Self-critical appropriation: An assessment of Bauman’s view of education in liquid modernity

Abstract

Zygmunt Bauman has devoted considerable amount of attention to the discussion of the educational challenges in liquid modernity. While a good deal of professional attention has been given to Bauman’s concept in various fields and disciplines, his views on education have received relatively little response by educational theorists and practitioners. The aim of this article is to assess Bauman’s prognosis and diagnosis for education in liquid modernity and argue that even if one generally accepts Bauman’s portrayal of current society, his educational view must presuppose ‘solid’ elements if it is to remain consistent. The article offers some critical reflections with regard to these themes by appealing in particular to the notion of self-critical appropriation, as it is employed in the work of Jurgen Habermas. It is with this notion that it is possible to overcome inconsistencies in Bauman’s educational views and form the basis for understanding how to account for the development of authentic personhood in the social climate of liquid modernity.

Keywords:

• Liquid modernity
• appropriation
• Bauman
• liquid education

Notes

1. It is relevant here to stress the distinction that Biesta (2004) draws, following Bauman’s division between ethics and morality, between accountability and responsibility. While the former is tied to ethics (a codified—institutionalized—rule-following morality) the latter is tied, following Levinas, to the proximity of a personal and unique relationship to an Other. Biesta claims that the culture of accountability permeating in today’s educational systems has problematized individuals’ ability to take responsibility. He bases this claim, in part, on Bauman’s understanding of the latter’s postmodern understanding of responsibility. While it could be argued that Bauman’s view of responsibility has changed since with the introduction of the notion of liquid modernity (Biesta bases his discussion on Bauman’s Postmodern Ethics). But regardless, Biesta’s distinction indeed presents important insights which deserve a separate discussion. Suffice to say that even if one accepts Biesta’s view of responsibility, it is clear that in the educational discourse inspired by Bauman’s thought, responsibility is given a different meaning than Biesta’s, namely, personal freedom and ownership with regards the consequences of one’s own decisions and actions.

2. A more or less similar critical argument is made by Adorno in his Jargon of Authenticity with respect to how the appeal to radical personal inwardness plays into the hands of capitalist domination.

3. This echoes Charles Taylor’s (1991) bi-dimensional view of authenticity which he adumbrates in his Ethics of Authenticity, consisting of both (a) creative (deconstructive) processes of self-expression and at the same time (b) self-definition in dialog through openness to horizons of significance. Both dimensions are necessary in order to fully account for authentic existence. Whereas postmodernists neglect (b), ardent modernists neglect the first.