I came across some stuff about the philosopher Derrida. He was Jewish and yet that identity was problematic for him. And there is a way of thinking of his modality, deconstruction , as a response to that. A response that was not just philosophical but political. So, for example, he was against the nation state, pro immigration etc And one way of thinking about deconstruction, and I am a bit vague here, is to think that its modus operandi is to deconstruct boundaries. It does this by showing up the discrepant, ambiguous, illogical aspect of boundaries/borders and so on.
Our problem: the swirl can be present and fester in a boundaried world and in one where there are none. It reminds me a little of studying Sociology of Ed in London with someone called Basil Bernstein. At that time he wrote about the advantages and disadvantages of a discrete subject based curriculum versus integrated studies. No boundaries, or very weak boundaries versus strong ones.
So swirls arising out of being outside dominant group or competing badly in a neo-liberal environment on the one hand versus swirls arising from an environment where identity markers are weak or almost non existent. Does the last point make sense? Is it possible?
Put another way. Derrida wants a pluralistic democracy, but I suspect he might also think that his issues with Judaism might dissolve in such a state. How about the link to knowledge classification?
If there are weak boundaries between (school) subjects or no boundaries how might that be for learning? All of this bears on swirls because amongst other things, the swirl experience involves disorientation. A loss of bearings.

Swirls are not just about (acute) anxiety, though that is invariably present, but also about a complex of feelings that include shame, fear, depression, and a sense of being small and utterly alone.