POLICY IN RELATION TO THE OTHER: BETWEEN FUNCTIONALISM AND STRUCTURALISM

The article discusses the changes in interpretation of the policy in relation to the Other in education system, which are connected with the transition from integration to inclusion. On the one hand, studying these changes is relevant due to the recent legislative consolidation of the policy of inclusion in Russian education after the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the adoption of a new law on education in Russia. On the other hand, the theoretical context of this shift from integration policy to inclusion remains insufficiently clarified in its philosophical bases, which was the task of this work. These shifts are considered in the context of transformations in social sciences of the dominant theoretical context for interpretation of the Other and its place in society. This transformation is interpreted as the transition from functionalism to structuralism and to social constructionism, based on the linguistic metaphor of culture proposed by structuralism. The dichotomy of functionalism and social constructionism, based on the linguistic metaphor of culture, is considered in the context of Ch. Taylor’s conception of the theories of modernity (cultural and acultural) and the conception of culture as openness to the Other (L.S. Chernyak). This approach determines both the method of studying the research problem and the novelty of the results. The interpretation of a norm, rationality, relation to the Other in the framework of integration or inclusion policy depends on understanding of culture either rather as a continuity of reproduced and transformed lifestyles (dominance of time paradigm) or rather as a variety of self-contained life-worlds with their own customs, cultural codes etc. (dominance of space paradigm). Moreover, the transition from integration to inclusion and, accordingly, from functionalism to social constructionism can be understood as an expression of the spatial turn in social sciences and humanities. The key point of the approach to solving the problem of cultural foundations of the policy in relation to the Other in education is the understanding of culture as a project of human freedom, in which human beings implement their openness to the Other.

1. Allport G.W. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., 1954, 537 р.

2. Giddens A. The Consequences of Modernity. Moscow, “Praksis” Publ., 2011, 352 p. (in Russ.).

3. Shemanov A.Yu. Inclusion Policy and Ethnic Identity in the Context of Openness to the Other, Observatoriya kul’tury [Observatory of Culture], 2016, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 652—659 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.25281/2072-3156-2016-13-6-652-659.

4. 4 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, United Nations. Available at: http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/disability.shtml (accessed 30.09.2017) (in Russ.).

5. Shemanov A.Y. Anthropology of Inclusion: Autonomy or Authenticity? Observatoriya kul’tury [Observatory of Culture], 2014, no. 4, pp. 9—16 (in Russ.).

6. Corbett J. Inclusive Education and School Culture, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1999, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 53—61.

7. Slee R. Beyond Special and Regular Schooling? An Inclusive Education Reform Agenda, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 2008, vol. 18, no. 2. pp. 99—116.

8. Nikolaev V.G. Functionalism, Sotsiokul’turnaya antropologiya: Istoriya, teoriya i metodologiya. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ [Sociocultural Anthropology: History, Theory, and Methodology. Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moscow, Akademicheskii Proekt Publ., Kul’tura Publ., Kirov, Konstanta Publ., 2012, pp. 176—190 (in Russ.).

9. Malinovsky B. Functional Analysis, Antologiya issledovanii kul’tury. T. 1. Interpretatsii kul’tury [Anthology of Cultural Research. Volume 1. Interpretations of Culture]. St. Petersburg, Universitetskaya Kniga Publ., 1997, pp. 683—684 (in Russ.).

10. Merton R.K. Social Theory and Social Structure, Amerikanskaya sotsiologicheskaya mysl’ [American Sociological Thought]. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnogo Universiteta Biznesa i Upravleniya Publ., 1996, pp. 400—401 (in Russ.).

11. Turner B.S. Preface to the New Edition, Parsons T. The social system. London, Routledge Publ., 1991, 404 p.

12. Parsons T. The Concept of Society: The Components and Their Interrelations, THESIS, 1993, issue 2, pp. 94—122 (in Russ.).

13. Shapinskaya E.N. Stucturalism, Sotsiokul’turnaya antropologiya: Istoriya, teoriya i metodologiya. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ [Sociocultural Anthropology: History, Theory, and Methodology. Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moscow, Akademicheskii Proekt Publ., Kul’tura Publ., Kirov, Konstanta Publ., 2012, pp. 168—176 (in Russ.).

14. Barker C. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London, SAGE Publications Ltd, 2012, 552 p.

15. Scott J. Giddens and Cultural Analysis: Absent Word and Central Concept, Cultural Theory: Classical and Contemporary Positions. London, SAGE, 2007, pp. 83—105.

16. Shemanov A.Yu. The Other as “Disabled”: Social Construction Approach vs. Medicalization, Kul’turologicheskii zhurnal [Journal of Cultural Research], 2012, no. 1 (7). Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/drugoy-kak-nesposobnyy-sotsialnyy-konstruktivizm-vs-medikalizatsiya (accessed 30.09.2017) (in Russ.).

17. Nansy J.-L. The Inoperative Community. Moscow, Vodolei Publ., 2011, 208 p. (in Russ.).

18. Bauman Z. The Individualized Society. Moscow, Logos Publ., 2002, 390 p. (in Russ.)

19. Beck U. Risk Society. On the Way to Another Modernity. Moscow, Progress-Traditsiya Publ., 2000, 384 p. (in Russ.).

20. Giddens A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Moscow, Akademicheskii Proekt Publ., 2003, 528 p. (in Russ.).

21. Giddens A. Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford (Cal.), 1991.

22. Kerimova L.M., Kerimov T.Kh. Giddens’ Theory of Structuration. Methodological Aspects, Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies], 1997, no. 3, pp. 37—47 (in Russ.).

23. Taylor Ch. Two Theories of Modernity, The Hastings Center Report, 1995, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 24—33. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3562863 (accessed 30.09.2017).

24. Dmitriev T.A. Antony Giddens’ Crushing Modernity, E. Giddens. Posledstviya sovremennosti [A. Giddens. The Consequences of Modernity]. Moscow, “Praksis” Publ., 2011, pp. 7—106 (in Russ.).

25. Bourdieu P. The Forms of Capital, Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya [Journal of Economic Sociology], vol. 3, no. 5, 2002, pp. 60—74. Available at: https://ecsoc.hse.ru/data/2011/12/08/1208205039/ecsoc_t3_n5.pdf#page=60 (accessed 30.09.2017) (in Russ.).

26. Popova N.T. Cultural Approach to Inclusion in Educational Practice, Psikhologo-pedagogicheskie osnovy inklyuzivnogo obrazovaniya [Psychological and Pe¬dagogical Outlines of Inclusive Education]. Moscow, MSUPE Publ., OOO “Buki Vedi” Publ., 2013, pp. 38—51 (in Russ.).

27. Linkov V.V. The Development of Notions of Norm in Philosophy and Correctional Pedagogy, Nauka i shkola [Science and School], 2014, no. 3, pp. 14—23 (in Russ.).

28. Chernyak L.S. Vremya i vechnost’: Vozvrashchenie zabytoi temy [Time and Eternity: The Return of the Forgotten Theme]. Moscow, Nestor-Istoriya Publ., 2014, 696 p.

29. Chernyak L.S. Individuality as Embodiment of Culture and the Problem of Inclusion: An Outsider’s Perspective, Observatoriya kul’tury [Observatory of Culture], 2015, no. 3, pp. 4—12 (in Russ.).