In ‘Levinas: Ethics or Mystification?’ (Miller, 2017), Alistair Miller presents a searing indictment of the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas and a dismissal of claims for its importance for education. He provides a summary account of Levinas's philosophy and, in relation to this, refers briefly to a number of authors who have related Levinas's work to education. This account is at fault, however, in fundamental ways, and this leads to errors in the conclusions that he draws. The present short paper does (...) not attempt to address these problems in the round but rather focuses on a particular aspect of his phrasing in constructing the account, taking this as a significant pointer to the nature of the misinterpretation as a whole. (shrink)

Responsibility is one of the most important attitudes for people in relation to others. Human existence becomes meaningful if it realizes that responsibility for others and one takes it as an invitation to act ethically. Emmanuel Levinas has shared his thoughts on responsibility in his writings and works. Although Levinas’ ethics of responsibility come across as metaphysical, his thinking is radical and touches human’s daily life. The essence of Levinas’ responsibility for the ethical actions of a teacher are: the presence (...) of the student as an existential fact teacher; teachers as saviors for learners; responsibility to the student as the basis of the teacher’s existence; the responsibility of humanizing himself, the responsibility making teachers unique from others; the teacher’s responsibility of concrete and asymmetrical action. Levinas’ concept of responsibility provides inspiration for ethical action for teachers at school. For this reason, teachers need to have an attitude of absolute responsibility towards their student’s lives. (shrink)

Given present criticisms of contemporary education and leadership practices, this article investigates the ways in which the basic concepts of state freedom and bureaucracy stifle ethics and social justice in educational leadership practices through the philosophical framework of Emmanuel Levinas. By investigating Levinas’ ‘an-archy’, the definition of ethics and justice in school leadership can be reframed towards responsibility to otherness rather than individual freedom. The anarchical ethic of pure responsibility to the Other suggests that educational leaders should prioritize specific acts (...) of responsibility over general actions based on the assumptions of traditional state education. Aspects of transactional, transformational, and social justice leadership are critiqued from this perspective. (shrink)

In this paper I analyse the current trends in educational philosophy which utilise Emmanuel Levinas's thought. An ever-growing number of scholars have articulated many different aspects of his thought for educational purposes. I propose that there is a general split between these scholars, those who favour Levinas's philosophical writings and those who favour his confessional writings. I analyse the variegated theories presented by both of these trends and offer a critique largely based on the need for the incorporation of Levinas's (...) complete writings in order to better understand what may be called his ‘educational thought’. Lastly, in order to demonstrate this approach, I offer a reading of his seminal lecture ‘The Temptation of Temptation’ with a focus on the pedagogical features of the Sinaitic revelation, while also demonstrating the proximity between his thought and different aspects of Jewish mysticism. (shrink)

The current heated debate on the deteriorating status of the university raises a range of pertinent questions, including: What role can the humanities play in culture today in the face of the crisis of higher education? To answer this question, the authors begin by problematizing the relationship between culture, the humanities, and education. In the second part of the paper, they examine the changing role of the humanities in conjunction with the understandings of culture, and outline three salient ways in (...) which culture is conceived of today. Subsequently, they focus on the loss of the dominant status that culture suffered when everyday life was discovered in modernity. In the third part, they argue that everyday life, or rather social representations of everyday life and its practices, are currently becoming the chief criterion for assessing culture, the humanities, and education. However, everyday life remains complex both in theoretical conceptualizations and in research observations. For example, everyday life harbors a range of risks and anxieties which are veiled by its own obviousness and reinforced by socialization. The authors conclude that, given this, everyday life in democratic societies calls for the work of understanding, support, affirmation, and criticism, in which the humanities can retain their superior status. In the fourth part, the authors discuss non-consensual democracy, critical community, and the pedagogy of asylum as the forms of organization and action that promote an auspicious interconnection of culture, the humanities, and education. (shrink)

In this article, I seek to reclaim a place for teaching in face of the contemporary critique of so-called traditional teaching. While I agree with this critique to the extent to which it is levelled at an authoritarian conception of teaching as control, a conception in which the student can only exist as an object of the interventions of the teacher and never as a subject in its own right, I argue that the popular alternative to traditional teaching, that is (...) to make the teacher a facilitator of learning, is insufficient. The reason for this has to do with the fact that learning, understood as a process of interpretation and comprehension, ultimately also does not allow the student to exist as a subject. I provide support for this point through a reading of two articles by Emmanuel Levinas in which he puts forward the case that our subjectness is not generated through our own acts of signification, but is rather constituted from the outside, that is, through the address of the other. It is in this event, where a different conception of teaching emerges—one that, unlike authoritarian teaching and unlike self-generated adaptive learning, is precisely aimed at making the subjectness of the student possible. (shrink)