This paper aims to provoke critical thinking about current developments in the field of inclusion argued on the level of the theory of education. Hence, the paper's main objective is to ask why the realization and the discourse about inclusion remain 'fuzzy' and often seem doomed to fail. The article approaches this objective by proposing the evaluation and consideration of inclusion as a multi-layered concept and reality, opening the discussion and reflection on whether inclusion as a concept, apart from a practice, is dead, has never been alive, or is yet to be brought to life. As a theoretical framework, the paper discusses the role of inclusion as an ideology that collides with various social and cultural conditions and occurrences based on their contingency (ct. Holzinger, 2015; Flügel-Martinsen, 2021). Similarly, inclusion collides with human nature, e.g., the ability to classify.

Even though education is the primary discipline that examines inclusion, the participation of other subjects in the discussion is now growing, especially in domains from sociology to health sciences going through cultural studies and anthropology. We could raise the question regarding how different disciplines interfere with each other by giving various ideas of inclusion and how to characterize this obstruction. But the fact is that they do not interfere with or recognize each other at all. Consequentially, there isn’t an interdisciplinary discourse close to the topic of discussion. This paper analyses sources from a critical standpoint and looks into possible sources from the named different and various academic fields that may interfere with the main corpus. With an interdisciplinary strategy, this paper studies the possible contradictions or merges between sources from the periphery and the nucleus.

There is a tendency to associate inclusion and diversity without question. Although inclusion deems more complicated than initially thought, the term is broadly used in different and various social discourses, e.g., in institutional, educational, and political ones. It is a word that carries a powerful meaning, holding its ground in the Human Rights Convention as the highest ethical standard of westernized societies. At the same time, it’s a term with a critical fragility regarding its connotation and general understanding. Amongst the definitions existing all over the globe, one can, for example, observe that inclusion is either nationally and culturally located or used as a decontextualized and uniformized standard. Also, the understandings are either based on empirical evidence or an ethical demand. It is related to school and education but also social issues and society. Subsequently, it refers to differing ideas in the “special needs” and disability realm of diversity and difference. Inclusion focuses on the discursive and theoretical level but also on the practices and realization. Based on all these different references and frameworks for understanding inclusion, the succeeding definitions differ considerably (cf. Katzenbach, 2017; Lindmeier & Lindmeier, 2015; Hinz, 2010; Allan, 2008; Ainscow, 1999; Wolley 2017). This observation is used as a common ground and starting point for unfolding the reasons for this fuzziness by contextualizing it, reflecting its interdisciplinarity, and looking at this from an ideologically critical, multilayered perspective. The gathered knowledge, therefore, offers crucial impulses for talking about the value of diversity in its close connection to inclusion as an ethical standard.

Regarding the methodological design the study is based on, it can be largely described as ideology criticism (cf. Mannheim, 1929; Horkheimer, 1987). Inclusion is seen as a value and an ideology that does not necessarily match reality and social conditions – partially because it collides with other prevailing ideologies. Social, cultural, anthropological, and psychological reasons for this discrepancy will also be part of the study's research. Therefore, context analytical approaches combined with steps of discourse analysis are particularly emphasized within the study (cf. Vogt, 2014; Keller et al, 2006). Additionally, comparative perspectives come into play, as dealing with demands of inclusion is a widely spread challenge in almost all European countries. Also, globally seen it can be described as such. The comparative perspective collects within the European borders mainly examples from Germany, Sweden, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Estonia, and Italy – but it also takes developments in other non-western countries into account (cf. Hilker, 1962; Waterkamp, 2006; Rakhkochkine, 2012). The overarching goal of the complex methodological design is to combine more traditional qualitative research approaches as ideology criticism with more recent ones for developing a broad understanding of developments surrounding the demand for inclusion. As the critical perspective on the realizability of inclusion and, therefore, on the possibility to value diversity thoroughly is quite delicate, it needs to be reassured by triangulating different qualitative methodologies and theoretical perspectives.

Looking at the analysis results, eight main explanations for the reflection of the fuzziness of ‘inclusion’ could be derived based on a deepened interdisciplinary understanding. Based on the data and insights gathered, inclusion can be described as (1) a westernized standard that also claims global validity, (2) a cloak of silence that does not allow for the voicing of different positions, (3) an instrument and a shift of power, as the claim to speak for marginalized groups further empowers the already powerful and influential national and global actors, (4) anti-democratic, as it is not compatible with notions of majority and voting mechanisms, as (5) prohibiting the exclusion of others and oneself, as each individual is expected to feel the need to be included, as (6) an impossibility to educate, as education is based on hierarchy, ranking, and the dominance of specific general educational goals, as (7) anti-human, as human perception of and orientation in the world are necessarily based on acts of categorization, and as (8) anti-cultural, as the contingency of certain cultures is not compatible with the expectation of valuing diversity and realizing inclusion. These arguments need to be unfolded thoroughly and be discussed by looking at them from a philosophy of educational perspective. By doing so Europeanwide as well as globally, reflections on the realizability of inclusion and its theoretical background are being developed into a valid basis that can fight the prevailing ideological as well as fuzzy way of dealing with the construct. Hence, the paper offers a significant impulse for bringing inclusion to life by questioning its vitality as a first step. The value of diversity for education and educational research is, then, turned into a vital perspective within this reflection.

Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. Studies in Inclusive Education. Falmer Press. Allan, J. (2008). Rethinking Inclusive Education: The Philosophers of Difference in Practice. Springer Dordrecht. Flügel-Martinsen, O. (2021). Kritik der Gegenwart – Politische Theorie als kritische Zeitdiagnose. Transcript. Hilker, F. (1962). Vergleichende Pädagogik. Eine Einführung in ihre Geschichte, Theorie und Praxis. Hinz, A. (2010). Towards Inclusive Education in Germany – Structures, Practical and Theoretical Development of Joint Education. In G. Buch & A. Valeo (Eds.), Inclusive Education: Emergent Solutions. England, Germany, Croatia, Canada, India, Spain, Malta (pp. 40–73). Holzinger, M. (2015). Kontingenz in der Gegenwartsgesellschaft: Dimensionen eines Leitbegriffs moderner Sozialtheorie. transcript Verlag. Horkheimer, M. (1987). Ein neuer Ideologiebegriff? In M. Horkheimer (ed.), Gesammelte Schriften, Band 2: Philosophische Frühschriften 1922 – 1932 (pp- 272–294). Fischer. Katzenbach, D. (2017). Inklusion und Heterogenität. In T. Bohl, J. Budde & M. Rieger-Ladich (Eds.), Umgang mit Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht (pp. 124–140). UTB Klinkhardt. Keller, R., Hirseland, A., Schneider, W. & Viehöver, W. (Eds.) (2006). Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse, Band 1: Theorien und Methoden (2nd ed.). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Lindmeier, C. & Lindmeier, B. (2015). Inklusion aus der Perspektive des rechtlichen und ethischen Begründungsdiskurses. Erziehungswissenschaft 26, 51, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:11570 Mannheim, K. (1929). Ideologie und Utopie (3. Ed.). Rakhkochkine, A. (2012). Probleme internationalen Vergleichens in der Didaktik. Päd. Rundschau, 66(6), 719-736. Vogt, M. (2015). Professionswissen über Unterstufenschüler in der DDR: Untersuchung der Lehrerzeitschrift „Die Unterstufe“ im Zeitraum 1954 bis 1964. Klinkhardt. Waterkamp, D. (2006). Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft. Ein Lehrbuch. Münster: Waxmann Verlag. Wolley, R. (2017). Understanding Inclusion. Core Concepts, Policy and Practice. Routledge.