Abstract
Human neurodiversity matters. Neurodivergence and neurodiversity are fundamental characteristics of the (human) population. The essential nature of this diversity means that the quality of government and governance is unavoidably affected by approaches taken to neuroinclusion in the cultural, political, and economic spaces of current societies. Public administration cannot avoid being both entangled with the construction of neuroinclusion and affected in practice by neurodivergence and neurodiversity. Using the case of autism politics and policy, this article explores selected examples of contestations in policy narratives, neuroethical policy gaps, and persistent myths surrounding neurodiversity and neuroinclusion affecting the practice of contemporary public administration.
Concluding thoughts:
The title of this article quotes a hymn written in 1833 with a first stanza that concludes, “I do not ask to see the distant scene; one step enough for me” (Newan, 1833).1 Although found in a message about faith, both working scientists and issue stakeholders struggle with time and progress in the manner these words reflect. Scientists and issue stakeholders work toward the potential for a better world. Turning attention to the light of transformational scientific discovery or social progress made manifest through perfected moral sentiment in public law almost always involves long-term acceptance of slow-deliberate effort toward a destination not witnessed by those who begin a journey. The formation of neuroethical policy gaps as exemplified in the autism politics of the twentieth and early 21st centuries raises the question of how to take next steps in public policy and interpretation of neuroscience, especially in moments where glimpses of the distant scene come into view. Incremental policymaking dominates most public policy making and defines periods in which sustained, supported progress can be made. Although the need for and attraction of punctuations in policy equilibriums exist, periods of normal policy operations also may allow for pubc administration innovation, including the testing of better practices.
As stated at the beginning of this article, realities of human neurodiversity and neuroinclusion matter, particularly as new findings disrupt our favorite stories about ourselves. They are also material. In recognizing neuroethical policy gaps, public administration can better aim for the clarification of democratic ideals in practice. In the context of the autism policy subsystem, worthy focus on ideals suffers if underlying assumptions about the brain misdescribe human neurology. Although realizing the goal of clarification will necessarily take some time, good practice of public administration requires that policy terms cannot fall into the category of “it meant something different every time she heard it” (Proehl, 2016, p. 86). With practice, we prevail. With patience and understanding, democratic intentions materialize.
