They feel they don’t fit in. Because they’re not super-flashy, they don’t clown around at parties and they can’t talk about the weather. They think differently, they see the world differently, they communicate differently. – What is most therapeutic for atypical people is the opportunity to be in touch and to be understood,” says Kasia Modlinska, president of the ‘a/typowi Foundation for Neurodiversity.
We invite you to read the interview on the Zwierciadło website.
•
Atypowi (Atypical) – beautiful minds. A conversation with Kasia Modlińska, the CEO of the Foundation for Neurodiversity “a/typowi” (“a/typical”) by Joanna Olekszyk (translated by Paulina Wiatr)
They feel that they don’t belong. Because they are not feisty, they are not the life of the party, and they can’t small talk about the weather. They think differently, see the world differently, and communicate differently. – The thing that is most therapeutic for atypical people is the possibility to be in contact with people and be understood by them – says Kasia Modlińska, the CEO of the Foundation for Neurodiversity “a/typical”.
In a documentary film “I am Greta”, currently in cinemas and on the online platform of the festival Millenium Docs Against Gravity, Greta Thunberg says: “Sometimes I feel that it might be good if everyone had a bit more of Asperger’s. At least when it comes to the climate” [direct quote from the documentary].
Greta says this in the context of her radical attitude towards climate crisis – she herself defines it as black-and-white. It relates to her characteristics such as an extensive knowledge of scientific research and a profound understanding of its implications. From the film, we learn about her extraordinary intellectual traits, such as photo reading or the ability to remember a great number of facts. Other characteristics, which are associated with Asperger’s syndrome, are a higher sensitivity to nature and animals and a lower towards gaining people’s favour. The film shows how intensely Greta experiences the climate crisis: she suffers from depression, goes non-verbal, and in two months loses ten kilograms. It seems that she sees some issues more clearly than most of the population, which is why she can so poignantly present them and carry the masses along with her. On the other hand – she also says that she feels isolated, so she probably would have preferred to have more people around her who experience the world in a similar way as she does.
I was struck by her words, which I now recall from memory: “I don’t understand why people say one thing and do the other. They want to be eco, but they overconsume and fly on planes all the time, which pollute the environment most”. She, wanting to remain faithful to what she says, is travelling to a climate summit in New York by catamaran, even though the journey lasts whole two weeks. Someone will call it weird, but it makes sense to her.
This is a consequence of her atypical traits. What Greta says is fully thought-through and experienced by her – she authentically lives by it. It is not abstract knowledge and intellectualising. When she writes her speech and her father suggests slightly toning down the part about the lack of adults’ responsibility or deleting the sentence about mass extinction, she replies that those are key elements and that he should be quiet and not disturb her.
Is it weird that she is consistent with what she believes in? Maybe for her, it is weird to care so much about one’s appearance that one matches the colour of socks and nail polish to the colour of trousers or shirt. The journey to the United States seems to be just another sign of her consistency – though in this case, she reveals how much it costs her, maybe even too much. Her composure is cohesive, but it ignites extreme emotions in society. It is, in my opinion, interesting – also in the context of our foundation’s operations.
You call yourselves “a/typowi” (“a/typical”). Where is this slash coming from?
A slash can be a symbol of many things. In the context of Greta, I would say that it is relating to the divisions she evokes. In psychoanalytical terminology, close to my academic background, we talk about splitting, so a mechanism which creates two completely different pictures of the same person. In this instance, it is the society that is using it. On the one hand, it completely devalues her – she is being diagnosed as an ill, autistic person with selective mutism; she barely has any friends in school, she is not invited to parties, and she passes her free time mostly with her parents and dogs. On the other hand, she is idolised: she fairly quickly gains hordes of followers, she is invited to speak at world summits, and people on the banners write “Greta will save the world”. It is a bit of madness.
A slash in the name shows as well that for our foundation the line between typical and atypical is almost transparent if it even exists in the first place. Our priority is social integration, not creating divisions.
Greta is a world leader in fighting the climate crisis, so for some, she is an idol and for others – enemy number one. But she is also an atypical person, so she is thinking and functioning differently than the majority of society – that is the source of the rejection she was facing at school.
Atypical people are usually misunderstood or misinterpreted, and that’s why they are excluded by society.
To explain being atypical you reach for the concept of neurodiversity. What does it mean?
People are mentally different. It seems to be a cliché, and in a way, it is, but in certain, important aspects it isn’t. The concept of neurodiversity shows how much we differ in the way we see, feel, hear, smell, and process information about the world. And that those differences do not have to be pathological and reference only one model of so-called “normality”.
The word “neurodiversity” is used in two contexts: a field of science and a social movement. As a name of the scientific field and as a social movement. In the scientific field, there is research on, inter alia, the coexistence of some traits: those described as pathological and useful ones. However, genetic research is showing that genes which we deem pathological are present in us for tens of thousands of years. This can then prove that if they were selected through the process of natural selection then they must have been of importance to our species. I was recently watching the documentary “100 Foot Wave” about surfers who surfed in the most extreme and dangerous conditions. My first thought was that it is most likely the death drive, that they unconsciously want to kill themselves. But as the surfers said – what they were experiencing was showing them something else – in those moments they felt truly alive. It can be then assumed that without people who are risk junkies, our species would have had not survived.
In the other understanding of the word – as social activism – neurodiversity is aiming for respecting and appreciating the differences on the systemic level. A big achievement is that the voice of the social minority is strong enough that it is starting to be taken into account and included. Many procedures which were in place till now are being modified: within school education, at the universities or in the workplace. Most of those changes are happening in the States but this trend is spreading. We, as a foundation, are working towards implementing them in Poland. Here I recommend another documentary “Journey into Dyslexia”. It is showing how people with dyslexia are excluded from society but also how incredibly and creatively they think. Because people, who managed to overcome obstacles posed by society unsuited for them, often become extraordinary in their fields.
Till now, there was a concept of “normal” and everything that did not fall under that category was deemed a “pathology”. Today we are not saying that something is “normal” but that it is “typical” so that it is more common – which does not mean that the less common is “abnormal”.
As our progress of knowledge advances so does the understanding of the complexity of many issues and diverting from simplified divisions. In this regard, we are moving away from the binary division of reality into “us” and “them” or “health” and “illness”. The definition of “health” created in 1964 by WHO – “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being” – is a bizarre formula which has no chance to be met by anyone. Thankfully it is changing though.
That process is occurring also in psychology, what we can see now with, for example, moving away from diagnosing Asperger’s syndrome and autism, in favour of autism spectrum – so the multitude of diverse characteristics, behaviours and interests, impacting many areas of personality and having different degrees of severity. I identify with this approach. I am thinking about bipolarity similarly as a spectrum, part of which is bipolar disorder. To make it simple, typicality is the presence of some characteristics in the medium intensity, atypical people have them in the higher intensity. Besides, different types of atypicality can layer onto each other – people on the autism spectrum are often nonbinary and they are diagnosed with hypersensitivity (HSP) or ADHD.
Is the fact that nowadays we are talking about such a wide spectrum of atypicality the result of our better understanding of the human mind or is it just that our times support the strengthening of some mental characteristics, because of the development of technology and less contact with nature?
As a foundation, in the context of atypicality, we talk about those traits which in a favourable environment could be used for the advantage of the said person and the society. Yes, technology and separation from nature are being indicated as causes of more numerous mental disorders and mental illnesses – especially since the spread of the use of smartphones. It includes civilisational illnesses such as depression, anorexia, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder. Atypical people – because society is even more ill-suited for them than for the majority of the population – statistically succumb to those illnesses more often.
How do we know what are those “appropriate conditions” you talk about?
It is a complex topic; it is hard to give a simple answer. It is definitely dependent on the ability of a person for introspection, but it also depends on if the person is aware of their various needs – here the role of society is essential. Often people with, for example, hypersensitivity (HSP), say that before they found out about this category they were trying to bend to the generalised standards [of behaviour] – they were forcing themselves to go to parties, to loud environments, full of people and many different stimulants, and then paid a high price for it. Taking a test for being a Highly Sensitive Person later, they stopped feeling inadequate.
Grassroots movements are being formed too. Last year in a company in the Netherlands employees created a list of conditions that would help them work more efficiently. The changes were implemented, and they turned out to be advantageous for both the employees and the company.
What made it onto that list?
It was, for example, to not approach someone who is currently working because it distracts them, and it is hard for them to return later seamlessly to what they were working on. Or informing that a certain person is most productive at specific times of the day or that someone gets so engrossed in their work that they would ask for someone to remind them to eat or to take time off. Additionally, there was also a request to dim the lights or to create a focus area in the office.
So, the aim of foundations’ work is to create such places or nooks at work or at school, where you can come and talk about your needs.
Our foundation is very young, just last month we were celebrating our first birthday. From the very beginning, we were flooded with questions and project proposals from different sources, which is showing how massive interest in neurodiversity is. However, we are not able to do everything and meet every expectation, also in the context of psychotherapy. I have heard voices that what kind of mental-health-focused foundation are we if we do not offer psychotherapy. Yet it is possible to counsel someone in different ways, one of those is by having an impact on the wider society, and one of the ways to help can be creating a suitable environment for growth. We are trying to make this process more profound, so we are focusing on education, adjusting the work environment and the scientific activity.
How can we support your foundation?
You can support us financially – for now, we are running on a system of donations. We are inviting you to the organisational and substantive cooperation, especially to volunteer. There is plenty of work, but it is very satisfying.
We hear a lot of praise from people who are thanking us for finally being someone who can put into words what they experience. There is a big group of people who feel that they don’t belong because they are not feisty, they are not party animals, and they are not able to engage in repartee. Same as Greta Thunberg – they communicate differently, but thanks to the Internet they can finally connect to each other and create a community. Simultaneously, the rest of society starts understanding who they are and how they are different – and that it can be cool, interesting, and definitely not threatening. Sure, maybe they cannot talk about the weather, seek sympathy, and they not at ease in the crowds – but they are not worthless. They have a rich inner world, and massive knowledge on many topics – you just need to learn how to communicate with them. It is especially valuable that their voices started to be heard. They can talk about themselves. Because what, in my opinion, is most therapeutic for atypical people, is the possibility to be in touch with others and to be understood.
Do we have now a greater understanding of neurodiversity?
Surely the most talked about area is the autism spectrum, because the traits stereotypically associated with them are most valued in our patriarchal society – rationality, good memory, interest in STEM. But it is slowly changing. Generally, the interest in mental health is rapidly rising. When I watch contemporary tv shows I see that entire groups of specialists are overseeing the accuracy of mental health subplots and neurodiverse characters’ representation. The knowledge of neurodiversity gets to us via multiple channels.
An important part of the neurodiversity movement is the idea of self-advocates, so people who are atypical talk about what they experience, from the stance of the experts. The first academic coursebook about neurodiversity, which came out only at the end of last year, was written in its entirety by scientists with different psychological diagnoses. Currently, the world is opening itself to let self-advocates be therapists. After all, it is because they were able to face those difficulties, that they know well what they are experiencing, and that they can then use what is helpful to them to help others.
Where is this need to give a voice to atypical people coming from in your case?
It is because I have a considerable experience in psychoanalysis, but it can transform into a long story… When I was thinking about this issue I was surprised by the repetitiveness of a certain theme in my life. Definitely the most drastic example, on a systemic level, was kicking me out of a primary school for bad behaviour, in the sixth grade. I think that I could have been problematic with my questions, ignoring teachers and disrupting lessons. Nevertheless, it was still trauma.
In high school, the first subject that I became interested in was philosophy and my “matura” [end of high-school exam] got a commendation. During my university years, I was praised, maybe too much. It was hard for me to find logic in this. During my bachelor studies, I wrote my thesis in philosophical anthropology about including in society people who represent other values than the majority of the population at the time. Later I started having mood disorders, and I had to drop out of the university – that time made up a big part of my life and it influenced my later thoughts.
When I was a psychotherapist, I often observed the tendency to focus more on the weaker points of the patient instead of looking for strong ones and their potential. Initially, the idea of the foundation focused then on potential, and that is where the original name came from, with its problematic usage of an idea of a “norm” – Foundation for the Potential of the People outside of the Mental Norm (Fundacja na rzecz Potencjału Osób poza Normą Psychiczną). But the more I started reading about neurodiversity, the more that idea became converged with my thinking. The only difference being that the neurodiversity came from the analysis of autism and for me, it was from a bipolarity point of view. Over time then I changed the name to the Foundation for the Neurodiversity (Fundacja na Rzecz Neuroróżnorodności) I am happy that I was able to transform my difficult experiences into something positive, something that is helpful to others. The way I see it, doing something you truly believe in and what you can identify with is incredibly precious and freeing. In that sense, I think that I have been very lucky.
Kasia Modlińska, psychologist, philosopher, and alumna of psychoanalytic studies at Tavistock, London. Children, teens, and adults’ psychotherapist in the years 2010 – 2019. Founder and the CEO of the Foundation for the Neurodiversity “a/typowi”
