An infelicitous agreement – the writing of education in relation to its practice

Abstract

In the article, the author aims to problematize the notion that education as a practice can be written a priori. In doing so, first of all, an outline of Habermas’ work in connection with the ideal speech situation is given, to show its importance in conceptualizing educational practice in democratic society. This is followed by a description of Austin’s concept of the infelicitous functioning of the performative as a way to critically view the activity of teaching in general and then, more specifically, to bring into question the writing of education in connection with the discourses and philosophizing which govern its practice – what is done in the classroom by teachers and learners. In developing this idea, a number of discourses that underpin the practice of teaching (among others, functionalist-behaviourist, developmental-constructivist, critical-emancipatory) are discussed to highlight their similarities but also their fundamental differences and how, when one of the discourses dominates educational practice, it can lead to the distortions in the understanding and implementation of that practice. Additionally, instrumental and post-critical relations of philosophizing to the practice of education are described with the aim of posing the question of whether educational practice can actually be written a priori. In conclusion, the author suggests the writing of education would appear to be a “tool” to be used in the further “colonization of the lifeworld” rather than a support for the emancipatory projects that Habermas and Dewey pursued in relation to society and society and education, and that this may have consequences for democracy itself.