The medical model of disability has previously pathologised neurodivergence as medical conditions requiring treatment (9). The Neurodiversity Paradigm has helped to reframe how neurodivergence is understood and talked about, considered as a result of natural human variation and there being no one ‘normal’ brain or way of thinking (8).
We should recognise and respect these neurocognitive variations as a social category on a par with gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability status (10).
The Neurodiversity Paradigm allows us to highlight common strengths and challenges of neurodivergent individuals as well as recognising the significant variation within a specifically understood demographic (such as dyspraxic or autistic) (8).
It is important not to draw lines between neurotypical and neurodivergent people, human neurodiversity is a complex spectrum in which everyone sits (8).
A neurotypical can be thought of as someone who is not neurodivergent, behaving and thinking in ways that have either not been medically defined as a disorder or culturally defined as being neurodivergent (8).
Definitions relating to neurodiversity can be contentious and non-uniform. It’s important to keep in mind that definitions may change over time due to cultural shifts or patterns of usage throughout society.
Technical classification of neurodivergent styles will be taken from the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). It is important to note that popular terminology can differ from that used in the DSM, such as ‘dyslexia’ which the DSM categorises as a form of ‘specific learning disability’.
The DSM-5 is the "standard reference that healthcare providers use to diagnose mental and behavioral conditions" (11). To be formally diagnosed with a neurodivergent condition, minimum requirements set out in the DSM-5 must be met under the assessment of a single or team of registered health professionals. Click here to learn more from the Australian Psychological Society.
Comments