Teaching as a way of bonding: a contribution to the relational theory of teaching

Abstract

The general discourse on education stresses either the teacher’s or the student’s position. This article aims to contribute to a relational theory of teaching by discussing three significant concepts of teaching from the standpoint of Martin Buber’s relational philosophy. Feldman suggests that teaching implies being human in a particular way and in a particular context; Kelchtermans shows that a teacher’s ‘personal interpretative framework’ plays a crucial role in teaching and is constantly modified through interactions; Biesta defines the essence of teaching in terms of the relation between the teacher’s address and the student’s personal response. Although they all contribute to the relational theory of teaching, they also seem to neglect a vital dimension found in Buber’s philosophy – the exceptional moment when a teacher and a student turn to each other as ‘this particular other person’. As a supplement to the other concepts, this article outlines the concept of ‘teaching as a way of bonding’ and makes three suggestions: (1) bonding is a prerequisite for teaching; (2) there are qualitative differences between ‘social bonding’ and ‘relational bonding’; and (3) the teaching is ultimately best understandable in terms of ‘relational bonding’.

Keywords:

• teaching
• relational theory
• Martin Buber
• relational bond

Introduction

Schematically, teaching is a process involving two or more individuals where one, with the use of some content, intends to influence the other(s) in certain ways (cf. Biesta & Stengel, 2016; Fenstermacher, 1986). A general trend in the discourse on education is that the concepts of ‘teaching’ and ‘education’ have been toned down, while the concept of ‘learning’ has been highlighted (Biesta, 2009, 2017). This trend includes a new notion of the teacher ‘as a facilitator of learning rather than as someone who has something to bring to the educational situation and who has something to give to students…’ (Biesta, 2017, p. ix). An important background to this ‘learnification’ is the critique of traditional teaching as limiting students’ freedom and transforming them into objects. On the opposite side stands a conservative discourse trying to re-establish teachers’ power and control.

One could assume that a relational perspective would be the obvious choice when studying teaching, since it is not possible to teach or be taught in solitude. As teachers, we influence our students and are influenced by them, whether or not we want it: ‘We affect the lives of students not just in what we teach them by way of subject matter but in how we relate to them as persons’ (Noddings, 2003, p. 249). However, relational perspectives are hardly the most common; instead, the general discourse on teaching stresses the teacher’s position as one who instructs, lectures, leads, etc. Orion White (2011) claims that the predominant, official definition describes teaching as ‘a procedure for the inculcation of knowledge about the external world’ (p. 66). In dictionaries, ‘teaching’ is defined as ‘the occupation, profession, or work of a teacher (Lexico.com, 2019) and ‘[to] teach’ as ‘to give someone knowledge or to train someone; to instruct’ (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Linguistically, teachers and students are separated by expressions such as ‘teachers teach’ and ‘students learn’ as in this example of policy documents: ‘[teaching includes] such goal-directed processes that, under guidance from teachers or preschool teachers aim at development and learning through the acquisition and development of knowledge and values’ (Education Act, 2010:800, 1 chap. 3 §).

This brief background, which will be elaborated later, introduces a theoretical problem: the conventional discourse on teaching includes two partners, the teacher and the student(s), but these two entities tend to be more or less separated. Thus, there is a need for perspectives that focus on the teacher–student relationship. Empirical research show that this relationship is essential for students’ social development, academic achievements etc. These results are so compelling that Hughes’ (2012) declares that: “… we know enough to apply the knowledge gained to the task of increasing teachers’ abilities to provide positive social and emotional learning environments…” (p. 319). However, to study the teacher-student relationship does not necessarily mean to adopt a relational perspective. In parallel with empirical research, there are theoretical studies that regard the development of relational perspectives as their main task. Within this field – often referred to as ‘relational pedagogy’ (Bingham & Sidorkin, 2003; Aspelin & Persson, 2011; Hinsdale, 2016) – teaching is an important topic (Biesta & Stengel, 2016).¹ Relational pedagogy is based on the notion that relationship is the foundation of education. von Wright (2006) has, for instance, positioned a ‘relational perspective’ on teaching against a prevailing ‘punctual perspective’. More generally, the idea of man as a ‘relational being’, has been contrasted with the dominant view of man as a ‘bounded being’ (Gergen, 2009). Martin Buber’s philosophy is commonly regarded as an important source within relational theory. Sidorkin (2000) has even proposed that relational ontology has its roots in Buber’s fundamental notion that ‘all real living is meeting’. In the present article, Buber’s philosophy underpins an alternative to the conventional notion, where neither teachers’ nor students’ positions are overstated.

The article has two more specific purposes. The first is to develop the critique of the conventional notion by examining three significant relational concepts: Allan Feldman’s (1997), Geert Kelchtermans’ (2009), and Gert Biesta’s (2017). The second purpose is to adopt Buber’s theory to discuss and supplement the other relational concepts. The following questions are raised for each of the three concepts: How does the concept contribute to the relational critique? and How could it be supplemented by Buber’s theory? Following Buber, this article outlines the concept of ‘teaching as a way of bonding’ and argues that the ultimate meaning of teaching is ‘relational bonding’.

Theoretical standpoint: Buber’s philosophy

The basics of Buber’s relational ontology are found in his magnum opus I and Thou (2000/1923) and his statement that: ‘To man the world is twofold, in accordance with his twofold attitude.’ (p. 19). Buber proposes that there are two dimensions in the human world and in man’s attitude to the world: ‘I–it’ and ‘I–Thou’. There is no separate self, no autonomous, solitary existence, only the self in connection with the world. Either you are part of an ‘I–it’-connection, and ‘travels over the surface of things and experiences them’, or you take stand in an ‘I–Thou’ relationship with your whole being (pp. 20–21). ‘It’ exists within you, as part of your subjective reality, while ‘Thou’ is a relationship between you and another existence. ‘It’ is something that I observe, manage, use. ‘Thou’ is a reality that I meet, am present to, participate with. If I face another human being as ‘It’, I perceive her only in parts; she becomes an object among objects, a point in space and time. When she is ‘Thou’ for me, she is my partner in a mutual, living relationship. In relation to ‘It’, I act as an individual, differentiated from other individuals; in relation to ‘Thou’, I am a person together with other persons. Individuals are connected to the ‘It’ world; persons enter into relation with the ‘Thou’ world.

Hence, Buber states that the two realms constitute the basic condition of man. ‘I–Thou’ is a primary and immediate relationship, ‘I–It’ a secondary and mediated connection. The I–It connection creates order in our social and mental lives, providing the categories we need to function and understand our experiences in the world. The subject ‘I’ is an agent in connection with the object ‘It’. The ‘I–Thou’ relationship is risky and unpredictable, but in this event ‘I’ is realised as human being: ‘I become through my relation to the Thou; as I become I, I say Thou.’ ‘I–Thou’ implies that I enter into a relationship as subject: ‘Concentration and fusion into the whole being can never take place through my agency, nor… without me…’, but it also implies that the partner is active, that ‘the Thou meets me.’ (Buber, 2000/1923, p. 26). Buber’s main theme is that human beings are realised through genuine relationships.

The following quote captures the essence of Buber’s concept of education:

Education worthy of the name is essentially education of character. For the genuine educator does not merely consider individual functions of his pupil, as one intending to teach him only to know or be capable of certain definite things; but his concern is always the person as a whole, both in the actuality in which he lives before you now and in his possibilities, what he can become. (Buber, 2002/1947, p. 123).

Thus, education is the development not only of specific capacities, but also, and primarily, the development of character through personal encounters. That is, genuine teaching requires the teacher’s immediate contact with the student. To adequately guide the student, the teacher needs to relate to this particular other person. In this process the teacher has a dual responsibility to confirm both who the student is and can become.

In 1925, Martin Buber gave the keynote lecture at the Third International Educational Conference in Germany. His address aroused strong reactions, which is easy to comprehend, just from reading its first two sentences:

‘The development of the creative powers in the child’ is the subject of this conference. As I come before you to introduce it, I must not conceal from you for a single moment the fact that of the nine words in which it is expressed only the last three raise no question for me. (Buber, 2002/1947, p. 98).

Buber continued to speak of two fundamental, existential dispositions: ‘the originative instinct’, which is directed towards creating and shaping things, and ‘the instinct for communion’, which is directed towards participation and reciprocity, meeting the world as if it were a present person (p. 104). Buber questions the emerging progressive pedagogy for not adequately recognising the value of communion: ‘An education based only on the training of the instinct of origination would prepare a new human solitariness which would be the most painful of all.’ (p. 104). Certainly, students’ quest for creativity, autonomy, freedom, etc. is a prerequisite to genuine pedagogy, but it is not decisive in itself. Instead, the most crucial moment is what follows next, when the ‘the originative instinct’ has been released.

Buber’s (2002/1947) concept of teaching is positioned against an ‘old’ and a ‘new’ concept. Metaphorically speaking, traditional teachers understood that their task was to use a funnel to pour knowledge into the students’ brains. Conversely, modern teachers understand their task as using a pump to bring individual children’s latent creative forces to the surface (p. 105). Buber states that the former idea, ‘characterised by the habit of authority’ (p. 105), does not acknowledge that the student’s personal freedom is a prerequisite for development, while modern educational theory, ‘characterised by tendencies to freedom’ defines freedom as the opposite of constraint, and thereby misunderstands the teacher’s authority, ‘[t]his almost imperceptible, most delicate approach, the raising of a finger, perhaps, or a questioning glance…’ (p. 105). Freedom is not a goal in itself; its function is to provide space for communion. ‘To become free of a bond is destiny; one carries that like a cross, not like a cockade.’ (p. 109).

Buber’s notion of teaching is refined by the concept of ‘inclusion’, a relationship between two people who together experience an event in which one or both are active and share elements from the other (Buber, 2002/1947). Buber describes inclusion as: ‘…the elemental experience with which the real process of education begins and on which it is based’ (p. 114). Through inclusion, the teacher becomes directly involved in the student’s reality, while remaining active as a pedagogical subject. A genuine pedagogical relationship is characterised by mutuality, but ‘inclusion’ cannot be complete: the teacher can understand what it is to be taught, but the student cannot fully understand what it is to teach. ‘The educator stands at both ends at the common situation, the pupil only at one end’ (p. 119). Thus, the student and the teacher approach teaching in two different ways: teachers seek to guide the student; students seek to find their own path.

Buber’s pedagogy represents a third alternative for teaching. In traditional school, the essence of teaching was to transfer knowledge from the outside, while in modern school the core is to create conditions for learning from the inside. From Buber’s perspective, teaching essentially means that the teacher, on the basis of inclusion, enables the student to stand in relationship with the world, that is, to be present ‘in between’. If the traditional teacher’s guiding principle is control, and the progressive teacher’s is freedom, that of the relational teacher is communion.

Concept 1: teaching as a way of being

Feldman (1997) starts by discussing two perspectives that he says dominate the discourse on teaching. First: ‘the teacher knowledge perspective’, which focuses on what teachers need to know to be able to teach. From this perspective, teachers are individuals who have a store of knowledge and can master different methods and strategies to promote students’ learning. Second: ‘the teacher reasoning perspective’, which focuses on how teachers reflect upon and reason about their teaching. From this perspective, teachers are individuals who are capable of identifying, making decisions about, and achieving goals. According to Feldman, these perspectives focus too much on the teacher’s position: they adopt a dualistic conception of relationship or, in other words, construct a subject–object relationship between the teacher and the environment. Feldman discusses yet another perspective, which focuses on how teachers interact in different social situations, guided by socially constructed notions. From this perspective, teachers are interlocutors who influence, and are influenced by, the social setting. Feldman argues that this ‘socio-cultural perspective’ takes an important step away from the individualistic notion, but does not quite succeed in bridging the dualism.

Feldman does not refute the other perspectives, saying they all contribute important knowledge about teaching; however, he builds on them to develop a fourth perspective. Inspired by Barbara Stengel, he terms this perspective ‘teaching as a way of being’. To teach is to be part of a certain social matrix and milieu, to practice an abstract role, etc.; however, it also means to be a concrete person:

It begins with the recognition that teachers are people in the role of teacher, who act as teachers, and teach in educational situations. It is in their being as teachers that their understandings arise through meaning-making in those situations, and why they act as they do (Feldman, 1997, p. 768).

Feldman states that the three perspectives he discusses perceive the teacher as someone who ‘does teaching’ rather than someone who ‘is a teacher’. In contrast, the concept of ‘teaching as a way of being’ emphasises the existential dimension of the activity. Feldman argues that concepts of teaching need to acknowledge the typical life of a teacher. Being a teacher is one way of being human. Hence, teachers’ knowledge, reflections, and interactions remain in focus, but are joined by the teachers’ personal experiences of teaching and of what it means to teach – teachers’ understandings of themselves and others.

With the concept of ‘teaching as a way of being’, Feldman emphasises the personal aspect of teaching; teaching is always an existential endeavour that involves a specific teacher-existence. His concept complements two conventional perspectives, in which emphasis is put on teachers’ knowledge and reflections. He also aims to bridge the dualism between subject and object that dominates common notions by showing that teaching implies being human in a particular social context. However, his existential perspective does not offer a particularly nuanced picture of the reality of ‘between’. From Buber we learn that while teaching, the teacher is connected to the students in practically every moment. Moreover, teaching – and being a teacher – takes place in different relational dimensions; being a teacher means radically different things in the I–it dimension than in the I–Thou dimension. Hence, Feldman’s idea of ‘teaching as a way of being’ could be amended to ‘teaching as a way of being in (two kinds of) relationship’.

Concept 2: teaching as professional self-understanding²

Initially, Kelchtermans (2009) refers to Tom Russell’s 1997 statement, ‘How I teach is the message’. This laconic sentence means that a teacher’s style – how one teaches – is as least important as the content – what one teaches. Kelchtermans proposes that ‘Who I am in how I teach is the message’ [italics added].

Based on many years of empirical research, Kelchtermans argues that experienced teachers teach from a ‘personal interpretative framework’, a unique set of cognitions that individual teachers use to create meaning in their work. The framework is developed through practice and subjective experience, and it guides the teacher’s responses to questions such as ‘how should I act?’ and ‘why should I act this way?’ Furthermore, the framework is constantly transformed in interaction between the teachers and their milieus. Not least, the teacher’s framework is largely influenced by his/her students’ attitudes.

Kelchtermans refines his analysis and argues that the personal interpretive framework includes two interwoven aspects. First, the teacher’s ‘professional self-understanding’, or self-conception as a teacher, includes not only the teacher’s self-understanding in a given moment, but also how this is related to student responses. Second, the teacher’s ‘subjective educational theory’, or personal base of knowledge and values, supports the teacher during teaching (and other duties).

Kelchtermans questions the dominant notion of teaching as an intentional and purposeful activity. He points out a paradox: the teacher must work carefully to achieve certain goals, but this practice inevitably leads to unexpected results such as the students’ learning things other than those intended. Teaching is thus a ‘vulnerable’ activity, and research that mainly focuses on finding ‘the appropriate means to achieve the desired ends’ (p. 267) is clearly insufficient.

Like Feldman (1997), Kelchtermans (2009) challenges the conventional notion of teaching by emphasising the teacher as a person. He also, more explicitly than his predecessor, points out the interactive nature of teaching. Moreover, by the concept of ‘personal interpretative framework’ and its sub-concepts, Kelchtermans shows that teachers’ self-understandings play a vital role in and for teaching; teachers usually interpret, ‘read’, and evaluate situations before they decide how to act. He also shows that the ‘personal interpretative framework’ is constantly modified in interactions between teachers as individuals and their relational surroundings. Not least, with his discussion of ‘vulnerability’, Kelchtermans contributes to the idea of teaching as an unpredictable process of interaction. In contrast to the dominant notion, Kelchtermans argues that teachers cannot have full control over the circumstances surrounding their actions, and they cannot be sure that their students’ achievements are a result of their teaching. Several times in his article, Kelchtermans says that teaching is, in a fundamental way, ‘an interpersonal and relational endeavour’ (2009, p. 258). Even so, his focus is mainly on teachers’ inner dialogue, on ‘I–it’ connections rather than ‘I–Thou’ relationships, and he does not discuss the relationship between the ‘personal interpretative framework’ and the ongoing, shared process of meaning-making between teacher and student. Tom Russell suggested that ‘how I teach is the message’, and Kelchtermans responded that ‘who I am in how I teach is the message’. These two statements turn the spotlight on the teachers’ internal relationships with themselves. As a supplement, from Buber’s perspective, we could say that the teacher–student relationship is the main message; that is, what really matters in teaching takes place in ‘the sphere between’.

Concept 3: teaching as a disturbing address

Biesta (2017) builds on Emanuel Levinas’ philosophy and speaks of teaching as an address that enables the student to explore what it means to exist as subject in and with the world. Levinas understands subjectivity in terms of personal responsibility, as a response to an address experienced as directed exclusively to the self. I am challenged by the address, disturbed in my being with myself. Faced with this challenge, I can resist, pull away, or enter into a dialogue with the one who addresses me. Following Levinas, Biesta refers to the latter response as ‘non-egological’ and compares it with an ‘egological’ response. It is only in a non-egological relationship that I exist as subject, since it is not possible to be the subject in relation only to the ego. The purpose of teaching is thus to stimulate the student’s interest in participating, in living outside the domain of ego. This process is often described in terms of promoting or facilitating learning. However, Biesta describes the main path in terms of interrupting students’ being solely with themselves. Put differently, teaching is essentially an address to a particular person that puts that person’s subjectivity at stake. In this concept, disturbance is the foremost principle of teaching.

Biesta outlines a ‘non-egological approach to teaching’ (2017, p. 57) in which the student’s responsibility and freedom play crucial parts. Like Feldman and Kelchtermans, he proposes that teaching is an existential endeavour. Through his focus on the relationship between the teacher’s address and the student’s response, he advances the relational basis of this endeavour; that is, he explains the co-existential nature of teaching. He also contributes to a distinct notion of the student’s attitude and stance in the educational relationship. Biesta emphasises the concept of freedom, writing that the problem in contemporary educational debate is that ‘those who have an interest in teaching are not really interested in the freedom of the student, and those who are interested in the students’ freedom see teaching as an impediment to it’ (p. 97). Ultimately, he sees the purpose of education as creating a space ‘where students encounter their freedom’ (p. 98).

Biesta (2017) thus develops a concept beyond those oriented to control or to learning. He defines the essence of teaching in terms of connections between the teacher’s address and the student’s personal response. In Biesta’s work, the notion of teaching as a relational process becomes clearer than in the other two concepts. He shows that teaching means disturbing students’ internal relationships with themselves. In many ways, Biesta’s perspective is in line with Buber’s.³ For instance, both philosophers take a radical relational position by revealing that all human thinking, acting, feeling, etc. occurs between the person and the world. Their similarities can also be seen in the idea of a third path between the traditional and modern educational discourses. However, in Biesta’s concept, the student’s subjectivity stands out as the ultimate value of education, while, from Buber’s perspective, genuine teaching is realised through communion. The latter statement will be developed in the following concluding section.

Conclusion: teaching as a way of bonding

The article’s first purpose was to develop the critique of the conventional definition of teaching – as ‘a procedure for the inculcation of knowledge about the external world’ (White, 2011, p. 66), etc. – by examining three relational concepts. This part of the study clarifies that teaching, from a relational standpoint, is an interactive, mutual, situated process, which cannot be fully understood without acknowledging both teachers’ and students’ positions. For example, teaching is not understandable by focusing only on teachers’ reflections and (transfer of) knowledge, since the teacher’s framework is always modified in social situations. The study also shows that teaching is not a solely professional endeavour, but always a matter of personal and interpersonal relationships. Moreover, the idea of teaching as a purely intentional and instrumental activity – where teachers focus on means to achieve goals – is challenged; teaching primarily takes place between teachers and students, and thus it is essentially unpredictable. So, the relational concept is an alternative both to a teacher-focused concept, which underemphasises the students’ subjectivity, and to a student-focused concept, which underemphasises the teachers’ position.

The article’s second purpose was to adopt Buber’s theory to supplement the other relational concepts. This part of the study, which is given more space below, implies that the three concepts neglect a vital dimension, the interhuman dimension that Buber emphasises.

Teaching takes place in various situations: in classes (large or small) or with individual students, and in person or by distance. In principle, the two dimensions that Buber describes in terms of ‘I-it’ and ‘I-Thou’ can be reached anytime and anywhere. Inevitably, teaching has an instrumental function: one party has the task of influencing another party in order to achieve certain goals, by using certain means and certain content. This function, and the relational structure that is attached to it, implies an ‘I–It’ attitude. Thus, from the ‘I–It’ perspective, teaching is a process where teachers and students interact and manage reality through symbolic representations.

However, if we want to understand what genuine teaching means, we need to adopt an ‘I–Thou’ perspective. This makes us aware of events where teachers and students become included in a shared reality. What is essential in a real lesson, Buber says,

…does not take place in each of the participants or in a neutral world which includes the two and all other things; but it takes place between them in the most precise sense, as it were in a dimension which is accessible only to them both (2002/1947, pp. 241–242).

A teacher who meets the student as ‘Thou’ is not occupied by the student’s abilities, but is concerned by the person as a whole. Through ‘inclusion’, the teacher becomes directly involved in the student’s encounter with the world, and the gap between the two is bridged. Such encounters with ‘someone other than who I am’ are at the heart of the pedagogical relationship, and thus of genuine teaching. It is in the moment that the teacher and the student meet each other from their different positions as ‘Thou’ that the teacher can influence the student in depth. This article contributes to the relational theory of teaching by underscoring these exceptional moments.

Teaching between ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ can take place in any teaching situation, but requires that teacher and student turn to each other as ‘this particular other’. In practice, teaching could hardly be more than a reciprocation between the perspectives of ‘I–It’ and ‘I–Thou’. Teachers attend purposefully to the ‘I–It’ dimension, using certain content, methods, goals, etc. In contrast, they enter the ‘I–Thou’ dimension unintentionally, since it has no goal or value beyond itself. Thus, two radically different approaches to relationships become visible: one in which teachers work to develop educational relationships, and another in which they take their stand in the relationship, in a common sphere of reality.

Essentially, teaching means bonding; without a bond between teacher and student, there can be no teaching. To speak of ‘teaching as a way of bonding’ is to assume that teachers and students are inevitably connected to each other in ongoing processes of experience and behaviour. From this perspective, teaching does not only – or primarily – take place within or outside the teacher and the student, but between them. Moreover, the concept of ‘between’ may be understood in two fundamentally different ways. From the teacher’s perspective, there are two dimensions of bonding. ‘Social bonding’ means that the teacher, to some extent, communicates verbally and nonverbally with students, takes their roles, co-acts, etc. Social bonding is a permanent ingredient in every teaching situation – we can hardly imagine a lesson in which teachers and students do not connect at all. Similarly, ‘relational bonding’ means that the teacher is directly involved with the student as this particular person. Relational bonding is an extraordinary event; it happens only temporarily and briefly, and you can never predict it.

Consequently, the concept of ‘teaching as a way of bonding’ contains three main elements. First, bonding is a prerequisite for teaching, it implies some kind of relationship-building. This point is made, in different ways, by the three relational concepts discussed above. However, supported by Buber, the article contributes with a theoretical distinction, which leads to the second element: there are qualitative differences between two kinds of bonding, and thus between two kinds of teaching, here termed ‘social bonding’ and ‘relational bonding’. Third, the ultimate meaning of teaching is understandable in terms of relational bonding. In all kinds of teaching social bonds are built and relational bonds can be built. This definition allows us to see that teaching is essentially the instant when relational bonding occurs, when the student encounters the world as ‘Thou’. Biesta (2017) comes close to this idea, for example, when he speaks of teaching as the student’s personal response to the teacher’s address. Biesta’s (e.g. 2009) concept of ‘subjectification’ has indeed made an important contribution to how we understand the purpose of teaching. However, in Biesta’s model, the ultimate purpose is to create a space where students encounter their own freedom. Following Buber, teaching also, and primarily, has an immanent meaning: as forum for genuine, interhuman encounters. Hence, the student’s freedom is not the true core of the concept of teaching. That core, rather, is the enlightened moment when the student has broken through a protective personal shield to meet the world as another living being. Thus, the concept ‘teaching as a way of bonding’ suggests that relation (communion), not freedom (autonomy), is the fundamental, although immanent meaning of the activity. Teaching in terms of relational bonding is an end in itself.

These three elements suggest that future conceptual discussions adopt relational perspectives to explore the possibilities of, and obstacles to, teaching as a way of bonding, especially relational bonding, for these precious moments in which teaching has its deepest influence on the life of students.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

The research presented has been funded by Kristianstad University, Sweden.

Notes on contributors

Jonas Aspelin

Jonas Aspelin is Professor of Education at Kristianstad University, Sweden. His research mainly concerns relational perspectives on teaching, and he has written books as Klassrummets mikrovärld [The Microworld of the Classroom], 1999; Sociala relationer och pedagogiskt ansvar [Social Relationships and Educational Responsibility], 2010, and Lärares relationskompetens [Teachers’ Relational Competence], 2018.

Notes

1 Biesta and Stengel (2016) introduce and discuss six iconic conceptions of teaching and teachers: Plato’s, Rousseau’s, Dewey’s, Freire’s, Ranciere’s, and Noddings’, and describe them all as – explicitly or implicitly – relational.

2 This section is based on a section in Aspelin, 2018.

3 There are also many similarities in Buber’s and Levinas’ philosophies, see e.g., Friedman (2002).