To the burrow and back again. A review of Towards an ontology of teaching. Thing-centred pedagogy, affirmation and love for the World.

The super computer Deep thought in The Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy once informed us that the answer to what it is all about is 42. The problem being of course that no one had thought to figure out the actual question. Most, it seems, gave up completely on figuring out what it is all really about.¹ If this is true of the inhabitants of Douglas Adams’ wonderful galaxy, it most certainly is true for educational research where most seem to be eagerly seeking the answer and to get to it (42) effectively – whatever it (42) might be. Vlieghe and Zamojski however, seem not to have given up and they seem in no rush to ‘get there’. In their ambitious and studious book Towards an ontology of teaching they take us on a tour of (philosophers) trying to figure out what teaching is all about, and they are not willing to settle for numbers as answers to the questions asked. Rather, they are looking for an ontological answer to the question of what teaching is. Drawing on Heidegger, Vlieghe and Zamojski state that they will ‘speak about “the teacher” throughout the book as an ontological figure, which is to be distinguished from particular teachers and teachings – the ontic level’ (p. 6). This, fortunately, does not prevent them from drawing on an example of an ‘actual’ teacher in the form of Leonard Bernstein. In the two chapters devoted to Bernstein, Vlieghe and Zamojski really flesh out what it means to speak educationally for education, and this is where the book truly comes alive. Through analysis of various philosophers and the example of Bernstein, they tease out certain gestures that are central to the ontological ‘nature’ of teaching. It takes them a good while to get to the example, which is both a strength and a weakness of the book. The delay in getting to the example (the point) is caused by three different issues, which they try to tackle. One is the question of their proclaimed post-critical stance, another the issue of an immanent account of teaching and education, and the third a question of justification. One suspects that these issues are connected.

Vlieghe and Zamojski begin their book by placing it within the emerging framework of a post-critical pedagogy, and by stating their intention of remaining affirmative instead of critical when formulating a purely educational account of teaching. Their book, they claim, is ‘a mere phenomenological depiction without normative pretences, but one which suspends any critical concern’ (p. 6). This is from my perspective not at all true, and I like the book better for it. The book is to its core a critical work in the sense of bringing out what is of most central concern to present educational discourse and for revealing some of the more problematic aspects of the instrumental and functionalistic understandings of education, which are, abound today. They do this in small passages along the way, while outlining their main argument for an immanent and affirmative account of teaching, one that is based on love of and responsibility for the subject matter. The post-critical stance, which entails moving on from debunking analysis of educational policy and theory and from the worldview of critical pedagogy, calls for affirmative accounts of education and teaching. While not blinding themselves to the critical aspects of educational processes, past or present, post-critical pedagogues aim to rediscover or reimagine teaching and education beyond the disclosure of its oppressive features. A disclosure that according to the post-critical pedagogues obscured the very nature of teaching.

Vlieghe and Zamojski argue that teaching is about taking up a responsibility for the world and its renewal by placing it ‘in common’. By focusing on the thing of education, the subject matter, the thing is revealed as a common object of study to be (re)engaged by students and teachers alike. I wonder however, if the post-critical stance is necessary for a reimagining of teaching in this way. The authors are clearly well versed in both continental and Anglo-American educational theory, and as such aware that much theorizing of education that seeks to affirm its worthwhileness has taken place alongside the critical and functionalistic accounts. I therefore wonder whether the post-critical project, its merits put to the side, is in fact relevant to what is the main project of the book?

As mentioned, I read the main project of the book to be the establishment of an immanent account of teaching. By this, the authors understand an account of teaching as valuable in and of itself, and without need of external or transcendent justification. For this purpose, the authors track a lineage of transcendent philosophers and a lineage of immanent philosophers, siding with the latter lineage. The transcendent philosophers, Vlieghe and Zamojski argue seek out meaning and justification in what lies beyond events themselves, whereas immanent thinkers seek meaning and justification in events themselves. This analysis is then applied to educational theory, where most of what is going on at the moment is of a transcendent lineage. That is, we seek the meaning and justification for educational processes outside of the event of education itself. Higher performance, acquired competences and skills, better test scores, employability, etc. these are what gives meaning and what justify education. Vlieghe and Zamojski instead argue that education is better seen as a gift. ‘It is a gift that is good in and of itself. There is no need to justify this. On the contrary, there is a need to stop justifying this gift’ (p. 76). I agree that it is high time we begin to value education for its own sake, and that it is time to stop looking for the answer and the way to justify it. The irony is that in the first part of the book, Vlieghe and Zamojski are very focused on justifying education as an event with meaning in itself, and in extension of justifying their post-critical project. I wonder if it would not have been possible to put forth the central immanentist argument of the book without so much justification, and without recourse to so many different philosophers, thus allowing them/us to get to the example and the fleshing out of the educational language they are in search of a bit sooner. Perhaps this also has to do with the proclaimed ontological nature of the argument. Vlieghe and Zamojski want to establish a pure image of the teacher and for this they need to remain at the ontological – and philosophical – level. Arendt once referred to Heidegger as a fox who got caught in his own burrow (Arendt, 1994, pp. 361–362), and never came out again. Sometimes it reads as though Vlieghe and Zamojski have got caught in their own ontological burrow, but eventually they come out again and the example of Bernstein help them to do just this. Bernstein also helps to show that teaching is not a pure thing at the ontic level. If anything, it is messy. Creating a pure image of the teacher at the ontological level helps us to reconnect with the essence of teaching, love of the subject matter, and love of teaching, but it is good that the authors in the end come out of the burrow just a little so that we can confront some of the messiness of teaching.

In conclusion, I believe the ontological attempt to paint a pure portrayal of the teacher at times tends towards enclosing the authors in a burrow from where they lose touch with the messy realities of teaching. Thankfully, they do emerge and bring with them many valuable insights and questions about things we tend to be forgetful of in our urge to look for answers. Among these, the idea of love of the world and the subject matter stand out. In addition, the chapter on responsibility really brings weight to the notion of a thing centered pedagogy, by emphasizing that in fact we are not caring for the self of the student, but for the relation the student can establish to the common world, by being permitted to step into the subject matter. With their analysis of Bernstein Vlighe and Zamojski open a perspective from which to look upon some of the gestures a teacher might employ in order to affect the relation between student and subject matter (thing), and many lessons can be drawn from this. In this way, the book is truly educational, both in allowing us to spend time with the authors in their ontological burrow, but also by leading us out again via the example of Bernstein as an unconventional or perhaps as a truly conventional teacher.

Morten Korsgaard [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8458-4810

Notes

1 Even though Deep thought built another super computer in order to figure it out. The super computer was unfortunately destroyed so as to make way for an intergalactic by-pass.