The aim of this research project, to identify and unfold the shortcomings of inclusion discourses, is not limited to disability, but also includes the notion of ageism in socio-cultural and educational realms (Formosa, 2002; Nelson, 2011).
As Biesta (2006b) argues, the discourses, policies, and practices of lifelong learning today strongly rely on economic imperative, thus neglecting the value of lifelong education in terms of personal fulfillment, active citizenship, and social inclusion.
In other words, “the discourse of lifelong learning seems to have shifted from
‘learning to be’ to ‘learning to be productive and employable’” (p. 172). Biesta and others (2011) have criticized this particular policy language of lifelong learning as having lost the focus of education as personally and socially meaningful, and emphasizing the utilitarian idea of learning as a means of economic growth and global competitiveness, and how aging individuals could become more efficient, more competent, and more useful to the society (Biesta et al, 2011; Biesta, 2006b).
Furthermore, social psychologists Cuddy and Fiske (2002) assert how easily “we disparage elderly people without fear of censure” (p. 3), in other words, forming stereotypes based on a person’s age has been less problematized, compared to gender, racial, ethnic, or religious stereotyping. Moreover, as aging is naturally
something that no one can avoid, critical considerations of the marginalization of older people address issues of intersectionality, as stated in a research report on addressing these inequalities:
When considering issues of inequality, there is a danger of focusing too much on which ‘groups’ are marginalized in relation to others: While it may be possible to identify a general inequality between for example men and women, or between persons with disabilities and non-disabled people, this can lead to generalizations about the heterogeneity of each group, and assumptions about individuals within that group. This approach can also lead to the creation of long lists of excluded groups which must then be prioritized, thereby giving some issues less weight than others.
It is more helpful and relevant to recognize that inequality derives from multiple and intersecting factors including geographical location, ethnicity, age, disability and gender. Old age, disability and mental health issues function in this way – each represents a ‘cross-cutting factor’ in its own right, and there is often convergence between them across the life course as they combine to intensify inequality. (Cain, 2012).
Similarly framed by critical pedagogy, scholars have argued how older persons are categorized to a marginal position in relation to their age (Jones, 2006;
Nelson, 2011). Hence, they have the possibility to empower themselves from the oppressive, discriminatory position only if the adult educational practice distances itself from the functionalist and psychological paradigms (Shor, 1992). As an alternative to the narrow language and conceptualization of adult education, Formosa (2002) has launched the concept of critical gerogogy, suggesting a critical, pragmatic perspective on “reconstruction of thought and action in the lived experience of older people” (p. 74) as the primary guideline for teaching practice that may help educators dismantle marginalizing discourse in adult education.
His theory is drawn from political appeals of older adult education and critical gerontology, claiming that meaningful learning experiences for older people will not be achieved by ‘occupation therapy’, but only through transformative education with liberative, emancipatory aims (Ibid.).
Whilst it is fair to assume that education is primarily tied to the basic the school system, taking a broader perspective on the entitlement of learning and agency throughout the life path demands rethinking the role and participation of older adults within lifelong education (Biesta et al, 2011). Aging is connected with notions of decline, physical weakness, and cognitive incapacity – all of which are certainly true and existing ‘risks’ of getting older, but which are also used to
maintain the social construction of older people as worthless and unproductive to society (Gorman, 2000). Moreover, the concept of third age is used to describe the successful aging of retired citizens with an active lifestyle, without questioning whether the outcomes of that lifestyle are entirely positive (Aspin, Chapman, Evans & Bagnall, 2012). These discourses have an underlying ageist tone that has also been argued to affect adult education surroundings. For example, adult education tends to overlook the larger contributions to agency construction in one’s personal manner throughout the life path (Biesta, Field, Hodkinson, Macleod & Goodson, 2011), which are not predetermined by the new language of learning that, for instance, regards the learner as a consumer (Biesta, 2006a, pp. 15-19).
It is important to note that ageism exists in the helping professions (Nelson, 2011), thus warranting a critical and relational notion to care (Noddings, 2013;
see also Lynch, Baker, Lyons, Feeley, Hanlon, O’Brien, Walsh & Cantillon, 2009) when working with older adults and the frail elderly, particularly in educational surroundings. Nel Noddings (2013) asserts that whilst ethical caring stems from natural caring, it takes into account reciprocality within the relationship between the care-taker and cared-for. This relationship does not assume that everything we do for others they will do the same for us, but rather that the “caring relation”
enriches and transforms the lives of both parties (pp. xvii-xviii). At the same time, however, a power hierarchy within the interrelationship of the care-taker and cared-for remains, which emphasizes the need to avoid unnecessary care dependencies between vulnerable individuals and groups and professionals working in educational contexts with them (Lynch et al, 2009). Indeed, care is essential to education, but may sometimes fortify exclusive and marginalizing processes within lifelong educational realms. The same applies to educational work among persons with disabilities.
As an alternative to the Kantian care ethics as a normative set of rules, philosopher Martha Nussbaum (2011) has constructed a universal humanist theory of human capabilities that presents a different approach to democratic citizenship, especially regarding vulnerable groups in society. Drawing from Amartya Sen’s theory on substantial freedom, which is defined through what an individual is expected to have and able to achieve, Nussbaum argues that to be able to use and nurture one’s capabilities is naturally equivalent to freedom.
By including the notion of freedom of choice in the picture, she rejects the ableist assumptions around the concept of human capability by stating that capabilities are “not just abilities residing inside a person but also the freedoms
or opportunities created by a combination of personal abilities and the political, social, and economic environment” (p. 20). To make the complexity of human capabilities clear, Nussbaum makes a distinction between internal and combined capabilities. Internal capabilities comprise congenital and personal characteristics such as the bodily, intellectual, or emotional traits, but also other essential abilities that are gained through education, such as reading and writing. However, the total functioning of these capabilities necessitates that people have the freedom to choose how, when, and where they use their capabilities in the social, political, and economical contexts. Thus, Nussbaum refers to the notion of human capabilities in their fullest sense as combined capabilities, that call for society to create and promote areas of freedom rather than to make people function in a certain way (pp. 20-25). Furthermore, Nussbaum argues that defining combined as distinct from internal is necessary, because societies often have a utilitarian approach to the measurement and promotion of capability traits that constitutes a problem of distribution and lack of individual agency. The notion of the previously described marginalized position of older citizens brings a pertinent and somewhat paradoxical example of the necessity of the human capability approach, as on one hand, society may have educated the citizens during their life path so that they are capable of exercising internal free speech, critical thinking, and other capabilities, but then denies them free expression and construction of agency in everyday life, thus restraining the choice of using their capabilities after work-life.
On the other hand, caring for older citizens may also turn against humanist good intentions, resulting in the lack of promoting their individual agency, integrity, and empowerment (see Noddings, 2013; Lynch et al, 2009). In sum, this research project critically examines the marginalized conceptualization of both disability and age that often leads to “suspended citizenship” (Hughes, 2001, p. 30) through dependency, stigmatization, and social and political segregation.