courierjude's reviews
107 reviews

I enjoyed this book for the value and perspectives of an early-modern neurodiversity activist. Concepts such as neurodiversity, neurodivergence, and to a lesser extent neuroqueerness have mestastized so as to be divorced from their original intent and design. To hear the context and purpose behind their creation from the voices that spawned them is invaluable. 

I don't have too many quibbles with the craft of this book. It's clearly written by an academic, which is not a problem, occasional superfluous abstraction and denseness genre convention. The structure of pieces new and old with new context was interesting and mostly well executed. There were some moments of almost word-for-word repetition throughout that occurred several times. It felt geared to be read in assigned chunks, each section or chapter trying to hold all the necessary context. I understand that would be helpful in academic settings, but in a complete read-through can be frustrating.

My issues with craft are fairly trifling to my general consensus and can easily be handwaved away. My main thoughts are with content. Depathologization is an important and worthwhile cause that I was happy to read about. It's a decoupling journey I've had to go on as a formerly-institutionalized neurodivergent person, and I found the general conceit of these heresies to be empowering and thoughtful. 

I understand the follies of the medical system and the medical model of disability well, and am not a staunch advocate of them. I still however struggle with the social model of disability as someone who is both autistic and visibly physically disabled. Disability justice and studies are an academic and personal interest of mine and I frequently come up against this wall in discussions with mostly able-bodied and sometimes differently-disabled peers. 

My main issue with the social model of disability is that access needs necessarily conflict. Dim lights for a sensory-sensitive person create obstacles for low-vision people. Service dogs for one might activate life-threatening allergies for another. So on and so forth. There are several proposed solutions to conflicting access needs in a later chapter which are appreciated. This negotiation is valuable and should be attempted. My primary point is that the social model of disability feels similar in futility to  exercises like the state of nature. It imagines a utopia free from prejudice and physical and social barriers where disability is eliminated. This is exclusionary and almost feels vaguely abelist. There is an implication that behind every disabled person is someone able to contribute and produce capital (a similar critique to person-first language with which I agree.) Also, when discussed, the social model rarely feels cross-disability and doesn't center those most impacted. 

I was born with disabilities that cause joint instability and severe degradation and pain. While ramps for my chair are necessary, while a designated power chair would be life-changing, I would still experience disabling pain. Autistic people who are overstimulated by sunlight, by cold, by heat, by the feel of blood in their veins, would still experience disabling distress. 

I don't deny some validity to the social model. There are ways in which if other needs are met, the temperature turns down and even symptoms that wouldn't be directly affected become more manageable. It also imagines a more accepting, understanding, and shame-void culture that would be helpful to all who would reside. But I can never see it as the magnum opus in disability justice, only an instructive thought-exercise.

I understand that my perspective is colored by my own vast experience with pathologized neurodivergence, but I feel that the neurodivergence of trauma doesn't make me less worthy or not healed enough to have merit. 

I don't rant to put one off of this book, Miller's coverage of the neurodiversity paradigm marks and would hopefully incite an extremely important shift in a reader's perspective - whether neurodivergent themselves or a clinician or student. I found the chapters on stimming and the chapters centering specifically on neuroqueerness notably important. It is a seminal and important text.

I wonder if there can be a space to land after a metabolizing of neurodiversity, of depathologization, that doesn't necessarily seem afraid of disability. We can fight for access, we can fight for the end of institutional abuse, for equal effort on the part of neurotypicals, for free embodiment. We can fight beyond to meet global access needs like food, housing, and income security. I see these as necessary goals. They feel more important to me than the loftiness of a model that when discussed, always feels more concerned with its wild paradigm shift than with lived reality. Some neurodivergents are not disabled, as Miller notes, but some are. Some will continue to be despite any model. And that is ok. I am, and that's neutral. It's a neutral word that is also a reclamation (autistic person, disabled person.) Part of the fabric of neurodiversity is that it includes a bunch of cool strengths as well, but strengths that do not assimilate me and others into non-disability.