When we first set out to answer this question, we were somewhat overwhelmed by the several nuances that exist and shape our potential responses, be it in the form of varying definitions of ‘neurodiversity’ and ‘mental illness’; or even the differing classifications of neurodiverse conditions and or mental illnesses. We asked ourselves; should neurodiversity accommodate mental illnesses? And if so, should they be distinguished from neurodiverse conditions such as ADHD and autism? What if only those mental illnesses that were caused by underlying neurodiverse characteristics were regarded as neurodiversity – and not isolated mental illnesses alone?
While there’s no standardized definition of neurodiversity, most definitions entail depathologizing people who – from a neurological perspective - think, learn, or process information differently. While this factor may overlap with mental illnesses in certain situations, the large difference at hand is that while neurodiversity may include learning deficits and or struggles, it also entails particular strengths. With mental illnesses however, it comprises only of the former. This factor plays a crucial role in whether or not mental illnesses should be thought of as neurodiversity; as conditions that fall into this spectrum are usually celebrated. Furthermore, while neurodiversity is lifelong and considered a commemoration of differences; mental health issues, on the other hand, can be both short-term and chronic – most importantly however, they are pathologized and deemed struggling to live with. Moreover, while it’s important to be able to identify when mental health issues are rooted in neurodiverse characteristics, the two should be outlined for what they are, in order to help a person flourish in an environment that is both suitable to their needs and helps them cope with the struggles that they face – be it the cause of neurodiverse features or a mental illness.
A counter-argument however, posits that because both mental illnesses and neurodiverse conditions affect cognitive ability, the way that one thinks and perceives, and the unique challenges they face based on those distinctions - they therefore should be thought of as under the same umbrella. An argument opposing this says that if we continue to group more and more things together, what’s to be considered normal - or rather, abnormal? Truth be told, the world ‘normal’ in itself has varying definitions, and its use, more often than not, irks me. We, society, seem to have a narrow view on what we consider “normal”, and it is increasingly becoming evident that there are several people that do not fit into that mould, and perhaps, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Going by that, could we normalize - perhaps not celebrate – but be more accepting of mental disorders regardless of whether they are included in the neurodiversity spectrum? Could we perhaps also create more suitable environments for people who struggle with neurodiverse conditions and mental health issues, regardless of whether they stem from neurodiverse characteristics? Could we perhaps begin to accept and destigmatize all our differences, be it from a neurological viewpoint, a psychological one, or any other? Surely, we can all try to depathologize these terms and accept others on their own terms, thereby contributing to a more equitable, humane, and just world.
By Ruhi Chitra
Commentaires