Where, Not What, Dyslexia Is

A Critical Review of the Many Definitions of Dyslexia

Abstract

If diagnosticians are to provide consistent assessments for dyslexia, the assumption would be that there would be agreement between them on what they are assessing. In this article, we uncover how people are being systematically diagnosed for significantly different understandings of dyslexia. It critically examines and challenges the belief that dyslexia is a universally understood term, arguing instead that its definition is culturally relative. Through a comprehensive review of national and organisational definitions of dyslexia, the paper demonstrates the lack of a single, universally accepted standard. This leads to a "dyslexia relativism," where competing frameworks, often influenced by professional and cultural demands, render objective judgment of one definition over another problematic. Drawing on Paul Boghossian's theory of relativism, the article illustrates how the absence of a culturally-neutral standard for dyslexia definitions leaves little basis for evaluating their correctness, highlighting the potential for negative labelling and, crucially, the risk to safeguarding vulnerable children whose needs may not be adequately met. The paper concludes that without a basis for a definitive, universally recognised definition, societies are left vulnerable to potentially harmful interpretations.