Challenging Sociality: An Anthropology

of Robots, Autism, and Attachment

By Anh V. Pham

For Dr. Philip Myers

United World College, USA

April 11, 2023

1
Abstract

Biomedical has been a dominant narrative regarding autism, a powerful and well-funded
biomedical community that drives its dominant paradigm. However, modern scholars seem to
adopt a new perspective: autistic sociality through examining its socially and culturally produced
phenomenon. One of the pioneering anthropological works in this area is the research of Ochs
and Solomon (Ochs & Solomon, 2010; Ochs et al., 2004). By analyzing the ethnography
“Challenging Sociality” - An Anthropology of Robots, Autism, and Attachment by Kathleen
Richardson, this paper will elucidate the relationship between the studies of autism and
anthropomorphic robots and challenge the traditional interpretation of sociality.

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
Introduction 4
Topic 1. Interpreting the current definition of autism and sociality 5
a. Conventional and dominant description of autism in the defined context of sociality 5
b. Different theories of autism 5
c. Autism in a society and what does it mean to be a person 7
d. Another perspective into children’s preference toward robots and machines 8
Topic 2. Challenging sociality 9
a. Rethinking the relationship between persons and things by studying autism and robots 9
b. Machine sociality 9
c. The role robots in Autism 10
Conclusion 10
Bibliography 11

3
Introduction

Autism refers to the unique social behavior demonstrated by individuals diagnosed with autism
spectrum disorder (ASD), which is characterized by difficulties in communication, social
interaction, and repetitive behaviors. In recent years, there has been growing interest in
exploring the relationship between machine sociality and human sociality, particularly in autism
sociality. According to widely accepted theories, machine sociality refers to the ability of
machines and artificial intelligence (AI) systems to interact with humans in social contexts. In
contrast, human sociality pertains to the complex and nuanced co-experience and mutuality in
which humans form and maintain social connections. Understanding the relationship between
these two types of sociality could offer insights into new ways to support individuals with ASD
and improve their social skills.

Topic 1. Interpreting the current definition of autism and sociality

a. Conventional and dominant description of autism in the defined context of

sociality
To understand different narratives and definitions of autism, first, it is important to
understand the crucial anthropological concept of society, social relations, and sociality. Society
refers to the structure which shapes people’s lives and how human beings organize themselves
as a collective in which they establish social relations. Social relations are characterized by a

4
developmental awareness of human sociality—an ability to make sense of and form reciprocal
social attachments with others.
If we consider this definition of sociality, autistic people and children, at least according
to psychological science literature, autistic children are peripheral or nonsocial. The outstanding
“pathognomonic” fundamental disorder is the children’s inability to ordinarily relate to people and
situations at the beginning of life1. Moreover, as biomedical scientists also said, children with
autistic display difficulties in developing social awareness of others and experience difficulties
forming attachments, even with their primary caregivers. To further develop the previous
statement and evaluate its legitimacy, an anthropological area of inquiry - Communication,
expression, and technology - will be employed and connected with several dominant theorizing
autism models in the next subtopic.

b. Different theories of autism

Kanner and Baron-Cohen are leading theorists in the field of autism. First, Kanner
suggested that children's desire for loneliness results in attachment or interest in objects, and
thus they seem to prefer objects over humans. Considering the AOI of Communication,
Expression, and Technology, autistic children's decision to choose objects similar to them is a
form of communication absorbed within the self rather than toward others. According to the
conventional belief of communication, the conversation has to be conducted by I and You,
which the communication of autistic children is lacking. The absence of mutuality in
communication is related to and will challenge the definition of social relations. Social relations
refer to any relationship between two or more individuals in a network of relationships. This
definition reaffirms the necessity of having You and I form a relationship. But what does being
an individual or person mean? It is important to address this big anthropological question to
understand different types of social relations.
If "You" is perceived as someone who can reply and conduct a real conversation, then
autistic communication is not the only one lacking in the You as religious practitioners; for
example, communicating with God is not a mutual conversation. Furthermore, relationships with
a symbolized You (objects, religious figures, passed-away family members, etc.) that cannot
communicate back and actively enhance the relationship questions the importance of mutuality

1 Kanner, Leo. (1943) 1943. Sowing the Seeds of the Autism Field. Intellect Dev Disabil.

5
in social relations. If there are no standards of what is an appropriate You and what is not,
autistic children's preference relationship toward robots can be considered a relation. The
"social" aspect of those relations is what needs further consideration. Perhaps, rather than
mutuality, the concern lies in the deliberation within those interactions. In other words, it is more
about an ability to make sense of and form reciprocal social attachments with others rather than
what is within those relationships.
Given the capability mentioned above, autism is sometimes presented as a disorder in
thinking about thinking, and as such, has been viewed by Uta Frith (at UCL) and Simon Baron-
Cohen as a form of mindblindness, an incapacity to read other people’s minds. It is crucial to
analyze mindblindness and its significance as the metric for sociality. First, mindblindness
means not being able to recognize or imagine the intentions and states of others2. By this
definition, machines can read people’s minds and intentions by collecting information from
algorithms. Again, the definition of sociality is being questioned. This concern will be further
explored in topic 2.
Apart from people with autism, other cases also demonstrated difficulties related to
mindblindness. Some of the special cases that are mind blinded are The Wild Boy of Aveyron
and Joey: A “Mechanical Boy.” The Wild Boy of Aveyron is considered one of the first pre-
autism cases. He could not perform social skills or any basic interactions; therefore, he is mind-
blinded. Another case, Joey A “Mechanical Boy,” provides a “case history of a schizophrenic
child who converted himself into a “machine” because he dared not be human.” Given that the
conditions of the two cases are irresistible, whether because of mental state or physical
environment, the normal definition of sociality may not apply.
It is suggested that autism can only be understood by examining it as a socially/
culturally produced phenomenon3. Autism doesn’t exist across time and space but is situational.
That said, one should not overlook the interconnection between autism, sociality, society, and
its contemporary contextualization, which will be analyzed in the next subsection.

c. Autism in a society and what does it mean to be a person

Society as a whole is a complex social system. Compared with simple social systems,
complex social systems are those in which individuals frequently interact in many different

2 Baron-Cohen, Simon. 2020. The Pattern Seekers: How Autism Drives Human Invention. Basic Books.
3 Freeberg, Todd M., Robin I. M. Dunbar, and Terry J. Ord. 2012. “Social Complexity as a Proximate and
Ultimate Factor in Communicative Complexity.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 367 (1597): 1785–1801. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0213.

6
contexts with many different individuals and often repeatedly interact with many of the same
individuals in networks over time. Compared with simple communicative systems, complex
communicative systems contain many structurally and functionally distinct elements or possess
a high amount of bits of information4. Within the aforementioned social complexity, it is
challenging even to non-autistic children/ people, let alone those with autism and other
biological difficulties.
Given the complexity of society, support systems are indispensable. One of the primary
support systems of children is school as it is the physical environment where they spend most of
their time in. The majority of schools are built on the concept of cultural capital5. Cultural capital
is the distinctions that develop between individuals and groups due to differences in access to
education, family background, occupation, and wealth, giving them advantages and serving as a
signifier of an individual’s status within a group or society6. It functions as a social relation within
an economy of practices (i.e. system of exchange), and includes the accumulated cultural
knowledge that confers social status and power7. However, the school is a socially-inscribed
space-the school’s structure mirrored typically-developing school structures-classes were
organized chronologically rather than by ability. The inequality of social access and privilege
resulting in different learning capacities makes this classroom model unjust for diverse students,
especially those with autism and biological difficulties.
School is just one of many pieces of evidence that society often does not fulfill its
soothing role. Society, by definition, is a complex pattern of norms of interaction that exist
among individuals. Given its complex, diverse body of individuals, social exclusion should not
become a less crucial problem nowadays. Social awareness must align with the question of
what it means to be a person. The process of functioning for people with autism in society is
difficult since they are the members of society that have problems with understanding autism
and behavior, which it causes8.

4 Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “Forms of Capital.” Journal of Economic Sociology 3 (5): 241–58.
5 Bell, Kenton. 2013. “Cultural Capital Definition | Open Education Sociology Dictionary.”
Sociologydictionary.org, April. https://sociologydictionary.org/cultural-capital/.
6 Runswick-Cole, Katherine. 2016. Re-Thinking Autism: Diagnosis, Identity and Equality. Edited by
Rebecca Mallett and Sami Timimi. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
7 “Users Guide, the Transporters 2006,” n.d., 4–5.
8 Wainer, Joshua, Ben Robins, Farshid Amirabdollahian, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. “Using the Humanoid
Robot KASPAR to Autonomously Play Triadic Games and Facilitate Collaborative Play among Children
with Autism.” IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development 6 (September 2014): 105–20.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TAMD.2014.2303116.

7
 d. Another perspective into children’s preference toward robots and machines
The lack of a support system and dominant, exclusive narrative within the complex
physical environment raises the hypothesis behind autistic children’s preference toward objects
rather than humans. The Transporters Project by the Autism Research Center in Cambridge
suggested that details overwhelm persons with autism; having a more simplified person might
be part of the appeal.
“Children with autism tend to love vehicles, probably because they are not alive and
don’t move unpredictably. What they seem to dislike are objects that movie when they least
expect them to, and for no apparent reason. Cars and planes can move in almost any direction
at the whim of the driver. In that sense, cars, and planes are not much better than people - they
are hard to predict. Other kinds of vehicles are much more constrained in their movements.
Trams have to go in straight lines because they are attached to tracks and overhead cables. So
do cable cars and trains and funiculus. These are the vehicles most loved by children with
autism”9.
In the field of robot therapy for children with autism, the robot, in its anthropomorphic
form, carries within its ways of being a human without the complexity of actually being one. This
reduced resemblance supports the child with autism and can help him or her develop social
skills10. The relationship between autism and machines or robots will be elucidated in the next
topic.

Topic 2. Challenging sociality

a. Rethinking the relationship between persons and things by studying autism and
robots
Humans are often regarded as superior to other species, and the dominant narrative of
human or social sociality is based on human beings. However, as society becomes increasingly
more complex and diverse, the definition of sociality and social relations need reconsideration.
Due to the limits of the modernist meaning of the “social,” anthropological theorizing has
contributed to extending the social to non-human animals and things. The social can be

9 Hess, Sabine. “Strathern’s Melanesian ‘Dividual’ and the Christian ‘Individual’: A Perspective from
Vanua Lava, Vanuatu.” Oceania 76, no. 3 (2006): 285–96. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40332038.
10 Gumińska, Natalia. “People with Autism in Society – Challenge of 21th Century. Case of Poland,
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences” 174, no. 1877-0428 (2016): 576–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.586.
‌
‌

8
embedded in things that can stand in for persons, such as gifts or art objects11. Latour (2005,
2012) suggests the social is not exclusively human and proposes hybrids of persons and things
in networks rather than purity of these categories, while Haraway extends the notion of the
social to animals, notably primates and dogs (2003).
When it comes to robots and machines, the first perception was of being inferior to
humans. The first robot, R.U.R., was created as tools (slaves) to be used by managers and
industrialists to work; the term robot comes from the Slavic term robot: “forced labor.”12
However, given the changing context of society and framing of sociality explained above,
machine sociality may hold significance in the modern world.
b. Machine sociality
Technology allows for new inventions and processes which can change how society
functions. Entities created as an outcome of human action-art, computers, robots- were once
seen as repositories of their creator’s agency. Now, these entities are viewed as agents in their
rights; according to these approaches, the divide between humans and machines is artificial and
is a definite distinction worthy of dissolution. Given that robots and machines now become
agents capable of handling human beings’ jobs, if not even excelling. Apart from that, the robots
meet the standards of sociality or being social: being able to make sense of and form reciprocal
social attachments with others. For example, robots can read people’s minds and intentions with
the help of search tools and algorithms. ChatGPT can conduct conversions, and some
advanced robots can even interact with humans on a high-level basis. Given that robots may
possess a different or radical type of sociality - machine sociality, they help assist people/
children with autism by safeguarding a safe, patient physical environment and enhancing their
learning experience.
c. The role robots in Autism
Robots were classed as “assistive technologies,” new technologies to assist children and
adults with particular healthcare needs13. It is addressed in subsection 1.d and existing

11 Salovey, Peter, Mayer John D, Susan Lee Goldman, and Carolyn Turvey. “Emotional Attention,
Clarity, and Repair: Exploring Emotional Intelligence Using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale.” Emotion,
Disclosure, & Health, 1995, 125–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/10182-006.
‌

12 Seifer, Feil. “Defining Socially Assistive Robotics.” IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation
Robotics, 2005, 465–68. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2005.1501143.
13 Pennazio, Valentina. “Social Robotics to Help Children with Autism in Their Interactions through
Imitation.” Research on Education and Media 9, no. 1 (June 1, 2017): 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/rem-
2017-0003.
‌

9
research, at the national and international levels, that children with autism can interact more
easily with a robotic companion than a human peer, considering its less complex and more
predictable actions14. This feature provides the child reassurance, faith, and the idea of being in
control of the situation.
Social robots are attributed to "agentivity," which varies among physical and perceptive
characteristics. Therefore, the robot can adapt to the child's different needs (Dautenhahn et al.,
2001; D'Ambrosio et al., 2003; Cardaci et al., 2004; Dautenhahn et al. al., 2007). By having
agentivity, "machine" sociality, and insights into autism conditions, robots can be a potential
support system for children with autism and form social relations with them. The fact that the
quality and quantity of social robots have increased means that society has started paying more
attention to autistic people and other minority groups. Although multifarious research still needs
to be done, the increase of attention and eye contact/movement and imitative and interactive
abilities conducted by interaction with robots must be considered as the first step towards a
positive change in the child’s sociability.

Conclusion

Fathoming the changing nature of society and its diverse components is crucial to interpret the
complex concept of sociality. Moreover, there are different interpretations of sociality which may
vary from social sociality, human sociality to machine sociality. Especially when it comes to
autistic sociality, it is important to acknowledge and respect these differences in the social
experiences of people with autism and provide support tailored to the individual's needs. In
order to achieve the goal above, one must recognize the lack of a support system and inclusion
within the current society. Last, society must rethink the relationship between human beings and
robots to utilize social machines/ robots in educational interventions.

Bibliography

1. Kanner, Leo. (1943) 1943. Sowing the Seeds of the Autism Field. Intellect Dev Disabil.
2. Baron-Cohen, Simon. 2020. The Pattern Seekers: How Autism Drives Human Invention.
Basic Books.
3. Runswick-Cole, Katherine. 2016. Re-Thinking Autism: Diagnosis, Identity and Equality.
Edited by Rebecca Mallett and Sami Timimi. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

14 Wikipedia Contributors. 2019. “Cultural Capital.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. April 6, 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_capital.

10
4. Freeberg, Todd M., Robin I. M. Dunbar, and Terry J. Ord. 2012. “Social Complexity as a
Proximate and Ultimate Factor in Communicative Complexity.” Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367 (1597): 1785–1801.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0213.
5. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “Forms of Capital.” Journal of Economic Sociology 3 (5): 241–
58.
6. Bell, Kenton. 2013. “Cultural Capital Definition | Open Education Sociology Dictionary.”
Sociologydictionary.org, April. https://sociologydictionary.org/cultural-capital/.
7. Wikipedia Contributors. 2019. “Cultural Capital.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. April
6, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_capital.
8. Gumińska, Natalia. “People with Autism in Society – Challenge of 21th Century. Case of
Poland, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences” 174, no. 1877-0428 (2016): 576–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.586.
9. “Users Guide, the Transporters 2006,” n.d., 4–5.
10. Wainer, Joshua, Ben Robins, Farshid Amirabdollahian, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. “Using
the Humanoid Robot KASPAR to Autonomously Play Triadic Games and Facilitate
Collaborative Play among Children with Autism.” IEEE Transactions on Autonomous
Mental Development 6 (September 2014): 105–20.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TAMD.2014.2303116.
11. Hess, Sabine. “Strathern’s Melanesian ‘Dividual’ and the Christian ‘Individual’: A
Perspective from Vanua Lava, Vanuatu.” Oceania 76, no. 3 (2006): 285–96.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40332038.
12. Salovey, Peter, Mayer John D, Susan Lee Goldman, and Carolyn Turvey. “Emotional
Attention, Clarity, and Repair: Exploring Emotional Intelligence Using the Trait Meta-
Mood Scale.” Emotion, Disclosure, & Health, 1995, 125–54.
https://doi.org/10.1037/10182-006.
13. Seifer, Feil. “Defining Socially Assistive Robotics.” IEEE International Conference on
Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005, 465–68. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2005.1501143.
14. Pennazio, Valentina. “Social Robotics to Help Children with Autism in Their Interactions
through Imitation.” Research on Education and Media 9, no. 1 (June 1, 2017): 10–16.
https://doi.org/10.1515/rem-2017-0003.
15. Dautenhahn, Kerstin, and Iain Werry. “Towards Interactive Robots in Autism Therapy:
Background, Motivation and Challenges.” Pragmatics and Cognition 12, no. 1 (2004): 1–
35. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.12.1.03dau.

11
12