(Re)thinking Religious Studies

The world religions paradigm (WRP), often regarded as hegemonic in research and education in religious studies, has long been criticized for being modeled on predominantly Protestant, Christian, and Western ideas about religion, and thus running the risk of reductionism and of a failure to recognize expressions of religion that do not fit this framework. Despite this, it is difficult to get rid of the prevailing WRP, especially in education. In addition, nonconfessional, nonreligious, secular education in religion may be biased by norms and values that assume that religion as such is outdated and irrational. The seemingly neutral, nonreligious, or agnostic position that is present in religious studies at the higher education level can then be seen as aligned with an institutional, not necessarily personal, secular bias that rules out religion from the very outset. Consequently, higher level education about religion runs the risk of presenting religion in terms of flawed stereotypes. In this article, Daniel Enstedt addresses these two interrelated and subject-specific problems by examining them through the lens of Gert J. J. Biesta's educational philosophy, and in particular in relation to his discussion about the three domains of education: qualification, socialization, and subjectification.     

Towards a shift in perspective for inclusive education research – a continental approach

With a starting point in the tradition of geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik, this article presents a challenge to inclusive education research to engage a Continental perspective on educational research. The motivation is to entice inclusive education researchers to begin to ask educational questions of inclusion, as opposed to inclusive questions of education. Recent years has seen a call to re-think inclusive education research and this paper attempts to answer this call by turning to a Continental perspective and the emphasis on an at least relative autonomy for the theory and practice of education. The article explores the relationship between Continental and Anglo-American educational theory, and why they seem to have developed in such distinct directions. Beginning with the Anglo-American perspective, it is outlined how pedagogy and the so-called educational interest became replaced by the scientific standards dominant in other academic disciplines. This is countered by a look at the continued endeavours in the Continental spheres to formulate specifically educational criteria for educational processes. This leads to a negative aim in the form of arguing against neo-liberal policy and the politicisation of inclusive education, and a positive aim in the form of an argument for a move towards constructing a pedagogical ideal of inclusion.     

Intentionality and Thinking as ‘Hearing’. A Response to Biesta’s Agenda

In his 2012 article Philosophy of Education for the Public Good: Five Challenges and an Agenda, Gert Biesta identifies five substantial issues about the future of education and the work required to address these issues. This article employs a Heideggerian reading of education to evaluate ‘Biesta’s truth’. I argue that Biesta’s point of view (a) underestimates knowledge’s predominance and relativism; (b) frames intentionality in pre-Heideggerian terms, which—although not a problem in itself because an individual is free to choose a particular perspective on the concept—raises the issue of consistency in Biesta’s theoretical framework; and (c) a final criticism concerns Biesta’s choice of tools for engaging with the identified challenges: The primary tools Biesta uses are intrinsic to the perspective he challenges. The use of a ‘first person perspective’ to frame pedagogy that focuses on the subject and ‘subjectification’ reaffirms the fundamental Western gesture that makes human beings subjects who ‘stand-over-and-against’ the world. I argue that it is possible to penetrate Plato’s ‘theoretical gaze’ and find a ‘weak’ alternative to an all-encompassing point of view of education through a Heideggerian approach that regards intentionality and thinking as ‘hearing’.     

Student engagement and inclusive education: reframing student engagement

Engagement, or student engagement, is widely used in educational research and public discourse to refer to the problem of public education. The underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions buoying engagement are rarely, if ever, addressed by educational researchers. The ‘silent omission’ (Sidorkin 2014. “On the Theoretical Limits of Education.” In Making a Difference in Theory: The Theory Question in Education and the Education Question in Theory, edited by Julie Allan Gert Biesta and Richard Edwards, 121–137. New York: Routledge) of engagement’s metaphysics has implications for inclusive education. This paper finds that despite being employed with good intent, engagement operates in a paradigm of normativity. In a gesture of bifocality (Weis and Fine 2012. “Critical Bifocality and Circuits of Privilege: Expanding Critical Ethnographic Theory and Design.” Harvard Educational Review 82 (2): 173–201), I critique engagement discourse and its historical context to find that it reproduces a longstanding tradition of psychologising public problems (Fine and Cross 2015. “Critical Race, Psychology and Social Policy: Refusing Damage, Cataloguing Oppression, and Documenting Desire.” In Contextualizing the Costs of Racism, edited by A. Alvarez and H. Neville. Washington, DC: APA Publications), thereby displacing conversations about what may be the most influential issue of public education: social and economic inequality. A reframing of engagement as [student/teacher] engagement is proposed. Highlighted in the reframing is the educational relationship and the context in which it is nested. Mitigated is the pathologising and exclusionary effect of engagement discourse which operates within a dialectic of normal/engaged // ab/normal/disengaged.     

What should Educational Institutions be for?

In this article, I respond to the work of Gert Biesta regarding the question of what education should be for. He maintains education ought to be oriented towards the ‘good’ rather than measurement, accountability and efficiency. While sympathetic to such claims, I nonetheless question his avowal that discussion of the purposes of education needs to entail reflection upon tripartite processes of qualification, socialisation and subjectification. I also argue that the concept of subjectification presented by Biesta is elusive. He says educators cannot plan to produce it in students. He also suggests there is an unhelpful surplus of reason in education that constrains possibilities for subjectification. According to Biesta, education partly reproduces ‘rational communities’ that stifle the emergence of human uniqueness and inhibit persons from challenging accepted social orders. In response to this, I argue there is currently a deficit rather than a surplus of reason in education concerning the common good. Following MacIntyre, I claim that educational institutions should support students to learn how to think for themselves and act for the common good. I conclude that such utopian thinking about the purposes of education may be needed, now, more than ever.     

Toward a theory of the educational encounter: Gert Biesta’s educational theory and the right to the city

This paper outlines a theory of the educational encounter, the space of, and the right to that encounter. Situated in response to neoliberal educational reforms, this theory is developed through a reading and synthesis of the educational theory of Gert Biesta, the architectural component of his theory, and literature on the right to the city. The author argues that the notion of the encounter is latent yet central in Biesta’s work and that it can be further cultivated and more precisely attended to by turning to theoretical work on the right to the city, which is engaged here primarily through the lens of the encounter. Several themes are drawn out from the literature that can help in formulating a theory of the educational encounter such as the habitat/inhabit dialectic, the use/use-value/exchange-value framework of space, and the role of struggle in the production and maintenance of space.     

The place of forest school within English primary schools: senior leader perspectives

Focussing on the place of Forest School in English primary schools, we explore the perspectives of school leaders. We use Biesta's model of educational purpose as a critical lens to consider possible justifications for the inclusion of Forest School in the curriculum. Four distinct accounts, based on an analysis of in-depth interviews, illustrate a range of participant responses: risk, intervention, respite and the right thing. One of these, we contend, represents a tentative step towards a form of resistance on the part of a school leader in the face of current pressures to follow a diminished set of educational purposes.     

From the Philosophy of Consciousness to the Philosophy of Difference: The subject for education after humanism

Abstract

Biesta has suggested that education after humanism should be interested in existence, not essence, in what the subject can do, not in what the subject is—the truth about the subject—and this is the way inspired by Foucault and Levinas. In this article, I analyze Foucault’s alleged deconstruction and reconfiguration of the subject and Levinas’ approach to human subjectivity and suggest that Foucault’s early and later works have already implied certain concepts of the subject and that Levinas’ approach to human subjectivity does not, as has often been perceived in educational circles, avoid theorizing about human subjectivity. Drawing on the French philosophy of difference, particularly Levinas’ ideas of alterity and subjectivity, I propose a post-humanist subject as a singular existence that ‘announces, promises, and at the same time conceals’, that cannot be exhausted, totalized, and replicated. The singular and unique subject, open and responsible to the world and beyond, is indispensible to the educational mission of subjectification.     

‘You can always see it from a different angle’ — Art as Resistance

In this article, taking three selected works by the Danish artist Julie Nord as my point of departure, I will analyse and discuss the role of art in educational theory and practice. In this analysis and discussion I present two concepts, ‘resistance’ and ‘undecidability’, which are rooted in the theories of Dutch professor of education and director of research Gert Biesta and the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, respectively. The two concepts are used to analyse the three works of art and then come to grips with the empirical part of the study. The empirical part explores how a Danish fifth‐grade class (ages 11–12) interacts with works of art characterised by these very things, resistance and undecidability. The point the article makes is that it is not always what is easy and unambiguous that offers the best conditions for learning and gives school pupils a desire to learn. Rather it is often what is full of resistance and is difficult to decipher and understand.     

What Is Educational about Education? The Distinctiveness of Education

This article explores two questions: (1) Is education a unique and distinct discipline? (2) Is education anything other than the achievement of noneducational aims or objectives? In it, Trevor Norris examines how these two questions are interconnected, specifically analyzing how what we think about education as a distinct field of study informs what we ask of it as a practice. When we study education, we should be educational about it, because if we render education as the object of study, it is never endowed with agency or distinctiveness. Norris inquires into the distinctiveness of education as a way of thinking and a way of impacting the world, asking what are the conditions that make it possible for us to identify something as “educational”? To investigate this question, Norris draws from Hannah Arendt's account of politics, and he concludes by describing a case study assignment that requires educational foundations students to draw from philosophy of education in order to show what exactly is educational about education by contrasting education with business and psychology.