Disability studies scholar Lennard J. Davis argues in his book ‘The End of Normal: Identity in a Biocultural Era’ that diversity has become the new normality. This means ‘on the surface we are better off abandoning some universal standard for bodies and cultures and acknowledging that there isn’t one regnant or ideal body or culture’ (Davis 2013, p. 2). However, Davis underlines that diversity has ideological side as well. The ideological side of diversity is - in turn - well suited to the realm of neoliberalism. As a political ideology, neoliberalism bases on premise of the ‘laissez-faire’ i.e. the greatest good to all is achieved via deregulated global economy. In neoliberal reasoning, deregulated markets replace the governments and reconfigures the citizen into a consumer. Within citizen–consumer-transformation, identity correlates with markets, and culture becomes lifestyle. This means that ‘one’s lifestyle is activated by consumer choice—and this kind of choice becomes the essence of one’s identity’ (Davis 2013, p. 3).

The core of Davis’ argument is that diversity as the new normalizing concept is open to all human beings as long as free choice and consumerism are concerned in a sense of a citizen-consumer. In other words, diversity changes the way of social organisation, and it includes elements of control and categorization. That is, the logic of constitutive othering and marginalization from Eurocentric white-male middle class normality to consumer-citizen alters in the ‘diversity discourse’. People or groups who are unable to choose their identity are still marginalized in the ‘diversity discourse’. Disability remains marginalized in the diversity discourse because subjectivity given to disability is not a matter of choice. Being disabled (or student labelled SEND) is not a lifestyle or an identity matter; instead, disability is an administrative category imposed by society. Drawing from Giorgio Agamben’s idea, Davis argues that disability is located in the ’state of exception’. In that state, neoliberal reasoning of diversity does not apply, but normality does. According to Davis, diversity works as an organising principle as far as hypermarginalized groups such as disabled people are excluded.

Davis’ argument resonates with our experiences related to discussion around educational inclusion. While educational inclusion is recognised as a political commitment and even somewhat celebrated as such, at the level of practice inclusion often generates more critical debates around ‘inclusive-bility’ and ‘educability’ of certain students, thus making underlying differences and norms again visible. The ‘school of all’ is actually for those students that can be included in the diverse but normative ‘all’ (Goodley 2014).

Our paper focuses on analyzing the relationship of disability and diversity in the context of schooling using Davis’ argument concerning normativity of diversity. We ask what kind of boundaries of diversity can be found in the educational inclusion discourse. Our paper explores whether Davis’ theorization of diversity can be applied to deconstruct persistent jams/blockages related to transition to/development of inclusive education. It seems to be a shared experience in countries situated in Global North that the implementation of education inclusion is not a straight-forward process. In our paper we engage in thinking about theoretical tools needed for deconstructing the implicit barriers hampering implementation of inclusion.

Our methodological stance relies on Alecia Jackson’s and Lisa Mazzei’s (2012; 2013) idea of ‘thinking with theory’. Basic idea of this methodology is that ‘plugging one text into another’ opens a viewpoint or frame to analyze and re-analyze data. It is a part of the methodological debate, which highlights the ‘constitutive force of theory within the analysis of qualitative materials’ (Honan, Knobel, Baker & Davies 2000 p. 9; see also Goodley & Runswick-Cole 2012). In our paper, we are ‘plugging in’ Davis’ argument of diversity as new normativity to scrutinize discourses around inclusive education. From this perspective, our analysis focuses on questions concerning who are defined as educable and includable students and why, and which students are defined as in need of segregated educational settings. Through these detailed questions we are framing the boundaries of diversity. We do this by analyzing empirical examples drawn from two ethnographic fieldnotes and interviews from lower and upper secondary education for students studying in special needs education, interviews with professionals working in special needs education and ongoing inclusion debate in Finnish media.

Findings of our paper will focus on discussing the relationship of diversity and disability in educational inclusion from two perspectives. Firstly, by drawing from our data we will demonstrate where the boundaries of diversity are situated: which students are considered as ‘includable’ and ‘educable’, e.g. suitable for studying in an inclusive classroom. We show how in the Finnish inclusion discourse this boundary becomes visible through accounts concerning ‘realism’ related to inclusion. We will argue that disability, in particular students with specific, often intellectual, impairments are positioned as the constitutive other against which boundaries of diversity become drawn. Secondly, by deploying Davis’ theorization we will further analyze this boundary, asking why particular students are excluded from the includable ‘all’. We will argue that inclusion clashes with essential functions of education: of production of capable and productive citizens into the existing social hierarchies. While it has been acknowledged that ‘exclusion resides deep in the bones of education’ (Slee 2018, p. 11), our examination highlights, following Davis’ argument, that disability posits a specific case of constitutive other in the form of the non-educable student.

Davis, Lennard J. 2013. The End of Normal: Identity in a Biocultural Era. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Goodley, Dan 2014. Dis/ability Studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. London: Routledge. Goodley, Dan & Katherine Runswick-Cole 2012. “Reading Rosie: The postmodern disabled child”. Education & Child Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 2, 53–66. Honan, Eileen, Michele Knobel, Carolyn Baker & Bronwyn Davies 2000. "Producing Possible Hannahs: Theory and the Subject of Research". Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 6 No. 1, 9–32. Jackson, Alecia Y. & Lisa A. Mazzei 2012. Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. London: Routledge. Jackson, Alecia Y. & Lisa A. Mazzei 2013. "Plugging One Text Into Another: Thinking With Theory in Qualitative Research". Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 19 No. 4, 261–271. Slee, Roger 2018. Inclusive Education isn’t Dead, it Just Smells Funny. London: Routledge.