Education Studies

In this article I bring Giorgio Agamben’s notion of ‘whatever singularity’ into critical pedagogy. I take as my starting point the role of identity within critical pedagogy. I call upon Butler to sketch the debates around the mobilization of identity for political purposes and, conceding the contingent necessity of identity, then suggest that whatever singularity can be helpful in moving critical pedagogy from an emancipatory to a liberatory project (a distinction I take from Marx). To articulate whatever singularity I situate the concept within the work in which it appears, and then take a detour into Agamben’s general philosophical project. I propose that, for critical pedagogy to take whatever singularity seriously, it must uphold a respect for the ineffability of being, which entails in part the suspension of dialogue. To help flesh out what I mean by this proposal, I turn to a fragment of Lyotard’s philosophy and his critique of democracy. I conclude by addressing a pressing ontological critique of Agamben, which leads me to argue for a materialist appropriation of the figure of whatever singularity, one that is held in tension with ontological concerns of identity.

This paper outlines a theory of the educational encounter, the space of, and the right to that encounter. Situated in response to neoliberal educational reforms, this theory is developed through a reading and synthesis of the educational theory of Gert Biesta, the architectural component of his theory, and literature on the right to the city. The author argues that the notion of the encounter is latent yet central in Biesta’s work and that it can be further cultivated and more precisely attended to by turning to theoretical work on the right to the city, which is engaged here primarily through the lens of the encounter. Several themes are drawn out from the literature that can help in formulating a theory of the educational encounter such as the habitat/inhabit dialectic, the use/use-value/exchange-value framework of space, and the role of struggle in the production and maintenance of space.

This paper works to theorize Judith Butler’s conception of subjectivity and subject formation in its historical relation to and role in political economy and the capitalist mode of production. I begin with industrial capitalism, where I read Marx through Butler, arguing that the norms by which the subject comes to be constituted as an autonomous and sovereign individual are fundamentally connected with industrial capitalist production. Next, I sketch the transition from industrial to immaterial capitalism focusing on Marx’s concept of the ‘general intellect’ and the interactions between workers and machines, turning again to Butler to help understand this transition. After articulating what I mean by immaterial production I demonstrate how, as capitalism passes into the immaterial era, the norms that render the subject as an individual become challenged. I theorize a contingency between Butler’s conception of the subject as radically dependent, relational, and opaque and the capitalist mode of production in the immaterial era. In addition to advancing theoretical engagements between Butler’s work, materialism, and Marxism, I believe that this examination is helpful for understanding both contemporary subject formation and contemporary capitalist social and economic relations.

While there was a flurry of articles throughout the 1990s in philosophy of education on Lyotard, there are still several key concepts in his oeuvre that have import for but remain largely underdeveloped or absent in the field. One of the most interesting of these absent concepts is Lyotard’s notion of the figural. In this paper, I take the figural as an educational problematic and ask what new educational insights it can generate in regard to the existing literature. As such, this article begins with a survey and synthesis of educa- tional literature on Lyotard and the primary work on which most of it is based, exploring the relationship between knowledge, performativity, the differend, and ‘‘the system.’’ I then examine conceptions of education oriented toward defending the differend and disrupting the system and claim that, while helpful, these conceptions are limited in that they do not mention how educators and students might engage the alterity that the system seeks to repress. I believe that it is here that Lyotard’s notion of the figural can be productively engaged. The next section of the paper performs a partial and educationally partisan reading of Discourse, Figure. After this reading I move to formulate a figural education, which is composed of three educational processes and modes of engagement: reading, seeing, and blindness. A figural education, I argue, holds each of these practices in an uncertain and unsettling relation and, in so doing, can help educators defend the figural and the differend against the discursive demands of the system.

Air is an immersive substance that envelopes us and binds us together, yet it has dominantly been taken for granted and left out of educational and other theorizations. This article develops a conceptualization of the pneumatic common in order to address this gap. The specific intervention staged is within recent educational literature on the common by Noah De Lissovoy, Tyson E. Lewis, and Alexander Means. This literature is surveyed and analyzed in relation to educational theory, curriculum, pedagogy, and policy. Claiming that the air is a central feature of and paradigm for the common, I then concentrate on making the air conditions of the educational common explicit. I do this through a theoretical, historical, and sociological reading of air conditioning. While this explicitation is itself educational, I return to the educational common at the end of the article to ask how and what we can learn in, with, and from the air.

co-curated with Sarah Pfohl, this issue of Oranbeg NET asks:

Traditionally, art and theory are conceived of as two distinct yet related endeavors, in which theory is dominantly articulated linguistically. What does theory look like when it is articulated and performed visually? We are interested in art that occupies this terrain, works that both illustrate and operate as theory; art that theorizes.

Over the last two decades, educational theory has begun to incorporate analyses of space where formerly temporal considerations dominated. In this article, Marxist educational theory is spatialized by considering the school as (1) a form of fixed capital, (2) a crucial aspect of the built environment and (3) a relational space. The author begins by sketching Marxist educational theory, relying heavily on the work of Glenn Rikowski. Critically taking up Rikowski’s call to center the social reproduction of the labor power in educational analysis, he moves to an exploration of the role that space plays in this process, concentrating primarily on work by Marx and David Harvey. This spatialization helps to ground the current struggles over educational standardization and privatization within a broader critique of the capitalist mode of production.

This article posits the air as a central medium and stake of recent movements against police brutality, and asks how the air can enable resistance to oppression more generally. I propose three ways of mobilizing the pneumatic that can help to reorient, recompose, and push forward political struggles by submitting the following three propositions: (1) the air’s visibility—its opacity or transparency—works to determine the possibilities of movement and contestation in the streets; (2) the air also signals the irreducibility of the common, the stake of all political struggle; and (3) the air dissolves conceptions of individual subjectivity by instituting an inescapable relationality and dependency at the heart of being.

Based on a close reading of a short video of a skirmish between people and cops in Baltimore two days before the Baltimore uprising took place, this article argues that what we witnessed in Baltimore was not only an inspiring rebellion against police violence and capitalism; it was also an act of studying.

With the contradictions of capitalism heightening and intensifying, and with new social movements spreading across the globe, revolutionary transformation is once again on the agenda. For radicals, the most pressing question is: How can we transform ourselves and our world into something else, something just? In Marx, Capital, and Education, Curry Stephenson Malott and Derek R. Ford develop a "critical pedagogy of becoming" that is concerned with precisely this question. The authors boldly investigate the movement toward communism and the essential role that critical pedagogy can play in this transition. Performing a novel and educational reading of Karl Marx and radical theorists and activists, Malott and Ford present a critical understanding of the past and present, of the underlying logics and (often opaque) forces that determine the world-historical moment. Yet Malott and Ford are equally concerned with examining the specific ways in which we can teach, learn, study, and struggle ourselves beyond capitalism; how we can ultimately overthrow the existing order and institute a new mode of production and set of social relations. This incisive and timely book, penned by two militant teachers, organizers, and academics, reconfigures pedagogy and politics. Educators and organizers alike will find that it provides new ammunition in the struggle for the world that we deserve.

Advanced praise:

"In Marx, Capital, and Education, Malott and Ford advance one of the boldest and [most] unmitigated analyses of education in the history of the field. Their unflinching and scholarly critique of the relationship between capitalism and compulsory education helps to reground the field of critical pedagogy, framing a renewed ‘revolutionary Marxist pedagogy.’ Their careful undertaking of Marx and contemporary scholars of Marx situate this text as a must-read across multiple disciplines including philosophy, political science, government, and education - a true classic in the making."
(Sandy Grande, Associate Professor and Chair, Education Department, Connecticut College)

"This is an essential text for all of those interested in the continuing potential of Marxism as an analytic tool and as a political movement, with implications for critical pedagogy and a truly liberatory education. It traces the history of the use of Marxist theory in education in ways that are insightful, and it provides a key set of categories for reading and using Marx in a ‘postmodern’ age. A rare achievement in educational scholarship."
(Dennis Carlson, Full Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, Miami University)

While most educational literature on space has tended to ask what spatial studies can offer education, this article works primarily to educationalize theories of space. It does so by homing in on Henri Lefebvre’s theorization of the production of space as a potentially revolutionary activity. After spending some time situating Lefebvre’s historical and theoretical analysis, it takes his understanding of the production of space as an educational problematic, and in turn seeks to develop a spatial educational theory and a pedagogy for space, the latter being the mobilization of the former. In particular, I propose to augment Lefebvre’s spatial triad of 1) spatial practice, 2) representations of space, and 3) representational spaces with an educational triad of 1) teaching, 2) learning, and 3) studying. I propose that each component needs to be held in a precarious, contingent, and dialectical relation. In order to ask more precisely after this relationship and to grasp how we might deploy this educational theory to understand and produce space, I read the theory through the Baltimore Rebellion of 2015. I contend that the Baltimore Rebellion was a struggle over the space of the city, and that it was a deeply pedagogical affair that entailed the orchestration of teaching, learning, and studying.

Critical pedagogy has variously inspired, mobilized, troubled, and frustrated teachers, activists, and educational scholars for several decades now. Since its inception the field has been animated by internal antagonism and conflict, and this reality has simultaneously spread the influence of the field in and out of education and seriously challenged its status as an integral body of work. The various debates that have categorized critical pedagogy have also made it difficult for younger scholars to enter into the literature. This is the first book to survey critical pedagogy through first-hand accounts of its established and emerging leaders. While the book does indeed provide a historical exploration and documentation of the development of critical pedagogy as a contested and dynamic educational intervention—as well as analyses of that development and directions toward possible futures—it is also intended to provide an accessible and comprehensive entry point for a new generation of activists, organizers, scholars, and educators who place questions of pedagogy and social justice at the heart of their thinking and doing.

“Martin Heidegger once said that Aristotle’s life could be summarized in one, short sentence ‘He was born, he thought, he died.’ Porfilio and Ford’s brilliantly curated compilation of autobiographical sketches of leaders in critical pedagogy resolutely rejects Heidegger’s reductive thesis, reminding us all that theory is grounded in the historical specificities and material contradictions of life. For those well acquainted with critical pedagogy, these theoretical memoirs grant us a unique and sometimes surprisingly intimate glimpse into the lives behind the words we know so well. But most importantly, the format of the book is an educational intervention into how critical pedagogy can be taught. While it is often the case that students find critical pedagogy dense, inaccessible, and seemingly detached from the everyday concerns of teachers, Porfilio and Ford’s edited volume—like Marx’s Capital—approaches theory through the memories, struggles, hopes, and dreams of those who live within yet against the nightmare of neoliberal capitalism.”

– Tyson E. Lewis, Full Professor, Department of Art Education and Art History, University of North Texas