Whose Neurodiversity Narratives Get Heard?
John Elder Robison popped up on Psychology Today this month with an article that argues that neurodiversity - meaning the natural variation in human brains and minds - should be viewed as an identity rather than a disorder.
Robison explains that terms like “neurodivergent” and “neurodiversity” have emerged in recent decades as a response to the medical community’s tendency to pathologise differences in neurological functioning. He states that by labelling people with terms like “dyslexic,” “ADHD,” or “on the autism spectrum,” psychologists have made these out to be deficiencies rather than natural human variations.
The result, Robison argues, is that millions of neurodivergent people have grown up internalising a “broken” or “deficient” identity, rather than recognising their exceptionalities alongside their disabilities. He makes an analogy to other minority identities like being Black, Jewish, or Latin - neurodiversity should similarly be a source of community and pride rather than stigma.
Robison calls for the medical and educational systems to move beyond focusing solely on the challenges faced by neurodivergent individuals. He says support should be provided based on different learning styles, and strengths should be nurtured rather than forcing conformity to neurotypical norms. The goal should be to empower neurodivergent people to become productive members of society.
Thus, the article advocates viewing neurodiversity as a valid identity rather than a disorder, in order to reduce stigma and allow neurodivergent people to reach their full potential. Supporting neurological differences is positioned as the next major challenge for diversity and inclusion efforts.
Yah, but …
It’s true the most vocal autism advocates and those placed on the boards of autism societies / government panels often seem to be Level 1 autistics like the author. Their eloquent arguments for neurodiversity and identity tend to overlook those of us with more profound challenges. As a Level 2 autistic GLP myself, I sometimes feel invisible in these debates.
In his push to reframe autism as an identity rather than disorder, Robison risks implying we should focus less on disability and required support. For many Level 2 and 3 autistics though, disability is our reality. My needs for communication, self-regulation, and independent living are significant. Identity affirmation alone cannot remove those barriers.
Well-meaning attitudes like “celebrate your exceptionalities” sound hollow when you struggle to express your most basic needs (e.g., this article took about an hour to write). And proposals for alternative learning methods mean little if you cannot communicate what you have learned. Before promoting neurodiversity as the solution, we must ensure adequate supports for those who need them most.
Rushing to adopt identity-first language and eliminate disorder labels could actually harm those with higher support requirements. It may direct funding away from vital services, training, and research that enable our independence. And it could minimise awareness of how society's emphasis on independence and self-reliance profoundly fails to support some autistic people’s interdependent needs for communication, self-regulation, and interpersonal connection required for daily living.
My goal here is not to discredit voices like Robison’s. Level 1 advocates have helped reduce stigma and discrimination. But in elevating their experience of autism, we must be careful not to leave others behind. Let neurodiversity complement, not fully replace, support based on level of disability. Ensure all autistic people get their basic needs met first. That is the baseline for empowerment.