Search

Taking Georges Canguilhem’s 1943 book The normal and the pathological as a starting point, this article explores the ways in which the neurosciences define, validate, and legitimize the existence of autistic traits as a subclinical expression of autism. The general hypothesis is that different assumptions based on a naturalistic perspective of health and disease have become consolidated in the specialized literature. Such assumptions include that behaviors should be explained strictly in biological terms, that there is an objective and statistical parameter of normality, and that individuals’ behaviors can be analyzed independently of their context. Based on some aspects of Canguilhem’s arguments regarding health, normality, and normativity, we analyze the ways in which the neurosciences assign a quasi-pathological quality to the descriptive notion of autistic traits. It is possible to conclude that this process involves certain assumptions taken in an aprioristic and uncritical manner, which inhibits the discussion of key aspects associated with the nature of autism and that end up pathologizing differences between people.