Conference Agenda

In hardly any other format is the dimension of the temporalisation of the social and thus also of education as clear as in biography (Alheit & Dausien, 2000; Stasz, 1976; Tileagă, 2011). As a social construction, biographies are created at the interface between the individual and society: they are therefore often described as an amalgamation of the micro and macro levels. The interplay of past, present and future produces an individual story of learning and education (Schulze, 1993). It is this form of temporalisation that promises continuity and reliability beyond all disruptions and uncertainties, especially in the course of social pluralisation, increasing uncertainties and (global) social crises (e.g. consequences of ecological catastrophes and devastation), as described in Society on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown (Lessenich, 2022). Not only the reference to past and present, but also the future openness of the biography is of central importance here.

Therefore, we think it is important to take a closer look at the logic of the biographical and the associated bodies of knowledge, when considering the shaping of the future from an educational perspective. Biographical knowledge is not only individual, but closely linked to social and collective memories (Alheit & Hoerning, 1989). It is ultimately from this reservoir (e.g. surplus meaning of life experience - Alheit, 2022, p. 119) that the potential for shaping the future is drawn. In our contribution, we would like to take a look at this potential and focus on the significance of remembering and forgetting for education and the construction of the future. Our thesis is that the study of forgetting in particular has received too little attention, and that its perspectivisation holds productive potential for research on education and the future. Based on this thesis, we show in our presentation how forgetting in its various forms (e.g. erasure, concealment, silence, overwriting, ignoring, neutralisation, denial and loss) (Assmann, 2016) can open up new perspectives on un/certainty, the future and initiate education.

In order to develop our considerations, we proceed as follows: First, we outline the constructed nature of biographies in order to then theoretically sharpen the meaning that forgetting and the forgotten have for education and the future; second, we underpin our considerations with two empirical examples; and finally, we conclude by emphasising the relevance of forgetting for the study of education and the future in uncertain times.

The world is shaken by multiple crises like accumulating natural disasters, global pandemics and reactive social forces as indicated by the increase of extremist right-wing populism. Not only do they lead to an exacerbation of social inequalities, they also raise attention to the fact that individual and collective futures are constantly at stake. Certainties have become a rare good, especially for those who suffer the most from discriminatory discourse like racism, sexism, nationalism, heteronormativity or classism. Still, schools continue to be a central arena for conveying certainty: They follow the meritocratic principle and thus make subjects believe that they will be successful in education through performance, and can secure long-term social and societal integration (Hadjar & Becker 2016). Subjects fall prey to this neoliberal promise of being able to belong in school and society if you just try hard enough (Davies & Bansel 2007). However, it becomes apparent that sexism and racism thwart the promise of equal opportunities at school and make it more of an illusion than a lived reality (Bourdieu & Passeron 1977; Phoenix 2005, Youdell 2006). Consequently, subjects are thrown back on their social positioning, no matter how meticulously they try to conform with meritocratic principles.

In our paper, we use biographies to tackle the question of how subjects in deprivileged social positions negotiate the meritocratic illusion they encounter in school. We assume that biographies can not only demonstrate how students are affected by and suffer from powerful structures, but how they “work” with these, in e.g. resisting, complying, and often contradictory ways. To conceptualize how subjects submit to powerful discourses like meritocracy, but also racism and sexism, we use Judith Butler’s concept of subjectivation (Butler 1997). According to Butler, subjects are not pre-given entities but are constantly produced in and through powerful discourses: Individuals are subjected through discursive interpellations (Althusser 1971) which address them to develop a sense of the self as somebody in the world in relation to others. However, subjects in privileged positions can often perceive themselves as sovereign agents, while subjects that experience racist or sexist interpellations over and over again, as observed in the school context (Chadderton 2018; Youdell 2006), might struggle with the construction of a stable self. Therefore, the possibilities to conceive of oneself as a (more or less) stable, certain, sovereign subject encountering safe and certain spaces within one’s biography are distributed very unequally among individuals and vary widely according to one’s position inside the power relations of society.

By the example of two case studies in two different national school contexts (Turkey and Germany), we ask for the production of certainties in biographies of marginalized subjects. Both of them refer to biographies of women with “successful” educational pathways despite the fact that they are marginalized along discourses of race and gender. On the basis of excerpts from two biographical interviews, we seek to show how students engage with the meritocratic principle performed in education to “work” on their belonging to collectives defined along the lines of race and gender. Particularly with regard to experiences of discrimination, it becomes clear how the belief in school performance (in)ability is intertwined with race and gender norms in this affiliation work. We will focus on different ways in which subjects attempt to create certainty of action by adapting to hegemonic norms. By understanding the desire to comply with social norms as a way of future-making, we ask both for the biographical functions as well as for the subjectivating effects of these practices.

The doctorate is, by its nature, rich with tensions. Park (2005) articulated an evolving tension between product (thesis) and process (training, development of academic identity, integration into the discipline) in the policy discourse and institutional delivery of doctoral education. Fast-forward two decades and the ‘doctoral experience’ in many national contexts has expanded to incorporate generalist and specialist training and development, mobility, competitions and work-based experiences – alongside the informal ‘hidden curriculum’ (Elliot, Bengsten, Guccione and Kobayashi, 2020) of learning opportunities with which doctoral candidates must engage. The becoming-researcher is expected to do far more than create one discreet project to make a successful transition into an academic career (Clarence and van Heerden, 2023).

The time available to postgraduate researchers and supervisors to complete a doctorate has not changed, however. The tension between product and process then manifests, for postgraduate researchers and supervisors, as a persistent struggle for balance: between time for freer thinking, writing and discovery and a timeline in a GANTT chart; between enabling pauses and redirection and setting due dates that focus the production of assessable content. These tensions play out against a societal backdrop marked by rapid change, anxiety (related to conflict, war, economic pressures, climate change), and uncertainty on many fronts. This may mean, in education, greater pressure to create certainty for our students, to manage anxiety and perhaps play down the tensions inherent in any learning process, where not knowing, ambivalence and time to think are crucial parts of the learning journey. This is perhaps most marked at doctoral level, where candidates must become independent, confident and autonomous researchers, ready for an unknown future, and able to create and conduct new research projects and processes.

The time implied in the development of a doctoral identity, expert knowledge, and advanced research competencies is not only linear time (i.e., from registration to graduation). Other kinds of time play out in doctoral journeys that are critical to the kinds of learning and becoming doctorates are designed to enable. In particular, what Araujo (2005, 197) calls ‘circular’ time, marked by ‘unpredictable and iterative periods of adaptation, uncertainty, ambivalence and becoming’ (Manathunga 2019, 1230). Circular time in doctoral research implicates another form of time, what Barnett (2015, 121) has termed ‘epistemic time’ - ‘careful time, expansive time, watchful time, listening time’. Linear time implies certainty, about the process and by extension the kinds of development needed to make it happen 'in time'. Circular time, epistemic time, are uncertain by contrast, and need to unfold outside of the linear timestream to enable meaningful knowledge-making as well as meaningful researcher development. These kinds of time enable ‘lines of flight, movement, deterritorialization and destratification’ (Deleuze & Guattari,1988, 3) in thinking, which appear messy, de-centred and distracted. They are, however, necessary to a mode of deep thinking which is fundamental to the quality of the thesis, the contribution to knowledge, and the development of future-facing researchers.

But, the carer-candidate, the self-funded candidate, the international candidate remind us that time is not neutral and not equally accessible to all - any form of time involved in the doctorate. The challenge, it seems, is the structure of the PhD itself as a discreet research project, one that can be managed within the linear timestream, results in publishable outputs, and produces a particular kind of researcher. This form of the PhD may belong to the past, and what may be needed is a radical reimagining of the doctorate as a way of producing research outputs and developing researchers. This reimagining must be informed by critical understanding of temporality, and further, of equity, access, and diversity.