Materiality and Displacement : About the Pedagogically Framed Constitution of Subjectivity

• The question, what the things show us, is the prototype of a question in pedagogical contexts, especially in the context of a conventional school lesson. There is supposed to be a definite answer to this question, if the thing in question is distinct and clear, easy to describe.If there are different concepts of the things in question, or they are difficult to describe, the pole of the object is faced by diverse poles of subjects perceiving one and the same thing differently. Then there is not only one answer to this question. In this case, the things in question do not mean for everybody the same (in all circumstances), resp. the “right” answer is constituted by several subjects. One has also to take into account that in the diverse social situations the subjects do not have the same power of defining the thing in question. The asking person might be in an advantageous position with the ability to provide others with the power of defining a matter, or hindering them from doing it. The latter could be realized, if the subtext of this question provides the asking person with a more or less definite power of defining the things in question. This is the case especially in asymmetrical social relations, as it is true for pedagogical situations: the (earnest) question of a person with more social power may aim at a definite answer to what the ”things” “show” us, whereas there are in fact many possible opinions about it. The possible answers of the persons with less social power than the asking person may be disregarded, so that they are even more diminished in their power of defining the things in question. The question then implies that the asking person will in the end give the answer her-/himself, e.g. in replying: ”This thing shows us this (and nothing else. - I am in the position to force you to accept this without any restrictions).” In this case the lack of definition and the vagueness of the thing in question may serve as a door to the act of shame and degradation, in which the power relations are asserted. In the end this is a misuse of the reference to the ”things”.Therefore, this type of question is actually a sign of the exaggeration of the disciplinary power of education; in this regard the becoming teachers are warned in the course of their practical professionalization not to use this type of question in school lessons. However, one never knows how far this prohibition (of the so called “w-questions”) reaches. In accordance with this type of question, the functions of qualification, selection and relocation of the school, the orientation at the values of effort and, in an increasing manner, at output curricula in school prescribe in a schematized way what the “things” (should) tell us (all in a definite way). The teacher is obliged to represent this force.This tricky and thorny context will only be touched in the following argumentation. It is not its essential subject. In contrary, the aim is to work out to what degree the question what the ”things” in the field of pedagogy ”show” us is already fully expressed by open or closed questions, by questions with a clear answer, or such without one, resp. what else the ”things” “show” us. In the end the relevance of the ”things” in the field of pedagogy might be beyond verbal expression. It will come out that by taking this into account, a very fruitful perspective on the field is opened up. Also consequences for a pedagogical theory of learning can be drawn.

Ämnesord

SAMHÄLLSVETENSKAP  -- Utbildningsvetenskap (hsv//swe)

SOCIAL SCIENCES  -- Educational Sciences (hsv//eng)

Nyckelord

Material turn

things

tacit dimensions of pedagogy

Research on "things"

Children´s Studies

Pedagogics and Educational Sciences

Pedagogik och Utbildningsvetenskap

Publikations- och innehållstyp

ref (ämneskategori)

kap (ämneskategori)