Rethinking Subjectification: On the Limits of Biesta's Educational Theory

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Andrew Thompson
{"title":"Rethinking Subjectification: On the Limits of Biesta's Educational Theory","authors":"Andrew Thompson","doi":"10.1111/edth.12650","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this article, Andrew Thompson explores the tension between Gert Biesta's concept of educational purpose and education's historical function. For Biesta, the purpose of education consists of three overlapping spheres: qualification, socialization, and subjectification. While scholars have devoted a great deal of attention to Biesta's notion of subjectification, there is not enough consideration of his treatment of socialization and its limits on human freedom. Here, Thompson examines the historical role of socialization as it relates to the cultivation of self-reflecting and self-governing citizens through a process Ian Hunter describes as pastoral pedagogy. Both Biesta and Hunter critique essentialist notions of subjectivity, noting that critical pedagogy in both liberal and Marxian iterations has relied upon a metaphysics informed by Kantian moral definition in which the subject must freely exercise rational autonomy toward self-realization. While Biesta suggests redefining the subject, Hunter dismisses any attempt at redefinition as irrelevant since the school's historical process of moral development is inevitably linked to the antiquated liberal ideal. In Hunter's view, all attempts to escape the school's moral teleology inexorably employ a pedagogy that is based on the moral ideal its critics wish to eliminate. This article illustrates the agonism inherent in Biesta's concept of educational purpose and explores the role of the theorist as the expression of a particular moral self that informs the ideal persona of the teacher.</p>","PeriodicalId":47134,"journal":{"name":"EDUCATIONAL THEORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/edth.12650","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EDUCATIONAL THEORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/edth.12650","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, Andrew Thompson explores the tension between Gert Biesta's concept of educational purpose and education's historical function. For Biesta, the purpose of education consists of three overlapping spheres: qualification, socialization, and subjectification. While scholars have devoted a great deal of attention to Biesta's notion of subjectification, there is not enough consideration of his treatment of socialization and its limits on human freedom. Here, Thompson examines the historical role of socialization as it relates to the cultivation of self-reflecting and self-governing citizens through a process Ian Hunter describes as pastoral pedagogy. Both Biesta and Hunter critique essentialist notions of subjectivity, noting that critical pedagogy in both liberal and Marxian iterations has relied upon a metaphysics informed by Kantian moral definition in which the subject must freely exercise rational autonomy toward self-realization. While Biesta suggests redefining the subject, Hunter dismisses any attempt at redefinition as irrelevant since the school's historical process of moral development is inevitably linked to the antiquated liberal ideal. In Hunter's view, all attempts to escape the school's moral teleology inexorably employ a pedagogy that is based on the moral ideal its critics wish to eliminate. This article illustrates the agonism inherent in Biesta's concept of educational purpose and explores the role of the theorist as the expression of a particular moral self that informs the ideal persona of the teacher.

反思主体化:关于比埃斯塔教育理论的局限性
安德鲁-汤普森(Andrew Thompson)在本文中探讨了格特-比埃斯塔(Gert Biesta)的教育目的概念与教育的历史功能之间的矛盾。在比埃斯塔看来,教育的目的包括三个相互重叠的领域:资质、社会化和主体化。虽然学者们对毕斯塔的主体化概念给予了大量关注,但对他对社会化的处理及其对人类自由的限制却考虑不足。在此,汤普森通过伊恩-亨特(Ian Hunter)所描述的 "田园教育学 "过程,研究了社会化在培养自我反思和自我管理的公民方面的历史作用。比埃斯塔和亨特都批判了主体性的本质主义概念,指出批判教育学在自由主义和马克思主义的迭代中都依赖于康德道德定义的形而上学,其中主体必须自由地行使理性自主权以实现自我。比埃斯塔建议重新定义主体,而亨特则认为任何重新定义的尝试都是无关紧要的,因为学校道德发展的历史进程不可避免地与过时的自由主义理想联系在一起。在亨特看来,所有试图摆脱学校道德目的论的尝试都不可避免地采用了一种基于批评者希望消除的道德理想的教学法。本文阐述了比埃斯塔的教育目的概念中固有的冲突主义,并探讨了理论家作为特定道德自我的表达者所扮演的角色,这种道德自我为教师的理想人格提供了依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
EDUCATIONAL THEORY
EDUCATIONAL THEORY EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The general purposes of Educational Theory are to foster the continuing development of educational theory and to encourage wide and effective discussion of theoretical problems within the educational profession. In order to achieve these purposes, the journal is devoted to publishing scholarly articles and studies in the foundations of education, and in related disciplines outside the field of education, which contribute to the advancement of educational theory. It is the policy of the sponsoring organizations to maintain the journal as an open channel of communication and as an open forum for discussion.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信