A new article from Toronto’s Embrace Autism provides a detailed overview of monotropism. Here’s a quick summary of the key points from the article:
Monotropism is a term coined by autistic researcher Dinah Murray to describe the intense, focused attention we autistics often give to our interests. It contrasts with polytropism, the more diffused or shallow attention of neurotypicals.
The "interest model" of monotropism relates to how autistic attention varies based on affect (enjoyment of an interest) and motivation (ease of maintaining attention). High affect and motivation equals greater engagement.
The author notes that autistics can experience challenges switching attention between interests, which can cause difficulties in social situations or school/work tasks requiring divided attention. I would say that if we don’t want to switch, why should we?
Factors like motivation, affect, and environment can impact the ability to maintain monotropic attention, aka flow. Interests can facilitate social connection with other autistics.
Differences in monotropic vs polytropic attention help explain communication challenges between autistics and neurotypicals. The "double empathy problem" suggests neurotypicals should accommodate autistic communication styles too.
As I read it, and I usually read the articles that they produce, I couldn’t help thinking … “why is autistic behaviour always pathologised?” It does, however, provide a succinct view of the issue and provide valuable vocabulary around the issue.
I assume you (sort of) meant your question about the pathologizing of autism to be rhetorical, yet I feel compelled to try to answer it anyway: As far as I can tell, weaponizing pathology is a go-to tactic used by dominant culture to define as "wrong" or "broken" any behavior, mannerisms, or interactional styles that aren't harmonious with dominant culture's constructed norms. Since Autistics are much less susceptible to socialization than neurotypicals, virtually everything about us is most likely to be perceived by neurotypicals as "wrong" or "broken." That is why I believe that one of the necessary missions of Social Justice writ large must be to shine a spotlight on evidence/analysis that reveals how much of what we (as a society) assume to be "normal" and "healthy" is really just construct that serves the purposes or preferences of the privileged.
I assume you (sort of) meant your question about the pathologizing of autism to be rhetorical, yet I feel compelled to try to answer it anyway: As far as I can tell, weaponizing pathology is a go-to tactic used by dominant culture to define as "wrong" or "broken" any behavior, mannerisms, or interactional styles that aren't harmonious with dominant culture's constructed norms. Since Autistics are much less susceptible to socialization than neurotypicals, virtually everything about us is most likely to be perceived by neurotypicals as "wrong" or "broken." That is why I believe that one of the necessary missions of Social Justice writ large must be to shine a spotlight on evidence/analysis that reveals how much of what we (as a society) assume to be "normal" and "healthy" is really just construct that serves the purposes or preferences of the privileged.
💯agree
Definitely! Thank you for adding that!
Thank you for the links-very enlightening 👍🏻👍🏻