13. Philosophy of Education
Paper
Resisting Positive Universal Views of the Politics of Teacher Education: Embracing Negative Forms of Universality
Dion Rüsselbæk Hansen1, Deborah Heck2, Elaine Sharpling3, Paul McFlyn4
1University of Southern Denmark, Denmark; 2University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia; 3University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Wales; 4University of Ulster, Northern Ireland
Presenting Author: Rüsselbæk Hansen, Dion;
Heck, Deborah
The universal is not a foreign outsider but an intimate point at which each particular finds itself lacking. Through this lack, the universal holds the series of particulars together even when they themselves do not register the connection (McGowan, 2020, p. 58).
In this presentation, teacher education researchers from Australia, Denmark, Wales and Northern Ireland critically analyse the place of positive forms of universalism in our work. We aim to engage teacher educators with the cruel optimism that exists within this field – one which often promises redemption, order and completeness (Berlant 2011), but can lead to frustration and anxiety. We identify analytically two positive views of universalism. An abstract form of universalism that claims to be ‘neutral’, and “indifferent to particulars, ’disinterestedly’ deploying an assumed or self-evident truth to all” (Kapoor and Zalloua, 2022, p. 14), and a commonality form of universalism that claims to unify - that is “a series of particulars deemed to share common content” (p. 15). We argue that by adopting these positive views of universalism, there is a risk of creating an illusion or fiction where the abstract form of universalism takes a privileged, specific position that “ends up dominating (other) particulars”(p. 14), whilst the commonality universalism ‘ends up excluding particulars ‘(p.14), that is, despite its claim of inclusivity, there are many exceptions that simply do not fit the universal.
As an alternative perspective, and taking inspiration from Ilan Kapoor and Zahi Zalloua (2022) and Todd McGowan (2020), we offer a theoretical frame that engages with the concept of negative universality – the idea that the actual universal sits at the points of social structure failure, absence or exclusion and not in the false claim of unity and inclusion (pp. 59-60). Through this lens of negative universality, we interrogate the OECD (2019) document, A Flying Start: Improving initial teacher education, which examines the question of ‘How can initial teacher preparation equip teachers with updated knowledge and competences?’ that present the universal in terms of professional knowledge and competence, ongoing updating of initial teacher education curriculum and alignment with school contexts all of which frame, structure and regulate teacher education in different ways and with various consequences.
Our justification for focusing on updated knowledge and competences, is that they aim to fix the positive in universal ways for educators, that is, what they must desire and live up to, how they must do it, and what defines them as a professional teacher. This has led to an almost technicist approach to education (Clarke and Phelan, 2017), creating an absence of critical thinking where the language associated with teaching aligns closely with what we could call an ‘apprenticeship’ model that supports a belief that practice makes perfect. Furthermore, it has been shown how this competence view coupled with universal endeavours can create anxiety, frustration and exclusion as well as reinforce the problems that they are supposed to (dis)solve (Dunn, 2005; Popkewitz, 2011).
Using the lens of negative universality, provided us with an opportunity to problematise the ways in which (particular) views of teacher knowledge and competences in a ‘universal sense’ dominate and/or exclude certain particulars (Kapoor and Zalloua, 2022, p. 185) in abstract or common ways. This can lead to the absence, marginalisation, and disavowal of matters that cannot be formulated or translated into standards and standardised in more or less universal ways, for example, ethical-political matters. Put differently; the universal can often be seductive in arresting such matters “in unequivocal or transparent definitions” (Ruti, 2007, p. 492) but, we would like to suggest, that this seduction is not without educational consequences.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis analytical study rejects positive forms of universalism because there will always be someone who could be dominated and become enslaved by masters and there is always someone who does not fit. As Kappor and Zalloua (2022) states: “Both abstract universalism and universalism- as-commonality, suffer from a proclivity toward ideological deception, pretending to be neutral or all-encompassing, but practised in order to privilege and exclude. Both positive universalisms naturalise and dehistoricise, abstracting from the material, historical, and dynamic fields of power” (p. 15). Hence, this study is based on the analytical examination of using an alternative form of universality, a “negative” one, that focuses on what is absent instead of what is present. That said, this form of universality can be understood as a form of negativity, without a positive essence, “that cuts across particulars” (Kapoor and Zalloua, 2022, p. 16) and which splits every thought, concept, and notion from within as well as it points out the dirty secrets, the underlying logics, and partial interests that they always fabricate and hide.
It is important to recognise that taking up negative universality as an analytical approach means that it can only be “taken up from a particular vantage point, it is always partial, partisan, engaged …. Partisan (negative) universality is, in this sense, never predefined or given; it is always struggled for, incomplete, and in the making” (p. 18-19). In this study, we begin with an examination of the forms of positive universalism (abstract and common) identified in the above-mentioned OECD (2019) document, especially chapter four, as it focuses on how to equip teachers with updated knowledge and competences. We then use the lens of ‘negative’ universality to identify the (universal) fantasies and promises attached to the views of teacher knowledge and competences. We discuss the role of negative universality in disrupting the ethics and politics of teaching and teacher education as a means for teachers and teacher educators to remain empowered to be critical and willing to question and problematise the existing socio-symbolic educational order (Kapoor and Zalloua, 2022).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsDespite many critiques of universalism (Lyotard, 1994; Biesta, 2013), there still exists a belief among politicians and policymakers that universalising particulars set the coordinates for what is important in education and what educators must desire, focus on and live up to in this regard. It is assumed “that structures can be whole and that their determinations of the particulars within them are completely effective” (McGowan, 2020, p. 59-60). Our work articulates how Chapter 4 of the OECD (2019) document illustrates positive universalism. There is a tendency to draw on abstract universalism when acknowledging a diversity of views or approaches, such as aligning teacher education to professional standards. While the common view of universalism is articulated in the views such as meeting individual student needs. Our concern is that these positive universal views of teaching and teaching education are very enticing for educators who risk being caught up in cruel optimistic fantasies (Berlant, 2011). All particulars, no matter how good, come with a dark side that requires our engagement.
Our work identifies the opportunities presented by considering a negative view of universality within teaching and teacher education. The negative view allows us to consider the paradoxes, contradictions, and dilemmas that are shut down by the positive frame of teacher knowledge and competences and provides scope to engage in the struggle with what is absent. The challenge is not only how we as teacher educators rethink and reimagine but how we get the public and politicians to engage with negative universality when the positive views of universalism are so enticing. The dark side of education has much to offer educators and researchers seeking to understand the ethical and political constructs of contemporary education policy and practice.
ReferencesBerlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. London: Duke University Press.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2013). Receiving the Gift of Teaching: From "Learning from" to "Being Taught By". Studies in Philosophy and Education, 32(5): 449-461.
Clarke, M. and Phelan, A. M. (2017). Teacher Education and the Political: the power of negative thinking. London: Rutledge.
Kapoor, I. and Zalloua, Z. (2022). Universal Politics. Oxford University press.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition. Manchester University Press.
McGowan, T. (2020). Universality and Identity Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
OECD. (2019). How can initial teacher preparation equip teachers with updated knowledge and competences? In A flying start: Improving initial teacher preparation systems (pp. 75-99). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/cf74e549-en
Popkewitz, T. S. (2011). Pisa: Numbers, standardizing conduct, and the alchemy of school subjects. In M. A. Pereyra, H.-H. Kottoff, & R. Cowen (Eds.). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools (pp. 31–46). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Ruti, M. (2007). The Fall of Fantasies: A Lacanian Reading of Lack. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 56(2): 483-508.
13. Philosophy of Education
Paper
Life Signs or Signs of Death? A Multilayered Reflection on Inclusion
Michaela Vogt
Bielefeld University, Germany
Presenting Author: Vogt, Michaela
This paper aims to provoke critical thinking about current developments in the field of inclusion argued on the level of the theory of education. Hence, the paper's main objective is to ask why the realization and the discourse about inclusion remain 'fuzzy' and often seem doomed to fail. The article approaches this objective by proposing the evaluation and consideration of inclusion as a multi-layered concept and reality, opening the discussion and reflection on whether inclusion as a concept, apart from a practice, is dead, has never been alive, or is yet to be brought to life. As a theoretical framework, the paper discusses the role of inclusion as an ideology that collides with various social and cultural conditions and occurrences based on their contingency (ct. Holzinger, 2015; Flügel-Martinsen, 2021). Similarly, inclusion collides with human nature, e.g., the ability to classify.
Even though education is the primary discipline that examines inclusion, the participation of other subjects in the discussion is now growing, especially in domains from sociology to health sciences going through cultural studies and anthropology. We could raise the question regarding how different disciplines interfere with each other by giving various ideas of inclusion and how to characterize this obstruction. But the fact is that they do not interfere with or recognize each other at all. Consequentially, there isn’t an interdisciplinary discourse close to the topic of discussion. This paper analyses sources from a critical standpoint and looks into possible sources from the named different and various academic fields that may interfere with the main corpus. With an interdisciplinary strategy, this paper studies the possible contradictions or merges between sources from the periphery and the nucleus.
There is a tendency to associate inclusion and diversity without question. Although inclusion deems more complicated than initially thought, the term is broadly used in different and various social discourses, e.g., in institutional, educational, and political ones. It is a word that carries a powerful meaning, holding its ground in the Human Rights Convention as the highest ethical standard of westernized societies. At the same time, it’s a term with a critical fragility regarding its connotation and general understanding. Amongst the definitions existing all over the globe, one can, for example, observe that inclusion is either nationally and culturally located or used as a decontextualized and uniformized standard. Also, the understandings are either based on empirical evidence or an ethical demand. It is related to school and education but also social issues and society. Subsequently, it refers to differing ideas in the “special needs” and disability realm of diversity and difference. Inclusion focuses on the discursive and theoretical level but also on the practices and realization. Based on all these different references and frameworks for understanding inclusion, the succeeding definitions differ considerably (cf. Katzenbach, 2017; Lindmeier & Lindmeier, 2015; Hinz, 2010; Allan, 2008; Ainscow, 1999; Wolley 2017). This observation is used as a common ground and starting point for unfolding the reasons for this fuzziness by contextualizing it, reflecting its interdisciplinarity, and looking at this from an ideologically critical, multilayered perspective. The gathered knowledge, therefore, offers crucial impulses for talking about the value of diversity in its close connection to inclusion as an ethical standard.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedRegarding the methodological design the study is based on, it can be largely described as ideology criticism (cf. Mannheim, 1929; Horkheimer, 1987). Inclusion is seen as a value and an ideology that does not necessarily match reality and social conditions – partially because it collides with other prevailing ideologies. Social, cultural, anthropological, and psychological reasons for this discrepancy will also be part of the study's research. Therefore, context analytical approaches combined with steps of discourse analysis are particularly emphasized within the study (cf. Vogt, 2014; Keller et al, 2006).
Additionally, comparative perspectives come into play, as dealing with demands of inclusion is a widely spread challenge in almost all European countries. Also, globally seen it can be described as such. The comparative perspective collects within the European borders mainly examples from Germany, Sweden, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Estonia, and Italy – but it also takes developments in other non-western countries into account (cf. Hilker, 1962; Waterkamp, 2006; Rakhkochkine, 2012).
The overarching goal of the complex methodological design is to combine more traditional qualitative research approaches as ideology criticism with more recent ones for developing a broad understanding of developments surrounding the demand for inclusion. As the critical perspective on the realizability of inclusion and, therefore, on the possibility to value diversity thoroughly is quite delicate, it needs to be reassured by triangulating different qualitative methodologies and theoretical perspectives.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsLooking at the analysis results, eight main explanations for the reflection of the fuzziness of ‘inclusion’ could be derived based on a deepened interdisciplinary understanding. Based on the data and insights gathered, inclusion can be described as (1) a westernized standard that also claims global validity, (2) a cloak of silence that does not allow for the voicing of different positions, (3) an instrument and a shift of power, as the claim to speak for marginalized groups further empowers the already powerful and influential national and global actors, (4) anti-democratic, as it is not compatible with notions of majority and voting mechanisms, as (5) prohibiting the exclusion of others and oneself, as each individual is expected to feel the need to be included, as (6) an impossibility to educate, as education is based on hierarchy, ranking, and the dominance of specific general educational goals, as (7) anti-human, as human perception of and orientation in the world are necessarily based on acts of categorization, and as (8) anti-cultural, as the contingency of certain cultures is not compatible with the expectation of valuing diversity and realizing inclusion.
These arguments need to be unfolded thoroughly and be discussed by looking at them from a philosophy of educational perspective. By doing so Europeanwide as well as globally, reflections on the realizability of inclusion and its theoretical background are being developed into a valid basis that can fight the prevailing ideological as well as fuzzy way of dealing with the construct. Hence, the paper offers a significant impulse for bringing inclusion to life by questioning its vitality as a first step. The value of diversity for education and educational research is, then, turned into a vital perspective within this reflection.
ReferencesAinscow, M. (1999). Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. Studies in Inclusive Education. Falmer Press.
Allan, J. (2008). Rethinking Inclusive Education: The Philosophers of Difference in Practice. Springer Dordrecht.
Flügel-Martinsen, O. (2021). Kritik der Gegenwart – Politische Theorie als kritische Zeitdiagnose. Transcript.
Hilker, F. (1962). Vergleichende Pädagogik. Eine Einführung in ihre Geschichte, Theorie und Praxis.
Hinz, A. (2010). Towards Inclusive Education in Germany – Structures, Practical and Theoretical Development of Joint Education. In G. Buch & A. Valeo (Eds.), Inclusive Education: Emergent Solutions. England, Germany, Croatia, Canada, India, Spain, Malta (pp. 40–73).
Holzinger, M. (2015). Kontingenz in der Gegenwartsgesellschaft: Dimensionen eines Leitbegriffs moderner Sozialtheorie. transcript Verlag.
Horkheimer, M. (1987). Ein neuer Ideologiebegriff? In M. Horkheimer (ed.), Gesammelte Schriften, Band 2: Philosophische Frühschriften 1922 – 1932 (pp- 272–294). Fischer.
Katzenbach, D. (2017). Inklusion und Heterogenität. In T. Bohl, J. Budde & M. Rieger-Ladich (Eds.), Umgang mit Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht (pp. 124–140). UTB Klinkhardt.
Keller, R., Hirseland, A., Schneider, W. & Viehöver, W. (Eds.) (2006). Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse, Band 1: Theorien und Methoden (2nd ed.). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Lindmeier, C. & Lindmeier, B. (2015). Inklusion aus der Perspektive des rechtlichen und ethischen Begründungsdiskurses. Erziehungswissenschaft 26, 51, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:11570
Mannheim, K. (1929). Ideologie und Utopie (3. Ed.).
Rakhkochkine, A. (2012). Probleme internationalen Vergleichens in der Didaktik. Päd. Rundschau, 66(6), 719-736.
Vogt, M. (2015). Professionswissen über Unterstufenschüler in der DDR: Untersuchung der Lehrerzeitschrift „Die Unterstufe“ im Zeitraum 1954 bis 1964. Klinkhardt.
Waterkamp, D. (2006). Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft. Ein Lehrbuch. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
Wolley, R. (2017). Understanding Inclusion. Core Concepts, Policy and Practice. Routledge.
13. Philosophy of Education
Paper
Participating in democracy. Contextualizing the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study between striving for inclusive education and increasing segregation
Claudia Schumann
Stockholm university, Sweden
Presenting Author: Schumann, Claudia
The paper looks at the topic of how "participating in democracy" is conceptualized in the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) and how the results of the 2016 study can be interpreted in light of the conflicting tendencies between aiming for implementing inclusive practices implied by policies for an education for all while at the same time confronting problems with access, increasing segregation, inequality and differentiation within the Swedish educational system. In an international perspective, and in contrast to some of the other large-scale comparative tests such as PISA, Sweden shows outstanding results regarding democracy education and scored in the top group of ICCS together with other Nordic countries and Taiwan (Skolverket 2017). The survey shows also some shortcomings regarding schools’ inability to compensate for inequalities in socio-economic background because there are significant differences between how children from different social backgrounds understand their possibilities for democratic participation and trust in democracy. Significant differences could also be shown in relation to gender. The stark differences in the perception of possibilities for democratic participation and influence seem to contrast with the high level of knowledge about democracy displayed by Swedish students according to the 2016 survey. The gap between students learning about democracy and feeling trust and possibilities for participating in democracy can be related to the growing educational segregation and hierarchical division between schools in Sweden since the 1990’s. It becomes harder for schools to “compensate for society”, as Basil Bernstein said. This contrasts with parallel demand for educational spaces where all students have the opportunity to explore and practice democracy in an inclusive (and differentiated) educational system, which is required by law and stressed in the curriculum (LGR22).
One of the issues the report points towards is that in the current climate of neoliberal individualization and increasing segregation in the educational sector in Sweden (and other countries), legally binding demands for inclusion and an education for all seem to be paradoxically countered by the developments produced on the ground. In order to understand these results better, the paper will first explore the meaning attached to and the conceptual framing of “democracy”, “democratic practices in education” and “democratic participation” which can be distilled from the study design of the ICCS. Which philosophical notions can be used to work through the mixture of Deweyan, Habermasian and Mouffian strands of understanding democratic education in the survey? What are the implications of these conceptual underpinnings for an interpretation of the results of the ICCS, in particular for the Swedish context, but also in a wider European perspective? How can we understand the philosophical and theoretical tensions between the framing of “learning about democracy” and “democratic participation” in relation to the strife for an education for all? And last, but not least, which kind of conceptual framing of inclusive education or an “education for all” is implicit in the ICCS? One consequence of exploring the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of the way in which the study interprets democracy is that we can arrive at a better understanding at how the demand for differentiation in the name of inclusion might need to be complemented with more outspoken efforts at creating preconditions for solidary relationships between students (be that from similar and different backgrounds). Furthermore, it highlights how the focus might need to shift from primarily epistemic aims of education to reactivate concern with the social aims of education in order to keep democratic education and education for democracy and the fostering of democratic citizens alive in a meaningful sense.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe paper is part of a larger-scale project, but in the present proposal I will focus on presenting the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of the study as well as the implications of our interpretation of its results for political philosophy of education. At the moment the analysis refers mainly to the ICCS 2016 as well as the analysis of the shift in the study design for its 2022 variant. The goal with the adaptation of the study's design between 2016 and 2022 was to give more place to questions of sustainability, digitalization of life worlds and heterogeneity in society. One of the questions regards the theoretical outlook and conceptual framing of “democracy”, “democratic practices in education” and “democratic participation” which becomes visible in the study’s design in 2016 and 2022 respectively. Another central focus lies on how the shift towards a heightened sensitivity to “heterogeneity” is being interpreted in the design for the most recent study design. In light of the obligation by Swedish law and curriculum to offer differentiations and adjustments of the educational setting and pedagogical practices so as to provide optimal conditions for all students’ abilities and needs, it will be of particular interest how “special needs” are conceptualized and observed in the 2022 study design. The results of the latest study will be published in December 2023 and a critical analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of the understanding of “democracy”, “democratic participation” and “heterogeneity” will provide a useful lens for how we will be able to interpret and learn from the results in the Swedish context and beyond.
The main methodological approach is a conceptual analysis of notions relating to democracy and democratic participation in relation to important philosophical approaches in the field of philosophy of education as well as current literature in political philosophy. I will relate to the work of John Dewey, Jürgen Habermas, Chantal Mouffe, Axel Honneth, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Stanley Cavell, Rahel Jaeggi, and Carl Anders Säfström amongst others.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results of 2016 ICCS have been presented and analyzed from different national perspectives and in a considerable number of previous reports and articles. The purpose of the present paper is to contribute with a specifically philosophical analysis of the study design as well as the interpretation of its results. This will be able to shed light on some of the paradoxes and complexities which were mentioned but not understood and explored in-depth in previous studies (e.g. Abs et al. 2020; Deimel et al. 2020; Skolverket 2017). Furthermore, by looking at the philosophical and conceptual underpinning of the study I hope to contribute with philosophical arguments for why the strife for an education for all requires us to re-focus on the social aims of education and to broaden the current understanding of the epistemic aims of education. I will also contribute to the existing discussion by showing how we can think about the framing of "participating of democracy" in new and creative ways with the help of Honneth (2022) and Säfström (2022).
ReferencesAbs, H. J., Hahn-Laudenberg, K., Deimel, D. & Ziemes, J. (2020). “Zum Stand der Vorbereitung auf die Demokratie. Die International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016”, in: UNIKATE 55 – Heft Bildungsforschung 2020.
Deimel, D., Hoskins, B. & Abs, H. J. (2020). “How Do Schools Affect Inequalities in Political Participation: Compensation of Social Disadvantage or Provision of Differential Access?”, in: Educational Psychology, 40(2), pp. 146–166.
Honneth, A. (2022). "The Invisible Rebellion: Working People Under the New Capitalist Economy", in: Crisis under Critique. Columbia University Press, pp. 387-402.
Säfström, C. A. (2022). A Pedagogy of Equality in a Time of Unrest. Routledge.
Skolverket (2017). ICCS 2016. Kunskaper, värderingar och engagemang i medborgar- demokrati- och samhällsfrågor hos svenska 14-åringar i ett internationellt perspektiv. Stockholm Skolverket.
|
