Michel Foucault is often criticised in English-speaking circles for being interested only in power as domination, and of being uninterested in freedom and social reform. This paper shows, however, that Foucault's overarching concern was with the constitution of the self under conditions of modernity. It emphasises the significance of his interest in the Classical project of ‘Self-care’, and of his countermodernist educational programme in which the skills of self-governance and the ethical (non-dominating) governance of others, as well as the practice (...) of freedom through self-creation, are the key ingredients. (shrink)

Michel Foucault is often criticised in English-speaking circles for being interested only in power as domination, and of being uninterested in freedom and social reform. This paper shows, however, that Foucault's overarching concern was with the constitution of the self under conditions of modernity. It emphasises the significance of his interest in the Classical project of ‘Self-care’, and of his countermodernist educational programme in which the skills of self-governance and the ethical (non-dominating) governance of others, as well as the practice (...) of freedom through self-creation, are the key ingredients. (shrink)

This article discusses the displacement observed in the Brazilian mainstream pedagogical ideas and how Foucauldian studies play a role in shaping new ways of thinking, thus contributing for a change in such a scenario. In order to do so, a shift in the interpretative dominant educational discourse, mainly in Brazil, is necessary. The main idea is to discuss the points where some Foucauldian tools—such as disciplinary power, norm, device, archive, government, and governmentality, among others—are being intertwined to operate in the (...) way they do. We know that this kind of displacement causes a strong lag in the certainties and hopes held mostly, of those who are more accustomed to a salvationist and promethean vision of the school and, in a broader sense, of education. Nevertheless, the statements in this article do not mean that a Foucauldian perspective is, in itself, pessimistic or nihilistic. (shrink)

This paper is concerned with the educational‐philosophical implications of Michel Foucault's work: It poses the question whether Michel Foucault's remarks surrounding ‘limit‐experience’ can be placed in an educational context and provide an alternative view regarding the relationship that we maintain to ourselves. As a first step, the significance of ‘limit‐experience’ for Foucault's historicophilosophical investigations, his ‘critical ontology of the present’, is examined. Far from being an external marking point, it can be shown that limit‐experience lies at the centre of Foucault's (...) approaches to the history of thought. As a second step, the resistance of Foucault's work against its integration into the educational realm is examined: Coming from Foucault's ‘limit‐experience’, it is possible to problematize a specific way we speak about learning and education. As a subsequent step, this resistance is given a constructive turn: The practices of writing and reading (related to limit‐experience) could provide a valuable irritation for philosophers of education by exposing them to the challenges of ‘singularity’ in education. It is argued that specifically the writing practice could be helpful for educational studies in order to inquire into the complex relationship of subject, power, and truth within the educational realm. Finally, the possibilities and difficulties of provoking such a writing practice are mentioned. (shrink)

This paper presents an overview of the elements which characterize a research attitude and approach introduced by Michel Foucault and further developed as ‘studies of governmentality’ into a sub‐discipline of the humanities during the past decade, including also applications in the field of education. The paper recalls Foucault's introduction of the notion of ‘governmentality’ and its relation to the ‘mapping of the present’ and sketches briefly the way in which the studies of governmentality have been elaborated in general and in (...) the context of research in education more particularly. It indicates how the studies of governmentality can be related to a cartography of the learning society, a cartography which helps us to get lost and to liberate our view. (shrink)

The fact that humans are responsible for climate change is certain. But the meaning of the fact of human responsibility is not disclosed by stating the fact: there is a distinction between the two principles, de facto and de jure, the right to state a fact and the right to assert the meaning of the fact. This distinction must be preserved in order that humans may interpret the nature of our responsibility, as a form of justice. In fact, the nature (...) of human responsibility can never be exhaustively determined. To recognise the fact of human responsibility for climate change may only lead us to acknowledge that climate change coincides with the plundering and exploitation of the earth as a natural resource, together with the industrial pollution which fouls our atmosphere. It is something else again to know precisely what must be done, how to think and write and interpret the science, or even what can be achieved before it is too late to prevent the worst effects of global warming. In this essay I analyse the central claims of proponents of the idea of the Anthropocene, arguing that they are arrogant and perhaps even naïve: in particular, the suggestion that humanity and nature have now fused to become a geological force is shown to be theological in its orientation. The essay also exposes Anthropocenology as a form of pedagogy, meaning that rather than opposing the neoliberalism that it attacks, Anthropocenology joins itself to the biopolitical institutions of education, seizing power in order to govern a totalized human population all the more effectively. (shrink)

Although Foucault did not produce any particular work devoted to teaching or education, following authors like Hoskin this text aims to show the importance that teaching practices and discourses have in Foucault’s analysis, particularly in the analysis of what he called governmentality. If we associate these analyses with the concept of ‘ Antropotécnicas ‘ developed by the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, then we have a transparent toolbox for analyzing learning, recognizing that contemporary society is an educating society.

En el presente artículo se pretende hacer un recorrido por aquellas herramientas metodológicas utilizadas por Foucault para el estudio de la institución educativa disciplinaria y su posible aplicación al nuevo panorama educativo en las sociedades de control. Foucault analiza los discursos y prácticas como formas de poder en la sociedad disciplinaria, los cuales configuran una individualidad determinada: el cuerpo dócil. Tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial, nuevas modalidades de poder dan lugar a la sociedad de control, conformando una individualidad autogobernada. En (...) la educación secundaria actual aparecen tanto formas del régimen disciplinario como del régimen de control. (shrink)

This article argues against the doxa that Foucault's analysis of education inevitably undermines self-originating ethical intention on the part of teachers or students. By attending to Foucault's lesser known, later work—in particular, the notion of ‘biopower’ and the deepened level of materiality it entails—the article shows how the earlier Foucauldian conception of power is intensified to such an extent that it overflows its original domain, and comes to ‘infuse’ the subject that might previously have been taken as a mere effect. (...) What emerges, accordingly, is a subject divested of ‘traditional’, substantial, formation, located wholly on an immanent plane, and yet centrally concerned with the practice of freedom and ethical resistance. In turn, what seemed to have no place at all in the earlier Foucault becomes central: in general, active subjectivization (subjectivation) as a counter to passive subjection (assujetissement); more particularly, subjects' ongoing production and creation (via strategic decisions and localized opposition) of a new ethos, new ‘practices of self’, and new kinds of relations. With this alternative Foucauldian position outlined, the article then focuses more particularly on the practices of education: it concludes that, instead of being rendered merely the factories of obedient behaviour, schools or colleges can be the locus for a critically-informed, oppositional micro-politics. In other words: the power-relations that (quite literally) constitute education can now be regarded, on Foucault's own terms, as being creative, ‘enabling’ and positive. (shrink)

Curriculum, as an expression of legitimate knowledge, should be seen as something political rather than technical, that is, as the result of complex power relations and struggles among identifiable...

Teaching in university education programmes, can, at times, involve the uncomfortable situation of discriminatory speech.A situation that has often occurred in our own teaching, and in those of our colleagues, is the citation of homophobic and heterosexist comments.These are comments that are more likely to occur in foundation subjects such as philosophy and sociology of education.The occurrence of such situations has prompted debate regarding ‘silencing words that wound’. This has prompted the question, ‘should we keep students from stating such discriminatory (...) speech?’ Our article takes up this issue, and considers it from the perspective of the importance of critique.Working with Foucault’s What is Critique? together with his discussion of subjectivation in the 1981–82 lectures at the Collège de France, we set out to make the case for the significance of the relationship between truth and critique.This leads us to a position where we ask the question, if we silence, what do we risk doing to critique? (shrink)

This paper brings a critical focus to difference and the creative arts in education with specific attention to art as a site of knowledge in New Zealand conditions. The 1990s and early 2000s are marked by a paucity of critically engaged literature on the arts in education and a conspicuous absence of discussions on the politics of difference. Alongside the global return to empirical research in education where quantifiable data‐based projects tend to attract attention ahead of fundamentally crucial questions of (...) philosophical and critical registers, there has been an apparent reinvention of liberal humanistic concepts of creative practice. These tendencies are coupled with strategic political alignments of creativity with industry. The outcome appears to be a withering of attention to the politics of difference on the vine of educational philosophy, policy and practice in art education. The paper suggests that if the creative arts are to hold or gain any purchase in the stakes of education in a global world this vine must be tended and revitalised through a rigorous application of critically framed questions so that discourses of difference can be recognised as a social and political responsibility in the art educational encounter. (shrink)