Is psychiatry and psychology co-opting neurodivergent; a socio-political term?

Firstly, we need to understand how and why neurodivergent is a socio-political term. When we say a term is socio-political, we are acknowledging the social and political factors and dynamics at play - oppression, privilege, inequality, exclusion and more. What does this have to do with neurodivergent? Neurodivergent is a social and political term.

Neurodivergent names a social position - individuals who are marginalised, pathologised, oppressed, punished and labelled as mentally ill or disordered for functioning in a way that diverges from neuronormativity; an oppressive system that believes there is a right or superior way to function.

As Dieuwertje Dyi Huijg writes in The Neurodiversity Reader:

“neurodivergent is “a category of power relations and social hierarchisation”.

And yet, many people are unaware of this or when made aware, are hesitant to refer to it as such. It begs the question of why, which brings me to the co-opting of neurodivergent by psychiatry, psychology and ultimately, the pathology paradigm.

Co-opting refers to adopting or taking something for one’s own use or purpose. As Bruce Levine in Mad In America writes: “co-optation here refers to the process by which a powerful institution attempts to preserve its control by incorporating a popular element of a radical movement while burying the radical ideology of that movement.”

There is a long history of psychiatry co-opting radical terms and movements. One prime example is the co-opting of peer support. Peer support has always been a non-hierarchical and non-carceral approach with the aim to provide alternatives to the medical model. However, the co-opting of peer support has led to peer support becoming immeshed within the medical model and for lack of a better term, psychiatry-washed.

Not only has peer support become regulated and standardised in some countries like the US but the original role of peer supporters has changed from its original grassroots within mental health settings. Peer supporters have become responsible for reporting their clients’ behaviours to clinicians, answering to clinicians as well as both enforcing compliance with treatment. Instead of peer support being a non-hierarchal partnership as it was always meant to be, peer support workers have become another link in the chain of compliance.

That’s what happens when psychiatry co-opts. It takes something radical and political, ignores its roots and turns it into something else to fit its own purpose and language. And we can see the same thing happening with neurodivergent. 

Both medicine, psychiatry and psychology have taken neurodivergent to describe a biological reality rather than a social reality - changing the definition and intent of neurodivergent to fit the purpose of the pathology paradigm. So much so that many believe psychiatrists and psychologists to be the arbitrator of what is or isn't neurodivergent but psychiatrists and psychologists cannot be the arbitrator of a socio-political identity. 

Another example of the medical co-opting of neurodivergent is the use of “neurodivergent condition” or using the phrase, “diagnosed as neurodivergent” which has become accepted terminology within the neurodivergent community. The thing is, you cannot be diagnosed with a socio-political identity yet we have come to accept this because of the co-opting. We do not know any better because many of us have been taught to view neurodivergent as another medical or clinical term. 

We have to remember that neurodivergent is neither a medical or clinical term but a social and political one.

Another way that neurodivergent has been co-opted is by reducing neurodivergent to structural or biological differences in the brain and defining neurodivergent as diverging from the stock standard brain. It is neurodiversity 101 that every single brain is different so there is no stock standard brain to even diverge from; neurodivergent is about diverging from neuronormativity.

Whether we have structural differences or not isn’t the point, it is about how oppressive systems label the way we function, our very existence, as mentally ill, disordered or abnormal due to assumptions around what is the right or superior way to function. It’s about the way we function and how it diverges from neuronormativity - whether it can be proved with structural brain differences or not.

The problem is, when we define neurodivergent by structural or biological differences, we end up excluding individuals from a term that was meant for them even if they happen to diverge from neuronormativity. In addition to the exclusion of individuals, we end up removing the focus from neuronormativity. If I may offer a comparison, imagine if we talked about gender and sexuality without acknowledging cisheteronormativity.

This is something that really needs to change if we want to challenge neuronormativity and shift away from the pathology paradigm. To be clear, I’m not asking psychiatry and psychology to stop talking about neurodivergence but I am asking professionals, academics and researchers to be mindful of how they both talk and use neurodivergent. Most importantly, I am asking for neurodivergent to be respected as a socio-political term.