In 2019 I wrote an article with the same title as this one. But on reading it back in 2024 it was in need of an update and so I have written this new article.
The Neurodiversity Paradigm
The Neurodiversity Paradigm describes the concept that all individual humans exist in similar ways, but some exist similarly to each other, while others exist very differently. There is no right or wrong way to be, just that we are all examples of natural variances in human existence.
That sounds simple, doesn’t it?
Actually it’s not. We’re talking about the richness in the variety of human experience. Not only is that deep, it’s also very, very complicated.
Biodiversity
Consider this picture of a forest:
In this forest are trees. The Google definition of a tree is:
‘A woody perennial plant, typically having a single stem or trunk growing to a considerable height and bearing lateral branches at some distance from the ground.’
Look at the photo again, more closely this time.
In this forest there are several distinct types of tree. Can you spot them all?
There are 60,065 types of tree in the world. They are all trees and all fall under the same ‘tree definition,’ but all those types of tree do things slightly differently to each other across groups and also individually.
This is biodiversity.
Now consider how humans fit into that concept…
Neurodiversity
Here’s Harriet again, you might recognise her from ‘What is Autism?’ which breaks down the different uses of the term, what it means and the difference between ‘autism’ and what it means to be Autistic:
Human brains are the command centre for the human nervous system.
The brain receives chemical and electrical signals from throughout the body, including the body’s sensory organs, interprets them and outputs commands and information to the muscles, organs, and to the mind.
Neurodiversity isn’t just about brains. Brains are incredibly important obviously, that relationship between the brain and the central nervous system is what drives us and keeps us alive. But when we are talking about neurodiversity we have to go deeper than that, because as human beings which are much more than just our physical and neurological processes, we also have psychological processes to consider. With that in mind (excuse the pun) we have to look at the interconnected relationship between what we do, how we think, and how we feel – these are the things that add up to make us who we are. That’s going to be and look different for every human being, as we all have a unique experience of the world, even when we have shared experiences.
Within the Neurodiversity model we can *very* loosely break down humanity into two very large groups; Neurotypical and Neurodivergent.
Neurotypical
Neurotypical simply means that some people’s communication, processing, perception, movement, and interaction leans closer to a normative ideal of existing, either societally, physically, or neurologically.
This isn’t a diagnosis (nothing within Neurodiversity is about diagnosis), it’s more of a loose state of being, where a person might more comfortably exist in a way that is recognisable for many others, or alternatively face less challenges within a society, or in manoeuvring through the systems a society has created.
Neurodivergent
Neurodivergence describes individuals whose way of communicating, processing, perceiving, moving, and interacting, diverges from what might be considered ‘typical’ in a multitude of ways.
Neurodivergence might refer to a difference that you were born with, or one you might have acquired for some reason, such as a traumatic brain injury, a physical disability, even because of mental health. Someone might classify themselves as multiply neurodivergent, depending on the many different things going on their body and brain. Any way which can cause a difference in how someone might communicate, process, perceive, move, and interact with the world means they are Neurodivergent. I would argue that being Gay, Lesbian or Queer might also fall under that definition.
It could be argued that the term ‘divergence’ means to move away from the ‘norm.’ I would agree that we do not have the language to communicate these concepts fully and in adequate ways. Like with many experiences, the words we use to define them are not suitable or encourage superficial thinking. I prefer to consider the experience of neurodivergence as rather than my experience of the world diverging from a centred way of being, but two deeply connected and in many ways shared experiences diverging from each other. Ultimately, because there is no right or wrong way to exist, despite being so connected in many ways, we are all ultimately diverging from each other like the roots of a tree (We’re back to that tree analogy again).
The centring of normal
It would be very simple to centre the first group, Neurotypical, as the right or correct way to be, because this tends to be the more common experience. In fact, historically, in some ways medical frameworks have long existed within which we do centre a certain type of person as the right or correct type of person, particularly when it comes to psychiatry and psychology. When we pathologise using the concepts of disorder, condition, and/or deficit we are actively comparing one way of being, to a more common experience – we centre the common experience and say that other experiences are ‘lacking.’ So if diagnostically there is a wrong way to be, then it creates the assumption that there is a right way to be.
Think about the creation of those diagnostic constructs. Who came up with them? Who created them?
For the most part this is something that has historically and still continues to be done largely by white, western (European and North American), predominantly male, and able-bodied people. There is something deeply problematic in that process: Thinking led by white westerners who are predominantly male and able-bodied does not often reflect on or account for cultural differences and differing experiences of humans across the planet – indeed, as one example of many: within the autism diagnostic criteria, a measurement of whether you may or may not be Autistic is the amount of eye contact one might give. This becomes virtually meaningless within societies where eye contact is not an encouraged thing. So if it is not a total human experience, how can we define it as a deficit in human experience?
When we put all humans experience in one box, it doesn’t really work. Indeed that doesn’t work for a handful of people, let alone billions. How could we be so arrogant and hubristic to assume that there is only one type of human and only one way to be. That defies the whole concepts of both evolution and biodiversity. We may have evolved our cognitive awareness as a species, but we are still part of the same ecological systems as every creature on the planet, and subject to the same processes within them.
Neurodiversity uses the idea of natural variations in human experience neurologically, physiologically, and culturally. It I said earlier, it isn’t just about brains.
Currently we exist in a medical paradigm that requires diagnosis for many things in order to evidence that state exists. Diagnostic criteria within the fields of psychiatry and psychology are often historically formed and shaped by problematic people, based on problematic ideologies, are often political, power-driven, non-intersectional, non-culturally informed, limited, and are often arbitrary in nature. They change, evolve, and frequently even disappear completely as diagnoses. Sometimes that’s through changes in thinking, or it’s been accepted that it is not and should never have been a clinical diagnosis. For example being Gay was only removed from the DSM in 1987 and all associations with it were only finally removed in 2013.
The Neurodiversity paradigm seeks to move beyond the problematic rigid, black and white, narrow boxing of diagnoses, particularly when it comes to Psychological, and Psychiatric diagnoses, and instead take a more nuanced and holistic view that focuses on individual need.
So as one example, again referring to ‘what is autism,’ recognising that autism, as per the diagnostic criteria, is a limited and problematic construct. So it is far more constructive to recognise this and instead focusing on Autistic experience. This means looking at a person, holistically, understanding them culturally and intersectionally and factoring in the fact that they are a whole human being, with identities, wants, needs and unique experiences across the entire domains of their humanness.
Disability
Neurodiversity also does not negate or deny the existence of disability. It introduces the idea that just because the world was shaped by a certain type of person who both defined and can lean into their ideals about how humans communicate, process, perceive, move and interact, it doesn’t mean that other people are fundamentally broken, imperfect and wrong – it’s just that those people haven’t been very well catered to historically, if at all.
That is not to say that Neurodivergences like being Autistic aren’t Disabilities, it’s more to say that if you bring in the right accommodations and support in a positive and proactive way, you find that there are aspects currently defined under the umbrella term of ‘Autism’ and aspects of other Neurodivergent experiences that are disabling, rather than the current view of everything being disabling. And when we can identify what those disabling things are on the basis that they are real disabilities, not those manufactured by societal norms or expectations, we can identify and provide more meaningful support medically, while addressing and changing the inequalities experienced by the individual – rather than a wholesale approach to changing people to suit societies problematic ideals.
Defining Neurodivergence within a medical paradigm
While we exist within this medical paradigm, for many reasons, there is still a need to identify difference through the act of labelling, diagnostically or otherwise. It is important again to reiterate that the Neurodiversity model is not a medical model, ergo there can be no such thing as Neurodivergent conditions (Or Neurodiverse conditions – see below). While we do have to exist within that paradigm, rather than Neurodiversity, we may consider the following as examples of neurodivergence, either from birth, or as in the second column, acquired:
These are deeply inexhaustive lists, and we must be cautious not to limit ourselves to these labels. To limit Neurodivergence to these labels is to be complicit in not understanding the concept of neurodiversity fully, as again, we are referring to people whose way of communicating, processing, perceiving, moving, and interacting, diverges from what might be considered ‘typical’ in a multitude of ways.
A Brief History of Neurodiversity
The concept of Neurodiversity has grown and developed over the past decade. Indeed different people have even contested ownership over the claiming of the term. The ‘public’ coinage attributed to either Harvey Blume, who publicly in published print used both Neurotypical and NT as a shorthand for Neurotypical, but also ‘Neurological Diversity’ and Neurotypical first and who attributed those terms to Autistic people discussing the concept on list servers in the early 1990’s that he was privy; or Judy Singer, who has been publicly lauded by those who assumed the history and had a weak understanding of the model, as ‘the Mother of Neurodiversity’, but whose story appears to have inconsistently changed and evolved over the years as attention has grown, and whose claim over the term only seems to have started after an interview with Steve Silberman in Neurotribes. This has been addressed with (in my opinion) a long overdue correction to the record that centres Autistic people as the conceptualisers and creators of the neurodiversity paradigm, with Singer an observer to this, specifically with Tony Langdon, an Australian activist, as the coiner of the phrase ‘Neurological diversity of people’.
Singer’s version of Neurodiversity has been the mainstream concept for many years and has, unfortunately contributed to the narrative of Neurodiversity-lite (described below). The inclusive concept as was discussed in those early list-servers, evolved outside of Singer’s conceptualisations incorporating the terms ‘Neurodivergent’ and ‘Neurodivergence’, coined in the year 2000 by Kassiane Asasumasu, a multiply neurodivergent activist; and shaped by Professor Nick Walker, most famous among advocates for honing the way Neurodiversity is understood today in terms of Neurodiversity language, looking at the shift from the medical model or pathology paradigm to Neurodiversity through the lens of autism, and particularly with her concept of neuro-queer theory. The concept has very much grown from its earlier academically-accepted iterations (based on Singer’s work), as we’ve come to understand more of the many fallacies and myths that were previously believed, not just about Autism, but all Neurodivergence, and the narratives around people who don’t, or cannot lean into societal expectations.
All of this thinking about the neurodiversity paradigm will probably and hopefully continue to change and develop over time, as per the requirement of those which it serves: Humans. We all change and evolve; our understanding of humanity continues to change and evolve; and our frameworks and concepts must change to reflect that. Especially when there are groups of people who have been and continue to be, marginalised and stigmatised. We must work harder on destabilising inequality, removing power hierarchies and looking at every single human through the lens of the whole human.
The concept of neurodiversity is not perfect, yet it is interesting how much push back, based on misunderstandings and misperceptions of the paradigm, ignoring of evidence bases, and threatened personal belief-systems is received about it from those working within power-based systems such as Psychiatry. It’s not only Autistic people who seek structure and who sometimes abhor change.
‘Neurodiversity-Lite’
The one disclaimer I have in all this is that the concept of Neurodiversity has become very much a buzzword in the world, this started in the recruitment industry but has now leaked out into the world at large.
The terms and understanding of neurodiversity have been co-opted and changed – there is much use of language such as ‘Neurodiverse conditions’ – which of course, having read the explanation above, doesn’t work grammatically, not does it make sense – and: the ‘Neurodiversity/Neurodiverse community’ – there is and cannot be one community when you are talking about potentially billions of people. All communities are made up of ever decreasing circles of sub-communities. The world of Neurodiversity-lite usually only considers ‘Neurodiversity’ (everyone) or Neurodivergence (if they’ve adopted that term), as referring to being Autistic and/or ADHD (and sometimes Dyslexia and Dyspraxia), when Neurodivergence refers to an almost infinite number of experiences.
What this shows that those using terminology in this way have a weak understanding of the concept. And like with the autism industrial complex, there are an awful lot of people making money out of all this, whether well-intentioned or otherwise.
Unfortunately, this superficial and performative thinking has seeped into clinical understandings within education, social care, and academic research – those spaces feel able to use this terminology because Neurodiversity-lite feeds their comfort and bias about their medicalised and pathological understanding and views. In a world that argues for destigmatisation, using softer language is often a performative way of continuing the status quo and telling yourself you are adopting destigmatised narratives, without actually really doing or changing anything. Words have enormous impact, but you have to truly understand the words and the concepts behind them in order to have the right impact.
Ironically, the push back against Neurodiversity I mentioned earlier, is often a pushback against neurodiversity-lite, where those pushing back are equally lacking in understanding of neurodiversity, recognising it only in a superficial sense, in the same way those they have a issue with. A lot of people who have not done the work to understand something properly, are all bickering over it, or highlighting the problematicness of it. If you understand the concept of neurodiversity, the arguments against it often fall away.
It is inclusive, it does straddle both the medical and social models of disability, it’s not about superpowers, or denying need, it is complicated.
To adopt a new paradigm requires self-reflection, self-challenge and self-education, along with challenging the systems and beliefs that exist around us all – to do so within the context of neurodiversity requires someone to also be working towards both understanding the impact of and actively attempting to deconstruct all sorts of power, privilege and belief systems. It requires you to be anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-ableist, anti-sexist, anti-transphobic, anti-ageist and much more. These are not just words to bandy around, but things that impact on people intersectionally. There is a requirement to be open-minded and a critical thinker. To sit with the impact of you. To lean hard into the double empathy problem.
If you call yourself neuro-affirming, are you attempting to do this?
Frankly, we must do better. If we are going to call ourselves ‘neuro-affirming,’ or ‘neuro-inclusive,’ we have to understand what that means to a meaningful depth and act on that, otherwise those labels become just as meaningless and useless as phrases such as ‘autism awareness.’ It allows a superficiality, it allows a performativeness, it allows the perpetuation of harm and stigma and marginalisation under the banner of ‘I care’ and ‘I have good intentions.’
There is a universe of influential people out there who have adopted terminology they only superficially understand – unfortunately, many people in those roles, like with many things, assume they know what they are doing, or what they are talking about, without being truly critically reflective.
I did say that Neurodiversity isn’t just about brains.
I also did say that Neurodiversity is also very, very complicated.
But if we’re going to move beyond the superficial, we have to be prepared to do the work.
Further Reading
If you’d like to dig more into this subject and find out more, I and Developmental Psychologist and Assistant Professor of Durham University, Dr Amy Pearson, discuss the concept of and impact of ‘normality’ in more depth in our book: ‘Autistic Masking: Understanding Identity Management and the Role of Stigma’, and Philosopher and Assistant Professor of Critical Neurodiversity Studies, also at Durham University, Dr Robert Chapman, explores this through the lens of capitalism in his book: ‘Empire of Normality’.
Professor of Psychology, Nick Walker’s book ‘Neuroqueer Heresies’ offers an investigation into the neurodiversity paradigm and what she describes as post-normal possibilities; and Associate professor of Sociology Dr Hanna Bertilsdotter-Rosquivst, Philosopher Dr Nick Chown and Interdisciplinary medical humanities researcher Dr Anna Stenning are the editors of a book discussing Critical Neurodiversity studies.
Other books exploring the concepts of both neurodiversity, and ‘normality’ can be found on my recommended reading list.