Problem of the formation of an inclusive community and paradigm in the study of creativity

We discuss the problem of an inclusive community as the basis of the effectiveness of inclusion in education and aesthetic value of creative activity for the formation of such a community. The analysis of the socio-constructionist approach to inclusion shows that the understanding of an inclusive community is contradictory. We discuss the importance of aesthetic creativity to create an inclusive community and its relationship to the utilitarian material and practical activities in the context of social relations system and life-world of people (according to J. Habermas). Starting from the We-paradigm, reconsidered in compliance with L.S. Vygotsky cultural-historical theory (by V.P. Glavenu), we prove that participation in aesthetic (especially theater) activity opens the possibility of the development of student subjectivity and restores the disturbed by the alienation dialogue of social system and local communities, based on the creative reconstruction of symbolic resources of the world. We list the demands to the organization of creative aesthetic activity, based on this understanding, and affirm the need of non-formal teaching of art in school, as well as in the system of additional education.

1. Bauman Z. Individualizirovannoe obshchestvo. [The Individualized Society]. Moscow: Logos, 2002. 390 p.
2. Busygina N. P. Psikhicheskie fenomeny i diskurs: perspektiva sotsial'nogo konstruktsionizma. [Psy- chic Phenomena and Discourse: the Social Con- structionism Perspective]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaia psikhologiia [Cultural-historical psychology], 2009, no. 4. P. 44–51.
3. Valsiner Ia. Kul'tura, razvitie i metodologiia v psikhologii: preodolet' otchuzhdenie cherez em- piricheskie dannye. [Culture, Development, and Me- thodology in Psychology: Beyond Alienation through Data]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaia psikhologiia [Cultu- ral-historical psychology], 2005, no. 1. P. 37–50.
4. Dikon R. A. Proizvodstvo sub"ektivnosti [Produc- tion of Subjectivity]. Logos, no. 2 (65). P. 21–64.
5. Itterstad G. Inkliuziia – chto oznachaet eto po- niatie i s kakimi problemami stalkivaetsia norvezh- skaia shkola, pretvoriaia ego v zhizn'? [What is re- ally meant by unclusion: a teacher's point of view]. Psikhologicheskaia nauka i obrazovanie [Psy- chological Science and  Education],  2011,  no.  3. P. 41–49.
6. Leongard E. I., Krasnova N. A., Pirozhnik N. T., Prudnikova M. S Inkliuzivnoe obrazovanie v raz- lichnykh usloviiakh integratsii [Inclusive education in different conditions of integration]. Inkliuzivnoe obra- zovanie [inclusive education], 2010. Vyp. 1. Mos- cow. P. 139–148.
7. Melik-Pashaev A. A. «Iskusstvo ne dlia iskusst- va», ili «Ot Artterapii – k Artprofilaktike» [“Art not for art”, or “From art-therapy to prophylaxis”] [Elek- tronnyi resurs]. Iskusstvo v shkole [Art in school], 2013, no. 1. URL: http://art-inschool.ru/index.php/ artprofilaktika/90-ot-artterapii-k-artprofilaktike (Ac- cessed: 13.09.2013).
8. Popova N. T. Kul'turologicheskii  podkhod k  ink- liuzii v praktike obrazovaniia. [Culture substanti- ated approach to inclusion in education praxis]. Psikhologo-pedagogicheskie osnovy inkliuzivnogo obrazovaniia: kollektivnaia monografiia [Psycho- logical and pedagogical foundations of inclusive education:  a  collective  monograph]  /  Otv.  red.
9. V. Alekhina, Moscow: MGPPU, OOO «Buki Vedi», 2013. P. 38–51.
10. Sukovataia V. A. Drugoe telo: invalid, urod i kon- struktsii dizabiliti v sovremennoi kul'turnoi kritike [Different body: invalid, monster, and constructions of disability in modern cultural  crtitics]  [Elektron nyi resurs]. Available at no. 83. 2012. URL: http:// www.nlobooks.ru/node/2282  (Accessed  08.08.2013).
11. Habermas Ju. Demokratiia. Razum. Nravstven- nost'. [Democracy. Reason. Morality]. Moscow: Nauka, 1992. 176 p.
12. Shemanov A. Yu. Drugoi kak «nesposob- nyi»: sotsial'nyi konstruktivizm vs. medikalizat- siia [Different as disabled: social costructionism vs. medicalization] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Kul'turo- logicheskii zhurnal [Culturalogical journal], 2012, no. 1 (7). URL: http://www.cr-journal.ru/rus/journals/112.html&j_id=9  (Accessed 02.10.2012).
13. Iantzen V. Narusheniia razvitiia i inkliuziia [De- velopmental disorders and inclusion]. Kul'turno-is- toricheskaia psikhologiia [Cultural-historical psycho- logy], 2011, no. 3. P. 98–104.
14. Glavenue V. P. Paradigms in the study of creati- vity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psycholo- gy.  New  Ideas   in   Psychology,   2010.   V.   28. P. 79–93.
15. Goodley D., Runswick-Cole K. The Body as Disability and Possability: Theorizing the ‘Leaking, Lacking and Excessive’ Bodies of Disabled Children. Scandinavian J. of Disability Research, 2012, DOI: 10.1080/15017419.2011.640410
16. Hall J. P. Narrowing the Breach: Can Disability Culture and Full Educational Inclusion be Recon- ciled? J. of Disability Policy Studies, Winter 2002. V. 13, no.  3. P. 144–152.
17. Hickey-Moody A. «Turning away» from Intel- lectual Disability: Methods of Practice, Methods of Thought. Critical Studies in Education, 2003. V. 44, no. 1. P. 1–22.
18. Paliocosta P., Blandford S. Inclusion in school: a policy, ideology or lived experience? Similar find- ings in diverse school cultures. Support for Learning, 2010. V. 25, no. 4. P. 179–186.
19. Reid-Cunningham A.R. Anthropological Theo- ries of Disability. J. of Human Behavior in the Social Environment,  2009. V. 19, no. 1. P. 99–111.
20. Slee R. Beyond Special and Regular Schooling? An Inclusive Education Reform Agenda. Internation- al Studies in Sociology of Education, 2008. V. 18, no. 2. P. 99–116.
21. Wooster R. Creative inclusion in commumity theatre: a journey with Odyssey Theatre. Research in Drama Education: The J. of Applied Theatre and Performance, 2009. V.14. no. 1. P. 79–90.