Raymond Klassen – Ideals and Identities

In part 1, we understood that a lot of the misunderstandings about Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) were based in two fears: threats to established social stratospheres and the ways supporters of EDI virtue-signaled. However, if we want to advance our understanding of EDI, and the benefits of inclusion then we should begin to see that EDI has something important to contribute to our understandings of human agency.

Human agency is not an isolated force but emerges through a dynamic relationship with social recognition. While autonomy is often framed as the ability to act independently, true agency depends on being acknowledged by others as a capable and legitimate agent. Without recognition, individuals struggle to assert themselves meaningfully, as their actions and decisions may lack the validation necessary to foster confidence and self-determination. Rather than existing in isolation, human agency is cultivated through social interaction, where individuals develop their capacities by being seen, understood, shaped and affirmed by those around them. 

The technologically-enhanced modern world offers new opportunities for agency, allowing individuals to break from rigid traditions and exercise personal choice. However, this freedom also comes with challenges, since an overly individualistic mindset can obscure the social foundations of agency. While an atomized conception of agency suggests that individuals act purely out of internal will, this perspective neglects the crucial role of recognition in shaping the ability to act with purpose and coherence. Without the affirmation of others, agency risks becoming fragile, uncertain, or even incoherent, as individuals struggle to situate their actions within a broader social and moral framework. 

Recognition is not merely external validation, but it is also an essential condition for one’s agency to develop and flourish.¹ When individuals are seen and respected, they gain the confidence and psychological grounding necessary to make meaningful choices. Conversely, when recognition is denied—through marginalization, misrepresentation, or disregard—agency is diminished, making it more difficult for individuals to act with conviction and autonomy. This highlights the deeply social nature of agency: rather than being a product of isolation, it is a relational achievement that depends on mutual acknowledgment and respect. 

True agency is not about absolute independence that is completely buffered from social influence but is instead about the ability to act with authenticity and responsibility within a shared social world. It requires both internal self-reflection and external recognition, which together create the conditions for individuals to navigate their lives with purpose and integrity. By understanding agency as fundamentally relational, it becomes clear that human freedom is not about detachment from others but about the capacity to engage with them in ways that affirm one’s ability to act and shape the world.

While the recognition-based model of agency applies broadly, neurodivergent individuals often face unique barriers to achieving agency. Neurodiversity refers to the natural variation in human neurological development, encompassing conditions such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other cognitive differences. These variations challenge traditional conceptions of agency, which often assume that individuals engage with the world in standardized ways. When societal expectations and institutional structures fail to properly receive and integrate neurodivergent individuals, their ability to exercise agency is diminished. 

One of the most significant challenges a neurodivergent individual faces is the misrecognition of their capacities and intentions. Many societal norms are based on neurotypical communication styles and behavioral expectations, which can lead to misunderstandings and social exclusion. For instance, an autistic person who struggles with conventional social cues may be perceived as uncooperative or uninterested, rather than as someone whose agency is expressed differently. When neurodivergent individuals are misinterpreted in this way, they are often denied the recognition necessary for agency to thrive. 

In addition to social misrecognition, structural barriers further limit agency. Educational systems, workplaces, and public spaces are typically designed with neurotypical functioning in mind, making it difficult for neurodivergent individuals to access the same opportunities for self-determination. For example, rigid school curricula that prioritize specific learning styles can hinder the ability of dyslexic students to demonstrate their intellectual abilities. Similarly, workplace environments that emphasize open-plan offices or fast-paced interactions can create unnecessary obstacles for individuals with sensory sensitivities or executive functioning differences. These structural challenges restrict agency by limiting the ability of neurodivergent individuals to fully participate in society on their own terms. 

Moreover, the pathologization of neurodivergence often undermines self-confidence and self-advocacy, both of which are essential components of agency. When neurodivergent traits are framed pathologically rather than as differences with their own sets of challenges, individuals may internalize negative perceptions of their capabilities and be tempted to think something is wrong with them. This internalized stigma can lead to decreased self-efficacy, where individuals doubt their own ability to navigate the world effectively. Without a sense of self-worth and confidence, the motivation to assert one’s agency is weakened, creating a cycle in which exclusion leads to diminished personal empowerment. 

Given these challenges, fostering agency in neurodivergent individuals requires a shift toward more inclusive forms of recognition. Instead of treating neurodivergence as a type of pathology, it is possible to create spaces that are socially adjusted from the outset. Recognizing neurodivergence as a legitimate and valuable form of human diversity is crucial in creating environments where individuals feel empowered to act autonomously. We cannot overstate this point: neurodiversity is a legitimate and valuable form of human diversity. It is not a sickness to be healed; rather, the term signifies a common, and often unarticulated, way of engaging the world. This recognition must go beyond mere tolerance and extend to active accommodation, incorporation, and appreciation of different ways of thinking, learning, and engaging with the world. 

One important step toward this goal is the promotion of neurodivergent self-advocacy. When neurodivergent individuals are encouraged to articulate their needs and own their fulfillment, they gain greater control over their lives. Self-advocacy movements, such as those led by autistic activists, challenge outdated medicalized narratives and emphasize the importance of self-determination. By amplifying neurodivergent voices, society can help ensure that individuals are recognized on their own terms rather than being forced into a framework that does not align with their lived experiences. (Chapman. 2023) 

Additionally, structural changes are necessary to remove barriers to agency. Educational institutions should adopt more flexible teaching methods that accommodate diverse learning styles, allowing neurodivergent students to engage with material in ways that align with their cognitive strengths. Some of this is already underway. Universal Learning Design is seen as a way that pedagogically facilitates individual agency among learners. Furthermore, workplaces can implement policies such as remote work options, quiet spaces, and flexible deadlines to ensure that neurodivergent employees can perform at their best without unnecessary stress. Legal and policy frameworks should also support neurodivergent individuals by ensuring that disability rights extend to cognitive and sensory accommodations. However, individuals accessing these scaffolding supports need a diagnosis just to access them – a luxury that most newcomers to countries simply cannot obtain when the pressing concerns of education and work are demanded from them. 

Beyond systemic reforms, fostering a culture of empathy and understanding is essential. Society must move beyond a deficit-based view of neurodivergence and instead cultivate environments where difference is not only accepted but valued. They are strengths. Training programs in schools and workplaces that educate neurotypical individuals on neurodivergent communication styles and needs can reduce misunderstandings and promote more meaningful recognition. When neurodivergent individuals are seen and understood on their own terms, they are more likely to feel empowered to exercise their agency fully. (Bandura, 1997) 

Human agency is deeply social, emerging through recognition rather than isolation. While autonomy is often viewed as an internal trait, it fundamentally relies on being acknowledged and valued by others. (Taylor, 1992) However, neurodivergent individuals often face significant challenges to agency due to social misrecognition, structural barriers, and the pathologization of their differences. These obstacles can undermine confidence, limit opportunities, and restrict the ability to act with full self-determination. 

To strengthen agency in neurodivergent individuals, recognition must be reframed to embrace cognitive diversity as a legitimate and valuable aspect of human experience. Promoting self-advocacy, implementing structural accommodations, and fostering a culture of acceptance are all necessary steps toward ensuring that agency is accessible to all individuals, regardless of neurological differences. By embracing a social understanding of agency – rather than prescriptively normal one – post-secondary institutions can acknowledge the essential role of recognition in empowering individuals. These institutions can thus create conditions in which everyone has the freedom to act, shape their world, and live authentically. 

1. We must here be reminded of Rousseau’s famous argument in the Second Discourse against preferential esteem and distinguish it from what we call “recognition.” Preferential esteem is a kind of fad which changes according to the audience – it is fleeting. Recognition is much stronger; it forms one’s identity and agency.   ↩︎