Abstracts
Abstract
This paper explores the extent to which critique in the educational sciences can be mechanized. This is the case when critique of pedagogical concepts and discourses is entirely determined by the structures and processes of the critique itself. If the process of critique functions independently of the specificity and concreteness of its object, the critique can be called generic and the critical system a trivial, that is, non-dynamic, machine. In these cases, the critique machine is cognitively closed and yields no information about the criticized concepts, structures, or phenomena. The paper argues that this, in fact, represents a significant proportion of critique in the educational sciences. The critique machine, as reconstructed here, consists of a sequence of four process stages. Finally, it is demonstrated that there are structural inconsistencies between these process stages.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Anker, E. S., & Felski, R. (2017). Introduction. In E. S. Anker & R. Felski (Eds.), Critique and postcritique (pp. 1–28). Duke University Press.
- Adorno, T. W. (1979). Thesen über Bedürfnis. In R. Tiedemann (Ed.), Theodor W. Adorno: Soziologische schriften I (pp. 392–396). Suhrkamp.
- Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of the mind. Ballantine Books.
- Burman, E. (2008). Deconstructing developmental psychology (2nd ed.). Routledge.
- Cassirer, E. (1923). Philosophie der symbolischen Formen – Erster Teil: Die Sprache. Bruno Cassirer.
- Clarke, A. E., & Shim, J. (2011). Medicalization and biomedicalization revisited: Technoscience and transformations of health, illness and American medicine. In B. A. Pescosolido, J. K. Martin, J. D. McLeod & A. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of health, illness, and healing: A blueprint for the 21st century (pp. 173–199). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7261-3_10
- Dawid, R., Hartmann, S., & Sprenger, J. (2015). The no alternatives argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66(1), 213–234.
- de Boer, K., & Sonderegger, R. (2012). Introduction. In K. de Boer & R. Sonderegger (Eds.), Conceptions of critique in modern and contemporary philosophy (pp. 1–9). Palgrave Macmillan.
- Evans, E. D., Gomez, C. J., & McFarland, D. A. (2016). Measuring paradigmaticness of disciplines using text. Sociological Science, 3(32), 757–778. https://doi.org/10.15195/v3.a32
- Fabian, J. (2014). Time and the other: How anthropology makes its object. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/doi:10.7312/fabi16926
- Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969)
- Guyer, P., & Wood, A. W. (1998). Introduction (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Trans.). In P. Guyer & A. W. Wood (Eds.), Immanuel Kant: Critique of pure reason (pp. 1–80). Cambridge University Press.
- Habermas, J. (1973). Legitimationsprobleme im spätkapitalismus. Suhrkamp.
- Hall, S. (1991). Old and new identities, old and new ethnicities. In A. D. King (Ed.), Culture, globalization, and the world-system: Contemporary conditions for the representation of identity (pp. 41–68). Macmillan. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478002710-005
- Heidegger, M. (1956). Die Frage nach der Technik. In B. A. d. S. Künste (Ed.), Die Künste im technischen Zeitalter (pp. 48–72). R. Oldenbourg.
- Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Blackwell.
- Hodgson, N., Vlieghe, J., & Zamojski, P. (2017). Manifesto for a post-critical pedagogy. Punctum Books.
- Honneth, A., & Fraser, N. (2003). Umverteilung oder Anerkennung? Eine politisch-philosophische Kontroverse. Suhrkamp.
- Jaeggi, R., & Wesche, T. (2009). Einführung: Was ist Kritik? In R. Jaeggi & T. Wesche (Eds.), Was ist Kritik? (pp. 7–20). Suhrkamp.
- Krönig, F. K. (2019). Community music and the risks of affirmative thinking: A critical insight into the semantics of community music. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 27(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.2979/philmusieducrevi.27.1.03
- Krönig, F. K. (2022). The politicization of the educable child through aethereal power. Childhood & Philosophy, 18, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.12957/childphilo.2022.63214
- Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (50th anniversary ed.). University of Chicago Press.
- Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.
- Latour, B. (2019). Against critique, for critique. In I. Graw & C. Menke (Eds.), The value of critique: Exploring the interrelations of value, critique, and artistic labour (pp. 15–30). Campus.
- Luhmann, N. (1990). Tautology and paradox in the self-descriptions of modern society. In N. Luhmann (Ed.), Essays on self-reference (pp. 123–143). Columbia University Press.
- Luhmann, N. (1992). Beobachtungen der Moderne. Westdeutscher Verlag.
- Noys, B. (2019). The hammer of the gods: Critique, after all. In I. Graw & C. Menke (Eds.), The value of critique: Exploring the interrelations of value, critique, and artistic labour (pp. 31–43). Campus.
- Raffnsøe, S. (2015). What is critique? The critical state of critique in the age of criticism (Vol. 1). Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School.
- Rose, N. (1999). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self (2nd ed.). Free Association Books.
- Said, E. W. (1994). Culture and imperialism. Vintage.
- Vicedo, M. (2013). The nature and nurture of love: From imprinting to attachment in cold war America. University of Chicago Press.
- Vlieghe, J., & Zamojski, P. (2019). Towards an ontology of teaching: Thing-centred pedagogy, affirmation and love for the world. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16003-6
- von Foerster, H. (1993). KybernEthik. Merve.