Inclusive School: A Task (Still and Always) Ahead of Us

Abstract

It is widely recognized that since the 1970s, Italy has had one of the most advanced legal frameworks supporting the inclusion of individuals with disabilities within the school system. In this paper, I undertake a philosophical-educational reflection to explore some of the traditions that may have contributed to shaping the cultural background of Italy’s commitment to inclusive education. Adopting a distinction drawn by Rorty (1998), my approach does not aim to provide a historical reconstruction—i.e., a description of the theories that have directly influenced the scholarly debate on special education and inclusion. Rather, it constitutes a form of Geistesgeschichte in Rorty’s specific sense of “canon-formation.” In this endeavor, I take my point of departure from the birth of the Italian Republic. While Italy does not have a tradition of constitutional patriotism in the strictest sense, the Italian Constitution—rooted in explicitly antifascist values—has served as the normative reference point for subsequent legislation on inclusive education (Arconzo, 2020). Moreover, it has provided a framework of ideals and principles, replacing the concept of the ethical State with an emphasis on the individual and the intermediate bodies of society. I will begin by examining the notion of the ethical State as it was articulated in his latest (and, indeed, extreme) reflection by Giovanni Gentile, the most eminent and influential educational philosopher of early 20th-century Italy. In a dramatic and, to a large extent, testamentary book published in 1943, Gentile introduced the idea of the “transcendental society” or “society in interiore homine.” I argue that, even setting aside his Fascist allegiances, the most problematic aspect of Gentile’s thought—particularly from the perspective of a philosophy of inclusion—is precisely this central notion in his late philosophy. In contrast with it, I will introduce what has been termed the “pedagogy of dissent” (Zangrilli, 1973), associated with the figures of Aldo Capitini, Don Lorenzo Milani, and Danilo Dolci. Although, to the best of my knowledge, none of these thinkers directly contributed to the discourse on inclusive education concerning individuals with disabilities, their theories and educational practices offer a significant Italian trajectory for conceptualizing inclusion. In particular, Capitini—a former student of Gentile—reverses his teacher’s philosophy from within, introducing the idea of “openness” as a meta-value of antifascism and, arguably, of any inclusive endeavor. Similarly, Danilo Dolci and Don Milani offer compelling perspectives on inclusion (broadly understood) as a fundamental task of democratic society. Finally, I will briefly touch on the anti-institutionalization theories of Franco Basaglia—a psychiatrist with a strong philosophical background—as yet another significant influence on the Italian approach to inclusion. As stated earlier, my aim is not to provide a historical reconstruction but rather to outline a preliminary map of the Italian contribution to conceiving inclusion as the central axis of what Dewey termed creative democracy—a phrase that also inspires the title of this paper. This reference to Dewey is not merely an external addition to my argument but rather a natural extension of it, given the significant influence of his philosophical and educational work on the reconstruction of Italian educational discourse after World War II