add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Neurodiversity, Neuroplasticity & Neurogenesis - ISPS-US: Dr. isps-us.org |
Neurodiversity is an idea which asserts that atypical (neurodivergent) neurological development is a normal human difference that is to be recognized and respected as any other human variation.[1] Differences may arise in ways of processing information, including language, sound, images, light, texture, taste, or movement. The concept of neurodiversity is embraced by some autistic individuals and people with related conditions. Some groups apply the concept of neurodiversity to conditions potentially unrelated (or non-concomitant) to autism such as bipolar disorder, ADHD[2], schizophrenia[3], developmental speech disorders, Parkinson's disease, dyslexia, and dyspraxia.[2]
[edit] Origin of the termAccording to an article in New York Magazine, the term was put forward by Judy Singer and first published by Harvey Blume.[4] The earliest published use of the term appears in a New York Times article by Harvey Blume on September 30, 1998:[5]
Previous to this, although Blume did not make explicit use of the term Neurodiversity, he wrote in a New York Times piece on June 30, 1997:[6]
Blume is also notable for his early public advocacy and prediction of the role the internet would play in fostering neurodiversity.[7]
The term mostly appears within the online autistic community, but its usage has spread to a more general meaning; for example, the Developmental Adult Neurodiversity Association (DANDA) in the UK encompasses developmental dyspraxia, ADHD, Asperger syndrome and related conditions.[8] Usage of the term has seen a boost with a 2004 New York Times article by Amy Harmon, "The Disability Movement Turns to Brains".[1] [edit] Neurodiversity as an ideologyThe language surrounding neurodiversity has been a major point of contention. Those proposing the medical model label learning differences as “disorders, deficits, and disfunctions.” From this point of view, neurodiverse states are viewed as medical conditions that can and should be corrected.[9] Others see neurodiversity as an inclusive term that refers to the equality of all possible mental states. Still others reject the word because it sounds too medical and overshadows the needs of people with learning differences.[9] Neurodiversity as a word does capture the discovery that autism has a biological basis, representing a move away from the “mother-blaming” theories of the 20th century. Before the scientific advances in the 1980s, autism scholars including Bruno Bettelheim popularized the belief that autism came from “extremely abnormal mother-child relations.” Bettelheim, a researcher and author of many books about autism, pioneered the "refrigerator-mother" idea, saying the cold and distant parenting was a cause of autism. Though Bettelheim later admitted to falsifying his credentials, the stigma has remained until recent genetic research has debunked this myth.[10] The post-1980 geneticization of autism, wherein the condition is said to have a biological basis, was a change that prompted the idea of neurodiversity. Since the condition is innate, it is able to be accepted as a natural difference in individuals. It is important to note that the true cause of autism is contested, and could result from a variety of factors that genetic, biological, or environmental in nature. The important shift is that autism is no longer believed to have a social basis.[10] There has been a large increase in the number of autism diagnoses in the past few decades. Though the cause of this “autism baby boom” are disputed, ranging from childhood mercury poisoning to increased healthcare, there has been an undeniable growth of the autistic population.[11] Public attention has grown to match this rise, with articles in Newsweek and Time to showcase new research. This has propelled autism and neurodiversity, to center stage in the cultural and political arena. [edit] Goals of the neurodiversity movementProponents of neurodiversity are striving to re-conceptualize autism and related conditions in society. Main goals of the movement include:
Autistic supporters of neurodiversity want their way of life to be considered as a respectable, autonomous, and equal way of living. Since autism is inseparable from daily perceptions and decisions, some believe it ought not be separated from the person and treated as a curable disease. Rather, autism should be recognized as a different but equal way of understanding and approaching the world. [edit] Legislation and its implicationsIn 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law. This act prohibited discrimination based on disability in schools, the workplace, and other public institutions. In 1995, the United Kingdom passed the Disability Discrimination Act, making it illegal to deny people employment, goods and services, education, or transportation based on disability. Both countries were required to anticipate and make "reasonable adjustments" for people with disabilities. Some of these adjustments were outlined under the Disability Equality Duty (a provision under the Americans with Disabilities Act):
These changes have brought increasing participation by neurodiverse people in both countries. The numbers of neurodiverse students in higher education have increased tenfold in both the US and the UK since their respective anti-discrimination acts have been passed.[9] [edit] Proponents and OpponentsNeurodiversity was prefigured by the work of French historian and theorist Michel Foucault, whose book Folie et déraison ("Madness and unreason"; published in an abridged version in English as Madness and Civilization, and eventually in full as The History of Madness) influenced the anti-psychiatry movement of the 1960s. Many supporters of neurodiversity are anti-cure autistics,[citation needed] who are engaged in advocacy; some parents of autistic children also support neurodiversity. Such parents say they value their children's individuality and want to allow their children to develop naturally. For example, Morton Ann Gernsbacher is a parent of an autistic child and a psychology professor, who argues that autistics need acceptance, not a cure, and endorses the theory that autism cannot be separated from the person.[14] Sometimes the line between proponents and opponents to the neurodiversity movement is blurred. Though its primary function is to provide advocacy and fundraising for biomedical research, Autism Speaks is considered to be an opponent of neurodiversity. Supporters of neurodiversity fear that the research and rhetoric of Autism Speaks will inevitably lead to eugenics implications. Many of Autism Speaks' ad campaigns suggest that a child diagnosed with autism is a "preventable tragedy," since genetic counseling could eliminate autism from the gene pool one child at a time. However, since there is no single “autism gene,” attempting to control autism genetically would potentially eliminate many characteristics associated with autism. Supporters of neurodiversity argue that all of these characteristics are not meant to be genetically hidden.[10] [edit] “Backdoor eugenics” controversyWith all of the recent biomedical advances, a controversy has arisen that is closely related to the neurodiversity movement. The commonality of genetic counseling before or during pregnancy may create a choice between a “normal” child and a “disabled” one. Although this is not outright eugenics-style elimination of a segment of the population, this could result in a hushed, "backdoor" form of eugenics in which parents are able to choose whether to bear a child with a disability. In a utilitarian society, there is no choice: disabled people are undeniably “more costly and less productive.”[10] Sympathetic parents also worry that a disabled child would be subject to social isolation and limited opportunities. Whether a choice about disability status should be made based on any grounds is debated between supporters of the biomedical perspective and supporters of neurodiversity. Supporters of the biomedical perspective believe that citizens have the responsibility to improve the health and welfare of their societies. Embryo selection has been proposed as a way to improve the health of society. Since those with so-called “low-functioning” autism are a drain on resources and may not be able to enjoy a “normal” life, genetic screening could be used as a preventative measure.[10] On the other hand, supporters of neurodiversity see embryo selection as a threat to their way of life and even a personal attack, perceiving that proponents of genetic screening would rather neurodiverse people had not been born. Neurodiversity activists see the tendency toward embryo selection as a devaluation of those with autism and related conditions. Genetic screening is on the rise with parents-to-be. People with disabilities already fear they will be increasingly economically, socially, and politically marginalized due to this potential move to eliminate disabilities from the population.[10] [edit] See also[edit] References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
