Assignment Seminar discussion 2
La pedagogía como saber
Objective: bring students closer to the understandings of pedagogy as proposed by authors like Foucault, Nietzsche and Goethe.
Copyright Google Images.
Dear classmates, this is the assignment designed for this presentation:
1) Read the text “Foucault, la pedagogía y la educación” Answer the following questions in a 250 word text:
A) What are your thoughts on the definition of pedagogy according to Foucault: “It is the transmission of a truth whose function is to provide any subject with attitudes, capacities, and knowledge that it did not previously possess and that it should possess at the end of the pedagogical relationship”?
B) Based on your own experience and according to what you read in the text “Foucault, la pedagogía y la educación” why do you think that pedagogy should be humanized?
2) Read the next question and reflect on it to discuss it in class:
A) What’s the meaning of pedagogy for you? How did this definition change after reading the text?
EVALUATION CRITERIA
• Ability to discuss the concepts of reading (3.0 points)
• Punctuality in the post (1.0 points) (You can make your posts until 3:00 pm on Monday)
• Reaction to two comments from classmates (1.0 point)
Thank you for your participation!
A) What are your thoughts on the definition of pedagogy according to Foucault: “It is the transmission of a truth whose function is to provide any subject with attitudes, capacities, and knowledge that it did not previously possess and that it should possess at the end of the pedagogical relationship”?
ReplyDelete- According to what is later exposed in the text, this proposition is very attached to the definition of "saber pedagógico" that Foucault has. I consider it to be important in order to create a more liberated environment for both pedagogy and education, because it sets a “north” on what is the use of the pedagogical knowledge in the first place. As we saw in the text, all areas of education should be focused on the discovery and development of one's self, independently of how we want to define the concept of individuality. Thus, I strongly agree with the concept given by Foucault, because pedagogy allows us to further develop people’s intellectuality as we allow them to use the attitudes, capacities, and knowledge transmitted to them in particular ways specifically adapted to their individualities and freedoms.
B) Based on your own experience and according to what you read in the text “Foucault, la pedagogía y la educación” why do you think that pedagogy should be humanized?
- Pedagogy and education are ever-changing matters and as we start to understand how humans learn and why we teach; It is important to recognize that none of it matters if it is not fixed on allowing humans to be who they are in relation to their individuality, their environment, and nature.
That is why the humanization of pedagogy should be a focal point in the future development and understanding of pedagogical knowledge. Adding to that, when we recognize the importance of the human aspect in education, we are able to overthrow the false concepts of life and progress (Nietzsche), as we leave to the side the conceptions of being imposed by our societies, ideologies and exterior powers, we as humans can be able to construct new paths following our real nature which is unique and different from everybody else’s.
- Camilo Muñoz
Regarding the first question, I consider that this definition by Foucault is related to the definition of "saber pedagógico". I totally agree with what you said about how you show this really important to create a liberal enviroment and how you mention that this sets as a"north" so people can develop and adapt as they wish to build their own individualities.
DeleteA) What are your thoughts on the definition of pedagogy according to Foucault: “It is the transmission of a truth whose function is to provide any subject with attitudes, capacities, and knowledge that it did not previously possess and that it should possess at the end of the pedagogical relationship”?
ReplyDeleteI think that this definition is the one that comes closest to what happens in education. Students at school are supposed to develop capacities, attitudes and knowledge depending on what subjects they are attending. Foucault criticizes this pedagogy because it produces the subject, which is subject to the knowledge and this one is a power instrument. I think that this criticism in part makes sense but not completely. It makes sense in terms of how knowledge can be used for authoritarians purposes or, how we have talked in last classes, in a banking education where the knowledge is poured into the students’ brains. However, the solution that Foucault provides is the elimination of the subject, the desubjectification, to stop being just for not being, to get free from the moral, and being the one who creates himself the own ethic with his own norms. I think that if pedagogy and schools took what Foucault put forward, they would self-destruct, which in itself is what he wants.
B) Based on your own experience and according to what you read in the text “Foucault, la pedagogía y la educación” why do you think that pedagogy should be humanized?
I think that pedagogy should be humanized because education is for human beings, not for robots, not for machines, not for anything else but for humans. If we forget this essential point we are going to repeat the same history: teachers that treat their students as things, and students that hate school. On the other hand, it is necessary to understand that humanized pedagogy has to recognize the importance of each human being, the histories and the experiences that are lived, the intentions and motivations that moves decisions; in other words, pedagogy has to take into account the integrality of the human being.
Regarding the second question, I strongly agree with what you said about how pedagogy should be humanized and also what you mention that if we forget this important point in pedagogy, we are going to repeat the same history. Actually, I consider that we repeated the history since (in my opinion and my personal experience in high school as example) this did not change. Now, we should change this as teachers, focusing on a pedagogy humanized.
DeleteI also have conflicts with Foucault's conceptions. However, I don't think school and pedagogy would be destructed if putting in practice Foucault's psychagogy but transformed.
DeleteI agree that Foucault's solution is too self-centered. It speaks of moral as it is a bad thing and of relationships with others as harmful to the "sujeto que no es sujeto". It feels convoluted and society-rejecting, idealized and not grounded on reality.
Delete- Juan Pablo Santamaría
Hi Camila and Karen,
DeleteFoucault is not always easy to understand and Quiceno does a good job in helping us understand a little bit his thought. I am not sure Foucault wants anyone to destroy himself or herself, in fact his discourse is not dogmatic. He does not intend anyone to do what he says or things as Quiceno indicates, Foucault presents a perspective and leaves people to make their choices otherwise he would be contradicting himself. His proposal sounds very egocentric; he says, el hombre intelectual busca la libertad, produce libertad, crea libertad para sí mismo. And I was thinking ohhh this intellectual does not try to do the same for others, like what Freire argues? Then I realize that Foucault is not preaching to anyone; in other words, do as you please or want. From this perspective it does not sound to me that Foucault is a pedagogue, undeniably pedagogy is about the other and myself; it is not self-centered, it is about both teachers and students because we are both trying to liberate ourselves from things. Foucault is avoiding an internal contradiction because the moment he says that a pedagogue is supposed to help students reach that freedom of their self, the teacher runs the risk of being dogmatic and trying to create an ideal subject and thus the student will lose the possibility of reaching his freedom on his own terms.
I really liked your second answer and I strongly agree with the part where you mention that "pedagogy has to take into account the integrality of the human being". I think thats a key aspect that would bring us closer into a more inclusive and collaborative education.
DeleteA) What are your thoughts on the definition of pedagogy according to Foucault: “It is the transmission of a truth whose function is to provide any subject with attitudes, capacities, and knowledge that it did not previously possess and that it should possess at the end of the pedagogical relationship”?
ReplyDeleteI consider this definition of pedagogy by Foucault can be a way to see how it should be pedagogy. I strongly agree since in the text, Foucault shows us the difference between how pedagogues should not change the subject, imposing conceptions that depend on their beliefs, society’s way of being or anything different from what the subject wishes. On the other hand, it shows us how pedagogues should let students discover and define the concepts by themselves. Actually, pedagogues should allow and provide these attitudes and capacities, so students can develop their concepts/point of views/realities/truths or doctrines. This focus is made thanks as Foucault sees subject as the focus; as the object of the pedagogy. For this reason, pedagogy becomes from “no saber a saber”; indoctrination to normalization; and authority to science.
B) Based on your own experience and according to what you read in the text “Foucault, la pedagogía y la educación” why do you think that pedagogy should be humanized?
The reason why pedagogy should be humanized is because when there is humanization in it and when pedagogy has this factor, it becomes knowledge and science. When the pedagogy is humanized, the focus of the teachers is to teach, educate, and shape students not as society impose us to be or how others are, but they teach, educate, and shape us to have/create/experience our concepts/point of views/realities/truths or doctrines. This is what Foucalt explains as Bildung. This concept explains that the focus in pedagogues is not directionate or use pedagogy as a way to change his conduct, impose a way of living, thinking, and believing, nor a method.
By: Julian Steeven Valencia C.
It is sad how we've been forced to think/act in a certain way since we were children, and we only realized the damage it has nowadays, when it's too late. We must be aware of that harm and try to change the misguidance as future teachers. The problem is how: how are we going to modify an entire system that has always worked that way?
DeleteA) What are your thoughts on the definition of pedagogy according to Foucault: “It is the transmission of a truth whose function is to provide any subject with attitudes, capacities, and knowledge that it did not previously possess and that it should possess at the end of the pedagogical relationship”?
ReplyDeleteTaking into account what we have seen in class, the conception of pedagogy as a transformative process that goes beyond the transmission of decontextualized information, I don’t agree with the definition and perception of Foucault. Pedagogy is more than simple instruction and conduction; it does not lock itself to only being an instrument of “creation” of subjects based on what the Institutions want/expect. It is important to remember that teachers have to guide and not direct, and there is not only one truth. In view of the above, I consider that the vision of psicagogia could get closer to what we have been conceptualizing: a liberating and transformative practice.
B) Based on your own experience and according to what you read in the text “Foucault, la pedagogía y la educación” why do you think that pedagogy should be humanized?
Pedagogy must be humanized, focused on and by man. Only in this way it becomes knowledge and science. Pedagogy must be concentrated on society, on the creation of consciousness (own and collective), and on the transformation of active subjects, who see themselves as living beings and not container objects. It is not the repetition and the deposit of regulations, information, and data out of context, but knowledge practices whose main objective (and subject) is man himself.
Hi Karen! I agree with you when you says that the main object and subject of pedagogy is man himself, who is a living being and not a container object. This idea is paramount for a meaningful education.
DeleteA) What are your thoughts on the definition of pedagogy according to Foucault: “It is the transmission of a truth whose function is to provide any subject with attitudes, capacities, and knowledge that it did not previously possess and that it should possess at the end of the pedagogical relationship”?
ReplyDelete-I think this specific definition is very interesting and connects with the previous discussions that we've had about how education and pedagogy should be transformative. I definetly agree with pedagogy being a way in which we can develop and strengthen attitudes, capacities and knowledge of one's self; I think that's a key aspect that often time gets left out when people think or discuss about the importance of education and pedagogy. Education should not be a tool that gets stuck in time while everyone and everything else changes, it should be a way in which we all can become and change, whose goal is to create a comunity of people, with each individual having their own abilities, passions and knowledge, with everyone having the equal opportunity to grow while at the same aknowleding the complexity and nuance of the fact that we all came from different backgrounds and stories. Ultimately, pedagogy should be all about nurturing the things that will continue to let us grow.
B) Based on your own experience and according to what you read in the text “Foucault, la pedagogía y la educación” why do you think that pedagogy should be humanized?
-I think pedagogy should be humanized because as people we all are so diverse and complex that we can not reduce everybody into one category; students are so unique, with each one having their own story, experiences and abilities, which is why its very important that teachers see their students as individuals with depth instead of seeing them simply as brains that are in a classroom just to memorize things and get either a 0 or a 5; this also applies to teachers, who should not be considered simply as the ones who put a grade and that blindly follow the educational system, but as the ones who guide their students to thrive, to follow their passions and develop new abilities, the ones who nurture the students that will soon become the future. I think humanizing pedagogy will pave the way in which students and teachers can collectivetly and activetly transform education into a better, more transformative and inclusive tool that will create better and bigger opportunities for everyone.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with the points made by Isabella in the second question. The importance of individuality and the work teachers and students can do to create together are essential to changing education. What's interesting is that the second part is mostly forgotten. I think in all higher education bachelor classes only a small percentage of students actually discuss, speak or participate in class in a meaningful way. We as students often delegate the responsability of creating an engaging classroom entirely to the teacher.
DeleteJuan Pablo
Hi Isabella!
DeleteI really liked what you said about teachers who shouldn't be considered simply as the ones who put a grade but as the ones who guides students to thrive. Sadly, the first idea is so spread on the world, I hope it can be change for the second one.
Guys, you know what I don't like from the definition of Foucault, that he uses the word transmission. I think, first that what we intend is to co-construct with students more in a Freirean way rather than transmit because as Freire says knowledge is dynamic. And second, I also think that the word truth is very contestable. What is truth? For whom? I always think that students should be clear that what tahye are being introduced to is the most accepted truth of the moment the idea that people believe more at the moment but it is not immutable. at the end of the days, there are not truths, only beliefs that something has truth validity. In general, Foucault's definition seems a little old school.; a transmissionist perspective where students are provided with an object they have to learn or absorb. I do agree that it is not only knowledge that is negotiated in the classroom but also, attitudes and the development of capacities. I like your own interpretation where you talk about developing and strengthening students' capacities, attitudes and knowledge.
ReplyDeleteNow, I do find that there is an omission here. The quote is incomplete. It also says: "Psicagogía: es la transmission de una verdad que no tiene por función dotar a un sujeto de actitudes, de capacidades y de saberes, sino más bien de modificar el modo de ser de ese sujeto". THis is missing from the quote and clarifies more Foucault's perspective, still the idea of transmission is there but I like the focus on the transformation of the self, very in agreement with Freire. I think though that if you transform someone's self, you will at the same transform their attitudes and knowledge.
I think this definition may be applied to themes in which there is an objective truth to transmit. For example, in a mathematics class, you would expect students to finish the class and have new capacities and knowledge that are connected to the objective truth in question of such class. But in so many other topics there is no such thing as truth. I also feel this definition doesn’t acknowledge neither the aspect of the study of education itself – even though in his exercise of meditating about pedagogy and how he finds two meanings in it, Foucault is doing pedagogy - nor the inevitable teacher-student relationship existing in any pedagogical process.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the other question, I agree pedagogy should be humanized in the sense of considering students as individuals and moving on from education as a mean to control. However, in the text humanizing pedagogy is also explained as another process of control, creating new relations of power brought upon us by other institutions. In this sense I disagree. It is not the influence of pedagogy as “saber”, now scrutinized by so many theorists, that enforces control over students, at least it shouldn’t. To me, pedagogy as a “saber” may try to achieve what Foucault refers to later as the “dejar de ser sujeto”.
- Juan Pablo Santamaría
DeleteI Really liked your second answer, I also think that pedagogy should be humanized or it should not be.
DeleteJosé Ávila
A) What are your thoughts on the definition of pedagogy according to Foucault: “It is the transmission of a truth whose function is to provide any subject with attitudes, capacities, and knowledge that it did not previously possess and that it should possess at the end of the pedagogical relationship”?
ReplyDeleteFor me, the way Foucault sees pedagogy is quite interesting and it makes me think and looking the different contracts with pedagogical views we have seen before during the clases. I agree with him in seeing the pedagogy as a way that provides the subject with capacities that show the possibilities of the self. Also, because he points out, clearly, something that is quite interesting, about how the pedagogy and education have been established as an institution that directs the subject’s life. And not as a medium that gives freedom and guide the subject of making posible all his or her expectation and necessities. Because if pedagogy doesn’t give the option to be free it would take the position of becoming an authoritarian tool to doctrine the subject establish just one way of live.
B) Based on your own experience and according to what you read in the text “Foucault, la pedagogía y la educación” why do you think that pedagogy should be humanized?
I do consider that is the crucial point of the pedagogy. It has to be humanized because is the only way in which we can consider each other as a unique and equal at the same time. Unique in being unrepeatable, and equal to be as human as the other. And I consider, that we as teacher must have that in presence. Because if we do not, we would be teaching not as an exercise of give freedom but as symbol of indoctrination. And that is something that happens constantly in our education. We are not taught to be free and to be critical we our knowledge
José Ávila
Hi, José
DeleteI would like to say that I really agree with you when you mentioned that a pedagogy without freedom, would be an authoritarian tool, because when you don't give options to the individuals you are conditioning the transformation process of education.
Comment by: Daniela
DeleteI like the way you explain why pedagogy should be humanized, and I agree with you because we always have to keep in mind that our students are human beings, who deserve to be threatened as individuals in the classroom.
DeleteJhan Quintero.
A)What are your thoughts on the definition of pedagogy according to Foucault: “It is the transmission of a truth whose function is to provide any subject with attitudes, capacities, and knowledge that it did not previously possess and that it should possess at the end of the pedagogical relationship”?
ReplyDeleteI think that Foucault is very honest with this definition because it is the way of some pedagogues act, since pedagogy has considered a science. They give some hypothesis, some definitions, and some knowledge that has to be shared with teachers in order to acquire the capacity to teach. But this definition doesn’t look further than a knowledge merely conceptual, without thinking about the complexity of being human. For that reason, I consider that in this phrase we could see the pedagogy as something dehumanized in a certain way, as something that doesn’t look for the transformation of the one who is being taught.
B)Based on your own experience and according to what you read in the text “Foucault, la pedagogía y la educación” why do you think that pedagogy should be humanized?
I agree with this statement, for me the pedagogy should be humanized because if it is not, it won’t be a good experience for learners as we see every day, when a lot of students hate the school since they understand it as a mechanism to oppress and alienate people. Maybe they aren’t aware or don’t care a lot about this, but they feel it. That why I think pedagogy should look for freedom in every dimension of the being, detaching the thoughts imposed and starting to question the humanity of oneself.
-Jhan Alejandro Quintero.
Hi, Jhan
DeleteI honestly relate to your answer about the second question. We tend to dislike our education system since all the time we feel that we are being controlled and restricted by ignoring our interests and needs in terms of education.
Comment by: Daniela Pedroza
DeleteDaniela Pedroza
ReplyDeleteA) From my perspective, although I consider that Foucault has valid points, I do not fully agree with his first definition of pedagogy. In the first place, defining it as a “transmission of a truth” process is one of the reasons why I can't connect with this concept of pedagogy; since, for me, pedagogy seeks to transform the knowledge through an autonomous process in which what is learned is constructed from subjectivity and is not something pre-established or imposed. However, in the second place, Foucault proposes the purpose of pedagogy as the modification of the subject through the historical discourse that allows to problematize education without pretending to "correct" the individual. This notion describes more accurately, in my opinion, the idea of pedagogy proposed by Foucault because it respects the so-called subjectivity of the individual and provides a transformative process of the human being through experience, education, without limit it to an institution.
B) To humanize pedagogy is to bring it closer to its main purpose: to transform the individual. It is not possible to transform a being without knowing its essence, in this case, humanity. Humanizing pedagogy broadens the options in which the different subjects can find themselves in their transformation process, accepts and includes the diversity/complexity of human beings in the educational field, leaving aside the limits and the "cookie cutter molds" that only ruin their "uniqueness".
I really liked the part where you mention the importance of knowing the essence of a person as a key aspect. I think taking that into account would help the educational settings to be more than just "classrooms" and would make them be seen as spaces to grow and change.
DeleteI agree with you on both questions. I think that can't understand pedagogy as a mechanical process, we have to accept and include the diversity of human beings.
DeleteComment by: Jhan Quintero.
DeleteThat's so true, and it's sad that in some cases pedagogy just is like so far away from its main purpose.
DeleteJosé Ávila