Education

p-ISSN: 2162-9463     e-ISSN: 2162-8467

2011;  1(1): 6-11

doi: 10.5923/j.edu.20110101.02

Co-Existence and Co-Operation: The Two-Dimensional Conception of Education

Copyright © 2011 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

The expanding global discourse on education is built on the concept of individualism. One emerging direction in educational theory that challenges this discourse is relational pedagogy. This article aims to discuss some characteristic aspects of relational pedagogy, and thereby proposing a theoretical course in the field. By comparing Kenneth Gergen’s and Martin Buber’s relational conceptions, the article argues that relational pedagogy could/should be characterized by a dis-tinction between two fundamental types of relationships, tentatively labeled co-existence and co-operation. This distinction is proposed to be significant for relational pedagogy to become a trustworthy alternative not only to the individualistic- but also to the collectivist conception of education.

Keywords: Relational Pedagogy, Buber, Gergen, Co-action, Co-operation, Co-existence

Paper's body in HTML will come soon.

Reference

[1]  V. Aitken, D. Fraser, G. Price, “Negotiating the spaces. Relational Pedagogy and Power in Drama Education”. In-ternational Journal of Education and the Arts. Vol. 8: p. 1-18, 2007.
[2]  J. Aspelin & S. Persson, Om relationell pedagogik.[On relational pedagogy; in Swedish] Malmö: Gleerups, 2011.
[3]  J. Aspelin, “What really matters is between. Understanding the focal point of education from an inter-human perspective”. Education Inquiry, Vol 1, p. 127-136, 2010.
[4]  C. Beck, “Difference, Authority and the Teacher-student relationship”. Philosophy of Education, 1994[http//www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/pes-yearbook/94_docs/beck.htm]
[5]  B-E. Benktson, ”Martin Bubers författarskap som pedagogisk inspirationskälla”.[Martin Buber’s writings as a source of educational inspiration]. Bildning, Kunskap, Demokrati. En vänbok till Gunnar Bergendal. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1995.
[6]  V. Bergum, “Relational pedagogy. Embodiment, improvisation, and interdependence”. Nursing Philoophy . Vol. 4: p. 121-128, 2003.
[7]  G. Biesta, Beyond learning. Democratic education for a human future. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2006.
[8]  C. Bingham & A. Sidorkin, Ed., No education without relation. NY: Peter Lang Pub. Inc., 2004.
[9]  R. Boyd, N., MacNeill, G, Sullivan, “Relational pedagogy: putting balance back into students’ learning”. Curriculum leadership. Vol 4, 2006.
[10]  M. Buber, Det mellanmänskliga.[The Interhuman; in Swedish. Original title: Elemente des Zwischen-menschlichen] Ludvika: Dualis Förlag, 1953/1990.
[11]  M. Buber, Between man and man. London and New York: Routledge, 1947/2002.
[12]  M. Buber, I and Thou. New York: Scribner Book Company, 1923/2000.
[13]  K. Gergen, Relational being. Beyond self and community. Oxford University press, 2009.
[14]  A. Lingis, The community of those who have nothing in common. Bloomington & Minneapolis: In-diana University Press, 1994.
[15]  F. Margonis, Frank, “The demise of authenticity”. Philosophy of education, 1998.(http/www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/1998/margonis_2.html)!
[16]  T. Papatheodorou & J. Moyles, Learning together in the early years. Exploring Relational pedagogy. N.Y: Routledge, 2009.
[17]  A. Sidorkin, “Toward a pedagogy of relation”. Philosophical Studies in Education. 2000, Vol. 32: p. 9-14.
[18]  A. Sidorkin, “The Pedagogy of the Interhuman”. Philosophy of Education, 1995, p. 412-419.
[19]  V. Turner, The ritual process. Structure and anti-structure. New York: Cornell University Press, 1969.
[20]  F. Tönnies, Community and society.[Original title: Ge-meinschaft und Gesellschaft. Abhandlung des Communismus und des Socialismus als empirischer Culturformen]. New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1887/1957.
[21]  M. von Wright, Vad eller vem? En pedagogisk rekonstruktion av G H Meads teori om människors intersubjektivitet.[What or who?; in Swedish]. Göteborg: Daidalos, 2000.