Nie(tylko)ludzkie wymiary edukacji. W stronę pedagogiki nieantropocentrycznej

Date of release of the digital version under CC-BY-SA licence: August 2024

Non(only)human dimensions of education. Towards non-anthropocentric pedagogy

The purpose of my book is dual. First, it is about exploring the basic assumptions of anthropocentric pedagogy, showing their consequences and weakening the impression of their obviousness. Th is part of the eff ort can be understood in terms of classic critical work in the Kantian sense. It is therefore about raising the issue of the conditions for the possibilities of anthropocentric pedagogy. About examining what needs to be accepted in order to be able to place yourself inside it in axiological, ontological and methodological dimensions. An important task of this part of the work is also to weaken deeply rooted and recognized decisions regarding “what pedagogy is for”. Secondly, it is about pointing out the possibilities of pedagogy that would not be anthropocentric but based on other principles. Th e theoretical basis of the book is the work of researchers associated with critical posthumanism, new materialism (Barad, Bennett, Braidotti, Haraway, DeLanda), thing-oriented ontology (Bogost, Harman, Bryant, Meillassoux), Actor-Network Th eory (Latour, Law, Callon, Mol).

The basic argument that I develop in the book is as follows: education has been understood by pedagogy as one of “human aff airs” for too long, we have believed too much in anthropocentric ontology and the way it defi nes the basic actors of educational processes. Th e political, ethical, analytical (ontological, methodological) consequences of this movement, which is expressed in faith in Man and Humanity as the ultimate goal and teleological horizon of educational interactions, as well as in people as basic educational actors, we have too hastily considered the obvious sensible choice that stands before pedagogy, which does not want to be just an ideological superstructure over molding of the children and adults for social, economic or political conditions, or to be reduced to inventorying eff ective methods of infl uence whose goals remain beyond its reach.

Pedagogical concern for the world, which is expressed by placing education in the center of its interest, understood as something that some people do to others, out of concern for their humanity, not only is unable to meet the challenges of the present and future, but from the point of view of the current knowledge of ethologists, engineers, biologists, and a growing group of social researchers appears to be too reductive, unable to convey what non-people are capable of, and ethically unacceptable, because it axiologically privileges human values and the exploitation of non-people. I claim that anthropocentric pedagogy – or more precisely three principles pedagogy – through the way it problematizes education is unable to meet the challenges of the modern world; its axiology is based on the premises leading to the destruction of the planet.

In relation to the set goals, the book can be divided into two parts. Th e fi rst part is dedicated to identifying the problems of anthropocentric pedagogy as well as possible strategies of dealing with them. In the fi rst chapter, answering the question about the “obvious obviousness” of educators allowing them to distinguish themselves from the representatives of other disciplines. I put forward the thesis that the framework of modern pedagogy is determined by three principles: 1) “You will separate human from non-human!”, 2) “You will diff erentiate within what is human!”, 3) “You will study education as education!” I claim that these principles are basic for pedagogical axiology, they set the framework for understanding the educational situation, indicate the basic actors, and structure the area of possible methodological choices regardless of the paradigmatic diff erences identifi ed within the discipline.

In the second chapter, in the context of contemporary technological changes and knowledge coming, among others from natural sciences, I try to point out problems related to anthropocentrism and understanding of man as being separated in a special way from the rest of existence. I indicate here three strategies for dealing with problems of posthuman condition. I devote a separate subsection to each of them, in which I test them successively for the possibility of maintaining / revoking the fi rst rule. Th e third chapter concerns the Degrees of Humanity and the importance for pedagogy of life worth living by humans. I develop in it, against the second principle, selected consequences related to the pedagogical care of “a good life”. I also pay attention to some ways of crossing humanistic distinction in the sense of pedagogy. Th e fourth chapter concerns how anthropocentric pedagogy understands the subject of its research – education. I try to show how much is lost if you remain faithful to educentrism.

The next chapter, beginning the second part of the book, in which I present a possible alternative to the Th ree Principles Pedagogy, concerns such an ontology of education that appreciates the non-human perpetration, as well as the fact that while doing education, we also do other things at the same time. Pointing to the “fl at and relational” ontology of education, allows me in the next chapter to present its proprietary posthumanist “non-defi nition”, and justify the postulate regarding the need for pedagogical research in “close range” as well as those addressing the issues of non-educational consequences of pedagogy (“long-range pedagogy”). Th e next two chapters are devoted to these complementary ways of understanding the subject of pedagogical research. In them I indicate the basic categories around which you can build non-anthropocentric pedagogy. Th e last chapter addresses the issue of “what is to be done”. In it, I ask questions about new areas of pedagogical research, and also refl ect on the method.