Confronting the Aporias of the Inclusion Practice


  • Gennady Shkliarevsky Bard College


Inclusion, The practice of inclusion, Conservation, Difference, The process of creation


Abstract:  The article offers a critique of the current practice on inclusion.  Several principal concerns arise in connection with this practice.  The fact that it has its roots in the European Enlightenment tradition makes it culturally specific and largely reflective of Western values that are not universally shared.  Also, as a result of the selective application of this practice, it actually involves exclusion, which makes this practice contradictory.  Finally, its objectivist approach underestimates the role of subjective factors (values, norms, and cultural traditions).  These concerns indicate the need for a new inclusion practice.  The article outlines a new approach toward inclusion.  This approach emerges from a better understanding of what inclusion actually is and what it involves.  The article demonstrates the connection between inclusion and the process of creation.  This close relationship suggests that the new practice of inclusion should use the process of creation as its main organizing principle.


“The multicultural society is more and more synonymous with a multi-conflict society – Top historian,” Voice of Europe, November 21, 2018,

Ackelsberg M. and M. Shanley. 2008. “Reflections on Iris Marion Young’s Justice and the Politics of Difference,” Politics & Gender 4 (June 1), pp. 326-34. doi:10.1017/S1743923X08000238

Allen, A. 2012. “The Unforced Force of the Better Argument: Reason and Power in Habermas’ Political Theory,” Constellations 19 (3): 353–68.

Arendt, H. 1970. On Violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Bauman, Z. 1989. Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Blond, P. 2017. ‘Politics After Liberalism,’ First Things, December, pp. 51-54.

Cohen, J. 1995. ‘Critical Social Theory and Feminist Critiques: The Debate with Jürgen Habermas.’ In J. Meehan (ed), Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse. New York: Routledge.

Dietz, M. 1996. ‘Working in Half-Truth: Some Premodern Reflections on the Partisanship of Political Speech’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, 29 August–1 September, 1996.

Eley, G. 1992. ‘Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century’. In Craig Calhoun (ed), Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Flyvbjerg, B. 2000. ‘Ideal Theory, Real Rationality: Habermas Versus Foucault and Nietzsche’, SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network (1 April).

Fraser, N. 1987. ‘What’s Critical About Critical Theory? The Case of Habermas and Gender’. In S. Benhabib and D. Cornell (eds), Feminism as Critique: Essays on the Politics of Gender in Late-Capitalist Society. Oxford: Polity Press.

Goodhart, D. 2017. The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics. London: Hurst.

Habermas, J. 1992. ‘Concluding Remarks’. In C. Calhoun (ed), Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Vol. 2. Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. 1997. ‘Modernity: An Unfinished Project’. In M. Passerin d'Entreves, and S. Benhabib (eds), Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 38-55.

Hunter, I. 2002. The Morals of Metaphysics: Kant’s Groundwork as Intellectual Paideia’, Critical Inquiry 28 (4): 908–29.

Kant, I. 2002. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kauffman, S. 2008. ‘A God of Creativity.’ New Scientist 198 (2655): 52–53.

Kauffman, S. 2016. Humanity in a Creative Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kellner, D. 2000. ‘Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention’, Perspectives on Habermas, 259–88. (accessed May 9, 2015).

Laclau E. and C. Mouffe, 2001. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.

Lilla, M. 2017. The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics. New York: Harper.

Maffesoli, M. 1996. The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society. London: SAGE Publications, 1996.

Milbank, J. and A. Pabst. 2016. The Politics of Virtue: Post-Liberalism and the Human Future. London: Rowman and Littlefield.

Pajnik, M. 2006. ‘Feminist Reflections on Habermas’s Communicative Action The Need for an Inclusive Political Theory’, European Journal of Social Theory 9 (3): 385–404.

Prigogine, I. and I. Stengers. 1984. Order out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. Toronto: Bantam Books.

Rauch, J. 2017. ‘Speaking as a . . .’, The New York Review of Books, 20 October.

Ryan, M. 1992. ‘Gender and Public Access: Women’s Politics in Nineteenth-Century America’. In C. Calhoun (ed), Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Shkliarevsky, G. 2017. ‘Understanding the Process of Creation: A New Approach’, Management: Journal of Sustainable Business Management Solutions for Emerging Economies 22: 1–13.

Simpson, L. 1986. ‘On Habermas and Particularity: Is There Room for Race and Gender on the Glassy Plains of Ideal Discourse?’ Praxis International 6 (3): 328-40.

Stone, D. 1999. ‘Modernity and Violence: theoretical reflections on the Einsatzgruppen’, Journal of Genocide Research, 1(3), 367-378.

Vasquez Heilig, J., K. Brown, and A. Brown. 2012. ‘The Illusion of Inclusion: A Critical Race Theory Textual Analysis of Race and Standards’, Harvard Educational Review 82 (3): 403–24.

Vattimo, G. 1992. The Transparent Society. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Young, I. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.




How to Cite

Shkliarevsky, G. (2022). Confronting the Aporias of the Inclusion Practice. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 18(1), 381–400. Retrieved from