Lars Løvlie, Paul Standish; Introduction: Bildung and the idea of a liberal education, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 36, Issue 3, 16 December 2002.

My comment makes a point out ofRousseau's original insight: that education forsocial participation ought to start within thestudent's lifeworld, and not, as in our days, with the immediatedemands of modern, time-ridden consumerculture. When time is turned into a commodityand place is turned into a transit point forpeople constantly on the move, presence in acommon lifeworld is lost. I take issue with thedominant thinking of education in terms of timeand efficiency, and suggest that we startthinking of education more in terms of (...) placeand presence. I propose that modern thinkers ofeducation – of which I mention a few here –contributed significantly to the pedagogy ofplace or presence. I don't see time as a stringmade up of past-present-future, but rather asan expanding mental and pragmatic universe ofhere-and-nows. The term kairos catchesthis presence as the capacity for doing theright thing at the right moment, that is, themoment when the past has prepared the ground sothat the future can come as a gift. Thisconception is, I think, an important ground forthe idea of an education for citizenship. (shrink)

Lars Løvlie; The Promise of Bildung, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 36, Issue 3, 16 December 2002, Pages 467–486, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.

This essay broaches pedagogical key themes in Rousseau’s writings, primarily sourced from Émile, a book that 250 years after its first publication offers up a strikingly relevant critique of the current neo-liberal politics of schooling in the Western world. Rousseau was a keen observer of human folly, a sharp critic of Enlightenment culture, and an imaginative author with an acute sense of the vagaries of mind and feeling. I recount how he treats feelings, particularly the inner voice of conscience, as (...) a core element in education. His idea of “negative pedagogy” is a lasting contribution to educational thinking in general and highly relevant for our discussion today about self-regulation and discipline in education. Rousseau’s idea about authenticity leads directly to the question of individual character and the relation between self-love and amour-propre. Here we are presented to a positive pedagogy, which is to foster the first and to foil the second. After having touched the conflict between theory and practice in Rousseau’s own life, I observe that the woman in Émile’s life, Sophie, comes forth as naturally healthy person, fit to face society’s temptations, while Émile in comparison must be protected from its harms by his well-meaning tutor until he turns 15. In a longer section I present the pedagogical paradox, which says that you cannot force a child to be independent. Rousseau interestingly disregards the paradox, which seems to cast doubt on his reputation as a radical reformer of modern pedagogy. (shrink)