Autistic art representing the natural diversity of human minds.

Part of a series on
Discrimination
General forms Age Disability Genetics (Hair color, Hair texture, Height, Looks, Size, Skin color) Language Mental disorder Race / Ethnicity / Nationality Rank (Class, Caste) Religion Sex Sexual orientation
Social Acephobia Adultism Anti-albinism Anti-autism Anti-drug addicts Anti-homelessness Anti-intellectualism Anti-intersex Anti-left handedness Anti-Masonry Aporophobia Audism Biphobia Cancel culture Clannism Cronyism Elitism Ephebiphobia Fatphobia Gayphobia Gerontophobia Heterosexism HIV/AIDS stigma Homophobia Leprosy stigma Lesbophobia Misandry Misogyny Nepotism Pedophobia Perpetual foreigner Pregnancy Reverse Sectarianism Supremacism Black White Transphobia Non-binary Transmisogyny Vegaphobia Xenophobia
Religious Ahmadiyya Atheism Baháʼí Faith Buddhism Catholicism Christianity post–Cold War era Druze Falun Gong Hinduism Persecution Untouchability Islam Persecution Jehovah's Witnesses Judaism Persecution LDS or Mormon Neopaganism Eastern Orthodox Oriental Orthodox Copts Protestantism Rastafari Sikhs Shi'ism Sufism Sunnism Zoroastrianism
Ethnic/national African Albanian Arab Armenian Azerbaijani Catalan Chechen Chinese Croat Filipino Finnish Fulani Georgian Greek Haitian Hazara Hispanic Hungarian Igbo Indian Canadian and US indigenous peoples Iranian Irish Israeli Italian Japanese Jewish Korean Kurdish Malay Mexican Middle Eastern Mongolian Montenegrin Pakistani Pashtun Polish Quebec Romani Romanian Russian Serb Slavic Somali Tatar Thai Tibetan Turkish Ukrainian Uyghur Venezuelan Vietnamese
Manifestations Blood libel Bullying online Compulsory sterilization Corrective rape Counter-jihad Cultural genocide Defamation Democide Disability hate crime Dog-whistle politics Eliminationism Economic Education Employment Ethnic cleansing Ethnic conflict Ethnic hatred Ethnic joke Ethnocide Forced conversion Freak show Gay bashing Gendercide Genital modification and mutilation Genocide examples Glass ceiling Hate crime LGBT Hate group Hate speech online Homeless dumping Housing Indian rolling Lavender scare Lynching Mortgage Murder music Native American mascots Occupational segregation Opposition to immigration Persecution Pogrom Purge Red Scare Religious persecution Religious terrorism Religious violence Religious war Scapegoating Segregation academy Sex-selective abortion Slavery Slut-shaming Trans bashing Victimisation Violence against men Violence against women White flight White power music Wife selling Witch-hunt
Policies Age of candidacy Blood purity Blood quantum Crime of apartheid Disabilities Catholic Jewish Ethnocracy Ethnopluralism Gender pay gap Gender roles Gerontocracy Gerrymandering Ghetto benches Internment Jewish quota Jim Crow laws Ketuanan Melayu Law for Protection of the Nation McCarthyism MSM blood donation restrictions Nonpersons Numerus clausus (as religious or racial quota) Nuremberg Laws One-drop rule Racial quota Racial steering Redlining Same-sex marriage (laws and issues prohibiting) Segregation age racial religious sexual Sodomy law State atheism State religion Ugly law Voter suppression
Countermeasures Affirmative action Anti-discrimination law Cultural assimilation Cultural pluralism Diversity training Empowerment Feminism Fighting Discrimination Hate speech laws by country Human rights Intersex rights LGBT rights Masculism Multiculturalism Nonviolence Racial integration Reappropriation Self-determination Social integration Toleration
Related topics Allophilia Amatonormativity Anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-ethnic terms Bias Christian privilege Civil liberties Dehumanization Diversity Ethnic penalty Eugenics Heteronormativity Internalized oppression Intersectionality Male privilege Masculism Medical model of disability autism Multiculturalism Net bias Neurodiversity Oikophobia Oppression Police brutality Political correctness Polyculturalism Power distance Prejudice Prisoner abuse Racial bias in criminal news Racism by country Religious intolerance Second-generation gender bias Snobbery Social exclusion Social model of disability Social stigma Speciesism Stereotype threat The talk White privilege Woke
v t e

Neurodiversity or ND, refers to variation in the human brain regarding sociability, learning, attention, mood and other mental functions in a non-pathological sense.^[1] It was coined in 1998 by sociologist Judy Singer, who helped popularize the concept along with journalist Harvey Blume.^[1] It emerged as a challenge to prevailing views that certain things currently classified as neurodevelopmental disorders are inherently pathological and instead, adopts the social model of disability, in which societal barriers are the main contributing factor that disables people.^[2][3] This view is especially popular within the autism rights movement. The subsequent neurodiversity paradigm has been controversial among disability advocates, with opponents saying that its conceptualization is based on wishful thinking and may downplay, ignore or even romanticize serious mental conditions and illnesses, as well as argue that the idea is largely endorsed by those with low support needs and does not reflect the realities of individuals who have higher support needs.^[4][5][6]

History

The word neurodiversity is attributed to Judy Singer, a social scientist who has described herself as "likely somewhere on the autistic spectrum."^[7] She used the term in her sociology honours thesis published in 1999.^[8][7] The term represented a move away from previous "mother-blaming" theories about the cause of autism.^[9] Singer had been in correspondence with Blume as a result of their mutual interest in autism, and though he did not credit Singer, the word first appeared in print in an article by Blume in The Atlantic on September 30, 1998.^[10]

Some authors^[11][12] also credit the earlier work of autistic advocate Jim Sinclair in advancing the concept of neurodiversity. Sinclair was a principal early organizer of the international online autism community. Sinclair's 1993 speech, "Don't mourn for us", emphasized autism as a way of being: "It is not possible to separate the person from the autism."^[13] In a New York Times piece written by American journalist and writer Harvey Blume on June 30, 1997, Blume described the foundation of neurodiversity using the term "neurological pluralism".^[14] Blume was an early advocate who predicted the role the Internet would play in fostering the international neurodiversity movement.^[15]

Within disability rights movements

The neurodiversity paradigm was taken up first by individuals on the autism spectrum.^[16][17] Subsequently, it was applied to other neurodevelopmental conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), developmental speech disorders, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, dysnomia, intellectual disability and Tourette syndrome,^[17][18] as well as schizophrenia,^[3][19] bipolar disorder,^[20] and some mental health conditions such as schizoaffective disorder, antisocial personality disorder,^[21] dissociative disorders, and obsessive–compulsive disorder.^[22] Neurodiversity advocates denounce the framing of neurodevelopmental disorders as requiring medical intervention to "cure" or "fix" them, and instead promote support systems such as inclusion-focused services, accommodations, communication and assistive technologies, occupational training, and independent living support.^{[23][better source needed]} The intention is for individuals to receive support that honours authentic forms of human diversity, self-expression, and being, rather than treatment which coerces or forces them to adopt normative ideas of normality, or to conform to a clinical ideal.^{[24][better source needed]}

Proponents of neurodiversity strive to reconceptualize autism and related conditions in society by the following measures: acknowledging that neurodiversity does not require a cure; changing the language from the current "condition, disease, disorder, or illness"-based nomenclature; "broadening the understanding of healthy or independent living"; acknowledging new types of autonomy; and giving non-neurotypical individuals more control over their treatment, including the type, timing, and whether there should be treatment at all.^[12][3]

A 2009 study^[25] separated 27 students (with autism, dyslexia, developmental coordination disorder, ADHD, and stroke), into two categories of self-view: "A 'difference' view—where neurodiversity was seen as a difference incorporating a set of strengths and weaknesses, or a 'medical/deficit' view—where neurodiversity was seen as a disadvantageous medical condition." They found that, although all of the students reported uniformly difficult schooling careers involving exclusion, abuse, and bullying, those who viewed themselves from a difference view (41% of the study cohort) "Indicated higher academic self-esteem and confidence in their abilities and many (73%) expressed considerable career ambitions with positive and clear goals."^[25] Many of these students reported gaining this view of themselves through contact with neurodiversity advocates in online support groups.^[25]

A 2013 online survey, which aimed to assess conceptions of autism and neurodiversity, found that "A deficit-as-difference conception of autism suggests the importance of harnessing autistic traits in developmentally beneficial ways, transcending a false dichotomy between celebrating differences and ameliorating deficit."^[26]

Controversy

The neurodiversity paradigm is controversial in autism advocacy.^[16] The dominant paradigm is one which pathologizes human brains that diverge from those considered typical. From this perspective, these brains have medical conditions which should be treated.^[27]

A common criticism is that the neurodiversity paradigm is too widely encompassing and that its conception should exclude those whose functioning is more severely impaired.^[16][28] Autistic advocate and interdisciplinary educator Nick Walker offers the distinction that neurodivergencies refer specifically to "pervasive neurocognitive differences" that are "intimately related to the formation and constitution of the self," in contrast to medical conditions such as epilepsy.^[3]

Neurodiversity advocate John Elder Robison agrees that neurological difference may sometimes produce disability, but at the same time he argues that the disability caused by neurological difference may be inseparable from the strengths it provides. "99 neurologically identical people fail to solve a problem, it's often the 1% fellow who's different who holds the key. Yet that person may be disabled or disadvantaged most or all of the time. To neurodiversity proponents, people are disabled because they are at the edges of the bell curve, not because they are sick or broken." He therefore argues for the accommodation of neurological difference while also recognizing that it can produce disability.^{[29][undue weight? – discuss]}