Art by - Harshita Gupta

Are you able to identify this neurodivergent condition: a person who is finely tuned to details, who regulates and expresses emotions in their respective ways, who has a unique way of showering empathy or hyper-empathy, who can effectively focus on topics of their choice, and who is good at planning and organizing? No? Let us try again: a person who is frequently lost in their own world, exhibits disruptive bodily motions or sounds, is unable to relate to others and has low empathy, has obsessive and narrow hobbies, and lacks communication skills. I'm sure you all guessed at the second chance, and yes, I'm referring to Autism.

I can understand where the confusion comes from; the second description is how the ICD-10 portrays autistic people, whereas the first is how they perceive themselves. The interesting thing to note is that not only is autism as a neurotype being pathologized, but it is also being interpreted through the inconvenience an autistic person may cause to those around them. Stimming is relaxing to them, but it is disruptive and strange to you; their special interests bring them joy, but they appear obsessive and restrictive to you; they don't express empathy in the same way you do, so you assume they don't have any, and if they do lack the ability to empathize and relate, you associate it with being less human. The unfortunate thing is that autism is merely one of the neurodivergent disorders that are assessed based on how aversive the "symptoms" are to the average neurotypical observer. A person with BPD is “manipulative,” a person with Schizoid is “withdrawn,” and so on. All of these adjectives are always in reference to the observer and rarely highlight the neurotype's inner mechanisms.

It would be one thing if it was an issue pertaining to laypeople, but going over the DSM-V but looking at the DSM-V criteria for any neurodivergent condition will show you that the academic and professional worlds are no different when it comes to portraying neurodivergent persons. This has various ramifications. One, how a professional perceives a neurodivergent condition will undeniably influence how they attempt to intervene, and if the disorder is evaluated based on how uncomfortable the people in the client's vicinity are, the intervention will do little more than coax the client into concealing their symptoms. Two, the terminology employed in academia has the potential to affect professionals and instill deep-seated prejudices in them, putting their clients, who may be living with a neurodivergent condition, at risk. Three, the world's efforts to end the stigma surrounding mental health will be futile unless the language and criteria used to describe and evaluate neurodivergence are changed and made more neurodiversity friendly, as well as centered on neurodivergent people rather than their neurotypical observers.

To bring about positive changes in the field of mental health, the first and foremost action should be geared towards changing the perception of neurotypical conditions as the “default”. Once neurodiversity is no longer viewed as an outlier, acceptance will rise consequently and the battle being fought by mental health advocates like Tvamev Sahayak against the stigma of it will finally have been won. We surely look forward to the day everyone’s needs are regarded as significant without being measured in-terms of how “disturbing” they may seem to others.