Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The neurodiversity movement, which advocates for the acceptance of neurodevelopmental diversity as a natural human variation, has gained substantial traction in Western contexts. However, its Western roots raise questions about its applicability in other contexts. Scholars have increasingly called for decolonial approaches to resist the imposition of a Global Northern White paradigm, as well as culturally sensitive adaptations. This article explores the challenges of adapting this movement to non-Western contexts, focusing on Russia and Japan. As Russian and Japanese migrant researchers in the UK, we examine the movement's inclusive potential within our home countries’ cultural and political landscapes. We address resistance to applied behaviour analysis, anti-medicalisation sentiments and structural issues caused by linguistic differences, considering how neurodiversity's core values might be preserved while adapting to local sociocultural and political dynamics. We conclude by outlining strategies to decolonise the neurodiversity movement and amplify the voices of neurodivergent individuals in non-Western settings.

Lay Abstract

The neurodiversity movement, which promotes acceptance of neurological diversity as a natural part of human variation, has gained strong support in Western countries. However, its ideas are mostly based on Western beliefs, raising questions about how well they apply to other cultures. Recently, researchers have argued for a new approach that avoids applying a purely Western view of neurodiversity to non-Western countries. This paper adds to that research and explores the challenges of adapting neurodiversity principles to Russia and Japan. As Russian and Japanese researchers now working in the UK, we draw on our experiences in academic, public and social media spaces to examine whether neurodiversity's ideals can work across cultures. This paper examines key practices affecting neurodiversity in non-Western contexts, specifically looking at Applied Behaviour Analysis therapy, resistance to medical models and difficulties in translating neurodiversity concepts into local languages. We argue that it is essential to avoid imposing Western assumptions on non-Western cultures. To promote a more inclusive neurodiversity movement worldwide, we propose strategies that centre on local strengths and culturally sensitive practices, amplifying the voices of neurodivergent individuals in ways that resonate within their own cultural settings.

Keywords

neurodiversity inclusive advocacy non-Western contexts

Introduction

The neurodiversity movement, which originated from the autism rights movement and later expanded to include other conditions, has achieved substantial influence in Western—particularly Anglophone—contexts. The neurodiversity movement advocates for the recognition of ‘diversity among body-minds’ (Walker, 2021, p. 54) and challenges deficit-based perspectives on neurodevelopmental differences. These core principles are increasingly gaining international attention, facilitated by the translation of key texts—e.g. Thinking in Pictures by Temple Grandin (2009) and NeuroTribes by Steve Silberman (2015)—into multiple languages, fostering intercultural engagement with neurodiversity. This international expansion is further reflected in the emergence of cross-cultural autism studies that aim to adapt and examine neurodiversity concepts within various cultural frameworks (Cascio, 2015). Specifically, efforts are being made to explore neurodiversity, particularly autism, from intercultural perspectives (Harada et al., 2025; Tafla et al., 2024; Westby et al., 2024), as well as to establish advocacy groups in diverse cultural contexts that support neurodiversity (Da Nóbrega Rogoski et al., 2024).

Despite its achievements, the neurodiversity movement has been criticised for its relatively narrow framing. Its tendency to treat different forms of neurodivergence as fixed, biologically determined essences is seen as risking the obscuring of more nuanced understandings of neurodivergent experiences (Milton & Timimi, 2016). This raises concerns about who is implicitly included within the movement's scope and whose experiences may be marginalised or overlooked (Chapman, 2019; Russell, 2020), particularly non-speaking individuals, people of colour, those with learning disabilities and individuals with higher support needs (Kapp, 2020). Runswick-Cole (2014) critiques the limitations of neurodiversity advocacy, arguing that it reinforces a Western neoliberal framework by perpetuating a divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’.

Furthermore, the neurodiversity movement has been shaped by the Western Anglophone milieu, which raises questions about its cross-cultural applicability. Recent scholarship has highlighted the limitations of uncritically transferring Western neurodiversity paradigms to non-Western settings, calling for more context-sensitive approaches (Cheng et al., 2023). Recent work has examined how advocacy might be adapted in East Asia (Hirota et al., 2024), while Nair et al. (2024) call for a decolonial lens that resists the imposition of Global Northern White paradigms on neurodiversity research, ideas we explore further in this article. As the intercultural dialogue around neurodiversity grows, a critical question arises: How can the movement's international expansion become more culturally inclusive and locally grounded?

This article critically details the challenges faced by the neurodiversity movement in translating its principles to non-Western settings—specifically, Russia and Japan. We categorise these countries as ‘non-Western’ for clarity and consistency with the existing literature, acknowledging that this can be contentious; our intention is to differentiate between dominant and less-dominant regions in neurodiversity-related knowledge production. Our reflections inform us of this study's contribution to the ongoing discourse initiated by Cheng et al. (2023), Hirota et al. (2024), and Nair et al. (2024). We build on their insights by identifying structural challenges and societal tensions that complicate the movement's adaptation to diverse cultural contexts.

After briefly discussing our methodology and positionality, we outline current critiques of inclusivity within the neurodiversity movement, including the limitations of the deficit model and the relevance of decolonisation. Subsequently, we contribute our own critique to the discussion, drawing on secondary literature and personal observations to illustrate the challenges of adapting neurodiversity to the Russian and Japanese contexts, supported by specific examples. Finally, we offer strategies for adapting the neurodiversity movement to culturally and politically complex contexts to enhance its inclusivity and provide a platform for scholars to explore new avenues for research.

Positionality and Methodology

The authors are Russian and Japanese migrant researchers based in the UK, and author AO is autistic. While Russia and Japan may seem unexpected case studies—Russia is often classed as European, while Japan is economically aligned with the West—this focus emerged organically from our shared discussions in a neurodiversity research reading group. We noticed striking overlaps in our perspectives, particularly when compared with those of our Western peers. These conversations highlighted the need to examine how neurodiversity frameworks are challenged or reshaped when applied beyond Western regions.

This article draws on long-term situated engagement with neurodiversity discourse and activism in Russia and Japan, supported by desk-based research. Rather than presenting empirical findings, we offer conceptual interventions to identify tensions in the neurodiversity discourse across cultural contexts. Adopting a reflexive methodology grounded in situated knowledge (Haraway, 1988), we treated cross-cultural positionalities and critical reflections as methodological resources (Morley, 2008). This means understanding neurodiversity as emerging from specific cultural and political conditions rather than as a universally transferable framework. Our arguments emerged through shared reflection on initial estrangement and later engagement with Anglophone neurodiversity discourse; cultural friction observed during advocacy initiatives in Russia and Japan; and local stakeholders’ scepticism towards Western frameworks. Through this approach, we trace how neurodiversity concepts are adopted, resisted or adapted locally, exposing contradictions between global advocacy narratives and situated lived experiences. We examine how visibility, legitimacy and voice are shaped by cultural and socio-political conditions, offering insights for advancing neurodiversity research.

Limitations of the Deficit Model and Decolonisation's Relevance for the Neurodiversity Movement

The Deficit Model as a Common Pitfall

The international expansion of Western social movements and cultural inclusivity are not new topics. However, a common pitfall in applying Western knowledge and norms to other cultural contexts is formalised as a deficit model in critiques of the Global Mental Health (GMH) movement. Launched by the United Nations and World Health Organization in the late 2000s (Fernando, 2014; Rose, 2018), the GMH movement sought to improve mental health services in the Global South to reduce treatment gaps between the Global North and South (Bemme & D'souza, 2014). The GMH movement sees the Global North's mental-health services paradigm as the standard and therefore attempts to apply it to the Global South (Bartlett et al., 2014; Cosgrove et al., 2024).

The deficit model emerged from a critical re-examination of the GMH movement, highlighting the West-centric assumption that frames non-Western mental health practices as underdeveloped or inferior (Mathias et al., 2024). This critique emphasises mental health practices’ cultural diversity, including how irregular mental conditions are conceptualised in traditional ways (Kirmayer & Ramstead, 2017). By promoting Western psychiatry as a standard that can be adopted across borders without problems, the deficit model disregards and undermines traditional practices embedded in each culture, often failing to benefit local communities—thus representing a modern form of colonisation.

A parallel critique applies to the neurodiversity movement's global expansion, even when it is advocated by local people. While neurodiversity principles have gained traction in the English-speaking parts of the world (Dwyer et al., 2024), this does not guarantee their effectiveness in other contexts. The absence of neurodiversity principles in many cultures does not imply a lack or underdevelopment of disability rights. For instance, in Japan, there is the Tōjisha Kenkyū movement, which links people with mental illnesses and neurodivergent conditions (Ishihara, 2015; Kumagaya, 2015)—this will be discussed below. In Russia, disability advocacy, shaped by Soviet-era principles, has often focused on securing welfare entitlements tied to the state-defined status of invalidnost (disability) rather than on identity-based or rights-based frameworks (Rasell & Iarskaia-Smirnova, 2013). Each culture has its own political and economic trajectory and terminology regarding disability rights, which necessitates international promotion to consider local cultures and situated knowledge.

Decolonising Neurodiversity

Although both Russia and Japan have imperial legacies that seem incompatible with decolonial aims, decolonial praxis is not confined to former colonies. It focuses on dismantling the hierarchical structures of global capitalism and Western modernity, which prioritise certain knowledge systems over others (Walsh, 2018). In these contexts, decolonisation can be understood both as a de-imperialising process affecting internal and regional relations, and as resistance to Western dominance in intellectual and scientific domains. This article emphasises the latter, examining how Western epistemic hegemony continues to shape international norms and knowledge production.

In discussing the decolonisation of the neurodiversity movement, we draw on key ideas: Hall's (2018, p. 219) ‘universal criterion’ and Akena's (2012, p. 600) ‘legitimate knowledge’. These concepts frame how Western ideals have shaped the movement and its reception in non-Western contexts. Hall (2018) explains how Enlightenment thinkers proposed ranking societies along a continuum of progress based on a ‘universal criterion’ rooted in Western ideals, thus positioning the West as both a model and a measure of advancement. This perspective is especially relevant in the neurodiversity discourse, in which alternative understandings from local, non-Western contexts are often marginalised (Manase, 2024). Accordingly, Akena (2012) discusses ‘legitimate knowledge’, referring to the privileging of Western knowledge systems as the only valid worldview, thereby delegitimising other epistemologies as ‘primitive’. This dynamic is crucial to our critique of the neurodiversity movement's macro-level knowledge production, in which the assumption of Western knowledge as ‘legitimate’ risks sidelining the diverse local understandings of neurodiversity.

While revising our paper, we noted recent commentaries by Nair et al. (2024) and Hirota et al. (2024) highlighting Global South epistemologies’ marginalisation within the neurodiversity movement and calling for greater linguistic and sociocultural inclusivity in East Asia. Nair et al. (2024) assert that the movement often mirrors colonial dynamics, upholding Global North knowledge systems, while Hirota et al. (2024) advocate for the incorporation of East Asian perspectives that reflect the region's unique cultural and linguistic contexts. Our analysis builds on these arguments by broadening the decolonial focus to Russia and Japan, examining how the neurodiversity movement might better engage with these regions’ distinct historical and sociocultural contexts to challenge the Western-dominated frameworks that currently shape international neurodiversity discourse.

Why the Neurodiversity Movement Does Not Translate in Russia and Japan

We specify three areas in which neurodiversity movement arguments have struggled to translate culturally and politically in Russia and Japan: linguistic challenges, including structural inequalities and struggles between laypeople and professionals caused by translation; opposition to applied behaviour analysis (ABA) and resistance to medical models.

Linguistic Challenges for the Neurodiversity Movement's Grassroots Nature

There are many examples of linguistic differences that can influence international discussions on neurodiversity. Hirota et al. (2024) point out that the term ‘autism’ carries different implications in various languages, which can shape autistic individuals’ identities in distinct ways. They also note that there are no clear grammatical or cultural distinctions between identity-first and person-first languages in Japanese, Chinese and Korean. While identity-first language is preferred by English-speaking proponents of neurodiversity, it does not necessarily apply to movements outside the Anglophone sphere. Similarly, the term ‘neurodiversity’, inspired by ‘biodiversity’ (Stenning & Rosqvist, 2021), assumes familiarity with that concept—an assumption that may not hold true in contexts such as Russia or Japan. Furthermore, the Japanese term of ‘neuro’ (神経) is not commonly used in everyday conversation and often has a similar meaning to ‘nerve’ (e.g., ‘Your 神経 is bold’). The term ‘neurodiversity’ is from the English language; meanwhile, many English words are unfamiliar to Japanese speakers, with translation often altering their meaning. In Japanese, ‘neurodiversity’ is either transliterated as ニューロダイバーシティ (nyūrodaibāshitī) or translated as 神経多様性 (shinkeitayōsei), both of which may seem overwhelming to people due to their length or perceived high specialisation. During a public talk by author SS for Japanese autism support practitioners, audience members noted that ‘neurodiversity’ sounds as foreign as terms such as ‘inclusive education’ and ‘reasonable accommodation’. Similarly, terms such as ‘neurodivergent’ and ‘neuroqueer’ (Walker, 2021) are seldom easily understood by Japanese speakers.

In Russia, terms such as ‘inclusive’ (инклюзивный), ‘neurotypical’ (нейротипичный) and ‘neurodivergent’ (нейроотличный) comprise neologisms that appear awkward or unfamiliar in Cyrillic. However, their use is largely limited to academic and medical circles, thus creating a gap between expert discourse and public understanding. Consequently, neurodiversity-related information is mostly disseminated by professionals rather than by neurodivergent individuals, which makes it less accessible to local autistic communities. Further, these terms’ foreign origins reinforce their association with Western ideals, which is an especially sensitive issue in the current political climate. As Russia has distanced itself from the West, Western progressive movements now face increasing scrutiny. Accusations of ‘importing foreign ideas’ are frequently levelled at issues such as LGBTQIA+ rights, framing them as promoting alien lifestyles (Hartblay, 2019). This dynamic also affects the advocacy of neurodiversity. A recent language bill (Gosudarstvennaya Duma, 2023) aimed at limiting the use of foreign terms has further complicated the use of terms such as ‘neurodiversity’, as they may be perceived as politically subversive.

Although the English-speaking neurodiversity movement has empowered neurodivergent individuals to articulate their identities, linguistic barriers pose significant challenges in non-English-speaking contexts. In Japan and Russia, access to English-language resources is often limited to experts and highly educated individuals, while information is frequently filtered through translations by psychologists and doctors. This has created a monopoly on discussions on neurodiversity, thus undermining grassroots engagement. Laypeople may hesitate to participate in these dialogues, further highlighting the inequalities in language acquisition and access to knowledge in non-English-speaking countries.

To mitigate these issues, it is necessary to enhance these discussions’ accessibility to enable non-English-speaking neurodivergent individuals’ participation. Employing softer and more relatable local terms and exploring neurodiversity-related concepts without relying on translated vocabulary may prove beneficial. Furthermore, a politically sensitive approach is essential, as resistance to foreign-language use can lead to public backlash, institutional pushbacks and potential legal repercussions for adopting terminology perceived as aligned with Western ideals. Advocates must consider these political dynamics while promoting an inclusive discourse on neurodiversity, which necessitates a nuanced understanding of local contexts and engagement with diverse audiences in meaningful dialogue.

Anti-ABA

The neurodiversity movement has demanded major changes in the dominant interventions traditionally used for neurodivergent people, particularly ABA (Chapman & Bovell, 2022; Graber & Graber, 2023). The neurodiversity movement shifts the understanding of autism from a deficit model to a difference model, viewing attempts to ‘correct’ or ‘cure’ autistic traits as efforts to erase one's identity, akin to conversion therapies aimed at ‘normalising’ homosexuality (Chapman & Bovell, 2022). Some autistics who underwent ABA therapy have reported trauma, with Kupferstein's (2018) study indicating a higher likelihood of post-traumatic stress disorder among those who received ABA. While the validity of Kupferstein's findings is debated (Chown et al., 2019; Leaf et al., 2018), they do not negate the distress reported by many autistic people who have undergone ABA (Dawson, 2004). Consequently, advocates of the neurodiversity movement argue for the abolition or removal of ABA as a standard intervention for autism.

The authors’ experiences attending a reading group on neurodiversity with native English humanities scholars and social scientists in the UK underscore that ABA is harmful to autistic people. However, during author SS's talks on neurodiversity for Japanese audiences, audience members’ reactions were in stark contrast with this perspective. Audience members expressed shock at the neurodiversity movement's anti-ABA stance, viewing ABA as something that should be further disseminated in Japan. They shared their surprise to learn that ABA has been criticised abroad, as they had assumed such critiques did not exist. After discussing the need for a Japanese approach to neurodiversity, audience members voiced relief. In 2023, Japanese psychologists, through the Japanese Association for ABA and Centre for Wing of Empirically Supported Treatments (2023), organised the event ‘Dialogues between Neurodiversity and ABA – Their Constructive Future’, where ABA was explicitly defended. Similarly, in Russia, while some professionals, including paediatricians and psychiatrists, align with the neurodiversity movement, they also advocate for ABA. At the 8th All-Russian Inclusive Festival ‘Lyudi Kak Lyudi’ (2025), author AO noted that ABA was prominently featured as a core autism intervention in many presentations. When author AO advocated for autistic individuals by highlighting the harms of ABA, she faced backlash: all speakers and some audience members disagreed and dismissed her as ‘ignorant’. This reaction reflects the tension between efforts to introduce neurodiversity discourse and the persistence of traditional, often controversial, therapeutic approaches that prioritise normalisation over the acceptance of neurodivergence. The absence of visible Russian autistic people who have personally undergone behavioural therapies and who could share their experiences further intensifies this tension.

However, resistance to anti-ABA activism in Japan and Russia is not necessarily a sign of lacking progressiveness; rather, it reflects the differing sociopolitical contexts of Western and non-Western settings. In Japan, ABA is often expensive, and there is a shortage of trained professionals. Many parents and practitioners advocate greater access, which makes ABA's outright rejection by foreign movements surprising. Although ABA-related trauma in Anglophone contexts has been extensively reported, similar testimonies are largely absent in Japan. Nevertheless, this does not mean that trauma is absent; rather, it suggests that its impacts remain underexplored. In Russia, practitioners often rely on Western research grounded in the medical model of disability, including support for ABA, which contrasts with neurodiversity principles. This reflects a broader post-Soviet adoption of Western medical norms that perpetuate stigma and marginalise autistic voices (Iarskaia-Smirnova et al., 2015). When civil society is tightly regulated and grassroots advocacy is often met with suspicion, bottom-up movements face significant constraints. Russian advocacy networks tend to prioritise social and economic rights—e.g., access to healthcare and inclusive education—over political activism (Bindman, 2015; Mukharyamova et al., 2021).

The absence of explicit criticism of ABA in Russia and Japan, along with the limited uptake of the neurodiversity discourse, reflects its compatibility with local institutional norms. This alignment may be partly explained by what have often been described as the collectivist orientations of both societies (Mamontov et al., 2014; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). While this classic framework requires critical elaboration, it might nonetheless serve as a starting point for examining these contexts. Empirical research with autistic people in Japan notes how cultural frameworks rooted in collectivism could shape experiences of autism (Harada et al., 2025). ABA's emphasis on behavioural control, measurable outcomes, and conformity resonates with broader societal expectations: in Japan, these are often articulated through the cultural imperative of harmony (Harada et al., 2025), while in Russia they may be linked to Soviet uniformity (Kecskemeti, 1961). Such emphases go well with medicalised views of disability and established norms around education, family obligations, and social integration. By contrast, the neurodiversity movement's focus on rights, identity and structural critique—closely associated with Western activism, individual autonomy and challenges to professional authority—has less influence in societies that value social harmony, hierarchy and respect for experts.

Thus, who are the stakeholders in the discourse on ABA in Russia and Japan? During author SS's public talk in Japan, the audience consisted of practitioners—e.g., psychologists, doctors and teachers—who supported autistic individuals. Similarly, there is a notable absence of visible autistic activists in Russia who have undergone ABA. As few neurodivergent individuals in these contexts share their lived experiences, the discourse is dominated by medical professionals who draw on selectively translated Western literature portraying ABA as harmless and effective, thereby reinforcing the medical deficit model. This risks marginalising neurodivergent voices. Thus, including the lived experiences of neurodivergent individuals in Russia and Japan could empower them to share their perspectives and, in turn, contribute to shifting perceptions of ABA.

Anti-Medicalisation

In the 1960s, anti-psychiatric movements emerged in various Western contexts as a critique of traditional medical practices, particularly psychiatry (Szasz, 1960). This movement fostered a shift towards patient empowerment, emphasising shared decision-making and collaborative care models. However, such concepts’ reach remains limited in Russia and Japan, where many individuals express satisfaction with the existing medical deficit model. Both countries lack a strong tradition of grassroots movements aimed at challenging doctor–patient dynamics, resulting in hierarchical healthcare systems in which patients often defer to medical professionals’ expertise.

In Russia, the Soviet Union's legacy continues to shape contemporary attitudes towards disability, perpetuating stigma rooted in a biopolitical perspective that views disability as a deviation from societal norms (Mukharyamova et al., 2021). Following the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991, public trust in local medical systems declined and was further eroded by the perception that Western capitalist ideologies were inherently superior. Ayman Ekford, a Russian pro-neurodiversity autistic activist, highlights the absence of a cohesive autism community in Russia and underscores the need for Western experiences to inform local advocacy efforts (Ekford, 2019). Conversely, Dunya Smirnova, a non-autistic founder of the autism activist organisation ‘Anton tut ryadom’, reinforces a medical perspective, stating that ‘autism is a disorder’, and that any notion of autism as a mere variation of normal development is a misconception (Lenta.ru, 2012). Smirnova advocates for a comprehensive healthcare program that includes establishing a research institute and inviting leading Western specialists to train psychologists. This reliance on Western expertise, particularly the medical model of disability, reflects a diminished sense of positionality among Russians, who increasingly view Western practices as superior, reinforcing the West's epistemic hegemony.

The medical paradigm's influence is evident in self-identification attitudes. Resistance to self-diagnosis is not unique to Russia and Japan; strong medical gatekeeping also persists in the UK and US, where formal diagnosis remains difficult to access (Lewis, 2016; Ryan, 2013). In Russia, self-identification lacks acceptance because of the high status of science, particularly medicine, which prioritises formal diagnosis over personal identification. Self-diagnosis often manifests as parents’ preference to diagnose their autistic children with ‘autism’, rather than with the existing label of ‘mental retardation’ (Klepikova, 2019, p. 53). In Japan, self-identification has yet to become a prominent issue, possibly because of expert-led neurodiversity advocacy and comparatively shorter diagnostic waiting times.

The medical model's adoption in Russia and Japan reflects the historical trend of integrating Western medical practices and the Global North's hegemony into diverse cultural contexts. Challenges around self-identification arise within the framework of global health governance, in which institutions such as the World Health Organization set standards that marginalise local approaches to health and diagnosis. Consequently, Western-centric norms reinforce ideological and institutional barriers, contesting self-identification and raising questions about the appropriateness of universal approaches to neurodivergence, as discussed in the decolonisation section.

Towards Internationally Inclusive Advocacy

We now offer suggestions for translating the neurodiversity movement into non-Western contexts, such as Russia and Japan, to make it more inclusive. We use the term ‘inclusive’ rather than ‘global’ because the latter implies a universal, one-size-fits-all model that overlooks local diversity. The term ‘inclusive’ captures efforts to amplify context-specific voices and prioritise equity through the meaningful participation and representation of marginalised groups. Ethically, it reflects a commitment to redress power imbalances by promoting collaborative, tailored approaches that work with communities rather than for them. This shift in language is deliberate and aligns with our broader goal of fostering a more context-sensitive and equitable discourse.

A Decolonial Approach to Enhancing Neurodiversity

A key challenge in promoting a more inclusive neurodiversity movement internationally is the dominance of Western knowledge, which is often imposed without sufficient attention in local contexts. Unilateral knowledge transfers tend to reflect dominant groups’ interests, thereby benefiting producers and marginalising local communities.

To counter this, we urge neurodiversity advocates to critically examine the privileges embedded in Western knowledge production. Rather than framing the divide between ‘the West and the rest’ (Hall, 2018) through the lens of Western imperialism, which risks reinforcing cultural essentialism, we must deconstruct the binary of ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries. Positioning neurodiversity as a tool to ‘enlighten’ non-Western societies only reproduces existing hierarchies. Therefore, we call for an intercultural translation that respects local knowledge and practices. Engaging in a diverse understanding of disability rights requires a dialogue across critical traditions, histories and worldviews. Local activists and communities should reconnect with their cultural roots to avoid parochial nationalism. This is vital for preventing power imbalances in both global and local contexts. The neurodiversity movement has thrived on the principle of affirming personal identity, encouraging individuals to find their own voices, following Sinclair's (1993) influential presentation. Thus, our goal is to empower individuals to find their own words, the messages of which may differ from those used by advocates of Western neurodiversity.

Looking at What Is Present, Not What Is Lacking

A straightforward approach to moving beyond the deficit model is to highlight the existing frameworks in other countries and explore how neurodiversity principles align with them. Similar ideas rooted in local contexts often resonate with people. In Japan, for instance, the peer-support movement Tōjisha Kenkyū (当事者研究) has emerged among autistic individuals and those with other neurodevelopmental conditions and mental health challenges (Ishihara, 2015; Kumagaya, 2015). This movement began with Beteru No Ie, a peer support institution for individuals with mental disorders, and has since expanded to include other conditions. The term ‘Tōjisha’ means those directly affected by a given condition, such as individuals with developmental conditions, and ‘Kenkyū’ refers to ‘research’. Therefore, Tōjisha Kenkyū is a movement advocating for (mainly) autistic people to study themselves to gain a deeper self-understanding, as well as for them to develop a voice to articulate their identities and share who they are with the world. Although it is primarily a peer-support initiative rather than an explicit call for social change, it has the potential to drive societal shifts by presenting an alternative to the medicalised portrayal of different conditions.

Tōjisha Kenkyū shares several key aspects with the neurodiversity movement: the empowerment of neurodivergent individuals, a grassroots structure that amplifies these individuals’ voices and a challenge to traditional, deficit-focused views of conditions such as autism. Shinichiro Kumagaya, a Tōjisha Kenkyū advocate, has noted this movement's potential overlap with the neurodiversity movement and is actively seeking international collaboration (Kumagaya, 2024). It should be noted that Tōjisha Kenkyū should not be idealised, as it also faces challenges like those faced by other movements, including a reported case of sexual abuse among participants at Betebukuro (Shūkan Josei PRIME, 2020). However, as a locally embedded practice that has existed in struggles and contradictions, it should not be ignored in global dialogues on neurodiversity.

In Russia, independent grassroots efforts aligned with the neurodiversity movement remain limited. Ayman Ekford is one of the few visible advocates of neurodiversity without a medical background. Since the founding of Russia's first neurodiversity-focused advocacy group in 2016, Ekford has translated and promoted neurodiversity values, albeit with limited support and reach (Ekford, 2019). Other groups—e.g. Autism Regiony, Dobro and Osoboe Detstvo—are primarily parent-led NGOs. Meanwhile, openly autistic advocates with psychology backgrounds, including Yuliana Yakubbo and Alexey Melia, operate within a predominantly medical model of disability. Their engagement with neurodiversity is therefore selective: they support ABA and employ medicalised language that frames the ‘problem’ as individual, yet they promote a more human-centred acceptance of neurodevelopmental difference and draw on translated terminology from neurodiversity discourse. Importantly, systems of thought that predate Western neurodiversity movements also exist. One example is Soviet defectology, developed by Lev Vygotsky (1983) in the 1920s. His sociocultural theory of disability viewed differences not as a medical issue but as the result of socialisation and cultural norms. Vygotsky advocated studying social conditions that affect the development of children with disabilities. Although marginalised during the Cold War and largely unknown in the West until after the Soviet Union's dissolution, defectology challenges the assumption that non-Western cultures lack critical engagement. Instead, it reveals how plural epistemologies are often silenced by the dominant global narratives.

Identifying the common ground between existing movements and neurodiversity principles can help counter perceptions of neurodiversity as foreign and support locally grounded interpretations of neurodivergent rights. In Japan, concepts such as the social model of disability are well established through local disability movements and scholarship. Rather than displacing these perspectives, neurodiversity can be built on them. A similar approach could thrive in Russia, where early autism research predates that of Leo Kanner. Psychiatrist Grunya Sukhareva made significant contributions in the early twentieth century (Manouilenko & Bejerot, 2015), and her student Klara Lebedinskaya (1989) later developed an integrated support model that combined medical, psychological and educational assistance for autistic children. Although autism diagnoses became more common in Russia after the adoption of the ICD-10 in 1999, domestic research has long been substantial (Maltinskaya, 2017). However, these contributions were largely sidelined after the collapse of the Soviet Union because Western models dominated both activism and clinical practice.

The scarcity of neurodiversity-aligned movements in Russia has been shaped by the sociopolitical context and competing priorities. Pressing concerns, such as inadequate support systems for autistic adults, often take precedence. Many adults still rely on neuropsychiatric boarding schools because of the lack of alternative services (Starshinova et al., 2022), reflecting a broader emphasis on medical intervention over social or occupational rehabilitation. The Medico-Social Expert Commission, designed to facilitate access to benefits, often acts as a gatekeeping institution that reinforces exclusion. Staffed primarily by physicians and psychiatrists, the Commission reflects a medicalised approach that prioritises treatment over integration (Jenkins et al., 2010). These institutional realities, combined with the stigma surrounding disability and mental health, deter individuals from seeking a diagnosis or identifying themselves as neurodivergent. Fear of institutionalisation and marginalisation continues to inhibit the development of self-advocacy movements within Russian society.

This line of enquiry prompts a reflection on the specific conditions that have enabled the emergence and traction of the neurodiversity movement in the Western context. A sociological exploration of these conditions could also reveal which principles of neurodiversity do not apply to other societies. Recognising this nuance would help avoid imposing a one-size-fits-all framework and encourage the adaptation of neurodiversity advocacy in culturally and politically informed ways. Our suggestion aligns with Walker's (2021) rejection of essentialism, which challenges fixed definitions and the idea of a singular ‘correct’ understanding of neurodiversity, thus emphasising the diversity of experiences and interpretations.

Strategies to Foster the Empowerment of Local Neurodivergent People

To foster empowerment within local neurodivergent communities and ensure that they remain at the core of grassroots movements, we recommend enhancing international academic awareness of cultural differences. This approach requires acknowledging and incorporating the knowledge and lived experiences of neurodivergent individuals from diverse regions, ensuring that their voices not only resonate within the movement but also actively shape it. We propose the following tools as brief, forward-looking suggestions arising from the above discussions.

Workshops led by local specialists and activists can transform how communities understand neurodiversity. Workshops need to be grounded in issues that local neurodivergent people identify as important. Rather than teaching Western neurodiversity frameworks directly, co-designing content can help bridge existing values and emerging perspectives. In our experience, participants were more receptive when discussions centred on practical concerns such as stigma, employment and communication needs rather than abstract identities. This aligns with Akena's (2012) ‘informed integration of knowledge’, in which Western ideas are introduced only when they support local priorities and worldviews.

Focus group interviews could be conducted to gather observations and local knowledge to share with the international academic community. Such focus groups would explore how neurodivergent people understand ideas of neurodiversity, how global neurodiversity discourse aligns, or fails to align, with their everyday realities and needs, and what forms of advocacy they find meaningful. Sharing these insights internationally can shift the centre of epistemic authority toward those living and advocating in Russia and Japan.

Locally grounded research that critically examines and contextualises Western neurodiversity perspectives is essential. For example, regarding the acceptance of ABA in Russia and Japan, local research should determine autistic people's experiences rather than directly importing the Western consensus that ABA is harmful. Local studies may reveal fewer reports of trauma, particularly when the therapy is adapted to local contexts, thus providing a basis for more relevant forms of advocacy. This would allow communities to develop their own arguments and insights, thereby fostering a neurodiversity movement that resonates more effectively in regional settings.

Engagement with local history and values is required. Negative reactions we encountered stemmed from concerns that neurodiversity is a foreign agenda. Situating neurodiversity within Russia's and Japan's own histories of disability activism, ethics of care, and collective values can strengthen its legitimacy and resonance. Re-engaging with history and present-day values could empower communities to develop neurodiversity movements that reflect their traditions while addressing contemporary needs (Antic et al., 2023).

Conclusion

Building on emerging scholarship, this article critically addresses why the neurodiversity movement has failed to gain traction in Russia and Japan, proposing a nuanced perspective that recognises interpolitical tensions and the structural challenges of adapting an advocacy movement to different cultural and political landscapes. Although the neurodiversity movement has successfully challenged deficit-based models of disability, its principles and frameworks are largely rooted in Western ideologies (Nair et al., 2024). Expanding on the cultural and linguistic differences highlighted by Hirota and colleagues (2024) and drawing on insights from the GMH movement and decolonial theories, we identified key areas requiring greater attention for international advocacy: challenges in language translation, opposition to ABA and resistance to medicalisation. Finally, we outline strategies for fostering a more internationally inclusive neurodiversity movement, emphasising the importance of listening to local voices.

By moving beyond the binary and hierarchical frameworks that position neurodiversity as either strictly progressive or relativistic, we emphasise the importance of advocates in understanding the implications of making movements more inclusive and internationally relevant. While the neurodiversity movement has the potential to thrive in less established regions, its success depends on acknowledging the dominance of English-speaking narratives and understanding the needs and perspectives of neurodivergent individuals in those areas. Therefore, advocates must navigate not only cultural acceptance but also significant political resistance.

This study advocates a decolonial lens that emphasises existing strengths rather than perceived deficiencies and proposes the establishment of multiple research initiatives to encourage grassroots participation. The neurodiversity movement should recognise its epistemic hegemony and embrace epistemic diversity, acknowledging that belief systems and worldviews vary among countries and individuals. This plurality underscores that all knowledge is context-dependent—i.e., there are no pure or complete forms of knowledge but constellations of understanding, each of which contributes uniquely to our worldview. Empowering local neurodivergent individuals with the proposed strategies can position them as central agents of change, thus fostering a grassroots neurodiversity movement that is both culturally informed and internationally connected.

We do not claim to represent all non-Western perspectives, nor speak definitively about Russia and Japan. As researchers within the UK academic framework, we are aware of the risks of reproducing dominant knowledge systems and remain critically engaged with these dynamics throughout our work. Importantly, our critical reflections do not seek to abolish or impede the adoption of neurodiversity in different cultural contexts. Instead, we aspire to make the movement more inclusive, self-aware and ethically conscientious. Further empirical research is necessary to explore the needs and opinions of local neurodivergent communities. Additionally, the neurodiversity movement is an evolving social movement shaped by ongoing discussions that require continuous reflection, including the critiques of the present article.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Professor Ginny Russell for her encouragement and feedback.

ORCID iDs

Anya Ovcharenko

Sawako Shinomiya

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Akena

F. A.

(2012). Critical analysis of the production of Western knowledge and its implications for Indigenous knowledge and decolonization. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 599–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934712440448

Antic

Abarca-Brown

Moghnieh

Rajpal

(2023). Toward a new relationship between history and global mental health. SSM-Mental Health, 4, 100265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.2023.100265

Bartlett

Garriott

Raikhel

(2014). What’s in the ‘treatment gap’? Ethnographic perspectives on addiction and global mental health from China, Russia, and the United States. Medical Anthropology, 33(6), 457–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2013.877900

Bemme

D’souza

N. A.

(2014). Global mental health and its discontents: An inquiry into the making of global and local scale. Transcultural Psychiatry, 51(6), 850–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461514539830

Bindman

(2015). The state, civil society and social rights in contemporary Russia. East European Politics, 31(3), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2015.1063488

Cascio

M. A.

(2015). Cross-cultural autism studies, neurodiversity, and conceptualizations of autism. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 39(2), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-015-9450-y

Chapman

(2019). Neurodiversity theory and its discontents: Autism, schizophrenia, and the social model of disability. In Tekin

Bluhm

(Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to philosophy of psychiatry (pp. 371–390). Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350024090.ch-018

Chapman

Bovell

(2022). Neurodiversity, advocacy, anti-therapy. In Chapman

Bovell

(Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorder: Assessment, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 1519–1536). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88538-0_67

Cheng

Tekola

Balasubramanian

Crane

Leadbitter

(2023). Neurodiversity and community-led rights-based movements: Barriers and opportunities for global research partnerships. Autism, 27(3), 573–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231159165

10.

Chown

Hughes

Leatherland

Davison

(2019). Response to lLeaf et al.’s critique of Kupferstein’s finding of a possible link between applied behaviour analysis and post-traumatic stress disorder. Advances in Autism, 5(4), 318–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/aia-01-2019-0002

11.

Cosgrove

Montenegro

Yarcia

L. E.

D’Ambrozio

Hannah

(2024). ‘Reducing the treatment gap’ poses human rights risks. PERSPECTIVE, 26(1), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2051-5545.2010.tb00305.x

12.

Da Nóbrega Rogoski

Caldas

R. C. S.

Souza Guevara

V. L. D.

Louzeiro

Vasconcelos

L. A.

Flores

E. P.

(2024). Autism activism movement in Brazil: Contingency analysis and the Pacto pela Neurodiversidade (Pledge for Neurodiversity). Trends in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-024-00398-9

13.

Dawson

(2004). The misbehaviour of behaviourists. https://www.sentex.net/∼nexus23/naa_aba.html

14.

Dwyer

Gurba

A. N.

Kapp

S. K.

Kilgallon

Hersh

L. H.

Chang

D. S.

Rivera

S. M.

Gillespie-Lynch

(2024). Community views of neurodiversity, models of disability and autism intervention: Mixed methods reveal shared goals and key tensions. Autism, 29(9), 2297–2314. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241273029

15.

Ekford

(2019). V Rossii autichnogo soobshchestva kak takovogo ne sushchestvuyet. Tochnee, ono nachinaet zarozhdatsya. https://mel.fm/blog/ayman-ekford/46807-v-rossii-autichnogo-soobshchestva-kak-takovogo-ne-sushchestvuyet-tochneye-ono-nachinayet-zarozhdatsya

16.

Fernando

(2014). Culture and globalization in relation to mental health. In Fernando

(Ed.), Mental health worldwide: Culture, globalization and development (pp. 11–17). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137329608_2

17.

Gosudarstvennaya Duma. (2023). Russkiy yazyk zashchityat ot chrezmernykh inostrannykh zaimstvovaniy. http://duma.gov.ru/news/56410/

18.

Graber

(2023). Applied behavior analysis and the abolitionist neurodiversity critique: An ethical analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 16(4), 921–937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00780-6

19.

Grandin

(2009). Thinking in pictures. Bloomsbury Publishing.

20.

Hall

(2018). The West and the rest: Discourse and power [1992]. In Essential essays (Vol. 2: Identity and Diaspora, pp. 141–184). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11smnnj.13

21.

Harada

Pellicano

Kumagaya

Ayaya

Asada

Senju

(2025). ‘I don’t think they understand the reality of autism’: The lived experiences of autistic adults in Japan. Autism, 29(11), 2715–2726. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251355303

22.

Haraway

(1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

23.

Hartblay

(2019). After marginalization: Pixelization, disability, and social difference in digital Russia. South Atlantic Quarterly, 118(3), 543–572. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-7616151

24.

Hirota

Cheon

K.-A.

Lai

M.-C.

(2024). Neurodiversity paradigms and their development across cultures: Some reflections in East Asian contexts. Autism, 28(11), 2685–2689. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241285678

25.

Iarskaia-Smirnova

Romanov

Yarskaya

(2015). Parenting children with disabilities in Russia: Institutions, discourses and identities. Europe-Asia Studies, 67(10), 1606–1634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2015.1100369

26.

Ishihara

(2015). Learning from Tojisha Kenkyu: Mental health ‘patients’ studying their difficulties with their peers. In Shakespeare

(Ed.), Disability research today. International perspectives (pp. 27–42). Routledge.

27.

Japanese Association for ABA and Centre for Wing of Empirically Supported Treatments. (2023). Nyūrodaibāshiti (ND) to ABA no daiarōgu - sono kensetsu-tekina mirai. https://sites.google.com/g.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/2024-international-symposium/%E3%83%88%E3%83%83%E3%83%97%E3%83%9A%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8?authuser=0

28.

Jenkins

McDaid

Nikiforov

Potasheva

Watkins

Lancashire

Samyshkin

Huxley

Atun

(2010). Mental health care reforms in Europe: Rehabilitation and social inclusion of people with mental illness in Russia. Psychiatric Services, 61(3), 222–224. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2010.61.3.222

29.

Kapp

S. K.

(2020). Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: Stories from the frontline. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0

30.

Kecskemeti

(1961). Diversity and uniformity in Communist Bloc politics. World Politics, 13(2), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009521

31.

Kirmayer

L. J.

Ramstead

M. J. D.

(2017). Embodiment and enactment in cultural psychiatry. In Durt

Fuchs

Tewes

(Eds.), Embodiment, enaction, and culture: Investigating the constitution of the shared world. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10799.003.0026

32.

Klepikova

(2019). Curing disability in contemporary Russia: Rehabilitation practices and the placebo effect. Ethnologia Polona, 40, 49–66. https://doi.org/10.23858/EthP40.2019.004

33.

Kumagaya

(2015). Tojisha-Kenkyu of autism spectrum disorders. Advanced Robotics, 29(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2014.967723

34.

Kumagaya

(2024). Shinkeitayōsei To Shakaitekihōsetsu. Japanese Sociological Review, 74(4), 697–714. https://doi.org/10.4057/jsr.74.697

35.

Kupferstein

(2018). Evidence of increased PTSD symptoms in autistics exposed to applied behavior analysis. Advances in Autism, 4(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/AIA-08-2017-0016

36.

Leaf

J. B.

Ross

R. K.

Cihon

J. H.

Weiss

M. J.

(2018). Evaluating Kupferstein’s claims of the relationship of behavioral intervention to PTSS for individuals with autism. Advances in Autism, 4(3), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/aia-02-2018-0007

37.

Lebedinskaya

K. S.

, Nikolskaya, O. S.,Baenskaya, E. R., Libling, M. M., Ulyanova, R. K., & Morozova, T. I. (1989). Deti s narusheniyami obshcheniya: Ranniy detskiyautizm [Children with communication disorders: Early childhood autism]. Prosveshchenie.

38.

Lenta.ru. (2012, February 05). Metaphora vsekh nas. https://lenta.ru/articles/2012/04/02/autism/

39.

Lewis

L. F.

(2016). Realizing a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder as an adult. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 25(4), 346–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12200

40.

Maltinskaya

N. A.

(2017). Istoriya razvitiya ucheniya ob autizme. https://e-koncept.ru/2017/470137.htm

41.

Mamontov

V. D.

Kozhevnikova

T. M.

Radyukova

Y. Y.

(2014). Collectivism and individualism in modern Russia. Asian Social Science, 10(23), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n23p199

42.

Manase

(2024). Africanising neurodiversity: A postcolonial view. In Chataika

Goodley

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of postcolonial disability studies (pp. 103–114). Routledge.

43.

Manouilenko

Bejerot

(2015). Sukhareva—prior to Asperger and Kanner. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 69(6), 1761–1764. https://doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2015.1005022

44.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

45.

Mathias

Bunkley

Pillai

Ae-Ngibise

K. A.

Kpobi

Taylor

Joag

Rawat

Hammoudeh

Mitwalli

Kagee

Van Rensburg

Bemme

Burgess

R. A.

Jain

Kienzler

Read

U. M.

(2024). Inverting the deficit model in global mental health: An examination of strengths and assets of community mental health care in Ghana, India, occupied Palestinian territories, and South Africa. PLoS Global Public Health, 4(3), e0002575. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002575

46.

Milton

Timimi

(2016). Does autism have an essential nature? https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/62684

47.

Morley

(2008). Critical reflection as a research methodology. In Liamputtong

Rumbold

(Eds.), Knowing differently: Arts-based and collaborative research methods (pp. 265–280). Noca Science Publishers, Inc.

48.

Mukharyamova

Saveleva

Kuznetsova

Garapshina

(2021). Autism in Russia: A contradictory field of diagnostics and statistics. Zhurnal Issledovanii Sotsialnoi Politiki [The Journal of Social Policy Studies], 19(3), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.17323/727-0634-2021-19-3-437-450

49.

Nair

V. K.

Farah

Boveda

(2024). Is neurodiversity a Global Northern White paradigm? Autism. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241280

50.

Rasell

Iarskaia-Smirnova

(2013). Disability in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Routledge London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315866932

51.

Rose

(2018). Our psychiatric future. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1332/204986020X15945755758332

52.

Runswick-Cole

(2014). ‘Us’ and ‘them’: The limits and possibilities of a ‘politics of neurodiversity’ in neoliberal times. Disability & Society, 29(7), 1117–1129. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.910107

53.

Russell

(2020). Critiques of the neurodiversity movement. In Kapp

S. K.

(Ed.), Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement (pp. 287–303). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_21

54.

Ryan

(2013). Capturing diagnostic journeys of life on the autism spectrum. In Davidson

Orsini

(Eds.), Worlds of autism: Across the spectrum of neurological difference (pp. 191–212). University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816688883.003.0009

55.

Shūkan Josei PRIME. (2020). Sei bōryoku no higai josei ga kataru, 5-nenkan no ‘sekandoreipu’ yami no jittai. https://news.line.me/detail/oa-shujoprime/0sge9kc99w9z

56.

Silberman

(2015). Neurotribes: The legacy of autism and the future of neurodiversity. Penguin. https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.2015.0057

57.

Sinclair

(1993). Don't mourn for us. https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/exploringdiagnosis/files/2017/03/Sinclair-Dont-Mourn-for-Us.pdf

58.

Starshinova

A. V.

Chikova

Y. V.

Borodkina

O. I.

(2022). Problemy razvitiya nekommertsionnogo sektora sotsial'nykh uslug detyam s rasstroystvami autisticheskogo spektra. Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta Filosofiya Psikhologiya. Sotsiologiya, 4(1), 631–642.

59.

Stenning

Rosqvist

H. B.

(2021). Neurodiversity studies: Mapping out possibilities of a new critical paradigm. Disability & Society, 36(9), 1532–1537. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1919503

60.

Szasz

T. S.

(1960). The myth of mental illness. American Psychologist, 15(2), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046535

61.

Tafla

T. L.

Teixeira

M. C. T. V.

Woodcock

K. A.

Sowden-Carvalho

(2024). Autism spectrum disorder diagnosis across cultures: Are diagnoses equivalent? Neurodiversity, 2, 27546330241226811. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330241226811

62.

Vserossiyskiy inkljuzivnyy festival #LyudiKakLyudi. (2025). About Vserossiyskiy inkljuzivnyy festival #LyudiKakLyudi. https://2april.ru/

63.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1983). Sobranie Sochineniy v shesti tomakh. Pedagogika.

64.

Walker

(2021). Neuroqueer heresies: Notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities. Autonomous Press.

65.

Walsh

C. E.

(2018). The decolonial for: Resurgences, shifts, and movements. In Mignolo

W. D.

Walsh

C. E.

(Eds.), On decoloniality: Concepts, analytics, praxis (pp. 15–32). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11g9616.5

66.

Westby

Chen

K.-M.

Cheng

Jithavech

Maroonroge

(2024). Autism in Taiwan and Thailand: Influences of culture. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 20, 1523–1538. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S462864

Why the Neurodiversity Movement Struggles to Translate in Russia and Japan: Towards Internationally Inclusive Advocacy

Abstract

Lay Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Positionality and Methodology

Limitations of the Deficit Model and Decolonisation's Relevance for the Neurodiversity Movement

The Deficit Model as a Common Pitfall

Decolonising Neurodiversity

Why the Neurodiversity Movement Does Not Translate in Russia and Japan

Linguistic Challenges for the Neurodiversity Movement's Grassroots Nature

Anti-ABA

Anti-Medicalisation

Towards Internationally Inclusive Advocacy

A Decolonial Approach to Enhancing Neurodiversity

Looking at What Is Present, Not What Is Lacking

Strategies to Foster the Empowerment of Local Neurodivergent People

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

References