Conference Agenda

This symposium aims to critically reflect on how non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung may offer new avenues for revitalizing contemporary European Didaktik. While a non-affirmative approach to Didaktik shares core assumptions with Bildung-oriented traditions, it also introduces nuanced yet crucial distinctions in how pedagogical influence is conceptualized. By employing and refining analyses of key concepts such as Bildsamkeit, summons to self-activity, and recognition, non-affirmative Didaktik addresses and overcomes several widely acknowledged difficulties in understanding the pedagogical relation.

The symposium draws on contemporary interpretations of educational theory, such as those developed by Dietrich Benner, as well as rereadings of classical thinkers in modern education, including J. F. Herbart in Germany and J. V. Snellman in Finland. It argues that a non-teleological understanding of history and societal development, combined with a non-hierarchical conception of the relationship between institutional education and politics, economy, and culture, requires viewing the school as a “radical space for reflection” endowed with relative independence. Here, radicality refers neither to normatively politicized pedagogical activism nor to subordinating education to interests external to the school.

Non-affirmative Didaktik defends the relative autonomy of schools against initiatives that seek to turn schooling into a tool for conservative reproduction or naïve utopianism. Instead, it articulates a third way beyond the instrumentalization of education for either social reproduction or social transformation. This perspective requires recognizing schools as radical spaces for reflection that enable students to engage critically with contemporary challenges, existing knowledge, democratic forms, and issues of sustainability.

The symposium maintains that the core pedagogical architecture of the contemporary European school has evolved on the basis of ideas now articulated within non-affirmative Didaktik, as outlined above. However, contemporary public education policies in many countries worldwide appear to have lost sight of these foundational ideas. It seems unlikely that widely implemented curricular trends—such as techno-centrism in education, educational performativism, competencism, conservative educational factualism, and forms of educational activism—provide productive educational visions, methods, or conceptual tools for policymakers, teachers, and school leaders.

The European modern educational tradition, which promotes autonomy and solidarity, thus contains fertile seeds for the future. However, these perspectives require reinterpretation in order to address contemporary global challenges, including political populism, cultural neoconservatism and nationalism, economic protectionism, digitalization, religious fundamentalism, sustainability issues, declining trust in media and knowledge institutions, and tensions between East and West, as well as North and South.

Furthermore, the symposium argues that a European gaze in theorizing Didaktik needs strengthening—not least within Europe itself, but also through sustained dialogue with the Anglophone world, Asia, and the Global South. In this regard, while theoretical universalism may hold value in a diverse world, the future path lies in theoretical multilingualism.

The overarching message of this symposium is that the modern tradition of theorizing Bildung as a process of human growth, together with a non-affirmative theory of pedagogical influence and intervention, provides key resources for moving beyond conceptions of education as either conservative enculturation or transformative formation of the individual learner.

The symposium is structured around four contributions. Zsanett Bicsak offers a rereading of Herbart with respect to the concepts of affirmativity and non-affirmativity. Michael Uljens presents a contemporary interpretation of non-affirmative Didaktik for schools. Khalil Gholami explores the contribution of non-affirmative theory to understanding the ethical dimensions of the pedagogical relation. Finally, Fangxin Liu conducts a comprehensive comparative analysis of non-affirmative education theory and the prevailing concept of person education in China.

Johann Friedrich Herbart, the founder of modern pedagogy, defined the goal of education in terms of morality. His concept is based on normative principles and is therefore similar to many professional, political, and ideological trends of the 21st century, which define their educational and teaching principles according to certain values or moral principles. Herbart's educational ideal is linked to the question of "what we want to achieve through education," and from this point of view, it is teleological, just like many contemporary trends that support certain educational or social ideas. Nevertheless, when studying Herbartian pedagogy, it becomes apparent that an important element of Herbartian pedagogy is the value of individual freedom and autonomy, which unfolds through individual judgments and choices. Therefore, the Herbartian pedagogy serves as an example of how normative foundations do not necessarily mean their affirmative enforcement. In line with this, the following paper presents how Herbartian pedagogy is conceptually rich and confronts many contemporary trends that compete to become dominant and define the future of citizens and societies. Drawing on primary and secondary sources, my aim is to discuss what Herbart's educational goals are and how education relates to the modern society or political system. It is worth examining exactly what moral character means in Herbart's sense and how (respect for) individual freedom manifests itself in education. The study concludes that Herbartian pedagogy is based on normative principles, but Herbart does not apply any vision in a reinforcing manner. Herbart does not accept the subordination of education to any political/ideological order, including a future social ideal. Non-affirmativeness also appears at the student level: students cannot be subjected to external will either. All this reminds us in the 21st century that every positive and transformative endeavour can preserve and represent its normative values, but the participants and those who determine and influence the functioning of the school should engage in dialogue rather than imposing one concept or another.

Benner, D. (2015). Allgemeine pädagogik (8th ed.). Beltz Juventa. Benner, D. (2023). On affirmativity and non-affirmativity in the context of theories of education and Bildung. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung (pp. 21–59). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30551-1_2 Bicsák, Z. Á. (2016). Vált(akozó) olvasatok Johann Friedrich Herbart pedagógiájának hazai recepciójában. Gondolat. Herbart, J. F. (1806). Allgemeine Pädagogik aus dem Zweck der Erziehung abgeleitet. In K. Kehrbach (Hrsg.) (1887), Joh. Fr. Herbart’s sämtliche Werke II (pp. 5–117). Langensalza: Hermann & Beyer Söhne. Herbart, J. F. (1818). Über das Verhältnis der Schule zum Leben. Vorgelesen in der Deutschen Gesellschaft zu Königsberg am Krönungstage, dem 18. Januar 1818. In G. Hartenstein (Hrsg.) (1851), Joh. Fr. Herbart’s sämtliche Werke XI (p. 388). Leipzig: Leopold Voss. Herbart, J. F. (1825). Umriss Psychologie als Wissenschaft. In K. Kehrbach & O. Flugel (Hrsg.) (1890), Joh. Friedr. Herbart’s sämtliche Werke VI (S. 1–50). Langensalza: Hermann Beyer & Söhne. Rucker, T. (2023). Knowledge, values and subject-ness: Educative teaching as a regulative idea of school development in the twenty-first century. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung (pp. 63–82). Cham: Springer. (Educational Governance Research). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30551-1_3 Uljens, M. (Ed.) (2023). Non-affirmative theory of education and bildung. Springer Open Access. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30551-1

This paper proposes non-affirmative school didactic theory as a framework for understanding educative teaching for Bildung in the context of comprehensive education. The approach conceptualizes curriculum work, teaching, leadership, and assessment as distributed, relational, and multi-level phenomena. Didaktik is understood here not as the science of teaching and learning, but as the science of the teaching–studying–learning (TSL) process, including curriculum leadership. Non-affirmative school didactics builds on classical concepts within European modern education theory, such as Bildsamkeit (the capacity for and activity of self-formation), teaching as the summoning of the Other to self-activity, and recognition of the Other’s self-activity, lifeworld, and potentiality. These concepts have been developed by contemporary scholars such as Dietrich Benner in Germany, while historically they were introduced in Finland by J. V. Snellman in the 1860s. The paper argues that education in political democracies requires policies and practices aligned with principles of non-affirmative educative emancipation—principles that go beyond the affirmative transmission of knowledge or the socialization of learners into predefined norms. The argument also draws on Herbart’s notions of educative teaching and pedagogical tact. In contrast to, for example, Klafki, one point of departures is the philosophy of subjectivity and intersubjectivity. From this perspective, theories of education and Bildung must address two fundamental paradoxes. First, the pedagogical paradox of intersubjectivity asks how an individual, already embedded in a shared world from birth, comes to participate in that world through a pedagogical process. Second, the pedagogical paradox of subjectivity asks how an individual—conceived as an undetermined or free being—develops an awareness of herself as such through a pedagogically supported process of Bildung. These paradoxes are addressed in two steps. First, three distinct concepts of subjectivity and three corresponding concepts of intersubjectivity are identified. Second, the paper outlines how processes of Bildung and pedagogical activity mediate the individual’s development from rudimentary forms of subjectivity and intersubjectivity to more advanced ones. This line of reasoning moves beyond reductionist accounts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity. While the classical core notions of recognition, Bildsamkeit, and summoning were originally developed to understand teaching, this paper argues that they can also be used to conceptualize educational leadership and curriculum governance across all levels of the school system. In doing so, non-affirmative school didactics offers a coherent theoretical foundation for analyzing and developing educational practices that are reflective, emancipatory, and responsive to the complexities of pluralistic, democratic societies.

Benner, D. (2023). On affirmativity and non-affirmativity in the context of theories of education and Bildung. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung. Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-30551-1_2 Deng, Z. (2020). Knowledge, content, curriculum and Didaktik: Beyond social realism. Routledge. Herbart, J. F. (1991). Didaktische Texte zu Unterricht und Erziehung in Wissenschaft und Schule. Deimling. Hjulström, E. & Rytzler, J. (2022). Herbart with Rancière on the educational significance of the ‘Third Thing’ in teaching. Ethics and Education, 17(4), 421- 436. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2022.2153470 Horlacher, R. (2016). The educated subject and the German concept of Bildung. A comparative cultural history. Routledge. Klafki, W. (1997). Kritisk-konstruktiv didaktik. In M. Uljens (Red.), Didaktik (p. 215–229). Studentlitteratur. Mollenhauer, K. (2014). Forgotten connections. On culture and upbringing. Routledge. Rucker, T. (2024). Allgemeine Didaktik als Theorie eines erziehenden Unterrichts mit Bildungsanspruch. In K. Ammann, Kira, F. Emmenegger, R. Gerstgrasser, O. Ibrahim, T. Rucker, & G. Welti (Eds.), Bildsamkeit – Komplexität – Werteorientierung. Beiträge zur erziehungswissenschaftlichen Grundlagenforschung (pp. 222–244). Julius Klinkhardt. Uljens, M. (1997). School didactics and learning. Psychology Press. Uljens, M. & Ylimaki, R. (2017). (Eds.), Bridging educational leadership, curriculum theory and Didaktik. Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-58650-2_1. Willbergh, I. (2021). Bildung-centered general didactics. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.

The hegemony of neoliberal ideology poses a significant threat to political and democratic processes across various sectors of the public sphere, including educational systems. Increasing evidence suggests a global shift in education towards market-driven policy has eroded fundamental human virtues including relationships, empathy, responsiveness, and important of collective practices, resulting in a moral crisis of care that affects students, teachers, and families. This shift has led to what Butler (2009) terms moral precarity, raising concerns that younger generation may lose their sense of responsibility and commitment to care for others. Drawing on existing literature, this paper suggests that the ethics of care provides a robust ethical framework to address these challenges (Gilligan, 1993; Noddings, 2013; Ruddick, 1995). However, as Slote (2007) argues care ethics may inadvertently neglect respect for autonomy, creating a tension between relational interdependence and individual autonomy. This paper posits that non-affirmative theory (Uljens, 2023) offers conceptual tools, particularly through the notions of summoning to self-activity and recognition, to address this ontological tension. This paper is a philosophical analysis, and two methodological actions were conducted to conceptualize how the ethics of care can be reinterpreted through non-affirmative theory of education. Focusing on the main texts of key theorists of ethics of care including Gilligan (1993), Ruddick (2021), Nodding (2013), Toronto (1994), and Held (2006), the ontological and epistemological dimensions of care as a moral theory was explored. Then, the ontological and epistemological aspects of care were analysed through non-affirmative theory of education. The findings shows that Summoning, as discussed in non-affirmative theory, reframes autonomy as a relational practice, enabling critical self-awareness and moral agency within caring relationships. This integration transforms the ethics of care from a relational ontology to a relational-autonomous ontology, emphasizing the dynamic interplay of interdependence and autonomy. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of this reinterpretation for school pedagogy and policy, suggesting an ethical reorientation of neoliberal practices to foster a pedagogy grounded in care and autonomy.

Butler, J. (2009). Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? Verso Books. Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press. Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford University Press. Miller, S. C. (2021). Neoliberalism, Moral Precarity, and the Crisis of Care. In M. Hamington & M. Flower (Eds.), Care Ethics in the Age of Precarity (pp. 48–67). University of Minnesota Press; https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctv2382dwh.6 Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics & moral education. University of California Press. Ruddick, S. (2021). Maternal Thinking. In A. O’Reilly (Ed.), Maternal Theory (pp. 69–86). Demeter Press; https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1s2t0hn.8 Slater, G. B. (2015). Education as recovery: Neoliberalism, school reform, and the politics of crisis. Journal of Education Policy, 30(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.904930 Slote, M. A. (2007). The ethics of care and empathy. Routledge. Tronto, J. C. (1994). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge. Uljens, M. (2023). Non-affirmative Theory of Education: Problems, positionings and possibilities. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Non-affirmative Theory of Education and Bildung (pp. 3–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30551-1_1

Under neoliberalism, instrumentalization of education for economic purposes has been intensely accentuated in post-industrial societies, necessitating critical reflection on both educational practice and theory. How should a theory of education be structured as to consider both societal needs and the individual's right to develop as a cultural subject and political citizen? Non-Affirmative Theory of Education (NAT) and Educational Subject Philosophy (ESP) represent theoretical attempts to address the question in Europe and China. This study undertakes a comparative analysis of the two approaches that seek to respond to the same educational problem from different perspectives. The comparative analysis reveals two distinct philosophical perspectives on the nature of education: ESP conceptualizes education as a social practice jointly carried out by educators and students possessing subjectivity. In contrast, NAT defines the nature of education as non-affirmative. NAT opposes affirmative education, which requires students to adhere to certain externally predetermined developmental directions—whether reproductive or revolutionary. Both approaches emphasize education as a specialized activity aimed at cultivating individuals, advocating for the development of culturally reflective and self-determining subjects. They acknowledge that such education must function by summoning students' self-activity or leading their instructional cognition. Crucially, educators cannot provide answers on behalf of the learners. However, regarding how to address the relationship between education and other social practices, NAT advocates for clarifying the boundaries between educational practice and other social practices, while ESP proposes a functionalist approach, emphasizing that respecting the independence of education means nurturing autonomous and responsible social subjects, thereby contributing to the collective progress of various societal domains in the long run. NAT illustrates that the knowledge economy era requires non-affirmative education, whereas ESP's perspective reminds educational researchers that in an age where economic practices are amplified and human economic attributes are emphasized, it is essential to consider the essence of education from a three-dimensional standpoint—encompassing education, human development, and social progress—so that education can unify its functions of promoting the development of individuals' inner powers and fostering societal advancement.

Benner, D. (2023). On affirmativity and non-affirmativity in the context of theories of education and Bildung. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung (pp. 21–59). Springer. Benner, D., Meyer, H., Peng, Z., & Li, Z. (Eds.) (2018). Contributions to the Chinese-German didactic dialogue. Klinkhardt. Deng, Z. (2011). Confucianism, modernization and Chinese pedagogy: An introduction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(5), 561–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2011.617837 Huang, W. (2002). The theory of subjectivity education: The educational philosophy of The Times. Educational Research, (4), 74–77. Li, Z. (1985). Additional notes on subjectivity. Journal of Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, (1), 14–21. Lu, J. (1999). Man toward world history: On the transformation of man and education. Educational Research, (11), 3–10. Peng, Z., & Peng, T. (Eds.) (2023). Defending the logic of education: Dietrich Bener’s works in China. Educational Science Publishing House. Uljens, M. (2023). Non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung. Springer. Wu, H. (2000). The present situation and reflection of the research of educational subjective theory in China. Journal of Central China Normal University (Humanities and Social Sciences), (6), 136–142. Yuan, G. (1988). Subjectivity and human subjectivity. Hebei Academic Journal, 23–29.