Introduction

This essay explores sites of reciprocal relationships between intersectionality theory and the neurodiversity paradigm.1 The essay addresses the tenets of the two concepts at the theoretical level by drawing upon a conversation that currently occurs regarding the application of these concepts. The overarching argument is that exploring the core principles of both intersectionality theory and the neurodiversity paradigm in relation to one another can strengthen the theoretical aims of each approach and better reflect the ways their applications attend to one another in practice.

I begin by briefly tracing intersectionality theory's emergence and development. This history serves to highlight shifts in the way the concept has been conceptualized and utilized, and is returned to in the discussion of intersectionality in relation to the neurodiversity paradigm. Next, the neurodiversity paradigm is introduced. Here, implications relating to intersectionality theory, when considering the neurodiversity paradigm and neurodivergent2 identities, are explored. Similarly, the neurodiversity paradigm is considered with particular attention given to intersectionality's tenets and "operationalization"—the way a theoretical concept is put to use or applied in context. Finally, the essay concludes with some of the ways that principles of intersectionality and neurodiversity are already being applied within social justice movements. The Black Lives Matter movement3 and the Autistic Self Advocacy Network are highlighted as sites where principles of intersectionality and neurodiversity are drawn upon to further the larger mission of bringing greater awareness of and an end to police violence. These networks are sites toward which scholars and academics who are interested in building more robust and dynamic relationships between intersectionality and neurodiversity at the level of theory could look. The overarching goal of the essay is to further dialogues centering upon theoretical development and coalition-building between scholars who work with each of the two concepts and those who employ them in practice.

Tracing the Trajectory: Intersectionality Theory's Emergence and Developments

While genealogies of intersectionality are customary in feminist scholarship, this essay begins by tracing intersectionality's history specifically to highlight ways that intersectionality converses with the neurodiversity paradigm. Intersectionality's dynamic early emergence among activists and scholars of color has been overlooked in some works that deploy an intersectional methodology, paradigm4 , and/or framework as a result of the tendency to start with Kimberlé Crenshaw's "coining" of the term. While Crenshaw articulated the term and solidified some of the unique principles that intersectionality theory relies upon today in her influential writing that demonstrated the interconnectedness of sex-based and race-based oppressions under the law (1989, 1991), the concept was circulating among various scholars and activists of color decades before, which Crenshaw herself acknowledges (1991, p. 1243).

Perhaps one of the earliest recorded articulations of intersectionality was made by Sojourner Truth in her now infamous "Ain't I A Woman?" speech at the women's rights convention in 1851 (as cited in hooks, 1981). Later, around the time of feminism's so-called "second-wave," articulations of the multiple burdens that black women negotiated as the result of the combined discrimination based on both their race and their gender began emerging in activist dialogues pertaining to rights-based claims. Frances Beale's classic essay "Double Jeopardy: To be Black and Female" (1970) described the myriad oppressions faced by black women and called white feminists to task by challenging the women's movement to be anti-racist, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist. While she recognized that discriminations on the basis of gender and race often involved economic disadvantages and exploitation, this understanding was not incorporated into her explanation of the jeopardy faced by black women. Beginning at the end of the 1970s and continuing through the 1980s, black feminist scholars and activists began exploring in earnest the interactive nature of a multiplicity of identities, in particular, race, gender, social class, and sexuality.5 These thinkers explored multiple forms of oppression and the ways systems are structured to support and enhance power differentials through what Patricia Hill Collins would later term the "matrix of domination" (2000). Deborah King (1988) made a tremendous intervention by delineating how oppressions of any form are not additive—as a "double" or "triple" model implies—but instead are intersecting. King proposes "multiple jeopardy" as a more apt descriptor of black women's experiences. She explains that "[t]he modifier 'multiple' refers not only to several, simultaneous oppressions but to the multiplicative relationships among them as well" (p. 297). In other words, each form of oppression is intensified by the other, transforming the discrete experiences, as well as the cumulative experience, of an individual or group.

Since its emergence, intersectionality theory has faced scrutiny. Criticisms of intersectionality typically focus on the difficulty of either applying the concept to research methods or negotiating the multiplicative nature of identities. Leah Warner (2008) articulates a popular critique that intersectionality "provides no usable methods for research, particularly quantitative research as conventionally conducted in social and behavioral sciences" because of the trickiness involved in "expanding the scope of research methods to include multiple dimensions of social identities" (p. 455)6 . While a number of researchers acknowledge the difficulty in deploying intersectionality in these contexts, they nevertheless creatively utilize intersectionality as a methodology to complement the established quantitative and/or qualitative measurements in their fields.7 The second criticism, involving the difficulty of negotiating the multiplicity of identities, stems from the fear that such multiplicity will result in "an infinite regress that dissolves groups into individuals" (Young, 2004, p. 721), serving only to accentuate differences within or between groups. While such an approach could, conceivably, be the result of engaging with intersectionality, it certainly is not the inevitable result. Dorothy Roberts and Sujatha Jesudason (2013), for example, demonstrate how utilizing intersectionality as a tool for coalition-building can help create alliances between apparently distinct activist-identity groups.8

In light of such criticisms, intersectionality scholars have built a more robust and reflexive conception of intersectionality. Contemporary intersectional frameworks situate identities within geographic, historic, and sociocultural moments (Hulko, 2009), recognize that identities are influenced by cultural interactions that can simultaneously reinforce and trouble identity demarcations (Fernandes, 2003), and acknowledge that identity categories have variation within them (Smooth, 2013). In its present usage, intersectionality champions organizing and theorizing within and across a range of identity categories, not in spite of them.

While intersectionality has been taken up by a variety of feminist researchers and critical theorists across disciplinary divides to be used as a theoretical framework, research paradigm, method, and methodology, it is "at its core concerned with questions of power and inequities" and contains some aspects that "are so fundamental that without these elements intersectionality becomes unrecognizable and incapable of doing the political work it was designed to do" (Smooth, 2013, p. 12-13). Wendy Smooth posits that intersectionality is premised upon five tenets: a) an understanding that social identity categories and power systems shift over time and space; b) a recognition that privilege and marginalization can coexist within individuals and groups; c) a commitment to social justice; d) a dedication to anti-essentialism and the variation within categories; and e) an investment in the multiplicative nature of identity(ies) (p. 21).

Intersectionality lays the groundwork for an analysis of subject formation and situation, group interactions within social structures, and systemic oppression. Far from the claim that "the concept does not include a consideration of how these categories work and intersect in the lived experiences of concrete subjects" (Staunces, 2003, p. 101), intersectionality foregrounds the ways in which identities intersect for individuals and groups. Intersectionality can help "make sense of the experiences of people who find themselves living at the intersections of social identities … the systems that give meaning to the categories," and "at the societal level intersectionality seeks to make visible the systems of oppression that maintain power hierarchies and organize society while also providing a means to theorize experience at the individual level" (Smooth, p. 11). By interrogating how various identity categories are embedded within individual, interactional, and institional dimensions of society,9 the discrete and collective weight of these categories become salient.

Charting Relations: Enter the Neurodiversity Movement

Intersectionality is critical for Disability Studies scholars and activists because both intersectionality theory and Disability Studies seek to make the less-visible or under-recognized, visible and because both seek to call into question privileges and disadvantages that have historically resulted in some individual and collective bodyminds being marginalized. In this way, both seek to explore what Valerie Purdie-Vaughns and Richard Eibach (2008) term "intersectional invisibility," or the ways people with multiply marginalized identities are often not recognized as members of their constituencies and, consequently, face larger challenges associated with "misrepresentation, marginalization, and disempowerment" (p. 383). Intersectionality and Disability Studies approaches often seek to uncover intersectional invisibility by exploring (in)visibility at the individual, group, and/or systems level to uncover the complex ways power circulates at all levels of interaction throughout culture and society.14

The philosophy that underlies the neurodiversity paradigm draws upon principles of both intersectionality and Disability Studies approaches by applying "essential principles of society's embrace of diversity in ethnicity, nationality, religion, and sexuality orientation toward people embodying diverse human neurology" (Robertson & Ne'eman, 2008, para. 9). Journalist Harvey Blume is credited with inaugurating the term "neurodiversity" in his 1998 review of the Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical, a "parody of the institutes and journals devoted to the study of autism" (Blume, para. 2). From the beginning, conceptions of neurodiversity and neurodivergent identities have been intimately intertwined with autistic identities, though never conflated to be one-and-the-same. While the broader neurodiversity movement and autistic self-advocacy communities and rights movement15 developed alongside one another, autistic people16 are not the only members of the neurodivergent community—others include those with dyslexia, epilepsy, and traumatic brain injury, to inexhaustibly list but a few. There is no singular way of being neurodivergent, despite the overarching "group label." Instead, those within the broader community commonly identify in some neurological way other than "neurotypical," or the style of neurocognitive functioning that falls within a particular culture's dominant social standards (Kearns Miller, 2003, p. 258).

Perspectives put forth by those who uphold the neurodiversity paradigm align with the tenets of intersectionality theory, even if writers on the subject do not address intersectionality explicitly. Scott Michael Robertson (2010), for example, writes that the neurodiversity perspective "has been influenced by societal diversity in ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, handedness, and sexual orientation" (Shifting Perspectives on Autism section, para. 4) and that "difficulties experienced by autistic people are always contextual" because "living in a society designed for non-autistic people contributes to, and exacerbates, many of the daily living challenges that autistic people experience" (Shifting Perspectives on Autism section, para. 7). Nick Walker (2014) similarly notes, "The idea that there is one 'normal' or 'healthy' type of brain or mind, or one 'right' style of neurocognitive functioning, is a culturally constructed fiction, no more valid … than the idea that there is one 'normal' or 'right' ethnicity, gender, or culture" (Neurodiversity Paradigm section para. 3). Walker further explains:

The social dynamics that manifest in regard to neurodiversity are similar to the social dynamics that manifest in regard to other forms of human diversity (e.g., diversity of ethnicity, gender, or culture). These dynamics include dynamics of social power inequalities, and also the dynamics by which diversity, when embraced, acts as a source of creative potential (Neurodiversity Paradigm section para. 4).

These are just two examples of the ways that intersectionality circulates within discussions of neurodivergence, even when it is not referenced by name.

Returning to the central tenets of intersectionality put forth by Smooth, it is evident that the neurodiversity perspective utilized by Robertson and Walker address the notion that social identity categories and power systems are geographically, historically, and culturally specific. Additionally, the authors recognize that privilege and marginalization can co-exist for individuals and within groups. The third tenet, a commitment to social justice, is inherent within the neurodiversity paradigm because its foundational premise is to create more recognition, acceptance, and celebration of diverse neurotypes. The fourth principle, the dedication to viewing identity categories through an anti-essentialist perspective, is present in both the neurodiversity paradigm, as well as in statements about those who identify as neurodivergent, such as "the great variability among the autistic population" in terms of desires, modes of communication, sensory sensitivities, and interests (Sinclair, 2010, Spontaneous Interaction section, para. 11).

The central critical work pertaining to the multiplicative nature of identities—the final tenet of intersectionality—of neurodivergent identities largely exists within activist communities, personal blogs, and social interactions, as opposed to published academic work. Interestingly, one example of this kind of explicit discussion of the multiplicative nature of identities in relation to neurodiversity is found on Twitter. For example, in preparation for the 2016 Society for Disability Studies conference, a group of disability scholars and activists initiated conversations to consider intersectionality in relation to neurodiversity. Dr. Jessica M. F. Hughes organized a panel submission (in which the author participated17) and directed a series of monthly Twitter discussions designed to facilitate conversations among panelists, organization members, and community members, leading up to the conference panel.18 Although the conference was, unfortunately, cancelled in February 2016, Twitter discussions continued under the hashtag #intersectionalND (extending beyond the initial planned six months through the time of this writing). The conversation's continuation is a testament of the enthusiasm for the type of intersectional, multiplicative dialogue the monthly topics sought to initiate. An example of a discussion question posted by Ntrsxnl Neurodvrsty (@ntrsxnlND, moderated by @JessMFH) reads: "Q2: In your own exp, when/how have dimension(s) of difference (race, gender, etc.) intersected with your neurotype? #intersectionalND." There are numerous responses to each month's prompts, with contributors self-identifying as autistic, neurodivergent, neuroqueer, multiply disabled, allies of the community, and more. As this Twitter chat series demonstrates, activists and self-advocates express the ways multiple marginalized identities converge with their various neurodivergent identities to complicate their negotiations with systems of power and conceptions of identity (both self and group). While this multiplicity is increasingly foregrounded in cyberspace and community action-based groups, it is important for those involved in the explication and application of these perspectives to consider this type of complexity when addressing neurodivergent peoples' experiences to better capture the inherent multiplicative, not additive, nature of identities.

Those deploying intersectionality theory could similarly look toward neurodiversity (both the paradigm-at-large, as well as community-based enactments) as places where commonalities and differences are acknowledged, but nevertheless allow for shared oppressions to come to the fore. While a number of intersectionality scholars have come to some consensus about the utility of drawing upon some form of strategic essentialism (Spivak, 1993)19 in theorizing and organizing, neurodivergence writ large and the autistic rights movement, in particular, might be looked toward as potential models where strong communal ties are continuing to form. These relationships recognize the variations inherent within neurodivergence and maintain strong ties because of this recognition, not in spite of it. Exploring the ways strategic essentialism is employed within the neurodivergent community and autistic rights movement could serve as a way not to divisively silo diverse individuals within the community—focusing on differences within or between groups—but to generate more dynamic conversations about identities and experiences within the context of intersectionality. These conversations could be informed, for example, by gender identity, sexuality, socio-economic class, race and/or ethnicity, military and/or veteran status, geographic location, parental status, communicative methods, etc., as the discussion of the multiplicative nature of identity encourages.

This essay argues that principles of intersectionality and the deployments of the neurodiversity paradigm converse with one another in potentially unexpected, but nevertheless productive ways, which serve to ultimately strengthen the applications of both. While this dialogue is occurring in practice, the paradigms have been under-explored in relation to one another at the level of theory development. Space should remain available, however, for Women's/Gender/Feminist Studies scholars, as well as Disability Studies scholars, to explore tensions that may arise when attempting to integrate these perspectives because probing such sites of tension may prove equally productive. This essay does not imply a harmonious marriage of the two perspectives; instead, it asks the question of how the two frameworks might complement and complicate one another—potentially generating elasticity between the two or allowing for the emergence of a yet unexplored framework.

Applications of Intersectionality and Neurodiversity

Until this point, this essay has largely been situated within a theoretical realm, addressing specific principles of both intersectionality and neurodiversity. The focus now turns toward select examples of practical applications of the theories to highlight some of the ways that this interactive relationship exists in practice. Doing so supports the claim that intersectionality and neurodiversity could draw upon one another explicitly to strengthen the aims of scholars and activists to utilize each by allowing for greater reflection and engagement with each paradigm's central principles. Academics could turn toward the coalitional movements discussed below and analyze their convergences and potential divergences, in order to gain more insight into how the concepts and their applications are related, and then return to the theoretical parameters and aims outlined within each paradigm.

Various forms of organizing have and are occurring within the larger neurodivergent community. This section examines specifically the organizing taking place within the autistic rights movement because of the long and dynamic relationship between it and neurodiversity as a concept and movement. Myriad forms of organizing, such as community-building actions, self-advocacy initiatives, autistic culture, and off- and on-line social interactions have contributed to the overarching autistic rights movement. Broadly, the movement promotes social acceptance and celebration of autistic ways of being and notions of personhood. A detailed historical overview of the development of the various groups, projects, communities, and conferences that have emerged within and contributed to the robust growth of the autistic rights movement (for example, Autism Network International, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Autism Acceptance Project, Autreat, and AutCom) is beyond the scope of this essay, but is well-documented elsewhere.20 Collectively, the autistic rights movement has contributed to an ideological shift away from viewing autism through a deficit model approach to that of acceptance and positivity, promoted by the neurodiversity paradigm (Robertson 2010). This change in perspective undergirds much of the activism within the neurodiversity movement, particularly among autistic communities.

Conclusion

While the application of intersectionality theory and the neurodiversity paradigm have been largely successful within activist contexts, the way the concepts take account of one another within academic contexts at the level of theory remains a site for future exploration. Schalk provides a definition of "coalitional theory" as "theories which are inclusive of multiple minority groups without being limited to those people who occupy multiply minoritized positions" (para. 2) and cites Chandra Talpade Mohanty (2003) defining solidarity as "mutuality, accountability, and the recognition of common interests as the basis for relationships among diverse communities… who have chosen to work and fight together. Diversity and difference are central values here—to be acknowledged and respected, not erased in the building of alliances (p. 7, as cited in Schalk). My call is for academics—scholars, researchers, writers, and teachers—who employ intersectionality and/or neurodiversity paradigms to deeply consider the solidarity that is clearly occurring within activist realms and explore the ways that more robust coalitional understanding between intersectionality and neurodiversity theory could be achieved. Identifying the ways that intersectionality and neurodiversity can complement and complicate one another might create a new, transformative framework yet to be articulated. Such a framework might encourage a multiplicity of values and viewpoints by supporting greater critical, historicized, and elastic understandings of concepts such as "diversity," "inclusion," and "identity."

Knowledge is not always about burrowing down within a particular concept, narrowing it further to find greater specificity; instead, it is often about allowing concepts to cross disciplinary boundaries, which breathes new life into them during the process. Encouraging intersectionality theory and the neurodiversity paradigm to converse with one another explicitly at a theoretical level has enormous potential for innovative interventions, reciprocal developments, and transformative futures. From such a dialogue, space is created for more dynamic and concrete future relationships to emerge.