Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends [1 ed.] 9781942585626, 9781935494997

Citation preview

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved. Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved. Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Liber amicorum: A Philosophical Conversation among Friends •

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

A Festschrift for Michael A. Peters

GEORGE LĂZĂROIU Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, New York (ed.)

ADDLETON ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS • NEW YORK

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Addleton Academic Publishers www.addletonacademicpublishers.com, [email protected] 30-18 50th Street, Woodside, New York, 11377 ISBN 978-1-935494-99-7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2014947561

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

This book has undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by two international scholars. © Addleton Academic Publishers 2014 Addleton Academic Publishers is an imprint of RIOTS, New York. Readings in Contemporary Philosophy Series Editor: Donna Laudan, Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, New York Addleton Academic Publishers has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Addleton Academic Publishers, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Addleton Academic Publishers, at the address above. You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Produced in the United States of America

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

CONTENTS Philosophical Fellowship: An Interview with Michael Peters and Nicholas Burbules [1] Jeff Stickney Endless Energy: Portrait of an Intellectual [24] Peter Roberts Dancing Wittgenstein (after Foucault) [32] Jeff Stickney Not a Docile Body – A View from the Inside: Michael A. Peters on Foucault [49] Tina Besley

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Conceiving the University [65] Ronald Barnett A ‘Happy’ Coincidence: Cognitive Capitalism and Well-Being Enhancement in Schools [75] James Reveley Peters on the New Ecologies of Knowledge [87] George Lăzăroiu The Education State, Conversation and Democracy to Come [94] Brian Opie Who Speaks? Power, Knowledge and the Professional Field [111] Susanne Maria Weber Professor Michael A. Peters – A Kantian in Spirit [127] Klas Roth Personal Narrative, Educational Research and Multipolar Cosmopolitanism [134] Morwenna Griffiths Michael A. Peters’ Discursive Universalism [149] Marianna Papastephanou

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Cosmopolitan Outlook: Opening Doors and Letting Learn [159] A. Chr. (Tina) Engels-Schwarzpaul From the Post-colonial to the Intercultural – Are Genuine Intercultural Dialogues Feasible? [169] Yun-shiuan (Viola) Chen On Being Open: Michael A. Peters and the Quest for Intercultural Education through Dialogue [179] Yusef Waghid Liber amicorum: A Philosophical Conversation among Friends [185] Michael A. Peters

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Endword Michael Peters: Gentle Polymath and Commanding Intellectual [203] Peter McLaren Postscript on Marxism [210] Michael A. Peters Publications of Michael A. Peters [216]

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Philosophical Fellowship: An Interview with Michael Peters and Nicholas Burbules

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Jeff Stickney University of Toronto

Jeff Stickney: Tell us when and how your productive collaboration began. Who else played a part in ushering in a new, post-foundational reading of Wittgenstein within philosophy of education? Michael Peters: First let me express my gratitude to you both but particularly Jeff for organizing this interview. As far as I remember our collaborations began with contributing to Jim Marshall and Paul Smeyers’ Wittgenstein’s Challenge published in 1995. We were contributors to the same collection. I had completed an MA in the Philosophy Department at the University of Auckland and engineered all papers to have something to do with Wittgenstein. I decided to do an all-paper Masters and completed six papers with people like Laurence Goldstein (then at St Andrews) who took a paper on the notions of sense and nonsense, tautology and contradiction in the Tractatus. I was the only student in the class. I took another paper on Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mathematics. There are two stories I have to tell here because they determine my approach to Wittgenstein. I had completed degrees at Victoria University of Wellington majoring in English literature (Shakespeare’s plays, medieval poetry) and Geography (mainly urban theory, regional geography, European peasantry). When I was training to become a teacher (a one year graduate course) I started a BSc majoring in Philosophy at Canterbury University (where Karl Popper held a professorship and wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies during the late 1930s and early ‘40s). This was largely the influence of Rod Harries who was lecturing in Philosophy and who held a senior post at the high school where I was working. He was a physics teacher and he recruited me to philosophy where I specialized in philosophy of science (starting with Frege, early Wittgenstein and Russell, then Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend). After teaching seven years and shifting to Auckland to take up a teaching position as Head of Geography and Liberal Studies I decided to go back to university full time to complete my Masters in Philosophy. I was absolutely taken with Wittgenstein. I did well at Auckland scoring a first class honors and the university offered me a PhD scholarship which I 1

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

used as support to write a thesis on Wittgenstein called “Wittgenstein and the Problem of Rationality: An Historicist Approach to Philosophy of Education”. I studied with Jim Marshall as my advisor, having taken a couple of Education papers (and an additional one in Political Theory from the Politics department) in a seven paper MA. The thesis on Wittgenstein occupied every conscious moment and I completed it in under three years. I had thought about doing the thesis in the Philosophy Department but I did not get the reception I needed for a topic that really focused on the later Wittgenstein. The early “analytic” Wittgenstein was acceptable but the “later” Wittgenstein was seen as philosophically suspect. I really wanted to focus on the Wittgenstein of the Investigations examining the “cultural turn” he had taken. I found no support to do this in Philosophy so I worked with Jim on a thesis in philosophy of education finishing the degree in 1984 with Denis Phillips from Stanford as my external examiner. Nicholas Burbules: As the sidekick here, let me just add that Michael and I had many early influences in common, especially Denis Phillips, who was also my advisor in graduate school. I was first introduced to Wittgenstein in Denis’s classes, and in my Masters degree work in Philosophy of Language at Stanford. I remember during this period reading an interview between Bryan Magee and Karl Popper, in which Popper said that Wittgenstein’s later work “bored him to tears.” I knew something was wrong there. How could you praise the Tractatus and then disregard Wittgenstein’s own reconsiderations of that work?1 I can imagine many criticisms of the Investigations and other work, but surely not that they are boring. Michael Peters: It was 1984 or soon after that I read Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition – an influential book at the time I had come across by accident. His use of Wittgenstein, what I later referred to as “creative misappropriation” led me directly to try to sustain a political reading of the later Wittgenstein based on his emphasis on an analysis of the fundamental sociality of language that seemed to me to connect with other aspects of Continental philosophy exhibiting similarities with Hegel, with Marx, and of course also with Heidegger. (I know Nick did not agree with Lyotard’s interpretation). Lyotard’s (mis)reading really propelled me to focus on post-foundational readings of Wittgenstein and of philosophy in general. The thesis located in a Education department also allowed me to realize my ambitions to utilize my experience as a teacher and to work through themes in Wittgenstein’s work that had (as I saw) direct relevance with education, pedagogy and learning. Nicholas Burbules: Michael and I share this “postfoundational” understanding of Wittgenstein, but even I would never try to reconstruct him as a postmodernist. Lyotard’s attempt to equate Wittgenstein’s diversity of language games with his own idea of “islands of discourse” tries to reconstruct 2

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Wittgenstein as some kind of difference theorist. That isn’t what language games are about, and Wittgenstein was never a relativist or incommensurabilist. Michael Peters: A quick response to Nick on this question. Once texts are out there in the world they become open to multiple interpretations despite what their original authors believed or thought. In one sense the author becomes separate from her work and the work joins a kind of public intertextuality that depends upon the creativity of interpretation. Thus: with Shakespeare’s Hamlet we can understand the Renaissance reading troubled so much by the centrality of madness or in the tradition of Romantic criticism which saw Hamlet as a political rebel, or Bradley’s Freudian interpretation of Hamlet’s struggles in terms of the Oedipus complex. Is there a Hamlet that can be separated from the context of criticism? In Lyotard’s case it is his intention to develop a creative use of Wittgenstein’s work to pursue his own agenda, not to propose an interpretation of Wittgenstein. I don’t think that Lyotard was trying to interpret Wittgenstein as anything but merely using his ideas as a platform. At the same time I would go some of the way with Nick in that it is not possible to use someone’s work entirely against the spirit of it or to interpret a text completely against its own sense which leads me to suggest that there are “bad” interpretations…those that pay insufficient attention to the text or simply get something wrong. There may also be “good” interpretations, let’s say as one case, accurate though uninspired interpretations. My feeling is that Lyotard was not so much concerned to interpret Wittgenstein as to use his work. At the same time his essay “After Wittgenstein” seems inspired to me. When both Nick Burbules and Paul Smeyers arrived in the same year at Auckland to work with Jim and me (and others) the opportunity was too good to miss and we convened a Wittgenstein reading group. This was some years later by which time I was exploring links between Wittgenstein and other European writers. I realize in retrospect that the readings I was interested in were also strongly biographical, perhaps “existential” in a sense now I understand close to themes explored by the Danish thinker Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard had a profound influence on Continental philosophy, psychology, literature and theology.2 Wittgenstein is reported as saying “Kierkegaard is far too deep for me, anyhow. He bewilders me without working the good effects which he would in deeper souls” (Creegan, 1989). Jens Glebe-Moeller (1997) in “Notes on Wittgenstein’s Reading of Kierkegaard” begins his paper with the following observations: During most of his life Wittgenstein took great interest in Kierkegaard. It could well be that this interest goes back to his youth in Vienna when he donated a sum of money to Theodor Haecker who through his translations and own writings introduced 3

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Kierkegaard to an Austrian audience. At any rate his friend Norman Malcolm much later reports that Wittgenstein held Kierkegaard in esteem and referred to him “with something of awe in his expression as a ‘really religious’ man.” According to another friend, O’Drury, he even called Kierkegaard “a saint” and “by far the most profound thinker of the last century.” Malcolm also tells us that Wittgenstein had read THE CONCLUDING UNSCIENTIFIC POSTSCRIPT but found it “too deep” for him. But without doubt Wittgenstein had read much more of Kierkegaard’s works than the POSTSCRIPT. This can be seen, e.g., in the collection of his notes and aphorisms in CULTURE AND VALUE (caps in original).3

I quote this here because it makes great sense to me. Other philosophers such as James Conant (1993) have commented on the affinities between Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard. They share a religious outlook, a confessional style of philosophizing and aspects of the effable nature of human experience and communication. This reading seems well aligned to viewing Wittgenstein as a pedagogical philosopher who sees philosophy as a way of life. I was in heaven with Nick and Paul and Jim in the reading group. This has always struck me as a perfect academic vehicle for thinking. My influences in reading Wittgenstein were Janik and Toulmin’s Wittgenstein’s Vienna (1973) who sensitized me to see Wittgenstein as a philosopher of the Austrian counter-Enlightenment rather than a place holder in the analytic tradition, or least as someone released from the cage of the Cambridge narrative of modern philosophy who can be read differently and in accordance with his own Viennese origins. The Vienna of Wittgenstein is the city of Nietzsche and Freud but also of a host of artists, poets, architects, and philosophers concerned by the question of the new and of nihilism as the old Hapsburg order begins to break down. Lyotard understands this context very well. His “After Wittgenstein” (1993) is an insightful essay that draws on Heidegger’s reading of Nietzsche in the history of European nihilism— the nihil of existence, as Heidegger writes in Being and Time and Sartre writes in Being and Nothingness. Nicholas Burbules: This 1996 reading group at Auckland was indeed pivotal. It generated lifelong friendships and collaborations in several pairwise combinations: me and Michael, Michael and Jim Marshall, me and Paul Smeyers, and other permutations. While not all of one mind on Wittgenstein, we did find a broadly sympathetic reading that Wittgenstein was being misunderstood as just another analytical philosopher interested in linguistic clarity and precision. This ignores the shift between the author of “Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly” (Tractatus 4.116) and the author of “Is it even 4

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

always an advantage to replace an indistinct picture by a sharp one? Isn’t the indistinct one often exactly what we need?” (Investigations, section 71). Michael Peters: My impulse to read Wittgenstein was also inspired by Rorty’s work and Cavell’s interpretation. I preferred the literary and cultural reading that these two great post-Wittgensteinians provided: Rorty on postfoundational thought and on relativism; Cavell on the question of style in Wittgenstein. I was strongly influenced by both and had the opportunity to hear Rorty at Auckland a couple of times and then at the Australian National University when Barry Hindess invited me to give a paper at a Rorty symposium which he (Rorty) attended. I provided a critique of Achieving America. Rorty’s work on the “linguistic turn” was inspiring and his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature was utterly decisive to me. Cavell’s “Notes on the Opening of the Investigations”4 was a revelation and I was very honored to do a weekend seminar with him at Harvard when Paul Standish organized the event in the mid 2000s but I withdrew from the book project when I found that my tape recording of my paper and discussion with Cavell did not work. Also I harbored doubts about the political credentials of Cavell who living in America and writing about it never seemed to take its hegemony seriously in world affairs or its past cultural history in relation to race and civil rights. I should also say that I reacted badly to R.S. Peters’ interpretation of Wittgenstein and those of the London school who collaborated with him. I thought the interpretation wrong-headed in trying to extract a method of conceptual analysis from Wittgenstein or to gain some legitimacy by reference to him. The reading of Wittgenstein proposed by Peters was shallow and unoriginal. I thought it was possible to build a philosophy of education based on a reading of Wittgenstein that was existential and ethical, and close to literature, culture and narrative. Nick as an American seemed to me generous, strongly ethical and also attuned in his thinking to Continental thought. I thought he was a new kind of philosopher of education and not one wedded to analytic philosophy. Of course they are good philosophers but Nick seemed more inclusive of what he would count as philosophy of education and less doctrinaire. He invited me to Illinois to give an advanced seminar on Wittgenstein in a joint course in 1998. It was a great experience and I think that we balanced each other: Nick was better organized; I tended to work on the spontaneous and the fragment. The group of students was also very experimental and good readers. Our method was old school in the sense that we worked our way through various texts in a systematic and chronological way. The class was enjoyable and was also I think helpful for students. Nicholas Burbules: This was a great class, one of the best I have ever been associated with. We adopted the style of “slow reading,” sometimes only 5

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

requiring a few sentences or paragraphs of reading before class, and then spending our time closely reading and interpreting the text with the students. It was in this class too that we considered the hypertextual nature of Wittgenstein’s texts, connected by complex rhizomic connections.5 This was in fact the model adopted by the Bergen project in producing Wittgenstein’s collected works on disk. Michael Peters: Paul Smeyers, by contrast, was a European from Belgium who was dedicated to the life of a scholar. He read widely and was inventive and well organized. Working with Paul to me meant that we always got things done! Soon after I returned from Illinois teaching with Nick I wrote Wittgenstein: Philosophy, Postmodernism, Pedagogy with Jim Marshall (1999). That was also a pleasurable experience. Actually I have been very privileged in my collaborations with Jim, Nick and Paul; writing together has been so transformative of my thought. I like the form of argument and discussion among close friends especially when you can say virtually anything and where there is laughter and good will. This is productive of successful collaborations. The book with Jim was hard work. We both grappled with Wittgenstein and explored his relations to other thinkers and to his times. I think this was a book radical in spirit because it connected Wittgenstein to a set of others thinkers he is not normally associated with. We emphasized his links to Freud and understood him through a postmodern lens especially in terms of Rorty’s post-foundationalism and Lyotard’s post-Marxism. Working closely with Jim was one of the delights of my academic career. I left for a position at the University of Glasgow in 2000 which was an excellent opportunity to study the thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment: Hume, Smith, Ferguson and others. It was only when I was invited to take up a position at Illinois in 2005 that I began to work on Wittgenstein again. I think that Nick and Fazal Rizvi were behind the invitation to Illinois as an Excellence Professor. Nick and Fazal were both well versed in Wittgenstein and Nick had published work jointly with me in various places. In 2007 Nick and Paul edited a special issue for Educational Philosophy and Theory (a journal I have edited for nearly fifteen years). A year later when Paul Smeyers came to spend a sabbatical at Illinois the chance was too good to pass up to work collaboratively on Wittgenstein again, really a second reading or discussion group based on shared interests. This time the discussion was directed to certain themes in Wittgenstein with chapters both individual and jointly authored. This resulted in the book called Saying and Doing: Wittgenstein as a Pedagogical Philosopher (2008) and it presented an opportunity to emphasize our affinities in understanding as well as our differences. Both Nick and Paul have different views on Wittgenstein that disagree with aspects of my interpretation although I think it is safe to say 6

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

that we agreed on the main features of an interpretation that held Wittgenstein as a pedagogical philosopher.6 Nicholas Burbules: I will just comment on the strange global inter-workings that had Paul, Michael and I at Auckland one year, and then together again at Illinois just a few years later. And I would never have guessed in 1996 that Michael and I, and our good friend and colleague Fazal Rizvi, would come from three different countries to all end up in the same department at Illinois less than a decade later. Michael Peters: Since then we have not worked collaboratively on Wittgenstein. I published a piece on Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mathematics in 20027 while I was at the University of Glasgow and more recently Len Waks asked me to contribute a chapter to his Leaders in Philosophy of Education (2008) which comprises a set of intellectual self-portraits. This was a great honor for me and I decided to experiment by attempting to invent a Wittgensteinian style of composition with numbered paragraphs that provided a postmodern educational history of my own emergence as a philosopher of education, called “Academic Self-Knowledge and SelfDeception: A Brief Excerpt from a Personal History of Prejudice”. On this theme I am about to deliver an inaugural professorial lecture entitled “Anxieties of Knowing: Academic Pathologies, Critical Philosophy and the Culture of Self”, a paper intellectually indebted to Wittgenstein and his influence upon me. Before I left Illinois in 2012 a group of students asked me to offer a course on Wittgenstein that I devised as “Wittgenstein, Education and the Disciplines” based on the following description: Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) is considered by many to be one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century. His work in the philosophy of logic, mathematics, mind and language established him as the founder of two movements – logical empiricism (the Vienna Circle) and Oxford-style ordinary language analysis. The impact of his work has been felt in the arts, humanities and social sciences and strongly influenced the directions of both analytic and post-analytical philosophy. His work is difficult to read and interpret and there are many competing interpretations of his philosophy. This course is designed to introduce students to the man and his work through a set of selective readings that emphasize a broadly cultural approach to his intellectual background, context and life, as well as the influence his thought has exerted on the disciplines, including education and pedagogy. It is interesting to contemplate the influence of a thinker on one. Wittgenstein has been hugely significant for me. The question also demands a better understanding of the historical relation to a thinker that shifts over time. I suggest that as scholars we must try to produce new and productive 7

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

readings that may in the end lead us away from the trusted sources. Moving beyond the copy stage, or emulation stage that are symptoms of readerly infatuation is necessary if one is to learn to think. I am currently working on a new essay entitled “Subjectivity, Knowledge and Representation ‘After’ Wittgenstein: Education as Openness, Engagement and CoPoiesis” for a new collection with Gert Biesta, which is to return to earlier themes and to cast them in a new light. I think Jim, Nick and Paul and myself each played a role in as you put it “ushering in a new, post-foundational reading of Wittgenstein within philosophy of education”. I know that Paul Standish is writing on Wittgenstein but I haven’t read this work. There was a conference “Wittgenstein, the Philosophy of Education and the Education of Philosophy” held by the Nordic Wittgenstein Society at Syddansk Universitet, Odense, Denmark in May 2012.8 I haven’t seen papers from this conference and yet I am sure that there is a new generation of scholars who are pursuing post-foundational readings. Jeff Stickney: You contrast Wittgenstein’s style with that of the prevailing analytic tradition.9 How have you changed the way we read and apply Wittgenstein in philosophy of education, drawing on contemporary thinkers such as Lyotard, Rorty and Foucault? Michael Peters: Style here is synonymous with thinking and Wittgenstein signaled the important of shifting registers and of using all cultural resources to dislodge unhealthy mythologies, to heal our culture of deep mistakes associated with negative forms of nihilism. At one point he says “I destroy, I destroy, I destroy!”10 yet in his Investigations and later work he invents a new pedagogical means of getting us to think for ourselves with the aim of “shewing the fly the way out of the fly bottle” and of overcoming the “picture that held us captive”.11 For me this is the important breakthrough: Wittgenstein understands the limitations of the model of structured argumentation and realizes that in order to deconstruct the “picture that holds us captive” we need a new style in philosophical thinking that understands the rhetorical construction of language and the way that metaphors operate sometimes more powerfully than arguments to control our thinking. (This is not to imply that arguments are not metaphors as Lakoff has demonstrated). Lyotard, Rorty, Cavell and Foucault have similarly understood the significance of philosophical narratives (witness Lyotard’s “metanarrative”), of narratives in philosophy, of myth and mythologies, of poetic resources in general, of dreams and tropes. As you point out Jeff “dialogue is an investigation, not a demonstration (like Plato)” and because philosophical language is irretrievably shot through with metaphor “clarity does not mean a singular, sharply-defined meaning, but allows for nuance and hinges on context”.

8

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Nicholas Burbules: This focus on style is partly guided by an interest in that strange little collection of aphorisms, Culture and Value, where Wittgenstein (1980a) compares his writing with musical composition and other forms of art. A great deal can be read simply into the organization of the Tractatus as an algebraic, linear outline of sections and subsections and sub-subsections, and the Investigations and later work written in an highly aphoristic and hypertextual form. Content aside, these are very different styles of representation for doing philosophy. Jeff Stickney: Has the battle with liberal-analytic philosophy ended? Is this an either/or, or do we risk forcing one of those situations Foucault described as “the blackmail of the Enlightenment”?12 Michael Peters: The liberal-analytic paradigm was always open to change and has in response to criticism already transmuted itself, becoming much more sensitive to its own history and image and aware that after debates on analyticity it is no longer clear what counts as analysis. I think as a result of the softening of the main elements of the program analytic philosophers look back to the “revolution” in philosophy proudly but are now more accepting of other forms of analysis and other methods and approaches in philosophy. This change of attitude helps to blur the lines of engagement and now native traditions in philosophy countless in the sense of boundaries and training. So the situation is certainly not either/or, but and/both, and also offers opportunities for philosophical experimentation with genres especially in the new digital age. The emphasis on the Enlightenment has also admitted greater historical nuance, no longer one discourse, one reason but many different historical contexts ongoing over several centuries within which different native philosophical traditions emerged. In my view the polarization of the modern/ postmodern debate in the 1980s did nothing to increase our understanding. It produced shorthand philosophical abuse with which to tempt each across a meaningless divide. Now we live in a post-postmodern condition that does not use the term in a chronological sense but mostly as a form of style and thinking. Jeff your comment on the world of analytical blogging with Chalmers’ and Leiter’s blog needs a reframing as a question of its own: What is philosophy in the digital world?13 Jeff Stickney: Will we ever put to rest the fear that post-foundationalism and perspectivism are akin to relativism, fostering an “isles of language” or insider view of worlds that leads to radical incommensurability or skepticism? Michael Peters: Like Cavell I’m inclined to accept skepticism as one of the background conditions of philosophy and while I do not hold to a Piercean account of “the object” or anything that resembles a concept of universal human experience I do accept “intelligibility” and that we can 9

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

talk to one another often across gender, culture, race, and time. We might even be able to talk with aliens as the radical Other. But this intelligibility implies to me nothing about universal human (or Other) experience. In terms of the theme of “subjectivity as truth” I think one can find examples of incommensurability at the individual level especially when we sadly contemplate those who are deprived of language and reduced to making meaningless noises such as those suffering acute forms of aphasia or other language-depriving illnesses. Of course those experiencing psychotic breaks can also be communicated with even if their experience is radically incommensurable with “ours”. The more interesting question is to explore the notion of the “stranger”, the “other”, the visitor”, the “alien” in the other classical traditions to determine whether there are philosophical resources for developing conditions of intelligibility: for talking to each other rather than past each other. I can’t remember what I said in futures of philosophy but it was probably too influenced by Nietzsche. Nicholas Burbules: It is precisely to avoid this equivalency that I felt it important to write the aforementioned Lyotard essay. One can be a postfoundationalist and not be relativist. One can be a strong difference theorist and not an incommensurabilist. Jeff Stickney: Current emphasis on evidence-based research seems to be throwing us back into the neo-positivist era (1970s) of the empirical, quantitative revolution. As distinguished professors and editors of prominent journals in the field, Educational Philosophy and Theory and Educational Theory, how do you both address the fear that philosophy of education is moribund? Wherein lies hope, or possible futures for this academic discipline?14 Michael Peters: This is an exciting era when philosophy is declining in the universities and being picked up in the streets. It does have explicit consequences for academic philosophy that must also understand that its image has been tarnished in the sense that philosophers tend to have little to say about the current set of crises. It has not yet caught up with globalization or let me say that it is struggling to come up with an interesting narrative beyond the myths trotted out about “modernity” or “postmodernity”. The reengagement with Chinese, Arabic, and Indian classical traditions has not really begun except to say that there are efforts at interfaith and interreligious understanding. I do not know what philosophy has to contribute to this situation but it seems that forms of intercultural understanding and dialogue can play a constructive role. Nick’s book on dialogue was pathbreaking. I learned a lot from it. I have subsequently published on Western model of intercultural philosophy but it would be imaginative if we could really explore philosophical pedagogies that can help with “world peace” 10

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

as the beauty contestant said. The question is not just what philosophical models and approaches can we use to overcome western hegemonies but those we can adopt that recognize different world cultures in a radical diverse world that has 203 countries, over 3,000 indigenous peoples and thousands of ethnicities. Institutionally how can we recognize the scope of this diversity? How can we protect the diversity? What role does philosophy of education to play in this process? Thus the decline of academic philosophy of a certain kind does not worry me because it is not so much about preserving an approach, discourse and philosophy but rising to these new challenges that demand a philosophical approach. Nicholas Burbules: Some day when I am no longer an editor I will write an essay on the “philosophy of editing.” It is much more than shepherding manuscripts through the review process. Especially but not only in our field, an editor needs to be engaged with the substance of arguments and engage with authors in finding ways to improve them. This means an active, dialogical role – sometimes as much like a collaborator or co-author as an editor.15 For journals like ours, which try to represent the diversity of the field, this requires an author to judge and interpret each paper from within: Is this a good argument of this sort? Would an audience familiar with this domain of literature or theoretical perspective find this article original and interesting? How can this paper be made better, not by being turned into another kind of paper, but by respecting the author’s purpose and trying to improve it from within? It is partly out of these experiences that I reject incommensurabilism.16 I know I have my failings and blind spots, but one needs to be able to read and understand across theoretical, methodological, and paradigmatic differences. If you can’t do this, you shouldn’t be an editor. I’m sure Michael would agree. This also means that for journals that try to respect the eclecticism of the field of educational philosophy and theory, you don’t have the luxury of promoting a party line. I have published many, many papers in Educational Theory that I disagreed with. I would hate to have the responsibility of deciding by my own lights what work (and whose work) deserves to be published and which not. But this does make the role of editor especially challenging, even with excellent reviewers and Associate Editors, which I am lucky to have. Jeff Stickney: Cris Mayo, with whom you both work(ed) at University of Illinois, pondered that if it is true Michael is really retiring (something everyone finds unfathomable), we should check our pension plans and investment portfolios for diminishing share values in paper companies. [A sudden opening of bandwidth on the World Wide Web?] Far from retiring, you’re starting a new journal and co-editing a new book series. Can you tell us about these projects and what compels you to continue publishing? Are 11

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

we not on the cusp of a post-print world and learning environments; if so, how might changes in technology affect our knowledge society? Michael Peters: Actually this is strange and boastful but I have never published so much as I have since I left Illinois. EPAT goes to 12 issues a year with the new publisher Routledge who have given Gert and I a new series called (predictably) New Directions in Philosophy of Education; Policy Futures goes from 6 to 8 issues a year; E-learning and Digital Media goes from 4 to 6 issues per year. EPAT takes up the journal Jim and Colin established 30 years ago to become 14 issues per year in 2014 with Elizabeth Grierson as Editor of the two special issues of ACCESS. I am starting a new journal called Knowledge Cultures with Addleton Academic Publishers who are ready to adopt an experimental approach to publishing. It started with 6 issues per year in 2013. In addition I started a new books series with Peter McLaren called EDUCATION AND STRUGGLE which has a couple of books in train, and I have started two new book series with Sense called OPEN EDUCATION and TRANSNATIONAL EDUCATION. During this year I think I published seven books. So while I changed jobs I am definitely not retiring. I moved from Illinois to Waikato for a variety of reasons: to be closer to family and my new grandkids, to travel more often to our farm; to give something back to NZ. I think that it is a matter of compulsion so much as excitement at being able to address significant issues in the world. Academics are so well placed in the digital world when they have such sophisticated skills of reading and writing. In my view academic need to understand the material basis of their own cognition and knowledge production much better than they do. This means understanding digital knowledge production and knowing how to collaborate on networks. Of course it means a lot more than that: we can talk seriously about ethics of sharing and collaboration and we can talk about the political economy of digital publishing. Foucault, Deleuze and Negri provide one interesting reading, much indebted to Marx, Nietzsche and Heidegger. I think while being aware of the total control17 that cybernetic systems offer the only way forward to reinvent public pedagogies, public epistemologies, and public institutions in the digital register. We are now officially in the age of digital publishing, MOOCs, and facing a massive tendency for a reindustrialization of education at all levels. I like Hugh Lauder’s term “digital Taylorism” (Brown, Lauder and Ashton, 2010). There are grave dangers of mass digital education but also there are wonderful opportunities such as that which accompany the open movements: open source, open access, open government, open data, open science, open education. The results are mixed but if you thought that economies of scale

12

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

defined the industrial era then the era of digital systems offer billionaire Facebook republics or surveillance schemes. I became interested in knowledge economies a while back and recently published a book with Ergin Bulut on cognitive capitalism (Peters, 2011). It wasn’t too original yet it did try to bring the Italian “workerism” debates into the realm of education. Digital publishing offers all sorts of ways of counterbalancing control and ownership. My work as an editor demands that I have a working political economy of academic publishing and also a philosophy of technology. I try to link these different projects in my work on forms of the knowledge economy and cognitive capitalism that springs out of an Italian political tradition that uses both Foucault and Deleuze. In addition, my recent spin on this is to explore forms of openness in science, education, government, management, pedagogy and technology being aware of the limitations of the dominant Popperian-Hayekian liberal interpretation and prepared to experiment with forms of publishing. Nicholas Burbules: As I am MUCH younger than Michael, I don’t have to worry about retirement for many years. But I know that when I do, retirement will just mean another kind of business, another set of new projects. Unlike Michael, running a vineyard will not be one of them!18 Jeff Stickney: Hinting at next steps, working on the issue of Knowledge Cultures, Michael wrote: “In Nietzsche’s terms I am trying to determine the true hierarchy of values in relation to knowledge futures, and, on some indicative evidence I want to assert the value of freedom in relation to the future of knowledge” (2008). Where do you see this work leading Michael, and is this a case of what you both have referred to as “writing the self”? Is your act of publishing itself a form of Nietzschean/Wittgensteinian/Foucauldian self-stylization, philosophizing with a hammer?19 Michael Peters: What a brilliant question! You certainly are no innocent bystander in this conversation. I like your construction, probably part of my unconscious writing apparatus that drives me. This is a great set of connections. Freedom to publish is a legal constructed set of norms that is at the heart of freedom in the modern sense of the word. It needs reworking in the digital age. Freedom to publish, freedom of speech, freedom to learn, freedom to teach, these are all legally conscribed forms of freedom that are at the heart of public forms of knowledge and public institution—indeed of democracy and the global forms it might take. “Writing the self” I know as the philosophical form of self-transformation that has taken distinct forms in the West. Your follow-up question Jeff has a beautiful leading orientation: Much as Foucault had hidden philosophers beneath the mask (Heidegger and Nietzsche),20 Nietzsche appears to be resurfacing in the dusk/twilight of your philosophical career. Is this a consequence of your turn to Foucault (which for those reading all 13

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

along is not so much a turn as an accentuation of what was there from early collaboration with Jim Marshall), or, as I suggest, should readers see this as a motif running throughout your writings?

I think there are elements of all aspects you mention: Certainly, starting perhaps with Nietzsche’s influence on Foucault. I remember before editing the book with Paul Smeyers and Jim Marshall on Nietzsche’s educational legacy (1996) I had systematically read Heidegger’s Nietzsche, the excellent edition translated and edited by David Farrell Krell, and sat in on Julian Young’s Heidegger class at Auckland. His work then also figured strongly in my studies of Wittgenstein when I realized that Wittgenstein’s Vienna at the turn of the century was Nietzschean through and through. I would argue that Nietzsche is important for understanding Wittgenstein’s context and development. It is interesting to view many of Wittgenstein remarks on Nietzsche in Culture and Value especially around the 1930s, and also his Nietzschean remarks and tropes about understanding Western (American industrial scientific) culture as an epic. Cavell gets very close to this understanding of Wittgenstein and I have learned from his work. Nietzsche’s work [in my thinking and writing] does date from early readings of Wittgenstein and Heidegger and is a motif in my work, especially as it pertains to the question of style and genre, of philosophy as autobiography and a way of life, of “truth as subjectivity” and of existential understandings that pivot around the concept of the “will to knowledge” and the “will to power”. These last two Nietzschean concepts are fundamental to my work on forms of openness, knowledge economy, and academic collaboration. This is Nietzschean-inspired political economy that makes uses of genealogy, and of course also I have learned so much from Foucault’s use of Nietzsche in relation to discourse understood in both materialist and historicist terms. Yet I also have qualms about this question and the kind of relationship one can have with a towering intellectual figure like Nietzsche. I guess it is always a voyage of discovery. It’s also a reading program that might take a lifetime. I have not read his letters or unpublished texts yet. I am not a disciple although discipleship is one kind of relationship that promotes a form of emulation of style. My relationship to Nietzsche is to recognize him as a forefather, as a “prophet of postmodernity”, as a philosopher of nihilism, as a master of the epic of Western culture—as someone who understands its narrative and mythological resources, as a highly original thinker who breaks the mould to write philosophy as narrative. Thus Spake Zarathrustra is a remarkable work that heralds the birth of the philosophical novel that chronicles the pedagogy of the master based on the figure of Zoroaster, the Persian/Parsee prophet. Zoroaster is thought to have existed sometime between the 18th and the 6th centuries BC and is known through 14

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

his Gathas or hymns that are the core of Zoroastrianism, a philosophy that depicts the human condition as a struggle between truths and lies. It is written in the style of the New Testament and Platonic dialogues. Zarathrustra is the name of the first moralist who considers “good and evil as the very wheel in the machinery of things” and thus morality as a force or cause, as Nietzsche’s says, transposing it into the realm of metaphysics. (I would like to write an essay with the title: Nietzsche’s Pedagogy in Thus Spake Zarathrustra: “One repays one’s teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil”).21 Jeff Stickney: In Michael’s October editorial on Wittgenstein and context, a section of was devoted to feminist appropriations (EPAT, 2012). What has been your relationship with feminist poststructuralist thinkers in the field, and how would you respond to those who see you guys as a new “old boy’s club”?22 Michael Peters: I have read the work of feminist thinkers from Simone de Beauvoir to Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Kristeva, and Irrigaray. I supervised a PhD thesis on Irrigaray. I have worked with feminists of all persuasions for most of my career. Patty Lather and I did a tour together. I have worked with Betty St Pierre and taught with Wanda Pillow. I don’t see any real issues here except to say that I am a man who is heterosexual and this status bars me from engaging in certain practices and institutions, and from certain experiences. Of course I collaborate with a lot of different women including my partner, Tina Besley, but also many others. I work at understanding that politics of exclusion based on sex is just as painful as any other. I have learned a lot from feminist treatments of Foucault (work on the body) who I think was misogynist; perhaps even more so than many heterosexuals. I have read some feminist commentators on Wittgenstein and would like to read more. I have a lot more work to do here at understanding the subjectivity of gender and sex orientation. Nicholas Burbules: I do not think I would be doing any of the work I am doing now without the influence of not only feminist theory, but the influence and friendship of many feminists who have patiently put up with my thick-headedness. Personally as much as theoretically, I have had to struggle with a way of expressing myself, a manner and style, that is – as provided by many examples here – inseparable from the substance of a way of doing philosophy. Mary Leach, during a conversation, once interrupted me to say, “Your voice . . . it’s so. . . it’s so. . . male.” I don’t think I fully understood at the time what she meant, but now I think I do. Jeff Stickney: Coming from a geography background, Michael, concepts of ‘place’, ‘space’ and ‘globalization’ play a powerful role in your thinking.23 Living again in one of the most geologically active places in the world, 15

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

what has been the most ground shaking event in your academic career, and what provided bedrock to sustain your prolific writing? You often worked together, and most recently in the same department for about eight years. What makes for a positive working environment (ethos, genius loci) in the academy, and from where does your own creativity erupt? Michael Peters: Another great question, nicely expressed. It reminds me of Foucault’s and Nietzsche geological metaphors. Ground shaking experiences and events: working and living alone for several years while reading Wittgenstein – I felt like a hermit and a monk-scholar obsessed with the text; witnessing Derrida in action and meeting him in NZ, the same week that I met with Rorty in 2000; the exhilaration of experiencing one’s own flash of insight and gaining confident in one’s own style of learning (that cannot be divorced from writing); the engagement with others – student and colleagues – and the joy of collaboration and shared creative work. There are many of them. Your metaphor reminds me of Wittgenstein’s river-bed metaphor. What is the bedrock? The river changes its course, given the morphology it can meander, erode the banks, snake a pattern downstream, form oxbow lakes and carry sediment to the sea. What is the bedrock? An attitude of curiosity; a feeling of growing confidence in one’s voice; a sense of courage in the face of orthodoxy and convention to question the obvious. Wittgenstein’s river-bed metaphor is as important as Plato metaphors of the sun, divided line and cave. Except consciousness is not arranged like geological strata, even eroded, broken and uplifted strata and it cannot be revealed in archaeologies, brushing away each layer of debris to reveal structure. Evolutionary cosmology is a better set of metaphors – not linear, cumulative and progressive but dynamic, non-linear, biological, organic, ecological relational and transformative (of the system as a whole). You are right to mention geography and space, perhaps now “space-time”, and the return to time after the spatial turn, especially in the arts, music and philosophy. This provides us with an approach for considering “influences”, “people”, “institutions” and I have mentioned some people but only a few of the many that I have encounter in my travels and institutional locations. That nomadic existence is important to me. PESA has been a constant source of surprise and enjoyment. I was on the Executive of PESGB and attended the annual meeting for many years. I have attended PES several times and AERA many times, although I spend most of my time talking with publishers rather than attending formal sessions. On institutions – especially universities – I am deeply ambivalent. They have both sustained and rewarded me and yet I see how limited they are especially in their current neoliberal and managerialist forms.24 I see the academic pathologies that emerge at the intersection of administrative, aca16

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

demic and commercial reason. This is the topic of my inaugural professorial lecture at the University of Waikato early next year. This is how it has been advertised:

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Michael A. Peters, Professor of Education, has written dozens of books and hundreds of papers and chapters on education, philosophy and politics but one paper has evaded him for the past decade. In his inaugural lecture, Professor Peters pursues this illusive paper theorizing the concept of “academic pathologies” and examining what he calls the “anxiety of knowing.” During the lecture, he draws upon the work of Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, widely considered one of the foundational thinkers of existentialism, the American film-maker Woody Allen, and Jacques Derrida, among other thinkers, to talk about the culture of the academic self.

Jeff Stickney: In 2012, Michael, you produced a collection of what you considered your most important writings: Educational Philosophy and Politics (2012). In the same year you released Obama and the End of the American Dream (2012), and, with Tina Besley, Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue (2012). You haven’t abandoned philosophy for cultural studies (à la Rorty), nor have you turned away from educational policy and practice. Can you help us to understand the interrelationship between these different strands of thought, addressing the role of public intellectuals like yourself? Michael Peters: I like to think of myself as an intellectual and a writer and a “teacher”. (We must problematize all these categories). I make my living by writing, teaching and talking. What a privilege! I have little concern for academics who complain of workloads or deadlines. (I say under my breath: “Try working in a factory”). Yet universities are also factories. Managerialism and line management systems have do yet got up to speed on knowledge economies or knowledge cultures – this type of thinking curtails creativity and produces the psychotic university: “obey me but think for yourself”, “become the critic and conscience of society but produce, innovate!”, “Perform! Perform! Perform! Then count your products!” My work has certain threads to it, a skein that embraces education, philosophy and politics, a tripos it is not always helpful to try to separate and which has an ancient presence as the basis for citizenship, thought and pedagogy.25 After Foucault I do have an awareness of the disciplinary formation of the modern university, the formations of fields and approaches that come into and go out of existence, that become fashionable for a while and the basis of a paradigm shift. In terms of epistemology and pedagogy I am an anarchist or at least embrace a theory of epistemological and pedagogical anarchism (in Feyerabend’s sense). I am a little disrespectful of territories, turfs, specializations at least in the humanities and social sciences. 17

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

I noticed [in the prompts] that you refer to the pieces I wrote for TruthOut. I very much enjoy this process, of writing essays, of writing for anyone, for the “public” and even for those who in interactive media call me a “mush-head”. It is wonderful to get this feedback. I noticed that the piece I wrote called “Anger and Political Culture: A Time for Outrage!” had 914 “like”, 100 “tweets” and 195 “share”. I am learning the art of political journalism. This is an experiment for me in writing which is part of my being and what I like to do making me feel at my best! Jeff Stickney: Nick, have you seen a progression toward the political in Michael’s work, and is this your path also? Do these “timely meditations” or instances of truth-saying (parrhesia) keep your philosophical thinking relevant?26 Nicholas Burbules: Michael’s work has always had a stronger orientation toward the political than mine has. I think my basic personal disposition is to want to be a thinker who goes off on his own to work through some puzzles and try to figure them out. I have become increasingly alienated from the tendency of some educational theorizing to become political advocacy work, and more suspicious about utopian programmatic agendas to transform society through education. That grants the force of theorizing, and the wisdom of the philosopher, greater impact than I think justified. Granted, this is only one kind of politics, and not Michael’s brand. But sometimes I want to say, paraphrasing Wittgenstein slightly, “Leave me alone, I want to think!” (Wittgenstein, 1980b. Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology II, paragraph 12). Jeff Stickney: Impossible to encapsulate your contribution, what would you like to add, as a parting message in a bottle?27 Michael Peters: Yes, thanks for this opportunity, Jeff. You are an excellent editor which is a reflection of your character I think but also of your scholarly understanding. I am really impressed at how easy this was for me and how you enabled it so expertly. I would love to give you a job and work alongside you. My contribution? Here is what I say to my students sometimes: in the digital world of knowledge production there are some 3 million articles produced every year. Of these, 90% do not get cited or read. Often by the time an article is published (up to 18 months later) the debate is dead or has passed on. In this world of digital ephemera I might have some readers if only those that I collaborate with. My contribution is less in the tangible remainders, in the written texts, than in the learning processes. Actually, and this might be a mark of my personality after I have written something I rarely read it again or look back at it, except as part of the inner text that is in my head and also as a theme that I can connect to.

18

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

My contribution? A set of renegade knowledges that utilize the prophetic philosophies of Wittgenstein, Nietzsche and Heidegger to explore the work of contemporary philosophers and scholars and as a tool kit and repertoires to rehearse for understanding contemporary political problems that stand at the heart of the political economy of knowledge institutions – the production, consumption and distribution of knowledge. I want to be able to say something about the philosophy of the self as a pedagogical encounter but I do not seem to be able to easily fit this into one sentence. While there is critique in my work it is also motivated by an evolutionary logic: that culture we are approaching is a kind of interconnectivity that will help propel the global system into a new transformative culture in the ways that non-linear, dynamic, cybernetic properties of systems can evolve – toward a higher consciousness, not only a great ethical and environmental expansiveness but also essential a pedagogical global bildungsroman. (Here the emphasis on change and futures become apparent and my debt to Marx, to Nietzsche and to Wittgenstein and Heidegger become obvious). From the dead to the living: my heartfelt thanks to my life partner Tina Besley (a hugely underestimated talent) my constant traveler, and to my Wittgenstein friends, Nick and Paul, but also to all my friends and colleagues, many of whom are or have been my students. The note in the bottle would say: “Philosopher lost in space; please return to the 21st century”. Michael A. Peters Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois Professor, Policy, Cultural & Social Studies in Education University of Waikato Nicholas C. Burbules Edward William and Jane Marr Gutgsell Professor Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

NOTES 1. Cf. the early Wittgenstein (Tractatus, 1971) and later Wittgenstein (Remarks, 1958; Investigations, 1968). 2. See also Mulhall (2001). 3. See Wittgenstein, 1980a. 4. See Cavell (1995). See also Peters: Stanley Cavell and Philosophy of Education, The Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory, http://www. ffst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/doku.php?id=cavell_and_philosophy_of_education 5. See Deleuze and Guatari (1987; 1. Introduction: Rhizome). 6. A number of papers are available online at Wittgenstein Links, http://www. helsinki.fi/~tuschano/lw/links/ 19

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

7. In Theory and Science, at http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol003. 002/peters.html 8. See Stickney paper in this festschrift, from the NWS conference (2012). 9. See Chapter 9 of Wittgenstein: Philosophy, Postmodernism, Pedagogy (1999), 154–55, 162–69. To illustrate what they refer to as the analytic school imposing its own style of logic, rigor and clarity, I recall reading Paul Hirst and R.S. Peters’ Logic and Education (1970, 6), in which they address the ‘newly fashionable idea that definitions do not exist, only family resemblances’. They tried to make up for Wittgenstein’s supposed shortcomings (from an analytic viewpoint) by offering a definition for ‘games’ (i.e., non-serious activities) that satisfied their requirement for necessary and sufficient conditions for membership in the set. What this shows is that they did not understand the anti-essentialism behind Wittgenstein’s investigations. 10. Wittgenstein “I destroy, I destroy, I destroy–” in CV, p. 21/19 (1931). Likewise: “All that philosophy can do is to destroy idols.” (Philosophy, in Philosophical Occasions, p. 171.) See also PI §118: “Where does our investigation get its importance from, since it seems only to destroy everything interesting, that is, all that is great and important?”). In opposition to system builders in philosophy, the later Wittgenstein was de-structuring the edifice of logic, which had become to him merely a “house of cards” (PI §118). 11. See PI §309 & PI §115, respectively. 12. See Michael Foucault, “What is Enlightenment?,” in Essential Works, Vol. 1, ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: The Free Press, 1994, p. 312. I recall Dennis Philips roasting Michael at the President’s luncheon (PES 2004, Toronto), jesting (in his own rule-following case) that second prize in a raffle was Peters’ most recent book on display in the publisher’s room; third prize, two of his books; etc. Despite overtures of a truce in the late 90’s, Paul Smeyers’ polemical response to Harvey Siegel (PESGB keynote, 2010) shows that the analytic/postfoundational rift has not abated. 13. NOTES from Peters (2008). 1. Despite analytic philosophy’s ‘dissolution’ institutionally it lives on and has made it itself the world of blogging. See David Chalmers’ ‘Philosophical Weblogs’ at http://consc.net/weblogs.html. See Leiter’s own blog at http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/09/the_future_for. html. 14. “But where danger is, grows/ The saving power also…/ …poetically dwells man upon this earth.” Hölderlin, quoted by Martin Heidegger (1977, 316). 15. Characteristically, Nick was also helpful in editing this manuscript. 16. See Kuhn (1999). 17. See Foucault (1977) on panopticism. 18. Planning a panel discussion for AERA on Foucault, with Michael, Tina and Tom Popkewitz (July, 2010; turned down, ironically, because the proposal did not reference luminaries such as Peters and Popkewitz), I heard Tina’s complaints about the Sisyphusean task of removing rocks from their New Zealand vineyard. Viniculture [connoisseurship of Pinot Noir] as an “art of the self”? 19. See Foucault (1994a). 20. See Foucault (1994b). 20

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

21. Nietzsche (1966, 78). 22. Colin Gordon (1994, xiii) cautions against a hagiographic treatment of our philosophers. This is especially needed insofar as I prostrate myself before Michael as Krakatau, “super volcano” or (as an epithet) he-of-enormous-output in the next question. 23. I recall Michael’s 2006 AERA paper, and Chapter 5 from Poststructuralism, Politics and Education (1996), entitled “Architecture of Resistance: Educational Theory, Postmodernism and the ‘Politics of Space.’” Nick co-edited Learning in Places. The Informal Education Reader (Peter Lang, 2006). 24. See Peters (2005). 25. This triplet takes us into Foucault’s later lectures (see 2005, 2010). (See Peters, 1996, 2007, and 2009.) 26. Nick was interviewed on Frontline for their expose of for-profit higher education “franchises,” in “College Inc.” (PBS.org., 2012). 27. Michael explained his return to New Zealand in terms of dedication to family, farm and country. It is tempting to see it also in terms of Wittgensteinian recluse, or hermitic self-exile. [See Jan Estep (2008) on Wittgenstein’s hut in coastal Norway, in Cultural Geographies in Practice, vol. 15, pp. 255–260: http://www. hermitary.com/solitude/estep.html.] But New Zealand is today very much a part of the global here & now (and globally north & south), so in posing the question romantically, in the motif of shipwreck, I do not mean to disparage his home: a majestic place most of us only see in cinematic versions of Tolkien’s fables, such as “The Fellowship of the Ring.”

REFERENCES Brown, Phillip, Hugh Lauder, and David Ashton (2010), The Global Auction. The Broken Promises of Education, Jobs, and Incomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burbules, Nicholas (2000), “Lyotard on Wittgenstein,” in Lyotard. Just Education, Pradeep A. Dhillon and Paul Standish (eds.). London and New York: Routledge. Cavell, Stanley (1995), “Notes and Afterthoughts on the Opening of Wittgenstein’s Investigations,” in Philosophical Passages: Wittgenstein, Emerson, Austin, Derrida. Oxford: Blackwell, 124–186. Conant, James (1993), Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein and Nonsense, Ted Cohen, Paul Guyer, and Hillary Putnam (eds.). College Station, TX: Texas Tech University. Creegan, Charles L. (1989), Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard: Religion, Individuality, and Philosophical Method. New York and London: Routledge. Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari (1987), A Thousand Plateaus. Brian Massumi (trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Foucault, Michel (1977), Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. Alan Sheridan (trans.). New York: Random House. Foucault, Michel (1994a), “Technologies of the Self,” in Essential Works, Vol. 1, Paul Rabinow (ed.). New York: The New Press. Foucault, Michel (1994b), “The Masked Philosopher,” in Essential Works, Vol. 1, Paul Rabinow (ed.). New York: The New Press. 21

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Foucault, Michel (2005), The Hermeneutics of the Subject. Lectures at the Collège De France, 1981–1982. Frédéric Gros (ed.); Graham Burchell (trans.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Foucault, Michel (2010), The Government of Self and Others. Lectures at the Collège De France, 1982–1983. Frédéric Gros (ed.); Graham Burchell (trans.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Glebe-Moeller, Jens (1997), “Notes on Wittgenstein’s Reading of Kierkegaard,” Wittgenstein Studien 4(2). Gordon, Colin (1994), “Introduction,” in Michel Foucault. Essential Writings, James Faubion (ed.), Vol. 3. New York: The New Press. Heidegger, Martin (1977), “The Question Concerning Technology,” in David Krell (ed.), Basic Writings. New York: Harper and Row. Hirst, Paul, and R.S. Peters (1970), The Logic of Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Janik, Allan, and Stephen Toulmin (1973), Wittgenstein’s Vienna. New York: Simon and Schuster. Kuhn, Thomas (1999), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn. Chicago, IL, and London: University of Chicago Press. Lyotard, Jean-Francois (1984), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (trans.); Fredric Jameson (foreword). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Lyotard, Jean-Francois (1993), “After Wittgenstein,” in Political Writings. Bill Readings and Kevin Paul (trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Mulhall, Stephen (2001), Inheritance and Originality: Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Kierkegaard. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nietzsche, Friedrich (1966), Thus Spake Zarathustra. Walter Kaufmann (trans.). New York: Viking Press. Peters, Michael A. (1995), “Philosophy and Education: ‘After’ Wittgenstein,” in Philosophy and Education: Accepting Wittgenstein’s Challenge, James Marshall and Paul Smeyers (eds.). Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Peters, Michael A. (1996), “Foucault, Discourse and Education: Neoliberal Governmentality,” in Poststructuralism, Politics and Education, Michael Peters (ed.). Westport, CT, and London: Bergin and Garvey, 79–92. Peters, Michael A. (2005), “The New Prudentialism in Education: Actuarial Rationality and the Entrepreneurial Self,” Educational Theory 55(2): 124–137. Peters, Michael A. (2008), “Futures for Philosophy of Education,” Analysis and Metaphysics 7: 152–167. Peters, Michael A. (author), Ergin Bulut (ed.) (2011), Cognitive Capitalism, Education and Digital Labor. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, Michael A. (2012), Education, Philosophy and Politics. The Selected Works of Michael A. Peters. London and New York: Routledge. Peters, Michael A., and James Marshall (1996), Individualism and Community: Education and Social Policy in the Postmodern Condition. London and Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.

22

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, Michael A., and James D. Marshall (1999), Wittgenstein: Philosophy, Postmodernism, Pedagogy. Westport, CT and London: Bergin and Garvey. Peters, Michael A., James Marshall, and Paul Smeyers (eds.) (2001), Nietzsche’s Legacy for Education: Past and Present Values. Westport, CT, and London: Bergin and Garvey. Peters, Michael A., and Paulo Ghiraldelli Jr. (2001), Richard Rorty: Education, philosophy, and politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Peters, Michael A., and Paul Smeyers (eds.) (2006), Postfoundationalist Themes in the Philosophy of Education. Festschrift for James D. Marshall. Oxford: Blackwell. Peters, Michael A., and Tina Besley (2007), Why Foucault? New Directions in Educational Research. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, Michael, A., A.C. Besley, Mark Olssen, Susane Mauer, and Susanne Weber (eds.) (2009), Governmentality Studies in Education. Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei: Sense. Peters, M. A., Burbules, N., and Smeyers, P. (2008), Saying and Doing: Wittgenstein as a Pedagogical Philosopher . Boulder, CO: Paradigm Press. Rorty, Richard (1981), Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rorty, Richard (1991), “Cosmopolitanism without Emancipation: A Response to Jean-Francois Lyotard,” in Objectivity, Relativism and Truth. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smeyers, Paul, and Nicholas C. Burbules (2005), “‘Practice:’ A Central Educational Concept,” Philosophy of Education Society Yearbook, Kenneth Howe (ed.). Paper given at the annual meeting of PES (San Francisco). Waks, Leonard (ed.) (2008), Leaders in Philosophy of Education. Intellectual SelfPortraits. Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei: Sense. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1956), Remarks on the Foundation of Mathematics. G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (RFM) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1968), Philosophical Investigations. 3rd edn. G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (PI §, or PI II, pg.) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1969), On Certainty. Denis Paul and G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1971), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. 2nd edn. D.F. Pears and B.F. McGuiness (trans.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1980a), Culture and Value. G.H. von Wright and Heikii Nyman (eds.). Peter Winch (tr.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (CV) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1980b), Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology. G.E.M. Anscombe (ed.). G.H. von Wright (trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Two volumes. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1993), “Philosophy (Big Typescript),” in Philosophical Occasions (1912–1951), James C. Klagge and Alfred Norman (eds.). Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett.

23

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Endless Energy: Portrait of an Intellectual

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peter Roberts University of Canterbury

I have known Michael Peters for more than 30 years. My first encounter with him was in the 1970s at an Auckland secondary school where I was a student and Michael was a teacher. I was not in Michael’s classes but did see him in action once or twice when he appeared in a Social Studies course taught by someone else. Those memories are hazy now but I have a clear recollection of our subsequent crossing of paths at the University of Auckland in the early 1980s. In my second year at university I enrolled in two Stage One Education courses, one of which was titled ‘An Introduction to Western Educational Thought’. Colin Lankshear and Jim Marshall were the course lecturers and Michael was my tutor. Michael was completing his PhD at the time (with Jim as his senior supervisor), and he was an enthusiastic, thought provoking tutor. He probed us to think more carefully and deeply in responding to educational questions and he played an important role, with Colin and Jim, in fostering my interest in philosophy of education. He was also willing to meet outside class times to discuss essays and other aspects of the course, for which I was most grateful. I went on to major in Education for my BA degree and Michael was involved in a number of the other courses I completed. A Masters degree in Education followed, and in 1987 I was interviewed for a Junior Lectureship at the University of Waikato, an institution located about two hours south of Auckland. I was offered the job and thereafter my contact with Michael lessened for a number of years, though we did see each other at conferences and other events from time to time. Michael spent two years at the University of Canterbury in the early 1990s before returning to the University of Auckland. In late 1993 he encouraged me to apply for an academic position that had become vacant, and at the beginning of 1995 I too found myself back at the University of Auckland. This was a pivotal time in the development of educational studies at Auckland. The Education Department was by that stage organized into two academic groups. Michael was the Head of one of these: Cultural and Policy Studies in Education (CPSE). Under this banner, a powerhouse of critical scholarship in Education was formed – perhaps the most impressive ever in an Australasian university. Among others gathered together in CPSE within 24

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

about a year of my arrival at Auckland (in addition to Michael and myself) were Roger Dale, Jim Marshall, Linda Smith, Graham Smith, Alison Jones, Megan Boler, Eve Coxon, Stephen Appel, Susan Robertson, Trish Johnston, and Leonie Pihama. This was a period of unprecedented growth and an intellectual peak for the study of philosophy of education, sociology of education, educational policy studies, and Maori Education at the University of Auckland. Michael was central to the success of the CPSE group. He initiated seminar series and symposia, collaborated with colleagues, taught and supervised a large number of students, and published prolifically. Michael and I formed a strong friendship, teaching together, playing tennis twice a week (sometimes with his two grown-up sons, both of whom were better than us), and, in time, writing together. The Education Department would later become a School of Education, and new academic groups would emerge. CPSE remained, but as the years went by more and more members of the group were lost to retirement or positions elsewhere, and very few were replaced. Around the turn of the century, Michael himself would depart to take up a chair at the University of Glasgow, moving on some years later to a post at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. Throughout this period, Michael and I stayed in regular contact by e-mail and met as often as circumstances allowed. For the first few years of his Glasgow appointment Michael retained a formal institutional relationship with the University of Auckland and was able to return for short stays with the School of Education. In the late 1990s Michael and I had published two books together – one a co-edited volume on the new ‘virtual’ technologies (Peters & Roberts, 1998), the other a co-authored book on university futures (Peters & Roberts, 1999). We had also co-authored a number of journal articles. With my move to the University of Canterbury as Professor of Education in early 2008, we resumed this collaboration, publishing two further co-authored books: Neoliberalism, Higher Education and Research (Roberts & Peters, 2008) and The Virtues of Openness (Peters & Roberts, 2011). For me, Michael’s return to New Zealand in 2011 to take up a professorship at the University of Waikato completes a series of surprising institutional connections. We were both at the same secondary school, though in different roles; we have both served at the University of Waikato and the University of Canterbury, but at different times; and we have both worked at the University of Auckland, separately and together, both as ‘originals’ and as ‘returnees’. Our intellectual, professional and personal lives now seem to be more closely intertwined than ever before. In recent years, we have both been heavily involved with the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA), serving on the Executive Committee of the Society, presenting at the annual conference, and supporting doctoral students in their 25

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

participation. Under Michael’s editorship, PESA’s journal Educational Philosophy and Theory has gone from strength to strength. It is now without doubt one of the top periodicals in the world in philosophy of education. As an Associate Editor (from 2003 to 2009, and in 2013 and 2014), member of the Editorial Board (1996–2003, 2010–2012), and regular contributor to the journal, Educational Philosophy and Theory has also been a big part of my academic publishing life. Michael and I see each other several times each year, and we communicate frequently by e-mail. What have I learned about Michael, having known him and worked closely with him for such a long period of time? Should anyone ever ask me to provide one word to characterize him, it would probably be this: energy. Michael never seems to stop. He loves to write, to share in conversation, and to initiate new projects. His enthusiasm is infectious. When Michael becomes involved with another group of people, the dynamic of the group changes; no one can stay the same once Michael has entered their lives. These thoughts are intended not merely as idiosyncratic reflections on Michael’s personal characteristics (as I see them) but also as stepping stones for the exploration of philosophical and pedagogical questions. In the figure of Michael Peters, we have a distinctive example of how to live as a certain kind of intellectual, friend and teacher. The most significant influences on Michael’s development as a scholar, to judge by his published writings, are Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, and Rorty (see Peters, 2012). Michael has published at least one book on each of these thinkers (Besley & Peters, 2007; Peters, 1995, 2002; Peters & Besley, 2007a; Peters & Biesta, 2009; Peters, Burbules & Smeyers, 2008; Peters & Ghiradelli, 2001; Peters & Marshall, 1999; Peters, Marshall & Smeyers, 2001; Trifonas and Peters, 2004, 2005). Other philosophers, educationists and literary figures about whom Michael has had something to say over the years have included Cavell, Deleuze, Strauss, Freire, Hesse, and Bakhtin, to name but a few (Peters, 1996, 1999, 2012; Peters & Lankshear, 1994; White & Peters, 2011). The breadth of Michael’s scholarship is remarkable. He has published more books, on a greater array of themes and topics, than any other philosopher of education in the world. His reach extends well beyond the traditional range for scholars in this field. He has written at length on various areas of education policy, including higher education, research policy, globalization, citizenship education, and the knowledge economy (Marshall & Peters, 1999; Peters, 2011; Peters & Besley, 2007; Peters & Marshall, 1997; Peters & Roberts, 1999; Roberts & Peters, 2008; Simons, Olssen & Peters, 2010). Michael has also been an active contributor to the critical literature on the new information technologies, creativity and imagination, and the move toward greater openness in education and scholarly publishing (Araya & Peters, 2010; Murphy, 26

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, & Marginson, 2010; Peters & Britez, 2008; Peters, Murphy & Marginson, 2010; Peters & Roberts, 1998, 2011). Other areas covered by Michael’s publication record include environmental education (Gonzalez-Gaudiano & Peters, 2008), education and terrorism (Peters, 2004), education and utopia (Peters & Freeman-Moir, 2006), and curriculum studies (de Alba, Gonzalez, Lankshear, & Peters, 2000). While Michael is best known for his work on postmodern and post-structuralist currents of thought, he has also addressed Marxism (Peters, 2004) and Critical Theory (Peters, Lankshear & Olssen, 2003a, 2003b), among other traditions. In the example provided by Michael Peters, then, we witness an eclecticism that stands opposed to the specialization characteristic of our current age. This is evident not only in Michael’s publications but in his friendships and intellectual connections: here is a scholar whose network extends to a multiplicity of different continents and countries. Educational Philosophy and Theory, with its status as one of the premier philosophy of education journals and its wide international circulation, has broadened this set of relationships even further. As Executive Editor of the journal for well over a decade, Michael has come into contact with hundreds of scholars, young and old, of many different theoretical and political persuasions, and has thereby exerted more influence than most in shaping the field of contemporary philosophy of education. How can any one person write so much? And what does Michael’s productivity mean in a performance-driven world? For Michael, writing is a way of thinking through ideas; to stop writing would thus be to stop thinking – and that is an impossibility (see Peters, 2011b). From Michael we can learn that writing, as a mode of intellectual activity, constitutes both a process of clarification and a means for exploration. Reading and writing are always related to each other: writing becomes the basis for finding out what one does and doesn’t know, simultaneously permitting a new ‘reading’ of not only the texts under examination but the wider contexts – intellectual, political, historical – in which they are embedded. Michael is anything but technocratic in his reading and writing endeavors. He does not follow a linear, step by step method, reading first, taking notes, then writing; consistent with the philosophers he admires, he takes a more ‘playful’, creative approach, mindful nonetheless of the importance of scholarly rigor and argumentation. Writing for Michael is not the end of an investigative process but its beginning – and this work is never complete. There is always another text to be written, just as there are always new ideas, or new ways of thinking about old ideas, to consider. Among the most memorable of the aphorisms collected in Wittgenstein’s Culture and Value is this statement on the nature of philosophical work:

27

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Working in philosophy – like work in architecture in many respects – is really more a working on oneself. On one’s own interpretation. On one’s way of seeing things. (And what one expects of them.)’ (Wittgenstein, 1980, p. 16e).

This is a perfect characterization of Michael as an intellectual. Through his constant writing, editing, initiating, talking, and thinking, Michael not only produces words, publishes books, and builds relationships with others; he also works on himself – his perception of the world and his place in it. Writing thereby becomes a rereading of reality, not just from without but within. To sustain oneself as an intellectual in this manner demands a degree of openness that is often lacking in the contemporary academic world. It also necessitates a willingness to live with uncertainty; with ephemerality, provisionality and incessant change. Michael succeeds both with and against the logic of performativity. No university leader concerned with institutional scores in performance-based research funding exercises could fault his productivity. At the same time, were such a leader to read Michael’s work, he or she might begin to feel vaguely uncomfortable. The emphasis on ‘performance’ narrowly conceived, as the maximizing of outputs relative to inputs, measured at periodic intervals, in relation to both individuals and groups, is one of the distinguishing features of the neoliberal age – and Michael has been sharply critical of this. The neoliberal moment in human history, despite claims to the contrary, is still with us. Neoliberalism has evolved and taken on different forms in new times and places but it continues to cast a shadow over intellectual life. Over the last quarter of the 20th century neoliberalism became, in Lyotard’s (1984) terms, a metanarrative: a view of the world that purports to subsume everything else within its own orbit, a framework of understanding to which we can turn in attempting to explain and accommodate events, structures, actions, ideas, and relationships. Neoliberalism is, as Paulo Freire (1997) would put it, too certain of its certainties. In opposition to the openness valued by Michael Peters, those wedded to a neoliberal view of the world are closed in their orientation. They lack a sense of history and see no need to ponder alternatives. Michael’s energy happens to be good for parts of the neoliberal machine, but it also rubs against the grain of our time in ways that any healthy democracy needs. Michael asks awkward questions. In a world where everything must be measured and managed, Michael refuses to be contained. He seldom remains silent for long, and he does not allow himself to be bullied into conformity by bureaucrats. Michael writes because he loves to write; he does not do so merely to tick the right boxes on a performance review form. He could no more cease his activities as a curious, inquiring human being than he could stop breathing. He values breadth of investigation not 28

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

just for its own sake but because this accords with his intellectual instincts and his natural inclinations as a citizen making his way in a cosmopolitan world. As a teacher, Michael brings ideas to life, mixing reason with passion, affirmation with contestation, optimism with realism. As a writer, he sets few boundaries for himself and encourages others to expand their horizons. As a friend, he is someone I am grateful to have met on my journey, and I hope there will thirty further years of reflection to add to the observations recorded here.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Araya, D., & M. A. Peters (Eds.) (2010), Education in the Creative Economy. New York: Peter Lang. Besley, T., & Peters, M.A. (2008), Subjectivity and Truth: Foucault, Education and the Culture of the Self. New York: Peter Lang. de Alba, A., Gonzalez, E., Lankshear, C., & Peters, M.A. (Eds.) (2000), The Curriculum in the Postmodern Condition. New York: Peter Lang. Freire, P. (1997), Pedagogy of the Heart. New York: Continuum. Gonzalez-Gaudiano, E.J., & Peters, M.A. (Eds.) (2008), Environmental Education Today: Identity, Politics and Citizenship. Rotterdam and Taipei: Sense Publishers. Lyotard, J-F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition. Trans. G. Bennington & B. Massumi. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Marshall, J., & Peters, M.A. (Eds.) (1999), Education Policy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Murphy, P., Peters, M.A., & Marginson, S. (2010), Imagination: Three Models of Imagination in the Age of the Knowledge Economy. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A. (Ed.) (1995), Education and the Postmodern Condition. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Peters, M.A. (1996), Poststructuralism, Politics and Education. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Peters, M.A. (1999), “Freire and Postmodernism,” in P. Roberts (Ed.), Paulo Freire, Politics and Pedagogy: Reflections from Aotearoa-New Zealand. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Peters, M.A. (2001), Poststructuralism, Marxism and Neoliberalism; Between Theory and Politics. Lanham, MD and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M.A. (Ed.) (2002), Heidegger, Education and Modernity. Lanham, MD and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M.A. (Ed.) (2004), Education, Globalization and the State in the Age of Terrorism. Boulder, CO, and Oxford: Paradigm Publishers. Peters, M.A. (2007), Knowledge Economy, Development and the Future of Higher Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Peters, M.A. (2011a), Neoliberalism and After? Education, Social Policy and the Crisis of Capitalism. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A. (2011b), The Last Book of Postmodernism: Apocalyptic Thinking, Philosophy and Education in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Peter Lang. 29

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A. (2012), Educational Philosophy and Politics: The Selected Works of Michael A. Peters. London: Routledge. Peters, M.A., & Besley, T. (Eds.) (2007a), Why Foucault? New Directions in Educational Research. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., & Besley, T. (2007b), Building Knowledge Cultures: Education and Development in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism. Lanham, MD and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M.A., & Biesta, G. (2009), Derrida, Politics and Pedagogy: Deconstructing the Humanities. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., Blee, H., & Britton, A. (Eds.) (2008), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Peters, M.A., & Britez, R. (Eds.) (2008), Open Education and Education for Openness. Rotterdam and Taipei: Sense Publishers. Peters, M.A., Burbules, N., & Smeyers, P. (2008), Saying and Doing: Wittgenstein as a Pedagogical Philosopher. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Press. Peters, M.A., & Freeman-Moir, J. (Eds.) (2006), Edutopias: New Utopian Thinking in Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Peters, M.A., & Ghiraldelli, P. (Eds.) (2001), Richard Rorty: Education, Philosophy and Politics. Lanham, MD, and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M.A., & Lankshear, C. (1994), “Education and Hermeneutics: A Freirean Interpretation,” in P. McLaren & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Politics of Liberation: Paths from Freire. London: Routledge, 173–192. Peters, M.A., Lankshear, C., & Olssen, M. (Eds.) (2003a), Critical Theory: Founders and Praxis. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., Lankshear, C., & Olssen, M. (Eds.) (2003b), Futures of Critical Theory: Dreams of Difference. Lanham, MD, and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M.A., & Marshall, J.D. (1997), Individualism and Community: Education and Social Policy in the Postmodern Condition. London: Falmer Press. Peters, M.A., & Marshall, J.D. (1999), Wittgenstein: Philosophy, Postmodernism, Pedagogy. Westport, CT, and London: Bergin & Garvey. Peters, M.A., Marshall, J., & Smeyers, P. (Eds.) (2001), Nietzsche’s Legacy for Education: Past and Present Values. Westport, CT, and London: Bergin & Garvey. Peters, M.A., Murphy, P., & Marginson, S. (2010), Creativity and the Global Knowledge Economy. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M., & Roberts, P. (Eds.) (1998), Virtual Technologies and Tertiary Education. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Peters, M., & Roberts, P. (1999), University Futures and the Politics of Reform in New Zealand. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Peters, M.A., & Roberts, P. (2011), The Virtues of Openness: Education, Science, and Scholarship in the Digital Age. Boulder, CO, and London: Paradigm Publishers. Roberts, P., & Peters, M.A. (2008), Neoliberalism, Higher Education and Research. Rotterdam and Taipei: Sense Publishers. Simons, M., Olssen, M., & Peters, M.A. (Eds.) (2010), Re-Reading Education Policies: Studying the Policy Agenda of the 21st Century. Rotterdam and Taipei: Sense Publishers.

30

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Trifonas, P., & Peters, M.A. (Eds.) (2005), Deconstructing Derrida: Tasks for the New Humanities. New York: Palgrave. Trifonas, P., & Peters, M.A. (Eds.) (2004), Derrida, Deconstruction and Education. Oxford: Blackwells. White, E. Jayne, & Peters, M.A. (Eds.) (2011), Bakhtinian Pedagogy: Opportunities and Challenges for Research, Policy and Practice in Education Across the Globe. New York: Peter Lang. Wittgenstein, L. (1980), Culture and Value. Trans. P. Winch. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

31

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Dancing Wittgenstein (after Foucault) Jeff Stickney University of Toronto “The thinker is but a dancer with a pen.”1

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1. Background The publication of Wittgenstein: Philosophy, Postmodernism, Pedagogy (1999) by Michael A. Peters and James D. Marshall was a landmark. I had just started my doctorate (after ten years of teaching secondary school), intent on applying Wittgenstein’s later philosophy to problems in education: as they appeared on the rough ground instead of the crystalline purity of plans drawn up by the Ministry and District School Boards (PI §107). True to form, this book charts the intellectual and cultural legacies on which Wittgenstein drew: Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, and (with Nicholas Burbules in Chapter 9), currents in 20th c. Viennese society that provided background to his style and aesthetic sensibilities. 2 It also mapped the way forward by drawing connections between Wittgenstein’s manner of “writing the self” with Foucault’s neo-Nietzschean concept of arts and techniques of self-stylization. 3 The effect was to transform my project, exploring joint applications of the philosophies of Wittgenstein and Foucault to teacher inspection and professional development: a trajectory that led me to work with James Tully at University of Toronto, who had long been employing these thinkers in political philosophy (Tully, 1989).4 Ten years later I appreciated what this turn meant for my own development as a writer and activist in education. At a post-lecture dinner Michael confided that in taking up Lyotard and Foucault, the more political philosophers, he “saved himself from becoming a pithy Wittgensteinian” (Toronto 2010). Anyone fatigued by “over rehearsed” expositions of the compelling rule-following argument will know what this means: even those seeing its wider applications in education.5 Moving into The Government of the Self and Others,6 Michael and his collaborators essayed/assayed practice-based approaches to philosophical and policy questions in education: whether initiate training into normative rules (Wittgenstein); or, normalizing, disciplinary and dividing practices (Foucault). His work on Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Lyotard, Rorty, Derrida and Foucault makes Michael (along with other contributors to this

32

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

volume) not only our resident genealogist but, ironically, one of the founders of post-foundational philosophy of education. The paper I share as tribute was given at the Nordic Wittgenstein Society’s 3rd annual conference (University of Southern Denmark, 2012). The conference theme was Wittgenstein, the Philosophy of Education and the Education of Philosophy, with Paul Standish aptly delivering a keynote. Not surprisingly, Peters’ work immediately surfaces in researching the topic. In 2008, Michael collaborated with Paul Smeyers and Nicholas Burbules on a second book, Saying and Doing: Wittgenstein as a Pedagogical Philosopher, intended as both a fresh reading and “as a way of revealing the educational dimension of philosophical problems.”7 That year Smeyers and Burbules also guest edited a special edition of Educational Philosophy and Theory on Wittgenstein.8 Realizing that this NWS audience would prefer its Wittgenstein straight up, I confessed to the conference host9 that I supplemented Wittgenstein with Foucault to create just a little controversy among the devoted, and in a deflationary tone added warnings about reading too much into Ludwig’s scattered remarks on education and aesthetics.10

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

“The human body is the best picture of the human soul” (PI II, iv, p. 178). “Piano playing, a dance of human fingers.” (CV p. 36e) 2. Aesthetic Criticism in Dance11 2.1 Preface I begin with cautionary notes on appropriating Wittgenstein to studies of dance and education, where in the desire to make use of his remarks it is easy to mistake their context. Educationists reading Wittgenstein’s references to “teaching” and “learning” may be charmed into thinking he offers a technique or philosophy of pedagogy. Like a poet’s words, they easily pierce because of their familiarity (Z §155). I contend, however, that his scattered remarks on teaching and learning, and even his extended meditations on rule-following in mathematics, are meant to give us a commanding view: not of pedagogy or learning itself, but of the way in which we are normatively trained into various language-games or practices. Wittgenstein’s scenes of instruction, like his anthropological thought-experiments, belong to the set of intermediate cases that render a perspicuous view of the ordinary workings of our language (paraphrasing PI §122). In PI §130 he reiterates: Our clear and simple language games are...set up as objects of comparison which are meant to throw light on the facts of our language.... (PI §130)

33

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Upon reflection, this is how the Investigations were staged in the builders’ language sections, as in PI §5 where he speaks of dispensing the fog to give a commanding view. In the simplified case of children acquiring language, “the teaching ...is not explanation, but training” (PI §5). The culmination of these many cases, where light dawns gradually over the whole (OC §141), comes in direct statements in Zettel §318 and §419. Wittgenstein declares that he cannot describe how to employ rules except by teaching, or training someone into the rules. He even admonishes educators to remember: “Any explanation has its foundation in training” (Z §419). The point is that complex practices – utterances, but also gestures, dances, musical performances and rituals like coronations – make sense only when embedded within the techniques and reactions constitutive of a form of life. The same approach is taken to aesthetic words, attending to how we use them in the flow. What he actually wrote on aesthetics is rather small compared to writers like Kant and Schiller, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, though clearly aesthetics was woven into the fabric of his life (see Monk). My thesis is that Wittgenstein’s reflections on aesthetics operate in a similar way; like the vignettes on teaching, or on people with whom “we can’t find our feet,” they give us a perspicuous view of our enculturation in language-games and thus contribute to his overall project of illuminating how meaning works, holistically and contextually, against the background. “Thesis” sounds rather dashing. Without bravado, I simply mean to take up a stance (Gk. tithenai) from which we can make pertinent connections. Seen this way, his method becomes explicit: “In order to get clear about aesthetic words,” he writes, “you have to describe ways of living.” Distinguishing actual from imaginary uses of aesthetic terms, in practice we find that the words operate more like “gestures which accompany complicated activities” (paraphrasing CV, p. 11). 2.2 Introduction External criticism can play a vital role in the choreographic process. Someone with a trained eye comes into the studio to see a work-in-progress, and then offers critical insight on how to clean or improve the piece for final performance.12 An epistemological question arises as to how the artist knows when to trust the aesthetic judgement of the invited critic. When should authorized advice be qualified or dismissed? Here we cannot specify, but only point to the general conditions that contribute to fidelity in this collaborative relationship, drawing on Wittgenstein’s later investigations into aesthetic judgment. I begin with Wittgenstein’s remarks, and then turn to how he was adopted by David Best, Graham McFee, and Francis Sparshott to more cogently discuss reading intentions and judging finer qualities in dance.13 It focuses on the process of working from expert noticing, a kind 34

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

of regarding-as or “grasping in a flash” (PI §191). Of central importance to Best and McFee’s argument for the credibility of arts education in dance is the possibility of understanding acutely the choreographer’s intentions, critically seeing the potential range for meaning and effect. Best (1992, p. 60) notes that one can scarcely imagine education or review in the arts without credible and poignant artistic judgment. That an outsider cannot give voice to everything the choreographer is trying to say or do, does not mean the opposite: that nothing can be meaningfully or constructively said (Best, 1992, p. 129). Dance education is thus designed to promote artistic judgment and appreciation, where students acquire the cognitive stock of key concepts and background knowledge of dance traditions that make both insightful criticism and teaching possible. The defence they marshal hinges on Wittgenstein’s insight into “a way of grasping a rule that is not an interpretation” (PI §201; cf. §198-99): where “I simply act as I have been trained.”

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2.3 Wittgenstein’s Background – Contextualism for Aesthetic Judgment Wittgenstein’s contextualist, post-foundational philosophy points to common language and training as the tenuous ground for “expert” judgement, in this case providing an ability to read and respond critically to dance. In the second half of the Philosophical Investigations he addresses how one can acquire “expert judgment,” not by taking a course in it but by “picking up tips” and learning through experience how to weigh imponderable evidence, even though an explanation often escapes words (PI, p. 227). “In what we call the Arts,” he notes, “a person who has judgment developes,” [sic] allowing us “to distinguish between a person who knows what he is talking about and a person who doesn’t” (CV, §17, p. 6). To understand dances, we must view them within the circumstances of established dance traditions and against the cultural surroundings or movements that give them broader meaning. Wittgenstein depicts the elusive circumstances for judgment, including the whole hurly burly of human behaviour and complicated filigree pattern of the background which the critic and audience must comprehend. He writes: We judge an action according to its background within human life, ... which, to be sure, we can’t copy, but which we can recognize.... (RPP II, §§624–26, 629; cf. Z §§567–69)

The “indefiniteness” leads us to speak in metaphorical terms. Digging for a deeper foundation, other than this complex “web” of interrelated practices, is often fruitless; consequently, Wittgenstein would have us stop at the level of our training into culturally ingrained and natural ways of reacting (Z §§355, 567–69). He gives the example of someone painting a landscape 35

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

in non-representative colors; because of the circs or surroundings we nevertheless recognize the act as portraying the landscape (PO p. 160). Inability to access the artist’s inner intentions does not stop us from agreeing on its family resemblance to other instances of the practice (cf. PI §83), or from substituting real-for-imaginary colours in this game. Here the outer performance is the inner. He queries as to what scepticism would mean, seeing it as a form of defeat or withdrawal from the circs that readily give meaning to this act: Suppose here we said: “Well I can never know what he does inwardly” – would this be anything [more] than resignation? (PO p. 260)

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

I follow Wittgenstein in making a connection between embodied training, seeing and judging,14 and apply this to critical appraisal in observing dance.15 Charles Taylor illustrates how this process applies to children, for instance, learning to carry themselves appropriately in public through a habitus or set of bodily dispositions. Taylor writes (1995, p. 178): Children are inducted into a culture, are taught the meanings which constitute it, partly through inculcating the appropriate habitus. We learn how to hold ourselves, how to defer to others, how to be a presence for others largely through taking on different styles of bodily comportment. Through these modes of deference and presentation, the subtlest nuances of social position, of the sources of prestige, and hence of what is valuable and good, are encoded.

An actor or dancer learns how to embody emotions like grief, which audiences can readily see on stage (LW II, p.67e). Judging choreographic moves as appropriate or inappropriate, handsome or unbecoming belongs to such a habitus: appraisals woven into background complexities and bodily dispositions it would be hard to articulate, and yet in most cases rendered quickly without much deliberation. Taylor offers the apt metaphor: we internalize the rules, as well as the background context that gives them sense, much as we learn the conventions of social dance. If we enter a dance hall, how would we know that a couple is doing the tango, let alone if they are doing it well? – Now make the application to judging choreography. We instantly recognize when elements of social dance or pedestrian movement are used in theatrical work, and can judge the suitability of its appropriation into the given piece within a certain tradition or art form. We can also sense if the intent was to honour or break convention.16 Roger Scruton gives an insightful reading of Wittgenstein, noting that his aesthetics follows Kant’s in that it focuses on the perceiving subject rather than the objects of judgment. Consequently, Wittgenstein’s paradigm cases 36

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

highlight the role of aesthetic judgment in the life of individuals and its function in the life of communities as ways of edification. Drawing on Wittgenstein’s idea of agreement in forms of life and judgement (PI §241– 2), Scruton speaks of homebuilding: “Through aesthetic judgment we fit our surroundings to ourselves and ourselves to our surroundings; we also avail ourselves of a consensus-building device that enables us to co-ordinate our activities and to build a public and publicly occupied space” (2011, p. 311 & 312). He continues:

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Through our aesthetic choices we are making signals to the world – and that means to the world of others, and also to ourselves as part of that world. To put the matter very simply, we are presenting ourselves, making ourselves present, and the act of presentation is one in which appearances mediate between self and other, and between self and self. Aesthetic choices are signs of what we want to be for others, and also for ourselves. And this fact goes some way towards explaining the normativity of aesthetic judgments. (Scruton, 2011, p. 311)

Taylor’s view of rule-following behaviour as embodied reasoning, and Scruton’s view of aesthetic judgment as a way of presenting and edifying ourselves in the world, offer an alternative to either intellectualism (the specifying of criteria) or scepticism (the absence of any reasons). It also acknowledges that when called upon we often can offer justificatory reasons or explanations for our judgments, as in making discerning comments after an art show or film. This is important in that criticism must move from expert noticing to articulation of useful and considerate recommendations: ones that can be taken up in the time afforded. The selection of attributes and vocalization of constructive criticism is essential, defying the quietism that attends subjectivist or emotivist theories of art. “It is possible ...to say a great deal about a fine aesthetic difference,” Wittgenstein notes. What matters most, though, is that in finding apt expressions we explore the “extensive ramifications,” connotative range or “field of force” of our words (PI II, p. 219; cf. PI §117). Wittgenstein’s depiction of how pupils demonstrate understanding in mathematics and music points to the normative learning process (PI §§150– 51): Without recourse to explicit criteria or rules somehow outside the practices, the expert observer immanently discerns correct performance, where evident “mastery of techniques” is our criterion of success (PI, p. 228). Agreement of the masters becomes the standard, as those operating autonomously within the rules are in a position to distinguish between “a normal and abnormal learner’s reactions” to instruction (PI §143; see Medina, 2002). The signs of correctness, however, may be ineluctable even to those who are adept. 17 “Describing what appreciation consists in is impossible,” he 37

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

explains; “You’d have to describe the whole environment” (CV, §20, p. 7). Every attempt at specifying the circumstances giving meaning to performances depends upon further background for its coherence – an infinite regress. Wittgenstein shows why we cannot demand further, more rational justification (“our spade is turned”), while at the same time halting us from resignation: the weakened posture in saying that “it is just subjective meaning in the head of the choreographer.” A student indicates understanding of a musical phrase through appropriate response; perhaps just whistling with the correct expression will constitute the ‘fine shade’ of indicative behaviour (PI, p. 207). Here is how he depicts the act:

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Understanding and explaining a musical phrase. – Sometimes the simplest explanation is a gesture; on another occasion it might be a dance step, or words describing a dance. ... (CV p.69e)

Wittgenstein demonstrated that judging the appropriateness of complex performances, as in deciding whether a student plays a musical phrase with suitable expression, is not something we can specify with the giving of reasons or rational justifications. To explain what “expressive playing” is we have to teach someone the use of the phrase “expressive playing,” but he or she must have been raised in the culture to have the second-nature reactions needed to recognize it (Z §164). Wittgenstein witnessed this in his older brother, Hans, the child prodigy he found maniacally playing his own composition in the early morning, exemplifying for Ludwig the concept of Genius (Schulte, 1992; cf. Kanterian, 2007, p. 20). Wittgenstein’s ungrounded-ground for judging commits us to a form of historicism.18 Our games for expressing appreciation change over time, along with the cultural context for meaning and taste. Wittgenstein notes that: The words we call expressions of aesthetic judgment play a very complicated role, but a very definite role, in what we call a culture of a period. To describe their use or to describe what you mean by a cultured taste, you have to describe a culture. (CV, p. 8)

But “A culture,” is singular. Chantal Mouffe, following James Tully (1989), points out that a common mistake in presenting enculturation as the tacit criteria or implicit rules for agreement, is to then present this background as something consensual or shared-alike by all members of a community – a reading of Wittgenstein that re-inscribes homogeneity in order to leverage the holistic basis of meaning (Mouffe, 2000, §27). Citing Tully to the contrary (1989, p. 107), “the multiplicity of uses is too various, tangled, contested and creative to be governed by rules.” After Cavell, she points to how this ambiguity makes us answerable for actions instead of hiding behind 38

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

rules or culture (Mouffe, 2000, §35). In Tully’s political philosophy (2002) this creates an opening for renegotiation of the rules, or “civic freedoms within the rule.” Sometimes a definition is there to delimit or mark boundaries, not to keep us in but in order to allow transgression (cf. PI §68–69). We too easily become entangled in our rules, Wittgenstein remarks in PI §125: “The civil status of a contradiction, or its status in civil life: there is a philosophical problem.” The civic importance in this case stems from confining, unnecessarily, our taste and self-expression – modes of how we hold and present ourselves in society – thus limiting our effective ranges for homebuilding. “Transgression” is more recognizably a Foucauldian motif but as Hans Sluga, Ian Hacking and James Tully have shown, sometimes Wittgenstein and Foucault “reciprocally illuminate” each other.19 In philosophy of education James Marshall, Michael Peters and Mark Olssen have powerfully combined both perspectives.20 As a practice-based first philosophy (Garver, 1994), the grafting of language-games onto forms of life (cultural-to-natural reactions) and the sedimentation of aesthetic rules and values in the shifting bedrock operate in a similar way to Foucault’s historical a priori (Stickney, 2012a). Both employ a Kantian argument form, as Taylor and Scruton remind us, that makes aesthetic judgment an historically grounded way of communal subjects perceiving objects a priori through language. Described by Hacking in Historical Ontology as emergent “spaces of possibility,” these dispersed cultural and epistemic games of reference and truth discursively “make up” the things and people we find aesthetically pleasing and meaningful. Foucault describes his concept of the historical a priori as something “barbarous,” drawing attention to the fragmentation instead of the uniformity of this epistemic strata: the a priori “of a history that is given, since it is things actually said,” jumbled together and overlapping in all their flaws, incoherence, replacements and successions (Foucault, 2002, p.143).21 It is this roughness and fragmentation we need when approaching problems of aesthetics. We might see this historical a priori as22 a village comprised of many clashing architectural styles, drawn from different periods and cultures and repainted or stuccoed over time by different occupants. Dances parade across this eclectic setting, trying to appeal to audiences as diverse in their aesthetic sensibilities. As Mouffe reminds us, in taking up claims about artistic merit our places of homebuilding form sites of contestation instead of consensus. Houses were actually set ablaze with the introduction of tempered scales!23 In Rancière’s Politics of Aesthetics this can be seen as the dissensus between different regimes of taste or “distributions of the sensible.”24 The range of meaning for interpreting or critiquing a dance is not a single residence/background or abode/ethos,25 but a complex aggregation 39

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

of many dwellings: whether an old core or favela of colliding tastes within our form of life. Benson, drawing on Heidegger, finds indeterminacy in this situation of performance: spaces for negotiation between choreographer or composer, performers, audience and critic. Understanding the meaning of a piece, properly executing it, and commenting critically or usefully are never fixed or final: it’s an improvisatory and fluid relationship. The outside critic must come to dwell alongside the choreographer, entering upon the nascent ground of the emerging work of art, showing stewardship and care in offering guidance toward improvement in this quasi-certain and yet improvisational stance. The artist’s vision has to be respected for its Otherness: not just made familiar to the critic through appropriation, but preserving the innovative work in its alterity without imposing the conservative restraint of tradition. This ethical dimension – so necessary to giving critical direction – is a lacuna in Wittgenstein’s writing; perhaps it is a hold-over from his early Lecture on Ethics (in PO) where he showed the highest respect for ethics by passing it over in silence.26 He more characteristically asks what we can mean by the word “guidance,” giving a perspicuous view of its range of usage (see PI §172). In closing, I now turn from the politics and ethics of aesthetics to briefly make an application to dance studies. 2.4 Philosophical Perspectives on Dance Criticism Although Wittgenstein, unlike Nietzsche, rarely referred to dance,27 he has often been appropriated into dance studies – largely in defence of an endangered field.28 Drawing on Wittgenstein’s arguments David Best (1992) has persuasively argued against the notion that artistic judgment is either too subjective and emotional to allow for rational discussion, or that it should aspire to be a hyper-rational enterprise like the sciences, searching for objectivity. Obvious to educators, it is hard to imagine artistic judgment and agreement over criticism without assiduous cultivation of shared, refined sensibilities and expertise within a given art form. In his book Understanding Dance, Graham McFee (1994) adopted the Wittgensteinian philosophical lens of Wollheim, Best and Cavell to leverage even stronger claims for the centrality of dance criticism in the construction of artistic meaning.29 McFee (p. 274) argued that too often we ignore the importance of the spectator role. He builds up from expert noticing to offering interpretive criticism of dance, addressing along the way familiar issues of relativism in agreement of judgment or solidarity. We might approach this ancient idealism/realism debate through Naomi Scheman or Richard Rorty: avoiding both an either/or and isles of language reading of Wittgenstein 40

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

(see Burbules, 2000). ...But let’s go right to this polemic, as every ballet needs action scenes. To boost the centrality of criticism to meaning in dance, McFee made some hasty claims about dance as meaning what we explain it to mean, connected tenuously to Wittgenstein through a Baker & Hacker quote.30 In the following mis-description he makes one of those claims Wittgenstein chastised as a “craving for generality” (BB, p. 18): We should think of the arts as presenting to us articulated (if unsolicited) explanations. That is, we should treat works of art, such as dances, as if they were offering explanations (of rather a peculiar kind) of familiar aspects of life, drawing ‘new’ conceptual connections for us, by making us see that so-and-so, some previously ‘grasped’ concept, stands in need of explanation.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

I have never heard a choreographer say something like: “In this piece I am trying to explain....” Although a dance might do this,31 dances are usually not expository. What one does hear from choreographers are statements like “What I’m trying to get at here,” or “The problem [or event] that led me to take up this theme was....” Without conceding to the emotivist theory of art, audiences and critics may understand what a dance conveys, in the sense of feeling familiar or “at home” with its effect or intent, without necessarily being able to articulate its meaning. You really could call it, not exactly the expression of a feeling, but a least an expression of feeling, or a felt expression. And you could say too that insofar as people understand it, they ‘resonate’ in harmony with it, responds to it. You might say: the work of art does not aim to convey something else, just itself. (CV p. 58e)

That McFee’s claim about dance as explanatory stands out obstinately from ordinary speech shows that it plays a different language-game from choreography, as it is normally understood or practiced. Fortunately, this overstatement is a rare problem in McFee’s otherwise commendable work.32 In Heidegger’s and Cavell’s terms, it is conspicuously unhandy/unhandsome to our use. Wittgenstein reminds us: If a theme, a phrase, suddenly means something to you, you don’t have to be able to explain it... Do not forget that a poem, even though it is composed in the language of information, is not used in the language-game of giving information. (Z §158)

The analogy of explanation sets dance up for failure, as though it was a second-rate method of informing audiences. Wittgenstein cautioned against giving a description in aesthetics that one has never actually heard (LC, p. 35).33 Understanding comes by examining the actual workings of language, 41

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

on the rough ground instead of over-theorizing. He admonishes us: “Don’t imagine a description which you have never heard, which describes an attitude in unheard of detail. ... An attitude is pretty well described by the position of the body. This is a good description. But accurate?” (CV, §11, p. 35).34 Ironically, in a bold and yet humble gesture, Wittgenstein most famously argued that in philosophy “We must do away with all explanation, and description alone must take its place” (PI §109). Of course, the theme of expert judgment has more general applications to assessment in education, but let’s stop here to give you [NWS attendees] time to critique this talk.35

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

NOTES 1. Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols (What the Germans Lack, §7), cited in Peters et al (2001). 2. Coincidentally, Michael’s initials spell “map,” but not to be associated with Paul Hirst & R.S. Peters’ analytic style of “concept mapping.” He started in geography (as I did also). Michael’s earlier papers (1995 & 1998) “After Wittgenstein” was the nucleus of this book project, as well as a course he and Burbules taught at University of Illinois that year. The course website is still up, so I referred students at University of Toronto to access it during my graduate seminar last year (2011) on “Wittgenstein & Foucault as Educators,” http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/bur bules/syllabi/408-98.html 3. See M.A. Peters, Education, Philosophy and Politics. The Selected Works of Michael A. Peters (Routledge, 2012). Ch. 1. Philosophy as Pedagogy: Wittgenstein’s Styles of Thinking; Ch. 2. Writing the Self: Wittgenstein, Confession and Pedagogy. 4. Jim Tully was my doctoral supervisor. Michael Peters was originally set to be my external reader but was moving from Glasgow to Illinois (2005), so Nicholas Burbules kindly stepped in. 5. Marshall (1985) makes useful application. 6. Using the title of Foucault’s 1982–1983 lectures on governmentality at Collège de France, Frédéric Gross (ed.), Graham Burchall (trans.). New York and UK: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2010. See Peters (1996). 7. http://www.philosophy-of-education.org/conferences/pdfs/Petersetal.pdf 8. In that edition (Stickney 2008a) I play on Wittgenstein’s love of music, using a round (canon) to show how he handled problems of epistemic relativity. 9. Special thanks to Anne-Marie Søndergaard Christensen, Institute for Philosophy, Pedagogy and Religious Studies (University of Southern Denmark) for including me in the program (via skype). 10. This preamble is drawn from my PES paper (2005). Nicholas Burbules (2005) kindly gave a favourable response. 11. “I gave a very different version of this paper at University of Quebec in Montreal last week (2012b), with Dancer/Professor Karen Duplisea, who now teaches at Ryerson University in Toronto. It was for professors in theatre schools and 42

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

professional dancers, so more experiential and even anthropological in its content. It included anecdotes about the positive effects of bringing in an outside eye to critique work in rehearsal: experts who assist us, like Nadia Potts, a former soloist with the National Ballet who had often danced with Nureyev and Baryshnikov. For this [NWS] audience, all of the Wittgenstein quotes have been abbreviated and provided on a separate handout to which you may refer, but I suspect that it may be unnecessary: like calling out addresses for a London cabby, these may be stored in your mental maps (albums) of Wittgenstein’s philosophical city. I have also abbreviated quotes to minimize the time spent playing at Wittgenstein’s piano, as he would have preferred we read them slowly instead of rushing.”

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Sometimes a sentence can be understood only if it is read at the right tempo. My sentences are all supposed to be read slowly. (CV p.57e) I really want my copious punctuation marks to slow down the speed of reading. Because I should like to be read slowly. (As I myself read.) (CV p.68e) 12. Editors and teachers do this also, assisting authors to accomplish better work. 13. N.b. “But this section I must cut back to allow for discussion.” 14. See Genova and Mulhall on Wittgenstein and the seeing of aspects (aspect dawning or regarding as) and continuous seeing of aspects. (Cf. PI pp. 196–202). See Smeyers, “Images and Pictures: Seeing and Imagining,” Ch. 4 in Peters, et al. (2008). 15. Usually I apply it teacher inspection (2009a & b; 2012a). 16. Instead of dance connections, the listener may prefer Wittgenstein’s examples of knowing when a picture is hung right on the wall, or a coat well cut. “What does a person who knows a good suit say when trying on a suit at the tailors? ‘That’s the right length’, That’s too short’, That’s too narrow’. Words of approval play no role, although he will look pleased when the coat suits him” (LC 5, para 13). 17. “There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.” (Wittgenstein, TLP, 6.5.22) 18. “At the foundation of well-founded belief lies belief that is not founded” (OC§253). “The difficulty is to realize the groundlessness of our believing” (OC§ 166). 19. The term is Tully’s (see 1999). 20. On a steep hike Wittgenstein prudently cautions us not “to stand for too long on one leg, so as not to get stiff,” and to even try walking backwards for a while in order to revive oneself (CV, p. 27e). 21. Historical a priori are ‘the given’ (a first philosophy or basis), similar to forms of life but lacking the sense of natural history(cf. PI pp. 224–6). 22. Elsewhere described as bedrock comprised of breccia: a conglomerate that lumps together eroded and fossilized bits of earlier cultural background, and even sediments of foreign ones, giving ground for less definitive but wonderfully eclectic appraisals of things handsome or unbecoming (Stickney, 2009b). 23. Wittgenstein sometimes referred to the musical scale as an example of somewhat arbitrary rules that have become fixed in practice, but that allow for modification. The story of people burning down houses over the introduction of 43

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

tempered scales was conveyed to me with musical demonstration by Harold Gomez, formerly first clarinetist with the National Ballet Orchestra (Toronto). 24. Rancière expresses partial affinity with Foucault’s historical a priori grounds for what subjects can hold true-or-false, explaining that: “It retains the principle from the Kantian transcendental that replaces the dogmatism of truth with the search for conditions of possibility. At the same time, these conditions are not conditions for thought in general, but rather conditions immanent in a particular system of thought in general, but rather conditions immanent in a particular system of thought, a particular system of expression” (Rancière, 2004, 50). Instead of a new regime of truth or of artistic value abolishing its predecessors: “At a given point in time, several regimes coexist and intermingle in the works themselves” (Rancière, 2004, 50). 25. On this reading of ethos see Heidegger, Martin and Eugene Fink. Heraclitus Seminar. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1970. 26. But then he intended to pass over aesthetics and religion also (TLP), both topics of his later Cambridge lectures. 27. Unlike Nietzsche, Wittgenstein makes only a few tangential references to dance: Shakespeare displays the dance of human passions, one might say. He has to be objective; otherwise he would not so much display the dance of human passions – as talk about it. But he displays it to us in a dance, not naturalistically. (I got this idea from Paul Engelmann.) (CV pp. 36–37e) 28. Earlier writers to incorporate Wittgenstein and aesthetics include: Richard Wollheim, Art and Its Objects (New York: Harper & Row, 1968); Nelson Goodman, Languages of Art (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968); and, Roger Scruton, Art and Imagination (London: Methuen, 1974). A contemporary dance/philosopher using him is Elisabeth Van Dam at Ghent University in Belgium. See her forthcoming chapter ‘Wittgenstein Lights Lichtenberg’s candle’, in Wittgenstein Reading/ Reading Wittgenstein, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013 (In press). [[email protected]] 29. “This view of dance criticism explains, as we have seen, the centrality of dance criticism within our understanding of dances” (McFee, p. 161). 30. Baker and Hacker (2009, p. 124) write: (i) the meaning of an expression is its use (ii) the meaning of an expression is given by the explanation of its meaning (iii) an explanation of meaning is a rule for the use of an explanandum (iv) the meaning of an expression is what is understood when one understands the meaning of an expression (v) one commonly understands an expression in a stroke. 31. This is not to say dance never explicates, or that explication does not play a role in dance training. In June, Professor Duplisea and her students choreographed a piece in which a physicist explained Entropy and Quantum Mechanics, to which the dancers moved illustriously. Nadia and I were the external critics. 32. See also David Carr (1997), who offers a sympathetic, non-Wittgensteinian view of Best and McFee on their handling of dance as integrated practices rather than sets of movements, but who takes issue with their attempt to inflate its rational element in defence against emotivism, subjectivity and scepticism. 44

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

33. Wittgenstein muses: “The mistake seems to me in the idea of description. I said before, with some people, me especially, the expression of an emotion in music, say, is a certain gesture. If I make a certain gesture... ‘It is quite obvious that you have certain kinesthetic feelings. It means to you certain kinesthetic feelings.’ Which one? How do you describe them? Except, perhaps, just by the gesture?” (LC, pp. 37–8) He asks instead that we attend to how aesthetic judgments rarely employ adjectives like “lovely,” “beautiful,” “fine” and “wonderful” and instead cut to the quick: “right,” “correct,” “too long,” “a little to the left” (pp. 3 & 7). Wittgenstein was an ordinary language philosopher, warning against theoretical language that “goes on holiday” (PI §38) in trying too hard to find some explanation underneath surface usage (PI §§97, 116, 120, 122–24, 129, etc.). 34. He concedes that “In a way it is inaccurate,” but to try to describe in more detail the actual muscular sensations that really matter, in a quasi-scientific way, would be silly. “I don’t know them and I don’t know what such a description would be like. Don’t imagine an imaginary description of which you really have no idea.” 35. Consider how teachers grade student presentations or papers, using norm referenced methods even when explicit criteria are made manifest: the tacit judgment that attends every act of seeing or reading of student work. The philosophical connections between seeing and judging apply also to the peer review selection process of papers submitted for conferences or journals, or in appraising the dissertations of graduate students and applicants for teaching positions in academic postings. REFERENCES Baker, Gordon P., and Peter M.S. Hacker (2009), Wittgenstein: Rules, Grammar and Necessity: Essays and Exegesis of 185–242. Oxford: Blackwell. Benson, Bruce Ellis (2003), The Improvisation of Musical Dialogue: A Phenomenology of Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Best, David (1992), The Rationality of Feeling. Understanding the Arts in Education. London and Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press. Burbules, Nicholas (2000), “Lyotard on Wittgenstein,” in Lyotard. Just Education, Pradeep A. Dhillon and Paul Standish (eds.). London and New York: Routledge. Burbules, Nicholas (2005), “Learning and the Limits of Doubt,” Response paper to Jeff Stickney, Philosophy of Education Society Yearbook, 2005, Kenneth Howe (ed.). Annual Meeting of PES, San Francisco. Carr, David (1997), “Meaning in Dance,” The British Journal of Aesthetics 37(4): 349–366. Foucault, Michel (2002), Archaeology of Knowledge. A. M. Sheridan Smith (Trans.). London and New York: Routledge. Garver, N. (1994), This Complicated Form of Life. Essays on Wittgenstein. Chicago and Lasalle, IL: Open Court. Genova, Judith (1995), Wittgenstein. A Way of Seeing. New York: Routledge. Hacking, Ian (2002), Historical Ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kanterian, Edward (2007), Ludwig Wittgenstein. London: Reaktion Books.

45

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Kern, Andrea (2004), “Understanding Scepticism: Wittgenstein’s Paradoxical Reinterpretation of Sceptical Doubt,” in Wittgenstein and Scepticism, Denis McManus (ed.). New York: Routledge. Marshall, James D. (1985), “Wittgenstein on Rules: Implications for Authority and Discipline in Education,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 19(1): 3–11. Marshall, James D. (1995), “Wittgenstein and Foucault: Resolving Philosophical Puzzles,” in Philosophy and Education: Accepting Wittgenstein’s Challenge, James Marshall and Paul Smeyers (eds.). Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Reprinted from Studies in Philosophy and Education 14(2/3). Marshall, James D. (1996), Michel Foucault: Personal Autonomy and Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Marshal, James, and Paul Smeyers (eds.) (1995), Philosophy and Education: Accepting Wittgenstein’s Challenge. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. McFee, Graham (1992), Understanding Dance. London and New York: Routledge. Medina, Josè (2002), The Unity of Wittgenstein’s Philosophy. Necessity, Intelligibility, and Normativity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Medina, Josè (2006), Speaking from Elsewhere. A New Contextualist Perspective on Meaning, Identity, and Discursive Agency. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Monk, Ray (1990), Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius. London: Vintage. Mouffe, Chantal (2000), “Wittgenstein, Political Theory and Democracy,” in The Democratic Paradox. London and New York: Verso. Mulhall, Stephen (1990), On Being in the World. Wittgenstein and Heidegger on Seeing Aspects. London and New York: Routledge. Mulhall, Stephen (2001), “Seeing Aspects,” in Wittgenstein. A Critical Reader, Hans-Johann Glöck (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Parvianen, Jaana (1999), Bodies Moving and Moved. A Phenomenological Analysis of the Dance Subject and the Cognitive and Ethical Values of Dance Art. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Peters, Michael A. (1995), “Philosophy and Education: ‘After’ Wittgenstein,” in Philosophy and Education: Accepting Wittgenstein’s Challenge, James Marshall and Paul Smeyers (eds.). Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Peters, Michael A. (1996), “Foucault, Discourse and Education: Neoliberal Governmentality,” in Poststructuralism, Politics and Education, Michael Peters (ed.). Westport, CT and London: Bergin and Garvey, 79–92. Peters, Michael A., and James D. Marshall (1999), Wittgenstein: Philosophy, Postmodernism, Pedagogy. Westport, CT and London: Bergin and Garvey. Peters, Michael A., James Marshall, and Paul Smeyers (eds.) (2001), Nietzsche’s Legacy for Education: Past and Present Values. Westport, CT and London: Bergin and Garvey. Peters, M. A., Burbules, N., and Smeyers, P. (2008), Saying and Doing: Wittgenstein as a Pedagogical Philosopher. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Press. Rancière, Jacques (2004), The Politics of Aesthetics. The Distribution of the Sensible. Gabriel Rockhill (trans.). London and New York: Continuum. 46

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Sparshott, Francis (1995), A Measured Pace. Toward a Philosophical Understanding of the Arts of Dance. Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press. Scheman, Naomi (1996), “Forms of Life: Mapping the Rough Ground,” in The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein, Hans Sluga and David Stern (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schulte, Joachim (1992), Wittgenstein. An Introduction. William H. Brenner and John F. Holley (trans.). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Scruton, Roger (2011), “A Bit of Help from Wittgenstein,” British Society of Aesthetics 51(3): 309–319. Stickney, Jeff (2005), “Teaching and Learning in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Method,” presented at the Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society (San Francisco), with response from Nicholas Burbules. In Philosophy of Education 2005, Philosophy of Education Society Yearbook, Kenneth Howe (ed.); Nicholas Burbules (chief ed.), University of Illinois at ChampaignUrbana, 299–310. Stickney, Jeff (2008a), “Wittgenstein’s ‘Relativity’: Agreement in Forms of Life and Training in Language-games,” Nicholas Burbules and Paul Smeyers (guest eds.); Michael Peters (ed.), Special Edition on Wittgenstein 40(5) (September). Stickney, Jeff (2008b), “Training and Mastery of Techniques in Wittgenstein’s Later Philosophy: A Response to Michael Luntley,” Educational Philosophy and Theory. Nicholas Burbules and Paul Smeyers (guest eds.); Michael Peters (ed.), Special Edition on Wittgenstein 40(5) (September). Stickney, Jeff (2009a), “Wittgenstein’s Contextualist Approach to Judging “Sound” Teaching: Escaping Enthrallment in Criteria-based Assessments,” Educational Theory. Nicholas Burbules (ed.). 59(2) (June): 197–216. Stickney, Jeff (2009b), “Casting Teachers into Education Reforms and Regimes Inspection: Resistance to Normalization through Self-governance,” Chapter 14 in Governmentality Studies in Education, Michael Peters (ed.), et al. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Stickney, Jeff (2012a), “Judging Teachers: Foucault, Governance and Agency during Education Reforms,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, Michael Peters (ed.). 44(6). Presented at the annual meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain (Oxford, New College, 2010). Stickney, Jeff (2012b), “External Criticism in the Choreographic Process,” paper co-presented for the Society of Canadian Dance Studies (University of Quebec at Montreal). Recorded in the conference proceedings. Stickney, Jeff (2012c), “Aesthetic Judgment in Dance,” paper presented for the Nordic Wittgenstein Society, 3rd Annual Meeting on Philosophy of Education (University of Southern Denmark). Taylor, Charles (1995a), “Lichtung or Lebensform: Parallels between Heidegger and Wittgenstein,” in Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. Taylor, Charles (1995b), “To Follow a Rule,” in Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. Tully, James (1989), “Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy,” Political Theory 17(2): 172–204. Reprinted: Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy. Understanding Prac47

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

tices of Critical Reflection. In The Grammar of Politics. Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy. Cressida Heyes (ed.). Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2003. Tully, James (1999), “To Think and Act Differently. Foucault’s Four Reciprocal Objections to Habermas’s Theory,” in Foucault contra Habermas: Continuing the Critical Dialogue. Samantha Ashendon and David Owen (eds.). London: Sage. Tully, James (2002), “Political Philosophy as a Critical Activity,” Political Theory 30(4): 533–555. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1958), Preliminary Studies for the “Philosophical Investigations”: Generally Known as the Blue and Brown Books. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (BB) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1966), Lectures & Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Beliefs. Cyril Barrett (eds.). Berkeley and London: University of California Press. (LC) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1967), Zettel. G.E.M. Anscombe (trans). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (Z) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1968), Philosophical Investigations. 3rd edition. G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (PI §, or PI II, pg.) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1969), On Certainty. Denis Paul and G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (OC) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1971), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. 2nd edition. D.F. Pears and B.F. McGuiness (trans.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (TLP) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1978), Remarks on Colour. Edited by G.E.M. Anscombe. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (RC) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1980a), Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology. G.E.M. Anscombe (ed.). G.H. von Wright (trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Two volumes. (RPP I & II) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1980b), Culture and Value. G.H. von Wright and Heikii Nyman (eds.). Peter Winch (trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (CV) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1982), Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Preliminary Studies for Part II of “Philosophical Investigations.” G.H. von Wright and Heikki Nyman (eds.). C.G. Lukhardt and Maximillian A.E. Aue (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell. (LW I) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1992), Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 2, The Inner and the Outer, 1949–1951. G.H. von Wright and Heikki Nyman (ed.). Lukhardt, C.G., and Maximillian, A.E. (tr.). Oxford: Blackwell. (LW II) Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1993), “Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough,” in Philosophical Occasions (1912–1951). James C. Klagge and Alfred Norman (eds). Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett. (RFGB / PO)

48

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Not a Docile Body – A View from the Inside: Michael A. Peters on Foucault

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Tina Besley University of Waikato

I wear two hats as I write this this festschrift on the work of Michael A. Peters: one personal as his partner and wife since 1991, the other as a professional and intellectual partner whom I work and write with from time to time, hence in blending aspects of both, this contribution to Michael’s festschrift is unabashedly an ‘insider’s view. We turned out to have some interesting parallels in our lives, yet had never met until 1991. We both came from homes where our parents had served in WWII and had gone into small businesses with limited success afterwards. Our fathers wanted to be their own boss. None of our parents had more than secondary school education and neither household had anything in the way of books at home. Rather sport was the interest of our fathers. We both went to the local public schools and did reasonably well academically at high school – Michael, the boy from working class State house in Johnsonville went to Onslow College and finally learned to read in 5th form when he read Seven Years in Tibet (he jokes that it took him seven months). I went to Cashmere High in Christchurch, and without much real direction or intent we both landed at university – Michael at Victoria University, me at Canterbury where we studied Geography and English. We both went to Christchurch Teachers College, secondary post-graduate teacher training and both became secondary school teachers, never seriously contemplating further study at that point, let alone becoming Professors! But life moves on… We first met when Michael arrived as guest of Dr. John (Taffy) Davies at a belated birthday party at my house in late November 1991 when he was at the end of the first year of his first academic position as Lecturer in Department of Education at University of Canterbury. I had just completed my M.Ed (Education) specialising in Counselling and was a secondary school guidance teacher at Cashmere High School, Christchurch – half teaching half guidance counselling and we quickly became life partners, marrying five years later. It was Taffy who encouraged Michael to write a book not just papers, and so his first book, Education and the Postmodern Condition appeared and saw him honoured to have a Foreword by JeanFrançois Lyotard, and was published in 1995, with a paperback edition two 49

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

years later in 1997. He corresponded with Lyotard for 18 months and Lyotard always hand wrote his letters in French. There would be no turning back now for Michael – with some 65 books to date! We moved to Auckland at the end of the next year when he was appointed Senior Lecturer in the Cultural Policy Studies in Education (CPSE) in the School of Education at University of Auckland and I became Guidance Counsellor, first at Waitakere College then as HoD at Rutherford College. Michael became Head of CPSE in 1995 and was promoted to Associate Professor in 1996. One of the significant events he led for several years was the Friday night seminar series which were not only well attended interdisciplinary academic meetings that resulted in several books published by Dunmore Press (e.g. Peters, Marshall, Hope & Webster, 1996; Peters, 1997; Peters & Roberts, 1998 & 1999) but also fostered collegiality and friendships since they were followed by rather loud, fun-filled dinners at the Balmoral Brasserie. It was indicative of the way Michael has always worked with others, in encouraging, mentoring, and supporting others not just professionally but personally and in ways that promote sharing of ideas and hospitality. However some institutional stresses arose as several CPSE faculty were promoted to positions in other universities and not replaced seemed likely to weaken the department as it grappled with the all too common interdepartmental turf disagreements as CPSE and Educational Psychology jockeyed for staffing and power. That along with his two sons (Christo and Simon) now having graduated and in good jobs saw Michael turn his attention to looking for a professorship overseas despite knowing he was nominated for a personal chair, to becoming a global academic. He was offered a Professorship in Education at University of Glasgow in 2000 which he decided to accept. 2000 was a watershed year in many ways. Late in 2000, Michael was hugely honoured by being awarded a Personal Chair in Education – only the second to be awarded after Dame Marie Clay. This had been an interesting process to say the least. The Vice Chancellor, Dr John Hood had let Michael know that after having been nominated for a Personal Chair earlier in the year, he had been deeply concerned at the ideological nature of the process, so had dismissed the initial process and sent it out for review again. The results had interesting timing. Michael was advised of being awarded the Personal Chair at the same time as he had indicated he intended to accept a chair at University of Glasgow. The ceremonial dinner for awardees was the week before we were due to leave for Scotland and his name was not on the printed dinner program. He was a late addition at the dinner where VC Hood apologised for the omission, explaining the ideological issues of the early phase of the process. Hood requested that Michael re-consider leaving Auckland, but the die was cast – well at least 50

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

partly. VC Hood suggested a shared position, with 10 months in Scotland and 2 months in New Zealand, and since both he and the Principal of University of Glasgow, Professor Sir Graeme Davies, (both New Zealand engineers) knew each other, this was quickly settled. It meant that after our first ever white Christmas in Glasgow in 2000, we returned each year at that time to enjoy a NZ summer and of course catch up with our families – much to the chagrin and envy of some our Scottish colleagues who could not understand why we should be so privileged. By the time we left Auckland in October 2000 for positions at University of Glasgow, Michael as Professor, me to my first academic job as Research Fellow, I had submitted my PhD, ‘Self, Identity, Adolescence and the Professionalisation of School Counselling in New Zealand: a Foucauldianinspired approach,’ as supervised by Professor James Marshall (who had been Michael’s PhD supervisor in 1980s) and Dr. Hans Everts. One part of this work provided the framework for my first book: Counseling Youth: Foucault, Power and the Ethics of Subjectivity, while another part a monograph, The Professionalisation of School Counselling in New Zealand in the 20th Century (Besley, 2002 a, b). I began an engagement with Foucault’s ideas initially in counselling through Narrative Therapy that I elaborated in a paper in the British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, ‘Foucault and the Turn to Narrative Therapy’ (Besley, 2002c), which by April 2014 was one of the journal’s top ten downloaded articles, actually being ranked at number 3 in the list with 683 unique downloads.1 While definitely not his student, needless to say, Michael was constructive in discussing ideas with me as I subsequently expanded my knowledge of Foucault as I worked on the PhD and on other work. He proceeded to publish widely in many areas, especially in philosophy of education and in political economy over the next few years and I would never pretend to try to ‘catch up’ to his prolific polymath writing outputs. It was several years later that we began to write together, beginning in 2006 when I contributed a chapter that used Foucault’s later work on parrhesia, ‘Technologies of the Self and parrhesia: Education, Globalization and the Politicization of Youth in Response to the Iraq War 2003’ (Besley, 2006) in his book, Education, Globalisation and Citizenship in an Age of Terrorism (Peters, 2006). In a different area in 2006, my contribution to Building Knowledge Cultures: Education and Development in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism2 included editorial work and co-writing Chapter 6, ‘The Theatre of Fast Knowledge: Performative Epistemologies’. An earlier version of this was published in The Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies (Peters & Besley, 2005). It was this work together in these years that made us realize that with our shared interests and especially those related to Foucault, that we could write together. The upshot was two 51

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

co-authored books, Why Foucault? New Directions in Educational Research3 (Peters & Besley, 2007) and Subjectivity and Truth: Foucault, Education and the Culture of Self (Besley & Peters, 2007). The Foucauldian focus here is on that first book written together. Why Foucault? New Directions in Educational Research that explores new themes and Foucauldian applications in educational theory, policy, practice, and politics. We note in our ‘Introduction: Why Foucault? New Directions in Educational Research’, that “the questions “who or what is Foucault?” have more often been asked than “why Foucault?” (p. 7). Since “the reception of Foucault is a hermeneutical question in the philosophy of reading and the sociology of knowledge and culture” (Peters & Besley, 2007, p. 5), we briefly examine his reception in different national, cultural and historical contexts, in particular UK and Germany – a feature that is further provided by the international contributors to the volume, featuring work by New Zealanders James Marshall, Mark Olssen and Tina Besley; Robert Docherty from Scotland, Kenneth Wain from Malta, German scholars, Ludwig Pongratz, Thomas Coelen, Susanne Maurer, Fabian Kessl, Susanne Maria Weber; Maarten Simons and Jan Masschelein, from Belgium and James Wong, Canada. In terms of his reception in the English speaking world, we point out that Foucault tends to be located within poststructuralist thought, yet would not have defined himself as a poststructuralist. We comment on Colin Gordon’s 1996 assessment of Foucault’s reception in United Kingdom with Foucault inclined to make fun of what he called a tendency . . . toward ‘State-phobia’” (p. 263) and, on the other, he offended the moralists by mistrusting the social bond, reading it, rather, as a field for the application of governmental techniques. State phobia, perhaps, a result of the experiment of National Socialism, as Foucault (2004) remarks in Naissance de la Biopolitique, is a characteristic of the particular post-war generation. (Peters & Besley, 2007: 5–6).

The German reception of Foucault’s ideas is similarly complex, and according to one of our German colleagues, changed after 1977. On the one hand there was lack of interpenetration of philosophical traditions and a high degree intellectual antipathy and defensiveness on both sides (French and German), not aided by Habermas’ polemic on accepting the Adorno prize from the City of Frankfurt in 1980 whereby his acceptance speech drew up sides of the debate in terms of an exhaustive modernity versus postmodernity, indicating that he held that modernity was an “incomplete project” and calling the French poststructuralists

52

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

“neo-conservatives” likening them to the conservatives of the Weimar Republic. An alternative title for this chapter might be “Relativizing Foucault to the Contexts of His Uses.” We suggest this because in the field of education scholars and theorists deform him: they use him or elements of his thought; they abuse him in countless ways; they unmake him and remake him; they twist and turn him and his words; sometimes they spread him very thinly; at other times they squeeze him into small spaces; often they appeal to Foucault, beginning with a quote only to do something very conventional and mundane, against his original intent (Peters & Besley, 2007: 3).

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

While using the pseudonym Maurice Florence he described his work as “To the extent that Foucault fits into the philosophical tradition, it is the critical tradition of Kant, and his project could be called A Critical History” (Foucault (1998d: 459, fn). Yet in an interview the year before his death with Paul Rabinow and Hubert Dreyfus, he admits that his real quarry was not an investigation of power but rather the history of the ways in which human beings are constituted as subjects, a process that involved power relations as an integral aspect of the production of discourses involving truths. My objective…has been to create a history of the different modes by which, in our culture, human beings are made subjects. My work has dealt with three modes of objectification which transform human beings into subjects…The first is the modes of inquiry which try to give themselves the status of the sciences… In the second part of my work, I have studied the objectivizating of the subject in what I shall call “dividing practices”… Finally, I have sought to study—it is my current work—the way a human being turns him- or herself into a subject. For example, I have chosen the domain of sexuality…Thus it is not power, but the subject, that is the general theme of my research (Foucault, 1983: 209). [in Besley & Peters, 2007: 8]

We state that Foucault’s work bears the unmistakable imprints of Nietzsche and Heidegger who he began reading in the early 1950s. He did not write directly on Heidegger and produced only one substantial paper on Nietzsche (Foucault, 1977). Nietzsche’s work, in particular, provided Foucault with novel ways to re-theorize and conceive anew the operation of power and desire in the constitution and self-overcoming of human subjects. It enabled him to analyse the modes by which human beings become subjects without according either power or desire conceptual priority over the other, as had been the case in the 53

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

discourses of Marxism (with its accent on power) and of Freudianism (with its accent on desire). This is our general account of “why Foucault?” and why Foucault has appealed to the present generation of Foucault scholars in educational research. Foucault has provided an understanding of the educational subject—the pupil, the student, the teacher etc.—in terms of a history of subjectivity and a genealogical investigation that allowed educational theorists to understand the effects of education and pedagogies both as disciplines and practices. It is a question that might also be profitably phrased as “where Foucault?” that is, a spatial analysis of Foucault, not the man but the corpus of work, its parameters, its thematizations and problematizations with earlier questions, its connections to thinkers—contemporary, modern and classical. It is an answer that we think Foucault would have preferred. Foucault is Mr. Elastic Man, the original portmanteau thinker. We can pick up on aspects of his thought or influences in his thinking to demonstrate a proposition, elucidate a point, examine an argument or window dress our own theoretical hunches. Foucault almost encourages this piecemeal, unsystematic, and poetical appropriation of his work. He spoke of his own “toolbox approach” to Nietzsche and Heidegger and of using them for his own ends. So it is not surprising that Foucault might inspire what we refer to as a constructivist theory of interpretation, which emphasizes political contexts of use. Yet, it is not the case that we can make of him and his work anything at all. There are bad, wrong, or misleading interpretations of Foucault, even if there is not one single true or correct reading. This is what is called the principle of interpretive asymmetry that opens up the work or the author (the text, context and the intertext) to multiple interpretations, while at the same time protecting the future against closure and providing for an open horizon of interpretations. Foucault is, as he says of Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, a figure of discursivity (Foucault, 1998a). That a text stimulates and allows novel interpretations is a sign of its richness, depth and complexity (Besley & Peters, 2007, 11–12).

Rather than an edited collection, Subjectivity and Truth: Foucault, Education and the Culture of the Self was a co-written book which won the American Educational Studies Association Award in 2009. In the Acknowledgements and Introduction, we elaborate on the process of writing together, since Together and individually we have been working on Foucault’s later oeuvre for many years using him to help theorize on issues of self, ethical self-constitution, governmentality and truthtelling practices. We have also taught together and consistently used and presented Foucault’s ideas on the self in courses in educational philosophy and theory, counseling, and social science 54

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

methodology. As partners we have often run ideas past one another and also, increasingly, written together (Besley & Peters, xv).

Individually we had developed an interest in different aspects of Foucault’s work, largely through the influence of our colleague and friend James Marshall, but ‘we did not begin to publish on his work until the 1990s’ when ‘our shared ideas and perspectives come into contact with one another particularly over the notion of subjectivity and the philosophy of the subject’ (Besley & Peters, xi, xii). We are fortunate to usually travel together and have often taught together, so we are very familiar with each other’s ideas and as the Acknowledgements note,

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Most of the chapters in this book have been presented as papers at conferences in universities around the world—Mexico (Mexico City, Chiapas, Vera Cruz), Oxford (United Kingdom), Auckland (New Zealand), Champaign (Illinois)—and also over the years as material for various courses taught at the Universities of Glasgow (Scotland), Auckland (New Zealand), Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, and California State at San Bernardino. (Besley & Peters, xi).

Once we decided that it was timely to put together a volume on Foucault ‘We set out our themes and examined our individual interests blending our thoughts ideas and styles, rewriting and editing of earlier papers to create a cohesive book with four major sections’ (p. xv). Our focus was on Foucault’s later works, books, lectures and seminars where he examines questions of the self, subjectivity, sexuality, and truthtelling practices. We apply his understandings to educational discourse to investigate a Foucauldian approach to the self, the body, and subjectivity. In doing so, we divide the book into four sections, each with two chapters (p. xv).

The book comprises: Part One. Technologies of the Self, with Chapter 1, The Culture of the Self and Chapter 2, The Genealogy of the Confessional Self: Self-Denial or Self-Mastery? Part Two. Space, Body and the Aesthetics of Existence, Chapter 3. The Body and the Aesthetics of Existence, Chapter 4. Space and the Body Politic; Part Three. Truth-Telling, Risk and Subjectivity, Chapter 5. Truth-Telling as an Educational Practice of the Self, Chapter 6. Risk and the Ethics of Subjectivity: Parrhesia in Action; Part Four. Governmentality—Governing The Self, Chapter 7. Understanding the Neoliberal Paradigm of Education Policy, Chapter 8. Enterprise Culture and the Rise of the Entrepreneurial Self, and a Postscript on Subjectivity, Eros and Pedagogy. With the last section in Subjectivity and Truth being on governmentality, it is not surprising that this was the focus our next Foucauldian project, Governmentality Studies in Education (Peters, Besley, Olssen, Maurer, 55

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Weber, 2009). This book of some 600 pages, comprises three sections: the first, Foucault on Governmentality includes contributions from leading Foucault scholars, including Colin Gordon, Jacques Donzelot, and Thomas Lemke; sections two, outlines Anglo-American perspectives includes work by Tom Popkewitz, James Marshall, Tom Osborne, Michael Peters, Mark Olssen, Tina Besley, Hermann J. Forneck, Bernadette Baker; the third section focusing on European perspectives has contributions from Susan Weber, Susanne Maurer, Linda Graham, and Maarten Simons and Jan Masschelein, among many others. Michael’s work in this book was focused in particular on neoliberalism, on The Birth of Biopolitics (Foucault, 2004), suggesting that his lectures ‘could easily be called ‘The Birth of Neoliberalism” (p. xxix). In writing while living in USA, and even daring to ask if it was ‘the end of neoliberalism?’ in response to the crash of 2008 and the collapse of Lehmann Brothers bank, before what extended to become the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), he goes to the heart of Foucault’s ideas and brings them up into our current era. He subsequently elaborated further in Neoliberalism and After? Education, Social Policy and the Crisis of Capitalism (Peters, 2011). I think it was from this work on governmentality, especially in terms of political economy and from living in the USA as the shock of the 2008 economic events unfolded and we read about or saw on TV, one alarming event after another, that propelled Michael into an ongoing interest in education, politics and economics to develop his ideas (see Peters, 2012, 2013). Much of what he wrote formed his profile as a Public Intellectual in a series of articles for Truthout in 2012.4 We experienced some of the pain and uncertainty first hand as our own house in Highland, California, bought at the peak of the market when I shifted to a tenured Full Professorship at California State University San Bernardino was halved in value and became ‘unsaleable’ and is still not any where near fully recovering as I write in mid-2014! But we are the lucky ones and did not lose our jobs, medical insurance or house as so many did. We did not like living apart at all so after two years we rented that house when I returned to UIUC giving up my tenured position, but it meant my job was far less secure than we desired. So when a very favourable offer of two Professorships was made by University of Waikato, we accepted and returned to NZ in late July 2011. In terms of housing thought, it was rather a shock to find the difference in house prices – our ordinary 2 storey, 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom, 3 living rooms, 2 garage Champaign house, lakeside in a quiet leafy suburb fetched $250,000, much what we’d paid in 2005, and certainly would not buy anything comparable anywhere in NZ. For a similar house in 2011 one would have to pay threefour times as much! But we were at least close to family and old friends.

56

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

At this point we were ‘Foucault-ed out’ – not in terms of our ideas, but in wanting to shift to other ideas, to not be a one-track pony, so we decided that a ‘separation’ from Foucault was in order. Michael proceeded with many varied writing projects on a wide range of topics, often with co-authors, sometimes with PhD students as a means of mentoring them and preparing them so they could move into academia should they decide to do this (e.g. with UIUC PhD students Rodrigo Britez, Ergin Bulut, Dan Araya, David Ondercin, George Liu5). The UIUC environment was one that was largely supportive intellectually, where we worked in Global Studies in Education and had great colleagues in the Department of Educational Policy Studies (now EPOL) and elsewhere in the university. We spent time socially with Nick Burbules and Joyce Atkinson, Fazal Rizvi, Cameron McCarthy and Angharad Valdivia, Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, Jan Nederveen Pieterse and Lisa Chason, David and Maryann Wilson (& his blues band, The Painkillers). We have written together on several other projects, in particular following three conferences we organized as part of the new Centre for Global Studies in Education at University of Waikato (see http://www.waikato.ac. nz/globalstudies/home), namely on The Creative University, Freire: the Global Legacy and Children in Crisis conferences (Peters & Besley, 2013 & 2014; Besley & Peters, 2013). As well as research and publications, this Centre runs postgraduate courses which we both teach and it is supported by a book series that we co-edit with Cameron McCarthy and Fazal Rizvi, Global Studies in Education, published by Peter Lang with 28 volumes in the series to date (see http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?event=cmp. ccc.seitenstruktur.detailseiten&seitentyp=series&pk=19462). One of our books is in this series: Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue (Besley, A.C. & Peters, M.A. (Eds) (2012). Michael is co-editor of many other book series with publishers: Paradigm, Peter Lang, Routledge, Rowman & Littlefield, and Sense Publishers. Michael is superb in being able to quickly structure ideas into a logical and workable table of contents and of finding top notch contributors for edited book collections and for special issues of journals for which he holds an editorial role: Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT); Policy Futures in Education (PFIE), E-Learning and Digital Media (ELADM) and now Knowledge Cultures (KC). His work as Editor of Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT), the journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA) has honed these skills. To benefit the work of PESA, Michael has negotiated two changes of publisher; from Carfax (subsequently purchased by Taylor & Francis) from 1998–2002, then Blackwell Publishing (subsequently purchased by Wiley) from 2003–2012 and Routledge from 2013. During his 57

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

editorial tenure since Volume 31 in 1999, he has developed EPAT from a small Australasian one with three issues a year in 1999, to what is now a highly successful, reputable international force with 14 issues a year now that it incorporates ACCESS6 – incidentally another journal that he was involved with at University of Auckland along with Jim Marshall and Colin Lankshear and for which he became editor. Michael noted in his first EPAT editorial, “It will be, perhaps, a few years before the journal achieves the international profile promised by its publication by Carfax.” (Peters, 1999, p. 5, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-5812.1999. tb00369.x#.U28SdK2Swhs). Exactly when that could be considered to have happened is open for debate, but the move to Blackwell in 2003 (prior to their acquisition by Wiley) certainly enabled the journal to increase the number of issues published per year such that by the end of 2012 there were ten issues per year. With the shift to Blackwell Publishing from Volume 35 in 2003, Michael’s Editorial noted the innovative “opportunity to expand readership of the journal worldwide through of reciprocal online access (with journals such as Journal of Philosophy of Education, British Journal of Educational Studies, Teacher’s College Record, Curriculum Inquiry, and British Journal of Educational Technology)”. Peters, 2003, p. 1. http:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1469-5812.00001?queryID=%24% 7BresultBean.queryID%7D#.U28cnK2Swhs). Michael negotiated that Blackwell publish many special issues as stand alone volumes in the Educational Philosophy and Theory Special Issues Series7 which is continuing with the 2013 move to Routledge. All of these moves have made EPAT now arguably the premier journal in educational philosophy and theory today with 2012 Impact Factor: 0.434.8 When at University of Glasgow, because he was already an experienced editor for EPAT and regularly discussed publishing issues with Blackwell staff, Michael had the vision to initiate not one, but two new online only journals and remains the founding editor of Policy Futures in Education9 (PFIE) and E-Learning and Digital Media10 (ELADM). He offered these to the university to fund (asking for GBP 5,000) and own, but was given short shrift by people such as the then head of research Bob Matthew (incidentally an engineer, not an education graduate) who had scant vision and understanding of the new directions that were rapidly emerging in journal publishing using online technology. At a time when print media still ruled, online journals were perceived as having little value and did not count for the Research Assessment Exercise, regardless of whether or not they were peer reviewed. Oh how quickly things change! So instead of being owned by University of Glasgow, Michael did not accept their negativity and instead of taking that knock back made sure that both PFIE and ELADM became owned by Symposium Journals as set up by Roger Osborn-King, the very 58

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

experienced former publisher of Carfax Publishing. Policy Futures in Education began in 2003 with for issues a year, moving to six issues per year in 2008 and to eight issues per year in 2014 – a sure sign of its success. PFIE is futures-oriented and committed to promoting debate in education among university academics, practising policy analysts in government and local government, national and international policy advisors, politicians, members of policy think-tanks and world policy agencies such as the World Bank, OECD and the European Union. The journal has a strong experimental focus and emphasises innovative thinking in education policy and theory from a range of diverse viewpoints (http://www.wwwords.co. uk/pfie/)

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

E-Learning and Digital Media’s first issue in 2004 was under the journal’s original name, E-Learning, and was a location where authors were able to explore this new medium for learning, enabled by the burgeoning development of the Internet and use of personal computers, prior to the next big set of changes with mobile devices and smart phones. From starting out with a focus just on e-learning, the name change in adding ‘digital media’ in 2010 and from four issues at the start, the journal is now six issues a year from 2014 – a sign of ongoing development and success. This journal explores the ways that different disciplines and alternative approaches can shed light on the study of technically mediated education. Working at the intersection of theoretical psychology, sociology, history, politics and philosophy it poses new questions and offers new answers for research and practice related to digital technologies in education. The change of the title of the journal for 2010 from E-Learning to E-Learning and Digital Media is expressive of this new and emphatically interdisciplinary orientation, and also reflects the fact that technologically-mediated education needs to be located within the political economy and informational ecology of changing mediatic forms. (http://www.wwwords.co.uk/elea/index.asp).

Undoubtedly being partners helps both of us in different ways, by working in the same institutions and departments – something that some would argue is not a good idea for a married couple, but which has in fact for the most part worked extremely well for both of us. Even when we don’t formally write together, we still share ideas. Michael frequently runs ideas past me and gets me to comment on or critique his work, and of course he returns the favour when asked. He never has any shortage of ideas for another book project! If anything I will at times advise him to narrow down and focus on certain issues (well at least for a while before moving on to another project). Sometimes he will tease out titles with me. He tends to leave 59

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

attention to detail in proofing to me in our joint work. But not surprisingly, having started in academia much later than him, I needed to get up to speed before he could be expected to write with me. Michael has enormous enthusiasm for ideas, not just for abstract thinking, but for engaging with important issues in the world (e.g. knowledge economy, creative economy, Global Financial Crisis, the flash-crash, big data analytics, child poverty, multiculturalism, neoliberalism and so on – all of which he has written on) investigating and researching fields new to him and quickly gaining expertise, all the while framed by his disciplinary analytical and critical background in philosophy. He loves writing, but it does not take over his life – he still has some time to spend tending to the day-to day activities of our farm and vineyard in Waipara when we are able to visit – a valuable balance and grounding experience away from the sometimes toxic environment of academia where performativity rules and he does not always feel his work is appreciated by the very institutions which one would expect would do so. I sometimes think his huge work output leaves others feeling threatened or envious, despite his generosity of spirit and willingness to share his knowledge and expertise. He definitely does not hold this just to himself even in a neoliberal environment that seems to emphasize the competitive over the collaborative model. We both rail against the intrusion of managerialist policies and systems that are such disciplinary technologies and forms of governmentality now so deeply embedded in NZ academia that they are not even questioned or maybe worse, able to be questioned. Colleagues including, Sue Middleton (2009), have written passionately on how the Performance-Based Research Funding (PBRF), one of several audit and assessment systems set up in some countries (UK, Australia) constructs or subjects the academic self, to researching and publishing to fit one’s goals with PBRF requirements – a deeply disciplining system that risks creativity and is a form of ‘teaching to the test’ for academics (see Besley, 2009). As disciplinary technologies that guide and shape an academic’s conduct by producing a docile body, a compliant subject that supports government rationality, i.e. the interests and objectives of the state, such research assessment systems are clearly examples of Foucauldian governmentality. Yet, ironically such a system works well for an academic with such prodigious output as Michael, yet he would never actively write to suit this, being far too much his own person. Maybe it would be different if he had been an early career academic when such a system was introduced, but that is speculation. I cannot imagine ever hearing him being referred to as a docile body, but then again I may be biased?

60

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

NOTES 1. Personal communication from British Journal of Guidance & Counselling Editors, Dr Stephen Goss & Professor Jenny Bimrose, 11 April, 2014. 2. Amazon lists the following review: ‘Building Knowledge Cultures is perhaps one of the richest, philosophically oriented works to come along in quite some time-at least in the arena of higher education and development. [It] is an in-depth theoretical resource that goes to great lengths in elaborating key constructs and concerns linked to the knowledge economy, development, and the role of education. The 10 chapters (plus an “Introduction” and a “Postscript”) are theoretically and conceptually illuminating, grounded to some extent in practical policy decisions and strategies. Overall, we see Building Knowledge Cultures as one of the more significant works on the new knowledge economy and the relevance of higher education. (Review of Higher Education)’ http://www.amazon.com/Building-Knowledge-Cultures-Development-Capitalism/dp/0742517918 3. Amazon Review: “Do we really need another book on Foucault? We certainly need this one. It is original and accessible and grounded. It is not about Foucault it is about using Foucault in productive ways within educational research. It shows us what we can do with Foucault. I think he might have approved of this book!» (Stephen J Ball, Karl Mannheim Professor of Sociology of Education, Editor Journal of Education Policy, Institute of Education, University of London). http://www.amazon.com/Why-Foucault-Directions-Educational-Counterpoints/dp/ 0820478903 4. 2012 – The Public Intellectual: Michael A. Peters http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=4344:the-publicintellectual-michael-a-peters Will Global Financialization and the Eurozone Debt Crisis Defeat European Cosmopolitan Democracy? Thursday, 06 September 2012 11:02 http://truth-out.org/news/item/11232-will-global-financialization-and-the-eurozonedebt-crisis-defeat-european-cosmopolitan-democracy Why Equality Matters, Sunday, 13 May 2012 00:00 http://truth-out.org/news/item/8985-why-equality-matters In a Risk Society, is Consumption Our Only Tool to Influence the World? Sunday 29 July 2012 Anger and Political Culture: A Time for Outrage! Sunday 22 July 2012 Breaking Open the Digital Commons to Fight Corporate Capitalism Sunday 15 July 2012 Inventing Human Rights Thursday 22 June 2012 Freedom, Openness and Creativity in the Digital Economy Wednesday 06 June 2012 The Rights of the Child, “Adultism” and the Philosophy of Childhood Friday, 25 May 2012, with Viktor Johansson Obama, Education and the End of the American Dream

61

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, 23 May 2012 Knowledge Work under Cognitive Capitalism Friday, 18 May 2012, with James Reveley Algorithmic Capitalism and Educational Futures: Informationalism and the Googlization of Knowledge. 5. Peters, M.A. & Britez, R. (Eds.) (2009) Open Education and Education for Openness. Rotterdam & Taipei: Sense Publishers; Peters, M.A., Besley, T., Araya, D. (Eds.) (2013) The New Paradigm of Development: Education, Knowledge Economy and Digital Futures. New York: Peter Lang; Peters, M.A., Tze-Chang Liu, & Ondercin, D. (2012) The Pedagogy of the Open Society: Knowledge and the Governance of Higher Education. Rotterdam: Sense; Peters, M.A. and Bulut, E. (Eds.) (2011) Cognitive Capitalism, Education and the Question of Digital Labor. New York; Peter Lang. 6. For history of ACCESS see – http://www.aut.ac.nz/research/researchinstitutes/icdc/publications/access. Michael was on Editorial Board and Editor and Consulting Editor from 1995- 2005. 7. At end of 2012, there were 19 books in the Educational Philosophy and Theory Special Issues Series, http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-397559.html 8. Educational Philosophy and Theory, ISSN 0013-1857 (Print), 1469-5812 (Online), http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rept20/current#.U28x2K2Swhs. 9. Policy Futures in Education, ISSN 1478-2103, http://www.wwwords.co.uk/ pfie/, Symposium Journals. 10. E-Learning and Digital Media, ISSN 2042-7530, http://www.wwwords.co. uk/elea/, Symposium Journals.

REFERENCES Besley, Tina (2002a), Counseling Youth: Foucault, Power and the Ethics of Subjectivity. Westport, CT: Praeger. Besley, Tina (2006), Counseling Youth: Foucault, Power and the Ethics of Subjectivity. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. (pbk edition). Besley, A.C. (Tina) (2002b), The Professionalisation of School Counselling in New Zealand in the 20th Century, Special issue monograph of ACCESS: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies 21(2): 1–94. Besley, A. C. (Tina) (2002c), “Foucault and the Turn to Narrative Therapy,” British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 30(2): 125–143. Besley, A. C. (Tina) (2006), “Technologies of the Self and parrhesia: Education, Globalization and the Politicization of Youth in Response to the Iraq War 2003,” in M. A. Peters (ed.), Education, Globalisation and Citizenship in an Age of Terrorism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 111–144. Besley, A.C. Tina (ed.) (2009), Assessing the Quality of Educational Research in Higher Education: International perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Besley, A.C., & Peters, M. A. (2007), Subjectivity and Truth: Foucault, Education and the Culture of Self. New York: Peter Lang. Besley, A.C., & Peters, M.A. (eds.) (2012), Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue. New York: Peter Lang. 62

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Besley, A.C. Tina, & Peters, M. A. (eds.) (2013), Re-imagining the Creative University for the 21st Century. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Foucault, M. (1977), “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” D. F. Bouchard (ed.), in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Interviews and Essays. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Foucault, M. (1983), “Afterword: The Subject and Power,” in his Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 208–226. Foucault, M. (1998a), “Nietzsche, Freud, Marx,” in James D. Faubion (ed.), Aesthetics, Method and Epistemology: Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, Vol. 2. New York: The New Press, 269–278. Foucault, M. (1998d), “Foucault,” in James D. Faubion (ed.), Aesthetics, Method and Epistemology: Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, Vol. 2. New York: The New Press, 459–464. Foucault, M. (2004), Naissance de la biopolitique: Cours au Collège de France, 1978–1979. Paris: Gallimard Seuil. Gordon, C. (1996), “Foucault in Britain,” in A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (eds.), Foucault and Political Reason. London: UCL Press, 253–270. Middleton, S. (2009), “Becoming PBRF-able: Research Assessment and Education in New Zealand,” in T. Besley (ed), Assessing the Quality of Educational Research in Higher Education – International Perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 193–208. Peters, M.A. (ed.) (1995), Education and the Postmodern Condition. Foreword by Jean-François Lyotard. Westport, CT-London: Bergin & Garvey. (Paperback edition, 1997). Peters, M.A. (ed.) (1997) Cultural Politics and the University. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Peters, M.A. (1999), “Editorial: Educational Philosophy and Theory at the Turn of the Century,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 31(1): 5. http://www.tandf online.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-5812.1999.tb00369.x#.U28SdK2Swhs Peters, M.A. (ed.) (2006), Education, Globalisation and Citizenship in an Age of Terrorism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Peters, M.A. (2013), Obama and the End of the American Dream. Rotterdam: Sense. Peters, M.A. (2012), “Bioinformational Capitalism,” Thesis Eleven 110: 98–111. (Among the most-read articles in November, http://the.sagepub.com/reports/ most-read). Peters, M.A., & Besley, T. (2005), “Performative Epistemologies: The Theatre of Fast Knowledge,” The Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies 27(2): 111–126. Peters, M.A., with Besley, A.C. (2006), Building Knowledge Cultures: Education and Development in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism. Lanham-Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M.A., & Besley, A.C. (eds.) (2007), Why Foucault? New Directions in Educational Research. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A, Besley, A. C., Olssen, M, Maurer, S., and Weber, S. (eds) (2009), Governmentality Studies in Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publications.

63

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A., Besley, T., and Araya, D. (eds.) (2013), The New Paradigm of Development: Education, Knowledge Economy and Digital Futures. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., & Besley, T. (eds.) (2013), The Creative University. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Peters, M.A., & Besley, T. (eds.) (2014), Paulo Freire: The Global Legacy. New York: Peter Lang. (forthcoming) Peters, M.A., & Britez, R. (eds.) (2009), Open Education and Education for Openness. Rotterdam-Taipei: Sense Publishers. Peters, M.A., and Bulut, E. (eds.) (2011), Cognitive Capitalism, Education and the Question of Digital Labor. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., Marshall, J.D., Hope, W., and Webster, S. (eds.) (1996), Critical Theory, Poststructuralism and the Social Context. Palmerston North (NZ): Dunmore Press. Peters, M.A., & Roberts, P. (eds.) (1998), Virtual Technologies and Tertiary Education. Palmerston North (NZ): Dunmore Press. Peters, M.A., & Roberts, P. (1999), University Futures and the Politics of Reform. Palmerston North (NZ): Dunmore Press. Peters, M.A., Tze-Chang Liu, & Oncerin, D. (2012), The Pedagogy of the Open Society: Knowledge and the Governance of Higher Education. Rotterdam: Sense. Peters, M.A., & de Alba, A. (eds.) (2012), Subjects in Process. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publications. Spanish trans. by UNAM, Mexico City. Peters, M.A. (2011), Neoliberalism and After? Education, Social Policy and the Crisis of Capitalism. New York: Peter Lang.

64

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Conceiving the University Ronald Barnett University of London

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In his indefatigable endeavours, Michael Peters has opened a large and complex terrain. Conceptually, it offers an horizon against which large ideas have been explored, including those of globalization, postmodernism, postpostmodernism, governmentality, ‘knowledge capitalism’ (Peters’ own term), neoliberalism, education, pedagogy, social policy, economic policy, knowledge, culture and openness. Key theorists and thinkers on whom Peters has drawn have included Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Lyotard, Readings, Derrida, Rorty, and Deleuze. An oeuvre with such scope lends itself to an almost infinite interrogations, and interpretations, even when placed in the themes of this volume – those of education, politics and the cosmopolitan. In this chapter, I shall home in on just one matter, that of understanding the university: just what is it to understand the university? And I shall try to address this question in the spirit – as I glean it – of the breadth of perspectives bequeathed to us by Michael Peters. 2. First Steps Both as idea and as institution, we have witnessed over the past fifty years or so the passing of the liberal university. By ‘liberal’ is meant here a sense of the university as a relatively open space of critical reason in society. It encompasses both the liberal idea of the university associated with the English tradition and the idea of Bildung and the interweaving of teaching and research associated with the traditions of continental Europe. Privatization, neo-liberalism and its injection of markets into what have been public services, and the emergence of corporatism and new public management: all of these phenomena have undermined the idea of a university as a relatively open, disinterested and autonomous space in society. Now, the university is very much an interested institution, acting to serve particular and excluding interests. But the university has also been internally dented and provoked by intellectual debates as to the solidity and authority of the knowledge that it is producing and promulgating. Relativism, poststructuralism, postmodernism, 65

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

feminist critiques, the emergence of multimodality and (separately) so-called Mode 2 knowledge (and their implicit commentaries on the limitations of traditional academic knowledge), the underscoring of the value of tacit knowledge, and the pointing up of the knowledges characteristic of the dramatic and creative arts: all these debates and intellectual movements have raised doubts about the legitimacy and comprehensiveness of academic knowledge. Of course, these debates – as stated – have been partly internal to the academic community and so, in the process, academic knowledge itself has widened. It has lost any internal coherence to which it might have pretended. As such, in parallel to the sociological undermining that the university has received, we have witnessed an epistemological undermining as well. This double undermining – at once sociological and epistemological – has very evidently affected both the university as an institution and the idea of the university. That statement, however, has immediately to be qualified. For it suggests that the idea of the university and the university qua institution inhabit separate domains. But, while it makes good sense to perceive them as having distinct fields of their own, it is crucial that they also be understood as interweaving in and out of each other. We cannot fully understand the university without recognizing that, as institution, it embodies sentiments, hopes, ideals and yes, goals, missions, and stated purposes that are saturated by ideas. (Just why is it that new private providers of higher education hang onto the very term ‘university’, when they might be expected to install a new term, redolent of the brave new world that they pretend to be bringing on? Surely, it is in part because they wish to attach themselves publicly to the values tacitly within the idea of ‘university’; so ideas of the university inhere with the university qua institution.) But, correspondingly, we cannot get anything like an adequate grip on the idea of the university without recognizing that it either refers to a particular kind of social institution or has meaning against the horizon of a collective sense of the university; and one that changes over time and across nations, and that now has global characteristics. These preliminary reflections must plunge us into deep waters. For now, the task of understanding the university is presenting us with multiple sets of challenges. First, we have the conceptual challenges of discerning – and disinterring – the ideas and concepts associated with the term. Just how conceptually might the idea of the university be understood? For instance, what concepts might especially be associated with the idea of the university: reason, or impact, or economy, or culture or communication? Is there a cluster of concepts that might command allegiance as a way of placing the university? Secondly, there is the challenge of understanding the university empirically, in all its national, international and global complexity (and in the interplay of those levels of operation). To what extent is the university 66

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

to be understood as a set of disciplinary fields, or communicative spaces, or the production of forms of understandings (with more or less use value)? Thirdly, as stated, these two realms – of the empirical and the conceptual – cut across each other. For example, the contemporary down-valuing of the humanities is both an empirical and a conceptual phenomenon, with the two dimensions traversing each other, prompting the question: ‘Which knowledge is of most – or least – (economic, social, personal) value?’ The question is at once conceptual and empirical. A second example lies in the inexorable tide of new interactive technologies, in which powers of both access and creation of data become available to individuals, which alters both the medium and the content of the messages. Here, our question is radicalized into ‘Just what is to count as knowledge?’ And, in this multimodal world, ‘Where lie the boundaries between data, information, knowledge and wisdom?’ But these avenues of interrogation – criss-crossing the conceptual and empirical domains – are only the start of such endeavors. Empirically, as emphasized by the philosophy of critical realism (Bhaskar, 2002), we would need to acknowledge the layers of the university’s being. Beneath its immediate appearances might be uncovered more or more hidden layers of its ontology, revealing national and international policies, and less transparent workings of the global economy, the emergence of trans-national cognitive capitalism and the ideologies at work (such as the favoring of numerical forms of evaluation, and the attachment to science and technology as supremely significant forms of knowledge). Ideationally, too, we would need to acknowledge ideas behind ideas of the university. Behind mantras of knowledge, skills and attitudes stand large issues concerning reason, action, communication and human engagement with the world. Yet other matters would loom quickly into view, such as the possibilities for humanity in the world: does knowledge bring forward beauty or tragedy? (cf Nietzsche, 2008) Is a wondrous ineffable world revealed that enriches life or, to the contrary, is a tragic specter revealed, in which man’s inadequacy is laid bare, as the limitations of his knowing efforts become plain? 3. The Possibility of Possibilities Such lines of inquiry are forms of a critique of the university. Together, they would lay bare the empirical and conceptual terrain in which the university moves. They are at once illuminating and problematic. They are illuminating in revealing the complexity of the university, both as idea and as institution. But they are problematic in that they are regressive, and in a double sense. Firstly, they take the analysis of the university backwards or 67

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

downwards (in excavating its conceptual foundations and in revealing its empirical underpinnings); that is, such approaches to understanding the university do not obviously take the university forward. Secondly, and in turn, such critiques act to undermine the university. They portray a picture of the university as unduly interested, seized by ideologies; or as insufficiently self-critical; or as serving certain narrow interests. They amount to a fall-from-grace thesis. They say, collectively, that the university is not what it was or what it claims to be. At best, they damn the university with faint praise. At worst, they degenerate into dystopias of the university, lacking all hope, seemingly content with its dismal readings of neoliberalism, performativity, the new public management and surveillance and the like. The challenge here is that of understanding the university; and we can glimpse that, already, there are several ways of developing such an understanding. Just what might be the most fruitful way forward? There is, here, a matter of the understanding of understandings; and it is apparent that many of the contemporary understandings of the university have limitations. They are also characteristically fuelled by particular dispositions, notably optimism (that all is basically right with the university) and pessimism (that next to nothing is right and nothing or very little can be done to change matters). A major limitation is that the standard academic ploys – of the kind we have touched upon – underplay (if not actually totally neglect) the possibilities before the university. Again, there are possibilities in relation both to the university as idea and as institution but the double undermining – at once, conceptual and sociological – that the critiques render foreclose sight of such possibilities. If the legitimacy of the university is in question – whether as idea or as institution – a search for its possibilities is unlikely to be much on the cards. Possibilities here are of two kinds. Firstly, there are possibilities already identified, or already being debated. ‘The public university’, ‘the university of wisdom’, ‘the theatrical university’, ‘the edgeless university’ and ‘the university of openness’ are just a very few of the many ideas currently being mooted and explored. Upwards of fifty such ideas can be identified in the literature at the present time but they are scattered and seldom exposed to a comprehensive interrogation (cf Barnett, 2013). Secondly, there are possibilities not yet on the table. These are possibilities yet to be imagined. And so, in relation to the university, arise issues as to the possibility of possibilities. Not merely are or can possibilities for the university be envisaged but then how are any such possibilities to be evaluated? Are some to be found to be ideological, or fantastic or weak? Just what tests of adequacy might be deployed so as to discriminate between imagined possibilities of the university? 68

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

4. The Big Ditch Ernest Gellner talked of the big ditch as the ground separating objectivist accounts of knowledge from more relativist conceptions. That story is relevant here (just how is knowledge to be understood in the university? Are there any principles through which reliable and objective knowledge might be derived?). Here, however, I want to use the idea of a ditch to point to a separation not simply between the university qua institution and the university qua idea but more precisely to the gap between the university qua institution (in all its empirical messiness and layers) and its possibilities. There is always the suspicion that this will be an unbridgeable gap. Ideas that depict possibilities for the university may portray a university that is unrealizable. More than being utopias, they may be fantastic, living in a world of fantasy, totally adrift from the real world. Such fantastic ideas of the university might still have a value in prompting imaginative thinking about the university. But I want to focus on imaginative ideas that may just be realizable even if they are not much in evidence in the contemporary world. Immediately, a matter of legitimacy arises. How might imaginative ideas of the university be derived that carry legitimacy? Such imaginative ideas of the university would surely have to be derived in part, or at least be seen to have a close relationship with, the fundamental ideas and values that conceptually locate the university. These would include reason (both the spreading of reason across society and the university as itself a space of reason), inquiry, understanding, and critical dialogue. The task of the imagination, then, is that of discerning forms of the university that can give maximum expression to such values in the twenty-first century. That last rider is important and necessary, since the contemporary age and its unfolding over the coming century imparts horizons to this imaginary project. To place this imaginary project in the horizon of the twenty-first century is both to call attention to the contemporary institutional, cultural, social and economic challenges in sustaining the value structure of the university (as just outlined) but also it is to promote a sensitivity to the practical possibilities inherent in this contemporary situation. For example, modern interactive internet technologies, allowing individuals to engage with each other globally, and for a single individual to speak to many and for institutions and individuals to engage with each other, may be opening new possibilities to the university to realize its own values. There are three points to make about conceiving of the imaginative project for the university in this way. First, the university is always falling short of its possibilities. Its values and key concepts – of reason, inquiry, critical dialogue and understanding – can always be realized in novel ways, 69

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

in more expansive ways, in more effective ways, in more inclusive ways, and in ways that more enhance wellbeing in the world. Secondly, this imaginative project is inherently a public enterprise in the specific sense that what is at issue here is the promotion and even the formation of publics. Not just new technologies but also a wide appreciation of the very nature of knowledge itself – to include practical wisdom, aesthetic and kinaesthetic forms of knowing – opens spaces in which the university can move and enhance the world. Thirdly, this imaginative project is inherently a critical project, and in two ways. On the one hand, and self-evidently, critical questions are here raised as to the extent to which the university is alternatively fulfilling – and falling short – of its possibilities in the world. On the other hand, critical questions are opened as to the extent to which the value structure of the university – of reason, inquiry, critical dialogue and understanding – is being promoted or diminished in the wider society. Critical questions are also opened here about that value structure itself: is it perhaps the narrative that the university likes to tell of itself? Is not the playing out of reason in the university accompanied also by daring, anxiety, emotion, conflict, near anarchy, disorder and underhand trickery? Is the academic life itself not unreasonable? It shows the strains both of Apollonian order and Dionysian disorder. (Nietzsche, 2008) 5. The Schizophrenic University Opening here is, as it might be termed, the schizophrenic university; and different positions might be adopted in understanding the university against the horizon of such an idea. The first position is that the university – at least from now on, if not hitherto – lives in the spaces between its actual position and its possibilities; between its reality and the imaginative ideas that might be formed for it. There is always a shortfall between what the university might be (given its value structure and the possibilities afforded by contemporary society) and its actual character in the world. The university’s situation is always one of shortcomings. The second position begins by acknowledging, at observed, that the university’s reality and the ideas that might be formed of it do not inhabit totally discrete realms for part of the university’s reality is the ideas that might be held of it. Its members live out their academic lives partly through their ideas and hopes of the university. Groups in the wider society, too, (the university’s ‘stakeholders’) have their own ideas and hopes of the university. Equally, those ideas will often take as their point of departure considerations about the reality of the university, that it is part of the global knowledge economy, but will then go their separate ways in construing that 70

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

situation. On the one hand, the endorsers of the contemporary movements of the university will critique the university for not moving fast enough in that direction (of becoming an ‘entrepreneurial’ university). On the other hand, the critics will observes that the university is helping to sustain cognitive capitalism (Murphy, 2009; Boutang, 2011), that it is unduly subject to new managerial regimes (‘new public management’) and so forth; and academics correspondingly in part, too, live out their academic lives partly through their fears and concerns of the university. There is here, in this more critical position, a messiness, an inchoateness, a lack of order; an impossibility of any coherent project with which the university might be identified. Ideas of the university and its actual presences swim in and out of each other. Hopes will be held but they are always being subject to an implicit commentary by the facticities of the university; a commentary that is either one of endorsement or sabotage, depending on the kind of hope entertained of the university. The third position is a radical reformulation of the second (critical) position. It starts from the recognition that the university is at once a set of pernicious and ideal states. But it then makes the following radical move: the perniciousness of the university is not antithetical to the university of enlightenment (as it might be termed) but is part of that university in the twenty-first century. That is to say that the university of the twenty-first century wins its spurs through it being this extraordinary melange of oppression and freedom, of closure and openness, of ideology and reason. The critical university, under this dispensation, gains its legitimacy through its critique being brought partly against itself, in being pitted against ‘the entrepreneurial university,’ ‘the corporate university,’ ‘the bureaucratic university’ and so on. The acts of the corporate university provide a legitimation for the acts of resistance of the critical university. This third position is a position of inherent antagonism; even of schizophrenia. The university harbors hopes and ideals of reason, even as it succumbs to the blandishments of the multi-national pharmaceutical companies; it contains moments of generosity, even as it calculates so much in terms of the economic returns on its activities. This is at once a situation of angst and happiness. The angst lies in a sense that, for the foreseeable future, the university is invaded by alien forces of oppression and closure but a sense, too, that it contains spaces for reason, critical dialogue, disinterested inquiry and unconditional hospitality. More than that, there opens a sense that the hopes of the university, qua university, can be realized anew and in ever greater measure. The university can reach out to new and wider publics (plural), it can more directly affect the lives of others in the wider society (through various forms of direct public engagement), and it can help those publics to become enlightened 71

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

and active citizens (in their becoming through university interventions, active in their own settings – on urban estates, in ecological movements and so on). The university can become itself, in all its incoherence, in the contemporary world.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

6. The End of Universality? If this schizophrenic situation is anything like a fair reading of the position of the university, are we witnessing the end of any kind of universality with which the university might be associated. Is this not just a rewording of the postmodern university, a university without any grand narrative of itself? Does not contemporary philosophy suggest that we are living in a directionless and unstructured space? (I am thinking here of the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari, with its theme of multiplicities, its options for ‘lines of flight’ and its talk of ‘de-territorisation’ and ‘re-territorisation’.) Indeed, much more than a rhizome, are we not witnessing the university as a kind of squid, able to go here and there, as it wishes, on a whim, and able to reach out across the vast spaces of the globe and get into the smallest crevices at the same time? Where, in all of this, is the any possibility of the idea of the universal doing any serious work? There are two immediate and very obvious rejoinders. The first is the empirical realm. It so happens that the contemporary university – as noted – cannot be properly understood outside of global forces acting on it. The deep structures of the university have come to be global in nature. Yes, there remain profound particularities, differentiating nations, and individual universities and even individual departments within universities (for the separate academic disciplines retain considerable influence over the nature of academic life). But the global dimension reaches into universities, in the formation of a neo-capitalist institution, affected by global streams of the knowledge economy, with its emerging formations of ‘digital labor’ (Peters and Bulut, 2011). As a result, the vice-chancellors and rectors of universities and national government planners and policy makers can very easily talk to each other across the world. They share common problems and similar horizons. It may be said in response, and not unfairly, that there is a danger here of conflating ‘universal’ with ‘global’, for the two terms inhabit different discourses. The idea of the global is a feature of political economy; it is an effort to plot the empirical horizons of economic and even social life. We are all global these days. (The hand-held devices embody this globality in a dramatic way.) The universal, on the other hand, is a realm of ideas against which the real world can be tested. Does it have anything to offer in understanding the university? 72

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

I want to contend not just that it has something to offer but that the idea of the university cannot be understood without entering the realm of the universal – and this is the second point here. The concepts of truth, knowledge, reason, disinterested inquiry, dialogue and liberty continue to haunt the university; and they are universal concepts. They are universal not in their giving rise to uniform or consensual interpretations (which they do not) nor in their being global (which they are not) nor even in their being the ‘true’ story of the nature of academic life itself (which is also one of disorder, ideology, self-interest, domination, incoherence and unpredictability) but in being concepts that offer a common horizon against which human life – and thereby the university – can develop, in all its complexity and particularity. The category of the universal is elusive but it can still do work in understanding the university.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

7. Conclusions If, as stated, the category of the universal is elusive, the university is – in a way – even more elusive. But it refuses to die. Both as institution and as idea, the university remains with us. And it goes on unfolding before us; always pursuing new ‘lines of flight’. Always in a process of ‘becominguniversity’. ‘University’ is becoming a category, a way of structuring a part of what it is to be human. Now, no self-respecting city wants to be without its university. (In this respect, the university has supplanted the cathedral: from understanding God to understanding the world.) But this movement – and the endurance of the university – is possible only in virtue of the universal categories that are intimately associated with the university: understanding, inquiry, dialogue, truth, knowledge and liberty. In turn, the university becomes a critical concept in this respect: we can always ask of any particular ‘university,’ are you really a university? More: ‘are you fully fulfilling the possibilities available to you as a university?’ The university, qua idea and qua institution, are intermeshed. We cannot understand the university qua institution in the absence of its possibilities, hinted at by its universal categories. And, as noted, there is always a gap between the empirical university and the realization of its possibilities. All this implies that understanding the university is a matter of conceiving the university; of giving birth to the university; of imaginatively reconceiving the university in the light of its empirical circumstances (which may be as much affordances as they are constraints) and against the horizon of its universal categories. The university is always before us; it always has possibilities before it, possibilities to be discerned and even imagined. The university cannot be re-born but it must be re-born! The university is always before itself. 73

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

REFERENCES

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Barnett, R. (2013), Imagining the University. Abingdon: Routledge. Bhaskar, R. (2002), From Science to Emancipation: Journeys towards meta-Reality. New Delhi: Sage. Boutang, Y. M. (2011), Cognitive Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity. Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F (2007/1988), A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Continuum: London. Murphy, P. (2009), “Defining Knowledge Capitalism,” in M. A. Peters, S. Marginson, and P. Murphy (eds.), Creativity and the Global Knowledge Economy. New York: Peter Lang. Nietzsche, F. (2008/1872), The Birth of Tragedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peters, M. A., and Bulut, E. (2011), Cognitive Capitalism, Education and Digital Labour. New York: Peter Lang.

74

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

A ‘Happy’ Coincidence: Cognitive Capitalism and Well-Being Enhancement in Schools James Reveley University of Wollongong

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

‘Almost certainly we are witnessing a shift to...a market individualism of neoliberalism where the self is shaped as a utility maximiser, a free and contractual individual, who is self-constituted through the market choices and investment decisions that he/she makes....In the face of increasingly technical and functional forms of literacy and of schooling, we might inquire whether school in an age of consumerism promotes a relation to the self based on truth-telling or whether this relation has been replaced by another primary ethos: happiness, security, survival, success, ‘self-improvement,’ wealth.’ (Besley and Peters, 2007: 18)

1. Introduction This chapter takes as its springboard the foregoing insightful observation by Tina Besley and Michael A. Peters.1 It reveals how psychologizing discourses and school-based training programs that stress happiness, self-improvement and well-being, align with an emergent socioeconomic formation: cognitive capitalism. The argument the chapter makes is easily summarised. First, there is an elective affinity between cognitive capitalism and positive psychology, whose advocates promote ‘mindfulness’, ‘curiosity’ and ‘psychological flexibility’ as the means to personal fulfilment (Kashdan, 2010; Kashdan and Rottenberg, 2010). Second, from this psychological discourse springs a variety of ‘technologies of the self’ (Foucault, 2000). Mindfulness practice is one such technology. Currently being trialled in British and North American schools, this bodily regime exhorts children consciously to constitute themselves as curious, creative, self-regulating persons. Third, these discourses and practices, in turn, promote skills formation and a reflexive subjectivity that cognitive capitalism exploits.

75

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2. Cognitive Capitalism and Reflexive Self-Production New forms of capitalism have as their concomitant new types of discourse. This is one of Foucault’s greatest insights. Referring specifically to ‘the Classical period’, he recommends investigating ‘the function carried out by economic discourse in the practice of emergent capitalism’ (Foucault, 1972: 69). Let me state at the outset that I am not claiming psychological discourse – positive psychology specifically – plays the same role within cognitive capitalism as that which economic discourse played in mercantile capitalism’s development. Rather, what I identify is how a set of material practices (cognitive capitalism) – or what Foucault (1972: 68) calls ‘non-discursive practices’ – and a germane discourse (positive psychology), fortuitously coincide. In line with Gerth and Mills’ (1980: 62–3) interpretation of Max Weber’s work, notably his Protestant Ethic (Weber, 1930), I use the term elective affinity in its Weberian sense to capture this serendipitous juxtaposition of ideas and economic practices. Following Moulier Boutang (2011: 9), I take cognitive capitalism to mean ‘a third type of capitalism’ emergent in the wake of industrial capitalism – the successor, in turn, to mercantile capitalism. The thesis of cognitive capitalism can be simply stated. Value-creation in the industrial era was based on units of labour-time expended within the firm’s confines, the equivalence of which was in the final instance determined quantitatively by the market. By contrast, under cognitive capitalism value increasingly derives from hard to quantify ‘intelligent, inventive and innovative labour’ that ‘mobilizes the cooperation of brains in networks’ (Moulier Boutang, 2011: 55). This capitalism is spurred by the comparatively recent ‘Triple Revolution of social networks, the internet, and mobile availability’ (Rainie and Wellman, 2012: 34). These networks are extensive, transcending markets and hierarchies alike. They sustain peer-based production, epitomised by crowdsourcing and other forms of ‘open innovation’ (Marjanovic et al., 2012). Sociality is at the core of this capitalism, under which capital ‘accumulation is based on knowledge and creativity’ (Moulier Boutang, 2011: 56). Certainly, as Moulier Boutang is quick to point out, physical labour does not disappear, but it loses its centrality in favour of a cooperation of brains in the production of the living by means of the living, via the new information technologies, of which the digital, the computer and the Internet are emblematic[.] (Moulier Boutang, 2011: 57)

Simply put, immaterial labour comes to the fore. To the extent that it ‘creates not only material goods but also relationships and ultimately social life itself’, this labour has to ‘become intelligent, become communicative,

76

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

become affective’ (Hardt and Negri, 2005: 109). These are the properties cognitive capitalism exploits. At first glance it may seem odd to say positive psychology, a discourse that eschews material wealth as the source of human fulfilment and seeks to enhance people’s emotional rather than purely intellectual faculties, has an affinity with a wealth-creating economic system that prizes ‘intelligence’. Such a relationship nonetheless exists, and it stems from two things. First, it is collective intelligence, as in the ‘collective intelligence of the population’, that cognitive capitalism transforms into ‘a direct factor of production’ (Moulier Boutang, 2011: 185). Such intelligence is developed through ‘the pollination of social relations’, which are inherently affective (Moulier Boutang, 2011: 165). Pollination occurs in a relational network central to which is the subject’s ability to connect with others. As Moulier Boutang (2011: 140, emphasis added) remarks, cognitive capitalism ‘engages the affects and the brain as a whole.’ Second, one of positive psychology’s key tenets is that the reflexive attainment of positive emotional states renders the subject ‘open’ to new experiences; these, in turn, foster intellectual flexibility (Kashdan, 2010). Probing and describing one’s own emotions, and rendering oneself open to self-transformation – these strike a chord with how cognitive capitalism constitutes selves. By siphoning value from human networks, this new variety of capitalism colonises the space ‘where subjectivity is born and resides’, namely that of ‘ideas, codes, images, affects, and social relationships’ – as Hardt and Negri (2009: 172) put it so well. To the extent that subjectivity is produced in the same common space where network-based value creation occurs, the work of economic production is simultaneously subjectivityaltering self-production (Hardt and Negri, 2009: 172–3). This produces a ‘biopolitical subject’ in whom the desire and capacity for ‘self-training’ becomes second nature (Moulier Boutang, 2011: 160). On this point, Gorz (2010: 11, emphasis added) helpfully translates Moulier Boutang: The worker no longer presents himself as possessor only of his hetero-produced labour-power [that is to say, of predetermined capacities inculcated by the employer], but as having produced himself and continuing to produce himself.

Gorz pushes the point further. By channeling Combes and Aspe (1998), he makes the link back to affectivity: self-production is a necessary dimension of all immaterial labour and...such labour tends to call on the same capacities and personal dispositions as free, non-work activities. Combes and Aspe write: ‘It is in this sense that we may speak of a “total mobilization” of capacities and dispositions, including the affective.’ (Gorz, 2010: 16) 77

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

While this encapsulation of the reflexive self’s centrality to cognitive capitalism is wonderfully succinct, it nonetheless begs the following question. Are these ‘capacities and dispositions’ naturally occurring; or are they institutionally evoked, developed, and coaxed into being by discourses and practices inherent to cognitive capitalism itself? Lane (2011) supplies a timely and forceful answer. He critiques Gorz and Moulier Boutang’s depiction of ‘the affects and intellectual capacities that cognitive capitalism creates’ as being full-formed and prior, pre-existing ‘natural resources, external...to that mode of accumulation’ (Lane, 2011: 506). Instead, he stresses, these capacities are ‘the defining characteristics of the form of subjectivity’ that cognitive capitalism itself seeks to create (Lane, 2011: 506). Channeling Deleuze, he then argues – correctly in my view – that the school is one institution among many that operate ‘to produce workers as creative, communicative, self-auditing subjects, engaged in an open-ended process of self-surveillance and self-improvement’ (Lane, 2011: 506). He concludes that ‘A coherent theory of cognitive capitalism would... have to pay greater attention to...subject formation’ especially how ‘the subject is constructed...long before they enter the workplace’, specifically ‘in the institutions of school, family, and the broader culture’ (Lane, 2011: 507). This is where positive psychology-influenced mindfulness training can be factored back into the cognitive capitalist equation. When undertaken in schools, this training is one means by which the self-improving subject is created prior to their full deployment as value creators within the workplace and social factory at large. 3. Positive Psychology’s Flexible Subject Positive psychology’s birth certificate is a special issue of American Psychologist, published in 2000. It was edited by Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who are credited with establishing the field (Kashdan and Steger, 2011: 9). They talk about shifting from trying to rectify psychological deficits and ‘repairing damage’, to ‘building positive qualities’, including well-being, happiness and hope (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000: 5). Or, as Huppert (2009: 108) puts it, ‘aiming to enhance well-being rather than merely reducing disorder.’ This idea is expressed by the positive psychological shibboleth of people ‘flourishing’ (Seligman, 2011). This is no small-scale project, for ‘positive psychology...claims to bring optimism and resilience to millions’ (Cigman, 2012: 450). Huppert (2012) even advocates the goal of ‘flourishing populations’, which smacks of a Foucauldian governmentality regime. Clearly, since its inception positive psychology has burgeoned into a diverse field (Sheldon et al., 2011). I will therefore focus on the aspects of 78

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

this discourse that target the reflexive selves cognitive capitalism exploits. I will draw primarily upon this discourse as it is expressed in the popular self-help literature. In so doing, I take my lead from Anthony Giddens who in his seminal Modernity and Self-Identity analyses how self-therapy – he is talking about self-help manuals – assists with the ‘reflexive construction of self-identity’ (Giddens, 1991: 85). But I take one step more. Performing self-therapeutic body disciplines produces a reflexive form of subjectivity that is not merely indicative or symptomatic of how self-identity has changed in late modernity, as Giddens maintains. Rather, cognitive capitalism by its very logic actively presses this subjectivity into its service. To the extent that it draws value from creative activity of individuals within digital networks, cognitive capitalism requires a certain ‘openness of mind’ (Gorz, 2010: 5). In other words, it values subjects who attune themselves to a range of creative possibilities – including transforming themselves. This resonates with the blandishments of positive psychologists who cajole people to become ‘mindful’. As the leading positive psychologist Todd Kashdan’s (2010) popularising book’s title Curious suggests, one of positive psychology’s watchwords is ‘curiosity’; another is ‘openness’. His description of mindfulness shows how these qualities connect: [Mindfulness] is characterized by curiosity, openness, and acceptance. When we are mindful, we maintain an inquisitive nature about the thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and events experienced in the present. This inquisitive nature allows us to be receptive and aware of all aspects of reality. (Kashdan, 2010: 29)

A person who is curious, open and mindful is ‘psychologically flexible’ (Kashdan, 2010: 13). By contrast, ‘[l]ack of curiosity is a breeding ground for...[d]ogmatism and rigid thinking, which is the opposite of psychological flexibility’ (Kashdan, 2010: 25). In a nutshell, being open and curious about one’s own emotions and the emotions of others, and to the experience of positive emotional states, broadens and strengthens the cognitive processes associated with creativity. As Kashdan explains: The greatest advantage of curiosity is that by spending time and energy with the new, increased neurological connections are made possible. Facts and experiences are synthesized into a web, paving the way for greater intelligence and wisdom....We become better at visualizing the relativity of seemingly disparate ideas, paving the way for greater creativity. It is the neurological equivalent of personal growth. (Kashdan, 2010: 57)

Hence the positive psychological ideal type of ‘an engaged and curious explorer, taking risks and being creative and innovative’ (Kashdan, 2010: 116). Positive psychology is not purely focused on the subject’s inner life. Emotional introspection is the key to the other-regarding behaviors prized 79

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

by positive psychologists, who have much to say about how people form meaningful relationships (Lambert et al., 2011). Arguably, curiosity about one’s own emotional states, and the ability to reflect on them, fosters sociality. In its popularising form, the basic argument runs as follows: By being observant of what is going on inside them and around them, very curious people gain close proximity to their thoughts and feelings, and those of others, and this ability is also visible and highly regarded by others. (Kashdan, 2010: 137)

To summarise: positive psychology encourages people to transform themselves into curious explorers. The process of critical and open self-reflection that this discourse exhorts people to undertake accords with the creative and ‘self-auditing’ (in Lane’s terms) subjects on whom cognitive capitalism draws. It is a subject who reflexively self-monitors, introspects, and selftransforms; a subject for whom emotional regulation is the gateway to the creative deployment of the intellect, both individually and in connection with others. The next section examines how this reflexive subjectivity is being constituted within schools.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

4. Cultivating the Flexible Educational Subject The positive psychology movement has always had a proselytizing impulse. It even has a manifesto, the function of which is not dissimilar to a political proclamation. As Hardt and Negri (2012: 1) presciently remark, ‘Manifestos provide a glimpse of the world to come and also call into being the subject.’ Named after the Mexican location of a 1999 gathering of scholars interested in positive psychology, the Akumal Manifesto lists as one of its goals: Spreading positive psychological principles and perspectives to the broader public. For example, positive psychology might be incorporated into high school psychology curricula or within public health initiatives.2

In the relatively short amount of time since that declaration, positive psychology has influenced educational policy and practice in Britain and North America (Ecclestone and Hayes, 2009; Seligman, 2011). As Cigman (2012: 453) says with respect to Britain, ‘the positive ideal is embodied in much contemporary policy-making, intended to bring resilience, optimism, selfesteem and other ‘life skills’ to children through national interventions.’ A central feature is what the influential Blair-era British government policy director, Geoff Mulgan, describes as teaching soft skills: ‘how to think creatively, how to collaborate, how to empathise’ (Mulgan, cited in Cigman, 80

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

2012: 453). This is part of what Cigman (2012: 454) aptly terms ‘the enhancement agenda in education.’ There is no better practical example of this agenda and positive psychology’s traction than the well-being enhancing mindfulness training programs introduced into schools in England and the US over the last several years (Huppert and Johnson, 2010; Meiklejohn et al., 2012). Displaced from its Buddhist origins, mindfulness has recently morphed into a psychologised and scholasticized form, and now has its own academic journal (simply titled Mindfulness). As scientistic discourses, mindfulness and positive psychology are joined at the hip. Huppert and Johnson (2010: 265) say that the notion of mindfulness is ‘congruent with much of the theory and practice in positive psychology.’ Practically, mindfulness training is a therapeutic tool that positive psychologists advocate and use. The aim of school-based interventions is to inculcate mindfulness in the schoolchild. Huppert and Johnson (2010: 265) offer the following definition: With mindfulness, we deliberately observe and accept what is happening right now, in our bodies, minds and the world around us, with an attitude of gentle curiosity.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

The training involves teaching bodily regimens that Meiklejohn et al. (2012) group under the banner of ‘mindfulness practice’.3 The formal version is mindfulness meditation, which typically consists of initially directing attention to a[n]...attentional “anchor”. As one practices, it becomes apparent that the mind will repeatedly drift off the chosen “anchor” into spontaneously arising thoughts, memories, feelings, or images. Upon noticing this drift, the practitioner brings his/her attention back repeatedly to the anchor. The intent is not to get rid of thoughts, feelings, or sensations. Rather, it is to cultivate a clearer awareness of direct moment to moment experience with acceptance and a kindly curiosity[.] (Meiklejohn et al., 2012: 292)

This is not mere new-age nonsense or psychobabble. Huppert and Johnson (2010: 265) hypothesized that: Training in the conscious control of attentional resources...is likely to have beneficial effects on learning, problem solving, decision-making and other cognitive processes.

Indeed, after conducting a meta-analytic review, Meiklejohn et al. (2012: 292) conclude that mindfulness training in schools improves not just ‘social skills’ and ‘emotional regulation’ but also cognitive skills such as ‘improvements in working memory, attention, [and] academic skills’. If Moulier Boutang (2011: 162) is correct, if cognitive capitalism’s main dynamic is the ‘exploitation of the inventive force of living labour’, these are high on 81

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

the list of qualities that this capitalism exploits. From the standpoint of system reproduction, the challenge is:

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

to keep living labour alive as a living force throughout the [productive] cycle if it wants to capture a part of the inventionpower and hence divert it to its own profit....[E]xploitation has now become...not that of the consumption of labour power, but its willingness to make itself available, its attentiveness and its ability to form new networks and to enter into cooperation, through the medium of computers linked together. (Moulier Boutang, 2011: 163)

This is the pointy end of the enhancement agenda. As Rainie and Wellman (2012: 9) note, connecting with others through digital networks is ‘socially taxing’. Enhanced cognitive, social and emotion-regulating skills are part and parcel of the ‘mental mobility’ that cognitive capitalism requires (Moulier Boutang, 2011: 127). The positive psychology goal of fostering ‘resilience’, one of the qualities that mindfulness practice seeks to elicit, fulfils the cognitive capitalist subject’s need for inner ‘reserves of strength’ as they are exploited throughout ‘the duration of their lives’, while immersed in the very ‘fabric of society’ itself (Moulier Boutang, 2011: 164). There is another way in which mindfulness training is consistent with the requirements of cognitive capitalism, quite apart from mindfulness training’s role in cognitive and social skills formation. Mindfulness practice has a deep affinity with the contemporary notion of self as ‘a reflexive project’, something to be worked on agentially (Giddens, 1991: 75). Mindfulness is a technology of the self in which: the body participates in a very direct way in the principle that the self has to be constructed. Bodily regimes...are the prime means whereby the institutional reflexivity of modern social life is focused on the cultivation...of the body. (Giddens, 1991: 100)

Mindfulness meditation is one among many such bodily regimes – from Kundalini yoga and tai chi, to tantric sex, therapeutic Djembe drumming and French parkour. What I am suggesting is that mindfulness practice, when underpropped by positive psychology and institutionalized in education policy, additionally functions – albeit latently – to create the very types of persons who are cognitive capitalism’s lifeblood. I am not suggesting that any form of determinism is at work here. As Gorz reminds us: The subject is never socially given; she is...given to herself as a being that has to make herself what she is. No one can exempt the subject from this task, nor force it upon her. (Gorz, 2010: 12–13)

82

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

While the subject cannot be forced, he/she can be coaxed to fashion themselves in ‘positive’ ways – especially during the formative years of schooling. Through the medium of technologies of the self, this is just what the educational enhancement agenda seeks to do. To be sure, the affinity between positive psychology and cognitive capitalism is more by fortuitous coincidence than design. Nonetheless, through the implementation within schools of a specific technology of the self – mindfulness bodily discipline – the positive discourse has begun to mesh in practice with exploitation under this capitalism. School-based mindfulness training calls into being very kind of open, psychologically flexible, curious, value-creating subject on which cognitive capitalism depends.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

5. Conclusion In the preceding discussion, I have identified complementarity between positive psychology and school-based enhancement regimes, on the one hand, and cognitive capitalism on the other. Within the academic education literature these discourses and practices are attracting increasing attention, but never before have they been linked to a specific form of capitalism. I want to draw my discussion to a close by highlighting some differences between my argument and recent work by others who critique the rising influence of positive psychology within the education policy-making arena. Clack (2012) suggests that positive psychology has an ideological agenda. It resides in positive psychology’s promulgation of well-being as ‘something the individual can control through correct management of their inner life’, abstracted from larger socioeconomic structures; this fits neatly with neo-liberal notions of the freely choosing individual as master of their own destiny (Clack, 2012: 502). Similarly, according to Ecclestone (2011), the institutionalization of positive psychology within the educational system produces new forms of inequality. Interestingly, the author ties this process back to subject-creation: Preoccupation with emotional vulnerability fractures epistemologies that depict the self and knowledge as socially or linguistically constructed and then goes further, offering a view of the permanently vulnerable human subject. This diminished view turns knowledge and pedagogy inward to offer psychological or psychotherapeutic support. (Ecclestone, 2011: 108)

By contrast, I maintain that positive psychology is not merely – or even primarily – an ideology that directs attention inwards to people’s inner life, to the exclusion of wider socioeconomic structures. This psychological discourse’s primary system-reproducing function is not to perpetuate what 83

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

sociologists call ‘inequality’ – either by ideologically mystifying capitalist social relations (as Clack implies), or by dwindling down the human subject to a vulnerable emotional shell in-filled by therapeutics (as Ecclestone asserts). There is, I believe, a more active self-constitution process at work; one that the sociological preoccupation with inequality – as opposed to exploitation – obscures. Like all forms of capitalism, value creation in the cognitive variety is predicated upon exploitation, which entails an active value-transfer. Through practices such as mindfulness training, positive psychological discourse calls into being types of persons with the cognitive and emotional skills, together with the self-monitoring and self-constituting properties, that cognitive capitalism exploits. Rather than seeing the exploited subject as permanently vulnerable, however, scholars need to take more seriously the positive psychologists’ claim that mindfulness increases resilience, mentally mobility and flexibility. This is not inconsistent with theorizations of resistant subjectivities which spring from autonomist understandings of collaborative labour. Indeed, there is no firm ideological barrier separating the reflexive self-education advocated by positive psychologists and the self-education of politically conscious ‘singularities’ called for by Hardt and Negri (2012: 75–6). Cognitive capitalism’s laboring subject is not perpetually vulnerable or powerless. Inherent to ‘biopolitical’ labour is the capacity for political action, the socially transformative potential to ‘construct new social relationships, new forms of life that allow it to actualize its productive powers’ (Hardt and Negri, 2009: 152). For cognitive capitalism, therefore, the curious explorer is a subject with a sting in its tail. NOTES 1. This tribute to the work of Michael A. Peters distills down the key arguments presented in Reveley (2013). 2. On the origins of early positive psychology gatherings, see the website of the University of Pennsylvania’s Positive Psychology Center (http://www.ppc.sas. upenn.edu/ppgrant.htm#Akumal). The Akumal Manifesto is reproduced as an appendix to Sheldon et al. (2011). It is also available in full at: http://www.ppc.sas.upenn. edu/akumalmanifesto.htm 3. On the full range of mindfulness techniques, see the second chapter of Chaskalson (2011). REFERENCES Besley, T., and M.A. Peters (2007), Subjectivity and Truth: Foucault, Education, and the Culture of Self. New York: Peter Lang. Chaskalson, M. (2011), The Mindful Workplace. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 84

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Cigman, R. (2012), “We Need to Talk about Well-Being,” Research Papers in Education 27(4): 449–462. Clack, B. (2012), “What Difference Does it Make? Philosophical Perspectives on the Nature of Well-Being and the Role of Educational Practice,” Research Papers in Education 27(4): 497–512. Combes, M. and Aspe, B. (1998), “Revenu Garanti Et Biopolitique,” Alice, 1. http://multitudes.samizdat.net/Revenu-garanti-et-biopolitiique Ecclestone, K. (2011), “Emotionally-Vulnerable Subjects and New Inequalities: The Educational Implications of an ‘Epistemology of the Emotions,”’ International Studies in Sociology of Education 21(2): 91–113. Ecclestone, K., and Hayes, D. (2009), “Changing the Subject: The Educational Implications of Developing Emotional Well-Being,” Oxford Review of Education 35(3): 371–389. Foucault, M. (1972), The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (2000), “Technologies of the Self,” in P. Rabinow (ed.) Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth – Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984. London: Penguin Books, 223–251. Gerth, H.H., and Mills, C.W. (1980), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press. Giddens, A. (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gorz, A. (2010), The Immaterial: Knowledge, Value and Capital. London: Seagull Books. Hardt, M., and Negri, A. (2005), Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York: Penguin Books. Hardt, M., and Negri, A. (2009), Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Hardt, M., and Negri, A. (2012), Declaration. New York: Melanie Jackson Agency. Huppert, F.A. (2009), “A New Approach to Reducing Disorder and Improving Well-Being,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 4(1): 108–111. Huppert, F.A. (2012), “From Flourishing People to Flourishing Populations,” paper presented to the Third Australian Positive Psychology and Wellbeing Conference, Wollongong, 22–25 March. Huppert, F.A. and Johnson, D.M. (2010), “A Controlled Trial of Mindfulness Training in Schools: The Importance of Practice for an Impact on Well-Being,” The Journal of Positive Psychology 5(4): 264–274. Kashdan, T. (2010), Curious? Discover the Missing Ingredient to a Fulfilling Life. New York: Harper. Kashdan, T.B., and Rottenberg, J. (2010), “Psychological Flexibility as a Fundamental Aspect of Health,” Clinical Psychology Review 30: 865–878. Kashdan, T.B., and Steger, M.F. (2011), “Challenges, Pitfalls, and Aspirations for Positive Psychology,” in K.M. Sheldon, T.B. Kashdan, and M.F. Steger (eds.), Designing Positive Psychology: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 9–21. Lambert, N.M, Fincham, F.D., Marlea Gwinn, A., and Ajayi, C.A. (2011), “Positive Relationship Science: A New Frontier for Positive Psychology?,” in K.M.

85

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Sheldon, T.B. Kashdan, and M.F. Steger (eds.) Designing Positive Psychology: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 280–292. Lane, J.F. (2011), “Disaffection in the Post-Fordist Workplace: Figurations of ‘Immaterial Labour’ in Recent French Theory and Literature,” Modern and Contemporary France 19(4): 495–509. Marjanovic, S., Fry, C., and Chataway, J. (2012), “Crowdsourcing Based Business Models: In Search of Evidence for Innovation 2.0,” Science and Public Policy 39: 318–332. Meiklejohn, J. et al. (2012), “Integrating Mindfulness Training into K-12 Education: Fostering the Resilience of Teachers and Students,” Mindfulness 3(4): 291–307. Moulier Boutang, Y. (2011), Cognitive Capitalism. Ed Emery (trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press. Rainie, L., and Wellman, B. (2012), Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Reveley, J. (2013), “Enhancing the Educational Subject: Cognitive Capitalism, Positive Psychology and Well-Being Training in Schools,” Policy Futures in Education 11(5): 538–548. Seligman, M.E.P and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000), “Positive Psychology: An Introduction,” American Psychologist 55(1): 5–14. Seligman, M.E.P. (2011), Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being. New York: Free Press. Sheldon, K.M., Kashdan, T.B., and Steger, M.F. (2011), Designing Positive Psychology: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1930 [1905]), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Talcott Parsons (trans.). London: Unwin Hyman.

86

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Peters on the New Ecologies of Knowledge George Lăzăroiu Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, New York

1. Introduction Peters explains the development of a cybernetic informational capitalism, the rise of the “neoliberal university,” and the production of academic knowledge and its uses. Peters emphasizes the centrality of knowledge and information to the processes of the sign economy and the symbolic society, the advent of the Internet and user-generated cultures, and the relation between openness and creativity as part of a networked group.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2. The Development of the Knowledge, Learning and Digital Economies Peters asserts that knowledge and education are social activities developed through language and communication within and across cultures, and their value is rooted in social relations. The knowledge economy is based on the facility with signs and symbolic analysis and manipulation, resting on the production and use of knowledge and innovation, and communication through the global medium of social exchange. It is clear from the foregoing that the production of new meanings is central to the knowledge process. Peters says that knowledge communities are strongly related to knowledge markets, networks and innovation, whereas knowledge futures in the world of business promote product innovation as the key driver for company competitiveness. In the information economy the effect of location is diminished. Human capital or “competencies” is the key component of value in the knowledge-based economy.1 Peters and Besley state that knowledge and the value of knowledge are rooted in social relations, an analysis of the knowledge economy being one of social relations and “knowledge practices.” There is a strong relationship between the new information and communication technologies, and innovation and productivity growth. The upshot of our discussion is that information and knowledge can be shared, developed and modified, and grow through application. Peters and Besley put it that “knowledge economy” points to the economics of knowledge and information and of education, whereas “knowledge society” points 87

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

to the concepts and rights of knowledge workers as citizens in the new economy. “Knowledge cultures” is crucial for understanding questions concerning the development of both knowledge economies and knowledge societies.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Cognitive capitalism provides a new platform that begins a line of argument that emphasizes the significance within contemporary ‘third’ capitalism (after mercantilism and industrialism) of a theory of expressive, affective and cognitive labor that sources the creativity of symbolic abstract info-capital in a set of immaterial processes. The notion of immaterial labor can also be wedded to forms of openness and in particular to open science and open education that signals new logics of the public harnessing social media and social labor processes. […] The knowledge economy rests on the production and use of knowledge and innovation, and communication through electronic networks that have become the global medium of social exchange. In this new configuration the production of new meanings is central to the knowledge process and media or communication cultures once centered on literacy and printing, now are increasingly centered on the screen or image and the radical and dynamic concordance of image, text and sound.2

Peters and Besley think that knowledge cultures are based on shared practices of epistemic communities. Knowledge production and dissemination requires the exchange of ideas. We should talk of the ways in which knowledge capitalism rest upon conditions of knowledge socialism. Education activities are primarily engagements-with-others-in-the-world (learning and teaching are fundamentally social activities). The knowledge economy is based on the facility with signs and symbolic analysis and manipulation. The knowledge society/knowledge economy dualism echoes the traditional disciplinary between economy and society. It is clear from the foregoing that the notion of “knowledge cultures” points to the cultural preconditions that must be established before economies or societies based on knowledge can operate as genuine democratic cultures. Peters and Besley affirm that knowledge cultures embody culturally preferred ways of doing things. Cultures have different repertoires of representational and non-representational forms of knowing. Knowledge creation, production and dissemination require the cultural exchange of ideas. “Knowledge cultures” implies that the economics of knowledge ultimately depends upon philosophical and cultural concepts and analyses. The ‘culturalization’ of the economy is clearly evident in a number of related developments: the creation, development, distribution and production of both hardware and software as part of the information infrastructure for other knowledge and 88

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

cultural industries; the growth of highly stylized consumer culture where ordinary products are increasing aestheticized and imbued with cultural meaning in relation to questions of lifestyle and the ‘fashioning’ of personal identity; the convergence of telecommunications with enter- and edutainment media cultures based on radio, film, TV, Internet, mobile phones with their assorted mixed media; the significance accorded to signifying and other cultural practices in the actual organizational life of firms as well as in the production, design and marketing of products. This ‘culturalization’ of economic knowledge and markets is also reflected in the dominance of the appropriation of the drama-related notion of “performance” that now serves as the dominant social model for evaluating and assessing human and technical behavior.3

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

3. The Relation between Openness and Creativity as Part of a Networked Group Peters notes that Guattari links three spheres of ecology (environmental, social and mental) into a set of interrelations (ecosophy): we must conceive of ecology as a realm encompassing the environmental, the social and the mental. The expansion in communications technology has shaped a new type of passive subjectivity, saturating the unconscious in conformity with global market forces (the Internet holds potential for democratization). Guattari has most to offer in the realm of understanding human subjectivity in ecological terms.4 Peters contends that the Internet begins to approximate the complexity of the architectures of natural ecosystems. Digitization transforms all aspects of cultural production and consumption. The new digital logics spawn new technologies as a condition of the openness of the system. The production of texts, sounds and images is open to new rounds of experimentation and development. The processes of creativity are permitted by platforms and infrastructures that encourage large-scale participation and challenge old economic and political hierarchies. Peters links “the virtues of openness” to the development of scientific communication, the reinvention of the public good and the constitution of the global knowledge commons. Education should be reconsidered as a global public good, with the struggle for equality at its center. An immediate point to note is that in the face of neoliberalism, privatization of education and the monopolization of knowledge, the open knowledge economy offers a way of reclaiming knowledge as a global public good, whereas openness is an essential aspect of an emerging global knowledge commons that fosters open science and open education. Peters holds 89

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

that open education involves a commitment to openness. Openness is a certain mode of operation characterized by cooperative or collaborative management. The mode of organizational openness is associated with features of democratic procedure. Political transparency and the norms of open inquiry are both the basis of the logic of inquiry and the dissemination of its results. New principles of openness are the basis of innovative institutional forms that decentralize and democratize power, access to knowledge and encourage peer learning relationships. Openness has emerged as a global logic based on free and opensource software constituting a generalized response to knowledge capitalism and the attempt of the new mega-information utilities such as Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.com to control knowledge assets through the process of large-scale digitization, of information that is often in the public domain, of the deployment of digital rights management regimes and of strong government lobbying to enforce intellectual property law in the international context. The Internet is a dynamic, open ecosystem that progressively changes its nature towards greater computing power, interactivity, inclusiveness, mobility, scale, and peer governance. […] Open cultures become the necessary condition for the system as a whole, for the design of open progressive technological improvements and their political, epistemic and ontological foundations.5

Peters states that “co(labor)ation” refers to the wisdom of the crowd, and a systematic mode of collective learning processes that offers the prospect of encouraging “creative labor” within cognitive capitalism. A new form of postindustrial economy focuses on the production and consumption of knowledge and symbolic goods as a higher-order economic activity that encompasses and affects the entire economy and society. Distributive knowledge systems under cognitive capitalism focus on interactive and dynamical relations between material and immaterial sectors, and the digitization and systematization of value where collective intelligence is the core of exchange value and profit-making. A theory of creative institutions in the era of cognitive capitalism brings upon historically emergent technological processes and the collaborative potential of creative labor. Networks and flows of immaterial labor are based on mass participation and collaboration. From what has already been said it should be clear that learning economies reinforce autonomy and collective intelligence, emphasizing codification and contextualization of practical and implicit knowledge. Peters observes that the global knowledge economy is a set of deep structural transformations in the transition to a networked information economy. Distributed peer-topeer knowledge systems provide an institutional global matrix for a confederation of public spaces. Portal-based knowledge environments and global 90

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

science gateways support collaborative science. The connection between “information” and “commons” holds promise for new forms of the public based on coproduction of public goods and services, cocreation, and personalization. Personalization has become the political basis for a new social democratic settlement encouraging citizen participation in the choice and design of service. New logics of social media structure different patterns of cultural consumption.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

With the advent of the Internet, web 2.0 technologies and usergenerated cultures new principles of radical openness have become the basis of innovative institutional forms that decentralize and democratize power relationships, promote access to knowledge and encourage symmetrical, horizontal peer learning relationships. In this context radical openness is a complex code word that represents a change of philosophy and ethos, a set of interrelated and complex changes that transforms markets, the mode of production and consumption, and the underlying logic of our institutions. […] Fundamental to what characterizes cognitive capitalism is the emergence of team or network as fundamental labor units in a new political economy of peer production (‘Interneting’) based on cooperation and collaboration rather than competition. There is an increasing importance of post–human network knowledge and learning practices based on mega-data bases and global portals.6

4. New Transnational Academic Communities in Global Knowledge Ecologies Peters et al. employ “openness” to analyze the spatialization of learning and education, investigating the political economy of openness as it reconfigures universities in the knowledge economy. Open University 2.0 is based upon a radically decentralized, many-to-many and peer production mode of interactivity, providing the basis for a new social media model of the university and mechanisms for returning to a fully socialized view of knowledge and knowledge-sharing. Knowledge and the value of knowledge are fundamentally rooted in social relations. Openness 2.0 is based on particularly intellectual property and freedom of information, employing new peer-to-peer architectures and technologies and emphasizing the ethic of participation, collaboration and file-sharing. Any re-theorization of the university must move beyond the limitations of Open University 2.0, which often coheres around exclusive institutions and is correspondingly reliant on factors of exclusivity. The development of openness as it relates to the university must move to a new version of openness based on “knowledge socialism.” This new Open University 3.0 might achieve its potential as a locus of true inclusion and 91

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

social and economic creativity. The university becomes (in Openness 3.0) the mechanism of multiple forms of innovation. The rise of user-generated content is groundbreaking in nature. In sum, there is considerable theoretical support for the notion that new interactive technologies and peer-to-peer architectures have democratized writing and imaging. Peters et al. argue that social media are decentralized, non-hierarchical or peer-governed, and horizontal based on many-to-many interaction. Social media tend to be available free or at little cost, requiring little technical operating knowledge. New media will learn to interact with old media in a complex relationship. The advances in information and communication technologies create opportunities for increased openness in access to education. The new media logics accent the “learner’s” coproduction and the active production of meaning. New media technologies spatialize knowledge systems. Openness offers a new critical relationship between advanced learning and the community beyond the walls of the college. What these latter observations reveal is that “learning” has been transformed to an informal and ubiquitous mode of learning in the information and media-based economy. On Peters et al.’s reading, knowledge and learning emerge as new principles of social stratification, social mobility and identity formation. Digitalization of learning systems increases the speed, circulation and exchange of knowledge. The users and distributors of scholarly information may establish new forms of the intellectual commons. Knowledge socialism posits that knowledge and its value are ultimately rooted in social relations, promoting the sociality of knowledge by providing mechanisms for a truly free exchange of ideas (exclusivity can greatly limit innovation possibilities). Knowledge socialism marshals public and private financial and administrative resources to advance knowledge for the public good.7 On Peters’s account, a new democratic capitalist system may emerge tending toward a global and knowledge-economy based on an improved democracy that is more open, social and genuinely participative. New university models of open management may recognize the vital role of the public university and its role in the production of knowledge and citizens for knowledge democracies. The open university is based on the new P2P architectures and technologies that are part of the ideology of Web 2.0. The open university is built upon the principles of social media providing the basis for a new social media model of the university. Taken together, these findings suggest that the university model of open management builds on both digital-era governance and the notion of public value. Peters writes that new forms of technological-enabled openness provide models of openness for a conception of the intellectual commons 92

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

based on peer production. The Internet facilitates scholarly communication and deep data-sharing, archiving and publishing affecting every stage of the scholarly production. Technologies and forms of social media provide new ways of enhancing and building upon the peer production of knowledge. The problem of the accumulation of knowledge is a complex layered system comprised on at least three components: the content layer; the code layer; and the infrastructure layer.8 5. Conclusions Peters’s overall results provide strong evidence for the concept of radical openness, the relation between education, knowledge and economy, and social practices of knowledge production. Peters contributes to the literature by providing evidence on the nexus between the sharing and open exchange of ideas among knowledge workers, the ethic of participation, file-sharing and collaboration, and the political economy of knowledge and education.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES 1. Peters, Michael A. (2013), “Introduction to Knowledge Cultures,” Knowledge Cultures 1(2): 25–29. 2. Peters, Michael A., and Tina Besley (2013), “Public Knowledge Cultures,” Knowledge Cultures 1(2): 34–35, 41. 3. Ibid., 42. 4. Peters, Michael A. (2013), “Institutions, Semiotics and the Politics of Subjectivity,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 5(1): 11–26. 5. Peters, Michael A. (2013), “Radical Openness: Creative Institutions, Creative Labor and the Logic of Public Organizations in Cognitive Capitalism,” Knowledge Cultures 1(2): 48–49. 6. Ibid., 53–54, 59–60. 7. Peters, Michael A., Garett Gietzen, and David J. Ondercin (2012), “Knowledge Socialism: Intellectual Commons and Openness in the University,” in Ronald Barnett (ed.), The Future University: Ideas of Possibilities. New York: Routledge, 187–200. 8. Peters, Michael A. (2013), “Managerialism and the Neoliberal University: Prospects for New Forms of ‘Open Management’ in Higher Education,” Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 5(1): 11–26.

93

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

The Education State, Conversation and Democracy to Come Brian Opie Victoria University of Wellington

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction For more than two decades, Michael Peters has been engaged in a wideranging critique of the neoliberal settlement in education, society and government. His writings, and the classes, seminars, conferences and collaborations in which they have been discussed and elaborated, have created and sustained networks of people working to build a new consensus about the purposes of education and knowledge creation in democratic societies. This paper is intended as a contribution to that new consensus and a grateful acknowledgment of Michael’s energy of thought and conversation. It will argue that both recovery of the idea of democratic governance and its more complete implementation depends upon a profound shift in the centre of gravity in nation states now claiming to be democracies, away from the economy and the cluster of interests it brings together and towards educating and learning as the primary focus of public policy. There are many different fields and flows of discussion and critique which this paper can only touch on. One dimension is a complex politics of knowledge; just as the humanities are marginalized in current accounts of the value of knowledge in innovation and the governance of society, so public education is reduced to becoming a neocolonial domain of business and the market1 with the misconceived principal roles of shaping people of all ages to meet the needs of rapidly and unpredictably changing work places2 and of competing at the top end of the research-led knowledge economy.3 At the heart of this discussion lies the generative power of cultures and languages and the human collectivities which create and are sustained by them. The complexity of the issues linking education to economic development, on the one hand, and what could be called democratic development, on the other, is challenging, especially because neoliberalism, the dominant ideology still shaping government and business thinking in democratic societies, is itself now fundamentally challenged both by alternative ways of thinking about society, economy, and humanity’s place in the planet’s ecosystem, and by its obvious failures for the majority of humanity.4 None94

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

theless, neoliberalism’s skeletal model of the state and the citizen continue to be entrenched in social thinking through government policies and legislation, media representation, the dominance of the business and finance sectors of society as political interest groups, and curriculum change in the formal education system.5 A striking, local example is the continuing failure of New Zealand governments to include economic, social and cultural rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights.6 Besley observes that, in public policy discourse in the late 1990s, “Education is reconfigured as a massively undervalued form of knowledge capital that will determine the future of work, of knowledge institutions, the formulation of education policy and the shape of society in the years to come.”7 That this reconfiguring is a political much more than an economic issue is implied in the reference to the future “shape of society”, and is made explicit in the affirmation that

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

the Left must customise or indigenise the concept of education for social democratic politics. To do this we must return to the history of education rights in the early documents of human rights and renew its ethos as a basis for the new society. […] Above all, we must re-establish education as a minimum welfare right and global public good.8

Against the abstract universalism of neoliberal economics, the market and technocratic social management, education is positioned, like citizens of a democracy, as an intersection between local, national and global forms of knowledge and experience, languages and ethnicities, histories and cultures, a social site in which exchanges and negotiations between values, traditions, beliefs, formal and informal knowledge, modes of learning and teaching, public and private purposes and goals, are carried on differently according to the specifics of the place in which educating and learning occur. While any society will have an economy or economies (legitimate, black, and criminal), an economy does not as a reflex produce a just and humane society based on equality of the right to participate in its governance and equality of the responsibility to advance collective interests.9 A telling example is provided by William Gibson’s stories of the future, like “New Rose Hotel”,10 in which the state has disappeared, ruthless competition between high-tech corporations and policing by criminal organizations determine the conditions for social life, the elite live segregated from the rest of the population, and human relations are characterized by competitiveness, individualism, and mistrust.11 As God in the late fifteenth-century morality play Everyman noted when surveying human society, “In worldely riches is all their mind: […] now one wolde by envy another up ete,”12 a view which has recently been restated in films like Margin Call (2011).

95

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

My argument is that the principal role of the state in a democratic society, the sustaining and advancing of its democratic qualities, can be better articulated from the perspective of education than from that of the economy, in a nation-state or some equivalent territorial unit in which people are connected by histories, cultures and languages which have evolved together in that place over time. Democratic societies are remarkable social innovations, “complex mental ecologies” 13 expressed, however imperfectly, in continuously evolving institutions and collaborative social action.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2. An Education State What if education rather than the economy or the market provided the fundamental rationale of democratic government? What if the state were to become an education state at its core, in which educational rather than economic development were its primary function? The concept of the education state has been advanced by Olssen, Codd and O’Neill in a wide-ranging study, Education Policy: Globalization, Citizenship and Democracy which was intended to critique the current dominance of neoliberal economic theory in public policy and legislation and to reaffirm the fundamental importance of universal public education in the sustaining of a democratic society in a globalizing world order. The study adopts “a democratic model which, while it would seek to preserve and protect the important principles of liberal constitutionalism, locates these within a communitarian context, where they are allied to a concept of social inclusion and trust. Only such a model […] can support a conception of education as a public good. In its turn, education […] is seen as pivotal to the construction of a democratic society, and for the model of citizenship that such a conception implies.” Key components of the model of democratic and multicultural citizenship are interdependence, collective action based on reflective thought, mutual equal respect and open deliberation at local, regional, national, and global levels, and the existence of channels, mediums and forums facilitating discussion and conflict resolution. They argue that what “legitimizes the state’s authority is its own subjection to the democratic principles that empower it to act”, that ‘without norms of trust and responsibility […] markets cannot prosper and democracy cannot survive.”14 Reconceptualizing the democratic state as an education state is necessary if democratic principles are to be taken as the fundamental directive of government policy in democratic societies. For a society to be democratic, all of its citizens must be knowledgable in democratic principles and experienced in their practice, qualities which are only acquired by education and experience. The formal curriculum must ensure that all citizens-to-be learn enough to know how to operate society’s political, financial, economic and 96

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

legal systems, and to assess expert opinion.15 A state which does not ensure that all of its citizens have equal access to the opportunity to acquire these qualities, and to exercise them, has failed in its most fundamental responsibility. The social settings in which these learning opportunities are made available are communal, including all the sites of formal education, but they are most fully represented in the diversity of institutions and forms of social interaction provided by the city. 16 “Citizen” is a more expansive identity than “consumer” or “client,”17 or “worker”18 conferring the right and the responsibility to participate in the whole spectrum of activities and processes which enable a complex society to evolve, adapt to circumstance, and assist all of its members to accomplish their goals (for themselves and for the society of which they are members) according to their cultural inheritance and in negotiation with others.19 For Cara, Landry and Lawson, ‘The learning city is a complex creation. It strives to develop new networks of co-operative working that will secure the place of learning at the centre of social and economic regeneration. [… Cities] are learning that only a more active democracy which enables citizens to make and remake the communities in which they live and work can sustain their future.”20 The education state, then, takes education rather than economy, democratic institutions and citizenship rather than the scitech-business nexus, as the lens through which it views its field of action and values knowledge and learning. It is not only concerned with the provision of formal education in the policy present. It thinks together all public institutions which make it possible for a citizen to acquire knowledge, the social institutions and technological infrastructures of society which facilitate the exchange and sharing of knowledge, and the laws and decision-making processes required for citizens in their cultural and political diversity to participate productively in the governance of their society. The timeframe for policy formation is measured in terms both of responsibility to future generations and of the human life-span, rather than the nano-second timeframe of the financial markets. 3. Conversation While Olssen et al. have elaborated a powerful case for the priority of education over the economy as the primary object of government, their argument about the responsibility of government to education needs to be extended beyond the formal education system to include the now traditional cultural institutions – museums, galleries, archives and libraries – and their internet extensions, public media organizations, and those performing and conserving the repertoire of the arts which a society inherits from its past and is renewed and extended by artists in the present. The key factors in this extension are 97

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

the common concern with what it means to be human and a humanistic conception of democratic principles manifested in the characteristic product of their work, an informed encounter between citizens using modes of conversation and negotiation in whatever medium to the end of advancing a personal and collective purpose.21 Overcoming the “democratic deficit”22 and finding a way to a better democratic future depends on the quality and inclusiveness of the conversations a society carries on with itself. The conception is humanistic because the relation of exchange which is established is premised upon “the irreducible moral status of each person.”23 Derrida uses another phrase, “irreplaceable singularity”24 which extends the implications of this founding of democracy on the person of the citizen by underlining how each person is formed over time as a unique intersection of cultural, moral, linguistic, historical, familial, ethnic, economic and environmental inheritances and forces. A striking example of the foundational thinking needed in the formation of an education state is David Carr’s Open Conversations. Public Learning in Libraries and Museums, which takes as its double focus the singular citizen and democratic cultural institutions which do not exercise a role in the formal education system, do not have to work to negotiated curricula and national assessment systems, and do not command much interest in the context of knowledge economy and innovation policy development.25 He offers his reader an invitation: Think with me. What if the museum, the library, the zoo, the history collection, the children’s art studio, the science and the natural sciences collections, what if they are all about becoming something together – becoming thoughtful together, and striving to imagine together? What if our collections could be seen as structured situations, even maps, for finding our way together into the unknown and back, ways for sorting the contextual intangibles we all recognize in our lives, so we might imagine and understand the possible difference a single idea might make?26

Think with me. This invitation, which echoes throughout the book, focuses attention on a fundamental condition and practice in democratic living. Extended fully, it proposes that the common mode of interaction between all participants in the public life of society should be founded on this invitation, which is also an injunction taking with complete seriousness the notion that a democratic society is the product of open conversations amongst its members across generations, whose diversity in terms of inheritance, education, knowledge, politics, wealth, cultures and languages does not diminish their equality as persons. There is nothing natural about such a mode of conversation. As with any social relationship, its ethical and behavioral protocols must be learned as part of the process of becoming an adult in and a citizen of a democratic society.27 98

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

“Think with me” invokes a scene inviting productivity of a fundamental and intangible, one might say priceless kind, the production of self- and social-knowledge from the engagement of minds in conversation. For Carr, this is the scene which establishes and sustains democratic societies. It invokes the moment when God speaks to Adam about his origins in Milton’s poem Paradise Lost in a way which encourages Adam to achieve by thought new kinds of self-understanding; the scene when Eve and Adam discuss the wisdom of their working alone in the Garden, a discussion resolved when Adam declines to resolve their differences by asserting authority and Eve goes to discover for herself by experience the meaning of their situation; and the negative of these examples, Eve’s discussion with Satan, when the skill and power of his words shapes her thinking until it becomes the echo of his.28 As the examples from Paradise Lost show, conversation, especially when it opens onto the unknown, is not safe, and may have destructive outcomes. But it founds a conception of society infinitely more complex than the current dominant origin scene, that of the exchange of goods and money in a market. What are the most humanly distinctive qualities which are both produced by and modeled in open conversations, in any of the settings in which people gather to serve and satisfy collective needs and purposes? The following list compiled by Carr identifies qualities which cannot be traded or commodified except by detaching them from their singular human embodiments and attaching them to tradable things (as advertising does). He writes that “we cannot download, curate, or collect any of the following things: altruism, artistry, attention, authenticity, cognition, collaboration, consideration, courage, critical thinking, curiosity, democracy, empathy, esteem, expectations, freedom of thought, generosity, hope, imagination, inquiry, integrity, kindness, patience, respect, responsibility, or wisdom.”29 In the hard world of power politics, abuse of the law and electoral procedures, competition for scarce resources, massive accumulations of wealth, urban and environmental degradation, military and other kinds of violence, secrecy, addiction, crime, (expressions of our inhumanity), the scene of human exchange and possible transformation represented by civil conversation reminds us of another, better conception of ourselves. 4. Openness, Communication Systems, and Public Value Three intimately related factors underpin the kind of conversations constituting the vitality of democratic societies and their ability to serve and fulfill public interests, and extend the case for the education state.

99

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

4.1 Openness and the Gift Economy Openness concerns public access to a society’s resources of knowledge, to the communications media through which knowledge and conversation circulate and public opinion is shaped, and the ability of any citizen to contribute to decision-making and to understand the reasons why decisions are taken.30 For these social means and resources to be used by citizens, it is obvious that they must have education and experience sufficient to make productive use of them. It is therefore a fundamental obligation upon a democratic state that all of its citizens should have access to the kinds of learning required to contribute competently to public decision-making processes, using whatever communications media are commonly employed in such processes, and to use in a creative way whatever segment of knowledge matters to them. Clearly, the more completely a society’s knowledge (and especially new knowledge) resources are owned by private interests, and the means of access to this knowledge are controlled through ownership of the communications channels making access and circulation of knowledge throughout society possible, the more restricted citizen participation in the governance of society will be. The issue of open access to information has become central to every aspect of discussion about information and communications systems in part because the invention of the Internet offered the prospect of redefining the role of global systems from the perspective of the public interest,31 while also offering the possibility of total control by private interests of every aspect of the systems facilitating the conservation and exchange of information, including all forms of learning, economic activity, the development of new knowledge, decision-making at all levels of government, and political debate. Several strands in recent thinking about knowledge institutions help extend this notion of the education state in its relation to knowledge work and the knowledge economy. The challenge to the private ownership of knowledge, and the top-down conception of innovation, can be succinctly represented though three concepts: the knowledge commons, the gift economy, and engagement. What these concepts share is a fundamental conviction that knowledge and information are inherently public resources, not only because public funding generates much new knowledge, but because the open exchange of knowledge on which democratic governance and social evolution depend cannot be accomplished by globalised markets based on private ownership and competition. As Bollier argues, “The commons fills a theoretical void by explaining how significant value can be created and sustained outside of the market system. […] The matrix for calculating the 100

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

public good is not a narrow economic index like the gross domestic product or a company’s bottom line, but instead looks to a richer, more qualitative and humanistic set of criteria that are not easily measured, such as moral legitimacy, social consensus and equity, transparency in decision making, and ecological sustainability, among other concerns.”32 In other words, public policies for knowledge and communications need to be formulated in an educational and democratic rather than an economic framework, one in which the state conceives of itself as a trustee, or kaitiaki (guardian) of the public interest.33 An important study which brings the three concepts together is Kenway et al.’s demonstration of the way in which the knowledge economy, as currently formulated in government policy and action, suppresses but cannot erase the existence of other economies, defined as the risk, gift, libidinal and survival economies. These spectral economies float around but are not engaged by the policy discourses and decision-making of Parliament and government, even though the gift and survival economies are of particular significance for the well-being and operation of democratic societies. The gift economy places in the foreground “three central obligations that the knowledge economy conveniently denies: to give, to receive, and to repay. The knowledge economy is a grasping economy, its only obligation is to acquire without constraint and reciprocity, and, therefore, it ignores the gift-like qualities of knowledge”, and the survival economy enacts the ecological paradigm of indigenous knowledge: “premised on notions of complexity, respect, reciprocity and responsibility – it involves restorative justice.”34 It is also the reason why the present marginalizing in public policy in democratic societies of those cultural institutions which most provide for and represent the extraordinary richness and diversity of human minds and lives in time and place demonstrates so clearly the impoverished conceptions of democracy which currently characterize the governing institutions of western democracies. While globalized information systems appear to have in principle made global knowledge globally available, and scientific research appears to have made universally valid knowledge in principle universally accessible, an education state will recognize that knowledge and innovation are locally grounded in its citizens. Gibbons writes that innovation “remains a local phenomenon and serves as a constant reminder that globalization turns on differences in the sentiments of a population, in its particular institutional structures that are designed to achieve collective purposes, and in the cultures that give meaning and value to the decisions taken. As societies differ in their various historically endowed modes and capabilities, they will imitate, adapt and diffuse knowledge solutions differently.”35 Learning for innovation must be heterogeneous, multimodal, critical, 101

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

engaging many kinds of knowledge in the way these are engaged in fictional narrative rather than the formal structures of textbooks or policy documents. If the local haunts the universal, teaching also haunts research. Researchbased innovation is highly valued, but the role of teaching as a powerful means of generating new knowledge and initiating innovation, especially innovation leading to new social and cultural forms and practices and sustaining civil society, is not. For the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, “Teaching is the most prolific form of knowledge dissemination. […] In the classroom, professors can and must exhibit the values of living in a free and open society of critical discourse and mutual respect.”36 The concept of engagement as applied to higher education institutions gives priority less to supranational linkages in research than to the complex of social relations which become visible when a tertiary institution conceives of its research and teaching work in its local context,37 an orientation consistent with the practices of schools when they are freed to attend to the educational needs of their localities rather than locking them into globalised standards regimes.38 The abstractions of technocratic discourse provide powerful tools for identifying trends and patterns in social evolution, but they also displace and substitute for the much more textured public conversation which weaves histories, values and beliefs into every concept and proposition about the present and the future. Formal and expert knowledge, and the economy, are always elements in fictional representation, but they are typically subordinate to a more complex account of human interests and purposes. An education state would build the perceptions of artists and writers into the core of its knowledge work, because such thinkers are society’s early warning system at the level of culture, values and insight, by means of imagination and embeddedness in place, time and collective knowledge occupying the role once occupied by prophets and similarly discounted when their perceptions do not conform with the dominant truth system.39 4.2 A Society’s Communication System The education state is that iteration of the state the core institutions of which are founded upon, facilitate and respect the conversations flowing from the practice of citizenship along all the networks of communication a democratic society can provide for them. But, if citizens must be able to communicate with each other, and to extend local conversations to national and global domains, significant extensions of literacy and changed conceptions of the ownership and management of communications systems are required. Writers have provided many anticipations of what happens when special interests dominate access to and the circulation of knowledge and information 102

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

in democratic societies. Ray Bradbury in the 1940s imagined a future in which total control of media and education content by the state and private interests had been achieved by democratic processes, with profoundly destructive personal and social consequences, not least in education.40 Philip K. Dick in the 1960s imagined a democratic society in which national public television was used by an industrial cartel to create an imaginary government using avatars and actors while running the nation in their interests in secrecy.41 It is not possible to believe that the increasing privatization of all forms of communication infrastructure are in the interests of democratic development, no more than totalitarian state control could be. Max Headroom (1987) foresaw the intimate imbrication of corporate media, digital ICTs and politics for the purposes of control for corporate purposes, starkly imagined in a degraded city environment employing the imagery of cyberpunk fiction where, instead of CCTV cameras, television monitors were placed throughout the city, could not be turned off, and an illiterate population was subject to control by hidden elites represented by a media corporation. A more recent and trenchant expression of this consistent line of thought describes the notion of internet freedom as “a red herring. Calculatingly manipulative, it tells us to entrust a fundamental human right to a pair of powerfully self-interested social actors: corporations and states.”42 As Carr affirms, the primary purpose of communication is to bring my mind out of its inherent isolation and open it to other minds, present and past, in the process constituting a society. 43 It is for this reason that the protocols governing communication in a society and access to the channels through which it can flow are such an immediate test of the extent to which its claim to be democratic can be tested. 4.3 The Public Sector, and Public Value The downsizing of the state, a crucial priority of neoliberal and conservative thinking more generally, strikes at the roots of the possibility of further evolution of forms of democratic social governance. The key role of public sector agencies, since it cannot be a role of the market, is to protect, nurture and continuously interpret democratic principles so that governments make decisions with the best advice in the public interest and according to public preferences. The work public sector agencies carry out is knowledge work, and its scope is the whole of society, the principles and practices by which it is governed at all levels, and the history and future of its evolution in a particular territory. Public sector agencies are placed at a critical intersection between global and local flows of knowledge and innovation, especially democratic social innovation;44 one of their tasks, like that of a democratic society’s universities, is to interpret world knowledge through the lens of a 103

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

particular national community for its citizens to use. Their principal accountability is to the public, through well-defined and openly formulated conceptions of public value.45 The Parliament of an education state is its representative institution, distilling a society’s conversations (including those initiated and participated in by public sector agencies) into policies and laws through open, deliberative debate and public consultation and leading democratic social innovation. Parliament’s role as the model for and guardian of the open conversation of a democratic society far exceeds in importance its function as lawmaker, because in that role lies most of the possibility for constructively managed adaptation and change through public learning and participation. Parliament in this relation can be thought of as the collective author of an ongoing social fiction, through its decisions creating new social worlds and giving form to possible futures. When Milton challenged Parliament’s decision to impose censorship on the press, he affirmed that its greatness as a democratic institution would be most apparent “when your prudent spirit acknowledges and obeyes the voice of reason from what quarter soever it be heard speaking.”46

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

5. Conclusion Over the past three decades, the state in democratic societies has engaged its formidable powers in a social transformation exercise, employing not only its law-making and administrative technologies but also its educational capabilities through the public sector and the media to command changes in thinking which have facilitated the dominance of the interests of the global private sector. This process has entrenched the contest (war) for wealth and the social power which accompanies it as the fundamental force shaping human societies. My argument is nonetheless aligned with Peters’ conclusion that “Educational futures require a global transnational public investment in infrastructures that stands against both the monopolization and privatization of knowledge and education”, and Bollier’s view that “The commons is always a third force in political life, always struggling to express its interests over and against those of the market and the state,”47 by proposing that the principal responsibility of the postmodern state is that of advancing its democratic social evolution by relocating to the commons. The education state is legitimized by its primary commitment to the life-span development of the singular citizens who continually reinvent their society through mutual recognition, articulation of public values, work and collective action. Facilitating and focusing the complex, multi-layered, multi-cultural, multi-lingual networked conversation which is the flow of thought through a democratic society’s system for communication, innovation and collective 104

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

memory is the fundamental responsibility of its government. Three social systems which are critical in this process are education, cultural institutions and the media since each, if acting in accord with the principles of access and participation on which democratic societies claim to base themselves, are expert channels to the resources and complexity of local and world knowledge. Only a policy framework which is grounded in a democratic conception of the education state and which takes the logic of the gift as its informing motive can enable a democratic society to participate on its own terms in a global human process of new knowledge creation for the benefit of humanity. As Martin writes,48 “Beyond technology and institutions […] there are human beings. We have to be taught to manage this abundance of information and this gift of freedom – that is, we must be better prepared and taught that the end of human society is the human person. Not in the material sense, as the subject of economics and history, but as a moral and spiritual being: as an active force, and, in the last analysis, the master of human history.”

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

NOTES 1. Holmwood 2012; Simola et al. 2002. The scope of the metaphor is appropriately widened by de Certeau 1997, 134: “Culture is the battlefield of a new colonialism. Contemporary technocracies install whole empires on it: […] Economic imperialism, a violent conquista of the cultural market, has a comic doublet: politics, which has become for us a decorum of former ideologies behind which are advancing new technocratic and managerial powers.” 2. Fryer 2011, 237: “For all of the good intentions and strenuous efforts of those seeking to uncouple learning from the wider and pervasive influences of class, status and power, learning obstinately remains not simply a key site for the manifestation of inequality; it also persists in being a core mechanism for both reproducing and reinforcing it.” 3. Brown et al. 2008. 4. Lasn 2012; Ollsen et al. 2004, chs. 7–10; Taubman 2011, 164–166 describes the new educational order in which “intellectual life appear[s] a shadow of itself” as a nightmare because of various factors including “penetration of education by the marketplace”. 5. McCarthy 2011. 6. Opie 2012. 7. Besley 2008, 4. 8. Besley 2008, 7. 9. Lasn 2012, n.p., includes a vivid visualisation contrasting neoclassical and ecological paradigms of economic thinking, which makes this point at a glance. Rancière 2006, 96, describes democracy as “the action that constantly wrests the monopoly of public life from oligarchic governments, and the omnipotence over lives from the power of wealth. It is the power that, today, more than ever, has to 105

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

struggle against the confusion of these powers, rolled into one and the same law of domination.” 10. Gibson 1987, 103–116. 11. Olssen et al. 2004, 270, use these words to characterise neoliberalism. 12. Coldewey 1993, 46. 13. Mulgan 1998, 113. 14. Olssen et al. 2004, 15, 230, 240, 276, 272, 253, 275. 15. Macedo 2011, 48–53, analyses the requirement in the national curricular policies of Brazil for citizenship to be the “spinal column” of schooling, and characterizes the concept of citizenship informing the policies as “pluricultural national citizenship”. She identifies the unspecified non-citizen in this regime as a person who is characterized by “non-mastery of basic knowledge required for the full exercise of plural national citizenship”. A perfect example of the challenge to societies claiming to be democratic is the high correlation between illiteracy and imprisonment, a predominant mode of non-citizenship. 16. Murphy 2009, 171–175; Murphy 2010, 42–47; Castells 1996, ch. 6. “The Space of Flows”; Martin 1994, 7–8, 511; Hassan, Mean, and Tims 2007. 17. Alford 2011, 145. 18. Peters and Reverley 2012 provide an excellent example of how an education state might begin to reconceptualize work, its social and economic productivity. 19. Mulgan 1998, 113, writes that “for societies to function harmoniously despite greater powers and increased reciprocal independence, they need people who are able to understand their effects on others, to perceive the nature of complex systems, and to empathize and communicate with strangers.” 20. Cara, Landry and Lawson 1998, 33–35. An insightful exploration of the implications of this conception of the postmodern city can be found in Hassan, Mean, and Tims 2007. 21. For example, the theatre. See Hastrup 2001. 22. Horner and Hutton 2011, 116. 23. Olssen et al. 2004, 236. 24. Derrida 1987, 37. 25. Carr’s line of thought is strongly endorsed from a different perspective in Friedrich et al.’s argument (2010, 579) that “Democracy […] is made visible in these moments of emergence of the political, in which a certain allotment of shares or parts is challenged and equality asserts itself testing an unequal status quo. […] The notion of planning subjects with the purpose of ordering (the future) society requires, among other things, a particular epistemological structuring of agents and agency that can foresee the future through ordering procedures of the present; [,,,] Uncertainty or undecidability stand in the way of progress and thus need to be policed, even in the name of a future democracy.” 26. Carr 2011, xviii. 27. Levine 2007, 254. 28. Milton 1674/1971, 8.250–643; 9.192–375; 9.496–781. 29. Carr 2011, xiv. 30. Peters 2010, 252, 255–256. 31. See for example the UNESCO Information for All Programme (IFAP). 32. Bollier 2007, 29; Peters 2010. See Cabrera 2012. 106

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

33. Bollier 2007, 32, instances “the public trust doctrine [which] declares that certain resources are inherently public in nature, and may not be owned by either private individuals or the government. The doctrine, which goes back to Roman law, holds that government is a trustee of the people’s interests, not the owner of the public’s property, and so it cannot sell or give away that property to private interests.” 34. Kenway et al. 2006, 122, 115; Kuokkanen 2007; Waitangi Tribunal 2011. 35. Gibbons 2004, 97. 36. Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences 2004, 18–19. Olssen et al. 2004, 270, make the same point about school teachers. 37. Fitzgerald et al. 2012; Levine, 2007, 261–262; Shellard and Craig 2012. 38. Winkley 2011; Clink 1996. A brilliant representation of the local complexities facing educators is given in Season 4 of The Wire (2007). 39. Hassan, G., M. Mean, and C. Tims (2007), Part 4, “The Power of Story”. 40. Bradbury 1953/1996. 41. Dick 1964. 42. Schiller, D. “Masters of the Internet”, Le Monde Diplomatique, February 2013: 14. 43. Carr 2011, 133–134. 44. Kelly, Mulgan, and Muers 2002, 5–6. 45. Benington 2011. 46. Milton 1644/1931, 296. 47. Peters 2011, 257; Bollier 2007, 33. 48. Martin 1994, 506. REFERENCES Alford, J. (2011), “Public Value from Co-production by Clients” in Public Value: Theory and Practice, J. Benington and M. H. Moore (eds.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 144–157. Benington, J. (2011), “From Private Choice to Public Value?”, in Public Value: Theory and Practice, J. Benington and M. H. Moore (eds.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 31–51. Besley, T. (2008), “Introduction”, in Assessing the Quality of Educational Research in Higher Education: International Perspectives, T. Besley (ed.). Rotterdam and Taipei: Sense Publishers, 1–24. Bollier D. (2007), “The Growth of the Commons Paradigm,” in Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, C. Hess and E. Ostrom (eds.). Cambridge, MA, and London: The MIT Press, 27–40. Bradbury, R. (1953/1996), Fahrenheit 451. New York: Ballantine Books. Brown, P., H. Lauder, and D. Ashton (2008), “Towards a High Skills Economy: Higher Education and the New Realities of Global Capitalism,” in Geographies of Knowledge, Geometries of Power: Framing the Future of Higher Education. D. Epstein, R. Boden, R. Deem, F. Rizvi and S. Wright (eds.). New York and London: Routledge, 190–210.

107

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Cabrera, L. M. (2012), “The Potentiality of the Commons: A Materialist Critique of Cognitive Capitalism from the Cyberbracer@s to the Ley Sinde,” Hispanic Review Fall: 585–605. Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences (2004), Report on the Response of Scholarly Associations in the Humanities and Social Sciences to the Transformation of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Cara, S., C. Landry, and S. Ranson (1998), “The Richness of Cities: Urban Policy in a New Landscape,” Working Paper 10. The Learning City in the Learning Age. London: Comedia in association with Demos. Carr, D. (2011), Open Conversations. Public Learning in Libraries and Museums. Santa Barbara, CA, Denver, CO, and Oxford: Libraries Unlimited. Castells, M. (1996), The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. 1. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell. Clink, R. (1996), “Primarily Enterprising,” New Zealand Journal of Educational Administration 11: 17–20. Coldewey, J. (ed.) (1993), Early English Drama: An Anthology. New York and London: Garland Publishing. de Certeau, M. (1997), Culture in the Plural. L. Giard (ed. and introduction) and T. Conley (trans.). Minneapolis, MN, and London: University of Minnesota Press. Derrida, J. (1987), “The Laws of Reflection: Nelson Mandela, in Admiration,” in For Nelson Mandela, J. Derrida and M. Tlili (eds.). New York: Seaver Books, 11–42. Dick, P. K. (1964/2004), The Simulacra. (Rpt.). London: Gollancz. Fitzgerald, H. E., K. Bruns, S. T. Sonka, A. Furco, and L. Swanson (2012), “The Centrality of Engagement in Higher Education”, Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 16(3): 7–27. Friedrich, D., B. Jaastad, and T. S. Popkewitz. (2010), “Democratic Education: An (Im)possibility that Yet Remains to Come,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 42(5/6): 571–587. Fryer, B. (2011), “Learning, Social Equality and Risk: A Suitable Case for Public Value?”, in Public Value: Theory and Practice, J. Bennington and M. H. Moore (eds.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 225–243. Gibbons, M. (2004), “Globalization, Innovation and Socially Robust Knowledge,” in R. King (ed.), The University in the Global Age. Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 96–115. Gibson, W. (1986/1987), Burning Chrome. New York: Ace Books. Hassan, G., M. Mean, and C. Tims (2007), The Dreaming City: Glasgow 2020 and the Power of Mass Imagination. London: Demos. Hastrup, K. (2001), “Othello’s Dance: Cultural Creativity and Human Agency”, in Locating Cultural Creativity, J. Liep (ed.). London and Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 31–45. Holmwood, J. (2012), “Education: From a Public Value to a Positional Good,” in Blue Skies: New Thinking about the Future of Higher Education. A Collection of Short Articles by Leading Commentators, L. Coiffait (ed.). London: Pearson, 46–48.

108

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Horner, L., and W. Hutton, (2011), “Public Value, Deliberative Democracy, and the Role of Public Managers,” in Public Value: Theory and Practice, J. Benington and M. H. Moore (eds.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 112–126. Kelly, G., G. Mulgan, and S. Muers (2002), Creating Public Value: An Analytical Framework for Public Service Reform. Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office. Kenway, J., E. Bullen, J. Fahey, with S. Robb (2006), Haunting the Knowledge Economy. London and New York: Routledge. Kuokkanen, R. (2007), Reshaping the University: Responsibility, Indigenous Epistemes, and the Logic of the Gift. Vancouver, Toronto: UBC Press. Lasn, K. (2012), Meme Wars: The Creative Destruction of Neoclassical Economics. London: Penguin Books. Levine, P. (2007), “Collective Action, Civic Engagement, and the Knowledge Commons” in Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, C. Hess and E. Ostrom (eds.). Cambridge, MA, and London: The MIT Press, 247–276. Macedo, E. (2011), “Curriculum Politics in Brazil: The Citizenship Discourse,” in Curriculum in Today’s World: Configuring Knowledge, Identities, Work and Politics, L. Yates and M. Grumet (eds.). London and New York: Routledge, 44–57. Martin, H.-J. (1994), The History and Power of Writing, trans. L. G. Cochrane. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. McCarthy, C. (2011), “The Unmaking of Education in the Age of Globalization, Neoliberalism and Information”, in Cognitive Capitalism, Education, and Digital Labor, M. A. Peters and E. Bulut (eds.). New York: Peter Lang, 301–321. Milton, J. (1644/1931), “Areopagitica; A Speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing, To the Parlament of England,” The Works of John Milton, Vol. 4, W. Haller (ed.). New York: Columbia University Press, 291–354. Milton, J. (1674/1971), Paradise Lost. R. Fowler (ed.). London: Longman. Mulgan, G. (1998), Connexity: Responsibility, Freedom, Business and Power in the New Century. London: Vintage. Murphy, P. (2009), “Creativity and Knowledge Economies,” in Creativity and the Global Knowledge Economy, M. A. Peters, S. Marginson, and P. Murphy (eds.). New York : Peter Lang, 149–184. Murphy, M. (2010), “The Enigma of Distance,” in Global Creation: Space, Mobility, and Synchrony in the Age of the Knowledge Economy, S. Marginson, P. Murphy, and M. A. Peters (eds.). New York: Peter Lang, 18–50. Olssen, M., J. Codd, and A. O’Neill (2004), Education Policy: Globalization, Citizenship and Democracy. London: Sage Publications. Opie, J. (2012), “A Case For Including Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990,” The Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 43(3): 471–516. Peters, M. A. (2010), “The Virtues of Openness in Higher Education,” in Global Creation: Space, Mobility, and Synchrony in the Age of the Knowledge Economy, S. Marginson, P. Murphy, and M. A. Peters (eds.). New York: Peter Lang, 249– 265.

109

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M. A. (2011), “Algorithmic Capitalism and Educational Futures,” in Cognitive Capitalism, Education, and Digital Labor, M. A. Peters and E. Bulut (eds.). New York: Peter Lang, 245–258. Peters, M. A., and J. Reverley (2012), “Retrofitting Drucker: Knowledge Work under Cognitive Capitalism.” Culture and Organization 3: 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/14759551.2012.692591. Downloaded 23 January 2013. Rancière, P. (2006), Hatred of Democracy. S. Corcoran (trans.). London: Verso. Shellard, D. and D. Craig. (2012), “De Mountfort University’s Square Mile Project: The University as a Local Public Good,” in Blue Skies: New Thinking about the Future of Higher Education. A Collection of Short Articles by Leading Commentators, L. Coiffait (ed.). London: Pearson, 43–45. Simola, H., R. Rinne, and J. Kivirauma (2002), “Abdication of the Education State or Just Shifting Responsibilities? The Appearance of a New System of Reason in Constructing Educational Governance and Social Exclusion/inclusion in Finland,” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 46(3): 247–264. Taubman, P. (2011), “Making Nothing Happen: Affective Life after Audit,” in Curriculum in Today’s World: Configuring Knowledge, Identities, Work and Politics, L. Yates and M. Grumet (eds.). London and New York: Routledge, 155–173. Waitangi Tribunal (2011), Ko Aotearoa tēnei: A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and Identity. Wellington, New Zealand: Legislation Direct. http://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/scripts/ reports/reports/262/05AC7023-0EEA-4ECC-8B6E-AB136A2EA7F8.pdf Winkley, D. (2011), “Public Value in Education: A Case-Study” in Public Value: Theory and Practice, J. Benington and M. H. Moore (eds.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 244–255.

110

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Who Speaks? Power, Knowledge and the Professional Field A Discourse Analytical Perspective on Educational Policy Consultancy and Advice Susanne Maria Weber Philipps University of Marburg

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The relationship of academia, politics and professional fields in education is currently under discussion. Numerous works in education concerned with the contemporary condition of academia and universities address the problems of new political strategies in Higher Education and conditions changing university as institution and social space of knowledge production. Between bureaucratization and managerialism, the programatics of the “entrepreneurial university” creates new imperatives on academics and the academic field as such (Liesner 2006; Lorenz 2012; Peters forthcoming; Weber forthcoming). Within an overall trend of economization of and in academia, the relationship between academic knowledge, politics and society are becoming more critical. With political and societal expectations becoming more intense, notions of academic productivity shifting towards an outcome and financial output oriented perspective (Münch 2007, 2011), the academic field is transforming (Masschelein & Simons 2010; 2012). What are implications and possible risks for academic policy advice? The paper at hand aims at a discourse analytical perspective on the relations between academic knowledge, politics and contexts in educational policy consultancy. Policy consultancy and advice will be analyzed as relational patterns and organizing modes of knowledge. Following the Foucauldian notion of dispositif (1978, 2000), the paper presents four different discourse organizing patterns of power and knowledge, to be found in the German speaking academic discourse on policy consultancy and advice in the field of education. An analysis reflecting on the knowledge and power relations in policy advice – and a more precise analysis of the relations between knowledge, politics, and the professional field, will show the potential of a Foucauldian analysis in this field.

111

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

2. Policy Consultancy and Advice – In Line with the Time Trend In policy consultancy and advice, economy, politics and societal contexts come into contact with one another. With regards to the noticeably increasing production of literature, one can identify at first glance that policy consultancy and advice is gaining in importance and appears to be a new growth market (Leschke & Pies 2005). A literature analysis in the Germanspeaking area portrays that policy consultancy and advice is understood as an interdisciplinary topic addressing the disciplinary fields of management and economy, social sciences in general with focus on political science and education. The relevance and institutionalization of policy consultancy can also be observed in the developing of a nascent academic and professional policy advice society and association.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2.1 The Trend to Policy Consultancy and Advice The field of policy consultancy and consultants as such is becoming more and more heterogeneous and in that context differentiates into actors of civil society, the market, and the public sector (Grossekettler 2005). Whereas academic advisors on policy have traditionally been – and still are – involved in policy consultancy and institutions such as advisory councils in ministries or commissions (Färber 2005), now “think tanks” and entrepreneurial consultants also gain relevance. In the process of ‘reform’, pedagogical strategies of public policy and civic participation are created and implemented in new arrangements of governance, modernization and public policy. The field of advisors, instances and matters of policy advice thereby becomes less transparent and requires a precise theoretical analysis and empirical foundation. While academia intends an increase of rationality of politics and the influence of knowledge on political decisions by policy advice, this (old) expectation nowadays is being questioned and discussed more critically. Beyond hopes that politicians will simply take expert advice, academic policy consultancy has been reconstructed as a relation filled with tension (Lamping 2011). 2.2 Analyzing Power Knowledge-Relations in Educational Policy Advice Consultancy in general depends on the specific contextual structures and legal configuration in societal fields of action and therewith always displays specific objectives and approaches, actor relations and cooperation patterns, modes of knowledge and functions. For a systematization of these relations, I suggest a relational definition of academia and science, politics, and the professional field. From a perspective that analyzes the power-knowledgerelations embedded in policy advice and political cooperation (Weber 2012, 112

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

2013), the four different patterns of discourse differ, which organize academic knowledge, relational patterns and strategies of communication. To analyze those patterns is an essential condition of quality and success of educational policy advice. A reflexive analysis of power/knowledge-relations embedded in consultancy practice will support the professionalization of consultancy actors and academics being in advisory relations with politics. .

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

3. Power-Knowledge Relationships in the Field of Policy Consultancy and Advice When analyzing policy advice from this perspective, discursive constructions and the liminal sphere between academia, politics and society come into view. Following Foucault (1978, 2000), a dispositif represents a heterogeneous ensemble as well as the organizing pattern of elements that become relevant in a discourse. “Such are the elements of the apparatus [dispositif]. The apparatus itself is the system of relations that can be established between these elements” (Foucault 1980:191–228). With this mind, policy consultancy, reconstructed as power-knowledge-relations, points out that the definitions of the relations between differing “programs” (Münch 2007:11) take form as discourse and social practice in the settings of policy consultancy and advice. The perspective of power- and knowledge related patterns raises the question of institutional and professional relationships as epistemic terrains (Weber 2013).

Figure 1: Dispositif

113

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

3.1 Giving Expert Advice in Policy Transfer: Policy Consultancy between Subject-Rationality and Legitimation

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

The first dispositif of policy consultancy and advice addresses the classic definition of the relation between academia and policy as bilateral and subject-related arrangement. Policy and academia are reconstructed as two separate spheres and independent realms. Single politicians and academics each are addressed in their expert role as performers in a framework which positions society as object and subject matter. Policy consultancy in this case aims at a subject-related application of knowledge – criterion of cooperation between academia and the political field is thus the societal applicability of academic knowledge and the generation of politically usable knowledge (Bröchler 2004). In this dispositif, the standard type of “policy consultancy” prevails. It is a specialized expertise and advice in substantially accentuated policy fields. The advice generated in this setting comprises expertise, statements, evaluations and reports.

Figure 2: Expert decision-making dispositif of knowledge transfer

In the production of expertises and informed knowledge, the correctness of factual substantial evidence is set and assumed to be the relevant criterion of quality. Speaking about specific field rationalities, the criterion of acceptability, of agreeability, of “consensuability” comes into sight (Weingart et al. 2008). Already in the 1960s, Habermas (1963) distinguished between the two models of a “technocratic” vs. “decisionistic” types of policy advice. They primarily differ regarding the power-positions of experts – and their fields of action – involved. In the “technocratic” model, academic knowledge with its factual rationality is privileged. Here, academic recommendations are simply to be put into action by policy. Policy is merely “realization adjutant” of secured academic expertise (Hubig 2011). However in 114

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

the “decisionistic” model, policy chooses academic recommendations and “decides” on the basis of information provided by academia. Academia reasons and legitimates political decisions ex ante as ex post. Therewith, the topos of legitimation also is subject to reflection in policy consultancy. Ostner (2008) renders problematic the assumption of a “simple knowledge transfer” and “political legitimation” within policy-academia cooperation in the context of family reports. Following Weishaupt (2006) and Merkens (2007), the double function between consultancy and legitimation (Stamm 2005) leads to reciprocal frustration in the field: Actors are torn between technocratic claims of academia and the failure of rationality gains appearing in the horizon of timely conjunctures and changing problem diagnoses of policy. In various readings, the relationship between academia and policy is reconstructed differently: As two separate cultures (Herrlitz 2004), as structurally complex and conflictive constellations (Terhart 2003; Dammeyer and Gruschka 2002) in which the ability of policy to be advised and consulted is questioned (Müller 2005) or – in system theoretical perspectives – laid out as systemic difference (Priddat 2009a). Although the relationship between politics and academic research obviously can be analyzed as being structurally tense, nevertheless the ethos and the imperative of reform in education remain unabated (Weegen et al. 2002). As education as an academic discipline over time becomes more and more a normality, policy consultancy and advice become established in this discipline, too. Seen from the perspective of the French sociologist Bourdieu (1988), educational expertise has rather low “market value” on the market of policy consultancy and advice. The symbolic negotiations, disciplinary contests for definitory power of interpretation (Rieger-Ladich 2006) make it predictable that there will be negotiation contests in the inter-field dynamics. The field-specific forms of capital (Bourdieu 1986) of educational knowledge are regarded as marginal. This low estimation may result in low expectations on the side of policy, or may result in conformity in the field of educational policy consultancy. Generally, Opielka (2005) perceives an “interior dilemma” of policy advice because there is insufficient diversity – for example of views, of ethnicity, of gender – among policy advisors and policy advising academia. He therefore criticizes the limitations regarding multiperspectivity in this field. The second dispositif actualizes a different conception and also other subject matters – and problems – of policy consultancy and advice. Here, policy is decidedly the contracting authority for the knowledge production of policy advice. Although less concerned with advisory actions and expertise; nevertheless, policy consultancy is indeed tied to the type of expert consultancy for strategic communication (Wilhelm 2009).

115

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

3.2 Dispositif of Economic Delivery and Service to Customers: Strategic Communication and Entrepreneurial Policy Against the background of a massive increase of complexity, existing economic and social-political problems, a high level of reform, pressure for legitimation, and success in public media, the generally booming field of policy consultancy becomes increasingly a market (Priddat 2009a), and a trendy profession. Already in 2007 about 4,000 representatives of consultancy agencies can be counted in the capital of Germany, Berlin. The lobby list of the German “Bundestag” (German Federal Parliament) holds to this point in time 1,781 federation representatives and about 100 agencies can be identified (Busch-Janser 2007). In this increasingly opaque market of companies, associations, academics, agencies etc. interest policy and lobbying also become relevant factors (Heinze 2009). Firms of consultants (Roland Berger, McKinsey etc.) which work on the public media in the horizon of an entrepreneurial policy and a model of “political entrepreneurship” (Rudloff 2005) enter into the competitively organized market of policy consultancy. So-called “political consulting” and “politics-consultancy” refers primarily to communicative-strategic consulting of political processes. Next to academic actors, the market of providers and offers of academic and professional services in the field of policy consultancy expands. In the course of election campaigns, such a person- and strategy-based “political consultancy” oftentimes happens discretely and is hidden. In this field of changing statehood (Bucksteeg & Schmid 2005), consultancy is applied ad-hoc as well as long-term.

Figure 3: Dispositif of economic delivery and service

In this way, the second dispositif refers to the modeling of markets of public awareness and attention. The model of professional service expands 116

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

the “old” bilateral relation of academia and policy to medial transmission belts. Thereby comes to existence a “double mediation function” between policy, economy and the public sphere (Althaus & Meier 2004). Political communication then proceeds either via legitimation channels of academia and thus enables the media staging of “scientific insights” in the markets of official awareness and attention, or, alternatively, academia performs and produces the commissioned insights into politics which interpret the research results within the media structure. The shift of consultancy to staged influencing in micro-, meso-, and macro-political influence spheres systematically accesses symbolically generalized communication media. Within this dispositif, the different political and academic “codes” are made functional for strategic communication. Policy consultancy becomes a specific subsystem within the political field and is subject to the politicization (Schützeichel 2008) and the economization of the market. Points of reference of such a service model of policy consultancy are therefore not neutral and publicly responsible, but amount to pressure for acquisition, resistance to loss of autonomy, and meta-dependence. Academia in a service function to politics becomes an instance of legitimation of political decisions (Kraul 2011) and lends itself to the construction of a politics of political ‘truth’. In the contest for vote-markets, academic knowledge is involved in the consideration of public staging, the frame of a strategic policy management, and a rationality of power and dominance. A role in the construction of truth-fictions thereby also implies the loss of rationality (Rölke 2005). Ostner (2011) renders problematic the role of experts as “servants of power” and Merkens (2011) warns of the consequences for academic integrity. Critics statements claim the construction of a systematization of consultancy, advocate for clear and binding rules, legal foundations and the development of systems and structures for quality assurance, reporting. Mayntz (2009) assumes that guidelines for the regulations of academic policy consultancy could contribute to and support more rational, evidence-based and thereby problem-solving policy decisions. In addition to that, transparency from the commissioners, and towards the public is demanded (Shamim 2006). The blindness of academic education discourse in the face of its political dependencies and guidelines is rendered problematic with regard to its discipline traditions. The specialized qualification regime of education, as well as its social and disciplinary origins, reveals a lack of autonomy (Rieger-Ladich 2007:172). In the picture of a structurally symbolic inferior positioned discipline (ibid.: 173), it would reveal a “particularly distinctive ability to resonate with the intensively discussed topics within the political field”. Therefore, academic education reflexivity in policy consultancy has

117

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

to face the “external dilemma” of selectivity of communication in a complex, mediated public sphere as criticized by Opielka (2005).

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

3.3 Dispositif of Epistemic Irritations: Speaking the Truth (“Parrhesia”) in Counter-Publics As third dispositif, further actors enter the arena, or in other words: a third self-concept of academia and policy consultancy is addressed. As such, media is reconstructed not only as transmission belt of political or academic messages. Färber (2009) more so supposes a rectangle between media, media usage of policy consultancy on the side of policy and the authentic role of academics. Insofar as consultations become public anyway, policy consultancy would increasingly act as consultancy on behalf of society – or consultancy for society (Nullmeier 2007). Also in this dispositif, academics and politicians act in a political and media-perfused public sphere. By means of statements and comments, demands, or evaluation of issues, policy consultancy would become a political actor in the actor rectangle of policy, academia, policy consultancy branch, and media. Against a role of creating truth-fictions, the model of “counter-publics” is here asserted where academic policy consultancy obtains an independent position as political actor. From an independent admonition and critique function, it demands the maintenance of ethical foundations in institutional actions (Hubig 2011) and thereby functions in the logic of “parrhesia” – as speaking the truth in (counter-)publics. Weilert (2012) designs a model of an ethical policy consultancy as necessity in a plural society which also require (e)valuing foundations and in which classic attempts of policy and policy consultancy break down in legitimation and authority deficits.

Figure 4: Dispositif of Epistemic Irritation 118

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Bröchler and Schützeichel (2008) see new conceptual approaches, paths and methods of policy consultancy which aim at supporting collective learning processes in discursive processes. Targeting the learning ability of policy (Lamping 2006) and the “transformation of the cognitive interpretation frame” (Rudloff 2005), these approaches do not apply pressure or counterpower but rather enter the arena with transformation of both the framing conditions of political action and political perceptions. By virtue of weakening immanent logics and mechanisms of political rationality (at least temporally), this transformation is meant to increase responsivity, self-reflection, and subject rationality. Collective methodical arrangements of participation; thinking in alternatives and international comparisons; political benchmarking for governments; organizational learning and knowledge management; all these are meant to foster self-correction and political learning processes. The task of policy consultancy is thereby “policy learning” supported by democratic processes. This type of consultancy is tied to a perspective oriented towards organizational development. In this model, society is not conceived as antagonistic factor or counter-power. Rather, it is perceived as societal designing force in a dialogical discourse (Falk et al. 2010) in which actor groups and societal subsystems are included in the consultancy process so that all actors may introduce their specific competences in a purposeful way. With such an independent “outside position”, policy consultancy surely gets closest to the consultancy approach of systemic irritation. Addressees of policy consultancy in this dispositif are then not (solely) the politicians themselves, but society. Here, actors of such forms of policy consultancy are not single academics or politicians but medially organized public groups, circles, alliances and movements. Thus, academia assumes an independent role in politicized contexts and becomes a “troublemaker” in political decisions (Zimmermann 2009). Critical public spheres bear up against possible influencing, for instance in the new policy consultancy in independent “think spaces” which represent collective, quick and impending forms of policy consultancy. They act as “policy irritation” in mediatized networks, public fora, campaigns etc. through pressure groups for the goal of “policy learning”. Such an independence cannot be observed in German state-funded research sites, according to Priddat (2009b). Such critique, applied to education in academia, would problematize the current general harmoniousness within the discipline and disciplinary culture. It criticizes the culture of the discipline tending to cartelization within the education academic establishment and the rather weakly defined culture of critique. Education as a discipline would therefore be called upon to strengthen its critical and autonomous position. Education as “normal discipline” could then reduce its fights for recognition for symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1992) 119

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

in inter-field dynamics with policy and rather problematize its structural marginalization – or affirmative functionalization – from a critical position. Peters (2007: 358) for instance criticizes the structurally significant weakness of adult education as well as the position which allows it to be an instrument for “heteronomous” purpose fulfillment and to allow instrumentalization for political means. As example of a simultaneity of re- and de-valuation, Ricken (2007: 19) denotes the profession’s still weak social prestige. From the positioning of pedagogical knowledge in the societal field can be traced a rationality of contempt for pedagogy. As preparation and repair system of the societal whole, pedagogy would simultaneously be devalued and idealized. Objective inequality would thereby be transformed into subjective inequality and individually be made acceptable by virtue of selfdevaluation (ibid.:34). If we share this analysis, one may suppose, that this selection and transformation function is not only handed down by education institutions but also by research institutions. The modus of voluntary self subjugation beneath the dominant political and societal definition power can here be questioned for the field of policy consultancy, hand in hand with the demand for an independent and critical position. In this context, Opielka (2005) addresses the reflexive dilemma of idea-limitation by mainstreaming and assimilation. 3.4 Dispositif of Discursively Designed Development: Co-production of Knowledge, Translation and Mediation between Difference(s) in the medial Agora Particularly new and transforming governance structures cast new questions also for policy consultancy. (Falk et al 2007) refer to another model and demands of the political system in increasingly pluralized societies. In the mode of co-production as resource for the preparation and legitimation of political decisions, it is participation that becomes an integral component of political consultancy. Consultancy takes recourse on potentials of epistemic and political integrity and shifts its mode from a contensual subject and strategic expert consultancy or counter-power strategy to a processual and conciliatory-oriented perception of policy consultancy and design (Römmele 2009). Therewith this dispositif’s character of consultancy is oriented at “polity consultancy”, which generally applies to the consultation concerning the institutional design of the political system (Falk et al 2009: 10). Beyond classical juridical-institutional perceptions of “polity consultancy”, now, governance-oriented models are also to be regarded as “polity consultancy”. That is, insofar as they are concerned with the creation of new procedural forms of a democratized policy which are able to systematically transgress system borders. Such forms systematically exceed internalized 120

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

consultancy departments in ministries, expertocratic consultancy and advice by academics and scientists, or consultancy mediation by agents or an antagonistic model of counter-power. The model discussed here systematically and openly includes the “subpolitical” (Beck) dimension of networkbuilding. Contrary to a technocratic perception of transfer, here, a model of transformation of knowledge within the application process is favored.

Figure 5: Dispositif of discursively designed development

This dialogic model of academic policy consultancy counts as future of knowledge communication and a reflexive dialogue of academia, policy and society. By assuming plurality and equality of the speaking positions of different actors (Renn 2007), this normative guiding perception intends to be an answer to the existing legitimation dilemma in the relationship of academia, policy and society. However, it would be necessary to work out concretely how it could be institutionalized, that is what would the detail look like, and how will it be democratized. The criticism can also be made that consultancy has so far been a rather demand-oriented and outsourced service which has yet to develop into an institutionalized mode. In this understanding of consultancy as discursive learning between networks, public spheres, lobby groups, and consultancy etc., a model of reciprocal influence could be applied (Priddat 2009c). The relationship of academic, political and administrative rationality is reconstructed as mediation or translation accomplishment. Pasternack (2011) sees the potential influences on policy consultancy as dependent on the receptiveness of each of the addressed policy systems to process expertise and political consultation. Weber (2013) warns that leit-terms “network”, “consensus”, and “learning” oscillate between affirmative rhetoric and suggests an analysis by means of 121

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

discurse-analytical perspectives applied to discurses of organizations, networks, communities and cities. Finally, (Wintermann 2005) recommends that policy consultancy is focused on prospective dimensions. At this point, the special quality of pedagogical thinking as potential of a discursive policy consultancy comes into play. In this dispositif, learning does not only refer to content and subject matters, but primarily to the identity of the learners and thereby also to professional, disciplinary and field-specific Habitus in politics, academia and society. Contrary to a standpoint of immunization and outward representation, the foundational structure of pedagogical action focuses a standpoint of challenge and opening, of decentering, dissolution and transformation. Learning requires the joy in uncertainty (Ricken 2005). However, to show and try out oneself would also require the courage to admit inability – likewise, it would also need protection and trust that what is shown will not be used against the people involved (Ricken 2007:36). A discursive and pedagogical approach of policy consultancy is oriented towards curiosity. With the openness to address the present as conscious reflection involving everybody (Ricken 2006), a culture of political learning is been cultivated. Instead of hermetic and public staging of policy connoisseurship and skills for instance especially in the second dispositif, policy consultancy would then support not-knowing and discovery. In this knowledge mode of uncertainty, differences, inequalities and the diversity of all actors involved are taken into account. Fulfillment expectation and authority, functionalization and defining power, goal conflicts and the structural tension-relationships, between reliance and autonomy (Pasternack 2011) are then to be addressed. It is clear, that reflexivity and creativity in policy and society consultancy becomes an indispensable competence for professional and successful cooperation and advice. Education has traditionally been questioned as a “hybrid discipline” concerning the fundamental differences in requirements of academic and of practitioner competences (Rieger-Ladich 2007). This “hybridity” rather might even imply compatibility in the field of educational policy consultancy. Beyond a deficit description, one might assume an even increased competence of the discipline based on action and research as a “double” asset and explicit strength in the political field. The diagnosis of the “pedagogization” of numerous areas of life as well as the (critical) diagnosis of an educational “rhetoric of promise” – could be helpful within a paradigm of “hope” (Bloch). Societal Consultancy then would contribute to the creation of spaces of mutual listening and reflecting as a pedagogical strategy of development and creation of “desired futures”.

122

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Althaus, M., & Meier, D. (2004), Politikberatung: Praxis und Grenzen. Münster: Lit Verlag. Bourdieu, P. (1986), “The Forms of Capital,” in J. Richardson (ed.), The Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, 241–258. Bourdieu, P. (1988), Homo Academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bröchler, S., & Schützeichel, R. (eds.) (2008), Politikberatung. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius. Bröchler, S. (2004), “Kalliope im Wunderland? Orientierungen, Bedarfe und Institutionalisierung von wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung im bundesdeutschen Regierungssystem,” in R. Schützeichel, & T. Brüsemeister (eds.), Die beratene Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: VS, 19–38. Bucksteeg, M., & Schmid, J. (eds.) (2005), Politikberatung und Politisches Management. Beiträge zwischen Seminar und Wirklichkeiten. Universität Tübingen. Busch-Janser, F. (2007), Politikberatung als Beruf. Berlin u.a.: Polisphere Library. Dammeyer, M., & Gruschka, A. (2002), “Gebraucht oder missbraucht, hilfreich oder ohnmächtig? Ein Gespräch über die Beratung von Politik und Verwaltung durch Erziehungswissenschaft,” in M. Weegen (ed.), Bildungsforschung und Politikberatung: Schule, Hochschule und Berufsbildung an der Schnittstelle von Erziehungswissenschaft und Politik. Weinheim and München: Juventa, 65–92. Färber, G. (2009), “Medien und wissenschaftliche Politikberatung: Annäherungen an ein Thema,” in D. Wentzel (ed.), Medienökonomik. Stuttgart: Lucius u. Lucius. Färber, G. (2005), “Politikberatung durch Kommissionen,” in M. Leschke, & I. Pies (eds.), Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung. Stuttgart: Lucius u. Lucius. Falk, S. (2009), Der Markt für Politikberatung. Wiesbaden: VS. Falk, S. et al. (2010), “On the Strategic Use of Knowledge for Political Consulting and Policy Advice,” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 51(1): 119–125. Falk, S. et al. (2007), “Cooperative Policy-advice – A New Relationship between Policy-making and Policy-advice and between Politics and Political Consulting?” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 48(2): 322–337. Foucault, M. (1980), “Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977,” in C. Gordon (ed.), The Confession of the Flesh. New York: Pantheon, 194–228. Foucault, M., & Fontana, A. (1978), Dispositive der Macht. Michel Foucault über Sexualität, Wissen und Wahrheit. Merve: Berlin. Foucault, M. (1992), Was ist Kritik? Merve: Berlin. Grossekettler, H. (2005), “Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung. Beiräte von Ministerien als politikberatende Institutionen,” in M. Leschke, & I. Pies (eds.), Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung. Stuttgart: Lucius u. Lucius. Habermas, J. (2003/1963), “Verwissenschaftlichte Politik und öffentliche Meinung,” in his Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Heinze, R. G. (2009), “Staat und Lobbyismus: Vom Wandel der Politikberatung in Deutschland,” Zeitschrift für Politikberatung 2(1): 5–25. Herrlitz, H.-G. (2004), “Erziehungswissenschaft und Bildungspolitik – zwei getrennte Kulturen?” Die deutsche Schule 96(1): 6–9. 123

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Hubig, C. (2011), Ethik in der Politik - Politik in der Ethik. Dilemmata der wissenschaftlichen Politikberatung. Stuttgart: UB Universität Stuttgart. Kraul, M. (ed.) (2011), Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung. Göttingen: Wallstein. Lamping, W. (2006), “Lernfähigkeit und Lernresistenz der Politik. Zur Bedeutung dieser Frage aus politikwissenschaftlicher Sicht,” in D. Schimanke, A. Fischer, & M. Bucksteeg (eds.), Wie lernt Politik? Voraussetzungen, Formen und Erfolge; ein Werkstattbericht. Münster: Waxmann, 17–40. Lamping, W. (2011), “Wer ist Koch und wer Kellner?: Über Politikberatung, Politik und diesen Band,” in W. Lamping, & H. Schridde (eds.), Der konsultative Staat. Reformpolitik und Politikberatung. Opladen u.a.: Verlag Barbara Budrich, 9–37. Leschke, M., & Pies, I. (2005), “Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung,” Schriften zu Ordnungsfragen der Wirtschaft 75. Stuttgart: Lucius u. Lucius. Liesner, A. (2006), “Kontrolliert autonom. Zur Architektur des Europäischen Hochschulraumes,” in S. M. Weber, & S. Maurer (eds.), Gouvernementalität und Erziehungswissenschaft. Wiesbaden: VS, 121–138. Lorenz, C. (2012), “If You’re So Smart, Why Are You under Surveillance? Universities, Neoliberalism, and New Public Management,” Critical Inquiry 38(3): 599–629. Maasen, S. et al. (2011), Das beratene Selbst. Zur Genealogie der Therapeutisierung in den langen Siebzigern. Bielefeld: Transcript. Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2010), Jenseits der Exzellenz. Eine kleine Morphologie der Welt-Universität. Zürich: Diaphanes. Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2012), Globale Immunität oder: Eine kleine Kartographie des europäischen Bildungsraums. Zürich: Diaphanes. Mayntz, R. (2009), “Speaking Truth to Power: Leitlinien für die Regelung wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung,” Der moderne Staat. dms. Zeitschrift für public policy, Recht und Management 2(1): 5–17. Merkens, H. (2007), “Zum Verhältnis von Erziehungswissenschaft und Bildungspolitik. Zwischen wissenschaftlichen Standards und politischen Erwartungen,” in M. Kraul (ed.), Bildungsforschung und Bildungsreform. Weinheim u.a.: Juventa, 235–239. Merkens, H. (2011), “Bildungspolitik, Handlungsdruck und wissenschaftliche Redlichkeit,” in M. Kraul (ed.), Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung. Göttingen: Wallstein. Müller, C. (2005), “Beratungsresistenz in der Politik? Die Nachfrage nach Politikberatung,” in M. Leschke, & I. Pies (eds.), Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung. Schriften zu Ordnungsfragen der Wirtschaft 75. Stuttgart: Lucius u. Lucius. Münch, R. (2011), Akademischer Kapitalismus. Über die politische Ökonomie der Hochschulreform. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Münch, R. (2007), Die akademische Elite. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Nullmeier, F. (2007), “Neue Konkurrenzen: Wissenschaft, Politikberatung und Medienöffentlichkeit,” in C. Leggewie (ed.), Von der Politik- zur Gesellschaftsberatung: neue Wege öffentlicher Konsultation. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus, 171– 180. Opielka, M. (2005), “Bildung der Politik. Dilemmata und Optionen wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung,” Jahrbuch der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Hessen 6, Gesellschaftliche Perspektiven Essen: Klartext-Verlag, 101–113. 124

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Ostner, I. (2008), “Sozialwissenschaftliche Expertise und Politik: Das Beispiel des Siebten Familienberichts,” in C. Leggewie, & C. Sachße (eds.), Soziale Demokratie, Zivilgesellschaft und Bürgertugenden. Frankfurt, Main: Campus, 237–250. Ostner, I. (2011), “Diener der Macht? Experten und Expertise im Wohlfahrtsstaat,” in M. Kraul (Ed.), Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung. Göttingen: Wallstein, 243–262. Pasternack, P. (2011), Wissenschaftliche Wissenschaftspolitikberatung. Halle (Saale): Inst. für Hochschulforschung Wittenberg. Halle. Peters, M. (ed.) (forthcoming), The Creative University. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Peters, R. (2007), “Zwischen Bedeutsamkeitsrhetorik und faktischer Bedeutungsschwäche. Anmerkungen zur institutionalisierten Erwachsenenbildung,” in N. Ricken (ed.), Über die Verachtung der Pädagogik. Analysen – Materialien – Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: VS, 353–370. Priddat, B. P. (ed.) (2009a), Politikberatung. Prozesse, Logik und Ökonomie. Marburg: Metropolis. Priddat, B. P. (2009b), “Governance und Politikberatung,” in B. P. Priddat (ed.), Politikberatung: Prozesse, Logik und Ökonomie. Marburg: Metropolis, 49–68. Priddat, B. P. (2009c), Politik unter Einfluss. Netzwerke, Öffentlichkeiten, Beratungen, Lobby. Wiesbaden: VS. Renn, O. (2007), “Dialogische Formen der wissenschaftlichen Politikberatung,” in C. Kropp, F. Schiller, & J. Wagner (eds.), Die Zukunft der Wissenskommunikation. Berlin: Ed. Sigma, 161–178. Rölke, P. (2005), “Zur (Ir-)Relevanz methodologischer Reflexionen in der Politikberatung,” in U. Jens, & H. Romahn (eds.), Glanz und Elend der Politikberatung. Marburg: Metropolis. Römmele, A. (2009), “Der Markt für Politikberatung – Boom oder Baisse?” in H. Kaspar et al. (eds.), Politik – Wissenschaft – Medien. Wiesbaden: VS, 347–355. Rudloff, W. (2005), Does Science Matter? Zur Bedeutung wissenschaftlichen Wissens im politischen Prozess am Beispiel der bundesdeutschen Bildungspolitik in den Jahren des “Bildungsbooms”. Speyer: FÖV. Ricken, N. (ed.) (2007), Über die Verachtung der Pädagogik. Analysen – Materialien – Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: VS. Ricken, N. (2006), Die Ordnung der Bildung. Beiträge zu einer Genealogie der Bildung. Wiesbaden: VS. Ricken, N. (2005), “Freude aus Verunsicherung ziehn – wer hat uns das denn beigebracht!“ (Christa Wolf). Über den Zusammenhang von Negativität und Macht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 49. Beiheft, 106–120. Rieger-Ladich, M. (2007), “Akzeptanzkrisen und Anerkennungsdefizite: Die Erziehungswissenschaft als subalterne Disziplin?” in N. Ricken (ed.), Über die Verachtung der Pädagogik. Wiesbaden: VS, 159–184. Rieger-Ladich, M. (2006), “Pierre Bourdieus Theorie des wissenschaftlichen Feldes: Ein Reflexionsangebot an die Erziehungswissenschaft,” in B. Friebertshäuser, M. Rieger-Ladich, & L. Wigger (eds.), Reflexive Erziehungswissenschaft. Forschungsperspektiven im Anschluss an Pierre Bourdieu. Wiesbaden: VS, 157– 176.

125

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Schützeichel, R. (2008), “Beratung, Politikberatung, wissenschaftliche Politikberatung,” in S. Bröchler, & R. Schützeichel (eds.), Politikberatung. Stuttgart: Lucius u. Lucius. Shamim, R. (2006), Qualitätsmanagement in der Politikberatung. Professionalisierung der Politikberatung durch die Entwicklung von Qualitätskriterien? Berlin: Lit Verlag. Stamm, M. (2005), “Erziehungswissenschaft und Bildungspolitik. Perspektiven eines schwierigen Verhältnisses,” Die deutsche Schule 97(4): 421–431. Terhart, E. (2003), “Erziehungswissenschaft zwischen Forschung und Politikberatung,” Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik 79(1): 74–90. Weber, S. M. (forthcoming), “Imagining the Creative University. Dispositives of Creation, Strategies of Innovation, Politics of Reality,” in M. Peters (ed.), The Creative University. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 143–180. Weber, S. M. (2013), “Dispositive des Schöpferischen: Genealogie und Analyse gesellschaftlicher Innovationsdiskurse und institutioneller Strategien der Genese des Neuen,” in M. Rürup, & I. Bormann (eds.), Innovationen im Bildungswesen. Analytische Zugänge und empirische Befunde. Wiesbaden: VS, 191–221. Weber, S. M. (2012), “Macht und Gegenmacht. Organisation aus praxistheoretischer Perspektive – Implikationen für eine habitus- und feldreflexive Organisationsberatung,” Zeitschrift für Organisationsberatung, Supervision und Gruppendynamik. Sonderheft zu „Macht in Organisationen” 43. 137–152. Weegen, M. et al. (2002), Bildungsforschung und Politikberatung. Schule, Hochschule und Berufsbildung an der Schnittstelle von Erziehungswissenschaft und Politik. Weinheim: Juventa. Weilert, A. K. (2012), Ethische Politikberatung. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Weingart, P., & Lentsch, J. M. (eds.) (2008), Wissen – Beraten – Entscheiden. Form und Funktion wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung in Deutschland. Weilerswist: Velbrück-Wiss. Weingart, P. (2006), “‘Demokratisierung’ der wissenschaftlichen Politikberatung – eine Antwort auf die Legitimationsdilemmata im Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Politik?” in Politikberatung in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 73–84. Weishaupt, H. (2006), “Der Beitrag von Wissenschaft und Forschung zur Bildungsund Sozialberichterstattung,” in H.-H. Krüger, T. Rauschenbach, & U. Sander (eds.), Bildungs- und Sozialberichterstattung. Wiesbaden: VS, 42–52. Wilhelm, S. (2009), “Who Governs?: Kommunikations- und prozessorientierte Politikberatung,” in B. P. Priddat (ed.), Politikberatung: Prozesse, Logik und Ökonomie. Marburg: Metropolis, 91–140. Wintermann, O. (2005), “Prospektive Politikgestaltung und Politikberatung vor dem Hintergrund der demographischen Herausforderung,” in D. Haubner, E. Mezger, & H. Schwengel (eds.), Agendasetting und Reformpolitik. Marburg: Metropolis, 343–363. Zimmermann, K. F. (2009), “Der Berater als Störenfried: Anmerkungen zur wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Politikberatung,” Wirtschaftsdienst. hamburgisches welt-wirtschafts-archiv (hwwa) 88(2): 101–108.

126

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Professor Michael A. Peters – A Kantian in Spirit Klas Roth Stockholm University

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Professor Michael A. Peters’ impressive list of publications includes numerous books and papers. He also edits international book series such as the Educational Philosophy and Theory Special Issues Monograph Series, and Interventions: Education, Philosophy and Culture as well as international journals, including Educational Philosophy and Theory and Policy Futures in Education; and the Studies in Education, Philosophy and Culture Series. The latter is a journal in China, which I think illustrates Professor Peters’ ambition to make it possible for people throughout the world to contribute to on-going discussions on issues that concern, inter alia, education in different ways. Professor Peters’ publications cover different topics, issues, and problems that people are facing in our times. He discusses them thoroughly and I think he has an eye for what is going on and needs to be addressed reflectively and critically or – in his terminology – problematized. This emerges, for example, concerning theoretical issues,1 changed conditions for education and their impact on research on education, policy and the practice of education. Topics here include the knowledge society, knowledge production, the increased demands that people ought to render themselves not merely efficacious, but also creative in order to make themselves employable, movable, and flexible on the job market.2 Further, Peters has also produced encyclopaedias on the Internet, and given numerous talks throughout the world. I think it is not unfair to say that Peters with his engagement and insights has both contributed to addressing the present state of affairs in various ways, and also problematized them and their limits so as to enable readers to acknowledge and to talk about them, and think differently. I believe, therefore, that he is a Kantian in spirit, or so I will argue.

127

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2. Peters’ Problematizations – A Reflection of the Kantian Spirit, and in particular the Public Use of Reason I address the above, perhaps a little surprising, approach to Michael Peters’ work through Immanuel Kant’s “An answer to the question: What is enlightenment?”3 and Michel Foucault’s comment many years later, namely: “What is enlightenment?”,4 and I try to show that Peters’ work reflects some of the themes discussed by both Kant and Foucault. One of them is having the courage to use our own understanding by seeking to problematize the present – the conditions under which we live – in order to release ourselves from a state of immaturity; and that we ought to use reason publicly and not merely privately. Thus when Kant says that “by the public use of one’s own reason I understand that use which someone makes of it as a scholar before the entire public of the world of readers” and that “the private use of reason is that which one may make of it in a certain civil post or office with which he is entrusted”,5 I think that Peters’ scholarly work exemplifies that he uses reason publicly through his many analyses and problematizations of the roles and functions ascribed to people, or which they ascribe to themselves and others in e.g. knowledge-based societies; and the expectations raised of the outcomes of education and the students and teachers within it. Peters’ problematizations demonstrate, I think, that we should use reason not merely to identity ourselves with these roles or functions, blindly and foolishly, and try to comply with them; we should also and in particular use our understanding to release ourselves and in Kant’s words “from a state of immaturity”. This is a state in which we do not problematize such roles and functions and our attitudes towards them, while we should have them as objects of reflection and problematize them in order to release ourselves from such a state of immaturity, and when we do this, we demonstrate, according to Kant, a public and not a private use of reason; a use in which our ends or functions are not merely the objects of reflection and criticism, but can possibly also be challenged and changed when needed. 3. “Have Courage to Make Use of Your Own Understanding” When Kant in his “An answer to the question: What is enlightenment?” asserts: “Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his selfincurred minority”, and continues by saying that “Minority is inability to make use of one’s own understanding without direction from another”, and concludes that the motto of enlightenment is to “[h]ave courage to make use of [one’s] own understanding”,6 then I think, as said above, that Peters’ work not merely reflects that he has used his own understanding, but that 128

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

he has also demonstrated this in his numerous publications and throughout his academic career. When Kant, for example, differentiates between the public and the private use of reason, and says that the public “use of one’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among human beings”,7 and Peters continuously problematizes the private use of reason in his many publications, then I think it reasonable to say that he has exemplified a certain manner of philosophizing about the present and the conditions under which so many people live – a manner which surely has its roots in the work of Foucault, but in particular that of Kant. Foucault himself was in this sense inspired by the work of Kant, and sums this philosophical ethos up:

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

I have been seeking, on the one hand, to emphasize the extent to which a type of philosophical interrogation – one that simultaneously problematizes man’s relation to the present, man’s historical mode of being, and the constitution of the self as an autonomous subject – is rooted in the Enlightenment. On the other hand, I have been seeking to stress that the thread which may connect us with the Enlightenment is not faithfulness to doctrinal elements but, rather, the permanent reactivation of an attitude – that is, of a philosophical ethos that could be described as a permanent critique of our historical era.8

Peters has, I think, been continuously engaged in “a permanent critique” of the historical era in which we live, and engaged in a “series of historical inquires”,9 a philosophical reflection or a “mode of reflective relation to the present”10 in which – Foucault again – the criticism is no longer going to be practiced in the search for formal structures with universal value but, rather, as a historical investigation into the events that have led us to constitute ourselves and to recognize ourselves as subjects of what we are doing, thinking, saying. In that sense, this criticism is not transcendental, and its goal is not that of making metaphysics possible: it is genealogical in its design and archaeological in its method.11

More Foucault: Archaeological – and not transcendental – in the sense that it will not seek to identify the universal structures of all knowledge [connaissance] or of all possible moral action, but will seek to treat the instances of discourse that articulate what we think, say, and do as so many historical events. And this critique will be genealogical in the sense that it will not deduce from the form of what we are what it is impossible for us to do and to know; but it will separate out, from the contingency that has made us what we are, the possibility of no longer being, doing, or thinking what we are, do, or think. It is not seeking to make 129

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

possible a metaphysics that has finally become a science; it is seeking to give new impetus, as far and wide as possible, to the undefined work of freedom.12

I think that the above critical approach to the present and its impact on ourselves and the way we think, act and believe has for Peters not merely “proved powerful approaches to providing critical histories of childhood, students and schools as well as helping researchers to problematise educational concepts, categories and institutions”,13 it also aims, in the words of Mark Olssen:

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

to free us from the historically transitory constraints of contemporary consciousness as realized in and through discursive practices. Such constraints impose limitations which have become so intimately a part of the way that people experience their lives that they no longer experience these systems as limitations but embrace them as the very structure of normal and natural human behaviour.14

Hence, we see that the Kantian spirit of using reason to understand the present and its impact on us so that we can free ourselves from it, or at least come to regulate its impact, is reflected in Peters’ work, and that the freedom to problematize the present and how we are affected by it, is perhaps one of the most important objects of morality not only for Kant and Foucault, but also for Peters himself. It is an object that needs to be defended against the guardians; the protectors of certain more or less well-defined functions that we ascribe to ourselves and each other or which are ascribed to us, the practices and policies that are needed to uphold them, and which Foucault calls technologies of the self. We have to act under the idea of freedom and use our reason publicly and not merely privately so as to avoid becoming the playthings of forces seemingly outside our control, and we should use our reason, according to Kant, to free ourselves from these forces and their impact on us and our thinking, and this we do by rendering ourselves not merely efficacious, but also autonomous in practice, which is hard work, and requires criticism or, in Foucault’s and Peters’ words problematization of the present conditions which affect us and our freedom to set and pursue our own ends and in particular the morally permissible ends of all. 4. “... Before the Entire Public of the World of Readers” Peters has not merely demonstrated his courage in using his own understanding when, for example, he addresses the present and problematizes it, he has also made it possible for others to express the use of their own under130

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

standing actively and autonomously, by publishing their thoughts in some of the many book series and journals he edits. I think the latter reflects a call for a public use of reason, and also and nicely exemplifies Peters’ engagement for the use of reason “before the entire public of the world of readers”. Moreover, I think that Peters, like Kant and Foucault, takes a critical stance on present conditions and practices, therefore attempting a Kantian critique of how reason is used privately by analysing and reflecting upon the limits of the roles and functions ascribed to, in this case, education in our time. By addressing and questioning the limits of a private use of reason, Peters calls for attention to and transformation of its use and the attitude towards it. It is a call, I believe, not merely for self-transformation, but also of the transformation of social, political and juridical conditions that will serve the attainment of human beings in their endless efforts to cultivate themselves continuously in their pursuit of and in the terms of Stanley Cavell’s Emersonian moral perfectionism – unattained but attainable selves.15 Peters thereby acknowledges the responsibility for those concerned to think differently about the present or, as Kant writes, to think for themselves, 16 that is, to actively use their understanding so that they can release themselves from a state of immaturity and govern themselves through a reflective use of reason; this instead of being governed by the practices and customs or the role and functions ascribed to them or which they ascribe to themselves unchallenged in their daily lives (i.e. the criticism or problematization of the present); it is both a reminder of the limits of a private use of reason, and a call for a public use of it. This public use transgresses the limits of the former and opens up the possibility for new and different ways of understanding and thinking. So I think that Peters is a Kantian in spirit. He has demonstrated this through his engagement in analysing and reflecting upon the limits of present conditions and their impact on human beings and their freedom to actively use their reason publicly, what Foucault calls the problematizations of “man’s relation to the present, man’s historical mode of being”. I think that Peters has therefore, shown a “way out” by opening up new possibilities of thinking and, perhaps more importantly, demonstrated the value and importance of using reason critically, publicly and continuously, and not merely privately – in practice – and that he has eloquently and powerfully done so throughout his academic career.

131

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

NOTES 1. Michael Peters has published works on not merely Michel Foucault, but also on Stanley Cavell, Jacques Derrida, Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche, JeanFrançois Lyotard, and Ludwig Wittgenstein (see for example, Peters, 1997; 2001a; 2001b; 2002; 2003; I focus on Peters’ work on Foucault in this paper, since I think it reflects the Kantian spirit of his work (see for example, 2004; 2007b; 2009b; see also Besley & Peters, 2008). 2. See for example, Peters, 2007a; Peters, Murphy and Marginson 2009a; Araya and Peters, 2010. 3. Kant, 1996. 4. Foucault, 1994. 5. Kant, 1996, 8: 37. 6. Kant, 1996, 8: 35. 7. Ibid., 1996, 8: 37. 8. Foucault, 1994, p. 312. 9. Ibid., 1994, p. 313. 10. Foucault, 1994, p. 313. 11. Ibid., 1994, p. 315. 12. Ibid., 1994, p. 315-316. 13. Peters, 2004, p. 51. 14. Olssen, 2006, p. 245. 15. See, for example, Cavell, 2004, p. 13 where he talks about the phrase – an unattained but attainable self. 16. See, for example, Kant, 2000, 5: 294, and 2006, 228–229 for discussions on the maxim of thinking for oneself as well as the maxim of thinking in the position of everyone else, and the maxim of thinking consistently.

REFERENCES Araya D., & Peters, M. A. (eds.) (2010), Education in the Creative Economy – Knowledge and Learning in the Age of Innovation. New York: Peter Lang. Besley, T., & Peters, M. A. (2008), Subjectivity and Truth: Foucault, Education and the Culture of the Self. New York: Peter Lang. Cavell S. (2004), Cities of Words: Pedagogical Letters on a Register of the Moral Life, Cambridge, MA-London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Kant, I. (1996), “An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?” in Practical Philosophy, Mary J. Gregor (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11–22. Kant, I. (2000), Critique of the Power of Judgment. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kant, I. (2006), Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Robert B. Louden (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foucault, M. (1994), “What Is Enlightenment?” in The Essential Works of Michel Foucault: Ethics – Subjectivity and Truth, Paul Rabinow (ed.), Vol. 1. New York: The New Press, 303–319. 132

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Olssen, M. (2006), “Foucault and the Imperatives of Education: Critique and Selfcreation in a Non-foundational World,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 25(3): 245–271. Peters, M. A. (ed.) (1997), Education and the Postmodern Condition. Jean-François Lyotard (foreword). Westport, CT. & London: Bergin & Garvey. Peters, M. A. (2001a), “Wittgensteinian Pedagogics: Cavell on the Figure of the Child in the Investigations,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 20(2): 125–138. Peters, M. A. (2001b), “The Analytic/Continental Divide: Nietzsche and The Critique of Modernity,” in Nietzsche’s Legacy for Education: Past and Present Values, M. A. Peters, J. D. Marshall, and P. Smeyers (eds.). Westport, CT & London: Bergin and Garvey. Peters, M. A. (2002), “Heidegger, Education and Modernity,” in Heidegger, Education and Modernity, M. A. Peters (ed.). Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield, 1–25. Peters, M. A. (2003), “Derrida, Pedagogy and the Calculation of the Subject,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 35(3): 313–332. Peters, M. A. (2004), “Educational Research: ‘Games of Truth’ and the Ethics of Subjectivity,” Journal of Educational Inquiry 5(2): 50–63. Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2006), Building Knowledge Cultures: Education and Development in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M. A. (2007a), Knowledge Economy, Development and the Future of Higher Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (eds.) (2007b), Why Foucault? New Directions in Educational Research. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., Murphy, P., & Marginson, S. (2009a), Creativity and the Global Knowledge Economy. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., Besley, T., Olssen, M., Maurer, S., and Weber, S. (eds.) (2009b), Governmentality Studies in Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

133

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Personal Narrative, Educational Research and Multipolar Cosmopolitanism Morwenna Griffiths University of Edinburgh

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction I argue that the current discussion of cosmopolitanism and the cosmopolitan order demonstrates that more attention needs to be paid to the significance of contextual as opposed to generalizable knowledge of education, especially in relation to diversity and injustice within and between regions of the world. This is a familiar, if not uncontroversial, epistemological position in educational research, except that many such arguments ignore the unjust distribution of resources, voice and influence across the post-colonial world. This injustice has been widely discussed in relation to economic and macropolitics but is less often noticed in relation to the global use of educational research in policy and practice. In this article I argue that the use of personal narrative research may be a means for the less resourced, less heard, less influential parts of the world to resist implementing educational policy which is based in research carried out in other contexts, and which may be pernicious in its unintentional effects. It may also be a way of persuading the West to relinquish its modernist hope of overarching universals of propositional and practical knowledge, and acknowledge that the world is not only plural but variously multipolar, a world in which a range of poles exist in tension with the others. 2. Relation to Understandings of Cosmopolitanism The terminology of the cosmopolitan order – and of cosmopolitanism itself – are much discussed and contested. The term, ‘cosmopolitan order’ was originally coined by Held, who was proposing a normative model in distinction from the merely descriptive and ambiguous term, ‘globalisation’ (Held, 1992). He argues for an ‘authoritative assembly of all democratic states and societies’ (p. 34) in which the ‘multiple and overlapping networks of power’ (p. 36), characteristic of current circumstances of economic, political and social global activity, could alter ‘the dynamics of resource production and distribution and of rule creation and enforcement’ (p. 36). 134

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

He argues that he is not proposing a particular, current model of democracy which is based on an assumption of the nation state, but allowing for contending models to be rethought in relation to local, regional and global processes and structures. However he then goes on to say that such a ‘cosmopolitan model of democracy assumes the entrenchment of a cluster of rights, including civil, political, economic and social rights in order to provide shape and limits to democratic decision-making’ (p. 34). So whatever his protestations, it is clear that he is assuming a bedrock of liberal – rights-based – policy. Since Held wrote, the literature on cosmopolitanism has burgeoned. Two themes have recurred. They are the conceptual polarities between universalism and difference and between cosmopolitanism from above and from below. Held began the process of critical reassessment of them, in the context of cosmopolitanism. He pointed out that ‘globalism and cultural diversity are not simply opposites…the issue is how and in what way cultures are linked and interrelated’ (p. 37) and that ‘the problems of global governance from above cannot be solved by grassroots democracy alone. For the questions have to be posed: which grassroots and which democracy.’ (p. 38) Held’s brief pointers have been vigorously taken up.1 Resolutions of the former are inevitably related to resolutions of the latter. As Strand (2010a, p. 105) says, in summarizing contributions to a special issue on cosmopolitanism: A vital dilemma is…the tension between an abstract universalism from above versus a concrete moral commitment from below… The dilemma remains unresolved.

One influential commentator has been Appiah (2006, 2006–7). He argues for a cosmopolitan order based less in world government than in ‘subsidiarity’ and in conversations. As he says, he (2007, p. 2381): cannot literally converse with the other six billion strangers who inhabit the planet…but a global community of cosmopolitans will want to learn about other ways of life through anthropology, history, novels, music and news stories.

Like Held, his approach is rooted in liberalism, but less a rights-based one than one which draws on Mill’s views that each individual should do what they themselves believe to be right; that ‘the dignity of each human being resides, in part, in his or her capacity for and right to self-management’ (Appiah, 2007, p. 2380). Like Appiah, Mouffe argues for a non-relativistic pluralism. However, for her it is human dignity which is key (2008, p. 456). This is not based in Western liberal democratic rights, or in an autonomous, non-relational self but rather holds that human dignity is more fundamental. She contrasts those wanting Held’s cosmopolitan order with those who are 135

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

wanting a pluriverse, a multipolar world order (464). Rather than a single rule by Reason she argues for agonistic coexistence between different regional poles (466). These themes have been taken up in education in relation to citizenship education, education for social justice and the necessity for universal global ethics underpinning education policy. The debates have generated both light and heat, as is illustrated in the content and the title of symposium, ‘Philosophy of Education and the Gigantic Affront of Universalism’ in which the issues of universalism, qualified universalism and cultural translation are all placed within the context of addressing social injustice globally and locally (Enslin, Tjiattas and Todd, 2009). Hansen is an example of a theorist who is less interested in the macro-political focus, and instead takes up the theme of cosmopolitanism from below, identifying a strand he calls ‘cosmopolitanism from the ground up’ (Hansen, 2010, p.4). This strand focuses on the art of living which is rooted in the everyday context and so can only find expression in the local – but not, he is keen to emphasize, in the parochial (Hansen 2010, p. 5):

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

What characterises cosmopolitanism from the ground up is a fusion, sometimes tenuous and tension-laden, of receptivity to the new and loyalty to the known.

Hansen is also keen to emphasize that this kind of cosmopolitanism (p. 5) ‘challenges stereotypical views of the cosmopolitan as an elite and rootless standpoint in the world.’ In a series of articles, Todd (2007, 2010) argues that simple openness or receptivity will not solve dissonance. Drawing on Mouffe she argues instead for an agonistic cosmopolitics in which democratic discussion based on rights is only one way of dealing with cultural difference, and that other forms of politics (including the wearing of the hijab) must also be part of an agonistic accommodation in living peacefully with dissonance. Papastephanou (2011a, 2011b) criticizes what she calls ‘culturalism’ in Hansen and others as a world view from the West which overlooks the historical, political, postcolonial contexts of multicultural encounters. Rizvi (2009) argues that cosmopolitan learning should be reflexive, by which he means (p. 267) a critical recognition of our own cultural and political presuppositions, and the epistemic position from which we speak and negotiate difference.

Almost all this work focuses on the implications for classroom practices or educational policies in the West. Moreover some critics have pointed out how far it remains with the interest and interests of the relatively powerful West. As Rizvi (2005, n.p.) says, ‘cultural interaction and exchange… occurs within the logic of consumption, under the new global economic 136

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

conditions’. As Papastephanou says, even if we are on our guard culturally and politically (2011, p. 601): It is the self that primarily benefits from the intercultural formation and not the Other who might be affected by such formation only by implication.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

In this article I want to shift the focus from what should be done in and for Western educational practices to the spread of Western policies and practices to the rest of the world in a variety of ways. These include educational aid and consultancy, Western universities selling degree programs around the world, and academic publishing of books and journals. Therefore the focus of interest takes in more than diversity and ethics; it also addresses diversity and knowledge. Some educational knowledge may be of what Austin (1962) called ‘moderate size specimens of dry goods’ but more is of the social, historical and cultural world. This has largely been constructed and built on a basis of research and practice in the West. It is then used to inform educational practices and policies in aid and consultancy. It is also the basis of international programs in education. The research basis of equivalent social, historical and cultural knowledge in relatively less powerful countries is much smaller, and much, much harder to access, even for their own citizens. 3. An Unjust World of Unequal Difference All too often, it is assumed by Westerners that knowledge generated in their own specific contexts is generalizable across all countries and cultures. This assumption has purchase in relation to science, technology and engineering, much of which concern moderate size dry goods. It may also have purchase in relation to much international finance and multinational business. However with regard to educational knowledge of pedagogy and policy, this assumption can carry little credibility. The underlying philosophies, world views, geographical, political, economic and historical contexts are all likely to be significantly different in other places. As Michael Peters has explained in an interview about editing Educational Philosophy and Theory, the West now has the obligation to recognize both the post-colonial positionality of indigenous peoples in the world and also the classical traditions of theory and philosophy that belong to other countries like China and India (Peters, 2013). Western consultants too often assume that what has meaning or efficacy in their own pedagogical and policy contexts is easily translated into any other culture. They also often assume that they themselves are cosmopolitans when they are better described as ‘frequent travelers’ or cultural tourists. 137

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Goetze’s interviews with 71 of the civilian staff of a United Nations Mission in Kosovo indicates that their cosmopolitanism is ‘politically firmly rooted in the historical and ideological experience of the West’ (2013, p. 91). For instance, when she asked for their political ‘heroes’, over 90% mentioned either Mahatma Ghandi or Nelson Mandela and the only other heroes from outside the first world were Lenin, Guevara, and Atatürk. There is no reason to believe that this perspective would be very different in education, even among those who themselves theorize cosmopolitanism and value openness. Hansen for instance, lists as ‘remarkable cosmopolitans’ Mohandas Ghandi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela (2010, p. 4) – a list that fits well with Goetze’s findings. Research by Fazal Rizvi and Michael Singh (Rizvi, 2005) indicates that international students in Western institutions of Higher Education take on Western ideas about cosmopolitanism and global citizenship. They interviewed Asian students after they had completed Higher Education studies in Australia. There was disturbing evidence that they conceptualized themselves as transnational or global, insofar as they located themselves as able to operate in a global market. It was clear that Western goods and ideas counted as ‘global’ for them while their own home localities did not. As the Palestinian scholar, André Elias Mazawi says, the notions of the knowledge society and of development have to be understood in relation to configurations of power – national, regional and global – over the backdrop of struggles which occur over what is defined as knowledge and what is valued as development (Mazawi, 2008a). Taking the example of knowledge about educational leadership, he points out that (Mazawi, 2008b, 80): The uncritical extension to the Arab region of educational leadership models developed in Western societies dismisses vital cultural dimensions of local contexts of conflict and their political and geopolitical underpinnings. This effectively attracts attention away from the core social and political issues that impact schooling in the Arab region. It also constructs educational leadership in ways that operate an ontological and epistemic disjuncture between the experiential realities of educators and the formal ways through which their professional judgements and performance are assessed.

In a thoughtful article reflecting on her years of experience as a Westerner working in the Education sector in Africa, Brigit Brock-Utne explores the issue of the West exporting assumptions about knowledge and education. She draws on the work of Catherine Odora, a Ugandan scholar, who (BrockUtne, 2002, 76): discusses the need for creating a space in contemporary education discourse that is more tolerant, more sensitive to realities 138

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

other than the overwhelming Western one. She finds that discussing indigenous education today compels us to come to terms with the situation in which even the social construction of a people’s reality is and has been constantly defined elsewhere. Discussing indigenous education, according to Odora, ‘is about asking why the school building is always quadrangled even where the local setting around it has round huts’ (Odora, 1994: 62 – italics added by Brock-Utne).

Brock-Utne and Odora also draw attention to oversimplifications and homogenizations found in terms such as ‘the developing world’ or ‘sub-Saharan Africa’. Such oversimplifications distort the facts. Consider three countries: Botswana, Ethiopia and Sierra Leone. They are all in ‘the developing world’, they are all African; they are all sub-Saharan; and they all use English as a medium of education. But there are immense differences between them. They each have very different histories, particularly in relation to their encounters with Europe and North America: their experiences of wars, conquests, trade, colonialization and international aid. Their populations live in very different religious and cultural contexts, and they differ hugely in their physical geographies. It should also not be forgotten that there are big differences within each of these countries in terms of: languages spoken; cultural practices; living conditions in rural and urban areas; religion; settlement in highlands, lowlands, deserts and forest; and political relationships to the government. 4. Scientism and Oversimplification in a Diverse World: The Example of Literacy In the face of oversimplification and the diversity it conceals, the question arises: what kinds of knowledge are needed in education? Very often policy makers and international aid agencies assume a need for generalizable and universal knowledge: knowledge that applies everywhere, all the time and to everybody – and to easily measurable attributes. This view has been termed scientism, a view that as Smeyers (2010) remarks not only privileges numbers and statistics, but also easily slips from using them to represent one aspect of reality to thinking that they represent reality. This is a view that the world is best understood as composed of measurable entities which can be understood independently of observer, context or political relations. But scientism doesn’t even apply to science and certainly not to the social as a whole, as is well documented (e.g. Latour 1987, 2004). There is no doubt that measurement and the resulting statistics are often significant and relevant for policy and practice. To take just the example of literacy rates: it is useful for policy makers to gather statistics about literacy levels among 139

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

the population. And it may be useful for them to know the percentage of that population who are, for example, girls, or migrants, or who live in the city. While policy makers need to know these broad similarities, on their own they are not enough to guide policy. Literacy statistics need to be known, but if educational policy makers – or teachers – want to do something about literacy, then they need to know something about the reasons behind the numbers: why some students are not literate, and why some sections of the student population (girls, migrants, urban dwellers) are more (or less) literate than others. Equally, teachers need to know much more about the individual and groups of human beings who are their students, before they can decide on the best approach to teaching literacy. So far this paragraph has been written as if ‘literacy’ was a well understood concept across countries and cultures. If that were true, perhaps there would be only a little contextualization needed to augment any generalized knowledge. But the idea of literacy comes laden with cultural, social, economic, historical, religious and political overtones which affect how they are understood in different contexts. The different contexts and understanding mean any statistical model would have to work with an unfeasibly large number of variables. Some personal experience of mine may help focus the argument I want to make. In what follows I use specific examples to point up some of the complexities in thinking about literacy, resulting from differences and inequalities between and within different countries. In doing so I am also demonstrating the power of the individual, context-dependent, human story to show situations which are not generalizable, but which are instructive. The first situation I offer comes from Botswana. Botswana, like so many countries, has many peoples in it, including the San peoples (formerly known to much of the world as Bushmen). Imagine the scene. I am visiting a Year 5 class (ages 9 and upward) in a school deep in rural Botswana. It has taken hours to reach it from the nearest small town, driving not on tar but on deep sand. The school is indeed, as Catherine Odoro says, one of the few rectangular buildings in the village. The other one is the small shop and bar. Otherwise the buildings are neat, round houses each set in a fenced compound. The school group of buildings includes the teachers’ homes. The teachers live apart from the rest of the village in rectangular government houses. Unlike the villagers who are all San people, they are native speakers of Setswana. The language of education is Setswana and English. About thirty children sit at desks in a room largely bare of educational materials like posters, books, and equipment for specific curriculum activities. I take a photograph of one of the children. It would be hard to tell from the photograph that she is not from the UK. She sits at a desk, in her blue uniform (provided by the government), resting her hand on her cheek, her 140

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

elbow on her desk, her pencil in her hand, looking down at the exercise book in which she should be writing. Children in primary schools often look like this: writing is difficult. The next situation I offer is again from a rural primary school, but this time in the USA. I took a photograph when I was there, doing some research with the teacher in a first year class (ages 6–7). The picture shows a corner of this well-stocked classroom of about twenty pupils. A child at the front is sitting at a desk, working at a large sheet of paper, making a story book by drawing and writing. In the background is a large display board decorated with cartoon characters, with speech bubbles coming out of their mouths. Children’s work is mounted on the board, under the heading ‘Our Wintry Work’. (There was deep snow outside.) Above this is another notice: ‘WRITING’. There is also a set of shelves with boxes of writing implements and piles of paper for the children to use. The third situation comes from the UK. This time I am visiting a city school for pupils with severe or profound learning disabilities. Again I take a photograph, this time of two teenagers. They are learning to make films using video. Many of them communicate much better through visual means than through words or writing. I am there so that they can interview me as part of their project. My photograph shows two young people and a technician standing round the tripod where the video camera is mounted. Later they will learn to edit it and integrate the interview into a longer film. Each of these situations are ones in which a basic literacy is being taught. All of them are state schools: these students are benefiting from the ordinary policy and practice of their countries. However the differences are immediate, striking and significant. What is the meaning of literacy for the San child? And what literacy policy and pedagogical practices are appropriate for her? She is learning to write in her second or third language; her classroom has a few books, all text books; the displays are posters from the education ministry; her home and village contains very little printed material of any kind and very little electronic equipment either (she will be pleased to get a copy of my photograph); she is unlikely to go on to secondary, let alone tertiary education (though it is possible). In contrast, the six year old children in the USA are learning to write in their first language; the classroom is full of books and other printed material, including text books but also including books and posters for the children simply to enjoy; the children come from homes full of printed material of all kinds, even if their parents are not well-educated, and there is an abundance of electronic devices, including cameras, recorders, mobile phones and computers with internet access. All these children will continue their education at secondary level and most of them at tertiary level too. The teenagers in the UK are different again. They have severe learning disabilities, but are able to achieve a 141

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

beginning of media literacy, something that is increasingly relevant as electronic communication expands. However they, like the children in the USA, are surrounded by print and books, at school and at home. And they will be very familiar with television, video, films, posters, and photographs. It is likely that in spite of their learning disabilities they will be able to understand a lot about public communications and the uses of verbal and visual literacies. Literacy statistics hide these significant differences. Indeed even if all the independent variables could be identified there are too many of them for any useful statistics to be generated. With simplistic statistical approaches adding more variables to a correlation increases the correlation, until it is 1.0 when there are the same number of variables, however meaningless, as there are observations. The loss in the degrees of freedom as the number of variables increases makes the results increasingly useless. Specification errors are inevitable: correlation, for example, normally uses hypotheses specifying linear, log or geometric responses – which can be plotted by a line on a graph. However, there are indications from qualitative research that many of the relationships between two variables in education are much more complicated, and when other factors are introduced the interplay becomes very complex indeed. In the case of literacy, research into ‘book floods’ shows that relevant factors include accessibility, display, quality of book, teacher education, cultural attitudes to teaching and whether or not the students live in a print culture (Elly, Cutting, Mangubhai and Hugo, 1996; Raban, Brown and Scull, 2009). Further, the different definitions of literacy used in statistics would generate different sets of variables. Commonly used definitions of literacy will give very different results (and imply different strategies) for these children. One widely used criterion in sub-Saharan Africa, ‘the ability to read easily or with difficulty a letter or a newspaper’, may be compared with another equally widely used, ‘can with understanding both read and write a short simple statement on his or her everyday life’. (See Aitcheson and Alidou, 2009) What would those two statements mean to the San child? to the American child? to the British teenagers? The meaning attached to a letter or a newspaper is not the same cross culturally. Even the ability to write a short statement will mean something different to a child in a community where literacy is needed and assumed, and to a child where it is not. So what policy is needed about literacy levels? And how should teachers approach the task of teaching children to read and to use electronic communication?

142

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

5. Trustworthy Narratives My narratives are not the products of research. They function in this argument as rhetoric and illustration. I offer them in the hope they have achieved their purpose of drawing attention to the significance of understanding specific contexts in order to interpret information gathered more generally and of how assumptions that are made by Westerners about those contexts may be seriously mistaken. You, the reader, may believe them, but equally you may be skeptical. For me, the story teller, they are part of my own personal knowledge, but I am well aware that they are not presented in a way that would mean that you, the reader, have good reasons to trust them. To take this point further, I may have tried to be strictly faithful to the facts or I may have fictionalized some aspects of the stories, perhaps in order to maintain confidentiality, or to bring together various aspects of the truth as I perceive it. Personal and experiential knowledge need not remain simply personal. It can be presented as research. As previously argued in Griffiths and Macleod (2008) it is possible to produce trustworthy research-based knowledge of particular contexts. Such research is based in an epistemology of the unique and particular, a phrase I take from the philosopher Cavarero (2002). Just as with an epistemology of the general and universalizable, an epistemology of the unique and particular must have a means of establishing sound, trustworthy knowledge distinguishable from the anecdotes, songs, poems, performances or images used rhetorically. The epistemology of the unique and particular is recognizable as a version of Aristotelian praxis read through the lens of Arendt’s (1958) related concepts of the bios politicos and natality. As Cavarero helpfully puts it, praxis is concerned with the “shared and relational space generated by the words and deeds of a plurality of human beings” (Cavarero, 2002, p. 506).2 Praxis, unlike Aristotelian techne, requires personal wisdom and understanding. Joseph Dunne has usefully interpreted it as follows: [Praxis] is conduct in a public space with others in which a person, without ulterior purpose and with a view to no object detachable from himself, acts in such a way as to realise excellences that he has come to appreciate in his community as constitutive of a worthwhile way of life. ... praxis required for its regulation a kind of knowledge that was more personal and experiential, more supple and less formulable, than the knowledge conferred by techne. (1993, p. 10)

Praxis is created from evidence gathered personally as well as from others, and applied with intelligence, judgment and logic.

143

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

The soundness of a claim to knowledge is assessed on the grounds of both truth and validity. Therefore personal narratives used as research need to be demonstrably trustworthy in relation to both. I now briefly consider each in turn. I begin with truth. In assessing a narrative, judgments about truth are preceded by judgments about truthfulness. Here I am drawing on Bernard Williams’ useful distinction between truth and truthfulness (Williams, 2002).3 He argues that there are two basic virtues associated with truthfulness: accuracy and sincerity. Judging accuracy and sincerity is a matter for judgment, for weighing evidence, for weighing up reasons to trust the teller. It is difficult to do. There are no infallible rules to guide these judgments about truthfulness. However it is a familiar difficulty which we human beings overcome in order simply to carry on living in families, communities and society at large. In ordinary life we listen to and tell stories all the time. We need to judge how far they are accurate and told with sincerity. We know, and indeed expect, them to be partial, self-serving, entertaining, persuasive and to draw on imperfect memories. Judgments are even more difficult in the case of accounts which are fictionalized, sometimes ironic, or which are poetic or visual representations. Again, it is a familiar difficulty. Myths, fables, riddles, humor and images are used the world over to convey truths (e.g. see Bridges, 2003; Sparkes, Nilges, Swan, and Dowling, 2003; Walker and Unterhalter, 2004; Griffiths and Peters, 2012). Researchers presented with a narrative must make judgments about the truthfulness of the narrator. Of course, they do this at a personal level, producing personal knowledge, but research is public knowledge. Therefore, researchers need both to make their judgments public and also to give an indication of the reasons for the way in which their judgments were reached. A researcher also needs to present the audience with evidence of how stories were produced, with what intended audience, and for what purpose – and with what funding. All of these factors affect judgments of accuracy and sincerity. I now turn to validity. I begin by emphasizing that the validity in question is not the validity of data in science, let alone of scientism, where numeric measurement is a basic tool. Qualitative researchers have suggested a number of different approaches to the issue of validity in research where numeric measurement is not being used, including, for example, rhizomatic validity, crystalline validity, and respondent validation. In Griffiths and Macleod (2008) we developed an account of validity which starts from older uses of the term: the ‘ordinary language’ understanding which does not require either measurement or certainty. It is the responsibility of researchers to present research in such a way that judgments can be made about its validity by their audiences. To enable this, sound research needs to show 144

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

that the researcher has taken account of representativeness, bias and the possibility of reframing the question. Sometimes a narrative is significant because it reflects a common situation, and sometimes it is significant precisely because it reflects an unusual one. It is important to know which is being claimed and why. Research is also distinguished from anecdote or polemic by attention to representation, genre and literary quality: the way that a personal narrative is presented.4 The researcher should try to clarify what kinds of reflective and reflexive choices and judgments were made about, for instance, the medium used to present it, any fictions used, and the literary decisions about chronology, hero narratives, etc. Researchers need to set their judgments within their understanding of the cultural, social, political and personal contexts. Personal narrative and stories use an epistemology of the unique and the particular. The knowledge that they generate is not the same as knowledge that comes from epistemologies of the general and universal. There are no timeless truths to be uncovered. There are no laws to be formulated. Contextual knowledge is probably more useful than generalized knowledge when formulating and carrying out complex educational policy or when carrying on the complicated business of teaching. For these purposes factual knowledge is less useful than qualities of understanding and wisdom. Stories made public and understood within the framework of individual experiences help cultivate these qualities. They show us other aspects of our world and in doing so illuminate our own small part of it. They help us question what we have taken for granted, to broaden our comprehension, and to deepen our insights. 6. Conclusions My conclusion is Janus faced. I do not want to decry the usefulness of aid, degree programs or academic publishing. Nor am I concerned to present another version of ‘ground up cosmopolitanism’ or of Held’s regionally multipolar world order. Rather I am concerned to argue for an acknowledgement of the specific polarities within the interactions between those who can sell their knowledge or who are part of educational aid programs, and those who buy it or are asked to accept what is offered through aid. Acknowledgement would require an explicit acceptance that knowledge constructed in one context is only partially fit for purpose in another. The social, material, topological, cultural, linguistic, historical, political context in any region is relevant in understanding how far any knowledge may be useful. Personal narratives and other stories in educational research are also a way for the majority of the world to put the knowledge constructed in the 145

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

West into its place: useful, but only insofar as it is relevant to the particular contexts at hand. Thus, stories, especially when presented as research, are an essential tool for developing countries in formulating their own solutions and resolutions to their own educational issues and problems. Such research does not require the extensive resource base that educational research enjoys in the richer parts of the world where educational research has been established – and funded – for decades. Moreover, knowledge expressed in stories seems to engage the memory and emotions in a way that drier modes of expression do not. It cannot be an accident that stories told in language, dance and song are found, repeated and enjoyed all over the world. In the long run there might even be the happy possibility that Westerners’ self-belief in their own rightness and universality might be shaken. As I remarked in Griffiths (2012) there are indications that those parts of the world, such as China or India, which are already presenting a challenge to Western economic dominance, are also challenging orthodox Western views about appropriate strategies in Higher Education policies (Griffiths, 2012). So, like Peters, I want to find ways of positioning educational research, theory and philosophy in a post-colonial world. Speaking of Australia and New Zealand he says (2013, n.p.): Here over 500 languages, 500 peoples and their works and ideas have hardly appeared in English philosophy journals. So we have an obligation to indigenous peoples… How do we make sense in an English speaking world, of Confucian societies, that have great respect for the scholar, with an English speaking world…To what extent can we collaborate and what will that mean for a world which is based on the concept of full participation in an educational society – one that demands an educational equality. NOTES 1. See the useful overviews in Hansen (2010) and Strand (2010b). 2. Cavarero herself does not draw directly on Aristotle though she does use the term ‘praxis’ in one of her quotations from Arendt. 3. As Williams points out the word, ‘truth’ is much more difficult to assess anyway, because the meaning of the term is itself hotly contested. Indeed this contest is signaled by the way ‘truth’ often appears in scare quotes in educational research literature. Whatever allegiance any individual researcher has to one or other definitions of ‘truth’, it is much easier to agree on truthfulness which is often all that it is necessary to establish in narrative (and other qualitative) research. 4. For example, they might be romantic (heroes and villains), epideictic (assigning praise or blame) or scientistic (expressing timeless universal truths from data).

146

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Appiah, K.W. (2007), “Global Citizenship,” Fordham Law Review 75(5): 2375– 2391. Appiah, K.W. (2006), Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W.W. Norton. Arendt, Hannah (1958), The Human Condition. London and Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Aitchison, John, and Alidou, Hassana (2009), The State and Development of Adult Learning and Education in Subsaharan Africa: Regional Synthesis Report, Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Life Long Learning. Accessed 27 February 2013 from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001829/182924e.pdf Aristotle (1980), The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Austin, J.L. (1962), Sense and Sensibilia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bridges, David (2003), Fiction Written Under Oath? Essays in Philosophy and Educational Research. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Brock-Utne, Birgit (2002), “Development Aid to the Education Sector in Africa: Lessons of Experience,” CICE Hiroshima University, Journal of International Cooperation in Education 5(2): 63–89. Accessed 27 February 2013 from: http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/cice/utne5-2.pdf Cavarero, A. (2002), “Politicizing Theory,” Political Theory 30(4): 506–532. Dunne, J. (1993), Back to the Rough Ground: Practical Judgement and the Lure of Technique. Indiana, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Enslin, Penny, Tjiattas, Mary, and Todd, Sharon (2009), “Symposium: Philosophy of Education and Gigantic Affront of Universalism,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 43(1): 1–29. Goetze, Catherine (2013), “The Particularism of Cosmopolitanism,” Global Society 27(1): 91–114. Griffiths, Morwenna and Macleod, Gale (2008), “Personal Narratives and Policy: Never the Twain?,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 42(1): 121–143. Griffiths Morwenna, & Michael A. Peters (2012), “I Knew Jean-Paul Sartre’: Philosophy of Education as Comedy,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 46(2): 132–147. Hansen, David T., (2010), “Cosmopolitanism and Education: A View from the Ground,” Teachers College Record 112(1): 1–30. Held, David (1992), “Democracy: From City-states to a Cosmopolitan Order?” Political Studies 60: 10–39. Latour, B. (1987), Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (2004), Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Catherine Porter (trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Mazawi, André Elias (2008a), “Whither an Arab ‘Knowledge Society’? Regionalism, Nation-States and Educational Research for Development,” keynote address at the 3rd Mediterranean Society of Comparative Education Conference, 11–13 May, Malta.

147

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Mazawi, André Elias (2008b), “Dis/integrated Orders and the Politics of Recognition: Civil Upheavals, Militarism, and Educators’ Lives and Work,” Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies 13(2): 69–89. Mouffe, Chantal (2008), “Which World Order: Cosmopolitan or Multipolar?” Ethical Perspectives 15(4): 453–467. Papastephanou, Marianna (2011a), “The ‘Cosmopolitan’ Self Does Her Homework,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 45(4): 598–612. Papastephanou, Marianna (2011b), “Walls and Laws: Proximity, Distance and the Doubleness of the Border,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 43(3): 209–224. Peters, M. (2013), “Expert Interview,” accessed 27 February 2013 from: http:// www.educationarena.com/pdf/expertInterviews/transcript_cat2_rept.pdf Raban, B., Brown, P. M., and Scull, J. (2009), “The Young Learners’ Project: Learning and Literacy in the Early Years,” Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Annual Conference. Canberra ACT. Rizvi, Fazal (2005), “International Education and the Production of Cosmopolitan Identities,” RIHE International Publications Series 9, accessed 27 February 2013 from: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/3516 Rizvi, Fazal (2009), “Towards Cosmopolitan Learning,” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 30(3): 253–268. Smeyers, Paul (2010), “Statistics and the Inference to the Best Explanation: Living without Complexity?” in Paul Smeyers and Marc Depaepe (eds.), Educational Research: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Statistics. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York: Springer, 161–176. Smith, R.D. (2011), “Beneath the Skin: Statistics, Trust and Status,” Educational Theory 61(6): 633–645. Sparkes, Andrew C., Nilges, Lynda, Swan, Peter, and Dowling, Fiona (2003), “Poetic Representations in Sport and Physical Education: Insider Perspectives,” Sport, Education and Society 8(2): 153–177. Strand, Torill (2010a), “Introduction: Cosmopolitanism in the Making,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 29: 103–109. Strand, Torill (2010b), “The Making of New Cosmopolitanism,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 29: 229–242. Todd, S. (2007), “Ambiguities of Cosmopolitanism: Difference, Gender and the Right to Education,” in K. Roth and Gur Ze’ev (eds.), Education in the Era of Globalization. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York: Springer, 65–82. Todd, Sharon (2010), “Living in a Dissonant World: Toward an Agonistic Cosmopolitics for Education,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 29(2): 213–228. Walker, Melanie, and Unterhalter, Elaine (2004), “Knowledge, Narrative and National Reconciliation: Storied Reflections on the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 25(2): 279–297. Williams, B. (2002), Truth and Truthfulness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

148

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Michael A. Peters’ Discursive Universalism Marianna Papastephanou University of Cyprus

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Attributing to Michael Peters a discursive universalism, and doing so in the very title of an essay in a Festschrift, comes as a surprise. It may even have a shock effect. For, any reader, even slightly familiar with Michael’s prolific and ongoing interventions in philosophy and in educational theory, will immediately feel that there is something odd in associating with universalism a thinker typically understood as a postmodern and poststructuralist philosopher/educator. Among Michael’s inexhaustibly energetic, highly influential, and paradigm-shifting philosophical-educational contributions his thoughtful elaboration on postmodern criticisms of universalist optics surely stands out. Now, if one adds to all this what I would call Michael’s ‘paganism’ in the Lyotardian (1977) sense, and his commitment to pluralism and particularism, declaring Michael a universalist (albeit of a discursive kind) may sound not just odd but even contradictory. Yet, this is precisely what I intend to do in this essay. More, my argument is that Michael does not only make room for a kind of universalism; he also performs this universalism as an academic author and a public intellectual of his international stature and caliber. To anticipate the rest of the essay and dissipate any misreading of it as supposedly exposing a performative contradiction on Michael’s part, let me say already that his is a non-toxic,1 consistent and valuable universalism, one that has not yet received due attention and has hardly been thematized in philosophy of education. But precisely because of this neglect, the universalism that can be associated with Michael’s extremely impressive work has to be: i. textually corroborated, unpacked and differentiated from his avowed commitment to pluralism; and ii. more broadly defended against standard associations of universalism with Eurocentrism.

149

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

2. Pluralism and Universalism

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

“Are there philosophical positions ‘that can reject absolutism and yet reconfigure a form of universalism’ in a post-metaphysical sense?” (Peters, 2000, p. 337)

Peters praises post-colonial theorists who ‘critique forms of Eurocentrism as based on the myth of a universalist, stable, transparent humanist Self by […] exposing and opening up the European Enlightenment experience of oneness and unity to non-Western codes and interpretations’ (Peters, 2005, p. 439, emphasis mine). At first sight, the italicized words render the uniof universalism2 and, by implication, the attribution of universalism to Peters problematic. The following below explains why this is not the case. True, universalism in its modern sense has been attacked by Peters whose ‘pagan’ rather than ‘pious’ thought provocation always operates in the plural and whose intellectual devotions are ‘polytheist’ rather than ‘monotheist’.3 Indeed, he makes the case for ‘different kinds of thinking’ and ‘different styles of reasoning’; in line with postmodern criticisms of a unified, hegemonic reason, Peters pluralizes reason and recognizes ‘its plurality’: in it he sees ‘a range of different kinds, advanced by different philosophers at different points in the history of philosophy’ (Peters, 2007, p. 354). In turn, this opens space for also recognizing ‘that new kinds of thinking and styles of reasoning come into existence and are developed and refined over time’ (ibid, p. 360). Yet, as much as the emphatic reiteration of the adjective ‘different’ asserts diversity and plurality, it would be impoverishing of Peters’ ethico-political vision to interpret the statement above as, merely, a commitment to pluralism. For, such statements also serve as proof of a demand for a discursive inclusion of all possible semantic contents, old and new, into scholarly consideration. I unpack this point by arguing that the inclusive demand differentiates an ‘anything goes’ pluralism and particularism from a non-toxic ‘everything included’ universalism whose ground cannot be covered by the former notions. Particularist pluralism does not suffice to de-scribe4 the effects of Eurocentrism because it speaks for the Many in a politically vague manner, without including the prospect of all. The particulars that, in their togetherness, constitute a plurality are always a subset, and their positioning in the set of plurality depends on the positioning that is given to other particulars within the set. Nothing within the notion of pluralism safeguards that the particulars constituting a given set of it are all those affected by the set in question or that they allocated space in an egalitarian way. A universalism that deserves the name is more inclusive than pluralism because (if nontoxic) it stresses the ‘each and every one’ as deserving of attention or accom150

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

modation.5 This becomes clearer when Peters spells out the politicization of his pluralism: this pluralism does not just serve cognitive or aesthetic desire for a less uniform and richer lifestyle or world perception. It also serves ethico-political concerns in combating modes of thinking that block, by being hegemonic, the possibility of including all possible candidates for discursive citizenship. Here is one token of the politicization in question: the acceptance of plurality ‘might serve as an antidote to the aggrandisement of one dominant form of thinking and reasoning in the field of education; it might also encourage a greater sensitivity to issues of discourse’ (Peters, 2007, p. 360 emphasis mine). Peters’ valuable idealization of plurality is set against the unreflective commitment to a particular form of thinking, that is, against discursive boundaries being policed by a hegemonic particularism. We may even say that Peters’ all-encompassing commitment to discursive questioning enables what D. Haraway (1992) terms ‘diffracted readings’ and avoids discursive pitfalls such as ‘stronghold fortification’ and ‘frame demolition’. Peters’ discursive openness directs his thought away from the danger of fortifying walls of one polemical camp; his deep understanding of various premises at stake protect his thought from crossing discursive borders in ways that demolish the boundaries that frame discourses precisely as different from one another.6 It is important to emphasize that Peters’s amazing versatility and erudition enacts the pluralism to which he is theoretically committed: his employment of an extremely rich set of intellectual sources, e.g. Wittgenstein, Heidegger (Peters, 2007), Foucault (Peters, 2004), Rancière (Peters, 2010a, p. 44), Dussel (Peters, 2005) as figures with whom he has affinities and intellectual debts merely indicates the broad scope of his own pluralization of philosophical engagement rather than exhaust it. As a public intellectual, he also performs an inclusive, thematic-discursive universalism in speaking out against imperialist acts that occur all over the world (Peters, 2002 and 2008). But Peters also grants discursive citizenship to various others as intellectual-dialogical opponents by critically discussing their thought rather than just dismissing it axiomatically and indulging in insiders’ talks about, and ‘reverent’ refinements of, cherished philosophies. Even when he studies phenomena associated with the worrying realities effected by neoliberalism he avoids polemical caricatures and distinguishes ‘different strands and readings’ that may eventuate the overcoming of the neoliberal era. Such readings he acknowledges, for instance, regarding knowledge economy (Peters, 2010b).7 In fact, a kind of inclusive universalism operates even underneath the very commitment to questioning universalism: if postmodernism questions ‘all forms of foundationalism and the absolutist and ahistorical categories and values, sustained and propagated through the symbolic unifying power 151

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

of the grand narratives, by which “man”, “reason”, “history” and “culture” were first projected in universalist European terms’ (Peters, 2005, p. 442 emphasis mine); then, this means nothing less than that (in principle) all Euro-centric ideas must be subject to scrutiny. Everything is included in the set of question-able conceptions – a universalist set precisely because it is determined to leave nothing out of the critical scope of philosophy. Exceptions to this, and particularist, partial concentrations on limited cases, would only perpetuate a Eurocentric (im)partiality. In this way, his urging us to ‘thinking differently’ (Peters, 2000, p. 338) can be expanded to a plea to rethink even the received treatment of universalism as homogeneous and toxic and to discern the plurality of readings of what counts as universalism, the possible new contents that the term may take, and perhaps to realize that some of those contents are not as expendable or undesirable as the standard view has it. Peter’s principled rejection of binary oppositions8 derives from the fact that he sees them as having ‘the effect of excluding or “Othering” some groups of people’ (Peters, 2005, p. 437). Inverted, this means that, in principle, inclusion should be possible for all people, meanings, thoughts and cultural material. This ‘all’ gives a ‘cosmic’ and ‘cosmopolitan’ sense to universalism, whose uni- has so far largely been construed as favoring exclusivist unity, the privilege of the One over the Many. By contrast, in my reading, the non-toxic universalism I defend (and the one I see operating in Peter’s universally acclaimed work) is the notion that can accommodate the greatest possible reducibility of the One to the infinite multitude/multiplicity that constitutes it. Thus, Peters’ universalism is not of the ‘Hegelian One-ness’, where the many lose their distinctiveness in a non-differentiated unity; it is the uni-versalism of an ideal cosmos9 that comprises ‘everything’ and ‘everybody’ in their inexorable fluidity and becoming and, to use Badiou (2003), makes everything count. In other words, Peters’ universalism is of the cosmo-politics of a world as it should be. 3. Universalism and Eurocentrism I have suggested that we may go beyond (and that Peters has implicitly done so) the constructed tension between universalism and particularism.10 However, this tension operates in the received view on Eurocentrism, incriminating universalism11 wholesale12 and finding facile resort in any particularism. Now, as Peters (like many of us) employs the charge of Eurocentrism as a valuable conceptual tool,13 it is important to explain in what sense this does not contradict the universalism that this essay defends (and traces it in Peters’ highly original philosophy). One may also object that Peters’ discursive universalism is compromised (or contradictory) by 152

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

his relying quite heavily (though not exclusively) on philosophical sources that originate in the West. Below I hope to show that such objections are unsubstantiated if we see Eurocentrism otherwise. Recent efforts to respond to such predicaments involve recasting universalism in different idioms. Universalism is not a uniform notion, and philosophical attempts to reformulate it away from older, indefensible forms comprise endeavours as diverse as those by Habermas, Mouffe Laclau or Butler (Cooke, 2006) and Badiou (2003). But I believe that a fuller response presupposes a reformulation of Eurocentrism too. As I have attempted it elsewhere (Papastephanou, 2011), I will be very brief here. Postmodern and postcolonial thought condemns the humanism and developmentalism of modern, Western world-understandings. The charge it typically directs at the corresponding modern philosophical reflections is that of Eurocentrism. Europeans have, as the argument goes, treated ideas that originated in the West as of universal validity and value; from then on, they set out to enforce them upon the rest of the world and justify their expansion by recourse to the supposed superiority of the Western culture. Therefore, even when the cognitive universalism of Westerners had inclusive pretenses, it remained a disguised imperialism. This standard view on Eurocentrism does not make much room for salvaging universalism and, in my view, suffers from a genetic fallacy when judging ideas by the topos of their origin. The standard view on Eurocentrism incriminates anything European or Anglo-American or Northwestern etc on grounds of its having originated in some western source/time/space. In so doing, it becomes a sweeping indictment of all things possibly associated with the Northwestern world and thus itself slides into a bad universalism/universalization. Against it, I suggest that Eurocentrism be dissociated from universalism because what was inherent in it was an expansionism that exploited a particular sense of universalism. This move gives Eurocentrism a more complex and radical meaning precisely by disconnecting it from universalism and by showing that expansion employed a sense of universalism in order to rationalize (mainly) profitseeking. Expansion did not occur because of universal aspirations that were true to the best possible meaning of the term ‘universal’. A deeper implication of this reformulation is that an idea (e.g. democracy, truth, and other Shibboleths of modernity) is not judged as Eurocentric or not on grounds of where it was first thematized/theorized but on grounds of its political (motivational and justificatory) operations regarding the treatment of other people. I see nothing wrong in one’s being steeped in Western traditions so long as those are not crucial for how one treats others or, more, so long as they are found helpful by others themselves to voicing the wrong that they have suffered. To illustrate the second possibility, suffice it to say that hybrid153

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

ization is viewed by many Third World intellectuals as a political tool for directing notions that are Western in origin against their being paid lip service by the West. To illustrate the first possibility a longer example is required such as the following: to feel squeamish about foreign food, arguably, deprives you from a more eudaemonist lifestyle that would enrich your everyday experience. But this concerns primarily your well-being; if it affects others, it is only very indirectly and loosely. It is very possible that such a person (who is existentially more risk-averse and sort of ‘conservative’) might not be ethically obtuse in instances that truly matter for others, e.g. in condemning and demonstrating against an unjust war that her country unleashes for pre-emptive reasons. Instead of being subtle, the kind of cosmopolitanism that emphasizes rejecting roots (Western roots in this case), trying foreign stuff and going beyond West-originated ideas is one of the crudest kinds. To indicate why, let us contrast it with the opposite case. Suppose someone who enriches her life with foreign cultural material, e.g. eats foreign food, etc., and who does not draw – on various issues – from the Western pool of cultural material. Suppose that she does so because she benefits from all foreign experiences; however, when it comes to acting in ways that affect others, she proves to be predatory. It would be rather gruesome to assume that she is nevertheless cosmopolitan rather than Eurocentric. In my opinion, the standard notion of Eurocentrism, the one that places so much emphasis on the origin of the cultural material that determines one’s life or thought, does not have the conceptual means for saying why, say, a slave trader of the past who could speak the languages of the slaves, enjoy their food and their music, etc., was by definition more Eurocentric than a compatriot of his who might have never tried foreign food, heard foreign music etc, yet held slavery to be morally repugnant. As to statements that – regardless of whether they originate in the West or not – deserve the status of a universal truth, one can quite safely offer as an example of such a true statement the one about philosophy having largely (with exceptions such as Russell, Sartre, Camus and few others) sleepwalked its way through colonialism, or, at least, through the colonialism that did not concern the northern part of Africa; or the statement that much philosophy has largely downplayed the effects of the Cold War and the role of the big powers in the situation in which some smaller countries are found. It is only on grounds of the universal validity claim of such statements that Peters’ compelling plea not to ignore ‘how heavy the colonial past weighs on the present’ (Peters, 2003, p. 423) makes sense and convinces us.

154

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

4. Conclusion In detecting and condemning Eurocentrisms Peters presupposes the universalizable indictment of expansionism in ways that do not affect the psychic dis-charge that comes about when Western thinkers charge one with Eurocentrism every time one dares to employ a Western idea. The political sensibilities that Peters has introduced in philosophy of education avoid the sweeping character of the received view on Eurocentrism that leads more to self-exculpating, politically correct language than to suggestions of material measures for Western redirection. Against this, instead of passing judgment in a confessional-cultural sense (that is, we, Western people, should confess our guilt and seek expiation from God), Peters performs important criticisms of general Western tendencies, criticisms that can be described as Aristotelian in origin in the following sense: as Aristotle wrote, when people move from axioms and principles to practical syllogisms, their next move should be expected to be demonstrative acts (Norris, 2009, p. 164). In our context, when Western academia claims to endorse democracy, justice, care, etc, it should be expected to provide practical syllogisms about how such principles/ideas relate to the global situation and then move to demonstrative acts, that is, to acts that suggest materialization through concrete measures (e.g. redistribution of wealth, settlement of past damages, etc). When Peters urges us not to be hostages to the binarism that privileges spatiality over temporality (as is often the case in the globalized world) but rather to reclaim the educational import of critical historiographies (Peters, 2011) he paves the way for the kinds of practical syllogisms that are required by philosophers/educators as public intellectuals if people are to be mobilized towards concomitant demonstrative acts. The Eurocentrism of the self-exculpating kind places universalism and expansionism on a par in a self-defeating way, as it deprives the critic from articulating the wrong caused by expansionism in non-toxic universalist terms. Even when contemporary political discourse becomes quick in catching politically incorrect ways of talking about others, it does not always acknowledge the deaths and suffering modern expansionism has caused to others and even more rarely does it philosophically explore or recommend the making of concrete, practical amends for such harm. The self-flagellation involved in the moralist search for ever more politically correct (qua antiuniversalist) language – and, the historical connotations of Western medieval times accompanying this term are very interesting! – does not lead to truly harkening to the other. Beyond all this, Peters’ educational philosophy offers neither verbal nor psychological remedies. It presupposes and performs the kind of discursiveness that enlarges thought up to the point of inclusive universality and makes education a preparation of demonstrative acts. 155

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

A reconceptualization of Eurocentrism that condemns expansionism in the name of a non-toxic universalism of all-inclusiveness and concern for all (humans, all biota and the non-sentient world) can better attack the kind of taxonomy of values, the rationalizations of expansion that such taxonomy encouraged and the actions that it motivated, and which can be directly or causally connected with capitalism, imperialism, racism, and other such issues that Peters fervently criticizes. Hence, what Peters’ philosophy combats at a much deeper level seems to me to be the self-exculpating and selfserving Eurocentrism that left the Western, profit seeking self unchallenged, allowed it to use universalism as a pretext, excuse and rationalization of expansion and has by now homogenized universalism enough to turn it into the West’s scapegoat.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

NOTES 1. I borrow the term ‘non-toxic universalism’ from Enslin and Tjiattas (2009) who defend the possibility of a universalism without the undesirable modern ideological baggage. 2. From Latin uni-, combining form of unus (‘one’). Hence, a kind of one-ness is inherent in the etymology of universalism. But to the question about whether such one-ness is inescapably of the ‘homogenous whole’ kind or it can be of a different kind this essay will offer only a short answer. Surely a much longer answer is required, which is, however, not possible within the confines of this essay. 3. In employing these terms, I adapt Lyotard’s insights on philosophical paganism as found in Instructions Païennes (1977). 4. I employ the term ‘de-scribe’ largely in the sense that Zelia Gregoriou (2004) has given it. 5. As for the fundamental role of equality in this kind of universalism, suffice it here to refer the reader to Alain Badiou’s (2003) work on the topic. 6. For more on the terms ‘stronghold fortification’ and ‘frame demolition’, see Papastephanou (2010). 7. He writes: ‘The different strands of this discourse are radically diverse and include attempts to theorise not only knowledge economy but also the parallel term ‘knowledge society’, and also the attempts to relate these terms to wider and broader changes in the nature of capitalism, modernity and the global economy’ (Peters, 2010b, p. 67). 8. I would include in the indicative list of binary oppositions that Peters usually employs also the binarism ‘particularism vs universalism’. Just as universalism can be toxic, particularism too becomes toxic when given an absolute hegemony. 9. For more on this interpretation of cosmos and cosmopolitanism, see the conclusion in Papastephanou (2012). 10. If we go beyond that tension, we can come up with new, far more complex and richer associations of universalism and particularism. 11. It takes just a search in scholarly Internet engines and databases to prove that a standard view on Eurocentrism has infiltrated – practically – all the theoretical 156

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

quarters that engage with such topics. Despite differences and nuances, despite refinements of the meaning, the dominant conception of «Eurocentrism» is indeed the one that focuses on the universal aspirations of West-originated ideas. 12. Against overgeneralizations, Peters has been vigilant and cautious not to lose sight of homogenizing tendencies when dealing with general terms. This caution invites due attention to all the possible (and sometimes necessary) dismantling of sedimented meanings. 13. See, for instance, Peters’ (2009) critical discussion of Habermas and Derrida’s joined plea for Europe.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Badiou, A. (2003), Saint-Paul: The Foundation of Universalism. Trans. R. Brassier. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Cooke, M. (2006), Re-Presenting the Good Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Enslin, P., and Tjiattas, M. (2009), “Philosophy of Education and the Gigantic Affront of Universalism,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 43(1): 2–17. Gregoriou, Z. (2004), “De-Scribing Hybridity in ‘Unspoiled Cyprus:’ Postcolonial Tasks for the Theory of Education,” Comparative Education 40(2): 241–266. Haraway, D. (1992), “The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others,” in L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, and P. A. Treichler (eds.), Cultural Studies. New York: Routledge, 295–337. Lyotard, J.-F. (1977), Instructions Païennes. Paris: Editions Galilée. Norris, C. (2009), Badiou’s Being and Event. London: Continuuum. Papastephanou, M. (2010), “The Conflict of the Faculties: Educational Research, Inclusion, Philosophy and Boundary Discourses,” Ethics and Education 5(2): 99–116. Papastephanou, M. (2011), “Eurocentrism Beyond the «Universalism vs Particularism» Dilemma: Habermas and Derrida’s Joined Plea for a New Europe,” History of the Human Sciences 24(5): 142–166. Papastephanou, (2012), Thinking Differently about Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Eccentricity and a Globalized World. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Peters, M. (2000), “Thinking Again or Thinking Differently?” Educational Philosophy and Theory 32(3): 335–338. Peters, M. (2002), “Education Policy Research and the Global Knowledge Economy,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 34(1): 91–102. Peters, M. (2003), “Mapping the New Imperialism: Where Is Postcolonialism?” Policy Futures in Education 1(2): 421–424. Peters, M. (2004), “Educational Research: “Games of Truth” and the Ethics of Subjectivity,” Journal of Educational Enquiry 5.2: 50–63. Peters, M. (2005), “Education, Post-structuralism and the Politics of Difference,” Policy Futures in Education 3(4): 436–445. Peters, M. (2007), “Kinds of Thinking, Styles of Reasoning,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 39(4): 350–363.

157

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M. (2008), “Between Empires: Rethinking Identity and Citizenship in the Context of Globalisation,” in M. A. Peters, A. Britton, and H. Blee (eds), Global Citizenship Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 53–70. Peters, M. (2009), “The Ghostly Promise of Enlightenment Europe: Habermas, Derrida and the Predicament of the West,” Review of Contemporary Philosophy 8: 49–69. Peters, M. (2010a), “Global Citizenship Education: Politics, Problems and Prospects,” Citizenship: Social and Economics Education 9(1): 43–47. Peters, M. (2010b), “Three Forms of the Knowledge Economy: Learning, Creativity and Openness,” British Journal of Educational Studies 58(1): 67–88. Peters, M. (2011), “Critical Historiographies in Educational Theory: Retemporalizing Experience ‘After’ the Spatial Turn,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 3(2): 48–66.

158

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Cosmopolitan Outlook: Opening Doors and Letting Learn A. Chr. (Tina) Engels-Schwarzpaul Auckland University of Technology “… the happiness and relief I found in seeing that one can be educated in freedom.” Hannah Arendt to Karl Jaspers (1985: 206) “… the principled and methodical cultivation of a degree of estrangement from one’s own culture and history … might qualify as essential to a cosmopolitan commitment.” Paul Gilroy (2005: 67) “What else do you expect of a post-structuralist?” Michael A. Peters, (2001)

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In 1996, I simply could not find a PhD supervisor in my field of architecture and design at the University of Auckland. Nobody seemed able or willing to supervise a trans-disciplinary thesis located outside the then current disciplinary expertise, habits and fashions. My way of thinking, too, was that of an outsider (German/European, shot through with Māori perspectives adopted over a decade of marriage into Ngāti Porou). Eventually, someone referred me to Michael Peters, because he was well connected and perhaps able to suggest a potential supervisor. Following a series of meetings, Michael suggested that some of my core concerns fitted with those in education and philosophy and offered me supervision. We were both aware that our disciplinary backgrounds were very different: I knew I could not expect an understanding of what matters to designers from Michael. He, in turn, did not expect me to be a philosopher. In 2000, I graduated as one of a cohort of six woman PhD candidates. We nominated Michael for a teaching excellence award because we all, regardless of our diverse interests and temperaments, were convinced that he had been an outstanding supervisor. When I mentioned to Michael that I was impressed by the flexibility with which he responded to our different situations and needs, he replied: “What else do you expect of a poststructuralist?” His attitude afforded me an experience like that for which Hannah Arendt thanked Karl Jaspers (her PhD supervisor and later friend) 159

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

in a letter in 1953: to be educated in freedom. Michael contributed to the conditions of possibility that made my PhD life changing and opened me towards new ways of understanding. In 2010, a troubling question in my own supervision practice arose concerning disciplinary competence. I contacted Michael to seek his advice and to find out how he had dealt with such lack of expertise when he supervised me. From those discussions resulted, eventually, a co-edited book. Three aspects of my experience of Michael as an educator, academic and intellectual mentor stand out: his habit of opening of doors, his development of a cosmopolitan outlook, and his pedagogy of letting learn.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2. Opening Doors: Education as Politics Politics is present everywhere in New Zealand tertiary educational institutions. Driven by neo-liberal agendas of efficiency and marketization, they attract growing numbers of students – and increasingly so from abroad. Increasingly, too, the initial confidence that ‘our’ knowledge and ‘our’ ways of imparting it are universally valid and attractive has been questioned. Worldwide, growth outside the US-European axis has challenged assumptions that development and progress are inherently Western phenomena. More recent visions of development (of which education is an important part) acknowledge a growing diversity of models and recognize that “there are no one-size-fits-all solutions” (Peters, 2005: 477–479). In this scenario, inequality is an increasing concern, potentially undermining growth and social cohesion (e.g., Wade, 2023: 50). Education, so central to the knowledge economy, is also affected: the market-driven attraction of massive numbers of international students introduces into the university a “fundamental fragility”, a “mutability of societal dynamics (of unintended side effects, domination and power)” (Beck & Grande, 2010: 410). In the age of cosmopolitization, always and everywhere, “the global other is in our midst” (418). On the one hand, growing student-to-teacher ratios, reduced contact hours, and increasing pressure on academics to produce research outcomes all contribute to a situation where marvel and wonder (thaumazein), according to Socrates the beginning of philosophy and the love of knowledge, can flip over into its synonym of aporia: dilemma, quandary and perplexity (Jenner, 2013: 208). On the other hand, a shift away from, for instance, highly personal and private styles of supervision (which can create dependencies and let problems go unnoticed for a long time) may encourage more democratic and collaborative styles of learning. Yet, decades ago, Michael Peters already learnt the “beginnings of a theory of collaboration” from his own PhD supervisor, Jim Marshall. He gradually put it into practice with colleagues and students “all around the world” (Peters, 2013a: 148). An 160

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

important part of his collaboration is writing, and this is the area where I have observed Michael opening doors, for himself and for others. In 1997– 8, Michael wielded considerable influence on our PhD cohort to organize a doctoral symposium. I can’t say that his suggestion was immediately greeted with enthusiasm – but we complied. Michael then ensured that the presentations were published in a special issue of ACCESS Critical Perspectives on Education Policy and asked Lucy Holmes and me to co-edit it. Even though the cohort initially resisted his suggestion to collaborate, most of us subsequently continued to do so – some of us to this day. Michael told me once that, if he wants to learn something about a particular topic, he will edit a book – a process he also used with his students for doctoral seminars or individual theses. When I sought Michael’s opinion about my lack of disciplinary knowledge as a supervisor in 2010, I was becoming gradually aware that there is a widespread gap in understanding the specific conditions and needs of non-traditional PhD candidatures (that is, the experiences and expectations of candidates who have been traditionally absent from the academy). There was actually a gap in the literature, and it gave me the chance to explore Michael’s model: to edit a book in order to learn in the process. I was particularly interested in candidates who wish to draw on bodies and modes of knowledge that are not well represented in mainstream universities: Indigenous and other non-Western knowledges; knowledges enfolded into international students’ (non-English) first languages and cultural traditions; the renegade knowledges of marginalized groups. I found it very stimulating to bounce ideas with Michael – perhaps because, in his own words, he is “anti-institutional by force of class habit – a renegade” (Peters, 2013a: 159). May be it was this like-mindedness (though not well articulated at the time) that made me suggest to Michael to co-edit a book – in my case, certainly, to learn more about the topic. We had had only intermittent contact over the intervening years, but he accepted my invitation. We embarked on a project that has some affinity with the theme of this Festschrift, cosmopolitanism. The book, Of Other Thoughts: Non-traditional Ways to the Doctorate (Engels-Schwarzpaul & Peters, 2013), was released two years later. Without Michael, I might have never even started it. Often, I am one of the many “anxious individuals [who] are reduced to silence and to the anguish of thinking they have nothing to contribute” whom Michael referred to in his recent inaugural lecture at the University of Waikato (Peters, 2013b). As during the period of my PhD candidature, Michael again opened doors – but he let me walk through them on my own. At first, I recognized the same sense of loneliness I had sometimes felt as a PhD candidate when I was on my own: the frosts of freedom (perhaps the anxiety Kierkegaard called the “dizziness of freedom”, in Peters, 2013b). 161

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

3. Educational Cosmopolitics: Including the Other in Self-understanding In our recent collaboration, I found that the same non-exclusiveness of interest that led Michael to publish in diverse fields was a point of contact between our otherwise un-aligned research interests. Michael always seemed to be at ease when he engaged with difference. He respected, for instance, the autodidactic habits and idiosyncratic modes of study I had acquired when I was an undergraduate student with small children. He also accepted my strong opinions and non-Kiwi view-points (but he never ceased questioning them). In short, he was, as I wrote in the acknowledgements prefacing my PhD thesis, “continuously empathetic and encouraging, never directly steering me but providing me with possibilities and choices” (EngelsSchwarzpaul, 2001). On the downside, when he did not offer what I considered solid critical feedback, I was sometimes anxious. This might have been a matter of cultural difference (Germans are great criticizers while New Zealanders seem to abhor critique). Michael might have also been a particularly hands-off supervisor in my case (I only accidentally discovered late in my candidature that he could be quite hands-on). My anxieties as a candidate also indicate that supervisory relationships, including mine, were perhaps too personal, too private: none of us knew what happened in supervisions outside of our own. All the more important was Michael’s insistence on our collaboration in organizing the symposium that led to the ACCESS publication. A remark in Michael’s 2013 inaugural lecture at the University of Waikato suggests that his own growing awareness of the importance of the “positionality of the subject” was coupled with an increasing centrality of “the cultural specificity of the subject” when it comes to thinking about the experience and manifestation of feelings like fear and anxiety, or the perception of power relations. These “are all matters that can only be described under the category of difference” (Peters, 2013b). Difference is also a central category to cosmopolitanism as a “theory of diversity … a specific way of interpreting and coping with diversity” (Beck & Grande, 2010: 418, for a critique of Beck’s 2006 theory of cosmopolitanism, and implicitly of my own overly condensed argument here, see Latour, 2004). My use of the term cosmopolitan has nothing to do with the “dominant discourse of thin, liberal individual rights”, or with “liberal international relations theory and liberal international economics” seeking to extend liberal internationalism and economics. I see little value in trying to overcome “the fragmentation of the world” through the construction of a “global public order” based on liberal principles (Gowan, 2000: 1–2). My understanding of cosmopolitanism has more affinity with Kant’s eighteenth century notion, in which Jacques Derrida found “the conditions for hospitality” – alongside 162

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

the undecidability of the host/hostility coupling (Bennington, 1997; Honig, 2006: 106). Etymologically, “cosmopolitan” derives from cosmos, the universe, and polis, the city. Arendt interpreted the latter not as “the city-state in its physical location” but as the “organization of the people as it arises out of acting and speaking together” – “its true space lies between people living together for this purpose” (Arendt, 1958: 198). In this relational “space of appearance”, people appear to each other explicitly and constitute a shared reality (198). Arendt extended the Kantian enlarged mentality into a practice of training one’s imagination to go visiting – to think critically “from the standpoint of others” by bringing them to presence (Arendt, 1992: 42–43). The space of this visiting imagination is “open to all sides” (43) and affords the very interactions and communications that, for Arendt, constitute the political. They are also enabling conditions for critical education. In contrast to interpretations of Kant that fasten on “perpetual peace” (Kant, 1795, in 1999: 311–351), agonistic versions of cosmopolitanism as cosmopolitics (Honig, 2006; Todd, 2009 – process oriented, reflective versions like cosmopolitization), open onto the “entanglements of histories of colonization and domination …, border-transcending dynamics, dependencies, interdependencies and intermingling”, as well as onto “new conflict structures, conflict dynamics and new processes of community building” (Beck & Grande, 2010: 411). In education, these topoi and processes (Beck, 2006: 70) are advanced by Arendt’s visiting imagination, whose questioning destabilizes the familiar and expands a shared sense of reality. Its associated ability to conceive of alternatives is principally important and enriching for all areas of philosophy, politics, creativity and research. The visiting imagination carefully cultivates “a degree of estrangement from one’s own culture and history” that Paul Gilroy regards as “essential to a cosmopolitan commitment” (Gilroy, 2005: 67). Sneja Gunew, who writes about estrangement as pedagogy, observes that openness to estrangement extends our repertoire of imagining and interpreting otherwise. But estrangement, in contrast to the conditions one is borne into, needs to be learned and cultivated (Gunew, 2013: 273, 275). The educational cosmopolitics this book addresses also emerged as an important aspect in Of Other Thoughts: Non-traditional Ways to the Doctorate. Questions of equity and universality in education are important in the consideration of the effects of neo-liberal globalization on non-traditional students in Western universities. These universities principally espouse cosmopolitan values – while they often fail to realize them on-the-ground. However, the nurturing of “existing links, exchanges and academic flows from English-language and European university systems and institutions”, as well as the forging of new links with Asian universities and institutions, will largely determine the survival of Australian and New Zealand universities 163

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

(Peters, 2005: 479). I am less concerned here with legal or governance issues flowing from a cosmopolitan order (Held, 1992) than with this nurturing of existing links in education, particularly links involving nontraditional PhD candidates. Ulrich Beck and Edgar Grandes argue that certain European fallacies can only be uncovered by looking at Europe through non-European eyes (2010: 424). Likewise, Dirk Baecker notes that all cultures have a blind spot: they cannot see that they do not see what they cannot see (2012: 109). It follows that the co-presence of different approaches, which non-traditional candidates bring to the research environment, not only amplifies elements considered vital to science (the “systematic comparison of one knowledge with another for the sake of gaining a third”; see Baecker, 2012: 70). It also helps confront the limitations of all local knowledge, for each “particular, historically and regionally bounded culture … permits certain questions and not others” (70). These regular contributions of non-traditional candidates nurturing existing links are rarely acknowledged. Instead, their potential variance from standard expected behavior or performance is still explained through a deficit model (Cunningham, 2011: 145–149), which stubbornly discounts manifestations of different versions of cosmopolitan outlooks (as a “sense of ethical obligation rooted in global interconnections”, Calhoun, 2004) in non-traditional students’ living practices. Yet, their cosmopolitics can counteract managerial cosmopolitanism, a “distanced view on the global system, a view from nowhere or an impossible everywhere that encourages misrecognition of the actual social locations” (Calhoun, 2004). In Beck’s terms, the place of non-traditional PhD candidatures can be the “locus of encounters and interminglings” (or the “overlapping of possible worlds”), which not only challenge but also enable us to “rethink the relations between place and world” (Beck, 2006: 10). Beck’s variety of ‘rooted cosmopolitanism’ not only has roots, but also wings. It is an active engagement, a task that recognizes internal and external differences, a “both/and” (rather than either/or) that affirms the other as both different and the same. This rooted cosmopolitanism is humble when compared with the “pedagogical ‘cosmopolitanism of impatience’ more in tune with Western impulses” (60). (Although – there is an alternative tradition: “Only when the strangeness of beings oppresses us does it arouse and evoke wonder. Only on the ground of wonder […] does the “why?” loom before us.” Heidegger, 1993: 109) Above all, Beck’s cosmopolitanism is the inclusion of the other in self-understanding (Beck, 2006: 10). In the “exposure to otherness”, different values can unfold, cultivating “listening, looking, discretion, friendship” and translation (Gilroy, 2005: 67; see also Todd, 2009). In such relationships, there is no place for facile praise. For Michael Peters, who has worked with diverse writers and educators around the 164

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

globe, collaboration means to be open to difference; to appreciate that coproduction is fundamental (and usually task oriented); and, finally, to understand that “collaboration is only as strong as the quality of the ‘link’ … Collaboration is based on the trust in a collegial relationship and demands an almost brutal honesty, the ability to give and take constructive criticism” (Peters, 2013a: 148–9) – I wish I had known that when he was my supervisor.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

4. Letting Learn: The Art of Teaching As a supervisor, Michael seems to have leaned towards a Heideggerian letting learn (Peters, 2002). By admitting that he tends to edit other people’s thought in order to learn himself, Michael made himself an exemplary learner, someone capable of learning in public (Thompson, 2002: 150). However, the adequacy of any response to the call of problems or questions always depends “on the realm from which they address us”, and, with it, “the kind of learning differs” (Heidegger, 1968: 14). Accordingly, Michael’s particular demonstration of learning, a suitable response to a particular calling, had to be translated into my own context as a PhD candidate. Michael appears to have been aware of this need in light of important practical aesthetic aspects of my thesis. He talked to me about Wittgenstein’s musical and visual style, his architecture and his aspect thinking, and recommended his notion of meaning as use as a way of thinking through some aspects of my thesis. Michael observed a “Germanic intensity” in my approach (Peters, 2013a: 158) that might have reminded him of a way of learning to think that is a “giving our mind to what there is to think about” (Heidegger, 1968: 4). Heidegger used a cabinet maker’s apprentice as an example: His learning is not mere practice, to gain facility in the use of tools. Nor does he merely gather knowledge about the customary forms of the things he is to build. If he is to become a true cabinetmaker, he makes himself answer and respond above all to the different kinds of wood and to the shapes slumbering within wood [...]. In fact, this relatedness to wood is what maintains the whole craft. Without that relatedness, the craft will never be anything but empty busywork, any occupation with it will be determined exclusively by business concerns. (Heidegger, 1968: 14–15)

Indeed, my relatedness to my material might well have sprung from my father’s family’s crafts tradition. There were master cabinet makers over several generations, and I was trained as a cabinet maker for some months before studying design (my son later completed a full apprenticeship before 165

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

studying architecture). Heidegger’s observations were certainly relevant to my field of engagement with material culture and with creative practice. Immediately following the above quote, Heidegger argued that teaching is “even more difficult than learning”, and that the teacher “must be capable of being more teachable” than the students. Moreover, the teacher, “far less assured of his ground than those who learn are of theirs,” has to “learn to let them learn”. A genuine relationship between students and teacher has no place “for the authority of the know-it-all” (15). Michael’s supervisory approach was overwhelmingly dialogical, often throwing slender, moveable bridges (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994: e.g., 26, 76) to construct fragile conceptual connections – which he would then leave to me to strengthen. In his introduction to an edited collection on Heidegger and education, Michael discusses art as a mode of knowing, and technē and poeisis as the bringing forth out of concealment (2002: 7). The book was published soon after our PhD cohort of ‘Michael’s Maidens’ (as we sometimes called ourselves ironically) graduated, and I wonder whether this engagement was, amongst other aspects, a response to our concerns: three out of six of us were explicitly concerned with matters of art or design in the knowledge economies. Certainly, Michael was always open to the possibilities of notknowing and interested in approaches that abandon “the notion of a single understanding of being and one unified world, emphasizing, by contrast, the openness to dwelling in several worlds with the capacity to move among them” (20). He was keen to engage with different modes of inquiry and different notions of truth in his supervisory practice. Years later, when we began our discussion about the supervision of non-traditional candidates, Michael was similarly open-minded about the different discourses and modes of knowing in creative practice-led research. I see a connection between that openness to different forms of knowing and an awareness of the importance of mapping new possibilities. TINA (“There Is No Alternative”, an acronym that grated me even more than others since it is my first name) was never an option for Michael. He quotes Hans Sluga from his 1993 book Heidegger’s Crisis: Philosophy and Politics in Nazi Germany: “Insofar as philosophy has any task to perform in politics, it is to map out new possibilities. By confronting actual political conditions with alternatives, it can help to undermine the belief that these conditions are inevitable” (Sluga in Peters, 2002: 11). After initial skepticism, I am now immensely grateful to have been asked to contribute to this Festschrift. My skepticism was not only motivated by my visceral aversion to currying favors, which has prevented me for too long from giving Michael his due. While I have always appreciated the freedom I had as his PhD student, it was only much later, when I began to supervise PhD students myself, that I grasped the full implications of his 166

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

pedagogy. But my reluctance to contribute to the Festschrift was also motivated by an anxiety that I might not have anything worthwhile to say. Having now written myself to the end of this chapter, I realize that I actually learnt a lot by embracing writing as a way of getting to know and propelling thought. Thank you, Michael!

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Arendt, H. (1998/1958), The Human Condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Arendt, H. (1992), Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Edited and with an Interpretive Essay by Ronald Beiner. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Arendt, H., & Jaspers, K. (1985), Correspondence 1926–1969. München: R. Piper. Baecker, D. (2012), Wozu Kultur? Berlin: Kadmos. Beck, U. (2006), The Cosmopolitan Vision (C. Cronin, trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U., & Grande, E. (2010), “Varieties of Second Modernity: The Cosmopolitan Turn in Social and Political Theory and Research,” The British Journal of Sociology 61(3): 409–443. Bennington, G. (1997), “Politics and Friendship: A Discussion with Jacques Derrida at the Centre for Modern French Thought,” University of Sussex, 1 December, retrieved 21 December, 2012, from http://www.livingphilosophy.org/Derridapolitics-friendship.htm Calhoun, C. (2004), “A World of Emergencies: Fear, Intervention, and the Limits of Cosmopolitan Order,” The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 41(4): 373–395. Cunningham, C. (2011), “Chapter 11: Adolescent Development for Māori,” in Improving the Transition. Reducing Social and Psychological Morbidity During Adolescence. A report from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. Auckland: Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee, 145–152. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994), What Is Philosophy? (H. Tomlinson & G. Burchell, trans.). New York: Columbia University Press. Engels-Schwarzpaul, A.-Chr. (2001), Myth, Symbol, Ornament: The Loss of Meaning in Transition (Doctor of Philosophy in Education and Art History). The University of Auckland. Retrieved from http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/ handle/2292/48 Engels-Schwarzpaul, A.-Chr., & Peters, M. A. (eds.) (2013), Of Other Thoughts: Non-traditional Ways to the Doctorate. A Guidebook for Candidates and Supervisors. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Gilroy, P. (2005), Postcolonial Melancholia. New York: Columbia University Press. Gowan, P. (2000), The New Liberal Cosmopolitanism. Vienna: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen. Gunew, S. (2013), “Estrangement as Pedagogy. The Cosmopolitan Vernacular,” in R. Braidotti, P. Hanafin, & B. Blaagaard (eds.), After Cosmopolitanism. Miton Park: Routledge/GlassHouse, 265–297. 167

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Heidegger, M. (1968), What Is Called Thinking? (F. D. Wieck & J. G. Gray, trans., Vol. 21). New York: Harper & Row. Heidegger, M. (1993), “What Is Metaphysics?” in D. F. Krell (ed.), Basic Writings: Revised and Expanded. New York: HarperCollins, 89–110. Held, D. (1992), “Democracy: From City-states to a Cosmopolitan Order?” Political Studies XL(Special Issue): 10–39. Honig, B. (2006), “Another Cosmopolitanism? Law and Politics in the New Europe,” in S. Benhabib (ed.), Another Cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 103–127. Jenner, R. (2013), “Thought out of Bounds: Theory and Practice in Architecture Doctorates,” in A.-Chr. Engels-Schwarzpaul & M. A. Peters (eds.), Of Other Thoughts: Non-traditional Ways to the Doctorate. A Guidebook for Candidates and Supervisors. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 203–220. Kant, I. (1999), Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Latour, B. (2004), “Whose Cosmos, which Cosmopolitics? Comments on the Peace Terms of Ulrich Beck. Symposium: Talking Peace with Gods, Part 1,” Common Knowledge 10(3): 450–462. Peters, M. A. (2002), “Introduction: Heidegger, Education, and Modernity,” in M. A. Peters (ed.), Heidegger, Education, and Modernity. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1–26. Peters, M. A. (2005), “James D. Marshall: Philosopher of Education. Interview with Michael A. Peters,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 37(3): 291–297. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2005.00117.x Peters, M. A. (2013a), “Anxieties of Knowing,” in A.-Chr. Engels-Schwarzpaul & M. A. Peters (eds.), Of Other Thoughts: Non-traditional Ways to the Doctorate. A Guidebook for Candidates and Supervisors. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 147–162. Peters, M. A. (2013b), “Anxieties of Knowing: Academic Pathologies, Critical Philosophy and the Culture of Self” (inaugural lecture). Hamilton: The University of Waikato. Thompson, I. (2002), “Heidegger on Ontological Education, or How We Become What We Are,” in M. A. Peters (ed.), Heidegger, Education, and Modernity. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 123–150. Todd, S. (2009), “Living in a Dissonant World: Toward an Agonistic Cosmopolitics for Education,” Studies in Philosophy and Education. An International Journal 29(2): 213–227. Wade, R. (2013), “Inequality and the West,” in M. Rashbrooke (ed.), Inequality. A New Zealand Crisis. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books, 39–54.

168

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

From the Post-colonial to the Intercultural – Are Genuine Intercultural Dialogues Feasible? Yun-shiuan (Viola) Chen National Academy for Educational Research, Taiwan

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Professor Peters’ keynote paper at the 42nd Annual Conference of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA) in 2012 provides the basis for this essay which maintains that the discursive trends from the post-colonial to the intercultural reflect the desire at the policy level to grapple with the increasingly complex interactions between different groups. Nevertheless, the failure to explicitly address uneven positions and dynamisms interwoven by (geo-)political and economic factors among groups prevents the attainment of the goals that dominant policies advocating intercultural dialogues seek to achieve. In doing so this essay attempts to honor Professor Peters’ contribution to philosophy in what I would like to call the scholarship of traverse that reflects his extraordinary degree of cross-culture mobility. Peters’ life itself exemplifies a journey which continuously traversed subjects not only in territorial and disciplinary domains but also across paradigmatic boundaries. His transition from majoring in geography in college to philosophy in his graduate work, from analytical philosophy to post-structural philosophy, from New Zealand to Europe and the US, and at the same time establishing his influence on Asia, embodies a unique way of combining philosophy with critical insights through his characteristic warmth and open-mindedness. These traits are of particular significance within the current context of globalization, or more precisely glocalization (Robertson, 1994), since in an era of blurred geographical boundaries the ability to adapt to (in)visible borders enhances not only the competence of individuals in addressing a drastically changing world but also, on a broader level, underlies the foundation of intercultural philosophical dialogues that further substantializes interdisciplinary development. For me, it is in this sense that Peters’ keynote speech that criticizes Eurocentrism in Heidegger’s philosophy and advocates comparative and 169

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

intercultural philosophy is of significance since it shifts the focus from critiquing the omnipresent Euro-centrism/ethnocentrisms to the intercultural sphere. This change not only showcases Peters’ traversing style, but also urges us to rethink possible ways of critically engaging the increasing and intensified interactions between different groups. Meanwhile, is it at all feasible to envision our global world from the viewpoint of complex post-colonial conditions (or even neo-colonial struggles) to the prism of intercultural dialogues? In a strict sense this will depend on where the socio-cultural contexts are located since Latin America, Africa, and Asia all encountered quite distinctive challenges in their individual experiences with colonization. Regardless of the various politico-economic and socio-cultural factors, I would still answer in the positive though with certain caveats. The prerequisite for this is to be aware of the several discursive differences between the post-colonial and the intercultural in their respective perspectives of the existing structural factors and asymmetrical interactions between different cultures since they allow one to see not only the complexities when viewing interactions between cultures particularly between the dominant and peripheral ones, but also to consider both postcolonial and intercultural discourses and see how they compensate and enrich each other. The literatures on respective post-colonialism and interculturalism discourses are copious although researches juxtaposing both seem to be rare. This short essay does not attempt a thorough comparison of the two discourses, but provides an inter-scrutiny of how they regard interrelations and interactions between groups. In a broader sense, this endeavor would reveal their individual importance particularly in understanding and handling the current complexity of education in the globalization context. Moreover, it also lays the basis for pushing for more genuine intercultural interactions – a task that should be of concern to education policy makers, administrators, and school teachers. This essay begins with a quick reading of Peters’ keynote paper and is followed by an examination of post-colonial and intercultural discussions on hybridity and interrelationships. I conclude with the position that to a certain extent, “post-colonial” and “intercultural” paradigms reflect similar concerns. Meanwhile, although the tendency to move from the post-colonial to the intercultural reflects a negotiating turn at the cultural policy level from a deconstructive-oriented post-colonial critique to a constructive-oriented interculturalism devoted to coping with intercultural relationships, by not adequately recognizing the structural and continuous asymmetric interaction in interculturalism one is prevented from supporting the intercultural conversations that are aspired to.

170

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2. Eurocentrism and the Critique of “Universal World History”: The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization In his keynote paper at the PESA Conference entitled Eurocentrism and the Critique of “Universal World History”: The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization, Peters begins by discussing Chakrabatty’s arguments in Provincializing Europe (2000) and Foucault’s critiques of Hegelian historicism. By tracing three various streams of critiques of Eurocentrism in the social sciences, Peters advances the discussion toward the possibility brought on by the Nietzschean sense of self-criticism and directs it to the phenomena of intercultural exchanges, their influences, and cultural transmutations, as well as the genuine intercultural philosophies of the future. He uses Nietzsche’s seminal Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None as the best example for illustrating the power of intercultural exchange that further points to the hope and potential brought on by the Western traditions of self-critique and self-transformation. Mindful of the criticisms of Said’s Orientalism and Bernal’s Black Athena, Peters leads the discussion to the re-reading of Hegel’s influential Lectures of Philosophy of History. He demonstrates ways in which Euro-centrism/German-centrism inscribes Hegel’s approach of staging several major civilizations. The Hegelian phantom, Peters maintains, further incarnates the contemporary social and humanitarian sciences in the linear teleology of modernity or development theory. He concludes by proposing two approaches – comparative philosophy and intercultural philosophy – within the current context of intensified cultural interaction that is equipped with Lyotard’s narrative analysis as a useful methodological means to engage with Eurocentrism/Ethnocentrism. While comparative philosophy takes up fundamental questions of metaphysical and methodological commensurability derived from various cultural traditions, the latter scrutinizes philosophies that are classified by the nation state and by “most importantly, philosophy as transnational or cosmopolitan and pathways toward intercultural and cosmopolitan philosophy” (Peters, 2012a, p. 13). In my view the most intriguing part of his paper lies in using a Lyotardian narratology for comparative and intercultural philosophy which suggests utilizing post-structural critiques to unsettle the Western philosophy as the current prevailing discourse for understanding the world. This proposal also urges us to rethink the inherent challenges of the prevailing intercultural dialogues advocated by policy initiatives of many international organizations. It further points to a more constructive approach that does not simply stop at problematizing philosophy where we have been comfortably located, but also redirects the contemporary philosophy of education to genuine productive dialogues – an approach that goes from the post-colonial criticisms to 171

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

intercultural dialogues. Having said that, the question remains as to whether this transition is achievable.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

3. Post-Colonial Critiques Despite their growing influence in the past few years, post-colonial critiques have been a rich interdisciplinary terrain for debate and many scholars have articulated the conceptual vagueness and complexity of the term itself (Dimitriadis & McCarthy, 2001; Hall, 2006; Shohat, 1996; Young, 2006). Based on studies from the Commonwealth literature on the philosophy of Negritude (Francophone criticisms) and Anglophone criticisms of Africa and the Caribbean (McLeod, 2007, p.10; Moore-Gilbert et al., 1997, pp. 38–43; Williams & Chrisman, 1994) to F. Fanon (e.g., 1952, 1963), E. Said (e.g., 1979, 1993) until G. Spivak (e.g., 1988 & 1999) and H. Bhabha (e.g., 1994), few would disagree that each scholar’s endeavors represent a different approach of post-colonial criticisms and have fertilized the terrain of literature and cultural politics from various perspectives. In addition to the post-colonial criticisms of Euro-centrism/Ethnocentrism in literary, cultural and epistemological domains, Peters’ keynote paper also directs attention to other similar critiques in politics and philosophy. The scope of this essay does not allow detailing of these individual arguments in different domains or the debates between various post-colonial approaches. For the purpose of facilitating the comparison with interculturalism, it offers an overarching definition by borrowing Stuart Hall’s insight that regards post-colonial scholarship as a generative approach in its way of unpacking the complex convergence of the global economy, world politics, the cultural diaspora, as well as an epistemological account for this converging complexity (2006). At first glance, this definition still seems ambiguous but it identifies several critical threads involved in post-colonial criticisms: structures, forces, and discourses of politics, economy, cultures, and science, as well as the productive dynamisms interacted by these threads. In the section below, I focus on two features that are critical for further comparison with the issues of interculturalism. Epistemology of the Discourse. It is commonly agreed that the poststructural sense of narratology or discourse analysis has exerted a profound influence on post-colonial analyses of the interactions between the colonial and the colonized. Post-colonial criticisms take politico-economic and discursive powers into account at the same time in explaining the encounter between cultures. These encounters are oftentimes involved in politicoeconomic factors that have come along with interpretative discourses derived from them. These factors and discourses in a different sense integrate and often personify scientific domains in forming “scientific accounts” that are 172

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

further used to rationalize colonization – as Peters demonstrated in his critiques of Hegel’s Philosophy of History. The post-colonial epistemology of discourse unpacks these complex bundles and allows one to see that the interactions between cultures have never been in the narrow and pure “cultural” sense. I would further argue that the post-colonial epistemology of discourse can in fact delineate and theorize interacting processes between cultures, and, in particular, allow observation of the implicit problems of intercultural dialogues such as the origins, recognized languages, and the promoted forms in the dominant approach of intercultural dialogues. Cultural Hybridity. Peters’ keynote paper articulates that the interaction between Western and the Eastern cultures is not a one-way but is indeed a two-way flow—an intercultural influence. This discussion has similarity to the cultural hybridity of the post-colonial sense articulated by Bhabha (1994) whose arguments also remind us of the asymmetrical power legacy between cultures led by previous colonial histories. Colonization in various senses – whether through military oppression, political domination, cultural or scientific discourse – is one major force that resulted in cultural hybridity. As Hall indicates (1996) there is a traumatized feature in the post-colonial condition. Even though post-colonial subordinates have “intransitive” resistances while encountering the colonials (Bhabha, 1994) which resulted in the cultural hybridity that reflects bi-lateral imprints between the dominant and the dominated, the subordinated most times still remain oppressed although the interactions might be dynamic. The traumatized condition of the subordinated have been rarely recognized by policy makers promoting intercultural policies who oftentimes belong to the colonial group, and even if they had, it would have taken a long time to make policy changes for the suppressed groups. Along with the emerging influence of post-colonial studies, there have been criticisms that identify the weakness of contemporary post-colonial arguments and theories, which I have demonstrated in another work on Taiwan (Chen, 2013). For the current purpose, I shall only address the post-colonial tendency of binarism. As Hall argues, prevailing post-colonial theories tend ironically to bi-polarize the world such as the colonial and the colonized or the West and the Rest (Hall, 1996) – an issue that postcolonial criticisms is in fact meant to problematize. This inevitably limits understanding of those cultural interactions that simultaneously occur between more than two groups (or nation states) and are driven by various forces and factors such as migration and diaspora. Especially in the contemporary globalized world, cultural hybridization between groups does not occur through simple two-way flows; rather, it multiplies at the same time. Even if it assists in clarifying relationships between two groups, the use of the concept of polarizing cultures could not only run into the trap of essen-

173

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

tializing cultures, but also directs attention away from the subtle and multiple cultural hybridizations that occur between cultures in the real world. Interculturalism. The term interculturalism and its applications are not new but have recently become an emerging dominant discourse adopted by many major international organizations such as the UN (2010, 2013) and the EU (2008) in their cultural and education policies as a means to advocate intercultural understanding (Peters & Besley, 2012, pp. 909–910). In spite of this and like post-colonial criticisms, the definition and applicability of interculturalism have been contested, one of it being its ambiguous relationship with “multiculturalism” (e.g., Bourchard, 2011; Kymlicka, 2012; Levey, 2012; Meer & Modood, 2012a, 2012b; Tylor, 2012; Werbner, 2012; Wieviorka, 2012). Despite these arguments, James (2008) concludes from his observations of predominant intercultural policies that interculturalism basically features on openness, dialogue, and interaction. At the theoretical level, he reviewed five current thinkers on interculturalism in Europe and the UK and addressed four issues concerning intercultural theories. They include global connections within and outside borders, unfixed identities, structural inequalities and discrimination, and spaces for intercultural interaction as well as dialogues. In this sense it could be noted that to some degree, intercultural theories do have similar concerns with the post-colonial discourse, in particular their common attention to intercultural relationships, even though they have different emphases. Intercultural Dialogues and Hybridity. Besley and Peters point out that interculturalism shifts the discourse away from the notion of culture to that of hybridization and the institution of cultural exchange (2012, p. 6), given that it is meant to devote to dialogues and interaction that further result in hybridity. The emphasis of intercultural dialogues on sharing commonalities between different cultures surely is also a significant start for resolving conflicts. Nevertheless, advocacy does not fulfill itself, especially if critical questions such as the forces driving dialogues and hybridity are not recognized. The post-colonial discourse reminds us that conflicts usually are driven not only by economic factors (e.g., scarce resources), political interests, ever present discursive conflicts, but also, more often and significant in today’s context, by complex dynamisms intertwined with political considerations including the interests of individual nation states and politicians’ personal interests, economic expansion, as well as cultural discourses and identity. In this sense, many so-called international dialogues in the policy domain are inevitably involved in interest trade-offs before authentic dialogues can provide solutions for addressing problems that lead to conflicts and clashes. Can the predominant form of intercultural dialogue appropriately address these structural factors and dynamisms? Can it recognize that in dialogues among groups it is not only the effects of imperialism and 174

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

colonization but also the various (in)visible forms of (neo-)imperialism in contemporary globalization that also exert profound influences resulting in asymmetrical interrelations between groups? Can it also identify multiple layers of hybridization and the forces that are constantly hybridizing it? Although Besley and Peters have shown that there are different strands of intercultural dialogues and some of them, such as the Freirean Dialogue, might focus more attention on the subordinated and the colonized (2012, pp. 13–22), by and large, as Peters argues, the current form of intercultural dialogues is “a political ideology that promotes a Western-oriented intercultural fusion, since its institutional forms aims to develop a common global civic culture based on the liberal values…derived from European Enlightenment as the basis for Western civilization… (Peters, 2012b, p. 47). Igbino also holds a similar stand by articulating that the dominant form of intercultural dialogue is a “colonial model of cultural dialogue”, since the “democracy” that is claimed as its foundation remains clarified (2012, p. 165). Challenges of Contemporary Interculturalism. It is understandable why cultural policies that emphasize dialogue between cultures (mostly based on ethnic groups) could provoke criticisms such as their masking of structural issues of racism, poverty, and power. These criticisms state that this veil of being driven by the cultural political discourse can be misleading in its implications that such structural issues are caused by the lack of interaction between different cultural groups rather than by politico-economic and socio-cultural processes (James, quoted from Lafleche, 2007, pp. 3–4). While it is inspiring to see the efforts of cultural policy makers in attempting to improve intercultural relationships and enhance understanding of each other, intercultural policies, as James observes, appear to neglect addressing the asymmetrical interrelationship between cultures represented by different ethnic groups. Moreover, prevailing intercultural policy discourses seem to run on the presumption that cultures are ordered by ethnic groups. The danger of using “culture” as an overarching umbrella lies not only in that it could fall into the trap of fundamentalism, but also that it could mask ongoing complex dynamisms between different “groups” formed by economic and political structural factors, among others. At the theoretical level, one of the more fundamental challenges for genuine intercultural dialogues is raised by Peters who states that attention should be directed to “identifying, analyzing, and combating all forms of ethnocentrism as obstacles to intercultural understanding, rather than technical and complex philosophical arguments about the states of various forms of relativism” (2012b). This argument points to a theoretical problem of interculturalism that requires in-depth philosophical investigations as underlying steppingstones for policy practices and engagements, since ethnocentrism, as post-colonial criticisms have shown, inevitably has been a major 175

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

inherent discursive power inscribing epistemological and scientific development. To sum up, interculturalism as a regenerating theoretical terrain and a cultural policy attempt developed to tackle inter-ethnic relationships can be regarded as an objective for the contemporary globalizing world where interactions among various crossing groups have been increasing rapidly. One sees the differences between the two emphases of policy and theory. While the former seems to stress constantly on dialogues and interactions between cultures, theoretical arguments raise questions on (in)visible borders, identities, structure, and the interrelations between cultures. Nevertheless, neither effectively resolves these essential issues for pursuing authentic interactions among groups.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

4. Conclusion Peters’ criticisms of Hegel’s philosophy of history and his proposal for an authentic interculturalism without ethnocentrism provoke reflection on both post-colonial criticisms and intercultural discourses. Both theories have spawned a vast body of literature and the quick comparison above can inevitably address only few aspects of the two approaches. Nevertheless, the brief discussion allows one to see that both stress on the relationships between cultures, though in various ways and with different emphases. To some degree, both could complement each other with their respective strengths. While post-colonial criticisms identify the power of discourse, economy, and politics, as well as the interacting dynamism between different ethnic groups, interculturalism seems to focus on an ideal and peaceful dialogue. Both post-colonial and intercultural theories have their individual challenges and strengths for understanding and tackling intercultural relationships. As a set of cultural criticisms, post-colonial theories offer incisive perspectives for explaining and clarifying the unsettling interactions between groups. These critiques nevertheless barely find a place in policy formulations and practices aimed at fostering changes. Of the two discourses, the intercultural dialogue seems to be more influential for that purpose despite its weakness in not providing clear solutions to explaining either the existing structural factors or the asymmetrical interactions between ethnic groups.

176

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Besley, T., & Peters, M. A. (2012), “Introduction: Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue,” in T. Besley & M. Peters (eds.), Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue. New York: Peter Lang, 1–25. Bhabha, H. (1994), The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge. Bourchard, G. (2011), “What Is Interculturalism?,” McGill Law Journal 56(2): 435–468. Chakrabarty, D. (2000), Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chen, Y.-S. (2013), Modernization or Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Reading of Taiwan’s National Scholarship Program for Overseas Study. New York: Peter Lang. Council of Europe (2008), White paper on Intercultural Dialogue: “Living together as Equals in Dignity,” retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/ Source/Pub_White_Paper/White%20Paper_final_revised_EN.pdf Dimitriadis, G., & McCarthy, C. (2001), Reading & Teaching the Postcolonial: From Baldwin to Basquiat and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press. European Commission (2008), Intercultural Dialogue – Support through EU Programs, retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents/publications/support_eyid_en.pdf Fanon, F. (1952), Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Groves Press. Fanon, F. (1963), The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Groves Press. Hall, S. (1996), “The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power,” in S. Hall, D. Held, D. Hubert, & K. Thompson (eds.), Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies. New York: Blackwell, 184–228. Hall, S. (2006), “When Was the “Post-colonial”? Thinking at the Limit,” in I. Chambers & L. Curti (eds.), The Post-colonial Question. New York: Routledge, 242–260. Igbino, J. (2012), “Intercultural Dialogue: Cultural Dialogues of Equals or Cultural Dialogues of Unequals,” in T. Besley & M. A. Peters (eds.), Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue. New York: Peter Lang, 164–177. James, M. (2008), “Interculturalism: Theory and Policy,” retrieved from http:// www.baringfoundation.org.uk/interculturalism.pdf Kymlicka, W. (2012), “Comment on Meer and Modood,” Journal of Intercultural Studies 3(2): 211–216. Lafleche, M. (2007), “Interculturality – A Critical Response?” paper presented at the Baring Foundation’s Core Costs Club Seminar, February. Levey, G. B. (2012), “Interculturalism vs. Multiculturalism: A Distinction without Difference,” Journal of Intercultural Studies 33(2): 197–209. McLeod, J. (2007), Beginning Post-colonialism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Meer N., & Modood, T. (2012a), “How Does Interculturalism Contrast with Multiculturalism?” Journal of Intercultural Studies 33(2): 175–196. Meer N., & Modood, T. (2012b), “Rejoinder: Assessing the Divergences on Our Readings of Interculturalism and Multiculturalism,” Journal of Intercultural Studies 33(2): 233–244. 177

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Moore-Gilbert, B., Stanton, G., & Maly, W. (1997), Postcolonial Criticism. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2012), “Editorial,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 44(9): 909–912 Peters, M. A. (2012a), “Eurocentrism and the Critique of Universal World History: The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization,” Keynote paper at the Annual Conference of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia, Chiayi, Taiwan, December. Peters, M. A. (2012b), “Western Models of Intercultural Philosophy,” in T. Besley & M. Peters (eds.), Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue. New York: Peter Lang, 29–52. Robertson, R. (2004), “Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity,” in M. Featherstone & S. Lash, & R. Robertson (eds.), Global Modernities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 25–44. Said, E. (1979), Orientalism. New York: Random House. Said, E. (1993), Culture and imperialism. New York: Vintage. Shohat, E. (1996), “Notes on the Postcolonial,” in P. Mongia (ed.), Contemporary Postcolonial Theory. New York: Arnold, 322–334. Spivak, G. (1988), “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” in C. Nelson et al. (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 271– 313. Spivak, G. (1999), A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. The Foundation of Dialogues among Civilizations (2013), Our Mission, retrieved from http://dialoguefoundation.org/?Lang=en&Page=29 Tylor, C. (2012), “Interculturalism or Multiculturalism?” Philosophy and Social Criticism 38(4/5): 413–423. UNESCO (2010), Education Policies on Intercultural Dialogue and Global Citizenship, retrieved from http://www.un.org/gmun/archive/2010/w/webdav/site/ gmun/shared/SG%20Report%20-%20Educationand%20Civic%20Engagement %20_A-GMUN-2-1_.pdf UNESCO (2013), UNESCO Guidelines on Intercultural Education, retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001478/147878e.pdf Werbner, P. (2012), “Multiculturalism from Above and Below: Analyzing a Political Discourse,” Journal of Intercultural Studies 33(2): 197–209 Wieviorka, M. (2012), “Multiculturalism: A Concept to Be Redefined and Certainly Not Replaced by the Extremely Vague Term of Interculturalism,” Journal of Intercultural Studies 33(2): 225–231. Williams, P., & Chrisman, L. (1994), “Colonial Discourse and Post-colonial Theory: An Introduction,” in P. Williams & L. Chrisman (eds.), Colonial Discourse and Post-colonial Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, 1–22. Young, J. C. R. (2006), “Post-colonialism,” in Postcolonialism – An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 57–69.

178

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

On Being Open: Michael A. Peters and the Quest for Intercultural Education through Dialogue Yusef Waghid Stellenbosch University

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction I consider myself to be privileged to contribute an essay to this Festschrift in honor of the life and works of Michael A. Peters for three reasons: I have known Michael for almost a decade and have always encountered him as a person with profound dignity and openness (Peters & Roberts, 2012) often unparalleled in the highly competitive and at times inhumane world of academic intellectualism; his relentless commitment and advocacy for ‘academic responsibility without conditions’ (Trifonas & Peters, 2005: 8) as is evident from his analytically admirable and pragmatically astute way in which he endeavors to address some of the problems that confront education in the modern world; and his passion for interculturalism, education and dialogue (Besley & Peters, 2012) as epistemological and practical responses to educational challenges that inspired him and Tina Besley to set up the Centre for Global Studies in Education in the Faculty of Education at the University of Waikato in Hamilton, New Zealand – a Centre I visited to do some work on intercultural education during the month of September 2012. As a tribute to Michael for his continuous commitment to educational philosophy and theory and, scholarship in general, I examine the concepts of openness, dialogue, and responsibility in relation to education – themes that feature strongly in his most recent works. 2. On the Virtue of Openness For Michael, openness does not imply a free-for-all without limitations. Rather, he considers openness as a virtue (moral excellence) that is fostered through an enhancement of a critical consciousness forged by means of dialogical engagement with other human beings (Peters & Roberts, 2012: 51). His own critical consciousness is most appropriately lived out in relation to his peers, especially those about whom he cares deeply to the extent that he 179

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

wants to evoke their potentialities. In conversations Michael always wants to connect with one’s ideas and writings often with a readiness on his part to listen with astuteness and profound interest in what others have to say – a matter of engaging with others and trusting their ability to respond with constructive criticism. Similarly, he does not hesitate to challenge unjustifiable views particularly when the limits of openness are transgressed. I recall a casual conversation Michael and I had in a local restaurant in Waikato when we discussed a thesis on terrorism which did not convincingly argue for a prominent role for education in counteracting terrorism. His eloquence and argumentation without demeaning the author of the manuscript is a manifestation that openness for him does not imply that one can say what one wants even if it means berating the person and her views. Instead, he cogently offered his disagreement yet cognisant that he should not do an injustice to the views of the other person. In a similar vein, Gutmann posits that freedom of articulation should not become ‘an unconstrained licence to discriminate’ and that it only be practiced ‘within the limits of doing no injustice to others’ (Gutmann, 2003: 200). For me, Michael’s account of openness is reminiscent of being articulate, fair and assertive without unjustifiably dismissing the other and her opinions in an unconstrained way. Thus, being open implies having a commitment to virtues of humility, the ability to listen, showing respect and care for those with whom we work in educational settings, and a willingness to take risks – those virtues which I have come to associate with Michael. 3. On the Ethics of Dialogue In a world today dominated by so much complexity, ambiguity and conflict nothing more than finding a democratic civil space in which people can connect with one another despite their differences is required. As recognized by Benhabib (2002: 162), people have to find ways to become democratic citizens through their linguistic, cultural, ethnic and religious commonalities and differences. The idea of finding a civil space for the sharing of different people’s commonalities is based on the understanding that people need to learn to live with the otherness of others whose ways of being may be deeply threatening to our own (Benhabib, 2002: 130). And, in creating a civil space whereby people can enact what they have in common and at the same time make public their competing narratives and significations, people might develop a real opportunity to co-exist. In this way they would not only establish a community of conversation and interdependence (that is, they share commonalities), but also one of disagreement (that is, they do not share commonalities) without holding in disrespect others’ life-worlds (Benhabib, 2002: 35 and 41). Put differently, when people are engaged in a 180

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

conversation underpinned by interdependence and disagreement, they engage in an educative process with a collective identity – they share commonalities. And educating people to become democratic citizens involves creating civil spaces where they can learn to share commonalities and respect the differences of others. I have learnt so much from Michael as he endeavored to cultivate civil spaces through which people (especially academics) can engage with one another either through seminars arranged by him, edited book collections or single authored book publications through which he invited you to contribute to a series under his editorship. Whenever I encountered Michael it would either be with a book publisher liaising a new series, or on a boat cruise on the Mississippi river bringing together journal editors negotiating the next special issue, or at a conference engaging fellow academics with his latest thoughts on how to work towards a better society. It is the latter initiative which intrigued me most about him especially his recent initiatives to bring West, East, Middle East and Far East together through epistemology and ethics. In a way, he has become what Rancière refers to as an initiator of ‘site[s] of the symbolic visibility of equality and its actual negotiation’ (Rancière, 1995: 55) where he thrives in playing the role of ‘ignorant master’ and ‘amateur’ who does not only inform those around him about knowledge but can also inspire them to be ‘present’. That is, Michael assumes that every person is equal to the other in the sense that people are able to make sense of what the other ‘puts on the table’. In other words, a person as ‘ignorant master’ does not consider himself as the only authority who understands scientific subject matter but that every other person is equally able to do so and to generate ideas that confirm both their understanding and knowledge. In his presence – a civil space created by him, people are afforded equal opportunities (chances) to become attentive as they are exposed to one another as equals in relation to a manuscript or thought. Put simply, for Michael, a civil space of pedagogical usefulness has become ‘a place where knowledge and practices can be released and set free … a sphere in which something is in play’ (Masschelein & Simons, 2011: 158). Thus, for me, in his unassuming way, Michael has extended the ethics of dialogue beyond mere deliberation and reason to one in which equality and playfulness are profoundly present. 4. On Responsible Action It is on the subject of responsibility that I have found Michael to be mostly ‘present’. In the first instance, to be responsible implies that one possesses at least the capacity to ‘respond’ or to do something about a situation, and also the ‘ability’ or authority to change a situation – that is, to amend or improve it. Cavell (1979: 441) argues that being answerable/ responsible 181

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

for what happens to the other means that their (the other’s) views are acknowledged, although one might not be in agreement with them. Rather, one conceives the other from the other’s point of view, with which one has to engage afresh (Cavell, 1979: 441). In so doing, one does not compromise one’s relations with others, for that would mean a complete breakdown of society. One might find another group’s actions repugnant (what Cavell would refer to as living my skepticism), but this does not mean that one views this group as outcasts unworthy of any form of engagement. That would be an abdication of one’s responsibility. In demonstrating one’s responsibility towards others, one immediately acknowledges one’s capacity for intimacy with others – thus limiting one’s idiosyncratic privacy. It is for this reason that Cavell (1979: 463) claims that ‘human beings do not necessarily desire isolation and incomprehension, but union or reunion, call it community’. Our private actions may lead to a betterment of our communal actions. If one’s privacy remains restricted to one with the intention not to exercise one’s responsibility to others, one’s practices would remain unshared and separated from the people with whom one happens to live. So, one’s privacy opens a door through which someone else can tap into one’s thoughts – which might be of benefit to society. Now, for one to be taught to enact one’s responsibility on the basis of some mechanical and uncritical (dogmatic) initiation into dialogue is tantamount to learning what it means to engage others. But then one might not get very far in connecting with others, because democratic engagement also requires that one does so critically and at times provocatively (that is belligerently). I cannot imagine engaging with academics without being prepared to deal with the unexpected. And, to be nurtured to engage the ‘unknown’ other is to be taught also what it means to act with belligerence and distress, or at least to deal with provocation. I cannot foresee an academic not being provocative and, if one has not been initiated into what it means to encounter distress and belligerence one would not begin to enact one’s responsibility in engaging with the unexpected. To put differently, one would not have learnt to do something about an undesirable situation – that is, to enact one’s responsibility. Following from the aforementioned, to enact one’s humanity requires that one recognizes the frailties and vulnerabilities within oneself and others, and actually acts upon someone else’s vulnerability. In other words, recognizing another’s humanity implies that one does not begin to ostracize or sever ties with others – I remember Michael contacting me several times after I left Waikato prematurely to inquire as to whether I was fine. Cavell (1979: 433) posits that, related to one’s connection with the other is the view that one has to acknowledge humanity in the other, of which the basis for such action lies in oneself: ‘I have to acknowledge humanity in the other, and 182

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

the basis of it seems to lie in me’ (Cavell, 1979: 433). A scholar’s relationship with his peers ought to be shaped by an acknowledgement that they be considered as fellow human beings. In acknowledging others as human beings worthy of respect, one should simultaneously acknowledge oneself as a person who should exercise respect. This is what I think Cavell (1979: 435) has in mind when he claims: ‘[A]nother may be owed acknowledgement simply on the ground of his humanity, acknowledgement as a human being, for which nothing will do but my revealing myself to him [her] as a human being, unrestrictedly, as his or her sheer other, his or her fellow, his or her semblable. – Surely this is, if anything, nothing more than half the moralists who ever wrote have said, that others count, in our moral calculations, simply as persons; or that we have duties to others of a universal kind, duties to them apart from any particular stations we occupy.’ I consider myself a ‘semblable’ of Michael as he truly acknowledges others’ humanity. Of importance to the cultivation of humanity is an understanding that one even has to engage others by doing the improbable, in this instance, learning to forgive and temporarily forget, and doing the unexpected, even though it goes against the grain of one’s beliefs. Arguing in favor of ‘forgetting’ elicits all kinds of emotions. Surely, as Krondorfer argues, ‘[t]o speak about forgetting in the context of the Holocaust, or of any genocidal atrocity for that matter, is an act bordering on immorality or, in any case, on callousness, for it seems to refuse empathy to, and acknowledgment of, the suffering of the victims. To advocate forgetting, it seems, moves dangerously close to denying the historical events and to erasing memory itself’ (Krondorfer, 2008: 234). But it is also the case, as he develops in his in-depth study dealing with Holocaust remembrance and the task of oblivion, that ‘... scholars recognize that memory and remembrance are not uncomplicated processes but are formed and informed by individual styles, personal trauma, narrative choices, cultural forces, political agendas, and national interests’ (2008: 238). He does not pair forgetting with denial and amnesia, but suggests the more neutral term of ‘oblivion,’ distinguishing between willful acts of neglect and denial (which constitute political or psychological forms of forgetting) and ‘unavoidable modes of memory production based on sedimenting, condensing, suppressing, and expunging lived experiences of the past’ (2008: 242), which he labels ‘oblivion’. By supressing and expunging lived experiences of the past, ‘forgetting’ assumes a different meaning. And arguing for ‘forgetting’ is to do the unexpected – that is, going against one’s wishes (not to actually forget). If I suppress my feelings of resentment towards others and momentarily expunge bad memories I do the unexpected. This is so because I willfully suppress thoughts of something horrible that had been perpetrated before. Thus, forgetting 183

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

something that I otherwise would not have done if I were not suppressing my bad memories of an event, amounts to doing something ‘improbable.’ In essence, before one can nurture responsibility and humanity in society especially educational institutions, one first needs to learn what it means to engage in democratic iterations, that is, learn to listen and talk back. Equally so, one has to develop an authoritative voice that does not become subjected to uncritical or blind acceptance of things. And, finally, if one does not learn to respond provocatively or to cope with the unexpected, it would be quite challenging to begin to act responsibly. Similarly, if one does not learn what it means to forgive and temporarily forget, as well as to go against the grain (at times) of one’s convictions, the possibility that one can show one’s humanity would be very unlikely. In almost a decade, I have encountered Michael as such a person – one who has not only acted responsibly but also one who has made it possible for humanity to flourish. And so, I wish him well with all his future endeavors.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Benhabib, S. (2002), The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Besley, T., & Peters, M.A. (2012), Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue. New York: Peter Lang. Cavell, S. (1979), The Claim of Reason: Wittgenstein, Skepticism, Morality, and Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gutmann, A. (2003), Identity in Democracy. Princeton, NJ-Oxford: Princeton University Press. Krondorfer, B. (2008), “Is Forgetting Reprehensible? Holocaust Remembrance and the Task of Oblivion,” Journal of Religious Ethics 36(2): 233–267. Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2011), “The Hatred of Public Schooling,” in Masschelein, J. & Simons, M. (eds.), Rancière, Public Schooling and the Taming of Democracy. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 150–165. Peters, M.A., & Roberts, P. (2012), The Virtues of Openness: Education, Science and Scholarship in the Digital Age. London: Paradigm Publishers. Rancière, J. (1995/1999), On the Shores of Politics. London: Verso. Trifonas, P.P., & Peters, M.A. (2005), Deconstructing Derrida: Tasks for the New Humanities. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

184

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Liber amicorum: A Philosophical Conversation among Friends Michael A. Peters

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

University of Waikato University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

This festschrift is a “liber amicorum” (“book of friends”) and as a philosopher of sorts I am interested in the genre and in its cultural invention as a means of understanding how I might proceed. I am greatly honored that my friends and colleagues should take the time to respond to the themes in my work and I am particularly grateful that such a group of international and able scholars have contributed. So let me express my deep appreciation and respond in the only manner I know how. After years of university life it is difficult to invent new forms or to experiment when the rituals and habits of critical thought anchor me in a series of set plays. The notion of an academic friendship implied in “book of friends” suggests a mutual caring about ideas and their representation, an intimacy that differs from the impersonal and bureaucratic relationships that distinguish neoliberal universities, and shared activity in the joint pursuits of conferences, seminars, books and papers implied in co-authorship, in a shared body of literature, in shared perspectives. Academic friendship, as Bennett (2013) suggests is built into the notion of philosophy so to speak, philia being one of three kinds of love (along with eros and agape) that speaks to positive and affectionate feelings towards one’s friends and peers. I would want to argue that philosophy is not only a shared love of wisdom in the original Greek meaning of the term but an essential relation that is at the basis of being a colleague: it seems to me to be inherent in the idea of dialogue, communication and the very possibility of conversation. The value and justification of academic friendship, if I can use this loose description as a basis for the concept of “Liber amicorum” then I can claim a philosophical basis for inquiry, for the academic community, for notions of caring, sharing and collaboration that are the hallmark characteristics of learned societies and increasingly today in the digital world of research networks (Peters et al., 2012).

185

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

These are ideally speaking flat horizontal relationships among peers who in the pursuit of knowledge and of the new, take on the responsibility of criticism in the Kantian sense. This Romantic analysis that revolves around academic exchange, mutual acknowledgement, and shared standards of scholarship stands in marked contrast to the knowledge hoarding and privatization of research that characterizes the neoliberal university that imposes its industrial line management psychology to police, monitor and increasingly spy on the performativity of its faculty. In the “university of friends” it is our special responsibility to be critical of one another and to learn to take criticism in a positive sense as the lifeblood of scholarship: criticism without meanness, without rancor, and without nastiness. In this context I am always reminded of Bertrand Russell’s description of Frege, who invented an axiomatic predicate logic, and upon discovering a basic mistake in his Grundgesetze just before its publication pointed out by Russell (Russell’s paradox could be derived from Frege Basic Law), responded with such magnanimous and superhuman graciousness. Derrida (1997) in The Politics of Friendship dreams of a notion that goes beyond the Greek “principle of fraternity” and its logocentrism to embrace a radical social heterogeneity that recognizes the demand of equality and a social inclusiveness that conditions the convivial university based on the power of ideas, the flight of imagination and the force of argumentation – without coercion and without the social class, gender and cultural impediments of stratification that control politics. Deleuze and Guattari (1994) do not think that the concept of friend is thinkable according to its traditional sense as the Other that thinks: the friend is no longer a condition of thought, the Other that thinks with or against me. The archaic concept of friendship with which philosophy begins is based on dialogue that is staged such that agreement with Socrates’ position is always demanded by the rhetorical form. It is not surprising that they would maintain: “The idea of a ... democratic conversation between friends has never produced a single concept” (Deleuze and Guattari, 1994: 6). One might think that the festschrift is a charming anachronism in the neoliberal world of knowledge hoarding and commercialization. The concept of a tribute volume seems much more at home in the long tradition of the genre stretching back several centuries especially in the disciplines of philosophy and theology. As Michael Taggart (2002: 228) notes the German word has passed into the English language and become the standard term for homage publications even though the genre is not of German origin.1 I particularly like the Latin “Liber amicorum” because it contains within it the notion of community comprising academic friends designed to function as a community of inquiry and committed to the prospect of advancing ideas. Of the contributors there are eight males and six females. They come 186

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

from New Zealand, USA, Cyprus, Sweden, South Africa, Taiwan, Romania, Australia and the United Kingdom Let me say how amazed I am that there are assembled a group of international scholars who each find something different to comment on in my work. And I am suspicious of the term “work” or oeuvre in this sense because while signifying the total work of an author it also implies something about its coherence and I can only make sense of my directions by tracing where I have been. There is something organic about this approach, something that flows out of the unconscious and that overflows into consciousness so that I get glimpses only of what my “project” is. (It is far too inchoate to be named a “project” even if it has strategic reading projects associated with it). I was at pains to spell out my orientation recently when responding to a negative review of my selected works (Peters, 2012). And this might well be a good starting point to begin to approach the essay written as part of the festschrift. I started with an edited collection on Lyotard in 1995 called Education and the Postmodern Condition for which Lyotard wrote the Foreword after I corresponded with him (in French) for about 18 months. About a year later I wrote a more general account entitled Poststructuralism, Politics and Education (Peters, 1996), followed my first book on Wittgenstein with James D. Marshall called Wittgenstein: Philosophy, Postmodernism, Pedagogy (Peters & Marshall, 1999). Thereafter, I systematically explored the work of contemporary living philosophers including Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, Habermas, and Vattimo… I wrote my PhD thesis on the later Wittgenstein concerning “the problem of rationality” – the turn to cultural practice that seemingly imperilled Western standards of certainly and objectivity in science and mathematics. So Wittgenstein has always been central to me and an important part of my project has been first to mark him out as a “pedagogical philosopher” (he was a teacher for seven years) and to explore the ramifications of his work in relation to a range of contemporary thinkers as a philosopher, very much like Nietzsche, who anticipated and laid the groundwork for the future of philosophy, of education, of modernity and of the West. He was (and still is) a radial point from which to explore links and affinities with Continental thought – phenomenology (and Heidegger), critical theory (especially Habermas) and poststructuralism – American pragmatism (especially Rorty) and Russian thought (especially the Bakhtin circle)… [for references refer to List of publications]. When I reflect back on this self-trajectory I now see it as inadequate because it only serves to indicate how I have only recently emerged from a kind of tutelage and discipleship to a group of mainly European and 187

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

American thinkers: this is my thinking apprenticeship. While reading and writing has always been simply the best form of education in relation to these thinkers its also obscures my editorial selectivity and the culturallybounded way I have crafted marriages and relationships among those I have found most insightful. Within the tradition of the philosophy of the subject I fool myself into thinking that they share a broad set of overlapping characteristics that shed some light on the nature of subjectivity and its centrality to education and pedagogy. Only recently have I begun to work in collaborative arrangement to pursue themes that grow out of the mantle of these thinkers: the university, interculturalism, cosmopolitanism, postcoloniality, knowledge production, digital ecologies, the epoch of digital reason and so on. Peter Roberts’ provides a history of our relationship that spans 30 years and contains glimpses of personal histories and my institutional affiliations in New Zealand. He also names a group of colleagues at Auckland University that led educational studies and represented one of the most talented groups I have had the privilege of working with. Peter also details the ongoing nature of our collaboration with several books and also collegial relationships in relation to a number of professional associations. He comments on my energy; in response I should note how effortless it is to work with Peter who has the genuine humility of a scholar, lacking in my own makeup. His kindness is well known. His characterization of me as a certain kind of intellectual feels very accurate to me and he paints a picture that truly deconstructs my psychology or should I say pathology. Jeff Stickney focuses on my interpretation of Wittgenstein with friends Jim Marshall, Nick Burbules and Paul Smeyers and he mentions the concept of “writing the self” that connects with Peter Roberts’ biography of me and nicely provides the platform for understanding some intellectual choices I made early on not to become a Wittgensteinian, that is, one who studies and writes on Wittgenstein exclusively; although if I had to chose one philosopher it would be him. Jeff is astute in noting the way the philosophical becomes personal in terms of style and self-stylization. His Wittgensteinian aesthetics of dance is inspired and close to both Nietzsche’s and Deleuze’s rhizomatic culture, including the contextualism for judgement and the language-game choreographies (despite Deleuze’s negative comments about Wittgenstein). When he writes: “We instantly recognize when elements of social dance or pedestrian movement are used in theatrical work, and can judge the suitability of its appropriation into the given piece within a certain tradition or art form” I think of the history of walking as a part of the natural history of what it is to be a human being (a Wittgensteinian aside).

188

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

When he develops his philosophical perspectives on dance criticism noting that “Although Wittgenstein, unlike Nietzsche, rarely referred to dance, he has often been appropriated into dance studies – largely in defense of an endangered field” Jeff could not be closer to my interests, having just completed a piece I called “Rhizomatic America and Arborescent Culture: Towards a New Philosophy of Dance” for Educational Philosophy and Theory. For me this confirms that Jeff Stickney is one of the most promising scholars in the field; it also reminds me of Sraffa’s comment to Wittgenstein about the Neopolitan hand gesture of which he asks “What the logical form of that?” It would be difficult to have a festschrift without Tina Besley’s contribution. Tina has been my soul mate since 1991. It is remarkable that we spend so much time in each other’s company without getting bored. We teach together, we write together, we farm together, we travel together and hardly spend a day apart. I realize how lucky we are to have such a complete relationship where we can share our ideas on a daily and often in the middle of the night. Tina says “Not a docile body” and there is a subtext, perhaps not intentional, that speaks to the difficulties of living with someone like me who is not passive and speaks his mind – who is often outraged at world events and injustices. I have never been passive or docile even as a working class kid growing up in Johnsonville, a dormitory suburb of Wellington in New Zealand. I was if anything naturally a rebel or renegade with a strong dislike of institutional authority and a keen sense of fairness. I don’t know where these came from. These dispositions made me receptive to Foucault whom I approached after studying Wittgenstein and discovering Lyotard. The French style of philosophy greatly appealed to me from Sartre and forms of existentialism, through French structuralism to what we know as poststructuralism. Besley provides some biographical details including how we met and the significance of working with Jim Marshall and the events surrounding Why Foucault? the book that we coedited (Peters & Besley, 2007). Counselling, philosophy and education are natural bedfellows and while I could never become a counselor I enjoy discussing the philosophical approaches in counseling and education: Tina and I have an affinity in this regard but this is not to say that we always share the same outlook. Foucault’s work has an important place in the philosophy of the subject. One might say a permanent place in the tradition, along with Kant, Hegel, Freud, Heidegger, Sartre etc. who have left a legacy that establishes a discourse, an approach, a problematic. Together we have edited and written three books together on Foucault. We recently wrote a paper on Marx and Foucault in relation to youth unemployment (Peters & Besley, 2014) and I have am to give a paper entitled “Postcolonialism, Biopolitics and the 189

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Empire of Capital: Lines of Foucauldian Inquiry in Educational Studies” at an international Foucault seminar in Bogota later this year. I include the abstract here to indicate where my thinking lies: Foucault died in 1984 and even before the body was cold, so to speak, scholars were already talking up the prospect of postFoucauldian or post-critical studies. He was most assuredly a “figure of discursivity”, a phrase he used in regard to Nietzsche, Freud and Marx that signals a thinker of the first importance who had established a discourse or field based on a set of original concepts that generated new thought or new lines of investigation and provided the tools to pursue it. This paper provides a reading of the trope “after Foucault” to indicate three lines of inquiry in Foucauldian educational studies: the postcolonial, following Edward Said; the biopolitical, following Giorgio Agamben; and the Empire of capital, following Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. This is a synoptic paper that engages with the question of how to read Foucault after thirty years of theorising, following the advice of Foucault himself, and in each case of the postcolonial, the biopolitical and the Empire of capital there are hermeneutical gains and losses. There is always a geopolitics of reading and the reception of texts in both spatial and temporal senses – in translation, in intergenerational readings, and in the boundary crossings of genre, discipline, gender and culture. In each case the field of educational studies opens itself to new problems, new priorities and new orientations that need constant scrutiny and appraisal for what is potentially useful, pragmatic, and politically astute or fragile, mundane and intellectually bereft.

Tina also does me the service of outlining my (and increasingly her) journal and publishing activities. This has been an early interest for me as Besley documents and I think a fundamental part of an academic’s education: as I try to explain to colleagues – it is not enough to be a writer, as intellectuals we must also understand the material reproduction of our own ideas and the dynamic changes in the political economy of academic publishing. These aspects have to be integral to the cultural practices that are the heart of the university. Increasingly, Tina and I travel the world talking, lecturing, listening, discussing ideas with scholars and students. We make a living from reading, writing and speaking and we do so together; what an enormous privilege! I have never forgotten that somebody once said to me “Michael, don’t forget to theorize your own privilege.” In “Conceiving the University” my old friend Ronald Barnett – I met him first in 1990 while a British Council fellow at London University – details the passing of the liberal university, by which he means “the open space of critical reason in society”. He charts the process and critique that 190

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

points to the epistemological undermining of academic knowledge. Just at the point when the institution undergoes its second globalization after the colonial export of the form of organization, the institution itself and the idea on which it is based is faltering, cracking open, becoming compromised and completely integrated into the vortices of capitalist knowledge generation. Ron is one of the most eloquent defenders of the university of reason. He has spent his entire life writing about the university and the ideals it represents and together we share many understandings about the prospects and possibilities of the university. His unique body of work that is both critical and imaginative focusing on what he calls “the schizophrenic university” that portends the end of universality. He also speaks to its capacity to transcend its age. He is a fierce defender of the realm of public reason and of the university as a protected sphere for the education of public reason. I am delighted to be collaborating with Ron Barnett on a two-volumed reader on the university. James Reveley’s “A ‘Happy’ Coincidence: Cognitive Capitalism and Well-Being Enhancement in Schools” picks up many the of the themes that Barnett mentions in relation to the university in the sphere of schooling by pursing the question of happiness in relation to “school-based training programs that stress happiness, self-improvement and well-being” and exploring the elective affinities between cognitive capitalism and positive psychology where new technologies of the self such as mindfulness become traded in the name of a digital-cognitive capitalism. In this respect Reveley’s work ties in the rapidly growing literature on affect, economies of affect and the “affective turn” in sociology (Ahmed, 2004) that has a history going back to Durkheim but more recently has grown out of questions concerning the emotions, gender, the body and otherness in the hope of overcoming Cartesian dualism and of understanding the constitution of desire. For instance Patricia Clough’s (2008) work indicates how it has become the center of cultural studies and is radically multidisciplinary in its attempt to address the digital and immaterial moment of Western and global development: Drawing on and drawing together discourses of political economy, philosophy, literary studies and cultural criticism as well as biotechnology, information theory, complexity theory, physics, genetics, neuroscience and psychology, the affective turn, I would argue, is capturing ongoing political, economic and cultural transformations as it attends to the reconfiguration of bodies, matter and technology.

Clough, like Reveley, understands that the present agenda can be traced to Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari who themselves return to Spinoza and Bergson in order to theorize the concept “body-without-organs”, a society of control and communicative capitalism. Of course, this philosotheme is 191

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

impossible to capture in a single paper and Reveley’s focuses on this problematic in so far as it sheds light on the relations between programs of positive psychology and cognitive capitalism which extends the work that we have collaborated on in the past, including two recent papers that examine the nature of knowledge work under cognitive capitalism (Peters & Reverley, 2014; Peters & Reverley, forthcoming). This builds on my work on immaterial (or digital) labor under cognitive capitalism in relation to education (Peters & Bulut, 2011) and is a topic close to my interests. James has extended my understanding in his recent work and I look forward to further collaboration with him. When he says “Happy Coincidence” it might be taken to mean also the chance meeting between us that began in 1991 (if I am not mistaken) at the University of Canterbury when James was completing a PhD in Sociology and I was lecturing in the Education Department. We met up again recently and he attended the conference I organized on “The Creative University” at the University of Waikato in 20122 which was a strategic attempt to initiate the discourse in relation to the university: the changing significance of intellectual capital, the formation of creative skills in the “symbolic economy”, the globalization of immaterial and digital goods, the intensification and regulation of information flows and knowledge exchanges, and the production of new ideas and aesthetic forms in commercial relationship as well as the promise of openness in changing conditions of imagination and knowledge production (Peters & Besley, 2012; Besley & Peters, 2013). In these discussions increasingly we must focus on affectivity and the body where emotions are seen as cultural practices and as a condition of subjectivity in the cognitive economy (Peters, 2009). George Lăzăroiu has been a constant source of encouragement in my work and someone who through his publishing endeavors has created the space for collaboration not only for me but dozens of scholars. He has written on “Peters on the New Ecologies of Knowledge” that also follows much of the thrust of argument in relation to the university and cognitive capitalism (Lăzăroiu, 2013). He focuses on my analysis of the development of the knowledge, learning and digital economies, the culture-bound nature of symbolic functions, and the ethic of participation, collaboration and filesharing characterizing the rise of social media as a means to understand “the growing literature on new transnational academic communities in global knowledge ecologies, the transformation of traditional modes of teaching and learning, and the marketization of knowledge futures.” His analysis of my arguments for the development of the knowledge, learning and digital economies go to the heart of what I call “knowledge cultures”, a term that Besley and I use to overcome the false dichotomy between Economy and Society and to indicate its open and developmental nature based 192

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

historically on peer review mechanisms. Lăzăroiu, as someone involved in the development of knowledge cultures himself (including a new journal of that name), not only fairly represents my ideas but understands the significance of the value of openness and creativity in the networked environment. As he says:

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters links “the virtues of openness” to the development of scientific communication, the reinvention of the public good and the constitution of the global knowledge commons. Education should be reconsidered as a global public good, with the struggle for equality at its center.

This is not only a philosophical argument but also I would argue an historical description of the growth of the public sphere that Habermas has written so eloquently about. The new technologies even more than printing and traditional publishing thrive on engagement, on exchange and on sharing of information and knowledge and while Internet-based social medias also saturate us with trivia and “amuse us to death” as Paul Goodman might say, they also carry the potential for democratically expansive knowledge commons that model peer to peer learning relationships that are the essence of science (considered in the widest possible sense). He also perceptively comments on new transnational academic communities in global knowledge ecologies and the notion of co(labor)ation I have tried to theorize as part of the concept of “radical openness”. Lăzăroiu (2012) himself is a keen observer and theoretician of the new journalism and the changing architecture of new media as well as being an editor and public intellectual. In “The Education State, Conversation and Democracy to Come” Brian Opie, who has led the development of the humanities research in New Zealand and who in his work has focused on cultural policy for the knowledge society and the future of the humanities, among other things, puts the argument directly for the “education state” a concept that he develops as one that puts education and learning as the central focus of public policy as a means for realizing “democratic development” in a neoliberal age. He puts the argument boldly: My argument is that the principal role of the state in a democratic society, the sustaining and advancing of its democratic qualities, can be better articulated from the perspective of education, than from that of the economy, in a nation-state or some equivalent territorial unit in which people are connected by histories, cultures and languages which have evolved together in that place over time. Democratic societies are remarkable social innovations, “complex mental ecologies” expressed, however imperfectly, in continuously evolving institutions and collaborative social action. 193

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

In putting this argument Opie draws our attention to the geographical unevenness and asymmetry of power that is represented by an economic globalization that facilitates the lightening circulation of digital representations of global capital and the rapidity with which global capital can mobilize its resources and influence, as well as the nation-bounded nature of democracy that governs cultural self-determination (although not perfectly and with many constitutional hiccups around notions of indigeneity). Opie disputes the neoliberal substitution of “customer” for “citizen” and views public education as the place and the means to extend the complex experiment of social democracy within a complex set of global networks that echoes and endorses Derrida’s notion of “democracy-to-come”. Opie’s view is both original and expansive when he looks to provide a humanistic framework for democratic cultural institutions that is based on the concept of exchange as a moral economy between individuals in a space that promotes openness in a gift economy that values new communication public spheres, their complexity, social evolution, and reciprocity. His argument is both passionate and visionary but also, remarkably, a clear response and antidote to neoliberal governments committed to privatization of everything including public opinion. Neoliberal politicians, often acting directly as proxies for multinational companies, betray “the people”, denying them access to knowledge, to education and to public debate that would expose the shabby and sclerotic notion of democracy that privileges global capital at the expense of their own citizens. If this sounds too much like rhetoric then I should remind readers that the neoliberal university now works by reducing debate and discussion, often covertly and behind the scenes, in favour of line management priorities which privileges commercial and bureaucratic reason above academic reason. The education state needs to be strengthened and developed as a response to global capital and I would argue it needs to be dedicated to the social evolution and experimentation of extra-national global public spaces that can effectively restrain, monitor infringements against the human rights that underlie an emerging global civil governance and communicative infrastructure. I first met Susanne Maria Weber in Germany at a Foucault conference and she subsequently teamed up with me and others to edit a collection called Governmentality Studies in Education (Peters et al., 2009) that included a group of German as well as English-speaking scholars. She writes a chapter entitled “Who speaks? Power, Knowledge and the Professional Field” which is she tells us “A Discourse Analytical Perspective on Educational Policy Consultancy and Advice”. In her contribution Weber asks “what are implications and possible risks for academic policy advice” in a landscape dominated by the bureaucratization and managerialism of the “entrepreneurial university”? Weber analyzes knowledge institutions with 194

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

the aim of enhancing them and reinventing concepts for institutions to better serve its different constituencies works at the intersection of multiple discourses with an action-orientation. Her energy is inexhaustible and she has provided the opportunity for me to address organizational themes that call for a practical philosophical approach in the reform and mobilization of knowledge organizations, especially the research network. Klas Roth sees me as a Kantian in spirit insofar as I promote the public use of reason and encourage scholars from around the world to contribute various publications. This is a flattering description and one that I am happy to take on. Roth does me a good service to remind me of my ambitions to promote a scholarly social inclusiveness in any way I can especially with younger scholars and those who are non-Western and indigenous so as to widen the conversation and to raise questions about the limits of public reason or public discourse. Roth himself is a distinguished Kantian scholar who has published on Kant, citizenship education and cosmopolitanism (Roth, 2011) and has contributed to debates on globalization on that basis. He interprets my work in terms of Kant’s famous essay by Kant on the Enlightenment and Foucault’s equally famous discussion. This is a good choice of critical essays and philosophers. I am certainly inspired by Kant and Foucault on the Enlightenment, even if for me the concept needs to be understand as a radical plurality: at least, French (Lumières), German (Aufklärung), English, Scottish, Italian, Dutch, Polish, Jewish (Haskalah), Greek, American, the Balkins, Hungary, Russia and even extra-European, especially in the Spanish colonies where Enlightenment ideas were absorbed by indigenous peoples. The three volumes of Franco Venturi’s (1989–91) Settecento Riformatore translated as The End of the Old Regime in Europe, along with Alfred Owen Aldridge’s (1971) The Ibero-American Enlightenment and Robert Danton’s (1982) The Literary Underground of the Old Regime are path-breaking texts that decentre canonical readings of the Enlightenment and question its historiographical constructions. These accounts open up the study of Enlightenment to a multiplicity of interpretations but cannot reduce or sociologically explain away its intellectual significance that centered on the public use of reason, the notion of equality, and the dissemination of ideas through learned societies, printing houses, coffee houses, and universities. Roth rightly focuses on my Foucauldian tendency to “problematize the present” as an exercise of public reason, even if I accept that this concept has a number of related variations and is itself a construction in history that takes a range of cultural forms. I purposely leave open its ongoing dynamic development especially in the age of digital reason that represents a new universalism and forbidding totality.

195

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

In “Michael A. Peters’ Discursive Universalism” Marianna Papastephanou makes a careful argument seemingly against my own philosophical selfcharacterization and she nimbly constructs a view of me in terms of discursive universalism. She, like Roth, manages to construct me in her own image, a kind of refracted philosophical self-image. I take it as a mark of friendship that both of them want to “save” me so to speak from my self and the ravages of time. Marianna manages to wed my “pluralism and particularism” to a “discursive universalism” and she does so through a thorough reading of my pagan Lyotardian pluralization of reason that unpacks the effects of a critique of Eurocentrism while preserving an ever-increasing social inclusiveness. Papastephanou demonstrates her understanding and great skill as a philosopher to the extent that she teaches me something about my own position: how to go beyond the false dichotomy of universalism and particularism. Like Papastephanou I too see nothing inherently wrong or false about the fact that an idea happens to originate in a particular context whether it be West or East, and I agree that we must take the idea on the basis of its moral worth (although these categories are also part and parcel of the worldview): the quality of an idea is to be judged by its moral, epistemological, aesthetic etc. worth irrespective of origin. Eurocentrism is not a charge against every idea that may be considered of Western origin; rather it is more a name for a doctrine or ideology about European exceptionalism especially evident in continental comparisons and as it comes to shape the discourse of economic developmentalism per se, largely as a consequence of German and specifically Hegelian historiography. Eurocentrism is the practice of placing European culture and values at the centre of one’s experience at expense of other cultures and as such in its various hegemonic proportions and colonial expressions is an ideological mechanism and instrument of Othering, of negating Others. In this respect I draw on the work of Fanon, Said, and Bernal who use tools of Western philosophy and literature to draw out attention to this historical process. I am not anti-Western (in the same way that I am not anti-Christian or anti-Islam) and I am committed to the idea that perhaps more than any tradition the West has the philosophical means to save itself and to overcome its own deep logocentrism, phallocentrism, Eurocentrism which can only be achieved through the ongoing critique of historical reason (as Foucault might argue), a learning process like no other. This is a question that hugely interests me. I regularly set it for my students in different contexts and try to chart its contours (Baker & Peters 2012). It is only since the 1990s that globalization has triggered a new understanding of political, economic and cultural interconnectedness with a new emphasis on hybridity, forms of transnationalism, networks, translations, and migration demonstrating the limitations of Eurocentrism in both 196

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

its historical and epistemological forms. “Universal world history” a discourse initiated by Hegel has been replaced by “global history” that is motivated and shaped by postcolonial criticism and beset by issues in international politics and law (see e.g., Hobson, 2012). In my work I turn to intercultural philosophy as a vehicle for raising these questions, and look forward to an ongoing conversation with Papastephanou about its possibilities and limitations. Yusef Waghid in a nice construction “On Being Open: Michael A. Peters and the Quest for Intercultural Education through Dialogue” focuses on what it means to be open. I like this construction because it turns the discussion away from epistemological issues of openness – the openness of knowledge, open knowledge production, openness as an expression of public reason – to ontological issues and what it means to be or become more open. It’s a theme that I wish to actively pursue in my general work: what does it mean to be open ontologically speaking beyond the truisms and empirical work on “open-mindedness”, a critical ontological condition for dialogue in a global sense. Can I say before picking up Yusef’s argument and consolidating remarks above that the liberal story of education succinctly stated by Kant in ‘What is Enlightenment?’ as ‘Dare to think for yourself!’ where thinking is equated with ‘public reason’ and its expression, highlights the troubled history of the relation between education considered as a right and the right to freedom of speech; actually, where the former historically grows out of the other as a form of openness. The justification of freedom of speech as a right today is associated with political democracy and its institutions, with the freedom of the flow of ideas and with education as a social good that promotes self expression and thereby the autonomy, development of self, and self-representation and identity. So epistemological forms of open discourse historically condition forms of open subjectivity. Tina Engels-Schwarzpaul continues this theme to talk of a “Cosmopolitan outlook” with an emphasis on “opening doors and letting learn”. Tina mentions the circumstances that surround our relationship and how I came to supervise her work for a PhD in architecture and design. Tina also talks about the learning processes involved for us both when scholars of different disciplines come together in a supervisory relationship – the roles and responsibilities, the lack of disciplinary knowledge on my part, the public areas of learning involving the sharing of work with peers and its presentation. Some time later, as Engels-Schwarzpaul, describes we actually decided to collaborate on a jointly edited work called Of Other Thoughts: Non-traditional Ways to the Doctorate (Engels-Schwarzpaul & Peters, 2013) that in retrospect was an important learning experience for me but also a critical work in what Engels-Schwarzpaul calls “Educational cosmopolitics: Including the other in self-understanding”. I very much like this notion 197

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

because it has a psychoanalytic depth suggesting that the inclusion of the Other is part of self-understanding, like Kristeva’s notion of understanding the stranger within: we are all alienated from ourselves and various models exist by which we might come to terms with these structural impediments. The Marxian model taken from Hegel is to suggest the process of selfalienation is located in the process of laboring under industrial capitalism. This Hegelian inspired model is fundamental to the modern concept of the Other and the notion of struggle for recognition – the outside reality also structures the phenomenology of the self. If we are looking for the beginnings of this kind of discourse in the critical sense then we can’t really go past Hegel, although we must also take account of Montaigne’s armchair philosophy in essays like ‘On Cannibals’. The phenomenology of self and Other, reflected in the Hegelian dictum that self-consciousness recognizes itself in the negation of Otherness, provides a model for critical philosophy not only for Marx but also for forms of existentialism that also borrows the language of self-alienation. Here we can talk of a different model and its variations (Christian – alienation from God, and atheistic forms) pursued by Camus, Sartre, Beauvoir, and Merleau-Ponty. The third model we can call psychoanalytic after Freud that has its major innovation in the work of Lacan, and Kristeva’s semiotic version. Perhaps we should also entertain the idea of an anti-psychiatric model in the work of Guattari and Deleuze (Peters, 2013a). Why I mention this here is because Of other thoughts really brings home to me the complexity of the doctoral learning process that positions the candidate in a series of relationships based on the self/Other (S/O) condition that begins with themselves at the centre of a rich semiotic system that includes not just S/O knowledge exchanges in the immediate setting but also a relationality between the text and con-text. Tina reminds me that we are not just talking about “knowledge exchanges” and epistemological concerns reflected in a text or form of the text (the genre of the thesis), but also a number of psychological states that accompany, surround and condition what I call “anxieties of knowing” (Peters, 2014a), and perhaps also more deeply “psychoses of knowing” which is not so much about healing the S/O split but about self-integration. I do want a depth hermeneutic to talk about “educational cosmopolitics”. Freud said somewhere that when there are two people having a conversation there are already four people in the room. Working with Tina has been a constant delight and I think the Deleuze and Guattari do have application here we talk of differences. Engels-Schwarzpaul’s intellectual instincts are right on the mark at least in terms of my interest and what matters to me, when she turns to Heidegger and openness (“openness to new possibilities”). I began a recent paper that I gave at Marburg, the university where Heidegger wrote Being and 198

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Time, with a homage to Heidegger. It was a paper on “radical openness” (Peters, 2013b) and while critics might think that I am concerned merely with epistemological question of knowledge organization I have to point out that the institution (including literature) provides the matrix within which the material form influences basic historical ontology and the development of subjectivity.3 Morwenna Griffiths and I have met on a number of previous occasions. At a recent philosophy of education conference at Oxford we sat and chatted together focusing on an incident she recounted about a PhD examination that involved an old male professor who attempted to trump her remarks by saying “I knew Jean-Paul Sartre”. This story was greeted with gales of laughter and eventually we turned to the notion of philosophy and humor and then decided that we would write a paper together as a dialogue based on this theme. (Griffiths and Peters, 2012) It was a painless and spirited discussion that I greatly enjoyed. In her paper for this collection “Personal narrative, educational research and multipolar cosmopolitanism” Griffiths argues for a contextualism in relation to cosmopolitanism that respects differences of a multipolar postcolonial world. In this Griffiths argues for a first world responsibility for examining a universality that is a historical projection of Western beliefs and the imagination to entertain that it might be otherwise. In “From the Post-colonial to the Intercultural – Are Genuine Intercultural Dialogues Feasible?” Yun-shiuan (Viola) Chen focuses on a recent address and (now) published essay “Eurocentrism and the Critique of Universal World History: The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization” a keynote paper given at the 2012 Annual Conference of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia in Chiayi, Taiwan (Peters, 2014a). This is an important paper for me and a topic that troubled me for years, especially as a white professor still struggling to come to terms with his own identity. As one who grew up in Aotearoa-New Zealand, of an English mother and second generation Italian father I was lucky not to be in a conflict zone or a refugee or forced migrant like so many populations in places like Syria, Nigeria, Ukraine. I came to the postcolonial question through my engagement with Maori, especially with Ngapuhi in the Taitokerau in the northern North Island where successive generations of Maori kids fluent speakers of te reo Maori (the Maori language) systematic failed at their culture because the could not write Maori in the English alphabet. This was a transformative experience for me as I worked seven years in the field to assist Maori in trying to work through this problem (Peters and Marshall, 1988). So the critique of Eurocentrism has always had a particular hue for me and in this regard it was a pleasure to sit on Yun-shiuan’s PhD committee in her

199

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

critical study of Taiwan’s national scholarship program for overseas study (Chen, 2013). Her chapter goes to the heart of the issue and provides a trenchant critique as well as remaining both skeptical and hopeful. My causal observation is that anyone at all can converse and dialogue in the tradition of Western philosophy (or sociology, or politics etc) if they have had the appropriate education irrespective of whether they Western or not – Yunshiuan Chen’s commentary and published work indicate this to be the case. I suspect that it is the case also for a Western who is educated in the Confucian tradition. The difficulty comes at the point that different philosophical traditions attempt to speak to each other: there is not really any third discourse into which one can mediate claims and the idea of a global philosophical (or meta) discourse seems oddly impossible. Finally, the interview that Jeff Stickney arranged and conducted called “Philosophical Fellowship: An Interview with Michael Peters and Nicholas Burbules” is a fitting note on which to end and one that I am very grateful for because Nick has been a fellow traveler and we have collaborated on a range of projects. I’m indebted to Jeff for a penetrating and informed set of questions for which I did not have ready-made answers (always a clue to a good interviewer). The interview with Jeff and Nick also enabled me to return to Wittgenstein in the presence of two Wittgenstein scholars in education, to acknowledge my debts to colleagues, and to try to project ahead to see where I am going. As the interview is itself a kind of confession I will not provide a double commentary here. At the beginning of this process I was skeptical that anything would come of it intellectually speaking. Having read the essays assemble here and being in the position of responding to them I have changed my mind and come to see how the process wherever it originated is a learning system that enables criticism to be made in the best sense of the term. I have learned a great deal from this process: not only of how others see me but also gathered a more complete understanding of where I stand. The festschrift puts one author at the centre and encourages others to examine an aspect of the corpus of work, like spokes to a wheel. It’s like a children’s game of question and answer. My critics have been too kind to me – even constrained – but that may be the form of the genre. I am greatly obliged to all contributors, friends and colleagues. NOTES 1. Taggart also provides the following useful footnote “For comprehensive surveys of the genre in Germany and France, see Helmuth Schulze-Fielitz, “Festschriften im Dienst der Wissenschaft” [“Festschriften in Service of Scholarship”] [2000], Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt [German Administrative Journal] 1260–66 [in 200

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

German] & Frédéric Rolin, “Les Principes Généraux Gouvernant L’Élaboration des Volumes de Mélanges: Contribution à l’étude de la literature mélangiable juridique” [“General Principles Governing the Elaboration of Mélanges Works: Contribution of the study of mélangiable legal literature”] in Les mutations contemporaines du droit public: Mélanges en l’honneur de Benoît Jeanneau [Contemporary Changes in Public Law: Mélanges in Honour of Benoît Jeanneau] (Éditions Dalloz, Paris, 2002) 221–34 [in French].” 2. See http://tcreativeu.blogspot.co.nz/ 3. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ5zb8gyAr4; see also http://eepat. net/doku.php?id=the_idea_of_openness

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Engels-Schwarxpaul, A.-Chr., and Peters, M.A. (2013), Of Other Thoughts: NonTraditional Ways to the Doctorate: A Guidebook for Candidates and Supervisors. Rotterdam: Sense. Ahmed, Sara (2004), “Affective Economies,” Social Text 22(2): 117–139. Aldridge, A. Owen (ed.) (1971), The Ibero-American Enlightenment. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Baker, M., and Peters, M.A. (eds.) (2012), “Education and Scenarios for a PostOccidental World,” Policy Futures in Education 10(1): 1–3. Besley, T., & Peters, M.A. (eds.) (2013), Re-imagining the University for the 21st Century. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Chen, Yun-shiuan (Viola) (2013), Modernization or Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Reading of Taiwan’s National Scholarship Program for Overseas Study. New York: Peter Lang. Clough, Patricia T. (2008), “The Affective Turn: Political Economy, Biomedia and Bodies,” Theory, Culture & Society 25(1): 1–22. Danton, R. (1982), The Literary Underground of the Old Regime. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F. (1994), What Is Philosophy? New York: Columbia University Press. Derrida, J. (1997), The Politics of Friendship. George Collins (tr.). London: Verso. Griffiths, M., and Peters, M.A. (2012), “‘I Knew Jean-Paul Sartre’: Philosophy of Education as Comedy,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 46(2): 132–147. Helm, Bennett (2013), “Friendship,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall edn.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries /friendship/ Hobson, John M. (2012), The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lăzăroiu, George (2012), Challenges to the Epistemology of Journalism: The Architecture of the Contemporary Mediascape. New York: Addleton Academic Publishers. Lăzăroiu, George (2013), “Peters on the New Ecologies of Knowledge,” Review of Contemporary Philosophy 12: 127–133.

201

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M. A., & Reveley, J. (2014), “Noosphere Rising: Collective Labour, Collective Intelligence and Social Production,” Thesis Eleven. Forthcoming Peters, M. A., & Reveley, J. (2014), “Retrofitting Drucker: Knowledge Work under Cognitive Capitalism,” Culture and Organization 20(2): 135–151. Peters, M. A. (2009), “Education, Creativity and the Economy of Passions: New Forms of Educational Capitalism,” Thesis Eleven 96(1): 40–63. Peters, M. A. (2012), Educational Philosophy and Politics: The Selected Works of Michael A. Peters. London: Routledge. Peters, M. A. (2013a), “Institutions, Semiotics and the Politics of Subjectivity,” in Benoît Dillet, Iain MacKenzie, and Robert Porter (eds.), The Edinburgh Companion to Poststructuralism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 3–26. Peters, M. A. (2013b), “Radical Openness: Creative Institutions, Creative Labor and the Logic of Public Organizations in Cognitive Capitalism,” Knowledge Cultures 1(2): 47–72. Peters, M. A. (2014a), “Eurocentrism and the Critique of ‘Universal World History:’ The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 6(1). Forthcoming Peters, M. A. (2014b), “Anxieties of Knowing: Academic Pathologies, Critical Philosophy and the Culture of the Academic Self,” Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 13: 55–76. Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (eds.) (2013), The Creative University. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2014), “Subjectivity, Employability and the Crisis of
Youth Unemployment in the Great Global Recession: Notes Towards a Concept of Knowledge Socialism,” Knowledge Cultures 2(2): 153–166. Peters, M. A., & Besley, Tina (A.C.) (eds.) (2007), Why Foucault? New Directions in Educational Research. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., and Bulut, E. (2011), Cognitive Capitalism, Education and Digital Labor. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., and Marhsall, J. D. (1988), “Te Reo O Te Tai Tokerau: Community Evaluation, Empowerment and Opportunities for Oral Maori Language Reproduction,” in Report of the Royal Commission on Social Policy, Te Kamihana A Te Karauna Me Nga A Hautanga-A-Iwi, April, Vol. III, Part Two, Future Directions. Wellington: Government Printer, 703–744. Peters, M. A., Besley, A.C., Olssen, M., Maurer, S., and Weber, S. (eds.), Governmentality Studies in Education. Rotterdam: Sense. Peters, M. A., Tze-Chang Liu, and Ondercin, D. (2012), “Societies, Public Good Science and Openness in the Digital Age,” Ch. 8, in The Pedagogy of the Open Society. Rotterdam: Sense. Roth, K. (2011), Kant and Education: Interpretations and Commentary. Edited together with Chris W. Surprenant. New York-London: Routledge. Taggart, M. (2002), “Gardens or Graveyards of Scholarship: Festschriften in the Literature of the Common Law,” Oxford Journal Legal Studies 22(2): 227–252. Venturi, R. (1989/91), End of the Old Regime in Europe. Vols. 1–3. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

202

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Endword Michael Peters: Gentle Polymath and Commanding Intellectual

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peter McLaren Chapman University

It may strike the genteel reader as odd that a revolutionary Marxist humanist educator is penning the endword to a volume dedicated to the storied postmodernist/poststructuralist philosopher from Aotearoa, the land of the long white cloud. And whilst some might view ending a book about the person and work of Mike Peters with a Postface by an author whose own work has been largely and on occasion virulently inhospitable to post-structuralism over the past several decades as a risky preemptory wager, it wouldn’t seem odd to Mike Peters. He would no doubt be pleased if I were to instantiate an ambiguous Marxist co-presence into a volume celebrating his work, not because he has any particular affinity with the well-trodden path and contradictory history of Marxism, but because of his indefatigable commitment to including diverse systems of intelligibility in examining the nature of our contentious present with its seemingly intractable social and political disjunctions. Mike is a warrior for diversity, it’s part of his ontological clarity and is what makes him such a commanding intellectual and a man of both the future and present. Mike writes in a white heat, spinning his ideas into the eschatological future where is he able to announce a state of affairs that both is and is to come. I recall that my first real conversation with Mike Peters took place in Los Angeles early in the 1990s, after I had been recruited by UCLA shortly after the Los Angeles uprising. Prior to meeting Mike, I had spent nearly a decade working with Henry Giroux at Miami University of Ohio within what could loosely be called a postmodernist theoretical trajectory. I can’t recall many details from that conversation with Mike but I probably was lamenting my earlier infatuation with the linguistic turn in social theory and sharing with him my burgeoning interest in a critical materialist approach to social theory for the purpose of transforming a world obsessed with production for exchange instead of production for use. I do recall Mike was very supportive. 203

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

The authoritarian and dehumanizing way in which the crisis of global capitalism and its low intensity terrorism was riding roughshod over all of the planet and providing austerity-promoting strategies was of no simple import to me in the early 1990s. Numerous visits to the barrios, favelas and shantytowns of Latin America had given my postmodernist imaginary enough pause that I was able to catch my political breath. The deprivation of people’s basic needs as a result of existing social structures has led some, like Garry Leech (2012), to make a case for labeling capitalism as structural genocide. Leech’s important work uses four case studies to make his case for capitalism as a class-based structural genocide that targets the poor: the result of free-market policies on the dispossession of Mexican farmers; farmer suicides in India related to the WTO’s intellectual property rights with respect to genetically modified and hybrid seeds; death from hunger and from preventable and treatable diseases; and the unsustainability of capitalism from an ecological perspective. And yet even as capitalism ensnares hundreds of millions of people around the globe in its jaws of death, it remains largely uncontested in the academy. I came to realize that with the academy under the hammer fist of immiseration capitalism, with its class divisions and internecine warfare, truth can only be the offspring of ventriloquism, of impersonation, since by dint of the fact that it serves as a fetish captured by the commodity exchange between frames of intelligibility deployed the sentinels of academic research in the Western academy and the wider knowledge industry linked to creation of the corporate citizen, truth serves a double function: both to create meaning out of deception (illusion) and actively to deceive through the act of objectification (the private appropriation of social labor). Every effort to produce mindful critique in this instance is overburdened by contradictions. And rather than stake out a field of academic endeavor in order to interrogate the ways in which fields of knowledge are constituted and organized, I decided to concentrate on the reality of global imperialism and its geopolitical ramifications, including its impact on racism, sexism, class exploitation and national subalternity. My theoretical rule of thumb was to avoid economic reductionism, ethnocentrism and essentialism when I appropriated from the Marxist canon, and to be wary of a creeping culturism, aestheticism and philosophical idealism when I journeyed into the hinterlands of postmodern theory, with its vertigo-inducing singularities, ludic interstitiality, mimicry, indeterminacy, ambivalence, and with the porosity, malleability and hybridity of its multiply configurable identities indelibly compatible, I became convinced, with neoliberal capitalism. Postmodern theory began to exemplify for me the cultural logic of globalized neoliberal capitalism. The contradictions of liberal democracy and its postmodern defenders became clearer the more that I realized that liberal 204

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

capitalist democracies must fundamentally fuel exploitation and oppression since these principles are, in the main, market-determined and tied to private property. My work in Latin America, Africa, Europe and China has shown me that cognitive democracy must go hand-in-hand with economic democracy. Whether interviewing migrants who have braved los garroteros (people armed with garrotes) to ride the top of the Beast (a freight train that runs from southern Mexico to the U.S.-Mexican border, shack dwellers from the townships in South Africa, roof and sidewalk dwellers, student Zapatista brigades, or peasants dispossessed of their lands, I began to feel in my red bones how the notion that we live in a post-industrial world is a mockery of reality. The industrial working-class has far from declined; in fact, this class continues to expand at a scale unprecedented in history resulting in a proletarianization of a significant sector of the world’s population. From this vantage point, postmodernism appears to be an ideology of the prosperous, “which itself is a product of the type of capitalism that arose in the imperialist core of contemporary capitalism during the ‘Golden Age of Capitalism’ between 1945 and 1973” (Ahmad, 2011: 16). I felt that postmodernism needed to be viewed historically, under the influence of objective social relations, and by dint of its location within the capitalist mode of production and its ideological-political forms of reproduction. I was most interested in the way in which this theory had been commodified in the transnationalized marketplace through the dynamics of reification. The praise of postmodernists for capitalism (I’m thinking of Lyotard here) and bourgeois liberal democracy are commonplace and I do not intend to navigate all the variegated fortunes and vicissitudes of postmodernism at this time, only to provide a thumbnail sketch of its connections to the forces and relations of production. Postmodern ideas were largely an outgrowth of the Euro-American zones and now the massive scale of private and state debts are bringing the age of U.S. prosperity to a close. In the early 1990s, about the time I met Mike, I was coming to see the political efficacy of postmodernism as reductive and disabling in the midst of a class warfare waged globally by the transnational capitalist class. Postmodern education’s uncompromising liaison with the progressive field of educational scholarship eventually led me and comrades in England to edit the book, Marxism against Postmodernism in Educational Theory. Certain economic conditions of world-historical importance created a receptivity to certain kinds of social subjectivities and postmodern ideas. I will briefly rehearse here a study made by Aijaz Ahmad (2011) that focuses less on the philosophical tenets of postmodernism and more upon the concrete historical context in which postmodernism arose specifically with 205

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

regard to modern forms of politics and political organization. According to Ahmad, the social theory we have come to call postmodernism first emerged from the swamplands of American sociology departments in the 1950s, as a result of the triumph of U.S.-led capitalism and the creation of the world’s most powerful advanced capitalist welfare state (made possible by a Keynesian emphasis on redistribution). It made its way to France in the 1960s and after being rephrased and rearticulated in more Francophone modalities after the defeat of the leftist movements during 1967–69, it was readmitted with greater academic prestige back to the United States and the advanced Anglo-Saxon countries, who then disseminated them to so-called Third World countries through the universities. During the 1950s and the first decade of the Cold War, France (and Europe) experienced the most dramatic growth of its productive forces in history with the enormous injection of financial aid through the U.S. Marshall Plan, which laid the foundations for what Ahmad (2011) called the “economic and social embourgeoisement of a broad sector of the population” and which, in a relatively short time, was able to change the class composition of France, creating a petty-bourgeois strata and an advanced social democratic state. As the U.S. began to command the entire world through the most powerful military known to humankind and staggering advances in technology, it created the most powerful university system ever assembled designed to produce ideas for the global bourgeoisie. Soon, theories related to postindustrial and post-Fordist societies and the information age began to populate the field of cultural studies that came to reflect the monumental move from economies of production to economies of consumption. Marxism was declared redundant and the working class was seen to no longer possess a revolutionary role. Class politics, therefore, faded out while localized revolts championed by dispersed social groups and based on single-issue identity politics flourished, marking a generalized shift from class to culture, from class struggle to the celebration of a politics of self-fashioning, techniques of self-styling, self-gratification and bourgeois individualism. Postmodernism seemed to signal its own fatality by turning human agency into an empty signifier in the sedimented chronicle of a consumer dreamscape. We can think here of Foucault’s opposition to Marxism and his embrace of micropolitics (not to mention Khomeni’s Iran), and Lyotard’s own neoliberalism which helped lead to a de-emphasis on class politics in favor of advocating for a network of NGOs and social movements and forums devoid of any overarching political program. The political (state) was replaced by the social (civil society). Gone was the crucial emphasis on creating organizations dedicated to emancipating the nation state, the peasantry and the workingclass. Instead, we inherited anti-rationalist attacks on class struggle for supposedly being in collusion with Westerncentric reason itself. 206

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

After my disenchantment with postmodernism, I was drawn to the work of Marcuse. Over time, however, I became wary of the way in which he displaced the dialectical quality of classical Hegelian and Marxist philosophy, betraying an incapacity to overcome contradiction, lurching towards a metaphysical or antinomial (neo-Kantian) posture in which he vacillates between two poles of a contradiction, poles of which he regards as antiseptically independent rather than interpenetrating; he seemed tragically resigned to the perennial permanence of contradiction and paradox (Reitz 2000). Perhaps Marcuse became a victim of what he termed repressive desublimation. I became highly critical of the overthrow of dialectics by nominalism and the replacement of class struggle by privatized monads. Reluctant to turn inward and take refuge in the ‘Beautiful Soul’ and perhaps remain trapped in Marcuse’s dualistic vacillation, I was drawn towards the progress-oriented philosophy of history of Hegel and Marx, and eventually to the work of the founder of Marxist-humanism in the United States, Raya Dunayevakaya. Since that time I have, to various degrees, been trying to forge a critical materialist analysis of social life, focusing on education, working in tandem with the ideas of Dunayevskaya and Freire. I fully agree with Reitz (2000: 263) that critical knowledge “is knowledge that enables the social negation of the social negation of human life’s core activities, the most central of which are neither being-toward-death [as Heidegger would maintain], nor subservience [as Kant would argue], but creative labor.” After September 11 2001, and the exponential growth of the national security state, which abrogates to itself the right to intrude frictionlessly into the digitalized lives of its citizen/servants, I began to try to make some inroads on mobilizing revolutionary critical pedagogy as a transnational social movement for the creation of a socialism for the 21 st century, spending time in Venezuela with the Chavistas and getting some good advice from President Chavez. It has became increasingly clear that we need more than a democratization of the superstructure, more than the substitution of private capitalism with state regulated capitalism, because even if we achieve this, socialism would still be driven by the anarchy of commodity production and thus the exploitation of the surplus producers would still be in place. We don’t need a critical pedagogy that exfoliates its most radical dimensions, that hinges on the successful redeployment of liberal democratic under the guise of political transformation such that critical pedagogy becomes little more than a self-satisfied codeword for a banal progressivism (i.e., becomes a domesticated appendage of a Freirean approach made politically complaisant by leeching out Freire’s Marxism and failing to offer the slightest derogation from an overarching neoliberal agenda).

207

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

We need, in short, an emphasis on endogenous development, something that Che Guevara emphasized after the success of the Cuban Revolution. But is there any room left for postmodernism? What Mike Peters has taught me is that some of the work by postmodernists can help illuminate the realm of the formation of subjectivity (which has both ontological and epistemological foci), since I believe that a necessary companion to a macro focus on property ownership and distribution mechanisms must be the micro-level focus on better working conditions in which workers and surplus producers are able to appropriate and distribute collectively their surplus value. Clearly, as Mike’s work makes clear, it is not sufficient to rely on certain social structures by themselves to create the liberated agent of change; individuals must also transform themselves through the creation of social institutions that can enhance their capacity for change. Mike and I have had stimulating conversations about the formation of subjectivity and the complex systems of mediation that produce it, the most recent occurring on his farm and vineyard in Wipara. Our conversation produced a new book series that we are co-editing for Peter Lang Publishers in New York, Education and Struggle: Narrative, Dialogue and the Political Production of Meaning. As Ronald Barnett notes, Mike Peters will always be consumed by “large ideas.” This is evident in the way he has given direction to his many projects, and in his leadership role as an educational polymath breaking new ground on a number of theoretical fronts simultaneously. I am especially indebted to Mike’s articulation of knowledge capitalism and his interrogation of what routinely passes as academic knowledge. His work is path-breaking in the way in which he investigates what Barnett names “the boundaries between data, information, knowledge and wisdom.” I agree with Marianna Papastephanou that Mike is a bona fide universalist in spite of himself, supporting “a universalism …. more inclusive than pluralism” since for Mike, all are invited to the banquet of discursive citizenship, arching towards what Papastephanou calls Mike’s “ideal cosmos.” Mike performs his values, and not only writes about them, and his entire persona encompasses a “nontoxic universalism of all-inclusiveness and a concern for all (humans, all biota and the non-sentient world).” Mike’s work is indeed universal in the way in which Barnett defines the term: “a common horizon against which human life can develop in all its complexity and particularity.” Enfleshing the role of the cosmo-political universalist, Mike has always recognized the singularity of human identity and the right of people to fight—both individually and collectively—for their self-determination and dignity. As most of us who will read this volume can attest, this is not always an easy task within the academy, which today is so replete with the vile vigilantism of university bureaucrats and their intractable bureaucratism and proceduralism 208

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

and their ultimate mummification of intellectual life. These impudent bureaucrats dishonor not only themselves but all within the academy by shamlessly flouting a commitment to diversity and cognitive democracy. With epic urgency and burning exigency, they corporatize everything in sight, turning the academy into a consumptionist utopia for the ruling class. Mike has always held such bloviating windbags in contempt, choosing instead to help academics breathe: instructing them how to inhale the talents of the imagination and exhale the possibilities for a better future. In this regard, Mike’s sage mentoring has been a blessing to junior faculty and more seasoned scholars worldwide. This is very much in the spirit of what Klas Roth calls Mike’s “Kantian spirit” and illustrates the quintessence of Mike’s ethics of care. Mike takes values such as decentralization, consensus decisionmaking, egalitarianism, anti-hierarchy, anti-authoritarianism, anti-statism and anti-elitism seriously, fighting against epistemic privilege and those who would monopolize the authority of knowledge. In this regard, Mike is firmly planted within an “altermondialist” movement, fighting his way through an increasingly integrated world system coordinated by the transnational capitalist class (Clark, 2013).

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Ahmad, Aijaz (2011), “On Post Modernism,” The Marxist XXVIII(January/March): 4–38. Clark, John (2013), The Impossible Community: Realizing Communitarian Anarchism. New York-London: Bloomsbury. Leech, Garry (2012), Capitalism: A Structural Genocide. London-New York: Z Books. Reitz, Charles (2000), Art, Alienation and the Humanities: A Critical Engagement with Herbert Marcuse. Albany, NY: The State University of New York.

209

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Postscript on Marxism Michael A. Peters

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

University of Waikato University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Peter McLaren wrote this piece last and so I come to it last and have recast it as an endword rather than a foreword because I think this will become the basis for an ongoing dialogue of which this exchange is only the first stage. It is so different from the other articles that I decided to engage with it as a postscript or endnote. Peter is a great friend. He is a “mate” as we say in New Zealand and I regard him as a brother and it is with affection that I engage with his ideas here. Where a number of the other contributors attempted to define me in their terms—I am a secret Kantian, universalist or cosmopolitan even if I don’t already know it—Peter seeks to define me by what I’m not and especially by contrast to what he is—a revolutionary Marxist. And he takes up the cudgels on behalf of revolutionary Marxism against postmodernism and poststructuralism which are movements that allegedly define me. This is a tricky assignment for Peter as a revolutionary Marxist because he is on record as being against both postmodernism and poststructuralism and yet at the same time he is my friend and wants to be able to be respectful and to say some nice things. He manages to achieve this very well and with eloquence. I am both flattered and relieved frankly— that we can remain good friends. But I like him and treat him as a brother (even though I have qualms about “brotherhoods”) not because he is a revolutionary Marxist but despite it. He could have been a Mormon. This discussion has an extra confessional quality about it because Peter was at one point a postmodernist and then he switched, renouncing his former beliefs to take on revolutionary Marxism. So the issue is also very personal and deeply transformative. I do remember Peter’s generosity in the 1980s when I was completing my thesis on Wittgenstein. Like Henry Giroux, Peter was incredibly hospitable. They included me in their discussions and sent me their material to read. Another colleague of mine Colin Lankshear also from Auckland University had already developed strong partnerships with Peter and Henry working with them on a range of projects including critical pedagogy and critical literacy when I was still being socialized into a critical education community. My head and heart was still in philosophy. I was lost in the dizzying heights of Wittgenstein’s work particularly his work in the foundations of mathematics. It took me some time to adjust. 210

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

These labels ‘revolutionary Marxism’, ‘postmodernism’ and ‘poststructuralism’ should be not taken too literally in my view. The process of identification by association can be scary but like any stereotyping mechanism we can and should reject these broad descriptions as being definitive of philosophical identity and work instead with what scholars say—we should follow the arguments. I regard postmodernism, no longer as fashionable as it was once (it has been institutionalized), and poststructuralism as reading guides exactly in the sense of readings associated with a course. So if you want to understand postmodernism read, view and listen to the music, theatre, architecture, dance, philosophy, literature, sociology, criticism, cultural studies, economics etc. that developed in different cultural conditions in America, Britain, Australia, China, India, South America and elsewhere. What can one say about this diversity except the banal comment that postmodernism can be characterized as a reevaluation and critique of the culture of modernism, and a reaction against its universalist tendencies? What do these artists, architects, musicians and writers share? What do Robert Venturi, Charles Jencks, Charles Olson, John Cage, Terry Riley, Henryk Gorecki, George Crumb, Steve Reich, Phillip Glass, Lou Harrison, Michael Nyman, Jorge Luis Borges, Samuel Beckett, Vladimir Nabokov, William Gaddis, William Burroughs, Kurt Vonnegut, John Barth, Donald Barthelme, E.L. Doctorow, Don DeLillo, Thomas Pynchon, Kathy Acker have in common? What do these philosophers have in common: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, Rorty, Jameson? This is why I say it really should be seen less as a label and more as a guide to reading. Clearly, also insofar as structuralism philosophically and linguistically speaking was part of the great movement of European formalism beginning in the formal and pragmatic schools of linguistics that sprang up in Geneva with Saussure, Moscow and St Petersburg with Roman Jakobson, at Johns Hopkins and Harvard Universities with Charles Sanders Pierce, and at Nevel, Vitesbk and later Moscow with Bakhtin and members of the Bakhtin Circle, structuralism and its French moment from 1958 (with the publication of Levi-Strauss’ Structural Anthropology) to the events of May 1968—a massive student-led general strike that brought the French capitalist economy to its knees—structuralism was also tied to modernism as the culture of a certain kind of capitalism (perhaps the death of state capitalism and the beginning of multinational or global capitalism). Only in this trivial sense is postmodern culture the product of global capitalism. And yet even in the global capitalist system which had become the basis of World Integrated capitalism philosophy and critique is still possible.

211

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

It’s the job of the cultural critic or philosopher to interpret what these people have in common or what defines them. This is something I have tried to do many times and I come to the conclusion that it does not make sense to say that one is against all of them. Gary Aylesworth (2005, 2013) begins his entry for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy with the following observation:

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning.

He begins with Jean-François Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition (1979/ 1984) as the moment when the word ‘postmodernism’ entered the lexicon. Lyotard’s works were a turning point for me when I first read his work in 1984 just as I was completing my PhD thesis on Wittgenstein. I wrote my first book as a collection on Lyotard, called Education and the Postmodern Condition (Peters, 1995) which I published in Henry Giroux and Paulo Freire’s Critical Studies in Education and Culture series for Greenwood Press (when Peter was still a postmodernist). I was greatly excited because Lyotard wrote a small Preface and I had been in touch with him for the previous 18 months. Dear Peter, I have to say that Lyotard cannot fairly be described as a neoliberal even although he gave up Marxism: to give up revolutionary Marxism is not to be a neoliberal. While it is not possible in my view to ever be in possession of the one true interpretation—there are many and new ones appear all the time—it is possible to rule out bad or false descriptions. Lyotard joined the socialist revolutionary organization Socialisme ou Barbarie in 1954 and lost belief in the legitimacy of Marxism as a totalizing theory in the mid 1960s but he never gave up on Marx, as his work Libidinal Economy (1974/1993) clearly demonstrates, a book inspired by Marx and Freud that tried to chart multiple forces and desires at play in any political or social situation. As I wrote in 1999 for the Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory Lyotard’s break with Marxism and his turn to philosophy has to be seen against the background of French intellectual life and, in particular, the struggle in the late 1950s and early 1960s against both humanism in all its forms and Marxism. Structuralism, based upon the work in linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure, Roman Jakobson, and many others, first found a home in a form of cultural anthropology pursued by Claude Lévi-Strauss and developed also in the disciplines of history (early Michel 212

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Foucault), semiotics (Roland Barthes), psychoanalysis (Jacques Lacan), and Marxism (Louis Althusser). Structuralism, at least as it was understood by Foucault, constituted, above all, a reaction against the phenomenological (existential or humanist) subject which had dominated French philosophy in the post-war period. Poststructuralism was inspired by a return to Nietzsche’s writings and captured Gilles Deleuze’s (1962) influential Nietzsche et la philosophie. http://eepat.net/doku.php?id=lyotard_and_philosophy_of_education

I don’t have the space to go into this matter in details here suffice it to say that I have written about the topic in many different places. Certainly, postmodernism and poststructuralism should be treated as guides to reading but we might also suppose that there are some serious commitments. The philosophical reading of postmodernism, considered as a whole, tends to emphasize a number of overlapping cluster concepts that emphasize its openness, its critique of essence or essentiality, and its philosophy of difference, and protection of diversity, including the following:

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

· anti-foundationalism; · anti-essentialism; · anti- or post-epistemological standpoint; · anti-realism about meaning and reference; · suspicion of transcendental arguments and viewpoints; · rejection of the picture of knowledge as accurate representation; · rejection of truth as correspondence to reality; · rejection of canonical descriptions and final vocabularies; · suspicion of metanarratives.

The list is taken from Bernd Magnus’ (1989) discussion of Nietzsche in relation to postmodern criticism. To Magnus’ list we might also add what Rorty calls ‘antirepresentationalism’ and also add, alongside ‘suspicion of metanarratives’, the turn to narrative and narratology, more generally— the ‘petite récits’ pitted against metanarratives by Lyotard (1984). We might also add an emphasis on linguistic use and therapeutic view of philosophy; that is, an embodiment of many of the features of the list above and an ethos, above all, concerning philosophy as a critique of language summed up best in the famous quotation from the Investigations: “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language” (#109). It is a view that underlies the development of social sciences and cultural studies in the latter half of the twentieth-century; perhaps, sloganized in the twin methodological imperatives: the linguistic turn, the significance of representation, and the so-called “social construction of reality”, on the one hand; and, the attempt to overcome the dualisms, the search for certainty and essences, and the subjectivism that is the legacy of the Cartesian thought. 213

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

I think the true coordinates of postmodernism in philosophy are a set of references to the physical sciences and mathematics: Einstein’s relativity theses; Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle; and a host of new mathematic theories that begins with cybernetics (with Shannon, Neumann, Wiener, Forrester, the Macy conferences) and runs through the precursors of algebra of logic and the Bourbaki school through various strands of chaos and complexity theory to emphasize nonlinear dynamics, open and complex systems, and nonequilibium thermodynamics of self-organizing systems. These logical programs and mathematical and physical theories outrun the linear and simple causation of classical mechanics that propped up the modernist science of Descartes and Newton and those that followed them for many years. If Lyotard turned from Marxism as a totalizing theory to philosophy under specific conditions, including the influence of Stalinism on the Paris Communist Party, then my trajectory is not exactly the reverse but certainly more of an application of philosophy to political economy and to Marxist political economy in particular. Foucault called Nietzsche, Marx and Freud the “Masters of Suspicion”: how could one not learn from them? My own learning, my “Marxification” if you like technically began with reading Althusser’s work especially insofar as it informed a concept of knowledge production (my very first paper). I should remind Peter that I contributed to a book that he and I co-authored with Henry Giroux and Colin Lankshear called Counternarratives: Cultural Studies and Critical Pedagogies in Postmodern Spaces (1996). Then in the early 2000s I edited with Lankshear and Olssen two collections on critical theory Critical Theory and the Human Condition: Founders and Praxis (2003) and Futures of Critical Theory: Dreams of Difference (2003). I wrote Poststructuralism, Marxism, and Neoliberalism: Between Theory and Politics (2001) for an American audience to argue that poststructuralism is neither anti-structuralist nor anti-Marxist and there I traced the engagement with Marxism by the major figures of French poststructuralism including Gilles Deleuze who never stopped being Marxist. More recently, I have focused on the Italian autonomist Marxist tradition especially in the work of Antonio Negri as a basis for a project that brings Deleuze and Foucault together with Marx (of “The General Intellect”) to understand immaterial or digital labor in my recent Cognitive Capitalism, Education, and Digital Labour (Peters & Bulut). This Marxification is not a renouncement of philosophical influences upon me— Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Heidegger and the French poststructralists—but a broadening and complexification of my position. Peter McLaren has had a strong and ongoing effect and influence also on my thinking. He is a global intellectual before his time and I value his friendship and his collaboration

214

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

which has been enhanced and not diminished by our differences. I look forward to the next stage of this debate.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Aylesworth, Gary (2013), “Postmodernism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer edn.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Giroux, H., McLaren, P., Lankshear, C., & Peters, M. A. (1996), Counternarratives: Cultural Studies and Critical Pedagogies in Postmodern Spaces. London: Routledge. Lyotard, J.-F. (1974), Economie libidinale. Paris: Minuit. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Transl. Bennington G. & Massumi B. Foreword by Jameson F. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press & Manchester: University of Manchester Press. Magnus, Bernd (1989), “Nietzsche and Postmodern Criticism,” Nietzsche-Studien 18(1), at http://philpapers.org/rec/MAGNAP. Peters, M. A. (ed.) (1995), Education and the Postmodern Condition. New York: Bergin & Garvey. Peters, M. A. (2001), Poststructuralism, Marxism and Neoliberalism: Between Theory and Politics. Lanham: Boulder, NY & Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M. A., and Bulut, E. (eds.) (2011), Cognitive Capitalism, Education and the Question of Digital Labor. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., Lankshear, C., & Olssen, M. (eds.) (2003), Critical Theory: Founders and Praxis. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., Lankshear, C., & Olssen, M. (eds.) (2003), Futures of Critical Theory: Dreams of Difference. Lanham: Boulder, NY & Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

215

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Publications of Michael A. Peters Books & Monographs

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Forthcoming 2014 Peters, M.A. & Besley, T. (eds.), Paulo Freire: The Global Legacy. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A. & Besley, T. (eds.), The Global Financial Crisis and the Restructuring of Education. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A. & Barnett, Ron (eds), The Idea of the University: A Reader. New York: Peter Lang. Barnett, Ron & Peters, M.A. (eds.) Going Global: The Future Idea of the University. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., Degrees of Freedom: Openness of Science and Education in the 21st Century. Trans. João Menelau Paraskeva (Portuguese). Mangualde, Portugal, Edições Pedago. Besley, Tina (A.C.) & Peters, M.A., Subjectivity and Truth: Foucault, Education and the Culture of the Self. New York: Peter Lang. Trans. Qizhi Yu (Chinese) 2013 66. Peters, M.A., Making A Difference: Academic Pathologies and the Anxieties of Knowing. University of Waikato, Wilf Malcolm Institute. Published inaugural lecture. 65. Engels-Schwarzpaul, A.-Chr., & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Of Other Thoughts: NonTraditional Ways to the Doctorate. A Guidebook for Candidates and Supervisors. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 64. Besley, T. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Re-imagining the University for the 21 st Century. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 63. Peters, M.A., Citizenship, Law and Identity: Prospects of a Liberal Cosmopolitan Order. Selected Works of Michael A. Peters. New York: Addleton Academic Publishers. 62. Reid, A., Hart, P., & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Companion to Research in Education. Dordrecht: Springer. 61. Peters, M.A., Besley, T., & Araya, D. (eds.), The New Paradigm of Development: Education, Knowledge Economy and Digital Futures. New York: Peter Lang. 60. Peters, M.A. & Besley, T. (eds.), The Creative University. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 59. Peters, M.A., Education, Science and Knowledge Capitalism: Creativity and The Promise of Openness. New York: Peter Lang. 2012 58. Peters, M.A., Tze-Chang Liu, & Oncerin, D., The Pedagogy of the Open Society: Knowledge and the Governance of Higher Education. Rotterdam: Sense. 57. Peters, M.A. & de Alba, A. (eds.), Subjects in Process. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publications. Spanish trans. by UNAM, Mexico City. 216

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

56. Besley, Tina & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue. New York: Peter Lang. 55. Peters, M.A., Obama and the End of the American Dream. Rotterdam: Sense. 54. Peters, M.A., Educational Philosophy and Politics: The Selected Works of Michael A. Peters. London: Routledge. (World Library of Educationalists).

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2011 53. Peters, M.A. and Bulut, E. (eds.), Cognitive Capitalism, Education and the Question of Digital Labor. New York: Peter Lang. 52. Peters, M.A., Neoliberalism and After? Education, Social Policy and the Crisis of Capitalism. New York: Peter Lang. 51. Peters, M.A., The Last Book of Postmodernism: Apocalyptic Thinking, Philosophy and Education in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Peter Lang. 49. Peters, M.A. and Roberts, P., The Virtues of Openness: Education, Science and Scholarship in a Digital Age. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. 48. E. Jayne White & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Bakhtinian Pedagogy: Opportunities and Challenges for Research, Policy and Practice in Education Across the Globe. New York: Peter Lang. 47. York, J. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Leo Strauss, Political Philosophy and Education. Madison: Rowman and Littlefield. 2010 46. Araya, D. & M. A. Peters (eds.), Education in the Creative Economy. New York: Peter Lang. 45. Murphy, P., Peters, M.A. & Marginson, S., Imagination: Three Models of Imagination in the Age of the Knowledge Economy. New York: Peter Lang. 44. Marginson, S., Murphy, P. & Peters, M.A., Global Creation: Space, Mobility and Synchrony in the Age of the Knowledge Economy. New York: Peter Lang. 43. Simons, M., Olssen, M., & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Re-Reading Education Policies: Studying the Policy Agenda of the 21st Century. Rotterdam & Taipei: Sense Publishers. 2009 42. Peters, M.A., Besley, T., Olssen, M., Maurer, S., & Weber, S. (eds.), Governmentality Studies in Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 41. Peters, M.A., Murphy, P., & Marginson, S., Creativity and the Global Knowledge Economy. New York: Peter Lang. 40. Peters, M.A., & Biesta, H., Derrida, Politics and Pedagogy: Deconstructing the Humanities. New York: Peter Lang. 39. Peters, M.A. (ed.), Academic Writing, Genres and Philosophy. Oxford: WileyBlackwell. 2008 38. Peters, M.A. & Britez, R. (eds.), Open Education and Education for Openness. Rotterdam & Taipei: Sense Publishers. 37. Roberts, P. & Peters, M.A., Neoliberalism, Scholarship and Intellectual Life. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 217

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

36. Kvernbekk, T., Simpson, H., & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Military Pedagogies and Why They Matter. Rotterdam & Taipei: Sense Publishers. 35. Gonzalez-Gaudiano, E.J. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Environmental Education Today: Identity, Politics and Citizenship. Rotterdam & Taipei: Sense Publishers. 34. Besley, Tina (A.C.) & Peters, M.A., Subjectivity and Truth: Foucault, Education and the Culture of the Self. New York: Peter Lang. 33. Peters, M.A., Blee, H. & Britton, A. (eds.), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 32. Peters, M.A., Burbules, N., & Smeyers, P., Saying and Doing: Wittgenstein as a Pedagogical Philosopher. Boulder: Paradigm Press. 31. Peters, M.A. & Besley, Tina (A.C.), Por Que Foucault? Novas Diretrizes Para a Pesquisa Educacional. Trans. Vinicius Figueira Duarte. Porte Alegre: Artmed.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2007 30. Peters, M.A., Knowledge Economy, Development and the Future of Higher Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 29. Peters, M.A. & Besley, Tina (A.C.) (eds.), Why Foucault? New Directions in Educational Research. New York: Peter Lang. 28. Kapitzke, C. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Global Knowledge Cultures. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 2006 27. Peters, M.A. & Besley, Tina (A.C.), Building Knowledge Cultures: Education and Development in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism. Lanham: Boulder, NY; Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 26. Peters, M.A. & Freeman-Moir, J. (eds.), Edutopias: New Utopian Thinking in Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 25. Peters, M.A. & Smeyers, P. (eds.), Postfoundationalist Themes in the Philosophy of Education: Festschrift for James D. Marshall. Oxford: Blackwell. 2005 24. Trifonas, P. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Deconstructing Derrida: Tasks for the New Humanities. New York: Palgrave. 2004 23. Peters, M.A. (ed.), Education, Globalization and the State in the Age of Terrorism. Lanham & Oxford: Paradigm Publishers. 22. Trifonas, P. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Derrida, Deconstruction and Education. Oxford: Blackwell. 21. Peters, M.A. & Burbules, N., Poststructuralism and Educational Research. Lanham: Boulder, NY; Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2003 20. Peters, M.A., Lankshear, C. & Olssen, M. (eds.), Critical Theory: Founders and Praxis. New York: Peter Lang. 19. Peters, M.A., Lankshear, C. & Olssen, M. (eds.), Futures of Critical Theory: Dreams of Difference. Lanham: Boulder, NY; Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 218

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

2002 18. Peters, M.A. (ed.), Heidegger, Education and Modernity. Lanham: Boulder, NY; Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2001 17. Peters, M.A. & Ghiraldelli, P. (eds.), Richard Rorty: Education, Philosophy and Politics. Lanham: Boulder, NY; Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 16. Peters, M.A., Poststructuralism, Marxism and Neoliberalism; Between Theory and Politics. Lanham: Boulder, NY; Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 15. Peters, M.A., Marshall, J. & Smeyers, P. (eds.), Nietzsche’s Legacy for Education: Past and Present Values. Westport, CT & London: Bergin & Garvey.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2000 14. Peters, M.A., Pós-estruturalismo e filosofia da diferença Uma introdução. (Poststructuralism and the Philosophy of Difference: An Introduction). Belo Horizonte: Autêntica Editora. Trans. into Portuguese by Tomaz Tadeu da Silva. 13. de Alba, A., Gonzalez, E., Lankshear, C. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), The Curriculum in the Postmodern Condition. New York: Peter Lang. 1999 12. Marshall, J. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Education Policy. International Library of Comparative Policy. B. Guy Peters (General Editor). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 11. Peters, M.A. (ed.), After the Disciplines? The Emergence of Cultural Studies. Westport, CT & London: Bergin & Garvey. 10. Peters, M.A. & Roberts, P., University Futures and the Politics of Reform. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. 9. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J.D., Wittgenstein: Philosophy, Postmodernism, Pedagogy. Westport, CT. & London: Bergin & Garvey. 1998 8. Peters, M.A. (ed.), Naming the Multiple: Poststructuralism and Education. Westport, CT & London: Bergin & Garvey. 7. Peters, M.A. & Roberts, P. (eds.), Virtual Technologies and Tertiary Education. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. 1997 6. Peters, M.A. (ed.), Cultural Politics and the University. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. 1996 5. Peters, M.A., Poststructuralism, Politics and Education. Westport, CT & London: Bergin and Garvey. 4. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J.D., Individualism and Community: Education and Social Policy in the Postmodern Condition. London: Falmer Press. 3. Peters, M.A., Marshall, J.D., Hope, W. & Webstee, S. (eds.), Critical Theory, Poststructuralism and the Social Context. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press.

219

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

2. Giroux, H., Lankshear, C., McLaren, P. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Counternarratives: Cultural Studies and Critical Pedagogies in Postmodern Spaces. London: Routledge. 1. Peters, M.A. (ed.), Education and the Postmodern Condition. Foreword by JeanFrançois Lyotard. Westport, CT & London: Bergin & Garvey. (Paperback edition, 1997).

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Published Articles Forthcoming 2014 Peters, M.A., “Problematizing Liberal Cosmopolitanisms: Foucault and Neoliberal Cosmopolitan Governmentality,” Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 6(1). Peters, M.A., “Eurocentrism and the Critique of ‘Universal World History:’ The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 6(1). Peters, M.A., “Anxieties of Knowing: Academic Pathologies, Critical Philosophy and the Culture of the Academic Self,” Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 13: 55–76. Peters, M.A., “Radical Openness: Towards a Theory of Co(labor)ation,” All About Mentoring 44, Winter 2013/2014. (SUNY, NY) Peters, M.A., “Islam, Philosophy And Education: A Conversation Between Khosrow Bagheri Noaparast and Michael A. Peters,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 6(2). 2013 Peters, Michael, Tesar, Marek, & Locke, Kirsten, “Philosophy of Education,” in Oxford Bibliographies in Philosophy. Duncan Pritchard (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Peters, Michael, Tesar, Marek, & Locke, Kirsten, “Michel Foucault,” in Oxford Bibliographies in Philosophy. Duncan Pritchard (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Peters, M.A., “Cosmopolitanism, Emancipation and Educational Philosophy (Cyprus in Crisis): A Conversation with Marianna Papastephanou,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 5(2):124–144. Peters, M.A, “Philosophy, Globalization and the Future of the University: A Conversation between Sharon Rider and Michael A. Peters,” Review of Contemporary Philosophy 12: 134–139. Peters, M.A., “Managerialism and the Neoliberal University: Prospects for New Forms of ‘Open Management,’” Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 5(1): 11–26. Peters, M.A., “Citizenship, Democracy and Social Justice: A Conversation with Maria Olson,” Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 5(1): 112–120. Peters, M.A., “Institutions, Semiotics and the Politics of Subjectivity,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 5(1): 11–26. Peters, M.A., “Introduction to Knowledge Cultures,” Knowledge Cultures 1(2): 25– 29.

220

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A. & Besley, T., “Public Knowledge Cultures,” Knowledge Cultures 1(2): 30–46. Peters, M.A., “Prospects for Open Science,” Knowledge Cultures 1(2): 118–130. Peters, M.A., “Radical Openness: Creative Institutions, Creative Labor and the Logic of Public Organizations in Cognitive Capitalism,” Knowledge Cultures 1(2): 47–72. Peters, M.A., “The Last Post? Post-Postmodernism and the Linguistic U-Turn,” Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 12: 34–46. Peters, M.A., “The Educational Mode of Development,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 45(5), DOI:10.1080/00131857.2013.782122. Peters, M.A., “Children in Crisis: The New Zealand Case,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 45(1): 1–5. Peters, M.A., “The Concept of Radical Openness and the New Logic of the Public,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 45(3): 239–242. Peters, M.A., “Human Brain Project; Blue Brain; Virtual Brain,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 45(8): 817–820. Peters, M.A., “Zarathrustra’s Pedagogy,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, DOI:10.1080/00131857.2013.782176. Published online: 02 May 2013. Peters, M.A., “Competing Conceptions of the Creative University,” Educational Philosophy and Theory. DOI:10.1080/00131857.2013.785074. Published online: 02 May 2013 Peters, M.A., “Open Science, Philosophy and Peer Review,” Educational Philosophy and Theory. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2013.781296. Published online: 05 Apr 2013. Griffiths, M. & Peters, M.A., “‘I Knew Jean-Paul Sartre’: Philosophy of Education as Comedy,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 46(2): 132–147. Peters, M. & Besley, T., “Marx and Foucault: Subjectivity, Employability and the Crisis of Youth Unemployment in the Great Global Recession,” Policy Futures in Education 11(6): 779–784. 2012–13 “The Public Intellectual” http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=4344:the-publicintellectual-michael-a-peters “Will Global Financialization and the Eurozone Debt Crisis Defeat European Cosmopolitan Democracy?” Thursday, 06 September 2012 11:02 http://truth-out.org/news/item/11232-will-global-financialization-and-the-eurozonedebt-crisis-defeat-european-cosmopolitan-democracy “Why Equality Matters,” Sunday, 13 May 2012 00:00 http://truth-out.org/news/item/8985-why-equality-matters “In a Risk Society, is Consumption Our Only Tool to Influence the World?” Sunday 29 July 2012 “Anger and Political Culture: A Time for Outrage!” Sunday 22 July 2012 “Breaking Open the Digital Commons to Fight Corporate Capitalism” Sunday 15 July 2012

221

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

“Inventing Human Rights” Thursday 22 June 2012 “Freedom, Openness and Creativity in the Digital Economy” Wednesday 06 June 2012 “The Rights of the Child, ‘Adultism’ and the Philosophy of Childhood” Friday, 25 May 2012, with Viktor Johansson “Obama, Education and the End of the American Dream” Wednesday, 23 May 2012 “Knowledge Work under Cognitive Capitalism” Friday, 18 May 2012, with James Reveley “Algorithmic Capitalism and Educational Futures: Informationalism and the Googlization of Knowledge” Friday, 04 May 2012 “Henry Giroux on Democracy Unsettled: From Critical Pedagogy to the War on Youth” Monday 29 August 2011 2012 Peters, M.A., “On the Edge of Theory: Dadaism, (Ca-caism), Gagagism,” Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 34(5): 216–226. Peters, M.A. & Reveley, J., “Retrofitting Drucker: Knowledge Work Under Cognitive Capitalism,” Culture & Organization, iFirst, 1–17. Peters, M.A., “Western Models of Intercultural Philosophy,” Analysis and Metaphysics 11: 25–48. Peters, M.A. & Besley, T., “Narrative Turn and the Poetics of Resistance: Towards a New Language for Critical Educational Studies,” Policy Futures In Education 10 (1): 111–127. Peters, M.A. & Fitzsimons, P., “Digital Technologies in the Age of YouTube: Electronic Textualities, the Virtual Revolution and the Democratization of Knowledge,” Geopolitics, History and International Relations 4(1): 11–27. Peters, M.A., “Jean-Luc Godard’s Film Socialisme and the Pedagogy of the Image,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 44(7): 681–685. Peters, M.A., “Bioinformational Capitalism,” Thesis Eleven 110: 98–111. (Among the most-read articles in November, http://the.sagepub.com/reports/most-read). Peters, M.A., David J. Ondercin & Tze-Chang Liu, “Open Learning Systems: The Next Evolution of Education,” Review of Contemporary Philosophy 10: 9–24. Peters, M.A. & Thayer, J., “The Cold Peace,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 4(2): 11–26. Peters, M.A., “Henry Giroux on Democracy Unsettled: From Critical Pedagogy to the War on Youth Studies, Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 4(1): 156–174. Reprint Peters, M.A. & Johansson, V., “Historicizing Subjectivity in Childhood Studies,” Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 11: 42–61. Peters, M.A. & Baker, M., “Introduction: Education and Scenarios for a PostOccidental World,” Policy Futures in Education 10(1): 1–3, at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2304/pfie.2012.10.1.1

222

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Pieterse, J.N. & Peters, M.A., “Understanding the Sources of Anti-Westernism: A Dialogue between Jan Nederveen Pieterse and Michael A. Peters,” Policy Futures in Education 10(1): 59–69, http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2012.10.1.59 Peters, M.A., “Editorial: Looking Forward in Anger (A Response to Patricia White),” Educational Philosophy and Theory 44(3): 238–244. At http://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00810.x/abstract 2011 Herrera, L. & Peters, M.A., “The Educational and Political Significance of the New Social Media: A Dialogue with Linda Herrera and Michael A. Peters,” Policy Futures in Education, 8(4): 364–374, at http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2011.8. 4.364 Peters, M.A., Tze-Chang Liu & David J. Ondercin, “Esoteric and Open Pedagogies,” Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 3(2): 23–47. Peters, M.A., “Critical Historiographies: Retemporalizing Experience ‘After’ the Spatial Turn,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 3(2): 48–66. Peters, M.A., Xiaoping Jiang & Tina Besley, “Intercultural Understanding, Ethnocentrism and Western Forms of Dialogue,” Analysis and Metaphysics 10: 81–100. Peters, M.A., Ondercin, D.J. & Tze-Chang Liu, “Open Learning Systems: The Next Evolution of Education,” Review of Contemporary Philosophy 10: 9–24. Peters, M.A., “Interview with Henry Giroux,” Truthout, http://www.truth-out.org/ Peters, M.A., “In Vino Veritas: In Wine the Truth – Essay Review,” Journal of Aesthetic Education 45(3): 114–117. Peters, M.A., “White Philosophy in/of America,” Special Issue on “The Roots of Rorty’s Philosophy,” Pragmatism Today 2(1): 144–154; at http://www.pragmatismtoday.eu/index.php?id=2011summer1. Peters, M.A., “Manifesto for Education in the Age of Cognitive Capitalism: Freedom, Creativity and Culture,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 6(1): 63–92. Peters, M.A., “Three Forms of the Knowledge Economy: Learning, Creativity and Openness,” Economics, Management and Financial Markets 5(4): 63–92. Peters, M.A., “The Egyptian Revolution 2011,” Policy Futures in Education 9(2): 292–295. Peters, M.A., “White Philosophy in/of America,” Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 10: 7–22. Reprint. Herrera, L. & Peters, M.A., “The Future of Muslim Youth: Interview with Linda Herrera,” Policy Futures in Education 9(2): 248–257; at www.wwwords.co. uk/PFIE. Peters, M.A., “Greening the Knowledge Economy: Ecosophy, Ecology and Economy,” Economics, Management and Financial Markets 6(2): 11–38. Peters, M.A., “Education, Power and Freedom: Third Way Governmentality, CitizenConsumers and the Social Market,” Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 2(1): 15–35. Peters, M.A., “Creativity, Openness and the Global Knowledge Economy: The Advent of User-generated Cultures,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 5(3): 15–36.

223

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A., “Pedagogies of the Image; Economies of the Gaze,” Analysis and Metaphysics 9: 42–61. Peters, M.A. & Patel, R., “Pedagogies of Philosophy, Dialogue and User-Generated Cultures,” Nordic Studies in Education (Nordisk Pedagogik), “Questioning the Academic Genre,” Stephen Dobson & Jenny Steinnes (guest editors). Peters, M.A. & Venkatesan, P., “Biocapitalism and the Politics of Life,” Geopolitics, History and International Relations 2(2): 100–122. Peters, M.A. & Venkatesan, P., “Bioeconomy and the Third Industrial Revolution in the Age of Synthetic Life,” Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 2(2): 148–162. Peters, M.A., “On the Philosophy of Open Science,” Review of Contemporary Philosophy 9: 105–142. Reprint. 2010 Peters, M.A. & Brown, R.N., “The Political Philosophy of Theatre: The Experience of Avant-Garde and Black Theatre,” Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, 9: 17–35. Peters, M.A., “Pedagogies of the Image; Economies of the Gaze,” Analysis and Metaphysics 9: 42–61. Peters, M.A., “What’s Wrong with an Evidence-based Educational Policy for the Knowledge Society as a Model of Educational Social Science? A Response to Manfred Prenzel,” Zeitschrift für pädagogische Historiographie 16: 100–102. Peters, M.A. & Araya, D., “Introduction: Peer-to-Peer Networks and Collaborative Learning,” E-Learning and Digital Media 7(4): 326–327. Peters, M.A., “Response to Claudia Ruitenberg’s Review of Derrida, Deconstruction and the Politics of Pedagogy,” Studies in Philosophy & Education 29(1): 85–87. Peters, M.A., Britez, R. & Bulut, E., “Cybernetic Capitalism, Informationalism, and Cognitive Labor,” Geopolitics, History and International Relations 1(2): 11–40. Peters, M.A. & Britez, R., “Ecopolitics of the ‘Green Economy’: Environmentalism and Education,” Economics, Management and Financial Markets 4(3): 1–15. Reprinted in Journal of Academic Research in Economics 2(1): 21–36, http:// econpapers.repec.org/article/shcjaresh/. Peters, M.A., “Three Forms of Knowledge Economy: Learning, Creativity, Openness,” British Journal of Educational Studies 58(1): 67–88. Peters, M.A., “The Changing Architecture of Global Science,” Policy Brief and Occasional Paper (long version), Center for Global Studies, University of Illinois, at www.cgs.uiuc.edu. Peters, M.A., “Personalisation, Personalised Learning and the Reform of Social Policy: The Prospect of Molecular Governance in the Digitised Society,” Policy Futures in Education, special issue on personalised learning edited by Roni Aviram from the iClass symposium (Integrated EU project, Framework 7), Brussels 2008. Peters, M.A. & Hung, R., “Solar Ethics: A New Paradigm for Environmental Ethics and Education?” Policy Futures in Education 7(3): 321–329. Peters, M.A., “Creativity, Openness and the Global Knowledge Economy: The Advent of User-generated Cultures,” Economics, Management and Financial Markets 5(3): 15–36. 224

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2009 Peters, M.A., “On the Philosophy of Open Science,” The International Journal of Science in Society 1(1): 1–27. Peters, M.A., “The Ghostly Promise of Enlightenment Europe: Habermas, Derrida and the Predicament of the West,” Review of Contemporary Philosophy 8: 49–69. Peters, M.A., “Dreams of Dionysus: Wine, Philosophy, and Eros,” Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 8: 36–52. Peters, M.A., “Living in the Eschata: The End of Christendom and Prospects for Global Spiritualism,” Analysis and Metaphyics 8: 11–29. Peters, M.A., “Neoliberal Governmentality,” The Annals of Spiru Haret University. Journalism Studies 10: 123–142. Reprint. Peters, M.A. & Kessl, F., “Space, Time, History: The Reassertion of Space in Social Theory,” Policy Futures in Education 7(1): 20–30. Peters, M.A., “Education, Creativity and the Economy of Passions: New Forms of Educational Capitalism,” Thesis Eleven 96: 40–63. Peters, M.A., “Renewing the American Dream: Obama’s Political Philosophy,” Policy Futures in Education 7(1): 125–128. Peters, M.A., “Global Recession, Unemployment and the Changing Economics of the Self,” Policy Futures in Education 7(1): 129–133. Peters, M.A., “Obama’s ‘Postmodernism,’ Humanism and History,” Policy Futures in Education 7(3): 349–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2009.7.3.349. Peters, M.A., “Obama’s Health Reforms and the Limits of Public Reason,” Policy Futures in Education, 7(5): 566–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2009.7.5.566 Peters, M.A., “Automobilism, Americanism and the End of Fordism,” Policy Futures in Education 7(2): 266–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2009.7.2.266. 2008 Peters, M.A., “I Hear America Humming and It Is Out of Tune: Review of Paul G. Woodford’s Democracy and Music Education,” Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 7(1), at http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Peters7_1.pdf. Peters, M.A., “Heidegger, Phenomenology, Education (Editorial),” Educational Philosophy and Theory 41(1): 1–6. Peters, M.A., “ERA Journal Ranking Exercise: An Open Letter to the Australian Research Council (Editorial),” Educational Philosophy and Theory 40(7): 809– 810. Peters, M.A., “Academic Writing, Genres and Philosophy,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 40(7): 819–831. Peters, M.A. & Drummond, J.S., “Political Economies of Health: A Consideration for International Nursing Studies,” Policy Futures in Education 6(3): 351–362. Peters, M.A., “Wittgenstein as Exile: A Philosophical Topography,” Educational Philosophy & Theory 40(5): Special issue, Paul Smeyers & Nick Burbules (eds.): 591–605. Peters, M.A. & McDonough, T., “Neoconservatism and Education: Remoralising Education (Editorial),” Critical Studies in Education 49(1): 1–10. Peters, M.A. & Besley, T., “Academic Entrepreneurship and the Creative Economy,” Thesis Eleven 95, November.

225

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A., “Apocalyptic Thinking Now: The Ends of Postmodernism,” Review of Contemporary Philosophy 7: 54–70. Peters, M.A., “Citizenship in an Age of Globalization,” Global-e A Global Studies Journal (UIUC) 1(3), February, at http://global-ejournal.org/february-2008/. Peters, M.A., “Futures for Philosophy of Education,” Analysis and Metaphysics 7: 13–25. Peters, M.A., “Information, Globalization and Democracy: The Utopian Moment?” Global-e A Global Studies Journal (UIUC) 2(1), May, at http://Global-Ejournal. Org/. Peters, M.A., “The Global Failure of Neoliberalism: Privatize Profits; Socialize Losses,” http://global-ejournal.org/2008/11/06/the-global-failure-of-neoliberalismprivatize-profits-socialize-losses/. Peters, M.A., “Leo Strauss and the Neoconservative Critique of the Liberal University Postmodernism, Relativism and the Culture Wars,” Critical Studies in Education 49(1): 11–32. Peters, M.A., “Opening the Book: (From the Closed to the Open Text),” International Journal of the Book 5(1): 11–24. At http://ijb.cgpublisher.com/. 2007 Peters, M.A., “Wittgenstein and Philosophy as Therapy,” Analysis and Metaphyics 6: 136–159. Peters, M.A., “Kinds of Thinking, Styles of Reasoning,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, Special issue on critical thinking, Mark Mason (ed.) 39(5): 350– 363. Peters, M.A., “Higher Education, Globalization and the Knowledge Economy: Reclaiming the Cultural Mission,” Ubiquity 8(18), May 8–May 14. At http://www. acm.org/ubiquity/views/v8i18_peter.html. (Reprint). Peters, M.A., “Reason, Identity and Violence: Review Essay,” Policy Futures in Education 5(2): 271–274. Peters, M.A., “Wittgenstein, Education and the Philosophy of Mathematics,” Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 7: 13–25. Reprint. Peters, M.A., “Neoliberal Governmentality: Foucault on the Birth of Biopolitics,” Review of Contemporary Philosophy 6: 36–64. (Reprint). Peters, M.A., “Kinds of Thinking, Styles of Reasoning,” Analysis and Metaphysics 6: 18–44. Reprint. Peters, M.A. & Besley, T., “Public Knowledge Cultures,” South African Journal of Higher Education 27(2): 792–806. Peters, M.A., “Research Quality, Bibliometrics and the Republic of Science,” South African Journal of Higher Education 20(6): 773–791. Peters, M.A., & Besley, T., “Neoliberalism, Quality Assurance & the Culture of Performance,” South African Journal of Education 27(2): 814–832. 2006 Peters, M.A., “The Rise of Global Science and the Emerging Political Economy of International Research Collaborations,” European Journal of Education: Research, Development and Policies, “The European University: Between Governance, Discipline and Network” 41(2): 225–244.

226

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A. & Grierson, E., “The Legacy of Jacques Derrida,” Access: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies 24(1/2): 3–14. Peters, M.A., “Derrida and the Question of the Postcolonial University,” Access: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies 24 (1/2): 15–25. Peters, M.A., “Higher Education, Development and the Learning Economy,” Policy Futures in Education 4(3): 279–291. Peters, M.A., “Education, Poststructuralism and the Politics of Difference,” Policy Futures in Education 4(1): 436–445. Peters, M.A., “Lyotard, Nihilism and Education,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 25(4): 303–314. 2005 Peters, M.A., “The New Prudentialism in Education: Actuarial Rationality and the Entrepreneurial Self,” Educational Theory 55(2): 123–137. Peters, M.A., “Higher Education, Development and the Learning Economy,” Modern University Education (Chinese) 2(92): 47–51. Olssen, M. & Peters, M.A., “Neoliberalism, Higher Education and the Knowledge Economy: From the Free Market to Knowledge Capitalism,” Journal of Education Policy 20(3): 313–345. Peters, M.A., “Foucault, Counselling and the Aesthetics of Existence,” British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, Special Issue, Tina Besley and Richard Edwards (eds.) 33(3): 383–396. Peters, M.A. & Besley, T., “Performative Epistemologies: The Theatre of Fast Knowledge,” The Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies 27(2): 111–126. Peters, M.A., “Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable Development,” Policy Futures in Education 3(3): 292–342. 2004 Peters, M.A., “Citizen-Consumers, Social Markets and the Reform of the Public Service,” Policy Futures in Education 2 (3/4): 621–632. Peters, M.A., “Rights to Education and the Learning Citizen in European Democracy,” Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny, University of Warsaw 194(4): 93–102. Peters, M.A., “The Price of Performance, Part 1 & Part 2,” Management in Education (Magazine of the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society) http://www.belmas.org.uk/. Peters, M.A., “Nietzsche, Nihilism and the Critique of Modernity: Post-Nietzschean Philosophy of Education,” translated into Polish, Kwartainik Pedagogiczny, Warsaw University 191/192 (1/2): 103–118. Peters, M.A., “E-Learning Machines,” E-Learning 1(1): 1–8 at www.triangle.co. uk/ELEA. Peters, M.A., “Review Essay: Dialogue or Clash of Civilizations?,” Knowledge across Culture: A Contribution to Dialogue Among Civilizations, Ruth Hayhoe and Juila Pan (eds.), Policy Futures in Education 2(1), at www.triangle.co. uk/PFIE.

227

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A. & Grierson, E & Jackson, M., “Introduction: Technology, Culture and Value – Heideggerian Themes,” Access: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies 22(1/2) 2003, published in July 2004, Special Issue: Technology, Culture & Value: Themes from Heidegger, Michael A. Peters, Elizabeth Grierson, and Mark Jackson (eds.). Peters, M.A., “Towards Philosophy of Technology in Education: Mapping the Field,” Access: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies 22(1/2) 2003, published in July 2004, Special Issue: Technology, Culture & Value: Themes from Heidegger, Michael A. Peters, Elizabeth Grierson, and Mark Jackson (eds.). Peters, M.A., “Nietzsche’s Educational Legacy Revisited. A Response to Professor Rosenow,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 23(2/3): 203–209. Peters, M.A., “Disciplinary Knowledges of Knowledge Societies and Knowledge Economies,” New Zealand Sociology 19: 28–49. 2003 Peters, M.A., “Education Policy in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism,” Policy Futures in Education 1(2): 361–380. Peters, M.A., “Deconstructing ‘the West’? Competing Visions of New World Order,” Globalization 3(2): http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v3.2/01_peters.html. Peters, M.A., “Between Empires: Rethinking Identity and Citizenship in the Context of Globalization,” New Zealand Sociology 18(2): 135–157. Peters, M.A., “The University and the New Humanities: Professing with Derrida,” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 3(1): 41–57. Peters, M.A., “Truth-Telling as an Educational Practice of the Self: Foucault, Parrhesia and the Ethics of Subjectivity,” Oxford Review of Education 29(2): 207–223. Peters, M.A., “Neoliberalism, Postmodernity and the Reform of Education in Aotearoa/New Zealand,” Access: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies 21(1): 3–18. Peters, M.A., “Globalisation and the Knowledge Economy: Implications for Education Policy in Aotearoa/New Zealand,” Access: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies 21(1): 33–52. Peters, M.A., “Geofilosophia, Educação e Pedagogia do Conceito,” Educação & Realidade 27(2): 77–88. Trans. Portuguese, Tomaz Tadeu da Silva. Peters, M.A., “Educational Policy Futures,” Journal of Futures Studies 8(1): 39–52. Peters, M.A., “Cultural Postmodernity in Aotearoa/New Zealand,” Access: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies 21(1): 19–32. Peters, M.A., “Classical Political Economy and the Role of Universities in the New Knowledge Economy,” Globalisation, Societies and Education 1(2): 153–168. Peters, M.A., “Technologising Pedagogy: The Internet, Nihilism and Phenomenology of Learning,” Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education 3(1), February. University of Toronto Press: http://www.utpjournals.com/simile/. Peters, M.A. “Postmodernism, Philosophy and Culture: An Interview with Michael A. Peters.” Trans. Chinese by Wang Zi and Liu Xiang, Guangxi Social Sciences 2: 37–39.

228

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A., “Poststructuralism and Marxism: Education as Knowledge Capitalism,” Journal of Education Policy 18(2): 115–130. Peters, M.A., “Derrida, Pedagogy and the Calculation of the Subject,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 35(3): 313–332. Peters, M.A. & Humes, W., “The Reception of Poststructuralism in Educational Research and Policy,” Journal of Education Policy 18(2): 109–113. 2002 Peters, M.A., “Wittgenstein, Education and the Philosophy of Mathematics,” Theory and Science 3(3): http://theoryandfscience.icaap.rorg/. Peters, M.A., “Universities, Globalisation and the Knowledge Economy,” Southern Review 35(2): 16–36. Peters, M.A., “Introduction to Symposium on Hubert Dreyfus,” On the Internet, Educational Philosophy and Theory 34(4): 367–368. Peters, M.A., “Dreyfus on the Internet: Platonism, Body Talk and Nihilism,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 34(4): 403–406. Peters, M.A., “Cultural Studies and the Future of ‘Culture’,” New Zealand Journal of Sociology 17(2): 1–10. Peters, M.A., “The Postmodern State, Security and World Order,” Globalization: Globalism and Its Challenges 2(2). Available at: http://globalization.icaap. org/currentissue.html. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Reading Wittgenstein: The Rehearsal of Prejudice,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 21(3): 263–271. Peters, M.A., “Re-thinking Education as a Welfare Right,” The School Field XIII(5): 79–96. Peters, M.A., “Derrida and the Tasks for the New Humanities: Postmodern Nursing and the Culture Wars,” Nursing Philosophy 3: 47–57. Peters, M.A., “Foucault and Governmentality: Understanding the Neoliberal Paradigm of Education Policy,” The School Field XII(5/6): 59–80. Peters, M.A. & Irwi, R., “Earthsongs: Ecopoetics, Heidegger and Dwelling,” The Trumpeter: The Journal of Ecosophy 18(1), http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/ content/v18.1/. Peters, M.A., “Anti-Globalization and Guattari’s The Three Ecologies,” Globalization (http://www.icaap.org/iuicode?193.2.1.2. Peters, M.A. & Burbules, N., “Wittgenstein/Styles/Pedagogy,” Theory & Science 3(1), http://www.icaap.org/iuicode?105.3.1.x. Peters, M.A., “New Zealand as the ‘Knowledge Society’: Universities, the Foresight Project and the Tertiary White Paper,” Leading and Managing 6(2): 16–32. Peters, M.A., “The University in the Knowledge Economy,” Arena Journal 17: 1– 11. Also published as chapter.

229

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2001 Peters, M.A., “Education, Enterprise Culture and the Entrepreneurial Self: A Foucaultian Perspective,” Journal of Educational Enquiry 2(2), November, http:// www.education.unisa.edu.au/JEE/. Peters, M.A. & Lankshear, C., “Curriculum in the Postmodern Condition,” Access: Critical Perspectives in Cultural and Policy Studies 20(1): 10–23. Revised reprint of chapter. Peters, M.A., “Philosophy as Pedagogy: Wittgenstein’s Styles of Thinking,” Radical Pedagogy 3(3), http://www.icaap.org/iuicode?2.3.3.4. Peters, M.A., “Picturing the Self: Art of the Body and Camera Portraiture (Review Essay),” The Journal of Aesthetic Education 35(3): 103–116. Peters, M.A., “National Education Policy Constructions of the ‘Knowledge Economy’: Towards a Critique,” Journal of Educational Enquiry 2(1), May, http:// www.education.unisa.edu.au/JEE/. Peters, M.A., “Wittgensteinian Pedagogics: Cavell on the Figure of the Child in the Investigations,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 20: 125–138. Peters, M.A., “Heidegger, Education and Modernity,” Proceedings of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain Annual Conference, 2001. Oxford: New College, 265–275. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Introduction: New Zealand, Neoliberalism and the Knowledge Economy,” Access: Critical Perspectives on Cultural and Policy Studies in Education 19(2): 1–8. Peters, M.A., “New Zealand as the ‘Knowledge Society’: The Foresight Project and the Tertiary White Paper,” Access: Critical Perspectives on Cultural and Policy Studies in Education 19(2): 71–89. Peters, M.A., “Education Policy Research and the Global Knowledge Economy,” Access: Critical Perspectives on Cultural and Policy Studies in Education 19(2): 90–101. Peters, M.A., “Redefining Adult Education: Research, Self and Learning in Postmodernity,” Discourse 21(3): 335–345. Peters, M.A., “Gilles Deleuze’s ‘Societies of Control’: From Disciplinary Pedagogy to Perpetual Training,” The Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies 23(4): 107–130. Peters, M.A., “Achieving America: Rorty, Postmodernism and the Critique of the Cultural Left,” The Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies 22(3): 223– 241. Peters, M.A., “Environmental Education, Neoliberalism and Globalisation: The New Zealand Experiment,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, Special Issue, Education and the Environment, Andrew Stables, William Scott & M.A Peters (eds.) 33(2): 203–216. Peters, M.A. & Fitzsimons, P., “Neoliberalism and Social Capital: Re-inventing Community,” Sites: A Journal for South Pacific Cultural Studies 37: 32–48.

230

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2000 Peters, M.A., “Neoliberalism and the Governance of Welfare,” Special Issue on Neoliberalism; Christine Cheyne (ed.), Sites: A Journal for South Pacific Cultural Studies 38: 8–30. Peters, M.A., “Education and Knowledges: Philosophy and Cultural Difference in Aotearoa/New Zealand,” The ACU Bulletin 145(October): 18–20. Peters, M.A., “Nietzsche, Nihilism and the Critique of Modernity: Post-Nietzschean Philosophy of Education,” Philosophy of Education in the New Millenium, Proceedings of 7th Biennial Conference of the International Network of Philosophers of Education, University of Sydney, 88–96. Peters, M.A., “Writing the Self: Wittgenstein, Confession and Pedagogy,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 34(2): 353–368. Peters, M.A., “Thinking Again or Thinking Differently?” Educational Philosophy and Theory 32(2): 335–338. Peters, M.A., “Orthos Logos, Recta Ratio: Pope John Paul II, Nihilism and Postmodern Philosophy,” Journal for Christian Theological Research 5: http:// home.apu.edu/~CTRF/jctr.html. Peters, M.A., Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M., “Information, Knowledge, and Learning: Some Issues Facing Epistemology and Education in a Digital Age,” Enquiries at the Interface: Philosophical Problems of On-line Education, Nigel Blake and Paul Standish (eds.), special issue, Journal of Philosophy of Education 34(1): 17–39. Peters, M.A., “A Decade of Reform: Education Policy, Welfare and the Language of the Market,” Australian Educational Researcher 27(2): 63–86. Peters, M.A., “Humanism and Education: Heidegger, Derrida and the New Humanities,” Proceedings of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain Annual Conference. Peters, M.A. & Roberts, P., “University Futures and the Politics of Reform,” Discourse 21(2): 125–140. Peters, M.A., “(Posts-)Structuralism and Modernism: Affinities and Theoretical innovations,” Sociological Research Online, September, at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/. 1999 Peters, M.A., “Lyotard, Education and the Problem of Capitalism,” in The Postmodern Condition, Social Sciences Abroad, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, translated into Chinese by Miss Ma Jifang. Peters, M.A., “Poststructuralism/Structuralism, Postmodernism/Modernism: Narrating the Differences,” Social Sciences Abroad, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, translated into Chinese by Wang Chengbing. Peters, M.A., “The Post-Historical University? Prospects for Alternative Globalisations,” Jahrbuch für Bildings- und Erziehungphilosophie, Vol. 2, Special Issue, Globalisierung: Perspektiven, Paradoxien, Verwerfundgen, W. Bauer, W. Lippitz, W. Marotzki, J. Ruhloff, A. Schafer, & C. Wulf (eds.), Schhneider Verlag Hohengeren, 105–124. Final presentation in the University of Auckland’s Winter Lecture series, 1998: http://www.auckland.ac.nz/ipa/winter.html.

231

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A., Marshall, J. & Fitzsimon, P., “Poststructuralism and Curriculum Theory: Neoliberalism, the Information Economy and the Crisis of Cultural Authority,” The Journal of Curriculum Theorising 15(2): 111–130. Peters, M.A., Fitzsimons, P. & Roberts, P., “Economics, Education and the Policy Process,” New Zealand Journal of Education 34(1): 35–44. Peters, M.A. & Roberts, P., “Information Technologies and Tertiary Education in New Zealand,” First Monday: A Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet 3(12). http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_12/index.html. Peters, M.A., “Globalisation and the Crisis of the Idea of the Modern University,” Australian Universities Review 2(1): 47–55. Peters, M.A. & Fitzsimons, P., “Neoliberalism and ‘Social Capital’: The Reinvention of Community,” Sites: A Journal for South Pacific Cultural Studies 37: 32–48. Peters, M.A. & Roberts, P., “A Critique of the Tertiary Education White Paper,” New Zealand Annual Review of Education 8: 5–26. Peters, M.A., “Power-Knowledge-Economy: Marginson on Markets and Education,” Discourse 20(1): 167–175. 1998 Peters, M.A., “Ownership and Governance: The Privatisation of New Zealand’s University,” Journal of Education Policy 13(5): 603–624. Peters, M.A. & Roberts, P., “Agendas for Change: Universities in the 21st Century,” New Zealand Annual Review of Education 7: 5–28. Peters, M.A., “Education and the Shift From Knowledge to Information: The Virtual Classroom or Digital Diploma Mills?,” Access: Critical Perspectives in Cultural and Policy Studies, special issue, J.D. Marshall (ed.). Peters, M.A., “Wittgenstein and Post-Analytic Philosophy of Education: Rorty or Lyotard?,” Educational Theory and Philosophy 29(2): 1–32. 1997 Peters, M.A., “Poststructuralism and the French Reception of Nietzsche,” Political Theory Newsletter 8: 39–55. Peters, M.A., “Neoliberalism, Welfare Dependency and the Moral Construction of Poverty in New Zealand,” New Zealand Sociology 12(1): 1–34. Peters, M.A., “Nietzsche, Poststructuralism and Education: After the Subject?,” Educational Theory and Philosophy 29(1): 1–19. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Education and Postmodernism,” in International Encyclopedia of the Sociology of Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Peters, M.A. & Fitzsimons, P. & Green, B., “The Asia-Pacific Discourse and Education in New Zealand,” Discourse 18: 1–24. 1996 Peters, M.A., “Information, Ideology, Power: An Interview with Timothy W. Luke,” Sites: A Journal for South Pacific Cultural Studies 33: 144–159. Peters, M.A. & Howie, H., “Positioning Theory: Vygotsky, Wittgenstein and social constructionist psychology,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 26(1): 51–64.

232

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A., “Cybernetics, Cyberspace and the Politics of University Reform,” Australian Journal of Education 40(2): 163–177. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Busnocratic Rationality and the Politics of the Curriculum,” Delta 84(1): 33–46. Special issue: Curriculum Reform: The Political Context, A-M. O’Neill (guest ed.). Peters, M.A. & Appel, S., “Positioning Theory: Discourse, the Subject and the Problem of Desire,” Social Analysis 40(September): 120–145. Peters, M.A., “Education and the Mode of Information: An Interview with Mark Poster,” New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 31(1): 3–12. Peters, M.A. & Lankshear, C., “Critical Literacy and the Digital Text,” Educational Theory 46(1): 51–70. 1995 Peters, M.A., “Constructing Objectivism: A Response to Robert Nola,” Access: Critical Perspectives in Cultural and Policy Studies, special issue on science education, A. Singh (ed.), 37–43. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “An Interview with Mark Poster,” Media Studies 2(1): 45–53. Peters, M.A., “Education and the Postmodern Condition: Re-visiting Jean-François Lyotard,” The Journal of Philosophy of Education 29(3): 387–400. Peters, M.A., “After Auschwitz: Ethics and Educational Policy,” Discourse: The Australian Journal of Educational Studies 16(2): 237–252. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “After the Subject: A Response to Mackenzie,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 27(1): 41–54. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Governing Educational Research: A Bicultural Example,” Australian Educational Researcher 22(2): 107–120. Peters, M.A., “Philosophy and Education: ‘After’ Wittgenstein,” Studies in Philosophy of Education 14(2/3): 313–328. Peters, M.A., “Vattimo, Postmodernity and the Transparent Society,” The Oyster Club, The Scottish Journal of Philosophy 6(Spring/Summer): 6–11. 1994 Peters, M.A., “The New Science Policy Regime in New Zealand: A Review and Critique,” New Zealand Sociology 9(2): 317–348. Peters, M.A., “Literacy, Philosophy and Postmodernism: An Interview with Colin Lankshear,” Australian Educational Researcher 21(3): 97–114. Peters, M.A., “Habermas, Poststructuralism and the Question of Postmodernity: The Defiant Periphery,” Social Analysis 36(September): 1–18. Peters, M.A., “Individualism and Community: Education and the Politics of Difference,” Discourse, The Australian Journal of Educational Studies 14(2): 65–78. Peters, M.A., “Performance, the Future of the University and Post-Industrial Society,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 26(1): 1–22. Peters, M.A. & Fitzsimons, P., “Human Capital Theory and the Industry Training Strategy in New Zealand,” Journal of Education Policy 9(3): 245–266.

233

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1993 Peters, M.A., “Postmodernity and Neo-Liberalism: Restructuring Education in Aotearoa,” Delta 47: 47–62. Peters, M.A., “Postmodernism, Language and Culture,” Access: Critical Perspectives in Cultural and Policy Studies 12(1/2): 1–16. Peters, M.A., “Against Finkielkraut’s La Défaite de la Pensée: Culture, Postmodernism and Education,” French Cultural Studies IV: 91–106. Peters, M.A., “Starship Education and Enterprise Culture in New Zealand,” Access: Critical Perspectives in Cultural and Policy Studies 11(1): 1–12. Peters, M.A., “A Critique of the User-Pays Philosophy in University Education and the Democratic Alternative,” Access: Critical Perspectives in Cultural and Policy Studies 12: 1–2. Peters, M.A., “Beyond the Philosophy of the Subject: Liberalism, Education and the Critique of Individualism,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 25(1): 19–39. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Educational Policy Analysis and the Politics of Interpretation: The Search for a Well-defined Problem,” Evaluation Review 17(3): 310–330. Peters, M.A., Marshall, J. & Parr, B., “The Marketisation of Higher Education in New Zealand,” Australian Universities Review 36(2): 34–39. 1992 Peters, M.A. & Fitzsimons, P., “The Politics of Management: Secrecy and Openness in Decision-making in New Zealand Polytechnics,” Access 11(1): 39–54. Peters, M.A., “Performance and Accountability in ‘Post-Industrial Society’: The Crisis of British Universities,” Studies in Higher Education 17(1): 123–140. Peters, M.A., “Performance Indicators in New Zealand Higher Education: Accountability or control?,” Journal of Education Policy 7(3): 267–283. Peters, M.A., “Critical Social Policy and Postmodern Culture: A Response to Christine Cheyne,” Sites: A Journal for South Pacific Cultural Studies 24(Summer): 99–106. Peters, M.A., “Intellectuals?,” Sites: A Journal for South Pacific Cultural Studies 24(Summer): 21–42. Peters, M.A., “A Critique of the Porter Report, (Commissioned by the Ministry of Research Science and Technology),” Delta 46(May): 3–14. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Educational Reforms in New Zealand: The Response from the Right,” Principal Matters, NSW 3(4): 16–17. 1991 Peters, M.A., Peters, M.C. & Freeman-Moir, J., “The 1991 Budget and Tertiary Education: Promises, Promises...,” New Zealand Annual Review of Education, Victoria University: 33–146. Peters, M.A., “Re-Reading Touraine: Post-Industrialism and the Future of the University,” Sites: A Journal for South Pacific Cultural Studies 23(Spring): 63–83. Peters, M.A., “Postmodernism: The Critique of Reason and the Rise of the New Social Movements,” Sites: A Journal for South Pacific Cultural Studies 22(Autumn): 142–60.

234

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Education and Empowerment: Postmodernism, Humanism and Critiques of Individualism,” Education and Society, special issue, Peter McLaren (ed.), 9(1/2): 123–34. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Education Reforms and New Right Thinking: An Example from New Zealand,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 23(2): 46–57.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1990 Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Education, the New Right and the Crisis of the Welfare State in New Zealand,” Discourse II(1): 77–90. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Children of Rogernomics: The New Right, Individualism and the Culture of Narcissism,” Sites: A Journal for South Pacific Cultural Studies 21(Spring): 174–91. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Institutional Racism and the Retention of Maori Students in Northland,” New Zealand Sociology 5(1): 44–66. Peters, M.A. & Lankshear, C., “Education and Hermeneutics: A Freirean Interpretation,” New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 25(1): 127–40. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “The Insertion of ‘New Right’ Thinking into Education: An Example from New Zealand,” Journal of Education Policy 5(2): 143–56. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Empowering Teachers,” Unicorn 16(3): 163–168. 1989 Peters, M.A., “Techno-Science, Rationality and the University: Lyotard on the Postmodern Condition,” Educational Theory 39(2): 93–105. Peters, M.A., “Effectiveness or Efficiency: Performance Indicators in Tertiary Education,” Access 8(2): 29–42. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Te Reo O Te Tai Tokerau: Language, Evaluation and Empowerment,” New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 24(2): 141–157. Peters, M. & Para, D. & Marshall, J., “Te Reo O Te Tai Tokerau: The Need for Consolidation and National Implementation,” Access: Critical Perspectives in Cultural and Policy Studies 8(1):10–25. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Te Reo O Te Tai Tokerau: A Community Approach to the Assessment and Promotion of Oral Maori,” Pacific Education 1(3): 70–89. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Te Reo O Te Tai Tokerau: A Community Approach,” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9(6): 1–15. 1988 Peters, M.A., “The Picot Report: The Politics of Choice and Community,” Access: Critical Perspectives in Cultural and Policy Studies, Special issue, Picot and Beyond, Eric Braithwaite (ed.), 1: 84–107. 1986 Peters, M.A., Marshall, J. & Shaw, R., “The Evaluation of the Development and Trials of a Decision-Making Model,” Evaluation Review 10(1): 5–28. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Evaluation and Education: Practical Problems and Theoretical Prospects,” New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 21(1): 29– 41.

235

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Peters, M.A., Marshall, J. & Shaw, R., “Administrative Discretionary Justice: A Report of a Training Project,” Public Administration 64(4): 453–58. 1985 Peters, M. & Marshall, J., “Evaluation and Education: The Ideal Learning Community,” Policy Sciences 18: 263–288. 1984 Peters, M.A. & Robinson, V., “The Status and Origins of Action Research,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 20(2): 112–24. Peters, M.A., “A Critique of the Knowledge as Production Thesis,” Access: Critical Perspectives in Cultural and Policy Studies 3(2): 23–36. 1981 Peters, M.A., Marshall, J. & Shepheard, M., “Brent’s Transcendental Deduction of the Forms of Knowledge,” The Journal of Philosophy of Education 15(1): 267– 77. Peters, M.A., Marshall, J. & Shepheard, M., “Self-Refutation Arguments against Young's Epistemology,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 13(2): 43–50.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1973 Peters, M.A., “Differences in Short-Term Memory Retention between Discovery and Reception Learning Approaches,” New Zealand Journal of Geography 56. Chapters in Books 2013 Peters, M.A., “Greening the Knowledge Economy: Ecosophy, Ecology and Economy,” in Stevenson, R.B., Brody, M., Dillon, J. and Wals, A.E.J. (eds.), International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education. AERA, New York & London: Routledge. Peters, M.A. and Besley, T., “Introduction: Competing Conceptions of the Creative University,” in Michael A. Peters & Tina Besley (eds.), The Creative University. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 1–8. Peters, M.A., “Institutions, Semiotics and the Politics of Subjectivity,” in Benoît Dillet, Iain MacKenzie, and Robert Porter (eds.), The Edinburgh Companion to Poststructuralism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 3–26. Besley, T. and Peters, M.A., “The Creative University: Socializing Academic Entrepreneurship,” in Besley, T. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Re-imagining the Creative University for the 21st Century. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Peters, M.A. & Fitzpatrick, P., “Digital Technologies in the Age of YouTube: Electronic Textualities, the Virtual Revolution, and the Democratization of Knowledge,” in Peters, M.A., Besley, T. & Araya, D. (eds.), The New Development Paradigm: Education, Knowledge Economy, and Digital Futures. New York: Peter Lang, 226–242.

236

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A., Besley, T. & Araya, D., “Introduction: The New Development Paradigm: Education, Knowledge Economy, and Digital Futures,” in Michael A. Peters, Tina (A.C.) Besley, & Daniel Araya (eds.), The New Development Paradigm: Education, Knowledge Economy, and Digital Futures. New York: Peter Lang, 1–18. Peters, M.A., “Postscript: Open Development, Creative Development, 279 and Digital Futures,” in Michael A. Peters, Tina (A.C.) Besley, & Daniel Araya (eds.), The New Development Paradigm: Education, Knowledge Economy, and Digital Futures. New York: Peter Lang, 279–286. Peters, M.A., “Contexts, Contextualism and Contextualizing Educational Research,” in Reid, A., Hart P. and Peters, M.A. (eds.), A Companion to Research in Education. Dordrecht: Springer, 239–246. Peters, M., “Anxieties of Knowing: Renegade Knowledges – Of Choice and Necessity,” in Engels-Schwarzpaul, A.-Chr. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Of Other Thoughts: Non-Traditional Ways to the Doctorate. A Guidebook for Candidates and Supervisors. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 147–162. Engels-Schwarzpaul, A.-Chr. & Peters, M.A., “Emergent Knowledges and NonTraditional Candidates: Conclusion,” in Engels-Schwarzpaul, A.-Chr. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Of Other Thoughts: Non-Traditional Ways to the Doctorate. A Guidebook for Candidates and Supervisors. Rotterdam, Sense Publishers, 311– 324. 2012 Peters, M.A., “‘Openness’ and the Global Knowledge Commons: An Emerging Mode of Social Production for Education and Science,” in Hugh Lauder, Michael Young, Harry Daniels, Maria Balarin, & John Lowe (eds.), Educating for the Knowledge Economy? Critical Perspectives. Oxford: Routledge. Peters, M.A., “Critical Historiographies: Retemporalizing Experience ‘After’ the Spatial Turn,” in Linda Stone and J.D. Marshall (eds.), Essays for Education in Post-structuralist Veins. Rotterdam: Sense. Peters, M.A. & Besley, T., “Introduction: Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue,” in Besley, Tina (A.C.) & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., “Western Models of Intercultural Philosophy,” in Besley, Tina (A.C.) & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., “Three Forms of the Knowledge Economy: Learning, Creativity and Openness,” in Roger King and Simon Marginson (eds.), Higher Education and Globalization. London: Edward Elgar. Peters, M.A. & Thayer, J., “The Cold Peace,” in Bryan Wright and Peter Trifonas (eds.), Critical Peace Education: Difficult Dialogues. Dordrecht: Springer. Peters, M.A. & Besley, J., “Education and Postmodernism,” in James Arthur and Andrew Peterson (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Education. London: Routledge. Peters, M.A. & Bulut, E., “Introduction: Cognitive Capitalism, Education and the Question of Immaterial Labor,” in Peters, M.A. and Bulut, E. (eds.), Cognitive

237

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Capitalism, Education and the Question of Immaterial Labor. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., “Algorithmic Capitalism and the Googlization of Education,” in: Peters, M.A. and Bulut, E. (eds.), Cognitive Capitalism, Education and the Question of Digital Labor. New York: Peter Lang. White, J. & Peters, M.A., “Introduction: Reading Bakhtin Educationally,” in E. Jayne White & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Bakhtinian Pedagogy: Opportunities and Challenges for Research, Policy and Practice in Education Across the Globe. New York, Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., “The Bakhtin Circle, Philosophy of Language and Educational Theory,” in E. Jayne White & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Bakhtinian Pedagogy: Opportunities and Challenges for Research, Policy and Practice in Education Across the Globe. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., “Introduction: Education, Philosophy and Politics,” in Michael A. Peters, Educational Philosophy and Politics: The Selected Works of Michael A. Peters. London: Routledge. (World Library of Educationalists). 2011 Peters, M.A. & Besley, T., “Education and Postmodernism,” in Arthur, J. and Peterson, A. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Education. Routledge: London. Peters, M.A., “Postscript: Manifesto for Education in the Age of Cognitive Capitalism: Freedom, Creativity and Culture,” in Cameron McCarthy, Heather Greenhalgh-Spencer, and Robert Mejia (eds.), New Times: Making Sense of Critical/ Cultural Theory in a Digital Age. New York: Peters Lang. Peters, M.A., “Cybernetics,” in Helmut Anheier and Mark Juergensmeyer (eds.), Encyclopedia of Global Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Peters, M.A., “‘Knowledge Economy,’ Economic Crisis & Cognitive Capitalism: Public Education and the Promise of Open Science,” in David R. Cole (ed.), Surviving Economic Crises through Education. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., Gietzen, G. & Ondercin, D.C., “Knowledge Socialism: Intellectual Commons and Openness in the University,” in Ronald Barnett (ed.), The Future University: Ideas and Possibilities. London: Routledge. Peters, M.A., “Personalisation, Personalised Learning and the Reform of Social Policy: The Prospect of Molecular Governance in the Digitised Society,” in: Monica Mincu (ed.), Ideas of Personalization: Politics, Theories and Cultural Contexts. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers. 2010 Peters, M.A., “Open Works, Open Cultures, and Open Learning Systems,” in Timothy W. Lukes & Jeremy Hunsinger (eds.), Putting Knowledge to Work and Letting Information Play: The Center for Digital Discourse and Culture. Blacksburg: Virginia Tech, Center for Digital Discourse and Culture: 75–99. Peters, M.A., “Manifesto for Education in the Age of Cognitive Capitalism: Freedom, Creativity and Culture,” in Cameron McCarthy et al. (eds.), New Times: Making Sense of Critical/Cultural Theory in a Digital Age. New York: Peter Lang.

238

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A. & Besley, T., “The Narrative Turn and the Poetics of Resistance: Towards a New Language for Critical Educational Studies” in Ilan Gur-Ze’ev (ed.), The Possibility/Impossibility of a New Critical Language in Education. Rotterdam: Sense, 261–274. Peters, M.A., “Knowledge Economy and Scientific Communication: Emerging Paradigms of ‘Open Knowledge Production’ and ‘Open Education,’” in Simons, M., Olssen, M., & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Re-Reading Education Policies: A Handbook Studying the Policy Agenda of the Twenty-First Century. Rotterdam: Sense, 293–318. Simons, M., Olssen, M., & Peters, M.A., “Re-reading Education Policies, Part 1: The Critical Education Policy Orientation,” in Simons, M., Olssen, M., & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Re-Reading Education Policies: A Handbook Studying the Policy Agenda of the Twenty-First Century. Rotterdam: Sense, 1–36. Simons, M., Olssen, M. & Peters, M.A., “Re-reading Education Policies, Part 2: Challenges, Horizons, Approaches, Tools, Styles,” in Simons, M., Olssen, M., & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Re-Reading Education Policies: A Handbook Studying the Policy Agenda of the Twenty-First Century. Rotterdam: Sense, 36–95. Peters, M.A., “Open Education and the Open Science Economy,” in Thomas S. Popkewitz & Fazal Rizvi (eds.), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 203–225. Peters, M.A., “Wittgenstein, Education and Philosophy of Mathematics,” in George Lăzăroiu (ed.), Wittgenstein and Contemporary Philosophy, Vol. IV. Bucharest: Ars Academica, 5–18. Peters, M.A., “Wittgenstein as Exile: A Philosophical Topography,” in Ilan GurZe’ev (ed.), Diasporic Philosophy and Counter-Education. Rotterdam: Sense. Peters, M.A., Weber, S. & Britez, R., “Evaluating Education in Three Different Policy Eras,” in Eva Baker, Barry McGaw, and Penelope Peterson (editors-inchief), International Encyclopedia of Education, ‘Educational Evaluation.’ Oxford: Elsevier. Peters, M.A. & Bulut, E., “Education and Culture: Politics and the Move to Cultural Studies,” in James Arthur and Ian Davies (eds.), Textbook on Educational Studies. London: Routledge. Peters, M.A. & Tukeo, S., “Cultural Exchange, Study Abroad and Discourse of the Other,” in Marginson, S., Murphy, P. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Global Creation: Space, Connection and Universities in the Age of the Knowledge Economy. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., “The Political Economy of Ubiquitous Learning,” in Bill Cope & Mary Kalantzis (ed.), Ubiquitous Learning. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Peters, M.A., “Neoliberalism, the Market and Performativity,” in Penelope Peterson, Eva Baker, & Barry McGaw (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 6. Oxford: Elsevier, 11–16. Peters M.A., Britez, R. & Weber, S.M. (2010), “Evaluating Education in Three Policy Eras,” in Penelope Peterson, Eva Baker & Barry McGaw (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 3. Oxford: Elsevier, 645–652. Peters, M.A. & Araya, D., “Network Logic: An Ecological Approach to Knowledge and Learning,” in Marcia McKenzie, Heesoon Bai, Paul Hart & Bob Jickling 239

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

(eds.), Fields of Green: Philosophies of Educational Praxis. New York: Hampton Press. 2009 Peters, M.A., “Rorty, Wittgenstein, and Postmodernism: Neopragmatism and the Politics of the Ethnos,” in James Tartaglia (ed.), Richard Rorty (Critical assessments of leading philosophers). London: Routledge. Reprint. Peters, M.A., “Degrees of Freedom and the Virtues of Openness: The Internet, the Academy and Digital Rights,” in Jerome Satterthwaite, Heather Piper & Pat Sykes (eds.), Power in the Academy. Stoke-on-Trent & Sterling: Trentham Books, 79–96. Peters, M.A., “Education and ‘Societies of Control’: From Disciplinary Pedagogy to Perpetual Training,” in Carsten Bünger, Ralf Mayer, Astrid Messerschmidt & Olga Zitzelsberger (eds.), Bildung der Kontrollgesellschaft: Analyse und Kritik padagogischer Vereinnahmungen. Munchen: Ferndinans Schoningh, 15–32. Peters, M.A., “The Political Economy of Academic Publishing: Education Journals in the English-speaking World,” in Bill Cope (ed.), The Future of the Journal in the Digital Age. London: Chandos. Peters, M.A. & Besley, T., “Neoliberalism, Performance and the Assessment of Educational Research Quality: Comparing United Kingdom, Australia & New Zealand,” in Tina (A.C.) Besley (ed.), Assessing the Quality of Educational Research in Higher Education International Perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense, 27–48. Peters, M.A., “Research Quality, Bibliometrics and the Republic of Science,” in Tina (A.C.) Besley (ed.), Assessing the Quality of Educational Research in Higher Education International Perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense, 343–360. 2008 Peters, M.A. & Hung, R., “Solar Ethics: A New Paradigm for Environmental Ethics?” in Gonzalez-Gaudiano, E.J. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Environmental Education Today: Identity, Politics and Citizenship. Rotterdam & Taipei: Sense. Peters, M.A., “The End of Development as We Know It: Fukuyama on Democracy Promotion and Political Development,” in Richardson, G. & Abdi, A. (eds.), Decolonizing Democratic Education: Transcultural Dialogues. London: Routledge. Peters, M.A., “Academic Self-Knowledge and Deception – An Excerpt from a Personal History of Prejudice,” in Waks, L. (ed.), Contemporary Philosophers of Education. Rotterdam: Sense. Peters, M.A., “Education and the Knowledge Economy,” in Greg Hearn, David Rooney, and David Wright (eds.), Knowledge Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century. London: Edward Elgar. Peters, M.A. & Britez, R., “Three Forms of the Cosmopolitical University: Networks and Power,” in Debbie Epstein, Rebecca Boden, Rosemary Deem, Fazal Rizvi & Susan Wright (eds.), World Yearbook of Education, 2008, Geographies of Knowledge, Geometries of Power: Framing the Future of Higher Education. London: Routledge. Peters, M.A., “Acts of Education: Rorty, Derrida, and the Ends of Literature,” in: Michael Taylor, Helmut Schreier, and Paulo Ghiraldelli, Jr. (eds.), Pragmatism, 240

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Education, and Children, International Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 192. Amsterdam/New York, 191–204. Peters, M.A., “Neoliberalism, the Market and Performativity,” in Penny Enslin (section ed.), Barry McGaw, Eva Baker & Penelope P. Peterson (editors-inchief), International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd edn. Oxford: Elsevier. Olssen, M. & Peters, M.A., “Marx, Education and the Possibilities of a Fairer World: Reviving Radical Political Economy through Foucault,” in Anthony Green, Glenn Rikowski & Helen Radunntz (eds.), Renewing Dialogues in Marxism and Education. New York: Macmillan Palgrave. 2007 Peters, M.A., “Political Economy of Informational Democracy,” in Kapitzke, C. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Global Knowledge Futures. Rotterdam: Sense. Peters, M.A. & Araya, D., “Networks, Information Politics, and the New Paradigm of Social Production,” in Smeyers, P. (ed.), Educational Research / Networks and Technologies. Dordrecht: Springer. Peters, M.A., “Europa, Europeanization, Europe: Constituting New Europeans,” in M. Kuhn (ed.), Who Is the European? – A New Global Player? New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., Hammond. D. & Drummond, J., “Gadamer’s The Enigma of Health: Can Health Be Produced?,’” in J. Drummond & P. Standish (eds.), Towards a Philosophy of Education for Nurses and Other Health Care Professionals. London: Macmillan. Peters, M.A., “Educational Theory,” in G. McCulloch (ed.), International Encyclopaedia of Education. London: Routledge. 2006 Peters, M.A., “The Body Also Has A History: A Critical Aesthetics for Arts Education,” in L. Bresler (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Arts Education. Dordrecht: Springer. Peters, M.A., “Foreword: Information Politics in Education,” in C. Kapitzke & B. Bruce (eds.), New Libraries and Knowledge Spaces: Critical Perspectives on Information and Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Peters, M.A., “Acts of Education: Rorty, Derrida and the Ends of Literature,” in J. Shook & Paulo Ghiraldelli Jr. (eds.), Pragmatism, Education, and Children: International Philosophical Perspectives. Amsterdam: Rodolpi. Peters, M.A., “Between Empires: Rethinking Identity and Citizenship in the Context of Globalization,” in P. Hayden & C. el-Ojeili (eds.), Confronting Globalization: Humanity, Justice and the Renewal of Politics. New York: Palgrave. Peters, M.A. & May, T., “Urban and Regional Education Futures: The Knowledge Economy and Dreams of the Renewal of the Post-Industrial City,” in J. Kincheloe, K. Heyes, C. Rose & P. Anderson (Eds.), The Praegar Handbook of Urban Education. New York: Greenwood Press. Peters, M.A., “Towards Philosophy of Technology in Education; Mapping the Field,” in J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger & P. Trifinoas (eds.), The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environment. Dordrecht: Springer, 95–116.

241

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Peters, M.A., “From Knowledge to Information: Virtual Classrooms or Automated Diploma Mills?,” in J. Dakers (ed.), Defining Technological Literacy: Towards an Epistemological Framework. New York: Palgrave, 297–314. Peters, M.A., “Neoliberal Governmentality: Foucault on the Birth of Biopolitics,” in S. Weber & S. Maurer (eds.), Gouvernementalität und Erziehungswissenschaft (Governmentality and educational science). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 37–50.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

2005 Peters, M.A., “War, Crimes Against Humanity and the New Humanities: Derrida and the Promise of Europe,” in P. Trifonas & M. Peters (eds.), Deconstructing Derrida: Tasks for the New Humanities. New York: Palgrave. Peters, M.A. & Trifonas, P., “Introduction: Deconstructing Derrida,” in P. Trifonas & M. Peters (eds.), Deconstructing Derrida: Tasks for the New Humanities. New York: Palgrave. Peters, M.A. & Olssen, M., “Redefining Teaching, Research and Scholarship in the Learning Economy,” in R. Barnett (ed.), Reshaping Universities: New Relationships between Research, Scholarship and Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill/ Open University Press (SRHE imprint). Peters, M.A., “Critical Pedagogy and the Futures of Critical Theory,” in I. GurZe’ev (ed.), Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy Today: Toward a New Critical Language in Education, University of Haifa, 35–38. At http://construct. haifa.ac.il/~ilangz/critical-pedagogy-critical-theory-today.pdf 2004 Peters, M.A., “Why Foucault? New Directions in Anglo-American Educational Research,” in Pongratz, L.A., Wimmer, M., Nieke, W. & Masschelein, J. (eds.), Nach Foucault:dikurs- und machtanaltische Perspektiven der PädagogikHeidelberg. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 195–219. Peters, M.A., “Education in the Age of Terrorism,” in M. Peters (ed.), Education, Globalization and the State in an Age of Terrorism. Boulder: Paradigm Publishing. Peters, M.A., “War as Globalization: The ‘Education’ of the Iraqi People,” in M. Peters (ed.), Education, Globalization and the State in an Age of Terrorism. Boulder: Paradigm Publishing. Peters, M.A., “Postscript: The Aftermath,” in M. Peters (ed.), Education, Globalization and the State in an Age of Terrorism. Boulder: Paradigm Publishing. Peters, M.A., “The Post-Historical University,” in G. Fischman, P. McLaren, H. Sunker & C. Lankshear (eds.), Critical Theories, Radical Pedagogies and Global Conflicts. Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M.A., “Techno-Science, Rationality and the University,” in D. Robbins (ed.), J-F Lyotard. Sage Master in Modern Thought series, Vol. 3, Thousand Oaks, CA & London: Sage. Reprint. Peters, M.A., “Educational Policy Studies,” in Richard Slaughter (ed.), Knowledge Base of Futures Studies, 3 vols. and CD ROM, Foresight International. Peters, M.A., “Higher Education, Globalisation and the Knowledge Economy,” in M. Walker & J. Nixon (eds.), Reclaiming Universities from a Runaway World. London & New York: Open University Press.

242

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A., “Education and the Philosophy of the Body: Bodies of Knowledge and Knowledges of the Body,” in L. Bresler (ed.), Knowing Bodies, Moving Minds: Towards Embodied Teaching and Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 13–28. Peters, M.A., “Locating Otherness in the Self. Foreword to Ho-Chia Chueh,” in The Anxiety of Self: Education and Cultural Difference. New York: Bergin and Garvey. Peters, M.A., “Apocalyptic Thinking Now: The Ends of Postmodernism,” in Quanqiuhua Yu Houxiandaixing (translated into Chinese), 332–345. Peters, M.A., “Heidegger and Foucault on Space and Bodies: Geographies of Resistance in Critical Pedagogic Practices,” in R. Edwards & R. Usher (eds.), Geographies of Resistance in Critical Pedagogic Practices, Space, Curriculum, and Learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Peters, M.A., “Lyotard, Marxism and Education: The Problem of Knowledge Capitalism,” in J. Marshall (ed.), Poststructuralism and Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 43-56. Peters, M.A., “Ecology, Education and Modernity: Nature as a Self-Regulating Machine,” in W. Scott & A. Stables (eds.), Key Issues in Lifelong Learning and Sustainability: A Critical Review. London: Routledge, 50–51. 2003 Peters, M.A., “Theorising Educational Practices: The Politico-Ethical Choices,” in P. Smeyers & M. Depaepe (eds.), Beyond Empicism: On Criteria for Educational Research, Studia Paedagogica. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 221–236. Peters, M.A., “What Does it Mean to be Critical in Arts Education Today?” Foreword to The Arts in Education: Critical Perspectives from Aotearoa New Zealand, E.M. Grierson & J.E. Mansfield (eds.). Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press, 9–26. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “The Politics of Curriculum: Autonomous Choosers and Enterprise Culture,” in A.-M. O’Neill, J. Clark & R. Openshaw (eds.), Reshaping Culture, Knowledge and Learning: Policy and Content in the New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press, 109– 128. Peters, M.A., Marshall, J. & Irwin, R., “From Colonialism to Globalisation: Performativity in New Zealand Education,” in P. Smeyers & M. Depaepe (eds.), Beyond Empicism: On Criteria for Educational Research, Studia Paedagogica. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 65–80. Peters, M.A., “Derrida, Pedagogy and the Calculation of the Subject,” in P. Trifonas (ed.), Pedagogies of Difference. New York & London: RoutledgeFalmer, 61–82. Peters, M.A., Olssen, M. & Lankshear, C., “Introduction; Futures of Critical Theory – Dreams of Difference,” in M. Peters, M. Olssen & C. Lankshear (eds.), Futures of Critical Theory: Dreams of Difference. Lanham & Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 1–22. Peters, M.A., Olssen, M. & Lankshear, C., “Introduction: Critical Theory and the Human Condition,” in M. Peters, M. Olssen & C. Lankshear (eds.), Critical Theory and the Human Condition: Founders and Praxis. New York: Peter Lang, 1–16.

243

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A., “Scottish Education: An International Perspective,” in T. Bryce & W. Humes (eds.), Scottish Education. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1033–1043. Peters, M.A., “The New Zealand Experiment: From Democratic Participation to Self-Management, and from Universal Welfare Entitlement to Private Investment,” in Ka-ho Mok & A. R. Welch (eds.), Globalization and Educational Restructuring in the Asia Pacific Region. London: Palgrave, 302–332. Peters, M.A., “Nietzsche, Nihilism and the Critique of Modernity,” in M. Peters, M. Olssen & C. Lankshear (eds.), Futures of Critical Theory: Dreams of Difference. Lanham & Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 23–38. Peters, M.A., “‘Anti-Globalization’ and Guattari’s The Three Ecologies,” in M. Peters, M. Olssen & C. Lankshear (eds.), Futures of Critical Theory: Dreams of Difference. Lanham & Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 275–288. 2002 Peters, M.A., “Poststructuralism and Marxism: Education as Knowledge Capitalism,” in A. Scott & J. Freeman (eds.), Yesterday’s Dreams: International and Critical Perspectives on Education and Social Class. Christchurch: University of Canterbury Press, 298–317. Peters, M.A. & Wain, K., “Postmodernism/Poststructuralism,” in Nigel Blake, Paul Smeyers, Richard Smith and Paul Standish (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education. Oxford: Blackwell, 57–72. Peters, M.A., “Globalisation and the Knowledge Economy: Implications for Education Policy,” in Common Ground (http://MichaelPeters.Author-Site.com/). Peters, M.A., “Heidegger, Education and Modernity,” in M. Peters (ed.), Heidegger, Education and Modernity. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M.A., “The University in the Knowledge Economy,” in Simon Cooper, John Hinkson & Geoff Sharp (eds.), Scholars and Entrepreneurs: The Universities in Crisis. Melbourne: Arena Publications, 137–152. Peters, M.A., Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M., “Information, Knowledge, and Learning: Some Issues Facing Epistemology and Education in a Digital Age,” in Mary R. Lea & Kathy Nicoll (eds.), Distributed Learning: Social and Cultural Approaches to Practice. London & New York: The Open University, 16–37. 2001 Peters, M.A., “Michel Foucault 1926–1984,” in Joy Palmer & David Cooper (eds.), 50 Key Thinkers on Education. London: Routledge. Burbules, N. & Peters, M.A., “Ludwig Wittgenstein on Education,” in Joy Palmer & David Cooper (eds.), 50 Key Thinkers on Education. London: Routledge. Peters, M.A. & Ghiraldelli Jr., P., “Rorty’s Neopragmatism: Nietzsche, Culture and Education,” in Peters, M.A. & Ghiraldelli, P. Jr. (eds.), Richard Rorty: Education, Philosophy and Politics. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield: 1–14. Peters, M.A., “Achieving America: Postmodernism and Rorty’s Critique of the Cultural Left,” in Peters, M.A. & Ghiraldelli, P. Jr. (eds.), Richard Rorty: Education, Philosophy and Politics. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield, 187–203. Reprint of article.

244

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A., “Humanism, Derrida, and the New Humanities,” in G. Biesta and D. Egea-Kuehne (eds.), Derrida and Education. London: Routledge, 209–231. Peters, M.A., Marshall, J.D. & Smeyers, P., “Traces of Nietzsche: Interpretation, Translation and the Canon,” in M.A. Peters, J.D. Marshall and P. Smeyers (eds.), Nietzsche’s Legacy for Education: Past and Present Values. Westport, CT & London: Bergin and Garvey. Peters, M.A., “The Analytic/Continental Divide: Nietzsche and the Critique of Modernity,” in M.A. Peters, J.D. Marshall and P. Smeyers (eds.), Nietzsche’s Legacy for Education: Past and Present Values. Westport, CT & London: Bergin and Garvey. Peters, M.A., “A Roundtable Discussion with Jacques Derrida,” in Lawrence Simmons & Heather Worth (eds.), Derrida Downunder. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. Peters, M.A., “Politics and Deconstruction: Derrida, Neo-Liberalism and Democracy to Come,” in Lawrence Simmons & Heather Worth (eds.), Derrida Downunder. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. 2000 Peters, M.A., Fitzsimons, P. & Marshall, J., “Managerialism and Education Policy in a Global Context: Neoliberalism, Foucault and the Doctrine of Self-Management,” in N. Burbules and C. Torres (eds.), Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York and London: Routledge, 109–132. Peters, M.A., “Emancipation, Education and Philosophies of History: Jean-François Lyotard and Cultural Difference,” in P. Pradeep and P. Standish (eds.), Lyotard: Just Education. London: Routledge, 23–35. Peters, M.A., “Postmodern Perspectives on the Curriculum: A Poststructuralist Critique,” in Lankshear, C., Peters, M.A., Alba, A., and Gonzales, E. (eds.), Curriculum in the Postmodern Condition. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., “Neoliberalism and the Constitution of the Entrepreneurial Self: Education and Enterprise Culture in New Zealand,” in Lankshear, C., Peters, M.A., Alba, A., and Gonzales, E. (eds.), Curriculum in the Postmodern Condition. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., “Postmodern Science in Aotearoa/New Zealand? Conservation, Cosmology and Critique,” in Lankshear, C., Peters, M.A., Alba, A., and Gonzales, E. (eds.), Curriculum in the Postmodern Condition. New York: Peter Lang. Reprint of article. Peters, M.A. & Lankshear, C., “Introduction: Curriculum in the Postmodern Condition,” in Lankshear, C., Peters, M., Alba, A., and Gonzales, E. (eds.), Curriculum in the Postmodern Condition. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M.A., Fitzsimons, P. & Green, B., “Education and the Asia-Pacific Discourse,” in Stephen Ball (ed.), Major Writings in the Sociology of Education. London and New York: Routledge. 1999 Peters, M.A., “Neo-liberalism,” (English/Portuguese), in Peters, M. and Ghiraldelli, P. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education, at (http://www.educacao. pro.br/). 245

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A., “Lyotard and Philosophy of Education,” (English/Portuguese), in Peters, M. and Ghiraldelli, P. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education, at http://www.educacao.pro.br/. Peters, M.A., “Poststructuralism and Philosophy of Education,” (English/Portuguese), in Peters, M. and Ghiraldelli, P. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education, at http://www.educacao.pro.br/. Peters, M.A., “Cavell and Philosophy of Education,” (English/Portuguese), in Peters, M. and Ghiraldelli, P. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education, at http://www.educacao.pro.br/. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Educational Policy Analysis and the Politics of Interpretation,” in R. C. Rist (ed.), Policy Evaluation, the International Library of Comparative Public Policy. London: Edward Elgar, 1995. Reprinted in Marshall and Peters (eds.) Education Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Introduction: Educational Policy at the End of the Millenium,” in Marshall, J.D. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Education Policy, International Library of Comparative Policy, B. Guy Peters (general editor). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Peters, M.A., “Disciplinarity, Culture and the Emerging Economy of Studies,” in M.A. Peters (ed.), After the Disciplines: The Emergence of Cultural Studies. Westport, CT & London: Bergin & Garvey. Peters, M.A., Fitzsimons, P. & Marshall, J., “Managerialism and Education Policy in a Global Context: Neoliberalism, Foucault and the Doctrine of Self-Management,” in C. Torres and N. Burbules (eds.), Education and Globalization: Critical Concepts. New York and London: Routledge. Peters, M.A., “Freire and Postmodernism,” in Roberts, P. (ed.), Paulo Freire. Palmerston North (NZ): Dunmore Press. Peters, M.A., Olssen, M., “Compulsory Education in a Competition State,” in J. Boston, P. Dalziel, & S. St John (eds.), Redesigning New Zealand’s Welfare State. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 164–192. 1998 Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Education and Postmodernism,” in International Encyclopedia of Sociology of Education. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 88–92. Peters, M.A., “The Question Concerning Virtual Technologies in Tertiary Education: The Shift from Knowledge to Information,” in Peters, M.A. & Roberts, P. (eds.), Virtual Technologies and Tertiary Education. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. Peters, M.A., “Cyberspace, Cybernetics and the Politics of University Reform,” in Peters, M.A. & Roberts, P. (eds.), Virtual Technologies and Tertiary Education. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. Reprint of article. Peters, M.A., “Introduction: Naming the Multiple: Poststructuralism and Education,” in M.A. Peters (ed.), Naming the Multiple: Poststructuralism and Education. Westport, CT & London: Bergin & Garvey. Peters, M.A., “Jean-François Lyotard,” in Ellis Cashmore & Chris Rojek (eds.), The Dictionary of Cultural Theorists. London: Edward Arnold, 327–329. Peters, M.A., “Ludwig Wittgenstein,” in Ellis Cashmore & Chris Rojek (eds.), The Dictionary of Cultural Theorists. London: Edward Arnold, 485–487. 246

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1997 Peters, M.A., “Preface to the Paperback Edition,” in M.A. Peters (ed.), Education and the Postmodern Condition, Foreword by Jean-François Lyotard. Westport, CT & London: Bergin & Garvey. Peters, M.A., “Introduction: The University in Crisis,” in Peters, M.A. (ed.), Cultural Politics and the University. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. Peters, M.A., “Performance, Post-Industrial Society and the Future of the University,” in Peters, M.A. (ed.), Cultural Politics and the University. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. Peters, M.A., Marshall, J. & Fitzsimons, P., “Education and the Philosophy of the Subject (or Constitution of Self),” in Peters, M.A., Marshall, J.D. & Fitzsimons, P. (eds.) Education and the Constitution of Self, special issue, Educational Theory and Philosophy 29(1): v–xi. Peters, M.A., “New Zealand: The Failure of Social Policy,” in G. Argyrous & F. Stilwell (eds.), Economics as a Social Science: Readings in Political Economy. Sydney: Pluto Press, 248–254. 1996 Peters, M.A. & Lankshear, C., “Postmodern Counternarratives,” in H. Giroux, C. Lankshear, P. McLaren & M.A. Peters (eds.), Counternarratives, Cultural Studies and Critical Pedagogies in Postmodern Spaces. London: Routledge. Peters, M.A., Lankshear, C. & Knoebel, M., “Critical Pedagogy in Cyberspace,” in C. Lankshear, H. Giroux, P. McLaren, & M.A. Peters (eds.), Counternarratives, Cultural Studies and Critical Pedagogies in Postmodern Spaces. London: Routledge. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Postmodernism and the Critique of Humanism,” in P. McLaren (Ed.), Postmodernism, Postcolonialism and Pedagogy. Albert Park, Vic.: James Nicholas, 205–226. 1995 Peters, M.A., “The Marketisation of Education and Democracy: A Response to Professor Michael Apple,” in M. Olssen & K. Morris-Matthews (eds.). Auckland: NZARE/RUME Monograph, 34–44. Peters, M.A., “Foucault, Discourse and Education: Neo-liberal Market Governmentality,” in T. da Siva (ed.), O Sujeito da Educacoa: Foucaultianas (trans. into Portuguese). Rio de Janeiro: Editoria Vozes: 211–224. Peters, M.A., “Introduction: Lyotard, Education and the Postmodern Condition,” in M.A. Peters (ed.), Education and the Postmodern Condition. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, xxiii–xliii. Peters, M.A., “Legitimation Problems: Knowledge and Education in the Postmodern Condition,” in M.A. Peters (ed.), Education and the Postmodern Condition. Westport, CT & London: Bergin & Garvey, 21–40. Peters, M.A., “Radical Democracy, the Politics of Difference and Education,” in B. Kanpol & P. McLaren (eds.), Critical Multiculturalism: Uncommon Voices in a Common Struggle. Westport, CT and London: Bergin & Garvey, 39–58.

247

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

Peters, M.A., “Educational Reform and the Politics of the Curriculum in New Zealand,” in M. O’Neill & D. Carter (eds.), International Perspectives on Educational Reform and Policy Implementation. London: Falmer Press, 52–70. Peters, M.A., “Philosophy and Education: ‘After’ Wittgenstein,” in P. Smeyers & J. Marshall (eds.), Philosophy and Education: Accepting Wittgenstein’s Challenge. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 189–204. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Educational Policy Analysis and the Politics of Interpretation,” in R. C. Rist (ed.), Policy Evaluation, The International Library of Comparative Public Policy. London: Edward Elgar. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Doing Research in Tai Tokerau: The Politics of Bicultural Research,” in Wally Penetito (ed.), High Quality Schooling and the Evaluation of Maori Learners. Wellington: ERO. 1994 Peters, M.A., “Welfare and Community: The New Zealand Experiment,” in S. Rees, G. Rodley & F. Stilwell (eds.), Beyond the Market: Alternatives to Economic Rationalism. Sydney: Pluto Press. Peters, M.A., Marshall, J. & Masse, L., “Recent Education Reforms in Aotearoa/ New Zealand,” in E. Coxon, K. Jenkins, J. Marshall, & L. Massey (eds.), The Politics of Teaching and Learning in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. Peters, M.A. & Lankshear, C., “Education and Hermeneutics: A Freirean Interpretation,” in P. McLaren & C. Lankshear (eds.), Politics of Liberation: Paths from Freire. London: Routledge, 173–192. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Postmodernism and Education,” in T. Husen & T.N. Postlethwaite (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 8. 2nd edn. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 4639–4642. 1993 Peters, M.A., “Employment Futures and the Politics of the Information Society in New Zealand,” in R. Harker & P. Spoonley (eds.), Science and Technology: Policy Issues for the 1990s, Ministry of Research, Science and Technology & Educational Research and Development Centre, Wellington, 49–68. 1992 Peters, M.A., “Postmodern Science in Aotearoa? Conservation, Cosmology and Critique,” paper presented at the Department of Conservation, Wellington, December 5, in E. Rimoldi (ed.), Perspectives on Research, Research Unit for Maori Education Research, Research Monograph Series. 1990 Peters, M.A., Marshall, J. & Smith, G.H., “The Business Roundtable and the Privatisation of Education: Individualism and the Attack on Maori,” in L. Gordon & J. Codd (eds.), Education Policy and the Changing Role of the State, Delta Monograph, Selected Proceedings of the NZARE Special Interest Conference: 81–98.

248

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Evaluation, Education, Empowerment and a Sense of Community: Theory and Practice in Tai Tokerau,” in John Codd, Richard Harker and Ray Nash (eds.). Political Issues in New Zealand Education, 2nd revised edn. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press.

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved.

1988 Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Empowerment and the Ideal Learning Community: Theory and Practice in Tai Tokerau,” in C. Wylie (ed.), Proceedings of the First Research into Educational Policy Conference. NZCER: Wellington, 17– 19 August, 245–276. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Social Policy and the Move to Community,” in Report of the Royal Commission on Social Policy, Te Kamihana A Te Karauna Me Nga A Hautanga-A-Iwi, April, Vol. III, Part Two, Future Directions. Wellington: Government Printer, 655–676. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “Social Policy and the Move to Community: Practical Implications for Service Delivery,” in Report of the Royal Commission on Social Policy, Te Kamihana A Te Karauna Me Nga A Hautanga-A-Iwi, April, Vol. III, Part Two, Future Directions. Wellington: Government Printer, 677–702. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J., “‘Te Reo O Te Tai Tokerau: Community Evaluation, Empowerment and Opportunities for Oral Maori Language Reproduction,” in Report of the Royal Commission on Social Policy, Te Kamihana A Te Karauna Me Nga A Hautanga-A-Iwi, April, Vol. III, Part Two, Future Directions. Wellington: Government Printer, 703–744.

249

Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved. Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox

Copyright © 2014. Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality. All rights reserved. Liber Amicorum: a Philosophical Conversation among Friends, edited by George Lazaroiu, Romanian Institute of Orthodox