Abstract
We’ve come a long way in the understanding and representation of neurodiversity, writes
It’s a term that was actually devised back in the late ‘90s. Whilst studying sociology in Sydney, Australian Judy Singer, in genius fashion may I say, adopted the term in her thesis. When it was later published, the word caught on. It very much promotes the “social model of disability” in that society is the one doing the disabling.
Essentially, neurodiversity promotes the positives of variation in human thinking. As a notion it supports those who are autistic, dyslexic, dyspraxic or have ADHD or another form of neurodivergence. The line at which neurodiversity ends is often up for debate but research suggests one in five people are neurodivergent. The word neurodiverse I should say refers to a group of people who think differently. Perhaps unsurprisingly Singer suspects she may be autistic herself.
Personally, Singer’s idea very much resonates with me. I was diagnosed as autistic aged 20 and this remarkable revelation has empowered my confidence and mentality. I still face difficulties, mainly in a domestic and relationship setting, but, on the whole, find it a good thing that has accelerated my media ambitions.
I am also pleased that conversations have opened up more broadly in society in line with the term. That said, many people still talk about the conditions themselves rather than the broader context of neurodiversity, and sadly, some still use the conditions as insults. Irish footballer James McClean recently opened up about being autistic in the UK and the comments spoke for themselves. That might be to do with a toxicity in sport, but it also reflects a wider landscape of negative associations.
Of course, role models can create stereotypes and that’s why repeat diverse representation is important. Greta Thunberg is up there with being one of the highest-profile autistic people. Her unrivalled passion for fighting climate change has perhaps led some to associate being autistic as having progressive views. Recently co-founder of PayPal Peter Thiel described Thunberg as being part of the “autistic children’s crusade” and TV host Julia Hartley-Brewer used the term autistic as an insult against her in a tweet. It’s dispiriting, and ableism is sadly still rife.
Journalist and neurodiversity consultant Nick Ransom on the job for ITV
CREDIT: Nick Ransom
Influential figures on the right therefore have the power to harm the credibility of neurodivergent people. I can see why they might think we epitomise 21st century culture wars, but we are just so diverse, like the rest of humanity.
That said, one common theme I find across all forms of neurodiversity is empathy. Contrary to popular belief, autistic people can often feel overwhelming empathy. Occasionally we’ll misread a situation and so won’t feel empathy until we’re clearer, but very often we want to help people, having struggled ourselves. With research suggesting those who are left-leaning tend to be more empathetic, I wouldn’t be surprised if neurodivergent people are more progressive and liberal.
Moving towards better representation
I love the attention to detail that comes with being autistic. There are details in everything, but these details can result in anguish or ecstasy, depending on whether it’s satisfying or distressing. This obsession for accurate representation reminds me of my work as a producer on the BBC documentary series Inside Our Autistic Minds, presented by autistic naturalist Chris Packham. It was a complicated programme to make but at the heart of it were autistic people making films about their experiences and owning their narrative. Its aims were to educate (the masses) and empower (autistic minds). Prior to this series, autistic people rarely spoke in the media and were often spoken for. On the release of this series, positive representation arrived.
Neurotypical people (so those who aren’t neurodivergent) featured too, in the form of parents and the odd expert. A lot of the autistic community feel programmes like this should be made by an all-autistic production team and I can see why. It’s critical that autistic people are allowed to represent themselves. However, I’m very wary of freezing neurotypical people out of the autistic conversation. If respectful, the non-neurodivergent insight on our behaviours can be just as valid and important to consider.
While programmes such as Inside Our Austistic Minds are opening up conversations, I am still pleading with the media to offer a more nuanced portrayal. The other day I read a story of a dyslexic celebrity and it was infuriating because there was clearly no balance given to their strengths. Of course it’s up to us in the media to find a story and a struggle and all the rest of it, but just please do our strengths justice. At the same time. it’s easy to go in the other direction too and paint neurodivergent people as savants or geniuses. The people in the middle are very often left out and that’s the challenge with black and white media thinking. It’s important to represent everyone. You are still valid if you can’t work or if you are drowning in domestic difficulty. We need to show the turquoise, the beige, the mahogany…
Helpful language, harmful pushback
Most autistic people prefer identity-first language, which is saying an “autistic person” rather than a “person with autism”. While I advocate for the media to follow the majority view, everyone should have a choice. For instance, a dyspraxic person may find themselves so clumsy while doing chores that they consider it a life-limiting disability. Saying they “have dyspraxia” as opposed to saying they “are dyspraxic” may be more empowering to them. They should not be jumped on for using this language.
Nick Ransom (right) with Chris Packham for the BBC show Inside Our Autistic Minds
CREDIT: Nick Ransom
I do worry, in fact, about the online division surrounding neurodiversity. Those who self-diagnose are often eye-rolled at and parents who look for support sometimes get in trouble for saying the wrong thing. My Twitter mentions prove the strength of feeling around this. I get accused of “encouraging division” for simply asking two questions reflecting both sides. Another asked why I “assumed” communities were at each other. In my DMs, a non-autistic mum says she got picked up on language when seeking support for her son. That’s not right. Her example is part of a wider one, namely the rhetoric around and treatment of “Autism Moms”. This is a condescending name that has now come to essentially mean “irritating know-it-all mums of autistic children”. They’re the parents who see themselves as the victim, who seek sympathy yet attempt to own the narrative of autistic children. I’m sure “Autism Moms” do sometimes mess up, but that does not justify the vitriol they receive. This vitriol can have a silencing effect. It is important we work together, with kindness, to move forward. It’s also important that those who can’t advocate for themselves are advocated for.
On the flipside, “Autism Moms” stems from the mindset of the phrase “nothing about us without us”. Autistic people want autistic children to be seen as what they are - children, with potential - and to have their own voice and agency. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that neurodivergent people are so passionate when we’ve been marginalised for so long. We just want to be heard, not spoken for or exploited for “likes”.
Fortunately for all the challenges on social media - the people shouting down “Autism Moms” and others who are speaking about neurodiversity - social media has for the most part provided that colour to neurodivergent representation. Take #actuallyautistic as an example. It’s a movement that in many ways has attempted to reclaim the autistic narrative. The hashtags #autism and #autistic were getting a bit busy so it’s become a clearer way of differentiating online that you are actually autistic. There will always be concern about discussing such delicate matters in such a public space but surely the fact people are proud to talk about the subject is a good thing?
TikTok and Twitter have become go-tos for those who want content on ADHD or any form of neurodivergence. Is that a bad thing? Maybe if you’re looking for facts, not experiences. On social media, we have to be careful. There is frustration, there is difficulty, and so attempts or solutions to make life easier must be well considered. That is what is critical; respect but reality.
I’m of the belief we should all embrace the neurodiversity movement - in its many shades - to inspire generational and societal change. Talking about individualised conditions will still be helpful in instances, of course, but here’s a word, that, whilst promoting the social model of disability, perfectly permeates positivity and potential. Use and understand it: neurodiversity.