gender or group is making the claim. The standard will be to judge whether an act makes sense or not. Subsequently, to attain the level where people listen attentively, Africa needs to educate citizens with such attributes.
Bearing in mind that full inclusion may not be achieved within the human capabilities framework;
the work of Rancière becomes important. If all human beings indeed have similar intellectual skills, then institutions and educators need to create an environment in which all students could unleash their potential and exercise attentive listening in their effort to attain equality. In my view,
“equalisation of voice” is an ideal approach to the inclusion not only of women, but of other excluded groups such as homosexuals. Furthermore, a Rancièrean framework of equality as disruption through a voice is remarkable and could be used as a benchmark for internal inclusion.
This means that being attentive is to be assertive and to disrupt the conversation. In other words, this rich conception offers a sufficient, reconstructed framework that moves beyond an inclusion based on capabilities and gender, to one that recognises human voice in an inclusive democratic HE in Africa, where many women and other marginalised groups aspire to experience humanity.
3.5 Summary: Rethinking Ubuntu as Inclusion and making a Case for the “Equalisation of Voice”
This chapter has explored the conceptions of inclusion and equality put forward by different theorists and tried to understand how AHE includes women. From an African perspective, the notion of Ubuntu could be interpreted as inclusion, because Ubuntu involves communal practices and seeing humanity in others as opportunities for inclusion. Nonetheless, women are still being excluded and, because their voices are not heard, equality is undermined. With respect to a reconstructed notion of Ubuntu as inclusion, one finds that the concept can promote internal inclusion. The chapter has also noted that internal exclusion is prevalent in AHE. Young (2000) proposes a communicative approach that is based on greeting, rhetoric and narrative to address internal exclusion. I have argued that the framework does not seem to enable AHE to mitigate women’s exclusion, especially in view of African cultural practices that disregard women and relegate them to inferior positions. I have examined Nussbaum’s capabilities approach as a possible means of mitigating internal exclusion. Conversely, using capabilities as a standard for inclusion can lead to exclusion in AHE, because women, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, often lack the ability to claim and exercise their freedom. I have used Butler’s (1990) concept of gender-troubled to probe the idea of Ubuntu as inclusion, since it predominantly perceives human beings as gendered beings, that is, as woman and man.
79
However, I contend that a gendered approach may exclude more people who defy the socially constructed categories, such as homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered or intersexed. Since the tendency in educational institutions is to use a single category of woman or man, this study calls for inclusion to transcend a dualist gender category and include all disadvantaged and excluded groups, irrespective of their differences (Tamale, 2011). Hence, I have argued that the views of Young, Nussbaum and Butler in relation to Ubuntu seem to be more liberal, and will cause an African liberal perspective to focus more on individual liberty, which will be insufficient to address the exclusion experienced by women in HE in Africa. The impasse calls for a shift beyond liberal to post-liberal theory, and a Rancièrean perspective of “equalisation of voice” could offer a deconstructed view for advancing women’s inclusion in AHE. Therefore, this chapter argues for an
“equalisation of voice” as a plausible approach for enhancing Ubuntu as inclusion, since it possesses the ability to disrupt inequality and move beyond communication, capabilities and gender. I contend that Ubuntu as inclusion ought to transcend communication, capabilities and gender and move towards voice if substantive inclusion is to happen in AHE. The ensuing chapter will offer evidence of exclusion by doing two things: Firstly, I investigate women‘s experiences of inclusion. Secondly, I ascertain whether the proposition of AHE is commensurable with the
“equalisation of voice” framework propounded in this chapter. The chapter will show that all human beings have the ability to practise Ubuntu; therefore, AHE should include all people’s voices in order to attain substantive inclusion.
80
CHAPTER FOUR
EXAMINING AFRICAN HIGHER EDUCATION DISCOURSES AND THEIR
(IN)COMMENSURABILITY WITH THE NOTION OF INCLUSION AS EQUALISATION OF VOICE
4.1 Introduction
The previous chapter argued that the African worldview of Ubuntu, which denotes inclusion within a communal practice in higher educational institutions, is limited, thus requires a reconstructed liberal framework as an impetus for transformation. Through the liberal lenses of Young (2000) and Nussbaum (2000), AHE should consider a communicative and capabilities approach as a standard for the inclusion of women and other excluded groups. Unlike other liberal scholars, Butler (1990) challenged inclusion based on the traditional gender category of woman and man, since these exclude those who fall outside the category of woman, such as lesbians, transgendered, intersexed and so forth. I echo her view that a gendered form of equality slightly undermines the internal inclusion of those without the capabilities and those who could not be identified within gender categories. An effort to address internal exclusion more substantively requires a move beyond a gendered approach towards a Rancièrean (1999), post-liberal conception of equalisation of voice as a laudable framework to promote inclusion. This framework possesses the ability to disrupt current practices of exclusion that possibly may ignite a move towards substantive inclusion. The edified related meanings of inclusion I argue for in this chapter can be couched in terms of the equalisation of voice: communicative, capabilities-oriented, and non-gendered action towards a maximisation of voice.
Thus, Chapter 4 focuses on two main areas: firstly, examining discourses of AHE in relation to women’s experiences in order to provide evidence for concealed or inherent exclusion within inclusion. Secondly, to ascertain whether or not, women’s experiences of inclusion in such discourses are commensurable with the notion of inclusion as a manifestation of the equalisation of voice. I then shall employ the elements of an equalisation of voice framework as flashlights to explore exclusion in the discourse of AHE. This will happen by looking at three influential monographs by African scholars, particularly their views on women’s experiences in relation to exclusion and equality in HE in a post-colonial Africa. This consideration is premised on the availability of data, leading texts and analyses of women’s experiences of exclusion and inequality in HE on the continent. In conclusion, I shall put forward whether or not the proposition of inclusion in AHE requires a reconstructed approach to propel substantive inclusion via the equalisation of voice. This is what this chapter endeavours to undertake in advancing a reasonable means to
81
recognise the voices of women as equal human beings, not only as Africans but cosmopolitans too – an approach that hopefully will facilitate transformation and justice on the continent.
4.2 Elucidating the equalisation-of-voice framework: communicative, capable and