Psychiatric/neurodevelopmental diagnoses have expanded in number and scale with increased influence over matters of education and upbringing. One of the most common psychiatric diagnoses among children and adolescents is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The dominant perspective of ADHD is biomedical, where ADHD is defined as a neurogenetic dysfunction and disorder of the brain. Due to the absence of biological markers, the diagnosis is legitimized on the basis of a humanitarian principle: as an ideology. Through the diagnosis, which is construed in the article as a form of onto-epistemological violence, the unique subject is forced into an object and a second-class citizen who undergoes instrumental techniques of behaviour modification. The overall leitmotif of the article is to shift the focus from ‘chemical imbalances’ to ‘power imbalances’ to counteract reductionism, disempowerment and medical behaviourism. Theoretically, the article draws upon the French philosopher Alain Badiou’s ontological examination of being qua being, wherein the aim is to critically examine the onto-epistemological violence following the diagnosis of ADHD and to seek out a less violent pedagogy.

Föreliggande doktorsavhandling utgör en pedagogisk-filosofisk studie av diagnosen ADHD som uppfostran. Avhandlingen består av fyra internationellt publicerade artiklar samt en substantiell kappa. Det övergripande syftet är att lägga fram ett pedagogiskt argument för varför en förändring kan förefalla nödvändig om målet är att leva ett mer sant liv. Metoden använd utgörs av en triadisk modell som innefattar den grävande mullvaden, den filosofiska ugglan och den pedagogiska örnen. Det pedagogiska exempel som används i studien är den så kallat neuropsykiatriska diagnosen ADHD.

Baserat på en kritisk undersökning av diagnosen ADHD påvisas att denna diagnos inte är vad den sägs vara, utan även någonting annat. Diagnosen ADHD förefaller vara ett symptom på en pedagogisk irrationalitet som hos den enskilde individen re/producerar ”brister” och ”avvikelser” vilket öppnar upp för olika former av mer eller mindre behavioristisk uppfostran. I kappan argumenteras för att diagnosen ADHD bygger på en modern form av sofism, vilken utgör en negativ identitetslogik och en biopedagogik som konstituerar dysfunktionell Andrahet.

Vidare visar analysen att diagnosen ADHD inte enbart är irrationell, utan även orättvis, oren, ond och våldsam. Detta resultat bygger på en teoretisk dialog med tänkare som Michel Foucault, Karen Barad, Michel Serres, Baruch Spinoza, och inte minst Alain Badiou. Utifrån Badiou argumenteras för att diagnosen ADHD bygger på ett ändligt pedagogiskt tänkande, framför oändligt många andra sätt att bli till på tillsammans. Platsen för denna pedagogiska möjlighet uppgår i det unika mötet. I detta unika pedagogiska möte öppnas upp för ett gemensamt kreativt utforskande av världen och därmed möjligheten för de olika parterna att leva ett mer sant liv.

Avhandlingen avslutas med den retoriska frågan om huruvida pedagogen trofast ska hålla fast vid idén om den universella möjligheten att verka för ett mer sant liv, alternativt genom fortsatt bruk av kvasi-diagnostik – diagnosen ADHD – re/producera en irrationell, orättvis, oren, ond och våldsam uppfostran.

The present dissertation is a complitation thesis composed of four published articles and a substantial introduction. The writing style of the introduction is essayistic. The overarching leitmotif is to propose a pedagogical argument for the idea that we need to live otherwise than we live today, if the aim is to live a good, as in a more true, life; i.e. so as to reach eudaimonia through the practice of padeia. The method used is threefold but still unified: it includes the digging mole, the philosophical owl, and the pedagogical eagle. Based on a critical examination of the diagnosis of ADHD (and closely related diagnoses), it is argued that the well-known diagnosis of ADHD is not as clearcut as the dominant “neuropsychiatric” paradigm would have it. This dominant paradigm generally assumes that an increased group of citizens suffers from a neurogenetic “deficit” and “disorder”, and that this group is best managed by medical and behaviorist models of “care” – in the thesis referred to as neuro-behaviorism. In the thesis it is argued that the diagnosis of ADHD (and similar diagnoses) is based on modern sophistry, which forms a negative identity-logic and a bio-pedagogic that results in the constitution, and instrumental treatment, of the (negative category) dysfunctional Other(s).

       The analysis shows that the dominant neuropsychiatric paradigm is irrational from a pedagogical point of view. Yet, this dominant paradigm is often referred to as rational. The analysis also shows that the diagnosis of ADHD belongs to a paradigm which is not only irrational, but also injust, inpure, evil, and violent. This result is primarly based on theoretical arguments developed in dialogue with thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Karen Barad, Michel Serres, Baruch Spinoza, and not least the philosopher Alain Badiou. An important argument driving the thesis, which is based on Badiou’s mathematical ontology, is that the diagnosis of ADHD stems from a paradigm that presupposes finite ways of thinking about what it means to be(come) human in an “in-human” world.  

      Accordingly, the thesis makes for a pedagogical-philosophical critique of the diagnosis of ADHD, but at the same time it formulates a pedagogical alternative beyond the individual diagnosis. Against the dominant techno-positivist (therefore relativist) and pragmatic (therefore non-ontological) paradigm, a differently conceived pedagogical rationality is suggested. This pedagogical rationality is fundamentally relational; the relational alternative suggested is rational and indeeed materialistic. A main ontological axiom that the pedagogical alternative suggested draws from, is that if “the One” is not, then nothing is. This also means that Badiou’s mathemathically based ontology makes it possible to deconstruct every effect of oneness; the ontologically based axiom that there is no a priori “Other”. Yet, what there is (on the level of ontology) is a being that is equivalent with pure multiplicity or infinite alterity named void and symbolized with Ø. The thesis argues that in the void/Ø lies a potential to live a (more) true life. Further it is argued that void/Ø holds a pedagogical potential, via the unique encounter, to make the world exist from the perspective of Two rather than from the perspective of One (the dominant order). It is argued that the place where this unique encounter can take place is the so-called Two-scene of love, and that it is the pedagogue’s “slave-duty” in the world to make room for the Two-scene of love. The thesis closes with the rethorical question if the pedagogue, through a decisive decision, should act militant – as in go many miles – following the universal idea that it is possible for everyone to live a more true life, or if we, as pedagogical subjects, should continue to re/produce a society that through quasi-diagnostics renders equality an in-existent reality.

Pedagogik är en av de klassiska vetenskapliga disciplinerna och har som universitetsämne en hundraårig tradition. I takt med att samhället förändras har även det innehåll som sysselsätter pedagogiken ändrats. Var befinner sig det vetenskapliga ämnet pedagogik i dag? Hur ser den historiska bakgrunden till ämnets framväxt ut? Vilka är de fundament som håller samman pedagogikämnet? Vilka framtida utmaningar finns att hantera? I den här boken medverkar några av Sveriges främsta forskare i pedagogik. Genom deras olika nedslag i pedagogisk forskning erbjuds en vidare förståelse för det pedagogiska landskapets framväxt och utveckling. Mattias Nilsson Sjöberg (red.) är doktorand i pedagogik vid Lunds universitet/Malmö universitet. Jonas Aspelin är professor i pedagogik vid Högskolan Kristianstad. Gunnel Colnerud är professor emerita i pedagogik vid Linköpings universitet. Tomas Englund är seniorprofessor i pedagogik vid Örebro universitet. Sverker Lindblad är professor emeritus i pedagogik vid Göteborgs universitet. Claes Nilholm är professor i pedagogik med inriktning mot specialpedagogik vid Uppsala universitet. Daniel Pettersson är docent i pedagogik vid Högskolan i Gävle. Karin Rönnerman är professor i pedagogik och verksam vid Göteborgs universitet. Daniel Sundberg är professor i pedagogik vid Linnéuniversitetet. Lennart Svensson är professor emeritus i pedagogik vid Lunds universitet. Roger Säljö är professor i pedagogisk psykologi och verksam vid Göteborgs universitet. Ingegerd Tallberg Broman är seniorprofessor i pedagogik vid Malmö universitet. Ninni Wahlström är professor i pedagogik vid Linnéuniversitetet. Moira von Wright är professor i Människan i välfärdssamhället vid Ersta Sköndal Bräcke högskola.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a widely spread diagnosis. The dominant paradigm of ADHD is biomedical where ADHD is defined as a brain disorder. At the same time, the legitimacy of the diagnosis is being questioned since it is unclear whether or not ADHD can be deemed a medical disorder in itself. The aim of this article is to critically assess the merits of understanding the diagnosis of ADHD as a medical condition defined as a brain disorder. This is being done using the seventeenth century philosopher Benedict Spinoza’s (1632–1677) notions of adequate and inadequate knowledge and his counterintuitive theory of mental health. Doing so it becomes clear that ADHD, however adequate it may seem, is founded on inadequate knowledge and that the legitimacy of the individual diagnosis should therefore be questioned on the grounds that on a long term scale it is passivizing and stigmatizing rather that liberating.

(Neuro)psychiatric diagnoses such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a rapidly growing and globally increasing phenomenon, not least in different educational contexts such as in family and in school. Children and youths labelled as ADHD are challenging normative claims in terms of nurturing and education, whereas those labelled as ADHD are considered a (future) risk for society to handle. The dominant paradigm regarding ADHD is biomedical, where different levels of attention and activity-impulsivity are perceived as neurobiological dys/functions within the brain best managed by means of an individual diagnosis and instrumental pedagogy. The majority of those labelled as having ADHD encounter a dominant educational model in the form of what is referred to in this article as neurobehaviorism, which is based on onto-epistemological violence. As opposed to this act of violence against being—and against the psychiatrized subject—a less violent educational model is proposed, based on French philosopher Alain Badiou’s ontological examination of being and his concept of love as a truth procedure. In terms of the latter, the focus is on the potential of the encounter as a ‘Two scene of love’. Here, the encounter is a place where it is possible to create new truths and subjects, instead of taking the individual diagnosis as an axiom which only leads to individuals having fixed identities codified in a hierarchical order. This argument is drawn from the ‘mathematical’ formula 1 + 1 = ♥, which originates from an online forum for people who have come into contact with ADHD in one way or another.