Imaginaries
Speaking of neoliberalism, it is important to look at the Special Education arena of public education a little closely. The special services review describes Special Education as “not a “place” but a set of services,” such as 504 plans that offer accommodations and Individualized Education Plans that help “students with disabilities or health-related challenges” to claim equal opportunities within the education system (8). On the topic of special education, Goodley postulates that the definitions of "(hyper--)normal" and "(hyper--) abnormal " leading to a vastly expanding diagnostic criteria and labeling, leads to a "language of new eugenics which privileges certain kinds of whiteness over certain kinds of color…certain kinds of ability over certain kinds of 'corporeally anomalous body kinds'…in the absence of corporate punishment that might leave a mark on the skin, an array of internally corporeal medicalizations have emerged whose marks are more difficult to photograph and therefore to contest (147).
For example, he says, “the growth of ADHD transforms pupil disruption into pupil dysfunction, negates the changing of school cultures and instead leads to medicalization of childhood…ADHD is a culturally acceptable position for when a child does not fit into a socially desirable landscape" thus making it an “ideal position to act as a cultural defense mechanism" (147). Goodley goes on to call ADHD a "quasimedical diagnosis, a sticky label to apply to a child to maintain the organizational systems of schools" (147). Relying quite heavily on Fanon, Goodley, refers to "values of dominant alterity" and their presence in common speak, such as "He has ADHD--But he is brilliant at rugby" (148). Quoting Fanon, a psychotherapist himself, "the Other will become the mainstay of his preoccupations and his desires," Goodley asks, "can schools only include those who match up to the able entrepreneurial Other?" (148). Furthering what could well be based on Conrad and Schneider's history of childhood, Goodley remarks that "the (preferred) child, the child that is meaningfully included, is the neoliberal subject of a neoliberal capitalist society" (146). Additionally, "neoliberal conceptions of education and the neo-liberal child find their way into the subjectivities of children, parents and professionals" (146). Very aptly, Goodley observes that constantly evaluating a child's progress against set standards impacts mothering by 'isolating' the mother, holding her responsible for the "problem," and putting her in competition with other mothers (146). Since there is a tremendous amount of pressure guiding good mothering versus bad mothering, discursive formations on motherhood hold a certain ideal for the mother—loving, kind, selfless, forgiving, always available, active volunteer in kids’ schools, never gets angry—failing to meet that ideal can have serious consequences (Green, 128). The situation gets worse when as Haley, a psychologist said, if it’s a single mom, working two jobs to make ends meet.
However, Malacrida’s study disrupts some of these claims. She acknowledges that while parenting children with AD(H)D was difficult for her participants in the initial years, a lot of the “stressors came from outside the child and outside the home,” such as extended family and community (243). Focusing on maternal narratives she provided “counternarratives to pathologizing claims about AD(H)D, mothers and children, difference, and care” (243). In one instance, she observes the difference between those who have “cultural capital” and those without. She points to theorists whose work is based on Bourdieu and who “have argued that some women are able to draw on cultural capital, comprising material resources, educational qualifications, available time, information about the educational system, social confidence, and a sense of entitlement and assertiveness to mitigate maternal-professional oppression” (137). However, as is wont to happen with any assumptions surrounding AD(H)D, Malacrida complicates this claim by citing the story of a twenty-five year old young woman, divorced, remarried and works full time as a house-cleaner who, despite the lack of “cultural capital,” was “one of the few women in the study who managed to get her son into a private school for children with special educational needs, but was the only one who was successful in her appeal to have the government pay his tuition” (138).
ADHD is a complex, multisided, multisited, contested social field, one that lies at the intersections of medicine, human development, disability, psychology, gender, education, parenting and performance,. There is no one way that ADHD manifest in a human being, therefore no one size that fits all. What started as a quest to find out discrepancies in diagnosis, expanded to a social phenomenon across various social fields. First person accounts from those who have a diagnosis of AD(H)D, their caregivers, mental health professionals and educators disrupted many discursive claims such as “white boys are diagnosed more often than girls,” or, that “boys are hyperactive but girls are not.” That is not to say that there is no under-diagnosis in women and minorities, but that diagnosis happens in an interpersonal space, one heavy laden with personal beliefs and biases. Much like Malacrida was convinced that “the primary professional-maternal conflict over knowledge, power, and care occurred within the school,” I became aware that the primary site of AD(H)D experience and diagnosis occurred within the school. In addition, the gaps of knowledge about AD(H)D occurred within various disciplines: each group seemed to be operating within their own knowledge ‘bubbles.” More ethnographic studies are required for a better understanding of the power relations between various groups of people in the AD(H)D field, formation of subjectivities through discourse, gaps in diagnosis in ethnic immigrant groups, and those who do not fit the gender binaries. The research then must influence policy and funding, to make a real difference.
While this paper does not do justice to all the data collected in eleven interviews, it form a preliminary research and an initiates an attempt to close those knowledge gaps, even if it soes so through more questions than answers. At the very least, I hope, it unsettles the “orderedness” of things and disrupts exisiting assumptions and stereotypes (Ferguson,24). By asking participants with AD(H)D diagnosis about how they navigate the world, this study provides an important “empirical insight into the workings of power, discourse, and subjectivity” (Malacrida, 251). By bringing in school districts and policy makers this study makes institutions aware of their role in power and subjectivity. By addressing parents, the study seeks to dispel some of the haze that surrounds the diagnosis.
The overall structure of this research has been more rhizomatic that arborescent, By creating bridges between science technology and society studies, feminist theory, disability studies, neuropsychology, neurofeminism, interpretative, genealogical and post structural debates, education, policy, and parenting, and weaving in and out of these fields, I hope that it complicates existing narratives, removes hierarchy and holds the social field in abeyance: a just place given the field is that of AD(H)D.
