On the final day of the Critical Neurodiversity Studies takeover, Natasha Downs calls for literary scholars within Mad Studies and Neurodiversity Studies to engage with one another and explores the possibilities of and justifications for a ‘Mad[]Neurodiverse’ literary analysis.
Amid the relentless dominance of biomedical psychiatry, Mad and Neurodivergent people offer alternative perspectives. Reclaiming the earlier language of ‘madness’ over ‘mental illness’, Mad people resist psychiatric power and sanism. Asserting madness as an identity and culture, Mad people challenge norms about what constitutes ‘sanity’. While the term ‘neurodiversity’ has grown to encompass a plurality of meanings, the ‘Neurodiversity Paradigm’ similarly challenges pathologisation (Walker 2021, 18–37), legitimising the knowledges of individuals who vary from the perceived norm regarding ‘cognitive, affectual and sensory functioning’ (Bertilsdotter Rosquist et al. 2020, 1). The shared aims and differences between Mad and Neurodiversity standpoints have been repeatedly discussed (Graby 2015, McWade et al. 2015, Frazer-Carroll 2023), but how do these movements speak to each other in a literary-critical context? And what could be the benefits of a literary approach informed by Mad Studies and Neurodiversity Studies, for scholars within both disciplinary domains?
For this Critical Neurodiversity Studies conference takeover, I draw attention to some key contributions by Mad Studies scholars of literature. I present my current understanding of the scope, challenges and directions of Literary Neurodiversity Studies and then ponder a ‘Mad[]Neurodiverse’ approach for literary analysis, where scholars can draw upon knowledges from both fields to create novel sites of inquiry (I use the square brackets in a similar vein to Trans[]crip Theory; see Smilges and Greenberg 2025, 158). I conclude with my reflections on the potentialities of this approach and my justifications for it.
Mad literary approaches
How can we discern what a ‘Mad’ literary lens entails? After all, there is no single method or theory for creating mad knowledge. Furthermore, Mad Studies is pluralistic and exists in many sites, making the concept of a singular ‘Mad’ approach problematic. However, many literary explorations of depicted madness are underpinned by medical paradigms, not aligning with what could be considered a ‘Mad Studies lens’ (Spandler and Poursanidou 2019, 11). Furthermore, scholars within Mad Studies rightfully prioritise ‘the immediate practicalities of everyday human struggle’, unfortunately leading to less focus within the field on literary-critical analysis (Menzies et al. 2012, 17). However, some literary studies explicitly reference Mad Studies; I therefore focus on these analyses, drawing out their key themes to present my current understanding of Mad approaches to literature.
Psychiatric survivor PhebeAnn Wolframe’s concept of ‘Mad Reading’ places Mad politics at the centre of reading practices, resisting a ‘sane perspective’ (2014, 4). Hayley C. Stefan’s ‘Mad Humanities’ framework focuses on embodiment, intersectional interpretations of madness and the various institutions which (de)legitimise mad living (2018). In the last five years, Chloë Taylor used Mad-Studies informed literary readings to propose a ‘mad-vegan-queer-crip feminist refusal of animal-based diets’ (2020, 224), while Femi Eromosele engaged with Mad Theory to draw attention to this understudied dimension of South African novel The Quiet Violence of Dreams by K. Sello Duiker (2021). Recently, psychiatric survivor Sarah Taggart used a ‘mad-studies-informed reading’ to analyse the works of Janet Frame (2024, 2). She explains that ‘anti-sanist readings reinscribe madness where “mental illness” was previously read, empowering mad knowledges with validity and epistemic value, and believe[ing] the mad version of events’ (40). This quotation helpfully summarises my understanding of a Mad literary lens.
In reviewing this scholarship, I identified the following themes:
- Centring and validating Mad voices
- Rejecting readings of madness as metaphor
- Critiquing psychiatric power
- Embodiment of madness
- Challenging previous scholarship’s treatment of madness
- Intersectionality
- Mad lived-experience as lens
- Madness as spectrum
Neurodiversity literary approaches
As a Mad Studies scholar who is recently foraying into Neurodiversity Studies, my survey of literary neurodiversity studies draws on the bibliographical resources by Bradley Irish (2025, 19–62) and Mardy Philippian (2025). Literary Neurodiversity Studies has historically prioritised the study of neurodivergent and neurodivergent-coded characters (Irish 2025, 30), taking an affirmative approach towards literary depictions of neurodivergence (Philippian 2025). Beyond character, Neurodivergent authors and Neurodivergent style constitute the other two current priorities within the field (Irish 2025, 36).
Discussing controversies in neurodiversity-informed literary scholarship, Philippian draws attention to the key concerns of terminology, Theory of Mind and the diagnosis of literary characters. While Literary Neurodiversity Studies is beginning to move away from psychiatric language, Philippian notes that the ‘tendency to apply a medically informed framework to the understanding of a literary figure remains’. On this topic, Irish proposes numerous strategies for non-diagnostic literary readings, such as borrowing Laura Seymour’s methods of reading neurodivergent historical figures, refashioning diagnostic labels and recent considerations of ‘neurotype’ (Irish 2025, 26–30).
On the future of Literary Neurodiversity Studies, Irish notes growing consideration of neurodivergence and genre, Neurodivergent engagements with literature, and neuroqueer literary approaches (Irish 2025, 36–8). He also proposes encompassing broader neurotypological readings of literature which do not solely focus on neurodivergence under the Literary Neurodiversity Studies banner (Irish 2025, 57). On future directions, Philippian warns of potential colonisation of the field but also highlights the strength of recent important bibliographic works. The trajectory of Literary Neurodiversity Studies is clearly shifting beyond Neurodivergent representation, towards critical consideration of Neurodivergent frameworks, readings and writings (Bergenmar et al., forthcoming).
Mad[]Neurodiverse Approach: initial thoughts
I now draw attention to the strengths of employing a Mad[]Neurodiverse approach. In reviewing the above scholarship, vivid interdisciplinary potentialities begin to emerge. Could the Mad reading strategies of psychiatric survivors Wolframe and Taggart be combined with forthcoming Neurodivergent reading approaches, encouraging both anti-sanist and anti-neuroableist responses to literature? Furthermore, could Mad scholars borrow Neurodiversity scholars’ thinking about investigating neurotypical-coded characters within literature, opening up possibilities for challenging norms of madness through non-Mad-coded characters? And can the writings of Mad people regarding the epistemological violence of psychiatric diagnoses (Burstow and LeFrançois 2014, 3–4) and the literary models which reflect this concern, help shape the ongoing discussion regarding diagnosis of characters within Literary Neurodiversity Studies? Putting these two areas of literary scholarship in conversation with each other is certainly thought-provoking, but why else is a Mad[]Neurodiverse joint approach warranted? There are a few reasons why I believe it is imperative that literary scholars from both Mad Studies and this emergent critical wave of Neurodiversity Studies engage with each other.
First, the argument can be made that Mad Studies and Neurodiversity Studies both represent the interests of Mad and Neurodivergent people. Kassiane Asasumasu, the creator of the term ‘neurodivergent’, has repeatedly stated that individuals considered ‘mentally ill’ are represented by her term (2015, 2022; Walker 2021, 64). While many Mad people reject the language of ‘mental illness’, the inclusive intention of ‘Neurodivergent’ is clear. Furthermore, Neurodivergent people are often psychiatrised and/or ‘deemed mad by others’ which could lead to Mad-identification (Spandler and Poursanidou 2019, 13). Second, irrespective of psychiatric label or self-identification as Mad or Neurodivergent, people of either group often find themselves subject to both sanism and neuroableism. As Micha Frazer-Carroll usefully explains: ‘On a day-to-day basis, when a person is behaving in a way that is seen to be “abnormal” in public, it’s unlikely that people will stop to ask whether they’re diagnosed with a learning disability or a mental Illness, but it’s likely that they’ll be discriminated against, excluded and policed all the same’ (Frazer-Carroll 2023, 165). Therefore, in a Mad[]Neurodiverse approach, the seldom considered neuroableism impacting the Mad and sanism impacting the Neurodivergent can be revealed in literary contexts.
Third, in real life and literary realms, the boundary between embodied madness and neurodivergence can be ambiguous. People like me who have been understood by psychiatry as having both a ‘mental illness’ and ‘neurodevelopmental disorder’, can sometimes find ourselves befuddled due to the inseparability of our Mad and Neurodivergent experiences (I offer this example not to legitimise psychodiagnostic categorisation, but to draw attention to how these labels cannot encapsulate the complexity of Mad and Neurodivergent living). This same issue emerges in literary analysis. For example, when reading a depiction of a non-normative emotional presentation, how can we gauge if the character in question is Other on grounds of madness or neurotypological difference? In these contexts, using a Mad[]Neurodiverse approach enables us to explore this ambiguity. Four, even in instances where the depicted literary madness and neurodivergence are distinguishable, employing a Mad[]Neurodiverse framework can aid in reading these intersectional concerns. Fifth, both Mad and Neurodivergent methods are useful for reading characters constructed as Other. How Mad and Neurodiversity theories respectively address these concerns can therefore be explored in each other’s disciplinary domains and beyond.
Sixth, and finally, there is a scholar-activist incentive in calling for a Mad[]Neurodiverse approach. Promoting cross-pollination within the fields is useful as an act of solidarity as it uplifts the knowledges of other Mad and Neurodivergent people who face discrimination within and beyond the academy. This joint front could also raise awareness of our theories, encouraging scholars of literature more broadly to assume a Mad-positive and neuro-affirming stance. Furthermore, as Mad and Neurodivergent people face co-option of our knowledges (Beresford and Russo 2016; Chapman 2023, 11), could Mad[]Neurodiverse literary-criticism emerge as one site of collaborative resistance? And in coming together, can we forge novel pathways for literary studies?
About the author
Natasha Downs (she/her) is a Mad and Neurodivergent person based in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England. She was previously a Visiting Scholar in Mad Studies at Northumbria University and is now a Critical Neurodiversity Studies Fellow at Durham University’s Institute for Medical Humanities. She is curious about exploring Mad[]Neurodiverse approaches in many contexts, including within her research on Chinese historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms. This work was supported by the Discovery Research Platform for Medical Humanities, Institute for Medical Humanities, Durham University which has been funded by Wellcome under grant reference 226798/Z/22/Z.
About the Critical Neurodiversity Studies Conference
Critical Neurodiversity Studies: Directions/Intersections/Contradictions is a free fully-hybrid international conference running from 24-26 June 2025 at Durham University and online. It is believed to be the first formal research event in the field undertaken at this scale, responding to a gathering energy and engagement with neurodiversity across disciplines and methodologies. The conference takeover of The Polyphony runs from 23-30 June, with the full collection of articles available under the Critical Neurodiversity Studies Conference 2025 tag.
References
Asasumasu, Kassiane (@UVGKassi). 2022. “Neurodivergent explicitly and loudly includes mental illness (or psychiatric disability for those who prefer that term).” Twitter (now X), December 20.
Asasumasu, Kassiane. 2015. “PSA from the actual coiner of ‘neurodivergent’”. Tumblr, June 11. https://sherlocksflataffect.tumblr.com/post/121295972384/psa-from-the-actual-coiner-of-neurodivergent. Accessed 30 June 2025.
Beresford, Peter, and Jasna Russo. 2016. “Supporting the Sustainability of Mad Studies and Preventing Its Co-Option.” Disability & Society 31 (2): 270–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1145380.
Bergenmar, Jenny, Louise Creechan and Anna Stenning. 2025, forthcoming. Critical Neurodiversity Studies: Divergent Textualities in Literature and Culture. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, Hanna, Nick Chown, and Anna Stenning. 2020. “Introduction”. In Neurodiversity Studies: A New Critical Paradigm, edited by Hanna Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, Nick Chown and Anna Stenning. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Burstow, Bonnie and Bren A. LeFrançois. 2014. “Impassioned Praxis: An Introduction to Theorizing Resistance to Psychiatry”. In Psychiatry Disrupted: Theorizing Resistance and Crafting the (R)evolution, edited by Bonnie Burstow, Bren A. LeFrançois and Shaindl Diamond. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Chapman, Robert. 2023. Empire of Normality: Neurodiversity and Capitalism. London: Pluto Press.
Eromosele, Femi. 2021. “Madness and Psychiatry in K. Sello Duiker’s The Quiet Violence of Dreams.” Journal of Postcolonial Writing 57 (4): 525–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449855.2021.1897863.
Frazer-Carroll, Micha. 2023. Mad World: The Politics of Mental Health. London: Pluto Press.
Graby, Steve. 2015. “Neurodiversity: bridging the gap between the disabled people’s movement and the mental health system survivors’ movement?”. In Madness, Distress and the Politics of Disablement, edited by Hel Spandler, Jill Anderson and Bob Sapey. Bristol Policy Press.
Irish, Bradley J. 2025. Literary Neurodiversity Studies: Current and Future Directions. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-80603-2.
McWade, Brigit, Damian Milton, and Peter Beresford. 2015. “Mad Studies and Neurodiversity: A Dialogue.” Disability & Society 30 (2): 305–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.1000512.
Menzies, Robert, Bren. A. LeFrançois and Geoffrey Reaume. 2013. “Introducing Mad Studies”. In Mad Matters: A Critical Reader in Canadian Mad Studies, edited by Bren. A. LeFrançois, Robert Menzies and Geoffrey Reaume. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.
Philippian, Mardy. 2025. “Neurodiversity and Literature.” In The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature, edited by Sonya Freeman Loftis. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.1526.
Smilges, J. Logan, and Slava Greenberg. 2025. “Towards a Trans[]crip Theory: Introduction” Transgender Studies Quarterly 12 (2): 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-11713354.
Spandler, Hel and Dina Poursanidou. 2019. “Who is included in the Mad Studies Project?” The Journal of Ethics in Mental Health 10. https://www.jemh.ca/issue-vi.
Stefan, Hayley C. 2018. “A (Head) Case for a Mad Humanities: Sula’s Shadrack and Black Madness.” Disability Studies Quarterly 38 (4). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v38i4.6378.
Taggart, Sarah L. 2024. “A Mad Reading of Janet Frame’s Madness Narratives Faces in the Water and An Autobiography.” PhD diss., Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington. https://doi.org/10.26686/wgtn.25292929.
Taylor, Chloë. 2020. “Vegan madness: Han Kang’s The Vegetarian”. In Disability and Animality: Crip Perspectives in Critical Animal Studies, edited by Stephanie Jenkins, Kelly Struthers Montford and Chloë Taylor. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003014270.
Walker, Nick. 2021. Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities. Fort Worth, TX: Autonomous Press.
Wolframe, PhebeAnn M. 2014. “Reading Through Madness: Counter-Psychiatric Epistemologies and the Biopolitics of (In) Sanity in Post-World War II Anglo Atlantic Women’s Narratives.” PhD diss., McMaster University. http://hdl.handle.net/11375/13900.
