How to Conceive of Critical Educational Theory Today?

This paper starts from a brief sketch of the ‘classical’ figure of critical educational theory or science (Kritische Erziehungswissenshaft). ‘Critical educational theory’ presents itself as the privileged guardian of the critical principle of education (Bildung) and its emancipatory promise. It involves the possibility of saying ‘I’ in order to speak and think in one's own name, to be critical, self‐reflective and independent, to determine dependence from the present power relations and existing social order. Actual social and educational reality and relations are approached as a limitation, threat, alienation, re/oppression or negation of ultimate human principles or potential. The task of critical educational theory becomes one of enabling an autonomous, critical, self‐reflective life. While ‘critique’ and ‘autonomy’ have meanwhile become commonplace, and ‘critique’ and ‘autonomy’ are reclaimed and required from everybody, we should also consider the question of the relation between an institutional or ideological framework as that which claims to question this frame and to constitute its opposite. The trivialisation of critique is taken as occasion to recall Michel Foucault's analysis of power relations and especially his thesis according to which the ‘government of individualisation’ is the actual figure of power. Starting from the framework offered by Foucault, it can be made clear that the autonomous, critical, self‐reflective life does not represent an ultimate principle but refers to a very specific form of subjectification operating as a transmission belt for power. The autonomous, critical, self‐reflective person appears as an historical model of self‐conduct whereby power operates precisely through the intensification of reflectiveness and critique rather than through their repression, alienation or negation. This brings us back then to the question of how to conceive of the task of a critical educational theory at a time in which critique, autonomy and self‐determination have become an essential modus operandi of the existing order.     

A System of Student Feedback: Considerations of Academic Staff Taken into Account

As a consequence of the suspension of a system of yearly evaluations of individual courses with student questionnaires, the University of Leuven organised a broad consultation of the academic community focussing on what they expect from a system based on student feedback. The study revealed that this community attaches great importance to a clear definition of the goals of student feedback, improvement and accountability, and a logical translation of these goals into a concrete approach. The study also confirmed the need of academic staff for a concrete response to the importance they give to quality improvement and enhancement besides accountability.     

Towards the Idea of a World University

Could anyone reasonably oppose the idea that quality and excellence are essential to the university? However unlikely it seems, that is exactly what we would like to do in this article: we would like to reject the demand for quality and excellence in the university. We would like to arrive at a point at where the need for quality is no longer necessary. In this article, such a refusal will direct us to a proposal for using the spaces offered by the university and its teaching and research in a different way; in a way that transforms the university into a world university. This paper will argue that a world university is concentrated around attentive pools of worldly study. It is a university that has to invent new languages in order to answer the question “How can we live together?” In order to answer this question, and to be “present in the present,” we will clarify our argument that both acceptance and attention are needed in the world university. This position implies a kind of curiosity that is not driven by the “will to know” but by a caring attitude to what is happening now.     

Turning a City into a Milieu of Study: University Pedagogy as “Frontline”

In 2016 Bruno Latour delivered a lecture at Cornell University in which he responded to what he called the actual situation of disorientation and (literal) lack of common ground by offering some “hints for a neo‐Humboldtian university.” One hint he offered was that we should consider pedagogy as the frontline for staging an approach to societal challenges that links basic research and public engagement. Here, Jan Masschelein follows and extends upon this hint through exploring some ways to reclaim or reinvent the university as pedagogic form. Concretely, he describes the development of a course on designing educational practices that is conceived as a way to turn cities into a milieu of public and collective study. Masschelein's contribution to this symposium offers a “technical story” about physical, material experiences, one that contains some prepositions and propositions, an example, many detours, and a few practical notes and considerations. By this means, he explores the meaning and form pedagogy takes when we do not reduce it to teaching and extension, but instead approach it as the genus and the locus of a nexus between public engagement and basic research. Masschelein concludes by proposing the “public design studio” as a pedagogic form suited to the neo‐Humboldtian university.     

THE EDUCATIONAL MEANING OF COMMUNAL LAUGHTER: ON THE EXPERIENCE OF CORPOREAL DEMOCRACY

In this article Joris Vlieghe, Maarten Simons, and Jan Masschelein attempt to articulate a new way of dealing with the public character of education. Instead of discussing laughter as an instrument that one could use to facilitate established educational goals, the authors provide an extensive analysis of the phenomenon of laughter as a specific form of corporeal behavior. Their analysis demonstrates that when we laugh, we give an answer to a disorienting situation, but this answer is not the product of intentional agency. Instead, it consists in the uncontrollable spasmodic contraction of our diaphragm and other impersonal and automatic corporeal reactions. We are thus exposed to an ultimate loss of self‐control. The authors argue further that communal laughter—that is, when the lack of mastery over our own lives becomes a shared experience—results in what they call a “democracy of the flesh.” In this state, it is no longer possible to stick to well‐defined positions, nor is it tenable to defend any hierarchical ordering, including the strict hierarchy we typically find in the context of schooling and education. Common laughter makes equals out of us and grants the possibility of an unforeseen and unimaginable future. For precisely this reason, the authors conclude, communal laughter might be considered as an educational event itself.     

Participation for Better or for Worse?

The increasing emphasis on participation in education offers the starting point for this paper. Participation appears to be a strategic notion in a particular problematisation of education: this is installed through certain ways of speaking and writing (discourse) and through certain procedures, instruments and techniques that are proposed and developed in different places and spaces (technology). Participation is thereby claimed to empower individuals and to emancipate the child or the student from dominant regimes of power, including liberating them from oppressive traditional educational practices. Foucault's concept of governmentality, which offers us a specific understanding of power, helps us to analyse the discourse and technology of participation in a different way: participation comes to be seen not as an increase in freedom and empowerment, but as an element in a particular mode of government or power. According to this analysis the plea for practices of participation appears as an interpellation or call, governing the way that people act and behave, and encouraging them to think of themselves in a very specific way. We characterise this in terms of immunisation.     

After conflict comes education? Reflections on the representations of emergencies in ‘Education in Emergencies’

Over the last decade, education has been advanced as a new and legitimate core of the humanitarian crisis response. ‘Education in Emergencies’ (EiE) developed into an institutionalised field of humanitarian practice, advocacy, and scholarly work. Identifying how emergency discourses have been critiqued to operate as ‘social imaginaries’, in this paper the ‘emergency imaginary’ as it develops in the particular discursive context of EiE is analysed. We scrutinise how emergencies are represented in this EiE-discourse by pointing to the socio-ideological and economic drivers of conflict, how the interconnections between education and these drivers are pictured, and the educational changes subsequently advocated for. We conclude that, while EiE has been called a ‘new field of academic and policy research’, the discourse might reiterate prevailing power relations, leading to an adverse portrayal of crisis-affected communities and a legitimation of a global status-quo.     

Participation Making a Difference? Critical Analysis of the Participatory Claims of Change, Reversal, and Empowerment

Participation has become very popular as a new strategy and approach in research, in policy, in private and public affairs. As an alternative to top-down approaches participation promises to empower people, to acknowledge and to build competence and (local) knowledge, to recognise and to be responsive to people’s different and differentiated needs and interests. The difference participation promises to make concerns above all an engagement with questions of difference.