Critiques of the neurodiversity movement

Post Reply New Topic

Link- critiques of the neurodiversity movement

Ginny Russell addresses certain critiques of the neurodiversity movement. Generally, three questions I see unaddressed in neurodiversity papers are typically:

1. What makes someone "autistic?" "Autism" as a construct was designed with disability in mind, which makes me skeptical of the frequent attempts neurodiversity advocates make to liken it to PoC and LGBT groups. How do we know that "Autistic" is a discrete category of person disinct from "Allistic"? I could probably throw together a few personality traits right now and come up with ten new "neurominority groups" if I wanted to. We (and I) frequently speak of ASD vs NTs, but as Russell notes, there has been no demonstrated clear distinction between "Autistics" and "Allistics" as separate classes of human being. I think this is becoming even more blurry as "higher functioning" people are getting diagnosed more and more frequently.

2. Again, when people say that "Autistics just have their own set of strengths and weaknesses, not unlike NTs", I need solid demonstration that this is correct. What are these "Autistic strengths" that we all share across the board, and NTs lack? I would concede that some people with the AS diagnosis may feel that they have their own set of strengths and weaknesses that are comparable to those around them, but this isn't universal by any means.

3. What are we advocating for? Some authors seem to object to any attempt to modify AS behavior to make us "like NTs", and say that they must respect that we have our "own means of socializing." I don't believe most people will ever "respect" a person's right to be offensive, rude, or cross social boundaries. I don't believe this idea that our "methods of socializing" are "not worse, just different."

Those are very good questions. What defines a person and an identity?

I think the problem is one of logic. If people of color can be from Lesotho or North Korea, then the only thing that links them as an identity is they are non-White, specifically of European descent. But there is very little in common with the membership of PoC. However, if you look at the category as a Western (at least culturally) distinction, where you are defining a racial line in society that indicates racial privilege, then it is a useful sociological category. (As a species we share far more genetically than we deviate, so I am unsure why PoC is so distinct.)

LGBTQ is a much better analogy to neurodiversity as it really is referring to neurological difference. LGBTQ is simply a difference in the perception of sexuality. It might be good to point out that homosexuality was considered not long ago as a mental disorder and certainly conversion therapies are/were a tool. But that really ignores that sexuality has a biological/neurological basis and can be defined by a typical and non-typical state.

ASD is simply a difference in perception of a certain aspect of being human. Instead of being a difference in the perception of sexuality, it is the difference in social communication (with some tough features built in). Yes, it is harder to quantify and understand, but it is no less real for either those with ASD or neurotypical psychologies. But being autistic does have consequences in a neurotypical world--just look at stats for employment, for example. If people can accommodate different views of sexuality, why not social cognition?

I think the problem with ASD is it is defined by a set of behaviors without a defined cause. This is why ASD is so hard to diagnose. There are DSM-V criteria, but those don't really define the presentation of the condition. Perhaps ASD is not a spectrum, but simply an umbrella that has a few different groups of people under it.

I am rather ambiguous about the neurodiversity movement. I am not much of a joiner, but I am autistic, after all. What I value from the idea is that the possible neurological perspectives should be respected. I know it is difficult for NTs to deal with me as I press the wrong buttons. While acceptance won't prevent me from being annoying to others, awareness might offer a buffer where people won't jump to projecting hostile assumptions on me.

I also appreciate those working to help those that deviate so far from the norms where their psychology presents a deficit in a neurotypical world. I believe that public policy and public awareness can result in a more equitable for everyone. So yes, there may be individuals that would not be diagnosed with ASD, but might have some traits that make them "weird." Maybe a more open world would make it easier for them to live as well.

As far as ASD not being a defined group, the diagnostic criteria solves that. NTs might be a "little bit on the spectrum," but they do not have the total package, which to be honest, is not fun to live with. As far as special powers, the criteria does have the ability to focus as built in. It is probably not special in that there are degrees of focus and what can be focused on, but it is a feature, not a bug.

Personally, I don't think I have an ability that cannot exist in someone else with a different brain. There is too much that determines my abilities both in terms of my autism and my background. But then again, self esteem has never been my strong point--perhaps an autism thing? But I think if you take the marketing out of the neurodiversity movement, there are very good foundations in recognizing that those with ASD, ADHD, dyslexia, and a host of conditions, which are not valued in a world that is trying to aspire to an average, can contribute in meaningful and significant ways. Or at least gives people a standard deviation or two from the mean to have a chance at living here too.

As far as ending discrimination against those in minority groups, it has not happened yet. But I would rather be in a minority today than any other time in the past. We can't build a perfect world, but we can build a better one. I think it is worth the effort.

As Gandhi said, "be the change you want to see in the world..." (He actually said, "If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him…We need not wait to see what others do.")

1. Neither NT or Autistic is an identity they are both medical terms, a normal developing brain v one that suffers a spectrum of a particular disability.

2. ASD strengths are not unique to autistics they are present in the NT population too, it’s just in the rare event when they occur with autism it makes people sit up and take notice.

3. A good question and it depends who you talk to. In wider society Neurodiversity just means giving opportunity to those with brain disorders which is all good.

But then you have the Neurodiversity movement with its crackpot paradigm of viewing autism as left handed ness being against biological drugs or therapies that may help people simply on the grounds that it risks taking their autism away ( which is a serious disability) which is generally harmful, immoral and will never be accepted by society.

The LGBT movement is not a great example by the way as they simply campaigned to be left alone with their relationships, autistic people generally in the majority of cases have a disability and rely on NTs for care, money and day to day living and what the paradigm states has direct implications for them, which is why it will never be accepted.

There is a flip side also the selfish, Narcissistic paradigm forgets in that if autistic people refuse to help themselves NTs can refuse to help them and who needs who more and where does it leave us?

"Autism" is a medical term, "Autistic" identity is a social construct based on Autism. This type of social construct based on scientific fact is not unusual. "Black" as an identity is a social construct based on the Negroid race.

In pretty much every group members do not all have all the traits associated with them or have the traits but vary widely in how pronounced these traits are. Yet in Autism there is a popular school of thought that says having an Autistic identity based on a scientific fact is inherently wrong. This view of identity is not common for most identities with a few exceptions, transgender identities come first to mind.

IMHO In the long run what will determine if identifying as Autistic is right or wrong will be science proving whether what is known as comorbid conditions are actually autistic traits. Right now the neurodiversity movement posits that what is inherently disabling are these comorbids. If these debilitating comorbids are proven to be inherent parts of Autism then there is no legitimate argument for "it is just society".

Can you elaborate on that?

And how are core ASD traits like crossing social boundaries, making others uncomfortable, and difficulty maintaining reciprocal conversation not inherently impairing?

Social boundaries are a construct of the societies that create them.

Some of the same traits that make others uncomfortable, contributing to difficulties in relationships in America do not have that effect in other societies. For example in America lack of eye contact is considered rude or evidence a person is lying. If you do not do it your ability to have reciprocal relationships will be impaired. In other societies any or too much eye contact is considered rude. This is true for other aspects of human interaction.

So is lack of eye contact inherently wrong?

Are obsessive pursuits social constructs?

Is stimming a social construct?

Is sensor sensitivity a social construct?

Are those debilitating in and of themselves?

As you pointed out, eye contact can be a socially accepted behavior, whether that is to make it or not. But eye contact in and of itself does not define autism. Does the underlying driver for the behavior matter? And does it matter if the driver is psychological or cultural?

I agree the disability is related to the environment. Good environments will diminish the severity of the disability. I am not sure that wheel chairs and ramps will render the lack of legs meaningless. Certainly, I have been in environments where my autism was very manageable, but not entirely mitigated. I am also very fortunate the I can cope with my autism in the majority of my life, but it does not go away. How is my anxiety a social construct that can be mitigated by culture?

This is a touch conversation because of the number of moving parts. My issue with the neurodiversity movement is not the outcomes they are trying to achieve, but some of the concepts used to support and justify it. Still, I also think people are trying to accommodate many views. I think this is where discussions become difficult--no one is talking about the same thing.

I think there was a poster on WP (Mona?) who was trying to promote nuerodiversity and autism self-help. She came for 5 min on WP preaching and debating but then took off never to be seen again (like plenty of others). Again her motives and her goals make a lot of sense, but I think she must have realised it was too much of an uphill battle trying to accommodate disparate views on what this means.

As one of the few NTs who has been a regular here on WP since 2011 I have always left the door open for a neurodiversity movement but there are never any takers. Yet....I'm still here....the advocates are gone....

I remember Mona. She made some good points. I didn't think she was gone for good, though. I hope she comes back.

She was correct that because Autism isn't one thing, an Autism "cure" is unrealistic and medical treatments should target debilitating symptoms. One of the reasons I don't like the "pathology" model of Autism is that a search for a "cure" is a whole lot of time and resources wasted.

Okay, so I don't think that the crossing of social boundaries and other things I brought up can be "done away with" because they're "just social constructs". Consider the following scenarios:

A young woman is in class/at work with a man who has ASD. The man may or may not be interested in the woman, but regardless, he continually invades her personal boundaries in the way we Aspies can: for example, he asks her overly specific questions about where she lives, her background, and her family life. He gets too close to her when she's in a confined space and she feels cornered, he continuously stares at her without realizing that he's doing it. The young woman, afraid for her own safety, calls him a "creep", reports him to HR, and tells other women to stay away from him. Neurodiversity advocates may say that this woman was being "ableist", but I say that she was probably thinking in terms of her own safety. Asking her to ignore obvious warning signs of a predator and treat the man like anyone else is unfeasible in this scenario.

A person of color works in an office with a white Aspie. The Aspie engages in more Aspie-like behavior: random staring or lack of eye contact, increased micro-aggressions due to a lower sensitivity to others' perspectives ("can I touch your hair?" "where's your family really from?" "are you eating THAT?"), asking invasive questions ("have you ever been stopped in an airport security line?" "are you here legally?"), maybe scowling or smiling inappropriately without realizing it, perhaps in a way that makes the person of color think that they are reacting specifically to them. There is a news story about a racist crime that occurred, and the rest of the office talks about how to combat racism and show support for their colleagues of color, while the Aspie is off in their own world smiling to themselves. The person of color again feels very uncomfortable around the Aspie, reports them to HR, and tells their colleagues about how awful the Aspie is. They have experienced this behavior in the past, and typically it is always because the person in question is a closet racist. The Aspie in this scenario may be genuinely innocent of ill intention, and some of their cues may have been genuinely misinterpreted. Still, is the person who reported the Aspie to HR also being "ableist?"

A group of coworkers have one Aspie colleague. They get along as friends, laughing, joking, supporting one another. They try to include the Aspie in their group, but to be honest, being around the Aspie is never all that fun. The Aspie in question is very rote in their conversational skills. They don't pick up on topic changes and try to steer the conversation back to one thing that no one is quite interested in besides them. Others in the group want a chance to speak as well, but they find that the conversation is either dominated by the Aspie's fixations, or is continually interrupted at odd times by the Aspie with some comment that is out of the left field or not conducive to the conversational flow. In addition to this, the Aspie doesn't really greet the colleagues in question or engage in the pleasantries everyone else enjoys, which makes them wonder if the Aspie really likes them at all. Finally, the Aspie has a tendency to give off confusing, indecipherable nonverbal cues that leave everyone puzzled about what they're really thinking. Eventually, they end up forming their own group and nominally include the Aspie, but hang out by themselves a lot. Are they all being "ableist", and if so, can you ask them to set aside their preferences for the Aspie?

Lack of eye contact is one thing. Aspie problems socializing run much, much deeper.

Where is the line between "obsessive pursuits" and "being an expert"?

I've been playing with my lower lip since being a baby, no one ever considered it a symptom of anything... there are stims NTs do, too, like shaking a leg when sitting or fidgeting with a pen. So, there is qute a lot of social interpretation in stimming.

No, but non-autistic people can be Highly Sensitive, too.

There is quite a lot of cultural bias in psychology - look up the WEIRD bias.
Currently, we're lacking reliable tools for telling culture and psychology apart. They are largely interwined.

It's always a bad thing to fall into pro-anti partisanships when, in reality, we need to search for solutions and improvements.

Hello Whale_Tuune your post strike a chord with me and in some parts I honestly have some strong disagreements and agreements in some areas. I am someone who runs a Neurodiversity Club for my university and the kinds of situations you describe are ones we need to anticipate so thanks for bringing them up.

I think a big flaw of much of the Neurodiversity movement is that it can easily unintentionally ignore and disregard the real life experiences of autistic individuals. And as a result the very real pain faced in our community is routinely ignored. For instance that fact a third of autistic community faces epilepsy, the fact there is a 85% chance you as an adult will not be in full time employment and that you are more likely to be a victim of a homicide. These are real issues and it is no doubt misleading to say that they are all socially constructed. They are very simply not. No amount of societal acceptance will take away your epilepsy or the sensory issues you face. Acceptance can make things better but not expel.

But ultimately discourse around autism has for many years been f****d up by those in power. For twenty years Autism Speaks, (Our leading charity) has pursued the futile search for a cure in the process at one point dedicating 90% of its budget to that goal and neglecting services. In addition to broadcasting videos promoting the homicide of autistic children. They have done some twisted things without a doubt. So when the Neurodiversity movement arose it arose to provide hope and re-orientate discourse. The thinking goes like this, one that A cure is unfeasible therefore greater and more planned investment is services is necessary and two, the media surrounding autism encourages parents, caregivers and autistic people themselves to develop a sense of hopelessness. Something that can ultimately destroy peoples lives. Therefore in order to help alleviate this pain, discourse must change towards emphasizing the strengths instead. And that is what our movement has set out to achieve.

Now I think the scenarios you raise are interesting but they are things I feel strongly about. So let's "Deconstruct" them. Lol sorry for using that term.

I appreciate where you are coming from with your first example and see how real that one is. No one should ever just dismiss another person as just being ableist due to being justifiably uncomfortable. To try and deal with this situation the group I am running has a welfare officer. And prior to each event what we try to do is set out a series of guidelines of what is and is not acceptable for each event. As well as making sure it is known that our welfare officer is available for any and all concerns inside and out of campus. I am not sure how much Neurodiversity advocates are inclined to dismiss someone facing those experiences as ableist is my only contention. Though I would not be surprised if some have done it.

Scenario 2 rubs me the wrong way. And this isn't due to me trying to be politically correct but I think the emphasis on autism and privilege is something I do not agree with. I understand that for someone being a person of colour and autistic creates a whole new set of very difficult challenges to face particularly in regards to law enforcement. Just a month ago I read an article about how Israeli police gunned down a Palestinian autistic boy who ran in panic screaming for his mum. These kinds of things are not theoretical to our community. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/st ... RHhUaDBCgU

Scenario 3: Yeah s**t that's me sometimes. Okay I get it, we have some big issues socializing and sometimes it can be helpful to be reminded of them.

I guess what you have written has given me allot to think about. But overall if there was one thing I would say these points is that they may yet be overcome by someone on the Autism spectrum. We struggle with innately social cues. But with listening, learning and understanding another person we can get there. We can show empathy to others, and we can form lasting bonds and friendships like anyone else can. And sometimes with just knowing that it breaks my heart how many autistic people just innately think they lack empathy and the ability to reach out to others.

But it's a struggle and we are all trying. One lesson I have learnt recently is not to try and pathologise autistic people which is something I did even recently. I fully acknowledge that an autistic person may unintentionally or even intentionally through resentment break another person's boundaries. But from my personal experience I am beginning to get the impression that those I see in power and in politics, including many groups I am in are far more inclined to try harass and dominate others, including autistic people and when they do get away with it. So there is a certain level of feeling I have in this area.

I understand though that you have your own unique insightful experiences and I don't mean at any point to dismiss them.

The accounts in this collection have ranged from setting up organizations to personal advocacy for change. So far, though, the book is missing a critique of the movement, so here, Ginny Russell writes to address that balance by outlining some prominent critiques, and the ways these critiques have been underwritten or addressed in this volume.

I find these interesting statements.

What do you mean by "cure"? It seems you are also advocating a "cure" because you want to eliminate the debilitating symptoms. Isn't the elimination of negative symptoms by its definition a cure?

How is scientific research a waste of time and money? I have found that research very helpful, not only in the knowledge and insights it has, but also in creating better environments and diagnoses for autism. Autism is both genetic and epigenetic which is valuable knowledge for help autist with their debilitating symptoms.

If you are referring to an argument of a kind of neurotypical pill that will instantly turn an autistic person into a neurotypical one, that, as far as I can see, is strawman argument and not based in any understanding of science. At best, what if the genes that create an increased risk to depression and anxiety are identified. Would you not want to address that?

I agree that the "neurotypical pill" idea is a strawman argument, that's kind of what I was addressing. The idea of a pill that will erase all ASD traits is unfeasible, although research into what "causes Autism" so we can "reverse" it persists.

I am for what you mentioned: targeting certain debilitating symptoms. No one will become "neurotypical" by accepting such treatment but it's certainly a feasible means of helping those on the spectrum.

Nice to see an intelligent non emotional, non gotcha conversation on this topic crucial for us. A lot to think about. Thanks everyone.

As far as stimming some stims that are totally inappropriate in an office setting are considered normal in a concert setting.

The topic of being unintentionally inappropriate towered women has come up. When I was attending support groups from 2013-2015 this was the topic that came up most often and caused the most angst. And this was before #MeToo. What considered inappropriate is often a social construct. What was considered boys being boys in 1980 now will get you “cancelled”.

There are things will be inappropriate in any place at anytime. For example your stims or epilepsy cause you to randomly hit people.

Epilepsy goes back to the question I raised earlier it an autistic trait or is it a co morbid?. Anxiety and depression are now considered common comorbids. If they are autistic traits they could be a cause of social reciprocity difficulties. Or they could because be as I believe a consequence of not fitting in.

I know the above was vague and meandering but as a relatively newly discovered thing we don’t have a lot of the answers just opinions.

Whether or not boundaries that women and minorities have to protect themselves from prejudiced individuals or predators are "social constructs", my point is that asking them to ignore "warning signs" or negative behaviors that Aspies unintentionally give off isn't feasible.

In the 80s, sexual assaults in movies such as 16 Candles and Revenge of the Nerds were played for laughs. Women were never okay with getting assaulted or harassed, but later on they were better able to advocate for themselves. Our social boundaries that we set up to protect ourselves are not necessarily "social constructs" that can be done away with...