Robert Chapman (philosopher)

Robert Chapman is an English philosopher, teacher and writer, best known for their work on neurodiversity studies and the philosophy of disability.

Early life and education
During their childhood, Chapman lived in low-income housing in London and, later, elsewhere in England. They struggled with learning problems and left school at age 15. After living with friends, Chapman became homeless for a time. After dealing with winter conditions, Chapman entered the foster care system.

During the 2000s, Chapman studied philosophy at the University of Southampton. In 2012, after being diagnosed with autism, they completed their master's degree and began their doctorate at the University of Essex with a focus on neurodiversity as a theory, developing a concept of autistic thriving. They defended their thesis in 2018. Chapman is non-binary and uses they/them pronouns.

Career
Until mid-2022, Chapman served as a senior lecturer in education at Sheffield Hallam University. Beginning in 2023, they became an assistant professor at Durham University, in the field of critical neurodiversity studies. Outside of academic activity, Chapman has also written articles for Psychology Today.

In 2023, Robert published the book Empire of Normality: Neurodiversity and Capitalism, which focused on developing a Marxist perspective on neurodiversity.

Neurodiversity
Chapman defines the neurodiversity movement as a social justice movement that aims to change the way mental disability and neurodevelopmental conditions are observed with the goal of being perceived in a socio-ecological approach to disability. They make frequent references to authors such as Nick Walker and Judy Singer and those authors' proposals for conceptualizing neurodiversity. Chapman argues that, historically, neurodiversity as a movement has had a political approach based on identity, which, from their perspective, is a liberal view.

Chapman argues that the correct interpretation of the concept of neurodiversity contributes to the further development of its theoretical and practical side, and that its multiple definitions are evolving over time. They have also discussed the relationship of neurodiversity to explanatory models of disability, such as the social model of disability and the value-neutral model proposed by philosopher Elizabeth Barnes.

Gerald Roche has argued that Chapman's definition of neurodivergent Marxism is “an intersectional approach to analysing how capitalism produces and maintains multiple forms of oppression, to ensure that new sites of extraction can be constantly identified and exploited in the endless pursuit of capital accumulation.” Awais Aftab has said that Chapman's work “has had a substantial impact on my own thinking, and their writings have consistently forced me, and many others, to rethink long-standing assumptions related to pathology and medical care.” Julie Dind stated in a review of the book Neurodiversity Studies: A New Critical Paradigm, which included Chapman's writings, that one of their essays successfully challenges the tragic perspective on autism promoted by medicine. In 2023, Tiago Abreu argued that Chapman's work manages to provide an effective state-of-the-art and historical contextualization of neurodiversity.

Psychiatry
In various articles and especially in their book Empire of Normality: Neurodiversity and Capitalism, Chapman has criticized how psychiatrists and the field of psychiatry deal with the issue of mental health and disability. In 2022, Chapman said that “a lot of critical psychiatry today is about emphasizing how people with mental health diagnoses are not 'really' disabled–not like 'really' disabled people–because mental health is a political issue rather than a medical issue. For me, however, all issues concerning health and disability are political issues; so, that is a false binary".

Chapman has also criticized anti-psychiatry, especially the work of Thomas Szasz. John Cromby, for Mad in the UK, responded critically to Chapman's approach in Empire of Normality, arguing that the work “misrepresents antipsychiatry” in terms of historical context and use of the term, and argued that it “tends towards idealism.”