The ND paradigm distinguishes that there is no particular “norm” for cognitive function, but rather a socially constructed standard that has been normalized. Those who stray or fall out of this standard are therefore neurodivergent. I understand the difficulties in categorizing in this way because of the many variations of both normal and divergent conditions that exist. Particularly in considering the overlap of movements such as the autism rights movement and the ND movement, what elements of conditions such as autism overlap into the ND movement and what distinguishes it?
To be divergent is to be different than the typical a example of normal. My natural inclination is to assume that anyone’s preference would be to be normal, in this mindset it is interesting to consider being ND as “positive or negative, desirable or undesirable”. Attempting to consider what a desirable normal cognitive state would be becomes a daunting task because of the individuality of each person’s Brain/ mind and experience. There are so many variations of those three elements form a person’s cognition, it seems almost impossible to classify a norm.
It is a natural tendency to classify Those who are normal as separate from those who fall outside of the norm, those who divergent. For a person to understand another person, it also seems natural to seek characteristics that are similar or different from themselves, because we know ourselves best. Because of this natural tendency it is difficult to remember to also classify those who are neurotypical with the broad scope of neurodiversity. I found Walker’s comparison to race particularly helpful in xonceptializing how to understand the relation of how those who are neurotypical and those who are neurodivergent are all apart of the same ‘spectrum’ of being human.
Cara, I think you hit the nail on the head with your theory of “normalcy.” In basic terms, the coming together of three general parts – the brain, mind, and experience – is more complex than anyone could have ever imagined and makes it “almost impossible to classify a norm” as you said. The problem with classifying people or illnesses or mental capacity into sectors lies within the system itself in thinking that these things are all categorical. As you state in your first paragraph, it is near impossible to find a clear distinction between these categories, exemplified by the overlap found in the various rights movements associated with neurodiversity. Nick Walker’s blog post clarifies much of the incorrectly used terms used within the neurodiversity movement, but I believe what you said in your last paragraph puts it best: “Those who are neurotypical and those who are neurodivergent are all a part of the same ‘spectrum’ of being human.” Spectrum indicates a sense of continuation and relation rather than the old-fashioned concept of blocked off sections of type 1, type 2, etc. We are all connected through the same brains that we share as humans; they just happen to function differently in response to various factors that we encounter through genetics and our environments.
Cara,
I really enjoyed your post! It helped me review some of the terms that even after reading the definitions, I found difficulty telling them apart. I guess that is why they are so commonly misused! Something you wrote really stuck out to me – ” My natural inclination is to assume that anyone’s preference would be to be normal”. It’s so fascinating how we generally feel this way. We have set up our own standards and our own norms and basically assume that everyone wants to fit in that mold. Some questions this might bring up is WHY do we all create that mold but then we also try so hard to stray away from it? When and how did we decide what is normal and what isn’t? Somehow, as a society we have set these boundaries and created these standards, but none of us understand exactly HOW they were created. We all just naturally feel the same about general things, like the fact that people WANT to be “normal”.