Search

This article suggests a sophistical autonomous practice in response to Platonian Aristotelian philosophy's domination over education. It shows the dangers of empty education in which education is reduced to schooling the perfect citizen in the image of a perfect state. An example is given in which schooling in empty education is reduced to a tool for authoritarian capitalism inscribed in the formation of the State to increase profit while undermining a democratic society. Instead, this article claims that education was introduced by the Sophists as verification of equality and will show how education works counter to anti-educational and anti-democratic tendencies of Platonian/Aristotelian discourses on education and schooling. The article identifies and develops a practice of ignorance of inequality as such inequality is inscribed in machine schooling and offers a sophistical practice instead. The article concludes by highlighting an autonomous tradition of educational practice making practice, as evident once Platonian and Aristotelian philosophy is refuted as saying anything meaningful about education.

This article explores the erosion of public education as a project of democratization. It locates this erosion in the neoliberal world order that has redefined our understanding of schooling the democratic citizen in terms of developing market assets. In it, Carl Anders Säfström investigates specifically how this shift is apparent in the ways in which schooling operates and demonstrates how education itself stands in stark contrast to this view of schooling's function. The need to revitalize education and teaching as means to further equality in society derives from the inequality that neoliberal schooling produces and that is undermining the democratic character of reputedly democratic orders. Teaching liveable life, Säfström concludes, means to verify equality in situations otherwise defined by inequality and, by this means, to expand who can be seen as belonging to democratic public life. His critique of political instrumentalism shows how late capitalism's neoliberal market ideology is systematically linked with schooling and results in the institutionalization of this ideology.

This article develops a militant teaching humility regarding the foundational aggression and violence of a neoliberal worldview within late capitalism. Mainly the article shows how such aggressions and violence take shape as schooling the self-interested consumer within a school market. This article also shows how such self-interest understands education in terms of individualism, comparison, and competition, ultimately leading to the destruction of the social fabric of the common good of democracies. The teaching strategy identified highlights the humility and discipline needed to transform the aggression and violence of late capitalism into a non-violent but consistent strategy for democratization. The strategy developed in the article takes inspiration from Judith Butler, Jacques Rancière and Thich Nhat Hanh, and exemplifies what democratization in education implies today. This article concludes with teaching understood as an ethical and political concern in being for the other, in being interested in the freedom of the other.

Public education is not just a way to organise and fund education. It is also the expression of a particular ideal about education and of a particular way to conceive of the relationship between education and society. The ideal of public education sees education as an important dimension of the common good and as an important institution in securing the common good. The common good is never what individuals or particular groups want or desire, but always reaches beyond such particular desires towards that which societies as a whole should consider as desirable. This does, of course, put the common good in tension with the desires of individuals and groups. Neo-liberal modes of governance have, over the past decades, put this particular educational set up under pressure and have, according to some, eroded the very idea of the common good. This set of contributions reflects on this state of affairs, partly through an exploration of the idea of publicness itself -- how it can be rearticulated and regained -- and partly through reflections on the current state of education in the 'north' and the 'south.'

This article deals with the question of what has happened to 'the public' in the Swedish education system during the last three decades. In our search for an answer we illuminate and discuss how the process of marketisation, together with the learnification and individualisation of education, replaced 'the public' from public education with the logic of the market place. To shed some further light on the current discourse on Swedish education, we contrast two principles in education and teaching, the aristocratic principle and the democratic principle. According to the aristocratic principle, education is about fixating and reproducing existing power relations as the cornerstone of a well-ordered society. According to the democratic principle of education, equality is the cornerstone of a well-ordered democratic society. Considering the shift in the very infrastructure of the Swedish educational system, we arrive at the conclusion that the principles in education and teaching are characterised by the aristocratic principle, rather than those we have characterised as democratic principles. The educational message is clear: upcoming generations are to accept the rules of the market economy and play the game accordingly.

Conceptualisations and constructs of children and childhood are temporally and contextually grounded. Historical documents are rich sources of insight and understanding regarding how children were understood, valued and treated at various times by particular societies. This article explores the conceptualisation of children and childhood in the 26-county Irish Free State (South) and the 6-county Northern Ireland (North) in the 1920s following the partition of Ireland, through the lens of educational documentation, primarily national primary school curricula. The focus on both jurisdictions is interesting in the context of partition, exploring the sometimes divergent and often convergent ways in which children were conceptualised across borders and boundaries. This article reveals, using Sorin and Galloway's framework as a conceptual and analytical tool, that conceptualisations of children were broadly similar in the North and South but differed in their focus and enactment in both fledgling states. These disparities are largely attributable to the very different political, social and religious orientations of both jurisdictions and the use of education as a vehicle for nation-building, as well as identity and gender formation. The article also explores alternative conceptualisations of children in education policy in the North and South by presenting case study 'outliers' of educational provision. A century since partition, conclusions and implications are noted that resonate with contemporary elements of convergence and divergence on educational policy and the conceptualisation of children across the island of Ireland.

In this paper, I explore the ancient Greek concept of paideia to contribute to an ongoing revitalisation of educational theory that positions freedom as central to the educational process. I also analyse the current crisis in public life in Europe as a consequence of neglect or inability to incorporate educational theory in the formation of school systems embracing democratic ways of life. I mainly explore the concept of teaching as a radical idea of allowing anyone be the bearer of culture and society and not just an exclusive group of people. I identify three types of abstractions distancing current orders of democracy from concerning the entire population. I also offer an educational strategy to break with these abstractions to be able to take on 'a divine life' in the present.

This article is based on a keynote paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), University College UCC, Copenhagen, 22-25 August, 2017. In this paper, I problematise the idea that we live in an era of constant change with respect to education and educational research. I claim that what presents itself as change on supra-national as well as national levels, or even in classrooms, more often than not has to do with adjustments within a given reality rather than of a radical and profound change of this same reality. The response to this situation I will suggest is to mobilise radical forms of theory that address the inherent emancipatory and transformational character of education. This kind of theory, I argue, actually also addresses the central characteristics of a truly pluralistic democracy. Drawing on Jacques Rancière and Judith Butler the paper will lay out some arguments for resisting an anti-democratic and anti-pluralistic tendency within what I will call 'pre-Sophist' educational trends and instead promote an education that is concerned with a 'liveable life' for all.

In this text, which was originally delivered as a speech, I discuss the massive critique of teachers in the public discourse on education in Sweden over the last decade. I speak in defence of teachers, and since I am a teacher I speak in defence of myself. The critique of teachers, schooling, and teacher education has been so overbearing that a purely rational response is simply not possible. Therefore, my response is rhetorical in tone. In highlighting the passion of teaching, I lift something central for teachers, which is seldom or never taught about teaching in teacher education. Neither is the passion of teaching present in the public discourse on education. Passion, I argue in the article, is that which adds excess or an overflow of meaning that cannot be contained within the order of discourse and which therefore puts this discourse out of balance. Finally, I discuss a new balance beyond this order in the context of a classroom. In a concluding section, I highlight the struggle over borders which define who can speak and think in "good" order and who cannot.

Copyright of Teoría de la Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria is the property of Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)