Teaching militant humility against the aggressions of a neoliberal world

ABSTRACT

This article develops a militant teaching humility regarding the foundational aggression and violence of a neoliberal worldview within late capitalism. Mainly the article shows how such aggressions and violence take shape as schooling the self-interested consumer within a school market. This article also shows how such self-interest understands education in terms of individualism, comparison, and competition, ultimately leading to the destruction of the social fabric of the common good of democracies. The teaching strategy identified highlights the humility and discipline needed to transform the aggression and violence of late capitalism into a non-violent but consistent strategy for democratization. The strategy developed in the article takes inspiration from Judith Butler, Jacques Rancière and Thich Nhat Hanh, and exemplifies what democratization in education implies today. This article concludes with teaching understood as an ethical and political concern in being for the other, in being interested in the freedom of the other.

KEYWORDS:

• Education
• teaching
• neoliberal
• aggression
• militant humility
• non-violence
• democratization

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The point is that it is not necessary to love the student, which is still possible, to teach her or him, but it is necessary to be committed to the freedom of student in order for teaching to be educational (Biesta & Säfström, 2011; Säfström, 2021).

2 To stimulate the economy in this way is often referred to as ‘trickle down’ theory, or to be precise, what economists argues is that ‘existing tax rates are so high that the government could collect more tax revenues if it lowered those tax rates, because the changed incentives would lead to more economic activity, resulting in more tax revenues out of rising incomes, even though the tax rate was lowered’ which in the end will benefit everyone in society (Sowell, 2012, p. 1).

3 Even if this is still under discussion in Sweden, it shows clearly what is at stake when private interests challenge public interests.

4 Ironically it also weakens parents and children as customers by withholding information important to be able to choose wisely.

5 As the historical example of the Swedish case shows, a ‘free choice’ of school, a defining characteristic of the neoliberal school policy at the time was introduced by a social democratic government, which in practice meant that different social groups increasingly congregated in the same schools in line with their social statues. (See further, Englund, 1995.)

6 See further Säfström (2020b), in which an analysis of the paradigm of distribution in schooling is the main theme of the book.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.