I want to start off what I intend to be a series of posts by exploring the meaning of the term "Neurodivergent"- there is not even a wikipedia article at present for the term. Instead the term forwards to "neurodiversity"- a related but different concept.
This term has a publicly developed definition maintained by Nick Walker, a professor at California Institute of Integral Studies, along with others and with the participation of many, and the official definitions lives online at her website: : in the basic terms and definitions essay.
It reads as follows:
Neurodivergent, sometimes abbreviated as ND, means having a mind that functions in ways which diverge significantly from the dominant societal standards of “normal.”
Neurodivergent is quite a broad term. Neurodivergence (the state of being neurodivergent) can be largely or entirely genetic and innate, or it can be largely or entirely produced by brain-altering experience, or some combination of the two. Autism and dyslexia are examples of innate forms of neurodivergence, while alterations in brain functioning caused by such things as trauma, long-term meditation practice, or heavy usage of psychedelic drugs are examples of forms of neurodivergence produced through experience.
A person whose neurocognitive functioning diverges from dominant societal norms in multiple ways – for instance, a person who is Autistic, dyslexic, and epileptic – can be described as multiply neurodivergent.
Some forms of innate or largely innate neurodivergence, like autism, are intrinsic and pervasive factors in an individual’s psyche, personality, and fundamental way of relating to the world. The neurodiversity paradigm rejects the pathologizing of such forms of neurodivergence, and the Neurodiversity Movement opposes attempts to get rid of them.
Other forms of neurodivergence, like epilepsy or the effects of traumatic brain injuries, could be removed from an individual without erasing fundamental aspects of the individual’s selfhood, and in many cases the individual would be happy to be rid of such forms of neurodivergence. The neurodiversity paradigm does not reject the pathologizing of these forms of neurodivergence, and the Neurodiversity Movement does not object to consensual attempts to cure them (but still most definitely objects to discrimination against people who have them).
Thus, neurodivergence is not intrinsically positive or negative, desirable or undesirable – it all depends on what sort of neurodivergence one is talking about.
The terms neurodivergent and neurodivergence were coined in the year 2000 by Kassiane Asasumasu, a multiply neurodivergent neurodiversity activist.
What It Doesn’t Mean:
Neurodivergent is not a synonym for autistic. There are countless possible ways to be neurodivergent, and being autistic is only one of those ways. There are myriad ways of being neurodivergent that have no resemblance or connection to autism whatsoever. Never, ever use neurodivergent as a euphemism for autistic. If you mean that someone is autistic, say they’re autistic. It’s not a dirty word.Examples of Correct Usage:
“Our school aims to be inclusive of students who are Autistic, dyslexic, or otherwise neurodivergent, though there are some types of neurodivergence that we’re still seeking ways to accommodate.”“This group is for people who identify as both queer and ND (neurodivergent).”
"
I have seen this term get simply used as an umbrella for already defined and medicalized DSM categories. I think this misses the point in a profound way- to use it merely as a synonym for already existing "illness". As I write further on this topic I will be specifically seeking to broaden this term in the widest possible way specifically with the intent of maintaining this aspect. I am posting this in the autism community to start off with on peakd - but it will not stay here.
Neurodivergent means primarily to diverge from the norm in a significant way in ones processing- this is something which can be both positive or negative or vary in its intensity or acceptability.
Positive nonmedical common examples of neurodivergence that people are already familiar with from cultural archetypes is that of the talented but awkward "nerd" or "geek". In such a person one can already see some of the common features of neurodivergence- unusual talents, interests, skill in specialized areas combined with social awkwardness or physical lack of coordination, sensitivity etc. At this level most "neurodivergence" is recognized with terms like - weird, quirky, eccentric, spacey, nerdy, savant, picky, high-strung, shy, genius- and the list continues on. The primary thing of note is not the particulars but purely that the person has a cognitive style that is at the edges of the distribution, so to speak.
Steve Silverman, in his book Neurotribes, establishes at length the connection between the "geek" world and a great many people who ultimately received official diagnosis with various conditions as those became available. It it is the entire intension of this term to try and demedicalise - so any one reading the above and thinking "Being a geek is not a condition!" can stop holding their breath. The entire point is that such a disease based approach is deeply flawed and should be seriously rethought if not outright rejected.
Neurotribes contains this fantastic quote, which captures the concept very well:
ONE WAY TO UNDERSTAND neurodiversity is to think in terms of human operating systems instead of diagnostic labels like dyslexia and ADHD. The brain is, above all, a marvelously adaptive organism, adept at maximizing its chances of success even in the face of daunting limitations.
Just because a computer is not running Windows doesn't mean that it's broken. Not all the features of atypical human operating systems are bugs. By autistic standards, the “normal” brain is easily distractible, is obsessively social, and suffers from a deficit of attention to detail and routine. Thus people on the spectrum experience the neurotypical world as relentlessly unpredictable and chaotic, perpetually turned up too loud, and full of people who have little respect for personal space.
The main reason why the Internet was able to transform the world in a single generation is that it was specifically built to be “platform agnostic.” The Internet doesn't care if your home computer or mobile device is running Windows, Linux, or the latest version of Apple's iOS.
Most research which is done on the mind or brain is done with an aim toward a concrete purpose - that is, to fix a problem. It is funded by social systems at the point where it can be shown to require some intervention, typically by acquiring status in the DSM, that infamous handbook of bureaucratic box checking. Most of the research consequently takes on a medicalized tone- and as a result, speaking on this topic is met by many with the same braced attitude that one has when receiving lab results that might contain some feared or dread news. I think this is the incorrect state of mind to bring to the issue.
Instead it is better to consider it a bit like being able to discover fascinating or unique creatures on a space voyage - like visiting a different country or planet. Having a different way of thinking should be fun and be appreciated for the possibilities it offers- that is where I'm aiming at.
The Debatable Utility of Labeling
A great many people historically did not have their neurodivergence labeled or medicalized- this is a more recent phenomena as described above. As the scale and rigidity of these systems have increased, so has diagnosis and medicalization of those who are too far from a standardized mold of a person.
This is not to say that historically being neurodivergent was a nonissue or that not labeling it is some kind of holistic good. Other forms of understanding might have been used instead - especially often religious terminology like possession, witchcraft, sinful, evil, etc. Often if a behavior cannot be rationalized within a person's existing framework, they will reach for the nearest term of "I don't like it" that is available.
To start with, many people, including especially my own very noticeably autistic family - and myself by extension, spent many years being different with no labels or diagnosis.
This did not produce a positive outcome- folks with no preexisting opinion would quickly form one. If they had no paradigm they would actually very often attribute the behavior to malice or inexplicable ill intent or a defiant attitude. They noticed it and generally feared or disliked it with out the need for anything influencing them before hand.
The difference is not imaginary in nature- and therefore the language around it can shape but not erase it.
Many people, both the diagnosed autistic person and the family like myself would often be demonized and blamed for the situation, especially by people who strongly believed that such outcomes were totally socially constructed- feeling that holding people "responsible and accountable" would some how fix the situation. Such approaches were ultimately cruel and unhelpful.
Labeling can be helpful in such instances- being able to tell such people quickly that such behavior is not a moral failing is certainly a relief.
However it also brings with it attendant medicalization, unwelcome infantilization, and for many especially well to do people who received autism diagnosis and could afford doctors- a parade of quack treatments, therapies, cruel interventions, etc. Society wants to see it as an "illness" and then to be able to just send folks off to a pharmacist for a quick hit of drugs or a few therapy sessions- and then get to the business of being "normal".
It wants this so badly that the usefulness of available treatments is largely irrelevant. Although it takes it out of the realm of morality, entering the realm of rigid medicalization can be a quite serious problem in its own right; a lifetime treadmill of useless treatment is no assistance at all. Many movements of the 1960's recognized the inherent dangers of such medical labeling.
This discourages all but those in the most pressing need of such information to avoid it - putting off neurodivergent people who might benefit from researching the topic - who don't want to get pegged as a "problem"; which they are not, but the current paradigm makes it very hard to avoid.
It also creates often bright lines between different categories of neurodivergence based on intensity and how inherent it is- for example, one notices that this term also encompasses acquired neurodivergence- for example from trauma. I have personally noticed that people living with folks with, say diagnosed autism, often mirror the presentation over time. A neuro-divergent person can easily be in a complex web of both inherent and acquired factors- often these form self reinforcing loops- uniqueness breeds misunderstanding, which breeds social stress, which begets trauma, etc. - it can become quite difficult to disentangle the two things. How it gets labeled can have a large impact on the person even when there may in fact be some overlap.
It is unlikely that complete understanding of this topic can occur in any near future- and I fully expect these terms to shift over the years to accommodate changes in understanding.
I have formed from this a strong opinion that society should be able to just approach people as unique - A label shouldn't be necessary to act respectfully, and with empathy and accommodation. I think there are even now many things we don't understand and might demonize- the ultimate cure for this incomplete knowledge is humility and kindness.
Therefor knowledge is insufficient-
but it is a good enough place to begin.