Abstract
AbstractIn previous publications, Gert Biesta has suggested that education should be oriented toward three domains of purpose that he calls qualification, socialization, and subjectification. Many educators, policymakers, and scholars have found this suggestion helpful. Nonetheless, the discussion about the exact nature of each domain and about their relationships to each other has been ongoing, particularly with regard to the domain of subjectification. In this article, Biesta revisits the three domains and tries to provide further clarification with regard to the idea of subjectification. He highlights that subjectification has to do with the existence of the child or student as subject of her or his own life, not as object of educational interventions. Subjectification thus has to do with the question of freedom. Biesta explains that this is not the freedom to do what one wants to do, but the freedom to act in and with the world in a “grown‐up” way.
Highlights
Homer Lane (1875–1925) is one of the little-known figures in the history of twentieth-century education
Neill refers to Lane as “the most influential factor” in his life.[1]
Being a fan of Neill, I became curious about Lane and his “Little Commonwealth,” the residential school based on democratic principles of participation and self-governance which he set up and ran in rural Dorset, England, from 1913 to 1918
Summary
Citation for published version: Biesta, G 2020, 'Risking ourselves in education: Qualification, socialization, and subjectification revisited', Educational Theory, vol 70, no. Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, known as Version of record. RISKING OURSELVES IN EDUCATION: QUALIFICATION, SOCIALIZATION, AND SUBJECTIFICATION REVISITED
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have