Autism in International Relations: A critical assessment of International Relations’ autism metaphors
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
| Author | Stephen Michael Christian |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066117698030 |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117698030
European Journal of
International Relations
2018, Vol. 24(2) 464 –488
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066117698030
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
Autism in International
Relations: A critical assessment
of International Relations’
autism metaphors
Stephen Michael Christian
University of Utah, USA
Abstract
In this article, I explain how International Relations scholarship relates to ableism. Ableism
is a sociopolitical system of narratives, institutions, and actions collectively reinforcing
an ideology that benefits persons deemed able-bodied, able-minded, and normal by
others, and devalues, limits, and discriminates against those deemed physically and/or
mentally disabled and abnormal. International Relations scholars have been quick to
utilize disability metaphors as rhetorical support for their arguments and analyses. This
article discusses how metaphors in general — and disability metaphors in particular —
get their meaning from various other discourses and narratives. International Relations
scholars, in the case of disability metaphors, often draw from discourses and narratives
that perpetuate ableism. I demonstrate how disability metaphors can be ableist by
researching how several International Relations foreign policy analysts and theorists have
applied autism metaphors. I argue that International Relations’ uses of autism metaphors
are ableist insomuch as they shape or reinforce understandings of autism that often
oversimplify, overgeneralize, or otherwise misrepresent autism and Autistic people in
ways that portray autism negatively. In the conclusion, I reflect on the importance of a
disability studies program in International Relations and the broad set of topics that such
a program should pursue.
Keywords
ableism, autism, disability, international relations, neurodiversity, rhetoric
Corresponding author:
Stephen Michael Christian, University of Utah, 332 S 1400 E, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA.
Email: s.m.christian@utah.edu
698030EJT0010.1177/1354066117698030European Journal of International RelationsChristian
research-article2017
Article
Christian 465
Introduction
This article’s goal is to help readers understand the International Relations (IR) disci-
pline’s relationship with ableism. Ableism is a sociopolitical system of narratives, insti-
tutions, and actions collectively reinforcing an ideology that benefits persons deemed
able-bodied, able-minded, and normal by others, and devalues, limits, and discriminates
against those deemed physically and/or mentally disabled and abnormal. This article
explores how scholars use disability metaphors — often seemingly without self-
conscious reflection about the socially constructed meanings embedded in these meta-
phors — to make sense of international politics. Such use spans from how international
actors have been “crippled” by war, to how states suffer from various “pathologies” that
warp their perception of the international system, and to how arrogant world leaders are
“blind” to the complications of reality or “deaf” to naysayers’ warnings. With the preva-
lence of disability metaphors throughout IR, it is puzzling that there is not a larger disa-
bility studies program — scholarship that critically challenges widely held perceptions
and assumptions about disability in order to empower disabled peoples — for studying
these metaphors. Such a program could raise more self-awareness about IR scholars’
place in their societies and how the language they use can obscure the experiences and
realities of disabilities. Disability studies could uncover the misassumptions that IR
scholars make about international politics because of ableist narratives. Furthermore,
this article supports claims that IR scholars should pay attention to how the metaphors
they use shape how people perceive international politics. Problematic uses of metaphors
can have deleterious consequences, not only by perpetuating harmful ways of thinking
about others, but also by affecting how IR scholars think about the world. Metaphors
may be an inescapable part of language, but scholars should be aware of when their
metaphors reinforce, rather than subvert, inhibitions of critical thinking about interna-
tional affairs.
To demonstrate the importance of studying disability metaphors, I focus on IR schol-
ars’ widespread use of autism metaphors. A discourse that constructs autism pathologi-
cally has structured much popular knowledge about autism. Disability scholars, however,
criticize this discourse and argue for alternatives that are more accepting of Autistic
people. While there is a wealth of valuable and critical research on autism from disability
studies, there has not been any endeavor to analyze how autism is used as a narrative
device in IR literature. This article answers some simple but important questions: how
and why is autism represented in IR literature in the way that it is, and how might such
representations reinforce ableist narratives of Autistic people? What is perhaps the most
shocking aspect about autism metaphors is how several prominent IR scholars have used
autism as a narrative device to support their ideas without considering the scientifically
and politically contestable meanings of autism metaphors and the problematic conse-
quences of using them.1
I argue that IR’s autism metaphors are ableist because they shape or reinforce under-
standings of autism that often oversimplify, overgeneralize, or otherwise negatively mis-
represent autism and Autistic people. In researching the use of autism metaphors, two
patterns in the use of these metaphors emerged that support this argument. First, IR schol-
ars do frequently stereotype autism; this article focuses especially on the autism-as-disease
To continue reading
Request your trial