PESGB Virtual Branch Pesgbvirtual

Dr David Aldridge, Brunel University London
Professor Robert A. Davis, University of Glasgow
Aristotelian character education emphasises the central value of literary works to the project of moral formation. In particular, there has been renewed enthusiasm for the potential contribution of European feudal cultural practices and values to the tasks of moral education. To date the academic literature of character education has paid insufficient attention to the relation of literary works to literary traditions, and to philosophical accounts of the ways in which literature is understood. In light of this, Davis and Aldridge present two connected parts of a critique that draws on hermeneutics and literary theory.

Aldridge argues that while character educators have focused on the psychological implications of the Aristotelian process of emulation, they have not paid attention to hermeneutical considerations around how an exemplar is understood as such; his paper draws out the implications for moral education of recognising that an exemplar is dialogically constituted in an event of understanding.

Discussing both Iberian and American representations of the medieval past, Davis argues that the embrace of any past moral and literary formalism must be robustly historicised if the full extent of its cultural ancestry, and its highly ambivalent moral resonance for us  today, is to be properly understood and effectively taught.

When Good Art is Bad: educating the critical viewer

Oscar Wilde wrote, ‘there is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.’ Despite this proclamation, Wilde was deeply concerned with the ethical messages imbued in his artworks. Aestheticism is a position that denies the ethical value of an artwork can be taken into consideration when judging the work’s overall aesthetic value. Many artists, Wilde included, consider themselves to be aesthetes. Yet it seems clear that at least sometimes the ethical component of a work of art can impact its overall (aesthetic) value, in positive or negative ways. And some artworks are intended to produce an aesthetic effect and make a moral or political point. Given artworks are powerful vehicles for moral (and other) sentiments and meaning, I argue it is important that viewers are taught to engage critically with art. In this way, educational concerns pose a challenge to the position of aestheticism.

Dr Laura D’Olimpio is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy of Education at the University of Birmingham, UK. Laura co-edits the Journal of Philosophy in Schools and regularly contributes to The Conversation, and Radio National’s Philosopher’s Zone and The Minefield. Her first book, Media and Moral Education: a philosophy of critical engagement (Routledge, 2018) won the 2018 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia’s annual book prize. Her second book, The Necessity of Aesthetic Education is forthcoming with Bloomsbury. Chaired by David Lewin.

How ought we to teach children about complex and diverse religious traditions and cultures in an age of conflict and misrepresentation? What is involved in the selections and simplifications of religious traditions for educational purposes? How are those selections and simplifications justified? Can reductive representations such as the ‘World Religions Paradigm’ really offer children a meaningful account of our diverse religious experiences and traditions? This paper addresses these questions by developing a theory of pedagogical reduction. I contrast the educationally constructive notion of pedagogical reduction to what is often taken to be problematic in understanding religion, namely reductionism. I propose that understanding religion entails the complex pedagogical practices of the give and take of pedagogical reduction.

Dr. David Lewin is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy of Education at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. David is co-founder of ‘Experiments in Educational Theory’ a forum for research in educational philosophy and theory: https://www.exet.org/. His research focuses on the intersections between philosophy of education, philosophy of religion and philosophy of technology. He is author of Technology and the Philosophy of Religion (Cambridge Scholars 2011) co-editor (with Todd Mei) From Ricoeur to Action: the Socio-Political Significance of Ricoeur’s Thinking (Continuum 2012) and (with Alexandre Guilherme and Morgan White) New Perspectives in Philosophy of Education (Bloomsbury 2014) as well as author of numerous journal articles and book chapters. In 2016 he published Educational Philosophy for a Post-secular Age (Routledge). More recent projects include a co-edited book with Karsten Kenklies East Asian Pedagogies: Education As trans-/formation across cultures and borders (Springer 2020), and a co-edited Journal Special Issue with David Aldridge; Love and Desire in Education: A Special Issue of Journal of Philosophy of Education (2019).

Dr Naomi Hodgson
Wednesday 29th April 2020 1:00 - 2:30

In recent years, sources of advice and expertise for parents have proliferated. Books, tv shows, web forums, and classes abound. A more recent development in this so-called ‘parenting culture’ are apps designed for parents. Critical analysis of this digitisation has often focused on the child, pointing to the datafication of childhood, while other analyses are concerned with the potential learning gains that can be achieved through the use of such technologies. Here, however, I will focus on the parent; specifically, I consider the implications of parenting apps for the position of the parent by reasserting the representational – political, pedagogical – dimension of the figure of the parent. While we can see parenting apps as an extension of the instrumentalisation, scientisation, and psychologisation identified in critical analyses of the parenting culture, introducing a pedagogical-philosophical register, drawing on Stanley Cavell and Klaus Mollenhauer, brings out the political aspect of the figure of the parent. An analysis of a selection of apps aimed at the period from pregnancy to three years old shows that, what appears as a politicisation of parents through a sociological lens, can be seen as a depoliticisation of parents through a pedagogical-philosophical lens.
This presentation draws on a recently published article co-authored with Dr Stefan Ramaekers (KU Leuven): Ramaekers, S. and Hodgson, N., (2020) ‘Parenting apps and the depoliticisation of the parent’, Special Issue: Childhood, Parenting Culture, and Adult-Child Relations in Transnational Perspectives, C. Faircloth and R. Rosen (eds), Families, Relationships, and Society 6, no.1: 107-124; https://doi.org/10.1332/204674319X15681326073976

Bio:
Dr Naomi Hodgson is Associate Professor in Education Studies at Liverpool Hope University, UK, where she teaches and researches in philosophy of education. Her research focuses on the relationship between education, governance, and subjectivity. Her publications include Philosophy and Theory in Education: Writing in the Margin, with Professor Amanda Fulford (Routledge, 2016), Citizenship for the Learning Society: Europe, Subjectivity, and Educational Research (Wiley, 2016), Manifesto for a Post-Critical Pedagogy, with Dr Joris Vlieghe and Dr Piotr Zamojski (Punctum Books, 2018), and most recently Philosophical Presentations of Raising Children: The Grammar of Upbringing, with Dr Stefan Ramaekers (Palgrave, 2019). Contact us: pesgbvirtual@gmail.com

Today we hear from Dr Richard Davies @richardtaff from the University of Central Lancashire. Title: ‘When good research is not enough. Supporting doctoral level professional development’. Listen to this if you are interested in the nature of inquiry in education, Dewey, or Educational Doctorates (EdD) and the nature of Doctoral research more generally. Access the paper and accompanying PowerPoint here: https://msuclanac-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/rdavies15_uclan_ac_uk/EnXcKeCYi5lImf2JLYdajHkBl1TgM4NJ3dWLJipZLdt8Bg?e=FTKItD You can contact Richard by email rdavies15@uclan.ac.uk.