Suchergebnisse

"Louis Althusser was one of the foremost Marxist philosophers of the 20th century. His thinking laid the groundwork for critical educational theory, yet it is often misunderstood in critical pedagogy and sociology of education. In this book, David Backer reexamines Althusser's philosophy of education, presents its flawed reception in critical educational research, and draws out what the philosophy has to offer us today. Correcting the record about Althusser's thinking in the traditional narrative of critical educational research becomes an opportunity to revisit fundamental questions for thinking about school in its social context. For students and researchers of education, critical theory, sociology of education, and critical pedagogy, this book will be a resource for rethinking the social foundations of education, both as a field and as a set of theoretical frameworks for educational research."--

My response to Samuelsson's (2016) recent essay offers a different paradigm with which to think about education, deliberative discussion and democracy. I call this paradigm the critique of deliberative discussion. Following Ruitenberg's application of Mouffe's critiques of deliberative democracy to education, the critique of deliberative discussion focuses on what Jameson called the "political unconscious" of deliberative discussions like those presented by Samuelsson. There is literature that critique traditionally moderate-liberal notions of deliberative discussion, which Samuelsson defines his typology: reason, willingness to listen, and consensus. While others, like Ruitenberg, have developed this critique of deliberative-democratic citizenship education, the critique of deliberative discussion takes a left-of-liberal view of each of Samuelsson's requirements for deliberative discussion listed above and describes practical-pedagogical techniques, which teachers and facilitators can use to practice critical discussions. This response's contribution to the debate is therefore not only to critique deliberative discussion but also—following Samuelsson—to offer techniques that translate the critique into classroom practice.

Building on Fearon and Laitin, who concede in-group policing could be exploited for genocidal purposes instead of moderating interethnic hostilities, the authors seek to explain variation in the scale of ethnic conflict, using data from Rwanda and Burundi. Their computational model assumes individuals vary in their propensity to engage in violence, form independent beliefs about others, and react to public messages about current levels of ethnic aggression. In addition, the dominant ethnic group is subject to genocidal norms—defectors who fail to participate in ethnic violence face sanctions. Their results demonstrate that (1) the scale of violence varies considerably across episodes; (2) interethnic conflicts are not structurally deterministic but rather reflect endogenous interactions; (3) interethnic trust influences patterns of conflict—communities exhibiting high degrees of trust generally experience intense violence that subsides rapidly, in contrast to the persistent, moderate violence characteristic of less trusting communities; and (4) stronger genocidal norms exacerbate ethnic violence.