We’ve been hearing the phrase “accept and respect differences” quite a bit. Perhaps, in our eagerness to champion the cause, we forget to reflect on the true meaning behind that phrase. “Dealing with differences” may be a phrase that encapsulates our level of acceptance and respect and also encompasses the attitudes we have toward the specific differences we face in our daily lives.

Let’s reflect a little on the true meaning of these words. Dealing with differences is an approach that involves three dimensions: dealing with the differences of others, dealing with my own differences, and taking a clear stance on historically rooted differences.

Dealing with others’ differences is the most widely accepted meaning we know. We tend to think that by accepting and “allowing” others to be who they are, we are dealing with those differences. Respecting others goes far beyond “allowing” them to occupy a place in the world, based on the reductionist notion that “everyone to their own, and that’s fine.”

Acceptance and respect for the other involve contemplating that other, which, in turn, is only possible through a phenomenological perspective on that other. This perspective is characterized by seeing what is there, without additions or inferences. It is seeing the thing in itself. When looking at someone with tricolor hair, for example, one sees the colors and, at most, the boldness of the choice, but does not immediately conclude or project, for instance, that the other person is insane. Through contemplation, I discover, understand, and learn from the other. I incorporate the other into myself and broaden my conceptions and perceptions.

The second aspect of “dealing with differences” relates to accepting my own differences. I can only truly accept another person’s differences when I accept my own. No one is the same. What exists is a fantasy of standardization that is expressed through fashion, social conventions, and culture. No one is even close to being “normal.” The extent to which I accept my own “abnormalities,” however, defines my ability to deal with the “abnormalities” of others, in addition to allowing me to be fully myself.

Finally, addressing differences requires that we take concrete action regarding historically constructed differences. We do not address differences when we are insensitive to those who are excluded. What is my stance toward ethnic minorities? Toward the LGBTQIAP+ movement or toward the homeless population? How do I actually position myself in relation to the “artists” of traffic signs?

A fundamental issue that cannot be overlooked concerns the frame of reference for our discourse. After all, when addressing differences, we must ask ourselves: different from what? If there are differences, it is because there is a previously established standard of equality, which must inevitably be subjected to logical analysis. Our way of thinking is still strongly influenced by the “truths” of the Modern Era, which, among many other things, have led us to wholeheartedly believe that there is a “right place for the right person”—that there is a place in the sun for everyone, one that can be attained solely through effort and determination.

The modernist “truth” most relevant to our reflections concerns the criteria for evaluating a “normal” individual: one who is objective—that is, who knows what they want, follows rules, is respectful, strives to improve, and, if they do so, achieves their goals. These are the criteria adopted by schools to define a “good student”—criteria that persist in our collective imagination as educators. Any profile that deviates from this standard runs the risk of being labeled as different, strange, or maladjusted.

See also:

+ Managing cultural interaction between teachers and students

+ Understanding to Transform: Reflecting on the Social Role of the Teacher

+ Project-Based Learning: What Is It?

The end of Modern Times and the birth of Postmodernism ushered in an era of rebuilding values and points of reference. Zygmunt Bauman coined the term “liquid society” to describe the set of customs and values practiced by social groups at the beginning of the 21st century. The term “liquid” refers to the volatility and transience of the relationships and feelings that develop between people. Liquid relationships, liquid friendships, liquid feelings. It seems as though everything “slips through one’s fingers” and lasts only a very short time.

In this context, the younger generations have developed short-sighted beliefs and values; after all, everything is fleeting, and one must enjoy the present moment to the fullest, since there’s no guarantee there will be a tomorrow. In this “liquid” society, existing is synonymous with consuming, success is equivalent to becoming a celebrity, and speed is a sign of creating opportunity. The role of schools becomes fundamental in creating a counterculture to the “liquidity” identified by Bauman. We are, in a very dangerous way, producing new criteria for normality. Those who do not consume, who are not on social media, and who have a calm and contemplative way of being are considered different.

However, postmodernity is showing signs of a predisposition toward the development of attitudes that reinforce the discourse of acceptance and respect for differences. We need to accelerate the shift from a paradigm of diversity that promotes exclusion, homogeneity, marginalization, and the idea of “otherness” to a paradigm that promotes inclusion, heterogeneity, and the possibility of enrichment through difference—viewing these as unique and recognizing the right of all to be citizens. We are faced with the concept of otherness.

Otherness is the ability to put oneself in another person’s shoes in an interpersonal relationship, with consideration, appreciation, empathy, and dialogue with that other person. Otherness in relationships is a prerequisite for the exercise of citizenship and for establishing a peaceful and constructive relationship with those who are different.

In psychology, otherness refers to the individual’s belief that other beings are distinct from him or her. It is the opposite of the ego. In philosophy, otherness refers to being another, positioning oneself or constituting oneself as another. When we deny the other, we reveal the desire to eliminate the otherness present within us. We must overcome our resistance to the other in order to constitute ourselves. The other who threatens me is the same one who liberates me, for only the other holds the secret of who I am. Only others can see our “blind spot”—that part of our personality unknown to us but known to others. Without awareness of who we really are and who we appear to be, we cannot develop the necessary acceptance of our own potential and limitations, which will make it difficult to recognize the other with all their peculiarities. 

The field of education has been attempting to legitimize the practice of embracing differences in its daily operations through sets of ideas and principles that have been given different names on different continents. In Europe, the movement is called “inclusive pedagogy” or “intercultural education.” In the English-speaking world, it is known as “multicultural education,” and in Latin America, the movement is referred to as “education for diversity.”

Regardless of their specific names, these movements highlight the need for an urgent shift in educational attitudes toward differences. In schools, we observe that the “other” is rarely taken into account in the teaching-learning relationship. This exclusion of the other is particularly evident in the learning of concepts—a process that relies on the negotiation of meanings that must take place between teacher and student.

This interaction is effective only when the teacher views the student from a perspective of otherness, using empathy to facilitate the learning of new concepts. We understand empathy as the ability to put ourselves in another person’s shoes and feel what they feel, seeing the world as they see it.

School is the result of centuries of homogenizing policies and efforts. We have learned to be teachers of “equals” and to “level out” differences. We still struggle to understand that differences are the essence of experience and possibility. Recognizing and strengthening identities are the foundation for building a “diverse” school. We must recognize and work through these paradoxes. We must break away from idealized and standardized profiles of students and teachers so that we can truly consolidate a school of differences. We urgently need to develop the ecological function of the curriculum.

More than just a theoretical framework, the curriculum should serve as a catalyst for human relationships. This dynamic should lead to self-organization based on reciprocity among people and between people and their environment. The curriculum must serve as a facilitator of differences, ensuring multicultural expression and the exchange of different perspectives. The contrast between the history told by the colonizers and that told by the colonized is a good example of this diverse conception of the curriculum.

Another homogenizing bias in schools is the epistemological conception stemming from the behavioral paradigm that prevailed (and still prevails) in classrooms. According to this model, learning is the accumulation of knowledge. Knowledge flows from the teacher’s mind and is transferred to the student’s mind through a unidirectional process. The teacher speaks, and the student listens.

Through research conducted over the past few decades, neuroscience has already discovered that, although memory is a fundamental aspect of the learning process, learning is not synonymous with memorization. The brain is composed of dynamic neural-conceptual networks that constantly intertwine in response to stimuli triggered by new concepts that flood our minds at every moment.

Reading, watching movies, and talking with different people are ways to stimulate brain activity and, at the same time, to “de-standardize” the learning process, while respecting the diverse neural-conceptual networks that our students bring with them. The dialogical paradigm must be legitimized through the school’s efforts to open itself up to the necessary dialogue with students in the process of constructing concepts. 

The discourse on diversity is already a familiar concept in schools and to us teachers. We need, however, to recognize its contradictions and read between the lines in order to develop concrete actions in school practices. To paraphrase the poet Beto Guedes, we already know the discourse on practice by heart, but we still have to learn how to put that discourse into practice.

About the author:

Share on social media: