Blackness x Neurodiversity II: The Inherently Radical Politics of the Neurodiversity Movement
‘The word “Normal” evolved from Eugenics to separate Normal “Us” from. Abnormal “Them”. Its intent is pejorative.’ — Judy Singer
Author’s note: I update this post every now and then to provide a better informed and up-to-date understanding of neurodiversity and the movement. And PLEASE click all the hyperlinks included in this. I know it’s a lot of information; however, it’s all relevant and necessary to understanding neurodiversity in-depth.
I went back and forth with myself for a few weeks about how I wanted to talk about neurodiversity theory, the politics at the center of the Neurodiversity Movement, and the importance of the Neurodiversity Movement because it’s an important part of the oft ignored disability justice movement.
And I think it’s important for anyone involved in mental health advocacy, especially if you’re currently a licensed professional in or are pursuing a degree and/or career in the mental health industry, and anyone who considers themselves a part of the Neurodiversity Movement to actually learn what the movement is about (especially considering that the politics a lot of people in the neurodiversity movement on social media, especially white autistic people, who are seen as leaders in the movement and/or authority figures on neurodiversity don’t align with the politics of the movement, and are often loathe to hold themselves accountable and do the work to better educate them and their followers/supporters better outside of rare instances where it’s socially and/or financially beneficial for them to “listen and learn”).
But before I jump headfirst into theory and politics and such, I figure it would be helpful to define certain terms so that it’ll be easier to follow, and hopefully everyone will be on the same page about pretty much everything going forward.
“Neurodiversity” was coined in 1998 by a sociologist named Judy Singer. As defined on her website, neurodiversity “simply names a biological truism, a self-evident fact that adds nothing to what we already know about the world. You don’t need a cross-disciplinary PhD in a brace of “~ologies” to figure out that every human brain on the planet is as unique as each fingerprint. It follows that there is a virtually infinite diversity of humans on the planet, with infinitely diverse minds complexified further by experience in equally diverse bodies.” She also says that her ‘intent[ion for creating the term] was political, unifying and liberatory, not divisively intent on putting individuals “under a microscope.”’
More recently, in an interview with “[Autism in Adulthood’s Associate Editor Dora M. Raymaker about the state of neurodiversity scholarship and practice, past, present, and future],” Dr. Nick Walker said, ‘Neurodiversity, simply put, is the diversity among human minds. For 15 years or so after the term was coined, it was common for people to speak of neurodiversity as “diversity among brains.” There still are plenty of people who talk about it that way. I think this is a mistake; it’s an overly reductionist and essentialist definition that’s decades behind present-day understandings of how human bodyminds work. Mind is an embodied phenomenon. The mind is encoded in the brain as ever-changing webs of neural connectivity. The brain is part of the body, interconnected with the rest of the body by a vast network of nerves. The activity of the mind and body creates changes in the brain; changes in the brain affect both mind and embodiment. Mind, brain, and embodiment are intricately entwined in a single complex system. We’re not minds riding around in bodies, we’re bodyminds.’
Walker also says this about neurodiversity:
Which is at odds with the original definition of neurodiversity:
Next, we have the terms neurodivergent, neurodivergence, neurotypical, autistic, and allistic.
Neurodivergent—an identity born from, in my understanding, a misunderstanding of what neurodiversity is — refers to anyone who has autism, ADHD, Tourette’s, OCD, and a few other “mental illnesses/disorders” (a misunderstanding and pathologization of mental and emotional distress and the way they impact us) and learning disabilities.
Neurotypical refers to people who are assumed to have “normal neurocognitive functioning.”
Neurodivergence is a bit of an incorrect term. While it refers to the concept of “neurocognitive differences and function” (aka “mental illnesses/disorders” such as “autism,” “ADHD,” Tourette’s syndrome, bipolar disorder, dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc.) that diverge from what is allegedly “normal neurocognitive functioning,” it’s not a particularly useful or necessary term in the context of neurodiversity because neurodiversity directly challenges the idea that there is a singular “normal” way that all human brains function because all human brains are unique to each individual human being (which is why we don’t all think, feel, see, taste, hear, etc. the exact same way).
For these reasons also, neurodivergent and neurotypical aren’t particularly useful terms either.
If there’s no such thing as a “typical brain” because no two human brains are identical, there’s no such thing as a “divergent brain” either.
Not to mention the fact that trying to determine whether someone does or doesn’t have a “typical brain” based on the concept of “mental illnesses/disorders” is a fool’s errand considering the fact that “mental illnesses/disorders” are social constructs not discrete biological illnesses, and the end result of the aforementioned endeavor is like saying that someone’s sex assigned at birth fundamentally determines their gender based on outdated ideas about sex.
Allistic is a term that refers to non-autistic people, which is what “neurotypical” is describing.
Autistic is a term that refers to non-allistic people, which is what the term “neurodivergent” was originally meant to describe.
Allistic and autistic function the same way that extrovert and introvert, respectively, do.
I think it’s more useful for the neurodiversity movement to talk about autistic and allistic people as the two different diverse groups of humans that exist, and to talk about how both autistic and allistic people are impacted by the ableism and eugenics perpetuated, upheld, and normalized by the existence of “mental illnesses/disorders” as a concept (as the term was intended to be used) rather than arguing over the definition of what makes someone neurotypical and what makes someone neurodivergent (or coming up with new “neuro”-terms to evade saying autistic and allistic for reasons that have more to do with ableism than is admitted).
I’ve used “neurodivergent” and “neurotypical” in the past, so I’m not exempt from this critique.
Now that we’re done defining some basic terms, let’s talk about the neurodiversity movement and, importantly, it’s politics.
Back in the late 80s, Jim Sinclair was the first person to publicly express the anti-cure/autism rights position. In 1992, he founded the Autism Network International (ANI) along with fellow autistics Kathy Lissner Grant and Donna Williams. Though it was originally known as the “autism” rights movement or the autistic culture movement, as time went on and people’s understanding of autistic people, “mental illnesses/disorders,” psychology, psychiatry, and disability evolved, the movement expanded to include people who are “diagnosed” with “mental illnesses/disorder” such as DID, schizophrenia, dyslexia, ADHD, bipolar disorder, and Tourette’s and grew into what we now know as the Neurodiversity Movement.
There are people within the autistic community who are against the concept of neurodiversity and everything the neurodiversity movement stands for; however, I’ll get to that another time.
As it states on Wikipedia, ‘[p]roponents of neurodiversity strive to reconceptualize ‘autism’ and related conditions in society by the following measures; acknowledging that neurodiversity does not require a cure, changing the language from the current “condition, disease, disorder, or illness”-based nomenclature, “broadening the understanding of healthy or independent living”, acknowledging new types of autonomy and giving non-neurotypical individuals more control over their treatment, including the type, timing, and whether there should be treatment at all.’
Now, because of social media, more people, especially autistic people who would have otherwise not known they were autistic were it not for social media and better access to information on the internet (like myself), have become involved in the neurodiversity movement.
And, generally, that’s a good thing.
The bad thing, however, is, as with most things related to social justice on social media, the politics of the movement and any critical understanding of the neurodiversity paradigm have become divorced from how they’re discussed online.
In the aforementioned Autism in Adulthood interview, Dr. Walker said:
[T]he growing popularity of the term neurodiversity has led to its widespread appropriation as a buzzword by a lot of individuals and organizations who don’t understand its implications and are still very much thinking and operating within the pathology paradigm. It’s far too common these days to see some website or article that uses the word neurodiversity and then proceeds to talk about autism and/or other “neurodevelopmental conditions” in highly pathologizing ways — for example, referring to them as “conditions,” promoting the old pathology paradigm stereotypes and canards, or rating autistic people as “high-functioning” or “low-functioning.” So it’s important to think critically and recognize that mere adoption of terminology isn’t the same as actually making a meaningful shift in mindset.
In terms of the neurodiversity paradigm’s presence in culture and community, it is very much a mixed bag. On one hand, the neurodiversity paradigm has been deeply meaningful and liberating for many people. And we’re seeing more instances of positive and non-pathologizing neurodivergent representation in various media — the autistic character Entrapta, in the Netflix show She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, is one of my favorite recent examples. On the other hand, the same problem that’s arisen in the academic realm is also quite present in the broader culture: a whole lot of people have adopted some of the terminology of the neurodiversity paradigm, but are still thinking in ways that are rooted in the pathology paradigm.
This is important to understand because the term neurodiversity is an intentionally unifying and liberatory political term, and the neurodiversity movement is an inherently radical movement with the expressed goal of dismantling all forms of systemic and institutional oppression that impact the neurodiversity movement.
An inherent part of this is critically analyzing the ways that the institutions of psychology and psychiatry as contribute to this since the pathology paradigm comes from and is codified as fact by those institutions.
I get that many people are reticent to critique psychology and psychiatry because of this idea that all critiques of psychiatry and psychology are anti-psychiatry and anti-psychology and because people regard critiques of psychiatry and psychology as an indictment of who they are and an inherent invalidation of their positive experiences with those institutions; however, that is detrimental to the neurodiversity movement and to the community as a whole because that inherently invalidates the experiences of autistic and allistic people of color, especially queer and trans Black and Indigenous autistic and allistic people, since we’re the ones most negatively impacted by the pathology paradigm, especially because our understanding of “neurodivergence” is based almost entirely on white people from Western, industrialized, rich, educated, and Democratic background (I’ll talk more about racism, white supremacy, and anti-Blackness in the neurodiversity movement another time).
I also get that because this is either new information, because of some kind of peer pressure to not disagree with “leaders” (most of whom are white) in the neurodiversity movement, and because of how we’re conditioned to believe that psychologists and psychiatrists are these unbiased and 100% credible scientists who have unparalleled expert knowledge of the human mind and the human condition and we plebs, especially us “mentally ill” plebs, lack the self-awareness and mental fortitude to understand psychology and psychiatry to the point that we’ll believe anything we type into google or WebMD, panic, and act out every “symptom” of “mental illness” we read from the first result, it’s easy to get in the habit of uncritically accepting everything we learn about being autistic and the neurodiversity movement on social media.
However, if you say that you’re part of the neurodiversity movement it’s your responsibility to educate yourself on the movement and terminology used in the neurodiversity movement beyond what’s said on social media, especially if it’s the popular narrative (which is what’s colloquially referred to as “neurodiversity lite”).
To quote Ayishat Akanbi, “Sometimes popularity is just a measure of how much people aren’t thinking. If your advocacy or activism is motivated by the fear of being cancelled, then you will adopt the popular belief. Mob culture is very terrifying, but I think if you are committed to trying to make the world a better place, or your community a better place, your society, your culture, you have to be prepared to think for yourself.”
To quote David Gray-Hammond:
The future that the neurodoversity movement ultimately works towards, is what can be considered a neurocosmopolitan society. In such a society, no single neurological identity is considered standard. Terms like “neurotypical” and “neurodivergent” cease to be relevant, because the world recognises and actively celebrates the diversity of minds. We are still a long way from that future, but change is happening. [. . .]
It is known that the neurodiversity movement still has work to be done when it comes to fully including particular minority groups. Often non-speaking members of the movement find themselves talked over, although many are working to reduce that. BIPoC individuals have long been the victims of provincialist societies racism and oppression, and sadly such prejudice and bigotry can still be found in various movements for societal change.
Simply put, it is vital for us to ensure that the doorway can accommodate all who wish to pass through. If the neurodiversity movement can not serve as an appropriate liminal space for all, then a neurocosmopolitan society will be impossible to achieve.
Each of us contains inherent prejudice, passed down from the old society. If we wish to move through this liminal place, and emerge into the light of a new world for all, we must dismantle the thinking of yesteryear.
Dismantle the egotistical side of ourselves that centres all conversation around the ‘me’, and extend our viewpoint and attention to include every voice. We all have something to say, but we don’t all have the privilege of a platform.
The first step to building any doorway, is to design one that all may use should they wish.
And that’s where I’ll leave things for now. I’ll provide links to other articles and such to learn more about what I’ve talked about in this essay of sorts.
And I implore everyone in the neurominority community, especially those involved in advocacy work and activism, and those who consider themselves allies of the neurodiversity movement to do the reading and critically engage with the information if your goal is to help people and not just looking like a “good person.”
While I agree with and appreciate a lot of what both Judy Singer and Dr. Nick Walker have said and done for the autistic community and the Neurodiversity Movement, I believe that we have to evolve past both of their understandings of neurodiversity and what it means to be autistic for the sake of both autistic people and the movement as a whole.
Neurodiversity 1.0. (what Singer promotes) is limited, and Neurodiversity Lite (what Walker promotes) is the antithesis to neurodiversity 1.0 (not in the sense that it argues that neurodiversity is a bad idea; in the sense that it argues against any meaningful changes to society by absorbing neurodiversity within the pathology paradigm and divorcing neurodiversity from its inherently political definition).
Neurodiversity 2.0 is what I’m proposing in this piece.
And while I don’t believe that I know everything and have all the answers, I do think that 2.0 is where we all need to get to; however, if you’re at 1.0 that’s good and necessary.
Because it means that you have the foundation to move on to 2.0 with relative ease (and that you can overcome whatever epistemological blocks are in the way with less or no discomfort!).
