On the Facilitation of the Academy (original) (raw)

Intellectuals, Power, and Knowledge. Studies in the Philosophy of Culture and Education

Frankfurt a/Main and New York: Peter Lang, 2004

It is interesting to try to see the relationship between the concept of postmodernity (as used in the philosophy of culture) and that of globalization or the global age (as used in many non-philosophical areas, but also in the philosophy of education). "Postmodernity" was certainly the catchword at the beginning of the nineties, just as "globalization" was the catchword at the the end of the decade and continues to be until today. To see how the relationship between power and knowledge changes, it is interesting to look at the two magisterial products of modernity discussed in the present volume: the modern (and usually leftist) intellectual engaged in changing the world (Part 1), and the modern nation-state focused, and welfare-state supported, institution of the university (Part 2). The national education system as a universal and public institution first emerged in post-revolutionary Europe as an instrument of state formation. It provided a powerful vehicle for the construction and integration of the new nation-state and became one of its chief institutional supports. Since then, few nations have embarked on independent statehood without recourse to its ideological potential; even the older states, at least in periods of war and crisis, have continued to view education as a valuable source of national cohesion and a key tool for economic development. However, the role of the nation-state is now changing, and with it the place of education". The place of higher education especially, let us add, is changing; which is of greatest interest to us in the second part of the present volume. Two modern achievements, the modem figure of the intellectual and the modern institution of the university, have been undergoing a radical crisis of identity. As we develop this theme in Chapter 12, the decline of the philosophical project of modernity is turning out to be a painful process for modern culture: once again it has to reformulate the aims of its social institutions (for us here, the aims of the university) and the tasks of its cultural heroes (for us here, the tasks of the intellectual). If it is successful, the institutions and cultural heroes in question will regain their cultural vitality; if it is not, they will fall into cultural sterility. The traditional modern figure of the intellectual seems untenable in a more and more postmodern cultural surrounding. The modern institution of the university may face a similar fate in a more and more globalized surrounding: either it is going to accept the rules of bureaucratic, consumer-oriented corporations, or it will have to try once again to find a new regulative idea which would have to be as transformative as the role suggested for the university two hundred years ago by German Idealists and Romantics. The breakthrough in the conception of the university two hundred years ago was an event equal in importance to the vast social and cultural transformations of that time. It is hard to tell whether there will appear new ideas about the university comparable in significance.

Rulers of consciousness: the university and the Pedagogic Device

2009

Over the last five years we have been engaged with a highly theorized research project in South African curriculum reform that created an abstract holding space where very different communities, interest groups and specialist players engaged in the process of curriculum reform were placed together. Theoretical and empirical research within the esoteric space of university practice constructed a playing field where all the major contributors to curriculum reform, ranging from those involved in conceptualization to those directly working on implementation, could come together under an overarching conceptual educational form called the Pedagogic Device. It was a curious space – the different strata worked with various and sometimes conflicting logics, each concentrating on fulfilling their own mandate, often not lifting their heads to see what those above and below them were doing. Using the Pedagogic Device as an orienting tool we were able to walk through the post apartheid education...

The academic as knowledge purveyor: deontological considerations

The author refers to the results of the research conducted with 2,000 respondents who, in the light of their personal experience, presented their own assessment of academics’ work. Among the received information, the author eventually singled out, for the needs of this paper, the attitudes which referred to the academic as a knowledge purveyor. The process of delivering knowledge is executed through didactic classes, typically in the form of lectures or classes. Analysis of the poll respondents' answers suggests that this process does not always proceed in the way it is expected to. Among the undesirable aspects of lecturers’ attitudes, the students paid particular attention to their lack of preparation for classes, lack of engagement, not holding classes in a content-related way, conducting classes in an incomprehensible or uninteresting way, lack of communicativeness, not observing students’ time, and lack of manners. As far as desirable attitudes are concerned, the students’ primary expectation is the determination of ‘game rules’ at the very beginning of a series of classes. As for further positives, the respondents also paid attention to, among other traits, the teacher’s preparation for classes, professionalism, personal engagement, utilizing interesting forms of transmitting knowledge, interactivity, indicating the source materials for self-study, openness to students’ questions and criticisms as well as to students’ expectations, kindness and supportive attitude shown to students, punctuality, and personal good manners. The above-mentioned good and bad sides of teaching lay certain responsibilities upon an academic. The author tries to articulate the most important ones.