The internet is rife with blog- and forum-posts on the pathologization of characters in the U.S. TV series The Office, specifically regarding autism spectrum dis-order (ASD). From Michael to Angela to (the most common) Dwight, ASD stereotypes have been applied to the behaviors of these beloved characters (by autists and allists alike) to argue for or against their likeness to autists.

Indeed, every character on the show has been pathologized by internet users in one way or another.

One reason i believe these conversations have been so prevalent is due to the fact that the writers of the show never pathologized the characters with certain labels, leaving fans (and non) to surmise and apply these labels them-selves. I personally love the ways in which The Office avoids placing labels on its characters because of how it places the onus of pathologization on the viewer (and how this onus forces viewers to question their power as a [potential] pathologizer).

This power raises a crucial question: is it appropriate to pathologize fictional characters that aren’t pathologized by their creators?

To begin to answer such a significant and note-worthy question, and because my background in psychology cautions me to avoid over-pathologization, my initial response is: no; i believe a major reason writers avoid pathologizing their own characters is to humanize them, allowing viewers to take in the character’s traits as parts of a whole that contribute to the uniqueness of that individual. We live in a world that is slowly waking up to the acceptance of and respect for the diversity within our species, and a writer’s avoidance of pathologization (and, thus, the viewer’s) can be (in my opinion) a step toward that acceptance.

For example, we can view Dwight as simply a human individual with certain human traits that (often) get in his way but who, despite these challenges, rises to attain great success (in that he performs well in his work, develops positive and nurturing relationships, becomes a husband and father, and generally lives life as a happy person). By choosing not to pathologize Dwight, we can appreciate the ways in which his “flaws” simply define who he is and how an individual can live a successful life while at the same time embracing (and remaining) who they are.

If we add into this discussion, however, concepts of disability and representation in contemporary media, the answer (i feel) becomes much more complicated. Just as we cannot ignore the impacts of the pathologization of fictional characters, we cannot ignore the impacts of representation in the media which, when left to viewer-interpretation, necessitates some degree of pathologization.

Because Dwight is never explicitly labeled autistic on the show, the only way for his character to be a representation of/for autism is for us to pathologize him. On a related note, it is (relatively) common-knowledge that the representation of people from marginalized communities in the media is, for many reasons, incredibly important (and significantly lacking).

We could say that representation should be made explicit (in avoiding the over-pathologization of fictional characters) and, in the case of Dwight, that pathologization is unnecessary because we could be looking for representation in characters that are explicitly depicted as autistic. We could also say, though, that due to a significant lack of representation in the media, we have no choice but to look to viewer-interpretation (at least for now) in creating that representation for our-selves.

This leads me to wonder: should we be creating representation out of nothing when the result is a negative (mis)representation of an already marginalized and misrepresented identity? While it can be challenging and harmful to attribute pathology to characters that are interpreted as being negative (mis)representations of/for disabled identities, i believe it can do more harm to remain silent on these issues when the discourse has already catalyzed (as in the case of The Office, Dwight, and autism).

In considering these factors, my response is inclined to evolve to: yes; with the lack of representation in the media today, it is appropriate to pathologize an ambiguously-defined fictional character in order to create that representation (and critique it as such).

Thus, in delving into a pathological critique of The Office as a (simultaneously positive and negative) representation of/for autism in contemporary media, i concede that my approach is inherently problematic and pledge to do my best in acknowledging this throughout.

---

Most of the arguments i have read around Dwight as a representation of autism are either for or against. That is, folks either feel autism in The Office is portrayed positively (and accurately) or negatively (and inaccurately). In an attempt to avoid reductionism here, i would argue that interpreting Dwight as autistic (and as a representation of/for autism) is at the same time positive, negative, accurate, and inaccurate.

Let’s break this paradox down.

For one thing, it cannot be ignored that Dwight (Gareth’s counterpart from The Office [U.K.]) is based on a real person. While much of Dwight’s behavior could be perceived as exaggerated or implausible (and thus serve as a misrepresentation of autism), one can seemingly always be surprised by the ineffability of human behavior (read: all of Larry David’s real-life experiences that inspired sit-com plots).

I’m not insinuating Larry David is autistic (not that there’s anything wrong with that) (hah), just that there is a case to be made here for behaviors of these fictional characters (that juuuust happen to be autism stereotypes) and their ability to resonate with autists such as my-self around traits that i, too, possess and have felt marginalized for.

From one perspective, i would consider that resonance the product of a (relatively) positive and (relatively) accurate representation of autism in contemporary media (keeping in mind that i am only assuming Dwight is autistic in pathologizing him in this way).

Alternatively, taking an intersectional approach, Dwight does little to further progress the representation of autists in media being White; straight; cis-gender; verbal; a property-owner (through inheritance); etc. Further, because the perspective above hinges on a stereotype, Dwight again fails to advance autism representation in media as a stereotype within a community that is (un)defined by a wide spectrum of varying experiences.

From these perspectives, i would consider Dwight’s inability to contribute to the diversity of autists portrayed in contemporary media to be an inaccurate representation of autism (again, assuming Dwight is autistic). In making such an assumption, i would also argue that Dwight’s portrayal of an autist as a non-autist is highly negative (considering the lack of autists employed for autist roles).

---

So what did i learn?

In pathologizing Dwight’s behaviors and interpreting his character as autistic, i can resonate with him in certain ways that make me feel represented (as an autist) in contemporary media. And, despite displaying much stereotypic behavior, Dwight breaks down many autism stereotypes throughout the show (maintaining consistent eye-contact, empathizing with others when no-one else can, naming and describing his complex emotional states, etc.).

He also fails, however, to diversify the portrayal of autism in contemporary media on multiple levels as a White, verbal, cis-gender, etc. autist. So if i am to use Dwight as a concrete example for autism representation in The Office, i would have to argue that, while he may resonate with autists in a stereotypic way and break down certain stereotypes of autism commonly portrayed in the media, he more-so negatively (mis)represents autism in contemporary media by failing to resonate with a larger array of autists and in being portrayed by a non-autist.

As an autist that resonates with all of its characters in various ways, i love The Office; its humanity; its memorability; and its pleasant predictability. I can say with certainty, though, that i do not love the show as a representation of/for autism or disability.

Interestingly, no-one on the internet seems to have an opinion on Toby being autistic in the show. Perhaps this silence speaks to the problem inherent to the pathologization of fictional characters, creating a sort of contradiction wherein the behaviors pathologized in one character are over-looked in another.

Something to think about.

❁

Thoughts? Leave a comment; start a conversation! Thank you for reading.