Who Is Neurodivergent? A Relativist Perspective

·         Key Takeaways: Neuronormative standards classify neurodivergent individuals as non-typical or abnormal, based on the values and expectations of a given time and place.

·         There are many permutations of the interpretations of neurodivergence, shaped by subjective perspectives. 

·         The dominant mechanisms for understanding neurodivergence include functional, systemic, and structural frameworks. These three can be used to leverage the strengths of neurodivergent individuals to build stronger societies.

 Introduction

The previous article discussed neurodivergence in absolute terms, focusing on what makes an individual neurodivergent. Key themes in the absolute approach include distinction, clinical diagnoses, psychosocial modifications, and disability-related neurodivergence.

This article, however, explores neurodivergence through different contextual lenses and comparative models that help classify and engage with neurodivergent individuals. A relativist perspective highlights the varying interpretations of neurodivergence[1]. Some might view it as a moral failing, others as an illness or a form of victimhood. These differing viewpoints create multiple definitions of neurodivergence, which often emerge in activist and advocacy contexts where competing claims exist about how neurodivergent individuals should be treated.

Neurodivergence vs. Neurotypicality: Neuronormativity

Most people define neurodivergent individuals in relation to neurotypical individuals. In this view, the neurotypical person is seen as "normal" within the context of a specific time and place[2], while the neurodivergent person is viewed as "abnormal." Normative molds within any society reflect its dominant culture and worldview.

Geert Hofstede famously said, “culture is the software of the mind”[3]. This means that culture shapes neuronormative standards, which define expected behaviors and ways of thinking. Anyone whose neurological tendencies deviate from these norms is often labeled non-typical, or even deviant.

The Emphasis on Neuronormalizing 

A relativist view of neurodivergence often treats it as a problem to be corrected. The assumption is that a neurodivergent person is not "alright" and must be “treated” or “reformed.” Correctional facilities, for example, run neuronormalization programs to reform incarcerated individuals, often with the belief that neurodivergent behavior is criminal[4].

However, for many neurodivergent individuals, their thought patterns are non-criminal, though they may limit their societal engagement. It’s essential to understand and integrate these individuals into society in meaningful ways.

Three Levels of Relativist Conceptualization of Neurodivergence

Most relativist and comparative frameworks for understanding neurodivergence are utilitarian in nature, aiming to create a better society or improve the treatment of those deemed non-typical. While some historical thinkers proposed harsh treatments for neurodivergent individuals, the dominant 21st-century perspective emphasizes a rights-based system that allows neurodivergent people to live fulfilling lives according to their own preferences and abilities.

The three primary frameworks for understanding and treating neurodivergence are: 

1. Functional 

2. Systemic 

3. Structural

These frameworks provide guidelines for managing neurodivergent individuals’ engagement in society, promoting better integration and societal contributions.

Functional (Capability-Based) Approach

This approach focuses on the unique strengths and capabilities of neurodivergent individuals. In many neuronormative settings, neurodivergent individuals are marginalized or excluded. In some developing countries, they are hidden away in shame, while in developed nations, they may be over-diagnosed and rendered ineffective. A functional approach, however, seeks to identify the unique strengths of neurodivergent individuals. Almost every neurodivergent person has something they excel at, often outperforming neurotypical individuals in certain areas.

By focusing on these strengths, society can better integrate neurodivergent individuals, enhancing their self-esteem and encouraging their contributions to stronger communities. A strengths-based approach typically yields better results for society as a whole.

Systemic (Participation-Based) Approach

This approach examines the neurodivergent person’s place within society and seeks to create systems that include, rather than exclude, neurodivergent individuals. Many systems, particularly those that claim to promote meritocracy, often inadvertently shut out neurodivergent individuals through discriminatory practices. For example, workplaces and recruitment systems can be hostile or exclusionary, reinforcing neuronormative molds that limit the inclusion of neurodivergent people.

Structural (Mobility-Based) Approach

The structural approach addresses the social and economic mobility challenges faced by neurodivergent individuals due to their cognitive and behavioral patterns. In the past, institutions like universities valued neurodivergent individuals for their specialized talents, even if they had deficits in other areas. These individuals contributed to significant advancements in science and technology. However, as systems favor neurotypical individuals, neurodivergent minds are often overlooked, leading to a loss of innovation and breakthroughs.

Structural mobility involves both social and economic dimensions. Person-appropriate standards can help treat and integrate neurodivergent persons fairly and efficiently. A neurodivergent person may have groundbreaking ideas but struggle to share them or bring them to fruition due to social isolation or lack of support. Socially, neurodivergent individuals often face difficulties in building the relationships necessary for survival and success.

Conclusion

Neurodivergence, viewed through a relativist lens, is defined in opposition to neuronormative standards, which separate the neurodivergent from the neurotypical. There are multiple subjective interpretations of neurodivergence. The three essential frameworks—Functional, Systemic, and Structural—offer valuable insights into how neurodivergent individuals can be understood, integrated, and supported to maximize their contributions to society, creating healthier and stronger communities.

References

Catala, Amandine. “Understanding Neurodiversity, Unlearning Neuronormativity” Blog of the APA, Published: April 11, 2023. Accessed: March 20, 2025. Available at: https://blog.apaonline.org/2023/04/11/understanding-neurodiversity-unlearning-neuronormativity/

Denson, Thomas, Griffiths, Mary-Ann & Smith, Lachlan. “Attitudes toward incarceration, neuronormalization and psychological treatment for violent offenders” Psychology, Crime & Law. 2024 DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2024.2381147

Heasman, Brett & Gillespie, Alex. “Neurodivergent intersubjectivity: Distinctive features of how autistic people create shared understanding”. Autism 23 (4) 2018 pp910-921 DOI: 10.1177/1362361318785172

Hofstede, Geert & Hofstede Gert Jan. Cultures & Organizations. New York: McGraw Hill, 2010.

[1] Brett Heasman & Alex Gillespie. “Neurodivergent intersubjectivity: Distinctive features of how autistic people create shared understanding”.

[2] Amandine Catala. “Understanding Neurodiversity, Unlearning Neuronormativity”

[3] Geert Hofstede & Gert Jan Hofstede. Cultures & Organizations p3

[4] Thomas Denson, Mary-Ann Griffiths & Lachlan Smith. “Attitudes toward incarceration, neuronormalization and psychological treatment for violent offenders”