Inclusive education is often times shaped by a model of students in teachers that reflects a binary understanding of function and dysfunction. Thus resulting in an understanding of subjects which comply to a norm and those who should be included in this group. Especially in schools medical models like DSM-V (Falkai et al. 2018) or ICD-11 (WHO 2019) are used to reference singe students, resulting in a pathologically based, stigmatizing view on individual students. Even more progressive approaches using social model of disability, like the ICF-Model (WHO 2001) show perspectives which conclude in a description of norms and deviation (Hirschberg 2018). Recognizing this we have to conclude that a truly inclusive understanding can’t be realized while describing differences in normative ways.
On the other hand the recognition of individual differences is needed in educational settings, to provide individualization and appropriate learning methods and materials to fit the individual needs of each student, providing ‘reasonable accommodations of the individuals’s requierments’ as UN-CRPD (2006, Art. 24) puts it. The issue of recognizing and reducing barriers depends on the description of individual needs, thus the description of differences.

The aim of this presentation is to introduce a new model, which includes everyone participating in an inclusive group. Starting from the discourse around neurodiversity, this presentation will include philosophical, psychological and neurological perspectives to introduce a model, which is capable of describing differences based on regular human variation, without stigmatization.  
“Neurodiversity is the diversity of human minds, the infinite variation in neurocognitive functioning within our species.” (Walker 2014) This categorizes neurodiversity as another dimension of heterogeneity within the human species, tying it to other discourses like race, class or gender (Singer 2017). This means that neurominorities like autistic persons (I’m using this wording with respect to it’s self-chosen character in accordance to Walker (2016)) must also be seen as a regular variation of the human species. This perspective rules out any pathological description that frames autism as a deviation of a norm. The image of autism is first and foremost based on outside descriptions, founded in a socially constructed image of normality. Still neurological differences do exist within humankind and result in individual needs, especially in an environment like schools, which is primarily suited for the needs of neurotypical students – another overgeneralization, which can lead to inappropriate environments and obstacles to overcome for everyone.
This may result in barriers which must be recognized and dismantled (Boban and Hinz 2009). Still these barriers effect every person, not only neurodivergent. This is due to differences in sensory processing which are inherent to every person (e.g. Friston 2017; Newen 2013; Northoff et al. 2016). By developing a general model of sensory processing in context of Self (‘Selbst’) and environment we can describe individual differences, provide reasonable accommodations for each persons needs, and ultimately provide equity in inclusive education, as this perspective shifts the view from overgeneralization of a group to an individual recognition of inclusive subjects. This will be concluded in the presentation, by looking exemplary at autistic students in inclusive learning settings.

The presentation will feature the development of a model of Inclusive Subjects (‘Inklusive Subjekte’), by reinterpreting and combining approaches and findings from different fields. The term inclusive subjects is used to emphasize the departure from binary thinking of norm and deviation or a fixed group and persons that shall be included. Starting from the philosophical recognition of the relationship between a person and the environment (e.g. Plessner 1975) and the realization that perception is a reciprocal process (e.g. Eisler 2002; Soutschek 2011), between the environment and the person, this presentation will connect different findings on this topic. Psychological and psychoanalytical approaches focus on the effects of the social environment on subjects. Authors like Kaplan-Solms et al. (2007) use psychoanalytical findings and connect them to modern knowledge about neurology. Neurophilosophical approaches (Friston 2017; e.g. Newen 2013; Northoff et al. 2016) go even a step further by treating all sensory impressions alike, to form an image of self and environment, which provides the insights, that (1) a subject is constructing it’s perception of the environment (and thus their relationship to the environment) based on their capabilities, experiences and neurological ‘wiring’ and (2) that this constructed perception must be different for every subject. This interconnects with the discourse around neurodiversity. By taking Daniel Kahnemanns (2011) neurological two system theory into account to describe sensory processing, this presentation suggests a new model which is capable of describing differences between individuals without stigmatization, as differences are inherent to all.

The aim of this presentation is to provide a new model to describe (neurological) differences without stigmatization. This is especially relevant in the context of inclusive education as inclusion worldwide is often hindered by pathological thinking and an image of including one person into a preexisting group (e.g. an autistic student into a pre-existing class), instead of providing measures to facilitate participation for everyone. Still there is a lack of models to shape this way of thinking, as often times a description of differences leads to a comparison to artificial norms. By applying the suggested model it is possible to focus on reduction of barriers in the environment, to meet each individuals needs. This presentation will explore this by applying the model exemplary to autistic students in inclusive education, to provide insights into shifting perspectives, resulting in different pedagogical approaches. The model distinguishes between Self and environment and focusses on the contact between the two. To do this the Self is once again separated into physical factors (body and senses) and Mind. The physical factors shape the possibilities to interact with the environment. The Mind however provides sensory processing, shaping the recognition of the environment, thus consciousness. All these factors of the Self provide the potential of different and individual sensory processing, so individual differences must not be seen pathologically but as a natural form of human variation.

Boban, I., & Hinz, A. (2009). Der Index für Inklusion. Sozial Extra, 33, (9-10, 12–16). doi:10.1007/s12054-009-0078-4 Eisler, R. (2002). Kant-Lexikon. Nachschlagewerk zu Kants sämtlichen Schriften, Briefen und handschriftlichem Nachlaß (5., unveränd. Nachdr. d. Ausg. Berlin 1930). Hildesheim: Olms. Falkai, P., Wittchen, H.-U., Döpfner, M., Gaebel, W., Maier, W., Rief, W., et al. (Eds.). (2018). Diagnostisches und statistisches Manual psychischer Störungen DSM-5® (2. korrigierte Auflage, deutsche Ausgabe). Göttingen: Hogrefe. Friston, K. (Serious Science, Ed.). (2017). Free Energy Principle, British Council. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIu_dJGyIQI. Accessed: 2 June 2020. Hirschberg, M. (2018). Konzeptualisierungen von Behinderung in der ICF und der UN-BRK und deren Beitrag zur Verwirklichung des Rechts auf Arbeit. In G. Wansing, F. Welti, & M. Schäfers (Eds.), Das Recht auf Arbeit für Menschen mit Behinderungen. Internationale Perspektiven (1st ed., pp. 109–130). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (First edition). New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux. Kaplan-Solms, K., Solms, M., Pfeffer, A. Z., Kranz, R., Turnbull, O., & Mojzisch, A. (2007). Neuro-Psychoanalyse. Eine Einführung mit Fallstudien (3. Aufl.). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Newen, A. (2013). Philosophie des Geistes (C.H.Beck Wissen, 1. Aufl.). München: C.H.Beck. Northoff, G., Vetter, J., & Böker, H. (2016). Das Selbst und das Gehirn. In H. Böker, P. Hartwich, & G. Northoff (Eds.), Neuropsychodynamische Psychiatrie (1st ed., pp. 129–145). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Plessner, H. (1975). Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch. Einleitung in die philosophische Anthropologie (Sammlung Göschen, vol. 2200, 3., unveränderte Auflage, im Original erschienen 1975). Berlin: De Gruyter. Singer, J. (2017). NeuroDiversity. The birth of an idea. Lexington. Soutschek, A. (2011). Naturalismus und Skeptizismus. Eine Analyse naturalistischer Strategien gegen den Außenweltskeptiker (neue Ausg). Saarbrücken: Südwestdeutscher Verlag für Hochschulschriften. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities andOptional Protocol. https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf. Accessed: 13 October 2022. Walker, N. (2014). Neurodiversity: Some basic terms & definitions. https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/. Accessed: 17 August 2021. Walker, N. (2016). Autism & the Pathology Paradigm. https://neuroqueer.com/autism-and-the-pathology-paradigm/. Accessed: 14.10.22. WHO. (2001). International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization. WHO. (2019). International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision. The global standard for diagnostic health information. https://icd.who.int/en. Accessed: 9 June 2021.