Unlearning , livre ebook

Andrews UK - N. Chokr Nader

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

51 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

One view of education (appealing to the Latin root "educare" - "to train or mold") aims to fill students' heads with knowledge and turn them into disciplined, normalized and potentially productive members of the workforce.An alternative (appealing to the Latin root "educere" - "to lead out or draw out") wants to produce well-trained minds and create individuals capable of questioning, critical thinking, imagination, and self-reflective deliberation as engaged citizens.This book commends a third way, inspired by the Greek notion of "paideia", which sees education as 'the process of educating person into their true form, the real and genuine human nature'.This education is not about learning a trade. It is a dynamic living thing in which the ability to UNlearn is essential for developing a good and capable citizen, trained for freedom, autonomy, and virtue.

Informations

Publié par	Andrews UK
Date de parution	25 septembre 2013
Nombre de lectures	1
EAN13	9781845406790
Langue	English

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0324€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

Title page
Unlearning
or
‘How NOT to Be Governed?’
A Crucial ‘Capability’ for ‘Education-as- Paideia ’ and a ‘Democracy to Come’
Nader N. Chokr
SOCIETAS
essays in political
& cultural criticism
imprint-academic.com

Copyright page
Copyright © N. N. Chokr, 2009
The moral rights of the author have been asserted.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission, except for the quotation of brief passages in criticism and discussion.
Originally published in the UK by Societas
Imprint Academic, PO Box 200, Exeter EX5 5YX, UK
Originally published in the USA by Societas
Imprint Academic, Philosophy Documentation Center
PO Box 7147, Charlottesville, VA 22906-7147, USA
2013 digital version by Andrews UK Limited
www.andrewsuk.com

Quotes
‘The philosopher’s task: to harm stupidity.’
« La tache du philosophe : nuire a la bêtise »
(Nietzsche, Gay Science IV #328)
‘I would thus propose this general characterization as a rather preliminary definition of critique: the art of not being governed so much.’
(Michel Foucault, What is Critique? )

Preface
This essay is based on an idea first articulated during an Inter-disciplinary University-wide Seminar on ‘The Capabilities Approach’ at Shandong University (Jinan, China) during the Fall semester of 2006. A much shorter version was prepared for the purpose of the 19 th International Conference of the International Association of Greek Philosophy (IAGP) on the theme ‘Education in the Global Era’ in Samos, Greece, July 15-21, 2007.
The first complete version of this project was produced by December 2007, and revised with an added postscript in July 2008 (shortly before my departure from China to Oslo, Norway where I now reside). All subsequent revisions since then consisted of minor corrections and refinements rather than substantive changes. As always, I am thankful to Li Xiaolin for her interest in the ideals and values upheld herein, and for prodding me to develop and complete this project, which has remained far too long in gestation on the ‘back-burner’.
The initial hypotheses and provisional conclusions of my inquiry into the issues discussed herein were presented in part and discussed during ‘my last Seminar’ in China (September 2007 - January 2008) at Shandong University. It was held every Thursday afternoon from 2 to 6 pm within the intimate secrecy of my office at the School of Philosophy and Social Development. At long last, I was finally able to lead a Seminar in Contemporary Philosophy in China that was fully engaged and engaging, that upheld the kind of educational values I have come to believe in, and that I defend herein.
It is with regret however, and a great sadness in my heart, that I must also mention the following fact, or should I say, to use a dedicated Chinese expression ‘teaching accident’: I was unfortunately compelled to cancel the Seminar before the end of the semester because I had suddenly and by arbitrary decree lost my position as Professor of Philosophy & Social Sciences at Shandong University, a position that I had held for the past 4 years. This is all the more puzzling and disturbing as I was, so I was told (I never checked), the first foreign philosophy professor (US citizen) to have been appointed full-time at a Chinese University since the so-called ‘opening’.
I hope to have the opportunity some day soon to tell the detailed story of this misadventure, or rather shameful debacle, in another context. For now, I would like to thank all the participants for the lively discussions, intense inquiries, and radical questioning that they willingly and joyfully engaged in during the Seminar while it lasted. They had come literally from all four corners of the world, and had all found themselves in my Seminar along with my Chinese students in a totally contingent manner. What they all seemed to have in common was an itch to probe deeper and go further in their critical thinking about the problems and issues of our times.
Following the cancellation of my Seminar, some among them undertook to translate the English text of my essay into French and Chinese respectively. I am most grateful for their hard work and determination in producing these translations, which are also scheduled for publication. I am most grateful, in particular, to Hermann Aubie, one of the participants and among the most engaged contributors, and currently a PhD candidate in Comparative Literature at the University of Rennes 2 (France), for his careful work on the French translation. I also would like to thank Chen Xiaoxu, one of my former students, currently a PhD candidate in Philosophy at Cambridge University, for undertaking the radical revision and refinement of the preliminary translation into Chinese completed earlier by Fang Zhen and some of my other graduate students at Shandong University (Shuedan, Li Chao, Zhang Meng, Liu Xiuming, and I must be forgetting other names). To all, I am equally grateful for their respective efforts and contributions.
My aim in this essay is to show why we should hold ‘unlearning’ to be a crucial ‘capability’ in and for education at this point in our history. Essentially, I argue that it enables to pose and take seriously the problem of ‘governmentality’: How are we governed - individually and collectively? Do we wish to be governed in this or that way, to this or that extent, so much, so little, or so badly, under these or those conditions? Or do we wish instead to be self-governed and thereby practice our freedom and be more autonomous, relatively speaking? As such, it puts in question in a radical way the twin pillars of the so-called ‘contemporary consensus’ - ‘representative (liberal or social) democracy’ and ‘capitalism’ - and makes it possible to take a critical measure of their limits, insufficiencies, and irremediable deficits. Only an unmitigated advocacy of ‘unlearning’ can bring about a paradigm shift that can move us from the present system of (mis)education as it evolved in modernity and postmodernity to education-as- paideia in the 21 st century. Inscribed within a redefined transitional politics of resistance and autonomy, and a framework for emancipatory education, it furthermore enables us to envision and apprehend properly the normative connections between education-as- paideia , critical and self-reflective citizenship, ‘democracy to come’ (or radical and inclusive democracy), and social justice. Such a conception is underwritten and supported by a critical role for a (reconceived and transformed) philosophy, after the end of Philosophy, whose main task, if it is still to be relevant today, ought to be ‘mediocrity-and-bullshit’ detection and busting.
Oslo, Norway
October 2008

Prelude
We need not be condemned to the festive dereliction of ‘the last men’ celebrating their inability and impotence to govern themselves even while they naively believe to have reached finally a comfortable harbor of certainty. We need not be condemned, without hope of recourse, to the motionless frenzy and perpetual agony of the living-dead of post-history. History must go on - because the end is in fact always a new beginning. And the single most pressing question confronting us is therefore this: how are we going ‘to make history’, or rather, how will we choose ‘to inhabit history’? - What is going to be the form of the ‘democracy to come’? What kind of ‘education’ can best help in bringing it about?

1. Against the Tradition: Unlearning vs. Learning
Even though ‘education’ has been conceived differently at different periods in history - with different emphases, priorities, strategies and goals - it has invariably been defined across cultures in terms of ‘learning’. Otherwise, it has been characterized in terms of what ‘learned men ’ [1] for the most part (those who have presumably acquired and mastered ‘learning’ and who therefore are said to possess ‘knowledge’ [2] ) deem desirable and worthwhile enough on behalf of the dominant groups or ruling elites of their respective societies. Whatever they deem to be so is then included as part of the long and arduous transmission process, without which no society can endure and reproduce itself over time. Such a process typically involves passing on to younger generations some specific knowledge-contents (validated within a given dominant epistemic framework), as well as various useful and practical, basic skills and abilities of various kinds, commensurate with different phases or stages of development.
Right from the start, it is, I believe, useful to note (if only parenthetically) Foucault’s distinction between ‘dominant knowledge’ ( savoirs dominants ) and ‘subjugated knowledge’ ( savoirs subjugués ) which is applicable to any society at any given moment of its history. A given framework for knowledge is established as dominant by relegating to the dustbin of history and oblivion a number of other, alternative, and ‘subjugated’ ‘ways of knowing’. By ‘ subjugated knowledges ’, Foucault means a whole set of knowledges that are either hidden behind more dominant knowledges but can be revealed through critique or have been explicitly disqualified as inadequate to their task or insufficiently elaborated: for example, ‘naïve knowledges’, located low down on the hierarchy, beneath the required level of cognition or scientificity (Foucault, 1980, p. 82). [Note the unusual plural use of ‘knowledge’ which is due to the fact that the French have two words for it, and draw a distinction between ‘ connaissance ’ and ‘ savoir ’ (O’Farrell, 2005, pp. 7 and 142).]
It is arguably commonly drawn in hermeneutics, as well as in non-Latin languages. In English for example, a distinction is made between ‘for