The invisible subject in educational science

Abstract

The crisis of education frequently is framed in terms of methods, where quantitative research is accused of making the subject invisible through quantification, whereas qualitative research is credited for the emphasis on subjectivity and the discursive construction of reality. Such formulations fail to take into account a long-standing critique that interpretive (constructivist) research, too, makes invisible the real, living subject who is coping with an inherently open life, placing in its stead a ratiocinating individual. In this article, an argument is made for a concrete educational science concerned with the person who is not only (agential) subject but also subject and subjected to the condition it contributes to producing. This subject never is in complete control over its condition, cannot ever know precisely what is currently happening, and at best witnesses rather than grasps or constructs what is going on. This viewpoint requires a rethinking of the subject in/of educational science. Such a project of rethinking the subject involves shifting the minimum units of analysis: from (inter-) action to transaction, from an experience [Erfahrung] to inchoate lived-experiencing [perezhivanie, Erleben], from entities and processes to dramatic events.

Keywords:

• an experience
• lived-experiencing [pereživanie, Erleben]
• drama
• social relations
• mimesis

Notes on contributor

Wolff-Michael Roth is Lansdowne Professor of Applied Cognitive Science in the Faculty of Education of the University of Victoria. He researches knowing and learning along the entire lifespan in formal educational, workplace and leisure settings.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. The transliteration perezhivanie is predominantly found in the fields of education and psychology whereas pereživanie is the accepted scholarly transcription from Russian.

2. With some exceptions, such as ethnomethodology, phenomenology, and critical sociology.

3. English translations use the adjective social, whereas the Russian and German texts employ the adjective societal (obščestvennyj; gesellschaftlich).

4. The quotation marks have been left out in all available English translations.