Neurodiversity-Lite: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Neurodiversity celebrates the natural variation in human minds, challenging the notion of a single “normal.” In this guest blog, Tania Robinson explores why a “neurodiversity-lite” approach can be harmful, and how to identify practices that genuinely support and include Neurodivergent people.
What is Neurodiversity?
Neurodiversity is the concept there is no singular, right way of thinking, perceiving, feeling or behaving. It is inherently inclusive, requiring a shift away from thinking there is a ‘normal’ way of being and that deviations from this are disordered or require remediation. Instead, neurodiversity reflects the natural diversity in humanity, recognising and celebrating all ways of being as valid and worthy.
Borne out of a long history of pathologising difference and disabling communities of Neurodivergent people, the Neurodiversity Paradigm is a human rights movement. As with all minority groups, it is subjected to political, economic and social power dynamics of suppression, restricted access to resources, systemic inequalities and cultural erasure. Although some of these oppressions are big and overt, there is a growing prevalence of more covert forms.
What is Neurodiversity-Lite and why does it matter?
One of the flagship indicators of the neurodiversity paradigm is neuro-affirming language. Pathologising terms like ‘disorder’ or ‘deficit’ are replaced by identity first language like ‘is Autistic’. This change in language naturally follows a shift toward the social model of disability. It is chosen by Neurodivergent people to describe and construct their identity and acts as a beacon of safety – communicating to Neurodivergent people that they are heard, accepted and valued, and ableist attitudes and oppressive practices are being broken down. At least, that is what neuro-affirming language used to signify. Yet sadly, the increasingly frequent phenomenon of Neurodiversity-Lite (Neumeier, 2018) is occurring – neuro-affirming language is co-opted whilst retaining pathologising principles and practices.
Taking the language of the neurodiversity paradigm, without its underpinning principles of inclusion, acceptance, celebration of difference and understanding that environments are key to disabling or enabling people leads to;
An undermining of the political rights movement
Perpetuating stigma around Neurodivergence and reinforcing ableist attitudes
Continuing commitment to harmful behaviourist approaches that seek to modify Neurodivergent behaviour
Ongoing exclusion of Neurodivergent voices and their lived experience
Failure to acknowledge and use over a decade’s worth of Neurodivergent-led research
Limitations in the supports available to Neurodivergent people by adhering to the medical model of disability, which can only seek to ‘fix’ the person, rather than adapt the environment.
‘Neurodiversity’ becoming exclusionary as the term is co-opted and used in place of ‘autistic’ or ‘ADHD’ whilst ignoring all other minds and nervous and systems.
Reinforcing a division between ‘us’ and ‘them’ by re-framing neurodiversity as neurodivergence
Families and professionals being duped by the co-opted language into implementing potentially harmful strategies and ‘supports’
Missed opportunities to educate those seeking to do better
What are some red flags that indicate Neurodiversity-Lite?
With the language created by Neurodivergent people no longer a reliable indicator of safety, it is increasingly important to know how to spot neurodiversity-lite. Warning signs include;
The term ‘Neurodiverse’ being attributed to a person – a group is neurodiverse; a person is Neurodivergent.
Reference to ‘neurodiverse/Neurodivergent conditions/symptoms’ – neurodiversity reflects naturally occurring variation within human cognition; Neurodivergence is not a pathological state requiring treatment or cure.
A narrow view of neurodiversity that focuses on Autism and ADHD – neurodiversity is inherently inclusive of everyone; it is the antithesis of ‘us’ vs ‘them’.
Puzzle pieces used alongside neuro-affirming language – this article by Cassandra Crossman details the problems with the puzzle piece symbol The Ableist History of the Puzzle Piece Symbol for Autism – In the Loop About Neurodiversity
Comparison of Neurodivergent people against neuro-normative standards – neuro-affirming approaches will never do this because it undermines the foundational principle of neurodiversity, that all neuro-types are valid and valuable.
Behaviour modification – implementing strategies to change valid Neurodivergent behaviours teaches masking, which leads to mental health difficulties and increased risk of suicidality in Neurodivergent people (Evans et al, 2024).
Focus on behavioural descriptions and diagnostic criteria, framing them as needs – the internal experiences of neurodivergent people should be at the heart of everything.
‘Supports’ are little more than strategies with the onus on the neurodivergent person to change – neuro-affirming supports focus on adapting environments to accommodate and meaningfully include neurodivergent people
Prioritises compliance over autonomy – supports should always align with the priorities of the neurodivergent person and their internal experiences
Relies on outdated, deficit-based research such as Theory of Mind (Baron-Cohen, 1985) – Autistic-led research brought us The Double Empathy Problem (Milton, 2012) and has been built on by many to show the bi-directional nature of empathy and communication (e.g Crompton et al, 2020)
There is no such thing as neuro-affirming ABA – Applied Behavioural Analysis in any shade (including as Positive Behaviour Support) is fundamentally harmful to Neurodivergent people.
Ignorance or intentional?
What we understand today about Neurodivergence is drastically different to twenty, forty or sixty years ago. And thanks to the dedication, advocacy, labour, passion and activism of the Neurodivergent community and its allies, our understanding and practices will continue to transform. Neurodiversity-lite can indicate an individual’s or organisation’s effort to improve by becoming aware of neuro-affirming language and adopting it with genuine intentions. In these cases, it is usually accompanied by openness, a willingness to listen, and a desire to improve practices. This approach is not confrontational; rather, it reflects gradual, progressive steps toward supporting the Neurodivergent community.
Yet there are undoubtedly those who co-opt the language for no reason other than to make what they are selling more palatable and harder to recognise. There is money to be made, after all, in selling the latest approach, the latest ‘intervention’ or the latest neurodiversity profiling tool. These are the unethical, circular, oppressive systems, organisations and individuals whose actions steal the work of others and operationalise it for a profit-making boon.
The most effective and ethical way to address the challenge and threat of neurodiversity-lite, is to ensure whatever we are reading, implementing, researching, theorising, creating and sharing is centred on the lived experience of, and led by, the Neurodivergent people it relates to.
References
Crompton, C., Ropar, D., Evan-Williams, C.V.M., Flynn, E.G. and Fletcher-Watson, S. (2020) ‘Autistic Peer to Peer Information Transfer is Highly Effective’, Autism, 24(7), available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320919286
Evans, J.A, Krumrei-Mancuso, E.J. and Rouse, S.V. (2024) ‘What You are Hiding Could be Hurting You: Autistic Masking in Relation to Mental Health, Interpersonal Trauma, Authenticity and Self-Esteem’, Autism in Adulthood, 6(2), available at: https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2022.0115
Milton, D.E.M. (2012) ‘On the Ontological Status of Autism: The Double Empathy Problem’, Disability and Society, 27(6), pp.883-887, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008
Neumeier, S.M. (2018) ‘To Siri With Love’ and the Problem With Neurodiversity Lite’, Rewire News Group, available at: https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2018/02/09/siri-love-problem-neurodiversity-lite/
