Disordered, deficient, and dehumanised: How biomedical and cognitive approaches are limiting our understandings of aphantasia

Abstract

Background: Aphantasia is neither officially a mental health disorder nor a cognitive disability, but is increasingly being positioned as something adjacent to both. Aim: The current study seeks to explore how aphantasia is positioned by published research, science communication, and social media posts. Method: Two types of data were collected: published research about aphantasia, and content by researchers and the public across several social media sites and forums. Data were extracted, transcribed, and then analysed using a discursive approach. Particular attention was given to the interpretative repertoires researchers and the public draw on when discussing aphantasia. Results: People with aphantasia were largely positioned as disordered, deficient, and dehumanised by researchers from biomedical and cognitive perspectives. There was a lack of lived experience led research into aphantasia. Conclusions: Biomedical and cognitive lenses seem limited in their ability to meaningfully contribute to the field of understanding aphantasia. Drawing on Mad and Crip studies, we can see in the literature about aphantasia the emergence of a field that seeks to try to control or fix aphantasia despite a lack of evidence that such an approach is necessary.

Authors

• Brett Scholz1
• Heather Scholz1

Disordered, deficient, and dehumanised: How biomedical and cognitive approaches are limiting our understandings of aphantasia

Abstract

Background: Aphantasia is neither officially a mental health disorder nor a cognitive disability, but is increasingly being positioned as something adjacent to both. Aim: The current study seeks to explore how aphantasia is positioned by published research, science communication, and social media posts. Method: Two types of data were collected: published research about aphantasia, and content by researchers and the public across several social media sites and forums. Data were extracted, transcribed, and then analysed using a discursive approach. Particular attention was given to the interpretative repertoires researchers and the public draw on when discussing aphantasia. Results: People with aphantasia were largely positioned as disordered, deficient, and dehumanised by researchers from biomedical and cognitive perspectives. There was a lack of lived experience led research into aphantasia. Conclusions: Biomedical and cognitive lenses seem limited in their ability to meaningfully contribute to the field of understanding aphantasia. Drawing on Mad and Crip studies, we can see in the literature about aphantasia the emergence of a field that seeks to try to control or fix aphantasia despite a lack of evidence that such an approach is necessary.

Authors

• Brett Scholz1
• Heather Scholz1