details
| Title |
Reply. Against Latour - on the questionable foundations of post-critical pedagogy |
|---|---|
| Authors |
Haker, Christoph  ;
Otterspeer, Lukas  |
| Source | on education. Journal for research and debate 3 (2020) 9, 7 S.  |
| related to: | Drawing distinctions. What is post-critical pedagogy? |
| Post-critique, politics, and the political in educational philosophy | |
| 'Post-critiquiness' as nonviolent thing-centredness | |
| Beyond ambiguity and ambivalence. Rethinking the tools of critique | |
| Document | full text (366 KB) |
| License of the document |
|
| Keywords (German) | Pädagogik; Kritik; Soziologie; Negation; Gesellschaft; Polemik; Manifest |
| sub-discipline | Educational Sociology Philosophy of Education |
| Document type | Article (journal) |
| ISSN | 2571-7855; 25717855 |
| Language | English |
| Year of creation | 2020 |
| review status | Publishing House Lectorship |
| Abstract (English): | Critique has run out of steam - this diagnosis by Bruno Latour is crucial for the "Manifesto for a Post-Critical Pedagogy" as well as for the on_education issue "The Fatigue of Critique?". With this essay, the author contradicts Latour's diagnosis. Latour's polemic against critique is based firstly on a questionable diagnosis of our time and secondly on a general and programmatic critique of sociology. Against that, the author brings out two main points. The first insight highlights that change is initially dependent on variations that can only arise from a negation of the existing. The second insight comes from the sociology of critique, which paradoxically sees success in the failure of critique. (DIPF/Orig.) |
| other articles of this journal | on education. Journal for research and debate Jahr: 2020 |
| Statistics |  Number of document requests
|
| Checksums | checksum comparison as proof of integrity |
| Date of publication | 15.05.2024 |
| Citation | Haker, Christoph; Otterspeer, Lukas: Reply. Against Latour - on the questionable foundations of post-critical pedagogy - In: on education. Journal for research and debate 3 (2020) 9, 7 S. - URN: urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-298431 - DOI: 10.25656/01:29843 |
share content at social platforms
Teile diese Seite:
