Abstract
This essay sets out some of the fundamental dilemmas that neurodiversity faces in political, philosophical and onto-epistemological terms, whose fundamental call consists in interrupting the regulatory premises of classical humanism that explain the composition of human nature from an oppressive position and, consequently, significant damage to the individuation of multiple socio-educational groups. In this way, a more general definition of difference is crystallized without essentializing or privileging any specific form of alterity, disarticulating the study of human nature through the marker that imputes the ideology of normality. The political aspect of the term is played out beyond hegemony, which can be read in terms of a common vision that does not deny the political. Rather, it works outside the conventional regulations that are inserted in the understanding of politics, that is, a set of gears that permeate the institutional relations of power. Part of the political conflict that the neurodiversity movement faces, finds its genesis in the very consciousness of liberalism, that is, a political force that materializes a discourse incapable of taking multiplicity as the ontological principle of everything that exists. Neurodiversity has the power to intervene in the specificity of social formations in which various kinds of complex social inequalities proliferate, co-opting the experience of certain groups. The method used is a critical documentary review, making it possible to examine multiple theoretical perspectives, linked to a specialized field of study, which, on this occasion, reflects on the deepest epistemological, political and philosophical dilemmas that permeate the movement to defend the rights of autistic people indexed as neurodiversity. The work concludes by observing that the fact of studying neurodiversity academically as a method allows sensitizing oneself to the co-presence of multiple strands of thought and (post)critical discourses that open up paths to imagine new possibilities. This is not a proposition that can be explained by itself. The work of the section referring to the ‘method’ is none other than to expand and/or diversify a network of interreference that take place through various knowledge projects, discourses, subjects, territories, etc.
References
Bailin, A. (6 de junio de 2019). Clearing up some misconceptions about neurodiversity. Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/clearingup-some-misconceptions-about-neurodiversity/
Barnes, C. (2003). Disability Studies: what’s the point? https://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/library/Barnes-Whats-the-point.pdf
Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 248-254.
Barton, L. (Comp.). (2010). Discapacidad y sociedad. Morata.
Bertilsdotter, H., Chown, N. y Stenning, A. (2020). Neurodiversity Studies. A New Critical Paradigm. Routledge.
Borland, J. y James, S. (1999). The learning experience of students with disabilities in higher education. A case study of a UK university. Disability & Society, 14(1), 85-101.
Burman, E. (2022). Child as method and/as childism: Conceptual–political intersections and tensions. Children & Society, 37, 1021-1036.
Burman, E. (2023). Child as Method as a Resource to Interrogate Crises, Antagonisms and Agencies. Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 22, 1313-1328.
Chen, K. (2010). Asia as method. Toward Deimperialization. Duke University Press.
Dwyer, P. (2022). The Neurodiversity Approach(es): What Are They and What Do They Mean for Researchers? Human Development, 66(2), 73-92.
Gardner, H. (2013). Estructuras de la mente. La teoría de las inteligencias múltiples. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Hill, P. (2019). Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory. Duke University Press.
Kapp, S. K. (2020). Introduction. En S. K. Kapp (Ed.), Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: Stories from the frontline (pp. 1-19). Palgrave MacMillan.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press. Lorenz, T., Brüning, C. R., Waltz, M. y Fabri, M. (2020). Not a stranger to the dark: discrimination against autistic students and employees. Advances in Autism, 7(1), 60-72. https://doi.org/10.1108/AIA-10-2019-0036
Mouffe, Ch. (2007). En torno a lo político. FCE.
Ne’eman, A. y Pellicano, E. (2022). Neurodiversity as Politics. Human Development, 66(2), 149-157.
Ocampo, A. (2021). Inclusion as a knowledge project in resistance. Espacio I+D, Innovación más Desarrollo, 10(26), 27-67.
Ocampo, A. (2022). Epistemología de la educación inclusiva y sus condiciones de producción. Revista Educação em Foco, 27, 1-22.
Ocampo, A. (2023). Epistemología de la educación inclusiva o la pregunta por sus dilemas de definición. Escritos, 31(66), 144-161.
Russell, G. (2020). Critiques of the neurodiversity movement. En S. K. Kapp (Ed.), Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: Stories from the frontline (pp. 287-303).Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_21
Sandoval, Ch. (2002). Methodology of the oppressed. University of Minnesota Press.
Schmitt, C. (1932). El concepto de lo político. Alianza Editorial.
Singer, J. (1998). A personal exploration of a new social movement based on ‘neurological diversity’. University of Technology de Sydney.
Söder, M. (1989). Prejudice or ambivalence? Attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Disability, Handicap and Society, 5(3), 227-255.
Thomas, G. y Loxley, A. (2007). Deconstruir la educación especial para construir la inclusiva. Narcea.
Viksnens, R. (2017). Chow, Rey. Postcolonial Studies. https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/postcolonialstudies/2014/06/19/522/
Walker, N. (2014). Neurodiversity: Some basic terms & definitions. Neuroqueer. https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/
Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities. Autonomous Press.
0
0
PDF (Español)
FLIP
