Search

This essay reconsiders Miguel de Unamuno's contribution to philosophy and education by focusing on his "Amor y pedagogía" ("Love and Pedagogy" [1902])--a piece of fiction considered by many to be the transition point in his work from the documentary realism of the nineteenth century to what Unamuno called "viviparous" narrative for the twentieth century. Deron Boyles examines four central characters in "Love and Pedagogy"--Avito Carrascal, Marina Carrascal, Fulgencio Entrambosmares, and Apolodoro Carrascal--as symbolic representations of enduring conflicts in school and society.

Utilizing a broadly Levinasian framework, specifically the interplay among his ideas of possession, violence, and negation, Gabriel Keehn and Deron Boyles illustrate how the relatively recent sharp turn toward the hypercorporatized school and the concomitant transition of the student from simple (potential) customer to a type of hybrid consumer/consumable has rendered it more difficult for students to see themselves as engaged in any type of serious ethical relationship with those around them. To be unable to see their peers as Others, in other words, makes it easier for students to perpetrate a specific type of violence against them. Keehn and Boyles suggest that current popular policy responses to gun violence in schools (such as increased security, zero-tolerance policies, antibullying initiatives, and mental-health policy revisions) are approaches that, at best, fail to address the root cause of gun violence in schools and, at worst, are themselves branches of that root: namely, a homogenizing corporatism that creates an ethical vacuum in the schoolhouse.

In the early 1970s, Thomas Colwell argued for an "ecological basis [for] human community." He suggested that "naturalistic transactionalism" was being put forward by some ecologists and some philosophers of education, but independently of each other. He suspected that ecologists were working on their own versions of naturalistic transactionalism independently of John Dewey. In this essay, Deron Boyles examines Colwell's central claim as well as his lament as a starting point for a larger inquiry into Dewey's thought. Boyles explores the following questions: First, was and is there a dearth of literature regarding Dewey as an ecological philosopher? Second, if a literature exists, what does it say? Should Dewey be seen as biocentric, anthropocentric, or something else entirely? Finally, of what importance are the terms and concepts in understanding and, as a result, determining Dewey's ecological thought in relation to education?