Why neurodiversity is not a diagnosis

Recently, the term "neurodiversity," which was coined by Judy Singer in 1998, has become widely used in educational literature, policy, and social media. It has been embraced by various professionals, parents, and students in different contexts. However, a thoughtful understanding of this term is necessary for it to be accurately interpreted.

Infinitely different minds in infinitely different bodies

Singer (1998) recognised the infinite variation in different types of minds that reside within equally diverse bodies, embracing a wide understanding of what it means to be human and highlighting the complexities and uniqueness of the human condition.

She states that neurodiversity acknowledges that ‘…every human has a unique nervous system with a unique combination of abilities and need’ accentuating the argument that we are all dignified human beings and as such deserve mutual respect.

Vulnerability is not a weakness

Singer also highlights that neurodiversity is an amoral concept: none of us are morally perfect, as diverse creatures we can all choose to do good or bad, we all have our positive and negative days, our gifts and our vulnerabilities.

We all share then, a certain vulnerability as part of the human condition and I believe that it is this vulnerability that can unify and teach us if we truly and respectfully listen to each other.

Neurodiversity: a political movement, not a diagnosis

Neurodiversity is a space not a person. The neurodiversity movement seeks respect and recognition in the workplace for people with different kinds of minds. Singer understood that neurologically diverse individuals faced oppression similar to that experienced by women and gay people. She believed that neurologically diverse people needed a social movement and coined the term 'neurodiversity' as a rallying cry for the movement.

Singer (2020) argues that 'neurodiversity' is not a psycho-medical diagnosis for an individual or a means of dividing people into groups. She states that it's incorrect to say Worker A is "neurodiverse" while Worker B is not. Instead, if Worker A identifies with a specific syndrome, such as autism, they can be called "autistic," but they are no more neurodiverse than anyone else on the planet.

Rather, Singer coined the term ‘neurodiversity’ for two specific political functions.

To promote an acknowledgement and understanding of the sophisticated and complex inter-relatedness of the human condition.
To suggest an umbrella term for the social and political work for the Autistic Self-Advocacy Movement.

Neurodivergent vs neurotypical

Inter-relatedness in this sense is the interconnected nature of the social dimension of an individual’s situational context such as a person’s psychological and biological disposition, culture, class, gender and sexuality. This interconnected nature is completely unique as no single person will have the same disposition or life experiences.

A similar approach comes from the social philosopher Martha Nussbaum (2006), in her version of the Capabilities Approach , a theoretical framework that has two normative claims.

That the freedom to achieve wellbeing is of primary moral importance.
That wellbeing should be understood in terms of people’s capabilities, and their being and doing has at its core individual dignity, value, and respect.

Please remember the text below:

As our dignity lies in our uniqueness, we should have mutual respect for each other without judgment or prejudice. I often read in educational reports, literature, or on social media phrases such as 'she is not neurotypical, she is neurodivergent', creating groups of people and promoting a 'them and us' attitude.

In contrast, I suggest that both Singer and Nussbaum might argue that there is no such thing as a 'neurotypical' person and no 'normal', as no two human beings are exactly alike.

Depending on our individual position and context, our functioning and capabilities may be prevented from evolving if the environment excludes us or does not enable us to flourish.

It's important to understand the concept of neurodiversity. This understanding can encourage individuals in education, work, and institutions to reflect on their biases, both conscious and unconscious. By doing so, they can create a more inclusive environment that welcomes and supports all different ways of thinking and being.

What does neurodiversity mean to me?

I have dyspraxia. Neurodiversity, to me, means acknowledging the various complex factors that contribute to my identity, including my relationships with family, friends, and coworkers, as well as my life experiences.

On an individual level, I believe that neurodiversity holds a unique meaning for each person as we all have diverse perspectives and ways of thinking. Instead of a single truth, there are individual realities shaped by emotions, thoughts, and beliefs, which can impact our outlook on life and interactions with others, and these are continually evolving.

On an institutional level, inclusivity for neurodivergent individuals involves embracing a broad and genuine definition of humanity, and truly celebrating the uniqueness and dignity of the talents that people bring to their communities. To achieve this, institutions need to be open to diverse and creative thinking, be good listeners, supportive, and ready to evolve.

The concept of neurodiversity should encourage healthy debates and conversations to enhance understanding and bring about change. As society progresses and develops through discussions on neurodiversity, the definition of neurodiversity should also be reconsidered and evolve accordingly.