What is Neurodiversity?

In this article I explain the concept of the Neurodiversity Paradigm and addresses common misconceptions. (Author Note: 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. If you are citing me please make sure to reference this updated article).

The Neurodiversity Paradigm

The Neurodiversity Paradigm describes the concept that all individual humans exist in similar ways. We’re all human, but within that some groups of humans exist more similarly to each other, while others groups exist very differently – and within that we are all individually unique. There is no right or wrong way to be, just that we are all examples of natural variances in human existence. The word paradigm, in this context means: ‘A model’. If you’ve seen me, others talking about a paradigm shift – that means basically to move from one model to another.

That definition sounds simple, doesn’t it?

On one level, superficially it is. But when talking about the neurodiversity paradigm we’re talking about the immense richness in the variety of human experience and transferring that experience into an inclusive framework. 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 an example of what we call biodiversity.

Now take that one step further and consider how humans might 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 ‘autism’, what it means, and the difference between ‘autism’ and what it means to be Autistic:

Harriet is a representation of the human nervous system. The mechanism through which humans process sensory information externally and internally and moves it around the body to the relevant place. Human brains are the command centre for the human nervous system. If you like you could consider the brain the controls, and the nervous system a network, or series of cables through which signals are passed (That would be a very simplistic way of looking at it, but it works as a superficial metaphor).

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. This is called neurological processing. Information in, and then how our brain and body responds to it.

The ‘neuro’ in ‘neurodiversity’ is referring to that neurological processing.

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. When we are talking about neurodiversity we have to go deeper than that, because as human beings, we 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 work, how we think, and how we feel – these are the things that add up to make us who we are, the things that form the foundation of how we construct our identities, our personalities and collectively our personhoods. It’s what makes the ‘I’ in you. We are systemic creatures, working within, working towards, working against, and responding to multiple internal and external factors.

All those things that put the ‘I’ in you, are going to be very different for every human being, as we all have a unique internal and external experience of the world, even when we have shared experiences. Also, our mechanisms internally might work similarly, but not in exactly the same way identically as everyone else. So our neurological processing is shaped by not only our internal mechanisms, but also by the external inputs. Human uniqueness is key to the concept of neurodiversity, as is utilising the concept of looking at the whole human, systemically. So not only recognising all the intersections that shape that human, but also the external factors around them that they are responding to. It helps us take that step from a model of pathology which assumes that everything is happening internally within that person, to recognising both the uniqueness of all people, and the factors, systems and ecologies around that person, that they are interacting with ion their own unique way.

This is why it is important to understand that Neurodiversity is not just about brains, it’s not about specific labels, and that models of pathology are not fully conducive with the concept of neurodiversity (a mistake many people make).

Within the model of Neurodiversity we can *very* loosely break down humanity into two very large groups; Neurotypical and Neurodivergent. These are imperfect labels, but nothing within science, the terminology we use, or even the concepts behind them are ever perfect, nor fixed. The beauty of science is that it changes and evolves as we grow, evolve and learn new things (at least that’s how it’s supposed to work):

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 the Neurodiversity paradigm is about diagnosis fundamentally), 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.

Originally, in those early conversations (see below), the term neurotypical was used as kind of a mocking term – as in ‘look at those neurotypicals doing neurotypical things over there’, a way of a disenfranchised and marginalised group punching up. It later evolved to be a more serious term (You can see how that might add to it’s imperfections).

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. If Neurotypical means to lean into societal expectations, then Neurodivergence means to lean out of societal expectations.

Neurodivergence might refer to a difference from what is typically expected, that either you were born with, or one you might have acquired for some reason; such as a traumatic brain injury, a physical disability, or even because of poor 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.

The term ‘multiply-Neurodivergent’ is a bit of a pointless one grammatically by the way. Neurodivergence is by definition loose and non-specific, covering a vague way in which you might lean out of societal expectations. Whether you do that in a singular way, or in multiple ways, ‘neurodivergent’ is still the term for what is happening.

It could be and has been argued that the term ‘divergence’ means to move away from the ‘norm.’  If it it is understood that way, then i hope this next explanation may help, because 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 don’t 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 or separating, from each other. Like a fork in the road, rather than a side junction off of a main road. 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, sorry!).

The whole problem with all these narratives is that medically and psychologically we ‘typically expect’ things, or ways of being. If the Neurodiversity paradigm could be argued to have an end-goal, it would be to recognise that when we ‘typically expect’ things, all we do is centre those typical expectations and then set others up to fail. If we look at the term Neurodivergence as a side junction, we are basically saying there is a main road marked ‘typical’. There isn’t. At least there shouldn’t be.

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, medical ideology and frameworks have long existed within which we do centre a certain type of person as the right, or correct type of person. This has been particularly the case when it comes to psychiatry and psychology, where the model of the ideal is reflective of those whom have the power to decide what the model of ideal looks like.

it is about who gets to be considered ‘normal’ and who is pushed to the margins. When we define neurodivergence as a leaning out of societal expectations, we are also acknowledging that these expectations are shaped by power, privilege, and oppression.

Neurodivergence does not exist in isolation from race, gender, class, or other systems of oppression. Societal norms are built to privilege certain ways of thinking, being, and communicating—often reflecting white, Western, capitalist, able-bodied, cisgender, and male-dominated ideals. To be neurodivergent is to exist in opposition to these norms, and the consequences of that divergence will be shaped by where someone stands within those broader systems.

To be neurodivergent is to be out of sync with a society designed to serve a particular kind of person. The more someone diverges from that default, the more barriers they will face—not because of any individual ‘deficit’, but because society punishes divergence from its constructed ideals.

Due to this, Neurodiversity cannot be understood outside of intersectionality.

Intersectionality is the idea that multiple forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, and classism, overlap and create unique experiences of discrimination. It’s a framework that considers how these overlapping identities and experiences affect people, groups, and social problems – therefore Neurodiversity is intersectional by nature. Any attempt to separate the two reduces neurodivergence back to a medical category rather than an identity partially potentially shaped by biology, neurology, sexuality and so forth, but also one shaped by power, oppression, and resistance. Leaning away from societal norms in anyway immediately puts you at risk of marginalisation and stigma.

When we pathologise using the concepts of disorder, condition, and/or deficit we are actively being non-intersectional. Especially so when we are 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. The illusion of the ideal person is created.

Think about the creation of those diagnostic constructs.  Who came up with them?  Who created them?

For the most part these constructs have largely historically and presently been developed by white, western (European and North American), predominantly male, middle class, publicly straight-identifying, able-bodied, academically-educated, intellectual people. So the illusion of the ideal person is based on a person who fits within those parameters. The problematicness of that is that thinking led by mostly male, white westerners who are predominantly male, middle class, publicly straight, able-bodied, highly academically educated and intellectual, is often lacking in reflection of, or accounts for cultural differences and the vastly differing experiences of a vast number of humans across the planet, differing racialised and ethnic experiences, gender differences, sex differences, neuro-biological differences, class differences, differences in sexual proclivities, or physical differences; nor a vast array of different life experiences.

As one example of many for this: 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 human experience in one box and say “This is it”, it doesn’t really work. Indeed it 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.

As 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, outside of the limited world-view experiences I previously mentioned, historically formed and shaped by problematic people, based on problematic ideologies, within problematic periods of time. Diagnostic constructs are often political, power-driven, non-intersectional, non-culturally informed, limited, and sometimes arbitrary in nature. They change, evolve, and frequently even disappear completely as diagnoses. Sometimes that’s through changes in thinking, or because it’s been slowly accepted that whatever it is, is not and should never have been, a clinical diagnosis in the first place. 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.

All of this requires the Neurodiversity Paradigm to be seen not just as a way of framing uniqueness and difference, it is also deeply political.

Disability

Neurodiversity does not negate or deny the existence of disability.

It is absolutely imperative to understand that. Especially in light of arguments against the paradigm that state that it excludes certain types of people, particularly those identified as having intellectual or learning disabilities, physical disabilities, or non-speaking Autistic people. This misconception often comes from either a misconception about what the paradigm means, or that the popularised understanding of neurodiversity (see Neurodiversity-lite below) is the only version the person criticising has accessed.

Neurodiversity 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, who do that differently or whose brains and bodies might have different ideals are fundamentally broken, imperfect and wrong – it’s just that those people haven’t been very well catered to historically, if at all. The world wasn’t shaped by those people, or with them in mind.

That is not to say that disabilities don’t exist, or that Neurodivergence isn’t or can’t be disability, they clearly can. So again, using Autistic people as an example, it’s more to say that if you bring in the right accommodations, understanding and support, in a positive, constructive 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, barriers, or expectations, we can identify and provide more meaningful support medically, while addressing, challenging and changing the inequalities experienced by the individual – rather than a wholesale approach to changing people to suit societies problematic ideals.

One perfect example of that is the idea of Special Educational Needs (or SEND per the UK). There is no such thing. SEND is a manufactured idea, based on a system that was designed to cater only to those able to access it. The notion that someone has special needs, can easily and evidentially be reframed into a more true statement that ‘no, they have been excluded from an exclusive system’. If the way you learn and exist was never built into the education system, then the education system was never designed for you. You don’t have ‘special needs’ – you’ve been marginalised. Education systems need to reflect better on what they do, the ideologies they hold, and how every time a child cannot access their exclusive system that appears fundamentally unwilling to change – that is apparently the child’s fault.

That someone’s needs aren’t being met, is nothing to do with Neurodiversity, and everything to do with a (wilful or unwilful) lack of understanding of those needs, the pathologising, normative and problematic lenses they look through; a lack of meaningful support, a lack of training, a lack of professional knowledge, inappropriate environments and on and on.

Disability sits perfectly and visibly within the neurodiversity paradigm. Ultimately, just because someone is disabled in any way, is not an excuse to view them as a less valuable person.

Defining Neurodivergence within a medical paradigm

For many reasons, while we exist within a medical paradigm, 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). Using a narrative that requires labelling that uses a framing of conditions or disorders is fully medical. Again, neurodiversity is not saying that disability does not exist, or that difference can’t be problematic and immensely challenging for a person in varied ways, but that when we frame these needs using terminology that identifies them as sub-human, or broken versions of an idealised human (based on the model of diagnostic construct I described earlier) we create dehumanisation and stigma and often create more issues than we resolve.

While we do have to exist within that medical paradigm, rather than Neurodiversity (or at least a weird hybrid of the two), we may consider the following as *some* examples of neurodivergence, either from birth, or as in the second column, acquired:

These are inexhaustive, very basic 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.

We must also recognise that these labels are problematic in so many ways, they are (the medicalised ones at least) lists of disorders and conditions – which has led people who do not understand the paradigm to assume that things like ‘Neurodivergent conditions’ exist – they do not. The words Neurodivergent (or Neurodiverse, if the language is being used incorrectly) and condition (or disorder) are incompatible in this sense. The phrase only holds meaning for those who seek to wittingly or unwittingly pathologise.

A Brief History of Neurodiversity

The concept of Neurodiversity has grown and developed over the past few decades.

Indeed different people have even contested ownership over the claiming of the term. The ‘public’ coinage should, in my opinion, be attributed to the journalist Harvey Blume, whom in published print used both Neurotypical and NT as a shorthand for Neurotypical, but also ‘Neurological Diversity’ and Neurotypical first. He attributed those terms to Autistic people (and cited them) who were discussing the concept on list servers in the early 1990’s that he was privy to.

Most people attribute the coinage to Judy Singer. She was, for years, publicly lauded as ‘the Mother of Neurodiversity’, by organisations and people who have assumed the history. Singer wrote a paper about Neurodiversity that was published shortly after Blume’s work, and much later self-published a book titled ‘Neurodiversity, the birth of an idea’. Somehow Blume was forgotten, or overlooked, and Singer became the ‘creator-mother’ of a paradigm.

Interesting Judy’s story appears to have inconsistently changed and evolved over the years as attention to the term has grown, and their claim over the term only really 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 (ofttimes controversial and problematic) observer to this, who has claimed credit for it. That correction to the record highlights, specifically and rightfully, 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 (see below). Singer had, as evidenced from her body of work, a problematic view of autism, and an exclusive view of Neurodiversity that centred on what she perceived as ‘High-Functioning’ Autistics. A very different model to the one being described in this article. A much more inclusive concept was discussed in those early list-servers, and that is the one that outside of Singer’s conceptualisations, evolved separately, incorporating the terms ‘Neurodivergent’ and ‘Neurodivergence’. Those words were coined in the year 2000 by Kassiane Asasumasu, a multiply neurodivergent activist; and were further shaped and built upon by Professor Nick Walker, most famous among advocates for honing the way Neurodiversity is understood today, in terms of Neurodiversity language, looking at that 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 of neurodiversity has very much grown from its earlier academically-accepted iterations (problematically) based on Singer’s work), as we’ve come to better understand and reframe more of the many fallacies and myths that were previously believed, not just about Autism, but all the ways Neurodivergence may express itself, 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, indeed not yet finished (if it ever will be – nothing that involves science should ever stop evolving), yet it is interesting how much push back it receives, based on misunderstandings and misperceptions of the paradigm. Along with the ignoring of evidence bases, and obviously threatened personal belief-systems. Many of the arguments against are very cherry-picked and often obtuse and deeply lacking in reflection in many ways; especially from those working within power-based systems such as the field of Psychiatry. It is also deeply ironic that many of those who do push-back do so from the blatant misunderstand that neurodiversity exists in some ideological finished and polished form. One of the same boxes that Psychology and psychiatry love to create. It’s not only Autistic people who seek structure and who sometimes abhor change. Later on I’ll discuss the ideas of how capitalism has framed us as human beings, and how much of the push back mentioned here falls within that framing.

Anyone reading this who may be part of the push-back, apologies that the ideas and concepts of Neurodiveristy aren’t as fully formed as you would like them to be – most of the people working to develop that paradigm are deeply disenfranchised and marginalised and haven’t had the 200-300 year head start that you have (winky face, winky face, winky face).

‘Neurodiversity-Lite’

The concept of Neurodiversity has become very much a buzzword in the world, unfortunately. This started in the recruitment industry but has now leaked out into the wider world at large. Neurodiversity-Lite, a bastardised and deeply misunderstood version exists as the mainstream narrative. One so problematic, wrapped up in medicalised pathology thinking, and now so deeply embedded in societal bias, that I don’t even know if it’s possible to claw back

The terms and understanding of neurodiversity have been co-opted and changed – there is so much use of language such as ‘Neurodiverse conditions’ – which of course, having read the explanation above, doesn’t even work grammatically, let alone make sense.

Terms such as: ‘Neurodiversity/Neurodiverse community’ – there cannot be one community when you are talking about billions of people – again grammatically make no sense, because all people come under neurodiversity. 

And within that anyway, all communities are made up of ever decreasing circles of sub-communities – to homogenise an enormous group of people is very problematic, and risks creating narratives like those we have now for lots of groups. For example how Autistic people are seen as one large group of people who all experience everything identically, or if different experiences are recognised then are pathologised along routes of singular diagnostic constructs (placed on ‘the spectrum‘), rather than seen as unique individuals with shared experiences but also with many different things going on under the bonnet and experientially across multiple domains intersectionally.

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. Neurodivergence is not interchangeable with autism and ADHD, Neurodiversity does not just mean autism and ADHD!

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 who are happy to perpetuate that weak understanding, without acknowledging the negative impact of it and the further stigmatisation and misperception.

Unfortunately, this superficial and performative Neurodiversity-Lite 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 the Neurodiversity paradigm I mentioned earlier, is often an unwitting push-back 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, and humanising.
It straddles both the medical and social models of disability.
It’s not about superpowers, or denying need.
It is complicated.

And most of all it is important.

“As Harvey Blume noted, “Neurodiversity may be every bit as crucial for the human race as biodiversity is for life in general. Who can say what form of wiring will prove best at any given moment?” How absurd it would be to label a calla lily as having “petal deficit disorder” or to diagnose a person from Holland as suffering from “altitude deprivation syndrome.” There is no normal flower or culture. Similarly, we ought to accept the fact that there is no normal brain or mind.” – The myth of the normal brain, Dr Thomas Armstrong.

Core principals

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 bases, 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 are some core foundational principals that form the backbone of the Neurodiversity paradigm as a humanising framework that require you to consider the whole human. These start with models of psychological and sociological theory such as:

1. Ethnographic and Cultural theory
Highlighting how cultural context influences the understanding and expression of experience – this requires moving beyond Western models.

2. Identity-First Models
Emphasising the importance of Identities and lived experience in shaping understanding.

3. Ecological Systems Theory
Considering how environmental, societal, and systemic factors impact development and well-being.

4. Cognitive Style Theories
Recognising diverse ways of thinking, such as visual or logical reasoning, and using attention, as natural variations of human cognition and attentional focus, rather than deficits.

5. Complex Dynamic Systems Theory
Viewing human experience as a dynamic interaction between biological, psychological, and social systems.

6. Diversity in social intelligence
Acknowledging the bi-directional differences in cultural competency across social communication and motivations

Other foundational underpinnings may also apply. For example Dr Robert Chapman, philosopher, social theorist and Assistant Professor of Critical Neurodiversity Studies at Durham University, is the author of: ‘Empire of Normality: Neurodiversity and Capitalism‘. In it he applies a lens of Marxist theory to Neurodiversity, presenting the case that the Neurodiversity paradigm is not compatible with Capitalism because Capitalism prioritises productivity, efficiency, and economic value, whereas the Neurodiversity Paradigm centres human diversity, autonomy, and the right to exist outside of economic utility.

Capitalism values people based on labour output. Neurodivergent people, especially those who struggle with traditional work structures, are often devalued under capitalism because their abilities don’t always translate into marketable productivity. Neurodivergence challenges the capitalist requirement for norms. Capitalist systems rely on standardisation, predictability, and compliance (e.g., rigid work schedules, hierarchical management, and efficiency-driven practices). Many Neurodivergent people function differently, wittingly or unwittingly challenging and resisting these norms by needing flexibility, autonomy, and different modes of working.

Capitalism also commodifies and exploits Neurodivergence – While corporations claim to support Neurodiversity, they often do so selectively—only embracing Neurodivergent people who can fit into existing capitalist structures, and often perpetuating stereotypes due to that. Under capitalism, disabled and Neurodivergent people also face systemic barriers to employment, are often pushed into precarious, underpaid jobs, or are forced to mask and conform just to survive. On top of this medicalised narratives often perpetuate capitalist principals, focusing on a typicality as the desired way of being, and that desired way of being happening to be the most economically productive. There is a very good reason why societally and economically the the least care is taken of those deemed the least productive The system pathologises their needs instead of changing structures to accommodate them.

In light of this, embracing Neurodiversity requires a systems change, moving beyond capitalism to a system that values people intrinsically, not just for their ability to generate profit—a society where care, mutual aid, and collective well-being replace productivity as the measure of worth. Basically, capitalism wants people to be useful, while the Neurodiversity Paradigm argues that people should be valued simply for existing.

As I mentioned earlier, the Neurodiversity Paradigm is deeply rooted in anti-racism, feminism, and critical disability studies, among other social justice movements. The core principles, such as recognising neurological diversity as a natural and valuable part of human variation, rejecting pathologisation, and centring intersectionality and identity are built on these foundational perspectives. These work hand-in-hand or with, or parallel the academic principals laid out earlier – indeed some of these are also academic principals.

Distinctly and in-exhaustively these include:

Intersectionality
Neurodiversity cannot exist without intersectionality being it’s very backbone. Intersectionality describes the meeting of overlapping identities, usually referred to in terms of race, age, disability, sex, gender, sexuality, wealth, social status, nationality, cultural experience etc and how those can describe multiple ways people a person might be marginalised. Rather than treating intersectionality as a lens applied to neurodivergence, it should be recognised as inherent to it. If neurodivergence is fundamentally about a leaning out of societal expectations, then it is already bound up in every other way people are pushed to the margins. The moment we define neurodivergence as something different from dominant norms, we are also talking about race, gender, class, queerness, disability, and any other way in which people’s experiences are stigmatised and made to be ‘other’.

Anti-racism
The Neurodiversity Paradigm at is core rejects Eurocentric, WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) models of cognitive and behavioural ‘norms.’ These frameworks often exclude and pathologise marginalised communities, reinforcing white supremacist ideas about intelligence, communication, and behaviour.

Feminism
There’s a strong intersection between Neurodiversity and feminist thought, particularly in challenging hierarchical power structures, recognising care work as valid labour, and resisting the masculinist lens of cognitive science that disproportionately pathologises traits associated with women and marginalised genders.

Critical Disability Studies
This field underpins the shift away from the medical model of disability to the social and relational models, which focus on access, autonomy, and collective liberation rather than deficit-based interventions aimed at ‘fixing’ individuals.

Queer & Crip Theory
Queer and Crip critiques of normativity align with the Neurodiversity Paradigm—resisting compulsory neurotypicality just as they resist compulsory heterosexuality and able-bodiedness. These frameworks challenge the idea that there is one ‘right’ way to exist in the world.

Decolonial & Indigenous Knowledge Systems
Many non-Western cultures have long recognised cognitive diversity without pathologising it. The Neurodiversity Paradigm must actively include decolonial perspectives to avoid replicating the same exclusionary hierarchies that uphold white, Western models of ‘normality.’

Structural Power
Neurodiversity as a movement needs to address systemic oppression, not just individual accommodations. Without challenging capitalism, white supremacy, and other oppressive structures, there’s a risk of merely creating a neurodivergent elite while leaving the most marginalised behind.

Neurodiversity Beyond the Western Lens: A Global Perspective

While the Neurodiversity Paradigm emerged from western discourse and is often framed through a Western lens, understandings of neurodivergence differ vastly across cultures. Many non-Western societies have historically framed cognitive and behavioural differences in ways that do not align with the dominant Western medical model of disability. This raises important questions about how neurodivergence is perceived, supported, or marginalised worldwide and how the Neurodiversity paradigm could be applied globally to truly incorporate and reflect all human experience..

Indigenous and Traditional Perspectives
In many Indigenous cultures, neurodivergence is not pathologised but seen as part of a natural part of human difference. Certain traits associated with being neurodivergent—such as deep focus, non-linear thinking, heightened sensitivity, or strong pattern recognition—may be recognised as unique strengths rather than deficits. Some Indigenous traditions have historically assigned neurodivergent individuals specific societal roles, such as healers, storytellers, or spiritual guides.

This stands in stark contrast to the Western medical model, which categorises aspects of neurodivergence as conditions requiring diagnosis and intervention rather than an inherent part of human diversity. While some traditional perspectives have been erased or overshadowed by Western psychiatry, they still offer alternative, community-based understandings of difference.

Spiritual and Religious Framings
In some cultures, neurodivergence is understood through spiritual or religious frameworks rather than medical language. Certain African, South Asian, and Indigenous traditions interpret cognitive and sensory differences as signs of divine insight, heightened perception, or spiritual connection.

While this can sometimes be affirming, it can also lead to misinterpretations and harmful practices—such as attributing neurodivergence to supernatural causes and subjecting neurodivergent individuals to exorcisms or faith-based ‘cures’. Western psychiatric discourse has, in many cases, replaced these traditional understandings with deficit-based models, often without recognising the value of alternative cultural perspectives on neurodivergence.

Cultural Stigma and Pressures to Conform
While stigma against neurodivergence exists globally, it manifests differently depending on cultural values and social structures.

• In some East Asian cultures, where social harmony and conformity may be highly valued, masking and suppressing expressions of neurodivergence is often expected. The pressure to adhere to rigid societal norms can be extreme, leading to internalised shame and burnout for many neurodivergent individuals.

• In Middle Eastern, African, and South Asian societies, disability and neurodivergence may be tied to family honour. In some cases, neurodivergent individuals face concealment, lack of diagnosis, or limited access to support due to fears of social stigma impacting the entire family.

• In lower-income and postcolonial nations, economic survival may take precedence over accommodations, making formal diagnosis or any support services largely inaccessible to many neurodivergent people.

These examples illustrate how perspectives on neurodivergence is not only shaped by biology, but also by cultural expectations and systemic barriers, emphasising the importance of understanding Neurodivergence beyond simply brain differences, but recognising the role societies and societal expectations play in someone’s experience and identity. The dominance of Western medical models has sometimes erased these cultural differences rather than working to understand or integrate them.

The Role of Colonialism and Global Capitalism
Many non-Western countries still operate under postcolonial structures, where education, healthcare, and disability discourse were historically imposed by Western colonial powers. These systems prioritise Western psychological models, often dismissing Indigenous, local, and community-based approaches to neurodivergence. At the same time, global capitalism has intensified neuronormative pressures worldwide. Many societies are shifting toward capitalist models of productivity, standardised education, and rigid work structures—which often exclude neurodivergent individuals who do not fit efficiency-driven expectations. However, this was not always the case. Some cultures historically structured work and community roles in ways that naturally accommodated neurodivergence. The rise of industrialisation and capitalist economic models has, in many ways, eroded these more flexible and inclusive ways of existing.

The Emerging Global Neurodiversity Movement
Despite these challenges, a global movement for neurodivergent rights is growing. While the Neurodiversity Paradigm was initially shaped within Western discourse, activists across Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Indigenous communities are now reclaiming and shaping their own cultural understandings of neurodivergence.

The rise of online neurodiversity activism has allowed neurodivergent people from different cultural backgrounds to challenge dominant narratives, connect and share their lived realities, and advocate for frameworks that reflect their own experiences. White Western discourses still dominate the narrative, we are from a place where global perspectives are parallel in the hierarchy, so it is of the utmost importance that we shift our perspectives to a place where we are keeping global cultural perspectives and intersectionality at the heart of the framework.

Moving Beyond a Western-Centric Approach
For the Neurodiversity movement to be truly inclusive, it must go beyond Western definitions and assumptions. Instead, it must:

• Acknowledge and uplift non-Western perspectives on neurodivergence.
• Recognise how economic, cultural, and colonial histories impact neurodivergent experiences worldwide.
• Prioritise accessibility beyond Western frameworks—ensuring that neurodivergent individuals in different parts of the world have access to support that is meaningful within their own cultural contexts.

A truly inclusive and radical neurodiversity movement must centre global voices, rather than assuming Western perspectives apply universally. Expanding the conversation in this way will ensure that neurodivergence is seen not just through the lens of Western psychiatry or corporate inclusion, but as a fundamental part of human diversity, shaped by cultural, historical, and social contexts worldwide.

Summary

In order to adopt the Neurodiversity paradigm, or to adopt it’s principals as a driver for your thinking and work there is a requirement to be an open-minded and critical thinker.
To recognise and learn to sit with the impact of you.
To mitigate that impact.
To lean hard into the double empathy problem.
To broaden your perspective outside of your own privileges and biases.
To truly view the whole human.

If you call yourself neuro-affirming, are you attempting to do all 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’ are.  It allows a superficiality, it curates 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. That is inclusive of Autistic and ADHD people, and organisations. There are organisations who subtitle themselves ‘The Neurodiversity charity’, professionals claiming to be ‘Neuro-affirming’, Autistic and ADHD advocates who call themselves ‘Neurodiversity Advocates’, and many of them convey problematic or superficial messages. Unfortunately, there are many people in many roles, who like with many things, assume they know what they are doing, or what they are talking about, without being truly critically reflective, thinking intersectionally, or really doing the work required.

I did say that Neurodiversity isn’t just about brains.
I also did say that Neurodiversity is also very, very complicated.
It needs to be.

But if we’re going to move beyond the superficial, we have to be prepared to do the work.

---

Further Reading on Neurodiversity

If you’d like to dig more into this subject and find out more, I, and Developmental Psychologist and Assistant Professor at 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. The impacts of normative thinking through a Neurodiversity-inclusive lens are also explored in: ‘Improving Mental Health Therapies for Autistic Children and Young People: Promoting Self-agency, Curiosity and Collaboration.’, particularly in my two chapters, ‘When the helping professions hurt – the need to build trust and make sense of each other in the therapy room’ – co-authored with Clinical Psychologist, Dr Roslyn Law; and ‘Understanding low mood, shutdown, and burnout in autistic CYP’, with Clinical Psychologist, Dr Julia Avnon.

Other books exploring the concepts of both neurodiversity, and ‘normality’ can be found on my recommended reading list.

---

If you’ve found this article useful you can support my work by donating any amount from $3 (about the same as a coffee – mine’s a caramel latte please!).

I know not everyone wants, or needs, one of my training courses, but I often find people will read one of my free articles and want to say ‘thank you’. And this is a really easy way to do that. It also supports me to keep being able to create new, free content and keep my older, free content up-to-date. My Autism FAQs page is a good place to start if you’re new to my work and want to explore more.

Thanks for you support – it means the absolute world. Kieran x