Part 1: Neurodiversity—What Exactly Does It Mean?

0
189

Mad in America and Mad in the UK are jointly publishing a four-part series on neurodiversity over the next four weeks. The series was edited by Mad in the UK editors, and authored by John Cromby and Lucy Johnstone. Part 1 was originally published on July 15, 2024.

Introduction

Over the last 25 years, neurodiversity has inspired both a social movement and an academic paradigm. At the time of writing both the movement and the paradigm are still developing, with people interpreting neurodiversity in different ways.

Some align neurodiversity with the critique of diagnosis and see it as offering a new, non-medical and non-pathologising way forward. Others strongly support diagnostic labels, and argue that professional diagnoses of autism, ADHD and so on should be more readily available.

So neurodiversity might be an inspiring new paradigm—a non-stigmatising alternative to psychiatric diagnosis, that encourages people to accept difference and value diversity. Alternatively, it might simply turn out to be the old ideas dressed up in new language about choice and empowerment—thus rehabilitating diagnostic thinking and assumptions and essentially preserving the status quo.

To add to the complexity, an emerging third group uses the neurodiversity movement as a platform for attacking current critiques and critics of the psychiatric diagnostic paradigm, such as those featured on MITUK and MIA, while at the same time claiming to be the true radicals. This is despite the fact that both parties share many views about the social and political roots of distress. It is a confusing and evolving picture. However, given the rapidity with which the concept of ‘neurodiversity’ has entered common parlance as well as clinical settings, we feel it is timely to attempt an overview of these influential but often contradictory perspectives.

Some caveats are necessary. It has rapidly, and surprisingly, become as difficult to challenge the idea of neurodiversity as it once was to dispute the labels of ‘schizophrenia’ or ‘personality disorder.’ In now doing so, we want to be very clear, firstly, that anything we say about neurodiversity is unlikely to apply to all uses and users of the term, given the multiple meanings and positions associated with it. Our blogs will attempt to clarify what we see as the major current trends and perspectives in the field, while recognising that in many ways they are very different in aims and motives.

Secondly, we wholeheartedly respect and uphold people’s personal right to describe their difficulties and differences in any way that is helpful to them (although we argue that in their work clinicians have a duty to use concepts that are in conventional terms evidence-based). None of what follows is intended as an attempt to limit or change that right, or to impose alternatives.

We welcome responses and debate.

(Authors’ note: We have indicated our reservations about the validity of diagnostic terms by using phrases such as ‘diagnosed as….’ )

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.