Desktop version

Home arrow Management arrow Management Education: Fragments of an Emancipatory Theory

Business School Education

Today, most business and management training takes place inside business or management schools unless it is workplace or management training provided by an external agency or training in technical colleges. In any case, the idea of converting standard management training into emancipatory management education demands, first of all, a careful analysis of teacher-student relationships at virtually all levels of education—inside and outside of specific management training facilities, skill-developing vocational schools, universities, and business schools.1 The domination practised by and in such schools often involves a narrating dominator— often called teacher or instructor—and patiently listening objects of training power—those formerly known as students and today under neo-liberalism called “educational customers”. In this sense, objects of training power are those exposed to domination in anti- and nondemocratic as well as deeply authoritarian institutions such as schools and universities. Quite often, institutions that enhance domination—the functional knowledge and ideology conveying apparatus—and domination-enhancing teachings—curricula—work hand in hand. One supports the other in maintaining domination. As a result of excluding students from the conceptual part of training, a rather anti-humanising content

© The Author(s) 2017 T. Klikauer, Management Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-40778-4_4

emerges in which values and empirical dimensions of managerial realities tend to be presented and narrated in a lifeless way to asphyxiate the “objects to be trained”. This sort of training suffers from a top-down engineered “narration sickness” that enhances domination.

With the backing of the business school apparatus, dominationenhancing teachers talk about managerial reality as if it were ahistorical, asphyxiated, motionless, static, boxed up, compartmentalised, presentable in a “2-by-2-matrix”, and, above all, unchangeable. These trainers present topics that are completely alien to students’ real-life experiences. The domination-enhancing task of all this is to fill students up, make them memorise, compute, and accumulate dates, tables, facts, figures, and lists without historical context and disconnected from content. Domination-enhancing knowledge transfer—I give and you receive— presents pre-packaged content that is detached from those forms of working reality that assist in sense making. Often, management knowledge is rather disconnected from the surrounding totality, designed to dis-entice critical reflection. Words, sentences, book chapters, modules, concepts, and ideas are emptied of their relevance and concreteness. They become blank, hollow, meaningless, and alienating, presented in long-winded PowerPoint presentations—spiced up with latest multimedia techno-chic merely pretending significance.

One of the dazzling features of this sort of management training lies in the presentation of “great” management ideas designed to destroy the students’ ability to develop a comprehensive picture of managerial reality, to question what is presented as “the given”, and the often-rehearsed “facts-of-life”. The hidden idea is to produce “functional-mini-machines” (human resources) that function inside the present system of capitalism. For that, students are made to memorise management and, nowadays, e-learning modules such as automated robots. This builds on tradition. From primary school to business schools, students are being conditioned, starting with “four times four is sixteen, the capital of France is Paris” and moving on to “the money you earn lets you buy things you like” later. Like little cogs, “to-be-conditioned” students are organised, administered, managed, numbered, ranked, recorded, assessed, and pressed into the educational “system”. This is institutionalisation by default. Inside, one is made to memorise and repeat key managerial themes without ever perceiving what it all really means. Students are made to accept the true significance of management, affirming to the rules of capital and those who administer the system.

In this scenario, the business teacher as “instructor” becomes the semiunconscious narrator of business capitalism, leading students to memorise mechanically the narrated content of great business leaders. Worse still, this turns students into empty containers—the “clean slate”—to be filled with managerial knowledge in order to become a brain vessel carrying functional and ideological business knowledge. But those teachers are themselves exposed to the relentlessly enforced domination exercised by business schools, working under the dictate of a managerial-administrative elite that turns business schools into “businesses” rather than “schools”.2 These instructors are asphyxiated in a panopticum-like web of domination constructed of key performance indicators (KPIs) and key learning objectives (KLOs) that are founded on “student feedback assessments” of their work. KLOs and KPIs are linked to performance reviews as conditions for crypto-academic job (in-)security and possibilities for promotions. Furnished with that, the managerial-educational megamachine of business schools is set in motion. The more complete a teacher/instructor fulfils their predesigned, measured, assessed, surveyed, and controlled role, the “better”(sic) the teacher is regarded by the apparatus and those serving it. And, of course, the more submissively those to be trained permit themselves to be filled up with managerial knowledge, the “better” they come out at the other end of the business school degree factory.

Quite often, business school training is a rather passive “non”-act of depositing dead knowledge, managerial buzzwords, and so-called key management concepts. In this structure, students become depositories for teacher depositors. Instead of debating, discussing, and communicating, the business school teacher merely issues directives and announces KLOs to be achieved. The pre-assigned role of students is to unwearyingly accept, collect, memorise, and rehearse the knowledge that quite often comes pre-packaged from one or the other global publishing corporation that define the “market” of textbooks and structured instructions.3 This marks the inhumanity of the “knowledge-deposit” concept of business school training. Under this concept, business schools pile up “functional and ideological” knowledge so that companies can later redraw this stored up knowledge to run their businesses and make their systems of domination even more functional.

Inside the knowledge-deposit concept, the allowable and disallowable scope of training reaches only as far as receiving, filing, storing, and accumulating deposits of knowledge. In this, some are “offered the chance” (!) to become creators, inventors, collectors, organisers, and cataloguers of knowledge to be stored—they are called researchers. But in its inhuman finality, it is the people who are cementing domination by collecting, organising, and cataloguing the management knowledge—all with their “individually assigned” ID-card(!) neatly pinned around their neck. The system marks the death of creativity, inquisitiveness, personal choice, and, of course, the transformation of knowledge into humanisation. It is Managerialism that misguides a managerialistic system that reproduces Managerialism. It annihilates critical inquiry while obliterating critical praxis so that people can never be truly human. In stark contrast to this, true knowledge only emerges through critical intervention and a continuing inquiry into the way people pursue the managerial world through engaging in it.

In the knowledge-deposit concept used by business schools, management knowledge is presented as a great endowment that is generously granted by those who consider themselves knowledgeable. They see themselves as guardians of management knowledge who offer knowledge to those who are considered to know nothing so that they—once awarded a business degree—can be allowed to enter the world of business. Business schools project their own ignorance onto others, which still remains one of the defining characteristics of the ideology of domination.4 It negates— if not destroys—education as a process of critical inquiry and self-reflection. In the world of the business school, teachers, lecturers, professors, and instructors present themselves to students as their necessary opposite under the maxim:

“I know—you don’t”

By insisting on the ignorance of students, these instructors themselves justify their own ignorance as well as their existence as superiors. The business student becomes alienated like the slave who is asphyxiated inside the Hegelian “master-slave” dialectic. They quietly accept their ignorance as “the” justification of the business professor’s existence. Yet, and perhaps this remains the undeniable key to Hegel’s dialectics, they are never allowed to discover that they “educate their teachers”. Meanwhile the raison d’etre of emancipatory management education, on the other hand, rests in breaking Hegel’s “master-slave” dialectics. It rests on thesis, anti-thesis and a relentless drive towards syntheses in an ascending process directed towards human freedom and humanisation. As a consequence, emancipatory management education always begins with solving the “teacher versus student” contradiction. By overcoming these opposing poles, teachers and students are converting from domination into emancipation.

The resolution of domination can never be found in the death cult of the knowledge-deposit concept that strangles knowledge until it passes away. On the contrary, the knowledge-deposit system of business training stimulates master-slave and teacher versus student contradictions through some of the following rather ideological belief systems as well as actual practices found in business schools. These mirror domination in business, schools, and in society as a whole. Business school professors

  • 1. teach while business students are being taught;
  • 2. know business while students are seen as “knowing nothing”;
  • 3. think while students are thought about;
  • 4. talk and students are made to listen—submissively and passively;
  • 5. discipline, and students are disciplined through school policies, rules, and regulations;
  • 6. invent and enforce managerial ideologies framed as their educational choices while students are made to absorb and comply in order to become “ideology carriers”;
  • 7. act while students are being “acted on”, camouflaged by giving students the illusion of acting while being guided by the action of the professor;
  • 8. apply preselected training programmes, modules, learning guides, syllabus, unit outlines, and “key learning objectives” while students are made to adapt to it;
  • 9. formulate the “syllabus as contract [and as a] power instrument” to dominate students;5
  • 10. confuse the authority of knowledge with their positional authority based on titles, power, and places in the hierarchy of business schools; and, finally,
  • 11. are objects of business school power (KPIs, performance management, etc.) while students are turned into objects of the professor’s and the business school’s powers that demand personal submission.

Perhaps it does not come as a great revelation that the knowledge- deposit concept of business schools treats people not just as things— containers to be filled—but also as compliant, submissive, adaptable, and manageable beings. The more business students store the ideological deposits enforced onto them under the ideological value chain of “study^degree^money”, the less they develop critical consciousness that might—as a final outcome—result in positive social interventions directed towards humanising the world. The more comprehensively students accept the passive role imposed onto them by the system, the business ideology, and their teachers, the easier they affirm to the business world. There is a sheer endless capacity of the “knowledge-deposit system” to minimise, annihilate, or preferably to redirect students’ inquisitive and creative powers and appropriate their natural curiosity into serving domination. The predesigned goal is to create students who care only about their individual advancement under the

“study ^-degree^-job^-money” ideology.

This end point never makes them feel that they need to have the world revealed. They no longer see it transformed and no longer experience humanisation as a goal. Meanwhile those cementing domination use faked humanitarianism, charity, and philanthropy to preserve a world in which “profitable situations” can be presented as good for all. As a consequence of all that, students conditioned in obeying domination and the managerial imperatives—almost on impulse—reject any experiment in education that encourages, as Kant would say, the use of their “critical faculties”. Like preconditioned automates, they resent any non-business view of reality and they never seek out what Hegel once called “the truth is in the whole”, linking the deliberately fragmented appearance of the managerial world together to see that one problem leads to another. And indeed, the interest of those cementing domination inside and outside of training often lies in altering the consciousness of those seeking emancipation. The danger remains for those who seek emancipation:

The more they can be led to adapt to structures and institutions of domination,

the more easily they themselves can be dominated.

To achieve domination, those cementing it rely heavily on depositing knowledge and ideological concepts. Quite often this comes along in unison with a paternalistic human resources management apparatus pretending to care about you—until the moment you can no longer pay “your”(?)—or perhaps their (!)—tuition fees! Those who cannot pay up receive the euphemistic title of failures, dropouts, quitter, and “good-for- nothings”. They are treated as sad, unfortunate but always individual cases so that system failure can be shelved under individualism. Those who fail to pay, who show recalcitrant non-submissive tendency or simply fail to be filled up with business ideology are framed as recalcitrant and marginal while those who do not deviate from the general ideological configuration are seen as good, well organised, and successful. It all operates under the well-known managerial “blame the victim” motto. Victims are regarded as failures and sad pathological cases. They are disappointing but it is never the system that disappoints them. The system is shown and even proven to be well functioning.

Therefore, these people need to be adjusted and converted from being incompetent and lazy to being a “useful” member of society—the euphemism for business. These are the code words for being ready to be converted from a human being into a human resource. They—not the system of domination—need to alter their own pattern of behaviour and mentality. As far as possible, these marginals need to be integrated into the domineering structure of the present system. Under domination, labels such as “healthy”, “useful”, and “good” are awarded to institutions that further domination while all this is presented as being “for their own good”.6

But despite the hegemonic ideology of those cementing domination, those who resist and, as Adorno stated, show “resistance to all the things imposed on them”, those who do not “go with the flow”, and those seeking emancipation are not marginals and neither are they people living outside of what is falsely considered to be “mainstream” and “normal”. Instead, the resisting rebel and the disobedient dissenter has always been very much inside a structure that makes them being with and for others. Unlike the authoritarian project of domination, the solution is not system integration but transforming structures of domination into structures of emancipation.7 Only in that way can they and others become full human beings for themselves. But such a transformation would necessarily destabilise domination and those engineering it, so, to prevent that, the knowledge-deposit concept as practised by business schools avoids the enhancement of critical consciousness and self-critical awareness.

The knowledge-deposit approach to management training can never propose that students consider reality critically. Instead, it will deal with the one-dimensionality of business, noting whether corporation XYZ gave us product 1-2-3 and insisting upon the importance of learning what the corporation has achieved. The pretended humanism of the knowledge-deposit approach masks the effort to turn people into functioning business automatons even when this represents the annihilation of their natural ability to be fully emancipated, self-critical, and, as Kant once said, “mundige” (autonomous and self-determining) human beings.

Those business schools that rely on the knowledge-deposit approach— often knowingly rather than unknowingly—further domination. Many business school instructors—quite like well-intentioned middle managers—are made to never realise that they are serving dehumanisation. Like the students who they “produce”, they are made to never realise that business-oriented knowledge necessarily contains contradictions about reality. Ever since Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit”, the world of knowledge knows this as an unavoidable imperative of “all” knowledge. But despite the overwhelming “ideological apparatus”, sooner or later, these inherently virulent contradictions may lead even the most passive students in business schools to turn against their domestication. They may lead to an awareness that these systems and management training regimes are set up in an attempt to domesticate, dominate, and subordinate, not just reality but human beings as such. They may even uncover—sometimes through experience, sometimes through accessing critical knowledge— that their present existence as an appendage to corporate capitalism remains contradictory to the human quest to emancipate from domination. Through critical engagement with not just business relations, they may perceive this as a moving process that undergoes constant transformation. If students become searchers for humanisation and emancipation, sooner or later they may notice the pathological contradictions of corporate capitalism that can be found inside business schools, businesses, and corporate capitalism.8

Many of the humanist-emancipatory educators can hardly wait for theses potentialities to be actualised. From the very beginning, these emancipatory efforts must coincide with those students engaged in critical thinking and the quest for emancipation and humanisation. But the Hegelian “potentiality^to^actuality” ascendancy must be linked to the fundamental trust in people established through what Hegel sees as “mutual and equal recognition”.9 To achieve this, critical educators must remain equal partners with their students. The knowledge-deposit idea does never commit to a partnership-based approach founded in mutual and equal recognition because of its support for domination. The idea to

  • • move vertically structured top-down teacher-student relationships into equal and horizontal relationships based on mutual and equal recognition;
  • • end the inherent contradictions of the authoritarian top-down structure; and
  • • exchange the role of depositor, prescriber, and domesticator for the role of “student-among-students”

would be to undermine the power of domination while serving emancipation’s raison d’etre. Implicit in the depositing knowledge idea is the underlying assumption of a strict “human versus world” dichotomy in which human beings are merely placed in a world controlled by domination (social), market forces (economics), and neo-liberalism (ideology). This can never be “our” world that we share with others. It is an alienated world filled with people divided into exploiter and “to be exploited”.

In a world constructed by domination, human beings are mere spectators—never creators and never re-creators. Seen from the position of domination, individuals are never viewed as conscious human beings but as semi-conscious marionette figures on strings to be played with on the board game of capitalism. People, individuals, workers, and students are framed as empty minds that are open or institutionally forced to be open to instructions. This supports the reception of knowledge deposit drawn from an ideologically reinterpreted reality that comes from an invented world. It follows from the “depositing-knowledge-into-students” belief that is linked to the idea of semi-conscious students guided by assigned trainers—always from above—who regulate, reformulate, and even reinvent the way the managerial world enters into the students’ minds. The instructor’s task is to organise a training process that avoids spontaneous access to the world—hence the use of prefabricated textbooks, PowerPoint presentations, and e-learning. The domination-stabilising task is to “fill” students up by inventing seamless deposits of knowledge chains and invented managerial concepts—so-called key theories—that Managerialism considers useful and, above all, examineable knowledge. But since students receive the world as passive entities, “training for domination” will make them ever more passive. They will adapt to the managerial world under the well-worn ideological formula of: “this is the way it is”. Under training for domination, the “to-be” trained remains an adapted person simply because this person is not just submissive but is considered to be “more fit” for the managerial world under the cruelty of the FIFO ideology: “fit in or f*** off!” Translated into managerial regimes, these “training for domination” regimes are very appropriate for the ideological intentions of those cementing domination. As a consequence, the faked tranquillity, pacification, and harmony of managerial regimes as well as managerial training regimes basically rest on how well people fit into these regimes and into capitalism. These managerial regimes and the capitalist society that comes with them have been created by those cementing domination for their own benefit, and they depend on how little those confined to domination question the status quo.

The more people adapt themselves to the managerial purposes that the ruling elite has prescribed “for” them, the more effortlessly the business elite can continue to prescribe reality for those to be trained. This, of course, requires depriving them of the right to their own purposes, their own feelings, their own will, and their own taste. It can never permit what Kant calls “self-determination” because this world—by definition— has to be “other” determined—from kindergarten to schooling to business schools, to workplaces, and even down to the “funeral business”. Along the way, the idea of “depositing-knowledge-into-students” serves these inhuman and unethical ends extremely powerfully:

• modules, presented lessons, lecturing, e-learning, assigned reading requirements, key learning objectives, methods of testing and evaluating the deposited “knowledge”, the institutional distancing of instructors to students, blended learning, the institutionally prescribed criteria for instructor promotion, annually checked key performance indicators, and so on

are designed for a “ready-to-wear” approach that serves the annihilation of critical thinking and the cementing of domination. The knowledge- depositing trainer does not even have to realise that there can never be true security—neither job nor intellectual security—in their preconceived roles. What trainers should never experience is to live with others in mutual and equal recognition and in solidarity that, at least potentially, could result in challenges to domination. In a managerial world designed to further domination, instructors are made to impose themselves onto students. They can never simply coexist with students in mutual and equal recognition and solidarity as such a solidaristic coexistence would require true “human-to-human” communication that relies on communicative concepts by which an emancipatory educator eliminates fears of domination.

But then again, it is only through mutual and equal recognition and domination-free communication that human life can hold meaning, hope, and potentials for emancipation. In emancipatory education, a teacher’s thinking is authenticated by the authenticity of students’ thinking. They can never think “for” students, nor can they “impose” their thoughts and specific ideologies such as Managerialism and alien concepts onto students.10 Emancipatory and authentic thinking is critically concerned with the concrete reality of managerial regimes, capitalism, as well as its supportive ideologies such as Managerialism, neo-liberalism, the free market, corporate globalisation, and so on. This can never take place in distant ivory towers, isolated from student lives, nor can it simply parrot standard managerial ideology. If it remains correct that emancipatory knowledge comes from thoughts that establish critical meaning, then this might generate emancipatory action upon the world. As a consequence, the standard subordination of students to teachers as practised in all business schools will become impossible. But because the knowledge- deposit idea of training begins with a rather false understanding—the conceptualisation of people as objects—management training can never promote the development of what might be called human-centred education. Instead, it produces the very opposite: domination.

While life under structures of domination is characterised by economic growth—one plasma screen makes you happy, two plasma screens make you twice as happy—it is also prearranged and highly functional so that the dominated person recognises all that grows and all that is mechanical and orderly, driven by a desire to transform living organisms into Inorganic material for consumption. The general approach to life and anything living is mechanical, commercial, and based on domination— the domination of one person over another and a more general domination over the natural environment. This system turns all living persons, nature, and animals into things. It is the “thing-i-fication” of everything, creating what the philosopher Hegel once called a thing-world.11 But the harshness and inhumanity of the thing-world is camouflaged. Faked and even artificial memories induced by sentimental movies and silly books rather than lived experiences become the norm. Having, possessing, and owning memories rather than living experiences becomes the all-defining imperative of a commoditified mass media induced existence. The “thingified” [verdinglicht, Hegel/Marx] person can relate to objects and commodities—a plastic flower or a person—only if they can be owned or possessed. Hence, anything that threatens possessions and property becomes synonymous to threatening people themselves. Once such a person loses a possession he/she loses contact with the world. Owning things often means having control over them—dominating them. Ownership incurs control. As a consequence, in the eternal chain of domination and control, people are made to believe in control—which incidentially is the very foundation of management. And in the act of dominating and controlling life, human life is slaughtered.

Domination and control operate a kind of secret death cult as necrophilic behaviour becomes essential to the system of domination. Control and domination become inextricably linked to the nourishment of a pathological global “living-off-other’s-death machine”: death by consumer machines (cars), death of the environment, death of animals (cow^beef^hamburger), and so on. Death becomes part of the system, albeit neatly placed out of sight—no abattoirs around downtown. But it is death, even when it means the death of a child’s natural inquisitiveness inside formatted schooling when schooling mainly focuses on useable and testable knowledge useful to Managerialism: maths, reading, and writing.12 It is this that makes a functional robot. But the knowledge- deposit idea of training that serves the interests of domination has long become part of the necrophilic “death cult” by killing off the natural spontaneity of nearly everyone exposed to its mind-numbing methods. It is based on a motionless, mechanistic, segregated, compartmentalised, well-ordered, and immobile consciousness that transforms students into receiving objects to be filled with knowledge. It seeks to control thinking, receptions, emotions, and actions, thus adjusting people to the world of domination.

Once the natural abilities to act maturely are disturbed, people find themselves incapable of using much-needed human faculties as these have been destroyed during training processes. As a result, people suffer without ever realising why. This sort of distress is often due to a deliberately installed form of impotence that is deeply rooted in the very fact that human potentials have been destroyed during training processes that dominated people rather than develop their critical potentials directed towards self-development. Training under domination is disabling rather than enabling. But the inability to act humanely and with empathy also causes human anguish. And it causes people to reject their own impotence.

Yet, there are potentials to restore the capacity to act in a human way. One way, of course, is to act in solidarity and to recognise others as equals and identify with them or other groups—groups without power. Real manifestations of this perhaps are best exemplified through those seeking emancipation—people who do not identify themselves with, for example, a so-called charismatic political or business leader. Instead, they come to feel and experience that they can be active and effective. Such anti-domination moves can be expressed as an emergence from processes that are no longer motivated by domination, no longer wanting to own and to control. The dominant elite’s remedies against such emancipatory moves are more domination, more ideology, more surveillance, and more repression—often carried out in the name of freedom, “law and order”, social harmony, economic progress, better management, and so on.13 However, this sort of harmony is always the harmony of and for the elite, designed to cement the status quo. As a consequence of such ideologies, their perpetrator will, at least officially, condemn—quite plausibly from their point of view—all the brutality, violence and ideology brought to work against, for example, striking workers as much as recalcitrant s tudents and oppositional people while simultaneously believing that “they need to be shown their place” and domesticated. In order to do so, instructors as much as factory managers often call upon the state to carry out institutionalised, structural, as well as open violence. It is called disciplinary action at schools and “keeping the peace” when the police and the military is set against striking workers. The level and intensity of violence may differ—the goal remains the same: domination.

Long before workers may even think about resisting managerial capitalism and students about the pathologies of training regimes, these ideological regimes seek to prevent this from ever happening. Hence, schooling and training, whether technical, social, or managerial, become a central exercise of domination. At times, the violence displayed by teachers and the structural violence enshrined in institutionalised schooling stimulates credulity of and among students. For those cementing domination, violence should be horizontal and set to work among students and workers; it should be downward, set against dependents, and never upward or directed against those engineering domination. To further this, those cementing domination depend on a developed ideological apparatus, and it is the ideological task of this apparatus to indoctrinate students to adapt themselves to the world of domination.

As the entire system of training depends on structural violence, there can never be the nai've hope that dominant elites will simply abandon this practice; it is one of the key imperatives of the entire system which includes schooling, training regimes, business schools, and so on. Occasionally, this naive hope has been expressed in ideologies such as “The Third Way” and the social-democratic hallucination of “why isn’t capitalism just nice”.14 Given what has been outlined above and not despite of but rather because of a transferral of open and direct brutality into institutions creating structural violence—the educational-ideological apparatus of capitalism can never fulfil the social-democratic hallucinogenic illusions of “humane capitalism”.

Set against social-democratic illusions of nice capitalism and the practical (managerial regimes) and ideological (Managerialism/neo-liberalism) forces of domination remains the emancipatory objective that calls to attention the true humanists of education that cannot but reject the domination-cementing methods of the knowledge-depositing ideas of training regimes. Out of the rejection of structural violence in the form of domineering institutions comes a pursuit of emancipation as negation of what exists under managerial capitalism. But as a post-managerial and post-capitalist society may inherit methods from those cementing domination, emancipation demands to end these. An emancipatory society that still practises knowledge-depositing training regimes displays a fundamental mistake and distrusts the emancipatory potentials of human beings. In either case, such a society will—inevitably—be threatened by the spectre of domination.

Unfortunately, those seeking emancipation will find themselves enclosed and often even somewhat predisposed by the ideological atmosphere upon which the knowledge-depositing idea thrives. Quite often they even fail to recognise real implications of these dehumanising ideologies. Even more dangerously and often rather paradoxically, they tend to—at least subconsciously—employ the very instruments of alienation and even domination from which they seek to be emancipated from. And, indeed, some emancipatory ideas issued by innocent and naive followers of emancipatory processes, by social-democratic day- dreamers, by good-minded reformers, and perhaps even by spontaneous actions might be able to challenge the practice of domination. In spite of this, it remains a given that the emancipatory educator can never liberate people by further alienating them. Genuine emancipation—seen as a process of ascending humanisation—can never take place by another or newer form of depositing knowledge in “to-be” dominated subjects. Emancipation always means the Aristotelian “praxis” as well as the Hegelian actualisation of real emancipatory processes. It always includes critical pedagogy and self-reflection of people under the emancipatory imperatives of transforming the world. Those truly committed to the cause of educational emancipation can neither accept the mechanistic concept of depositing knowledge into an empty vessel to be filled nor use these training methods to enhance domination in the name of a faked humanity framed as a balancing act that is trapped between domination and emancipation.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >

Related topics