Flow for Whom? Challenging the Economic Motives Behind Autistic Flow Research
As a older non-verbal autistic person, I’ve spent over five decades navigating the world through and in my autistic body and system. These experiences have been central to my way of being, offering both challenges and profound moments of connection and creativity. However, recent research on autistic flow theory prompts me, as usual, to critically examine how autistic experiences are framed and potentially co-opted.
The paper in question appears to use a medical model approach, focusing on individual differences rather than societal barriers. In contrast, the Social Model of Disability argues that disability stems from society’s failure to accommodate diverse needs, not from individual impairments. Similarly, the Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF) challenges traditional views of mental distress, emphasising how power imbalances and societal threats shape our experiences.
Through these lenses, we’ll look at the research paper. Whilst it offers potential insights into autistic experiences, we must question whether it truly serves autistic people or risks adapting us to capitalist norms. This exploration will prioritise autistic authenticity and well-being over economic integration, challenging narratives that value us primarily for our productive potential.
Unpacking Autistic Flow Theory: Authenticity vs. Adaptation
Autistic flow theory presents a complex landscape of both opportunity and risk for the autistic community. On one hand, it recognises the unique expertise that autistic individuals possess in experiencing and navigating flow states. As someone who has lived with these experiences for decades, I can attest to the profound impact they have on our lives. However, we must be vigilant against the potential exploitation of these traits solely for productivity gains in a capitalist system that often devalues our inherent worth.
The recognition of qualitative differences in autistic flow experiences could be a celebration of neurodiversity, acknowledging the rich tapestry of autistic being. Yet, there’s a concerning trend towards quantifying and standardising these experiences, potentially stripping them of their individual meaning and reducing them to metrics for comparison or optimisation. This push towards measurement and standardisation risks commodifying our lived experiences, turning deeply personal states into data points for research or, worse, tools for increasing economic output.
The Maori concept of Takiwātanga, used to describe autism, offers a refreshing perspective that recognises flow states as central to the autistic experience. Takiwātanga, meaning “in his/her own time and space,” beautifully captures the essence of autistic flow without attempting to constrain or exploit it. This cultural understanding stands in stark contrast to Western attempts to categorise and control autistic experiences, reminding us of the importance of diverse cultural perspectives in autism research and understanding.
When discussing flow state transitions, we must carefully distinguish between genuine support for autistic well-being and attempts to control or “normalize” our experiences. Whilst identifying barriers to our well-being is crucial, we should be wary of narratives that frame autistic experiences as problems to be fixed or adapted to fit neurotypical expectations. True support involves creating environments that accommodate our needs and allow us to thrive as we are, not changing us to fit into pre-existing structures.
The concept of “unrealised autistic potential” in autistic individuals is particularly problematic when viewed through a capitalist lens. Too often, our worth is measured by our ability to contribute to economic systems that may be fundamentally at odds with our way of being. We need to critically examine who benefits from this framing of ‘potential.’ Instead of focusing on how we can be molded to fit societal expectations of productivity, we should be redefining potential in terms of autistic joy, self-actualisation, and the unique contributions we make to the world simply by being our authentic selves.
As we unpack autistic flow theory, we must remain vigilant against the subtle ways in which our experiences can be co-opted or misrepresented. Whilst research into autistic experiences is valuable, it must be conducted with and for autistic individuals, prioritising our well-being and authenticity over adaptability to neurotypical norms. By centering autistic voices and perspectives, we can ensure that discussions of flow states and other aspects of autistic experience truly serve our community, rather than bending us to fit a mold that was never designed for us in the first place.
Implications: Supporting Authenticity vs. Enforcing Conformity
The implications of autistic flow theory extend far beyond academic discourse, challenging us to fundamentally reframe autism narratives and reshape our environments. As the study suggests, there is “unrealised autistic potential yet to be discovered.” However, we must critically examine what we mean by ‘potential.’ Rather than focusing on productivity-driven definitions of autistic worth, we need to center autistic joy, creativity, and self-defined success. This shift requires a radical reimagining of how we view and support autistic individuals across various life domains.
In educational settings, we must challenge the entrenched school-to-work pipeline that often prioritises employability over personal growth and fulfillment. The authors note that “flow has important implications for learning and development,” but we should question whether this learning should be primarily directed towards economic integration. Instead, education should foster environments where autistic individuals can explore their interests deeply, embracing the “monotropic focus” that often characterises autistic attention patterns, without the pressure to conform to neurotypical expectations or timelines.
Workplace environments present another crucial area for reform. The study suggests that “companies which have adopted an inclusive approach to autism have specifically altered their workplace environments to enable autistic skills to flourish.” However, we must go beyond mere adaptation to existing structures and advocate for radical workplace redesigns led by autistic individuals themselves. This approach would not only accommodate autistic needs but celebrate and leverage autistic strengths in ways that benefit both the individuals and the broader community.
In social contexts, we must resist the pervasive pressure to conform to neurotypical social norms. The study acknowledges the potential for “intersubjective flow” between autistic individuals, highlighting the richness of autistic sociality when freed from neurotypical expectations. We need to create and protect spaces that celebrate these unique forms of interaction, allowing autistic individuals to connect and communicate in ways that feel natural and fulfilling to them.
Ultimately, truly enabling environments across educational, workplace, and social settings should not aim to make autistic individuals more ‘productive’ or ‘normal,’ but rather to support their authentic selves. This approach aligns with the study's call for “non-pathologising approaches for future research,” but takes it further by emphasising that the goal should be autistic thriving, not just integration into existing societal structures.
Reclaiming the Research Agenda
To truly serve the autistic community, we must reclaim the research agenda, shifting focus from studies that risk reinforcing capitalist / ableist norms to those that prioritise genuine autistic well-being. Whilst Heasman et al. (2024) include autistic co-authors, indicating some level of autistic involvement, it’s unclear whether autistic individuals initiated or chose this specific topic of study. This ambiguity highlights the need for more transparent, autistic-led participatory action research that centers our lived experiences and priorities.
Autistic-led participatory action research on genuine well-being would delve into what truly matters to autistic individuals, beyond societal expectations of productivity or conformity. This approach aligns with the authors’ call for “a more holistic approach to understand flow,” but would extend further to examine how flow states and other autistic experiences contribute to our overall quality of life, as defined by us. Such research could explore diverse autistic experiences of fulfillment, connection, and self-actualisation, providing a counter-narrative to deficit-focused models of autism.
Simultaneously, we need to develop tools and frameworks to protect against the co-option of autistic experiences for capitalist ends. This could involve creating ethical guidelines for autism research that prioritise autistic benefits over market potential, and establishing autistic-led review boards to evaluate research proposals and methodologies. These measures would help ensure that studies like this one truly serve autistic interests rather than inadvertently reinforcing problematic societal structures.
Finally, we should investigate how resistance to capitalist norms impacts autistic quality of life. This research could explore alternative models of education, work, and social interaction that align more closely with autistic ways of being. It might examine the benefits of embracing “autistic inertia” rather than forcing transitions, or investigate how autistic individuals thrive in environments that don’t prioritise conventional productivity metrics. By documenting the positive outcomes of resisting capitalist / ableist pressures, we can build a strong case for societal changes that support authentic autistic living.
Final thoughts …
In reflecting on the tension between autistic authenticity and societal pressures, it’s clear that current research, including the study we’ve been discussing today, often inadvertently reinforces capitalist norms rather than genuinely supporting autistic well-being. Whilst Heasman et al. (2024) aim to offer a “non-pathologising conceptual approach,” their focus on “unrealised autistic potential” and creating “enabling environments” risks being co-opted to serve economic interests rather than autistic needs.
It’s telling that the supports and interventions most readily available to autistic individuals are those that capitalism can profit from – assistive technologies, and etc. What’s glaringly absent is research into ways to simply let autistic people be themselves, and how to support that authentic existence. This gap in research and support reflects a broader societal failure to value autistic experiences outside of their potential economic contributions.
As we move forward, it’s crucial that we prioritise autistic well-being over economic integration. This means centering autistic voices in research, policy-making, and the design of support systems. It means questioning the underlying assumptions of studies that seek to understand autistic experiences, ensuring they serve autistic interests rather than capitalist agendas. Most importantly, it means creating a society that values autistic individuals for who they are, not for what they can produce.
The call to action is clear: we must resist the commodification of autistic experiences and fight for a world that embraces neurodiversity in its truest sense. Only then can we hope to create a society where autistic individuals can thrive on their own terms, free from the pressure to conform to neurotypical standards of success and productivity.