Author's Introduction
- In 2013, Seattle Children’s Hospital ran an ad on buses featuring a smiling child alongside the tagline: ‘Let’s wipe out cancer, diabetes and autism in his lifetime.’ Equating autism – a fundamental part of many people’s identities – to life-threatening diseases felt like a slap in the face to many in the community. The ads were swiftly pulled, highlighting a growing shift in thinking about autism as well as other neurological differences.
- The ongoing paradigm shift has empowered many people to reclaim their identities. The concept of neurodiversity, developed in the 1990s, was inspired by the disability rights movement and its focus on accommodating differences rather than curing them. The neurodiversity movement has likewise pushed for greater acceptance and support, challenging the ‘pathology paradigm’ that views conditions like autism only as deficits to be treated.
- Instead, the neurodiversity paradigm urges society to accept people as they are and to foster environments where neurodivergent individuals can thrive. Over the past two decades, advocacy groups have gained traction, leading to the adoption of individualised education programmes, flexible work arrangements, sensory-friendly environments and more. Figures such as Temple Grandin and Greta Thunberg can now proudly embrace their autism as a valued identity, even as critical to their success. Nick Walker, an autistic self-advocate and leading theorist in neurodiversity, writes: ‘Professionals who truly understand the neurodiversity paradigm would no sooner attempt to “treat” a client’s autism than attempt to “treat” a client’s homosexuality, or attempt to “treat” a client’s membership in an ethnic minority group.’ Other differences, such as ADHD, can fit under the neurodivergent umbrella as well, with some people viewing their distractibility and hyperactivity as endearing quirks or assets.
- Despite these positive developments, the paradigm shift has also raised a tough question: is it enough to frame neurodivergence solely as a difference (akin to race or sexual orientation), never a deficit? Such an uncompromising approach has led some to roundly oppose the neurodiversity paradigm. Critics argue that it paints too rosy a picture, glossing over the struggles of those with severe neurological conditions. Some autistic people can’t communicate with others or live independently, even with support and accommodations. ADHD, too, can be debilitating. For the writer Yasmin Tayag, treatment for ADHD was a revelation, freeing her from ‘impulsivity and recklessness, angry outbursts, and frantic thoughts’, she wrote in The Atlantic.
- A false choice lurks in the debate over neurodiversity. Instead of framing neurodivergence as strictly a difference to preserve or a deficit to be cured, we can employ a more nuanced view of human cognition. I use the term ‘cognitive continuity’ to emphasise that all psychological traits – whether they are associated with the label ‘neurodivergent’ or not – exist on a continuum. Human brains exhibit a wide range of functioning across many dimensions, and the lines between categories are blurry.
Author's Conclusion
- A nuanced take on neurodiversity allows for both acceptance and intervention. Schools, workplaces and healthcare systems should not assume that one way of thinking or being is categorically ‘normal’ and that deviations are deficits. At the same time, individuals and institutions shouldn’t be discouraged from pursuing treatments when neurodivergence is causing distress or limiting valuable opportunities.
- The key is to build bridges of compassion across the neurological continuum. Instead of expecting or forcing neurodivergent people to always fit neurotypical moulds, the people in their lives can make accommodations – while recognising that those aren’t always enough. For some, medication or therapy is essential to managing real challenges that come with their neurotype. However, as the neurodivergent academic Robert Chapman argues, we should resist pathologising by default.
- Just as being highly introverted can be seen as a mere difference in temperament, traits associated with autism and other neurotypes can be understood as reflecting natural variations in brain function. At the same time, neurological differences can pose challenges even in the most accommodating societies. Both perspectives can hold true. Rather than presenting a false choice – between ‘differences to celebrate’ or ‘deficits to fix’ – we can recognise that a neurotype’s impact on wellbeing depends on the individual and context.
- The neurodiversity movement has made great strides in dismantling stigma and expanding accommodations. Offering treatment to those who want it, however, isn’t necessarily a form of prejudice or oppression. As we continue to examine what it means to be neurodivergent, it’s important to resist binary thinking and fully embrace the complexity of being human.
Author Narrative
- Joshua May is professor of philosophy and psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and author of Regard for Reason in the Moral Mind (2018) and Neuroethics (2023). He writes about moral controversies and the cognitive science of social change.
Notes
- This paper is excellent. I entirely agree that 'Neurodiversity' is a set of spectrums that all people share and that require medical intervention only at the extreme ends. Otherwise the characteristics are part of personality - advantageous in some circumstances, disadvantageous in others, and it's up to the individual to manage or take advantage of these traits as they see fit or are able.
- It's up to 'society' to be accommodating and to provide - where reasonably convenient - an environment to enable flourishing; but also up to the individual to be accommodating as well - to fit in where possible and not expect a free lunch or act antisocially 'because they are on the spectrum'. Neurodiversity may explain but not - except in rare cases - justify behaviour.
- The few Aeon Comments are interesting in that they are from mildly autistic individuals with siblings with extreme symptoms, thereby diverting attention and sympathy from themselves who went 'undiagnosed'.
- This relates to my Notes on Narrative identity, Personality and Psychopathology.
Comment:
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2025
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)