Essay: The Tyranny of Neuronormativity

Post Reply New Topic

I am an NT and a doctoral student in Organizational Communication. I wrote this essay for a class in Communication Theory. This is written for a presumably NT audience that may not know anything about AS culture, communication, issues. I'd love to get some feedback on it from WP people!


The Tyranny of Neuronormativity: Questioning Neurotypical Privilege in Communication

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” (C.S. Lewis)

In the clinical literature, individuals on the Autism Spectrum (AS) are often described as being anti-social, lacking empathy, and being deficient in non-verbal communication (Baron-Cohen, Tager-Flusberg, & Cohen, 1993; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, n.d.; Wing, 1992). Yet, these well-meaning academics and service providers rarely question the underlying assumption that these traits are inherently negative. Why is it so distressing that someone may prefer to be alone? Could we be overvaluing or over estimating the ability to empathize? Why is fluency in non-verbal communication more valued than fluency in written text? In other words, AS social communication is considered deficient in comparison to that which is considered normal, but this latter part of the dis-order dichotomy remains unquestioned. We assume that there is a ‘right’ or ‘normal’ way to communicate, because most of us (perhaps unconsciously) follow socially normed patterns of communication. This is our neuronormative privilege. We are the gatekeepers of ‘normal’ without question or right, it only seems natural. And yet, we also know that ‘normal’ human communication is wrought with problems, deficiencies, and dangers. Why, then, are we so quick to label and marginalize those whose communication does not conform to our unquestioned socially-normed expectations? And what do fail to see about ourselves through our terministic screen of what is considered normal?

My academic research and my professional work focuses on issues of diversity in organizations. As a critical scholar in the communication discipline, I am particularly concerned with the marginalization of non-dominant identity groups in organizations through normative discourses. My previous research has focused on issues related to gender and race. Neurological issues were never on my radar until my husband and I ‘discovered’ that he is a High Functioning Autistic. In order to understand him better and what this ‘diagnosis’ might mean for our marriage, I scoured websites, discussion boards, autobiographies, and academic journals. In this discovery process, I learned many things about myself and my husband. I also came to learn that AS individuals are often bullied, marginalized, or forced to adapt to neurotypical communication in workplaces, families, and interpersonal relationships. This is the type of injustice that I am dedicated to fighting against. And so my personal interest has turned both academic and political. In this process, I have come to question many of my own assumptions about communication and have begun to gain “neurological self-awareness” (Ortega, 2009).

In this essay, I attempt to destabilize the privileged position of neuronormative communication. I argue that our neuronormative assumptions about communication create oppressive discourses that mark and constrain those who are neurologically different from the dominant norm. And in so doing, we fail to question the deficiencies in our communicative traits. In the first part of this essay, I bring readers into the current political debate and explain key terms around which my argument is based. From there, I present a critical perspective of neurotypical (NT) communication in order to reveal its underlying neuronormative assumptions. And finally, I will suggest various questions that might be taken up by the communication community. My goal in this essay is to convince readers of the social importance of neurodiversity and that we, in mainstream communication scholarship, have much to learn and much to contribute to this important interdisciplinary conversation.

A Spectrum of Perspectives on the Spectrum

Autism is referred to as a ‘spectrum’ of neurological conditions that range from low to high functioning. Low functioning autistics are often severely impaired in neurological development. High functioning autistics (HFA) often have normal or above normal intelligence and verbal abilities, but they share some autistic-like traits such as being very literal, having “obsessive interests,” and having trouble understanding non-verbal communication (National Institutes of Health, n.d.). Because these traits can be subtle or even masked, HFA was not widely recognized or diagnosed until the 1990’s. Many HFA adults today grew up without (and may not currently have) awareness of their neurological difference, only knowing that they felt different from other people and had trouble understanding and being understood. Many adult HFAs report having been bullied in school by both teachers and students. In hindsight, they see they were mistreated because of their unknown/unseen autistic traits which to the outside world seemed weird and annoying.

There is a broad diversity of perspectives within the Autism Spectrum community as to how individuals perceive and label themselves and their neurological difference. The medical community and many individuals, particularly lower functioning Autistics and their families, experience Autism as a problematic “disorder” and support cure-centered research. For them, Autism creates real obstacles in life and causes stress from which they seek relief and hope for a better life. These Autism advocates strive for public awareness, support, and research through campaigns such as National Autism Awareness Month. Their work is focused on public policy.

On the other end of that spectrum, there are those who embrace their neurological difference. They view Autism as something they are, not something they have. To help others understand their political stance, some advocates compare Autistic identity to homosexuality in the sense that one would not say “I have homosexuality” nor would one seek a cure for it (Silberman, 2010). So, while the clinical literature refers to AS as a Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Autism self-advocacy activists use the term atypical neurological development. By locating themselves as atypical, they also mark those who are neurotypical (NT) which destabilizes the “given-ness” of that which is dominant. In this light, neurological differences are understood as normal human differences, natural variations…neurodiversity. These advocates reject the term ‘disorder’ and call for recognition and acceptance (Baker, 2011). These advocates are engaged in identity politics.

There is yet a more radical view among those engaged in identity politics. Some AS self-advocates employ anti-NT rhetoric and reject the notion of being accepted as equals to NT’s whom they view as “characterized by preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity” (Ortega, 2009, p. 432). As one AS advocate writes, “My brain is a jewel. I am in awe of the mind that I have. I and my experience of life is not inferior, and may be superior, to the NT experience of life” (“Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical,” 2002). These advocates are offended and outraged when described as deficient from an NT perspective. They question and speak out against the neurotypical privilege exercised by clinical authorities.

Neurotypical Syndrome: A Counter-Story

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) represents the dominant thinking in the field of mental disorders and is used to help diagnosis Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Clinical descriptions of ASD focus on “deficits in social communication/interaction” and “restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities” (American Psychiatric Association, 2011). In an effort to illustrate the offensive and subjective nature of this discourse, one Autism self-advocate designed a webpage that parodies the DSM diagnostic language by turning the diagnostic lens on the NTs. The website describes Neurotypical Syndrome as follows:

Neurotypical syndrome is a neurobiological disorder characterized by preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity. Neurotypical individuals often assume that their experience of the world is either the only one, or the only correct one. NTs find it difficult to be alone. NTs are often intolerant of seemingly minor differences in others. When in groups NTs are socially and behaviorally rigid, and frequently insist upon the performance of dysfunctional, destructive, and even impossible rituals as a way of maintaining group identity. NTs find it difficult to communicate directly, and have a much higher incidence of lying as compared to persons on the autistic spectrum. (“Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical,” 2002)

This description frames neurotypical social behaviors in the same rhetorical move that the DSM does, except the positions are reversed. In this version of reality, AS communication becomes the lens through which NTs are judged and found to be deficient. So, while the DSM asserts that AS individuals have a deficiency in “adjusting behavior to suit different social contexts” (American Psychiatric Association, 2011), a neurotypical diagnosis marks “obsession with conformity” as problematic. Line by line, we can see neuronormative behaviors deconstructed through an AS perspective and we cannot deny the diagnosis.

John Durham Peters (1999) explains that “humans are hardwired by the privacy of their experiences to have communication problems”(p. 4). No one can know what is in our mind because our attempts at communicating are constrained by the limitations of language. And yet, we tend to operate under the assumption that our words can, in fact, deliver our inner thoughts. According the Neurotypical Syndrome diagnostic criteria, NT’s suffer from a “social delusion” that is the “illogical belief that they have already communicated with each other, before any actual communication has taken place.” For example:

[NT’s] think (erroneously) that they are alike, that they have already communicated and that no more communication is necessary. If no more communication is necessary, than any attempt at communication is a step in the wrong direction. If someone greets me at work with "How are you today?" and I tell them that my allergies are making me upset, this is WRONG. I'm supposed to say "Fine" -- which is neither true nor meaningful. (“Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical,” 2002)

This excerpt highlights the absurdity, from an AS perspective, of one the most common socially normative exchanges. Perhaps it also forces us to examine the logic of other socially normed rituals such as little white lies meant to spare feelings (rather than provide truthful or helpful information); asking someone “if they mind” doing a particular favor (even though there is only one type of socially acceptable response “not at all, it’s no problem”); or the belief that if someone loves you, they should say it often (even though saying something that is already known to be true seems unnecessary). From an AS perspective, which is based on logic and individualism, none of these polite or ritualized communicative behaviors make sense. And yet, from an NT perspective, these communicative niceties are part of the glue to our social cohesion.

By comparing the DSM description of ASD to an AS perspective on NT communication, neuronormative assumptions are illuminated and brought into question. The difference between the two documents (the DSM and the parody website) is that the DSM is the privileged perspective. It is the discursive regime that delineates who is ‘normal’ and who is not. In a very literal sense, communication in this context is what Peters (1999) calls “the disease.” But Peters also tells us that communication can be the “cure.” In order to understand the “therapeutic” potential of communication, I first offer a framework for understanding the problem.

The Incommensurability of AS/NT Communication & Theory of Minds

Kuhn’s (1996) concept of incommensurability of scientific paradigms is perhaps a useful way to understand the chasm between the AS and NT views of each other. Incommensurability describes the impossibility of translating concepts or understandings between different worldviews or paradigms. Simon Baron-Cohen, a prominent Autism researcher, developed the idea that AS individuals have deficits in perspective taking and empathizing with others because they do not have a “Theory of Mind”, a basic understanding that individuals each have minds of their own with beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one’s own. However, our AS author of Neurotypical Syndrome has different take on the theory:

NT Theory of Mind = Everyone thinks like me, except when shown to be otherwise.
Autistic Theory of Mind = Everyone thinks differently from me -- vastly and mysteriously -- except when shown to be otherwise.

If we accept the premise of Neurotypical Disorder, this NT Theory of Mind makes sense. It explains the presumption that we can actually understand each other because we are roughly the same. The Autistic Theory of Mind explains why AS individuals seemingly do not demonstrate empathy…because they operate under the assumption that they literally cannot know how another person thinks or feels. Another way to understand this AS/NT difference is that the locus of the autistic person is the individual, whereas NTs are much more group oriented. To put in another way, autistic individuals are egocentric…centered around self. And from an NT perspective, egocentrism is a negative trait, as is self-ish. This self vs. group orientation is a dialectical tension, not a dichotomy. However, it is a helpful way to conceptualize this fundamental difference. It helps explain why, for example, NTs view AS apparent lack of interest in socializing or lack of empathy to be problematic. It also explains why AS individuals view NTs apparent “obsession with conformity” to be strange. These two world views are incommensurable. Because AS and NT individuals are literally wired differently, it is impossible for them to experience the same phenomena in a remotely similar or comparable way.

But we need not lament the impossibility of crossing this chasm, for as Peters (1999) reminds us, “The ideal communication, as Adorno said, would be a condition in which the only thing that survives the disgraceful fact of our mutual difference is the delight that difference makes possible” (p. 31). I now turn to a discussion of the delights that these differences might offer to communication scholars.

A Mutually Beneficial Relationship

To date, this fascinating conversation about the complexities of AS identity politics, AS/NT communication, and neurodiversity is absent from mainstream communication journals. Instead, the academic conversation primarily resides in Communication Disorder and Disability journals with some notable exceptions in interdisciplinary journals such as Biosocieties and Social & Cultural Geography. As stated in the introduction, I contend that communication scholars in all sub-disciplines have much to learn and much to contribute to this important, interdisciplinary conversation. Drawing upon on what has been discussed in this paper thus far and my own exploration into the literature, I want to draw readers’ attention to some key issues and gaps where, I believe, communication scholars could be of great service.

Intersectionality of Multiple Identities
It is estimated that AS males outnumber females by 4:1 (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, n.d.). People of color are also a minority in the AS population. To my knowledge, there are no statistics regarding AS and social class, sexual orientation, or physical disability. Some scholars in the disability literature address multicultural issues in autism diagnosis and intervention (Dyches, Wilder, Sudweeks, Obiakor, & Algozzine, 2004; Mandell et al., 2009). There are also a few who move beyond the clinical perspective to examine the gendered nature of AS discourses (Davidson, 2007; Jack, 2011). But largely, the issue of intersectionality of AS with other marginalized identities remains under-examined and under-theorized. As AS awareness and attention grows, we must pay particular attention to how our discourse may serve to further marginalize those already in the shadows of public discussion.

AS/NT “Cross-Cultural” Communication
In an essay about communication as “translation,” Striphas (2006) concludes that we are “always confronted by foreigners”(p. 240). That metaphor takes on a whole new meaning in AS/NT communication, as illustrated in the following quote from a High Functioning Autistic male:

Imagine that you are in a different country and you are physically unable speak their language, other than some very basic phrases. And imagine that whenever you try speak to the natives, they burst out in random emotions, and you have no idea what you said to make them react that way. The consequence of this will be that you become cautious and try to cope by memorizing what phrases to use or not to use in certain situations (essentially a mental instruction manual) and this in turn makes it very tiring when you are among people. (personal communication)

Face-to-face communication can be challenging for many AS individuals because they have difficulty interpreting non-verbal, contextual, and emotional cues. As a result of not accurately interpreting the NT message’s intended meaning, AS individuals may respond “inappropriately” and provoke a negative response which causes further anxiety. Not only do they have trouble understanding NT communication, AS communication tends to be very literal, logical, and direct which is often perceived as intentionally rude and is off-putting to NTs (Müller et al., 2008). Not understanding and being misunderstood leads to feelings of frustration and isolation (Jordan, 2010). Can current theoretical frameworks of interpersonal and/or intercultural communication help understand and address these AS/NT communication issues? Or are such theories too grounded in an NT orientation to account for this incommensurable dynamic and therefore creates an opportunity for new theory building?

Challenges in AS/NT communication also present opportunities for organizational communication scholarship. How might a neurodiversity perspective be integrated into our theories of identification, control/resistance, power, and leadership? How might AS/NT communication be implicated in organizational problems like bullying, sexual harassment, and discrimination? How might our neuronormative expectations of “civility in the workplace” be viewed from an AS perspective? Could AS "self-orientation" be integrated into organizing practices?

Representing Autism
Autistic and autistic-like characters are beginning to show up in entertainment media. Do these media portrayals perpetuate stereotypes? Or do they help raise awareness and normalize AS? Media scholars might look at the media effects of these representations on AS and NT individuals. While critical cultural scholars might examine how AS is articulated through historical, cultural, and social forces in ways that empower or constrain AS individuals. By contextually situating AS, these questions can generate a more complex understanding of how we understand, relate to, and are defined by neurological differences.

The Politics and Rhetoric of AS
All discourse surrounding AS ---clinical, activist, policy, news coverage --- is both political and rhetorical. In fact, the mere existence of something called “Autism” is a rhetorical move, as is evidenced in the recent debate about changes to the DSM in which some individuals might have ‘lost’ their AS diagnosis and insurance coverage for interventions (Arehart-Treichel, 2010). President Obama recently appointed Ari Ne’eman, the first ‘openly Autistic’ Presidential appointee, to the National Council on Disability. Ne’eman is also an extremely vocal autism self-advocacy activist. Interestingly, his appointment was initially blocked by an unknown senate member, yet later passed. What these tidbits, along with the identity politics debate discussed earlier in this essay, highlight are the multiple political agendas that are in tension with each other in the public and political spheres. How these debates play out has real material and social impact in individuals and therefore merit attention and scrutiny by communication scholars.

My intention with this section of the essay was to highlight some key questions, gaps, and issues where communication scholars can make critical contributions. There is plenty of room for post-positivists, interpretivists, critical, and post-modern scholars. In fact, I would argue that research from all these paradigmatic orientations is necessary to delve into the complexity of these issues. However, taking a neurodiversity approach to research means adapting to and respecting “autistic differences in perception and processing” and other ways of “being-in-the-world” (Davidson, 2008, p. 793). In addition to questioning our NT-oriented theories, we also need to consider our data collection methods. For example, questionnaires need to be written in ways that are as devoid of ambiguity as possible. All terms and scales must be clearly explained or AS individuals will have great difficulty understanding and responding. I would recommend having an AS read it through before employing it in research, because what seems clear to an NT might not to an AS. Research interviews, focus groups, and field observations also need to be reconsidered since such methods involve interpreting non-verbal communication. NT researchers might misread AS non-verbals such as lack of eye contact, just as the AS participants (or researchers) might not understand the researcher’s non-verbal cues. Now that I have convinced communication scholars of the important work they must do and highlighted some challenges they might face, I conclude this essay with a vision for what might await us were we to truly embrace neurodiversity in our communication and organizations.

An AS Utopia: Emancipation for All!

In his widely cited online article “On our own terms: Emerging autistic culture” (Dekker, n.d.), Martijn Dekker, a well-known autism self-advocacy advocate, describes a vision for an autistic-friendly society. The basis of this society is the individual rather than the group. Respect for the individual suggests the elimination of social pressure to conform to any group norms and flexible work arrangements so that each worker can work in the way that suits him or her best. It means education plans that are tailored to students’ abilities and interests. Dekker further explains that organizing based on autistic needs is problematic because “hierarchy is incompatible with the concept of respect for individual”; autistics have difficulties functioning in groups; and finally, most autistic people cannot tolerate being controlled. He suggests looking to the internet as a model for a “distributed, redundant network” for potential new approaches to organizing. While Dekker’s vision might not seem utopic to everyone, I find a strong appeal in the emancipatory agenda.

How might it be if we NTs were freed from socially normed expectations? What if we did not spend our lives trying to fit in or gain social approval? What if we actually said what we wanted to say in clear and unambiguous terms rather than cloak our thoughts and feelings in socially proscribed niceties? What if we were truly able to avoid judging others? It seems that we have a lot to gain by relinquishing our neurotypical privilege and learning from other ways of being in the world.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2011, January). Autism Spectrum Disorder. DSM-5 Development.
Arehart-Treichel, J. (2010). DSM-F Work Groups Assess Thousands of Comments. Psychiatric News, 45(16), 14–26. Retrieved from http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/n ... eid=113657
Baker, D. L. (2011). The politics of neurodiversity : why public policy matters. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Cohen, D. J. (1993). Understanding other minds : perspectives from autism. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Davidson, J. (2007). “In a World of her Own…”: Re-presenting alienation and emotion in the lives and writings of women with autism. Gender, Place and Culture, 14(6), 659–677.
Davidson, J. (2008). Autistic culture online: virtual communication and cultural expression on the spectrum. Social & cultural geography, 9(7), 791–806.
Dekker, M. (n.d.). On our own terms: Emerging Autistic Culture. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from http://web.archive.org/web/200402160325 ... artijn.htm
Dyches, T. T., Wilder, L. K., Sudweeks, R. R., Obiakor, F. E., & Algozzine, B. (2004). Multicultural issues in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 211–222.
Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical. (2002, March 18). Parody. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from http://isnt.autistics.org/
Jack, J. (2011). “ The Extreme Male Brain?” Incrementum and the Rhetorical Gendering of Autism. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(3).
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolution (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mandell, D. S., Wiggins, L. D., Carpenter, L. A., Daniels, J., DiGuiseppi, C., Durkin, M. S., Giarelli, E., et al. (2009). Racial/ethnic disparities in the identification of children with autism spectrum disorders. American Journal of Public Health, 99(3), 493.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (n.d.). Autism overview: What we know.
National Intitutes of Health. (n.d.). Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs). Eunice Kennedy Shriver: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/asd.cfm
Ortega, F. (2009). The cerebral subject and the challenge of neurodiversity. BioSocieties, 4(4), 425–445.
Peters, J. D. (1999). Speaking into the air : a history of the idea of communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Silberman, S. (2010, October 6). First autistic presidential appointee speaks out. Wired. Online Magazine. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... n-qa/all/1
Striphas, T. G. (2006). Communication as translation. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John, & T. G. Striphas (Eds.), Communication as-- : perspectives on theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wing, L. (1992). Manifestations of social problems in high-functioning autistic people. In E. Schopler & G. B. Mesibov (Eds.), High-functioning individuals with autism (p. 129–72). New York: Plenum Press.

I've only had the time for a brief once-over because of School, but I must sincerely thank you for writing on this topic.

Very interesting

Way out of my normal spehere of comfort.

To me it seems as if you accept

it's good. i think it brings many of the relevant topics into this academic idiom very well.

historically, every pluralist victory has been achieved not because it's the right thing to do but because that belated acceptance promises to put an end to the troublesome minority's clamor for equal rights.

there's not a chance in the world that NTs will actually come to consider themselves other than the custodians of consensus reality; they are newly confirmed by each effortless interaction, & begrudge even handicapped parking places when it means they have to park farther out.

we will be doing good to achieve the status of just another minority, colorful & empowered to have a putative say in how our lives can be minimally accommodated. our point of view in any particular discussion, though, will not prevail except by adopting the rhetorical tools & persuasions that an NT is able to respond to; it's a characteristically aspie mistake to rely upon unadorned logic. that doesn't even work on professional philosophers.

it's good. i think it brings many of the relevant topics into this academic idiom very well.

historically, every pluralist victory has been achieved not because it's the right thing to do but because that belated acceptance promises to put an end to the troublesome minority's clamor for equal rights.

there's not a chance in the world that NTs will actually come to consider themselves other than the custodians of consensus reality; they are newly confirmed by each effortless interaction, & begrudge even handicapped parking places when it means they have to park farther out.

we will be doing good to achieve the status of just another minority, colorful & empowered to have a putative say in how our lives can be minimally accommodated. our point of view in any particular discussion, though, will not prevail except by adopting the rhetorical tools & persuasions that an NT is able to respond to; it's a characteristically aspie mistake to rely upon unadorned logic. that doesn't even work on professional philosophers.

The only reason that autism is considered to be a disability is because we are the minority.

I think the main issue with NTs thinking Autistics are anti social is because we do not gather in groups in order to stoke each others emotions. Because that is basically all I can see NTs doing at social events (making each other laugh, or arousing each others intrigue in other peoples business etc).

Perhaps NTs do have a disorder in that they shy away from talking about anything that requires thinking.

I think you have done a good thing in writing the essay and this perspective should be promoted more. It is not just about us having the problem, it is also about everyone else playing a part in the problem.