Living Against Assumption: An Autoethnographic Examination of Neurodivergence, Development, and Self-Advocacy in an Unfinished World

I. Introduction: Positionality, Voice, and Method

Autoethnography functions as both a method and an intervention. It allows the writer to situate personal experience within broader social, cultural, and institutional contexts, not as an isolated narrative but as evidence of patterned realities. I write as a neurodivergent adult, a disability self-advocate, and an individual whose daily life is shaped by systems that frequently lag behind their stated commitments to inclusion.

My positionality is not incidental to this analysis. It is informed by repeated encounters with education systems, workplaces, healthcare structures, and advocacy spaces that often presume a narrow range of cognitive and communicative norms. These encounters have taught me that development is not linear, nor evenly distributed. While language around disability has evolved, practice often remains tethered to outdated assumptions about capacity, independence, and worth.

This autoethnographic reflection examines how assumptions operate within a still-developing world, one that gestures toward inclusion while continuing to rely on norms that marginalize neurodivergent people. In doing so, it positions self-advocacy not merely as a personal skill, but as a necessary response to structural incompleteness.

II. Theoretical Grounding: Disability Studies, Neurodiversity, and the Limits of Progress

Disability studies offer a critical departure from deficit-based understandings of disability by reframing it as a product of social organization rather than individual impairment. The social model of disability foregrounds the role of inaccessible environments, rigid expectations, and exclusionary norms in producing disablement. The neurodiversity paradigm extends this critique by asserting that neurological variation is an inherent and valuable aspect of human diversity, rather than an anomaly requiring correction.

Yet despite their growing influence, these frameworks are often absorbed selectively. Institutions adopt the language of inclusion while retaining evaluative standards that privilege speed, normative communication styles, and uninterrupted productivity. Neurodivergence is acknowledged rhetorically but constrained practically, tolerated only when it does not challenge the existing order.

From my perspective, this selective adoption reveals a central tension: societies may recognize difference without relinquishing control. Inclusion, under these conditions, becomes conditional and fragile; granted so long as neurodivergent individuals conform closely enough to dominant norms. This tension defines the still-developing world I describe: one in which progress is real, but incomplete, and where theory has yet to fully transform practice.

III. Assumption as Social Infrastructure

Assumptions rarely announce themselves, yet they actively organize social life. They operate as an invisible infrastructure, directing how environments are designed, how success is evaluated, and how legitimacy is granted. When people treat these assumptions as neutral or self-evident, they evade scrutiny and remain firmly in place.

For neurodivergent individuals, these assumptions take concrete form through expectations about communication, emotional expression, decision-making, and endurance. Social norms equate eye contact with engagement, verbal fluency with comprehension, emotional regulation with professionalism, and constant availability with commitment. When individuals diverge from these standards, observers frequently interpret the difference as a deficiency rather than a variation.

In my own experience, assumptions rarely surface as explicit discrimination. Instead, they emerge through premature interpretation: others determine what I can manage, what accommodations I need, or how much responsibility they believe I should hold. Although these judgments are often framed as support, they impose real constraints. They replace curiosity with certainty and close off the possibility of genuine understanding.

IV. Lived Experience: Visibility Without Understanding

Autoethnography demands attention to the lived moments where abstraction becomes tangible. In professional and advocacy spaces, I have often found myself navigating a paradox of visibility: recognized as neurodivergent, yet rarely engaged as an expert on my own experience.

Disclosure, while sometimes necessary, carries risk. It can open pathways to accommodation while simultaneously narrowing how others perceive competence, leadership, or autonomy. Strengths may be minimized, while presumed limitations are amplified. In some cases, support is offered for challenges I do not experience, while the actual barriers I encounter remain invisible or unaddressed.

This misrecognition is not simply interpersonal; it reflects systemic discomfort with complexity. Systems favor categorization over relationship, efficiency over understanding. For neurodivergent individuals, participation often requires continuous translation; explaining needs, correcting assumptions, and advocating for flexibility in environments not designed to anticipate difference.

V. Internalization, Resistance, and the Practice of Self-Advocacy

One of the most enduring effects of assumption is its capacity to be internalized. Over time, repeated exposure to limiting narratives can shape self-perception, subtly redefining what feels permissible to request, pursue, or challenge. The question shifts from What do I need to thrive? to What am I allowed to ask for without being seen as difficult?

My work as a self-advocate has required intentional resistance to this internalization. Self-advocacy, as I understand it, extends beyond individual accommodation requests. It is a practice of narrative reclamation, asserting that lived experience constitutes legitimate knowledge and that disabled people must be central to decisions that affect their lives.

This practice has informed both my personal interactions and my broader advocacy leadership. It has taught me that empowerment is not bestowed; it is cultivated through access, representation, and the redistribution of authority.

VI. From Accommodation to Co-Creation

Accommodation, while necessary, is not sufficient. A developed society does not simply retrofit existing systems to include neurodivergent people; it invites them into the process of design. Co-creation requires a fundamental shift in how expertise is defined and valued.

In advocacy contexts, this means centering self-advocates as leaders rather than symbolic participants. It means designing policies, programs, and environments with neurodivergent input from the outset, rather than responding reactively once barriers are identified. Co-creation acknowledges that those who navigate systems daily possess insights that cannot be replicated through observation alone.

My own advocacy work has reinforced the importance of this shift. When neurodivergent voices are meaningfully included, solutions become more nuanced, sustainable, and humane; not only for disabled people, but for everyone who exists outside narrow norms.

VII. Conclusion: Leadership, Responsibility, and the Work Ahead

This reflection does not resolve the tensions it describes, because they remain embedded within the structures we inhabit. A still-developing world is not one devoid of progress, but one that has yet to fully align its values with its practices.

As a neurodivergent self-advocate, my leadership is shaped by responsibility rather than authority; the responsibility to name what remains unfinished, to challenge assumptions that masquerade as neutrality, and to insist that inclusion be measured by lived impact rather than institutional intent. Development, in this sense, is not a destination, but an ongoing ethical commitment.

Call to Action: Practicing Neurodiversity Affirmation

I invite readers to move beyond assumptions and toward engagement. This begins with listening to neurodivergent voices, supporting self-advocacy initiatives, and embedding disability-affirming principles into everyday decision-making. Neurodiversity affirmation requires more than awareness; it demands action, reflection, and a willingness to relinquish control.

Educators, employers, policymakers, and advocates all play a role in shaping environments where difference is anticipated rather than accommodated after the fact. Affirmation is not passive; it is a deliberate practice of equity.

A Note of Gratitude

Thank you to the readers who have taken the time to engage with this work. Your attention and willingness to reflect contribute meaningfully to the broader movement for disability justice and neurodiversity affirmation. This piece is part of my ongoing self-advocacy and leadership work, grounded in the belief that lived experience is not supplementary to progress; it is essential to it.

Ian Allan

Self-Advocate for The Arc of Northern Virginia

Ian Allan is a self-advocate with a deep commitment to policy literacy, systems change, and disability justice. Through The Arc of Northern Virginia, he works to ensure that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are not merely served by systems, but are actively shaping them.