Inclusive Education: Rethinking Its Theoretical Foundations
Author(s):
Alberto Sánchez-Rojo (presenting / submitting) Miriam Prieto-Egido (presenting)
Conference:
ECER 2017
Format:
Paper (Copy for Joint Session)

Session Information

13 SES 10 B JS, Theorising in Inclusive Education

Joint Paper Session NW 04 and NW 13

Time:
2017-08-24
15:30-17:00
Room:
W6.13
Chair:
Fabio Dovigo

Contribution

Over the last three decades, educational discourse has progressively focused on inclusive education. The adjective “inclusive” calls for an understanding of education where every child has the right to be educated regardless their individual characteristics. As UNESCO pointed out: “inclusive education implies the conception and the implementation of a vast repertoire of learning strategies to respond precisely to learners’ diversities” (2008, p. 9), regardless of their different cultural, social or learning backgrounds. Inclusive education urges to create shared settings where all the children are educated together, sharing a world that equally belongs to them (Stainback & Stainback, 1990).

 

Inclusive education reflects that diversity and differences are central social issues, and they are quite often referred when speaking about promoting life together, democracy or participation, or about eradicating social conflicts, minorities’ exclusion or misunderstandings between groups or individuals (Todd, 2001). On the other hand, equality is a key feature of democratic societies. Diversity and equality are, paradoxically, key cornerstones of both societies and education. In education is generally accepted that every child is unique, different, but at the same time she deserves to be educated as any other.

 

The aim of this paper is to deeper analyze the concept of difference, in what relates to otherness, that lays behind the educational discourse, and its consequences for teaching and learning about our relationship with others. According to this discourse, diversity must be recognized, or even celebrated (Michaels, 2006), to create a truly common. All the differences must have a place at school, and teachers are required to find them, to identify them, to analyze them and finally to work on them (Ferguson, 2008).

 

Education has been traditionally related to knowledge: in Education, knowledge goes always first. Knowledge is always reassuring for human beings, as it allows us to deal with the unknown, which scares us. This is the reason why we tend to define, explain, decode what comes from outside, in order to erase its enigma. However, to define the other is to lock them into a determined identity or, even worse, to prevent them from any authentic expression beyond that given identity. We will try to show up to what extent the focus on differences is not a different response to otherness than the traditional attempt to possess it, but just another expression of the fear that the other arouses. That was the reason for Levinas to put the otherness at first. The encounter with the other must be free of knowledge, it must be sincere and pure. Everyone is unique, but it is not the teacher or the science that must define it, but the simple encounter. Per Lévinas (2011, 157) “my own self is created by the “I”'s reception of the Other, a self which from the very beginning is a moral self. The appearance of the naked face of the Other show me the first of human principles, namely, you shall not kill”. Because when knowledge goes first; when we define someone just attending to one of her intrinsic characteristics, we are killing her authentic and unique personality and that is clearly immoral. Addressing topics as gender, sexual orientation, or race, it seems quite clear. However, when we are referring people with any kind of disability, it does not. We will try to show that inclusive education it is not just about social justice, but fundamentally about moral education. 

Method

From a philosophical-educational perspective, and thus fundamentally by means of critical analysis of texts, we will try to clarify some concepts and ideas concealing behind the widely-spread discourse of diversity and inclusive education, and advance some consequences for the way in which the other is understood that this discourse may give rise to. The analysis focus on four main concepts: identity, difference and otherness. The critical analysis will be carried out in the light of prominent authors whose works have examined those concepts in detail. In the case of identity and difference, we focus on Ricoeur (1992) and his notion of narrative identity and difference as change through time. Levinas’ work (2011) is the starting point for the study of the concept of otherness. The analysis tries to identify if the notion of identity and difference in which educational discourse is based on coincides with Ricoeur’s open concept of identity, where identity is conceived as dynamic, open, changeable. In the case of difference, the study figures out whether it is understood as a belonging to a culture, religion, race, social group, and so on, or as consequence of experience. Finally, the analysis goes on the concept of the other, for figuring out if it is understood as sameness or, as Lévinas defended, otherness.

Expected Outcomes

The other will always be an individual that cannot be reduced to her belonging to a determined culture, religion, ethnic or social group, and so on. The emphasis on difference may lead to ‘‘the narcissisms of the small differences’’ (Freud, 1962, 199). In this way, education could contribute to building others’ classifications through their attributions. However, education can be understood from a different point of view: as an encounter between individuals. Here the focus moves from the difference to the other (Prieto, 2015). The issue from this perspective is not whether human beings are different, but what kind of answer do we want to give to their presence. This educational standpoint calls the attention to the ‘‘between’’ that springs from the educational relationship. A relationship basically based on trust. “Trust is only possible in a state between knowing and not knowing. […]. If we know everything in advance, there is no need for trust. Transparency is a state in which all not-knowing is eliminated. When transparency prevails, no room for trust exists” (Han, 2015, 47-48) and inclusive education has emerged in an era in which everything must be known and explained, even if the explanation is not a totally reliable one. It will be always better a pseudo-explanation than a lack of explanation (Baughman & Hovey, 2006). Our children are known in advance and we wrongly build our relationship with them from this knowledge. However, learning with others can lead to “learning-from” and “learning-for” (Bauman, 1995, p. 52) them, instead of the “learning-about” that derives from focusing on differences. Current practices on inclusive education may conceal dynamics of exclusion. Because of that we conclude that Theoretical foundations of inclusive education must be changed. We do not need an inclusive education just based on scientific knowledge, but on ethics.

References

Baughman & Hovey (2006). The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children. Victoria: Trafford Publishing. Bauman, Z. (1995). Life in fragments: Essays in postmodern morality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ferguson, D. L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: the continuing challenge to teach each one and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2), 109-120. Freud, S. (1962). Civilization and its discontents. London: Penguin. Han, B.H. (2015). The Transparency Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lévinas, E. (2011). Totality and Infinity, an essay on exteriority. Pittsburgh: University of Duquense Press. Michaels, W. B. (2006). The trouble with diversity. How we learned to love identity and ignore inequality. New York: Metropolitan Books. Prieto, M. (2015). The other from an educational perspective: beyond fear, dependence. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 34, 297-309. Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Todd, S. (2011). Educating beyond cultural diversity: Redrawing the boundaries of a democratic plurality. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30, 101–111. Stainback, W. C., & Stainback, S. B. (1990). Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education. Baltimore: P.H. Brookes Pub. Co. UNESCO. (2008). Inclusive education: the way of the future. International conference on education. International Conference Centre, Geneva 25-28 November 2008.

Author Information

Alberto Sánchez-Rojo (presenting / submitting)
Comillas Pontifical University
Miriam Prieto-Egido (presenting)
Autonomous University of Madrid

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.