Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Tyranny of Neuronormativity Question
The Tyranny of Neuronormativity Question
COMM 9280
May 7, 2012
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most
In the clinical literature, individuals on the Autism Spectrum (AS) are often described as
being anti-social, lacking empathy, and being deficient in non-verbal communication (Baron-
Cohen, Tager-Flusberg, & Cohen, 1993; National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, n.d.; Wing, 1992). Yet, these well-meaning academics and service providers
rarely question the underlying assumption that these traits are inherently negative. Why is it so
distressing that someone may prefer to be alone? Could we be overvaluing or over estimating the
ability to empathize? Why is fluency in non-verbal communication more valued than fluency in
that which is considered normal, but this latter part of the dis-order dichotomy remains
unquestioned. We assume that there is a ‘right’ or ‘normal’ way to communicate, because most
neuronormative privilege. We are the gatekeepers of ‘normal’ without question or right, it only
seems natural. And yet, we also know that ‘normal’ human communication is wrought with
problems, deficiencies, and dangers. Why, then, are we so quick to label and marginalize those
whose communication does not conform to our unquestioned socially-normed expectations? And
what do fail to see about ourselves through our terministic screen of what is considered normal?
discourses. My previous research has focused on issues related to gender and race. Neurological
TYRANNY OF NEURONORMATIVITY 3
issues were never on my radar until my husband and I ‘discovered’ that he is a High Functioning
Autistic. In order to understand him better and what this ‘diagnosis’ might mean for our
marriage, I scoured websites, discussion boards, autobiographies, and academic journals. In this
discovery process, I learned many things about myself and my husband. I also came to learn that
in workplaces, families, and interpersonal relationships. This is the type of injustice that I am
dedicated to fighting against. And so my personal interest has turned both academic and political.
In this process, I have come to question many of my own assumptions about communication and
oppressive discourses that mark and constrain those who are neurologically different from the
dominant norm. And in so doing, we fail to question the deficiencies in our communicative traits.
In the first part of this essay, I bring readers into the current political debate and explain key
terms around which my argument is based. From there, I present a critical perspective of
And finally, I will suggest various questions that might be taken up by the communication
neurodiversity and that we, in mainstream communication scholarship, have much to learn and
high functioning. Low functioning autistics are often severely impaired in neurological
TYRANNY OF NEURONORMATIVITY 4
development. High functioning autistics (HFA) often have normal or above normal intelligence
and verbal abilities, but they share some autistic-like traits such as being very literal, having
Institutes of Health, n.d.). Because these traits can be subtle or even masked, HFA was not
widely recognized or diagnosed until the 1990’s. Many HFA adults today grew up without (and
may not currently have) awareness of their neurological difference, only knowing that they felt
different from other people and had trouble understanding and being understood. Many adult
HFAs report having been bullied in school by both teachers and students. In hindsight, they see
they were mistreated because of their unknown/unseen autistic traits which to the outside world
how individuals perceive and label themselves and their neurological difference. The medical
community and many individuals, particularly lower functioning Autistics and their families,
experience Autism as a problematic “disorder” and support cure-centered research. For them,
Autism creates real obstacles in life and causes stress from which they seek relief and hope for a
better life. These Autism advocates strive for public awareness, support, and research through
campaigns such as National Autism Awareness Month. Their work is focused on public policy.
On the other end of that spectrum, there are those who embrace their neurological
difference. They view Autism as something they are, not something they have. To help others
understand their political stance, some advocates compare Autistic identity to homosexuality in
the sense that one would not say “I have homosexuality” nor would one seek a cure for it
(Silberman, 2010). So, while the clinical literature refers to AS as a Pervasive Developmental
Disorder, Autism self-advocacy activists use the term atypical neurological development. By
TYRANNY OF NEURONORMATIVITY 5
locating themselves as atypical, they also mark those who are neurotypical (NT) which
destabilizes the “given-ness” of that which is dominant. In this light, neurological differences are
reject the term ‘disorder’ and call for recognition and acceptance (Baker, 2011). These advocates
There is yet a more radical view among those engaged in identity politics. Some AS self-
advocates employ anti-NT rhetoric and reject the notion of being accepted as equals to NT’s
superiority, and obsession with conformity” (Ortega, 2009, p. 432). As one AS advocate writes,
“My brain is a jewel. I am in awe of the mind that I have. I and my experience of life is not
inferior, and may be superior, to the NT experience of life” (“Institute for the Study of the
Neurologically Typical,” 2002). These advocates are offended and outraged when described as
deficient from an NT perspective. They question and speak out against the neurotypical privilege
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) represents the dominant thinking in the
field of mental disorders and is used to help diagnosis Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD).
Association, 2011). In an effort to illustrate the offensive and subjective nature of this discourse,
one Autism self-advocate designed a webpage that parodies the DSM diagnostic language by
turning the diagnostic lens on the NTs. The website describes Neurotypical Syndrome as
follows:
TYRANNY OF NEURONORMATIVITY 6
individuals often assume that their experience of the world is either the only one, or the
only correct one. NTs find it difficult to be alone. NTs are often intolerant of seemingly
minor differences in others. When in groups NTs are socially and behaviorally rigid, and
frequently insist upon the performance of dysfunctional, destructive, and even impossible
directly, and have a much higher incidence of lying as compared to persons on the
autistic spectrum. (“Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical,” 2002)
This description frames neurotypical social behaviors in the same rhetorical move that the
DSM does, except the positions are reversed. In this version of reality, AS communication
becomes the lens through which NTs are judged and found to be deficient. So, while the DSM
asserts that AS individuals have a deficiency in “adjusting behavior to suit different social
John Durham Peters (1999) explains that “humans are hardwired by the privacy of their
experiences to have communication problems”(p. 4). No one can know what is in our mind
because our attempts at communicating are constrained by the limitations of language. And yet,
we tend to operate under the assumption that our words can, in fact, deliver our inner thoughts.
According the Neurotypical Syndrome diagnostic criteria, NT’s suffer from a “social delusion”
that is the “illogical belief that they have already communicated with each other, before any
[NT’s] think (erroneously) that they are alike, that they have already communicated and
work with "How are you today?" and I tell them that my allergies are making me upset,
this is WRONG. I'm supposed to say "Fine" -- which is neither true nor meaningful.
This excerpt highlights the absurdity, from an AS perspective, of one the most common
socially normative exchanges. Perhaps it also forces us to examine the logic of other socially
normed rituals such as little white lies meant to spare feelings (rather than provide truthful or
helpful information); asking someone “if they mind” doing a particular favor (even though there
is only one type of socially acceptable response “not at all, it’s no problem”); or the belief that if
someone loves you, they should say it often (even though saying something that is already
known to be true seems unnecessary). From an AS perspective, which is based on logic and
individualism, none of these polite or ritualized communicative behaviors make sense. And yet,
from an NT perspective, these communicative niceties are part of the glue to our social cohesion.
neuronormative assumptions are illuminated and brought into question. The difference between
the two documents (the DSM and the parody website) is that the DSM is the privileged
perspective. It is the discursive regime that delineates who is ‘normal’ and who is not. In a very
literal sense, communication in this context is what Peters (1999) calls “the disease.” But Peters
also tells us that communication can be the “cure.” In order to understand the “therapeutic”
way to understand the chasm between the AS and NT views of each other. Incommensurability
idea that AS individuals have deficits in perspective taking and empathizing with others because
they do not have a “Theory of Mind”, a basic understanding that individuals each have minds of
their own with beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one’s own. However, our
NT Theory of Mind = Everyone thinks like me, except when shown to be otherwise.
If we accept the premise of Neurotypical Disorder, this NT Theory of Mind makes sense.
It explains the presumption that we can actually understand each other because we are roughly
the same. The Autistic Theory of Mind explains why AS individuals seemingly do not
demonstrate empathy…because they operate under the assumption that they literally cannot
know how another person thinks or feels. Another way to understand this AS/NT difference is
that the locus of the autistic person is the individual, whereas NTs are much more group oriented.
To put in another way, autistic individuals are egocentric…centered around self. And from an
NT perspective, egocentrism is a negative trait, as is self-ish. This self vs. group orientation is a
fundamental difference. It helps explain why, for example, NTs view AS apparent lack of
view NTs apparent “obsession with conformity” to be strange. These two world views are
TYRANNY OF NEURONORMATIVITY 9
for them to experience the same phenomena in a remotely similar or comparable way.
But we need not lament the impossibility of crossing this chasm, for as Peters (1999)
reminds us, “The ideal communication, as Adorno said, would be a condition in which the only
thing that survives the disgraceful fact of our mutual difference is the delight that difference
makes possible” (p. 31). I now turn to a discussion of the delights that these differences might
Instead, the academic conversation primarily resides in Communication Disorder and Disability
journals with some notable exceptions in interdisciplinary journals such as Biosocieties and
Social & Cultural Geography. As stated in the introduction, I contend that communication
scholars in all sub-disciplines have much to learn and much to contribute to this important,
interdisciplinary conversation. Drawing upon on what has been discussed in this paper thus far
and my own exploration into the literature, I want to draw readers’ attention to some key issues
Health and Human Development, n.d.). People of color are also a minority in the AS population.
To my knowledge, there are no statistics regarding AS and social class, sexual orientation, or
physical disability. Some scholars in the disability literature address multicultural issues in
autism diagnosis and intervention (Dyches, Wilder, Sudweeks, Obiakor, & Algozzine, 2004;
TYRANNY OF NEURONORMATIVITY 10
Mandell et al., 2009). There are also a few who move beyond the clinical perspective to examine
the gendered nature of AS discourses (Davidson, 2007; Jack, 2011). But largely, the issue of
theorized. As AS awareness and attention grows, we must pay particular attention to how our
discourse may serve to further marginalize those already in the shadows of public discussion.
“always confronted by foreigners”(p. 240). That metaphor takes on a whole new meaning in
AS/NT communication, as illustrated in the following quote from a High Functioning Autistic
male:
Imagine that you are in a different country and you are physically unable speak their
language, other than some very basic phrases. And imagine that whenever you try speak
to the natives, they burst out in random emotions, and you have no idea what you said to
make them react that way. The consequence of this will be that you become cautious and
try to cope by memorizing what phrases to use or not to use in certain situations
(essentially a mental instruction manual) and this in turn makes it very tiring when you
have difficulty interpreting non-verbal, contextual, and emotional cues. As a result of not
“inappropriately” and provoke a negative response which causes further anxiety. Not only do
logical, and direct which is often perceived as intentionally rude and is off-putting to NTs
TYRANNY OF NEURONORMATIVITY 11
(Müller et al., 2008). Not understanding and being misunderstood leads to feelings of frustration
and isolation (Jordan, 2010). Can current theoretical frameworks of interpersonal and/or
intercultural communication help understand and address these AS/NT communication issues?
Or are such theories too grounded in an NT orientation to account for this incommensurable
practices?
Representing Autism
these media portrayals perpetuate stereotypes? Or do they help raise awareness and normalize
AS? Media scholars might look at the media effects of these representations on AS and NT
individuals. While critical cultural scholars might examine how AS is articulated through
historical, cultural, and social forces in ways that empower or constrain AS individuals. By
contextually situating AS, these questions can generate a more complex understanding of how
All discourse surrounding AS ---clinical, activist, policy, news coverage --- is both
political and rhetorical. In fact, the mere existence of something called “Autism” is a rhetorical
TYRANNY OF NEURONORMATIVITY 12
move, as is evidenced in the recent debate about changes to the DSM in which some individuals
might have ‘lost’ their AS diagnosis and insurance coverage for interventions (Arehart-Treichel,
2010). President Obama recently appointed Ari Ne’eman, the first ‘openly Autistic’ Presidential
appointee, to the National Council on Disability. Ne’eman is also an extremely vocal autism self-
advocacy activist. Interestingly, his appointment was initially blocked by an unknown senate
member, yet later passed. What these tidbits, along with the identity politics debate discussed
earlier in this essay, highlight are the multiple political agendas that are in tension with each
other in the public and political spheres. How these debates play out has real material and social
impact in individuals and therefore merit attention and scrutiny by communication scholars.
My intention with this section of the essay was to highlight some key questions, gaps,
and issues where communication scholars can make critical contributions. There is plenty of
room for post-positivists, interpretivists, critical, and post-modern scholars. In fact, I would
argue that research from all these paradigmatic orientations is necessary to delve into the
adapting to and respecting “autistic differences in perception and processing” and other ways of
theories, we also need to consider our data collection methods. For example, questionnaires need
to be written in ways that are as devoid of ambiguity as possible. All terms and scales must be
clearly explained or AS individuals will have great difficulty understanding and responding. I
would recommend having an AS read it through before employing it in research, because what
seems clear to an NT might not to an AS. Research interviews, focus groups, and field
observations also need to be reconsidered since such methods involve interpreting non-verbal
communication. NT researchers might misread AS non-verbals such as lack of eye contact, just
TYRANNY OF NEURONORMATIVITY 13
as the AS participants (or researchers) might not understand the researcher’s non-verbal cues.
Now that I have convinced communication scholars of the important work they must do and
highlighted some challenges they might face, I conclude this essay with a vision for what might
In his widely cited online article “On our own terms: Emerging autistic culture” (Dekker,
n.d.), Martijn Dekker, a well-known autism self-advocacy advocate, describes a vision for an
autistic-friendly society. The basis of this society is the individual rather than the group. Respect
for the individual suggests the elimination of social pressure to conform to any group norms and
flexible work arrangements so that each worker can work in the way that suits him or her best. It
means education plans that are tailored to students’ abilities and interests. Dekker further
incompatible with the concept of respect for individual”; autistics have difficulties functioning in
groups; and finally, most autistic people cannot tolerate being controlled. He suggests looking to
the internet as a model for a “distributed, redundant network” for potential new approaches to
organizing. While Dekker’s vision might not seem utopic to everyone, I find a strong appeal in
How might it be if we NTs were freed from socially normed expectations? What if we
did not spend our lives trying to fit in or gain social approval? What if we actually said what we
wanted to say in clear and unambiguous terms rather than cloak our thoughts and feelings in
socially proscribed niceties? What if we were truly able to avoid judging others? It seems that we
have a lot to gain by relinquishing our neurotypical privilege and learning from other ways of
References
Development.
http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=113657
Baker, D. L. (2011). The politics of neurodiversity : why public policy matters. Boulder, Colo.:
Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Cohen, D. J. (1993). Understanding other minds :
Davidson, J. (2007). “In a World of her Own…”: Re-presenting alienation and emotion in the
lives and writings of women with autism. Gender, Place and Culture, 14(6), 659–677.
Davidson, J. (2008). Autistic culture online: virtual communication and cultural expression on
Dekker, M. (n.d.). On our own terms: Emerging Autistic Culture. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from
http://web.archive.org/web/20040216032556/http://trainland.tripod.com/martijn.htm
Dyches, T. T., Wilder, L. K., Sudweeks, R. R., Obiakor, F. E., & Algozzine, B. (2004).
211–222.
Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical. (2002, March 18). Parody. Retrieved April
Jack, J. (2011). “ The Extreme Male Brain?” Incrementum and the Rhetorical Gendering of
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolution (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Mandell, D. S., Wiggins, L. D., Carpenter, L. A., Daniels, J., DiGuiseppi, C., Durkin, M. S.,
Giarelli, E., et al. (2009). Racial/ethnic disparities in the identification of children with
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (n.d.). Autism overview: What we
know.
National Intitutes of Health. (n.d.). Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs). Eunice Kennedy
Shriver: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. Retrieved April 9,
Ortega, F. (2009). The cerebral subject and the challenge of neurodiversity. BioSocieties, 4(4),
425–445.
Peters, J. D. (1999). Speaking into the air : a history of the idea of communication. Chicago:
Silberman, S. (2010, October 6). First autistic presidential appointee speaks out. Wired. Online
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/exclusive-ari-neeman-qa/all/1
Striphas (Eds.), Communication as-- : perspectives on theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Schopler & G. B. Mesibov (Eds.), High-functioning individuals with autism (p. 129–72).