The way I use ‘neurodiversity’ in the project ADHD Women: Resisting Neuronormativity is as…
“a(n analytical) social category that refers to, on the one hand, ‘neurodivergent’ people – e.g. people with Tourettes, ADHDers, autistics – and, on the other hand, ‘neurotypical’ people. To emphasise, the ‘neuro’ here refers to a social categorical ‘neuro-difference’, which neither alludes to an affirmation of a biomedical qualification, nor to a neutral social difference” (Huijg, 2020, pp.214-215; emphases not in original).
Neuronormativity, to simplify for now, refers to
barriers, norms, values, ideas etc. generated by the hegemony of ‘neurotypicality’ and ‘neuro-ableism’.
Mind, neither neurodiversity, neuronormativity and neuro-ableism, nor neurodiversity studies suffice. The project focusses intersectionally on neuronormativity in the form of anti-ADHD ableism and anti-ADHD injustices and inequalities.
I’ll write more about my approach to ‘neuronormativity’ and ‘neurodiversity’ in the future.
Reference:
Huijg, D.D. (2020). “Neuronormativity in theorising agency: An argument for a critical neurodiversity approach.” In: Hanna Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist, Nick Chown & Anna Stenning (Eds), Neurodiversity studies: A new critical paradigm (pp.213-217): Routledge. [Invited book chapter] [Open access version]