Can the prevailing description of educational reality be considered complete? On the Parks-Eichmann paradox, spooky action at a distance and a missing dimension in the theory of education
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21728212 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gert Biesta (0000-0001-8530-7105, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue | 8 |
| Pages | 1011-1025 |
| Publication date | 2020-11-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Policy Futures in Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1478-2103 • E-ISSN: 1478-2103 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1478210320910312 |
| OpenAlex | W3010866163 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 12 |
| References cited | 15 |
The question I address in this paper is to what extent the prevailing description of educational reality that can be found in contemporary research, policy and practice can be considered complete. The motivation for asking this question stems from an educational paradox to which I refer as the Parks-Eichmann paradox. This paradox has to do with the fact that what appears as educational success from one perspective is problematic when viewed differently, whereas what appears as educational failure may actually reveal something that is of crucial importance educationally. The paradox thus leads to the suggestion that the prevailing description of educational reality – to which I will refer as the ‘paradigm’ of education as cultivation – is insufficient or incomplete. I use the work of John Dewey to highlight key characteristics and key shortcomings of this ‘paradigm’ and argue that it needs to be supplemented by what I will refer to as an existential educational ‘paradigm’. I highlight the distinction between the two paradigms through the question whether it is possible to educate ‘directly’ – an option which Dewey explicitly denies. I turn to the German notions of Bildung and Erziehung in order to explore to what extent they provide us with a set of concepts for articulating the distinction between the two educational paradigms. I will show that this is not as straightforward as it may seem, as there is no agreement about the exact definitions of the terms. However, having two terms rather than just the word ‘education’ is important in order to be able to make the distinction I am after, and here the terms Bildung and Erziehung are helpful. I conclude the paper with a brief sketch of the ‘existential work’ of education in order to outline what the existential paradigm implies for educational practice
Education theory · Epistemology · Existentialism · German · Higher education · Political science · Sociology · Computer Science · Critical Theory and Philosophy · Educational Philosophies and Pedagogies · Global Educational Policies and Reforms · Law · Mathematics · Philosophy
Plataformas digitales y justicia formativa
What do we talk about when we talk about climate change?’
The weak power of Rosa Parks
Conceptualising uncertainty and the role of the teacher for a politics of climate change within and beyond the institution of the school
Redesigning and recomputing the future of education
Return to reality
Ethical realism before social constructionism
Reflections on contemporary challenges and possibilities for democracy and education
Beyond curriculum
Generative AI and the Irreducible Role of Teachers as Callers into Subjectness
Considering Diversity in (Special) Education
From the point where I stand to the place where I can be found
The Rediscovery of Teaching
Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?
Good education in an age of measurement
Eichmann in Jerusalem
Interrupting the Politics of Learning
Introduction
Bildung and Modernity
Childhood and Philosophy
Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education
| Citations per year | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2020 - 2026 (7) |
| Highly cited | No |