Beyond One-Way Adaptation: Reciprocal Assimilation Through the Lens of Autism

Abstract

This paper revisits assimilation theory—developed to explain immigrant incorporation into U.S. society—and advances a reformulation centered on reciprocal assimilation. Classical models describe a linear convergence toward dominant Anglo-American norms, while segmented assimilation highlights multiple pathways shaped by context, race, and class. Both, however, tend to frame incorporation as a directional process in which minority groups adapt to dominant institutions. Drawing on contemporary autism scholarship, this paper brings assimilation theory into dialogue with neurodiversity to examine how its core assumptions extend beyond immigrant contexts. Using autism as a critical case, we show that social adaptation often occurs through camouflaging (masking, compensation, and behavioral adjustment), producing outward conformity without changing underlying neurological differences and often carrying psychological costs. These dynamics suggest that inclusion is frequently conditional on sustained performance of normative behavior rather than true structural incorporation. We identify an underlying assumption of universal assimilability within assimilation research and show how engaging with disability calls for a broader conception of incorporation. In response, we propose reciprocal assimilation as a framework in which adaptation emerges through dynamic interaction among individuals, institutions, and social structures. Integrating life-course concepts—turning points, cumulative (dis)advantage, agency, and social bonds—we illustrate how participation trajectories are shaped by accessibility, accommodations, stigma, and support over time. We conclude that a reciprocal model shifts emphasis from cultural convergence to meaningful participation, offering a more flexible framework for understanding incorporation across diverse populations, with implications for research, measurement, and policy.

1. Introduction

The turn of the 20th century in the United States witnessed the arrival of immigrants from different parts of the world, particularly Europe. In an attempt to understand how these new arrivals adjusted to their environment, early immigration scholars, especially those from the Chicago School, examined processes of assimilation into U.S. society. Assimilation is defined as “the decline of an ethnic distinction and its corollary cultural and social differences” with “decline” referring to the gradual diminishing of an immigrant’s cultural distinctions in favor of Anglo-American culture until those distinctions are no longer relevant to the domains of their social life [1] (p. 11). Culture refers to “a learned system of symbolic meanings through which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” [2] (p. 33–54). Culture is considered dynamic, continually evolving, and containing characteristics of both stability and change [3]. Traditionally, assimilation has been used as a framework to understand how immigrants adjust to new environments and the short- and long-term consequences of these adjustments. At the same time, its application has generated ongoing discussion regarding how best to conceptualize assimilation as both a process and an outcome.

The study of assimilation also raises broader questions. One key research question explored in this paper is: What might the study of assimilation look like beyond immigrant communities? Specifically, what happens to assimilation theory when it is brought into dialogue with disability and neurodiversity? Recognizing the complexity of assimilation as a concept, this conceptual paper uses autism as a critical case to explore how assimilation theory can be extended beyond its traditional application to immigrant populations. In doing so, it highlights how engaging with neurodevelopmental difference can open new ways of thinking about assimilation as a reciprocal, context-dependent process. Likewise, we argue that disability studies can benefit from selectively engaging with elements of assimilation theory to better conceptualize macro-level forms of masking and behavioral conformity, as these processes parallel assimilation in their emphasis on normative alignment, despite differing in underlying mechanisms and outcomes. Our goal is to not only broaden the application of assimilation, but to also clarify complexities surrounding this elusive concept. To this end, we include a historical overview of assimilation theory to establish the theoretical foundation for the present analysis by clarifying the original assumptions, scope, and intended application of the framework within immigration scholarship.

Assimilation theory was developed within a specific historical and disciplinary context centered on immigrant incorporation. Situating the theory within this context is essential for understanding its core premises and for considering how it may be productively brought into conversation with other domains. By outlining the theory’s historical roots, this paper demonstrates how foundational assumptions embedded in traditional assimilation models shape contemporary understandings of social adaptation, while also identifying opportunities for extending these insights to experiences beyond immigrant incorporation. Rather than directly applying assimilation theory to autism, this paper places autistic experiences in dialogue with assimilation frameworks to examine how key assumptions might be reinterpreted, adapted, or expanded. This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a detailed discussion on assimilation and its two prominent theoretical branches, classical assimilation and segmented assimilation; Section 3 provides an overview of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in relation to assimilation; Section 4 explores points of conceptual tension and productive comparison between assimilation and disability; Section 5 outlines new considerations by discussing the value of bringing neurodiversity into assimilation’s core concepts; Section 6 discusses future directions for research, limitations of our arguments, and potential policy implications; and Section 7 concludes the discussion.

2. Classical and Segmented Assimilation Theory

The study of immigrant assimilation quickly emerged as a primary focus of research among early immigration scholars. The most notable of these early works was by [4] who laid the foundation for the development of classical assimilation theory. Warner and Srole [5] further contributed to assimilation by officially formulating classical assimilation theory, which they referred to as “straight-line” assimilation, reflecting the assumption that immigrants followed a linear trajectory to economic parity with the dominant host society as they became more assimilated. Although classical assimilation theory was the primary framework used for the explanation of immigrant adjustment, it was eventually reconsidered in light of new immigration patterns, particularly the post-1965 heterogeneous wave of immigrants arriving from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. As a result, assimilation theory evolved and was later re-formulated as segmented assimilation theory. Segmented assimilation theory attempts to address the shortcomings of classical assimilation through its major assumption that immigrants face segmented pathways or trajectories as they assimilate.

For most of the early and mid-20th century, classical assimilation theory was the dominant framework used by early immigration scholars for studying how immigrant groups navigated and adjusted to their new terrain in American society. Classical assimilation theory assumes that “over time, and particularly across generations, immigrant groups would slowly gain economic parity and cultural similarity with, and come to resemble, the native majority” [6] (p. 90). Early research posited that immigrant groups would gradually model themselves after the mainstream Anglo and Protestant groups over time [5,7,8,9,10]. Furthermore, classical assimilation theory describes a linear trajectory of immigrant assimilation, consisting of cultural, structural, and economic changes and adaptations that develop within individuals resulting from environmental demands that could either occur immediately or over a longer time period [11,12]. These structural and economic adaptations were viewed as a form of progress that immigrants were encouraged to embrace as they became more assimilated [12].

Proponents of classical assimilation theory argued that becoming more “Americanized” and embracing American mainstream culture was important for immigrants to achieve economic parity with the dominant host group; however, if immigrants retained their ethnic identity they would be more likely to experience economic attainment [12]. Shaw and McKay [13] supported this argument, finding that the faster immigrant groups assimilated into American mainstream society, the faster they could leave the transition zone, escaping poverty and crime, and replacing it with economic opportunity, inclusion, and safety [12].

Early immigration research conducted by the Chicago School scholars argued that the assimilation process was natural, inevitable, and unavoidable as well as progressive and irreversible [12]. Similarly, Warner and Srole [5] described assimilation as a linear or “straight-line” process and argued that immigrant assimilation was connected to upward mobility [14]. Overall, these early works on immigration and classical assimilation theory suggested that immigrant assimilation into the dominant host society’s cultures and norms was often framed as a desirable goal of immigrants [12,14,15,16,17,18]. In other words, the classical assimilation theory posits that the longer immigrants are exposed to American mainstream norms, the more likely they will automatically adopt features of the majority group such as language, culture, and lifestyle until they are indistinguishable from the dominant host group.

Although classical assimilation theory was the predominant model for studying immigrant assimilation, the arrival of the post-1965 immigrant wave led to its eventual reevaluation, prompting social scientists to revisit and refine its definition and key assumptions [17]. These discussions highlight the complexity of assimilation and demonstrate that it is a dynamic process, not just a linear one. For example, the biggest area of discussion among many immigration scholars was its narrow view of a singular assimilation sequence which reflected more of the experiences of East Central European and Mediterranean immigrants who were more homogenous and failed to consider non-white, racial minority immigrants arriving after World War II [19].

A similar area of scholarly debate concerned the assumption that immigrants desired to become “American” and that assimilation was an inevitable and irreversible process for immigrants. Scholars viewed these assumptions as weak and inadequate especially when considering the perpetual inequality and conflict experienced by the racial and ethnic minority immigrant groups [17,20], such as the Black, Latin, and Asian immigrants arriving post-1965 [12,21]. Although some may argue that the European immigrants in the pre-1965 wave faced discrimination shortly after arriving in the U.S., they were eventually accepted and successfully integrated over time [22]. Classical assimilation is further criticized for assuming that only the immigrant groups are impacted by assimilation [12,23], with some scholars arguing that the assimilation process is reciprocal with both American mainstream society and immigrants being impacted [12,24]. As these discussions developed, classical assimilation declined in prominence for nearly three decades prompting [25] to ask the question “is assimilation theory dead?” to which he concluded that it was not. Not only did immigration scholars in the 1990s determine that assimilation was still “alive”, but some scholars, particularly Portes and Zhou [26], contributed to its revival with their development of segmented assimilation theory. Segmented assimilation theory suggests that assimilation is both complex and nonlinear unlike classical assimilation theory and “attempts to explain which segment of American society a particular group may assimilate” to [27] (p. 984) and accounts for a variety of contextual factors such as race, ethnicity, and class [17].

An important focus of segmented assimilation theory is on the “new” second generation of immigrants or the children of immigrants coming from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Depending on the new second generation’s social environment as well as their individual and group level adaptations and behaviors, the assimilation process may vary [17,26]. Moreover, these different experiences in the adaptation process are predicated on the social and economic context of the U.S. population in which they assimilate [28,29]. For example, according to segmented assimilation theory, racially and ethnically diverse immigrant groups of the post-1965 wave are more likely to face negative contexts of reception leading to experiences of blocked opportunities for economic success compared to the pre-1965 homogenous European immigrant wave, leading to a trajectory of downward assimilation [26,27]. Conversely, ethnic immigrant groups who settle into destinations with positive contexts of reception experience “advantages” of greater opportunities for economic success over time in the U.S. [30] leading to a trajectory of upward mobility and integration into the non-Hispanic, white middle class [31].

Piedra and Engstrom [32] (p. 271) explain that segmented assimilation theory identifies contributing factors effecting the different rates of acculturation among immigrant parents and their children. Acculturation is described as a sub-process that operates within assimilation and “comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups” [8,33,34] (p. 149). Additionally, segmented assimilation theory also attempts to explain how intergenerational acculturation patterns impact how the second generation confronts external obstacles to social mobility [26,30,35]; and the authors explain the differences between three types of intergenerational acculturation which they identify as: (1) dissonant acculturation, (2) consonant acculturation, and (3) selective acculturation. Dissonant acculturation occurs as a result of the children of immigrants learning English and adopting U.S. culture and behaviors at a faster rate than their foreign-born parents.

As mentioned above, this leaves the children of immigrants to face external obstacles such as discrimination, poverty, and poor educational outcomes alone, resulting in a greater likelihood of adopting adversarial behaviors and lifestyles associated with crime, offending, and downward mobility [30,32,36]. Dissonant acculturation demonstrates that both generational status and assimilation level impact the trajectory of the children of immigrants supporting this review’s argument that assimilation level and generational status are both issues of the assimilation paradox. By becoming more acculturated than their parents, the children of immigrants are more likely to experience downward assimilation into the disadvantaged lower class, increasing the likelihood of engaging in offending.

Conversely, consonant acculturation contends that both immigrant parents and their children learn English and adopt U.S. cultures at the same rate, resulting in parents and children navigating the obstacles of their new terrain together, thereby increasing the chances of economic opportunity, educational attainment, and ultimately upward mobility into American middle-class society [30,32,36]. Consonant acculturation is a gradual process. Successfully assimilated immigrants and the children of immigrants first start out as unassimilated and progress together overtime leading to pathways of upward assimilation demonstrating the connectedness of generational status, assimilation level, and immigrant offending. This gradual process implies that both generational status and assimilation level are imperative to the assimilation process, supporting this review’s argument that the assimilation paradox is both a generational status and an assimilation level issue.

Lastly, selective acculturation reflects immigrant groups’ rejection of the American mainstream in favor of retaining their cultural identity, norms, and traditions. By rejecting the influences of American mainstream society, immigrants and their families remain protected by the family structure and immigrant community [30,32,36] allowing for their children to select elements of the dominant host society’s culture that will benefit them. This suggests that immigrant parents moderate the rate of assimilation of their children which mitigates the harmful effects of the American mainstream, supporting this reviews argument that assimilation level and generational status both impact the assimilation paradox.

Although segmented assimilation theory addresses the deficiencies of classical assimilation theory, it has faced some criticisms of its own. Some scholars have questioned segmented assimilation theory’s claim of a causal link between downward assimilation and the children of immigrants’ involvement in “oppositional cultures” [37]. Perlmann and Waldinger [38] argue that if the children of immigrants become involved in deviant subcultures, it is just as likely to result from the process of assimilation into the American underclass as spontaneously arising out of the immigrant working class experience. Additionally, Alba [39] shows evidence that Maghrebin immigrants in France follow pathways of “downward assimilation”, despite possessing low levels of acculturation [37]. Finally, Xie and Greenman [37] argue that segmented assimilation theory confounds the assimilation process with the consequences of assimilation [37] (p. 19). The authors advocate for an alternative interpretation of segmented assimilation that focuses on the processes of assimilation rather than the outcomes. Ultimately, empirical research shows mixed support for segmented assimilation theory. Similar to classical assimilation theory, the criticism of segmented assimilation theory demonstrates that scholars still have not clearly identified the mechanisms that impact assimilation.

3. Autism and Assimilation

This section does not treat autism as a direct extension of immigrant assimilation, but instead uses autistic social adaptation to illustrate processes that resemble assimilation while also highlighting important conceptual distinctions that can extend existing frameworks. Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition associated with differences in social interaction, communication, sensory experiences, and patterns of behavior, reflecting a natural variation in how individuals perceive and engage with the world [40]. Although autism has historically been framed within a deficit-based medical model, contemporary scholarship increasingly emphasizes the interaction between individuals and environments, conceptualizing autism as a form of neurodiversity rather than pathology alone [40]. Within societies structured around neurotypical norms, autistic individuals frequently encounter pressures analogous to assimilation: expectations to modify behavior, communication styles, and modes of self-presentation to align with dominant standards of social functioning. However, the processes and consequences of this adaptation diverge in important ways from those emphasized in classical assimilation theory.

One of the most extensively documented mechanisms through which autistic individuals adapt to social expectations is social camouflaging (also termed masking). Camouflaging refers to strategies used to conceal autistic traits and present a more neurotypical persona in social contexts [41]. Research conceptualizes camouflaging as comprising three primary components: (1) masking visible autistic behaviors, (2) compensating for social differences using learned techniques, and (3) adapting behavior to align with expected social roles. These behaviors allow individuals to navigate environments not designed for neurodivergent cognition but often require sustained cognitive and emotional effort. Systematic reviews indicate that motivations for camouflaging include self-protection, desire for belonging, and avoidance of discrimination or exclusion [42].

Standardized measurement tools such as the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (CAT-Q) demonstrate that these behaviors are quantifiable across domains of masking, compensation, and adaptation, highlighting that camouflaging operates as a structured set of social performance strategies rather than a simple personality trait [43]. Importantly, camouflaging alters outward presentation without changing underlying neurological differences. Individuals may appear socially typical while continuing to experience sensory overload, processing differences, or social fatigue [43]. This produces a mismatch between external conformity and internal experience that is less emphasized in traditional assimilation models. The psychological costs of camouflaging are substantial. Studies link sustained masking to exhaustion, anxiety, depression, burnout, identity confusion, delayed diagnosis, and suicidality [41,44].

Camouflaging has also been associated with poorer mental well-being and internalizing symptoms, underscoring that apparent social success may conceal significant distress [43]. Gendered patterns further highlight the social pressures driving this behavior. Autistic women and gender-diverse individuals often report higher levels of camouflaging, which may contribute to later diagnosis and increased mental health risks [43]. Rather than reflecting voluntary cultural adoption, these patterns can be understood as reflecting intensified expectations to perform normative social competence. Mixed-methods research further indicates that camouflaging functions as a social survival strategy in environments where neurodiversity is poorly understood, with motivations ranging from unconscious adaptation to deliberate concealment of identity [45].

A growing body of research frames camouflaging as a response to stigma rather than as simple social learning. Drawing on social identity theory, scholars argue that autistic individuals may camouflage in order to “pass” as non-autistic and avoid negative judgments associated with a stigmatized identity [46]. Camouflaging in this framework functions as an individualistic coping strategy—a means of dissociating from a marginalized in-group to gain acceptance from a higher-status majority. Higher perceived stigma is associated with greater camouflaging and lower psychological well-being, reinforcing the view that these behaviors are driven by social exclusion rather than cultural integration [46]. Qualitative research similarly documents that autistic individuals often conceal or strategically disclose their diagnosis depending on context. Many report that autism is central to their identity yet stigmatized by society, creating tension between authenticity and acceptance [47]. Strategies such as concealment, selective disclosure, and reframing are used to manage this tension, paralleling processes discussed in minority stress frameworks and extending how adaptation is typically conceptualized in assimilation research [47].

Studies of autistic identity formation further show that individuals frequently perceive autism as value-neutral while recognizing that social meanings imposed by others produce stigma, forcing continuous negotiation between self-concept and social acceptance [47]. Autistic identity development is deeply shaped by how autism itself is conceptualized [48]. Competing frameworks—including medical, social, and neurodiversity models—offer different interpretations of what autism means and how individuals should relate to it. The medical model frames autism as a disorder to be treated, emphasizing deficits and normalization. The social model, by contrast, interprets autism as a difference that becomes disabling primarily because environments are structured around non-autistic norms [48]. Together, these perspectives highlight the value of integrating multiple frameworks to more fully capture the diversity of autistic experiences.

Identity construction is further complicated by stigma and societal expectations. Individuals with disabilities often experience “identity spread,” in which the impairment label dominates perceptions of the person, overshadowing other aspects of identity [48]. Such dynamics can destabilize self-concept and reinforce pressures to conform outwardly while preserving internal identity. Evidence suggests that positive autistic identity is strongly associated with external acceptance and support [40]. Individuals report better mental health when they can integrate autism into their self-concept without needing to conceal it [40]. These findings invite reconsideration of assimilation frameworks that equate success primarily with outward conformity. Autism-related adaptation also varies across cultural and immigration contexts, producing complex interactions between disability, culture, and social structure. Immigrant families of autistic children often face barriers including language differences, unfamiliar health systems, economic constraints, and culturally divergent understandings of disability [49]. Some cultures interpret disability through moral, spiritual, or social frameworks that differ from Western medical models, complicating diagnosis and treatment [49]. Research on multicultural autism further highlights how families must navigate not only the challenges of disability but also cultural minority status, creating multidimensional adaptation demands across communication, behavior, social expectations, and cultural norms [50].

Studies of specific immigrant communities indicate that stigma, gender roles, community expectations, and access to services can alter social relationships and patterns of integration following an autism diagnosis, sometimes leading families to distance themselves from their cultural communities [51]. Similarly, research on African immigrant mothers and Latino autistic individuals shows that cultural values such as collectivism and familism may intensify pressures to conform while simultaneously limiting access to culturally responsive support systems [51,52,53]. Migration-related adversity has also been examined as a factor associated with autism outcomes, emphasizing the role of social stressors alongside, rather than solely through, cultural assimilation processes in shaping developmental trajectories [54]. Structural inequalities further complicate these dynamics. Minority children often experience delayed diagnosis and reduced access to services, which may reflect institutional barriers rather than differences in prevalence [51].

Across contexts, autistic individuals often achieve participation in mainstream institutions through behavioral adaptation rather than through identity or ability transformation. Inclusion is frequently contingent on continued performance of normative behavior and may collapse when support is withdrawn [51,52]. Crucially, adaptation rarely results in diminishing differences over time. Autistic cognition and sensory processing remain distinct even when outward behavior appears typical. Instead of linear convergence toward majority norms, autistic individuals often experience ongoing negotiation between authenticity and acceptability [50]. Taken together, autism research suggests that what resembles assimilation may instead represent a distinct but related form of social adaptation that can extend how assimilation processes are understood. Classical assimilation models assume gradual incorporation into dominant society through adoption of norms, leading to reduced cultural difference.

In contrast, autistic adaptation typically involves performative conformity without internal change, management of stigma and social risk, continuous effort rather than generational progression, psychological costs that may outweigh benefits, and a strong dependence on environmental accommodation [47]. Rather than convergence, autistic individuals often experience conditional inclusion—participation granted insofar as normative performance is maintained. Autism illustrates how adaptation can occur without cultural transformation, identity loss, or structural acceptance, opening new avenues for examining how assimilation theory might be expanded to account for diverse forms of social adaptation. Rather than positioning masking as a direct form of assimilation, this discussion brings autistic social adaptation into dialogue with assimilation theory to explore how its core concepts may be reinterpreted and extended in the context of neurodiversity.

4. The Myth of Universal Assimilation

Assimilation theory has long been treated as a generalizable framework for understanding incorporation, yet applying it to disability highlights underlying assumptions that become more visible when brought into dialogue with forms of difference not reducible to culture or socialization. As explained above, classical assimilation posits that as newly arrived immigrants follow a linear or “straight-line” trajectory, they eventually achieve parity with the dominant host society as they become more assimilated and “Americanized” [4,5]. However, segmented assimilation theory revisits this linear assumption, suggesting that depending on their experiences in the U.S., immigrants may follow upward or downward pathways or maintain ties within ethnic enclaves.

However, these frameworks implicitly assume actors capable of conforming to dominant norms through socialization, learning, and behavioral adjustment. Intellectual and developmental disabilities bring additional complexity to this assumption, because differences are not reducible to culture or language and may not be remediable through exposure to mainstream institutions. Moreover, assimilation focuses on groups adopting different cultures, whereas disability involves forms of difference that are not primarily cultural in nature. While assimilation theory has been repeatedly revised to account for heterogeneity among immigrant groups, disability remains less explicitly incorporated as an analytic category. This omission points to what can be conceptualized as a broader assumption of universal assimilability—the idea that marginalized populations can follow recognizable pathways toward incorporation when structural barriers are reduced.

Intellectual and developmental disabilities are typically lifelong conditions characterized by stable neurological differences rather than transitional deficits [40]. Adaptation does not necessarily produce convergence with dominant norms. Instead, participation often depends on environmental accommodations, institutional support, and shifting contextual demands [46]. Research on autism, for example, demonstrates that individuals frequently engage in social camouflaging—masking behaviors and compensatory strategies that create the appearance of normative functioning without altering underlying cognitive or sensory differences [46]. Crucially, such adaptation is effortful, situational, and reversible. Outward conformity may coexist with internal strain, exhaustion, or sensory overload, indicating that apparent progress toward “mainstream” functioning does not necessarily reflect transformation of the individual. Rather than linear convergence, disability often involves cyclical patterns of accommodation, strain, recovery, and renegotiation [47]. This nonlinearity invites reconsideration of the assimilationist premise that exposure to dominant institutions produces cumulative incorporation over time.

Segmented assimilation theory introduced the concept of downward assimilation to explain why some immigrant groups experience persistent poverty or incorporation into disadvantaged social segments despite prolonged residence in the host society. These outcomes are typically linked to contextual factors such as discrimination, neighborhood effects, and intergenerational acculturation patterns [26,36]. Applying this framework to disability reveals areas where existing concepts can be further refined. Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities often occupy disadvantaged social positions regardless of cultural assimilation. Limited access to employment, segregated education, and social exclusion may persist even when individuals adopt dominant cultural norms. In such cases, disadvantage stems less from failed adaptation than from structural barriers embedded in institutions designed around normative cognitive and behavioral expectations.

Moreover, disability-related marginalization is not necessarily tied to ethnic community context or generational status—key variables in segmented assimilation theory. An individual can be fully assimilated linguistically and culturally yet remain excluded from mainstream participation due to inaccessible environments or discriminatory practices [51]. Autism research underscores this point: autistic individuals may achieve participation only through sustained performance of normative behavior, and inclusion may collapse when supports are withdrawn. These dynamics suggest that outcomes resembling “downward assimilation” may be more accurately understood as reflecting structural ableism rather than incorporation into oppositional subcultures or disadvantaged ethnic segments. Consequently, the upward–downward continuum central to segmented assimilation theory may benefit from expansion to better capture disability-related forms of stratification.

Classical definitions center on the decline of ethnic distinctions and the adoption of dominant cultural patterns, implicitly framing difference as cultural rather than embodied or cognitive. Even later formulations that incorporate race, class, and context of reception largely underemphasize factors such as accessibility, stigma, and institutional exclusion as independent axes of inequality in the context of disability. This omission is particularly consequential because disability-related barriers often operate independently of cultural adaptation. Autistic individuals, for instance, may internalize dominant norms and engage in extensive behavioral modification yet still encounter exclusion due to persistent stigma, sensory barriers, or lack of accommodation.

Inclusion frequently remains conditional on continuous performance of normative behavior rather than on genuine structural acceptance. The absence of disability from assimilation theory therefore highlights an opportunity for theoretical expansion: the framework primarily conceptualizes incorporation as a function of cultural change within minority groups toward “Americanization,” rather than also accounting for processes such as normalization or transformation of social structures. For populations whose marginalization is rooted in ableist design and institutional practices, adaptation alone cannot produce full inclusion. Addressing this theoretical gap invites further development of assimilation models or complementary frameworks that center reciprocal adjustment between individuals and environments.

5. Neurodiversifying Assimilation

If assimilation theory is to more fully account for neurodivergent populations, its core concepts can be productively reinterpreted through a neurodiversity perspective. Traditional models emphasize a primarily unidirectional pattern in which minority groups, particularly immigrants are expected to assume the dominant norms of the host society over time until they are indistinguishable from the native-born population, this is especially the case in the U.S. In contrast, a neurodiversity-informed framework foregrounds the importance of reciprocal adaptation between individuals and social environments. Rather than treating difference as a deficit to be overcome, this perspective views participation as contingent on the interaction between individual characteristics and institutional arrangements. In other words, a neurodivergent-informed framework extends traditional assumptions of assimilation by emphasizing that processes of change may involve both minority groups and the broader society. Autism research reviewed earlier demonstrates that what appears as assimilation often consists of performative conformity—masking behaviors that enable participation without altering underlying neurological differences.

A life-course perspective is a multidisciplinary framework useful for examining the dynamics of human life and behavior over an extended period of time, with consideration for the social, historical, and cultural contexts that influence their development [55,56]. Life-course theory emphasizes that individual development unfolds through socially structured trajectories shaped by historical context, institutional pathways, and the timing of events [57]. Lives are embedded in changing social conditions, and transitions gain meaning only within broader trajectories of education, work, and family life [58]. This orientation shifts attention from viewing assimilation as a uniform process toward understanding heterogeneous pathways shaped by opportunity structures, constraints, and social relationships. For neurodivergent individuals, incorporation into mainstream institutions may depend less on cultural adoption than on the availability of accommodations, supportive networks, and inclusive environments.

Life-course scholars emphasize that trajectories are not fixed; they can be redirected by significant events or transitions. Turning points are moments that alter developmental pathways, opening new opportunities or reinforcing disadvantage [59]. These events are embedded within broader trajectories and may have enduring consequences depending on timing and context [60]. Furthermore, turning points can result in long-term impacts on an individual’s environment, the opening or closing of available opportunities, or changes in an individual’s self-concept, beliefs, and identity [56,61]. For neurodivergent individuals, turning points may take forms that differ from those typically emphasized in traditional life-course models [62]. For example, major events or turning points individuals experience inevitably involve important decisions that are made by those impacted.

These decisions can be whether or not to immigrate or they can involve which parts of society to assimilate to post-arrival. Key events for neurodivergent individuals may include diagnosis, entry into specialized educational programs, transition to higher education, employment experiences, access to disability services, or encounters with inclusive versus exclusionary institutions. A formal diagnosis, for example, can simultaneously enable access to accommodations while exposing individuals to stigma, illustrating how the same event may facilitate inclusion or intensify marginalization. This complexity is especially evident in autism diagnosis, where timely identification can improve access to developmental supports, educational services, and long-term opportunities, yet disparities in diagnostic access persist across racial, ethnic, and immigrant communities. Research suggests that barriers such as language differences, stigma, limited familiarity with healthcare systems, and inadequate culturally responsive services can delay diagnosis and restrict access to needed support, particularly for immigrant families navigating autism-related care [63].

Life-course research also highlights the role of early conditions in shaping later outcomes through processes of cumulative advantage and disadvantage. Small initial differences in resources or support can magnify over time, producing diverging trajectories [64]. Early adversity—such as delayed diagnosis, inadequate schooling, or social exclusion—may constrain later opportunities even when individuals demonstrate capacity for participation. Conversely, early access to supportive services can generate cumulative advantages that enhance long-term integration [65].

These dynamics invite further reflection on assimilationist assumptions that exposure to mainstream institutions alone produces convergence. Importantly, turning points do not operate deterministically. Life-course theory emphasizes human agency within structural constraints: individuals interpret events, make choices, and mobilize available resources, though their options are shaped by social context [58]. Moreover, while turning points lead to altered life paths, individuals still have agency to make decisions that directly impact their life-course outcomes and in the case of immigrants, impact their assimilation process as well, exemplified by the types of decisions they make pre- and post-migration. For neurodivergent populations, agency may involve strategic disclosure of disability, selective engagement with institutions, or efforts to reshape environments to better accommodate differences.

A second concept central to neurodiversifying assimilation is the role of social bonds. Traditional assimilation frameworks emphasize structural incorporation—employment, education, language acquisition—while giving comparatively less attention to the relational foundations of belonging. Life-course research, by contrast, highlights how ties to family, peers, mentors, and community institutions shape trajectories across the lifespan. Strong social bonds can function as mechanisms of informal social control and support, promoting stability and facilitating transitions. Longitudinal research shows that attachment to institutions such as work and family can redirect life trajectories and reduce adverse outcomes, even among individuals with earlier disadvantages [60].

These findings underscore that integration is not solely an individual achievement but is embedded in networks of social relationships. For neurodivergent individuals, supportive relationships may buffer stigma, provide access to resources, and create environments where participation does not require suppression of identity. Families often play a central role in navigating service systems, advocating for accommodations, and sustaining social inclusion. Conversely, immigrants on the other hand may experience fragmentations within family networks where the children of immigrants assimilate at greater rates leading to role reversal where the children become their parents’ parents. This process can lead to an increased risk of downward assimilation trajectories. Peer networks—particularly those composed of other neurodivergent individuals—can foster positive identity formation and reduce pressures to conform to neurotypical norms. Crucially, strong bonds can enable assimilation without necessitating identity loss. Assimilation theory traditionally assumes that incorporation entails diminishing ethnic distinctiveness, but disability scholarship suggests that participation may coexist with stable differences when environments are inclusive [40]. Inclusion, in this sense, is less about becoming indistinguishable from the majority and more about achieving meaningful participation within supportive social contexts.

Taken together, the concepts of turning points and social bonds support a reconceptualization of assimilation as a relational and context-dependent process. Rather than a unidirectional movement toward mainstream norms, incorporation emerges from the interplay between individual agency, institutional structures, and social networks over time. Neurodiversifying assimilation thus entails shifting from a model of individual conformity to one of reciprocal adaptation, in which societies also adjust to accommodate cognitive and behavioral diversity. This perspective aligns with broader sociological insights that inequality and integration are produced through dynamic interactions between structure and agency across the life-course [65]. It also reinforces prior assimilation literature’s acknowledgement that assimilation may not be unidirectional. The assimilation literature has at times underemphasized the role that the dominant host society plays with regard to immigrants’ successful “assimilation” in America. One suggestion on how to improve assimilation research is for scholars to view the assimilation process as dialectic, which refers to interrelationships where change in one variable produces change in another [66]. This is a critical point that appears missing in the criminological literature focusing on assimilation and its relation to the immigration–crime link and the “assimilation paradox”. What one group does affects the other and vice versa. For neurodivergent populations, successful incorporation may depend less on minimizing difference than on transforming environments to support diverse ways of functioning. By foregrounding turning points, cumulative processes, and social bonds, a life-course approach provides a framework for understanding participation that is compatible with the realities of disability and neurodiversity.

6. Toward a Reciprocal Theory of Assimilation

The preceding analysis demonstrates that assimilation theory, as traditionally formulated, offers a partial but valuable framework that can be further extended to better understand the incorporation of neurodivergent populations. Developed to understand how immigrants navigate and adjust to their new environment upon arriving in the U.S. and measured by the degree of home country culture they modify in relation to U.S. traditions and norms; the controlled erosion of difference assumed by assimilation models does not always align neatly with disabilities characterized by enduring cognitive, sensory, or developmental variation. Assimilation is defined as the gradual decline in ethnic distinctions and movement toward parity with the dominant majority, implying that successful incorporation entails convergence. For neurodivergent individuals, however, participation often occurs without such convergence, relying instead on accommodation, social support, and negotiated inclusion. A life-course perspective helps clarify how assimilation processes may take different forms in the context of disability.

Individual trajectories are shaped by historical context, institutional pathways, timing of events, and linked lives rather than by exposure to mainstream norms alone [57]. Turning points, cumulative advantage or disadvantage, and social bonds all structure opportunities for participation across the lifespan [60,64]. Consequently, what appears as “failure to assimilate” may instead reflect structural exclusion, inaccessible environments, or stigmatizing institutions rather than unwillingness or inability to adapt. Taken together, these insights suggest that assimilation theory can be productively reconceptualized and expanded to remain relevant beyond immigration studies. A disability-inclusive approach would shift emphasis from cultural convergence to relational incorporation, recognizing that integration depends on reciprocal adaptation between individuals and social structures. Such a reframing does not reject assimilation theory outright but builds upon it by situating it within a broader sociological understanding of inequality, diversity, and institutional design.

Future scholarship should work toward theoretical models that explicitly incorporate disability as a dimension of stratification alongside race, class, and gender. Existing frameworks have not always fully addressed accessibility, stigma, or institutional exclusion as independent mechanisms shaping incorporation. Incorporating disability would require redefining assimilation not as the erosion of difference but as the capacity for meaningful participation across domains of social life. A promising direction is the integration of assimilation theory with life-course and cumulative inequality perspectives. These approaches emphasize how early conditions, institutional encounters, and social relationships produce diverging trajectories over time [64]. Such integration would allow researchers to examine how disability interacts with structural opportunity rather than treating adaptation as an individual responsibility.

There is a pressing need for longitudinal research that follows neurodivergent individuals across major life transitions, including schooling, employment, independent living, and aging. Life-course theory highlights that trajectories are dynamic and shaped by timing, context, and interdependent lives [57]. Cross-sectional studies cannot capture how early experiences—such as delayed diagnosis or educational segregation—produce cumulative effects over time [64]. Longitudinal data would also illuminate how turning points, such as access to higher education or supportive employment, alter pathways of participation. Future research must examine how disability intersects with other axes of inequality. Assimilation theory has increasingly recognized the role of race and class in shaping immigrant incorporation, yet disability remains comparatively underdeveloped within these discussions. Individuals with disabilities may experience compounded disadvantage when disability intersects with racial minority status, poverty, or gender inequality. A cumulative inequality framework suggests that such intersecting disadvantages can produce diverging life trajectories that widen over time [65]. Intersectional research is particularly important for understanding differential access to diagnosis, services, and accommodations across social groups, as well as variation in stigma and cultural interpretations of disability.

Much of the emerging literature focuses on autism, which risks obscuring the heterogeneity of disability experiences. Comparative studies across intellectual disabilities, sensory impairments, physical disabilities, and psychiatric conditions would help identify which aspects of assimilation theory are broadly applicable and which are condition-specific. Such work would also clarify whether patterns observed among autistic populations—such as conditional inclusion or masking—generalize to other neurodivergent groups. Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, assimilation theory itself was developed primarily in relation to immigrant populations, and extending it to disability involves conceptual translation that may not fully capture the unique dynamics of embodied difference. The theory’s emphasis on cultural adaptation may underrepresent mechanisms rooted in physical accessibility, cognitive diversity, or institutional design.

Second, much of the disability research referenced—particularly on camouflaging and identity—centers on autism spectrum disorder. While autism provides a useful case for illustrating points of tension and extension between assimilation and disability, it cannot represent the full range of neurodiversity. Overgeneralization risks flattening important distinctions among conditions with different support needs, visibility, and social meanings. Third, measurement challenges complicate empirical application. Concepts such as “integration,” “participation,” or “success” are often defined according to normative standards of functioning—stable employment, independent living, or conventional social interaction—which may not reflect the goals or capacities of all individuals. Reliance on such metrics can inadvertently reproduce ableist assumptions by equating success with approximation to neurotypical norms.

Finally, existing research may contain implicit bias toward normative functioning, privileging outcomes that resemble mainstream expectations while undervaluing alternative forms of participation. Recognizing these biases is essential for developing more inclusive conceptualizations of social incorporation. The theoretical gaps identified here have concrete implications for social policy. If participation depends on reciprocal adaptation rather than individual normalization, then policies should prioritize structural inclusion. Educational institutions and workplaces should adopt practices that accommodate diverse learning styles, communication patterns, and sensory needs. Universal design, flexible work arrangements, and individualized supports can facilitate participation without requiring individuals to suppress their differences.

Policies should emphasize accessibility—physical, informational, and social—rather than interventions aimed solely at making individuals appear more “typical.” This shift aligns with the social model of disability, which locates disadvantage in environmental barriers rather than individual deficits. Support systems that promote community integration—such as supported housing, peer networks, and recreational programs—can foster meaningful participation beyond formal employment or schooling. Strong social ties are known to stabilize trajectories and enhance well-being across the life-course [60]. Policies that facilitate such connections may therefore have long-term benefits. Finally, public policy should address stigma through anti-discrimination measures, awareness campaigns, and enforcement of accessibility standards. Structural barriers—such as fragmented service systems or eligibility restrictions—can produce cumulative disadvantage over time if left unaddressed [64].

7. Conclusions

This paper argues that assimilation theory—and certain elements within it—can offer useful insights for understanding the macro-level processes shaping neurodiversity and disability experiences, particularly in relation to pressures toward conformity and cultural integration. Classical and segmented assimilation models generally assume that exposure to dominant institutions produces gradual, directional change and reduced difference over time. Autism research extends this perspective by illustrating how participation often depends on camouflaging and other strategies of outward conformity that do not alter underlying neurological differences and can carry substantial psychological costs. As a result, what looks like “successful assimilation” may instead be conditional inclusion—access granted only so long as normative performance is maintained—while exclusion may reflect structural ableism and inaccessible environments rather than failed adaptation.

To address these differences, we propose neurodiversifying assimilation by shifting from a unidirectional model of minority change to a reciprocal model of incorporation. Drawing on the life-course perspective, incorporation is better understood as context-dependent, shaped by turning points (e.g., diagnosis, schooling, employment), cumulative advantage or disadvantage, and social bonds that can buffer stigma and expand opportunity. Future research should track neurodivergent trajectories longitudinally, examine intersections with race, class, gender, and immigration, and develop measures of participation that do not equate success with appearing neurotypical. Policy implications follow directly: meaningful inclusion requires institutional adaptation—accessibility, accommodations, anti-stigma protections—rather than expecting individuals to normalize. Additionally, future scholarship should further investigate the macro-level harms associated with pressures toward behavioral conformity among autistic individuals, with particular attention to how such dynamics may contribute to ongoing efforts to extend and refine theories of social adaptation in more reciprocal and context-sensitive ways.