Presentation

Abstract

When we talk about inclusion, we are invaded by a series of familiar images that make us think that we already know and know enough about it. This assumption, from our point of view, could be based on the fact that on many occasions, especially in public policy, inclusion is done and thought of in a single way, with its configuration in the singular collaborating in the conformation of this premise, to which is added the univocity and generality that is derived from the word that denominates it. Inclusion has been approached by many and raised as a banner of struggle insofar as it responds to the idea of progress demanded by society.

This is how inclusion in the form described invades the educational discourse, installing in the collective imaginary the idea that it is ‘the’ inclusion, the one that is in dispute in the various power structures. An almost dogmatic and absolute inclusion that deforms the experience and makes invisible the educational event that is shaped in every encounter with the other and the Other. An inclusion that, being thought of in an absolute way, with its respective recipes and instructions, does not allow for novelty, does not allow for novelty, preventing us from being moved and renewed.

Inclusion has its own regulations that tell us who, when and how this process is constructed. These norms numb and weaken the ethical action of each human being, since each norm is ultimately an arbitrary abstraction, denying a responsible ethics - as defined by Bakhtin - which is gestated when each human being offers a responsible response to the question of the Other, to the presence of the Other.ree version)