I can be a bit of a theory nerd, sometimes.  I like considering how different systems of thought develop in relation to one another.

One of these theoretical questions that interests me is the emergence of the neurodiversity paradigm.  This idea, developed by Judy Singer in the late 1990s, is a radical departure from most of previous human thought.  The neurodiversity paradigm portrays the diversity of individual human minds and brains as something to be valued, whereas most human societies have tended to emphasize the need for social cohesion, not diversity.

Indeed, it is somewhat unclear whether most human societies have even had a concept of a stable human self.  Without clearly understanding that individuals differ from one another in meaningful ways, it’s hard to see how we could ever come up with the idea that we should value these kinds of individual differences.  Baumeister (1987) argues that the modern Western notion of the self developed only recently and gradually.[1]  Baumeister suggests that people rarely engaged in introspection until the Protestant Revolution.  However, Puritan religious dogma dictated that only a select few people were worthy of being saved by God; the rest were doomed by God to eternal punishment.  Furthermore, the Puritans believed in predestination: they claimed that God had already chosen those who would be spared.  Apart from raising some difficult moral questions,[2] this led Puritans to obsess over the question of whether they were among those destined for salvation or damnation.  They examined their selves in the hopes of finding evidence of righteousness, and gradually increased their understanding of the self, as well as their capacities for self-deception.  By the 19^th Century, people were speaking about personality in a recognizable way.

I’ll admit that this account is fairly speculative, but regardless of the precise details, changes in human literature do suggest that we started to spend a lot more time thinking about personality during the modern period.

As we moved into the modern period, society shifted in other ways as well.  Most human societies have been much more collectivistic than our own, which is extraordinarily individualistic.  In collectivistic societies, the well-being and cohesion of groups (e.g., families, communities) are valued above individuals within those groups.

I believe that collectivism is clearly at odds with neurodiversity.  In collectivistic societies, social harmony is often understood to imply normative ideals of behaviour.  We can see this, for example, in the following quotation from one of the leading works of Confucian philosophy (Confucius [or Zisi], ~500 BCE):

“What Heaven has conferred is called The Nature; an accordance with this nature is called The Path of duty; the regulation of this path is called Instruction. The path may not be left for an instant. If it could be left, it would not be the path.”

Thus, we can see that philosophical system is based upon the idea that there is one right way of doing everything, and we are never permitted to deviate from this prescribed path.  Moreover, this path is not defined by fundamental, universal moral precepts.  Instead of dictums like those of today’s utilitarian philosophers, who tell us maximize the well-being of the greatest number of people, we see many principles that reflect social customs.  For example, we are told that “[t]he superior man does what is proper to the station in which he is; he does not desire to go beyond this.”  Filial piety, or “the skillful carrying out of the wishes of our forefathers, and the skillful carrying forward of their undertakings,” is praised.  Even energy and body posture are subject to critique: we are told that the superior man “stands erect in the middle, without inclining to either side.”

While I have chosen a Chinese philosopher to express these principles, and while it is generally recognized that China is more collectivistic than the West today, it is important to recognize that temporal variation in collectivism is almost certainly greater than spatial variation.  Before the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, I don’t know that medieval European culture particularly stood out from the rest of the world in levels of individualism or collectivism.  However, since the Enlightenment, levels of collectivism have fallen even as levels of individualism have increased, and while this process began in the West, it seems to be underway in virtually all cultures across the world.

This has created a context in which the neurodiversity paradigm is thinkable – in which it is possible to entertain the notion that there is value in a diversity of neurotypes – even though this might have been unthinkable in previous societies.

Individualism got a major boost, at the expense of collectivism, after the emergence of capitalism and the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.  Economically, philosophers of the classical liberal tradition argued that the best way of organizing society was to allow self-serving individuals to operate unconstrained within a free market.

This economic form of liberalism gradually expanded into the social sphere.  In articulating their ideal of economic individualism, the liberals set themselves against traditional social hierarchies and social norms.  The writings of J.S. Mill stand out in this vein.  While he had somewhat antiquated views on colonialism, he spoke out in favour of women’s rights.  Furthermore, Mill (1859/2015) articulated a set of ideas which anticipate the neurodiversity paradigm by almost a century and a half:

“It is not by wearing down into uniformity all that is individual in themselves, but by cultivating it and calling it forth, within the limits imposed by the rights and interests of others, that human beings become a noble and beautiful object of contemplation; and as the works partake the character of those who do them, by the same process human life also becomes rich, diversified, and animating, furnishing more abundant aliment to high thoughts and elevating feelings, and strengthening the tie which binds every individual to the race, by making the race infinitely better worth belonging to.”

Thus, we can clearly see the roots of neurodiversity in the individualism of the liberal tradition.  Mill here explicitly argues that the cultivation of diversity and individuality can make humanity better and stronger – and this is perhaps the central tenet of the neurodiversity paradigm.

Indeed, the social liberalism that emerged from this tradition has encouraged a number of movements that aimed to challenge traditional social norms and power relations.  For example, the feminist movement and LGBTQIA activism are all socially liberal.  Even the social model of disability, an important ancestor of the neurodiversity paradigm, is “social” insofar as it criticizes and aims to change society, whereas previous understandings of disability had left society’s role unexamined and focused on the need to change individuals.  Thus, where previous models of disability reflect a collectivistic decision to make individuals adjust to society, the social model made the individualistic decision to demand that society should adjust to individuals.

However, this relationship between individualism and neurodiversity is perhaps somewhat ironic, because I believe the individualism of our society has in some ways made autistic people’s daily lives more difficult.  The capitalist system which is so intimately related to the liberal tradition has created an extraordinarily complicated, competitive economic world in which autistic people struggle to get jobs.  The liberal individualism that now pervades our society has created a situation in which friendships are flexible and competitive, and in which autistic people struggle to form and preserve friendships.

Still, I remain an optimist: I hope that further advances towards individualism will allow the idea of neurodiversity to spread further, and I hope as well that the growth of an autistic community will emerge as a positive consequence of our individualistic society.

This has all been a very abstract discussion, but if there are other theory nerds out there, I am interested in what you think of these ideas.  Can anyone think of ways to reconcile collectivism and neurodiversity, or does neurodiversity indeed depend upon an individualistic outlook, as I feel forced to conclude?  Any other thoughts?  Please add comments!

Footnotes

[1] The “Know thyself” of the ancient Greeks may have had a very narrow meaning, referring less to understanding one’s personality and more to understanding one’s talents and capacities.  More generally, a great deal of ancient and medieval literature suggests that people were viewed primarily in terms of their social ranks and roles, as well as their actions and deeds, not their personalities.

While autism and neurodiversity are fundamentally intertwined with questions of ability and disability, they go further in suggesting the existence of distinct and stable neurotypes.  I would argue that the notion of a neurotype depends upon a recognition of the existence of stable personality characteristics (the fact that psychiatry chooses to classify personality “disorders” differently from neurodevelopmental “disorders” is irrelevant).

[2] I hope readers will agree with me when I say that the idea that a divine agent could both predestine someone to commit evil, and then sentence that person to be eternally punished for the evil, is deeply abhorrent.  The divine agent would clearly be responsible for the evil, not the poor helpless person with no free will.

References

Baumeister, R. F. (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychological review of historical research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 163-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.163

Confucius [or Zisi]. (~500 BCE). The doctrine of the mean. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/doctmean.html

Mill, J. S. (2015). On liberty. In On liberty, utilitarianism and other essays (pp. 1-112). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Original work published 1859