Advertisement

The Priority of the Particular and the First Person

  • Stefan RamaekersEmail author
  • Judith Suissa
Chapter
  • 1.5k Downloads
Part of the Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education book series (COPT, volume 4)

Abstract

The account in the previous chapter suggests that the dominant language of parenting fails to capture the richness of the parent–child relationship and the particular demands of the situation of individuals within this relationship. Here we explore recent philosophical work (by, e.g. Joseph Dunne, Alasdair MacIntyre, Richard Smith) on the idea of practice and the critique of the paradigm of ‘technical rationality’ and discuss how this account has been used by philosophers of education, especially with regard to teaching. We draw out the implications of the emphasis, in this work, on the priority of the particular, while also showing how the analogy between this account and our critique of the language of ‘parenting’ opens up other important questions about the parent–child relationship. We begin to develop what we call the first-person perspective in parent–child relationships in light of this philosophical work, exploring the meaning of ideas of practice, ‘ends’ and ‘aims’ in parent–child relationships, and suggesting connections with broader views of human flourishing.

Keywords

Technical Rationality Good Parent Practical Wisdom Instrumental Rationality Dominant Discourse 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bristow, J. (2009). Standing up to supernanny. Exeter: Societas Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Dunne, J. (1993). Back to the rough ground; Practical judgment and the lure of technique. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dunne, J., & MacIntyre, A. (2002). Alisdair MacIntyre on Education: In dialogue with Joseph Dunne. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunne, J., & Pendlebury, S. (2003). Practical reason. In N. Blake et al. (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education (pp. 194–211). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Eliot, G. (1979). The Mill on the Floss. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Kohn, A. (2005). Unconditional parenting. New York: Atria Books.Google Scholar
  7. Nussbaum, M. (1990). Love’s knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ruddick, S. (1990). Maternal thinking; towards a politics of peace. London: The Women’s Press.Google Scholar
  9. Scott, S. (2010). National dissemination of effective parenting programmes to improve child outcomes. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 196, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Smith, M. (1999). After managerialism: Towards a conception of the school as an educational community. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 33(3), 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Smith, R. (2005). Paths of judgement; the revival of practical wisdom. In D. Carr (Ed.), The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Philosophy of Education (pp. 206–218). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Smith, R. (2006). As if by machinery: The levelling of educational research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40(2), 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith, R. (2010). Total parenting. Educational Theory, 60(3), 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Suissa, J. (2006). Untangling the mother knot: Some thoughts on parents, children and philosophers of education. Ethics and Education, 1(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sunderland, M. (2006). The science of parenting: How today’s brain research can help you raise happy, emotionally balanced children. London: DK Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  17. Winnicott, D. W. (1964). The child, the family, and the outside world. Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences Laboratory for Education and SocietyKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of Policy and Society Institute of EducationUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations