scholarly journals sobre partos y nacimientos: derivas ético-políticas de la figura del “maestro-partero” en filosofía con/para niñxs.

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 01-21
Author(s):  
Julian Macias
Keyword(s):  
Pedagogical Practice ◽  
Philosophical Inquiry ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
Jacques Ranciere ◽  
Teaching Role ◽  
Teacher’S Role ◽  
Jacques Rancière ◽  
Traditional Sense ◽  
Matthew Lipman

In this paper, I endeavor to evaluate the ethical-political consequences of the metaphor of "teacher-midwife" awarded to Plato’s Socrates in Theaetetus and its use by different scholars to describe the role of teacher in a Philosophy with/for children (Pf/wC) context. The paper is divided into three sections: first (1) an approach is made to the figure of Socrates in Meno, to the critique of his method as expressed by Jacques Rancière in The Ignorant Schoolmaster, and to the echoing of that  critique by Walter Kohan in his evaluation of the pedagogy of Pf/wC. Next, (2) different descriptions of the teacher’s role in Pf/wC are reviewed, emphasizing the elements that emphasize the Socratic figure. For Matthew Lipman, one of the keys to turning classrooms into communities of philosophical inquiry was to substantially modify the teaching role. Because, on Lipman’s account, the teacher should not teach in the traditional sense, different metaphors have been sought to describe her role. In section (3), I argue that a description of the teacher as "guide" can be applied to many features that characterize Socrates. I analyze in depth the metaphor of the "teacher-midwife" establishing the links with those developed in (1) and (2). Emphasis is placed on the ethical-political consequences of equating the teacher with a "teacher-midwife", especially if we take into account Plato's complete description of pedagogical maiusis  in Theaetetus, and the centrality of the metaphor in Pf/wC pedagogical practice. Finally, I consider the very different image of the “birth” metaphor that is suggested by Hannah Arendt’s concept of “natality,”  and explore its implications for a pedagogical alternative to the Socratic.  

scholarly journals A Thorn in the Side of Social History: Jacques Rancière andLes Révoltes logiques

2012 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mischa Suter
Keyword(s):  
Social History ◽  
Left Wing ◽  
Jacques Ranciere ◽  
Jacques Rancière ◽  
Radical Left

SummaryThe article explores the intersection of history and politics in the works of French philosopher Jacques Rancière, by focusing on the collectively edited journalLes Révoltes logiques(1975–1985). It argues that the historiographic project ofLes Révoltes logiquestook up specific forms of counter-knowledge that were embedded in radical left-wing politics of their day. It further traces both the engagement with historiography and the role of history in Rancière's later work after the dissolution of the journal. Its conclusion looks at certain shared interests between some of Rancière's themes and some recent writing of social history.

Distant Immediacy: Badiou and Rancière on May ’68 and its Consequences

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Rok Benčin
Keyword(s):  
The Political ◽  
Alain Badiou ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
Jacques Ranciere ◽  
Jacques Rancière ◽  
May 68 ◽  
Political Spectrum

This article on the French May ’68 addresses the gap between the immediacy of the event and the series of consequences that are supposed to have followed from it. In the eyes of the critics of May ’68 from all sides of the political spectrum, the events in France have been considered as having no consequence at all, as having no political but merely cultural consequences, or as producing political consequences that were opposite to the intentions of their actors. To these interpretations, which all account for the distance between the event and its consequences by means of completely disjointing the latter from the former, the article opposes two reflections on May ’68 – those by Alain Badiou and Jacques Rancière – that attempt to examine the consequences of the very immediacy of the politics practised by the actors of the events, a politics that operates at a distance from mediation, representation and postponement. Badiou and Rancière propose some similar conclusions, but also two very different ways of reading the immediacy of the event.

scholarly journals Who Can Speak? Rancière, Latour and the Question of Articulation

Humanities ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Iwona Janicka
Keyword(s):  
Left Wing ◽  
Bruno Latour ◽  
Jacques Ranciere ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Human Exceptionalism ◽  
Political Orientations ◽  
Jacques Rancière ◽  
Political Agents

In recent years, scholars in broadly considered posthumanities have attempted to reconceptualize politics in order to better account for the role of nonhuman entities in political processes. In this context, the article instantiates a dialogue between Jacques Rancière and Bruno Latour on one of the fundamental questions of politics, that is, the question of logos. Even though Latour and Rancière differ considerably in their theoretical and political orientations, each of them revisits the question of ‘who can speak?’ in order to examine the ways in which speechless entities gain a voice, thereby becoming intelligible as political entities. In this article, I confront Rancière’s reservations about nonhumans as political agents, showing how Latour offers pathways beyond Rancière’s apparent bias towards the human, a bias that is, I argue, fundamentally contradictory to the latter’s broader conceptualization of politics as aesthetics. I formulate a Latourian rebuttal of Rancière’s reservations and analyse the utility of Latour’s thought in overcoming Rancière’s limitations. Latour’s reorientation of logos towards the concept of ‘articulation’ makes it possible to evacuate, to some extent, the human exceptionalism from Rancière’s philosophy. Combining Latour with Rancière permits to fundamentally rearticulate the parameters of left-wing thinking about nonhumans.

scholarly journals In the Making, of Objects, Artists, and Publics

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Ganz Blythe
Keyword(s):  
Individual Experience ◽  
Power Structures ◽  
Student Centered ◽  
Student Centered Learning ◽  
Teaching Career ◽  
Jacques Ranciere ◽  
Jacques Rancière

In 1818, at the end of a celebrated teaching career, Joseph Jacotot found himself in a curious position. Exiled to Brussels and knowing no Flemish, he faced the predicament of teaching Flemish students who knew no French. Resourcefully turning to a bilingual edition of The Adventures of Telemachus (1699), Jacotot discarded his habitual role of disseminator of knowledge and instead directed the students to the text, from which they successfully instructed themselves. Born of necessity, the teacher-as-explicator model was displaced by the educator-as-facilitator who framed an experience for student-centered learning through individual experience and collaboration. In The Ignorant Schoolmaster, Jacques Rancière recounts Jacotot’s pedagogical adventure and expounds upon the implications of learning being independent from instruction.[1] This includes the conviction that everyone has equal and unlimited potential to learn, beyond existing bodies of knowledge and the delimiting authority of power structures.

scholarly journals Don’t be fooled by ignorant schoolmasters: On the role of the teacher in emancipatory education

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gert Biesta
Keyword(s):  
Critical Pedagogy ◽  
North American ◽  
Paulo Freire ◽  
Transfer Of Knowledge ◽  
Strong Argument ◽  
Emancipatory Education ◽  
Jacques Ranciere ◽  
Jacques Rancière ◽  
Educational Scholarship

The question I address in this article is how we might understand the role of the teacher in education that seeks to promote emancipation. I take up this question in conversation with German and North-American versions of critical pedagogy with, the works of Paulo Freire and with that of Jacques Rancière. I show that in each case we find not only a strong argument for emancipatory education but also a distinct view about the role of the teacher. My aim is partly to show the different ways in which the role of the teacher in emancipatory education can be conceived and to make clear how this role is related to the different understandings of emancipation and the dynamics of emancipatory education. The motivation for writing this article also stems from what I see as a rather problematic interpretation of the work of Rancière in recent educational scholarship, one where the key message of his 1991 book The Ignorant Schoolmaster is taken to be that anyone can learn without a teacher and that this alleged ‘freedom to learn’ would constitute emancipation. I challenge such a constructivist interpretation of Rancière’s work and argue that the key message of The Ignorant Schoolmaster is that emancipatory education is not a matter of transfer of knowledge from a teacher who knows to a student who does not (yet) know, but nonetheless is a process in which teachers and their teaching are indispensable. This will allow me to argue why and how teaching remains essential for emancipatory education and why we should therefore not be fooled into thinking that ignorant schoolmasters, because they have no knowledge to give, have nothing to teach and can be done away with.

‘You ought not to be obsessed with the idea that you have to intervene on every subject at every moment’: Interview with Jacques Rancière

Maska ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (185) ◽  
pp. 98-104
Author(s):  
Pia Brezavšček ◽  
Saška Rakef Perko
Keyword(s):  
Contemporary Society ◽  
Jacques Ranciere ◽  
Jacques Rancière ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
The Relationship

For the conference The Aesthetic Regime of Art: Dimensions of Rancière’s Theory, organised by Maska, Radio Ars commissioned an interview with Jacques Rancière. The conversation focused on topics such as the relationship between politics and aesthetics, and the genesis of Rancière’s thinking, which has recently focused on aesthetics beyond the notion of beauty. We discussed the role of art in contemporary society and the accusations of its hermeticity. And we tackled the idea of communism for present times. In contrast with other star intellectuals, Rancière expresses reservations about the constant need for intellectuals to provide opinions on all subject-matters and events.

Freiheit, Gleichheit, Sinnlichkeit–Jacques Rancière, Hegel und die holländische Malerei

2010 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leander Scholz
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
French Revolution ◽  
Jacques Derrida ◽  
Traditional Concept ◽  
Jacques Ranciere ◽  
Jacques Rancière ◽  
Political Intervention ◽  
The French Revolution

Der Aufsatz geht der These nach, daß die Fundierung der politischen Theorie in einer ästhetischen Theorie bei Jacques Rancière eine Aktualisierung der Losung der Brüderlichkeit aus der Französischen Revolution darstellt. Diese Aktualisierung der Brüderlichkeit als »ästhetische Gemeinschaft« erlaubt es Rancière, an den Klassenbegriff von Marx anzuschließen, ohne die damit verbundene Gemeinschaftserfahrung begrifflich bestimmen und damit an positive Merkmale binden zu müssen. Weil Rancière seine Demokratietheorie vor allem als eine Interventionstheorie angelegt hat, soll die »ästhetische Gemeinschaft« im Unterschied zum Klassenbegriff es ermöglichen, eine prinzipiell unabgeschlossene Reihe von politischen Subjektivierungsprozessen zu denken. Um diese These zu schärfen, wird Rancières Demokratietheorie mit der von Jacques Derrida verglichen, der auf ganz ähnliche Weise das Demokratische der Demokratie in einem Streit gegeben sieht, der jenseits von demokratischen Spielregeln stattfindet, die Losung der Brüderlichkeit jedoch für überaus problematisch hält.<br><br>This article argues that the foundation of political theory in aesthetics by Jacques Rancière can be seen as an actualization of the slogan of fraternalism during the French Revolution. This actualization of fraternalism as »aesthetic community« gives Rancière the possibility to operate with the Marxian concept of classes without positively defining the experience of community. Because Rancière understands democracy as the chance for political intervention, the concept of an »aesthetic community« (as opposed to the traditional concept of classes) allows him to posit an endless process of political subjectification. To sharpen this argument, the article compares Rancière’s understanding of democracy to Jacques Derrida’s, who also focuses on a democratic struggle beyond democratic rules, but is very skeptical about the slogan of fraternalism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document