Early modern texts reveal neurodivergence as adaptive divergence, not deficit: rethinking neurodiversity through historical and cross-cultural lenses
Original framing: “What early modern literature can teach us about neurodivergence” — The Conversation - Global
Historically, neurodivergent traits were often valorized in pre-industrial societies, from the ecstatic poets of ancient Greece to the 'fools' of medieval courts who spoke uncomfortable truths. The shift toward pathologisation began with the Enlightenment’s emphasis on rationalism and industrial capitalism’s need for standardized labor. The 18th-century rise of asylums and later the DSM reflected this shift, framing deviation as illness rather than difference. This historical arc reveals how diagnostic categories are tools of social control, not neutral science.
The original headline’s focus on early modern literature as a tool for understanding neurodivergence inadvertently reinforces the biomedical-industrial complex’s narrative by framing difference as a historical curiosity rather than a systemic issue.
In reality, neurodivergence has always been a cross-cultural adaptive strategy, from Māori *tohunga* to Yoruba *àwúre*, yet colonial psychiatry erased these frameworks to justify standardization under capitalism. The trickster’s lens reveals how diagnostic categories invert social norms, pathologizing traits that once signaled spiritual or artistic genius. Future solutions must center decolonial frameworks, neurodivergent-led systems design, and the dismantling of pharmaceutical hegemony—otherwise, we risk co-opting neurodiversity into new forms of control. The synthesis demands a radical reorientation: neurodivergence is not a problem to solve but a resource to integrate, if we dare to listen to the voices history has silenced.