#TeachingWhileNeurodivergent: The Double-Edged Sword of Palmer - Identity and True Selves versus Heart Work and Vulnerabilty

I'd like to start off by saying that Parker Palmer's work is probably the book and pedagogy that I've liked best so far, and nothing that I'm going to say here in this post is either in disagreement with his work or meant to be a dismissal of it.

That being said:

I love what he says in his book, but trying to work out how I could apply it to myself is much less straightforward.

Palmer's discussion about the importance of identity and integrity in the classroom, especially the part where he speaks on how the whole/true self should be brought in to teaching is the most validating thing I've ever come across for my position as #TeachingWhileNeurodivergent, no exaggeration whatsoever. Society puts out "be yourself" messages all the time, from PSAs to Disney's Aladdin. But when you are neurodivergent, or have a mental illness or learning disability, or exist on some spectrum somewhere, not passing for neurotypical or "being out", especially if it is possible for you to pass, is nothing short of a rebellious and/or scandalous act. Accepting or even liking your full self, alternative mental schema and all, straight up makes you a radical, and I would argue you're considered even more radical than a member of the Alt-Right, a religious extremist, or a terrorist, although, in retrospect, all three of those options are or can be the same thing.

The point is, I've always been in that group of people (mostly marginalized) who get the variation of societal "be yourself" messages that instead say "Be Yourself (No, Not Like That)" or "Be Yourself (But Not You, You Don't Count)". 

So having Palmer say that teachers need to be their full selves so genuinely really assured me in ways that I hadn't really known I'd needed. And the fact that incorporating our lives and strengths into the classroom, even if they aren't academic, really was helpful in showing me that my storytelling and tangents to help students understand topics could be a good pedagogical strategy as well as something that was true to myself - and, if we want to stretch, that it is a good pedagogical strategy because it is true to myself.

But.

(because there is a but here)

Even if heart work and vulnerability are great concepts to take into account, I don't know that I am skilled enough socially (human enough) to use them consistently.

Maybe, like it was apparent when discussing Palmer, my definition of what vulnerability is is different from Palmer and most other people. Maybe it's fine that because I spend time weighing what information is risky and what isn't, that not-risky information isn't vulnerability to me can make sense. But vulnerability with my students, in either my definition or in Palmer's...

Vulnerability doesn't work the same way with those of us who are #TeachingWhileNeurodivergent or #ExistingWhileNeurodivergent, especially not when you consider how vulnerability and disability both function rhetorically. Especially not if anxiety is involved in some form or fashion.

I hope this makes sense to you, but I don't blame you if it doesn't.

When you are anything other than physically and mentally abled, and other people know it, you are automatically constituted in a positionality that is inherently fragile and precarious. This happens in other areas of marginality as well, but there is a particular handling that really only shows up in dealing with the disabled and differently-abled. I think of this as the "Damaged" label. And I'm using "Damaged" here as a very specific word. I know that the idea of "brokenness" shows up in LGBT+ rhetorics, especially in ace rhetorics, and the idea that people in those communities are "broken" or can be "fixed" is involved in the "rationality" behind conversion therapy and corrective rape. But "broken" and "damaged" are two very different words. Something can be fully and properly assembled and still be "broken" because it's not functioning correctly. But if something is "damaged", then there's something wrong with it at the material level, and that's how we're seen. Even the most progressive or "woke" person will consciously or unconsciously give me that "damaged" association that they apply to all disabled or differently-abled people the moment they know I'm autistic, because now I'm damaged goods and that means I need to be handled with care, accommodated for, adjusted or repaired so I can function the same as everyone else.

So, as someone openly #TeachingWhileNeurodivergent, I'm already constituted as vulnerable. I already bare my neck just by being "out". The question is not "are you vulnerable", it's "when are you going to go for the jugular", because it's only a matter of time. A capitalist society does not have kindness for the likes of us deemed "damaged". 

So being vulnerable is great in theory, but every story I share just gives people more ammo to use against me and lowers my credibility with my students even further. And while power in the classroom can be harmful, as a teacher I have to have credibility in the classroom to teach. 

And heart work is also difficult because maintaining empathy and doing emotional labor, especially for long periods of time, is difficult. Relating to people can take more effort. The social nature of teaching isn't easy for an autistic person, and doing it with a full open heart? How do you not scare people with the intensity? How do you measure how much of an emotion is too much? What's genuine and what's not? And being vulnerable while doing it?

Here, let me help you plan your murder of me so you know all the best ways to murder me, it'll be great!