The Neurodiversity Movement and the Nordic Countries

What is the neurodiversity paradigm and the neurodiversity movement?

Autism and ADHD are classified as neuropsychiatric development disorders, often attributed to children, which affect skills such as learning, socializing, concentration, and cognitive and social communication. Over recent decades, the psychiatric definitions have been challenged by people who are autistic and ADHDers themselves (here called neurodivergent people), often in the form of activism for social justice. Neurodiversity and associated terminology have quite recently started to influence NGOs and networks for disability rights in the Nordic countries, although it is already quite well established in many English-speaking and other countries.

The neurodiversity movement is broad and diverse and limiting it to one single definition or group isn’t possible. One important aspect of both neurodiversity research and advocacy work is that it’s led by neurodivergent people and this is a defining aspect of the movement. This means that, even though everyone can partake in the struggle for social rights, the analyses and questions should be formulated from an “insider perspective”, i.e. neurodivergent people themselves. Additionally, much of the critical research to date is to do with autism only, as Critical Autism Studies has been an established field of research for quite some time. Indeed, the autistic movement has been stronger and more visible than ADHD and Tourettes activism. Activism around ADHD and AuDHD (combination of autism and ADHD) is nevertheless continuously growing.

Diversity rather than deficiency

While autism and ADHD historically have been seen as defects and disorders, a neurodiversity paradigm embraces neurodivergences as a difference, not a deficit, and an important part of human neurocognitive diversity. This does not necessarily mean a complete elimination of medical perspectives, but they must not dominate the understanding of neurocognitive functioning. The autism researcher Nick Walker (2014) formulates the neurodiversity paradigm as being based on three premises:

Neurodiversity is a natural and valuable kind of diversity in humans.
The idea that there are “right” or “normal” kinds of brains is a social construction.
The dynamics of power regarding neurodiversity are similar to other social dynamics such as gender, culture, ethnicity etc. When embraced, diversity has creative potentials.

Aspects of Walker’s three points relate to other social movements and there is an on-going dialogue about how the neurodiversity movement intersects with those, such as feminist and anti-racist movements. Indeed, also within neurodiversity activism and research, there are discussions about the movement centering too much on the Global North, being too elitist, and/or failing to acknowledge the existence of different minorities (for a discussion, see Nair et. al., 2024).

Reclaiming terminology

Autistic self-advocacy movements' infinity awareness symbol. Photo: Public Domain.

The neurodiversity movement encompasses grassroots activism and the development of new fields of research. Rewriting mainstream ways of understanding and talking about ADHD and autism and the terms “neurodivergent” and “neurotypical” are central. “Neurodivergent” is both an adjective and an identity marker often preferred by the neurodivergent community, along with identities such as “autistic “ADHDer” or “AuDHDer”. It represents having a way of functioning neurocognitively that differs significantly from the societal norms of what is considered “normal” or desirable. “Neurotypical” represents what falls into the social normative span. Developing a language to speak about neurocognitive differences that goes beyond the psychiatric definitions both creates community support among neurodivergents who have historically been discriminated against. It also provides concepts to talk about power and injustices by naming the otherwise “invisible” “normal”, i.e. the neurotypical norms in society.

There is a current debate about “person-first” versus “identity-first” language. “Person-first language”, such as “person with autism”, has long been used by official authorities and disability rights proponents in the Nordic countries as well as elsewhere in order to give dignity to the individual. Many neurodivergents advocate, though, for using “identity-first language”: autistic. This is because you don’t say a “person with fatherhood”, a “person with heterosexuality” or a “person with teachership” – you rather use the words “father”, “heterosexual” and “teacher”. Using “person with” connotes that something that is bad and unwanted is coming after, like a person “with a lever disease” or “with a headache” (See Botha et. Al., 2021 for more on this). Saying “neurodivergent person” is seen as a stand against the mainstream idea of autism and ADHD as something unwanted that should be separated from “the person”. Instead, neurodivergence is seen as inseparable from the person, and something to be proud about.

Different ways of communicating

A critical neurodiversity approach can help question why certain ways of being (neurotypical) are automatically considered “right”, and others (neurodivergent) are deemed “wrong”. In the diagnostic criteria for autism, one of them states, “persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction” as fundamental for a diagnosis. Many neurodivergents, however, oppose this definition, meaning that autistic people often communicate perfectly well between each other. The autistic autism researcher Damian Milton (2012) has developed the term “double empathy problem” to explicate this discussion. His theory questions the assumption of autistic people being the only ones lacking social skills and communication. Instead, he argues that this is a mutual problem between neurotypical people and autistic people – they speak different languages. Deficiency in communication might just as well be due to a lack of neurotypical understanding in another way of communicating. In so doing, Milton places the cause and responsibility of problems in communication on both parts, instead of only on the autistic individual.

Stress involved in “passing” as neurotypical

Researchers and activists have highlighted the social, mental and physical damage the position of being neurodivergent in a neurotypical world can have. Being in the minority and seen as wrong and/or deficient can take a huge toll, and can be called “minority stress”. In order to fit in and “pass” as neurotypical, neurodivergent, people start to mask and conceal traits and sides of their personality. For example, suppressing certain movements or “stimming”, looking into the eyes of others even though it makes them feel uncomfortable, trying to keep a neurotypical conversation going without knowing the exact social rules, and other behaviors that feel foreign and confusing. This, according to research, can lead to major physical and psychological damage since the consequences of not fitting into the norm implies exclusion and discrimination (See Pearson & Rose, 2021, and Botha & Frost, 2020, for more on this).

The potential of educational settings

Education and pedagogy are also formed according to neurotypical standards and involve categorizing students into “correct” and “incorrect”. This may make neurodivergent students try to conceal the own needs and ways of learning and developing. Theories on children’s development are dominated by forms of play and learning which prioritise social interaction over playing alone. In this, neurodivergent children’s wishes to play alone are considered as problematic. When their behaviours change, it’s seen as successful learning instead of an adaptation to the demands of the educators.

Neurodiversity advocates encourage the idea that neurodivergent ways of doing things, thinking and being are not by definition wrong and worthy of correction. Instead, focus is on the structures of power and what knowledge society is missing from historically disregarding neurodivergent ways of being. What ways of learning, thinking, feeling, talking, moving, writing, perceiving and socializing are silenced and supressed by treating and viewing autism and ADHD as wrong? What possibilities are there if we instead embrace and develop the potential in neurodivergent ways of functioning and being? An exploration of neurodivergent capabilities is, in fact, central to the work of many activists and researchers in the area.

Current debates and power relations in Sweden

Foto: Göteborgs universitet, Natalie Greppi.

Disabled people have been seen as passive and not able to speak for themselves at particular times in history. Two recent examples from Sweden can be considered in that light: Firstly, the debate that followed the launch of a course and a research project in autistic writing at the University of Gothenburg in 2021. The course’s existence was arguably exploring new ways of understanding and opportunities around autism. However, opponents criticized it for not complying with current psychiatric definitions of autism. “There is no autistic writing” the psychologist and literary critic Mikaela Blomqvist stated in the Göteborgs-Posten and called it pseudo-science. Her view was that autism should remain a psychiatric diagnosis, and was not compatible with the concept of identity. Similarly, when children and young people make content about autism and ADHD on social media, adults may respond with information from professionals within psychology and psychiatry. The children’s cultural expressions are seen as wrong, and the adults and professionals are there to give the “correct” information.

In both of these examples, some professionals within psychology appear to position themselves as the entitled interpreters of autism and ADHD. This can also be seen as an unwillingness to explore neurodivergent people’s, including children’s, perspectives. Barriers such as these hamper neurodivergent people providing new interpretations and re-negotiatiating what ADHD and autism can or could be – and all the opportunities that would bring with it. While there are many different groups and views within neurodivergent activism and research, they all seek to challenge the domination of outsider perspectives. In so doing, many wish to examine the capabilities of neurodivergent people, which would lead to a host of new possibilities, including new important ways of exploring educational settings and social interactions.

The New Nordic Lexicon

The Neurodiversity Movement and the Nordic Countries

What is the neurodiversity paradigm and the neurodiversity movement?

Diversity rather than deficiency

Reclaiming terminology

Different ways of communicating

Stress involved in “passing” as neurotypical

The potential of educational settings

Current debates and power relations in Sweden

New opportunities can be realised from research into emerging fields

This article was published in response to readers' interest in alternative perspectives.

Further reading:

Links: