Frontiers in Education Technology 

Vol. 6, No.2, 2023 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fet 

ISSN 2576-1846 (Print) ISSN 2576-1854 (Online) 

89 
 

Original Paper 

I, You and the Others, among Otherness, 

Diversity and Education 

José Manuel Salum Tomé, PhD.1 

1 Doctor of Education, Catholic University of Temuco, Chile 

 

Received: March 26, 2023      Accepted: April 11, 2023      Online Published: April 24, 2023 

doi:10.22158/fet.v6n2p89          URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/fet.v6n2p89 

 

Abstract 

When one thinks of the other and the other, they are not due to the sameness of power and hegemonies, 

and that this other is identified as a face, there remains the possibility of guiding behavior or ethics, 

along the paths of diversity, understood This is like the discovery of diversity and otherness in 

education, which are the most appropriate ways to understand that one’s own autonomy is in debt, 

under the figure of a hostage. Humanity has embarked on a path that has no possible reserve and this 

consists of opening, via postmodernity, a type of thought that is capable of generating recognition 

scenarios for what is different, as a discovery that greatly benefits everyone. Proposing that otherness 

is the basis on which diversity is built is already then an open path in education and to be followed that 

makes life have more meaning through the ethical recognition of the other and of the other who will 

accompany me in a path of history 

Keywords 

otherness, diversity, education, human rights, recognition, inclusion 

 

1. Introduction 

From the early writings of Descartes, Locke, and Kant to contemporary discussions of mind and brain, 

philosophers have provided strong support for the reality of bounded being. In many ways the hallmark 

of Western philosophy was its presumption of dualism: mind and world, subject and object, self and 

other. Furthermore, the field of philosophy is also nourished by the dispute and while the individualist 

vision of human functioning has been dominant, there are significant escapees, several of whom have 

become textual companions in developing proposals for the relational being. My conviction for 

existentialism led me to the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1970) who, although he placed individual 

consciousness at the center of his thoughts, also postulated a consciousness deeply inhabited by the 

other. From the above, the perception we have of the other contains in itself an awareness of being 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fet                Frontiers in Education Technology                  Vol. 6, No. 2, 2023 

90 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

perceived by the other. When we observe the other during a conversation, for example, we are also 

aware of being observed and both forms of awareness are inextricable. Or, in the same vein, the 

awareness of touching another person embodies in itself the awareness of being touched by another. 

The work of Martin Heidegger (1962) is closely related. As for Merleau-Ponty, much of Heidegger’s 

analysis deals with the phenomenological world of consciousness, and at the same time the latter 

attempted to subvert the traditional subject/object dichotomy, in which conscious subjects are 

contrasted with a world apart from external objects. . For Heidegger consciousness is always 

consciousness of something. If all objects of consciousness are removed, there is no consciousness; if 

all consciousness is removed the objects cease to exist. 

Thus, subject and object are fundamentally coexistent and the insertion of hyphens between the words 

of their fundamental concept, being in the world, works as a visual illustration of the conceptual break 

with the traditional binary model. Although coming from the terrain of American pragmatism, the work 

of John Dewey and Arthur Bentley is consistent with Heidegger’s (1949) innovation of breaking the 

binary model. In their view, there is a mutually constitutive relationship between the person and the 

object (mind and world) and both agreed to replace the traditional interaction view (independent 

objects in a causal relationship with experience) by the concept of transaction. 

Another very important school of thought is the one that emanates from sociological and political 

theory and whose work is especially important for its critique of liberal individualism, both in terms of 

its influence on cultural life and its suitability as an orientation to civil society and society. policy. 

Regarding the data of daily life, the book Habits of the Heart by Robert Bellah (1989) and colleagues is 

fundamental in its significance. The book reveals in detail the insidious implications of individualist 

ideology for human relationships. In addition, it includes the initiatives of the community movement 

led by Amitai Etzioni (1993) and his colleagues. Here the emphasis is placed on the obligations we 

have to the community as opposed to the claims of individual rights. 

On the other hand, the work of the political theorist Michael Sandel (1996) and the philosopher 

Alasdair MacIntyre (1987) adds an important conceptual dimension to this movement as both focus 

attention on the individual’s deep location in relationships and hit on the idea of the gravely flawed 

carefree free agent. All these works have been sources of incalculable value for me, although I express 

some discontent with the value of the favored community as an alternative to individualism. There is 

not only the problem of determining the limits of what constitutes one’s community, but there are 

additional complications resulting from the very establishment of those limits. Educational 

communities are also bounded entities and create the same types of conflicts that attend the public as 

essentially separate. In the case of community commitments such as religious and political the 

consequences can be disastrous. 

At the same time there is an important difference that separates this work from all previous theories 

(except Wittgenstein). All those philosophers have worked in a tradition dedicated to establishing 

foundations, that is, foundations of reason, truth, human nature, ethical value . Fundamentals that are 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fet                Frontiers in Education Technology                  Vol. 6, No. 2, 2023 

91 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

sometimes called first philosophies. In contrast, this writing has no such aspirations, and while the form 

of the writing may sometimes suggest otherwise, my goal is not to articulate what human nature simply 

is or should be. In fact, neither do I claim to be true or precise in traditional terms, but I hope to offer an 

attractive construction of the world, an inviting vision, or an entity of understanding, all materialized or 

embodied in relevant actions. The basis is not a series of marching orders but an invitation to dance. 

 

2. The Pedagogy of Alterity: A Way of Enabling and Understanding the Educational Experience 

of the Present 

Since its inception, pedagogy has been defined as the discipline that, 

Conceptualizes, applies and experiences knowledge related to the teaching of specific 

knowledge in different cultures. It refers both to the teaching processes of the exhibition 

of sciences, as well as to the exercise of knowledge, within the culture (López, Barragán 

and Aguirre, 1990). 

That is to say, pedagogy is specifically in charge of the methods and theories for the understanding of 

the educational matter, of the forms of teaching in educational practices, it is what allows one to reflect 

on the various realities in which the human being is being built as a subject. in continuous training. 

During a good part of the 20th century, different perspectives regarding pedagogy and its teaching 

methods were created and developed; So much so that pedagogical models such as the developmental, 

behavioral, social or traditional appear to be able to give a satisfactory explanation to a portion of that 

educational reality, because, 

Pedagogy has built, from its history, a series of models, as ideal representations of the 

real world of education, to theoretically explain its doing, that is, to understand what 

exists. But these models are dynamic, they transform and can, at a certain moment, be 

imagined to be poured into the real world (González, 1999, p. 48). 

And indeed they have become reality in such a way that, in many cases, they have served for societies 

to take advantage of these models and can become fundamental axes of learning and teaching for the 

transformation of a context for the common good. of all human beings. 

This transformation can be mediated by a relatively new form of teaching, the pedagogy of otherness. 

This educational perspective relies heavily on epistemological constructions of philosophy, and little by 

little it has been generating a wide debate, especially in Chile. This pedagogy has very clear claims 

regarding academic work as such, while what it seeks is the recovery of the word of the other, that 

voice that has been silenced for a long time, for ideological, political reasons, for the eternal conflict 

between the power and the knowledge that is gestated within the classroom, which prevents any human 

being from being able to manifest their logos, their thought, their power in expression. The conception 

of alterity is manifested by an ethical relationship insofar as, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fet                Frontiers in Education Technology                  Vol. 6, No. 2, 2023 

92 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

it is a responsible relationship with the other, and the educator is someone who is 

passionate about the word, about the transmission of the word, about the reception and 

hospitality, about the donation ( Mélich, 2002, p. 51). 

The discourse of alterity in essence offers the possibility that voices, thoughts, argumentative 

constructions and conceptual clarity intermingle within the classroom. This pedagogy is the bearer of 

the Promethean dream, of knowledge that no longer belongs to a single individual, but belongs to many 

men. The word of the other is spilled and drawn with the subjectivities of the others, to create free 

people committed to change and transformation. Thus, 

The incurable melancholy with which students move has its roots in the almost general 

complacency of thinkers or educators in the direction of negativity and suspicion, in the 

silence that they offer as the only answer to the question that students ask and ask 

themselves. about the meaning of life, in the lack of an alternative they find in the face of 

the nihilism of the time, in the inability to grasp the nature of reality that is theirs, in the 

pessimism that surrounds them when they express enthusiasm, passion, desires. When they 

overflow with life, they want to impose castration, submission, and obedience on them. 

They are supposed to train free men, but they make slaves ( Onfray, 1999, p. 53). 

To understand a specific pedagogical model, two aspects must be taken into account: didactics and the 

curriculum. In this sense, these two concepts could be defined to provide clarity and lay the foundations 

of the various conceptions of educational work in a good part of the 20th century and the beginning of 

the 21st century. Because, 

didactics is constituted from the teaching-educational process that takes place in the 

school institution. This process relates the world of life with the world of the school based 

on the goals that a society sets for itself to form a type of man, to which the school 

responds from its didactic strategies, it is much more than just means of teaching (Onfray, 

1999, p. 48). 

Didactics is the discourse through which teaching and the most appropriate ways to transmit knowledge 

have been thought of; and in turn, for the understanding of the different conceptions that the world has 

as a whole. Said conception then corresponds to those forms in which whoever has knowledge projects 

their knowledge to others through strategies that help to understand and explain phenomena, not from 

mere theoretical conceptualization, because that is the task that pedagogy, but as the discourse that is 

directed more specifically towards educational action as such. 

Meanwhile, the other fundamental component in this educational triad is the curriculum, the one that is 

constituted as the predominant course in the construction of procedures and plans that are intended to 

register. Therefore, 

everything that happens at school is its main guide that is built on educational activities 

(...) it is the bridge between the real world and the world of the school; he makes possible 

the relationships between the past of humanity, to bring it to the present of the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fet                Frontiers in Education Technology                  Vol. 6, No. 2, 2023 

93 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

educational act and project the future of the communities; Thus, he establishes a 

multitude of relationships between the old and the new, between the known and the 

unknown, what was and what will be, between everyday knowledge and scientific 

knowledge. The meaning of the educational organization is to curricularize the 

experience of man in the world of life, in such a way that it acquires a formative meaning 

with a specific orientation (Onfray, 1999, p. 50). 

All of the above allows configuring a solid formation in the human being so that he can understand the 

context that he inhabits, and in turn, understand the epistemological diversity that accompanies it. 

With the above, it is possible to begin to configure the different perspectives that have been established 

in terms of educational practices, the different discourses and the specific claims that accompany each 

of the pedagogical models that have wanted to provide answers and satisfy the needs in the field. 

educational. Therefore, it is urgent to talk about the forms of teaching that have had a vast influence 

throughout the 20th century, and have allowed to configure part of the educational tradition. In the first 

instance, the traditional model, 

emphasizes the formation of the character of the students, through religious and moral 

teaching. It is concentrated in content already elaborated, and what the student does is 

learn it from the teacher. In this model, the method and the content, in a certain way, are 

focused on the imitation and emulation of the good example, and whose closest 

incarnation is found in the teacher (Onfray, 1999, p. 122). 

This type of pedagogical vision is still put into practice in societies that, despite the great advances and 

the apparent change in the mentality of its citizens, still fully trust that this method is very effective in 

order to learn the contents of a course. just by the mere repetition of what the teacher says. In this 

model, what prevails in the didactic part is the process where the strategies start from; 

moral and intellectual legacy of humanity, under objectives imposed by tradition; the 

contents are encyclopedic; the methods are broadcasters ; in the forms, the teaching 

process prevails over the learning process, the work of the teacher over that of the 

student; the means are the blackboard and chalk; and the evaluation is rote and 

quantitative (Onfray, 1999, p. 53). 

All this didactic vision remains in many places, but the new tools and processes for understanding the 

world do not allow knowledge to be encoded in mere data or dates, or that learning means repeating 

any number of names of countries or politicians, without that this has a relevant repercussion in the 

social context that each one inhabits. We must reformulate the ways of understanding knowledge, and 

know that it is always necessary to put it into practice so that it continues to be valid and equally useful. 

The behavioral pedagogical model has a very close relationship with certain characteristics of the 

traditional model; however, it has its essential particularities because, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fet                Frontiers in Education Technology                  Vol. 6, No. 2, 2023 

94 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

it was developed in the highest phase of capitalism, with the aim of meticulous shaping of 

the individual’s “productive” conduct. It is based on the setting and control of the 

achievement of "instructional" objectives. 

The parceled transmission of technical knowledge is made, through an experimental 

training that uses the “Educational Technology”. They identify intellectual development 

with learning (Onfray, 1999, p. 122). 

When talking about educational technology here, it refers to the processes that are made effective for 

the teacher through planning and control; It is a purely mechanical method that seeks to make 

knowledge feasible for the growth and improvement of the means of production imposed by the State 

of Chile. 

 

3. Otherness and Diversity 

It is important to clarify that a culture and a pedagogy in Human Rights require, urgently and 

unavoidably, that we focus our attention on two fundamental themes: otherness and diversity. This look 

is not something fortuitous, an academic occurrence, but is the result of a long conceptual journey in 

Human Rights Education, in education for tolerance and non-discrimination, in multicultural education 

and, above all, in a critical look at the reality that we have to live on a daily basis. From now on I must 

point out that, although recently our societies have begun to move along the path of recognition of the 

Other/Other as a legitimate Other/Other and of the existence of cultural and social diversity, the 

challenge that remains to be ahead is complex and the obstacles to overcome are not minor. 

Multireligious character that defines our society has been ignored. Unfortunately, education, from the 

homogenization process, has historically been in charge of reproducing discrimination and intolerance. 

It seems that only now education has decidedly addressed the issue and has sought ways to gradually 

amend this situation, since today it incorporates respect for social, cultural and religious diversity and 

the recognition of the inviolability as part of public policies. of human dignity. 

Insisting on the thesis raised, it is my opinion that in the homogenization and concealment, in the 

invisibility of the Other/Other and in the ignorance of diversity, not only a fundamental right enshrined 

in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is violated, which textually states that “all human beings 

are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and endowed with reason and conscience, they must 

behave fraternally towards one another”, but also makes it difficult and why not say it impossible to 

build a democratic, tolerant and non-discriminatory society. 

In short, alterity and diversity are necessary conditions to build a culture and a democratic, inclusive 

and respectful coexistence of people’s rights. The mission of education is to deliver knowledge, 

contribute to the development of attitudes and, above all, reinforce in students those social skills that 

allow them to relate as citizens of the same humanity in the recognition of the Other/Other as legitimate 

Other/Other. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fet                Frontiers in Education Technology                  Vol. 6, No. 2, 2023 

95 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4. Otherness 

The relationship of alterity, especially referring to culture and the pedagogy of Human Rights, requires 

crossing philosophical, epistemological and educational borders that require research in a highly 

complex field. I will only try to give some brushstrokes, with the good understanding that concepts will 

remain hinted at and open to dialogue and reflection. 

First of all, and based on the thought of Emmanuel Levinas (2000), I will point out that recognizing the 

Other/Other as a legitimate Other/Other is an ethical position and not an ontological one. For Levinas, 

after Auschwitz the philosophical concern —I would add, also the pedagogical one— cannot be 

remitted to the “ways of being”, “to the understanding of being”, but to ethics, that is to say, to the 

relationship of being with the Other/Other, with the responsibility with the Other/Other, to the 

encounter with the Other/Other. Responsibility at Levinas is: 

“The essential, first, fundamental structure of subjectivity, since it is in ethical terms that 

I describe subjectivity. Ethics here does not come as a supplement to a previous 

existential base; it is in ethics understood as responsibility, where the very knot of the 

subjective is tied (...) Responsibility, as responsibility towards the Other/Other, as. Well, 

as a responsibility for what is not my business or does not even concern me; or that 

precisely concerns me, is addressed by me. like Face”. 

Levinas’s response, in my opinion, a central element in his position must be rescued: what it is to be a 

man. For him, being a man means not being, living in a human way, communicating, going out of his 

way for the other Other/Other. He even maintains that responsibility reaches the level of being 

responsible for the responsibility of the Other/Other, it is up to me... Since the responsibility towards 

the Other/Other is part of the essence of the subject, it is something that cannot be waived. The self is 

“hostage” of the Other/Other. As Levinas (2000) makes clear: “Responsibility is not a simple attribute 

of subjectivity as if it already existed in itself, before the ethical relationship. Subjectivity is not a for 

itself; it is initially for the other. The other is not close to me simply in space, or close as a relative, but 

essentially approaches me insofar as I feel responsible for him. 

As we pointed out, responsibility is linked to the Other/Other. The question is who is that Other/Other? 

In terms of Hans Georg Gadamer (1976), the philosopher of modern hermeneutics, the knowledge of 

the Other/ Other refers to the Other/Other not as an “instrument”, as someone who can be used for 

one’s own purposes, who can become visible or invisible . arbitrarily. 

The Other/Other is not the “analog” either, which is considered as different, but always with reference 

to myself, a reflection of myself. For Gadamer (1976), the knowledge of the Other/Other is that of 

“opening”, when one allows oneself to speak for the Other/Other. It implies “the recognition that I may 

be willing to allow myself to assert itself. something against me, even if there is no one else who is 

going to assert it against me”. 

The general tendency has been to reduce the Other/Other to the same thing, or to use it for certain ends 

or purposes in many cases in ignorance of the Other/Other or hiding the true intentions of the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fet                Frontiers in Education Technology                  Vol. 6, No. 2, 2023 

96 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

relationship. Reducing the Other/Other to myself is not only violence, but domination, it is exercising 

an undue and arbitrary power over the Other/Other. It is, ultimately, annihilating diversity by 

subsuming it to homogeneity. 

For Levinas, the direct relationship with the Other/Other does not mean thematizing it, considering it a 

knowable object or someone to whom I communicate knowledge. If you want to preserve the 

Other/Other, you cannot reduce it to an object of knowledge or be experienced from an “ egological ” 

position. 

In short, alterity and diversity are necessary conditions to build a culture and a democratic, inclusive 

and respectful coexistence of people’s rights. 

 

5. Diversity 

Diversity is part of the transformation process that the discourse of modernity is undergoing and that 

some have called the discourse of postmodernity, which is the “announcement of a new era, after 

modernity.” There are those who consider that the discourse of modernity; characterized as a unifying 

and totalizing hegemonic discourse, typical of enlightenment and instrumental reason, begins to run 

out. 

Others, in a more open position, perceive the current time as a seminal time, in which great cultural 

transformations are taking place. In this context, José Joaquín Brunner identifies neo-community 

ideologies within modernity that respond to the experience of communities made up of autonomous 

individuals (or whose liberation is postulated) and thus differ from the structures of traditional 

communities, which are characterized by being hierarchical, with traditional forms of domination, 

whose legitimacy rested on the sanctity of inherited powers. The prevailing rationality in 

neo-community ideologies is communicative rather than instrumental: it seeks to build identities and 

integrate the individual into an association that mobilizes its own resources to realize its value. Says 

Brunner (1992); 

“Frequently these ideologies are linked to social groups ‘disinherited’ by modernization, 

whose rights they proclaim and whose condition they seek to transform or liberate. But at 

the same time, these ideologies reach expressions that appeal to various groups that are 

at the center of modernity: communities of life, generational and gender groups, 

de-professionalization movements, certain religious movements, therapeutic communities, 

“counter cultures”. “of diverse nature in the fields of health, food, the use of appropriate 

technologies, “communication” of knowledge”. 

In short, we are witnessing the emergence of a wide variety of identities that some have defined as 

“post-materialist” and which include, for example, environmental groups, the elderly, groups that fight 

for tolerance and non-discrimination, rights defense groups: women, indigenous, homosexuals and 

lesbians, among others. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fet                Frontiers in Education Technology                  Vol. 6, No. 2, 2023 

97 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Diversity presupposes questioning conformism, social asymmetries and, also, injustices. In this sense, 

the message of diversity is not neutral. 

Assuming diversity as a relationship means, for now, accepting inter and multiculturalism as a new 

paradigm of social organization where concepts such as social responsibility, active citizenship, 

empowerment, participation citizenship and deliberative democracy are redefined and invigorated. 

Diversity occurs in the most diverse fields: social, cultural, philosophical, religious, moral and political 

Diversity, which is sometimes defined as plurality, is a factual fact of every society in which there is a 

mismatched variety of beliefs, convictions, feelings and points of view about issues that are important 

as the origin and purpose of human life; the relationship of man with a possible divinity; the idea of a 

good life and the necessary means to achieve it; organization and distribution of power. 

Now, as I have pointed out, historically there have been serious attempts to deny diversity, to hinder its 

growth and expressiveness, to stigmatize it as a phenomenon that could jeopardize the survival of a 

unitary social project. Sometimes it is usually hidden, made invisible, even combated and eliminated. 

Totalitarian, authoritarian and dictatorial regimes have been characterized precisely by these 

anti-diversity behaviors . Think, for example, of Nazi racism that used the physical elimination of all 

those who did not agree with the criteria of the “superior race”; in the military dictatorships of Latin 

America that prescribed, with the use of force and the violation of fundamental rights, all political 

manifestations that did not conform to the security project; in the regimes of the countries that 

prohibited, concealed and sanctioned those cultural manifestations that moved away from the official 

canons. 

All these attempts to suppress diversity have been accompanied by severe violations of human dignity 

and Human Rights. The diversity of different cultural and social groups (with discontinuous times but 

which are simultaneously present, the existence of a culture integrated by diverse traditions) is and has 

been a characteristic of the Latin American world. Multiethnicity, multireligiousness, multiculturalism 

and multiclass have been and still are present in the history of Latin America . However, the tendency 

has been to deny diversity: to homogenize it, fragment it, marginalize it, disseminate it, make it 

invisible . In the name of order, of national unity, of “modernizing” and “civilizing” desires, not only 

has diversity been denied and rejected, but it has also been fought and censored. 

One of the most severe manifestations of the denial of diversity is and has been that of discrimination, 

built on prejudices and irrational stereotypes that have been installed in the culture, in attitudes and 

behaviors in a very profound way. 

Historical reasons of the most different nature have led to certain groups of people being intensely 

threatened or violated in their rights and have been subjected to very severe discrimination in an 

institutionalized and systematic manner. 

This is the case for women, people of color, Jews, certain minority religious groups, gays and lesbians, 

the disabled, the poor, youth, and the elderly. This situation has originated (and why not say it, has 

required) the elaboration of a series of international instruments tending to prohibit and eradicate 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fet                Frontiers in Education Technology                  Vol. 6, No. 2, 2023 

98 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

systematic discrimination. In this regard, special measures have been adopted with the sole purpose of 

accelerating the de facto equality of these groups (positive action). 

 

6. Otherness, Condition of Diversity 

It could be said that alterity is a necessary condition, although not a sufficient one, for the diversity 

relationship. There is no possibility of relating to diversity if there is no capacity, firstly, to recognize 

the Other/Other as a legitimate Other/Other, and secondly, if there is no responsibility, assumption, 

apprehension of the Other/Other as Face. 

In the invisibility, in the concealment, in the silencing of the Other/Other, the relationship of diversity is 

impracticable. In the same way, if the Other/Other becomes an Equal, if it is subsumed into the Same, if 

it is anagolized, if it is instrumentalized... the diversity relationship is distorted, it becomes a deceitful 

relationship, devoid of opportunities for development and growth. This happens, for example, when the 

different is folklorized, when there are no opportunities for diversity to manifest itself in its fullness; 

when the diverse is hierarchical, establishing levels of superiority. That is, when it is said: I accept 

diversity, but there are diverse and diverse! 

Now, the relationship of diversity with the responsibility of the Other/Other is due, in my opinion, to 

understanding how a relationship with the Other/Other is a plural: a we-us, a you-you, a they-them. It is 

the Face in plural9. Consequently, in my opinion, we will always be related to Others/Others, with a 

multiplicity of Others/Others. In an open society, like the one we want to build, we will always be in 

the presence of many Others/Others. It is a relationship that is assigned to us, embraces us, embraces us, 

understands us. We cannot, even if we would like to, unless we get into a barrel, a ghetto, a tunnel of 

self-solitude, of self-exclusion, do without diversity. It is imposed on us. Therefore, we will have to live 

with it. But this coexistence cannot be one of imposition, but of commitment; it cannot be an obligation, 

but a bond; It cannot be an inevitable fatalism, nor can it be an approximation as an object of 

knowledge that is expressed in the phrase: how beautiful is diversity! 

Levinas alluded. A responsibility without reciprocity. A responsibility with the Others/Others that 

enriches me and us, but that is not conditioned to this enrichment. A responsibility with the 

Others/Others, despite the fact that sometimes they are distant from my own identity. It is the search for 

approximations, for communication, even if it means breaking some of my own identity schemes. In a 

responsibility with a breakdown, with a breakdown of my identity, but without abandoning it. 

I would like to return to what was stated in the introduction and point out that from the perspective of 

the cultural and pedagogical implantation of a single-national model, education has historically been 

characterized by having transmitted a scheme of meanings and symbolic representations that 

correspond to the culture of the culturally dominant groups in society. In this way, the diverse character 

that makes up our society has been ignored. This ignorance has been charged, in a notorious way, by 

the disqualification and devaluation of any cultural manifestation that moves away from the 

homogenizing nucleus, in which all kinds of prejudices have been engendered that have resulted in 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fet                Frontiers in Education Technology                  Vol. 6, No. 2, 2023 

99 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

discrimination deeply installed in the national being of our countries. The amount of prejudice that has 

been raised against all those who deviate from the dominant culture is unknown to no one. 

However, it should be noted that from public policies, I think, for the first time, a frontal criticism of 

the reproductive nature of education regarding inequalities, inequity, and social injustices has been 

made. It has been verified that discrimination, ethnocentrism, marginalization and homogenization 

have been predominant characteristics of the educational service. 

However, the road ahead is long. The question is how this discourse becomes a consistent educational 

practice, in a culture in a pedagogy of diversity and otherness. Without wishing to simplify, I think that 

Human Rights Education has a very important proactive role to play in this regard. For now, it is 

essential that you identify and point out that diversity is a right enshrined in multiple national and 

international instruments. It requires linking this right with another series of social, cultural, economic 

and political rights and showing the tensions that the validity of these rights has in a society that 

promotes homogenization for the purpose of domination. 

Certainly, Human Rights Education based on the recognition of the Other/Other and on the respect and 

promotion of social, cultural and religious diversity is a long road, but not impossible. 

In short, alterity and diversity are necessary conditions to build a culture and a democratic, inclusive 

and respectful coexistence of people’s rights. The mission of social education is to deliver knowledge, 

contribute to the development of attitudes and, above all, reinforce in students those social skills that 

allow them to relate as citizens of the same humanity in recognition of diversity. 

 

7. Conclusion 

The educational and pedagogical tradition has bequeathed us many things, some of which it is 

necessary to forget and others that it is peremptory to maintain. Therefore, the question arises as to 

whether a conception of training anchored and established in presuppositions from long ago could still 

be preserved, or whether the dynamics of society as a whole provide the essential characteristics for the 

activation of another way of conceiving reality. 

Due to the above, it is possible that the pedagogy of alterity could become, over time, a proposal that 

favorably stimulates teaching and learning practices, thanks to its conception centered on dialogue and 

thought, with its assumptions. conceptual and epistemological that offer diverse variants in front of the 

formative task, leaving aside the perpetuation of an activity that is energized in most cases by an 

incessant tension between power and knowledge, forgetting the word and experience as firm builders of 

a change of perspective for our own educational daily life. 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fet                Frontiers in Education Technology                  Vol. 6, No. 2, 2023 

100 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

References 

Arellano, A. (2005). Education in weak and uncertain times. Barcelona: Anthrophos. 

Barcena, F. (2001). The mute sphinx. Learning pain after Auschwitz. Barcelona: Anthrophos . 

Barcena, F., & Melich, J. (2000). Education as an ethical event. Birth, narration and hospitality. 

Barcelona: Paidos. 

Brunner, J. J. (1992). “Cartographies of Modernity”, Editorial Dolmen. The Liberty of the Moderns, p. 

49. This work was published in Estudios Públicos, No. 46, Santiago, Chile, p. 56-57. 

Gadamer, H. G. (1976). The hermeneutic circle and the problem of prejudices. Theory. University of 

Chile. 

González, E. (1999). Contemporary Pedagogical Currents. Medellin: University of Antioquia. 

Larrosa, J. (2003). The experience of reading. Literature studies and training. Mexico: Fund of 

economic culture. 

Levinas, E. (1991). Ethics and infinity. Madrid: The raft of the jellyfish. 

Levinas, E. (2002). Ethics and Infinity, Rógar Graphics, SA Madrid, Spain, second edition. 

López, P., Barragán, B., & Aguirre, Y. (1990). Pedagogy module. Medellin: Funlam. 

Magendzo, K. A. (2003). Manual of Tolerance and Non-Discrimination. IDEAS Foundation, Editorial 

LOM. 

Magendzo, K. A. (2004). From views and messages to Human Rights Education. Editorial LOM. 

Magendzo, K. A., & Toledo, M. I. (2004). Bullying among students. Editorial LOM. 

Melich, J. (2002). Philosophy of finiteness. Barcelona: Herder. 

Not, L. (1983). The pedagogies of knowledge. Mexico: Fund of economic culture. 

Onfray, M. (1999). The desire to be a volcano. Buenos Aires: profile books. 

Skliar, C., & Larrosa, J. (2009). Experience and otherness in education. Santa Fe: Homo Sapiens 

Editions. 

Squella, A. (2000). Plurality, pluralism and tolerance in today’s society. In Pluralism, Society and 

Democracy: The Wealth of Diversity (p. 447). Felipe Herrera Foundation Collection, Santiago de 

Chile.