The Pathologizing Problem: How Clinical Discourse Shapes ADHD Identity and Why It Matters

Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is currently caught between clinical psychiatry’s deficit-based model and popular culture’s reductive "superpower" narrative. Grounded in autoethnographic experience and an interdisciplinary synthesis of neuroethics, philosophy of medicine, disability studies, and phenomenology, this thesis examines how pathologizing discourse impacts neurodivergent identity and agency. By critiquing medicalized deficit models through capability theory, epistemic justice, and phenomenological insights into self-regulation, the study reframes ADHD traits as distinct cognitive styles rather than developmental lacks. To resolve these conceptual and institutional tensions, the thesis proposes Strategic Dual-Framing: adopting the Neurodiversity Paradigm ontologically to foster affirmative identity and locate disability in environmental mismatch, while pragmatically leveraging the Pathology Paradigm clinically and legally to secure essential accommodations, treatments, and institutional support. Ultimately, integrating first-person phenomenology into medical education transforms clinical encounters from behavioral surveillance into collaborative, ethical care.