Part 1: Neurodiversity–What Exactly Does It Mean?

42
7338

Mad in America and Mad in the UK are jointly publishing a four-part series on neurodiversity over the next four weeks. The series was edited by Mad in the UK editors, and authored by John Cromby and Lucy Johnstone.

Introduction

Over the last 25 years, neurodiversity has inspired both a social movement and an academic paradigm. At the time of writing both the movement and the paradigm are still developing, with people interpreting neurodiversity in different ways.

Some align neurodiversity with the critique of diagnosis and see it as offering a new, non-medical and non-pathologising way forward. Others strongly support diagnostic labels, and argue that professional diagnoses of autism, ADHD and so on should be more readily available.

So neurodiversity might be an inspiring new paradigm—a non-stigmatising alternative to psychiatric diagnosis, that encourages people to accept difference and value diversity. Alternatively, it might simply turn out to be the old ideas dressed up in new language about choice and empowerment—thus rehabilitating diagnostic thinking and assumptions and essentially preserving the status quo.

To add to the complexity, an emerging third group uses the neurodiversity movement as a platform for attacking current critiques and critics of the psychiatric diagnostic paradigm, such as those featured on MITUK and MIA, while at the same time claiming to be the true radicals. This is despite the fact that both parties share many views about the social and political roots of distress. It is a confusing and evolving picture. However, given the rapidity with which the concept of ‘neurodiversity’ has entered common parlance as well as clinical settings, we feel it is timely to attempt an overview of these influential but often contradictory perspectives.

Illustration of diverse people

Some caveats are necessary. It has rapidly, and surprisingly, become as difficult to challenge the idea of neurodiversity as it once was to dispute the labels of ‘schizophrenia’ or ‘personality disorder.’ In now doing so, we want to be very clear, firstly, that anything we say about neurodiversity is unlikely to apply to all uses and users of the term, given the multiple meanings and positions associated with it. Our blogs will attempt to clarify what we see as the major current trends and perspectives in the field, while recognising that in many ways they are very different in aims and motives.

Secondly, we wholeheartedly respect and uphold people’s personal right to describe their difficulties and differences in any way that is helpful to them (although we argue that in their work clinicians have a duty to use concepts that are in conventional terms evidence-based). None of what follows is intended as an attempt to limit or change that right, or to impose alternatives.

We welcome responses and debate.

(Authors’ note: We have indicated our reservations about the validity of diagnostic terms by using phrases such as ‘diagnosed as….’ )

Neurodiversity

The first appearance of ‘neurodiversity’ in a published work is often said to be Australian sociologist Judy Singer’s thesis in 1997. At that time new online communities were forming, using the still-novel internet to communicate. Realising that these communities could campaign for social change, Singer says she proposed ‘neurodiversity’ as a catalyst:

“I knew what I was doing… ‘Neuro’ was a reference to the rise of neuroscience. ‘Diversity’ is a political term; it originated with the black American civil rights movement. ‘Biodiversity’ is really a political term, too. As a word, ‘neurodiversity’ describes the whole of humanity. But the neurodiversity movement is a political movement for people who want their human rights…. I thought: ‘We need an umbrella term for a movement.’ And I also perceived that this was going to be the last great identity politics movement to come out of the 20th century.”

Singer’s campaigning had a specific focus. Some years earlier, psychiatrist Lorna Wing had hypothesised the existence of an autistic spectrummuch as in DSM5’s Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). At one end of the spectrum were those people with severe intellectual impairments said to be autistic; at the other end, ‘high functioning’ people described as having Asperger’s Syndrome. This syndrome was merged into the broader category of ASD in DSM 5 (2013) and ICD 11 (2019), and is therefore no longer used as a formal diagnosis, although some people still find it helpful to identify as ‘Aspies.’

Singer not only recognised aspects of ‘high-functioning autism’ in her mother’s behaviour, but also ‘after her daughter was diagnosed with Asperger’s at the age of nine… began to recognise certain traits in herself’. Consequently, neurodiversity initially focused upon people described as having high functioning autism or, as it was then termed, Asperger’s. Although Singer recognised that this excluded people with severe impairments, she hoped to foster a movement that would eventually benefit everyone who was said to have autism.

The Neurodiversity Movement

Neurodiversity simply means ‘variation in neurocognitive functioning’. So neurodiversity refers to a continuum that embraces, in Singer’s own words, ‘the whole of humanity’. Like biodiversity in nature, neurodiversity is seen as a beneficial and necessary aspect of the human species. But as neurodiversity theorist Nick Walker explains, this diversity is typically said to consist of two groups: people described as ‘neurodivergent’, who are in the minority, because they ‘diverge from the dominant societal standards of “normal” neurocognitive functioning’, and the dominant majority who are said to be ‘neurotypical’. The neurodiversity movement, then, campaigns for the rights of neurodivergent people, including those described as having ADHD or ASD.

Singer’s seminal contribution to neurodiversity was recognised in 2023 with an award from London’s Birkbeck College, and an acknowledgement that she had ‘changed how the world thinks’. She has recently been accused of transphobia, and possibly as a consequence of this, some of her prominent former supporters now argue that ‘To continue to attribute the coining and theorising of neurodiversity uncritically to any individual would from this point on be to knowingly and egregiously erase neurodivergent people from their own history’. This has led to unseemly public allegations and counter-allegations about altering Wikipedia entries and so on. Thus, there are significant tensions even within the broad subgroups of the neurodiversity movement.

Both neurodiversity and neurodivergence are broad, flexible concepts with considerable variation in the range of conditions they are said to include. One organisation lists ‘Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Tourette’s, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Dyslexia and Parkinson’s’. Alternately, an NHS Trust in England suggests ‘Autism, ADHD, ADD, Dyslexia, Dyscalculia and Dyspraxia’. And in the USA, the Cleveland Clinic offers an even wider variety of diagnoses including Down’s Syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder and social anxiety disorder. Stretching the concept still further, it has even been suggested that neurodiversity should also encompass those diagnosed with brain injury, epilepsy, ‘schizophrenia’, ‘personality disorder’ and dementia.

We return to the implications of this expansionism in Part 2. Throughout this series of blogs we will often use ‘ADHD’ and ‘ASD’ as examples of neurodivergence, since these are said to be its most common manifestations. So far we have defined neurodiversity, and described what is meant by the neurodiversity movement. We will now consider the neurodiversity paradigm.

The Neurodiversity Paradigm

This term describes work by commentators, researchers and scholars who believe that cognitive diversity (as an effect of neurodiversity) is the norm for our species. They go on to argue that many conditions described as disorders are therefore more accurately seen as neurodivergent differences with potentially positive aspects. So advocates of this view identify, prioritise and promote the experiences and needs of neurodivergent people, and conduct research where the social model of disability is a frequent resource.

The ‘social model’ actually refers to a collection of related models, a small set of similar ways of conceptualising disability (and related terms such as impairment and handicap). These models are collectively called ‘social’ because they all challenge the assumption that disability is simply medical. They vary slightly in how they frame this challenge, however. One widely used version of the social model proposes that impairment is an individual and (sometimes) medical matter. However, disability only arises when individual impairments encounter disabling environments built or designed according to neurotypical assumptions.

To illustrate: an impairment might prevent someone from walking because of damage to their nerves or muscles. However, that person is disabled only to the extent that transport, buildings and so on are inaccessible to people who use wheelchairs. So from a social model perspective, disability is not simply located in the individual. Instead, it emerges from failures to accommodate the needs of those who are not part of the able-bodied majority. This perspective has enabled disability activists who have different traits and conditions to forge links, strengthening their campaigns.

In line with this, neurodiversity treats forms of neurodivergence as enduring and pervasive differences in being human. Rather than being seen as medical or psychiatric disorders, which could in principle be treated or resolved, these collections of traits are understood as describing more-or-less stable characteristics of the self which happen not to fit in with neurotypical norms.

Neurodiversity theorist Nick Walker was the first to coin the phrase the ‘pathology paradigm’ to describe the set of ideas, beliefs and practices which impose and reproduce these norms. At core, says Walker, the pathology paradigm assumes:

‘…that there is one “right” style of human neurocognitive functioning. Variations in neurocognitive functioning that diverge substantially from socially constructed standards of ‘normal’—including the variations that constitute autism—are framed within this paradigm as medical pathologies, as deficits, damage, or “disorders”.’

In contrast, neurodiversity sees the experiences associated with psychiatric diagnoses as describing differences, not disorders. They represent equally valid ways of experiencing the world which do not fit a narrative of either ‘cure’ or ‘tragedy’. Again, whilst the diagnoses most commonly referred to are ASD or ADHD, many other diagnoses are potentially relevant. Whatever diagnosis they are given, neurodivergent people are seen as possessing unique strengths not always recognised or valued by mainstream society.

Confusingly, though, many people who identify as neurodivergent do use psychiatric diagnostic labels to describe themselves. Many of them are not against psychiatric diagnosis as such; rather, they are opposed to a particular, medical understanding of diagnosis. In fact, faced with long waiting lists at Autism and ADHD clinics, a growing number are claiming the right to ‘self-diagnose’. In addition, some describe themselves as ‘disabled’ in a sense that seems to go beyond the disability movement’s meaning of the term. This leads to debates about the equivalence of different types of ‘disability’—awkwardness in social situations, for example, versus using a wheelchair or recovering from a stroke. We will discuss this in more detail in Part 4.

A point of agreement between all perspectives is that the differences associated with being neurodivergent share an important feature: they contradict dominant social norms about how we are expected to feel, think, behave, relate, work and live. The 6-year-old boy who daydreams in school; the student who prefers reading to parties; the office worker who is often distracted; the parent who is untidy and disorganisedall can now attribute these traits to their neurodivergence.

The concept of neurodiversity has been taken up by campaigners in many countries, and inspired activists online and in the real world. An overview of neurodiversity’s impact in the USA observes that:

‘Today, the term neurodiversity yields thousands of results on Google Scholar. A growing number of universities boast neurodiversity initiatives, typically focused on some combination of research into neurological disability and supporting greater access to higher education. Major international corporations….boast “neurodiversity hiring programs” that recruit autistic jobseekers as well as others with neurological disabilities. In December 2020, the US federal government welcomed the first participants in the Neurodiverse Federal Workforce pilot program (Thomas, 2021). Neurodiversity…. has firmly entered the cultural mainstream, with the concept referred to frequently by parents and professionals alongside the autistic persons who first initiated it. Furthermore, autistic people themselves have built infrastructure in the form of advocacy groups, cultural convenings, and even businesses oriented around the movement’s ideas and larger philosophy.’

In the UK, neurodiversity is discussed in the 2021 National Strategy for autistic people, and is routinely included in official reports on mental health. ‘Neurodivergent Labour’ is ‘…a representative and campaigning organisation of Labour Party members and supporters who are neurologically divergent’ while ‘Conservative Friends of Neurodiversity’ is the Tory equivalent. Neurodiversity was the subject of a 2023 special edition of The Psychologist, the house journal for all psychologists in the UK. Groups for ‘neurodivergent’ therapists, counsellors, clients and many others are joining the growing number of organisations, training courses, enterprises and businesses based on the concept. Clinicians of various backgrounds, journalists, teachers, parents and many others have adopted the language of neurodiversity. ‘Neurodivergent TikTok’ has thousands of followers, while in schools the term is increasingly used for children who struggle with reading, spelling or physical co-ordination, as well as with attention. And the UK’s Royal College of Psychiatry (RCP) has enthusiastically welcomed the concept. In 2023 the RCP marked ‘International Day of Persons with Disabilities’ by publishing two blogs ‘that reveal what working in psychiatry is like for a neurodivergent person’. Their website has for some time offered educational webinars about neurodiversity to psychiatrists, and NHS England has appointed a former RCP president as the first medical director for mental health and neurodiversity.

Problems Defining Neurodiversity

Neurodiversity suddenly seems to have become a fact of life, without the critical scrutiny that any new concept or movement needs. This is especially important since neurodiversity appears to be equally acceptable to left-wing campaigners for social justice, and to right-wing politicians and parties, multi-national corporations and government officials. The ease with which neurodiversity is accepted across the entire political landscape clearly signals that there is nothing intrinsically radical or liberatory about the concept. There are, however, various problems associated with attempts to define neurodiversity. We summarise these problems below.

The Meaning of ‘Neuro-‘

We have shown that neurodivergence is an inclusive, flexible concept, said to include a wide variety of diagnoses and experiences. This leads to some obvious problems in deciding who is, or is not, neurodivergent. Diversity, as Singer said, is part of the human condition: in a broad sense we are all ‘wired differently.’ Crucially, though, the subdivision into ‘neurodivergent’ and ‘neurotypical’ entirely lacks a neurological basis.

This is why psychiatrist Sami Timimi says: ‘I struggle with the “neuro” bit of ‘neurodiversity’—the evidence just isn’t there. We are all neurodiverse, so as a concept it’s meaningless in a biological sense’. This is also true of the specific diagnoses most commonly seen as manifestations of neurodiversity, ADHD and ASD, which are described as ‘neurodevelopmental disorders’ even though in most cases there is little evidence to support this claim. We will return to this issue in Part 2; for now, we need to ask where the ‘neuro bit’ came from, and why is it there?

The 1990s “Decade of the Brain‟ was initiated by US President George Bush, and saw massive investment in neuroscience across the English-speaking world. Colourful images from brain scanners, images that seemed to be photographs of living thought itself, were seized upon and reproduced by the media. At the same time, studies linking specific brain areas to particular abilities or defects were splashed across the news almost daily. This was the rise of neuroscience, which Judy Singer said led her to promote the term neurodiversity.

Singer was not the only person to be influenced. As the effects of the flood of neuroscience research rippled through universities, a multitude of new disciplines was rapidly proposed: neuro-economics, neuro-anthropology, neuro-marketing, neuro-politics, neuro-law, neuro-education and more. Relatedly, in everyday life researchers have seen an ‘explosion in usage and application of the “neuro” prefix to seemingly unlimited areas of discourse’. They hypothesise that this is due to the attraction of ‘adding an authoritative gloss by virtue of its scientific, modern, technological associations’).

In academia the great wave of neuro-enthusiasm came with warnings about both neuromyths and neurobabble. A neuromyth is a culturally prevalent misunderstanding of neuroscience, used to justify actions or policies. In education, for example, the neuromyth that there are individual brain-based preferences for different learning styles—visual, auditory or kinetic—influenced the way that some teachers taught. The widespread but erroneous belief that the diagnoses of ADHD and ASD are associated with known neurodevelopmental changes (see Part 2 of this series) could be seen as a contemporary example of a neuromyth.

Neuro-babble, say academics, is when a description or explanation gains authority simply because it is somehow connected to neuroscience. It might, for example, come from a neuroscientist, or include speculation about a particular brain region or system. In 2011, neuroscientist Susan Greenfield claimed that computer games cause dementia. Her claim was reported as though it was factual, even though there was no research testing this hypothesis.

Now, some twenty years since the Decade of the Brain, it is apparent that most of the proposed new neuro-disciplines either never took off or quickly fizzled out. And, alerted to the dangers of neuromyths, neuroscientists today have few excuses for overstating the significance of their research.

But in everyday life—where neuro-babble can simply mean adding the prefix ‘neuro-‘—the effects of the 1990s neuroscience boom continue seemingly unabated. In addition to neurodiversity itself, the movement has now given us such terms as neuroaffirmative, neuronorms, neurotribes, neurotypes, neurokin, neurocognitivism, neurospicy, neuroqueer, and even neuro-Thatcherism.

So Timimi is right to question the validity of the neuro- prefix. Its widespread use means we must be careful to distinguish between obvious truths and speculative neuro-babble. It is obviously true that we each have a uniquely-wired brain; and that some people have very real struggles with concentration, making relationships, and so on. These truths are quite distinct from statements implying that there are known, stable, observable differences that explain these difficulties in neurological terms, and which thus validate the concepts of neurodiversity, neurodevelopmental disorder, ASD or ADHD.

Continual caution of this kind is necessary because, like psychiatric diagnoses more generally, there are plenty of optimistic—albeit vague, abstract and unconfirmed—statements that seem to back-up these more specific claims. Here is an example:

’…while there are no precise biomarkers, there is evidence of complex clusters of biological tendencies in structure and functioning at least roughly mapping on to a variety of currently pathologised forms of functioning.’

But, as also with psychiatric diagnoses more generally, such claims are disputed by experts in (for example) neuroscience, psychiatry, neuroimaging and genetics who have carefully studied the evidence from their own disciplines and drawn quite different conclusions

Expansionism

Lack of clarity about basic concepts has had the predictable consequence of massive expansionism. Over time, the diagnostic criteria for both ADHD and ASD have widened, both officially and unofficially, and now include many who previously would not have been given a diagnosis. This was deliberate, and took place after lobbying by advocates in the USA, who see a lifelong diagnosis as the key to healthcare and disability legal protections. Many more who didn’t have learning disabilities were diagnosed. Private clinics sprang up, offering diagnostic assessments and promising a fast track to the help you need, which they promise will be facilitated by a diagnosis.

Dr Allen Frances, chair of the DSM IV committee, has publicly expressed regret for the expansion of criteria in the 1994 manual, which ‘…inadvertently contributed to three false “epidemics”—attention deficit disorder, autism and childhood bipolar disorder.’ Part 2 of this series will consider some possible wider reasons for the ‘epidemics’ in ADHD and ASD (the increase in childhood bipolar disorder is both less striking and more uncertain). Nevertheless, to some extent the increases are almost certainly the consequence of adding criteria for under-7s such as ‘often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities’; and ‘…often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is inappropriate’. It would be an unusual child who did not sometimes behave in that way.

It is not surprising that the even fuzzier concept of neurodivergence has also expanded, so that it now includes almost every human behaviour and experience, plus its opposite. As a brief glance at the many communities on social media will show, signs of neurodivergence are said to include not concentrating, or being over-focused; talking too much, or too little; oversharing, or undersharing; difficulty in switching tasks, or inability to stick to one; making eye contact too often or too infrequently; being particularly sensitive or insensitive; drinking alcohol rarely, or too much; being seen as glamorous and composed, or odd and chaotic; losing jobs regularly, or keeping them for decades; being high or low achieving; having a strong interest in football and indie bands, or an aversion to popular culture; over-apologising, or being rude and not caring what people think; keeping the same hair colour and style for years, or changing it every month; and so on (see for example this thread on Twitter/X).

The ever-expanding range of neurodivergent experiences circulated on social media also includes: reading too much, collecting information about birds, cars, trains or planes, high pain tolerance, not responding promptly to texts, feeling exhausted after a long office day, speaking the truth, feeling tired all the time, wearing bright colours, disliking fluorescent lights, enjoying being alone, fidgeting, biting your fingernails, staying up too late, being concerned about social justice, disliking wearing socks, losing your car keys, being constantly late, impulsivity, scrolling through your phone when you should be doing something else, and waving your hands when talking; and may even explain, according to one anxious enquirer, ‘difficulty getting hold of a plumber.’

There is also a whole new terminology to describe what were previously seen as unremarkable behaviours: fiddling with your hair is now ‘stimming’; disliking loud music is a ‘sensory sensitivity’; losing your temper may be a case of ‘autistic meltdown’; upset at the end of a relationship is ‘rejection sensitivity dysphoria’; difficulty keeping up with daily tasks is ‘pathological demand avoidance’. To make things more complicated, neurodivergent people, particularly girls and women, are apparently able to ‘mask’ their differences for decades by becoming exceptionally skilled at displaying the opposite behaviours; this ability itself then becomes a sign of their ‘autism’.

Another curiosity is that many of these examples would seem to extend well beyond the experiences that could be described as primarily as a ‘neurocognitive’ style, as in Nick Walker’s seminal definition of neurodiversity. Rather, they seem to encompass more or less the whole spectrum of human emotions and behaviour. In this context, Walker has recently begun using the term ‘bodymind’ in recognition of the fact that ‘mind is an embodied phenomenon, and that mind and embodiment are inseparably entwined’. However, despite this verbal camouflage, the core idea that neurodivergence is fundamentally to do with the brain remains central.

It may be objected that some of these examples of apparent neurodivergence are obviously ridiculous, and that official sites are more restrained. Yet this objection misses some very important points: The truth is that there are no ‘official’ sites that, either by authority or consensus, are agreed to define neurodivergence accurately. Nor are there any objective criteria to distinguish ‘correct’ from ‘incorrect’ instances of neurodivergence. Nor is there any formal consensus regarding how many traits or behaviours qualify you as neurodivergent. Neither is there any agreed guidance on how noticeable, extreme or troublesome these traits or behaviours should be in order to count. And receiving an official diagnosis of one of the conditions included under the term ‘neurodivergence’ does not get us any further, since those diagnoses are themselves—like all psychiatric labels—based ultimately on subjective judgements about how far someone’s behaviour deviates from a given social norm.

Further complicating matters, the neurodiversity movement now increasingly argues for the right of people to self-diagnose on the basis of whatever experiences they are having, and encourages them to see this as just as valid as an official diagnosis. We will return to the issue of self-diagnosis later in this series.

Excluded Groups

The expansion of neurodivergence has, paradoxically, led to alienation and anger amongst parents and carers of those children identified as having autism according to earlier, much narrower DSM criteria. These children typically have severe deficits and impairments that do seem to fit the description of a neurodevelopmental disorder of some kind (although medical tests are currently lacking). When it was initially proposed as a distinct condition by Leo Kanner in 1943, in fact, autism was only said to occur amongst people with severe intellectual impairments). The merging of this group, in DSM 5, with ‘Asperger’s or ‘high-functioning’ presentations means that children who never learn to speak or live independently find themselves in the same diagnostic group as articulate adults with friends, partners and successful careers.

These differences are acknowledged by some neurodiversity scholars: ’What used to be called Asperger’s Syndrome (hereafter, autism) [is] an example of neurodivergent functioning [with] no inherent… clinical suffering or disablement’. But as child psychiatrist Sami Timimi points out, a category that includes both ‘residents of institutions with little functioning language…and a long list of the great and the good such as Mozart, Van Gogh, Edison, Darwin and Einstein—all of whom, along with many others, have been retrospectively diagnosed’ has very little coherence.

The problem is further illustrated by the growing number of celebrities with outwardly successful lives who now describe themselves as ‘autistic’ or as having ADHD; in the UK this includes Chris Packham, Anthony Hopkins, Melanie Sykes, Gary Numan, Rory Bremner, Stephen Fry, Ant McPartlin, Sheridan Smith, Sue Perkins, Jamie Oliver, Johnny Vegas and Heston Blumenthal, and in the USA Dan Ackroyd, Jerry Seinfield, Elon Musk, Courtney Love, Darryl Hannah, James Taylor, John Denver, and a growing number of others.

Inclusion for some has thus resulted in exclusion for others—often those in most need. In the words of a father with two non-verbal sons who require 24-hour care: ‘Neurodiversity advocates ignore the harsh realities of severe autism, and want to forget about my sons and others like them…. For them, autism is a life-altering, cruel disability, and I’d do anything to help them feel good and give them a better quality of life’.

In response to these kinds of concerns there is now a movement by some parents to define children with severe autism as a separate group with their own distinctly different needs. They feel that these needs are becoming increasingly invisible, and that their children are even losing services, as a consequence of the wider neurodiversity movement.

Meanwhile, somewhere between those with undeniable neurological impairments and those described as high-functioning, there are large numbers of seemingly ordinary children who do not seem to be learning or behaving as desired, and adults who are in various ways struggling with daily life. The contrast between the two ends of the ever-expanding spectrum could hardly be more pronounced. Are these really just the same kind of phenomenon or condition, and should the same kinds of disability status and adjustments apply?

Clinical Research and Practice

With regard to clinical research, the absence of a clear definition of neurodivergence, either in general or in its ADHD or ASD versions, will inevitably hinder both reasoning and the identification of variables and measures. This will impact negatively upon both empirical research and theory building.

In addition, the view of neurodivergence as ‘difference not disorder’ can make the very idea of many kinds of research controversial, since the notion of ‘treatment’ or ‘cure’ is seen by some as having eugenicist overtones. There is widespread agreement that the original version of Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) in the 1960s, involving intensive and sometimes punitive training in social skills for severely autistic children, was ethically problematic. The debate now centres on whether any kind of CBT is acceptable, or simply a way of imposing ‘normality’ on natural differences. Less widely known is the blocking by some in the neurodiversity community of the Spectrum 10K study, a large-scale genetically informed investigation into autism which aimed to clarify whether there were subgroups within the broad spectrum, on the grounds that the study was unethical. This was despite reassurances that the project was ‘…opposed to eugenics or looking for a cure for preventing or eradicating autism itself’.

Setting aside these specific examples, the conflation of what appear to be very different types of problem has created a more general suspicion of scientific and medical research into autism. This will inevitably hinder attempts to fill the gaps in our knowledge about children with severe, lifelong disabilities.

With regard to clinical practice, the most obvious consequence of the loose definition of neurodivergence is the lengthy waiting lists of people wanting to be assessed for ASD and/or ADHD. Currently, it is not unusual to be told that you will need to wait 5 years for an assessment, and we are aware of NHS clinics with several thousand people waiting to be seen. Understandably, this causes great distress. In the UK, an NHS taskforce has been set up to investigate the rapid rise in ADHD diagnoses and address variations in assessment and intervention.

This highlights another area of confusion. Neurodivergence is said to be ‘difference not disorder’; these differences are held to be immutable and lifelong; and the very idea of ‘treating’ or ‘curing’ them is offensive to some. Given this, the purpose of ASD and ADHD clinics is unclear. Perhaps some want only a formal diagnosis that will validate difficulties, facilitate access to educational support, enable access to benefits and so on. If so, a clinical (as opposed to exclusively diagnostic) service is barely necessary—yet all strands of the neurodiversity movement deplore the lack of access to clinical services.

Meanwhile, the disadvantages of a child acquiring a label such as ADHD are becoming obvious. Dr Allen Frances and colleagues summarised them in a recent paper as: ‘low teacher and parent expectations that become self-fulfilling prophecies; prejudice and stigmatisation of diagnosed children; children applying stereotypes to themselves, leading to self-stigma and low self-esteem; decline of self-efficacy; a less effective and potentially counter-effective focus on fixed traits instead of behaviours; a more passive role towards problems…. And the risk of overlooking contextual, social and societal explanations, due to the specious explanation offered by labelling’ These consequences will be illustrated in Part 3.

Social Norms

Part of the problem in deciding on criteria for neurodivergence is that it is defined in relation to social norms; ‘diverg(ing) from the dominant societal standards of “normal” neurocognitive functioning’. This is one of the few things on which all parties agree. But it also rules out the possibility of developing stable and objective criteria for deciding who is neurodivergent and who is neurotypical. This is simply because distinctions made on the basis of social norms (1) will change over time, and from one situation to another, as the relevant norms change; and (2) cannot be expected to coincide consistently with categories at the biological level.

This is a complex but important point. As we have seen, the traits associated with being neurodivergent are said to be more or less stable aspects of the individual—they have always, let’s say, found it hard to organise themselves, and as a consequence, always have an untidy desk. It is possible—although unlikely—that this might be the direct result of specific neurological differences in the brain. This would be most plausible if the person has a confirmed medical condition such as brain injury or dementia. It is much less likely if the behaviours are simply, as with most of us most of the time, the result of a complex mixture of contextual and personal factors. Maybe we don’t have a suitable place to work, we have too many demands and deadlines, we are distracted by something in our personal life, or a hundred other possibilities.

Whatever the reason, the point is that this failure to organise and be tidy will qualify as neurodivergence only if it clashes with a social expectation of how we should behave. And it may well do so, but this expectation will inevitably fluctuate and change: both from one situation to another, and over time as social norms continue to evolve.

So we might always be untidy—but only in certain situations will we also be neurodivergent. In an environment where untidiness was accepted as a sign of creativity—an artist’s studio, perhaps—our neurodivergence would disappear. Conversely, in a tightly regulated, safety- critical environment, such as an operating theatre, untidiness would be a definite problem for which neurodivergence might be proposed as the explanation.

This much is acknowledged by neurodiversity proponents; they believe that the idea of a ‘normal’ brain is a social construct (although as we have noted, this is somewhat at odds with the claim that there are identifiably different structures or functions in the brains of neurodivergent people). However, the logical consequences of this belief are rarely discussed.

To extend the argument: if we base judgements about neurodivergence on social norms, any of us is liable to change status from ‘neurotypical’ to ‘neurodivergent’, and vice versa, as those norms change. And just to add to the complexity, each of us is likely to have a mixture of neurotypical and neurodivergent traits or characteristics. We may find it easy to concentrate on our work tasks, but dread the after-work party. Conversely, we may enjoy loud music but be unable to tolerate the textures of certain foods.

In practice, possession of a single ‘neurodivergent’ trait seems to be enough to qualify for self-diagnosis into the category. Given the long list of candidate symptoms, this could very well mean that almost everyone is eligible. Again, while our particular preferences, behaviours and sensitivities might remain constant, there are no formal, ‘official’, agreed or accepted standards—and, it seems, no viable way of establishing any such standards—about how many of these traits you have to possess, how broadly we understand the social context, which norms are relevant, and so on.

This means it is entirely possible that people might flip from ‘neurotypical’ to ‘neurodivergent’ simply by moving from one situation or group to another. In theory, this could happen several times a day. It is even more likely to happen, of course, if we relocate to another culture. In fact, any given person’s neuro-status, if we can put it that way, is likely to be in constant flux. Meanwhile, the artificial division into two groups can ‘… foster(s) an ”us versus them” mentality, wherein nonautistic people are regarded as an oppressive enemy’.

All of this poses a profound problem for the neurodiversity movement. The rhetoric positions the two groups of neurotypical and neurodiverse as stable and definable. However, avoiding ‘ableism’, and ‘learning to be a true ally and using your privileged position’ to ‘stand with’ neurodivergent people in a commitment to being ‘neuroaffirmative’ will be much more difficult if the tables might be turned at any moment, as an evolving situation or changing context renders the formerly neurodivergent person neurotypical, or vice versa. Defining group membership by constantly shifting standards is not a viable basis for day-to-day living, clinical practice, or social movements based upon group identification.

Conclusion

We have argued that the emerging field of neurodiversity is filled with contradictions. Many of these arise from the ill-defined nature of the concept of neurodiversity itself. But, as we will suggest in subsequent blogs, these and other paradoxes may also arise from the competing interests operating under this large but leaky conceptual umbrella. Some of the contradictions we have noted in this blog are:

Neurodiversity is said to be an inclusive concept applying to all of us—but in practice, has led to what many see as an unhelpful division between neurodivergents and neurotypicals—with the latter often positioned as benefiting from today’s version of original sin, ‘privilege’. Moreover, it is those with the most severe disabilities, people who in many cases quite literally have no voice of their own, who are most likely to be excluded by these developments. Inclusivity has thus turned into increased marginalisation.

In addition, the proliferation of new groupings and identities can, as Sami Timimi comments, ‘create(s) unnecessary divisions, eroding the multiplicity that makes up our mental lives, and may trap people back into pigeonholes rather than free them from stereotyping’. Nick Walker’s examples of correct language use—‘My neurodiverse family includes three neurotypicals, two Autistics, and one person who’s both ADHD and dyslexic’—certainly seem to bear this out.

Simultaneously, the confusion between neurodivergence as ‘difference’ versus ADHD or ASD as ‘disorder’ (indeed, the word ‘disorder’ is part of the diagnostic label) leads to even more questions. What is research meant to be investigating, what are services meant to be offering, and should we be researching causes or offering treatments at all? And if we do provide services, which conditions would the ‘Neurodiversity Service’ include—and which would it exclude?

Here is another strange paradox. The more experiences that are subsumed under the heading of neurodivergence, the smaller the pool of neurotypicals becomes—until everyone is neurodivergent, and we are back to square one. The same holds true for psychiatric diagnosis in general: When everyone is ‘mentally ill’, then no one is ‘mentally ill’, because a diagnosis of ‘mental illness’ is based on a judgement that you are different from the norm, and it will soon be statistically normal to fit the criteria for at least one ‘mental illness’.

It is also worth questioning the implicit picture of the neurotypical person, who apparently floats through life effortlessly, competently and serenely, never losing their keys or getting distracted by their phone, and always knowing exactly what to say and do in any given social situation. Who is this extraordinary creature? And how have we become persuaded to aspire to these completely unrealistic standards, just as the world gets more demanding and difficult? It is not the first time we have been fooled by such images—the perfect wife or mother, the tough guy, and so on—but this seems to be a particularly pernicious version. We suggest some reasons in later blogs.

Perhaps we need a better, less contradictory way of acknowledging and accepting our human struggles and skills, similarities and differences. And perhaps we need to think more deeply about why it is so hard to do this. Meanwhile, it seems that much of this confusion could be avoided if we dropped the ‘neuro’ prefix. We are all diverse. We want to live in a society that accepts all of us. Let us celebrate diversity, while being appropriately cautious about neurodiversity as a way of achieving this.

We will expand on these themes in the other three parts of this series.

***

Bibliography

Botha, M., Chapman, R., Giwa Onaiwu, M., Kapp, S. K., Stannard Ashley, A., & Walker, N. (2024). The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory. Autism, 28(6), 1591-1594.

Chapman, R. (2019). Neurodiversity Theory and Its Discontents: Autism, Schizophrenia, and the Social Model of Disability. In S. Tekin & R. Bluhm (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Philosophy of Psychiatry (pp. 371-389). London: Bloomsbury.

Chapman, R. (2023). A Critique of Critical Psychiatry. Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology, 30(2), 103-119.

David, A. S., & Deeley, Q. (2024). Dangers of self-diagnosis in neuropsychiatry. Psychological Medicine, 54(6)

Gini, S., Knowland, V., Thomas, M. S. C., & Van Herwegen, J. (2021). Neuromyths About Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Misconceptions by Educators and the General Public. Mind, Brain, and Education, 15(4), 289-298.

Goswami, U. (2004). Neuroscience and Education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 1-14.

Hartman, D., Day, A., O’Donnell-Killen, T., Doyle, J., Kavanagh, M., & Azevedo, M. (2024). What Does It Mean To Be Neurodiversity Affirmative. The Psychologist (February), 18-22.

Johnstone, L. (2022). A Straight Talking Introduction to Psychiatric Diagnosis (second edition). Ross-on-Wye, PCCS Books

Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact. Nervous Child: Journal of Psychopathology, Psychotherapy, Mental Hygiene, and Guidance of the Child(2), 217-250.

Kapp, S. (2020). Introduction. In S. Kapp (Ed.), Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement: Stories from the Frontline (pp. 1-19). Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.

Malhi, G. S., Jadidi, M., & Bell, E. (2023). The diagnosis of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents: Past, present and future. Bipolar Disorders, 25(6), 469-477.

Ne’eman, A., & Pellicano, E. (2022). Neurodiversity as Politics. Human Development, 66(2), 149-157.

Nour, M. M., Liu, Y., & Dolan, R. J. (2022). Functional neuroimaging in psychiatry and the case for failing better. Neuron, 110(16), 2524-2544.

Oakes, P., Loukas, M., Oskouian, R. J., & Tubbs, R. S. (2017). The neuroanatomy of depression: A review. Clinical Anatomy, 30(1), 44-49.

Raz, A., & Thibault, R. (Eds.). (2019). Casting Light on the Dark Side of Brain Imaging. London: Academic Press.

Rose, N., & Abi-Rachid, J. (2013). Neuro. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

te Meerman, S., Batstra, L., Grietens, H., & Frances, A. (2017). ADHD: a critical update for educational professionals. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 12(sup1)

Timimi, S. (2021). Insane Medicine: How the Mental Health Industry Creates Damaging Treatment Traps and How you can Escape Them: Independently Published.

Torrey, E. F. (2024). Did the human genome project affect research on Schizophrenia? Psychiatry Research, 333, 115691

Walker, N. (2021 originally 2016). Autism and the Pathology Paradigm. In N. Walker (Ed.), Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Post-Normal Possibilities (pp. (ebook)). Fort Worth, Texas: Autonomous Press.

***

Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.

42 COMMENTS

  1. I’m afraid our concept of neurodiversity, like all our psychological concepts, are inside out and the wrong way round. You MIGHT say there is manifest neurodiversity, but this is an effect: it is not a cause of divergent thinking. What you call neurodiversity is actually caused by the shifting balance of energies of consciousness tending towards increased amounts of mental and psychic energy. You think I am mad. Let me explain starting at the familiar and going outward to the unfamiliar.

    Our consciousness has many subtle layers, or modalities, and some are familiar to everyone. There is sensation, what you call ‘the world’. There are the instincts and desires and fears, which are one layer, and they express themselves in imaginative form and through action and unconscious machinations. There is the emotional layer, how your heart reacts to life from moment to moment, and there is the mental egoistic sphere, which is a simple mechanical social consciousness pretending to be ‘me’ but entirely composed of socially conditioned thought forms and thought processes which actually operate in a mechanical way. Then there is the intellectual, which unlike the mental egoistic sphere is not personal. The intellect, if you observe, is impersonal in it’s operations, otherwise, if it is me thinking about myself, I call that mental egoistic.

    And beyond the intellectual is the poetic and philosophical. So what is the difference between the intellectual and the poetic philosophical? The intellect is left-brain based and divides reality conceptually into isolated fragments, and considers those isolated fragments mobilizing their image or word form as a representation. But the philosophic poetic sees what is as it is, and instead of breaking it up into isolated conceptual abstractions, it paints what is as an artist would paint a picture, only using words. So it uses words to evoke a mimetic copy of the actual, it uses words to paint the actual, and that is what I do. I am anti-intellectual, but use words so sound intellectual, but I’m not. I know these levels of consciousness because the consciousness observed itself and unveiled itself and understood itself. The east call this meditation. I all this psychosis, allot of magic mushrooms, and then becoming a creature of nature again and all of nature meditates. Even the Earth and the solar system and the galaxies meditate. Anyway….

    And then beyond the poetic philosophic you get the psychic layer of consciousness. It’s not nearly as exciting as it sounds. Everyone has it, and it informs our activities via our unconscious, and although many are deluded that THEY are psychic, you can’t actually BE psychic. You can become aware of the ongoing, constant activity of the psychic level of consciousness, and when you become aware of it it becomes active in your daily life like the intellect, informing the brain of relevant data. I hate the psychic now because the brain has been inundated with all the secrets of the Universe and now they make the brain sick. Which is perfect because then hopefully it won’t be so excited and blab all the secrets on Mad In America. Woops….Anyway…..

    And the psychic is a strange thing. First time I really noticed it’s activity was when I caught my brain saying about a cat or a dog “oh, isn’t SHE (or HE) cute”, and the body consciousness would wonder “how come the brain knew it was a she?” And the eyes would check as the dog walked passed and confirm the gender, and it was right every time. And then when someone would mention they had a cat or a dog, I would say “oh, is it a young male?” And I would just spontaneously say it, so there is no speaker or thinker – just saying. So I can’t tell you where it came from – perhaps the brain or the psychic energy. Anyway.

    There is also an energetic layer of consciousness which I think is between the senuous and the mental, and you can see and feel and sense the flavour, if you like, of these energies, and they effect the physical. They are what you call emotions and instincts and are intelligent life energies that enter positive (energy yielding) and negative (energy usurping) states. These contribute to the total energy of consciousness.

    But the God part is the part you consider most boring and unchanging, and that is awareness. But notice how it just reveals what is as it is, without naming it, without interpreting it, so it isn’t biased, and because it doesn’t say what anything is, because it never interprets, it is never wrong. If you could ignore all your thinking and follow only this awareness, you would transform your brain into a perfect, whole brain. This they call meditation, but they don’t understand that meditation is not something you can practice, because then thought is trying to practice not thinking, which is a contradiction. You just have to discover through life or learning the IMPORTANCE of being aware of what takes place within your consciousness all the time. When you discover this importance, naturally the brain begins to observe because it sees the importance of doing so. Why would you call this meditation? Only to describe it to another, and this is where all the confusion arises. As Krishnamurti said, conscious meditation is not meditation. Natual meditation is awareness of what is, and there is only ever awareness of what is! What else is there but awareness of what is? So how can you teach it? Obviously you can’t. The brain just has to understand the importance of watching it’s own operations in order to understand them and thereby transorm itself through learning and navigate itself with greater intelligence, efficiency and power.

    Anyway, after that very long rant, neurodivergents tend to have more mental and psychic energy and less defensive, creative and sexual and emotional energy – you might say energetically they are less grounded. And I forgot to mention the defensive fight or flight energy – that’s the lowest level of conscious energy and you know it in the rabbit, squiral and mouse. But the cat has more psychic energy and the dog more heart-centered or emotional energy. Seagulls? Please, just don’t ask me about the seagulls. Perhaps American seagulls are different at any rate.

    PS, Biden is an animated corpse and you almost lost your other contender for POTUS! For a moment there my opposition to guns wavered. But then I realized he missed.

    Report comment

  2. The brain is like an enormous tree, so talking of neurodiversity is really talking about the arrangement of branches and leaves. At the end of the day if a tree grows naturally it will grow into its own shape shaped by the environment both physical, social and consequently, psychological, because psychology is the outcome of the conditioning of the brain by society. Without this conditioning there is just perception, insight, seeing, and the understanding and love that flows from that.

    The development of repressive cultures and social histories, the development of a repressive overarching social and psychological structure that constrains and conditions all our life activities, have obviously been mitigating against true neurodiversity, which would be the free growth of the brain, because it is like a group mold within which all social minds are put together, or a culture within which all brains are conditioned. When civilization collapses, as it will, and when we return to nature with these powerful brains, our own minds will be the new society, and each of us will be a new society. Society means unity, but today it is a unity brought about through domination, hegemony, not freedom. A healthy society would be just like the healthy animal body. It would be one self-loving, self-healing, self-restoring thing. And you can’t deny that to a catapillar or a fly on a leaf. It’s all they know. It’s all Mother Earth ever knew, and she even knows it today, shattered as she’s been into a billion unhappy pieces. They will all heal themselves if left alone by social history. May the new green life of a redeemed humanity spring from the ruins of civilization and the ruins of our own minds. This new green life is creative and free. It wells up naturally in freedom and health. To be healthy become free first. Health follows freedom, not the other way around. Every child and animal can show you that, and every plant or tree. So don’t ask me to prove my theory. Your eyes are not a theory. Use them!

    Report comment

  3. All natural, unspoiled creatures of nature, from the bobcat to the human child, are perfect things, healthy things, happy things, beautiful things. This is the only fact in material existence you need to discover and understand, because then you see that health is a simple fact of natural life, not a mystery. The mystery ought to be how natural creatures become unhealthy, and if you recognize the fact outlined the answer is so painfully obvious. It was social history that destroyed human health, which means happiness, wholeness, holiness too. Social history is the only other to Mother Nature and obviously the only betrayer of her golden skilful creative harmony which we call health, happiness, wholeness, holiness and freedom. We may never know health again, however, because nothing on Earth is in acceptable condition whatsoever – NOTHING. Awareness is the only perfection we have but awareness is not of the Earth. Rather, it sees an Earth and a humanity destroyed by it’s social historical activities. Simple perception shows you all of this. Simple perception.

    Report comment

  4. When I hear the term ‘neurodiversity’ I tune out and quit taking the person seriously. I find the term offensive and feel like it minimizes a person’s suffering in order to make well meaning professionals feel better about themselves and their lack of ability to help.

    Report comment

  5. https://youtu.be/vUqZZcQPu2U?si=TvCzaPf6eI2vRAQP

    The demonizing of women, mothers, sisters, daughters, is coming globally. It is being shoe horned into many male influencer’s channels. Here is Jordan Peterson castigating cluster B mothers. He is providing hyper logical verbiage towards the oppression of
    women. Increasingly he portrays having a bugaboo against emotionality, empathy, compassion. Being a victim is sadistically parasitic in his view. As if victim blaming will save the disintegrating culture. “Virtuous victimhood valorizing sadism” is one quote.
    Jordan Peterson once interviewed Franz De Waal, an expert on Bonobo apes. Bonobo apes are fascinating because they are not aggressive, their females have more autonomy, their interest is in emotional balance. Bonobos, like most animals, adore their females and do not like war. Jordon
    Peterson seems quick to forget that in his haste to mention how chimpanzees are apparently heirarchical and patriarchal.
    A new horrible regime is coming. It will have a Hitler type of dictator. That dictator is not
    here yet. The use of extreem logic to establish false certainty and excuse mass bullying will occur. When watching inspirational speakers be attentive to their arrogant certitude furthered by reason, rationalism, logic. There is nothing more logical sounding than psychoanalytical terminology. Imagine that logic is like a cruel god. What is occurring is each person is fearing that very logic god to the point where they think they can only topple that god by using yet more logic. The result is that people on the right are disparaging the logical on the left as being cold, cluster B, sadistic, narcissistic, psychopathic controllers…and…the people on the left are disparraging the extreemly logical on the right as being cold, cluster B, sadistic, narcissistic, psychopathic controllers.
    What is occurring on opposing sides is the lambasting of the tyrannous quality of hyper logic. The god of logic is awful and sadistic and cold and narcissistic but rather than know this to be the case the
    reverring and vaunting and lionizing of logic continues unchecked and unquestioned. Always ask…
    “Where is the interviewer’s absolute certainty about other people coming from?”.

    Report comment

  6. Agenda based articles on Neurodiversity are commonplace nowadays. This is is great piece to find out about how things are in 2024, but come on? We all know it’s biased around the parents of very mentally disabled kids?

    You involved a paragraph by a parent of severely mentally disabled who made an UNSUBSTANTIATED claim. There is no proof that autistic or Neurodiversity advocates take away support services. It’s parent-paranoia.

    Try harder next time with actual evidence, please ?

    Report comment

    • Thanks for your comment, Paul. The paragraph you mention is of course not the only critique we present. And I’m not convinced its only ‘parent paranoia’, either: after all, articulate neurodiversity activists have occasionally denied that autism can take a severe form. But yes, evidence would have strengthened our argument. We might have cited ‘Chasing the Intact Mind’ by Amy Lutz, which describes how, when activists campaigned against services specifically for severely disabled autistic people because they were ‘segregationist’, these services were most often simply closed and not replaced. In addition, Part 3 of this series will detail some adverse effects of neurodiversity within a UK clinical service for children.

      Report comment

      • Thank you. I was referring to the entire piece. It’s the usual biased towards mentally disabled children genre. Wonderfully objectively written mind you – a breath of fresh air in an emotional arena of combat.

        But still the usual. Which will make no difference whatsoever to all of us who are actually autistic/neurodivergent/on the spectrum however we identify.

        You hyper fixate on a simple issue. Losing sight of the simplicity of application of terms you describe like Neurospicy or Neurodivergent.

        It’s like refuting the term GAY. Or TRANS. I’ve always used Autism as a term and concept fast and loosely, as a slang term for uniquely minded individuals who to an extent, as I always elaborate, will never entirely be able to comprehend in medical/academic terms how their neurodiversity’s work. We only get the tip of the iceberg. The bit we can diagnose. Whereas from birth the rest of their internal natures are hidden under masking/social skills/coping/character/intelligence/who knows what abstact mental effects yet to be defined.

        I am sure you will make a good case for your frame of reference. But in so doing you are making a marvellous job of laying out the opposite.

        There has already been a global devolution of Neurodiversity terms to define people their own unique and individual way. It’s not a tiny thing. There are far more of us involved and into this than even your comprehensive article states. It’s getting bigger and bigger and people REALLY emotionally respond to what I am doing.

        I cannot get on public transport in London with my message t shirts on like NEUROTYPICALS ARE WEIRD without someone of any age or background comes up to me and responds. Walking the streets, same thing. I can prove it. Happened the other night on the Docklands Light Railway home, after I sold 3 such t shirts at an event. I had to give my card out.

        Also your response mentioned far more parents-of-disabled-children than the article. Aha…

        Report comment

        • There has been cuts in all services the last 14 years while at the same time there has been a massive growth in nuerodiversity services.

          I think it is wierd that hardly anyone comments on it.

          As anyone can self diagnose as nuerodiverse then the answer to your t shirt slogan is for everyone to self diagnose and then we can all say, “there’s nowt so queer as folk except thee and me and even thees a little queer.”

          Report comment

  7. The problem already starts with the neuro- part. I’m aware that there has been a trend, in recent years, to prefix anything with neuro- in an attempt to make it sound more scientific, whatever that means. However, the lack of a good neurological foundation for diagnostic groupings, such as the ones currently assembled under the neurodiversity umbrella, is fundamental to its failure.

    Citing:
    __________________________________________________________________
    This was deliberate, and took place after lobbying by advocates in the USA, who see a lifelong diagnosis as the key to healthcare and disability legal protections. Many more who didn’t have learning disabilities were diagnosed. Private clinics sprang up, offering diagnostic assessments and promising a fast track to the help you need
    __________________________________________________________________

    It’s important to understand that any of these diagnoses feed (your kid) into an industry. They don’t diagnose you because of an intrinsic desire to help you. They may claim that. It’s definitely a convenient statement, not much different from what a car salesman tells you… and it’s based on the exact same marketing principles. However, if they didn’t get the cash, would they still “help” you? The answer is probably… No. This is, for example, clearly exemplified by the overreliance on stimulant drugs in the treatment of ADHD.

    Citing:
    __________________________________________________________________
    Inclusion for some has thus resulted in exclusion for others—often those in most need. In the words of a father with two non-verbal sons who require 24-hour care: ‘Neurodiversity advocates ignore the harsh realities of severe autism, and want to forget about my sons and others like them…. For them, autism is a life-altering, cruel disability, and I’d do anything to help them feel good and give them a better quality of life’.
    __________________________________________________________________

    Adding here my comment: There is a fundamental problem when people explain issues by referencing concepts that are either completely meaningless or nothing other than a simply enumeration of the very issues they try to explain.
    Saying that autism is a “life-altering, cruel disability” adds absolutely nothing to the conversation because no new information is added. Everyone can deduce that an inability to communicate and requiring 24-hour care must constitute a severe disability, by definition. In this example, we have simply chosen to call that “autism”. We have also chosen, for whatever reason, to absorb a whole host of very different issues under the same label. Autism, then in any case, is not an explanation equal to, let’s say, the identification of a specific brain lesion or abnormality. Again, this linguistic/semiotic problem is linked to the concept’s fundamental weakness. Wherever it is applied, it does not actually add any new information to a person. More likely, it obfuscates the information that we can gather (be that psycho-social issues, trauma, brain injuries etc.) Arguably, and Chapman as well as Yergeau have dealt with this issue, the word autism is little more than an exclamatory sentence, a social judgment meant to disparage divergence and deviance. And parents, especially with severely disabled children, find themselves in the extremely awkward position of relying on services that are inherently interested in their kid’s issue not being resolved.

    Report comment

    • Always this weird need to see Neurodiversity in one dimension. Fighting over total ownership of the term Autism, for the sake of parents disabled children.

      That’s it. That is your whole reply isn’t it? That and the hope that enough sophisticated response will confound anyone who tries to argue with your agenda.

      In the end, such articles as this degenerate into exercises in oversophisticated responses used to win agenda’s. Instead of acknowledging the simplicity of Neurodiversity as a street-concept amongst everyone now.

      You write about mentally disabled children as if responding to a parent. I am an autistic or NeuroDivergent adult. There are rather a lot of us about, diagnosed or not.

      I’ve been in situations for years where people turn up face to face, let alone online, passionately wanting to identify as neurodiverse, NeuroDivergent and the terms you cite. There is a strong motive and often they are not immature or naive people. Many are far older than I think you realise.

      Remember – being homosexual and/or on a scale of sexuality aside from utterly heterosexual (as I identify as being) has not historically got some formal medical diagnosis process anywhere that you can go in for. There is no official heterosexual certificate available anywhere. Same thing has happened with Neurodiversity, and there is not a thing you can do about that.

      Report comment

      • Except people are clamouring for diagnosis and the state is paying for diagnostic services. Where as I self define as poofey poofter homosexualist and some men identify as straight yet they have sex with quite a lot of men. You are confusing self ID and state sanctioned diagnosis which a lot of people feel hard done by if they don’t get one.

        Report comment

  8. Obviously all kids are beginning to self-diagnose as neurodiverse. What kid would not want to be neurodiverse? Of course this will destroy the whole notion of neurodiverse, but nobody will notice and it will merge with the illusion of individuality. Anyway, whatever the kid will do, it’s just this or that manner of falling into a world of illusion and gradually becoming a mere ghost which haunts itself as a kind of morbid entertainment while being dominated by a mechanical illusion called ‘me’.

    Report comment

    • ER…..no. You will always get formal medical diagnosis. Most kids do not go around identifying as Neurodiverse. I’d try doing a bit more research and facing such people.

      Also there is the simple matter of humanity always having been Neurodiverse. It’s just the truth emerging now a few generation have no restraint in being honest about their identities.

      Simple as that. The use of the terms as you describe is believe me, inescapable for youth now. The cat is out of the bag, the horse bolted from the stable.

      It is as if you cannot understand how these things work? Most youth do not define themselves as neurodiverse at all. Most of them avoid all that utterly. We have a generation now that have such awareness and ‘outness’ over any property they may have such as sexuality, gender orientation or in this case how their brains work, that they will openly identify. Whereas previously they may have kept quiet about such things.

      The notion of Neurodiversity will never be ‘destroyed’ as you describe. It is being elaborated though?

      Report comment

      • For once, neurodiversity has become a social contagion. There is no doubt about that as the numbers of people now identifying and actively seeking for such diagnoses has sky-rocketed. And no, this hasn’t much to do with people discovering their true self. Certain things are obvious even if you don’t have a name for it.
        In addition, there is nothing medical about diagnoses such as ADHD etc. because no actual medical truth is involved in the diagnostic decision making. Having concepts that feed people into the pharmaceutical industrial complex, among other complexes, is not an act of helping or liberation, it’s simple economic colonization. Incidentally, if you look up neurodiversity initiatives, you will find an eery number of them associated with banks and hedgefunds.

        These diagnoses simply are not meant to “help” people. They’re meant to extract resources from them via questionable therapy and treatment plans paid for by insurance companies that, among other taxpayers, you pay into as well.

        Report comment

        • Or people do not go near therapy and treatment plans.

          Do you have any evidence of how much your last paragraph is actually true, please?

          I am sorry but it has everything to do with people discovering their true selves. Also you need to be clearer what you mean by ‘medical truths’.

          If you consider the use of the term Neurodiversity in far simpler ways, and don’t get so agenda’d and paranoid about it all, you will see what I have been trying to say.

          Report comment

  9. Considering the history presented in this article, it appears that the concept of neurodivergence is a reaction to the language used in psychiatry or the diagnostic authority. Essentially, neurodivergence challenges psychiatric diagnoses by offering an alternative label. When psychiatry assigns a diagnosis, an individual might respond by asserting they are neurodivergent instead. This reflects a linguistic game where neurodivergence serves to negate the psychiatric diagnosis while allowing a difference (against the diagnostic person or society). This is why self-diagnosis is possible within the framework of neurodivergence; it inherently rejects the authority of the diagnosing professional, as no one can truly “see” what is happening inside another person’s brain in terms of meaning.

    The article discusses the use of the term “neuro” from neuroscience, and it critiques the word “diversity,” preferring “cognitive” instead. This choice seems to reflect a desire to elevate neuroscience above the concept of neurodivergence, perhaps viewing neuroscience as a more legitimate science, or to distance from the idea of diversity, which might be seen as too broad or vague or too close to black community.

    But we cannot escape history of minority. Neurodiversity is essentially another term for minority. It represents a process of negating the validation and hierarchical of diagnoses from authority figures. Its ultimate goal could potentially undermine all psychiatric diagnoses (not neurological ones), as it encompasses all human behavior and its opposites under one term.
    One very interesting oversight in the article, or perhaps in future ones, is the importance of behaviors. Traditionally, psychiatry has been responsible for assessing and labeling behaviors without sharing, but now the average person is taking on this role using technology. This shift is a surprising and unexpected outcome, which have turned the process of labeling and identifying behaviors into a widespread practice.

    The beauty of this approach is that when people can observe their own behavior, they can control or change it using their own inner world – the mind. Previously, in psychiatric and psychological authority, the focus was not on behavior but on intentions, attentions, the unconscious, and the inner world—elements that no external person can truly observe. This led to a lot of mystification and confusion in society. Now, neurodiverse individuals are observing themselves and sharing their insights without the input of authority!
    Another point that stands out to me, as I am for mind privacy, is this: I wonder if the term “neurodiverse” is being recalled or challenged by neuroscience industry due to the upcoming need for AI to have some labeling using neuroscientific methods.

    The irony lies in the fact that now we want to push people into cognitive labeling, focusing on mental processing and behaviors, whereas in the past we claimed to have complete knowledge of the internal workings of the brain – the “neuro.” Now, we discourage laypeople from believing they can understand anything about “neuro,” thus creating yet another layer of knowledge gatekeeping.

    Looking forward to learn more about this.

    Report comment

  10. Okay, I will just give it away then.

    You used the term SEVERE AUTISM during the piece.

    Busted. It’s like saying SEVERE HETEROSEXUALITY. If you don’t just say SEVERELY MENTALLY DISABLED AND HAVING AN AUTISM DIAGNOSIS, you are buying into the sort of Neurofascist (like the term?) heil-parents agenda that the infamous NCSA/Jill Escher pedal. For all I know you may also be receiving some cash of her for this article?

    At attempt to make anti Neurodiversity attitudes intellectually superior?

    Also, you do know if you use my handy phrase severely mentally disabled and having an autism diagnosis, you don’t need all this severe autism business? I think you will find medical services and the entire human race know what the term means nowadays. Severely mentally disabled is fine too. Adding an autism diagnosis on the end, specifies the issue. See? War over. No arguments. Problem solved…

    Report comment

    • For the record, neither Lucy nor I ever have, or ever will, receive any payment whatsoever for writing these blogs.

      As we said in the introduction, we “..respect and uphold people’s personal right to describe their difficulties and differences in any way that is helpful to them”.

      Report comment

      • I note your frame of reference.

        Difficulties…differences…helpful.

        This for me is a very narrow minded agenda to betray. The context of autism seems to be only in terms of a medical disorder. That is just a fraction of the Neurodiversity picture. Indeed, it’s not appropriate if you don’t have difficulties any more than anyone else. Differences from the majority on account of being very self focused and idiosyncratic could be allowed.

        But how much do all of us go our own ways? Who judges what is non autistic, however the term is defined. Where is this standard for pure-bred aryan neurotypical? Where is the medical metric for that?

        I just keep seeing the same old agenda of parents of disabled children staging a publicity stunt to get more understanding (however you measure and relate to that) and support for their daily life struggles.

        I see that as a noble thing. I personally support any initiative that will help any such families. But note the vague terms? The nice generalisations.

        This constant fighting over frames of reference is just that. I hope it’s achieving something positive?

        Report comment

  11. I think I agree with Paul’s reaction to this article. It didn’t need to be written, especially not by people who don’t identify as neurodivergent. Neurodiversity is not part of a clinical or medical framework, so I don’t see any value from having clinicians writing about it, especially when they are just muddying the waters.

    Report comment

    • I wonder, given there is no clinical or medical evidence for terms such as ‘autism’ or ‘adhd’ etc and as you say these aren’t even relevant – would it be fine for either or both authors to just proclaim or ‘identify’ without any clinical or medical evidence that they are ‘neurodivergent’ before writing such an article?

      if in fact all brains are different and we’re all completely unique individuals why would it matter if such a statement were made at all?

      Report comment

  12. All you have to do is look at the history of LGBTI writing, self definitions and identity.

    Then ‘The Neurodiversity Movement’ and all issues around the use of Neurodiversity as an identity will make sense.

    It’s the same thing. All of us have always acknowledged the parallels between LGBTI and Neurodiversity identifying.

    I think this article is an over scrutinisation, deftly using far too much conceptual acumen to over dissect a simple, and really very positive and healthy phenomena.

    Report comment

  13. My question is somewhat tangential but it’s something I’ve been wondering about recently. Much is said about “pathologizing” divergent behaviors as disorders, with the insinuation that this harms the diagnosed person in an institutional fashion. Observably this is not always the case. Many times being diagnosed with a condition rather than just being seen as weird, annoying etc excuses that behavior socially and seems to affirm the afflicted person. In other cases it becomes something to flaunt, as a tacked on eccentricity that distinguishes the person in a positive way. Very rarely does it seem that anyone is devastated to be diagnosed. This is true for even traditionally negative disorders like depression.

    Do you have any predictions for how this will develop and affect things in coming years? Will there eventually be a point where nearly every child is diagnosed with something?

    Report comment

    • I think by the end of the century, and having personally grown up in schools and met many, many other human beings, we may all realise that many things have been going on all along in humanity that are only now starting to be recognised.

      Report comment

    • All diagnosis evolve and update over time.

      Think of your query in terms of a whole new paradigm of what it is to be human being uncovered. Also keep an eye on the ever elusive standards of what it is not to have a condition?

      Report comment

    • Some diagnoses can be really harmful to people and very stigmatizing. I had a “paranoid schizophrenia” diagnosis for more than 10 years and it has had a negative impact on my self-esteem and my behaviour.

      I rejected this diagnostic label and hid it from most people, but on some level I thought that other people might perceive me as “crazy” or “paranoid” if this is how psychiatrists – “experts” – view me. I was also convinced that most people would reject me if they found out about my diagnosis (this made me very vulnerable). Finally, psychiatrists thought that I should be on a neuroleptic for life (after only one psychotic episode) – fortunately I did not listen to them.

      Report comment

  14. neurodiversity is identity politics merging with medicalization. it is also a very savvy marketing campaign in the guise of politics. minority politics is the only type of criticism allowed by the “respectable” institutions hence every sort of group are eager to form one their own. but since it is also an ideology, it aims to explain the whole of society instead of advocating just for the group. the definitions are always very murky, seemingly deep but actually shallow. the academic, arcane language is there to give the impression of sophistication. there is nothing there, really. every basic tenet, rule, and analysis of this ideology of a so called “movement” is facile and deceptive; they are either truisms or outright falsehoods. they are always building new prisons in place of the ones people already recognized and disowned.

    Report comment

        • How can identities be about people trying to find themselves? They ARE themselves!!!! This is such a palpably obvious and undeniable fact that I fail to grasp how you cannot see it, and if you can now see it, consider the disastrous effects of thinking that finding yourself is searching for a socially constructed identity within a totally manufactured and crowded identity market rather then understanding and through understanding, loving what you ACTUALLY are. It is so insane to talk of finding yourself when you are yourself: it is actually that you have not observed and understood what you actually are that you seek to become something fictitious which at least means that you can pretend to know what you are. Surely the former is finding yourself as the self you already are, and the latter is some brain disease imposed by a social historical process that we don’t understand.

          Report comment

  15. What is your source for saying James Taylor identifies himself as autistic or ADHD? I have seen this mentioned in an article elsewhere a long time ago, but I have never seen it substantiated, such as a direct quote from Mr. Taylor. I have never been able to find a direct quote from Taylor about this and suspect this may have been someone’s speculation and not actually a way that Taylor describes himself. If so, it’s irresponsible to continue reporting it.

    Report comment

  16. Thank you so much for questioning neurodiversity as a concept! It seems like it’s quite suddenly became “unquestionable” in a way other diagnoses aren’t. It’s so hard to try to talk with a movement that seems to claim overdiagnosis, misdiagnosis or negative consequences of being diagnosed are impossible. Even if you add all possible disclaimers like “It’s a rare occurrence,” you’d be met by anger and disbelief for trying to talk about your OWN experience.

    For a movement that’s supposedly all about tolerance and diversity, its funny how only similar opinions and life trajectories are allowed. Others have tried pushing “neurodivergent” onto me as an identity, but I literally couldn’t feel less at home in most discussions centered around neurodivergence.

    It’s also interesting how activists can claim that 15 % of the population are neurodivergent, but then also go on about THE neurodivergent way of being and thinking. Maybe those generalizations won’t fit a large and diverse group?

    There are so many people who identify as neurodivergent, and then want to speak for other people (sometimes they claim to speak for anyone who’s diagnosed or self-diagnosed) and similarly want to armchair diagnose others and speak for them too. It feels so unacceptable and angering when you’ve been diagnosed and spoken over for most of your life.

    Yes, there’s a lot of issues… hopefully negative experiences with diagnosis would be more visible and accepted, and the current “censorship” challenged.

    Report comment

LEAVE A REPLY