thumb|right|[[Autistic art depicting the natural diversity of human minds]]
The neurodiversity paradigm is a framework for understanding human brain function that considers the diversity within sensory processing, motor abilities, social comfort, cognition, and focus as neurobiological differences. This diversity falls on a spectrum of neurocognitive differences. The neurodiversity movement views autism and other neurodivergences as a natural part of human neurological diversity—not diseases or disorders, just "difference[s]".
Neurodivergences include autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, developmental prosopagnosia, developmental speech disorders, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, dysnomia, intellectual disability, obsessive–compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, sensory processing disorder, synesthesia, and Tourette syndrome.
The neurodiversity movement started in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the start of Autism Network International. Much of the correspondence that led to the formation of the movement happened over autism conferences, namely the autistic-led Autreat, penpal lists, and Usenet. The framework grew out of the disability rights movement and builds on the social model of disability, arguing that disability partly arises from societal barriers and person-environment mismatch (e.g. the double empathy problem theory by Damian Milton), rather than attributing disability purely to inherent deficits. It instead situates human cognitive variation in the context of biodiversity and the politics of minority groups. Some neurodiversity advocates and researchers, including Judy Singer and Patrick Dwyer, argue that the neurodiversity paradigm is the middle ground between a strong medical model and a strong social model.
Neurodivergent individuals face unique challenges in education, in their social lives, and in the workplace. The efficacy of accessibility and support programs in career development and higher education differs from individual to individual.
The neurodiversity paradigm has been controversial among disability advocates, especially proponents of the medical model of autism, with opponents arguing it risks downplaying the challenges associated with some disabilities (e.g., in those requiring little support becoming representative of the challenges caused by the disability, thereby making it more difficult to seek desired treatment), and that it calls for the acceptance of things some wish to be treated for. In recent years, to address these concerns, some neurodiversity advocates and researchers have attempted to reconcile what they consider different seemingly contradictory but arguably partially compatible perspectives. Some researchers, such as Patrick Dwyer, Ari Ne'eman and Sven Bölte, have advocated for mixed, integrative or combined approaches that involve both neurodiversity approaches and biomedical approaches, for example teaching functional communication (whether verbal or nonverbal) and treating self-injurious behaviors or co-occurring conditions like epilepsy and depression with biomedical approaches.
History and developments
The word neurodiversity first appeared in publication in 1998, in an article by American journalist Harvey Blume, as a portmanteau of the words neurological diversity, which had been used as early as 1996 in online spaces such as InLv to describe the growing concept of a natural diversity in humanity's neurological expression. The same year, it was published in Judy Singer's sociology honors thesis, drawing on discussions on the independent living mailing list that included Blume. Singer has described herself as "likely somewhere on the autistic spectrum".
Blume was an early advocate who predicted the role the Internet would play in fostering the international neurodiversity movement. In a New York Times piece on June 30, 1997, Blume described the foundation of neurodiversity using the term neurological pluralism. Some authors
The neurodiversity movement grew largely from online interaction. The internet's design lent well to the needs of many autistic people. People socialized over listservs and IRCs. Some of the websites used for organizing in the neurodiversity movement's early days include sites like Autistics.Org and Autistic People Against Neuroleptic Abuse. Core principles were developed from there. Principles such as advocating for the rights and autonomy of all people with brain disabilities with a focus on autism. The main conflicts from the beginning were about who the real experts on autism are, what causes autism, what interventions are appropriate, and who gets to call themselves autistic. During the 2000s, people started blogs such as Mel Baggs' Ballastexistenz and Kevin Leitch's Left Brain Right Brain. Eventually, Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) was started by Ari Ne'eman and Scott Robertson to further align the neurodiversity movement with the greater disability rights movement. ASAN led the Ransom Notes Campaign to successfully remove stigmatizing disability ads posted by the NYU Child Study Center. This was a massive turning point for the neurodiversity movement.
From there, the neurodiversity movement continued to grow with the formation of more organizations in the early 2010s such as Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network and The Thinking Person's Guide to Autism. More autistic people were appointed to federal advisory boards like Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee and National Council on Disability. There were various campaigns like the ongoing #StopTheShock related to the use of aversive treatment at Judge Rotenberg Center and various protests against Autism Speaks. Various flashblogs popped up during the 2010s to support campaigns. Annual traditions were formed such as Disability Day of Mourning and Autistics Speaking Day.
Damian Milton notes that, in 2014, Nick Walker attempted to define neurodiversity, the neurodiversity movement, and the neurodiversity paradigm. Walker tied neurodiversity to the idea that "all brains are to a degree unique". She also defined the movement as a rights movement, and the paradigm as a broader discussion of diversity, cultural constructions and social dynamics.
An important question is which neurodivergences traditionally viewed as disorders should be depathologized and exempt from attempts to remove them. who have argued that autism researchers and practitioners have sometimes been too ready to interpret differences as deficits and such deficit-oriented and neuronormative approaches may cause harm. It has also been suggested that there are both ethical issues and practical risks in attempting to reduce or suppress some autistic traits (e.g. some stimming behaviors that do not cause harm to self or others, focused interests) that can sometimes be adaptive or instilling neurotypical social behaviors (e.g. eye contact, body language) through interventions. Researchers and advocates are concerned about such issues and risks as most recent studies and multiple systematic reviews have indicated that higher levels of masking, passing as neurotypical, or camouflaging are generally associated with poorer mental health outcomes including depression, clinical anxiety, and suicidality among autistic people (including children, adolescents, and adults) and across various regions or cultures.