical or social model alone. Whilst the medical model continues to dominate research and provides a convenient framework for ‘autism moms’ pushing for ‘cures’ or ‘intensive interventions,’ and the social model informs much of autistic self-advocacy, the PTMF offers a more holistic approach that acknowledges both individual and systemic factors. By reframing autism through this lens, we open new avenues for understanding, support, and advocacy that move beyond the limitations of current paradigms.
The US Context: Monopoly Capitalism and Autism
Here in the United States, the pervasive narrative of monopoly capitalism’s superiority casts a long shadow over autism discourse, shaping societal attitudes and approaches to neurodiversity in profound ways. This dominant ideology, largely unchallenged due to the conspicuous absence of comprehensive economic and political education in both primary and tertiary curricula, creates a populace largely unaware of alternative systems that might better support a diverse society. The result is a uniquely American brand of autism ‘support’ that often serves to reinforce existing power structures rather than challenge them.
The capitalist ethos has led to a troubling commodification of autism support services. A veritable industry has sprung up around ‘teaching’ autistic individuals to conform to neurotypical norms, with an array of classes, coaches, and therapies promising to help autistic people ‘fit in.’ This approach not only places the onus of change squarely on autistic shoulders but also creates a lucrative market that profits from perpetuating the notion of autism as a condition to be ‘fixed.’ The financial motivations underpinning these services often overshadow genuine efforts to foster understanding and acceptance of neurodiversity.
In this context, even the social model of disability, which has been instrumental in advancing disability rights in many spheres, finds itself limited. Whilst it rightly identifies societal barriers as the primary source of disability, it struggles to fully account for the complex power dynamics at play in a monopoly capitalist system. The social model’s emphasis on removing barriers, whilst valuable, can be co-opted within this system to justify ‘inclusion’ efforts that paradoxically reinforce harmful power structures. For instance, workplace inclusion initiatives may focus on helping autistic employees adapt to neurotypical norms rather than fundamentally changing the workplace to accommodate diverse neurotypes.
Moreover, the lack of exposure to alternative economic and social systems leaves many Americans, autistic and neurotypical alike, ill-equipped to envision and advocate for more supportive societal structures. The possibility of matristic or other systems that might better accommodate neurodiversity remains largely unexplored in mainstream discourse. This knowledge gap significantly hampers efforts to create meaningful change, as the very framework within which solutions are sought is constrained by the dominant capitalist paradigm.
In this landscape, a more comprehensive framework is sorely needed—one that can articulate the subtle yet powerful ways in which monopoly capitalism shapes the autistic experience and limits the imagination of possible alternatives. It is here that the PTMF offers valuable insights, providing a lens through which to examine and challenge the status quo.
PTMF Applied to Autism in the US
Applying the PTMF to autism in the United States reveals a complex web of power dynamics, systemic threats, and individual responses that shape the autistic experience. This framework provides a nuanced understanding of the challenges faced by autistic individuals in a society dominated by monopoly capitalism and neurotypical norms.
Power structures profoundly affect autistic individuals in myriad ways. The medical establishment wields significant influence, defining autism through a pathological lens and often prioritising interventions aimed at ‘normalising’ autistic behaviour. Educational institutions, despite claims of inclusion, frequently operate on neurotypical assumptions, marginalising autistic ways of learning and being. The corporate world, with its emphasis on ‘soft skills’ and social networking, creates barriers for many autistic individuals seeking meaningful employment. Moreover, the burgeoning industry of ‘autism coaches’ and ‘ADHD coaches’ serves to reinforce these power structures, positioning neurotypical behaviour as the gold standard and autistic differences as deficits to be overcome. This phenomenon not only perpetuates a problematic narrative but also creates a caste system where ‘success’ is measured by how well an autistic person can mask their natural traits.
The systemic threats to autistic well-being are numerous and often insidious. The constant pressure to conform to neurotypical norms threatens autistic individuals’ sense of self and authenticity. The lack of appropriate support services, particularly for adults, leaves many autistic individuals vulnerable to mental health challenges, unemployment, and social isolation. The prevailing narrative that frames autism as a burden or tragedy threatens autistic individuals’ self-esteem and societal acceptance. Furthermore, the commodification of autism ‘support’ poses a threat to genuine understanding and accommodation, as it often prioritises profit over true inclusivity.
The meanings autistic individuals construct from these experiences are deeply personal yet often share common themes. Many autistic people interpret their difficulties as personal failings rather than the result of an unaccommodating society, internalising the negative narratives perpetuated by the dominant culture. Some may view their autism as a fundamental part of their identity, whilst others, influenced by societal pressures, may see it as a hindrance to be overcome. The constant navigation of a world not designed for them can lead to a sense of alienation, with many autistic individuals feeling like perpetual outsiders in their own society.
Threat responses among autistic individuals are varied and complex. Masking, or camouflaging autistic traits, is a common coping mechanism, albeit one that often comes at a significant psychological cost. Some autistic individuals may withdraw from social situations to avoid the stress of navigating neurotypical expectations. Others might hyperfocus on special interests as a form of escape or self-regulation. Burnout is a frequent occurrence, as the cumulative stress of constantly adapting to a neurotypical world takes its toll. Some autistic individuals channel their experiences into advocacy, pushing for greater understanding and acceptance of neurodiversity. However, this advocacy itself can be a double-edged sword, exposing individuals to further scrutiny and potential backlash.
The proliferation of ‘autism coaches’ and similar services, whilst often well-intentioned, can inadvertently reinforce harmful power dynamics. These services, by focusing on teaching autistic individuals to mimic neurotypical behaviour, implicitly validate the idea that autistic ways of being are inherently inferior. This approach not only places an unfair burden on autistic individuals but also fails to challenge the societal structures that create barriers in the first place.
In this context, the PTMF offers a valuable tool for reframing the autistic experience. By explicitly acknowledging the power structures at play, the threats they pose, and the meanings constructed in response, this framework allows for a more holistic understanding of autism. It shifts the focus from individual ‘deficits’ to the broader societal contexts that shape autistic experiences, paving the way for more meaningful and systemic changes in how autism is understood and supported in the United States.
Personal Perspective: An Autistic Educator’s View
As an autistic gestalt processor and trans woman navigating the world of special education in Los Angeles, my journey has been fraught with contradictions and challenges that starkly illustrate the limitations of current approaches to autism. My path to becoming a special education teacher, which should have been an empowering experience, instead often felt like a series of microaggressions against my very being.
The irony of having my lived experience as an autistic individual explained to me through the lens of tragedy was not lost on me as I pursued my Masters in Education at a prestigious private institution. The medical model, deeply entrenched in the curriculum, framed autism as a disorder to be managed rather than a different way of experiencing the world. When I attempted to offer insights from my personal experience, I was often silenced, told that these sessions were monologues and that, as a mere candidate, I couldn't possibly know more than my instructors. The implicit message was clear: your lived experience is less valuable than our textbook knowledge (this experience prompted my writing of No Place for Autism? last year).
This dismissive attitude extended beyond my formal education into my professional life. The teacher preparation programme and my employer’s onboarding process continued to reinforce the medical model, creating a cognitive dissonance between my personal understanding of autism and the professional expectations placed upon me. The assumption that autistic individuals like myself wouldn't be present in these spaces as peers was particularly galling, especially in the context of an Inclusion school that purportedly values diversity.
Professional development sessions have been equally problematic. The language used and the approaches discussed often implicitly exclude the possibility that an autistic individual might be present as a colleague rather than a subject of discussion. This not only undermines my professional standing but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes about the capabilities of autistic individuals.
As a special education teacher, I find myself in the unique position of being both an insider and an outsider. I intimately understand the challenges faced by my autistic students, yet I’m expected to operate within a system that often fails to recognise the value of neurodiversity. This tension between my personal experiences and professional expectations has been a source of ongoing stress and frustration.
However, this position also affords me a unique perspective on the failings of current approaches to autism education and support. I’ve witnessed firsthand how the medical model’s dominance can stifle the potential of autistic students and educators alike, reinforcing societal power structures that marginalise neurodivergent individuals. My experiences underscore the urgent need for a paradigm shift in how we approach autism in educational settings and beyond.
Cultural Contrasts: UK vs. US
The stark differences in approaching autism between the United Kingdom and the United States reflect broader cultural and systemic divergences. The UK, having birthed the PTMF, demonstrates a more nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between societal structures and individual experiences. This approach is beginning to influence not only the UK’s domestic policies but also those of its former colonies, potentially creating a more globally consistent perspective outside the US.
In the UK, as the diagnostic backlog increases unchecked, there’s a growing recognition of the limitations of purely medical or social models of autism. The PTMF’s emphasis on power dynamics, threats, and meaning-making has begun to permeate discussions around autism support and policy. This can lead to more holistic approaches that consider the broader societal context in which autistic individuals operate.
Conversely, introducing PTMF concepts in the United States faces significant challenges. The deeply entrenched medical model, coupled with the profit-driven healthcare system, creates resistance to frameworks that challenge the status quo. The US’s individualistic culture often struggles with the PTMF’s emphasis on systemic factors, preferring to focus on personal responsibility and ‘overcoming’ challenges.
Moreover, the lack of a unified national healthcare system in the US means that approaches to autism support vary widely, making it difficult to implement consistent, PTMF-informed policies. The influence of powerful lobbying groups, often aligned with pharmaceutical or behavioural intervention interests, further complicates efforts to introduce alternative frameworks.
The contrast is particularly evident in educational settings. While UK schools are increasingly adopting neurodiversity-affirming practices influenced by frameworks like the PTMF, US schools often remain wedded to behavioural approaches rooted in the medical model (think PBIS). This divergence reflects not just different understandings of autism, but fundamentally different approaches to education and social support.
Bridging this gap requires not just introducing PTMF concepts, but fundamentally challenging the cultural and economic assumptions that underpin the US approach to autism. It’s a formidable task, but one that offers the potential for a more nuanced, supportive environment for autistic individuals on both sides of the Atlantic.
PTMF as a Tool for Advocacy and Change
The PTMF offers a potent tool for challenging the status quo and reshaping autism support and inclusion efforts. By reframing autism through the lens of power dynamics, threats, and meaning-making, the PTMF provides a robust foundation for advocacy that goes beyond the limitations of current approaches.
One key strategy is to use the PTMF to highlight the systemic nature of challenges faced by autistic individuals. Rather than focusing solely on individual ‘deficits’ or societal barriers, advocates can articulate how power structures create and maintain these challenges. This approach can be particularly effective in policy discussions, shifting the focus from ‘fixing’ autistic individuals to addressing the underlying systems that marginalise them.
The PTMF also offers a framework for critiquing current support services. By examining how these services may reinforce harmful power dynamics or fail to address genuine threats to autistic well-being, advocates can push for more holistic, person-centred approaches. This could lead to a reimagining of autism support that prioritises autistic perspectives and experiences.
In education, the PTMF can be used to advocate for changes in teacher training and classroom practices. By emphasising the importance of understanding the meanings autistic students construct from their experiences, educators can be encouraged to move beyond behavioural management to more empathetic, supportive approaches.
The framework’s emphasis on threat responses provides a powerful tool for destigmatising autistic behaviours. By reframing these as understandable responses to systemic threats, advocates can challenge negative stereotypes and promote greater acceptance of neurodiversity.
Perhaps most importantly, the PTMF can empower autistic individuals in their self-advocacy efforts. By providing a language to articulate their experiences within broader societal contexts, it can help autistic people challenge internalised negative narratives and advocate for their needs more effectively.
Ultimately, the PTMF holds the potential to reshape the entire conversation around autism, moving from a deficit-based model to one that recognises the complex interplay of societal factors and individual experiences. This shift could pave the way for more inclusive, supportive environments that value neurodiversity and empower autistic individuals to thrive on their own terms.
Intersectionality and PTMF
The PTMF’s versatility shines particularly bright when addressing intersectional experiences, such as those of autistic individuals who are also transgender. My own journey as an autistic, trans woman diagnosed initially under DSM-IV with multiple ‘disorders,’ later consolidated into ASD under DSM-V, and coming out as trans at 52, exemplifies the complexity of intersectional identities.
The PTMF allows for a nuanced exploration of how different aspects of identity interact with societal power structures. For instance, being both autistic and trans exposes one to compounded marginalisation, with each identity amplifying the challenges posed by the other. The framework helps articulate how the threats faced by autistic individuals, such as sensory overload or communication difficulties, may be exacerbated by the challenges of navigating gender identity in a cisnormative society.
Moreover, the PTMF’s emphasis on meaning-making is crucial in understanding intersectional experiences. The way an autistic, trans individual interprets their experiences may differ significantly from those who share only one or neither of these identities. This framework allows for a more holistic understanding of how multiple marginalised identities shape one’s worldview and responses to societal pressures.
The PTMF also highlights how different aspects of identity may influence threat responses. Coping mechanisms developed in response to autistic experiences may interact with those related to gender identity, creating unique patterns of behaviour that are often misunderstood or pathologised by traditional diagnostic frameworks.
By considering intersectional experiences through the PTMF lens, we can develop more comprehensive, personalised approaches to support and advocacy. This perspective is crucial in creating truly inclusive environments that recognise and value the full spectrum of human diversity, rather than addressing different aspects of identity in isolation.
Critiques and Challenges
Whilst the PTMF offers a compelling approach to understanding autism, it faces significant challenges, particularly in the United States. A primary hurdle is the entrenched influence of ‘autism parents’ and their well-funded advocacy groups, who dominate the official discourse on autism. These groups, often wielding considerable lobbying power in Congress, have a vested interest in maintaining the current paradigm, particularly as it relates to the allocation of resources from the Autism CARES Act.
Critics argue that the PTMF, with its emphasis on societal power structures and systemic threats, may downplay the very real challenges faced by some autistic individuals and their families. There’s a fear that shifting away from a medical model could lead to reduced access to necessary supports and services (giving rise to the ‘profound autism’ movement).
Scepticism also arises from the framework’s perceived complexity. In a culture that often favours simple, individualised solutions, the PTMF’s nuanced approach can be seen as overly academic or impractical for real-world application.
Moreover, the framework’s challenge to existing power structures may be met with resistance from professionals and institutions that have built their careers and business models around current approaches to autism.
Addressing these critiques requires careful communication of the PTMF’s potential benefits, demonstrating how it can complement rather than replace existing supports. It also necessitates engaging with diverse stakeholders, including autistic individuals, families, and professionals, to ensure the framework’s application is practical and responsive to varied needs.
Ultimately, overcoming resistance to the PTMF in autism discourse will require a paradigm shift in how society views not just autism, but neurodiversity as a whole. This is no small task, but the potential benefits make it a challenge worth undertaking.
Final thoughts …
As we’ve explored throughout this article, the Power Threat Meaning Framework offers a transformative lens through which to view autism, challenging the dominant narratives perpetuated by monopoly capitalism and the medical model. The PTMF’s emphasis on power dynamics, systemic threats, and individual meaning-making provides a more nuanced and holistic understanding of autistic experiences than traditional approaches allow.
We’ve seen how the commodification of autism ‘support’ in the United States, driven by a capitalist ethos and reinforced by the lobbying efforts of ‘autism moms,’ often serves to perpetuate harmful power structures rather than genuinely support autistic individuals. The limitations of both the medical and social models in fully addressing these complex dynamics highlight the urgent need for new approaches to autism advocacy and support.
The PTMF offers a promising path forward. By reframing autism through this lens, we open up new possibilities for research, policy, and practice. Future research should explore how the PTMF can be applied to develop more effective, person-centred support services that acknowledge the systemic nature of challenges faced by autistic individuals. We need studies that examine how power structures in education, healthcare, and employment impact autistic well-being, and how these can be challenged and reformed.
Moreover, the intersectional application of the PTMF to autism and other identities, such as gender, race, and class, presents a rich area for further investigation. Understanding how these various aspects of identity interact within societal power structures is crucial for developing truly inclusive approaches to autism support.
As we move forward, it’s vital that autistic voices are centred in this paradigm shift. The application of the PTMF to autism must be guided by autistic individuals’ lived experiences and insights, ensuring that new approaches genuinely serve the autistic community's needs and aspirations.
To this end, I call upon readers – whether you're autistic, a family member, a professional, or simply interested in social justice – to engage with the concepts of the PTMF. Challenge the dominant narratives around autism in your communities. Advocate for policies and practices that acknowledge the systemic nature of challenges faced by autistic individuals. Support autistic-led initiatives that seek to apply these concepts in practical ways.
The path to a more just and inclusive society for autistic individuals is not an easy one, but it is necessary. By embracing the insights offered by the Power Threat Meaning Framework, we can begin to dismantle the harmful power structures that marginalise autistic people and work towards a world that truly values neurodiversity. The time for this paradigm shift is now – let us move forward together, with empathy, understanding, and a commitment to genuine inclusion.