From Stigma to Science and Support: Anthropology’s Grinker Authors New Autism Narrative

Over the past several years, George Washington University Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs Roy Richard Grinker has grown used to students-whether privately after class or raising their hands among their peers-telling him they identify as being on the autism spectrum.

And the remarkable part about their revelations, he said, is that they no longer seem remarkable at all.

"How did we get to this place-this good and amazing place-where students can feel comfortable about discussing their various challenges without any fear of being judged?" he said. "Where a student can come to a professor and say 'I have autism' and feel comfortable with that? That is an extraordinary achievement."

That shift-away from stigma and toward an era of support and scientific understanding-is at the heart of Grinker's work and his life.

As an anthropologist, he researches and teaches the cross-cultural history of mental health. As an author, he's charted the evolving attitudes toward mental illness in books such as "Unstrange Minds: Remapping the World of Autism" (Basic Books, 2008) and "Nobody's Normal: How Culture Created the Stigma of Mental Illness" (W.W. Norton, 2021).

And as a father, he's followed his daughter Isabel's own autism journey. Diagnosed in 1994, Isabel, now 33, is often featured in Grinker's work. In books, articles and lectures, he's celebrated the dimensions of her character-from her sense of humor and her jigsaw puzzle mastery to her passionate care for animals.

"We are at a moment when we can see that autism isn't just about challenges," Grinker said. "It's also about possibilities."

Recent autism headlines have tended toward sensationalism over nuance. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for example, has supported debunked vaccine myths. At a press conference, President Donald Trump promoted an unproven Tylenol-autism link.

In a newly published "New York Times" editorial, Grinker not only skewers spurious science. He also frames an autism landscape that rejects easy answers to complex neurological questions. At the same time, he spotlights a record of accomplishments that includes combatting stigma and advancing sweeping research strides.

"Science has not failed," Grinker emphasized. "One thing that's often missed when you see autism in political discourse is the extraordinary growth of science and therapies. We have so much more knowledge about it and in so many different areas. When we talk about autism as a crisis, we sometimes forget how far we've come."

In an interview with GW Today, Grinker reflected on the changing cultural conversation around autism and the progress he's seen across the world, inside his classroom and in his own home.

Q: Your recent "Times" op-ed comes on the heels of President Trump calling autism a "horrible crisis." Why did you feel now was the time to write this article?

A: Well, despite the fact that the op-ed was published at this particular moment, I've been working on it for a long time. I felt that there was a need for a substantial commentary that would put into words how we got to this point-where autism has become a household word, where the diagnosis has become increasingly used and where autism is so much less stigmatizing than it used to be.

As a researcher, I'm interested in stigma and how eliminating stigma makes things better. One of the things that makes things worse is invisibility. And something that makes things better is visibility.

We are talking about autism more and more. There are autism-friendly concerts and autism-friendly movie nights. Public knowledge about autism has increased dramatically. We are making it possible for people with autism to have more social support and more understanding-not just in their families, but in society at large, and in countries throughout the world.

Q: You write about your daughter Isabel in the article. Why was it important to share your personal story?

A: In the media coverage I've seen of autism, there's usually a focus on numbers and rates. But we can sometimes lose sight of the individual and how unique every individual is.

It is hard to talk about one person because you don't want to generalize to anybody else. But what I can say is that this one person whom I know very well, and her experiences reflect some general patterns-even if there's no one else in the world exactly like her or like anybody else's child.

I also have found over the years that the more we talk with Isabel about autism, the more she starts to appreciate that not only do many of her challenges come from this, but also many of her strengths. And she likes it when I write about her. It makes her feel important and special.

Q: As a cultural anthropologist, how do you view the current autism landscape? Are we having productive conversations?

A: As an anthropologist, I will say that we are at a moment when autism is being defined less by deficits and more by trying to identify what the challenges and the possibilities are. And that is helping people lead meaningful lives.

I'd say one aspect of the current landscape is turning more attention to adults, a change from the long-standing focus on children. When you see adults who are diagnosed for the first time with autism at age 40 or 50 or 60, you have to ask yourself why? They aren't getting, say, school services. But it helps them have a non-stigmatizing framework to make sense of themselves. Any kind of classification or label is only good if it's useful-whether that's to drive a service for a child in school or to make a 50-year-old person say, "Now I understand why I've always felt awkward or had difficulty understanding people's social communication."

Q: Is it very different to hear an autism diagnosis now than it was when you heard your daughter's in the '90s?

A: When my daughter was young, autism was such a rarely diagnosed condition. Today, when you hear a diagnosis, you have company. There are a lot of other people who have heard that diagnosis and there's a lot of support and understanding out there. If you use the word "autism" today, people know what you mean-or at least they know the questions to ask.

Q: In your op-ed, you write, "The neurobiology is too complex for easy explanations." What's the mistake in seeking immediate answers?

A: Brains are really, really complicated. Clinicians have a very tough time treating neurological and neurodegenerative diseases because the neurological architecture is too complex.

We know that more than 100 genes are associated with autism, and they interact with one another and with each individual's environments and experiences. If [a cure or cause were] a simple thing, people would have discovered it a long time ago. Thousands and thousands of people are working on it. But it's not something you're going to find at a moment's notice.

Secretary Kennedy said autism is "multi-factorial." That's correct. And because it's multi-factorial, the search for any kind of singular autism would be misguided. And certainly, I've seen nothing to suggest that there have been any major discoveries about autism in recent months.

I also want to emphasize something that rarely gets mentioned. Not only does good ethical science take a long time, but science that is applicable to children takes even longer. You take special precautions to make sure that research on children is ethical and children aren't exposed to any harm. We can't expect there to be research breakthroughs that happen overnight.

Q: As a father, are you optimistic about where we are today in our approach to autism?

A: I'm deeply gratified every day by my daughter, whom I adore. When I see people with a newly diagnosed child with autism, I think about how things are so much better now. I'm almost jealous in a way. I wish that there'd been this kind of awareness, that there'd been so much understanding about autism when my daughter was 3 or 4 and people stared at me on the street or didn't think I should bring her to a restaurant. I think a lot about how far we've come.