Inclusive Education as a Norm of Cultural Creativity: Philosophical and Theoretical Aspect
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32405/2413-4139-2020-1(28)-14-22Keywords:
inclusive education, culture, community, personality, relationships, creativityAbstract
The complexity, fluidity and diversity of our world make the principles of inclusion a defining parameter
of the functioning of all spheres of social existence. The principles of inclusion cease to be something special
and isolated and claim to become universal imperatives for the organization and functioning of all spheres
of social life.
In recent decades, there has been a perception that the development of inclusive education is one of
the key prerequisites for building an inclusive society, if it considers the diversity of students not as a problem
but as a challenge to identify individual talent in all its forms and create conditions for its prosperity.
Gradually, an understanding emerges that the need for diversity and fluidity of the world requires the
establishment of openness, responsibility, tolerance and inclusion, as everyday realities of social existence,
puts before education the task of transforming traditional principles of teaching and education. Thus,
inclusion involves the affirmation not so much of formal and highly specialized values of openness and
inclusion, as the constitution of such forms of communication and interaction between participants in
education and upbringing, which make inclusion a necessary attribute of self-fulfillment.
The study raises the question, to what does inclusive education involve all those involved in the
learning and education process? What exactly is education designed to open? And finally, what forms of
interpersonal communication and interaction can meet not only the formal criteria of inclusiveness but also
realize such a meaningful parameter of any education as the development of human subjectivity? In the
context of these issues, inclusive education is seen by us not as something specific and special, but as an
imperative for the transformation of the entire educational space, as education for all.
The purpose of the article is related to the fact of inclusion as an important parameter of transformation
of political, social and economic institutions of modern society. In this context, inclusive education is an
important factor in the formation of an inclusive society, which highlights the need for theoretical
understanding of the principles of its development as well as identification of its role and importance in the
transformation of the education system in general. Our study aims to identify the general cultural basis for
the implementation of inclusion in education and upbringing as a necessary condition for the development
of human subjectivity.
The authors conclude that the establishment of the discourse of inclusive education must be carried
out in accordance with its logic of human subjectivity. Inclusive education, as education for all, is designed
to teach all children and adults to learn. The implementation of the principles of inclusion in the process of
teaching and education requires the transformation of interpersonal relations, which are immanent in the
education system, from “subject-object” to “subject-subject”, from monologues to dialogic relations.
Education for all becomes possible in the situation of revealing the subjective content of culture, i.e., such
content, which is manifested in the appeal of one person to another. Such a transformation cannot take place
only in the learning environment of children with special needs. It is a necessary prerequisite for the
normalization of the entire education system.
Downloads
References
1. UNESCO (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report Summary. Inclusion and education: All means
all. 38 p.
2. Mitchell, D. (2014). What really works in special and inclusive education: Using evidence-based
teaching strategies. Second edition. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 453 р.
3. Heidegger, M. (2006). Chto zovetsja myshleniem? [What is called thinking?]. Moscow. 320 p. [in
Russian].
4. UNESCO. (2009). Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0017/001778/177849e.pdf.
5. Gegel’, G. V. F. (2000). Fenomenologija duha. [The Phenomenology of Spirit]. Moscow. 495 p. [in
Russian].
6. Arendt, H. (2002). Mіzh minulim і majbutnіm [Between past and future]. Kyiv. 321 p. [in Ukrainian].
7. Rubinshtejn, S. L. (1986). Princip tvorcheskoj samodejatel’nosti [The principle of creative initiative].
Voprosy psihologii – Questions of psychology. Vol. 986. P. 101–108. Retrieved from: http://voppsy.ru/
issues/1986/864/864101.htm. [in Russian].
8. Vygotskij, L. S. (2003). Osnovy defektologii. [Fundamentals of defectology]. St. Petersburg. 656 p.
[in Russian].
9. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed / tr. by M. B. Ramos; intr. by D. Macedo. 30th anniversary
ed.: New Yourk; London. 157 р.
10. Adorno, T. W. (1959). Theorie der Halbbildung. In A. Busch (Hrsg.), Soziologie und moderne
Gesellschaft. Berlin. Stuttgart. P. 169–191. Retrieved from: https://nbn- resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-
ssoar- 160841.
11. Voznjak, V. Lіmonchenko, V. (2014). Kul’tura jak «tretіj sub’єkt» osvіtn’ogo procesu. [Culture as a
«third subject» of the educational process]. Problemi gumanіtarnih nauk. Fіlosofіja – Problems of the
humanities. Philosophy. 33. P. 14–28. [in Ukrainian].
12. Krims’kij, S. (2009). Kul’tura rozkrivaє vnutrіshnju bezmezhnіst’ ljudini. [Culture reveals the inner
infinity of man]. Kul’turologіchna dumka – Culturological thought. 1. P. 18–26. [in Ukrainian].
13. Krims’kij, S. (2003). Dіjal’nіst’ ta kul’tura [Activities and culture]. Magіsterіum. Kul’turologіja –
Culturology. 12. Retrieved from: http://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/14050/Krymskyi_
Diialnist_ta_kultura.pdf?sequence=1. [in Ukrainian].
14. Suvorov, A. V. (2011). Inkljuzivnoe obrazovanie i lichnostnaja inkljuzija [Inclusive education and
personal inclusion]. Psihologicheskaja nauka i obrazovanie – Psychological science and education. 3. P. 27
31. Retrieved from: https://psyjournals.ru/inclusive_edu/issue/44021_full.shtml. [in Russian].
15. Bourdieu, P., Accado, A., & Balazs, G. (1993). La misère du monde. [The misery of the world. Paris. 135 p.
16. Rubinshtejn, C. (2003). Bytie i soznanie. Chelovek i mir. [Being and Consciousness. Man and the
world.]. 512 p. [in Russian].
17. Slobodchikov, V. I. (2010). Sobytijnaja obrazovatel’naja obshhnost’ – istochnik razvitija i sub’ekt
obrazovanija. [Coexistential educational community as a source of development and subject of education].
Izvestija Saratovskogo universiteta – Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. 3(2). P. 3–8. [in Russian].
18. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education. Cambridge University Press. 305 p.
19. Vygotskij, L. S. (1983). Sobranie sochinenij: T. 3. Problemy razvitija psihiki [Selected works. Vol. 3.
Problems of mental development]. Moscow. 368 p. [in Russian].
20. Gejzenberg, V. (1987). Shagi za gorizont. [Steps beyond the horizon]. Moscow. 368 p. [in Russian].
21. Bahtin, M. M.; Bocharov, S. G., Averincev, S. S., & Bocharov, S. G. (eds.) (1979). Jestetika slovesnogo
tvorchestva. [Aesthetics of verbal creativity]. Moscow. 423 p. [in Russian].




