Deconstructing Discourses on Neurodivergence and Extremism: Challenging Practitioner Perspectives on Risk, Bias and Online Vulnerability
Alice Siberry, Katy SianThis article critically interrogates how neurodivergent individuals are conceptualised within the UK's counter-terrorism landscape, particularly in the context of growing anxieties around online extremism. Drawing upon qualitative interviews with UK counter-terrorism practitioners, the study reveals a deficit-oriented understanding of neurodiversity that positions neurodivergent people as inherently more susceptible to extremist ideologies. These narratives pathologise specifically autism-related traits by framing them as risk factors, and in doing so reinforce harmful stereotypes and constrain possibilities for more nuanced engagement. Situating its findings within broader critiques of the UK's Prevent strategy, the article draws parallels with the racialised surveillance of Muslim communities. It argues that, although the dynamics differ, neurodivergent individuals are similarly cast as disproportionately ‘at risk’ within safeguarding regimes. In both cases, institutional practices misattribute risk to intrinsic characteristics, undermining trust and restricting access to appropriate support. The paper calls for a radical reframing of vulnerability that rejects biologically deterministic understandings of identity, in favour of those that advance neuro-affirming, culturally responsive approaches rooted within abolitionist principles.
Lay Abstract
This article explores how neurodivergent people are understood within the UK's counter-terrorism framework. Interviews with counter-terrorism practitioners reveal assumptions that neurodivergent people are more likely to be radicalised. These views are shaped by out-dated ideas and broader fears about online extremism. Traits like social isolation or intensive specialist interests are frequently misinterpreted as risk factors, which reinforce harmful stereotypes. The article links these findings to wider critiques of the UK's Prevent strategy, noting parallels with the over-surveillance of Muslim communities. In both cases, risk is often attributed to identity rather than context, undermining trust and support. The article calls for a shift toward neuro-affirming and culturally responsive approaches that avoid pathologising difference and reproducing harm.