Neurodiversity Epistemology & Genealogy

(exchanges between 03/14/2026 - 03/15/2026 on LinkedIn)

The following exchange emerged from public discussions concerning the conceptual, historical, and political foundations of neurodiversity theory. The dialogue addresses ongoing tensions surrounding neurodivergence as diagnostic identity versus sociopolitical position, the co-optation and institutionalization of neurodiversity discourse, and the relationship between contemporary neurodiversity scholarship and its activist and community-based origins. The conversation also includes a curated discussion of foundational readings that have shaped contemporary neurodiversity studies across disability studies, autistic scholarship, sociology, and critical theory.

Cole Denisen, PhD

One small note on language—not directed at anyone specifically, but as a broader conceptual point: the term 'neurodivergent' is often used as if it were simply a softer substitute for diagnostic labels. More accurately, 'neurodivergence' refers to divergence from socially constructed norms around cognition, communication, behavior, and perception.

In that sense, neurotypicality can also be understood as a social norm tied to power: certain ways of thinking, communicating, and behaving are treated as standard, while others are marked as deviation. From this perspective, neurodivergent is often better understood less as a diagnostic category and more as a socio-political position in that it describes a relationship to normativity and power rather than a medical identity alone.

Relatedly, 'neurodiversity' emerged from autistic activism as a challenge to deficit-based framings of mind and behavior. It is more than a general term for human variation. When we introduce 'neurodiversity', it matters that we frame it as a social justice project rooted in questions of inclusion, power, and normativity, rather than reducing it to simply meaning “brain differences.”

Peter Klassen

The social model, rights model, economic model, and clinical models all need to be balanced with enough room for the required nuance.

Cole Denisen, PhD

Peter Klassen I agree that nuance matters, but historically these models have not operated on equal footing. Clinical frameworks have usually had institutional dominance because they shape diagnosis, schooling, service eligibility, and policy, while social and rights-based models largely emerged in response to the limits of that dominance.

Neurodiversity operates somewhat differently: its contemporary framing draws from social and relational models, but is itself a political and theoretical framework. It is not simply another service model; it is an epistemic intervention—a way of understanding cognitive variation in relation to normativity, power, and the social production of disability. That also makes “balance” difficult when parts of that history were built through frameworks that positioned neurodivergent people as deficient, socially undesirable, or less fully human. At that point, the question is less how to “balance” these frameworks and more how to critically examine where ableist assumptions remain embedded within them.

Rie Sinclair

I think there's more complications here, though. These frameworks were first a model for Safety from bias, assumption and danger (women with 4 cones or accidentally good at maths who might have been hunted for witchcraft). But without Diversity as a species we would die. Some of what was assigned under the Divergent Model involves things one should show compassion toward, such as brain damage, somethings which can be caused by trauma and aided, while others are evolutionary advantages. The moment this turns political it gets messy IMO.

Cole Denisen, PhD

Rie Sinclair I agree that we're having two discussions, but I think that is partly due to different understandings and different positioning in relation to the field. I am a neurodiversity scholar: I teach neurodiversity, write about it, and theorize it. I am also Autistic, so much of what I draw on comes through those lenses.

When I refer to familiarity with the field, I mean familiarity with the broader range of scholars and the decades of scholarship which has helped shape neurodiversity into what it is now.

Singer is historically important, but she did not develop neurodiversity on her own, and neither did Blume, even if both helped popularize the term and concept. Familiarity with Singer's work does not equate to familiarity with neurodiversity. It would be a bit like saying one is familiar with Black feminism because one has read bell hooks. There are many other scholars who have contributed to neurodiversity as an idea; it is very much a community-developed term. No singular scholar can claim ownership of it.

Cole Denisen, PhD

Rie Sinclair Secondly—and this is part of why field-specific scholarship matters—when I said “ignoring,” I was not referring specifically to you. I was referring to a much broader pattern in which people use the language of neurodiversity without fully understanding where it came from historically and politically. This is very common, and it has been written about by many scholars.

It also connects to a larger systemic pattern in which institutions adopt the language and logics of a movement while becoming detached from the conditions that produced it. This is called co-optation. Which - by the way - you and I agree on this, notably when you pointed out "movements often fail when their own concepts become diluted or distorted internally". This is why I insist on understanding the history and scholarship as much as I do.

Dion Kobussen 

Cole Denisen, PhD What books, essays, articles would you recommend?

The Wikipedia lemma ‘Neurodiversity’ is extensive, but is there something missing according to you? Some blatant faults?

[Since I am sort of re-entering the field of hashtag #ADHD, after an absence of some two decades, I have found so-called neurodiversity or neurodivergence is more and more seen as an alternative model (if I am correct?). Or is it even a social-political viewpoint?

Always open to new theories, models, experiences I am currently looking into this.]

Thanks!

Cole Denisen, PhD

Dion Kobussen For an entry point specific to ADHD I *HIGHLY* recommend Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist's work, specifically :

Cutting our own keys: New possibilities of neurodivergent storying in research (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36259512/), Naming ourselves, becoming neurodivergent scholars (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687599.2023.2271155)

and their edited volume (https://www.routledge.com/Neurodiversity-Studies-A-New-Critical-Paradigm/Rosqvist-Chown-Stenning/p/book/9780367503253).

For general understanding of the movement, Steven Kapp's edited work of Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement (https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/23177) it's open access/ free to download. Very authoritative. Botha et al's 2024 article The Neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory

(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38470140/) is also a foundational piece for contemporary discourse.

For historical work, Jim Sinclair's 1993 Don't Mourn for Us (https://www.autreat.com/dont_mourn.html) - there should be several versions available, including from the inaugural version of Our Voice. Jane Meyerding's (1998) Thoughts On Finding Myself Differently Brained. Donna Williams' (1992) autobiography Nobody Nowhere (https://www.donnawilliams.net/index493c.html?id=nobodynowhere). Singer's re-released essay NeuroDiversity: The Birth of an Idea (https://www.amazon.com/NeuroDiversity-Birth-Idea-Judy-Singer-ebook/dp/B01HY0QTEE). She also keeps a blogspace (https://neurodiversity2.blogspot.com/p/what.html).

For more recent foundational reading on neurodiversity theory, any of Walker's collected works (https://neuroqueer.com/) helps with understanding how neurodiversity has continued to develop and incorporate different theoretical perspectives. Robert Chapman's Empire of Normality: Neurodiversity and Capitalism (https://www.plutobooks.com/product/empire-of-normality/) is brilliant as it covers the history of eugenics and colonialism and connects it to the development of neurotypical and normal as systems of power. Remi Yergeau's Authoring Autism (https://www.dukeupress.edu/authoring-autism).

Morénike Giwa Onaiwu's All The Weight Of Our Dreams offers perspectives from the intersections of race, gender, and neurodivergence (https://autismandrace.com/all-the-weight-of-our-dreams-anthology/) unfortunately pulled from print, but still an excellent anthology if you can find one. Her I, too, Sing Neurodiversity piece is also vey powerful (https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/ought/vol2/iss1/10/)

Dion Kobussen

Cole Denisen, PhD Thanks.

This will join a lot of other material in my reading lists for the future months.

A lot of catching up to do here!

Cole Denisen, PhD

Almost forgot Damian Milton's On the Ontological Status of Autism (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008)

Cole Denisen, PhD

Happy to offer others, but this should be a pretty good starting point for anyone.

Cole Denisen, PhD

Dion Kobussen Glad to be of help :). Also, for your other question, neurodiversity is not simply an alternative clinical model; it is better understood as a social, political, and theoretical framework that emerged partly in response to deficit-based models of mind, which is why contemporary scholarship often treats it as both epistemic critique and disability politics.