Watching the neurodiversity movement gain traction online and in real life has given me hope that a more inclusive and informed future isn’t too far away. In social media videos, people discuss the daily experience of being neurodiverse or how they have learned to observe and respect these traits in loved ones and family. I have watched many videos of adults with ADHD and/or autism in the workplace or at school that mirror parts of my own life.
I’m also happy that through the act of making these videos, neurodivergent influencers become more confident, practiced in communicating to wide audiences, and more literate on the topic — which demonstrates that they want to be informed and provide good information. Watching these videos, one cannot help but ask themselves, “Wait. Do I do that?”
As with all social movements that rapidly proliferate, culture and community around neurodiversity will evolve, new lingo will be adopted, and the messages will be validated by the sheer number of followers.
It will also face challenges. In particular, I’m concerned that the vague language and definitions within neurodiversity allow for it to be attacked — and if advocates don’t have credible responses, then the movement will lose momentum.
The underlying premise of neurodiversity is that there are people who are different from the norm; these people are not deficient, disordered, disabled, or damaged; and they should be able to exist in public spaces with understanding and the degree of autonomy afforded to everyone else.
But there is a problem with the language in the movement, starting with its very name. Every single person who has ever existed is, moment to moment, neurologically unique. We are all neurodivergent from each other. The mind-blowing thing is that you are even neurodiverse from the you who started reading this paragraph a few seconds ago.
This is not to say that the name itself must change — but it’s worth acknowledging the word’s limitations as the ideas behind the movement become more widely acknowledged and accepted.
The movement also relies on there being others, in this case neurotypicals. Therefore, neurodiversity has to be defined by those who have been diagnosed as or self-identify with conditions such as autism, ADHD, Tourette’s syndrome, bipolar disorder — anything considered a neurological variation resulting in behavioral differences outside of society’s norm — precisely so those who have not been diagnosed as or self-identify with these conditions can be the other.
All social movements need an other because it helps to reinforce one’s own identity — if the other is X, Y, and Z, then I know I am not X, Y, and Z. And if the other is seen as responsible for doing things that make your own life difficult, then they become the target of your frustration (which though just at times, can also become problematic). It’s this opposition that cements neurodiversity as a social movement.
But the idea of the other quickly collapses with neurodiversity because there is neurodiversity within neurotypicals. As neurons and neural arrangements are somatic, think of them next to other somatic medical conditions and diseases. People suffer from allergies, asthma, arthritis, gout, cancer, acne, thrush, chlamydia, etc. We have already realized that when it comes to our health, there isn’t a typical. The idea of having somatodiversity versus somatotypicals seems ridiculous. Of course we are all different, not just in the moment, but at each moment throughout our lives.
To be effective when pushing for social change, advocates for neurodiversity need to be ready to acknowledge these limitations. Once it dawns on everyone that there is an infinity of neurodiversity within neurotypicals, the movement will lose its other and so will no longer be a social movement. Likewise, if by showing people through social media what neurodiversity looks like, more people realize that they have these traits, the neurodiverse will move from being a minority to a majority, which itself might be a logical ending for the movement, because the other has to be seen as the majority. The natural ending for any critical social movement should be that equality has been achieved.
I would be happy with either of the above outcomes, but it is worth bearing in mind that the true celebration of diversity comes when we realize there are no typicals. Neurodiversity can only be the beginning of a movement to recognize personality and behavioral differences between people.
Jack Pemment is a science writer and essayist.
