PHILOSOPHY of EDUCATION SOCIETY
2010 Alternative/Works in Progress Session Abstracts
ABSTRACTS ALTERNATIVE SESSIONS
FRIDAY 9 APRIL
12:45 – 2:00pm Alternative Sessions I
A (book panel: meet the authors) John Dewey at 150
Panelists: A.G. Rud (Purdue University), Lynda Stone (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Jim Garrison (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University), Gert Biesta (University of Stirling), David Hansen (Teachers College Columbia University), Jiwon Kim (Purdue University), Nel Noddings (Stanford University), Hongmei Peng (Independent Scholar), Barbara Stengel (Millersville University), Leonard Waks (Temple University)
The sesquicentennial of the birth of John Dewey is 2009. In recognition of this occasion, Purdue University Press will publish late this year John Dewey at One Hundred-Fifty: Reflections for a New Century, edited by A. G. Rud, Jim Garrison, and Lynda Stone. For decades, Dewey was America’s most public intellectual. A truly cosmopolitan philosopher, his ninetieth birthday in 1949 was formally celebrated in Canada, Denmark, England, France, Holland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Sweden, and Turkey as well as the United States. Often called the philosopher of reconstruction, Dewey developed his thought slowly but steadily in his lifetime moving from Hegelian objective idealism to experimental naturalism and pragmatism. The context and course of events sometimes led him to dramatically change his mind, as when he recognized his mistake in supporting World War I and became a leader in the Outlawry of War movement. Today, in the Deweyan spirit, we seek to critically recover and reconstruct John Dewey for our time.
B (Ethics SIG) Ethics for Educators: Lessons from the Field
Panelists: Kenneth Howe (University of Colorado at Boulder), Daniel Vokey (University of British Columbia), Megan Laverty (Teachers College Columbia University)
Respondent: Michael Katz (San Jose State University)
Chair: Barbara Applebaum (Syracuse University)
This is the third in a series of PES Ethics SIG sponsored alternative sessions exploring aspects of the general question “What and how should philosophers of education teach about ethics?” Panelists will take ten minutes each to share key insights and advice from their professional experience teaching ethics to such groups as pre-service teachers (aka teacher candidates), in-service teachers, school administrators, adult educators, graduate students in educational programs, and other professionals. Short presentations will be followed by an equally short response. Presentations are kept brief to allow time for discussion among session participants so that members of the audience can bring insights and advice from their own experience to the conversation.
C (Spirituality and Religion SIG) To the Truth, Roughly Speaking: McLaughlin on Religious Education in Liberal Democracy
Presenter: Hanan A. Alexander (University of California Berkeley and University of Haifa)
Respondent: Claudia Eppert (University of Alberta)
Chair: Kevin Gary (Goshen College)
In Faith in Education: A Tribute to Terence McLaughlin, Hanan Alexander takes up the late Terry
McLaughlin's side in a well-known dispute with Eamonn Callan over the liberal right of parents to educate their children in religion. Alexander argues that McLaughlin favors the sort of robust pluralism according to which the personal autonomy of liberal citizens may be embedded in thick cultures infused with 'belief in' dynamic faith traditions, whereas Callan supports a more uniform liberal society peopled by rationally autonomous citizens whose religious and other commitments are based on logically or empirically justified 'beliefs that' something is the case. McLaughlin's view is in keeping with the sort of covenantal theology found in the Hebrew Scriptures, Alexander suggests, and most probably in the sacred texts of other faiths as well, which is often misunderstood by those who ground their liberalism in a narrow account of rationality. Two concerns have been raised regarding this account. First, even if McLaughlin embraced a covenantal account of faith, this is irrelevant to Callan's objections concerning the liberal right of parents to instill that faith in children. Second, by focusing on his 1984 essay and 1985 rejoinder and not his subsequent essays on religion and liberalism, Alexander says he may have misconstrued McLaughlin. In this paper he responds to these concerns by situating his defense of McLaughlin in his subsequent work. Claudia Epper, in turn, offers a response to Alexander’s presentation.
D (Demonstration) A Philosophical Wikiriculum
Presenter: Lynn Fendler (Michigan State University)
This is an interactive, hands-on demonstration of a wiki-based graduate course in philosophy of education. Experienced and novice wiki users are all welcome. Everyone who wishes will be invited to become a member of this wiki. If you bring your laptop, you will be able to contribute to the wiki during this session.
Some features of a wiki-based philosophy of ed course include the following:
1. A Hyperlinked Multidimensional Curriculum
- Classical philosophy texts
- Current philosophical scholarship
- History of philosophy
- Philosophical discussions of topical issues
- Opportunities to practice making philosophical arguments
2. Pedagogical Features Made Explicit
- The collective, negotiated, iterative aspects of knowledge production are made explicit as wiki pages get built over time.
- In a wiki, everybody can edit pages. This feature embodies all the best and worst aspects of democracy, but in any case, those features are made more explicit.
- The relationship between assumptions and claims can be made more explicit in the architecture of the wiki. This iterative process shows how assumptions, theories, and claims are mutually implicated.
This wiki has served as the platform for an online MA course and as a resource for a conventional Ph.D. course in philosophy of ed, so the wiki already has some substance for us to discuss. By the end of the session, even first-time wiki users will be able to create and edit pages. Together we can build and edit pages based on our ideas about content, pedagogy, and aesthetics in philosophy of education.
3:45 – 4:45pm General Alternative Session I
(COPA) On the Trials, Tribulations, and Value of Translating Philosophical Discourse and Insights for Educational Practitioners
Panelists: Gert Biesta (Stirling Institute of Educatin, University of Stirling), Ann Chinnery (Simon Fraser University), Troy Richardson (Cornell University), Claudia Ruitenberg (University of British Columbia), Paul Standish (University of Dundee)
Chair: Ron Glass (University of California, Santa Cruz)
This panel will focus on the philosophical and pedagogical challenges of translation that arise in the work of philosophers of education who engage with communities of educational practitioners who themselves have little or no background in either philosophy or philosophy of education. In particular, these challenges involve: the risks of significant distortions that ensue in transitions from technical-theoretical to everyday discourses; the possibilities for bowdlerization of core philosophic theses to reduce resistance to theories; the temptations to “dumb down” texts to make them more accessible; the misconceptions that emerge when theoretical insights are interpreted as 'recipes' for action. These translation challenges can impact the quality of our philosophizing, the salience of our discipline for the broader field of education, and the security of our professional standing in graduate programs in education. The panel will also address the value in working through these challenges in order that the insights from philosophic investigations can inform the preparation and practice of educators. Panelists will offer limited presentations and the audience will be invited into a vigorous dialogue. COPA intends to synthesize the session into a journal article.
5:00 – 6:00 pm General Alternative Session II
Philosophers of Education in the Spheres of Education Policy and Practice
Panelists: John Covaleskie, University of Oklahoma), Robert Floden (Michigan State University), Kathy Hytten (Southern Illinois University), Kenneth Howe (University of Colorado at Boulder), Terri S. Wilson (Southern Illinois University)
Chair: Michele S. Moses, University of Colorado at Boulder
This interactive panel session brings together six PES members who aim for their work to be pertinent and useful to education policy and practice. Panelists representing different areas of interest and public involvement will prepare brief remarks (5 minutes each) and then the facilitator will lead an interactive dialogue with the participants and audience about these issues. The aim is to cover a number of arenas in which philosophers of education can and should have influence. Panelists’ topics will include reflections on how to bring educational philosophy and policy expertise into the community via opportunities for democratic dialogue; how philosophers of education can work with in- and pre-service teachers to understand that education is political; how philosophers can contribute to policy discussions by pointing out the ambiguity of key terms (e.g., “teacher quality”) and making explicit differences in meaning; how philosophers of education can influence teacher and administrator preparation programs, in part by raising important, non-instrumentally rational questions about current practices; attention to the role that philosophical inquiry might play in helping policymakers and district officials understand the competing moral and political dimensions of desegregation efforts and choice policies; and the question of when philosophers of education are working in the public arena: is it genuine, applied, or bubble gum philosophy they’re doing?
8:00 – 9:15pm Alternative Sessions II
A Web 2.0 and the Transformation of Knowledge and Education
Panelists: Michael Peters (University of Illinois), Nicholas C. Burbules (University of Illinois), David Waddington, (Concordia University), Leonard Waks (Temple University)
Discussant: Tina Besley (University of Illinois)
Web 2.0, with its emphasis on openness, interaction and participation, now dominates the internet landscape, facilitating information exchange (e.g. Flickr), collaboration (e.g. Linux, Wikipedia), and social action (e.g. flash mobs). It has entered K-12 and higher education via open research platforms (e.g., the genome project), open course-ware (e.g., MIT open course initiative), open textbooks (California open-source texts) and curriculum wikis (e.g., Curriki). Question: How are philosophers to understand and assess these web 2.0 technologies of knowledge and learning? Michael Peters, University of Illinois. Openness, Web Technology, and Open Science; Nicholas C. Burbules, University of Illinois Peer Collaboration and Epistemology of Distributed Knowledge; David Waddington, Concordia University. Thinking about Web 2.0: Dewey and Heidegger; Leonard Waks, Temple University. Web 2.0 and the Transformation of Educational Concepts: School, Teacher, Learner, Subject Matter
B (Topical Discussion) ‘Smart Drugs’, ‘Brain Boosters’, and “Cosmetic Neurology”: The Ethics of Off-Label Neuroenhancement
Facilitator: Suzanne Rosenblith (Clemson University)
If every generation has its drug of choice, neuroenhancers are clearly the pick of this generation of students. Typically, drugs like, Ritalin, Adderall, Modafinil, Provignal, are approved by the FDA for use in people who suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Recently this class of drugs has seen a substantial spike in use as cognitive enhancers. That is for high-functioning, overcommitted people, who need a boost, additional focus, or increased short-term memory. According to reports, the largest increased use of neuroenhancers as off-label (not approved by the FDA or the drug manufacturer) has been with students, specifically, college students, although rates have also increased with high school age students as well. Most commonly, off-label users argue that it helps them complete tasks, stay focused, increase memory and retention, and allows them to meet the needs of their teachers and professors in an increasingly high stakes society. The increased use of off-label drugs by high school and college students raises certain ethical considerations. In this alternative session I would like to discuss issues related to Coercion and Equality and Justice. For purposes of discussion, I will assume that these drugs are safe for off-label use, freeing up participants to explore the very real ethical questions that students, parents, educators, and policy makers ought to confront as more and more students use these drugs for off-label purposes.
C Hope as a Radical Venture of the Will: Pragmatist Hope in the Obama Era
Panelists: Sarah Stitzlein (University of New Hampshire), Barbara Stengel (Millersville University), Peter J. Nelsen (Appalachian State University), Nakia Pope (Winthrop University)
During the 2008 USA election, hope became a guiding concept for the Obama campaign. Because hope is central to the pragmatist project of social progress and because hope guides ideals of democratic ways of educating within pragmatist philosophy of education, we have chosen to further investigate the hope invoked by Obama from this lens. Our panel will discuss:
- What does it mean to have or act on hope?
- Why is hope so appealing and motivating, especially for educators?
- How is hope holding up a year into Obama’s presidency?
For a pragmatist, hope must be realizable and must both sustain us and foster growth. Importantly, hope is never merely “a private mental state,” but rather is an activity one undertakes in transaction with the environment or community. Hope also involves creative thinking within a Deweyean context of being able to “imagine otherwise.” This critical, realistic imagination is not characterized by self-deception, but squarely faces problems underlying apparently satisfactory life, while simultaneously building confidence and moving toward social progress. Using this definition, we will consider whether Obama, his education staff, and his ideas have lived up to or propagated this generative sense of pragmatic hope. Finally, we will consider how we cultivate habits of hope within schools and children.
SATURDAY 10 APRIL
12:45 – 2:00pm Alternative Sessions III
A What schools are scared to teach: addressing sensitive controversies in the classroom
Panelists: Dianne Gereluk (University of Calgary), Michael Hand (Institute of Education, University of London), Jeremy Hayward (Institute of Education, University of London), Paula McAvoy (University of Wisconsin, Madison), Bryan Warnick (Ohio State University)
Educational policy documents, regulations and guidance notes frequently lump controversial and sensitive issues together, as if there were no important difference between the two and each required the same set of pedagogical approaches. This is a mistake. Many controversies are not sensitive and many sensitive topics are not controversial. And pedagogical approaches appropriate to one are not necessarily appropriate to the other: the traditional debate format may be a good way of opening up intellectual or political controversies in the classroom, but it seems ill-suited to the exploration of sensitive or emotive topics. Nevertheless, it is clear that some topics are both controversial and sensitive. A topic qualifies as a sensitive controversy when it is both a matter of public dispute or contention and an issue on which people are easily moved to distress, anger or offence. Such topics are extremely challenging to teach and for this reason are often given a wide berth by schools. There are at least three important normative questions that need to be asked about the teaching of sensitive controversies in schools: (i) Should sensitive controversies be tackled by schools at all? (ii) If so, how should they tackle them? (iii) When, if ever, should schools promote a particular view on a sensitive controversial issue? We will examine these normative questions through the lens of five topics often thought to be both sensitive and controversial: extremism and terrorism, patriotism, homosexuality, immigration, and creationism and evolution.
B Argument, Dialogue, and Global Pedagogy
Panelists: Margaret Cuonzo (Long Island University, Brooklyn campus), Shaireen Rasheed (Long Island University, C.W. Post campus), Wendy Ryden (Long Island University, C.W. Post campus)
This interdisciplinary panel is comprised of scholars/teachers from the fields of philosophy, education, and rhetoric who seek to revisit and reinvigorate the enduring concerns of argument and dialogue, especially as we begin to expand our discussion of rhetoric and pedagogy to a global context. Argument’s role in rhetoric has been a critical area of inquiry as researchers have debated the ethics and efficacy of persuasion, particularly from feminist and multi-cultural perspectives. As the search for alternative rhetorical models has progressed, the definition of argument has been problematized by the focus on dialogue as an egalitarian rhetoric. This panel looks back at the recent past scholarship on these essential notions and reconsiders their direction in 21st century contexts.
C Susan Laird on the Coeducational Thought of Mary Wollstonecraft
Panelists: Susan Laird (University of Oklahoma), Cris Mayo (University of Illinois, Urbana), Amy Shuffelton (UW Whitewater)
Chair: Susanne Rice (University of Kansas)
In this session we discuss Susan Laird’s new book, Mary Wollstonecraft: Philosophical Mother of Coeducation. Laird provides a complex and finely-detailed account of the life and work of Mary Wollstonecraft. There is no bright line between phenomena that are educational and non-educational, but to the extent possible, Laird has tried to limit her analysis to matters of fairly clearly educational interest; this distinguishes her work from most other Wollstonecraft scholarship. Laird argues that coeducation remains an important concern today. This argument raises additional topics for consideration. What might Wollstonecraft have to offer contemporaries concerned with coeducation? What are the limitations of her analysis? To what extent is coeducation a worthwhile undertaking and to what ends? As Laird discusses at some length, Wollstonecraft’s writing is peppered with personal anecdotes and asides and in other ways fails to meet conventional standards of scholarly writing—for her time or ours. This observation, too, invites questions. What does--and what should--count as philosophy of education in academic and other contexts? To what extent, if any, is philosophy of education bound to largely conserve already accepted understandings in the absence of alternative forms and conventions of expression?
D (book panel) Learning to Teach Through Discussion: The Art of Turning the Soul
Panelists: Ann Diller (University of New Hampshire), Walter Feinberg (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign), David T. Hansen (Teachers College, Columbia University), Nel Noddings (Stanford University);
Respondent: Sophie Haroutunian-Gordon (Northwestern University)
Chair: Megan J. Laverty (Teachers College, Columbia University)
This panel is a symposium on Sophie Haroutunian-Gordon’s recently published book, Learning to Teach Through Discussion: The Art of Turning the Soul (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009). Learning to Teach Through Discussion makes an original contribution to teacher education and teaching. It is the culmination of ten years work and the sequel to Haroutunian-Gordon’s earlier book, Turning the Soul: Teaching Through Conversation in the High School (University of Chicago Press, 1991). Learning to Teach Through Discussion is a testimony to the vitality of Haroutunian-Gordon’s career and the educational possibilities that become available when a philosopher, like herself, is prepared to get out of the armchair and become actively involved in the practical fulfillment of a philosophical vision. Beginning with Plato and ending with the No Child Left Behind Act, Learning to Teach Through Discussion is about dialogical pedagogy; it is about an orientation to teaching and learning with questioning at its center. In developing the argument for her book, Haroutunian-Gordon draws from: the history of philosophy; a case study of two teachers; qualitative and quantitative analysis of transcripts; personal journaling; and conversations with colleagues, alumni, graduates, and students. She concludes Learning to Teach Through Discussion with concrete recommendations based on her research findings. The panelists will address different aspects of Haroutunian-Gordon’s book related to their area of expertise. The goal of this panel is to be conversational and to open the discussion to the audience for their questions and answers.
8:00 – 9:15pm Alternative Sessions IV
A. Listening and Humor: Philosophical and Educational Considerations
Panelists: Cris Mayo (University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign), Barbara Stengel (Millersville University;), A.G. Rud, Purdue University
Discussant: Megan Boler (OISE/University of Toronto)
Building upon recent work on the philosophical and educational aspects of listening, this panel explores the role of humor in listening in educational settings. A common theme is that humor sharpens listening, and thus supports educational goods, such as understanding, learning, and creativity. Cris Mayo examines jokes and their relation to listening. Barbara Stengel asks us to feel our way from laughter to listening and learning. A. G. Rud explores the intersection of reverence, listening, and humor in teaching, learning, and leading in schools. Megan Boler will respond to the presentations and lead a discussion with the audience.
B (COSW) The Educational Implications of Lorraine Code's Epistemology
Panelists: Deron Boyles (Georgia State University), Christina Konecny (OISE/University of Toronto), Jim Lang (OISE/University of Toronto), Barbara Thayer-Bacon (University of Tennessee)
Chair: Amy Shuffelton (University of Wisconsin- Whitewater)
This panel brings together the responses of four philosophers of education to the ideas of Lorraine Code, this year’s Kneller Lecturer. Code is well known as a feminist epistemologist, and each of these papers advances the insights of feminist epistemology. What makes the panel particularly interesting is how the papers show that the concerns, insights and uses of feminist epistemology are relevant beyond its conventional association with “women’s issues”. This panel will provide interested PES members with further insight into the ideas, and educational implications of the work of this year’s Kneller Lecturer.
C The Legacy of William James: 100 Years After His Death
Panelists: Bryan Warnick (Ohio State University), Denis Phillips (Stanford University), Eric Bredo (University of Virginia), Nakia Pope (Winthrop University), Sam Rocha (Ohio State University)
William James died of heart disease in 1910, one hundred years ago this coming August. Although he was a towering figure in both the history of American philosophy and psychology, James remains an underappreciated figure in education. In this alternative session, we use the 100th anniversary of James’ death to revisit aspects of his thought. We will discuss James’ subsequent influence in education, some Jamesian concepts that are still useful in grapping with educational questions, some productive tensions in James’ work, and some frameworks for understanding and appreciating the larger sweep of James’ thought.
D (book panel: meet the authors) What do Philosophers of Education Do? (And How Do They Do It?)
Panelists: Claudia Ruitenberg (University of British Columbia), Andrew Davis (Durham University), Charles Bingham (Simon Fraser University), Daniel Vokey (University of British Columbia), Gert Biesta (Stirling Institute of Education)
Many philosophers of education work not, or not only, in departments of philosophy but in faculties and schools of education, which tend to be dominated by social science approaches. As a consequence, philosophers of education are expected to be able to answer questions about their methods just as their social science colleagues do. The challenge for philosophers of education is to discuss our research methods without succumbing to the expectations of the social sciences—especially the emphasis on data, technique, and the tripartite breakdown of method into data gathering, data analysis and data representation. How might philosophical work be articulated on philosophical terms? How might we describe the types of thinking and writing that philosophers of education engage in? These were the questions that guided the edited volume What Do Philosophers of Education Do? (And How Do They Do It?), to be published this spring by Wiley-Blackwell. The book aims to show how philosophy of education can be understood methodologically, but does not omit critical considerations of the consequences of such methodological scrutiny. In this book panel editor Claudia Ruitenberg will introduce the reasons for and risks of talking about philosophy of education in methodological terms. Contributing authors Gert Biesta (“witnessing deconstruction”), Charles Bingham (“presumptive tautology”), Andrew Davis (“using examples”), and Daniel Vokey (“dialectical argument”) will summarize the essays they contributed to the volume, and engage in a further discussion about the methodological articulation of philosophy of education.
ABSTRACTS WORK-IN-PROGRESS SESSIONS
group 1
Sarah DesRoches (McGill University): Globalizing Effects on Post-Secondary Education and Potential for Intersubjective Transformation
Post-secondary education in North America is submitting to the cultural and economic trends set out by globalizing, or neo-liberal, processes. Some of these processes include the standardization of knowledge and an increasing pressure to produce in a speedy manner. Students, then, perform the needs of the market, perpetuating these hegemonic power structures. Discourse, viewed as a continual play of language, symbols, and manifestations of power allows a re-conception of realities that are seemingly cemented. Using Lyotard’s concept of performativity, I elucidate how post-secondary education is a space in which social values and norms are present and should therefore play active roles in shifting the ethos of these spaces. Finally, I argue that intersubjectivity offers a means of both personal and structural, or systematic, reform. Through the acknowledgement and veneration of diverse identities, intersubjectivity has the potential to transform academic spaces.
Nancy Glock-Grueneich (Antioch University McGregor): Higher Education and Human Survival: Questions and Directions
Higher education is at once a cultural ideal, a social institution, an emerging global system, and a locus of vast societal influence. In these capacities it has contributions to make towards a livable future that can be optimized only if it is itself transformed in the process—yet without losing its distinctive role as an aspiration. For its ideals are, if anything, more essential to the future than to the past, and philosophic rigor the more needed. Planetary urgencies enable and demand change, in all institutions, that is not only rapid, but right. So we ask: How can higher education do its part in shifting society without losing its autonomy or its soul? Should its mission change? Its curriculum? Methods? Structure? Access? In a global society whose future requires competency, compassion, and diversity, what answers, and what contradictions, arise for an institution founded on inquiry, and now also upon inclusion?
Larry Green (Simon Fraser University): An Exploration of Reflexivity in Schizophrenia and Post-Modernism
Drawing on Louis A. Sass, my work investigates the parallels between schizophrenia and postmodernism. I am asking, “Are both generated, in part, by a hyperreflexive culture?” I will suggest that reflexive thought which is not grounded in the pre-reflexive (embodied awareness) often results in “anything goes”, conceptual productions. Furthermore, in many schizophrenics, hyperreflexivity produces an exaggerated self-consciousness. They experience the ground of their being, as an external object--an ‘it’ rather than an ‘I’. Likewise post-modernism’s theorizing about the self characterizes it as fragmented and the ‘de-centered’ with a greatly attenuated sense of agency. In each case, reflexive thinking has ‘produced’ an objectivized self. The same tendency finds expression variously as behaviorism, neurobiological accounts of cognition, third person ‘explanations‘ in the human sciences, etc. This presentation will refer to the work of Eugene Gendlin as a way of reconciling the reflective with the pre-reflective.
group 2
Dawn Riley (Skidmore College): What It Means to Let Learn and What It Takes to Do So
[no abstract received]
Manuel Espinoza and Shirin Vossoughi (University of Colorado at Denver): On the "right" to learn
[no abstract received]
group 3
Jessica Ching-Sze Wang (National Chiayi University, Taiwan): A Conversation between John Dewey and Confucius on the Controversy over Children’s Reciting of Chinese Classics Movement
My session intends to address a recent educational controversy in China regarding a grass-root movement called Ertong Dujing, “Children’s Reciting of Chinese Classics.” The controversy over the reading of classics is not new. A case in point is the famous dispute between John Dewey and Robert Hutchins on the learning of great books. However, the question of how to integrate classical learning into contemporary curriculum is still unresolved. It is time to revisit this question in light of the present educational controversy. In this work in progress, I attempt to inquire into the meaning of the Ertong Dujing movement by posing a hypothetical conservation among Dewey and Confucius. Would they agree or disagree with the movement? On what grounds? Could Dewey possibly support the movement? What suggestions would he give to its supporters? On the other hand, would Confucius endorse the movement wholeheartedly? What suggestions would he provide? I hope the discussion will shed new light to our understanding about the role of classics in education.
Rosa Hong Chen (Simon Fraser University): Towards “Great Harmony”: On Moral Education and Cosmopolitanism
In this session I will discuss the idea of developing a cosmopolitan pedagogy of moral education. The discussion takes roots in the virtue ethics of Aristotle on the one side, and of Confucius and Zhu Xi on the other. Through exploring Confucius’ notion of cosmopolitanism—“Great Harmony” (“大同主义”) and Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucian concept of moral education, I will explore an approach toward moral education to cultivate the individuals’ moral sensitivity of the global citizenship and cosmopolitan identification today. The ultimate goal is to establish a model of moral education as a pedagogical system that helps to develop the virtuous selves and a harmonious society in our cosmopolitan age. With this work I seek to explore the power a cosmopolitan moral system can have in the task of coping with the problems raised by new circumstances in the current social order of multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism.
Margaret Manson (York University): Dance, Diaspora and the Aesthetics of Translation
The term 'diaspora' gestures to bodies of knowledge comprised of aesthetic practices, questions of identity, and influences of geographic location. An ongoing study of the migration of Indian Dancers and dance forms to the South Asian diaspora (North America, England, Malaysia), reveals the tensions that emerge as the cultural centralities of classical and contemporary Indian Dance double back from an uneasy alignment with their place of sojourn to a contradictory relation with their place of origin. The movement of 'doubling back' invites two considerations: 1) the performative nature of hybridity, and 2) what Derrida perceives as the double-bind nature of the work of translation. If the location of new (hybrid) dance practices is thought of as a performative process of translation, what might be learned from this process about intercultural practices of aesthetic meaning-making? My work-in-progress discussion considers some philosophical and educational issues provoked by this question.
group 4
James MacAllister (University of Edinburgh): Rhetorical Persuasion as Emotion Education
Dorothea Frede argues that Aristotle's treatment of the emotions in the Rhetoric is inconsistent with his discussion of them in the Nicomachean Ethics. In the Rhetoric she says he essentially restates a theory of emotion first articulated by Plato in the Philebus. In response to Frede it will be observed that 1) Aristotle was concerned with discussing virtue in the Nicomachean Ethics and what gooduse understanding of the emotions could be put to by the aspiring orator in the Rhetoric 2) if Plato develops a general theory of emotion at all in the Philebus it is a very narrow and rationalistic one that excludes the pleasures and the pains of the body; Aristotle maintains that many emotions necessarily involve a somatic sensation 3) Aristotle emphasises that emotions are open to persuasion in discussion with others whereas Plato does not. Appreciation of these distinctions is of exegetical and pedagogical significance.
Kristopher Holland and Anthony DeCesare (Indiana University): Plato’s Theætetus: Pointing to an Epistemological Foundation for Philosophy of Education
This session explores the pedagogical and philosophical value of Plato’s Theætetus, particularly in relation to a dialogue that holds a more prominent place in the canon of Philosophy of Education: the Meno. A review of both dialogues will demonstrate the superiority of Theætetus in representing a sustained inquiry into ancient Greek epistemological thought, demonstrating Plato’s epistemological claims, and establishing several points of view, conflicts, and issues that are still relevant to epistemology. Further, Theætetus is a generally richer dialogue than Meno, offering, for instance, a clearer example of the Socratic method and a more explicit illustration of Socrates’ teaching as “midwifery.”
Two additional and more general goals are to 1) initiate a discussion regarding the canonical texts and authors in Philosophy of Education, and 2) address the precarious place Philosophy of Education holds in the academy and how that place might be better defined by a more thoroughgoing epistemological focus.
Shelby Sheppard (Western Washington University): Conceptual Understanding and Experience: A Paradoxical Relationship
The dual demand for more practical (hands-on) experience in classrooms on the part of pre-service teachers and the growing interest in teaching for understanding has led to the assumption that since experience and understanding are mutually desirable they are therefore, compatible and mutually supportive. Because this assumption has not received much (if any) attention in the literature, it became the basis of an inquiry project and its emergent questions that are the focus of this “work in progress” session.
The session outlines some themes from the literature about understanding in general and conceptual understanding in particular. It provides a brief overview of the inquiry project in which pre-service teachers in a Secondary Program were asked to utilize conceptual analysis, current research and “practicum” field experience in order to deepen their conceptual understanding.
Session participants will be invited to;
i) discuss some emergent questions, potential areas of research and implications for teacher preparation arising from the project, and;
ii) discuss additional aspects of the paradoxical relationship between understanding and experience.
group 5
Krassimir Stojanov (Bundeswehr University of Munich): Educational Ideologies in Multicultural Societies
“Educational ideologies” is the working title of my recent book project. We can describe ideology as a body of statements that are characterized by their lack of discursiveness and that cut off the process of critical interrogation. Ideologies are characterized by a totalization of particular views that serves the preservation of the status quo and especially the legitimatization of oppression and exclusion. My claim is that there are three major ideologies in the recent multicultural societies:
Culturalism which describes the individual’s educational process as culturally determined;
Naturalism (as a kind of “counter-culturalism”) that describes the individual’s educational process as determined by her talents or by her “cognitive prerequisites”;
Economism as a variation of naturalism. The economism reduces education to securing an optimal economic exploitation of natural gifts and talents.
I intend not only to criticize these particular ideologies but also to sketch out alternatives to each of them.
Quentin Wheeler-Bell (University of Wisconsin-Madison): The Elephant in the Room: The Ethical Implications of Dealing with Class in the Classroom
[no abstract received]
Kristen Davidson (University of Colorado at Boulder): Legitimate Parental Partiality and Egalitarian Ideals
This paper offers a new direction for the parental partiality debate by bringing the research on school choice to bear on current philosophical arguments. Using a framework based in Gutmann, Gutmann and Thompson, and Young, I argue that democratic education should promote a thicker conception of autonomy in which we come to understand the experiences and views of people unlike ourselves in a variety of ways, such that we develop a deeper understanding of the good for both ourselves and others. Furthermore, informed by research findings that parents are overwhelmingly choosing schools full of families like themselves by race and class, the debate needs to turn from the question of whether and how much parents can act in the perceived interests of their children to the question of whether – and in what contexts - parents should be able to deny their (and other) children the opportunity for this thicker autonomy.
Winston Thompson (Teachers College, Columbia University): Ideal Vs Non-Ideal Theory: How does this debate bear upon Educational Issues
As the distinction between ideal and non-ideal theories of justice, introduced by John Rawls in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, continues to be invoked in political and moral philosophy, a question emerges in philosophy of education. Upon which side of the ideal/nonideal divide does philosophy of education scholarship find itself? This session suspects that philosophers of education discussing justice are misguided about which category their work occupies, but encourages the field to consider novel ways to appreciate this distinction, as it may not operate upon education in quite the same way as it does other philosophical domains.
group 6
Adrienne Pickett (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign): Beyond the Sartrean Orphic Quest: Towards an Empathic Response to Minority Rights
While Jean-Paul Sartre’s endorsement of the francophone African Negritude movement legitimated African intellectual thought, his analysis of the process of mutual recognition nonetheless fails to capture genuine European recognition of African humanity. Furthermore, Sartre’s argument fails to articulate a profoundly empathic concern for minority rights because he re-inscribes the very unequal power dynamic between Europeans and Africans that he argues must be overcome. In this work in progress, I suggest that a hermeneutic engagement with the Other on the basis of justice could lead to the empathic understanding. I turn to Taylor’s work on authenticity and multiculturalism and a description of a scene from the 1996 film “A Time to Kill” to illustrate the empathic response to the Other that Sartre was seeking.
Carmine U Ferrone (Youth Unlimited, Toronto): Inclusivity and Derrida’s Impossible Condition
Wole Soyinka, the Nigerian-born writer, political-activist and first-African, Nobel laureate (1986) strongly warns that “Religion is the 21st century’s defining issue – just as W.E.B Du Bois predicted race would be for the 20th century. He argues that “It’s not so much religion itself but what religion has turned into, the use to which religion is being put, which is a highly political, sectarian one. In other words, religion is being taken over by fundamentalist extremism – and that’s the problem.” As a possible solution, I investigate in what ways Derrida’s conception of the Impossible Condition might inform us in developing instructional strategies in the classroom that engage religious-fundamentalist and other students in open-minded, productive dialogue/ conversation that deconstructs “fundamentalist extremism.” I specifically turn to Derrida’s conception of impossibility because it leads us to an untried strategy that, as Penelope Deutscher suggests, “can open us up to the possibilities of transformation.”
Gaham Giles (University of British Columbia): Educational Discourse as the Church; Teachers and Researchers as Priests
[no abstract received]
CONTACT: PES Executive Cris Mayo
217-333-3673; cmayo@illinois.edu