The Collected Neurodiversities

A round-up of recent papers on what neurodiversity even is???

It has become apparent to me that a lot of neurodiversity’s critics do not actually understand its basic concepts. They’ll say:

“The idea that there are two types of brains, one typical and one divergent, is ridiculous!”

And, yes it is! We agree! Neurodiversity, at its core, is just the idea that there’s infinite neurological variation the world. So, actually diametrically opposed to the idea that ‘there are two types of brains.’ Neurotypical and neurodivergent describe social positions, not biology.

But another thing I don’t think critics realize is that there is also a lot of diversity in thought about the concept of neurodiversity itself.

In a paper from May this year, ten neurodivergent researchers attempted to map some of that variation — they wanted to explore their own ideas about ‘what neurodiversity is,’ and ‘what neurodiversity should do.’ Using a tactic called Q methodology, they sorted 200 of their own statements about neurodiversity into three viewpoints for each question:

What is neurodiversity?

1. ‘a social justice movement that requires a critical analysis of power’ / ‘grounded in a critique of capitalism’ / ‘intersects with other rights-based social movements’ / ‘inherently political’ / neurodivergence can also be a disability / the term ‘neurodiversity’ has scientific meaning

2. a recognition of neurodivergent peoples’ rights and benefit to society / not critical of capitalism, and actually thinks this could be antagonistic to the goal of pluralism / disagrees that ‘neurodivergence itself can contribute to disability’ / considers the term neurodiversity ‘scientifically meaningless’

3. ‘scientific knowledge about different types of, equally valid, mind’ / not necessarily political / science should lead, and politics follow

What should neurodiversity do?

1. ‘Proudly support neurodivergent people’s rights to what we need to be active and productive members of society’ / ‘promote pride not shame’ / ‘Embracing our own ways of being social, and becoming visible on our own terms’ / support people’s ‘right to live in the community’ / invest public funds in support and education / ‘Not looking for cures’ / ‘Avoid overextending the category’ and ‘getting hung up on politically correct’ terms

2. Be ‘a radical movement for broad based societal change in alliance with other progressive political activists’ / ‘part of a broader anti-disablist, anti-racist, trans-inclusive activist movement’ / includes psychiatric disabilities as neurodivergent, whereas #1 does not

3. Focus on ‘genuine social inclusion’ / emphasizes ‘right to belong within society and not be excluded’ (ie through institutionalization) / does not tend to consider mental illness as neurodivergence, like #1, but does include intellectual disability / ‘falls somewhere between the ‘radicality’ of [2] and the ‘pragmatism’ of [1]’

All of these perspectives agreed that neurodiversity is ‘simultaneously a biological fact, a framework of values and a social movement,’ but there were genuine disagreements about who is included in the neurodivergent umbrella and what the political goals of the movement should be.

The social justice view considers autistic people, the mad and mentally ill, and the intellectually disabled to be united by a ‘shared social/political marginalization’, whereas the liberal rights view thinks this ‘risks watering down’ the focus on ‘recognising the needs of people living with known and observable developmental differences.’

Where the social justice view wants to change society in radical ways which would benefit more than just neurodivergent people (that include the structure of the economy, Sami!), the liberal rights view wants to focus on meeting the needs of neurodivergent people ‘to facilitate their productive contribution’ in society as it is.

It’s a familiar political fault line, one that critics on the left often gloss over when they reject neurodiversity as just idpol Canva infographic slop that is ‘gentrifying’ disability.

This frustrates me to no end, as someone who agrees that neurodiversity is a critique of power and capitalism, that the umbrella is wide, and that it should intersect with other movements seeking to change society.

For paid subscribers, a deeper dive into neurodiversity’s evolutions via three more papers that came out this year. The first one adds a dash of history, my favorite!