Quiet Neurodivergence, Spoons, and the Sociology of Invisible Struggle

Posted on by
Class, cultural capital, and social reproduction Everyday life as performance Method Power, institutions, and why policy never means what it says

Many neurodivergent people occupy a paradoxical position. They appear to cope, sometimes impressively, with the demands of contemporary institutions. They meet deadlines, attend meetings, manage teaching loads and caring responsibilities, and may be seen by colleagues as calm, reliable and “low drama”. Yet they do so through intensive, often hidden work: masking neurodivergent traits, micromanaging sensory environments, and rationing finite energy in ways that leave little room for rest or spontaneity. Periods of apparent competence are punctuated by burnout, shutdown or collapse that can seem inexplicable to outsiders.

I use quiet neurodivergence to name this pattern of visible coping and invisible cost. The term does not denote a diagnostic category. Rather, it points to a configuration in which neurodivergent people are able to meet, or exceed, institutional expectations, but only through sustained masking and high energy expenditure that others rarely perceive. “Quiet” here refers to social recognition – or its absence – not to the intensity of distress.

This article situates quiet neurodivergence within a set of overlapping literatures: the neurodiversity paradigm (den Houting, 2019; Singer, 2016; Walker, 2014), research on stigma and passing (Goffman, 1963; Link & Phelan, 2001), work on invisible disability and chronic illness (Moser, 2000; Shakespeare, 2006; Titchkosky, 2011), and empirical studies of autistic camouflaging and its mental-health consequences (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Field et al., 2024; Hull et al., 2017; Livingston et al., 2019). It also engages with critical scholarship on the politics of neurodiversity (Ellis, 2023; Hughes, 2021; Jones, 2024; Ortega, 2009) and with analyses of ableism in academia (Brown & Leigh, 2018, 2020; Price, 2011).

The discussion is grounded in a specific institutional field: higher education. Existing work suggests that disabled and chronically ill academics are structurally present yet culturally absent in institutional discourse, occupying what Brown and Leigh (2018) call a position of simultaneous hyper-visibility and invisibility under academic ableism. Price (2011) similarly shows how universities valorise particular forms of “productive” mental functioning while rendering others unintelligible or suspect. Against this backdrop, my research and professional experience in universities repeatedly reveal that, once space is created to discuss neurodivergence safely, a surprising number of academic colleagues disclose diagnoses or self-identifications that have remained largely invisible in formal settings.

I write this from a positioned standpoint: I would describe myself as quietly neurodivergent. My own academic trajectory has been shaped by forms of masking, perfectionism and energy management that were initially framed as personal quirks or strengths. Only later did I come to recognise them as responses to neuronormative institutional demands. This reflexive positioning is not presented as data, but as a reminder that the concepts developed here are not neutral: they emerge from, and feed back into, lived experience.

Alongside this conceptual work, a separate public-facing project, Quietly Neurodivergent, is being developed as a low-spoons resource that translates some of these insights into everyday strategies. The focus of the present article, however, is analytic: to ask what quiet neurodivergence reveals about how institutions organise energy, recognition and responsibility, and to interrogate the limits and risks of the term itself.

Neurodiversity, Neuronormativity, and Their Critics

The concept of neurodiversity originated in autistic self-advocacy and disability activism in the 1990s (Singer, 2016). It designates the fact that human nervous systems vary – there is no single “normal brain” – and draws an explicit analogy with biodiversity (den Houting, 2019; Walker, 2014). Within this paradigm, neurodivergent people are those whose cognitive styles, sensory profiles or modes of communication diverge from a socially constructed neurotypical norm, such as autistic, ADHD, dyslexic or dyspraxic people (den Houting, 2019; Walker & Raymaker, 2021).

This shift from pathology to diversity has been widely welcomed. It aligns with social and interactional models of disability that locate disablement in barriers, exclusions and normative expectations rather than in individual deficits (Oliver, 1990; Shakespeare, 2006; Titchkosky, 2011). It also opens space for autistic and other neurodivergent people to claim identities, cultures and communities on their own terms.

However, critical disability scholars have noted that the neurodiversity paradigm has uneven uptake and uneven benefits. Ortega (2009, 2013) and Hughes (2021), for instance, argue that neurodiversity discourse has been dominated by relatively privileged autistic people – often white, verbal and labelled “high functioning” – and may be less attuned to those with high support needs or co-occurring intellectual disabilities. Jones (2024) suggests that, in some contexts, neurodiversity has been folded into a broader neurocentrism, in which the brain becomes the privileged site through which difference is explained and governed, potentially obscuring social and material dimensions of inequality. Others caution that neurodiversity can be co-opted by neoliberal regimes of work and education. Ellis (2023) describes how celebratory narratives of “neurodiverse talent” risk sliding into strategic essentialism – temporarily embracing fixed categories of difference for political purposes – while leaving intact market imperatives and productivity norms. Broderick and Roscigno (2021) similarly show how autistic identities are entangled with what they term the “Autism Industrial Complex”, in which autism becomes a site of commodification and intervention under advanced capitalism.

These critiques are not reasons to abandon the neurodiversity paradigm, but they do require us to be precise about what is at stake when we extend it. Quiet neurodivergence, as developed here, draws on the paradigm’s insistence that neurological difference is a form of human diversity, while remaining attentive to the institutional conditions under which some neurodivergent people are able to pass as “fine” and others are not. It demands that we hold together questions of embodiment and questions of power, in line with work that locates disability within wider relations of race, class, gender and violence (Erevelles, 2011; Schalk, 2018).

Defining Quiet Neurodivergence

Within this landscape, quiet neurodivergence is proposed as an analytic term for a particular way of inhabiting neuronormative institutions. It refers to situations in which:

  1. A person’s cognitive, sensory or communicative profile diverges from neuronormative expectations (they are neurodivergent in the broad sense);
  2. They meet, or appear to meet, the performance demands of key fields such as education, paid work or civic participation; and
  3. They do so by investing substantial, ongoing effort into masking, compensating and energy management, such that the costs remain largely invisible to others.

Crucially, “quiet” here is a relational and interpretive descriptor. The struggles involved are not objectively mild. They are rendered quiet by institutional logics that take outward performance as the primary index of wellbeing, and by cultures of disclosure in which revealing neurodivergence is risky.

This configuration is empirically recognisable across multiple domains. In schools and universities, quietly neurodivergent students may maintain high grades and low absenteeism but spend most of their energy surviving group work, presentations and noisy environments, leaving little capacity for social life or rest. In workplaces, quietly neurodivergent staff often become known as dependable and uncomplaining colleagues who take on disproportionate “glue work” – committees, note-taking, informal pastoral care – while managing chronic fatigue and sensory overload. In civic life, similar patterns appear in the over-reliance on a small cadre of “reliable” volunteers.

Higher education provides a particularly revealing case. Brown and Leigh (2018; 2020) and contributors to Ableism in Academia document how disabled and chronically ill academics are structurally under-represented in official statistics yet widely present in informal networks and disclosures, indicating substantial under-reporting and pressure to remain closeted. Price’s (2011) work on mental disability in academic life similarly shows how universities valorise certain forms of “productive” mental functioning while framing others as deficit or risk. Against this backdrop, the idea of quiet neurodivergence helps name a subset of academics and students whose struggles remain largely unacknowledged because their outputs conform to institutional expectations.

As noted earlier, I write as someone who would describe myself as quietly neurodivergent. My own trajectory – including late recognition of autistic traits – has been marked by a long-standing pattern of appearing organised, responsive and “together” while privately relying on extensive routines, masking and recovery periods to sustain that performance. This reflexive admission is not a claim to speak for all quietly neurodivergent people. It is, rather, an attempt to acknowledge that the concept is co-produced by lived experience and scholarly reading, and to resist the illusion of a neutral, all-seeing sociological gaze.

Analytically, quiet neurodivergence directs attention to the gap between performance and sustainability. It invites us to ask how much energy and self-erasure may be required to maintain the appearance of coping in neuronormative fields, and to examine the institutional arrangements that render this labour normal, expected, and individually owned.

Spoon Theory and the Politics of Energy

Spoon theory is a metaphor that emerged from chronic illness communities to describe the experience of living with finite, fluctuating energy. In her widely circulated essay “The Spoon Theory”, Christine Miserandino (2003) uses a handful of spoons to illustrate to a friend how each everyday task – getting dressed, travelling, working, socialising – “costs” a unit of energy. Once the spoons are gone, the day is effectively over. Disabled activists and scholars have since adopted and adapted spoon theory to capture the labour of rationing energy in bodies and minds that do not fit ableist expectations (Kafer, 2013; Schalk, 2018).

The appeal of spoon theory lies in its communicative power. It provides a simple vocabulary for explaining why apparently minor demands may be non-trivial, and why disabled people must make trade-offs that others do not perceive. In the context of quiet neurodivergence, it illuminates how much “spoon-spend” masking and institutional participation can require. Attending a routine meeting may involve multiple layers of expenditure: preparing scripts, managing sensory input, monitoring one’s own facial expression and tone, and recovering afterwards. A neurotypical colleague may experience the same meeting as almost costless.

At the same time, spoon theory is not beyond critique. Some scholars argue that, if used uncritically, it can individualise what are fundamentally structural issues, implying that the problem lies in the person’s limited spoons rather than in social arrangements that assume inexhaustible energy (Kafer, 2013; Jones, 2024). Others note that the metaphor does not speak to all forms of impairment equally, and that its popularisation in online cultures has sometimes led to a depoliticised “spoonie” identity detached from material conditions (Grue, 2016).

A critical use of spoon theory, therefore, treats it as a relational concept. Spoons are not simply innate resources that some people possess in smaller quantities. They are also shaped by work organisation, welfare systems, environmental design and care infrastructures. Erevelles (2011) reminds us that disability is produced through global and local relations of capital, race, gender and violence; Schalk’s (2018) notion of bodyminds emphasises the inseparability of mental and physical processes within these relations. From this perspective, spoons are not just individual capacities but effects of social and economic arrangements.

Bringing spoon theory into conversation with quiet neurodivergence therefore allows us to ask: whose spoons are systematically demanded, where, and for what ends? It foregrounds the question of how much energy is required to pass as “fine” in specific fields, and who benefits when this energy is taken for granted.

Masking, Camouflaging, and the Labour of Passing

Autistic camouflaging research provides a concrete lens on these questions. Hull et al. (2017) describe camouflaging as the use of strategies to hide or compensate for autistic traits in social situations – such as suppressing stimming, forcing eye contact, or using memorised conversational scripts – in order to appear more “neurotypical”. Subsequent qualitative and meta-ethnographic work indicates that such strategies are often experienced as exhausting and are associated with higher levels of anxiety, depression and suicidality among autistic adults (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Field et al., 2024; Livingston et al., 2019).

Masking is not limited to autism, nor is it purely a psychological phenomenon. From a sociological perspective, masking can be understood as a form of labour. Drawing on Hochschild’s (1983) analysis of emotional labour – the management of feeling and display to produce appropriate emotions in others – we might speak of interactional labour: the work of monitoring and adjusting one’s behaviour, speech and bodily presence in line with neuronormative expectations. For quietly neurodivergent people, this labour is quotidian and pervasive. It involves rehearsing teaching sessions so that spontaneous questions are minimised, scripting email responses to avoid perceived brusqueness, or deliberately spacing out demanding tasks to avoid sensory overload, all while maintaining an outward image of ease.

This labour is also field-specific. Bourdieu’s concept of field refers to relatively autonomous arenas of practice (such as academia, law or art) organised by their own stakes and rules. In higher education, for example, valued forms of symbolic capital include articulate speech, rapid responsiveness, and an appearance of effortless intellectual agility (Bourdieu, 1986; Brown & Leigh, 2018). Quietly neurodivergent academics often acquire precisely this capital by investing spoons in masking and over-preparation. Their apparent calmness and reliability become resources that can be exchanged for promotions, grants or informal influence.

Here, Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic violence is instructive. Symbolic violence occurs when dominated groups misrecognise power relations as natural or deserved, and when institutional categories conceal their own arbitrariness. In the context of quiet neurodivergence, praise for “coping so well” can function as a form of symbolic violence. It attributes success to individual grit or professionalism while erasing the structural mismatch between neurodivergent bodyminds and neuronormative institutional designs. When burnout or breakdown eventually occurs, quietly neurodivergent people often internalise the blame: they feel they have “failed” to manage their spoons, rather than recognising that the system demanded unsustainable levels of interactional labour.

A critical account of quiet neurodivergence therefore insists that masking is not simply a personal strategy gone awry. It is a socially required mode of passing whose costs are disproportionately borne by neurodivergent individuals and rarely acknowledged or compensated by the institutions that benefit from their labour.

Quiet Neurodivergence in Education, Work, and Civic Life

Quiet neurodivergence is not confined to any one setting. It is patterned across the main institutional fields that organise everyday life. Education, paid work and civic participation each constitute distinct fields in Bourdieu’s sense, with their own logics, hierarchies and forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Yet all three are structured by neuronormative assumptions about energy, sociability and performance.

Education

In educational settings, quietly neurodivergent students are often those who look, on paper, as if they are doing well enough. They achieve reasonable or high grades, maintain attendance and avoid formal disciplinary issues. Because many institutional support systems are triggered by visible crisis or by failure against key performance indicators, such students may never come to the attention of disability services.

This apparent success can obscure substantial costs. For a quietly neurodivergent student, attending a lecture or seminar may involve a series of pre-emptive and reactive strategies: scouting out seats near exits, wearing noise-cancelling headphones, scripting potential contributions in advance, and spending the rest of the day recovering from sensory and social overload. Group work and oral presentations often require particularly high levels of masking and spoon expenditure. Yet assessment regimes frequently treat visible oral participation, spontaneous debate and uninterrupted attendance as straightforward indicators of engagement and learning.

Sociological work on education and inequality has long shown how schools and universities reward particular forms of cultural, social and linguistic capital while framing others as deficit (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Quiet neurodivergence suggests that energetic capital – the assumed ability to deploy large amounts of energy on demand – is also unequally distributed and institutionally taken for granted. When engagement and professionalism are measured primarily through presence, responsiveness and real-time participation, students who must ration spoons to survive the day are structurally disadvantaged, even if their written work is strong.

There is also a temporal dimension. Because quietly neurodivergent students can appear to be coping, support is often offered only after dramatic collapse: a missed term, a sudden withdrawal, or a period of acute mental distress. Retrospectively, staff may express surprise that “there were no warning signs”. From the student’s perspective, the warning signs were present all along – but they were legible only as “being tired”, “anxious” or “introverted” within an institutional culture that equates visible crisis with legitimate need.

Work and the Neurotypical Ideal Academic

Workplaces, especially in knowledge-intensive sectors such as higher education, are fertile ground for quiet neurodivergence. Academic life is saturated with interactional demands: lectures, seminars, office hours, committee meetings, conferences, corridor conversations, and email streams that rarely pause. Each of these carries a spoon cost, yet dominant narratives treat them as incidental to “real” academic work.

In this environment, quietly neurodivergent academics are frequently the colleagues who appear exceptionally reliable. They meet deadlines, respond promptly to messages, shoulder heavy teaching loads and often take on disproportionate amounts of what has been called “academic housework” or “glue work”: minute-taking, student pastoral care, organising events and serving on committees (Heijstra et al., 2017). These tasks are essential to institutional functioning but are often undervalued in promotion criteria. For neurodivergent staff, they may also serve as a means of maintaining predictability and control in complex environments – at the cost of substantial spoon expenditure.

Academic professionalism is shot through with neuronormative expectations. The ideal academic is presumed to be endlessly intellectually energetic, always available for networking, comfortable with travel and conferencing, and able to switch rapidly between solitary research and highly social teaching. These expectations are not simply descriptive: they function as gatekeeping criteria for hiring, promotion and informal inclusion. They presuppose a subject with abundant spoons, low sensory sensitivity and minimal external constraints.

Within this landscape, quiet neurodivergence is double-edged. On the one hand, neurodivergent academics who can mask effectively and channel their interests into valued outputs can accumulate considerable symbolic capital. Their apparent calmness, attention to detail and capacity for hyper-focus on research topics may be praised. On the other hand, this praise often depends on systematic misrecognition of the costs involved. When burnout occurs – sometimes taking the form of prolonged sick leave, job change or exit from academia altogether – it is frequently framed as individual failure to cope with “the realities of the job” rather than as a structural problem.

As Brown and Leigh (2018, 2020) argue, academic ableism operates not only through overt exclusion but also through the normalisation of working patterns that are, in practice, accessible only to those with particular bodyminds and support structures. Quiet neurodivergence brings into focus how neurodivergent academics may keep institutions running while being compelled to conceal or downplay their needs. It also raises questions about how many apparent success stories in academia are, in fact, precarious achievements sustained by heavy masking and unsustainable spoon expenditure.

Civic and Community Participation

Quiet neurodivergence also appears in civic and community life. Local councils, school governing bodies, mutual aid networks and voluntary organisations often rely on a relatively small core of highly committed individuals to sustain their activities. These individuals arrange meetings, handle communication, manage budgets and ensure that projects move forward. The sociological literature on volunteering and civic participation notes that such roles are patterned by class, gender and time availability (Skeggs, 2004; Wilson, 2012). Adding neurodivergence to this analysis shows how they are also patterned by energy and masking.

For some neurodivergent people, structured civic roles can be appealing. They offer clear tasks, routines and a sense of contributing to something beyond oneself. However, they also multiply the number of spaces where masking and spoon budgeting are required. Attending evening meetings after a full working day, navigating noisy community events, or managing conflict in volunteer groups may demand more spoons than are readily available. Because civic participation is often framed as a moral good and a marker of “active citizenship”, quietly neurodivergent people may feel pressure to continue even when it is unsustainable.

The figure of the “good citizen” in much policy discourse is implicitly neurotypical: energetic, flexible, available to participate in consultations, public meetings and volunteering opportunities at short notice. Quiet neurodivergence draws attention to those who meet some of these expectations at considerable personal cost, and to those who withdraw from civic roles not out of apathy but out of depleted spoons.

Who Gets to Be Quietly Neurodivergent?

It is important to emphasise that quiet neurodivergence is not a universal neurodivergent experience. Power relations shape who can pass as “fine” and whose exhaustion is interpreted as defiance, incompetence or risk.

Class plays a significant role. Middle-class cultural capital can make certain neurodivergent traits more acceptable or even desirable. Intense focus may be reframed as dedication; sensory sensitivities as refined taste; over-preparation as conscientiousness. Access to economic capital – private therapy, quiet housing, paid help with childcare or domestic work – can also buy extra spoons by outsourcing some of the labour of daily life. These resources allow some people to maintain a quiet profile far longer than would otherwise be possible. Conversely, neurodivergent people in precarious employment or unstable housing may have little capacity to mask consistently, as much of their energy is consumed by survival.

Race and racialisation also shape quiet neurodivergence. Racialised neurodivergent people, particularly Black and Brown students and workers, are more likely to have their behaviour interpreted through existing stereotypes of aggression, laziness or non-compliance rather than through lenses of anxiety or overload (Erevelles, 2011; Schalk, 2018). The same withdrawal or shutdown that reads as “burnout” in a white academic may be coded as “unprofessionalism” or “attitude” in a colleague of colour. As a result, they may never be permitted to be quietly neurodivergent; institutional responses make them hyper-visible in punitive ways, from increased surveillance to disproportionate disciplinary action.

Gender and respectability further complicate the picture. Feminised expectations of emotional labour mean that women and many AFAB (assigned female at birth) people are often required to spend additional spoons smoothing social interactions, absorbing others’ emotions and presenting as pleasant and accommodating (Hochschild, 1983; Skeggs, 2004). For autistic and ADHD women, this can mean decades of intensive masking that is praised as competence and care, right up to the point of breakdown. At the same time, those who do not conform to gendered expectations of niceness and sociability may be penalised more harshly for visible distress or withdrawal.

Finally, diagnostic access is uneven. Those with the time, money and cultural capital to navigate assessment pathways are more likely to obtain formal recognition and accommodations. Those without such access may spend years self-managing spoons in institutions that refuse support without paperwork. Quiet neurodivergence can therefore be a position of partial privilege: to be quietly struggling, one must be close enough to normative expectations to pass. Those whose support needs are more visible, or whose bodyminds are more heavily marked by race, class, gender or migration status, may be read as “problems” rather than as competent but exhausted.

This analysis underscores the need to treat quiet neurodivergence as an intersectional phenomenon. It is not a neutral descriptor but a term whose analytical usefulness depends on asking, in each case, who is able to inhabit this position and at what cost.

What Quiet Neurodivergence Makes Visible

If we take quiet neurodivergence seriously, several implications follow for research, institutional practice and everyday life.

For researchers, quiet neurodivergence highlights gaps in existing evidence. Studies that recruit primarily through clinical services, diagnostic registers or support groups will tend to over-represent those who have already reached crisis or obtained formal recognition. Quietly neurodivergent people who are still “coping” – often just barely – may be under-represented. Capturing their experiences requires methods that do not rely solely on diagnosis, such as qualitative interviews, diaries and participatory approaches that explicitly ask about masking, energy budgeting and institutional expectations. Longitudinal designs are particularly important for tracing how spoons and masking practices change over the life course, including during educational transitions and career progression.

Conceptually, researchers need to handle the term with care. Quiet neurodivergence should function as a critical analytic tool for interrogating institutions, not as a new hierarchy that separates “quiet” from “loud” or “high-” from “low-” functioning people. The aim is to illuminate patterns of visibility and misrecognition, not to impose labels on individuals or to police who “counts” as neurodivergent.

For institutions, quiet neurodivergence underscores the limits of crisis-triggered support. Systems that only respond when someone is visibly struggling – taking sick leave, failing assessments or displaying acute distress – will consistently miss quietly neurodivergent staff and students until very late. A more just approach would offer low-barrier adjustments that do not require diagnosis, such as flexible deadlines, hybrid or remote participation options, and access to quiet spaces, and would build accessibility into default design rather than treating it as an add-on negotiated case by case. Performance and engagement metrics might be rethought so they do not simply reward those who can spend the most spoons on visibility and responsiveness.

Spoon theory is helpful here if it is used critically. It can shift the focus from individual moral qualities – resilience, grit, enthusiasm – to questions about how work, learning and civic participation are organised. Rather than asking why some people “cannot cope” with standard expectations, institutions might ask why those expectations are set where they are, who they serve, and whose bodies and minds they systematically exclude.

Finally, there are implications for praxis beyond formal institutions. One reason for developing the concept of quiet neurodivergence is to give language to experiences that might otherwise feel idiosyncratic or shameful. For people who recognise themselves in the patterns described here, naming quiet neurodivergence can be a step towards reinterpreting exhaustion and collapse not as personal failure but as a structurally produced outcome of neuronormative demands. Projects such as the Quietly Neurodivergent website represent modest attempts to translate critical insight into low-spoons resources and forms of mutual support. They do not offer universal solutions, but they exemplify how sociological analysis can travel into everyday practice.

Quiet neurodivergence, then, is not intended as a final diagnostic label or identity category. It is a way of making visible the hidden labour and energetic costs that sustain the appearance of coping in education, work and civic life. By linking the neurodiversity paradigm to spoon theory, stigma research, camouflaging studies and Bourdieu’s concepts of capital and symbolic violence, we gain a sharper view of how energy, recognition and misrecognition are distributed. We also see more clearly how factors such as class, race, gender and diagnostic access shape who can be quietly neurodivergent and who is instead exposed to punitive visibility. The hope is that, by naming these patterns, we open up space for different ways of organising institutions and lives – ways that do not require people to exhaust their spoons simply to be seen as “fine”.

If you recognise yourself in these patterns and would like low-spoons, everyday resources on related themes, you can visit Quietly Neurodivergent

References

  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
  • Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.). Sage.
  • Broderick, A. A., & Roscigno, R. (2021). Autism, Inc.: The autism industrial complex. Journal of Disability Studies in Education, 1(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1163/25888803-bja10001
  • Brown, N. (2020). Autistic scholar: A narrative of academic ableism. Routledge.
  • Brown, N., & Leigh, J. (Eds.). (2020). Ableism in academia: Theorising experiences of disabilities and chronic illnesses in higher education. UCL Press.
  • Brown, N., & Leigh, J. (2018). Ableism in academia: Where are the disabled and ill academics? Disability & Society, 33(6), 985–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1455627
  • Cage, E., & Troxell-Whitman, Z. (2019). Understanding the reasons, contexts and costs of camouflaging for autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(5), 1899–1911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-03878-x
  • den Houting, J. (2019). Neurodiversity: An insider’s perspective. Autism, 23(2), 271–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318820762
  • Ellis, K. (2023). Neurodiversity, work and the limits of inclusion. Journal of Disability Studies in Education, 3(2), 145–165. [Details to confirm]
  • Erevelles, N. (2011). Disability and difference in global contexts: Enabling a transformative body politic. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Field, C. A., et al. (2024). Autistic camouflaging and mental health: A systematic review. Autism. Advance online publication. [Details to confirm]
  • Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice Hall.
  • Grue, J. (2016). The rhetoric of health and disability: Critical introductions in sociology. Routledge.
  • Heijstra, T. M., Einarsdóttir, P., Pétursdóttir, G. M., & Steinþórsdóttir, F. S. (2017). Testing the concept of academic housework in a European setting: Part of academic career-making or gendered barrier to the top? European Educational Research Journal, 16(2-3), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116668884
  • Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.
  • Hughes, B. (2021). Disordered neurodiversity? Rethinking autism as a dimension of neurodiversity. Disability & Society, 36(5), 718–737. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1816907
  • Hull, L., Petrides, K. V., Allison, C., Smith, P., Baron-Cohen, S., Lai, M.-C., & Mandy, W. (2017). “Putting on my best normal”: Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(8), 2519–2534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3166-5
  • Jones, H. (2024). Neurodiversity, neurocentrism and the politics of brain-based difference. Sociology of Health & Illness, 46(1), 23–39. [Details to confirm]
  • Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Indiana University Press.
  • Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363
  • Livingston, L. A., Shah, P., & Happé, F. (2019). Compensatory strategies below the behavioural surface in autism: A qualitative study. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(9), 766–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30224-X
  • Miserandino, C. (2003). The Spoon Theory. ButYouDontLookSick.com. https://butyoudontlooksick.com
  • Moser, I. (2000). Against normalisation: Subverting norms of ability and disability. Science as Culture, 9(2), 201–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/713695248
  • Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Macmillan.
  • Ortega, F. (2009). The cerebral subject and the challenge of neurodiversity. BioSocieties, 4(4), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855209990287
  • Ortega, F. (2013). Cerebralizing autism within the neurodiversity movement. BioSocieties, 8(3), 273–295. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2012.33
  • Price, M. (2011). Mad at school: Rhetorics of mental disability and academic life. University of Michigan Press.
  • Schalk, S. (2018). Bodyminds reimagined: (Dis)ability, race, and gender in Black women’s speculative fiction. Duke University Press.
  • Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. Routledge.
  • Singer, J. (2016). Neurodiversity: The birth of an idea. Judy Singer.
  • Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, self, culture. Routledge.
  • Titchkosky, T. (2011). The question of access: Disability, space, meaning. University of Toronto Press.
  • Walker, N. (2014). Neurodiversity: Some basic terms and definitions. In N. Walker, Neurocosmopolitanism [Blog]. https://neurocosmopolitanism.com
  • Walker, N., & Raymaker, D. (2021). Neuroqueer heresies: Notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities. Autonomous Press.
  • Wilson, J. (2012). Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(2), 176–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011434558

Cite this article

Select a style and copy the citation into your document.