What is Neurotypical Anyway?
- Jenni Ventura
- Mar 18
- 5 min read
Updated: Mar 20
"Do you identify as neurodivergent? Please tick one box only."
Truth time. . . How many of us have ticked the neurodivergent box, and then felt guilty because we didn’t have an official diagnosis? How many of us have hovered over that question for an uncomfortably long time, or ticked and unticked the box repeatedly before finally making a snap decision and submitting the form before we could change our minds again?
Language around neurodiversity, along with the acceptance of its existence, is becoming more widespread, and much more familiar than it was some years ago. This is surely a positive thing, as we acknowledge that some brains are different, no less valuable, no less important, and not automatically assumed to be less intelligent.
We have seen a wave of media attention on ADHD, as the estimated figures of prevalence have risen massively in recent years. And with this, a wave of articles arguing either that this is a trend, yet another symptom of generation snowflake, or explaining the scientific and societal reasons behind it. The (simplified) narrative here is that cases of ADHD have not risen in themselves, they were likely always there, but the way it is diagnosed, and the awareness of the condition has led to a huge rise in diagnoses. The same happened with Autism in the late 90s, with the huge rise in diagnoses in young children unfortunately coinciding with the introduction of the MMR vaccine, leading to the (since disproved) theory that the vaccine itself was a cause of autism.
The 10 year Deciphering Developmental Disorders published findings in 2023 that revealed 60 new developmental disorders that collectively affect 1 in 17 people. These kinds of discoveries make me wonder; what else is out there that we don’t know about yet, or haven’t found a name for? We are limited by what science has chosen to investigate, to label and make “real”. The families who had children with unidentified disorders were living that story before science made it “official”. Their lives may now be massively improved, as they are understood, supported, and hopefully receiving the necessary care.
The term neurotypical was originally coined by autistic people, who wanted to change the perception of the autism spectrum as a disorder, as to them it was fundamental to their identity. They wanted to highlight that these were different brains, not lesser brains. The term soon proved useful to people with other brain variations – now it is generally accepted to include ADHD, Dyslexia, Developmental Co-ordination Disorder (formerly dyspraxia), and Tourette’s Syndrome, all labels that at some point didn’t exist.
How many more varieties of brain do we need to discover, before we start to question if we are missing the point entirely? Is the term neurotypical still a useful one?
One term I’ve never heard is body typical. It is widely accepted that there is no “normal” body. We are all different shapes, sizes, weights, BMI’s, with infinite differences in our genetic make-up. Some people tan, some people burn, we buy cleanser, moisturiser, shampoo for our different skin and hair types. Some people run fast, others are strong, others are dextrous. So why do we limit our understanding of different brains to assume that a “normal” exists amongst us? Or, perhaps worse, that the majority of us are “typical?” Or is it being the majority that makes it typical – also questionable given that 1 in 5 people are currently identifying as neurodivergent, with diagnoses on the rise.
I am NOT challenging the use of the word neurodivergent as a useful and positively empowering term for people that identify with it. This language is an essential part of removing stigma and changing perceptions where medical models label brains as “disordered”. Of course, the argument around labels themselves is ever present - for some people, labels are an essential way to receive the understanding and support that they need, particularly in education and employment. Other people resent the preoccupancy with placing people in boxes, believing it leads to segregation in society, and people being separated as “other”. I believe that both things are true. I love the idea that we could have a society where labels are not needed, where everyone is accepted, loved, respected and valued as an individual. Everyone’s needs are met, education and employment are equitable and everyone’s voices are heard. Sadly, I don’t think we are anywhere close to this yet. In the meantime, labels are probably our best bet at achieving that understanding and educating people about difference.
My point here is to challenge the concept that there is a “typical” brain which is somehow more respectable, acceptable, and more powerful than the neurodivergent ones.
What about the people who resonate with neurodivergent traits, who struggle in life and seek support, only to find that they do not have a diagnosis of a recognised condition. Does that make them neurotypical? Does that make the barriers they face invalid? Are they supposed to return home relieved to find out that they are not neurodivergent as they suspected, and reinvigorated to face their struggles head on in the knowledge that they must be “normal”? Who are these gatekeepers of the title of neurodivergence, and are they reliable, flawless and unbiased?
Remember when we called everyone who wasn’t white caucasian an ethnic minority? Until it was pointed out that if we are going to lump all the other races together in one label, it should at the very least acknowledge that they are, in fact, the majority. (I am simplifying here, bear with me. . ) So, how much is about true minority and how much is about power?
What if what we currently understand as neurotypical is a state occupied by a small minority, who are more inclined to assume power? What if the truth is that actually, in time, we will come to recognise that the majority of society are neurodiverse, in all the possible ways that the term could grow to encompass?
Why are memes about particular quirks and eccentricities of behaviour and thought so popular? Because most people identify with some of the traits on the neurodivergence spectrum, and we all want validation for our little pieces of neurodiversity. We all want to feel “accepted” if not “normal.” We want to know that we are not alone in our eccentricities. And the hundreds and thousands of views of such memes prove that indeed we are not.
Can we accept that neuro-identity is an enormous spectrum, of which we each occupy certain segments?
Diversity of all kinds is finally being pushed up the agenda. People are identifying with new labels and categories that can be liberating, can offer paths to understanding, support, and acceptance. We still have a long way to go. . but what if we start by accepting difference as, well, not different? Could we, just perhaps, assume that all brains are unique, and we all have a responsibility to adapt to each other’s needs, as best as we each can manage?
References:
Neurotribes by Steve Silberman
Photo by Greg Rakozy on Unsplash
This was a really good read, and your last sentence nails it: let's embrace diversity and adapt to include all.
I'd like to add a historical perspective to the mix. In our "modern" society, with factory-farmed humans in increasingly urbanised environments, where governments use the economy and employment as key measures of success, with city workers confined to structured and restrictive office environments, combined with huge reliance and near-veneration of the written word to underpin and record business transactions, do we label traits as neurodivergent "disorders" simply because they don’t mesh with the demands of modern life - like sitting still for long periods, focusing on abstract tasks, adhering to rigid schedules, and processing information by reading and writing?
For…