“The true meaning of valuing diversity is to respect and enjoy a wide range of cultural and individual differences, thereby including everybody,” (The Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior, 4th ed., by Andrew J. DuBrin, 2007, pg. 381).
Diversity goes beyond recognizing that we are different in measurable ways. Diversity goes beyond tolerance. Diversity goes beyond offering assistance to excluded individuals. Diversity is about inclusion.
In some sense, I have ignored those diagnosed with Asperger’s who object to being lumped into the same diagnostic category as my children. Their words, their behavior—it’s beneath my contempt, it makes me angry, and it’s so hypocritical, so absurd that it really doesn’t warrant a response. Except it does, because there are those who claim their words represent neurodiversity. It got that response from people much more influential than I.
This post is not about them, though the words I write could apply. This about what I consider the fundamentals of neurodiversity to be.
Consider the difference between cultural diversity and affirmative action. Both seek to include people with different racial, ethnic, and national profiles in the workplace. One does so by focusing on differences and disadvantages. The other focuses on similarities and strengths. One assumes that those who weren’t born white Americans need help getting a job. The other assumes that everyone needs opportunities and can add value to a firm.
Neurodiversity is to cultural diversity what empowerment is to affirmative action. Neurodiversity and empowerment parallel each other in many respects; but, they are not synonyms, they are not the same. Both have their place, but they are not the same.
Neurodiversity is not about services, accommodations, treatment methods, or any of the issues that are often in the forefront of our dialogues. People who believe in neurodiversity do not share the same opinion about all of these things. Those issues are not the essence of neurodiversity.
Neurodiversity is about two things:
1) People are naturally and normally neurologically different. Some of these natural, normal differences are labeled “abnormal,” “disorders,” “syndromes,” or other value-laden labels that interferes with our ability to understand the different subsets of human neurology.
2) Human beings are valuable, in all their diversity, in and of themselves.
This means:
1) You cannot claim to value diversity and claim to be superior. Those two statements cannot be combined without the use of a logical fallacy. It would not, however, invalidate a claim to value diversity if you are struggling with feelings of superiority.
2) You can claim to value diversity and yet desire assistance, accommodations, and/or medical treatments. The use of assistance, accommodation, and/or medical treatments does not invalidate a claim of valuing diversity.
3) You cannot claim to value diversity and claim to be inferior. Those two statements cannot be combined without the use of a logical fallacy. It would not, however, invalidate a claim to value diversity if you are struggling with feelings of inferiority.
4) You can claim to value diversity and dislike specific people because of the things they say or do that are within their control. For example, you can dislike someone who bullies you and still value diversity.
5) You cannot claim to value diversity and dislike individuals or groups based on traits beyond their control. For example, you cannot dislike someone who embarrasses you by having a seizure in public and still value diversity.
6) You can support the research of human differences and still value diversity. For example, you can support the research into the various causes of autism and still support neurodiversity.
7) You cannot support the forced eradication of a group based on an undesirable trait and still value diversity. For example, you cannot support diversity and research a way to identify and eliminate autistic fetuses.
8) You can advocate techniques that minimize or “un-does” challenges and still value diversity. For example, a person can support the inclusion of individuals with spinal cord injuries and support researching ways to correct damage to their spinal cords. A person can also support the inclusion of individuals who cannot talk and support researching ways to give them access to speech.
9) You cannot advocate the “cure” of a diverse group and still value diversity. For example, you cannot support racial diversity and try to cure “blackness.” Neither can you support neurodiversity and try to cure autism or bi-polar or any other neurological subtype.
Neurodiversity is about recognizing that the human race has natural neurological variations, accepting the individuals with all those variations, and including them in society. It is about giving people the power and the opportunity to achieve their own individual potential, not quantifying that potential and dismissing those who do not “measure up” from consideration. A belief in neurodiversity does not preclude the experience of disability. A belief in neurodiversity does not preclude the desire to overcome the experience of disability, either temporarily or permanently. A belief in neurodiversity doesn’t even preclude a belief that the government has no business extending entitlements or “special rights” to disadvantaged groups. A belief in neurodiversity does, however, preclude the belief that you are in any way superior to another on the basis of things beyond your or their control. Being smarter doesn’t make you better. Being more socially adaptable doesn’t make you better. Being more emotionally stable doesn’t make you better. If you want to feel “better,” then use your abilities (whatever they are) to help others. Not only will you really feel better, but it’ll be a better feeling than any false sense of superiority could ever give you.
I like your definitions!
This is well-deserving of applause.
I like this a lot!
- February 26, 2010 at 8:37 PM
“Letting Off Steam” : Embracing Chaos[...] an earlier post, I said: 5) You cannot claim to value diversity and dislike individuals or groups based on traits [...]
Stephanie
This is where I am conflicted and confused. This needs to be discussed alot more. This man says he and his mind configuration should be in neurodiversity. http://www.sociopathworld.com/ I believe the ABFH said yes. What if nambla claims the same thing? Where is the stopping point? Should someone’s terrible moral behavior and criminal activity be a valid mindset that is a part of ND that should be acceptable in society?
The distinction that I personally make is whether or not harm is done unto others. A person can be autistic and not harm anyone. A person can be autistic and have issues with aggression that put others (and the individual) at risk. At all times should the person with autism be treated with respect. However, the autistic individual should not be permitted to harm others. A person diagnosed as sociopathic (or however the diagnosis would be worded) is still a person and is neurologically different. You can be a “sociopath” and not harm others; you can harm others and not be a “sociopath”. (Keep in mind that the media misrepresent this psychological “condition” just as they misrepresent autism and the meaning of other psychological labels.) The person with such a label should always be treated with respect, as a human being, but that respect does not give them permission to harm others.
NAMBA is another issue entirely. If an adult male acts on a desire to have sexual contact with a little boy, or even an adolescent, they are harming another person. The very act is harmful. The same thing goes for all pedofiles and rapists. This would also include psychological and physical abusers, cleptomaniacs, arsonists and any others whose differences involve directly harming others. These differences, whether neurological or the product of mental illness, harm others. To include them in diversity without qualification is to deny others the right to exist without harm. For me, that’s unacceptable.
However, we have a tendency as a society to de-humanize these individuals. That is problematic to a diversity-conscious view. Whatever they’ve done, they’re still people. They’re subject to the laws and punishments of society after they’ve committed a crime; but they should not be subject to such actions prior to committing a crime.
For example, if a man rapes or attempts to rape a child (girl or boy, doesn’t matter), that men should be tried and if convicted he should be put in jail. (Hopefully for a very long time.) When that man is up for parole, the parole board should consider the likelihood of him committing such an act in the future. If it is deemed likely, then he should not be let out of state or federal custody.
On the other hand, if we get a test (genetic, brain scan, whatever) that says 90% of the people with a specific result commit pedofilia, it is not ethical to take all people with that result into custody and keep them off the streets. It is not ethical for those results to become public knowledge. The reasons would be: 1) the test does not indicate what has been done but a tendency, so the people are being jailed for who they are; 2) if the results are accurate 10% do nothing wrong, and are thus innocent; 3) science is inherently imperfect and any such test would be misused and the results may be highly biased/inaccurate in the first place.
Thus, it is a balancing act. While society has a need to and a right to protect the people therein from those who do harm, it does not have a right to do so by harming those who have done nothing wrong. At the same time, all people deserve to be treated as human beings, even those who have committed heinous criminal acts. This is not an argument against capital punishment or imprisonment, but argument against de-humanizing people and saying their rights do not matter because of who they are or who we think they might be.
That, at least, is my take on the issue.
Stephanie, thank you. I agree completely. This was a well thought out response and you’ve settled my qualms. This means we must have moral contraints in neurodiversity. Anyone curebie like John Best Jr. who uses this as a counter argument to ND I will just link them to your comment.
I believe that ALL humans are on the Neurodiversity Spectrum. So if someone with anti-social personality disorder rapes a kid, then they’re a perverted ND, just as an average guy who rapes a kid is a perverted NT. Both should be locked away.