By Miranda Durst, WSU Vancouver Neuroscience student
The term neurodiversity may mean many different things depending on who you ask. Currently, the term neurodiversity is part of a larger political movement, typically associated with autism rights. Like many political movements, certain members of the public both strongly agree and disagree with the term neurodiversity and what it represents.
http://acidrayn.com/2012/04/02/neurodiversity-the-spice-of-life/
Supporters of neurodiversity use the term to describe a spectrum of human neurodevelopment. The current neurodiversity political movement argues that individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder, as well as other cognitive differences such as ADHD, bipolar, or Down syndrome, are a normal portion of a neurologically diverse society. The label of disability is therefore removed and replaced with difference or variation. Supporters of the neurodiversity movement often relate their struggle for societal acceptance to other civil rights movements such as the Gay Rights movement. By stipulating that neurodiversity is normal and healthy, supporters argue that scientific goals such as a cure for Autism are similar to attempting to cure homosexuality. Instead they argue that societal and scientific focus should be place on increasing quality of life through societal changes. In order to remove the handicap often associated with neurological differences, society needs to modify institutions such as education, to make them more accessible to everyone, regardless of difference. Also, by focusing on the perceived disability of differences such as Autism and the need for a cure, the potential innovations and gifts associated with difference are overlooked and potentially lost.
https://mypuzzlingpiece.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/enough-is-enough.png
Opponents of the neurodiversity movement focus on the disability associated with disorders such as Autism. They believe that Autism should indeed be medicalized and thought of as a disability, for some a devastating disability. A scientific focus should be placed upon a cure and a definitive answer as to cause. Also, that by marketing the ‘gifts’ associated with Autism disorders the recognition of disability rights are in jeopardy. They recognize the societal focus placed on normalcy and ‘fitting in’ and believe that the term neurodiversity robs Autistics of a voice to discuss how difficult it is when an individual is constantly unable to fit in, or be a part of society due to disability. Opponents commonly argue that the majority of neurodiversity supporters are very high functioning, or not autistic, and that their experience of Autism as beneficial is not representative of most individuals living with Autism.
Other individuals in support of the neurodiversity movement find themselves more in the middle, between the two polar ends of the movement. They argue that scientific focus should be placed on determining if certain environmental factors are potentially exaggerating normal neuronal differences. Instead of a societal focus being placed on a cure, or completely dismantling and rebuilding current social intuitions such as education, both society and the individual need to work together to ensure that each person reaches their highest potential, regardless of differences. Supporters advocate for certain early interventions such as speech therapy and behavior modification therapy to lessen potential issues integrating into society and that society should become more flexible to best incorporate all members, recognizing that all individuals hold potential when innate gifts are properly cultivated by their environment.