THE GOVERNMENTALIZATION OF LEARNING AND THE ASSEMBLAGE OF A LEARNING APPARATUS

Abstract In this essay, Maarten Simons and Jan Masschelein reconsider the concepts “educationalization” and “the grammar of schooling” in the light of the overwhelming importance of “learning” today. Doubting whether these concepts and related historical‐analytical perspectives are still useful, the authors suggest the concept “learning apparatus” as a point of departure for an analysis of the “grammar of learning.” They draw on Michel Foucault’s analysis of governmentality to describe how learning has become a matter of both government and self‐government. In describing the governmentalization of learning and the current assemblage of a ”learning apparatus,” Simons and Masschelein indicate how the concept of learning has become disconnected from education and teaching and has instead come to refer to a kind of capital, to something for which the learner is personally responsible, to something that can and should be managed, and to something that must be employable. Finally, the authors elaborate how these discourses combine to play a crucial role in contemporary advanced liberalism that seeks to promote entrepreneurship.     

Can Education Still be Critical?

The article investigates how two different conceptions of the edifying potential of education attempt to take into account the normative dimension of scientific knowledge. In the first conception it is the demand for truth that is edifying, whereas in the second concept it is a distinctively ethical demand. It is argued that the first concept in the end implies the subjection of education to the 'brutality of facticity', under which it risks losing its critical point. The second conception, drawing on Levinas and Arendt, tries to safeguard this critical point. It conceives education as a process through which scientific knowledge is made subject to reflection, and is thus confronted with the ethical challenges and demands of society.     

Education as Invitation to Speak: On the Teacher Who Does Not Speak

As a response to Le Fils, a film directed by the Dardenne brothers ( 2002 ), we explore the idea of speaking as an invitation and juxtapose it against ideas of speaking as a transactional, calculative, calibrated, activity. Speaking tends to be understood as a relatively straightforward matter: as a means of communication structured by such values as the reciprocal balancing of rights and obligations, of clear communication of information, of the gaining of insight into what is happening. Speaking, then, is a means by which we explain, prove or pass judgement on something. Understood this way, it is easily associated with ideas of empowerment or of the mediation of information: one directs or commits oneself to a (shared) orientation—for example to what Jürgen Habermas refers to as ‘communicative reason’. It presupposes a particular attitude of the subject; speaking that addresses the listener and the speaker herself in the name of an orientation or particular expertise to which access is claimed. In this article, by contrast, we would like to explore a different avenue of thought whereby speaking appears rather as an abandoning or exposing of oneself. It is less an activity than a passivity or passion, through which one becomes present in the present, which is at once also a kind of invitation. In exploring this form of speaking, we take up some ideas of Martin Buber. Our discussion relates speaking to being inspiring and being inspired, revealing in the process the way that to be inspiring is at the same time to be inspired. Speaking as invitation, we conclude, is what education is about.     

Page,text and screen in the university: Revisiting the Illich hypothesis

In the age of web 2.0, the university is constantly challenged to re-adapt its ‘old-fashioned’ pedagogies to the new possibilities opened up by digital technologies. This article proposes a rethinking of the relation between university and (digital) technologies by focusing not on how technologies function in the university, but on their constituting a meta-condition for the existence of the university pedagogy of inquiry. Following Ivan Illich’s idea that textual technologies played a crucial role in the inception of the university, we will first show the structural similarities between university thinking and the text as a profanation of the book. Secondly, we describe university thinking as a type of critical thinking based on the materiality of the text-on-the-page, explaining why the text has been at the centre of university pedagogy since the beginning. In the third part, we show how Illich came to see the end of the culture of the text as a challenge for the university, by describing the new features of the text-as-code incompatible with the idea of reading as study. Finally, we challenge this pessimistic reading of Illich’s and end with a call for a profanatory pedagogy of digital technologies that could mirror the revolutionary thinking behind the mediaeval invention of the text.     

World and Life or Education and the Question of Meaning (of Life)

The ambiguous meaning of the concept of life is considered by recalling along with Hannah Arendt the old distinction between zoé and bios. Life as bios is the life of someone and always intrinsically relational and worldly, thus bound to the existence of a world. The first question for life as bios being not happiness, but meaning. Life as zoé, as bare life — sacred to the credo of our time and constituting the silent premise underlying much social theory and philosophy — in turn must be defended in its own name and for the sake of happiness against everything that is durable and limits its growth and fertility and therefore it includes deafness to the question of meaning and destruction of the world, that is, of the conditions of human existence as bios. In order to help the preservation of a human life, the question of meaning has to be heard and the world has to be taken seriously. Accordingly, education should not so much orient itself towards the acquisition of the value of (bare) life, but above all help to avoid the time and space in which the question of meaning arises be occupied.     

Living in the presence of others: towards a reconfiguration of space,asylum and inclusion

One of the core characteristics of inclusionary discourses and practices is their emphasis on living in the presence of others. Despite this self-evident character, the question of what is understood by living in the presence of others only sporadically has been the object of critical inquiry. By turning ourselves towards Stengers’ conceptual figure of the idiot and the work of a rather unknown French educator Fernand Deligny, we – opposed to what contemporary scholars and professionals tend to think – will argue that space still occupies an important role in inclusive discourses and practices. Deligny’s remarkable reappraisal of the word ‘asylum’ in particular seems fruitful in order to think the relations between space, inclusion and living in the presence of others anew. In line with Stengers’ idiot, Deligny’s polishing of the word ‘asylum’ leads to an alternative presentation of inclusion as something which has to do with creating (1) spatial interstices in one’s own thinking while living in the presence of others, and (2) places where the other can find refuge against the dominant languages of divergent contemporary professionals and disciplines.     

The Discourse of the Learning Society and the Loss of Childhood

I argue that Hannah Arendt's analysis of the development of modern society illuminates one aspect of prevailing educational discourse. We can understand the 'learning society' as both an effect and an instrument of the logic of 'bare biological life' or zoé that Arendt claims is the ultimate point of reference for modern society. In such a society we seem to live permanently under the threat of social exclusion, being permanently put in the position of learners or problem-solvers, without the right of appeal. To imagine the possibility of such an appeal requires us to recover our sense of the experience of childhood.     

The agencement of taskification: On new forms of reading and writing in BYOD schools

Abstract

The proliferation of digital devices in educational settings has contributed to the decentralization of knowledge from teachers and established textbooks to fluid online personalized resources, and from blackboards as spaces of materialization of this knowledge to personal screens. In this new constellation, school practices such as reading, writing and note-taking take new forms. How are these practices reconfigured when centered around mobile digital devices? In this paper, we investigate routine lesson practices of a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) school by means of an ethnographic observation. Adopting the term agencement as a heuristic device, we explore what practices are being constituted and how they are always in connection with one another. Moreover, we show that by practicing they produce different forms of action. We argue that in such a hybrid constellation, tasks find a different status beyond isolated and self-contained units for enhancing learning in different lessons. We introduce task-agencement, through which the task always entails a process of taskification that formats BYOD schools. With taskification, we mean that the task-agencement expands the domain in which tasks not only influence the organization and structure of lessons, but equally the very organization of the BYOD school by enacting a particular form of schooling. Finally, we propose a taskified form as a form of BYOD schooling that templates and formats how practices such as reading and writing, contextualization and introduction of the lesson are conducted.