Philosophers like to look for the ideas behind the ideas and then look behind those ideas. Behind every idea is another idea-holding it up, rooting it on, providing support. ("You can do it Johnny!") Some people think that by examining these relations we might get to the root of some greater understanding of our beliefs.
The article 'Neutrality in Education And Derrida's Call for "Double Duty" relies upon this notion for it's analysis of current (1996) trends in Education.
The educational world can be seen as such:
1.) There is no neutrality in education.
2.) Teaching is not an indifferent exercise.
3.) Schools and curriculum are not politically neutral.
So, entered into this non-neutral educational universe are the positivists, clinging to rigid binary oppositional ideas, and
Derrida's team, basking in the glow of multiple voices. This dichotomous theme is pretty well established as an important one currently at work in our western world:
"Let's simplify things!"
"No, lets put lots of ideas on the fire, that'll work!"
In 'Neutrality in Education And Derrida's Call for "Double Duty"' Egéa-Kuehne calls out with a duty in mind, a response to neutrality: Complex and controversal elements need to be left in curriculla, we need to learn to re-consider, re-evaluate and re-interpret our positions in education.
With the end goal in mind being:
Isn't it to engage our students in a quest for knowledge which should take them way beyond the boundaries of their immediate socio-cultural context in space and in time? Isn't it to encourage them to take risks in learning and discovering the other, the unknown, while building up a greater sense of responsibility toward self-directed learning, and therefore truly unique identity building?
Pretty heady stuff. Check it out if you want to take your students
beyond the boundaries of their immediate socio-cultural context in space and in time.