Everyone has ADHD or something today! Get a grip and move on!

When after weeks of sleepless nights, you finally find courage and you share with you manager/teacher that you have ADHD, and you hear:

"Everyone has it these days! Everyone has something, if not ADHD, it will be Autism, if not Autism, there would be other things, like a phobia of this or that, or some other emotional baggage that grown-ip people used to keep to themselves! We all suffer from something, are all troubled equally, so why make such a big deal? We spend too much time on talking about thus stuff than we do work, and we come to work to do work, yes? so.....what's the problem?"

When your first attempt at disclosing your neurodiversity meets this kind of response, you will not try again again or a long time, maybe never...If you have neurodivergent sensitivity, you have probably heard it many times already, whether in your own workplace, home, or in the media. Did you notice: the more awareness of neurodiversity through education, research, and policy, the more resistance to it too. Why is it so?

The quotation above is created from thousands of examples from the media accounts and personal accounts shared with myself. In response to my own disclosure, I have heard them in different versions from family members, friends and co-workers too many times. I have tried to inform, explain, provide evidence, and current research, and it got worse....Why?

There are a few layers of the resistance to the 'neurodiversity and equity agenda' and they need to be unpacked separately, as not every response stems from the same core. They all create the layers of the same onion, called FEAR, even if not recognised as such. However, to understand where such negative sentiments come from, we need address them and transform them into a more equitable approach.

1: Cultural context

Speaking about personal challenges of the mind and especially of someone's mental health is still regarded as a taboo and a breach of privacy in many cultural contexts. There are cultures (not only in terms of countries but also regions, classes, groups, and collectives) where such challenges are perceived as a weakness, while people who have them are stigmatised (openly or tacitly) as a weak link. In some professional contexts, especially where the legislation is not in place, their needs are not vocalised, or lobbied, they get ignored or even 'laid off'. In my national Easter European context, neurodiversity did not exist in the wider public discourse until Covid, but there has been a lot of support provided to 'special' children at schools since 1960s through the medical approach, where children with Autism (as the dominant diagnosis for most learning difficulties then) were recognised as those with 'special needs' and delegated to 'special schools' and treated by experts. It was impossible to envision that children and young people, who succeeded academically and did not cause serious trouble, could be in that group. With my PhD and two MAs I definitely wasn't in that group until 2020. Sometimes I do try to picture what my personal life and career would be like if I had the diagnosis and support when I was young. More frequently, I blame myself that I did not know about it in time to help my own daughters who also got diagnosed late as academically successful adults, while their grammar schools did not have a clue. Despite the significant efforts of contemporary psychologists and emerging EDI/DEI teams, a public acceptance of neurodiversity as a protected characteristic remains limited, and legislation in this area is still in its early stages of development.

It would be fascinating and groundbreaking to learn how specific contexts affect the perception and response to neurodiversities across different cultures. Call for ideas -open ??

2. Family context: you complete

Impacted by the bigger cultural context (1) in which a family is immersed. Lots of other influences add to it: religious, economic, political, and the family's own history. In my case, the hardworking family did not have time for such 'trivial issues' as our survival was at stake! (always with the exclamation mark). Whenever I try to speak to family members about my ADHD/PTSD/RSD, they change the topic of the conversation into something less personal and less apologetic. The latter is more of an issue than the former. They can take in and step in without any questions asked into all personal hardship, like an illness, finance, family responsibilities and shifts, or sharing resources, but not sharing "EXCUSES". Any kind of insight into a psychological, cognitive, or emotional challenge is treated with suspicion and is regarded as an excuse and a potential attempt at avoiding higher responsibilities. Those higher responsibilities are usually rather vague but in essence mean: 'less concentration on yourself and more on your duties'. A CALL to DUTY, again, stems from the wider culture (1) and centuries of pressure imposed on the collective (usually the pressure was politically induced, e.g. fighting the enemy, fighting for independence, and in parallel: fighting to feed the family), where an individual (especially a female one, let alone a and a psychologically 'weak link') meant less than a group and did not have much currency.

3. Shift:

With the today's shift observed in the global North: from the post-war collective identity to the 21st c individualistic personality, the value of personal (often seen as feminine) introspection into one's mind, wellbeing and health is more appreciated. But in some cultures/groups/families an engagement with one's mind and emotions is still considered to be a sign of selfishness, laziness, or general 'flakeness' which 'people with the moral spine' (traditionally moulded by patriarchy) should avoid. Not surpassingly, the global movement, promoting shared responsibility, spirituality, sustainability, and eco-living, has been enforcing counter values since 1960s which gain more and more public appreciation today, especially among younger generations.

4. Professional context

Different professions have their own approaches to staff's wellbeing and individual needs, however, they are all affected by cultural (1) and family (2) contexts. In other words, however hard professional policies try to protect and support neurodivergent staff, there will be always echoes (and prejudice) emerging from 1 and 2 that shape direct interactions between people in the workplace. The more guidance from national legislations professions receive, the more standardised implementation we can expect. However, the national policies and laws are usually lobbied by individuals and groups of activists operating on the grassroots level. So we can also expect that personal, family, and cultural (political/economic) contexts will somehow influence the development of formal legislations. It is a cycle which feeds itself (1-2-3-4 and then again 4-3-2-1).

4. Equalities

In the last five decades, the equality movement has brought about not only the awareness of what equal rights are, but also the the demands and expectations from citizens. The equality awareness in the so called 'democratic countries' is already so well established that all citizens know, even at the early years of education, that they have a right to be treated with equal respect and appreciation for who they are, no matter of their class or ethnic origin, cultural background, age, gender, ability (and all other pertaining characteristics recognised as protected or not across different states). In fact, in the recognition of different individual needs, we have already moved from equality to equity, where all individuals are treated no just equally but with the full recognition of their very specific needs. Although on the surface, this rightful progress is applauded and widely applied to policies and strategies, it has also triggered resistance: "if all individual needs must be recognised and supported, who can guarantee that 'my needs' will be noticed and handled on par with the needs of others"?

5. The crux of the matter: the competition of 'equally different' rights and needs

If we are all told that our needs and rights matter equally and will be supported accordingly and in line with professional equity, we may start thinking: so how will I make sure that I get what I rightfully need in terms of support and recognition, especially in comparison with others whose rights and needs are prioritised by national legislation and public opinion? What if I do not qualify to be treated 'equally differently'? What if I go unnoticed, under appreciated, unrecognised? There is a primordial fear that one may not survive in the face of the evaluative markers certifying who is 'worthy' support and recognition first. And what if I don't have any of these markers? What is going to happen to me? The equality-driven equity of treatment is to guarantee that everyone will get what they need, but, of course, there is a queue and there are limited resources, so some criteria of selection for: 'who will be supported first' - must be applied. And who will be making such decisions? How will the criteria be defined? Of course, to be rightfully in line with the time and place, the selection needs to consider the contexts of the current pressures (1,2,3,4), so the equity model will be always somehow theoretical and purist. But it is the best we have for now and most citizens concede to follow it (theoretically), even if they do not feel personally supported by it. We love to hear that "nobody gets left behind", but we also fear one day it can be us! Knowing, that as an individual - "I'- may not fit the criteria for the 'not being left behind' model, I will try to (subconsciously?) sabotage this model and dilute its added value by saying:

"everyone has something today" "it is another excuse to gain something", 'we all matter equally" "why special treatment?"

Whether it is in the family, work, school, community, or state, the competition of rights and needs continues. And it cannot be left behind without due attention and deeper analysis of the causes and symptoms.

While we offer continuously unequal diligence, space and support to those who need equity the most, we also need to make an effort to understand the voice of those who do feel left behind, especially those who we reject or who we distrust. If equity is to become more than a theoretical model, it needs to be grounded in the commitment to understanding each other in the face of irreconcilable differences among us.