This presentation discusses the potential of inclusion from a theoretical perspective of collective processes of Bildung, with a focus on its transformative and ideology-critical aspects. It is reflected upon the findings of the doctoral dissertation, which investigated nine group discussions in the founding initiatives of inclusive schools. The presentation aims to answer the question of how a common vision of inclusion is created. Given that we are all involved in hegemonic relations, it is important to consider how these relations intersect with hegemonic ideas, both implicitly and explicitly. Throughout the research, the concept of critique, particularly in relation to ideology, became a central focus. Therefore, the criticism is not only directed towards the inadequate implementation of inclusion but also towards the norm itself, without completely rejecting it.

Inclusion is an increasingly popular term, but it remains a code without a concrete meaning (Boger et al. 2021). Even the CRPD only describes its purpose and objectives, rather than offering a definition. A first common basis can be the understanding of Inclusion as an active process of anti- or non-discrimination, which entails a broad understanding of inclusion as unifying sexism, racism, ableism and classism-critical theory (Boger 2017; Calloni 2005). This already hints at the intimate and contradictory interweaving of the concept of inclusion (or anti-discrimination) with its counter-concept of exclusion (or discrimination) (ibid; Lanwer 2015; Wocken 2021). The concepts form a dialectical unity of opposites that denote relationships, dependent on and interwoven with social practice, in its past and present, in which social actors can act and realize what is possible in opposition. The issue of social inclusion and exclusion is closely tied to social power relations. Therefore, the practice of critique is crucial. Exclusion criteria can reveal how societies are organized, the ideologies they pursue, and the power structures that individuals ultimately navigate (Moser, 2018, p. 8). Inclusion cannot be seen as an achievable moral – and therefore harmless – demand that can be incorporated into the current hegemony. That would be a 'passive revolution' (Gramsci 2012), a restoration of fragile power relations in order to stabilize them. Instead, more interesting are the challenges to established knowledge systems and power structures that are specific to inclusion.

Based on the thesis that building social consensus does not work as a top-down-strategy (Moser/Egger 2017: 15), this study focuses on group practices of creating visions of inclusion. By using the German concept of Bildung it is possible to research and explain the inconclusive, open, and teleologically indeterminate processes of individual transformations in perspectives and attitudes (Buttigieg, Calleja 2021, S. 3; Koller 2018 & 2020). The text proposes an approach to collective processes of Bildung regarding inclusion/exclusion by linking it to the philosophy of praxis (Gramsci 2012) and a critical theory of ideology. The aim is to present collectiveBildung or changes to inclusion as a radical questioning rather than a harmonious process (as Bildung was for Humboldt). I aim to examine the potential of these processes for ideology-critique in an analytical and transgressive sense. This involves targeting the inner (self-) contradictions without directly opposing the new, as it arises from criticisms (Jaeggi 2019; Gramsci 2012; Rehmann 2020).

It is essential to comprehend inclusion as a political project that aims to change social practice towards decolonization and overcome social exclusion (Jantzen 2019). The objective of this presentation is to offer an understanding of inclusion as a theoretical and practical dialectic, which will serve as an emancipatory and transformative critique. Although the contradiction and dialectic of the terms may never be resolved, their relationship can change, as can their effectiveness and meaning.

As previously argued, the research project has an ideology-critical orientation and employs the documentary method to reconstruct the action practices of the founding initiatives. Both methods used are contradictory and cannot be reconciled. However, they can still engage in a productive debate, as argued in this text, and enhance the value of the research. The documentary method originates from the meta-theoretical aspects of Mannheim's sociology of knowledge and the reconstructive method developed within it (Bohnsack 2017, p. 62). Mannheim's (1929; [1926] 1964) work is considered pioneering as he distinguished between two levels of knowledge: communicative/explicit and conjunctive/implicit and identified a discrepancy between them. This approach allows for the reconstruction of thinking styles based on their constitution. However, the task of the sociology of knowledge – its metatheory – is limited to reconstruction. It employs an all-encompassing concept of knowledge, which omits the critical concept of ideology and the distinction between valid and invalid knowledge. Consequently, it advocates for the whole and accepts it instead of criticizing it. Therefore, it becomes an affirmative social theory (Heeren 1971; Weyand 2021, pp. 70-71). Gramsci's main focus is transformation, which makes his thoughts and subsequent critique of ideology relevant to critical inclusion theory and research. An ideology-critical approach to inclusion aims to delegitimize inequality relations, address the risks of exclusion, and overcome barriers in society. Jaeggi (2019, p. 270) argues that the critique of domination involves critiquing self-sufficiency and decoding these mechanisms as forms of domination. It is therefore reconstructed how the group fills inclusion with meaning, to what extent a common understanding of inclusion is created, which guiding orientations can be reconstructed in this process and how they deal with the limits of their own horizons of meaning - all of these are questions for empiricism. The question of whether the empirically reconstructed understanding of inclusion contains transformational potential is central to the subsequent ideology-critical discussion. This involves examining the extent to which collective processes of Bildung can be reconstructed and how inclusion oscillates between power-stabilizing, reproducing projects and transformative, ideology-critical projects.

Using an iterative and cyclical research process, the subject area was defined broadly, followed by immersion in empirical research. The theoretical work was then carried out, narrowing the research focus and question, before returning to empirical research and so on. Accordingly, this presentation should not be viewed solely as a theoretical or empirical work, but rather as the outcome of an abductive approach. This approach requires a creative and divergent analysis of empirical data and theories (Roth 2015, pp. 166-168). The process involves critical reflection to avoid bias and subjectivity. The focus was on empirical evidence, theories, and interpretative discussions, in order to establish a clear position within the terrain of hegemonic patterns of meaning and explanation. As previously stated, the notion of critique, specifically ideology critique, has become more prominent in research. It serves as the typology that organizes and structures the three reconstructed types of production practices that reflect group-internal consensuses of inclusion. These types are referred to as inclusion as generalizing, inclusion as discursivity, and inclusion as being the other. The presentation will focus on the typology that combines critical discussion of ideologies with a focus on the third type, which highlights global issues such as languages, migration, pandemics and being the other.

Calloni, Marina (2005): Paradoxes of democracy: the dialectic of inclusion and exclusion. In: Jørgen Goul Andersen, Anne-Marie Guillemard, Per H. Jensen und Birgit Pfau-Effinger (pub.): The changing face of welfare: Policy Press, S. 93–112. Boger, Mai-Anh; Bühler, Patrick; Vogt, Michaela (pub.) (2021): Inklusion als Chiffre? Bildungshistorische Analysen und Reflexionen. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt (Historische Bildungsforschung). Boger, Mai-Anh (2017): Theorien der Inklusion – eine Übersicht. In: bidok Deutschland e.V. Zeitschrift für Inklusion. Frankfurt am Main. Online: https:// www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/413 [Last downloaded on 10.01.2024]. Gramsci, Antonio; Bochmann, Klaus (pub.) (2012): Gefängnishefte. 1. Aufl. Hamburg: Argument Verl. Heeren, John (1971): Karl Mannheim and the Intellectual Elite. In: The British Journal of Sociology 22 (1), S. 1. Jantzen, Wolfgang (2019): Behindertenpädagogik als synthetische Humanwissenschaft. Sozialwissenschaftliche und methodologische Erkundungen. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag (Dialektik der Be-Hinderung). Jaeggi, Rahel (2019): Was ist Ideologiekritik. In: Rahel Jaeggi und Tilo Wesche (pub.): Was ist Kritik? 5. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft, 1885), S. 266–298. Koller, Hans-Christoph (2018): Bildung anders denken. Einführung in die Theorie transforma-torischer Bildungsprozesse. 2., aktualisierte Auflage. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag. Lanwer, Willehad (2015): Exklusion und Inklusion. Anmerkungen zu einer gegensätzlichen Einheit. In: Jahrbuch für Pädagogik 2015 (1), S. 159–173. Mannheim, Karl ([1926] 1964): Ideologische und soziologische Interpretationen der geistigen Gebilde (1926). In: Karl Mannheim: Wissenssoziologie. Auswahl aus dem Werk. In: Heinz Maus und Friedrich Fürstenberg. Berlin: Luchterhand (Soziologische Texte, 28), S. 388–407. Mannheim, Karl (1929): Ideologie und Utopie. (Schriften zur Philosophie und Soziologie, 3). Bonn: Cohen. Online: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/50776, last downloaded on 05.06.2020. Moser, Vera; Bauer, Lena (pub.) (2018): Behindertenpädagogik als Synthetische Humanwissenschaft. Eine Einführung in das Werk Wolfgang Jantzens. Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Moser, Vera; Egger, Marina (pub.) (2017): Inklusion und Schulentwicklung. Konzepte, Instrumente, Befunde. 1. Auflage. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer. Rehmann, Jan (2020): Ernst Bloch as a Philosopher of Praxis. In: Praktyka Teoretyczna, 2020-03, Vol.35 (1). Roth, Wolff-Michael (2015): Rigorous Data Analysis. A Beyond ""Anything Goes"". Leiden, Boston: Brill. Wocken, Hans (pub.); Cowlan, Gabriele; Hinz, Andreas; Kron, Maria; Papke, Birgit; Reiser, Helmut (2021): Dialektik der Inklusion. Inklusion als Balance. 1. Auflage. Ed. v. Hans Wocken. Hamburg: Feldhaus Edition Hamburger Buchwerkstatt (Lebenswelten und Behinderung, Band 24).