Does the heterogeneity of autism undermine the neurodiversity paradigm?

The neurodiversity paradigm is presented by its proponents as providing a philosophical foundation for the activism of the neurodiversity movement. Its central claims are that autism and other neurodivergent conditions are not disorders because they are not intrinsically harmful, and that they are v...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Bioethics Jg. 35; H. 1; S. 47 - 60
1. Verfasser: Hughes, Jonathan A.
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.01.2021
Schlagworte:
Activism
Autism
Behavior
Bioethics
Causality
Cognition
Cognition & reasoning
co‐occurring conditions
Discrimination
disorder
Disorders
Heterogeneity
identity
Neurodiversity
Neurology
Paradigms
Self concept
Social interactions
co-occurring conditions
disorder
neurodiversity
identity
autism
heterogeneity
ISSN:0269-9702, 1467-8519, 1467-8519
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The neurodiversity paradigm is presented by its proponents as providing a philosophical foundation for the activism of the neurodiversity movement. Its central claims are that autism and other neurodivergent conditions are not disorders because they are not intrinsically harmful, and that they are valuable, natural and/or normal parts of human neurocognitive variation. This paper: (a) identifies the non‐disorder claim as the most central of these, based on its prominence in the literature and connections with the practical policy claims that the paradigm is supposed to support; (b) describes the heterogeneity of autism at the behavioural and causal levels, and argues that at the behavioural level this encompasses ways of being autistic that are harmful in ways that cannot be not wholly attributed to discrimination or unjust social arrangements, challenging the claim that autism is not a disorder; (c) considers and rejects responses to this challenge based on separation of high‐ and low‐functioning autism, separation of autism from co‐occurring conditions, and viewing autism as part of an individual’s identity. Two of these responses fail for reasons that are themselves connected with the behavioural and/or causal heterogeneity of autism.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0269-9702
1467-8519
1467-8519
DOI:10.1111/bioe.12780