This is Part 3 of the four-part series on neurodiversity that is being jointly published by Mad in America and Mad in the UK. The series was edited by Mad in the UK editors, and authored by John Cromby and Lucy Johnstone. Part 3 was originally published on July 29, 2024.
The unacknowledged politics of neurodiversity
In Part 1 and Part 2, we argued that the neurodiversity movement has, despite its original intentions, resulted in a range of contradictions which have created division, revived diagnostic thinking and practice, and perpetuated neoliberal ideologies. In this blog, a therapist who works with children and young people expands on some of these worrying consequences, including the imposition of identities, the co-option of the neurodiversity movement for personal and professional gain, the restrictions on therapeutic work, and the silencing of dissenting views. The author writes anonymously because of the fear of repercussions for speaking openly, but nevertheless wishes to take this opportunity to express their concern and anger about what they witness on a daily basis.
Neuro-identities
We used to worry about labels. We used to worry that telling a child that they were a particular thing would shape their development in that direction, closing down other options. Labelling theory suggested that not only would a label affect how a child saw themselves, it would also affect how people around them saw them and treated them. It would lead to ‘foreclosure’—the assumption that because the label explains a person’s behaviour or experiences, there is no need to attempt to understand the person as a complex being. This applied to a whole range of labels—not just diagnostic terms, but also descriptions of children such as ‘disruptive’, ‘gifted’, ‘talented’ or even ‘quiet’. A psychiatric diagnosis, a special sort of label, was generally seen as undesirable, even if sometimes necessary.
This position has been entirely flipped around in the 21st century, with the growth of identity politics. This term describes how we might assert rights and responsibilities, or seek justice and equality, solely on the basis of characteristics such as ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender. It is often seen as problematic because its emphasis upon individuals can deflect attention from wider systemic or structural issues, such as the exploitation and inequality of neoliberalism.
The current emphasis upon these kinds of identities might be seen as a consequence of neoliberalism’s fragmentation of families, settled communities and stable workplaces, and the associated destruction of collective institutions such as working men’s clubs, youth clubs, unions and churches. As these traditional sources of identity formation have either disappeared, or been made less relevant, people have increasingly used other resources to establish their sense of self.