Disclaimer
This information is provided for informational purposes only. For medical advice or diagnosis, please consult a qualified professional.
One of the characteristics classified within developmental disorders is “giftedness.” Does this classification not follow the same structure as the salvation of the weak through religion? In essence, it is a form of salvation from external evaluation, provided by external evaluation itself.
Developmental disorders are primarily identified in young individuals, characterized by significant difficulty in adapting within socially influential contexts. These personal traits emerge as a “disorder” when such difficulties impede an individual’s daily life. The characteristics of developmental disorders vary immensely from person to person. However, a common thread among these traits is the difficulty of harmonizing with the surrounding environment—a challenge that is not easily resolved.
The diversity of developmental disorder traits stems from both an individual’s unique characteristics and the environment in which those characteristics manifest. Both the traits and the environments differ, as does the way they interact for each person. Furthermore, the reason developmental disorders are often limited to the youth is based on the idea that, as the name suggests, they originate in an individual’s development. The implication is that older generations either adapted to society during their development or did not exhibit such traits in their youth.
It can be argued that “developmental disorder” is a concept created to subsume the difficulties of adaptation within a social system. As long as a social system—the totality of social contexts—demands adaptation, subsuming these difficulties serves to guarantee the order of that system. However, the classification of developmental disorders is a relatively new concept. This raises the challenge of how society should encompass those who were young before this classification emerged or became widely known.
Diagnostic criteria also vary widely, ranging from the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM and the WHO’s ICD to standards set by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Yet, if criteria and implementation are standardized, inclusivity is compromised. Furthermore, prejudice and discrimination against developmental disorders have surfaced. The very traits created for social inclusion have, ironically, become targets of discrimination.
Within this context, “gifted” refers to those who demonstrate abilities evaluated as exceptionally superior in a specific field. An intelligence quotient (IQ) is merely one metric of this evaluation. However, has this not become a means of asserting superiority within the realm of “disorders” to escape discrimination and prejudice? Is there not a structure emerging where individuals attempt to be included in society by escaping the very systems built for social inclusion?
Talent remains invisible unless it is evaluated. In other words, talent is a socially charged external evaluation. A diagnosis of a developmental disorder is also an external evaluation. How should we face such assessments? I believe that what is required instead is the “power of dogmatism” (independent judgment) to overcome them.
On the other hand, this power of dogmatism is acquired through the struggle with external evaluations. While it refers to one’s unique judgment and values, no judgment or value can exist independently of external evaluation. This is because “value” arises through comparison, and judgment is based on some form of value. The power of dogmatism to overcome external evaluation is the ability to judge without being unilaterally swayed by others’ opinions. It is the exercise of a unique judgment that, while receiving external evaluations, possesses the power to shake their influence. Recognizing this reciprocity is crucial both for the exercise of independent judgment and for ethical integrity.
