Neurodiversity is the idea that people are born with differences in brain function and that those differences are natural and even a strength on a societal level. This is in opposition to our neuronormative society that considers only one “typical” neurotype and any divergence from that neurotype being some form of deficiency.
Under our current medical model of neurodiversity, these variations are seen as disabilities to “fix”, which often happens as part of our education system enforcing a limited set of learning styles. It also happens through our society’s expectations for us to maximize our productivity as workers for capitalists.
Medications
Another manifestation of the pressure to conform to neuronormative society is the use of various medications to manage our more visibly divergent traits, less for our own benefits and more for the benefit of those who see themselves as having to “deal” with us otherwise.
Others may take medications for things like ADHD, which I believe may be in part due to the symptoms of ADHD clashing with the expectations of school and work in our current society, but that those might not be treated as deficits in a less neuronormative society.
That’s not to discredit the use of medication, which certainly improves the wellbeing of many people and I certainly respect individuals’ autonomy to use any medicine they find personally beneficial. But, I think a less neuronormative society will enable a non-zero amount of people to feel comfortable not taking a medicine they currently feel compelled to take.
Diagnoses
People are pattern-recognizing machines, and I believe a society that embraces neurodiversity will still come up with various neurotypes to categorize people into. Like all social constructs, these are definitions and labels ultimately made up. But they can be useful, for sharing advice with those who have had similar experiences in life or otherwise just finding community.
Today there are often concerns about over-diagnosing of mental health conditions, and I don't think it's really an issue, at least not beyond the aforementioned issues with neuronormativity. Indeed, I'll go a step further and suggest anyone should be allowed to identify with what they find helps them personally, irrespective of any diagnosis. e.g. if resources intended to help autistic people help you as well, you don't need to feel qualms about not being clinically diagnosed. Similarly, if someone else says benefits from resources intended for those with a specific neurotype, you certainly shouldn't gatekeep the resources. And I'm just generally against gatekeeping labels.
As a label changes it may lose its utility to some groups (e.g. to grow to include people with notably different experiences whose advice may not apply to you). We can always construct new delineations, like we have already with terms like AuDHD or the different supports needs people may need.
There have been times on social media where people make claims of "social contagions", where people see a lot of content of a certain condition, and then "contract" it themselves (with accusations of only mimicking usually following). I think using terms like contagions, contraction, or accusing people of mimickry is ableist (although if someone is intentionally mimicking a condition in order to make fun of those with said condition, that is also ableist of course). Ultimately a society should accept someone limping, and should not gatekeep who "gets" to limp: does it truly matter if they're doing so because putting weight on that leg hurts, or if they're just doing it because all their friends are or they just don't feel like placing pressure on that leg that day. As with limping, so to any condition.
While originally related to statistics, I find this quote relevant to discourse on gatekeeping labels:
George Box
All models are wrong, but some are useful
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.