WorkshopDemocracy and Dignity: Reframed as a “lived experience”
1. Organizer:
Research Group B03
Co-organizer: Kobe University, Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Action Research Center for Human and Community Development
2. Date:
March 1, 2026 （Sunday）13:00～17:00
3. Location:
Kobe University, Tsurukabuto Second Campus Building A Floor 2
4. Format:
Format: Face-to-Face (Language: Japanese)
5. Number of Participants:
24
6. Overview and review:
This workshop aimed to reconsider democracy not merely as a system or procedure, but from the perspective of how the dignity of each individual is understood and safeguarded. Researchers in phenomenology, philosophy, education, and political science, alongside practitioners working in educational settings, took the stage, creating a space for dialogue that transcended disciplinary boundaries.
At the opening, moderator Minae Inahara (Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University; this report’s author) outlined the workshop’s purpose, highlighting the need to question how the concept of “dignity” transcends abstract ideals and can be experienced within relational contexts, learning environments, and the concrete practices of social institutions. It was shared that the underlying challenge of this workshop is to reframe democracy as a “lived experience”.
First, Ms. Sato Fujiwara (General Incorporated Association Kotae no Nai Gakko) delivered a presentation entitled ‘Reflecting on Dignity in Danish Folk High Schools (Folkehøjskoler) – Grounded in Grundtvig’s Thought’. Drawing on the practices of Danish folk high schools, Ms. Fujiwara discussed the relationship between dignity and learning. As an intellectual background, the 19th-century Danish thinker Grundtvig was introduced. It was shown that his proposed ideal of a “school for life” underpins an educational approach that does not presuppose competition or selection. Folk high schools are spaces that value “living and learning together” itself, rather than ranking through examinations and grades. Learners are welcomed not as subjects of evaluation, but as active participants in dialogue. It was emphasized that the practice of understanding oneself and others through conversation cultivates experiences of dignity, forming the foundation of democracy.
Ms. Fujiwara also introduced the practices at Egmont Højskolen, a folk high school on Denmark’s Jutland peninsula with which his organization is involved. This boarding school, catering to those aged 18 and over, has approximately 220 students, around 40% of whom have various physical, intellectual, or mental disabilities. A distinctive feature is that students with disabilities utilize the national assistant helper system to employ their non-disabled classmates as helpers. Through sharing daily activities such as meals, personal care, shopping, and travel, a relationship of mutual learning is fostered, rather than a one-way dynamic of support/being supported.
At this school, no subject is inaccessible based on disability status. When participation in a class proves difficult, the teacher, student, and the individual themselves engage in repeated dialogue to jointly consider “how participation can be achieved” and “how challenges can be met”. Classes are established by teachers drawing upon their respective areas of expertise, with the teaching staff also engaging as individuals in the learning process. The school’s guiding principles are “Dignity”, “Solidarity”, and “Self-Determination”. Treating others with respect, while simultaneously respecting oneself, is highly valued. Viewing others as equals, and meeting at eye level when conversing. The faculty constantly strive to avoid looking down upon students. The premise that everyone possesses equal value as human beings, regardless of differences in position, is embodied in daily interactions.
Furthermore, Ms. Fujiwara introduced the Fox Project, one of the initiatives of the School Without Answers, as a practice in Japan. This project began with an encounter between Miku Kadokawa, who has Bowling-Opitz syndrome – a hereditary disorder with only a few reported cases in Japan – and his father. Miku has severe multiple disabilities and cannot speak. It is also difficult to tell from his appearance whether he understands words. However, he gazes in the direction he wants to go, his face lights up when he encounters favorite foods or toys, and he frowns when faced with something unpleasant. During pleasant conversations, he displays a serene expression; his gentle eyes and mouth bring happiness to those around him.
Ms. Fujiwara remarked that Miku is ‘exceptionally adept at communication’. When we look beyond the presence or absence of speech to observe ‘lived expressions’ – such as facial expressions, gaze, and body orientation – a genuine mutuality emerges.
After a year at nursery school, Miku progressed to the local public primary and secondary schools. Standing at around eight years old in height, he interacted actively with his classmates. Upon entering secondary school, he joined the wind ensemble club, where members reportedly practiced diligently aiming for his smile. He subsequently progressed to a mainstream high school, gaining many friends. His journey demonstrates the potential to learn and grow together within the local community, rather than being segregated into specialized settings.
Through the presence of Miku and many other children with disabilities, the Fox Project challenges the binary distinction of ‘understandable/non-understandable’. “can/cannot” dichotomies. Dignity is not something granted based on the degree of ability. When we stand on the premise that everyone is already an irreplaceable being, the nature of education and society can change significantly. Ms. Fujiwara’s report, moving back and forth between Danish practices and specific Japanese examples, challenged participants not only to speak of dignity as an ideal, but also to consider how it can be embodied within everyday relationships.
Next, Dr. Kei Nishiyama (Faculty of Education, Kaichi International University) began his report entitled “Why Did Trump Invite Children to the White House? A Childism Reconsideration of Children’s Voices”. At the outset, he stated that while he is not a specialist researcher on ‘dignity’, he would attempt to connect with the theme of this workshop from his position of having researched the political asymmetry between adults and children in the public sphere.
The subject of his report was the case of Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States, inviting children to the White House. Dr. Nishiyama’s interest lies in how the presence of children is signified when they appear in political situations. He has analyzed the political asymmetry between adults and children in the public sphere from both the institutional level (macro) and the level of everyday interaction (micro).
Not only are children excluded in principle from the institutional framework of voting rights and eligibility for election, but in everyday political discourse, children are often referred to merely as ‘those who must be protected’ or ‘the bearers of the future’.
What is presented here is the ideological position of childism. However, this is neither a simple affirmative argument that ‘everything children say is correct’ nor an ideology in which adults speak on behalf of children. Rather, it constitutes a critical perspective that re-examines the structures of society and politics we take for granted, from the standpoint of children. What emerges is the pervasive “adult-centredness” embedded throughout society, and the question of how this impacts children’s rights and dignity. What is being questioned is not so much children themselves, but the gaze with which we adults view them.
The report further examines the conditions under which children’s presence is welcomed. Children are often symbolically mobilized at political events, but this is frequently only when they behave as adults expect. Children who deviate from these expectations – such as young activists making strong statements on climate change – become targets of criticism or ridicule as “those who do not know their place”. Children are lauded only to the extent that they embody “innocence” or “the future”; when they assert themselves as present political subjects, their voices are frequently deemed excessive or inappropriate.
Dr. Nishiyama then posed the following question: why do those in power believe they can justify the strategic use of children, despite it being clear that they do not sufficiently listen to “children’s voices”? Where does the political theoretical basis for this lie? The reference here is to social contract theory, which has shaped the foundations of dignified political existence for humans. Social contract theory is based on the premise that rational, autonomous individuals enter into a contract. However, re-examining this framework from a child’s perspective reveals that children, who cannot be contracting parties, are easily placed outside the sphere of political subjectivity. Consequently, a structure emerges where the instrumental and strategic use of children by adults can be theoretically justified.
Towards the end of the report, the question was posed as to what implications these discussions hold for the dignity of children in democracy. It concerns not merely positioning children as “future citizens”, but recognizing them as beings living within the political world here and now. In this context, dignity becomes a concept not conferred under the guise of protection, but rather one tied to being acknowledged as subjects who voice opinions and engage. Dr. Nishiyama’s presentation visualized the adult-centric structure latent within democracy’s premises, offering a new critical perspective on the discourse surrounding dignity.
Following a break, Dr. Yoko Arisaka (University of Hildesheim) delivered a presentation titled “Blind Spots in Democracy Revealed by Examining the Dignity of Intersectional Subjects”. Dr. Arisaka began by developing her argument from the concept of “intersectionality”. Intersectionality posits that human identity is not constituted by a single identity, but rather formed at the points where multiple social attributes—such as gender, race, class, sexuality, and disability—intersect. This concept emerged from Black feminist activism in the 1970s, proposed to visualize diverse experiences in contrast to traditional feminism, which had been premised on white middle-class women. From an intersectional perspective, it is argued that humans cannot be understood through a single, essentialist definition such as ‘I am XX’. Furthermore, human experience is not a matter of abstract concepts but something lived concretely and materially within daily life practices. Therefore, intersectionality is not merely a theory but a concept linked to social movements and practice. Next, Dr. Arisaka outlined the ideological background of democracy and liberalism.
European Enlightenment thought from the 17th century onwards championed ideals such as individual liberty, human rights, dignity, equality, and respect for diversity, positioning “humanity” as a universal subject. Here, the individual—respected as a “person” irrespective of gender, race, class, or disability—was established as the fundamental unit of society. Democracy was conceived as the political form safeguarding this individual’s dignity and rights through law. This ideology holds historical significance in overcoming feudalism and religious/monarchical rule, exerting a profound influence on contemporary theories of justice. For instance, the arguments of Immanuel Kant and John Rawls are developed upon this premise of the universal individual. Moreover, it was precisely this ideology that provided the theoretical underpinning for movements such as the American civil rights movement of the 1960s.
However, this ideology also possessed historical limitations. Dr. Arisaka pointed out the significant gap between “equality” as an ideal and the inequalities that exist. The “individual” envisioned by modern democracy was, in practice, a limited subject centered on white male landowners. Women and people of color were long denied recognition as legal subjects, treated instead as slaves or possessions within families. Thus, while the ideal of the universal individual is important, historically it was tied to structures of exclusion.
From this, Arisaka presented the “paradox of equality”. While the abstract ideal of human
equality is comprehensible, the institutional inequalities and discrimination experienced by real people cannot be fully explained within this framework. Because actual society contains diverse differences based on intersectionality, a completely abstracted “human individual” does not exist. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the concept of legal equality tends to treat inequality as exceptional. Consequently, discourses such as ‘We are all equal, so special treatment is unnecessary’ or ‘Minorities are seeking privilege’ emerge, obscuring institutional discrimination.
Within this context, Dr. Arisaka introduced the concept of ‘phenomenological violence’. This refers to the phenomenon where the difficulties and inequalities experienced by those directly affected are not socially understood, but rather individualized and internalized as problems of the individuals themselves. For instance, statements like ‘Since society is equal, isn’t this just a matter of your perception?’ can negate or externally define the experiences of those affected. Furthermore, treating those experiencing inequality as “exceptions” or ‘special cases’ silences their voices. In such circumstances, the experiences of the majority are deemed ‘normal,’ while those of minorities are treated as abnormal or personal issues.
Dr. Arisaka pointed out that intersectionality is precisely the perspective needed to visualize this structure. Intersectionality is not merely a theoretical framework; it is also a method for understanding the lived experiences of those directly affected as issues within social structures. To make the ideals of equality and dignity championed by democracy substantive, we must look not only at the abstract “universal human” but also at the differences and inequalities experienced within concrete lived realities. From this perspective, Dr. Arisaka raised the necessity of re-examining the very framework of the “standard subject” that democratic institutions have presupposed. Listening to the intersectional experiences of those directly affected provides a crucial opportunity to reconstruct democratic ideals into something more substantive.
Subsequently, Dr. Inahara delivered a report titled “For Whom is Reasonable Accommodation? – Dignity and Democracy as Seen from the Lived Experiences of People with Disabilities”. In recent years, the concept of “reasonable accommodation” has become widely shared within Japanese society. Notably, the Act on the Elimination of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, enacted in 2016, established the removal of social barriers as a legal obligation. The April 2024 amendment further mandated private sector providers to offer reasonable accommodation. Consequently, concrete implementation of such accommodations is now required in schools, workplaces, and public spaces, signaling progress towards an inclusive society.
However, alongside this, voices from those directly affected suggest that such accommodations do not always function as intended. Support provided with ‘good intentions’ can sometimes misalign with the individual’s wishes or life context, inadvertently creating burdens or feelings of alienation. The issue here lies less with the goodwill itself and more with the gap between that goodwill and the lived experience of the individual. The issue lies not in the presence or absence of consideration, but in its quality – specifically, whether it aligns with the lived experience of the individual concerned.
This report re-examines this discrepancy from a phenomenological perspective. Phenomenology emphasizes an attitude of attentiveness to the unique experiential world of the other, rather than reducing them to pre-established categories. When reasonable accommodation is provided based on stereotypical notions of “disability”, it risks overlooking the concrete experiences of the individual. Moreover, the framework of ‘helping’ often conceals an unconscious hierarchy. If the supporter becomes the subject and the supported is positioned as a passive entity, dignity is not sufficiently guaranteed.
Furthermore, drawing on American educational philosopher John Dewey’s theory of democracy, the report reframed reasonable accommodation as more than an institutional obligation. For Dewey, democracy was not merely the name of an electoral system, but a way of life where people with different experiences reconfigure society through dialogue. From this perspective, reasonable accommodation is not the application of a pre-determined solution. It is an ongoing practice of re-framing questions alongside those directly affected, and reconfiguring environments and relationships.
The report organized issues surrounding reasonable accommodation through the tensions between stereotypes and lived experience, the binary opposition of “helping/being helped”, and perspectives on dignity and democracy. What became clear is that reasonable accommodation is not merely a matter of complying with systems, but a challenge concerning fundamental attitudes – how we understand others as beings. While there is no simple answer to the question ‘For whom is reasonable accommodation intended?’, it is certain that it must not exist for the reassurance or self-satisfaction of those providing support.
Reasonable accommodation is not a measure to ‘protect’ dignity from the outside; it is the endeavor to embody within society the reality that people are subjects who speak for themselves, make choices, and participate. Therefore, the question we should be asking is not ‘What can we do for them?’, but ‘How can we weave together the conditions for living together?’ It was demonstrated that keeping this question open, rather than closing it, is the path to ensuring dignity is not merely an ideal, but that democracy takes root as an everyday practice.
In the final plenary dialogue, following the four reports, a lively exchange of responses took place between the speakers and the floor. Points raised from different levels – conceptual examination, challenges in institutional design, educational practice, and the lived experiences of those directly affected – overlapped through questioning, creating a three-dimensional space for discussion. Questions were shared about the significance and limitations of positioning dignity within law and institutions, how to translate reasonable accommodation into concrete daily relationships, and how to receive the “voices that cannot be voiced”. The discussion repeatedly moved between theory and practice.
In one exchange, it was pointed out that codifying and institutionalizing dignity, while advancing rights protection, simultaneously carries the risk of oversimplifying the complexity of individual experiences. Elsewhere, concrete innovations and initiatives within educational settings were introduced, confirming that these constitute collaborative efforts to establish conditions for learning and participation, rather than mere “special treatment”. Furthermore, experiences of engaging with individuals with severe disabilities highlighted how dignity emerges within relationships, regardless of verbal communication, revealing dimensions that cannot be captured by systems or principles alone.
These diverse perspectives did not clash but rather resonated complementarily. Principles are concretized through practice, and practice is guided by principles. Institutional frameworks are indispensable, yet whether they align with lived experience must be continually verified through ongoing dialogue. In this sense, the discussions on reasonable accommodation and dignity were not a forum for sharing definitive answers, but the very process of continually renewing the questions.
This workshop was an attempt to reconsider the broad theme of “Democracy and Dignity”, not as an abstract ideal, but by traversing multiple layers: experience, institutions, and educational practice. Through responses from the floor, a shared understanding emerged: dignity is not something bestowed, but something regenerated within relationships with others. It was reaffirmed that the very act of people from different positions and experiences bringing their questions together and engaging in repeated dialogue is the path to rooting democracy, not as an ideal, but as an everyday practice.
(Text by Minae Inahara)