The Reinvent of Inclusion

0 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report BRASIL. Decreto nº 6.094/07. .... Os condenados da terra. Juiz de Fora-MG: Ed. UFJF, ...




The Reinvent of Inclusion The Challenges of Difference in the Process of Teaching And Learning



Copyright © by SILVIA ESTER ORRÚ

Published in the United States of America by GlobalsSouth Press. No part of this book can be reproduced or transmited without the previous written permit of the authors. To contact the authors send e-mail to [email protected] or write to:

199 E Montgomery Ave #100, Rockville, MD 20850 United States

ISBN: 978-1-943350-79-7

The reinvent of inclusion/ Silvia Ester Orrú. Rockville: Globalsouth Press, 2018.

1. Education. 2. Educational Policy & Reform / General. 3. International Studies.


Editorial Board Bulent Acma, Ph.D. Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey. Flavio Saraiva, Ph.D. Universidade de Brasília, Brasilia, Brazil. Helmunt Schlenter, Ph.D. Institute for Global Dialogue, Pretoria, South Africa. Tullo Vigevani, Ph.D. Sao Paulo State University, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Monica Arruda Almeida, Ph. D. Georgetown University,Washington, D.C., United States of America. Yong J. Wang, Ph.D. Ohio University, Columbus, United States of America. Chih-yu Shih, Ph.D. National Taiwan University (ROC), Taipei, Taiwan. Irene Klumbies, Ph.D. Jacobs University Bremen, Bremen, Germany.



To God, always... for the smiles and the tears - for the privilege of living! To my parents, Marlene and Gervásio Francisco Orrú (in memorian), my first teachers. To Ricardo Leyva, my walking companion, simply for loving me. To the dear ones who presented me with their voices as an important part of this work. For every moment of emotion, of life, of surprise, of hope for increasingly inclusive moments and spaces. For the availability and affection.

Acknowledgement to the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) of Brazil for the support to research and publication.

With love for the dear boys Ernesto, Hiro, Kaito, Lucas and Jean Ricardo, my little boy. Sílvia Ester Orrú


PREFACE Inclusion is a subject of study and research that requires from us, educators, a resumption of what until then we think, learn, write, live and teach about education. In the search for new references that support us in the review and criticism of what we know and believe about our students, schools, teaching practices, we face the need for a theoreticalmethodological turn and to face new investigative horizons. To understand what it is and how to include it, we must undo what has made us to exclude, without or with the intention of doing so. In both cases, the situation is difficult, because it questions us about what has been our professional performance and what is behind it: these habits that help to face the daily routine, without interpellations, doubts, uncertainties about conducts adopted, judgments handed down, arguments and positions that we use without question and whose source is, in general, external and reliable, given the competence of its origin. With the backing of authors who integrate the contemporary French philosophical current that focuses their productions on postmodern and poststructuralist thinking, the author of this study reviews questions that derive from the weight of the diagnosis in the understanding of the difference. These issues are central to the understanding of the theme and to act in inclusive manner, in schools, in society. How to approach the diagnosis from the multiplicative sense of difference? It is always better that is said what we are, what we will be, what awaits us and what are the prescriptions, the right way to go. The sense of difference, which guides the conception of this study, is based on what is still very little diffused and for some plausible reasons, and which leads to significant changes in education. The difference has been confused with the diverse, with the different, with what contrasts with the equal. Thus, the tendency is to oppose the rich to the poor, the healthy to the sick, the beautiful to the ugly, to compare the normal with the disabled. It is usual to establish differences between people, as we do with any objects. We tend to reduce them to a given attribute, to a characteristic that we deem striking in appearance, someone's way of being. This is defined by all types of diagnosis. This is comfortable, most of the time, because it frees us from facing our own weaknesses, imperfections, ascribing them to the other, as wrong, undesirable. We learn to think and act in this way throughout our lives. How, then, to understand the meaning of the diagnosis, if the difference, unlike the diverse, is not the repetition of the same. It is always differentiating itself. We are singular beings and, at the


same time, mutants. Therefore, we escape from any possibility of falling into categorizations, classifications, qualities that can represent us and define us by means of a fixed and stable identity. This is an intriguing proposition for those who wish to go beyond the classical sense of representation, rigid identities, precisely defined, precise and limited models. The focus on a given human characteristic leads us to define the whole by the part, to lock people into groups defined by a single attribute: those disabled, those obese, those aggressive, those autistics, those wheelchair users ... These undue categorizations, among others, are applied to all of us, but the inflection and their major losses fall on the minorities, those groups less strengthened by social power. Hence the commitment of many of them to assert themselves as a minority by taxing themselves on the attribute that devalue and undermine them before the others. What they seek is to strengthen themselves before the most powerful groups, calling for their rights and claiming for privileges. Such an exit has been a double-edged sword, because when a minority becomes noticeable in this way - giving emphasis to a specific difference, its individuals can be further excluded! The power of the inclusion to contradict what we think and how we act in the educational scope, is of great intensity and reverberation. The effects of these reflexes, in our view, reveal great and auspicious changes that transpose this domain. In a word, we are, in this book, before a study that brings us to this new discussion about old problems that we face in schools and in other training environments. This is a work that corroborates what I am announcing here, as an important contribution that alerts us to the consequences brought by a conception of difference that needs to be challenged and better explained. There is much that we must do to embrace with ever greater force the ideal of an inclusive society to recognize, question and consider our differences. I hope that the reading this study is a further step in this direction. Prof. Dr. Maria Teresa Eglér Mantoan Coordinator of the Laboratory of Studies and Research in Teaching and Difference Faculty of Education of the Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil.



“Writing is a case of devil, always unfinished, always in the process of making itself, and that goes beyond any living or lived matter”. Gilles Deleuze (1997)

Policies for education postulate a collection of national and international laws in several countries that deal with the right of everyone to education. Nations were impacted by the movement of inclusion that resulted in international documents, of which 161 countries are signatories, including Brazil. Here are some of the major international legislations that support inclusion: World Declaration of Education for All (1990); Declaration of Salamanca (1994); Guatemala Convention (1999); Letter to the Third Millennium (1999); Montreal International Declaration (2001); Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008). However, the traditional modes present in the teaching process and rooted in many schools prevent and refuse to flow for an education of all and for all. This traditional teaching we are talking about has a conception of student that does not meet the proposals for an inclusive school, as from this point of view, the student is not subject of his historical and social construction process, he is not the author of his process of learning; on the contrary, he is a mere reproducer, a flat plate, a blank sheet in which the teacher, the one who holds the knowledge, supposes to print his knowledge. This crystallized conception of student, teacher, teaching and learning perpetuates the marginalization of students who are not within the standard established by the school, that is, the student who, at the time determined by the teacher, assimilates what was taught and reproduces in his exercises of fixation or in tests what has already been given as ready knowledge, absolute truth. In this context, there is a pseudo and comedian idea that homogeneity is present in a class of students. This unreal belief has led for centuries teachers to apply equal teaching methods to the same class, believing that everyone learns in the same way, in the same time


limit, in the same language. And leading to the work of failure those who, for any reason, do not produce the same results expected. However, can there be homogeneous classes? Is it possible to produce universal equality of human beings and promote universal equality for them? What to say about the condition of the differences between human beings? What problems do we encounter in the thematic field of inclusion that are divisors of water in the time and space in which we immigrate for an education of all and for all? And what does the difference have to do with the dialogical and inclusive educational processes? These are some of the questions that will guide the production of this thinking beyond what is already found in the social sphere. They are the unrests of our daily lives, problems that delineate complex paths, many times in a collective solitude. Gilles Deleuze is known as one of the representatives of the Philosophy of Difference. Together with his companions Michel Foucault and Felix Guattari, he wrote several works that approached the "difference". These authors compose our repertoire for this work, published in its first Portuguese version by Editora Vozes, in Brazil, in the summer of 2017. Good reading!

Summer, 2018 Prof. Dr. Sílvia Ester Orrú Laboratory of Studies and Research in Learning and Inclusion (LEPAI) Faculty of Education of the University of Brasília, Brazil.


SUMMARY The Universal and the Singular The universal diagnosis and the singular difference The search for similarity and cure through diagnosis Policies and problems: the treatment of probity within the school The Minor Inclusion: through the microscope you see bigger Between lines and borders The Hybris nature of the Human Being, education, inclusion and learning Inclusion is a survivor's thing Voices without echo The solitude of that excluded always is populated Inclusion in Difference: incompleteness References


THE UNIVERSAL AND THE SINGULAR We want to think of the difference and the relation of the different to the different, independent of the forms of representation that lead them to the Same and make them to pass through the negative”. Gilles Deleuze (1988, p.8)

What to say about the concept of "universal"? The "universal” does not bring plausible explanations to anything. On the contrary, it needs to be detailed and explained. We find vectors that are like instruments of power to universalize, to tame the other, to control the other, to dominate and to segregate. The history of madness and clinical practice points us to the social production of groups of human beings in the power of clinical and therapeutic actions in an incessant attempt to normalize life since the beginning of the seventeenth century. This normalization focuses on the docilization of the body and the violent attainment of its resistance, on the standardization of the people acclaimed by the society that is guided by the logics of the market, the productivism, the profit, the manipulation of the individual. The disciplinary power, described by Foucault (1998, 2005), consists of devices or vectors that have the purpose of producing results of normalization in society. In this context, there are two models of vectors from the macro molar and micro molecular character policies. The macro-molar policy refers to large dimensions of binary sets and the micro-molecular is intended to perform fine segmentations. Both are distinct, but inseparable. The macro molar refers to the overlaps that demarcate subjects, objects, representations and their systems that allow points of contact or relations between one thing and another. However, the micro molecular refers to devices, flows, mutant passages and vehemence. This extensive molecular passage between the extracts and the horizontal plane is called transversality. For example, we can say that, in the molar, the segmentarity is rigid, while in the molecular, it is flexible. In the first, the representations are static, while in the other they are


procedural. In the molar, we find lines and segments, while in the molecular are the flows. Identity organizations are found in the macro molar, and the multitudes in the micro molecular. But to what extent can binary sets be considered as dichotomous, opposing forces?

Figure 1: Binary

Source: Orrú (2015).

Although interlaced objects cannot be confused with each other, they are both inherent and cannot be separated. There is a coexistence, that is, a common and unique existence in dilation. It is indescribable the possibility of a more or less encompassing dimension between molar or molecular. Leaks and molecular motions would be nothing if they did not pass through the molar organizations and did not reshape their segments, their binary distributions of sexes, classes, and parties" (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 1996, p.95). Inevitably, we are all in both processes, although in distinct circumstances that move and transform. In this sense, it is a misconception of axiological premise, to overvalue molarization to promote disadvantage to molecularization. Similarly, from the psychological point of view, it is a mistake to overshadow molecular with individual or in what occurs between two or more individuals and to summarize molar to the social territory. And still, in relation to size, to understand molecular as a failed configuration and molar as a magnificent one. Therefore, in the plane of consistency of machines, it is the molecular as tiny matter that makes the difference. The molar and molecular consistencies fuse together in connection with each other. Likewise, we can refer to the universal and the singular as two (binary) molar sets which, in addition to coexisting in a molecular territory, also produce a molecularization of the universal and the whole. At all times, there will be flexibilization, a


micro-political and molecular system that simultaneously exists with the withdrawal and the aggregation of the rigid segments. From this point of view, it is possible to perceive a split with the dichotomous reasoning, of opposing principles that aim to produce discrepancies and incompatibilities between the Being and the non-Being, individual and collective, normal and abnormal, psychic and social, as this apartheid1 eventually dissipates from reason. The universal plan does not explain the social, nor the singular or the whole can be explained. The universal does not constitute the total of a series of operations carried out during relations with two or more individuals or even in the set of forces of the bonds of persons or things that constitute a whole. As this relational movement happens among the beings with their singularities already accentuated. The concept of agency described by Deleuze explains this movement as a line of encounter between two worlds. The idea of agency is opposed to substitution or identification. The agency presupposes the creation of something that is between me and the other, between the beings, never housed in each one separately. The plural agency happens in the common temporal space, it does not belong to a particular person and demands the co-participation of the beings, besides generating the production of singularities (personal and plural) through subjectivation processes that negotiate the heterogeneous fragmentation of the human being. Guattari says that "in certain social and semiological contexts, the subjectivity is individualized" and that "under other conditions, subjectivity becomes collective, which does not mean that it becomes exclusively social”. As the collective is configured "in the sense of a multiplicity that develops beyond the individual, together with the socius, as well as fall short of the person, along with pre-verbal intensities, deriving from a logic of affections rather than a logic of well-defined sets circumscribed "(1992, pp. 19-20). Under the aegis of the Philosophy of Difference, the equality of value between the plural and the grouping of individuals is overshadowed and neglected. The plural does not refer to the determined person, it is surface to architect, to invent without ceasing, is hybrid and mutant. 1

It means separation. We choose the term for the historical, cultural and social meaning it brings us. Apartheid brought violence and a significant movement of internal resistance in South Africa, with its greatest representative, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, a survivor of this exclusionary and segregating regime.


THE UNIVERSAL DIAGNOSIS AND THE SINGULAR DIFFERENCE The diagnostic criteria joined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, already in its fifth version, published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 2014) are like vectors, devices, forces in exercise as an optical machine to see without being seen, such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). They function in the regime of assertions that declare prophecies, materialize the abstract by the subjectivation of the other and objectifies it, so that it is no longer João or Maria, but the thing named universally from the grouping of people identified with the same picture of socially constructed symptoms in history by culture, the diagnosis is like a shadow in the being. The materialization of the thing in the individual marks its identity with biological matrix, ignoring the presence of other historical and social components that constitute the person as a singular being. Figure 2: Shadow of Costa Pinheiro

Source: Lourdes Castro (1963) 2


Shadow of Costa Pinheiro (1963), painting on canvas of Lourdes Castro, a portuguese plastic artist. Available on:


The biomedical diagnosis present in DSM and ICD is a catalyst vector of disabilities, deficits, absences, losses, lack of power, anomalies, stiffness and spectra. It is a mechanism that characterizes, labels, classifies, stiffens, standardizes, unequalizes, mutilates, annihilates, injures and kills the singular Being. It serves to justify the legal machine to actions that segregate, punish, exclude, dope, interdict that declared incapable or abnormal, usurping their identity as Human Being. The normalization enunciated by the diagnostic instrument that points out what is abnormal seems well accepted by society that does not question the biopower, but conversely, enhances it and ratifies it, because who could counteract the accumulated knowledge of the medicine? Planetary society is crossed by the secondary effect of normalization, such as someone who takes a medicine. There is no time for mourning or sadness, as such feelings fit into the picture of depressive symptoms. Joys, euphoria, energy are categorized as disorders of those who suffer from excessive activity. They psychometrize psychic phenomena as if it was possible to measure intelligences and classify them as smaller or larger, more powerful or less powerful. For all fragility and/or difference, there is an ordering. Defined the gradation between normal and abnormal, they attribute ways of normalizing the individual, among them, the medicalization of school life and society. And it is no longer a society only disciplinary, but of control everywhere, at every moment. Since the most common behaviors, the psychiatry, one of the specialties of medicine that indoctrinates mental illness and its treatment, will be responsible for dictating the rules of contention. It will no longer be simply in this exceptional figure of the monster that the disturbance of nature will upset and question the law. It will be everywhere, all the time, even in the smallest, most common, most everyday behaviors, in the most familiar object of psychiatry, that it will face something that will have, on the one hand, irregularity statute in relation to a norm and which shall have, at the same time, a statute of pathological dysfunction in relation to the normal (FOUCAULT, 2001, p.

The diagnostic criteria contained in the DSM and that are materialized by the medical report assigned to the individual end up categorizing identities grouped by differences, specifically, by anomalies. This biomedical device, besides dematerifying people, also produces connections of these identity categories with the disease industry through the medicalization of drugs and multi-therapies. In search of "cure", those lauded as abnormal


are subject to pharmaceutical preparations that, on many occasions, generate parallel or almost parallel collateral irradiation that sickens the individual. So, if before they were not sick, but existed in their own unique condition, now, in fact, many became ill as a result of the medical effects on the body and psyche. Medicalization produced by the domain of psychiatry since the end of the 19th century and today, unfortunately, ratified by the school that is based on clinical reports to categorize its students with some type of disability. The school expropriates itself from education and gives to medicine the power to say who can or cannot learn; who will be able to live with other students; who will not be able to achieve the educational objectives proposed by the school; who will have his behavior controlled so as not to disturb the others in the classroom; who will be segregated; and who may or may not receive specialized educational service. In this expropriation of education, the school is confused in its social function and already dictates to the parents of those who escape the standard social behavior expected to take their child to the doctor and ask for the prescription of a certain medication. For example, a child with energy and curiosity enough to resist to the docilization of bodies in the school environment, after a report made by the teacher, psychologist, interview with mother, ends up receiving the diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder by the health professional (or disease?). The label was given and with it the prescription for intake of methylphenidate hydrochloride (also known as Ritalin or concerta). See the leaflet, the side effects that can affect the child who until then demonstrated to have lot of energy: Nervousness and insomnia are very common adverse reactions occurring early in treatment with Ritalin, but they can usually be controlled by dose reduction and/or omission of the afternoon or evening dose. Decreased appetite is also common, but usually transient. Abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting are common, and usually occur early in treatment and can be relieved by concomitant feeding. Some adverse reactions can be serious: high fever suddenly; severe headache or confusion, weakness or paralysis of the limbs or face, difficulty speaking (signs of disturbance of cerebral blood vessels); fast heart beat; chest pain; sudden and uncontrollable movements (signs of dyskinesia); ecchymosis (sign of thrombocytopenic purpura); muscle spasms or tics; sore throat and fever or cold (signs of a blood disorder); contorted uncontrollable movements of the limb, face and / or trunk (coreatetoid movements); hallucinations; convulsions; blistering of the skin or itching (sign of exfoliative dermatitis); red spots on the skin (sign of erythema multiforme); swallowing of the lips or tongue or difficulty breathing (signs of a severe allergic reaction). If any of these reactions occur, the doctor should be advised immediately. Other possible reactions are: rash or hives; fever, sweating; nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, dizziness; headache, dismay, tiredness; muscle cramp, dry mouth, blurred vision, weight loss, changes in blood pressure, hair loss (NOVARTIS, 2013).


Child-juvenile suicide cases in which the drug used to contain the subject in its eccentricities was methylphenidate hydrochloride are not uncommon. Including cases of children who, in fact, had high skills and were confused as intellectually disabled because they did not pay attention to the classes and become restless in their desks of imprisonment of the body. The normal/abnormal binary set matches a biological marker and by the categorized difference, a molar identity is established, which groups all the individuals and names them from the diagnostic vector, classify them based on characteristics which focus the deficits and disabilities that annihilate any possibility of power. The molecular and singular conditions are neglected, what matters is the totality in which all those who present the same symptomatic picture are homogenized by the evaluation of diagnostic criteria of universal, planetary character. The universal, by mistake (or because it is an instrument of manipulation of biopower?), is understood by society as an explanation for nuances. However, the universal (diagnosis) is only a catalyst for anomalies created consensually by the domain of psychiatry. Supposed disorders that cannot be submitted to the test, coming from a historical-social construction of the pathologies. The universal (diagnosis) names, labels, classifies, but does not explain each of the different phases or circumstances of something, no matter how tenuous the changing difference between them is. That is, the singular cannot be explained, nor imprisoned in a single form of existence pointed out by the device of universal character. This device produces segmental lines, fixed and stable identities, reasons for the institutionalization of segregation and the medicalization of life, and the disregard of subjects that are now subjectivated by the objectivation. Whether it is a clinical, disciplinary, critical, deductive or intuitive diagnosis, it constitutes an instrument of power that ratifies modes of life labeled and classified within a universal, identity parameter. In short, It is this way of capturing the processes of singularization and placing them immediately in theoretical references by specialists, references of collective equipment and segregators. [...]The production of subjectivity as an instrument of capital is perceived mainly by the elites: [...]the social forces that govern capitalism today. They understood that the production of subjectivity is perhaps more important than any other type of production, even more essential than oil and energy (GUATTARI, ROLNIK, 2005: 35-78).


However, micro-politics has the potential to collectively construct singularities and produce new ways of subjectivation that take part and interfere in their internal and external relations. Resistance, insubordination to the subjectivation of biomedical vectors, socially constructed in history and culture, brings forth the possibility of forthcoming agencies that can impetuously attack the relation of forces in the inner part of the web, in order to reveal by the enunciation the ruin of the tensors that prolong the image of themselves and produce another of themselves, starting from the same image, same configuration. The agency comes to happen under new outlines of culture, either by art or by politics and micro policies. The web to be woven in the joints and under molecular connections will enable the unbalance of the subjectivation by means of the escape lines, of the passageways constructed.


Figure 3: DNA Piano

Source: Claramunt3 (2014)

Although the modes of subjectivation have emerged from the clutches of capitalism that generate the lifestyles of individuals, creation by art or science is not fully ascribed to these mechanisms of control. The singular connects distinct dimensions that harbor possibilities of insubordination to the fixed representations. In this panorama, the individual is produced in series to group to the masses (in their identities). The subjectivity is produced in the social seat and is found in "all fields of social and material production" in a way to transit through the various social complexes, "assumed and lived by individuals in their particular existence”. However, the political and the unconscious twisted subtract to the absolute parity, being possible to be constituted by means of semiotic, symptomatic or social natures (GUATTARI & ROLNIK, 2005: 41-42). Mass forces reduce the processes of differentiation to the production of varieties. Precariousness is notorious and ephemeral during making something unique, singular. The


Trujiz Guillermo Trujillo Claramunt, Spain. Available on: According to the literature, the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a cluster of molecules that contain genetic material.


danger of this process going back to an unimportant institutionalization or faction is latent. They are those marginalized, forgotten, invisible,

are victims of segregation and are increasingly controlled, monitored, assisted (at least in developed societies) (...)everything that does not enter the dominant norms is adjusted, classified in small shelves, in private spaces. (...)Minorities are another thing (...)they claim not to participate in the mode of values, the expression of the majority (GUATTARI & ROLNIK, 2005: 122).

Nevertheless, the heterogeneous tensors also measure forces to take control of the maneuvers which seek the identical and trigger other lines of unforeseen escapes. This is a fact when groupings categorized by identities give rise to the migratory event of a circumstance of marginalization for a devir that constitutes and supports in a minority, tracking and composing spaces for different courses of uniqueness. Paths not led by a revolution, however, in a constant creative transgression of what is assigned in the society. A continuous minority devir, essential for surviving to the masses and fighting their struggles from subjectivities created beyond what already exists, composed by subjects with needs of the same nature. In this movement of not being swallowed up by the dominant and dominated mass, the transgressors take possession of an identity as an existential territory. However, they run the risk of falling behind the bars of the classificatory imprisonment again. Thus, walking in the frontiers and between them, beyond the transformation of a circumstance, is the encounter of the way of Being to construct resources that open gaps for the rupture with the subordination imposed and corroborate to the will of singularity and difference. For us, the concept of "frontier" is based on Deleuze (1988, 1992, 2004). It is a process produced historically and socially from the symbolic point of view. Frontiers are places of mutations, transformations, metamorphoses. And they are professed by the ability to transgress what is imposed, are imbued with multiplicity, reciprocity and relativity. In the frontiers, the confines and the rays are transposed, and other powers are sighted. The frontier, the interline, teaches us to live with differences, with the incompleteness of the being and of the things. They are places where devires happen. Where there is production of the hybris. Place where the cry echoes. Where coexistence is evoked. It is where the escape lines, the bifurcations, are found, where there are agreements and disagreements. Where


difference prevails in the difference itself. Where there are unpredictable connections and events. Regarding education, the school community can choose to position itself beyond tolerance, condescension and militancy of the rights of students with disabilities, those labeled by the devices of the diagnostic criteria as disturbed. It is necessary to see with other eyes, to understand from another point of view, who is the subject of education. To have a desire, a desire for difference that is beyond tolerance or acceptance of the other. It is to find a point in common of connection to gather energy in the plural plane to resist and to transgress the universal paradigm (diagnostic criteria of the DSM and ICD) that is nothing more than a producer mechanism of exclusion of masses grouped by common symptomatic similarities. It is to take charge of the multiplicity that constitutes us as a Being (our genuine identity), as singular subjects.


THE SEARCH FOR SIMILARITY, DIFFERENCE AND CURE THROUGH DIAGNOSIS In his work "Difference and Repetition", Deleuze unbalances the semantic meaning of the two words that take the title of his book. Strict and punctual repetition is related to the difference mentioned above. Repetition and resemblance or that which seems identical are not of the same nature, there is a difference. The generality is of the order of the laws and, as almost a totality, it is presented in two orders: the qualitative of the similarities and the quantitative of the equivalences. What is proper to the generality pronounces the substitution of a content by a different one. The repetition, in turn, cannot be instead of something else, it has the condition of being singular, it does not fit in the equivalence, nor in the likeness. The principle or the general idea of the individual rises against the totality of what is worth only by itself, of the whole. The singular cannot be universalized. And although scientific language allows the exchange of a content for another, poetry in its art has in its language the impossibility of calling for substitution. The generality carries within itself the resemblance of subordinates to it and its equality of value to the milestones established by the historical, cultural and social routes by the law. The law coerces and violates those who are subordinate to it as a way of representing it at the expense of its unique changes. Conversely, repetition is by force of singularity, of the difference, against totality, the universal, and the latter against the singular, the whole. Consequently, repetition is not of the order of the law, but a prodigy, it is subversion that refers to a single power that is distinguished from the condition of the totality. Repetition does not commend itself to the law of nature. There is no determination of an echo, except that which was created by man of duty, of law. Repetition, in its subversive character, gives indications of a singularity contrary to that which belongs to certain persons subjugated to the law. Repetition is subversive, ironic, and it is an exception. The repetition does not correlate with the past, nor with the present time line, however, it correlates with the future, in the understanding of the eternal return that never brings the same back, but of renewal of the being in the quality of devir, of happening


without purposes pre-established. And, according to the law of nature, repetition is intolerable and unrealizable. For example, although genetic (gene) repetition is enuntiated in the diagnostic criteria each time Down's syndrome resuscitates by the trisomy of chromosome 21 as a genetic disorder, in fact, it never occurs due to the repetition of chromosome 21, but in reason of its multiplication, as the singularities are on the particular and not on the universal. Biomedical diagnosis (universal because it is based on unique criteria in the planetary scope) is an instrument of law that can represent repetition as an intense resemblance or a remarkable equivalence without realizing the difference of nature between the two things. The relation between concept and its object is called representation, having always a concept for each singular event. In the case of diagnostic criteria, these are representations that nominate, classify, in a universal way, people according to an event. Diagnostic criteria have created representations and concepts of abnormality related to people who are considered similar, as these being their objects, to objectify them. But the question to ask is: what is the resemblance among those classified, in addition to the classification itself? There are non-conceptual differences among similar objects, such as diagnostic criteria and diagnosed persons. Diagnosis nominates things in beings that are culturally conceptualized as similar, but they are different in their singularities. In fact, repetition is the happening of a finite synecdoche concept. But the simultaneous understanding of the concept cannot go to infinity, as the word has a definite, limited and only nominal understanding. And the nominal concepts are finite in their understanding. Repetition through diagnosis (concept of finite understanding) is related to people who receive the same concept imposed by order of biopower. The diagnosis has as its essence the repetition, it always repeats what it conceptualizes to be abnormal. As a law instrument of biopower, it perpetuates the repetition of what it is claimed to be universal. However, in repetition it is the difference of singularities in beings that are named as identical but are not. Here, then, is the difference in difference. Diagnosis (universal) and static repetition always refer to the same concept, replacing only external difference (e.g., Down Syndrome), but the repetition of an internal difference enunciates that each person is different in their own difference. However, the diagnosis is only one cadence envelope pattern. Inequalities are widespread, triggering a consequence


beyond appearance regarding the dynamics of events and their scenarios. The repetition produced of the "same" (universal diagnosis) disguises, masks the asymmetry existing in the repetition itself, which never repeats itself, but generates multiplicity. The singularities of the Being point out paramount difference in the repetition that is shouted by the diagnosis, a center of recorded and prophetic repetitions, an instrument of biopower and its actors. Biopower, at the same time, elaborates a repetition that saves (justifies the different in its abnormality) and imprisons it in the materialization of the thing, subjectivation of the abnormality. The school, in turn, expropriates itself from education to find legitimacy for segregation and its mechanisms of exclusion, in a pseudo-inclusion forged in the Law. This law is understood as juris, but also leaning on the law promulgated by biopower (diagnosis) that names who is abnormal and freeing the normal to control and monitor the objectified by the consensus of some "normal" through diagnosis as a legal and regulatory instrument. Nevertheless, learning is not done in the repetition of the "same". In pedagogical processes that are dialogic and inclusive, inclusion means "do with me". Therefore, the possibilities of learning are produced, through the sign to be developed in the difference. It is possible to talk about repetition when, in fact, we come across with homogeneous elements that have the same concept. However, this is not the case for people with disabilities, because they are not identical, but are marked by the diagnosis with the same concept. Repetition is difference without concept. Diagnosis is not always based on scientific-genetic, often hypothetical, made up of assumptions, especially those that, by psychiatry, designate disorders that cannot be scientifically proven, are only of behavioral observation. It is static, it is the repetition in the effect, it is the extension. Ordinary, horizontal repetition. Developed and built socially and culturally. It is a repetition of equality, of symmetry, it is commensurable. It is material, objectifying. It's imprisoning. It is bare repetition. It is accurate in its criteria covered. The biomedical diagnosis is the effect that causes the subjectivation of the thing in the person. However, people do not repeat themselves. People surpass with their singularities the concept that was denominated to them by the imposing force of biopower for its major instrument, the diagnosis that universalizes. This instrument of power does not allow for any single idea of difference. The difference in this context is evil.


And, as many people understand the difference as being the evil, they seek the cure or palliatives that allow normalization of the individual diagnosed as abnormal. The film "XMen: The Final Showdown" (2006) approaches and expresses cinematographically the discovery of a cure for mutants (the abnormal) who can choose between maintaining their extraordinary powers (their singular powers) or normalizing themselves, being transformed in human beings. The discovery of this cure is produced by a pharmaceutical company that claims to have developed a vaccine that will suppress gene X that is responsible for the unique powers of the mutants and that makes them different from the human beings. Although the repetition of gene X constitutes the mutant identity and pairs the opposing binary with the human identity, the singularities, the differences are present between the mutants themselves. Therefore, it is not the X that determines conceptual repetition, as there are mutants interested in the cure, wishing to have the same identity as the human beings, but there are others who are frightened and do not want to stop being themselves, different from human beings. The cure of the mutants is a strong element for the elimination of their lineage. The drug invention prompts the emergence of opposing positions among the mutants themselves, but there are no disagreements between humans, actors of the "cure. X-Men in its many episodes, based on a comic book story of the 60s, draws attention to discriminatory attitudes, segregation, annihilation, and imprisonment of so-called (classified as abnormal) mutant beings. Because they are not human, they are not accepted in society and so they ended up creating a school for themselves, a special school for mutants, a safe place for them to live in harmony. But while some accept this apartheid, other mutants’ rebel and call to war the (normal) human beings. Accompanying the plot, it is possible to notice ourselves with a “tendency” each moment to one side of the extremities: sometimes for the mutants, sometimes for our species. In several scenes, the mutants are portrayed as being evil and extremist because they want to enslave or exterminate humanity. In other scenes, other mutants represent those who desire tolerance with the human beings, the coexistence as equals. And then, identities, mutants and human beings differ and become the difference a motive for exclusion, or for segregation, or for tolerance, or for acceptance. The film, in its art, expresses diverse events involved in a lot of emotion and action.


But what is different about the real-life movie (which is at first a fiction)? For Deleuze and Guattari in Chaosmose (1992), invention in art mobilizes devires and sensations that are valid in their own right and independent of its producer (the artist), its audience (those affected by it) and other external factors. Art incites the dialogue between the model (the norm) and the new (the rupture and invention). Art purposely does what can be unpleasant to others, transgresses laws, creates confrontation of universal paradigms. Art produces a new world, it renounces the devices that constitute a connection between points. It is independent and libertarian. They are the sets of sensations, the complex of percepts and affections that preserve the artistic composition. Percepts do not originate from perception, nor do affections from feelings. The affections exceed the limits of the commotion, go beyond that which is pierced by the mobilizing sensation. Art is an emergency power, expresses thought, is a creation of possibilities that commits itself to difference, but not to the individual. Art interlaces different matters and processes of creation. It stands on its own and does not require an eternal agent to maintain it, even if it is no longer displayed or reproduced. Cinema invents the percepts that are extensions of territories that are covered with a glimpse in history, in the past of man and the affections that are fictitious devires. The concept of devir does not crystallize nor does illustrates, however, it expands and personalizes. The devir is what is about to happen, presents itself in its incompleteness even though it has the power to be. It is always minority, anti-hegemonic, dependent on others, avoids the individuality. It's the escape line. Cinema (as well as literature, music, painting ..., art) is a plural arrangement of enunciation. They are not composed of collective or personal opinions, but of coexisting percepts and affections. Devir does not seek the identification, but the new, and make mercy to the chaos and to the complex. In X-Men, the fight of the mutants is against themselves, which become their own enemies. An event caused by the dominant actors on planet Earth who classify them as abnormal who need cure or to be extirpated so as not to disturb the cosmic order. However, while it is mutant (by gene X), it also does not see itself as unequal in its modality. The outer appearance hides the singular attributes, the potency of each one. It is mutant, but born of a human progenitor, so it is hybrid. It is in the "hybris that each one finds the being that makes him to return, as well as the species of crowned anarchy, the reversed hierarchy, which, in order to ensure the selection of difference, begins by subordinating the identical to the different" (Deleuze 1988, p. 49). It is undoubtedly neither sick nor abnormal, but it differs in


difference itself. Therefore, the idea of difference should not claim opposition, because it is the opposition itself that presumes difference. Therefore, it is human and mutant (it is hybrid - but who is not?). Thus, the identity of the Being (designated by the universal diagnosis to various individuals (as if they were objects), but of the same gender (species), with the same meaning (equality), is in fact constituted by that which is neither unique nor equal, on the other hand, is made up of multiple groups. The identity of the Being is not that of the seemingly biopower-like particle that overestimates the deficit, the disease, the incapacity, and for that reason, unifies the identity of those who are singular based on the differences (raising as negative) as opposed to what universalizes as normal. The representation of others is imposed by biopower through the diagnosis. The representation of the disabled, the incapable, the abnormal in opposition to all that is contrary, and which is normalized as normal development - the perfection, pseudo, of course, of the Being. Representation is static and without movement, it is enforceable of the difference and rejects the singularities of the Being. This Being that is identical only when related to its species, the human species. Moreover, the difference is affirmed in the difference itself, and repetition is opposed to representation. However, the difference must be revealed differently. The universalist diagnosis is a deficit-catalyzing device that couples individuals with the same symptomatic picture into the same identity. The actors of biopower who created this device are distant observers who have glimpsed individuals from a vision without reality, with shadows, specters and appearances that seem vaguely to resemble. This impression of similarities is called simulacrum by Deleuze. The simulacrum implies large dimensions, depths and distances that the observer cannot master. It is because it does not dominate them that it experiences an impression of resemblance. The simulacrum includes the differential point of view; the observer is part of the simulacrum itself, which transforms and deforms with its point of view (DELEUZE, 1998, 264).

In fact, there are no similarities, not on equal terms, nor an identity. The external observer (actors of biopower) has only one impression of semblance. The simulacrum is that it produces this mark, that impression on the observer. It is necessary that the difference is the very link of the different to the different without any type of culmination or conciliation by the similarity, equivalence or opposite thing.


The binary condition (normal/abnormal, sick person/healthy person, disabled / nondisabled) is inconvenient and rude juxtaposition to difference by the fact of attributing judgment of value according to criteria of the Same and identical, of the counterpart. By the diagnosis of disabled, the child is devoid of similarity with others of its species (identity of the Being), namely, the human. For example, the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, by its own term (word) launches the idea: “the fantastic image of a dead man, an image seen in the shadow". Another dictionary defines to us: “group of physical illnesses and diseases to which a particular medicine applies". In its flamboyant negative character, the diagnosis enunciates the devir, however, a fulfilling prophecy, an event constituted only by deficits, paradigms to the detriment of the singular Being that potentiates evil, which is supposed to be the symptomatic whole that annihilates the whole and overvalues the universal identity. Now, in X-Men, as in real life, the search for similarity, difference and cure through diagnosis only creates identities that reinforce contradictions, the binary set (normal/abnormal, sick/healthy), apartheid in society, therefore, also in school. The understanding that we are all beings of a hybrid constitution is succumbed by the forces of biopower, political power (power to monitor, disciplinary power, power of control) by major policies that justify the normal and productive to perpetuate the abyss, the difference and the status between dominant and dominated.


POLICIES AND PROBLEMS: THE TREATMENT OF PROBITY WITHIN THE SCHOOL We mention at the beginning of this essay the laws and documents that guide the affirmative policies in in education in several countries, including Brazil. Specifically, laws and policies that discuss the right to education of all, that is, education in the perspective of inclusion. It occurs at the same time in which they recognize the difference in the learners, they also use the same to differentiate them and thus, to propose mechanisms of exclusion. By the difference, they homogenize the process of learning of all students through dominant, traditional, taxing pedagogical practices that treat all equally. In other words, current policies end up always reproducing and perpetuating a school that produces differences, which is quite contrary to constitute the differences that differ in their multiplicity through the enunciation of the other (s). Affirmative policies in Brazilian education outline a larger goal aimed at excepting anything that might interfere with or undermine the project that represents its plurality. In this sense, even though there is a Law on Guidelines and Bases of National Education (BRASIL, 1996) and prescribing a "Law on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities" (BRAZIL, 2015) among other laws and decrees, in their daily application, they endeavor to banish the differences, as if this was possible, rather than provoking possibilities for transformation within the school. Gaps in terms of the laws, such as "preferentially", gave and give scope for exclusion mechanisms to be routinely used to exclude some students from the common school or to pseudalize the inclusion from integration proposals of the student with a disability who sometimes mobilize him to special education rooms, sometimes to specialized institutions, or to common teaching rooms. Clinical diagnosis is the device instrument to break out the students' attitudinal barriers that are understood as different. In a pseudo attempt to tolerate him as different, they use this vector to nominate him, to categorize him and therefore, within the juris, the dominant actors in the school support themselves to say who can or not receive specialized


educational assistance, who will or not have right to test with adequacies, who will not be able to accompany the other students in the class, who will prove that he is being medicated (or medicalized?) to continue being consented to by his differences. Diagnosis is the instrument that guides the person who is in fact ill/deficient/ abnormal from the one who is curious. The biomedical diagnosis, the medical device, mainly of psychiatry, has gained space within the school and this, in turn, through its actors, expropriates of the education and its social attribution. Do a test with an extra time, only if the diagnostic report justifies ... And it is in this compass of affirmative policies in national education that the mechanisms of exclusion prevail, propagate and perpetuate themselves. If the problem was to favor the inclusion of all, the mistaken solution was to homogenize the pedagogical practices. If the problem was not to give leash to those shameless, the hostile solution was to impetrate the difference by the biomedical diagnosis. If the problem was the teachers' lack of knowledge about the many symptoms, the indelible solution was to give the power to categorize to the specialists. Major solution, collective project for the nation. Extirpation of differences by the differences themselves. However, the greatest dissent was not to dwell on the problems encountered, but rather to quickly grant the solutions to make the problems disappear like magic. But in the contributory perspective of Deleuze, the most important thing is to create problems and not to submit to them. It is, in fact, to scream the problem!!! To unravel the problems which affect us, affect the school, affect the learners, affect the dialogical and inclusive pedagogical process, affect the probity of public policies in the way they are treated by the school and in the school. Now, the term probity is explicitly related to the fulfillment of duties, of justice, of what is moral, of honor, of honesty in politics and management. But are not we all politicians and managers, agents? If we are constituted like that, we are always taken by circumstances to problematize what is difficult to explain, to position ourselves before the bifurcations, conscious that neutrality does not exist. It is true that from the problem germinates the truth. To problematize problems goes beyond the immediate search for clear and objective solutions, as it occurs in the presuppositions of Cartesianism. To problematize problems is to search for ways to create, to invent the new from the problem itself, without the illusion and the despair of "giving" the solution and bring an end to the arguments or anguishes. We may


then say that, when we hear these statements, “disability is the problem ...", "the disabled student is the problem ...", "inclusion is the problem ...", "not being prepared for inclusion is the problem ...." , "others are the problem ... - in fact, they are only illusions that transfer the "problems" about theses, affirmations or hypothetically existing points of view. Diverse judgments as a way of examining them according to the solution possibilities discriminated by variables conditioned to what is external and not to the genesis of what is posed as an enigma that effervesces to the production of thought. In this sense, it is much more fruitful to inquire "what are the conditions of the problem of inclusion?” and, knowing, therefore, that the problems are the ideas themselves, to problematize what possibilities of denouement we can create at the core generated from problems latent in the inclusion itself. Therefore, the major issue is not to leave inclusion to oblivion and unrealization. Nor do we dwell on analytical elements to explain why it does not work. This is not to seek the truth by the genesis of the problem. The problematization is not something simple, on the contrary, it is complex. The problem has its existence within its own resolutions. They are argumentative and never static. Thus, the apprentice (all of us) constitutes and creates problems that are not reduced to practice in the same way that is not influenced by appearances or theories. The learner apprentice reveals what applies to everything in the role of which composes the idea and in the quality of what is singular, unique, in a dignified way. In other words, learning to make inclusion happen for the sake of the education of all and for all in the common learning space is to learn to reconcile pieces of equal importance of the domains of knowledge that are presented with the unique ways of learning of each apprentice, constituting thus a problematic space with infinite possibilities of invention and re-invention4 of the new, without the establishment of palliative measures or patterns of realization. In this dialogical and inclusive pedagogical process, the homogenization of teaching is unacceptable, since each one learns in his own way, rhythm, considering their singularities. Learning is beyond the inatism, of which is governed by the biological factor. Again, biomedical diagnosis should not be a device to discriminate and prophesy who will or will not learn. Even because the biomedical diagnostic report for the master is not worth anything, as the methodologies for learning must be built together WITH the learner and not


The prefix RE- has its own meaning and means "again". We chose to use it in our work


from universal criteria. They must be constructed from the singular demands in their multiplicity and not imposed in the form of single model. Therefore, The differences of multiplicities and the difference in multiplicity replace the schematic and coarse oppositions. There is only the variety of multiplicity, that is, the difference, rather than the enormous opposition of the one and the multiple. And perhaps it is an irony to say: everything is multiplicity, even the one, even the multiple (DELEUZE, 1988, 174).

Inclusion in the quality of being a problem is of the order of the event, and the invention or re-invention of itself for the outcome of circumstances-problems, emanates as a real event, as the conditions of what is difficult to explain denote events, collaborate in a common purpose. Inclusion is not simplistic, abstract, or universal; but a fundamental problem, complex in its multiplicity and expressed in the possibilities of its event, often incognito. The repetition, in turn, causes the mutation of the problem under consideration, in a way that preserves the lipid content of the inclusion (problem). Nevertheless, the repetition of the event of inclusion is not the "same", nor the simple "see again", but its occurrence allows different ways of being recognized as true, legitimate or possible as a fundamental problem. The repetition of the return of inclusion in the most diverse circumstances and spaces of learning revisits singularities without, however, reducing them to pre-existing, pre-established, pre-conceptualized identities. Inclusion presupposes "doing WITH the other", "learning WITH the other" and not alone, isolated, segregated, marginalized. To present the inclusion as the essence of a problem representative of the non-learning of children with disabilities in common learning spaces, or of the difficulty of monitoring the rhythm of other students, or of hindering the development of other students is, in fact, the " not being "of inclusion and this" not-being "is the main idea of the problem. Therefore, there is no relation between inclusion being of negative aspect or then, denying it in the face of problems encountered. The negative is simply an illusion, it configures only the spectrum of the problem. Hypotheses based on preexisting concepts and judgments of value of inclusion to be negative or "do not work" in fact obscure the true support of the problem (inclusion). Its negative criticism turns out to be ineffective in the face of inclusion as a fundamental problem. The debate and confrontation of inclusion is no longer something new. However, in its constitution of Being a fundamental problem, it (the inclusion) always renews itself and is always involved with controversies and heated discussions and inquiries that penetrate and


shake the organization and structure of the education system in which we are aggregated. And every time that inclusion is repeated as a problem, it unbalances the pseudo-certainties about the pragmatics of teaching that, since the sixteenth century, has been worshiped in the school space from kindergarten to higher education. Inclusion challenges the traditional static and transgresses the foundations of a disciplinary and controlling society.

Figure 3: Umbalance

Source: Municipal Park in Poços de Caldas, Brazil (ORRÚ, 2015)

Inclusion as a fundamental problem makes connection with probity in affirmative education policies, as well as requires the honesty of schools, not allowing fraud in their process, as it does not exist in isolation, because its movement is never outward, furthermore, inward. It is not a fad, but the eternal renewal for the present and future generations. Inclusion creates the confrontation within the school space in resistance to the major policies of the collective plan that nullify the struggles that the school community needs to face to get out of the sameness and re-invent new paths for a democratic and emancipatory education that unconditionally contemplates all. In its tenacity, the inclusion does not tolerate crystallized thought, deterministic practices of ideal student, vectors of exclusion, procrastination of what is just, apartheid of those who find themselves outside the homogeneous pattern established by society. Incidentally, this is an illusory pattern, as there is no homogeneity in human beings. It does not connect with discourses of equality that dubiously serve and support the extraction by difference.


Inclusion, as a problem, causes the school all the time to re-think what to do for a pseudo form of itself does not occur. It bothers, because it is not homo or anomalous, but hybrid, as it coexists enclosed in the spaces that at first reject it. If there is no reason why to invoke the inclusion where there are no excluded. In its demand for probity in educational policies and in school, inclusion does not consent to the creation of identities organized from categorizations based on difference and equality. It vehemently rejects the subjectivation of the other through the prognosticating prophecies of the diagnosis as a device of exclusion. It contradicts the patterns of development present in the most diverse theories and ruminates the implements that give the illusion of being able to measure the intelligence, the human complexity. It withdraws the school from the comfort zone to realize that the solution is not to pretend to handle well with the differences, nor to delude itself that the tolerance, acceptance, mitigation of and in the problematic circumstances of inclusion are non-exclusive actions. Inclusion claims probity all the time, the whole time. It is beyond the massification of teaching by a manufacturing of workers to the consumption society. Nor does it serve the social formations that plan to dominate the other, to control, to impose its oppressive power, whether by the socialist or anarchist system, nor it is utopian. Inclusion makes major connection with the learning possibilities of all people, considering their singularities. It is above the social function of the school that serves the interests of the State. The inclusion is inserted and is contained in the spaces most opposed to it. It coexists with the social inequality, along with the biomedical vectors of exclusion, along with the identity groups. Inclusion has its existence in differences that differ. And in its eternal return, each time a student suffers the cruelty of exclusion and scotomization from those who try to hide it with temporary, partially efficient or inefficient measures, inclusion shouts for its solid and complex existence, regardless of adverse circumstances, as it is present in all the subtle and exaggerated forms of indignation which are expressed in the most different ways and which echo against discrimination, apartheid. Inclusion, in its decorum, annoys the school community to re-see, re-think, re-create their ways of being to abandon their perverse and excluding organizational structure. It calls for new ways of promoting learning for the whole class in spaces common to all, from their axes of interest and their potentials.


Inclusion in its complexity, draws the attention of the school community to the major policies and problems to be treated fairly and honestly so that no one is left out and no solution is simply palliative.


THE MINOR INCLUSION: BY THE MICROSCOPE YOU SEE IN LARGER SCOPE Affirmative policies for Brazilian education postulate a collection of laws and decrees of national and international order that deal with the right of all to education. They are universal instruments that guide the national education plan in the perspective of inclusive education. However, even if the laws exist, the annihilating breaches of probity coexist, as well as the gaps to descend to jurisprudence. The latter, derived from English Law with the purpose of positioning itself in front of usances, unusual ways of living, as well as bypassing the existing flaws in the legal system and emerging content of legal parameters from previous judgments for the treatment of similar cases in the future. Jurisprudence turns out to be even more important in its happening than the laws themselves. It supplies itself and is constituted not by the complex of larger laws, but by minor singular events. Just as in "Kafka, by a minor literature" (Deleuze & Guattari, 2003), we can mirror the problem of inclusion. Kafka - for a minor literature," is a gathering of essays by Deleuze and Guattari, from themes and issues present in the work of Franz Kafka. It consists of several analyzes and questions not only about the work of Kafka, but of a whole political and social period. Minor literature, a concept used by Deleuze and Guattari, in a dimension that is based on the idea of deterritorialization that refers to a dislocation triggered by the loss of true cultural character from the marginalization of ethnic groups that become foreigners in their own language and subtract in the indigence of language the creative power. The meaning of "minor" in this context is related to a devir that belongs to a minority and that produces lines of escape for the language to re-invent resistances and powers (DELEUZE, 1992). Although there are major laws and policies that guide it, inclusion always re-turns and re-creates in spaces often hostile of cultural, political and territorial disputes and conflicts, emerging the chaos and unbalancing what appeared to be harmonized. In fact, it screams and resuscitates what was silenced. A minor inclusion, stealing and fertilizing the concept of "minor" latent in "Kafka" through its authors, is not a wan, less worth, inferior inclusion. However, we understand that


it is the inclusion that is made every day in the most diverse and tiny spaces of learning, independent of the major law, but by the conviction that its presuppositions are like an organization of beliefs, a belief system5, a philosophy of life which the minority generates in the territory of a major policy. Figure 4: Believe

Source: Donna Williams6

Inclusion that is not pseudonymous is one that is present beyond the role, beyond the abstract and the intellectual of policies promulgated. It is the one that is not stuck by the obligation of the law so that the others see it to exist in the school, without reasons of denunciation that would hinder the good and desirable legal progress of the institution. To this inclusion that coexists at the borders, on the boundary line of the binary link, excluded/included, is what we call minor inclusion. The minor inclusion, which is not announced in social networks, in the television media, which does not appear in newspapers, which does not become an example of national conquest, but which is an event that provokes devires and calls for deterritorialization for the access to all, without discrimination to education. The minor


The term connotes a belief system. Something conjoined, constituted by principles and values that give sense and meaning to the ways of living. A philosophy of life. 6 Believe, painted by Donna Williams, an artist with autism. Available on her official website:


inclusion that is made as the production of a belief system transgresses universal standards of categorization by difference and occurs beyond its obligatory prescribed by law. It makes possible the access and permanence of all children, all adolescents, young people, adults and the elderly in the learning spaces. It causes the break with the Cartesian paradigm of teaching everyone in the same way, as it demands to consider the singularities in the learning process from the problem of the re-invention of methodological strategies that emerge the creative power with the apprentices in order to transgress what is imposed conceptually, including the decolonization of thought in favor of the production of nonhierarchical knowledge (DELEUZE, 1975). Therefore, it requires that all (teachers and students) see and conceive themselves as learners, without hierarchization of knowledge or power, but in ways of sharing knowledge and learning in other ways. However, it is not a question of the existence of a binarism between "minor inclusion" versus "major inclusion", because in Deleuze's presuppositions in Kafka's context, the minor language will always take place at the core of the larger language as an ingenious combination of tension in the preponderant language (DELEUZE, 1977, pp. 38-39). Minor in the Deleuzian sense (1977) is that habitual way of proceeding which assumes its scarce and secondary importance as regards the representations and ideologies of the language (in our case, of the inclusion) and which admits the banishment in the bowels of the talkative practices of the majority, so as to become like an outsider in his own territory, in his own language, consenting to appear to the particular regional inflection and the non-recognition of the one who speaks out of place or who takes to himself spaces of anonymity, uncharacteristic and impersonal. To this inclusion that coexists at the borders, on the boundary line of the binary link, excluded/included, is what we call minor inclusion. Minor inclusion, besides constituting the frontiers, in dividing lines, in the middle of the bridge and not at its extremities that determine who is in favor or against it, connects the subject in the contiguous historical, political and social setting. It makes real the event of the plural agency of the enunciation of voices, previously silenced. Agency is a multiplicity that bears many heterogeneous terms, and which establishes connections, relationships between them, across ages, sexes, kingdoms - across different natures. The only unit of agency is co-operation: is a symbiosis, a "sympathy". What is important, are never affiliations, but alliances, or blends; it is not inheritance, descent, but contagion, epidemics, wind (DELEUZE, PARNET, 2004, p.88).


This minor inclusion transgresses the conventional, the tradition of overvaluing certain school/academic knowledge to the detriment of others; to underestimate subjects who had their identity of Being brutalized by the prophecies that made the universal biomedical diagnosis. It does not disqualify someone by the materialization of symptomatic pictures. It does not yield to the subjectivation modes of biopower. But on the contrary, in addition to a revolution, minor inclusion creates conditions for transformations to take place in the sinuosity of education which, contained in the Law; is ordered, however, on many occasions, diverted by the political yearnings of a collective project for a nation that should not be unbalanced by unforeseen events, always serving the interests of the State. The minor inclusion, unlike that which is contained in the Laws and which is known more in its universal-abstract form, is present as an event beyond the resolute controversy and polemic. It cannot be categorized and fixed or understood as something static. But with an innovative radical, it coexists in the molecular and molecular field and makes it possible to learn and share knowledge through various forms of expression, always considering the singularities of the subjects, the difference in the difference in their multiplicity. It is a movement always in update.

If they are distinguished, it is because they do not have the same terms, nor the same correlations, nor the same nature, nor the same kind of multiplicity. But if they are inseparable, it is because they coexist, they pass to each other, according to different figures as in the primitive or in us - but always one presupposes the other (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 2004, p.90).

The differences of multiplicities and the difference in multiplicity replace the schematic and coarse oppositions. There is only the variety of multiplicity, that is, the difference, rather than the enormous opposition of the one and the multiple. And perhaps it is an irony to say: everything is multiplicity, even the one, even the multiple (DELEUZE, 1988, 174). The concept of minor inclusion sculptured here may appear to be a discrepancy with that established by Deleuze (1977). This, because, at first, minor inclusion should be beneficial only for the minority, those nominees and classified as excluded. But on the understanding that there are no identities, but only one identity (that of Being human) and that the difference is all, it is typical of the human species and not only of that designated as


deficient, the minor inclusion in its potency turns out to be beneficial to all, as it deterritorializes the territory of those excluded and those included, as every human being, at some moment, lives circumstances in the role of excluded and included. Every society, but also every individual, is therefore crossed by the two segments at the same time: one molar and one molecular. If they are distinguished, it is because they do not have the same terms, nor the same correlations, nor the same nature, nor the same kind of multiplicity. But if they are inseparable, it is because they coexist, they pass to each other, according to different figures as in the primitive or in us - but always one presupposes the other. In short, everything is political, but all politics is both macro-political and micropolitical (DELEUZE, GUATTARI, 2012, p.90).

Regarding the notion of difference in Kafka, the authors state: “as we do not see any difference between all these things (who can affirm the difference between a structural differential opposition and an imaginary archetype whose property is to differentiate?” (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 2003, p.25). It is because we are of the human species that we present immense differences, as we are identical in our unique identity as a human being. Therefore, the inclusion that emphasized a factitious territoriality becomes a center of disturbance of circumstances and people, a kind of membrane that is bound to the process of deterritorialization. Therefore, at every occasion in which the inclusion is invoked by those excluded, actors of learning communities, learning spaces, those who weave collaborative and solidarity webs, are called to re-invent inclusion, provided that there is no methods or recipes to do so. What we can find is presuppositions of a belief system, an organization of beliefs that gives life and concretization to the event of inclusion, scrutinizing in its condition of being a fundamental problem, possibilities of favoring the learning for the whole class, without immediate or palliative solutions, but with a fabric that understands and welcomes differences, singularities, as something characteristic of the human species. The organization of beliefs, in this sense, is a set of values and principles that permeate national and international documents about inclusion. These mention that all people have the right to education and that all have possibilities of learning. Principles such as accessibility in its full meaning and respect for difference are fundamental in the process of inclusion, but these principles and values should not be considered as specific, as they


multiply beyond legislation in every circumstance in which inclusion needs to be reinvented. In minor inclusion, these events do not occur only to contemplate the legislation and to legitimize the intentions of the State. This organization of beliefs in the context of minor inclusion generates a philosophy of life that encompasses the school community, a nonutilitarian or specific philosophy, but which proposes to think of inclusion as a fundamental problem and from it to re-invent inclusive actions in the understanding that people learn from different ways and paths that multiply, so that universal diagnosis does not determine who the learner is. The path of inclusion is not something easy or simple to follow or understand. It is complex, because it does not despise the ills existing in the different contexts and circumstances; it does not pretend absence of obstacles; it does not overvalue certain actions to the detriment of others; nor does it choose enlightened pedagogical practices to materialize. The minor inclusion all the time at the whole time is constituted in the frontiers, between the lines, in the dividing line, in the middle of the bridge, where everyone walks, where the hybrid nature of the human condition is present.


Figure 6: The Bridge

Source: Poços de Caldas, Brazil (ORRÚ, 2015)

Therefore, it always travels long stretches without turning its back on deterritorialization because of the need to remain tenacious. The minor inclusion revolutionizes, transgresses, transforms the major inclusion (foreseen in the Law) into a dialectical, dialogic, ingenious event. It is intense and persistent. It subsists to the magnitude of the legalistic inclusion that sometimes serves the interests of the State, sometimes grants the right to the citizen, sometimes doubles to the microphysics of biopower. Minor inclusion subsists and coexists with legalistic inclusion, because its vigor and rhizomatic strengthening are found in the belief system that constitute a way of being, a life philosophy of its subject-actors who conceive and perceive inclusion far beyond what is proclaimed in legislation. And, by conviction, they make their choices for a minor inclusion, without pseudalizing, without maculating, without perpetuating exclusion mechanisms that may be subtle, but potentially harmful. Just as the microscope is for the visibility of objects of excessive smallness, the minor inclusion is to amplify what is abstract and intellectual, present in education policies from an inclusive perspective.


BETWEEN LINES AND FRONTIERS Many are the dividing lines, the frontiers that separate one people from the other, although our only real identity is that of the human Being. The other identities created by categorizations try to absorb us all the time. Belonging to a social group (identity) to not be isolated is something so common and often necessary as oxygen to maintain survival. The frontiers are invisible; however, they enunciate the different ways of dominating the other through cartographic policies of the different areas, from the economic to the hierarchy of knowledge. This apartheid designed by the invisible lines are vectors for social exclusion, because they determine how people, the "other", is seen and conceived. A typical case that can be exemplified from the post-colonialist theories, where there is the presence of a colonist and his colonizer, and consequently there is or will be the presence of a mestizo, whose nature will be hybrid, mutant. In this context, we could say that the Cartesian school, inflexible, perpetuating the homogenization and hierarchization of knowledge, in fact, an institution of power, consider its students as mere colonized controlled, dispossessed of their knowledge emanating from their experiences. For Fanon,

Decolonization is the encounter of two congenitally antagonistic forms, which have precisely their origin in this kind of substantiation that the colonial situation excretes and feeds. The first confrontation of these forces unfolded under the sign of violence, and their cohabitation - more precisely the exploitation of the colonized by the colonist - continued thanks to bayonets and cannons. The colonist and the colonized are old acquaintances. And, in fact, the colonist is right when he says that he "knows" them. It was the colonist who made and continues to make the colonized. The colonist takes away his truth, that is, his assets, from the colonial system (2005, 52).

The docilization of bodies by disciplinary power and control power regulates the other, mutates the body into fractions of organs, annihilates and brutalizes the individual who subjects himself to the colonizing power, to become fragile and vulnerable to all kinds of brutality, both physical and psychic. This body, under the evaluation of colonization that


converts everything into capital, is consciously gathered by categories of equality from preestablished identities which, in fact, are converted into the most uncivil forms of difference, of social inequality. Not differently, the same occurs with the student with deficiency in the school space. He is a colonist. His differences, his singularities, his way of being, his subjectivity, his body are disregarded, being conceived as one (1) more in the statistics of the institution that serves the interests of the State and whose social function is very far from an emancipatory education. To be one (1) more means that it is only an element of production for the purposes of capital, consequently, invisible to society. As colonized, he is oppressed and silenced, suffers apartheid and falls into social oblivion. Although policies and laws are promulgated for the socio-educational inclusion of students with disabilities in regular schools, this is in fact always at risk, in the tightrope of having, in fact, his rights guaranteed, as in the condition of not belonging to the standard pre-established by society, the institutions appeal to the State as creditors of the right and responsibility to fulfill their social function attributed by the State, that is, to educate, in fact, to train the individual for the citizen formation in favor of the labor market , to produce to the maintenance of the country and its machine. This fact can also be exemplified by Pink Floyd's musical masterpiece, entitled The Wall (1979). Pink, an English boy who grows up during many family problems and in difficult times triggered by war and sudden death of his father, attends a traditional school. After the teacher's perception that he had written a poem, he is humiliated and trampled on because poems are not part of the list of knowledge considered relevant to the school in its task of producing workers for capital. The education, if you can call it like that, offered to Pink and his colleagues is a reproducer of contents and strict truths. Because of this type of education that looks like compulsory military service at the age of seven, students are alienated, uninformed individuals, without the audacity to think critically about their own reality. But Pink dares to step on the invisible dividing line that separates ignorant and dominated (students) from beings possessing knowledge and dominators (teachers). The boy, in his imagination, lives the possibility of being subject of his own history with full freedom of expression. His thinking, beyond the reality, throws down demolisher students from the walls of that school, oppressed (students) who become foremen of those oppressors (teachers) and throw them into fire. However, Pink returns to the reality of his classroom


through the voice of his math teacher and becomes confused as he realizes his smallness in the face of a whole brutal system of training, concluding and conforming that he is simply one more brick in the wall, a faceless one that marches in order, without any insignificant remnant of subjectivity and creativity. The lyrics and music created by the band are known by many people in the most diverse countries and have become a representative composition of social movements of those oppressed scattered around the planet. Social, school colonization builds up inhospitable, stony, risky areas of survival. Even if there are laws for an education of all and for all, the gaps produced by the mechanisms of exclusion expel or annihilate the different categorization of that territory. There are several possible mechanisms of exclusion, but the diagnostic report given by biopower (whose focus is not the individualized body but the collective body) is legitimized by the jury for apartheid of this different. In this way, it assures the convenience and interests of those on the frontier side, ignoring the lethal events (physical or / and psychic) of those on the side of those colonized. For Foucault, biopower means:

(...)this series of phenomena that I think quite important, namely the set of mechanisms by which what, in the human species, constitutes its fundamental biological characteristics, will be able to enter a policy, a political strategy, a general strategy of power. In other words, as a society, modern Western societies, from the eighteenth century, have once again considered the fundamental biological fact that the human being is a human species. It is, in general lines, what I call, what I called, to give it a name, of biopower (2008, page 3).

Inclusion coexists in both spaces and always makes its crossing between the lines, in the frontiers. It is not in a specific territory of its property. It is the very own escape line. It does not serve the interests of the State for capital, but it is the materialization of the cry of those excluded in the territory of the colonizer. Inclusion is transgression, revolution, transforming agent in this inhospitable territory and, in this condition, causes chaos, imbalance, threat to the predetermined order of the teaching institution, human molding.


Figure 5: The Shout

Source: Edvard Munch (1893)7

However, despite the colonizing territory of the educational institution, whether public or private, education is not in its legal possession, it is not the thing possessed. Education is beyond territories, it is also found on frontiers, in the most diverse spaces where learning is favored, whether formal or informal. For this reason, it is a fundamental right, and in the contemporaneity, breaks the univocal idea that it can only be offered by teaching institutions that are regularized and regulated by the State. Inclusion brings together those unequal and is constituted in its own differences which differ in its multiplicity. Inclusion does not encourage the division of classes into classes organized from psychometrics, nor does segregates in a space apart from the educational institution others categorized by biopower, much less admits the exclusion in places made only for those excluded. Inclusion is a movement against all forms of apartheid.


The Scream, picture by the Norwegian Edvard Munch (1893). It represents a moment of deep anguish and existential despair. Your possible source of inspiration can be found in the personal life of the artist himself. Available in:


THE HYBRIS NATURE OF THE HUMAN BEING, EDUCATION, INCLUSION AND LEARNING Figure 8: All the time I was making this. I was thinking of you. Sold.

Source: Pakayla Rae Biehn8 (2015)

Hybris is said of the mixed, miscegenated thing, coming from two distinct species, of different composition in its elements, which uses unequal energies to be in activity, it is the thing amalgamated... and also adverse to the laws of nature. The concept of hibris is fertile and productive, but complex and fruitful in the differences that are different and that mix with each other. What is a hybrid happens on the frontier and consists of imperfection and contradiction, incoherence and what is far from being homo. Education is hybrid, as it is beyond the institutional postulates of teaching. Learning is not something formally organized, but consists of experiences, processes provided with the presence of another (the teacher, colleague, family member, friend, unknown person ...) and with us, without the physical presence of another person. Learning can be composed 8

Pakayla Rae Biehn is an American artist born in the 90's. She is known for hybrid beauty in her art. She was born with strabismus, always accompanied by double vision. Over time, she decided to turn suffering into beauty. Available on the oficial site::


intentionally, of free will, in moments dedicated to the study of something, as well as in moments of entertainment. We learn all the time, many times without the awareness of the occurrence of learning. Learning is always re-invented, because it is not confined to an appropriate place (school) to learn, on the contrary, it is arranged in the various learning spaces (all places). Nor is it imprisoned at a moment intended to occur (class time), but continuously, as all times may be and favor the learning. The human being is hybrid, constituted by part of biological nature and another by its culture. Their needs are not only of physiological origin, but also stemming from the demands of their culture. It suffers the deconstruction of postmodern identity through mass culture, consumer society, social barriers and differences drawn at the frontiers of each nation. The human being is a cultural hybrid, fragmented in its identity and, through this fact, it can mutate the social order in the limit of the local and global frontiers. Thus, while it undergoes the ruin of what serves as reference, it also acquires new values. Therefore, in contemporary times, there is no fixed or static identity. It is mobile, mutant according to cultural representations. Unique in the sense of Being human. Therefore, teachers and students (Human being) are hybrids, and in this context, all are apprentices and masters. They undergo transformations, mutations, continuously. They learn and share knowledge in formal and informal spaces in the real and virtual realm. Education is always amalgamated. Inclusion, in turn, is also of a hybrid nature. It is present in the territory of those included by the cry of those excluded. It roams against the tide of nature's laws of global society. It has in its belief system that everyone has possibilities of learning, that education is for the whole class, that all should be treated equally, considering the differences that differ in their multiplicity. In inclusion, the mixing is a common occurrence. It demands the combination of the different domains of knowledge without overvaluing of some to the detriment of others, so as not to discredit any potentiality, as the subjects are different and have different preferences also in their learning process. It demands the mixing and re-invention of methodologies, as it presupposes that no one learns in the same manner and in the same ways. The inclusion brings to the learning spaces assistive technologies that also have hybrid character, serve to promote the learning of the whole class and for everyone to enjoy their technological resources, from the simplest tools to the most complex software. It imposes


the need to rethink and re-devise a curriculum that is flexible and that makes it possible to meet the iniquities of all learners at the same time. Inclusion demands the miscegenation of the domains of knowledge, of professionals from different areas, of learners who differ, of singular spaces and learning moments. Inclusion is hybrid because it merges with the Human Being and with education, that are fundamentally hybrid. It makes learning something fascinating, as everyone can attain it. Inclusion is always re-invented, as it poses challenges for better blended combinations to respond to the problems that emerge from its own inclusive context. It calls attention to innovation, which is also the result of this mixture always in favor of not accommodating areas of comfort that tend to water conformism and stagnation. Inclusion happens between the lines, promoting quality education for the whole class and not just for some. It brings benefits both to students with disabilities and to those without disabilities, as it contributes to the constitution of more humanized, more solidary, more collaborative people. It matches an education that is constructed emancipatory and significantly for each life present in the common spaces of learning. It makes the life of the apprentice worth it! It amplifies the learning potential of each learner (teacher, pupil, family). Inclusion promotes deeper senses in the life of the learner, because it is not limited to school knowledge and, also for this reason, is hybrid. The hard core of inclusion is the building of values and principles that have no vacuum but are substantial. Inclusion requires plural learning spaces in every sense. And the learning process in the context of inclusion must be built by its own subjects and not hierarchically ordered. In its belief system, it combines and mixes elements in favor of a learning to think for oneself, to know diverse domains that extrapolate the classroom, to live with differences in difference, to be resilient. In this constant re-inventing of inclusion, learning is an event of the canon of the unforeseen, of the creation of the new, of the singular thought. There are no prescriptive methodologies on how to learn or teach, nor does it accept behavioral training. Inclusion violates pedagogical methods of control and measurement of learning processes. However, learning happens in a unique way with each one, even in unconscious manner. And what is not learned is simply a devir to be.


INCLUSION IS A SURVIVOR'S THING Inclusion in its whole complexity and fundamental problematics and, for being hybris, is not something for those who settle in comfort zones. Inclusion is something of a survivor, resilient, resistant. Of whom survives to extreme situations, but mainly, that survives to the "other". A survivor fights the tide, to the inhospitable, the repulsive, to the seemingly usurping of life. Inclusion, therefore, is a vital experience of life, of self-empowerment, of capital relevance. The survivor combines diverse actions that even seem contradictory to survive his own life. He is just like antibodies that are generated by B lymphocytes and that can combine with substances foreign to the body to fulfill their mission of inactivating them, to neutralize them so that life is preserved. As they combine with other foreign substances, we can bring them to our symbolic understanding of the hybris. And in this context of mixing, antibodies walk between the lines rather than the ends, they are included in risky spaces, in foreign territories. But when an attack on the organism initiated by the body's own immune system occurs, autoimmunity occurs. In this condition, the immune system mistakenly identifies the cells of the body as being invasive to declare permanent war on them. This attack on his own organism is a path to death. A divided kingdom will not survive. In that same reasoning, what is homo does not survive to the imbalances of life. Inclusion in its core is for antibodies rather than for autoimmunity. That is why his idea is so revolutionary and does not give up the improbity of legislative gaps. That is why inclusion is not content to happen for the simple being of that excluded in the common space of all. In other words, there is no half inclusion, just as there is no more or less being pregnant. There is no room for the least or the least evil in inclusion, for whosoever chooses the lesser evil, yet is choosing evil. Inclusion is something of a survivor because to be segregated will never be an option, and just being with others by legal determination will not be enough either. Inclusion is a set of ideas and actions that combine and produce the materialization of the consummated act without exceptions, discrimination or elusiveness. So, it is complex, but it is not utopian. Inclusion is the materialization of the most genuine humanization.


When we think of the survivor, a further contribution of Deleuze came from the set of texts published between 1953 and 1974 and reunited by David Lapoujade, a work entitled "The desert island and other texts" (2004). Figure 6: Deserted island

Source: Jacek Yerka (1999)9

For Deleuze, the deserted island is the place where the separation exists; however, its condition produces the movement necessary to re-create the world, thus re-inventing its own life. The deserted island is not like a flat slate, but it is rich in everything it offers to the survivor, despite the quality of isolation that reflects it. Although it is an island adrift, it does not fail to connect with the continent. Symbolically, inclusion is like an island. One can think of it as the mirror of those excluded, of separation, of withdrawing, of segregation, of loneliness - substantives that are part of the anguish of a castaway. Or, to see in it the possibility of the re-beginning, of the re-creation of a world. In the condition of being hybrid and giving rise, as an island does, in the tangle of inclusion, separation and recreation merge. 9

Desert Island, paint of Jacek Yerka (1999), surrealistic polish artist. Available on the oficial site:


Not only those excluded, subjects of inclusion, suffer apartheid. People who have inclusion as a belief system also suffer a certain separation. Whoever makes a difference in order not to exclude the other, also separates from the continental, distinguishes himself to re-create. It is certain that the solitude of that excluded always is populated. Who makes the inclusion to happen in the difference that differentiates re-creates the world, re-creates the learning spaces, re-creates the learning moments, re-creates the possibilities of learning from the inclusion itself in its desert condition and, apparently, harsh; but rich in benefits for all who inhabit it. Just like the island that, in its biodiversity, offers provisional life conditions for the survivor, inclusion offers one of the most necessary things to feed the life of any subject: humanization. For the thirsty castaway, the sea is not an option. However, the island with fresh springs offers him drinking water. But there are islands in which there is not even a drop of fresh water, so how can you offer water to the castaway to drink? Being separate is an opportunity to occupy and then re-create. The castaway who proposes to survive seeks ways to re-create living conditions. There is an island in the Caribbean Sea called Curacao. There is no fresh water there. But there are survivors. In 1928, the first desalination plant on the planet was built. Thus, a necessary condition for life was re-created: water to drink, only coming from the sea. Although the sea is not an option for the thirsty castaway, this same sea may be a vanishing line for the survivor who, creative, finds a way to continue generating movement for life. Therefore, according to Deleuze, "for an island to cease to be deserted, it is not enough for it to be inhabited" (2004, p.7). In the same proportion, for a school to be inclusive, it is not enough just added those excluded. It must generate life, therefore, humanization. The people who make inclusion to happen in its greatness and abundance, do not see the island (the inclusion) as desert, nor sea water as undrinkable. They are not bound by myths or conceptual traditions. But they break paradigms: of the island (inclusion) they absorb the fruitful provisions; of the sea (difficulties) draw possibilities of re-inventing the new. This ability, this creative power is a survivor's thing! Therefore, just as the scientific content is weak from the point of view of geography on the islands, the opposite or difficult scientific content on inclusion is also weakened. If the castaway does not see the island as a producer of life, this should not be attributed to the island, but to its negative way of seeing reality. If the castaway waits only for the passage of


the boat, he will surely succumb. In addition, being a survivor, he will try to occupy himself to produce new conditions of life. The boat, symbolically, is the tradition of teaching based on prescriptions and the imprisoned idea that everyone learns in the same way. The boat is the teaching and knowledge ready and finished, uniform, as rigid as a corpse (as rigidity is the condition of a corpse). The school without creative power believes that everything must be taken off the boat, the inclusion (the island) is painful and that there is nothing to do but to let time pass. But the creative learning space is not static, the people who circulate about him are always in the process of re-invention. They learn to re-create from their own difficulties experienced in and by inclusion. They try many times, until they find an escape line and re-create the new one. And when they come across the new (with the desalination plant created in 1928) they realize that they cannot accommodate themselves and re-create other ways of generating life (another even more modern and compact equipment to make seawater drinkable by 2015). With the rite of traditional, homogeneous and rigid teaching, the inclusion is like a deserted island that needs to be supplied with the teaching instruments crystallized by tradition, it only carries what the school, as a subservient social institution of the State, claims to have taken centuries to produce. In this mythological view, there is nothing to recreate. From inclusion (the deserted island) is generated the re-creation and re-beginning, it is the second source of things where everything begins again. Therefore, it is not the starting point for creation or beginning. The inclusion is a radiating survivor of excluding spaces. That is why it is the starting point for new possibilities of doing WITH the other. Inclusion is the rebirth, and it only happened because before it the chaos manifested. And it is only after the destructive calamity that the re-emergence can happen. That is why inclusion never repeats itself, but it reappears every cycle that ends, and it always reborn different in its own difference of being. Inclusion is always a re-beginning, it is always a power that is beyond the mistaken importance of the tradition of the act of teaching perpetuated by the obsolete school. The human being often moves towards the tendencies in search of the satisfaction of his desires. Such desires that are produced in the social mass, therefore, do not belong to the typical instincts of the human species. Institutions are ways of meeting trends. If the


instinct is to eat when one is hungry, and the current tendency of the human is the fast food, the institutions are fast food to satisfy the tendency also of the consumer society. If the tendency of society is to prepare children for the labor market, schools as institutions offer an apostille teaching with absolute truths to shape future young people to be able to enter the university entrance examination, which at first, they think they can form someone for the job market. As Deleuze said, "there is no doubt that the trend is satisfied in the institution" (2004, p.17). Thus, social behaviors also become institutionalized. Inclusion cannot be institutionalized. In the inclusion, the behaviors are not institutionalized. It is not a trend, a partial fad. On the contrary, it is indisposed with the standard modeling, takes sides, is unpredictable. Exclusion cannot explain the inclusion; however, it is in it that inclusion finds its best way. In institutions, we often find the tendency to exclusion and segregation. They exist because they were created for a purpose. But for whom, in fact, are they useful? For all those who need it? Or rather, for some (privileged class), or only for those who put the institution into operation (bureaucracy)? (DELEUZE, 2004, p.18). For whom is the school useful for? For whom the specialized institutions and special classes are useful? For whom is traditional mass teaching useful? The instinct is to look for the same group, which is homo, as if that could be done. Now, the group is constituted in the collective and the collective is always plural in its singularity, the only identity of the group is that of Being of the same species. In this sense, learning will not occur better in being institutionalized, imprisoned by the misleading idea that with equality one learns better. The tendency of the rite in teaching institutionalizes behaviors (memorization, repetition, fixation). This rite and its possible success in the result are not synonyms of learning or intelligence. The rite puts an end to the possibility of creativity. It plasters and annihilates who executes it. However, the inclusion is of the order of the survivor. It is in the social that inclusion is constituted, during the differences that always are different and are not institutionalized. And it is in space brought about by inclusion that permanent and lasting learning becomes possible not only for some, but for all, without illusions of uniform patterns, but deformed in their incompleteness. The inclusion provokes another space that is not found at the ends of the bridge or the borders, but in the intersection between the lines.


Figure 10: Interval

Source: University of Brasília, Brazil (ORRÚ, 2015)

Inclusion is not allied to the institution because it does not docilise bodies, it does not control by models. For this reason, the idea of integration must first be coupled to docilize the other in the special class or control institution to after (docilized) to be grouped (included) in regular classes, in schools common to all. This is not the beginning nor the end of the inclusive process. This is nothing more than the institutionalization of people to test them in their behavior in an inquiry whether they will be able to conform to the institutionalized standard of school or whether they should remain segregated in the environment of control of madness or weakness. What is called as special, as the school that is said to be common to all, when they require modeled behavior, are nothing more than institutions that satisfy the tendency of domestication, of social control, of manufacture of the homo that should not upset society, the State. What unbalances the homo (the


difference) must have another destination: its own homo environment (the specialized institution). In this sense, the tendency to accentuate differences as a specific difference (identity by difference) is not satisfactory, as things, people, products are always miscegenated and in this condition, they are impossible to be designated as being of a distinct nature. Because the mixture by nature is not different from anything. And in Deleuze's reasoning, We seek the concept of difference if it does not allow itself to be reduced to degree, nor intensity, nor alterity, nor contradiction: such a difference is vital, even if its concept is not properly biological. Life is the process of difference. [...]Thus, the word "difference" designates, at the same time, the that is and the new that is made (2004, 44, 51).

In convergence, inclusion is the movement that causes and creates a space where differences are not accentuated, but are understood as belonging to the human species, as part of what is vital, the difference is the novelty itself, just as it invokes the production of the new, of the re-invention, demanding tenacity and survival.


VOICES WITHOUT ECHO There are many silenced voices! And there are other voices without echo, that is, with unclear sound, only rumor. It is not enough to grant to the other the freedom to enunciate what you want, what you have to say. Rather, it is necessary that the other enunciates to a population which has the right to proceed as they want, to have the freedom to carry out mutations beyond anything imposed, that is not subject to surveillance, punishment and control. It would also be pretense to think that we can "give" voice to the other . The voice is of the other, the voice is the other. Hear the voice of a survivor can be a way to better understand how it is strengthened from the difficulties, overcome or not. Not everything is successful in fighting for a survivor's life. The survivor is constituted in adversity, in the middle of the frontiers, in the alien and inhospitable territory, in the desert island. Often in the vacuum where never there is a certainty, where there is supposed to be nothing, where there may be a sense of mental or affective emptiness, where depth is unknown, and the density of darkness is practically palpable. To listen to voices requires a sensitive listening in order not only to listen to rumors, but also to understand the meanings and meanings embedded in the language of the other. In the next few lines, there are some voices of survivors to the exclusion, but also of the victims of apartheid mechanisms that prevail in society. The voices echoed what they wanted to enunciate, without the intervention of the other who heard them. Other voices preferred the silence. But the voices were invited to enunciate what they wanted about difference and inclusion, starting from their singularities, their social role, their affection and perception about this belief system. There was no intention to analyze contents or speeches, but rather to highlight how inclusive processes can happen when respect for differences and the understanding that we are all different is present in the pedagogical project of the school. It is important to emphasize that the concept of difference worked out for us by Deleuze was not presented to the interviewees, so that they show a concept of difference


more related to common sense, that is, the difference as a quality of what is different, of diversity. This must be considered so that the text does not seem to have a contradictory idea of what we discuss as difference. The voices10 had dense excerpts transcribed from interview recorded in audio, without pre-established script. We intentionally did not reduce in small excerpts the voices that were enunciated. Before the utterance of each voice, there is a brief explanation about this subject who speaks to us. •

The mother

The mother lives in Sergipe, Brazil with her family. Her little boy has autism. The pregnancy was not planned, but the couple chose to take responsibility for the coming of this new being to the world and decided on the marriage. I had a certain difficulty to accept the pregnancy. I married with 3 months of pregnancy. I am a teacher, graduated in pedagogy. I worked in the classroom and finished a master's dissertation, still pregnant. These were not easy days. My little boy was quiet in my belly. It was waiting for October, but he came a little bit earlier, in September 2010. When he was born, a whirlwind !!! Many changes, discovering what it is to be a mother, what is to have a family, I discovered what is to take care of a child. It was a great challenge. My son was developing. I had difficulty in breastfeeding because of breast surgery done at 17 years of age. He had a normal developmental pattern up to about 1 year of age. We then began to realize that he was different from children of the same age. He used to play lining up pieces of toys, did not vary much the games, grouped coins and pecks per colors and much difficulty in interacting with other children. It was easy for him to interact with adults, but with children he had difficulty. He is the only child and so I thought that everything should be normal. Later, we realized that he always wanted to see the same drawings, the same food and that he was very different from other children. When together with other children, his first reaction was to push the children, and this left us with a lot of stress, always being careful to avoid this situation in environments such as birthday parties, etc.


All participants interviewed, as well as children, had their identity preserved with the use of pseudonyms


With approximately 1 year old, he began to babble some words, but then he ceased. So, he always screamed, and this was generating me a curiosity as a mother. I began looking for information on the internet, with education professionals. Many people who knew my son said that he was normal and that he had nothing. But the difference evidenced by him stayed all the time in my head. The, in these searches, the word Autism appeared for the first time. I began to read about autism and about what a person with autism was. And it was complicated, because the idea that people have of what autism is a very closed idea, I would even say, restricted. At 2 years old, we put him in school and waited for things to happen ... Waiting for that bud to bloom. At school, the differences became much more evident to me. It was clear in that school environment that he was different from other children. When we took him to make an evaluation with the neurologist, we already knew that he had autism, but we did not know what to do, even being a teacher, I did not know what to do, what would be the care, the therapies, the treatment to reduce a little that picture of autism that was so evident. He was forwarded to psychotherapy and speech therapy. We went through an acceptance process that was not easy. Getting out of mourning was very difficult for us, as it should be for all families. There is a process of acceptance of the world, of the child, of the standard of normality that families possess; that we have and that is nothing misleading or wrong, or that make us ashamed. He began speech therapy, and, in the therapies, we realized that he practically put the speech therapist in his pocket. She could not control the situation. We began a wide research ... We met people, families, searched stories and researches that dealt with autism. It was a very long process. We sought in the health plan what it was possible to offer to him. Over time, we saw a leap in his development with the support of some professionals. He began to speak, to communicate, began to sing. And we began to realize that that little flower was blooming. We had a good reception with the school. His teacher was very delicate in understanding the situation. Her goodwill favored our pursuit for knowledge. And it was a very good year. We noticed that the school was trying to understand and work with our son. The other year I was invited to make a speech at school about autism, development, how it was possible to provide learning possibilities for that child. And that's what I've always sought since I discovered autism, was to think of possibilities of learning.


We had many joys in his second year in the school, with 4 years. He followed with the same group, the school has been careful in this regard. We had good receptivity from other parents. We always treat our child as naturally as possible, we never hide the autism of our child from anyone. We always try to deal with his difference as being unique and like any other child that also has its characteristics. I have never put a barrier or a limit on my child's development. I always understood that there could be some barriers and some limits, but that they could be transposed, overcome. He is a healthy child, who has no sadness, no bad time, not bad mood, is always smiling, always cheerful. Today, he likes to play with tablet, with clay, to watch TV. He is a child who communicates very well. He is a very dear child, very beloved by all. I can say that he is a child that is included in the school. The school seeks along with me to develop strategies that bring possibilities for his learning. We are far from the ideal, as we still need to learn a great deal about inclusion, about respect for differences. We do not live in a perfect world. We know exactly what difficulties we will face. We notice when people look with different looks, eye corner looks. They are not reproachful looks, because he does not do tantrums, he does not evidence self-aggression ... but he is a screaming child, he is a little more agitated and does not perceive very well those social rules that most children of his age already perceive. But he is a quiet, educated child, a wonderful boy just the way he is. We still have many challenges for him to be a fully autonomous person. That is why we are seeking, studying, working, learning every day and, with him, with the situations he brings to us. Autism is not a simple thing and, therefore, it requires a certain financial condition so that we can offer the best to help him to develop, and this is not easy for us and it makes us a little sad sometimes, because there is a lack of support and structure. But we do what we can, in compliance with our conditions. I like to draw a parallel between inclusion and exclusion, because inclusion only exists because there is exclusion; one concept depends on the other. This capitalist society in which we live excels by exclusion in every way. Whether it is economic, social, gender, skin color, mannequin size, is a society, by itself, highly exclusive. Imagine for a human being who was born and who already has a characterization of having a disorder that makes him different from most children? And that despite having no phenotype and show this on the face and although at first this is not clear, in another five minutes of living it is already marked there


that he is different. This is what happens to people with autism and it is not easy for families, it is not easy for the child when he perceives that he is treated in a different way. Inclusion today is something that is imposed, although it needs to be built in every sense. Whether the inclusion is in schools, or in society. School is only a reflection of what happens in society. I believe that inclusion is this way under construction to enable a more egalitarian society, with fewer clashes, with more possibilities to reach a common place. And, in my opinion, we must learn from these people who are different, who are not in harmony with what we understand to be normal, to be abnormal. And then, we need to do this reading, this everyday construction. Inclusion is a very recent movement. These children here, including my son, will already face fewer barriers than others have faced before in the past one or two decades. The children are there in society, in the spaces, in the schools, they are working. And I hope that more and more each day this is simplified, and that we can build a better society for our children, for all!

The principal of the school We interviewed the director of a kindergarten and elementary school located in the

southern state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. The reason for the interview is because of the inclusion of some children in school and the way the institution conceives this process.

I start talking about a former student who also made me to think a lot of things. She is already at the end of the high school, and someone asked her what she thought of inclusion when she studied here. And she said there was no inclusion here. Then, the mother asked her, "but how do you say that there is no inclusion there? You studied with that boy! Then, she replied: “no, mother, it was because there was no exclusion, so nothing was different for us11. That was the story of this girl. There was in her room a boy with cerebral palsy, but he belonged to the group, he did all the

11 The student's involvement with cerebral palsy in the group is such a vital event that his colleague responds to the mother that there was no inclusion there. This, in the sense that there was not for that student the binary exclusion / inclusion encounter orbiting in the same center in common.


activities, all the projects and there was respect. Then, she said that there was no inclusion here because there was no exclusion. And she made me think a lot and I got this message and said "ours! I think we must increasingly refine the idea that the less exclusion, the less inclusion as well. And we have sought another concept that is the one of insertion. When I think of insertion, I think in a broader and incisive way and less differentiated in the sense of, even pedagogically, thinking: ah, this one here has an adequate curricular plan; this one has an individualized project ... You end up mapping the children in their differences that are just those seen in that way. But the differences are everyone's! If one has an appropriate curriculum, the other needs to have visual images and we need to pay attention to all of this. And the other one who has more talent, then, what is done? I think that this very broad look is what gives us the certainty to affirm that the differences are of all. And how to deal with all the differences? In the scope of a methodology of education, in an education project, what we have been experiencing for the past 16 years, the most democratic, pedagogically speaking, way of all these students contributing among all their differences is by the methodology of projects. When we perform the projects and when the teachers perform the projects, in which the children are co-participants, are subjects, the differences do not excel in the project, because it is a very democratized way of knowing. You do not have the specific knowledge about geometry, the specific knowledge about language, but it is knowledge, it is the knowledge that intertwines. And then everyone contributes in some way. Today, we have, it is recent, a final evaluation of the morning class of older students. We perform an integrated assessment that we call test in elementary school 2. This assessment is based on texts and graphs, it is another language, more interpretation. And in the closing with the teachers, they said that during the whole process of the projects, the students talked, discussed and traveled . and they all did very well. The time you start with the specifics is that you notice the differences. This has been increasingly confirmed: that the project is a methodology that causes these differences to be diluted or until those differences contribute to their own differences.


I mentioned to the interviewee that most principals of school are concerned with placing only one child with a disability in the same classroom. But instead, in their school, they had classrooms with more than 2 and up to 3 children with disabilities together with the other children. Room with two children with autism, another who is wheelchair user and with speech and motor difficulties, a child with some other type of diagnosis. I asked her to talk about the school manager's point of view. Firstly, I talk a lot with the teacher. Because the great task is his and it is not simply accepting the child's enrollment but knowing if that teacher is also available to have a performance that will be completely different. So, the first conversation is always with the teacher. But here we really share the same principle. The teacher always says: No, we're going to realize it. The, the first question always goes to the teacher, because whoever is going to stay with the child is him, it's not me. Second, I think there are so many differences! In this room you comment we have: cultural difference, child in adaptation of a totally different culture, coming from a region of Brazil that is completely different from what we live here. It has a difference of children with special needs; we have children with different family compositions, a child who came from another country of another continent, the son of an immigrant, it has an adopted child and a biological child. This room you are talking about is a great learning field! The hard part is dealing with differences. Many would like to have a room where all the students were those talented, those genial, but so what? I welcome, accepted and often they are in a class, as a case we have in the sixth year, it turns out that the index of children who need a differentiated care is too great for a small group. There are 12 students and 5 children need differentiated learning in certain subjects. In that case, it ends up being many children. But this also happens because the parents do not tell us when they bring their children and we discover during the year. And it is difficult because the teacher ends up needing to make a differentiated planning for each demand. This requires a time and especially a teacher's will. When it comes to the project, it is much more equal for everyone. But in the case of more specific subjects, the teacher often needs to make different plans. That's


why I always consult the teacher, because the great work will be his. However, it is logical that the school has this as a principle and the teachers who come here also have this as a principle. And I think that what makes everything flow, even in a certain way, very well, quietly, is because there is the welcome. This is from all the teachers. They tell me this, I've heard many teachers say: “but I want to do something for him," "I know he'll realize it," "I want to get to the end of the year and talk: look how this boy advanced in it! But this is not only with the one who has a special need, but with all the students. When the teacher bets, he bets on everyone, on the one who is shyer, on the one who needs a special attention, on the one who is more dispersed, on the one who is more aggressive, he bets on everyone. That's the great difference of a team of teachers we have here. For me, inclusion is to want to stay together, is to stay together in the differences and this being together requires knowledge, very intense exchange, understanding; I must understand this other with all his/her characteristics and then, I think, to make the collective actions, the pacts. I think this is very important. We are learning, inclusion is a relatively new situation and I think we need to have more and more knowledge about it. Because we often need to learn how to channel certain things and understand that student. At this point, I think that the diagnosis has its importance, but I always tell the teachers that in the pedagogical work they must forget the diagnosis, but rather think about what we can do for them. For children, regardless of diagnosis. What would you do for a 4-year-old? It is the same for any child. We are constantly learning because everything is very new, very new. And, I think that inclusion is not just putting the child in the classroom, because the child will sit there, and nothing will happen. I believe that the purpose of the school is very different, it is to want to stay together and to want to transform. That's the difference.

The event of minor inclusion in the voice of the director of the school is perceived. It does not refer only to students with disability, although they are present because of their singularities that require a "special attention", as she says. On the contrary, she mentions students with differences of the human being. The meaning of the verb "bet" engages with


the noun "welcome". It is evidenced a bet, an investment, a belief in who is welcomed, and in her voice is remarkable that all students are welcomed and respected in their differences. That is, the minor inclusion happens in the greater inclusion itself (inclusion foreseen and obligatory by the current legislation) and beyond it. •

The teacher The teacher is a pedagogue and a psycho-pedagogue. She works at the same school

where the principal was interviewed with the first year of elementary school. The interview with her was something at the very least, very exciting. Unfortunately, the words in the text do not convey the emotion of that moment, they do not express the teary eyes and open smiles at every reported memory.

To think about this theme, this year, more than anything, is wonderful! I think it's the first time I think about it. Because the other rooms, in other schools, things were different. It was an inclusion that did not include. It was only the term: it is necessary to include, it is now necessary by the curriculum the acceptance of different students, different types of students. That always bothered me. Because everybody is different. There is no standard, but people end up doing it. I felt this very closely this year. I already knew the methodology of the school and that's when I came across this group. And, who was included was me! I started thinking things differently. Because I realized that they were like that, specifically, some of them: one with autism, another wheelchair user with speech and motor difficulty that arrived in the second semester, Mariana who reached the end of the first semester. Everyone with their particularities, in fact, they add a lot to each other. This class is different, yes! And there are several children who leave these patterns that are established by society and that need a different look. They learn in a different way. But I think they teach more to others than we consider "normal", [I do not like to use that word], than others to them. I learned a lot to see and try to know behind a barrier that is not concrete, trying to unravel the soul of each one of them. And that to me was an experience as a person [oh, I cannot cry], in that year, priceless.


Recently, I received Marcos's psychologist and she came to thank me. And she thanked me and cried because I had received her so well and because I made a difference in his life. I cried, but I cried because he made me to become a better person, he made me to learn to see from an angle that I am not accustomed, to leave the sameness, to get out of my madness. It's weird! I do not know if you can achieve what I'm trying to say. He was able to accept me into his world. He included me! He included me in his world. So, when I think about inclusion, my look this year has come to be differentiated. It is not me who accepts the different, who works with the different, but it is the different that managed to put me in his world in the most wonderful way possible. Because it is difficult for them, thinking about Marcos, especially. It is difficult for him to speak, he has difficulty expressing himself and in one way or another he made himself understood and showed himself in such a way that I could understand him so deeply that at that moment it seems that I am losing an arm in reason of the end of the year to be coming and they change the teacher. I have created a very strong relationship with him. With the others as well, but because of Marcos's specificity of autism, this was more blatant. With João, as wheelchair user, we learned to be his legs. And I see the children in it and it's very beautiful! The kids lend their legs to him; they worry, and it is a concern that comes from themselves. The school works a lot with this project of integration, of respect for the other, but even so, this attitude is on the part of them. And this is something fantastic! I did for the kids the presentation of João when he entered school in the second semester. Before he arrived, I only said that they were triplets and that one of them would need our help because he is a wheelchair user, and I told him a little about his life story, but I did not ask anything for the children. I did not ask for anything specific, for example: they would have to take care etc. This care departed from them [teacher is thrilled]. And now with the end of the year dance, this interview could not be a better time, because now by the end of the year, the way they did this dance, I realize how much the group grew up with these people that we say that were included . Very much! Because they learned to look at the different by putting themselves in another's place and with respect. Marcos' echolalias, for example, they know that if


they were in this situation, what they would do, and that they must respect it, because sometimes it is something uncontrollable. They know that within these echolalias, something Mark is trying to say, regarding his well-being, how he is feeling. They know that these decreases when Marcos is calmer, when they contribute to the environment. With João it is the same thing. When he positions himself that he wants to participate in the round of conversation, they are silent, one nudges the other and say "João wants to talk!". With Mariana, also the question of Africa, because she came from a school here in Brazil, she was suffering from bullying in a painful way because of racism. And when she got here at school, to my room, she was not accustomed to hugging, touching, she was hounded, she remained in a corner, but she was very well received. The children received her very well and then, we developed a project about Africa to work on this redemption, because I knew she had been through these things and she was blossoming, she was telling the children a little about what her life was like at the orphanage there in Africa. And these things she had not spoken about at home yet. And she began to bring it into the classroom and she began to feel proud of herself and went on to learn a bit more about the history of slavery, although this was difficult for her, but it was important for her to understand the question where the prejudice of some people comes from. She also blossomed! And it was important to us as well, and it was a fantastic thing and, again, they surprised me! It's a big class, and sometimes I do not expect all this from them. But by the time I see it, they're already doing everything so naturally that things get too light, the whole process is light. It has its drawbacks, sometimes, at first, they felt slightly annoyed or with echolalia, sometimes with the question of needing to rethink the joke with João and, at first, that was a bit difficult. The dance we changed many times to adjust it in the best form what they wanted to represent until it might be concluded. They had this patience, but they also questioned me at times: but why?". And in these questions, the first time I spoke and explained, it was enough, sometimes I did not even finish to speak the phrase and they already understood. Regarding echolalia, once one of them asked me about it and I explained that sometimes João saw certain things on TV and that he felt comfortable with what he had already seen, that sometimes the loud noise disturbed


him and from there they spoke: “ah, I've seen it, I already realized that he covers the ear!". They were realizing and adjusting everything. So, I realize that children are very open. But adults are more resilient. So, that year the vision about inclusion has changed a lot for me. I was always very scared of the matter of infrastructure, very, very. Today, after that experience, I would receive any child without any regrets. It was a very strong experience! When I received João, I got a little off the ground, I got scared because he needs care about the diaper, snack should be given in the mouth and the school needs to be careful, it is necessary to be structured for this. I got scared in fear of picking him up and hurting him. But I see things differently today. I think that we are those included. We are those different. For me, the inclusion, today, is it! Everyone must be included all the time and everywhere. There is no longer this question of the different. But it changed my look a lot, my vision. I was included in their lives! And with all my troubles that I did not have to talk about. And the child is very beautiful because of that. They accept! I learned a lot with them, too much, too much, too much, with them all. And with the dance for the end of the year, they all gave themselves up a lot! Oh, I remembered two more things! Mariana was not able to become literate, and I realized that there was a problem related to her self-esteem, something very striking, no matter how much we had done all this rescue, notwithstanding the better acceptance she had received from the group. So, I proposed to stay with her after class to try to change a bit her vision of the teacher. She marked the paper very hard and then blotted out, ad remained that scrawl. But only two weeks later, for believing in herself, she began to read. Then, I called their mother and asked them to celebrate this and they realized it. The other day, she arrived in the room with a book and reading, because the mother also helps a lot. And today she gets up from the chair and comes to give me a kiss, she always does it, kisses me. But before that, she was very hard-hitting. They are victories! With Helton, it took me some time to realize, and I forget that he has autism, I completely forget. He has difficulty dealing with feelings, he leads the sword and fire, like a dogma, but he is very calm and very dear. His parents are very present and one day a psychomotricist came and they told me they were worried about the


cursiveletter, thinking that he would not be able to, because he has some problems in motor coordination, with muscle tone. Then, I showed them what the cursive was like and the other day Helton came in with his name in cursive letter in a way no one in the room had done, the capital letter of his name, H, it's difficult, it's complicated for them to do. I saw that, and I thought his mother had stayed with him all night to do it so well. I stayed so happy! I thought how exhausting it had been for them. And that same day the mother came to school and I thought she'd come to talk about it. But no, she asked me about other things and I decided to ask about the cursive letter. And she said: “no, but is he doing it?” And I said yes, that we had commenced. Except that he and Marcos do not tell anything about what happens at school. And I said he was doing wonderfully well. And who taught him? No one! He did it alone. Then, he broke a stigma they had already placed. And those victories are priceless! Because the moment I realized it I just told the Mom: “do you see? and everyone had said he could not, but he did it alone. I asked them to do it once. All of them can do it alone, they are taking pleasure in it, because this year is just a presentation of that typeface. And Helton showed that he can and who is going to say that he cannot? Like Marcos with the tablet, he already sees himself producing, although he still has difficulties with the order of the keyboard. Parents were afraid to take out handwriting [parents thought necessary to work on handwriting], but with the tablet he is producing much more. And they are victories that I see that I insisted, and they believed. I remember that I left the room with the psychologist and her mother with a cold in the belly. I thought "but what am I doing? Propose this? What if everything goes wrong? Because they did not want to. So, there are these fears. We live on the tightrope. Joao, take the chair to try to turn somersaults with him in the air? It is living on a tightrope. But they are risks that we run. Put him on the spin-spin, it spins and I with him in the lap, something that can provoke a fall. But to see him smile, it's worth [emotion] because we deal with lives. And I came from a school that it was not like that. If you did not have a pretty spelling, they thought the perfect spelling beautiful, so you had to do handwriting. If you were slow to do the activity, you would get stigmatized because you were slow.


Thus, even though they talk about inclusion, these attitudes do not include at any time. Particularities were not respected. But there are also schools with very good infrastructure, even better than here and that I worked on them. There is a caregiver for each student. But there are people who do not love what they do. They even are approved on a public contest, goes to work, but they do not love their work. For you, to be here in a school like the one I'm in now, you must love, otherwise, you don´t stay. And here I realize that everyone loves a lot what they do. Therefore, for me, inclusion is belonging, above everything. It is to allow yourself to belong and to be belonged.

The teacher's voice is the mirror of the sense of a minor inclusion that welcomes everyone, including herself. A minor inclusion that does not happen by legal imposition or to ascend to social or media networks. It happens because the school is involved in a belief organization in which being different is characteristic of the human species and that this difference does not repeat itself, but it multiplies, as people do not repeat themselves. The experience of receiving a wheelchair user student with motor and speech impairments suggested to the teacher and other students that some things should be done differently. Solidarity, generosity and sharing are principles that constitute the welcome to the other and this welcoming is one of the singularities of inclusion that is made in the same difference that always differentiates, never repeats itself. The teacher's voice is consistent with the director's voice, where the methodology of the school allows the integration of all teachers, including their students and all of them. It is the event of minor inclusion in major inclusion. In the same class, there are two students with autism Helton and Marcos, and a student with motor impairments, João. The relationship between the group is respectful for the differences of each one, to observe what each one needs, to pay attention to what each one must enunciate. It is not a matter of feeling sorry for ignoring them, but of developing possibilities for dialogues, for interaction, for experiencing difference as something present in the human being, explicit in each one of us. The teacher's voice shows how inclusive the experience is, it is strong, it is beneficial for students with disabilities (the minority), however, it is not always conducive to everyone (a major inclusion in the legislation). It is not only the students with disabilities who benefit


from the minor inclusion (a conducting power beyond the juris). Everyone is benefited by the experience and understanding that we are all different and that we differentiate ourselves in the difference itself. This life experience is an event of minor inclusion. An event that takes place in a certain space of learning with infinite possibilities of learning for all, to favor those that are in the minority territory as excluded, but also to involve the other students in the perception and the understanding that the difference is of all.

The voices of the children We had a round of conversation with the teacher's children. Altogether there are 25

children between 6 and 7 years of age. We present to them the song "You will like me", sung by Xuxa Meneguel. Then, we asked them to say what they wanted from the lyrics. Not everyone wanted to talk to us, but everyone stayed there and interacted with themselves all the time. We were surprised to see the concept of difference that they have elaborated. Concept built from their own experiences. We highlight some excerpts from the conversation. We try to make the voices of children as literal as possible. There are people who are pretty blonde. There are people with the hair of little curl There are people who seem to only grow ... I am different from you. You are different from me. I'm different from you and even then, you'll like me... There are people who cannot see you. There are people who have a little eye. There are people who use their hands to move. And there are those who move the world for me ... I am different from you. You are different from me. I'm different from you and even then, you'll like me... There are people so thin that you cannot even see them. There is always one that is the chubbiest. There are people with steps to win and it only depends on a little push ... There are people who will come and surprise you. It seems that joy has no end. There are people with charm to live. It's people with the pimple-pimpim powder ... I am different from you. You are different from me. I'm different from you and even then, you'll like me...

Ivan: I liked what the song said, "you like me"! Renato: I liked the part that had people in a little square. They danced and sang. They were all different!


Roger: I liked more where it says, "you are different". It means that one person is not the same as the other person. Bruna: I found the music cool because everyone is different. And it's all different. Because Julia is blonde, her hair is the same color as mine, but she's not the same as me. She's someone else. And I like to play with Lidia, Mirella, with Moisés, with Débora and with João, because they are cool.

I ask João if he wants to say something. And some classmates say, "he talks softly!". Jean says: Everybody quiet! And many came up to him to hear better what he had to say. And João said: I did not like the song. So, I asked why, and he replied: I do not like Xuxa! And the children laughed a lot. Pérola: I like everyone in the room! Everyone! Jean: If João cannot play of a thing, like run and catch, we do it like that, in different way: you can take John in the wheelchair and go running with him. And who is the catcher runs with him, and if the chair hits the teammate, if Joao hits, then he gets it and goes with the other colleague to pick it up. Roger: Joao, my little brother, does not know how to walk because he was born with a problem. Therefore, he must do physiotherapy to walk. In the meantime, we play with him in another way. Moisés: I play with Marcos. He's different, but I really like him. I found out that we can play differently. And with Joao we play in the jungle, we go on the bridge, go on the tire, go on that wall there and someone holds him to help. Renato: When João wants to swing, he swings into the cashier [adapted with grocery carton]. And when he wants to slip on the slide, someone slips with him and him on his lap. And on hearing what the colleague says, João smiles across the room. Bruna: And I like Mariana because she is cool. Débora: I like to play with Amanda, with Pérola, with Carlos, with Renato, with Jean, with Julia, with Bia, with Helton and with João. And they are cool! Jean: João is my best friend!

Children's perception of "difference" is notorious. They are between 6 and 7 years old, but they understand the meaning of difference because of the experiences they


experience daily in the involvement of the particularities of a minor inclusion. They have not consolidated the theoretical concept of inclusion or difference but experience it. They found different ways to play from the demands of their peers who, because of some deficiency, require differentiated, creative actions. This is how inclusion is re-invented.

Chatting with the kids was an amazing experience! The conversation was long, there were many other issues they brought to the round. Sincerity and the crystalline understanding of difference being present in all of us is something to be learned in the adult world. •

Woman with Multiple Sclerosis The woman is educated in pedagogy and psychopedagogy. Married and mother of a

girl. She lives in a city in the east of São Paulo, Brazil.

This is a subject that touches me a lot and for me it is very important. Speaking of inclusion causes me a nuisance from the moment I've learned that we need to include because, firstly, we exclude. And since I learned this truth, I found it very cruel, and for a long time I came to experience it. I have multiple sclerosis for 17 years and I am 33 years old. Therefore, more than half of my life I live with the disease. It was an atypical, early manifestation, an illness difficult to diagnose. It was 10 years to receive an accurate diagnosis. Many others came, and these mistakes left marks. I am a disabled person, I have become over time, my case is chronic, and it is progressive. Time of slow mode or accelerated mode, limitation installs. I was born without any need for walking sticks or chairs. At the end of adolescence these instruments became part of my reality. Sometimes, I need to use crutches to get around. For long distances, I need a wheelchair. I'm not paraplegic. I have a change of force in the lower limbs, which allows me a displacement that does not follow a pattern, but which generates a lot of curiosity and, unfortunately, also generates prejudice. I already answered questions like: “how can you one day stand and the other in the wheelchair? Or, "she does not walk for laziness, a little pain is nothing". And,


frankly, some people have lost the capacity for empathy and do not even come close to otherness. A tenebrous judgment without foundation, it is enough for this kind of verbiage to proliferate in the air like a harmful virus. And with that I came to understand that exclusion is the daughter of judgment and inclusion is the daughter of justice. It was the way I found to dialogue with these two concepts and with these two practices. Because, in fact, inclusion is a practice and exclusion as well. I think that deficiency presents itself in different ways, intertwined or not. At different levels and each with its particularity. Disability is not synonymous of limitation, as in practice, I end up seeing a lot of people conceiving. Nor is it synonymous with sanctification. We are not warriors, we are not saints, we are not immaculate, we are not even victims of anything. We are people. People made with beautiful qualities and horrible defects. Illnesses or deficiencies, I learned this, listening very much, listening to many colleagues with disability who hear that same phrase, is as follows: “well, disability is lack of God". It is not lack of God, we do not heal ourselves with tea. Our case, or my case, for example, is not the same as the cousin of the sisterin-law's friend. And someone who has known me for 5 minutes already draws a judgment, because always someone who knows someone who has had a similar problem. And, it is no use saying the classic phrases that stress that there are so many people worse than us, that you have faith because an acquaintance has cured of it, of situations that do not allow this type of speech. As for inclusion, it is in theory beautiful, it guarantees, allows those who are excluded, who is marginalized to belong to the social space commonly, as a member, as someone who is part of society. But, in practice, a lot still needs to be done. We need effective action. It is not enough to have special vacancies that are colored to declare as a shout that whoever needs it is someone different. People can and pass daily on numerous accessibility symbols. And to pass without having a relationship with that symbol is one thing. Now, to pass and realize that this symbol identifies you socially is quite different. Because it opens the door to this infamous concept; distorted concept of difference. Another thing, it is not enough to distribute special students, or worse, little angels, the warriors or, unfortunately, some education professionals end up calling


the students, the children, treating a teenager of 15, 16 years who would have a differentiated need as if they were a baby. Forgetting their physiology, forgetting so many other aspects that people put that are so distant from that unique characteristic of their deficiency. And putting these students in school in an integrated way, integration is not inclusion. If the particularity of the need is not respected, this is not inclusion. I do not believe to be this. Special passwords are not enough in queues or priority services that are often inefficient, because they only comply with a precept without an understanding of the real need to have these resources. A wheelchair user has the right to be in a queue to pass faster. But why? Where is the reflection on this? It is a person who uses a cane, crutches, and the person has the right to pass in a preferred queue. Why? There are considered or judged obvious: Look, a pregnant woman has a baby, there, it's heavy! A child on his lap is weighing. An elderly man is old and needs to be treated differently. There are some things, or at least I find along the way, some understandings, but there are others that, in general, are not yet understood, are not accepted, are judged. I've already had to use a scooter in a supermarket to get around, so I can shop, and an employee turns around and says: Look, you do not have a handicapped face. And I spent a few days, I like to reflect, thinking, silently: what is the face of the handicapped? Does it have to be written on the forehead? People expect this. And I simply tried to be polite and I answered: deficiency is not in the face. I did not mean face, face, no, I meant in the face. That's what I knew he'd understand. And I kept making my purchase. We are social beings. We need to be living together, the coexistence with the collective. But for that to happen, we need laws and statutes to guide this life, this society. Sometimes, I also find sad that we end up needing what is written or documented that you cannot attack an old man, that is necessary to preserve the well being of a child or that women cannot be harmed. These guidelines and norms are part of our social life and determine the conduct that in fact humanizes the human being, because common sense is not always good, or the intellect prevails. To include is to allow the person to be himself, is to allow the essence to be present and there is no space for what we usually call difference. I usually contest the concept of difference. I believe that particularities would be the correct term. Each


one has characteristics that compose him/her as such and this, but not necessarily, composes a difference. Because for someone to be different, it would have to be compared to a unique, omnipresent model and, after all, what model is this? Where is this perfect, human model? What we are? Greek statues, beautiful, very rich? Perfect anatomy? Until we could be at some point in our existence, but and the inside? And what is hidden? And the essence, the character? Another thing I do not believe is the so-called minorities. I speak of them because I would be so, closely connected, in the matter of inclusion. I do not believe in minorities because I think that poor people, blacks, gays, women and people with disabilities, among many other examples, and unfortunately, usually we use those terms because if we are to challenge what is a poor, a gay, a woman, and so on, when united they form a magnificent ensemble together and social strength. And in this group does not fit the discourse of underprivileged minorities. What I believe to happen in practice is the detachment caused by different discourses, is to hide from oneself. And this fuels segregation. For decades, people with disabilities have been conditioned to believe that they should not be on the streets. I know of a case of a man with cerebral palsy who is for 45 years is in a bed, atrophied. He does not do physiotherapy and never left the room. Since birth he lives in that house, in that space. That room is all he knows. And this is segregation. Recently, someone went there to talk to this mother, but with more than 40 years with this attitude, with that same routine, she will not change overnight. I also think that we still need many actions and changes of custom, of posture so that we can say that inclusion exists in fact and as a whole, and that it is accepted in a natural way, like to breathe. Because that's what it should be. We should have the right to come and go without restrictions, even if it is with wheelchair, crutches or slow. Inclusion does not commingle with prejudice. And prejudice is painful! It hurts, tears the soul. And it is even worse than dealing with biased attitudes revealed, it is dealing with veiled prejudice. This is, in fact, cruel and malicious and, unfortunately, it can be everyday, it can be ordinary. It is present in that vacancy reserved in the back of the audience of a theater where the wheelchair user must be quiet, with the chair,


without disturbing anyone. Or in that door to the back of a doctor's office, because the front of the building, being an architectural masterpiece, does not allow a ramp, or something that is not in accordance with the concrete concept of aesthetics. If the beauty is what is symmetrically balanced. And I'm not even going to talk about buildings historically fallen, often inaccessible and excluding. Or of the Portuguese pebbles present between the sidewalks, in so many pavements of the whole country and that are smooth, misshapen, are often not well fitted and invite to a stumble, a slip. But this would be for another long conversation. I feel deep sadness when I think that schools, for the most part, are spaces of exclusion, given the fact that in the space where learning develops, and relationships develop, it is a space that does not respect the different rhythms of each person who makes up it. This space promotes a cult of differences. And I insist that to be considered different, we would need a model to be followed. And this is another paradigm that needs a lot of analysis and reconsideration. This is a very delicate matter, quite reflexive, because it requires much analysis and reconsideration. I conceive inclusion as being for all. Simple like this. Each one being able to be and to stay with the other without having to stop being who you are, or without having to be exposed. I believe we are walking slowly, but we are going to make it happen. To inhabit a world, to be in an inclusive society. I see that we move from the state of "it should be so" to a state of "it is so", albeit slowly. And even though there is resistance, we see more people with disabilities on the streets, in the job market and in dignified positions. Far from the old positions of lower wages and the lowest positions possible, often hidden inside a small room, inside a company not to expose that deficiency, as we know it happened and we know it happens. But today the positive, the attempt and the practice of inclusion are more clearly stated. We see more students with disabilities in schools and more training professionals, more academic discussions and more actions. The theme is more discussed on TV, more discussed in magazine articles, more people are appearing and are revealing themselves. For me, the human being is a plural in the singular, living the plurality of being singular in the singularity of being plural.


The girl with Down Syndrome The girl with Down Syndrome is a dancer and actress in movies and theater. She lives

in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I think it should have much more inclusion in schools and in the job market, and to have more accessibility because the current inclusion is very little. We need more inclusion because this is very important. I do not agree that people with disabilities with Down Syndrome should go to specialized institutions. This never! People who have Down Syndrome need to be included with other people in schools, which is the principal, and in the job market. I am against not doing inclusion. We need a fair and dignified inclusion for all people and not an inclusion that is restricted. We need to get along with other children, with other people with or without disabilities. For me, there are no differences. What you have are barriers. And we need to break the barriers because we also can do everything. We can do a lot of things. I have never studied in a specialized institution, only in inclusive schools. I lived together with everyone. I was born with this gift, of making friends and of being an interviewer. I played with my family that I was Marília Gabriela. And I had the opportunity to meet Marília and interview her when I was in São Paulo. I've also made 2 movies and we're waiting for them to be exhibited. The truth is that there is no problem without having an extra chromosome, the chromosome 21, because we all have the chromosome 21. We have plus 1, but that's not too much! We also talk to people, we also learn different things, make friendships, but sometimes in a bit slower manner. We also need all teachers to be more aware and to have more respect for us because we will always get where we want to go. So, inclusion for me is being able to always be with other people. It is to be together, always included, in society, at school and in the job market. Now, prejudice is to set people aside. I've had some kind of prejudice and I do not think it's worth repeating, by the way. Today I do not care about this anymore. I always have people with me, there are a lot of people who want to take pictures with me, artists, everyone.


There needs to be more and more opportunities for people with disabilities. It also needs more accessibility for these people. And it needs a lot more openness in the job market, more opportunities. And it is also necessary to pass more and more information about these things to people with disabilities. And that's my cause! •

The refugee from Syria The Syrian refugee lives in Curitiba, is 25 years old and is married. She has been in

Brazil since 2013.

I am 25 years old, I am married, and I am Syrian. We arrived in Brazil in 2013. It was a very difficult and long process. We passed through many cities until we got to Brazil. I am from Aleppo and my city was destroyed by war. To marry my husband was also difficult. My family was in Kuwait and I went there, but my husband was not allowed to go. Arab countries do not accept Arab refugees. But he was able to enter as a visitor because of a job in architecture, he is an architect. But to get married, we need to go to another nearby city. Then, we got married. Then, he returned to Syria and we stayed about six months without seeing each other. I got very sick and without having any news about him, the phone lines were all cut off. So, we decided we would have to leave Syria. My husband suffered a lot from the war, with the bombing experiences in the city. As we had known Syrians who were in Curitiba, we contacted them, and they gave us some information. So, we left without our clothes, with nothing we had, just a little money and we went through several places, until then we arrived in São Paulo, Brazil and then in Curitiba. But we survived. Most Syrian people were left with nothing. It was very difficult! We came to Curitiba in 15 people from our family, among them, 2 people who are now 85 years old. For us, it was a hope that Brazil would welcome us as refugees, because at that time, there were not many countries that received Syrian refugees. Today, this is quite different, there are several countries that are receiving refugees. Our greatest difficulty was the difference in language. We had never heard the Portuguese language. And it's very different from Arabic language. So, to communicate about anything we needed, it was very difficult. In the first week in


Curitiba, we needed to rent a house to live in. They asked us 10,000 reais as collateral. All the money we had was applied in this. We did not have a job, we did not have anything. But, as immigrants, we were better than many other Syrians who were still in Syria, in the middle of the war. Slowly, we learned a little of the Portuguese language. I tried to enter a university, but I was not accepted because I did not speak the Portuguese language. Then, we thought of University X because it's a federal, public university. But we were told that University X was very difficult to enter, that it would be no use trying. But I thought: what do I have to lose? I have nothing to lose! And to my surprise I was accepted, welcomed by X University as a refugee, even though the law for refugee students had not yet come into force. The architecture course coordinator talked to me in English, because I did not speak anything in Portuguese language. And he told me that I would open the door for many refugees, Syrians, Africans, everywhere being the first refugee to be welcomed by University X. And I was very happy to know that I could help many people even without knowing them. Today, University X has a program to receive refugee students. Brazil is a country that has accepted us but, on the other hand, it has no type of program to assist the refugees when they arrive in the country. This needed to be done. The elderly in our family do not have a health plan and when they need to go to the hospital, they have difficulties to be cared for due to lack of documents and programs. They had a retirement in Syria, but here in Brazil they do not have any, and I tried to see if there was any way they could get at least 1 salary, but that is not possible. They speak few words in Portuguese, are elderly and have difficulty learning a new language. My husband is working now. We opened a small Arabian food restaurant, which is a way of working and we have money and it is being very good. We do not stop, we work every day, so we can try to remake our life here. Gradually, we realized that despite differences in culture, food, and especially in language, there are common between Brazilians and Syrians. We are cheerful! Even in a situation of war, even fleeing our country, we continue to be a joyful people; we have our joy. We thank God that we are survivors of the war. I am now doing Faculty of architecture and I intend to graduate in 2016. I have colleagues who help me. I always ask about what is a certain word in Portuguese and


so I am learning more and more each day. My husband graduated in architecture in Syria, but he has not revalidated his diploma in Brazil yet. It is very difficult to make a test in Portuguese language. He knows all the content of the architecture area, but to say this in Portuguese is still difficult for us in written form. Brazil needed to better prepare to receive the refugees, because these things make reconstruction of our lives much harder. But we are grateful to the host country that has included us! I intend to organize a project to help refugees from Syria and other countries as well.

• The ex-convict The ex-convict ran away from home at the age of 12 because of a difficult childhood. He got involved with the world of crime. He made assaults and homicide before reaching the age of 19. He was arrested for 31 years and 10 months. He is currently a writer and enunciates his memoirs as a survivor. I ran away from home at the age of 12 and because of the crimes committed, I was taken to FEBEM, today, Fundação Casa. To survive to the world of the prison, I began to live the culture of crime. I ran away from FEBEM several times with other boys who were not thieves, but survivors, they were street boys. Until I was 18 years old, I lived in the theft. The police picked us up and took the money we had, so they let us to go. They also beat us, tortured us. At the age of 18, we were already armed with the intention of realizing assaults, revenge. For having killed one person, I was sentenced to 31 years and 10 months in the penitentiary of Carandiru. The culture of crime has permeated my mind since childhood, and I had no other form of cultural structure to fight against it. In prison this intensifies. The culture of crime is totally impregnated in the jail and the prisoners are completely at the mercy of it. In the jail, it is found since the guy who stole something in the supermarket, until the one who was caught with cocaine, along with the burglar and the rapist. The culture is produced by


the human being where he is. Within the jail, what is produced is the culture of crime. And society abandons them. I got literate in jail and ended up becoming a teacher to other prisoners. I taught history, Portuguese, I was identified as "the teacher" because in the jail, everyone has an identification. I was the first detainee of the State of São Paulo to pass the entrance exam. The day I went to my first class in college, I met my mother at the front door. I had not been with her for 12 years. So, we hugged, cried and I could give her satisfaction about everything that had happened. In this experience in the jail, I observed that the solution to change this situation is the cultural media. Cultural problems are solved with cultural solutions. And the cultural solution for prisoners would be for people not to abandon them in jail, to forget them there. Society needed to offer to people who are in the jail the social culture so that they have a cultural option, as the culture does not die. The person who is left in jail at the mercy of that culture of crime, when he leaves prison, he ends up producing again that kind of culture he has lived there for a long time. When I got out of jail, I could not even walk right and so I tried to avoid being in the middle of a crowd of people. Little by little I was able to get through the crowd. This behavior was also produced in the jail. But the contact with literature was what saved me. I learned to write a letter in jail with a friend. First, I made a draft and then rewrite the content to send to my mother. Slowly I began to write alone. I also wrote to other people. One day I wrote to a teacher who lives in Rio de Janeiro. She liked literature and started sending me some books to read. I was imprisoned, and my life was limited to a few square meters. Then I had access to the books of Érico Veríssimo and I fell in love for them. People brought me books and I was convinced that reading was good, interesting.


Today, I see with only one eye, but still, I love to read. That is why it is so important the culture to be offered to the inmate as an option. But this individualism, savage capitalism, ends with us. Lack of education is a problem in Brazil. Today, I live to write, to talk about what I write, to teach from what I write. But there is still a lot of prejudice. Many people do not want to read what I write because they know I'm an ex-convict, so in a way, the exclusion continues still out of jail. I like to write poetry and short stories, I like to write, to invent and create. But the major interest of many publishers is only in the autobiography by the sensationalism and this I do not want to do. I do not want to report about police, thugs and gunshots. The very best is to create! To say that: “the window of the jail looked like a TV and what was out there had no meaning. The repetition of those people walking. It was a landscape, a moving picture. But what society likes is to hear about violence in prison. But the only satisfaction I find in life is to write, at that moment I am happy. There in the jail, what I found were people and not animals. People who are also capable of producing and can make art, they also have talents. They can get out of jail and get along. But when they leave, there is no support in Brazil for this egress, there is no law to support it. Many will leave and will not even have family, they do not have what to expect. All the boys who started with me in the life of the crime, died or went crazy. Only I survived and survived to this day through literature. Literature was my way to freedom, books filled my imagination and so I did not get lost in the culture of crime. Literature brought me to society and gave me a structure so that I could think and put myself in life. I have read countless books about the lives of prisoners in Brazil and other countries. One common thing in prisoners' speeches is that the prisoner cannot talk about himself because everyone thinks he wants to justify himself, but also, he cannot talk outside the prison, so the way for the prisoner is to be


silent. This silence of the prisoner produces his alienation from the world and lives something that does not exist. He is always on his way back to the past in prison thinking about what he might have done differently or thinking about the future when he gets out of prison. Man is a being of care, but he is also a being of needs, of needs to be satisfied. And every time he meets one of his needs, others always come up. And when those needs are not met, we die. Not only physical death, but some die of emotion, others of reason, others go crazy, the heart of the prisoner is in the sole of the foot. For me, pain brought me closer to people. When I began to understand my pain, I began to see each other's pain and I began to have compassion for other people. Pain brought me compassion and brought the other inside me.

• The judge The judge has been working in the Judiciary for 22 years. I was a criminal judge until 2011. Currently, I'm more focused on the area of civil action. I was very unhappy with my experience as a criminal judge. I realize that the Brazilian model is bankrupt. We have prisons that are true total institutions. Under the pretext of lack of funds, of lack of budget, under the pretext that we must apply in such thing, such public policy, and we cannot apply in prison, there are no investments in improvements. Just to get an idea, last year 87% of the budget approved and destined to prisons was glossed, that is, it was not released. We have a prison mass that grows gigantically in a system that does not contains vacancies. So, how this situation is resolved? Producing super prison population. We have absurd distortions, where you see the Veja magazine disclosing that Jose Dirceu had 32-inch TV in the cell he occupied there in Papuda, while you


go in a prison cell of a prison located in São Paulo, where there is space for 8 prisoners, are found 22. Then, we see that it is a totally brutal system and that there are no minimum conditions to guarantee the safety of this detainee. He enters an institution that is a parallel State, he ceases to be part of the Federative Republic of Brazil and enters into another republic with its own rules and with its own legal system. It is as if he stops being a citizen. It is as if he becomes a stateless person, without protection of the constitutional order. He enters under the legal regime of that social institution that is the prison. If he resorts to state formal means, he suffers sanctions from the internal order of the prison. For example, if someone sexually abuses this detainee and if he declares that he has been sexually abused for the formal State, and commences an investigation against those who abused him, he turns to the socalled shrew. He will suffer much more severe penalties. In the year of 2005, I remember that entered in the jail of the district where I worked a prisoner due to problem of sexual violence, and he was placed in a common cell. When it should be known that he should be placed in a special cell to avoid contact with this parallel rule, with that parallel justice that prevails in the jail. In 3 hours, he left the cell dead, and had almost all the bones of the body broken. No one testified about what happened to him, death was "unclarified. They said he slipped in the bathroom sink, except he had all his bones broken. In Brazil today, you have a death penalty instituted in this total institution, which are the Brazilian prisons. Because they have a parallel regime in which there is death penalty. This kind of system does not re-socialize anyone. It is very beautiful to say that there is a special penalty prevention, as we say in Law, and that it will re-socialize the individual. But it does not resocialize. The individual leaves much worse than when he entered. This is an experience of whom was a criminal judge from 1993 to 2011. I was disillusioned with that system. It is as if we're making an analogy to the ice-


drying service. You are putting more people into the system, people are coming out worse; they attract other people and it becomes a vicious cycle. So, I do not believe in the penal system. I agree with Niklas Luhmann that we should rethink the institution of corporal punishment. We must go to restorative justice, where we have alternative penalties that really dignify people. For example, attendance at psychological treatment, if any; the repair of damages to the offended party. I observed that there were people with a drug possession who were arrested, detained for 8 or 10 months and I thought - how did that person came here for this reason? What offense does this person who was in there carrying a marijuana cigarette made to be there serving a sentence together with murderers? There was no separation by type of crime. Thus, the person entered there, and that prison was already internally dominated by a certain criminal faction. So, his family had to pay for internal protection for him. They say: If you want him not to be abused in here, you'll pay this amount per month. There was a case in which the wife (this was recorded in the process) had to do sexual favors for the whole cell in the intimate visit so that the husband did not suffer the consequences there. This is not a movie thing! That really happens. And this is in small jail. Imagine what does happen in prisons with 2 or 3 thousand inmates? This was in a jail that was supposed to hold 7 prisoners and there was an average of about 60 to 80 prisoners. That is, a very small universe within a larger universe that is much worse. So, I do not believe that jail is the solution. I entered believing, we enter with a theoretical vision of Criminal Law, believe that the remedy for everything is to imprison who is violating the legal order. But then you see, the years are coming, experiences are showing that, in fact, you did wrong, you should not have imprisoned anyone. That's why I broke with the Criminal Law. I do not believe in criminal law. I saw that I could not bar the system, I was more one in the gear, my service was getting


complicated. You become more discouraged by the system. And it got heavy for me. I decided to work with other things and I withdrew from the area. Difference for me is parameter to reach equality. Like the history of Plato's republic: treat those unequal unequally to equal them. You take the hypersufficient and what did the Liberal State want? It wanted formal equality. So, the rich have a body of lawyers and it is enough that you name a poorly paid lawyer for the poor and ready, they are on an equal footing. This is the Liberal State. We live today in a participatory democracy, we live in a State that it declares itself to be democratic. And we have what? We have a system that is not of equality, a system of isonomy. We start with the difference, but we start from the idea that people are different. What does our Constitution establish? Let us take these different, these 'minus habens' who are in a position of hypersufficiency and we must give them certain advantages so that we can match them to those who are not hyposufficient. This is my view of facing the issue of differences today in the Brazilian State. But when you take distortions like the publication of Veja magazine, where José Dirceu is in a cell alone with a 32-inch TV and complaining because he has no cable channel and takes the reality of another that is there in a cell that fit 8 with 21 more people and having to do rehab to be able to sleep, I say that we are within a misrepresentation of the concept of difference. We are taking a hypersufficient and we are giving more advantages to him and then, the system tends to become extremely unfair, the Constitution ends up being extremely violated in this sense. And it is democracy that loses. Regarding inclusion, we must see that if the goal is to take the hyposufficient and match it to what would be enough or hypersufficient, then we need to have public policies increasingly focused on the inclusion of all those who are in this position of hypersufficients. Today, in the Law, we speak of the hypervulnerables that are those minorities that end up having their rights systematically violated and exploited.


We divide by classes in Law. We speak of the right of the elderly, children, people with disabilities, transgenders, illiterate and semi-illiterate people who also have special protection in contracting in relation to other people. I think we should encourage inclusion policies in all respects to fulfill what is in fact in the Constitution of a democratic State in a participatory democracy.

We asked the judge about his perception of judicial asylums as a total institution. And here is his comment:

Yesterday I was reading on the Channel Criminal Sciences website an account of a detainee who needed to do an expertise to get a certain criminal benefit. We have the closed regime in which the person stays 24 hours inside the prison; we have the semi-open, which is the penal colony where the person works during the day, being watched, and at night the person is detained, and we have the open regime in which the person works externally, without vigilance, and returns to sleep in the prison. As we do not have a vacancy for the whole system, it ends up giving the benefit in the home regime where the person stays at home because there is no vacancy in the system. This person was willing to go from the semi-open regime to the open regime. So, the judge ordered the person to take a criminological examination because the criminal enforcement law establishes this. Psychological assessment is done by the multidisciplinary group to see the aptitude, the potentiality of that person to re-commit or not to re-commit. Unfortunately, rather than being something done on a case-by-case basis, for example: “here I suspect that this person may even have a problem," turned out to be customary! Judges do not have time to analyze the full volume of cases they have. Then, sometimes, the judges outsource to other employees who are often not trained in law. Look at the danger! They outsource to take the exams, because sometimes they have a lot of practice in the area, they do


and the judge only signs. As the judges do not have time to pick up and look on a case by case basis, seeing all the proceedings again, it became a practice saying: Well, send everyone to the criminological examination. As a result, the State, in general, does not have condition to carry out the criminological examination in everyone. So, a criminological examination that was to be done immediately, as the person has reached his/her time, the longer it takes in the regime in which he/she is, the more him/her right is being violated. So, it takes 30 to 60 days for a criminologist to do it. I was listening to a report of an inmate who was moving from the semiopen regime to the open regime. This prisoner narrated that he lived hell in those 60 days of criminological examination because he had to go to Franco da Rocha [hospital-prison]. There was no psychologist attending the prison where he was, so he was sent, 60 days before the examination, for a bureaucratic escort problem to make it more economical for the State and to be able to transport several at a time. So, they were all together, 6 inmates to Franco da Rocha. They stayed in separate cells. They lived moments of extreme horror and anguish. They did not sleep because hourly the cells were beaten so that the employees could come in and dope the people who were in Franco da Rocha, this was reported by a prisoner. There were screams, death threats, hysterical people stirring up turmoil. So, they spent all their time sleeping and waking, sleeping and waking up. People who did not have any psychic anomaly. And finally, he was able to take the exam and be released. He had no problem, nothing prevented him from going through the system, but he spent 60 days having his right violated in a psychiatric establishment that to him was worse than the prison he was in. Now, if a prisoner, who is subjected to extreme conditions, it is a real survival course to stay in prison. If he is in extreme conditions in the prison and says that the asylum is worse than the prison, then you cannot imagine under what


conditions these judicial asylums are. One of the 6 who was in the cell asked for a headache remedy and they gave him a pill. This prisoner slept 18 hours and awoke with amnesia. This in the report that appears in the site of the Criminal Science Channel about life in the asylum. The conditions of a judicial hospital are much worse than those of a prison.

We asked the judge about the closure of schools and the reduction of the criminal majority in Brazil. The idea is absurd! Absurd! The more you imprison someone, the more you are subjecting that person to a brutal system, a parallel legal order. Is that person going to get better? No! The person will get worse. We have today in force in the country the Statute of the Child and Adolescent that considers every minor person, as a person in exceptional condition that must have its integrity respected. The State should modify the system of Fundação Casa [old FEBEM], but they changed only the name to give the impression that it was a different thing. However, the structure remains basically the same, it is incarceration, it is a mirim prison. You expose that minor offender for a much shorter time of segregation in that deleterious environment. But if you reduce the age of criminal liability, you will take a person who is still in development and you put the person in contact with whom is completely misfit, and that person will come out much worse than when he/she entered. Instead of being offered a study, instead of placing a social worker so that the person goes to that family to see the cause of the problem, to see what is wrong there, the reason why that child got out of the way, on the contrary, criminalization is imposed. This is because this action is the cheapest palliative for the State. The State does not fight the cause. The cause may be the economic problem, the difficult conditions in which that family is living. But to solve this, the State has to offer quality


school, quality food, decent work, must modify several factors that no one cares about. Because there are a lot of people making money on this context. But when one speaks: “let's incarcerate", it is cost zero, because the Fundação Casa is already in progress and you just need to change the name Fundação Casa to prison. Zero cost! It is demagogically apparent to society that this has been solved, and that this solution had zero cost, because the infrastructure is already there. Instead of leaving that person segregated for 3 years, he/she will be segregated for 8 years. What recovery will this person have? What gain of social prevention will we have? None! I saw people who entered the jail robbing chicken and left by practicing robbery. I saw people who came in because of marijuana and left stealing bank. I saw that. And this goes in a gradation. And they say: Ah, the one who committed robbery has taken a penalty of 30 years! Took it! But this person will be imprisoned for 5 years because we have system of progression and penalty regression. The State encourages progression to release vacancy. So, is it the fault of the judiciary? And they say: “ah, the police arrest and the judge releases!” How many times have we heard that phrase? The judge releases because it is the law, so he must order the release. If there was a law saying he would not release, the judge would not release. Montesquieu said, when he elaborated the theory of the tripartition of the powers, "what is the greatest power within the State? It is the power to say who is right and who is wrong. Whoever has this power can always tell who is right and that is the greatest power within the State. The emperor held this power. The emperor agreed to give up this power and pass to the judiciary because that power wears off. It dislikes at least 50% of its clientele. So, it is easy for the emperor to speak: “it is not my fault, it's the judge's. Whoever names the top organs of the Judiciary is the head of the


Executive, after discussion by the Senate. Who controls the Judiciary is the Executive and the Legislative? Thus, is the Judiciary independent? Then, going back to the question of the criminal majority, what is made demagogically? Demagogically, they say "let's reduce the age of criminal liability", that is, we will pass to society a false sense of security and at zero cost, because we transform the Fundação Casa into a prison. And so, they keep those people imprisoned for longer and maybe even create more vacancies in the system because they will be exchanging for Fundação Casa, because the prisons are overcrowded, and then is super crowded the Casa Foundation to become prison. And who will benefit from it? It is not the society. This is disappointing. We started the carrier with much gas and the State manages to get that gas out. The reality is very hard, cruel. And what we're talking about is just the tip of the iceberg we're scratching. It is unfortunate to see how to use criminal tutelage in an inconsequential way, it is panacea for all evils. And they say, "to cure everything, let's define that it is a crime and let's punish people". And not always define as a crime is the best solution. When everything is criminalized, violence increases. The problem is alarming and too complex. So, as time goes by, we watch, we analyze, we listen to prisoners, cops, we hear all the gears, we hear the speech of the prosecutor, the talks of the deputy, and we realize that the problem is far from being solved. And that typification, that is, the criminalization of conducts, does not solve anything. I make clear that I am not saying that I am in favor of releasing the rapist, because sometimes we are accused of defending an idea that is being misrepresented. But to start wanting to send someone to jail because the person discussed in the traffic, because the person killed guilty [not intentionally to kill] in the traffic? That this person pay compensation I think correct, because he/she reaped a family father, caused pain, mourning,


medical expenses. Now, put him/her with a murderer to get out of there planning to steal a bank? What is worse for society? Here in Brazil we are expanding the Criminal Law so that it becomes maximum, so that anyone can be arrested by any slip, inflating the system so that people leave worse. So, I see with lousy eyes the reduction of age of criminal liability. This will not solve the problem, but it will make the problem worse. It is necessary to attack the cause. Why is that individual criminal? Because he wanted? The person was conducted to the crime, no one wants to voluntarily live in a jail. Whoever commits a crime, the person commits it as the last ratio, as the last reason. Of course, there are cases and cases. There are people who need treatment because they have deviation from behavior, but they do not need incarceration. Restorative justice must be encouraged. Treat these people. Try to give greater flow to alternative penalties. The CNJ has suffered numerous attacks when it has recently begun to advertise to encourage restorative justice and the evacuation of prisons as if it was a sin. This is because it sells the idea that the security crisis is solved with jail. But it does not solve, it resolves with infrastructure, but this is expensive, and jail is cheap. Brazil is one of the countries with the highest index of incarceration in the world. We have the 4th male prison population and the 5th female prison population. We have lost from China, that typifies everything [treats everything as crime], India that has a very large population and United States that leads the ranking, but there they have even death penalty. And they are not safe countries. People do not feel safe. And yet they have the largest prison populations in the world. In India, we see collective rapes. To incarcerate solve the problem? At the other end, we have countries with the highest tax burden in the world that rivals ours in Brazil, it is Sweden. There, in Sweden, the recidivism is 30% and here in Brazil is 85%. There, out of 10 they recover 7. There, they do


not imprison people like it is done here, they have highly controversial issues. They take a sex offender and give him the option: Do you want to be arrested or do you undergo treatment and chemical castration? Voluntarily he is counselor-led, doctor-assisted and he chooses and if he has a choice he will not go to jail. He receives treatment. Where is the adjustment? In the country where every 10 recovers 7, or here where every 10 recovers 1.5? And the tax charges are equivalent, they achieve approximately 40%. But there you pay no school, hospital, public safety is respected and highly regarded, not all police officers use weapons, and in the judiciary up to 1 million Euros you do not pay lawyer. But we do not see serious policies in Brazil, but rather distortions. And criminalizing everything does not solve, and incarceration does not recover anyone. In the long run, this is not interesting for society. On inclusion, the Statute of the Person with Disabilities, Law 13146 that will come into force now, on January 6, 2016, we see that 2 blocks of lawyers are being formed. One saying that it is a modern law, which is in line with the New York Pact which provided for this equal treatment in society. And another block saying that this law is absurd because it is not protecting who should be protected, that is, to protect or not to protect those intellectual disabled. So, we already have two chains of judges, people already preparing to not comply with the law. There is already resistance not only of judges but also of jurists. I see that everything that is inclusive is democratic. We must fight for inclusion, yes. If the private school will have to distribute its expenses, so they will make it, because our society is isonomic. If we agree to live in Brazil, we must follow the rules of the democratic State. The State will have to adapt with the public-school system. If the State does not comply with the law, we must achieve its budget with indemnities. So, the State will follow the law.


THE SOLITUDE OF THAT EXCLUDED AT ALL TIMES IS POPULATED As we have already mentioned, we have no intention of performing a content or speech analysis of the voices that have been enunciated. We only dialogue with them, intertwine events that bring legitimacy to our essay on inclusion and difference, and on the possibilities of re-inventing inclusion for 21st century learners. These apprentices are not just those enrolled in schools, but we are all apprentices enrolled in the school of life. The voices that have emerged from their starting points, their social roles and functions, their escape lines emerge guerrilla from survivors. They enunciate the achievements of others by means of struggles or conflicting efforts. The trails are uneven until the point of arrival. The claims seem to coincide between the voices. They try to get back property (space to be and to stay) in the possession or then, the usufruct of another person. They call "people" to populate their solitude. They are not restricted to laws, public management or the media. They cry out mutually against exclusionary actions based on the difference constructed as identity. They are not restricted to echoing their anguish, in addition, they state that the social inclusion of those excluded is the product of an agent, is the manifestation of the feelings of those excluded themselves. They point out that militancy within institutions is not enough, but it is necessary beyond the walls. A democratic militancy outside the walls, in all the territories and borders so that the support for the demands is multiplied. The voices enunciate a desire and an attitude of adding more and more citizens who are beyond the walls of the institutionalization with the purpose of the humanization of those who are of their own species. They react to sensationalist and censuristic media. They denounce their oppressors and the various forms of brutality they use. They are not ashamed to strip themselves of the social standard established by tradition. They go forward with a genuine love to life that casts out the fear. They do not transfer responsibilities but assume their positions. There is


no space for neutrality, as assuming to be neutral, refraining or balancing on the wall is already an improper position for survivors. The voices, from the most suffering to the most innocent and pure, proclaim that difference is a quality of all of us. That the difference is not a reason for apartheid. And that it is possible to re-invent ways to perceive the other, to talk with him/her, to learn from him/her, to play with him/her ..., to relate and to live with him/her! Because the other is not just "the other," but it is also each of us when we are also perceived by the other. Voices make us to think that it is not social inclusion that depends on what it means or of its outcome consequently. However, it is the movement of things, of continuity that is subject to the symbolic consequences represented by inclusion or perceived in the nonrepresentational lines that generate the most varied metaphors or representations. These produce rhizomatic trails that are intercepted according to the unique circumstances that disperse and entangle both what produces the meanings and their own results, that is, the meanings. Therefore, the subjects are circumstantially impacted by the inclusion, and the inclusion, by itself, is not impacted by the subjects, as its concept, its hard core, is not shaken by the circumstances or the acumen of whoever. Similarly, the stars did not cease to exist because the sky is clouded by clouds or because the brightness of the day obscures them. In other words, the destruction of identities, so well treated by Deleuze in his works, is something latent at the core of inclusion. Inclusion is a thing of all and for all, of the unique identity of the Human Being. Not a universal identity, but a unique identity in its multiplicity, where the plural is contained in the singular. In this sense, inclusion, in its revolutionary and rhizomatic condition, does not happen by difference, by the identities that, in fact, promote much more separation than aggregation. Inclusion moves, it happens in the difference that differentiates itself in its multiplicity. As we are singular beings, we are unique, and being one, therefore, we are of the order of the difference. However, prejudice, discrimination, intolerance, xenophobia, racism and all other metamorphoses of phobias is what provoke the existence of a plurality of identities. And the search for an identity to survive the evils of the human ends up becoming oppressive of the others focused like opponents. But inclusion in difference overcomes this by the concreteness and lucidity of its hard core.


The voices detract from the norms present in the DSM, the manual of psychiatry that universalizes diagnoses and creates identities parameterized by symptomatic pictures. The voices state that psychiatry can no longer speak in the name of reason, authority and law, as it has and still occurs, to silence and segregate people. Voices are also manifested in the sense that they do not accept others having the right to theorize about them or to dig interpretations from psychological theories about who they are or the reason why they act as they do. The belief system of inclusion produces a different perception in people, an expressive desire that meets the words of Deleuze, Today, we claim the rights of a new functionalism: no longer what it means, but how it goes, how it works. It is as if desire did not want to say anything more and was an agency of small machines, desiring machines, always in a relation with the great social machines and the technical machines. How about you? What are your Desiring Machines? (2004, p.188).

The voices enunciate from their own windows, because each one can talk about the scene from the point where they are looking. But they all tell us that social deprivation is not the solution to problems. Even the jail, which exists to contain convicts for committing crimes, it claims for non-sociocultural deprivation and dehumanization of the other for abandonment. The sociocultural deprivation and abandonment lead them to be like zombies, a body without a soul, someone who seems to be alive but is not. Without perception of the pain of the other, of alterity in modes of relation. Legendary, it is impossible to recover a zombie. The zombie identity screams an apartheid. However, a zombie does not only live in the world of those dead, quite the contrary, he lives in the world of those living. It is, therefore, in a territory which, at first, is not yours. In this alien territory, the conviviality is based on the difference and in its quality of undead, it is also hybrid. The film that always extrapolates to imagination, creativity, representation, ways of enunciating to the diverse public, however it maintains its relationship with the real world, launched in 2013 the film Warm Bodies. A romantic comedy by Jonathan Levine based on the book by Isaac Marion (2011). When we heard the voices of the ex-convict and the judge, the term zombie emerged. The pre-eminent idea of society that criminals are irretrievable lies in the same proportion regarding zombies. Another thought emanates by contesting that prisons and


socio-cultural deprivations bury the soul of the living, and this acquires even more the quality of being a zombie. The above-mentioned film brings a different version of the other horror movies about zombies. It shows how the welcoming of the other that is human can increasingly humanize the undead hybrid. And how this hybrid can also awaken in the extremist human apartheid that affects and percepts transform and are transformed from social relations to the other that differentiates in their own difference. There are metamorphoses! Although being available for recovery in the social sense that relates to the condition of inmate or ex-convict is highly necessary for this subject, it is also a necessity for this subject that society offers him conditions to recover both in private space and beyond the walls. And this two-way street is also of the order of inclusion that extends to all without conditional distinction, it is something of a survivor who does not succumb to social exclusion. However, the State, in its eagerness to avoid imbalances that obscure its stability, not only abandons the incarcerated to oblivion, but also reinforces vigilance, control and punishment with the proposition of excluding measures, such as reduction of the age of criminal liability and closure of schools. Well! These propositions do not try to problematize the genesis of the problem and to find the possible solutions; they do not try to re-invent the possibilities of recovering delinquents; do not deal with social inclusion, but rather to extend the mechanisms of exclusion. Deleuze in his text "About the Letters of H.M." (2004, 190) addresses the matter of prison . And it brings the following voice of an inmate: “write to me, if you only knew what a little word is ...". This is a cry in which the loneliness of those excluded claims to be populated. It is a request to re-invent possibilities for inclusion. Voices, albeit from different social places, merge, are interwoven around the interweaving exclusion / inclusion. They are found on the borders, on the lines of flight. They point to the harshness of the exclusion mechanisms, as well as the possibility of re-inventing inclusion. They talk about those excluded, but they are also included in the reverse process. They are subjects who walk "between" the territories of exclusion and inclusion. In this walk, they are of hybrid constitution. And in art, again we find the transparent beauty of saying something public, without impositions, in addition, with the generosity of the power of choosing who wants to accept it


or reject it, even if the art itself, does not know that does it. However, there is no potent power to diminish it. As half of me is what I scream The other half is silence. As half of me is broken The other half is longing. As half of me is what I hear The other half is what I silence As half of me is what I think The other half a volcano As half of me is the memory of what I was The other half I do not know As half of me is shelter The other half is tiredness As half of me is love And the other half too.

(Half, by Oswaldo Montenegro, 1997)


INCLUSION IN THE DIFFERENCE: INCOMPLETENESS The movement of inclusion is complex, singular, rhizomatic and radical. Waiting for something or someone to be ready and prepared to let the inclusion to flow is like waiting for the sun and moon to one day to find themselves in the universe in which they exist. The sun illuminates the day and the moon illuminates the night. They are different and exist in difference. But they are not opposed to each other. Both are fully needed. Difference is nothing more than the quality of what is different, there is no similarity in it, there is disconformity, divergence, it contains the diversity itself, it is inexact and at the same time, it is excess of a greatness, there is no repetition in it. For inclusion to take place, the difference must be its pair. Inclusion and Difference in their incompleteness can only exist in the difference itself, never in homo territory. Inclusion will never be static, it will never be repeated. It will never happen in the middle. And it will not be based on homogeneity, nor it will be content to accept only a few. It is the difference in difference where the possibilities of (re) inventing inclusion for the apprentices (all of us) of the twenty-first century will find their fertile ground to bear fruit. And in this fruitfulness, seeds will not always germinate from direct contact with the earth. On several occasions, the inclusion will happen as a graft that qualifies by the branch of one vegetable in another so that it develops in the own plant that avenged its genesis, as with the blooming of a beautiful orchid12. It looks like stone, everything is stone. Only the two of us survive.13


There are a variety of species of orchids. It is the largest of all botanical families. They differ from one another, and the ways of their cultivation also differ. 13 Voice of João after I show him the image of the friendship between him and Jean with effect of impressionism.


Figure 71: Friendship of João and Jean

Source: In the park (ORRÚ, 2015)

Whoever walks on the rail is an iron train I am water that flows between rocks Freedom pursuits the way. (Manuel de Barros, 2001)


REFERENCES BARROS, Manoel. Matéria de poesia. 5 ed. Rio de Janeiro: Record, 2001.

BRASIL. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília, 1988. Available at: BRAISL. Portaria nº 2.678/02. Política Nacional de Educação Especial na Perspectiva da Educação Inclusiva. Brasília,de p 2002. Available at: BRASIL. Decreto nº 6.094/07. Provides for the implementation of the All Commitment for Education Plan, by the Federal Government, in collaboration with Municipalities, Federal District and States, and the participation of families and the community, through programs and actions of technical and financial assistance, aiming at the social mobilization by improving the quality of basic education. Brasília, 2007. Available at: BRASIL. Carta para o Terceiro Milênio. London,




BRASIL. Convenção Interamericana para a Eliminação de Todas as Formas de Discriminação Contra as Pessoas Portadoras de Deficiência (Guatemala Convention). Brasília, 1999. Available at: BRASIL. Convenção sobre os Direitos das Pessoas com Deficiência. Brasília, 2008. Available on: file:///C:/Users/Professor(a)/Downloads/A%20Conven%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20sobre%20os%2 0Direitos%20das%20Pessoas%20com%20Defici%C3%AAncia%20Comentada.pdf BRASIL. Decree 6949. Promulgates the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol, signed in New York on March 30, 2007. Brasília, 2009. Available at: BRASIL. Decreto 7611. Deals with special education, specialized educational care and other measures. Brasília, 2001. Available at: BRASIL. Decree nº 3.298. Regulates Law No. 7,853, of October 24, 1989, provides for the National Policy for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities. Brasília, 1999. Available at: BRASIL. Decree nº 5.296/04.


Regulates Laws 10,048, of November 8, 2000, which gives priority to attendance to the people it specifies, and 10,098 of December 19, 2000, which establishes general norms and basic criteria for the promotion of the accessibility of persons with disabilities or with reduced mobility, and makes other arrangements. Brasília, 2004. Available at: BRASIL. Decreto nº 5.626/05. Regulates Law 10,436, of April 24, 2002, which provides for the Brazilian Language of Signals - Pounds, and art. 18 of Law 10,098, of December 19, 2000. Brasília, 2005. Available at: BRASIL. Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional Brasileira (Law 9394 of 20 December 1996). Ministry of Education, Brasília, DF, 1996. Available at: BRASIL. Law nº 10.172/2001. Approves the National Plan of Education and other measures. Brasília, 2001. Available at: BRASIL. Lei nº 10.436/02. Disposes on the Brazilian Language of Signals - Pounds and gives other measures. Brasília, 2002. Available at: BRASIL. Lei nº 12.764. Institutes the National Policy for the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Autism Spectrum Disorder; and amends §3 of art. 98 of Law 8.112, of December 11, 1990. Brasília, 2012. Available at: BRASIL. Law No. 7,853 of October 24, 1989. Brasília, DF: 1989. Available at: BRASIL. CNE/CEBResolution Nº 2. Establishes National Guidelines for Special Education in Basic Education.Brasília, 2001. Available at: BRASIL. Resolução CNE/CP nº1/2002. Institutes National Curricular Guidelines for the Education of Basic Education Teachers, at a higher level, undergraduate course, full graduation. Brasília, 2002. Available at: BRASIL. Resolução No. 4 CNE/CEB. Establishes Operational Guidelines for Educational Assistance Specialized in Basic Education, Special Education modality. Brasília, 2009. Available at: INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION OF MONTREAL ABOUT INCLUSION. Approved June 5, 2001 by the International Congress "Inclusive Society" held in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Montreal, 2001. Available at:


DELEUZE, Gilles. Diferença e repetição. Rio de Janeiro: Graal, 1988. ________. Conversações. São Paulo: Ed. 34, 1992. ________. O que é a filosofia? Lisboa: Presença, 1992. ________. Crítica e Clínica. São Paulo: Ed. 34, 1997. ________. Lógica do Sentido. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1998. ________. A ilha deserta e outros textos. Edition prepared by David Lapoujade. Brazilian translation. São Paulo: Iluminuras, 2004. DELEUZE, Gilles & GUATTARI, Félix. Mil Platôs – capitalismo e esquizofrenia. v. 1. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. 34, 1975. ________. Mil Platôs: capitalismo e esquizofrenia. (A. G. Neto & A. L. de Oliveira & L. C. Leão & S. Rolnik, Trads., Vol. 3). Rio de Janeiro, Ed. 34, 1996.

________. Kafka – para uma literatura menor. Lisboa: Minuit, 2003. ________. Mil Platôs - capitalismo e esquizofrenia 2, vol 3.Tradução de Aurélio Guerra Neto et al. São Paulo: Ed. 34, 2012. DELEUZE, GILLES; PARNET, CLAIRE. Diálogos. Lisboa: Relógio D’Água Editores, 2004. FANON, FRANTZ. Os condenados da terra. Juiz de Fora-MG: Ed. UFJF, 2005.

FOUCAULT, Michel. Microfísica do poder. 2 ed. Rio de Janeiro: Graal, 1998. ________. Os Anormais. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2001. ________. Vigiar e Punir: nascimento da prisão. 30 ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2005. GUATTARI, Félix. Caosmose. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. 34, 1992. GUATTARI, F.; ROLNIK, S. Micropolíticas: Cartografias do desejo. Rio de Janeiro: Vozes, 2005. MARION, Isaac. Warm bodies. USA: Atria Books, 2011. NOVARTIS, Laboratório. Apresentação de Ritalina. Brasil: Novartis, 2013. Available at: Access on: 08/27/2015. ONU. Declaração de Salamanca. Sobre Princípios, Políticas e Práticas na Área das Necessidades Educativas Especiais. Salamanca, Espanha, 1994. Available at: ORRÚ, S.E. O Re-inventar da inclusão: os desafios da diferença no processo de ensinar e aprender. Rio de Janeiro: Vozes, 2017. UNESCO. Conferência Mundial de Educação para Todos. Declaração Mundial de Educação para Todos. Plano de Ação para Satisfazer as Necessidades Básicas de Aprendizagem. Jomtien, Tailândia, 1990. Available at:


Sílvia Ester Orrú graduated in Pedagogy, postgraduate in Clinical and Institutional Psychopedagogy, Master and PhD in Education. She has a postdoctoral degree in Education from the Laboratory of Studies and Research in Teaching and Difference (Leped), from the School of Education of the State University of Campinas - Unicamp. She is a professor at the Faculty of Education of the University of Brasília - UnB, professor-collaborator at the Federal University of Alfenas - Unifal, Poços de Caldas Campus. She is the author of books, chapters and articles in national and international periodicals. She is also coordinator of the Laboratory of Studies and Research in Learning and Inclusion (Lepai / CNPq).