Dave Harris

NB now a book with the same name! It got a £20k advance from Princeton.They gave the advance to charity

This claims to offer 'sociological reflections' using 'dialogical knowledge production and collaborative auto ethnography' [they had a chat]. They show how race and neurotypical hegemony affect black neurodiverse scholars and exposes them to double jeopardies faced with the 'hegemonic practices of the white Western academy' they want to discuss 'value, meritocracy and elitism', and expose and dismantle 'neurotypical hegemony'. Existing research and anecdotes 'points to a pattern of general whitening of how we understand neurodiversity in academia' but they claimed that 'as black neurodivergence sociologists, we'll see things they'll never see' [apparently a modified Oasis title]

Singer in 1996 coined the term neurodiversity and wanted to discuss its politics, but this got little support. We know that certain scholars are subordinated and excluded [citing Bhambhra]. Sociology provided tools for Singer but did not offer her an intellectual home. They want to go further and emphasise 'negative racialization and neurotypical hegemony' operating in tandem. Arday has already established [!]  that academic research and writing 'structurally marginalise a plethora of students and staff'[usual references]. Here the focus is on 'neurotypical notions of academic excellence'(1300)

They use a hybrid of black feminism cultural and disability studies and drawn their own experiences, drawing on their sociological imaginations as in Mills. This makes it interdisciplinary and capable of generating a holistic overview, though disciplined within sociologies of social justice, fitting it to racialised class and gender structures [lots of references to Arday and to.Lewis] Black feminist thought connects theory to praxis.[no problems then] 

They swing between their own lived experiences and sociological processing, showing that the personal is the political and so is the academic. In particular they are aware that professional and academic processes can replicate oppressive structures so sociology needs to take seriously the ways in which structurally produced power dynamics are intensified when it comes to knowledge production, how black subjectivities are 'facilitated by the racialization of neurotypical hegemony' (1301).

First they need to discuss the politics of neurodiversity and its racialization.  1995 disabilities discrimination did provide a legal obligation to deliver a reasonable adjustment and this did help, including shifts in HEI's, and flexible ways of learning. Reasonable adjustment means ways of learning and communicating must be impacted by neurodivergence threats and this draws attention in turn to past exclusion. There is still an obstacle to a socially just education system provided by University cultures which are 'founded and grounded in racist, classist and ablest exclusions in the names of hierarchy of excellence' (1302).

For Madriaga et al (2011) this is 'continuous institutional endorsement of eugenics', a culture of normalcy embedded in 'everyday eugenics' comparing ideal students to defective or impaired ones. Others have stressed the embedded negative attitudes towards neurological difference and the need for a critical pedagogy rejecting 'normative ideation is of academic excellence'.

The politics of neurodiversity have become a 'potential proxy for neoliberal policy agendas' in universities, for example where autism advocacy becomes a commodity to be bought and sold in the marketplace and in research [citing Runswick-Cole 2014]. The politics of representation in neoliberal universities can make things worse and perpetuate notions of sameness and difference, discourses of the valued subject, discourses that individualise neurodivergence people even though they are exonerated from reproach [('blame the brain') — Runswick–Cole again]. Emphasis on the extraordinary capabilities of the neurodiverse can even commodify neurological difference [autists and programming].

We must not be distracted from interrogating 'the omnipresence of neurotypical hegemony'. But we must also see how feasible it is to develop socially just frameworks, given that people already in academia are peers, reviewers colleagues and managers, requiring a [suitable] politics.

Neurotypical hegemony is being increasingly exposed and critiqued, especially its connection to 'the social functioning of anti-blackness'. (1303) Pickens (2019) is one such scholar, addressing the coproduction of racism and ablism, through discussion of black madness as opposed to enlightenment rationality. Radulski is another [the reference here is to Hall et al 1978]. There are 'two key structural processes' producing double jeopardy.

The pervasiveness of neurotypicality draws on the notion of hegemony in both Gramsci and Hall — it is '(socially) produced within civil society… key social institutions (media, education and religion) become integral to the formation of people's identities, which ultimately contribute to the conditioning of ideological power that regulates ideas, values and social norms' [no references, sounds like Hall in its typical combination of Gramsci and Althusser — or a summary of Hall]. Hegemony socially sanctions neurotypical positions 'with the consent of those who accomplish, as well as those who are denied, this most tolerated status' [reference to Hall 1986 — but I found a reference to 'most tolerated status' in the book, and a Google search attributed it to a Bristol University piece on FGM]. '...civil society routinely consents to normative iterations of disability and neurodiversity', apparently drawing on Leonardo and Broderick (2011) for support. neurotypical hegemony also marginalises white neurodivergents, although it is heightened for negatively racialised people. (1304).

Black intellectual thought has been excluded within the professional culture of sociology [citing Arday et al. 2021], as Bhambra and Holmwoo argue for Dubois. Black feminist practice and theory has also been unsighted. This has begun to be addressed [including good old Leonardo and Broderick, and Coard]. Fierros and Conroy (2002) refer to a double jeopardy where people experience 'the toxic fusion of racism and neurotypical hegemony'.[]Fand C could be in L and B]

They have drawn on black feminist dialogue and critique, and embraced different ways of knowing, fully compliant with their need to develop a more inclusive scholarly space. They draw on bell hooks on intellectual openness and dissent, and this links with exclusionary forms of communicating knowledge 'that we stress can be unwelcoming to neurodiverse scholars' (1305).

They began collating and recording discussions in 2022, based on their friendship and common experiences [although Lewis has ADHD, dyspraxia and dyslexia, and Arday has 'hybrid autism, Asperger's syndrome and global development delay and is also dyslexic'. They notice first whitening of understandings of neurodiversity [L and B again], which they think is associated with 'eugenic normalcy associated with academic excellence' combined with a 'structurally sponsored hierarchy that is both racialised and classed'. This is particularly marginalised black neurodivergence people via discourses that 'centre myths about intelligence, deviance and meritocracy'. They have to counter these as a result of their methodology.

They draw on useful dialogical based on black feminist methodologies and practices [citing some collective or other, and Parnell – Perry and Michel 2020]. They claim that their own experiences can lead to a structurally focused analysis of how neurotypicality becomes 'institutionalised and synonymous with academic excellence' (1306). They do this by censoring the voices of those excluded, which they see as the result of the elitist nature of their disciplines even among researchers.

They use Collins on 'dialogical knowledge production' grounded in Mills, which tries to incorporate the social world history and biography in conversation, but in an engaged all. They drew on recorded conversations and WhatsApp voice notes, drawing on their experiences as both students and staff, focusing on the racialization of neurotypical hegemony. They were friends founded on their work together in something called Leading Routes . they also partly used auto ethnographic methods, citing Boylorn and Orbe And Denzin, and Toyosaki (2018) who talked about the experience of racism in a predominantly white university and its emotional toll, completed with surviving and maintaining hope. After all they did carry on employment as scholars. They hope this will help other neurodiverse staff and students to relate, to compile multiple narratives about race and neurodiversity

Adaptation: masking and camouflaging

Both masking and camouflaging are supposed to be common for autism, although masking is often linked with stress and mental illness. Only one of them is autistic but it became fundamental to the dialogue is a part of a general adaptation [followed by a quote from Arday which includes 'for example, 90% of the time I don't know what's going on but I am having to pretend I know what's going on. And I don't understand what people are saying. So because of the processing delay takes me ages to understand. But normally I understand about two days after the meeting… What restricts me professionally speaking is that I just can't be myself' [it is this inability to be himself that seems to be particularly painful, supported by a quote that constructing identities is hard work — for everybody surely?]. A quote from Lewis says she needs space to be different. Arday further complains that workplaces are not modified for people like him. These reflections are 'poignant' (1308) and they were struck by how little consideration is given to their needs. Some departments had generated more inclusive cultures but overall 'many everyday procedures in academic life writing, teaching and researching, conversation, reviewing, being reviewed and collaborating) continue to be shaped by neurotypical hegemony' [precious].

Racialization of adaptation and double jeopardy

There are also processes of anti-blackness that systematically exclude and co-opt them despite superficial inclusiveness. There are concessions but these 'deplete our mental health' and are accompanied by precarious employment [reference to Arday inevitably]. There may be negotiation with racist micro-aggressions. A black scholar, Walker, has produced a Twitter thread to record the experiences of black academics in the UK in these matters. Their own recordings made them 'instantly aware of how our position as employed sociologists interacted with race. Race is omnipresent, and neurodiversity is 'continually racialised.

The extract from interviews just has Arday confirming this, that blackness and autism together make things feel impossible. The comment says that this led to a 'cathartic discussion' of the ways in which their ordinary ways of doing and becoming sociologists was racialised, how the existing literature on race and whiteness could unravel their own neurodiversity and how it was racialised. This was inspired by Radulski (2022 this time), who analysed an activist social media campaign ' #Takethemaskoff' and analysed 58 tweets about masking and camouflaging, and highlighted one tweet, black autistic individual who saw the infractions of whiteness and neurotypical hegemony and struggle to be accepted [1!].

Another Arday comment referred to code switching, the need to perform a version of blackness 'they want us to do — and this comes from everyone not just white people. And then we actually have to make sure we understand what is happening… And the key thing here is the time and energy takes us. Race and neurodiversity together is exhausting [again]' (1309) code switching refers to meeting the expectations of the dominant white majority, performing racialised dialects, for example, and this 'sharply resembles' Fanon on black skins and white masks, or Dubois on double consciousness [and others].

They don't want to add neurodiversity as a form of triple consciousness, but rather to argue that double consciousness is intensified by neurodiversity [there is a bit of a weasel here on 1310, arguing on the one hand race neurodiversity and the Academy constitutes a specific field and requires specific negotiations, but also involves a lack of structural and interpersonal modification?].

It's a matter of personal violations in double consciousness which had deepened by racism and able-ism, double jeopardy again, especially in the academic arena where there is 'the ideal scholar'. The extracted quote from Lewis bangs on about authenticity again. Arday talks about the white lens through which autism or neurodiversity is perceived, and how White people with autism are better accepted.

The commentary says this shows how academic excellence is racialised and whitened [this actually pretty feeble evidence] and L and B and others are quoted again for support. [The same pattern of assertion, recognising concepts in the feeble evidence that is quoted, and then using the evidence to circle back and strengthen the concepts]

Overall they argue that their reflective dialogue did show the dominance of whiteness and the marginalisation of neurodivergence, how racialised hierarchies of subordination were generated, how Black people also have to navigate neurotypical hegemony, and that this is a legacy of black people being presented as educationally subnormal. The whole thing is 'a neglected topic of enquiry'(1311)

There are implications for what counts as valuable scholarship. Skaggs has argued that value when applied to race gender and class means a notion of the proper thing to do and who is the proper person to do it. Madriaga is cited again to argue that academic excellence is racialised classed and ablist. Institutional cultures reproduce what counts as proper academic knowledge and this is narrowly framed. Lewis quote picks this up in connection with citation and peer review, and how neurodivergence people don't like being reviewed your critique because it is especially intense. She is not being fragile, she says but 'I literally have a different brain to you. I feel things in a much different way' [blaming the brain here then].

Critique and peer review thus favour neurotypical hegemony. Another Lewis quote reinforces this and argues for 'a complete revisit of the reviewing process. Not to make it easier but to make the process more accustomed to neurodivergence. This could relate to care, timings, communication, delivery — ultimately things that would improve the experience for everyone' (1312).

This is part of the need for intellectual fluidity, not anti-intellectualism. Both authors have pursued academic credibility including undertaking peer reviewed scholarship. They are not just personally sensitive, but their concerns are related to social justice. Lewis's concerns are particularly important in the neoliberal university which offers insecure and uncertain employment, and unpleasant form of auditing, which some have even seen as boasting [well you should know!]. 'Unprofessional peer review' can be cruel and have disproportionate effects, these can be intensified for black neurodivergents. An Arday quote reduces this to the persons who create the subjects and disciplines and who are not 'empathetic of neurodiversity': most academics are not aware of the problems and so the only answer is more representation on editorial boards and within publishing, because present incumbents 'are not considerate of how our brains work differently' [again]. There is just lack of sympathy for black neurodivergents. Lewis asserts as much in another quote.

Value assigned to black scholarship remains inadequate, exclusion is especially pertinent in sociology. There is little reason currently for these exclusions and sociology should know better [Leading Routes is cited again]. Scholarly positions depend on publishing, research grants, inclusion on editorial boards and senior leadership positions 'in return for security of employment' [citing himself 2022 — doesn't apply to him of course] instead there should be a proper engagement with social justice policies, as both authors have argued. The myth of meritocracy is central. A quote from Arday says this, confusing 'the myth of meritocracy and elitism'. He says some neurodivergent people 'have been beaten by elitism before they've even gotten universi' (1313) [poignant again]. People who have had a linear engagement with educational institutions are more favoured [Arday 2019]. Failure is intensified by racialization. Notions of academic excellence set by meritocratic principles and elitist principles become a twofold challenge both neurodivergent black scholars and neurotypical ones are excluded, with the former experiencing double jeopardy. The lack of linear academic progression is the problem. Black neurodivergence scholars need to be understood as heterogeneous scholars 'against the backdrop of the combined history of structured eugenics and racism' (1314)

On embracing neurodiversity

They have linked their lived experiences to their understanding of the structures of neurotypical hegemony [they agree with themselves] and have been able to ask how on earth they got through [badly needs answering] The significance of everyday life is important, adapting and also becoming more creative in their scholarship [that's one way of putting it]. How have they adapted?

A quote from Lewis stresses being able 'to communicate about society in creative ways'. Arday has created some new spaces for neurodiversity and ways of subverting the elitist norms of the Academy. He stresses in particular the pod cast Surviving Society.

Both think they have been the exception rather than the rule. They have been a broad coalition including Leading Routes, the Runnymede trust, and the Ubele Initiative which have democratised knowledge and styles of teaching. Arday particularly likes Surviving Society, and Lewis agrees and says its shock value is that it subverts the way things have been done before. They have used broadcasting scripting video, radio public engagement and educational consultancy, apparently and this has led to positive career progression. They acknowledge they are the lucky few and they must carry on questioning. Arday says there is no need to be celebratory yet, and both authors remain sceptical about existing engagements with neurodiversity, especially those that do not counter neurotypical privilege.

In conclusion this is been the sociological informed intervention about the social reproduction of elitist measures of success in academia. They demonstrated the personal toll and how it is magnified by neurodiversity. They face the everyday challenge of double jeopardy and they constantly feel a lack of appreciation of neurodiversity and how it becomes racialised. They feel required to suppress there are neurodivergence traits. They need further interventions to explore our sociological imaginations and dialogical knowledge production.

Shilliam ( 2014) in a blog called Black Academia in Britain argued that ordinariness as Black scholars shold be stressed,and they should demand to be comfortable. Black neurodiversity must also be included in all Black liberation movements. Black neurodivergents should be valued for their unique perceptions

Refs

Hall, S. (1986). Gramsci’s relevance for the study of race and ethnicity. The Journal of Communication Inquiry, 10(2), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/019685998601000202

Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state, and law and order. Macmillan

Leading Routes. (n.d.). Leading Routes. https://leadingroutes.org/

1320 The Sociological Review 71(6)

Leonardo, Z., & Broderick, A. A. (2011). Smartness as property: A critical exploration of inter-sections between whiteness and disability studies. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2206–

2232. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111301008

Madriaga, M. (2007). Enduring disablism: Students with dyslexia and their pathways into UK higher education and beyond. Disability & Society, 22(4), 399–412. https://doi.

org/10.1080/09687590701337942

Madriaga, M., Hanson, K., Kay, H., & Walker, A. (2011). Marking out normalcy and disability in higher education, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32(6), 901–920. https://doi.org/

10.1080/01425692.2011.596380

Radulski, E. M. (2022). Conceptualising autistic masking, camouflaging and neurotypical privilege: Towards a minority group model of neurodiversity. Human Development, 66, 1–15.

https://doi.org/10.1159/000524122

The Ubele Initiative. (n.d.). The Ubele Initiative. www.ubele.org