Philosophy of Education Society of Japan
President
Masaki SAKAKOSHI (Hiroshima Bunka Gakuen University)

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan
Editorial Board
Chief Editor
Masamichi UENO (Sophia University)
Board Members
Miyuki OKAMURA (Hiroshima University)
Kunimasa SATO (Ibaraki University)
Atsushi SUZUKI (Kyushu University)
Noriyuki HASHIMOTO(Yamanashi Prefectural University)
Tomoko HIGURASHI(Nihon University)
Koki HIRAISHI (Kanazawa University)
Yasushi MARUYAMA(Hiroshima University)
Reiko MUROI (Iwate University)
Kazunao MORITA(Osaka Shoin Women’sUniversity)
Sunji LEE (Hosei University)

Assistant Editor
Hiroshi SUZUKI(Sophia University)

Title: E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Societyof Japan, Vol. 9
Published: 1 August 2024
© 2024 Philosophy of Education Society of Japan
ISSN 2435-5364
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan is
published annually by the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan. The Office Address: Graduate School of Education,
Hiroshima University, 1-1-1, Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima City, Hiroshima 739-8524, Japan. Email: phil.ed.soc.jp
＠gmail.com

Contents
Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The “Weight” of the Existence of Me:“Shame” in Levinas
Rina KATO

1

The Learning Experience in Merleau-Ponty’s Theory:
The Connection with German Idealism
Shimpei TSUNEFUKA

19

Symposium
Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Possibilities of “Education” based on (through/aimed at) the Concept
of “Relationship”:
Inquiry in terms of “Language”, “Care” and “Excellence”
Hiromi OZAKI

37

Rethinking the “We”: Tomasello and Winnicott
Ryo SHIBUYA

49

Thinking about Education through Examining Human Beings
Yuhi FUJITA
Yuzo HIROSE
Yoshitsugu HIRATA

68

Thematic Research
How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of
Philosophy of Education

Philosophy of Education as Clinical and Critical Action
Mika OKABE

70

Intelligence toward Truthfulness:
A Perspective Based on Ranciére’s Educational Theory
Satoshi TANAKA

78

Analytic Philosophy of Education, Then and Now
Koichiro MISAWA

86

Summary Report on the Thematic Research
Yasuo IMAI
Masamichi UENO

107

Special Essay

Touch and Force:On the Ambivalence of Touching as a Possible Theme in the Philosophy of Education
109
Jun YAMANAE-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

The “Weight” of the Existence of Me:“Shame” in Levinas
Rina KATO
Kyoto University
Abstract
This paper explores the ethical interplay between the “I” and the Other, particularly within Levinas’s
philosophical framework, focusing on the concept of “shame” as a lens to critique the theory of the
Other within the philosophy of education. Levinas challenged the legitimacy of power itself byexamining situations beyond its control through the lens of shame, highlighting that in thephenomenon of shame, we can find a situation in which the “I” is riveted to its own existence. This
paper explores how the sense of shame shifts with the Other’s “election,” reversing the burden fromthe absurd weight of “the I can only be me” to the ethical imperative weight of “the I must be me.”This discussion navigates the aporia inherent in the theory of the Other in the philosophy of education,
where conflicting views emerge—the impossibility of fully understanding the Other versus thenecessity of the educational “project.” It introduces the notion of education’s potential for generating“shame,” illustrating the tension wherein attempting to disengage from the aporia proves futile as it isconstitutive of education itself. It argues that this aporia, rather than a hindrance, defines the essenceof education. Ultimately, the paper concludes that the ethical bond between the educator and theeducand thrives in embracing the tension of this aporia, as educators persist in understanding educands
through educational intention while grappling with the weight of their own existence.
Key words: Emmanuel Levinas, shame, ethics, the Other, the weight of the existence

Introduction“The methodological ‘project’ of formulating principles, establishing grounds andsystematizing is emblematic of modern spirit” noted Hitoshi Imamura (Imamura 1994,
55). However, Imamura also highlights an aspect often overlooked: “people do not notice
Correspondence:
Rina KATO, Kyoto University. Email: kato.rina.105@gmail.com

2

R. Katothat there is a characteristic of exclusion the foreign body in the inside (of the modern
spirit)” (55). The spirit of the “project” has permeated pedagogical discourse extensively.
With the advancement of educational technology, modern pedagogy often views humannature itself as an object that can be understood and controlled1. Reflecting on this aspectof modern pedagogy, efforts have emerged to unveil the coercive nature of educational“projects” and to challenge their legitimacy. One such endeavor is found in the theory of
the Other within the philosophy of education, influenced by post-colonialism. In thetheory of the Other, a tension arises from conflicting notions; firstly, despite attempts tocomprehend the Other through “projects,” complete understanding remains elusive dueto the inherent Otherness of the Other. Secondly, within educational contexts, it ischallenging to evade the pursuit of objectives and accountability, thus making theabandonment of “projects” in education impractical. Consequently, the theory of the
Other in the philosophy of education grapples with the dual challenge of acknowledging
the impossibility of fully understanding the Other while recognizing the necessity ofengaging in “projects” concerning the Other.
In this paper, we explore the tension inherent in the theory of the Other in thephilosophy of education, which we characterize as an aporia. We argue that the ethicalrelationship between the educator and the educand is truly established only within thetension of this aporia. To illustrate this, our paper focuses on the insights of EmmanuelLevinas (1906-1995), who pointed that human existence cannot be fully encapsulated by
the paradigm of the “project” emblematic of the modern spirit.
Levinas used the term “power (pouvoir)” to denote the capacity to autonomously
engage with and pursue goals through “projects.” According to Levinas, Western
philosophy has historically privileged the understanding of human beings in terms of their“power” (Œ2: 109). This philosophical tradition has labeled as “failures” events that defy
control through “power” and disrupt the spontaneous exercise of freedom (TI: 81-82=83).
However, beneath the labeling of such events as “failures,” there persists an implicit
affirmation of the legitimacy of “power” (TI: 81-82=83). Levinas challenges thisassumption by reframing events beyond the scope of “power” not as “failure” but asoccasions of “shame,” thereby casting doubt on the very legitimacy of “power” itself (TI:
82-83=83-84).

1

Tetsuo Okamoto (2012) highlights that in modern education, characterized by the dominance of “HumanCentered” worldview and the notion of autonomous individuals, a “mechanistic view of humans” based on“demonstrative scientism” has a prevalent perception of education as mere “conditioning” (22). Fumio Ono (2019)endeavors to reassess the modern educational paradigm, governed by technological rationality, through the lens of“knowledge of pathos.”The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The “Weight” of the Existence of Me: “Shame” in Levinas

3

Levinas pursued this inquiry within two primary contexts. Firstly, he engaged with
Heidegger’s concept of “facticity (Faktizität),” offering a critical reinterpretation. Here,
Levinas introduced the concept of “shame” to describe the existence of the “I” bearing“facticity.” Moreover, Levinas extended the application of the concept of “shame” to the
ethical dimension of relating to the Other. Thus, Levinas proposed that grappling with theexistence of the “I” in light of its facticity and navigating the ethical relationship with the
Other are intertwined endeavors, both aimed at questioning the legitimacy of “power”2.
However, most preceding studies overlook this aspect when addressing Levinas’squestion of “power” within the philosophy of education. This oversight is largely due tothe predominant focus of these studies on Levinas’s conception of the relationship with
the Other, originally developed within his philosophical framework 3 . While Levinas
indeed underscores the significance of questioning “power” within the context of the
Other, this paper argues that a deeper understanding emerges when we center ourattention on the concept of “shame,” revealing Levinas’s examination of the ethicalrelationship with the Other through the lens of human existence bearing “facticity”4.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to examine how the I engages in an ethicalrelationship with the Other while bearing its own “facticity,” using Levinas’s concept of“shame” as a guiding principle, and to describe this way of being of the I in terms of the“weight (poids)” of existence of me5. We seek to elucidate the essence of this existential“weight” of the I and demonstrate that the ethical connection with the Other is notestablished through the exertion of the I’s “power,” but rather is continuously shaped by
the I’s existence within the interconnected and reversing two “weight”6.
The term “the I,” frequently utilized in this paper, pertains to the concept of “the I” (le moi, je) as articulated by
Levinas. For further insights into Levinas’s exploration of “ipseity” as developed throughout the early and middle
phases of his career readers may refer to Hiroshi Hiraoka’s work (2019) on this subject.
3
Whether the term “power” is explicitly invoked or not, a significant portion of contemporary scholarship hasaddressed scenarios wherein my “power” is challenged by the Other. For instance, there is research examining thetension between the “power to interpret the Other” in education and Levinas’s critique of “power” (Ono 2002).
Additionally, studies explore the potential for a mode of thinking akin to “hearing” through an analysis of the
dynamics of relationships with the Other informed by Levinas’s critique of “power” (Williams and Standish 2018).
Moreover, investigations delve into the substance of Levinas’s critique of “power” by scrutinizing his objections
to the “maieutic method” (Hiraishi 2011). Finally, there are studies demonstrating, through an examination of
hyperbole—Levinas’s method of argumentation—, that Levinas’s manner of discourse itself serves a performative
function, prompting readers to critically reflect on their own “power” (Anjiki 2020).
4
In recent years, there have been critical examinations (Bernasconi 2012; Kotegawa 2015) of certain studies thatinterpret Levinas’s philosophy through the lens of the theory of the Other (Morgan 2009; Sato 2000).
5The discussion has largely focused on how Levinas incorporates and expands upon Heidegger’s notion of“facticity” (Calin 2011; Moati 2012; Rolland 2011). However, there has been insufficient examination of theconnection between the concept of “shame” introduced within his discourse on “facticity” and its role in his ethicaldiscussions. Additionally, the significance of the concept of “shame” has often been overlooked (Tonaki 2021, 373374).
6
Kazuya Wakabayashi (2021) also explores the dual significance of the “weight” of existence, with a particular
2

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

4

R. KatoIn this paper, we first summarize the theory of the Other, a subject actively debatedin the field of the philosophy of education, as a discourse on “power,” and elucidate thetensions within the aporia inherent in the theory of the Other in educational philosophy(Section 1). Subsequently, drawing on Levinas’s interpretation of Heidegger, we critique
Heidegger’s interpretation of “facticity,” which implicitly privileges “power” (Section 2).
Then, we delve into the nature of human existence burdened by “facticity,”
conceptualizing it as the “weight” of one’s being, through an analysis of Levinas’s
original interpretation of “facticity,” with a particular focus on the concept of “shame”(Section 3). Additionally, we elucidate how the implication of this existential “weight”
undergoes a reversal when the I, laden with “facticity,” is “elected” by the Other (Section
4). Building upon these discussions, this paper examines the implication of the tension
inherent in the aporia of the theory of the Other in the philosophy of education anddescribes the reality of the ethical relationship between the educator and the educand(Section 5). Finally, we illuminate the pedagogical significance of our finding(Conclusion).

1. The Discourse on “Power” in the Theory of the Other in the
Philosophy of Education
In this section, we delve into the theory of the Other within the philosophy ofeducation through the lens of the critique of “power.” This theory is discussed within two
key contexts: the theory of educational relationships, and the theory of human(trans)formation (Bildung) (Sakurai and Ozeki 2019). The theory of human(trans)formation emerged in a post-modern milieu characterized by skepticism towards
the simplistic valorization of educational aims. It represents an endeavor to relativize
education through the framework of “becoming” as an inherent aspect of human nature(Miyadera 2009). Against this backdrop, we emphasize that prior to delineating thedistinctions between the theory of educational relationships and the theory of human(trans)formation, a more fundamental issue arises from the different stances towards the“project” within the theory of the Other in the philosophy of education.
The theory of educational relationships addresses the dynamic between the educatorand the educand as the Other, while the theory of human (trans)formation explores thefocus on the concept of “shame.” However, his analysis lacks an explanation of the existential reality of the “weight”
that humans bear within ethical relationships while confronting “facticity.”
The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The “Weight” of the Existence of Me: “Shame” in Levinas

5

educand’s relationship with the world and other individuals as the Other. Whenexamining the relationship with the Other in this broad sense, whether within the theoryof educational relationships or the theory of human (trans)formation, the stance of thetheory of the Other diverges based on its approach to educational intention. Essentially,
two positions emerge: one advocates for integrating educational intention into thediscourse to foster an ethical relationship with the Other, while the other criticallyscrutinizes intentionality in “project” due to its potentially coercive nature, recognizing it
paradoxically as a hindrance to establishing an ethical relationship with the Other.
We would like to present two notable studies that align with the former position
regarding the “project.” The first study, conducted by Yasushi Maruyama (2002) delves
into the ethical relationship between the educator and the educand. In the wake of theincreasing awareness prompted by post-colonialism, there is a growing recognition that
educational intentions directed towards the educand can often be entangled withcolonialistic tendencies of control. In response to this awareness, Maruyama seeks to
strike a balance between educational intention and respect for the Otherness of theeducand. He posits that when confronted with the incomprehensible, what is necessary
is “the cultivation of the ability to imagine beyond one's own framework forunderstanding” (10). The second study, conducted by Mai Takahashi (2003), proposes a
perspective wherein “one immerses oneself in the intersecting horizons” of twocontrasting “consciousnesses”: the consciousness that “feels the need to understand” theOther, and the consciousness that acknowledges that the Other “must not be understoodin their own framework” (60). Takahashi argues that embracing these dual
consciousnesses simultaneously serves as a valuable “tool for ‘understanding,’” a notionthat pedagogy should advocate (60).
In these studies, we observe an inclination towards transcending inherent limitations
through the “project,” rooted in the self-discipline and concerted effort, even when one’s
capacity to comprehend the Other remains constrained. However, it is crucial not toregard their positions merely reverting to the modern spirit’s paradigm of the “project.”Maruyama and Takahashi recognize the inherent difficulty for education to eschew aims
and responsibilities in understanding the educand and fostering the educand’s
development. Hence, they persist in maintaining an orientation towards the educational“project.” Consequently, the theory of the Other in the philosophy of education
unavoidably grapples with conflicting ideas. On the one hand, despite engaging in a“project” to comprehend the Other, full understanding remains elusive due to the
Otherness of the Other. On the other hand, abandoning the educational “project” proveschallenging. Thus, it becomes imperative to reconcile both the impossibility of fully
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

R. Kato

6

understanding the Other and the necessity of the educational “project.” Considering thetension inherent in this aporia, Maruyama and Takahashi endeavor to confront it bycontinuing to pursue a “project” for an ethical relationship while acknowledging theimpossibility of fully understanding the Other. However, we can still scrutinize theirposition critically.
Maruyama locates ethical responsibility in the ongoing effort to comprehend the
Other, despite the Other’s inherent alienness. However, notably, he never questions the“project” itself from an ethical standpoint. In his discourse, regardless of the outcome of
one’s “project,” “the act is justified by the fact that one has done one’s best” in the process
of one’s effort (Maruyama 2002, 9). Similarly, Takahashi assigns a simplistic value to the“consciousness” (Takahashi 2003, 60) and the “intention” (61) to “feel the need tounderstand” the Other or acknowledge that the Other “must not be understood in theirown framework.” Yet, she fails to address the potential pitfalls of this naïve perspective,
particularly the inflated self-consciousness it engenders.
On the other hand, Naoko Saito (2002) sharply highlights the inherent violence
embedded within the notion of the “project.” Saito identifies “a closed state in the self inwhich one clings to make an effort to speak to the Other what one cannot speak, andtherefore, conversely, one cannot expose oneself to the voiceless voice from the Other”(32) within discussions aiming to realize ethical relationships through “projects.”
According to Saito, no matter how much individuals expand their “power” of selfconsciousness and effort, they cannot attain ethical relationships with the Other. Such
relationships transcend mere “project” endeavors.
The debate over whether ethical relationships are established through “projects” or
not has frequently surfaced in studies on Levinas within educational philosophy. Sharon
Todd (2001) argues that “the specifically ethical possibility of education, this possibility
for non-violent relation to the Other, can only ever emerge when knowledge is not ouraim” (73) within educational relationships 7 . Additionally, Todd suggests that whenteachers “teach with ignorance” (73), they “create a path toward an ethical horizon of
possibility” (73). However, Todd’s argument appears to leave open the possibility thatemphasizing teaching with “ignorance” might paradoxically be distorted into advocating
for achieving ethical relationships through “projects” by educators. Paul Standish (2001)
proposes that Todd’s argument could easily be manipulated into a discourse promoting“better interpersonal or communication skills” and “carefully calculated behaviors” (76).

7

The italicized text in quotations is the author’s own, unless otherwise specified.

The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The “Weight” of the Existence of Me: “Shame” in Levinas

7

As we have observed in this section, the participants in the debate approach theaporia within the theory of the Other in educational philosophy in distinct manners.
Maruyama and Takahashi suggest that establishing an ethical relationship with the Otheris achievable by persisting in “projects” aimed at understanding the Other, despite
recognizing the inherent limitations. Todd posits that the potential for ethical relationships
with the Other emerges through engaging in “projects” that involve relating to the Other
with ignorance. These arguments, while acknowledging the limitations of projects, stillaffirmatively accept the paradox and endeavor to establish ethical relationships throughthem. Consequently, the legitimacy of the “project” itself remains unquestioned, and thetension inherent in the aporia is somewhat disregarded. On the contrary, Saito’s andStandish’s arguments necessitate questioning the legitimacy of the educational “project,”
thereby addressing the aporia in a manner that maintains its tension. Hence, this paper
aims to describe how ethical relationships with the educand can be achieved by skillfully
navigating within this tension. Thus, starting from the next section, we will delve into thecontext of Levinas’s critique of “power” and engage in deeper discussions to confront
this aporia and scrutinize the educational “project.”

2. The Failure of Power: Levinas’s Interpretation of Heidegger’s“Facticity”
Levinas challenges the legitimacy of human “spontaneity” in his seminal work
Totality and Infinity (1961). In Levinas’s framework, “spontaneity” refers to “the naïve
right of my powers” (TI: 83=83), thus his discussion on critiquing “spontaneity” can beinterpreted as a critique of “power.” According to Levinas, traditional Western
philosophy encounters the critique of “spontaneity” when the certainty of “power,” thebelief in our unrestricted freedom, falters, leading to “failure” (TI: 81=83). It was believedthat this “failure” would expose the “weakness” inherent in “power” (TI: 81=83),
previously perceived as absolute, thus prompting a reevaluation of “power.” However,labelling the inability to exercise one’s “power” as “failure” still implies an
acknowledgement of “the undiscussed value” of “power” (TI: 81=83). Therefore,
Levinas argues that the critique of “spontaneity” and “power” in Western philosophy has
not been sufficiently radical.
Levinas’s objection to the critique of “power” through “failure” is underpinned byhis skepticism towards Heidegger’s discourse on “facticity.” Levinas interprets “fact” as“being made, accomplished and past and hence irrevocable, which as such obstructs our
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

8

R. Katospontaneity” (TI: 80=82), terming this characteristic of “fact” “facticity (facticité)”8. He
contends that “a consideration of the fact” has been discussed in Western philosophy as
the critique of “spontaneity” or “power” through “failure” (TI: 80-81=82). While notexplicitly mentioned, it is evident that Levinas is referring to Heidegger’s exploration of“Faktizität” as the Western philosophical discourse addressing “facticity.” In Heidegger’s
examination of the concept of “thrownness,” he considers the “facticity” of anindividual’s existence, acknowledging the inevitably of being thrown into the world
without choice (Heidegger 1957, 135=174). Levinas disagrees with Heidegger’s
characterization of “facticity” as the “failure” of “power,” a point that is elaborated onwhen Levinas examines “facticity” by drawing on Heidegger’s concept of “thrownness”9.
Heidegger articulates that “the expression ‘thrownness’ is meant to suggest thefacticity of its being delivered over” (Heidegger 1957, 135=174). Furthermore, he defines“facticity” as “a characteristic of Dasein’s Being—one which has been taken up into
existence, even if proximally it has been thrust aside” (Heidegger 1957, 135=174). From
this, it is evident that Heidegger suggests that human beings being already made to exist
in this world is not merely an experience; rather, “facticity” itself constitutes acharacteristic of Being that comprises human existence. While the I is free to exercise my“power” since “proximally” facticity “has been thrust aside” for me, this fact remains aninherent aspect of human existence that cannot be separated from oneself. Levinas
acknowledges this understanding of “facticity,” as he describes the characteristic of “fact”
as “irrevocable, which as such obstructs our spontaneity” (TI: 80=82).
However, Levinas take issue with Heidegger’s discussion of “projection (Entwurf)”
because he describes “facticity” which is “taken up into existence” (Heidegger 1957,
135=174) as something that can “be undertaken”. In his lecture “Power and Origin”(1949), Levinas thematically addresses this matter, stating that Heidegger emphasizes
that the “projection” “does not overcome the finite characteristic of thrownness, but
merely undertakes this characteristic by power to die” (Œ2: 131). However, within thisact of “undertaking” lurks “a power that can end” the self “in the finite itself” (Œ2: 129).
From Levinas’s perspective, whether it is the “overcoming” or “undertaking” of the“thrownness,” Heidegger’s thought still revolves around “power” while discussing“facticity.” Initially, according to Heidegger’s description, “facticity” is an intrinsic ofBeing that consists human existence, and thus one should not be able to distance oneself
8

His explanation of “fact (fait)” largely stems from linguistic considerations in French, where the word “fait”
originates from the past participle of the verb “faire,” meaning “make” or “do.”9This paper solely examines Heidegger’s thought within the framework of critiquing “power,” drawing heavily
from Levinas’s interpretations of Heidegger.
The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The “Weight” of the Existence of Me: “Shame” in Levinas

9from it. However, beneath Heidegger’s notion that “facticity is undertaken,” there is an
assumption that we can maintain a distance from “facticity” and manage it in some way.
It is this contradiction in Heidegger’s framework that Levinas interrogates.
Heidegger appeared to question the legitimacy of “power” by exploring “facticity”
and revealing the condition of human beings who inevitably bear their own existence.
However, Levinas’s critique suggests that Heidegger ultimately did not transcend theframework of implicitly valuing “power” because he sought to maintain the possibilityof undertaking “facticity.”
The preceding discussion has illuminated Levinas’s critique regarding Heidegger’s
interpretation of “facticity.” Levinas’s critical perspective has already surfaced in his own
interpretation of “facticity” in the 1930s, predating his lecture “Power and Origin” (1949),
where he extensively examined how human existence bears “facticity” in a manner
distinct from the “failure” of “power.” In the subsequent section, we focus on thisalternative approach to “facticity.”

3. The Absurd “Weight” of the Existence of Me
Levinas discussed how human existence bears “facticity” in his early article “On
Escape” (1935). This article is often interpreted in light of Heidegger’s “philosophy of
being” (Ev: 94=51) 10 . While Heidegger’s philosophy maintains the possibility that
individuals can undertake “facticity,” Levinas, in this article, emphasizes that “the fact the
I is oneself” has the “most radical and unalterably binding of chains” (Ev: 98=55). In
essence, Levinas does not confine himself within the realm of “power” by contemplating
the prospect of human beings undertaking “facticity,” as Heidegger does. Instead, hethoroughly exposes the destiny of human beings who persistently bear “facticity,” namely,
their own existence, and endeavors to portray the human condition as something thattranscends mere the framework of “power.” At this juncture, Levinas introduces theconcept of “shame.” Thus, this section examines human existence grappling with“facticity” in a manner distinct from “failure” of “power” by focusing on the concept of“shame” in the article “On Escape.”
Incidentally, in his main work Totality and Infinity, Levinas also discusses “shame”
as “the consciousness of moral unworthiness” (TI: 82=83) and “a consciousness of guilt”
10Jacques Rolland asserts that the article “On Escape” should be interpreted as “an attempt of hermeneutics offacticity” (Rolland 2011, 27=13).

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

10

R. Kato(TI: 81=83). Thus, the concept of “shame” can be understood to encompass “phenomenaof a moral order” (Ev: 111=63) according to Levinas. However, Levinas contends in theearly article “On Escape” that presenting “shame” merely as a specific morally
reprehensible act (Ev: 112=63) or as a form of social interaction with others (Ev: 112113=64) is an inadequate analysis of shame (Ev: 111-112=63). He endeavors to surpass
these limitations inherent in the analysis of “shame” and focuses on the notion that,
fundamentally, “if shame is present, it means that we cannot hide what we should like tohide” (Ev: 113=64). By emphasizing this aspect, Levinas suggests that “shame” arises
most fundamentally from “the fact of being riveted to oneself” (Ev: 113=64). In essence,
Levinas suggests that the “I” can only be itself, and since the “I” is itself, it cannot escapeor conceal itself from itself; thus, the facticity of existence is fundamental for the “I.”
The human condition of “shame,” so deeply intertwined with one’s existence thatthe “I” cannot escape, manifests as “malaise” (Ev: 114=66), resulting from being
enclosed on all sides with no way to flee. Levinas examines the phenomenon of “nausea”
as “a case in which the nature of malaise appears in all its purity” (Ev: 115=66) and seeks
to elucidate the human condition of “shame” concretely. According to Levinas, whenexperiencing “nausea,” the “I” is unable to distance itself from the feeling due to theimpossibility of escaping from one’s own body (Ev: 115=66). In this state, the “I” isriveted to its existence in a manner where it wishes to flee from itself but is incapable ofdoing so. Levinas underscores that “malaise” induced by “nausea” differs from “anobstacle” (Ev: 115=66). While “an obstacle” is external to one’s endeavors, allowing the“I” to exist while turning away from it even if insurmountable, “nausea” is inherent to the“I,” and the existence of the “I” experiencing “nausea” is intertwined with it. Essentially,in “nausea,” the “I” seeks to escape its own existence, yet simultaneously affirms its
connection to existence through the very experience of "nausea" itself. Levinas
characterizes this connection as a “relationship” (Ev: 118=68), wherein the very act ofattempting to flee one’s being becomes “the affirmation itself of being” (Ev: 118=68).
Thus, through the analysis of the phenomenon of “nausea,” Levinas offers a
concrete description of the human condition of “shame,” wherein the “I” is inexorably
riveted to its own existence. Levinas’s discussion elucidates that despite humanendeavors to surpass the limitations defining its existence, it remains entangled in the very
constraints that delineate it. In essence, there is no escape from the fate that “the I canonly be me.” Levinas encapsulates this notion by stating that “being is, at bottom, aweight for itself” (Ev: 114=65). For the individual, their existence becomes a “weight”
that must be borne indefinitely, an absurd “weight” that cannot be shed throughout life.
Amidst the unbearable absurdity, the I should like to hide one’s existence, acknowledging
The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The “Weight” of the Existence of Me: “Shame” in Levinas

11that the I has no choice but to endure and cannot hide its own being. Thus, the individual
experiences “shame.” In this manner, Levinas depicts human existence as radicallybearing its own existence, offering an interpretation of “facticity” that diverges from
Heidegger’s perspective.

4. The Ethical “Weight” of the Existence of Me
As we have explored in the preceding section, the concept of “shame” in Levinas’s
early article “On Escape” (1935) suggests bearing the absurd “weight” that “I can only
be me.” Subsequently, in Totality and Infinity (1961), Levinas discusses that the genesisof moral consciousness, found in the welcoming of the Other and measuring oneself
against infinity, is embodied as “shame” (TI: 82=84). Here, “shame” not only signifies
engagement with facticity but also holds moral significance. Moreover, Levinas
explicitly integrates his concept of “the Other” into the context where “shame” is utilized,
implying a close connection between the I being riveted to its existence and the ethicalrelationship with the Other within the concept of “shame.” This brings to question themanner in which they are linked. To address this inquiry, this section delves into how
Levinas elaborated on the “I” bearing “facticity” after the publication of “On Escape.”
Firstly, we examine the draft for his lecture “Teachings” (1950), crafted during thetransition from “On Escape” (1935) to Totality and Infinity (1961). In this lecture,
Levinas revisits the notion of the I being riveted to its existence from a perspective distinct
from the “absurdity” discussed in “On Escape.” This discussion offers a crucial viewpoint
revealing the interconnectedness of the I being riveted to its existence and its ethicalrelationship with the Other in moral consciousness.
Levinas raises a poignant question in his lecture “Teachings,” asking “Doesn’t thedrama of not having chosen one’s existence unravel when the I learns that the I has beenchosen?” (Œ2: 184). Here, he suggests the possibility that one “learns” that the I that is
riveted to its existence “is the I” that is “being created and elected” (Œ2: 184). By
examining existence through the lens of “creation,” Levinas underscores the inherent
connection with the origin, already inscribed in the fact of being riveted to one’s existence.
Within this framework, the notion of “my ipseity” finds residence in the “election,”signifying the creaturely nature of the I, fashioned by the Creator (Œ2: 186; Œ2: 184185). Through this reevaluation of existence, Levinas endeavors to reassess the absurdity

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

12

R. Katoof the I being riveted to its existence in light of its election by the Creator11.
Thus, the absurdity of the I being riveted to its existence is reevaluated through thelens of “being elected.” However, the notion of “being elected” is not apprehended byrevisiting the origin and “the vision of God” to understand what the Creator is (Œ2: 186).
Following the lecture “Teachings,” Levinas delves into the concept of “election” further
in Totality and Infinity. Here, Levinas posits that the I is “an election” (TI: 274=245) andproceeds to elucidate the sense of being elected in Totality and Infinity. Specifically,
concerning the responsibility that the I bears towards the Other, Levinas asserts that “noone can replace me” in it and “no one can release me” from it; “to be unable to shirk: thisis the I” (TI: 275=245). While the concept of “election” portrays the I as “a creature” inthe lecture “Teachings,” it signifies the I as the one bearing responsibility to the Other inthese statements in Totality and Infinity. This shift in emphasis is rooted in Levinas’s
interpretation of the relationship between the Creator (God) and the Other. Levinas
contends that “the Other … is indispensable for my relationship with God” (TI: 77=78)
and “it is our relationships with men … that give to theological concepts the solesignification they admit of” (TI: 77=79). In essence, Levinas does not forsake theperspective of “election by the Creator” in his exploration of “election by the Other.”
Instead, he posits that it is precisely in being elected by the Other that one’s existence as“a creature” is imbued with sense12. Thus, the sense of the I’s existence is not derived
from getting out of absurdity by apprehending the Creator, but rather, it is conferred by
the Other when the I is needed and elected, bearing its existence as irreplaceable.
The implication of the absurd (non-sense) existence of me being given a sense by
the Other transforms the understanding of the fact that the I exist. This transformation canbe described by integrating discussions over the “weight” of existence found in both theearly article “On Escape” and Totality and Infinity.
As Levinas stated in the early article “On Escape,” the I is riveted to its existence,
regardless of one’s hopes, burdened by bearing the absurd “weight” that “I can only beme.” The I should like to hide and get out of its existence due to this absurdity, yet it
Yotetsu Tonaki (2021) suggests that Levinas “needs the concept of creation” for the purpose of“thinking beyond the limit of thrownness and facticity” within Heidegger (260). Behind Levinas’s
discussion of “creation,” there is considerable influence from the thought of Franz Rosenzweig. Levinas
himself acknowledges his familiarity with Rosenzweig’s philosophy as early as 1935 (Poirié 1987, 121),
suggesting that this encounter played a role in shaping Levinas’s departure from Heidegger (Cohen 1994,
236). Given these contexts, it is essential to explore how Levinas accepts and develops the concept of“creatureliness (Kreatürlichkeit)” from Rosenzweig in his depiction of human beings as “creatures.”This area warrants further analysis.

11

12

If we interpret it in this manner, there arises a need for further discussion. Specifically, we must explore how thesignificance of “election by the Creator” is reinterpreted through Levinas’s discussion of “election by the Other.”This aspect presents an avenue for future analysis.

The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The “Weight” of the Existence of Me: “Shame” in Levinas

13

cannot hide it and must endure it, leading to a profound sense of “shame.” However, as
discussions of “election” inherited from the lecture “Teachings” to Totality and Infinity
reveal, the Other imparts a sense to the absurdity of the I’s existence; the sense is ethicalin nature. According to Levinas, when the I is needed and elected by the Other, it is“unable to shirk” the responsibility it bears towards the Other (TI: 275=245). In essence,the very existence of the I is a response to the “election” by the Other, as the I is alreadychosen by the Other before it even decides whether to accept this “election.” Therefore,
the I must embrace its existence. The I that bear its existence as an elected one experiences“shame” in the sense of “the consciousness of moral unworthiness” (TI: 82=83) for
existing as the mere absurd “weight” of “I can only be me.” The I should like to hide itself
due to “shame,” yet it cannot hide it because its very existence is a response to the Other.
The I must exist as a response to others because it is morally “ashamed” of itself. At thisjuncture, the I can be interpreted as bearing the “weight” of “the I must be me” while
experiencing “shame” as an irreplaceable being who has always borne the responsibilityof being elected by the Other.
Thus, the “weight” of the existence of me is reversed from the absurd “weight” that“the I can only be me” to the “weight” in the ethical sense that “the I must be me”;
therefore the manner in which the I exists is transformed13. As stated above, per Levinas,
being riveted to the existence of me is closely linked to having a relationship with the
Other in moral consciousness because of the possibility that the sense of the “weight” that
the I exists is reversed.

5. Addressing the Aporia in the Theory of the Other in the Philosophy of
Education
As established in Section 1, the theory of the Other encounters an aporia. This theory
acknowledges that, on one hand, despite efforts to undertake a “project” to comprehend
the Other, understanding remains elusive due to the inherent Otherness of the Other. On
the other hand, the educational “project” cannot be forsaken. Various arguments haveemerged concerning the tension inherent in this aporia within the philosophy of education.
In this section, drawing the preceding discussion of Levinas, we will confront the tension
13

Rodolphe Calin highlights Levinas’s identification of a distinct “weight” of existence in the relationship with the
Other, separate from the notion of “facticity,” through Levinas’s term “glory” (Calin 2011, 30-32). Nevertheless,Calin does not explicitly delineate the ways in which the “weights” of existence in these two contexts differ andresemble each other.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

14

R. Katostemming from this aporia once more and profoundly question the educational “project.”
Consequently, we will elucidate the ethical relationship between the educator and theeducand.
The conventional exploration of the theory of the Other in the philosophy ofeducation, as discussed in Section 1, continues to advance discussions aroundundertaking a “project” for fostering ethical relationships, while acknowledging inherent
difficulty in understanding the Other. They certainly consider conflicting dynamics.
However, when viewed through Levinas’s perspective, these discussions implicitly
frame the inability to comprehend the Other as a “failure” of education, while affirming
the educational significance of the “project” within the context of educational objectives
and responsibilities. Conversely, if we interpret the impossibility of understanding the
Other not as the “failure” of education but as education’s potential “shame,” the tension
inherent in the aporia of the theory of the Other in the philosophy of education takes on adifferent dimension. Even if one wished to get rid of the tension from the education, suchdetachment is impossible; instead, the tension constitutes the essence of education itself.
Consequently, the aporia is reframed as the absurdity that defines the very essence of
education.
The educator bears the inherent absurdity that defines the essence of education.
However, this acknowledgment does not preclude the possibility of the educator and theeducand establishing an ethical relationship. Considering what the educator should be in
the light of Levinas’s argument, the educator intends to establish the ethical relationshipby educational “project” with aims and responsibility but cannot understand the Other
because he or she is riveted to his or her own existence. The educator is a being accepting
one’s fate with resignation because they are forced to bear such absurd “weight.” At thesame time, however, the educator always already exists as an elected being by theeducand if we consider based on Levinas’s discussion of “election.” Therefore, even if
the aims that the educator set cannot be achieved through “project,” the words that he or
she speaks and the way that he or she is present are always already his or her very
response to the educand. That makes the educator, who regards the fact that one exists as
the absurd “weight” and has been bearing the “weight,” feel shame, and then gives the“weight” an ethical sense. Since no one else can replace the position that is elected by theeducand, the educator is called for readiness to bear its own “weight” by the educand. In
this way, when the resignation to the fact that “the I can only be me” is transformed to
the readiness to the fact that “I must be me,” the educator is neither naively affirming
educational “project” nor simply eliminating the orientation of educational “project” andleave it to chance. In this balance, a path to the ethical relationship between the educator
The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The “Weight” of the Existence of Me: “Shame” in Levinas

15

and the educand is opening.
According to Levinas’s discussion, the ethical relationship between the educator andthe educand is not necessarily accomplished through the “project” undertaken by theeducator. Our examination of the concept of “shame” reveals that the aporia in the theoryof the Other in the philosophy of education—where conflicting views on theimpossibility of understanding the Other and the necessity of educational “project”
coexist—is not something to be overcome initially. Instead, it is what the educator must
bear, without resolving its conflicting nature, as the intrinsic “weight” of their existence.
In essence, the educator is tasked by the educand to shoulder the responsibility of existing
within this aporia. By embracing the dual “weight” of remaining within the tension of theaporia while striving to understand the educand through the educational “project,” rather
than attempting to resolve the tension outright, the educator’s very mode of existence
fosters an ethical relationship.

Conclusion
This paper explored the ethical relationship between the I and the Other, focusing
on the concept of “shame” in the context of the “weight” of existence of one’s own
existence. It elucidated that the aporia within the theory of the Other in the philosophy ofeducation should not be immediately overcome through educational “project.” Rather,
Levinas suggests that educators should embrace the aporia and carry the dual “weight”
of their existence, which diverges from simply relinquishing attempts to understand theeducand through the educational “project.” Only by doing so can an ethical relationshipbetween the educator and the educand truly flourish.
This perspective implies that the inherent paradox of education itself—where
educators continually strive towards an unattainable utopia—is not inherently ethicalbehavior. Our daily endeavors to understand the Other, whether in formal education
settings or in various interpersonal interactions—the relationship between adult and childand interactions among people who live in various cultures and speak different
languages—, are haunted by the impossibility of fully comprehending the Other.
However, when viewed through the lens of Levinasian philosophy, the act of engaging
in the educational “project” inherently expresses one’s response to the Other. Thus,
anyone involved in educational endeavors can cultivate an ethical relationship with the
Other by shouldering the existential “weight” inherent in the pursuit of ideals and by
existing as one elected by the Other.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

16

R. KatoReferences
Works of Emmanuel Levinas
Quotations from works of Levinas follow the abbreviations below and are indicated as(abbreviation: number of pages in original text=number of pages in English translation).
Ev: De l’évasion [1935]. Paris: Fata Morgana. Le livre de Poche. 2011. (On escape. Trans.
Bettina Bergo. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 2003.)
Œ2: Œuvres 2. Parole et silence et autres conférences inédites au Collège philosophique.
Paris: Grasset-IMEC. 2011.
TI: Totalité et Inifini: Essai sur l’extériorité [1961]. Paris: Martinus Nijhoff. Libre depoche. 1990. (Totality and Infinity: an Essay on Exteriority. Trans. Alphonso Lingis.
Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. 1969.)
Other Works
Anjiki, Yuhei. 2020. “…Shinaosu” Seicho Moderu ni kansuru Hihanteki Kento:
Kyoikugaku ni okeru Tasharon no Jikomujun no Mondai ni shoten o atete (Critical
Study of the Growth Model Characterized by “Redoing”: Focusing on the Problem
of Self-contradiction in the Educational Theory of the Other) Kyoikugakukenkyu 87,
no.1:13-24.
Bernasconi, Robert. 2012. Levinas's Ethical Critique of Levinasian Ethics. Eds. ScottDavidson and Diane Perpich. In Totality and Infinity at 50. Pittsburgh: Duquesne
University Press:253-269.
Calin, Rodolphe. 2011. Préface. In Œuvres 2. Parole et silence et autres conférences
inédites au Collège philosophique. Paris: Grasset-IMEC:13-42.
Cohen, Richard A. 1994. Elevations: The Height of the Good in Rosenzweig and Levinas.
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Heidegger, Martin. 1957. Sein und Zeit. (8. Unveränderte Aufl.) Tübingen:Max
Niemeyer Verlag. (Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson.
New York: Harper. 1962.)
Hiraishi, Koki. 2011. Taritsu ni yoru Jiritsu: Rebinasu ni okeru “Osie” no Gainen omegutte (Autonomy by Heteronomy: over the Concept of “Teaching” in Levinas)
Kyoikutetsugakukenkyu, no.104:114-132.
Hiraoka, Hiroshi. 2019. “Jiko e no Genzen” kara “Jiko no moto deno Genzen” e:
The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The “Weight” of the Existence of Me: “Shame” in Levinas

17

Rebinasu ni okeru Jikosei no toi o megutte (from “Presence to the Self” to “Presencein the Self”: the Question of “the Ipseity” in Levinas) Levinas-kenkyu, no.1:54-64
Imamura, Hitoshi. 1994. Kindaisei no Kozo: “Kuwadate” kara “Kokoromi” e (theStructure of the Modernity: from “Project” to “Attempt”) kodansha.
Kotegawa, Shojiro. 2015. Yomigaeru Rebinasu: “Zentaisei to Mugen” Dokkai (Reviving
Levinas: Philosophical Lecture of “Totality and Infinity”) suiseisha.
Maruyama, Yasushi. 2002. Kyoiku to iu Higeki, Kyoiku ni okeru Tasha: Kyoiku no
Koroniarizumu o Koete (Tragedy of Education, the Other in Education: Beyond theColonialism of/in Education) Kindaikyoiku-forum 11:1-12.
Miyadera, Akio. 2009. Kyoiku no Gainen Kitei no Arikata: Kihanshugi to Jijitushugi no
Sohan (Defining/Defending the Concept of Education: a Conflict between
Normativism and Factualism) Kyoikutetsugakukenkyu, special 100th anniversary
issue:56-70.
Moati, Raoul. 2012. Événements Nocturnes: Essai sur Totalité et Infini.Paris: Hermann.
(Levinas and the Night of Being: A Guide to Totality and Infinity. Trans. Daniel
Wyche. New York: Fordham University Press. 2017.)
Morgan, Michael L. 2009. Discovering Levinas. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Okamoto, Tetsuo. 2012. Kyoiku no Imi to Siso (the Sense and Thought of Education) In
Ningen to Kyoiku o Katarinaosu: Kyoiku Kenkyu eno Izanai (Deconstruct Our
Images of Human Nature and Education: An Alternative Way of Inquiry), ed.
Sumeragi Norio, 2-41. Mineruva Shobo.
Ono, Fumio. 2002. Kyoikutetsugaku ni okeru Tasha Kaishaku no Giho no Kisei ni tsuite:
Rebinasu to Buba no Hikaku o toshite (On the Mechanism of Arts of. Interpreting
Others in the Philosophy of Education: Lévinas and Buber)
Kyoikutetsugakukenkyu no.85:59-75.
Ono, Fumio. 2019. Kyoiku ni okeru Gijutsu eno toi to Patosu eno toi: Moroi Bubun ni
tatsu Kyoikutetsugaku e (the Questions to Techonology and Pathos in Education:
Philosophy of Education Standing on the Fragile Foundation) In Ima, Kyoiku to
Kyoikugaku o Toinaosu: Kyoikutetsugaku wa nani o kyumei si, nani o tenbosuru ka(Now, Rethinking Education and Pedagogy: What does Philosophy of Education
Investigate and See), ed. Morita Hisato and Matsuura Yoshimitsu, 268-310.
Toshindo.
Poirié, François. 1987. Emmanuel Levinas. Lyon: La Manufacture.
Rolland, Jacques. 2011. Sortir de l'être par une nouvelle voie. In De l'évasion. Paris: Fata
Morgana. Le Livre de Poche:9-88. (Getting Out of Being by a New Path. In On
Escape. Trans. Bettina Bergo, 3-48. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 2003.)
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

18

R. Kato

Saito, Naoko. 2002. Kyoiku no Kibo (Education’s Hope) Kindaikyoiku-forum 11:27-36.
Sakurai, Yoshiki. and Ozeki Tatsuya. 2019. Kyoikugaku ni okeru Tasharon no Mondai:
Kyoikutekikankeiron to Toyaron no shiten kara (the Theory of the Other inPedagogy: from the Perspective of the Theory of Educational Relationship and theTheory of Human (Trans)formation) In Kyoikutekikankei no Kaishakugaku(Hermeneutics of Educational Relationships), ed. Maruyama Yasushi and Yamana
Jun, 97-112. Toshindo.
Sato, Yoshiyuki. 2000. Rebinasu no Rinri: Kao to Keijijogaku no Hazama de (Ethics inLevinas: between the “Face” and Metaphysics), Keisoshobo.
Standish, Paul. 2001. Learning from Levinas: The Provocation of Sharon Todd,
Philosophy of Education 2001. Ed. Suzanne Rice:75-77.
Takahashi, Mai. 2003. Tasha to “Deau” Chihei: Rikai no Choetsu to Rikai no Boryokusei
ni kansite no Ichikosatsu (Where We “Meet” the Other: A Study on theTranscendence and Violence of Understanding) Kyoikutetsugakukenkyu no.87:4666
Todd, Sharon. 2001. On Not Knowing the Other, or Learning from Levinas. Philosophyof Education 2001. Ed. Suzanne Rice:67-74.
Tonaki, Yotetsu. 2021. Rebinasu no Kuwadate: “Zentaisei to Mugen” to “Ningen” no
Tasosei (Levinas’s Project: Totality and Infinity and the Multilayered Human)
Wakabayashi, Kazuya. 2021. Shinri to Haji: Emanyueru Rebinasu no DatsuSonzaironteki Sisaku (Truth and Shame: De-existential Thoughts in EmmanuelLevinas) Syukyogakukenkyushitsukiyo no.17:84-98.
Williams, Emma. and Standish, Paul. 2018. Sound not Light: Levinas and the Elementsof Thought, In Levinas and the Philosophy of Education. Ed. Guoping Zhao.
Ambingdon and New York: Routledge:38–51.

The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

The Learning Experience in Merleau-Ponty’s Theory:
The Connection with German Idealism
Shimpei TSUNEFUKA
Keio University
Abstract
This paper aims to show that Merleau-Ponty’s theory of embodiment has a wide range of potentialities
to explain learning experiences that require the abstract operation of symbols, such as mathematics,
by focusing on his acceptance of Kant and German idealism. Many studies in the realm of thephilosophy of education seem to assume that Merleau-Ponty criticized objective thought into whichscience tends to fall and regarded German idealism as its origin. Contrary to what many commentators
suppose, this paper examines Merleau-Ponty’s texts (mainly Phenomenology of Perception andNature) to elucidate a different link to German idealism. Merleau-Ponty does not directly criticize
Kant, but the intellectualistic interpretation by neo-Kantians in France (e.g., Lachièze-Rey). He
follows the same path as the German idealism of Schelling and Hegel, who interpreted and extended
Kant’s theory. Merleau-Ponty appreciates Schelling and Hegel for expanding the concept of Nature
by taking on “intellectual intuition” and “intuitive understanding,” which Kant himself neverdeveloped. According to Merleau-Ponty, Nature is not just something filled with physical causality
but also latent and perceivable with the meaning inherent in culture and history. It is worth noting,however, that Merleau-Ponty speaks of “intellectual intuition” or “intuitive understanding” as “bodily
intentionality,” based neither on transcendental consciousness nor the Nature with its primordial
identity, but on the body. According to his theory, Nature is perceived by the body before theexperience of judgment, and simultaneously this perception creates in Nature a space that motivates
new perceptions. Through this learning model, he argues that the learning experience in mathematics
is also body-based.
Key words: Merleau-Ponty · Kant · German idealism · Learning experience · Body intentionality ·NatureCorrespondence:
Shimpei TSUNEFUKA, Keio University. Email: tsuneshim@gmail.com

20

S. TSUNEFUKA

Introduction
This paper clarifies the range of Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s theory of embodiment within
the context of educational philosophy, focusing on his acceptance of Kant and German
idealism.
What many Merleau-Ponty studies on educational philosophy have revealed is that
concrete bodily movements play a certain role in learning. These studies include thosethat focus on teacher-student interactions in the classroom and learning experiences inmaster-apprentice relationships in traditional performing arts, such as Buyo.1 However,
his theory of embodiment has rarely been used to discuss learning experiences in higherorder disciplines, such as mathematics and natural sciences.2 Various circumstances canbe considered the background for this. For instance, Merleau-Ponty criticizes the“objective thought” that science tends to fall into. The perspective of objective thought
treats the world as something fully constituted in homogeneous time and space; that is,something that can be exhausted in a determinate manner. Many Merleau-Ponty studies
have argued that this perspective originated in Kant or transcendental German idealism.3
In other words, Merleau-Ponty has been assumed to have rejected Kant and Hegel assubjectivists. Therefore, there have been few attempts to apply his theory of embodiment
to the analysis of learning experiences in disciplines such as mathematics and the natural
Within the context of the philosophy of education, see Fujita (2003) for a reconsideration of Merleau-Ponty’s
developmental concepts from his pedagogy lectures. See Nishioka (2005) for an application of Merleau-Ponty’s
pedagogy lectures to the analysis of adult-child relationships in the classroom, and Okui (2015) for theirapplication to the analysis of the transmission of knowledge in master-apprentice relationships in traditional
performing arts, such as Buyo. In phenomenological theoretical studies, Howell (2015) compares Merleau-Ponty’s
theory of learning experiences with Husserl’s in terms of the temporal structure of habits.
2
Okui (2013) suggests a link between physical experience and abstract intellectual work in Merleau-Ponty’s
theory. However, in doing so, he does not draw from Merleau-Ponty’s texts but from the American philosopher oflanguage, Mark Johnson’s. In addition, he does not detail how physical experience and abstract intellectual work
are linked. In this paper, I present the link between the two and how they work together by intrinsically interpreting
Merleau-Ponty's reception of German idealism.
3
In Merleau-Ponty studies, some scholars trace the origins of such objective thought (as subjectivist) he criticizes
to as Descartes or Kant (Carman 2008: 12, Morris 2012: 15), while others trace them to Kant and early Husserl,
who conceived transcendental idealism (Romdenh-Romluc 2010: 20). This tendency can also be seen in German
studies of the philosophy of education, where the achievements of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology are described
as if they arose from a different context than Kant’s philosophy (Ehrenspeck 1996: 219-220). Contrary to this,recent Merleau-Ponty studies have increasingly attempted to show that Merleau-Ponty has some affinity with
Kantian philosophy and to clarify what aspects he has inherited/not inherited from Kant (cf. Antich 2019; Landes
2015; Matherne 2014, 2016). The background to this trend is that in recent years, after the publication of influential
studies such as Allison (2004), the interpretation that Kant’s text itself can be read in a non-conceptualist way isgaining significant acceptance (cf. Allais 2016). I will offer the interpretation that Merleau-Ponty incorporated
Kant’s “intellectual intuition” and “intuitive enlightenment” by recombining them with body intentionality.
1

The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The Learning Experience in Merleau-Ponty’s Theory:
The Connection with German Idealism

21

sciences, which require the abstract operation of symbols. His account also seems to havebeen seen as alien to the tradition of the Bildungstheorie that has developed in the linewith German idealism since Kant.
Contrary to what many commentators suppose, I show how Merleau-Ponty reads
Kant as well as Schelling and Hegel to explain the learning experience. This analysis will
reveal that his theory of embodiment has a wide range of applications and can explain
the learning experience and its theoretical development in disciplines that require abstract
symbolic operations, such as mathematics.
In this paper, I draw on Phenomenology of Perception 4 as the main source ofMerleau-Ponty’s interpretation of Kant, supplemented by his lectures on Nature5 from
1956–1960, in which he adds many commentaries on Kant. In this paper, I proceed asfollows: First, I provide an overview of how the subjectivist interpretation of Kant is
criticized in Phenomenology of Perception (Section 1). Then, I confirm that MerleauPonty recognizes the significance of Schelling’s and Hegel’s interpretation of Kant andits extension (Section 2). In the final section, I argue that with his expanding interpretationof Kant’s schematism—by making imagination (rather than the capacity of
consciousness) based on the body as part of Nature—Merleau-Ponty offers a theory of
embodiment that can also explain the learning experience in disciplines that require theabstract operation of symbols (Section 3).

1 A critique of the subjectivist interpretation of Kant
Merleau-Ponty did not dismiss all of Kant’s arguments. For example, in the preface toPhenomenology of Perception, he agrees with Kant’s stance in the Critique of Judgment,6
which posits that “there exists a unity of the imagination and the understanding and aunity of subjects before the object” (PhP xii). What, then, does Merleau-Ponty attributeto Kant’s argument in his criticism? In the preface to the same book, he criticizes Kant’s
Critique of Pure Reason7 for having ended up analyzing the experience of consciousness
in which a predicative unity is formed (cf. PhP xiii). In other words, Kant is only

Henceforth cited as PhP and the page number in the text.
In this paper, “Nature” is capitalized with the following special connotation, as described by Merleau-Ponty andGerman idealists: Nature refers to something that includes not only physical causality but also the historical andcultural meanings of human beings; henceforth cited as N and the page number in the text.
6
Henceforth cited as KU and the page number in the text.
7
Henceforth cited as A (1781) and/or B (1787) edition and the page number in the text.
4
5

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

22

S. TSUNEFUKA

concerned with analyzing experiences with propositional content established after
perceptual experience; i.e., experiences that appear in the form of judgments andinferences.8 It should be noted here that Merleau-Ponty does not directly criticize Kant’s
analysis of experience in the form of judgments and inferences; rather, he criticizes Kant
for considering this experience to constitute all of experience. In this section, I begin bydescribing the Kantian interpretation criticized by Merleau-Ponty. Next, I specify
Merleau-Ponty’s matter in question as the conditions on the part of the subject that makeperceptual experience possible.
1.1 The Critique of Pure Reason according to Merleau-Ponty
Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception seems to premise the model of theformation of experience in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason as follows: In “sensibility,” “agiven multiple [of stimuli]” is passively received as intuition; then, in “understanding,”
its highest principle, synthetic apperception, spontaneously “peruses it [i.e., the given
multiple] and completely penetrates it” (cf. PhP 279). Next, I summarize the differences
between the description of “transcendental deduction” in the A and B editions of the
Critique of Pure Reason and draw a picture of Kant, whom Merleau-Ponty criticized asa subjectivist.
According to Kant, when we consider the formation of human experience, there
are two independent and incommensurable capacities of human cognition. On the one
hand, there is sensibility, which is the act of intuition that receives an object; on the other
hand, there is understanding, which is the act of inference and judgment about that object.
Recognition is achieved through the union of these two completely different moments.
Possibly following Heidegger’s interpretation in Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics,
Merleau-Ponty seems to suppose that the A and B editions have very different accountsof how these moments come together.9
Edition A reads as follows: “The principle of the necessary unity of the pure(productive) synthesis of the imagination prior to apperception is thus the ground of thepossibility of all cognition, especially that of experience” (A 118). Imagination was also
considered “a common but to us unknown root”(A 15=B 29) that makes both sensibility
and understanding possible—i.e., this fundamental and mediational capacity connects
Antich (2019) argues that there is no conflict between Kant and Merleau-Ponty, but rather a difference in phase;in Kant, the term “experience” refers to empirical judgment, while in Merleau-Ponty, this term refers to perceptual
experience.
9
In PhP, there are two passages where Section 33 of Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics is cited.
8

The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The Learning Experience in Merleau-Ponty’s Theory:
The Connection with German Idealism

23

them. In other words, in edition A, Kant asserts that it is the “imagination” that plays therole of mediating between sensibility and understanding to bring them into union. This iswhy, as I mentioned in the Introduction, Merleau-Ponty favorably receives Kant’s
description of the imagination in the Critique of Judgment and is expected to generally
agree with the assertion of the edition A.10
However, edition B explains that experience, which is supposed to be the
combination of sensibility and understanding, is established when transcendental
apperception (i.e., the capacity of understanding) penetrates sensibility, thus upsetting thebalance of the importance of sensibility and understanding. For example, according toedition B, “all combination [...] is an action of the understanding” (B 130). The supreme
principle of this combination in understanding is transcendental apperception (cf. B 136).
This transcendental apperception is the function of “I think...” that can accompany all our
representations, namely, the content of our experience (cf. B 131). Then, imagination,
which was said to be prior to the synthesis on the part of understanding, is positioned as“the transcendental synthesis of the imagination, which is an effect of the understanding
on sensibility” (B 152). Even though it is said that “Synthesis in general is [...] the mereeffect of the imagination, of a blind though indispensable function of the soul” (A 78=B103), in edition B, imagination appears to be reduced to one of the acts of understanding.
Thus, intuition, which has been considered on the side of sensibility, is ultimately subject
to the conditions of transcendental apperception—the highest principle of understanding.
To summarize, in edition B, there is no need to assume the imagination thatmediates sensibility and understanding for experience to appear with objective content.
Instead, for experience to be made up, all that is required is the work of apperception on
the part of understanding,11 which means that the spontaneity of understanding mustcompletely pervade sensibility. In fact, Merleau-Ponty, in the introduction to
Phenomenology of Perception, says the following about Kantian interpretation in a
subjectivist manner.
The general function of connection, which Kantianism finally attributes to it[understanding], is now common to the whole of intentional life […]. (PhP 65)

Contrary to my interpretation, Landes, who is also the English translator of PhP, believes that Merleau-Ponty
was harsh in his assessment of both the A and B editions (cf. Landes 2015).
11
These days, however, there appear to be only a few scholars who interpret apperception as the unlimited
spontaneity of consciousness. Instead, one of the most popular contemporary interpretations of apperception today
is that of Henrich, who sees a two-step proof structure in edition B Transcendental Deduction (cf. Henrich 1973:
93–94).
10

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

24

S. TSUNEFUKA

The Kantian and subjectivist position Merleau-Ponty criticizes here is the following: thecapacity of the spontaneity of understanding, which permeates all over sensibility, andthe possession of propositional content of experience, are the conditions for all experience
to be possible.
1.2 The subjectivist interpretation of Kant and the “paradox of inquiry”
According to Merleau-Ponty, while in Critique of Pure Reason Kant confines himself tothe analysis of experience as it appears in the form of judgments and inferences, neoKantians in France apply Kant’s framework to all forms of human experience.
In order to clarify what is at stake here, I feature the description in Phenomenologyof Perception, where Merleau-Ponty criticizes the interpretation of Kant by the French
neo-Kantian Pierre Lachièze-Rey. 12 Merleau-Ponty focuses on the passage that
Lachièze-Rey cites and considers what is called the “paradox of inquiry” or “paradox oflearning” in Plato’s Meno (cf. PhP 425). On the one hand, this “paradox of inquiry”
means that if one does not know the object of inquiry at all, one does not know how toinquire about it, and even if one encounters the object, one cannot know whether it is theobject one is inquiring about. On the other hand, if one knows the object of one’s inquiry,
there is no need to inquire about it.
In Lachièze-Rey’s (1932/1950) interpretation of Kant, this paradox can be resolved
by presuming that humans are beings with the following two characteristics: On the one
hand, humans have a sensible way of being that is constrained by the side of the object
they experience; in other words, they are dependent on time and space. In this respect,humans have a finite way of being. We can have an “aspiration” or “Amour” for God orothers—i.e., a receptive and passive experience of consciousness (cf. Lachièze-Rey
1932/1950: 58). In this sense, there is room for humans to inquire about things that are
unknown. On the other hand, humans have an understanding that allows them to actively
construct meaning for an experienced object, and this is partially independent of specifictime and space. It is precisely because of this that humans can access matters that are true
beyond time and space (e.g., the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180 °) andcreate new knowledge (cf. Lachièze-Rey 1932/1950: 34–39). Here, we can recognize theMerleau-Ponty, for example, describes the subjectivist’s view of experience as “the classical idea of experience
about the world as the pure action of constitutive consciousness” (PhP 281). To this is added a note: “Here I mean
the Kantian concept [of intentionality], such as that of Pierre Lachièze-Rey or that of Husserl in the second period(of the Ideen period)” (ibid.). See also Jitsukawa (2000) in terms of Merleau-Ponty’s reading of Lachièze-Rey.
12

The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The Learning Experience in Merleau-Ponty’s Theory:
The Connection with German Idealism

25

possibility of knowing the object of one’s inquiry, that is, the ability to expand one’s own
understanding (intellect).
Merleau-Ponty calls these thoughts the “eternal interpretation of the Cogito” andrejects them. According to Merleau-Ponty, if we interpret Kant and analyze experience,as Lachièze-Rey does, we end up reaching the following conclusion: For humanexperience to be possible, humans must first possess a capacity of understanding that can
act beyond time, as well as act accordingly. However, in this case, it is possible to assume
that the human subjects are constructors of meaning that exert their intellectual action
without limit—that is, without the constraints of the object or others (cf. PhP 428).
According to Merleau-Ponty, this position fails to assume the other 13 or ensure
constraints and solicitations on the content of experience from the part of the object (theways the world solicits to learn). In other words, in the subjectivist position, the love forthe other and the adoration of God that Lachièze-Rey tried to secure ultimately become
only constructs of the consciousness of the human subject.
In light of this, Merleau-Ponty criticizes the neo-Kantian interpretation of Kant inFrance, such as that of Lachièze-Rey. He sees the problem with this interpretation in its
failure to describe the conditions on the part of the object that make it possible to know
the object of inquiry.

2 “Nature” making the learning experience possible
As seen in Section 1, Merleau-Ponty takes issue with the neo-Kantian interpretation ofKant in France, which considers judgment and inference to be essential for all ofexperience. If we adopt this interpretation, we cannot adequately explain the learning
experience. Against this interpretation, he tries to explain that even before judgment, thehuman subject can already receive the limitation or solicitation of cultural meanings on
the part of the object. There are two strategies in his philosophical project. The first is thereformulation of the concept of object, Nature, and the second is the reformulation of theconcept of human subject, their understanding or body. In this section, I discuss the former.
The next section focuses on the latter.
In this section, I take as an additional source Merleau-Ponty’s lecture notes(published under the title Nature), in which he examines German idealism in detail.
According to him, Kant’s idea of Nature, which we can experience, is only “the sum total
13

See Sakai (2020) for the concept of the “other” in Merleau-Ponty.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

S. TSUNEFUKA

26

of all objects of sense” (KU XVII). In Merleau-Ponty’s view, however, Schelling andHegel reformulate the concept of Nature. In other words, while Merleau-Ponty dismisses
the neo-Kantian interpretation of Kant in France, he tries to follow the same path ofdeepening and developing Kant that Schelling and Hegel had followed. In this section, I
show how Merleau-Ponty posits the way of being the object that makes the learning
experience possible as he retraces the tradition of German idealism.
Merleau-Ponty positively assesses Schelling’s attitude, which is mainly found in
System of Transcendental Idealism. In Schelling’s view, Nature, the object of experience,is not only what Kant calls “the sum total of all objects of sense” (KU XVII), governedby mere physical causality. It is also what provides a human with the possibility toperceive cultural meaning, even though it was external to experience.14 Merleau-Ponty
argues that this view of Nature was also valid for Hegel15 and both Schelling and Hegel
merged in the following view of art.16
There is a terrain where the two philosophies encounter: the terrain of poetry. […]A poetic consciousness recognizes that it does not fully possess its object, that it can
only understand it through genuine creation, and that it creates clarity through an
operation that is not deductive but creative. The poetic consciousness overcome byits object must be recaptured but never separable from its own history. There is an
act of faith in the encounter of passivity and spontaneity, of which the effort of art isthe best “document.” This is the search for a Reason that is not prose, for a poetrythat is not irrational. (N 76–77)
According to Merleau-Ponty, Schelling and Hegel believe that in poetry the union of
spontaneity and passivity is realized. On the one hand, the created work represents human
Ehrenspeck (2008) believes that Schiller found a “mixed Nature” between nature filled with physical causality
and nature with human cultural meaning. According to her, Schelling and Merleau-Ponty would merge to thisSchillerian conception of “Nature.” Merleau-Ponty, however, would not say that a human finds beauty from natureby some power of consciousness. Instead, he would say that the consciousness capable of finding beauty arises
from the body, which is part of Nature.
15
Here, Merleau-Ponty’s support for Hegel is limited to the period of Phenomenology of Spirit.
16
Kakuni explains that Merleau-Ponty rejected Hegel’s ideas and adopted Schelling’s ideas (cf. Kakuni 2002:
128-129). Based on this, Ikeda argues that Merleau-Ponty’s theory “turns back the idea of subject-object identity
found in the previous modern philosophy (e.g., Schelling’s conception of the identity philosophy) on a theoreticallevel” (Ikeda 2015: 186). However, it should be worth noting that Merleau-Ponty does not merely agree with
Schelling, but also gives a positive assessment of Hegel. So, I consider the following. Merleau-Ponty does not justadopt Schelling’s view of “Nature,” which can include physical causality and human cultural-historical meanings,
but also adopts Hegel’s view of “Nature,” which includes differences and contradictions at the root and gives rise
to dialectical processes. For Merleau-Ponty, it is the role of the body to manifest these differences.
14

The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The Learning Experience in Merleau-Ponty’s Theory:
The Connection with German Idealism

27

spontaneity in the sense that the artist’s consciousness actively creates it. On the other
hand, the created work is guided by the object in the outside world or the history of theart expression—it is constrained by Nature—and represents the passivity of humanbeings. In other words, an artwork, such as a poem, is an example of an objective form
in which the opposing moments of sensibility and understanding merge with an equal
status. Insofar as this, the Nature that solicited the creation of artworks must be considered
as more than just “the sum total of all objects of sense” (KU XVII) since it also includes
human culture, which is “never separable from its own history.”
Merleau-Ponty views the process through which Schelling reaches these ideas asa deepening development of Kant (cf. N 71). In other words, Schelling deepened thepossibility of “intellectual intuition” (cf. N 62, 362, 363) or “intuitive understanding” (cf.
N 46), which Kant had already discovered in the Critique of Judgment Section 7617 but
never developed. Merleau-Ponty summarizes Schelling’s ideas as follows.
What Schelling wants to say is that we rediscover Nature in our perceptual
experience before reflection. […] Also, in order to refind the meaning of external
nature, we must make an effort to rediscover our own nature in the indivisible state
where we are exercising our perceptions. (N 63)
He also quotes a passage from Schelling’s System of Transcendental Idealism, after
which he explains the following:
In order to refind oneself in this reflection of intellectual intuition, the Ego must havealready recognized itself in this primordial identity, the result of the organization of aprimordial and unconscious Ego. There has to be in things a preparation for what will
eventually be explicit meaning [for a human], for the liberation of meaning captivein the natural thing. (N 67)
As we see in these passages, Merleau-Ponty, relying on Schelling, believes that
following; we already grasp not only the causality of external Nature but also thehistorical and cultural (intellectual) meanings latent in Nature before we become awareof them, that is, in our perceptual experience.
In his resume for this lecture, Merleau-Ponty states that if we are to analyze our experience, although Kant only
indicated this possibility, we must consider “non-discursive understanding (entendement non discursif)” (N 361).
In fact, this “non-discursive understanding” seems to be considered as equal to Schelling’s “intellectual intuition”
or Hegel’s “intuitive understanding.”
17

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

28

S. TSUNEFUKA

Merleau-Ponty attributes the fundamental reason for the subjectivist considerationthat judgment and inference are all objective experiences to a narrow understanding of
Nature, which we can experience. Based on this consideration, subjectivists fail to grasp
Nature as something that makes the learning experience possible. Merleau-Ponty
supports Schelling and Hegel against them and takes over the idea of “intellectual
intuition” or “intuitive understanding,” which Kant never developed. In inheriting thisidea, Merleau-Ponty suggests that the object of our experience (Nature) is not merely
something filled with physical causality but that it has a latent and perceivable meaning
inherent in culture and history.

3 The body making the learning experience possible
As I have shown in the previous Section, Merleau-Ponty supposes Nature, the perceptual
object, as something that has latent meaning in human culture and history in addition tophysical causality. Here, the following question arises: How is it possible for humans toperceive such Nature and continue to explore it? In this section, I present MerleauPonty’s reformulation of the concept of the subject (the concepts of understanding andbody). Then, I hope to demonstrate the process of learning experience through thisreformulation. By doing so, I will answer the previous question.
3.1 The body schema as a transcendental schema
As mentioned in the Introduction, Merleau-Ponty favorably received Kant’s descriptionof imagination in Critique of Judgment. In the first section of this paper, I highlighted that
Merleau-Ponty supports Kant’s view of imagination as the fundamental capacity thatmakes sensibility and understanding mediate, as seen in the edition A. In other words,
Merleau-Ponty is interested in the function of the primordial capacity that gives rise tosensibility and understanding, or the mechanism of a mixture of the two, which Kant did
not fully develop. What, then, is this remarkable idea that, according to Merleau-Ponty
that Kant was on the verge of developing? I suggest that this is the schematic function.18
Kant introduces the schema as the third term for sensibility and understanding. He
states that this schema is, on the one hand, like understanding and, on the other, like
Matherne (2016) argues that Merleau-Ponty transforms Kant’s schematism into a body schema throughLachièze-Rey’s interpretation. I also rely on her interpretation and will adopt the framework in which MerleauPonty considers schematizing the activity of imagination as a bodily activity.
18

The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The Learning Experience in Merleau-Ponty’s Theory:
The Connection with German Idealism

29

sensibility (cf. A 138=B 177). Then, he defines the conscious capacity that drives thisschema’s function as imagination (cf. A 140=B 179). At least in edition A, imagination
thus is a function of consciousness that is independent of sensibility and understanding,
although it mediates between them, exhibiting features of both.
In contrast, Merleau-Ponty did not think of imagination as a function of
consciousness independent of sensibility and understanding. Rather, he seems to consider
imagination an undifferentiated state of sensibility and understanding. In addition, he issupposed to attempt to postulate the primordial field from which this imagination arises.
In doing so, however, we should not admit the subjectivist interpretation that the highest
principle of understanding (apperception) is the “common root.” This is because
understanding must also be subject to constraints from the side of the object, including
spatio-temporal constraints. Here, Merleau-Ponty focuses on the body as the condition or
field from which imagination arises, where sensibility and understanding are
undifferentiated.
Behind this world, there is a more original mode, prior to all activity, a “world before
any thesis”: this is the perceived world. Whereas the former [universe of theory] isgiven as a world constituted [by consciousness], the latter [perceived world] is givenin flesh and bone, in Leibhaft. (N 105)
In brief, the field that guarantees the primordial identity of sensibility and understandingis the body, which belongs to the world. If we understand the world to be Nature in thesense I explained in the previous section, then the body is both a component of the Nature
we perceive and an internal part of this Nature. In fact, Merleau-Ponty states:[T]he anger or pain I read [...] on a face, the religion whose essence I grasp [...] inhesitation or reticence, the city whose structure I recognize [...] in the attitude of acity policeman or the style of a monument. (PhP 32)
Namely, before having human experience through judgment and inference, we haveperceptual experiences through our bodies, which have latent human historical andcultural constraints (meanings) in addition to spatio-temporal constraints.
Thus, the famous “body schema” Merleau-Ponty offers can be understood as basedon Kant’s argument. What is noteworthy about Merleau-Ponty is that the body, as a partof Nature, with its spatiotemporal location and historical and cultural content, is theprimordial field from which sensibility and understanding arise, rather than imagination
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

30

S. TSUNEFUKA

as the power of consciousness, as was proposed by Kant and the subjectivists.
3.2 Body-based learning experiences
How, then, does the body, as indicated in the previous section, resolve the “paradox ofinquiry” to make the learning experience possible? In other words, how does the body
both know the object of inquiry and create what is to be explored? To conclude, thefollowing two things are doubly occurring in the body. First, a specific body posture (i.e.,body intentionality) is established, prompted by “Nature,” which has both physicalcausality and historical/cultural meaning. Second, something is created andcommunicated that is neither a representation nor a concept of the perceptual object but
something that promotes a further bodily posture toward the perceptual object.
According to Merleau-Ponty, “To say that I imagine Peter is to say that I procure a
pseudo-presence of Peter by provoking ‘the behavior about Peter’” (PhP 210); when one
perceives an individual concrete object, a body intentionality corresponding to that object
is generated. In addition, “A movement is learned when the body has understood it[...and] To move one’s body is to aim toward things through it [body], [or] to let it respondto their solicitations, which are exerted on it without any representation” (PhP 161); theperceptions from the body naturally become articulated and then contribute to contextappropriate behaviors and thoughts.
Regarding such body-based learning, let us first consider the case in which one
perceives a particular dog, Fido, in front of her. She takes Fido-specific intentionality, i.e.,a specific body posture toward Fido. From this Fido-specific intentionality, we canrecognize that the dog is Fido without thought or inference. The Fido-specificintentionality here is prompted not only by the optical stimulus on the retina, but also by
the experiential meaning of the dog Fido that we know and the cultural meaning of loving
the dog. Moreover, only when this intentionality is generated, is it possible to judge that“it is Fido there,” or approach the dog to check “is it Fido there?” and then to make body
movements appropriate to this context, such as “I will pat him on the head.”Henceforth, we move from our own Fido-specific body posture (intentionality) toan articulation of the content of that posture, that is, to thoughts and judgments. For
example, it becomes clear that this body posture includes the dog’s appearance, such as
bushy fur, coloring, and four legs, or the notion of a particular dog (Fido), which one has
seen in the past. Furthermore, after one perceives the operability toward the symbol ofFido, one can compare it with the dog “Bingo,” which provokes a similar body posture,and think, “Which breed does Fido belong to?” In other words, Fido-specific
The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The Learning Experience in Merleau-Ponty’s Theory:
The Connection with German Idealism

31

intentionality motivates further perception, inquiry, and thought (the operability ofsymbols), starting with the perceptual object Fido.19
Given this trajectory, one can go from perceiving individual objects to thinking
about more detailed meanings. However, this is not limited to the perception of mere
physical objects. In Phenomenology of Perception, Merleau-Ponty considers
mathematics (geometry) to be one of various human symbolic operations and uses
examples of learning about geometric objects. According to Merleau-Ponty, when one
perceives a triangle in front of her, she can enact operations such as adding parallel lines
by adopting a particular body posture to it, leading to a theorem such as the sum of theinterior angles of a triangle being 180 ° (cf. PhP 440–443). After describing the perceptual
processes involved in constructing the triangle, he adds the following.
Just as the localization of objects in space, according to Kant himself, [it] is not justa spiritual operation but one that utilizes the motricity of the body […]. (PhP 443)
It is precisely here that Merleau-Ponty continues Kant’s schematism by placing the roleof the body at the center. Even when dealing with what are thought of as universal
properties, such as those found in geometry, he argues that one does not approach suchproperties with a mental capacity that has no location in time and space, but rather one
captures the characteristics of a particular triangle by means of the body intentionality.20
Furthermore, after the body posture for a given triangle generates the implicationthat the sum of the internal angles is 180 °, one can take a similar body posture for any
triangle without inference (cf. Merleau-Ponty 1969/1992: 141). In other words, one isable to perceive the property that the sum of triangles’ interior angles of a triangle is 180 °.
From there, one can perceive operability that reveals further properties of triangles, suchas the inscribed angle theorem, and can go on to new thoughts. For example, theestablishment of the body intentionality for triangles in Euclidean geometry allows one
to perceive the possibility of extending such a definition by motivating one to ask, “Whynot take up triangles on the surface of the ellipsoid?”. Thus, one can learn to discover theproperties of triangles in non-Euclidean geometry (e.g., elliptic geometry), where the sumof the interior angles of a triangle on a sphere is greater than 180 °.
At this point, Merleau-Ponty’s interpretation of “intellectual intuition” andSee also Tamura (2018) for an analysis of the concept of “motivation” in Merleau-Ponty’s theory of perception.
Merleau-Ponty, to be sure, does not consider geometric objects as being mere constructs of mental action.
Instead, he assumes the existence of some object that gives rise to a certain intentionality, if such an intentionality
provokes (cf. PhP 429).
19
20

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

32

S. TSUNEFUKA“intuitive understanding,” as featured by Schelling and Hegel, becomes clear. First,
understanding, as a function of thought, arises in the body, which is subject to spatiotemporal and cultural-historical limitations each time. Also, according to him, bodyintentionality does not arise merely from physical causality. To say body-based learning
experiences are not merely bodily perceptual experiences. According to Merleau-Ponty,
when a certain body posture is generated in a person, the possibility of a new body posturearises in her consciousness, as a background. Then, through the fulfillment of thispossibility, she can recognize the unknown object of inquiry, as the figure. In other words,
if body intentionality is extended through some new expression, whether academic or
artistic, that extended body intentionality is enacted in a condensed repetition of the bodyintentionality manifested by an existing theory or expression. In sum, what MerleauPonty refers to as body posture, or body intentionality itself, is a historical and culturalone, namely, an intuition with intellectual content (intellectual intuition) or an intuitively
generated intellect (intuitive understanding).
Based on these considerations, what is to be explored and what is to becommunicated to others, even though it is non-conceptual, is how one is motivated by aperceptual object. For example, as in the case of the development of geometry mentioned
above, academic inquiries can be developed by several scholars because of the incidental
transmission of pre-propositional, non-conceptual things through body intentionality as
well as the conceptual content manifested in the form of propositions. The reason a matterthat cannot be conceptualized well can be conveyed to the receiver or can beconceptualized later is that the body posture toward the matter (which remained nonconceptual prior to the proposition) can be captured first. In other words, the bodyintentionality incidentally conveys the motivation to “take a closer look at” or “take inhands” a distant object, or to “operate the symbol” or “rewrite the rules of use of thesymbol” in response to an academic problem, as in mathematics. In this way, “intellectual
intuition” or “intuitive understanding” is communicated through the body, accompanied
by rationality.
Above all, Merleau-Ponty attempts to solve the “paradox of inquiry” byreformulating the concepts of object and subject, respectively, and presenting thefollowing process. The body, which has already received some constraints andsolicitations from the object before judgment or inference, experiences a change in theway the world appears (a new object of inquiry appears). Through this change, then, thebody is motivated in the way it relates to the world (i.e., how it comes to know the objectof inquiry) in response to these solicitations. According to Merleau-Ponty, such
dynamism occurs in the learning experience. Thus, the body can bear meanings that are
The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The Learning Experience in Merleau-Ponty’s Theory:
The Connection with German Idealism

33

not yet propositional, but that will eventually become clear in perceptual experiences
prior to judgment. This is because the body generates chained manifestations of the worldthat motivate new perceptions. For example, a mathematician may somehow (intuitively)
see a formula for a solution, or her hands may move naturally toward such an operation.
A painter may also intuitively find a suitable motif, concept, or technique (e.g., abrushstroke). Such “intuitive” acts may lead to the discovery or invention of new theories
and expressions. According to Merleau-Ponty, the intuition of a mathematician or artist,or what appears to be a mere gesture, is a latent expression of the cumulative knowledgeof that expression. In other words, what is described above is the same process in whichthose who are familiar with “Fido” would naturally adopt a behavior that fits the context
of Fido based on their previous experience, starting from their body, without inference or
thought. Thus, according to Merleau-Ponty, both the discovery or invention ofmathematics and pictorial expressions result from the perceptual experience of the body,the same as the learning process that the perception of Fido motivates further thought.

Conclusion
I have explored how Merleau-Ponty’s theory of embodiment explains the learning
experience, including abstract intellectual activity, by focusing on his reception ofGerman idealism.
Merleau-Ponty does not criticize Kant directly but rather the subjectivist
interpretation of Kant by neo-Kantians in France. According to him, this interpretation
fails to describe the conditions on the part of the object because they assume that the
spontaneity of understanding, which pervades all over the sensibility and has the content
of experience like a propositional statement, is the condition for all experience to bepossible. In other words, they overlook the terms of the object, which make it possible toknow the object of inquiry.
Instead, Merleau-Ponty appreciates Schelling and Hegel, who extended theconcept of Nature by taking on “intellectual intuition” and “intuitive understanding,”
which Kant never developed. In other words, in Merleau-Ponty’s view, they paved theway to consider Nature, the object of our experience, not only as something filled withphysical causality but also as something that has latent and perceivable with meanings
inherent in culture and history.
According to Merleau-Ponty, such Nature is perceived by the body before theexperience of judgment. Simultaneously this perception creates in Nature a space that
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

34

S. TSUNEFUKA

motivates new perceptions. In this sense, Merleau-Ponty’s theory deepens and develops
German idealism. Under this interpretation, the following significance of MerleauPonty’s account becomes clearer. He speaks of “intellectual intuition” or “intuitive
understanding” as “bodily intentionality,” based neither on transcendental consciousness
nor the Nature with its primordial identity, but on the body. Here, I should highlight two
points: First, by means of Merleau-Ponty’s concept of Nature, it is possible to show theexistence of a mixture of intuition and intellect (understanding) with historical andcultural meaning, which Schelling and Hegel were trying to show. Second, by means of
his concept of “body intentionality,” it is also possible to understand how the body allows
the learning experience and the creative process of learning and expression.
Thus, the theory of body-based learning experience derived from Merleau-Ponty
can be described as an experience that consists of a back-and-forth process between the
body and Nature, a mixture of physical causality and human historical and cultural
meaning. It is also clear that the pedagogical significance of his theory of embodiment is
not limited to the clarification of the effects of reading aloud or using the body to express
oneself in some way. In other words, his theory of embodiment has a broader scope that
explains the learning experience in mathematics, which at first glance appears to require
the abstract operation of symbols. This can legitimately be merged into the context ofBildungstheorie, both theoretically and in the history of philosophy, and it also seems tohighlight the uniqueness of his theory of the learning experience.

References
Allison, H.-E. (2004), Kant’s Transcendental Idealism, London: Yale University Press.
Allais, L. (2016), “Conceptualism and Nonconceptualism in Kant: A Survey of the
Recent Debate”, Kantian Nonconceptualism, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–25.
Antich, P. (2019), “Perceptual Experience in Kant and Merleau-Ponty”, Journal of the
British Society for Phenomenology, vol. 50, (3), 220–233.
Carman, T. (2008), Merleau-Ponty, 1st ed., London: Routledge.
Ehrenspeck, Y. (1996), „Aisthesis und Ästhetik-Überlegungen zu einer problematischen
Entdifferenzierung“, Aisthesis/Ästhetik : Zwischen Wahrnehmung und Bewusstsein(Pädagogische Anthropologie)/ herausgegeben von K. Mollenhauer und C. Wulf,
Weinheim: Deutscher Studien, 201–230.
─ (2008), „Die Idee der Humanisierung des Menschen im Medium ästhetischer
Bildung bei Friedrich Schiller und Johann Friedrich Herbart“, Bildung: Angebot
The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

The Learning Experience in Merleau-Ponty’s Theory:
The Connection with German Idealism

35

oder Zumutung?/ herausgegeben von Y. Ehrenspeck, G. de Haan, F. Thiel,
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 75–93.
Fujita, Y. (2003), “Ningenkeisei to Merulo-Ponti no shisou: “Merulo-Ponti
Sorubonnukougiroku” ni okeru “takeisei”gainen to shakaikakan no motsu shatei””(La formation humaine dans la pensée de Merleau-Ponty: La portée des notions depolymorphisme et de socialisation dans le cours de Merleau-Ponty à la Sorbonne),
Kyouikutetsugakukenkyu(Studies in the Philosophy of Education), no. 88, 84–100.
Heidegger, M. (2010), Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik (7th ed.), Frankfurt am
Main : Klostermann.
Henrich, D. (1973), „Die Beweisstruktur von Kants transzendentaler Deduktion“, Prauss,G., Kant: Zur Deutung seiner Theorie von Erkennen und Handeln, Köln :Kiepenheuer und Witsch, 90–104.
Howell, W. (2015), “Learning and the Development of Meaning: Husserl and MerleauPonty on the Temporality and Habit”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 53,(3), 311–337.
Ikeda, T. (2015), Benyamin no ningenkeiseiron: kiki no shisou to kibou heno manazashi(Walter Benjamins Bildungstheorie: Die Gedanke in Zeiten der Krise und der Blickauf die Hoffnung), Kyoto: Kouyoushobou.
Jitsukawa, T. (2000), Merulo-Ponti to chouetsu no kongensou (Merleau-Ponty: The
origine of transcendence), Tokyo: Soubunsha.
Kakuni, T. (2002) Shizen no genshougaku: Merulo-Ponti to shizen no tetsugaku(Phenomenology of Nature: Merleau-Ponty and the Philosophy of Nature), Kyoto:
Kouyoushobou.
Kant, I. (1998), Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Hamburg: F. Meiner.
─ (2006), Kritik der Urteilskraft, Hamburg: F. Meiner.
Lachièze-Rey, P. (1932/1950), L’idéalisme Kantien, Paris: Librairie Philosophique J.
Vrin.
Landes, D. (2015), “Between Sensibility and Understanding: Kant and Merleau-Ponty
and the Critique of Reason”, The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 29, (3),335–345.
Matherne, S. (2014), “The Kantian Roots of Merleau-Ponty’s Account of Pathology”,
British Journal for the History of Philosophy, vol. 22, (1), 124–149.
─ (2016), “Kantian Themes in Merleau-Ponty’s Theory of Perception”, Archiv fürGeschichte der Philosophie vol. 98, (2), 193–230.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945), Phénoménologie de la Perception, Paris: Gallimard.
─ (1969/1992), La prose du monde, Paris: Gallimard, coll. « Tel ».
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

36

S. TSUNEFUKA

─ (1995), La Nature : Notes, cours du Collège de France / Maurice Merleau-Ponty ;établi et annoté par D. Séglard; suivi des, Résumés des cours correspondants deMaurice Merleau-Ponty, Paris: Seuil.
Morris, K. (2012), Starting with Merleau-Ponty, New York: Continuum.
Nishioka, K. (2005), Kyoushitsu no seisei no tameni: Merulo-Ponti to Walon ni
michibikarete (For the Generation of the Classroom - Guided by Merleau-Ponty
and Wallon), Tokyo: Keisoushobou.
Okui, H. (2013), “Shintaika sareta kouisha (embodied agent) toshiteno manabite:
Merulo-Ponti no “shintai”gainen wo tegakari to shita manabi no tankyu” (A Learneras an “Embodied Agent”: Using Merleau-Ponty’s Concept of “Body” toUnderstand Learning), Kyouikutetsugakukenkyu(Studies in the Philosophy of
Education), no.107, 60–78.
─ (2015), “Waza” wo ikiru shintai: ningyotsukai to keiko norinshoukyouikugaku (The
Body in Techniques: A Clinical Pedagogy of Puppeteers and Training), Kyoto:
Minervashobou.
Romdenh-Romluc, K. (2010), Merleau-Ponty and the Phenomenology of Perception,
London: Routledge.
Sakai, M. (2020) Merulo-Ponti arawareru tasha/ kieru tasha: “kodomo no shinrigaku
kyouikugaku” kougi kara (Merleau-Ponty; Autrui apparaissant, Autrui
disparaissant: à partir des cours en Sorbonne), Kyoto: Kouyoushobou.
Tamura, T. (2018), “Merulo-Ponti ni okeru chikakukeiken no mikiteisei” (L’indéterminéde l’expérience perceptuelle chez Merleau-Ponty), Furansutetsugaku shisoukenkyu(Revue de Philosophie Francaise), vol. 23, 223–234.

The 9th Research Promotion Award Article (2023)

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

Possibilities of “Education” based on (through/aimed at) the
Concept of “Relationship”: Inquiry in terms of “Language”, “Care” and “Excellence”
Hiromi OZAKI
Toyo Eiwa University
Abstract
This study aims to explore the ramifications of ongoing debates concerning the essence of educationand the shift towards a learner-centric approach, using the concept of “relationship” as a guiding
framework. It acknowledges the transformative discussions within philosophy of education since the1990s, challenging conventional notions of education and advocating for a reevaluation rather thanoutright dismissal. In this paper, I delve into the idea of education as a process of human transformation,questioning traditional views on the educated person as the ultimate goal. It critically examines“language”, “care”, and “excellence” as key dimensions through which education can be reimagined.
“Language” is seen not only as a tool for communication but also as a vehicle for shaping educational
dynamics and discourse. “Care” is highlighted as a crucial aspect, urging a reconsideration of
dichotomies such as reason-emotion and universal-individual within educational evaluation. Similarly,
the concept of “excellence” is reconceptualized to emphasize empathy, understanding, andcollaborative knowledge-building rather than solely measurable achievements. This paper concludes
by advocating for productive discourse within educational philosophy to foster a more holistic andinclusive understanding of education as a means of human growth and societal advancement.
Key words: Educational aims, Relationship, Theory of “Care”, “Excellence” in education

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to examine the implications of the debate on themeanings of education and teaching-learning for human beings, using “relationship” asCorrespondence:
Hiromi OZAKI, Toyo Eiwa University. Email: ozaki.h@toyoeiwa.ac.jp

38

H. Ozakia perspective to restructure education. It is widely acknowledged that since the 1990s,
discussions on the philosophy of education have challenged the prevailing framework ofmodern education. These discussions have generated discourses that question the very
essence of education and the shift from teaching to learning. However, these debates do
not advocate the elimination of education or teaching; instead, they propose a rethinkingof our understanding of these concepts. Consequently, this paper aims to raise questions
from the perspectives of language, care, and excellence, rooted in relationships, to reenvision education (teaching-learning) within the realm of educational philosophy.

2. The concept of education as a process and means of transformationfrom human to human(1) What does “being educated” signify for a human?
As underscored in the primary objective of this symposium, Immanuel Kant
famously stated, “Man is the only creature who must be educated.” This assertion initiallysuggests a distinct difference between teaching-learning for humans and that for nonhumans. For instance, it is commonly known that parents of certain animal species teachtheir offspring how to hunt. Moreover, it has been observed that an individual within agroup of animals may begin to wash their food in seawater, a behavior that is then adopted
by other members of the group. We could draw from Kant's discourse above theassumption (or wish or hope) that there is some essential difference between the actions
and phenomena in these non-human cases that seem to be similar to “teaching” and“learning” and the “teaching-learning” in human “education.”
Here, let us revisit the critiques, predominantly by British educational philosopher
R.S. Peters in the 1960s, concerning the concept of the “educated person” and theportrayal of the human being as an ultimate goal inherent in education. Peters asserted,“Education, then, can have no ends beyond itself. Its value derives from principles andstandards implicit in it” 1. One notable critique of Peters’ view, which posits the purposeof education as intrinsic to education itself, comes from Japanese educational philosopher,
Akio Miyadera. He argued that responding to the demand for “justification of the purposeof education” and explaining “why this purpose of education is correct for society as a1

Peters, R. S., 1965, “Education as Initiation”, in: R. D. Archambault (ed.) Philosophical Analysis and Education,
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp.87-111. In the original work, Peters uses the term “educated man,” but thispaper uses the term “educated person” to refer to the concept.

Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Possibilities of “Education” based on (through/aimed at) the Concept of “Relationship”: Inquiry in terms of “Language”, “Care” and “Excellence”

39

whole” is challenging in a context of value pluralism (Miyadera, 2017, pp.189-190). In
recent years, it has also been pointed out that “the justification theory of educational
purpose distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic purposes of education, but theauthor's personal view may have influenced this distinction” and “the ideologicalneutrality of the research method was called into question” (Yamaguchi, 2023, p. 403).
These points critique not only Peters and the concept of the “educated person” but also
challenge the broader theories of educational purpose and analytical philosophy ofeducation that attempt to define an ideal human image as the goal of education or to view
such a goal as inherent in education2.
On the other hand, Miyadera highlights that Peters defined educational purpose as
intrinsic to education partly due to the societal context of the 1960s in the United
Kingdom, marked by an educational explosion (Miyadera, 1997). This period saw
demands from political, economic, national defense, and other areas increasingly directed
towards education, as Miyadera notes. This reflected a critical concern that education
might become merely an instrument of the state, tasked with training or selecting humanresources needed by sectors such as politics, economy, and national defense. In this regard,Peters' notion of the educated person, or educational purpose, effectively illustrated therole of education and its purposes within society, stemming from calls for educational
autonomy.
Considering this background, we must acknowledge a certain importance of
examining this discussion in light of the issues inherent in the concept of an “educatedperson.” Because not questioning the concept of the “educated person” rather implicitlyinternalizes it and runs the risk of fixing a particular view and increasing its influence. For
instance, American educational philosopher Jane Roland Martin's critique of Peters’
concept is significant because it demonstrates how education has reclassified humanqualities into those that are valued and those that are unvalued through the lens of the“educated person” concept (Martin, 1981, 1992, 2002). Her criticism highlights theimpact of defining a specific human image—including abilities, qualities, character, andbehavior—as the goal of education, which is the condition for being considered educated.
Moreover, the necessary discussion should not revolve around merely replacing or
adding to the content that serves as the goal but should focus on the method of setting
2

Furthermore, in the same paper, it is pointed out that “the research philosophy and explicit argumentation style ofanalytical philosophy of education” have been inherited by later philosophy of education, which accepted
Wittgenstein and others (Yamaguchi, 2023, p. 403). In recent years, arguments that reconsider the analyticalphilosophy of education based on developments in linguistic and epistemological theory can also be found (Cf.
Misawa & Watanabe, 2023).

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

H. Ozaki

40

these goals and redefining the roles and positioning of objectives within educational
discourse.
Why do we strive to reconstruct education and educational objectives instead of
abandoning them? It is because, in the current circumstances, failing to question
preserves the detrimental effects, and we recognize that the activity of education itself
holds the potential to significantly impact contemporary society and human beings,
whether we ask these questions or not.
(2) Education as a process and method—a philosophical inquiry
Kant's discourse above suggests “education” as the enterprise by which “humanbeings,” as mere organisms in biological classification, are transformed into “humanbeings.” If we posit that individuals who have not received education are not fully“human being” or cannot become “human being,” we must then address the fundamental
question of what is “human being”? However, from the perspective of the philosophy ofeducation as a pedagogical field, this inquiry primarily explores how to become “humanbeing,” what is essential, and what occurs during this transformation. This suggests thatthe question “what is education?” and the question “how to educate?” are inseparable inthe discourse on education.
Minoru Murai, a Japanese educationalist, characterized education both as a resultimage model and a process-image model, illustrating the transformation througheducation in two distinct manners.
One is to think of the “goodness” of that “good person” in terms of the way in which
the process of human development takes place, and the other, by contrast, is to thinkof the way in which the result of development takes place. ...... The one belonging to
the former is named process-oriented and the one belonging to the latter is named
result-oriented, and all educational ideas can be divided into those belonging to theformer and those belonging to the latter as types. (Murai, 1976, p.172)
Based on Murai, the result-image model posits a particular human image, skill, or
state as the outcome of education, and describes education as a process advancing towardthat image. The process model portrays education as a series of activities where education
itself is the goal, with each objective being progressively achieved through thecompletion of preceding objectives. According to Murai, educational models inspired by
Plato and Rousseau align with the former, while those influenced by the progressive
education approaches of Dewey and others align with the latter. It is crucial to reiterate
Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Possibilities of “Education” based on (through/aimed at) the Concept of “Relationship”: Inquiry in terms of “Language”, “Care” and “Excellence”

41

here that portraying education shapes both the objectives and methods of education.
It is entirely possible that the frameworks of education depicted by Peters and Murai,
as discussed in this section, could become subjects of critique or remain unaddressed,
representing rigid structures within modern education. Regardless of whether one
endorses, however, critiques, or distances oneself from education, it is vital to recognizethat these debates are built upon a foundation of discourse that articulates “education”.
Because this discussion is an examination of the language of education that discusses“education,” it also seeks an effort to create a new “education.” In light of the previously
mentioned concept of the “educated person” as an objective of education, our aim is not
solely to question the validity of this concept as an educational goal. Instead, we explore
how the assumption of the “educated person” concept as an implicit educational objective
shape and influences the practice of education, seeking methods to address these
influences.

3. Language, care, and excellence as perspectives for examining
education(1) Multi-layered views of language in the context of education
How can the concept of “education”, defined both as the separation of the humanfrom the non-human and as an activity that transforms one into a "human being," bereconstructed following critiques of modern education? The primary question concerns
language within the context of education. It is well understood that human activities areshaped by the language used, and these activities can also be examined and refined. The
diversity of linguistic activities, recognized as a characteristic of human beings, has been
explored in fields such as analytical philosophy, linguistic theory, epistemology, andsymbolism, focusing particularly on the language of education. This exploration haspresented possibilities for a language that embraces situational contexts and physicality
as well as figurative and expressive language, in contrast to universal descriptive
language. Such a reassessment of language in education not only highlights that the actof teaching extends beyond merely transmitting propositions like “A is B” or giving
uniform instructions such as “make A to B.” Rather, it also prompts further considerationof the teaching-learning image based on this linguistic perspective.
What is noteworthy here is the accumulation of debates on how language itself
should be viewed within the context of education. For instance, Izrael Schaeffler, an
American philosopher of education, categorized definitions of certain statements into
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

H. Ozaki

42

scientific definitions, which are somewhat detached from context, and general definitions,which vary depending on the context3. He posited that educational statements typicallyfall into the latter category. Schaeffler further distinguished among definitions in
educational discourse: (1) “stipulative definitions”, which aim to “exhibits some term to
be defined and gives notice that it is to be taken as equivalent to some other exhibited
term, or description, within a particular context,” (2) “Descriptive definitions”, which“explain terms by giving an account of their prior usage,” and (3) “Programmatic
definitions,” which “is acting as an expression of a practical program” (Sheffler, 1960,
pp.13-19). This classification is not merely about how language is expressed but about its
contextual role. While Schaeffler’s categories, if considered universally applicable,clearly have limitations, they are useful as an example of a method to describe the conceptof “education.” This approach is important because it emphasizes the search for a
vocabulary that can be shared at a certain level in order to increase the consistency of
discussion when examining the concept of “education” from the perspective of thephilosophy of education.
Additionally, Kumiko Ikuta, Japanese educational philosopher, drawing on studiesof analytical philosophy of education, has analyzed “knowing” and “knowledge” in“education,” classifying the language of traditional arts and craftsmanship into three types
based on the process of work transmission as a case study for verification:ⅰ. Language that serves as an “action-directed language” through metaphoricalexpression of sense.
ⅱ. Language that serves to “lead” the learner to have a certain physical sensation.
ⅲ. Language in which the teacher “confronts” the learner with the state(achievement) that he/she has reached, and “invites” the learner to explore the senseof this achievement that he/she has attained. (Ikuta, 2011, pp.28-29)
In this context, language in education serves a role beyond merely transmitting
information. Consequently, it is expected that learners will progress from simply
acquiring a skill as a “task” to mastering a skill as an “achievement.”
Considering the characteristics of language as outlined by Schaeffler and Ikuta, it
represents a unique form of communication for human beings, closely tied to or even
3

Schaeffler also noted that “definitions in science are all, in an important sense, technical in purport and call for
special knowledge and the use of special theoretical criteria in their evaluation. In scientific communication,
definitions are presented and interpreted accordingly by professional members of the scientific community”(Sheffler, Ibid., pp.12-13), and he points out a certain context-dependence.

Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Possibilities of “Education” based on (through/aimed at) the Concept of “Relationship”: Inquiry in terms of “Language”, “Care” and “Excellence”

43

inseparable from the context of teaching-learning. This distinct language, acquired
through engagement in the teaching-learning process, differs from the mother tongue
learned through biological parent-child interactions, or from language learned
systematically through grammar and vocabulary. Therefore, analyzing the nature oflanguage in educational contexts—such as parent-child interactions at home, teacherstudent interactions at school, and supervisor-subordinate guidance at work—is crucial.
This analysis helps define the unique role of language in shaping and being shaped by
the teaching-learning dynamics that occur in these settings4.
(2) Care and excellence as questions
The second question is posed from the perspective of “care.” Central to this question
is a biased evaluation system embedded in the dichotomies of reason-emotion, publicprivate, and universal-individual, which prompts a reconsideration of these dichotomies
themselves. Specifically, it attempts to redefine the concepts of reason, public, anduniversal from the perspective of care, urging the recognition of the value of emotional,
private, and individual aspects of care. The essential inquiry here is not whether careshould be taught in public education, but rather how public education can be enhanced
from the perspective of care.
The third question pertains to excellence. Modern education has traditionallyvisualized the excellence of human beings as quantifiable and assessable throughmeasurable objectives. While this evaluative criterion shares common biases with thequestion of “care,” it does not lead to a rejection of evaluating excellence in “education.”
Instead, it suggests an attempt to reconceptualize excellence as a goal and method within“education,” emphasizing shared empathy and understanding within specificrelationships and contexts. This approach envisions excellence as both a target for and ameans by which education of human beings can be pursued.
For example, in her analysis of ethics of care, Carol Gilligan emphasized anunderstanding of “the dynamics of relationships” as central to moral development in
humans (Gilligan, 1986). This suggests that “care” is not simply an attribute to becontrasted with “reason” or “autonomy,” but one of the perspectives from which theconcepts of “reason” and “autonomy” can be reconstructed5. In essence, it challenges the
For example, the accumulation of research on teachers' language activities is not simply a collection of cases of“Just say ‘A’ in that situation” but also includes the educational perspective, educational relationships, and thenature of educational methods in those situations (Cf. Himeno.K & Ikuta.T, 2019).
5
In recent years, following a discussion that has pitted “justice” against “care” an attempt has been made to integrate
the two. If based on the said discussion, from the discussion of “care” as opposed to (as a complement or counter4

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

44

H. Ozaki

traditional view of excellence sought through education, prompting a reassessment ofwhat constitutes the state of excellence.
One illustration of this is in the concept of “collaborative knowledge.” Traditionally,knowledge within the framework of educational purpose theory has been conceptualized
as stemming from “the individual as a person.” However, in recent years, there has beena shift towards viewing knowledge from the perspective of collaboration, togetherness,and joint effort. For instance, Japanese educationalist Kayo Matsushita emphasizes theimportance of acquiring the ability to engage in “dialogical argumentation” in the“learning” envisioned by the curriculum (Matsushita, 2021, p.3). Furthermore, Japanese
educationalist Masahiro Nasu, in his discussion on “Japanese-style education in the
Reiwa Era” (Central Council for Education, 2021), highlights that “personalized optimallearning,” which refers to independent learning, and “collaborative learning,” which
entails mutual learning among peers, are in a “complementary and mutually facilitating
relationship” (Nasu, 2021, pp. 168-169). Given the insights from Matsushita and Nasu,
it becomes evident that dialogue and collaboration are integral to education, serving bothas skills to be acquired and methods to be implemented. Nasu also notes that “every childis a competent learner” (Ibid., p. 109), but the progression of the argument here shifts
from a child-centered perspective to one where learning collaboratively shapes the viewof children as “competent learners.” This underscores that the perception of a child as a“competent learner” emerges from engaging in “collaborative learning.” This approachsuggests that the concept of “education” discussed at the outset of this paper not only
directs the purpose and methods of education but also influences our understanding of“children” themselves. From a different perspective, the concept of “children” also has
aspects that are influenced by the characteristics of the teaching and learning activities inwhich they are engaged.
The preceding questions on language, care, and excellence initially focused on therelationships between human beings (teachers) and human beings (learners and thetaught) within the teaching-learning process. Additionally, they prompt us to consider the
relationship between “human beings” and the subjects of teaching-learning (the content
being taught). In the framework of modern education, universal and neutral “language”
seeks to the transparent transmission of “the content being taught.” However,transparency here implies that the teacher's intentions do not influence the content, butconcept to) the concepts of “justice” and “fairness” in Western philosophy, we have experienced a fluctuation in
the boundary line between “justice” and “fairness” and “care” and “we,” and the possibility (necessity) of fusion is
being considered (Cf. Shinagawa, 2007, Tokunaga, 2020).
Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Possibilities of “Education” based on (through/aimed at) the Concept of “Relationship”: Inquiry in terms of “Language”, “Care” and “Excellence”

45

can this truly be more than merely transferring and recording information? It is crucial torecognize that the teacher's intentionality is not merely directive with a defined intent or
system. Lave & Wenger, in their “Legitimate Peripheral Participation” (1991), argue thatthe learning of beginning learners is not automatic, but is led by the practices ofexperienced learners in the community in which they are participating. In addition to this,and in light of Ikuta's discussion of “inviting” language, the concept of the teacher's“intentionality to teach” itself is also being examined in a multilayered way.
In light of the above, the role of the teacher, when viewing a child as a “competentlearner” or a participant in collaboration, invites renewed scrutiny. It becomes necessary
to reassess the role of the teacher not only as a specialist in teaching but also as an agent
in various aspects of human social life. This includes roles in forming home or parental
relationships that extend beyond biological kinship. Such a reevaluation prompts areconsideration of the learner-teacher dynamic and the teachable objects6. Here, we could
find the potential to discuss education from the perspective of relationships—viewing
education as an activity that both builds and is built through relationships. This approach
can provide new ways of expressing and narrating “those who teach,” “those who aretaught (those who learn),” and “things that are taught,” thereby presenting “education”
and, by extension, “human beings” as more attractive entities.

4. Conclusion: questions leading to productive discourse through critical
discourse
In light of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the reevaluation of the conceptof “human beings” and “education,” based on the objectivity of being educated, which isthe primary aim of this research, is progressing within the discourse of philosophy ofeducation (pedagogy). Moreover, this reevaluation suggests that the discourse stating “itis not education, it is ……,” emanating not only from pedagogy but also from disciplines
beyond it does not merely highlight the limitations of “education” but provides valuable
insights for further enhancing the concept of education. Japanese Education scholar Akira
Geshi, referring to the term education as “second-rate fake academia” (Geshi, 2019),
addresses the critique of modern education within the trends of educational philosophy

6

For example, in more recent research on the philosophy of education, we can find such possibilities in thequestioning of the “autonomy” aimed for in “education” and the examination of the role of the “community” in thediscussion of the professionalism of teachers (Cf. Miyagawa, 2022, Suzuki, 2018).

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

46

H. Ozakiand educational thought, posing the question, “What comes after the criticism?” In
response to this, this paper would like to reply that through the exploration of “education”
in the philosophy of education, a productive discourse can emerge that proposes a more
attractive concept of “education” and the way it should be practiced. This approach aims
to depict “human being” as a more appealing entity, which is expressed through“education” from “human beings”, and also seeks to reassess “humanness” itself. How
can education based on relationship foster “human beings” capable of innovation whileembracing heterogeneous others, and how can knowledge be expanded in this context?
These are questions that we aim to explore further in future research and dialogue.

References
Central Council for Education, 2021, “Reiwa no Nihon-gata gakko kyoiku no kochiku
wo mezashi te (Toward the Construction of a Japanese-Style School Education in the
Reiwa Era)”.
Dewey, J., 1916, “Democracy and Education” Boydston, J. (ed.), The Middle Works ofJohn Dewey, vol. 9, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1976–1983.
Geshi, A., 2019, “Kyoiku-tetsugaku: Hihan no ato ni nani ga kuru noka? (Philosophy of
Education: What comes after the criticism?)” in Kyoiku-gaku Nenpo 11: Kyoikugaku
no new chapter (Annual Review of Education 11, New Chapters in Educational
Research), Seori Shobo. pp.7-35.
Gilligan, C., 1982, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Himeno, K. & Ikuta, T., 2019, Kyoshi no Waza wo Kagaku suru (The Science of Teachers’‘Waza’), Tokyo: Ikkei shobo.
Ikuta, K., 2011 “‘Waza’ no densho ha nani wo mezasu noka (What does the transmissionof the ‘Waza’ aim to be?)” in Ikuta, K. & Kitamura, K. (ed.), Waza Gengo (Languageof ‘Waza’), Tokyo: Keio University Press, pp.3–31.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E., 1991, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, Jane Roland,-1981 “The Ideal of the Educated Person”, Educational Theory, 31(2), pp.97-109,
Illinois: The University of Illinois.
-1987 Reclaiming a Conversation: The Ideal of the Educated Woman, New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Possibilities of “Education” based on (through/aimed at) the Concept of “Relationship”: Inquiry in terms of “Language”, “Care” and “Excellence”

47-1992 The Schoolhome: Rethinking Schools for Changing Families, Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
-2002 Cultural Misueducation: In Search of a Democratic Solution, New York:
Teachers College Press.
-2018 School Was Our Life: Remembering Progressive Education, Indiana: Indiana
University Press.
Matsushita, K., 2021, Taiwagata-ronsho ni yoru Manabi no Dezain (Designing Learning
through dialogical argumentation), Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.
Mayeroff, M., 1971, On Caring, New York: Harper & Row.
Misawa, K. and Watanabe, F., 2023, “P.H.Hurst no kyoiku tetsugaku (P. H. Hurst's
Philosophy of Education),” Tetsugaku (Philosophy), vol.150, pp.59-84, Mita
Tetsugakukai.
Miyagawa, Y., 2022, Jiritsu wo mezasu Kyoiku toha nani ka (What is Education forAutonomy), Kanagawa: Shumpusha Publishing.
Miyadera, A.,-1997, Gendai Igirisu kyoiku tetsugaku no tenkai (The Development ofContemporary British Philosophy of Education), Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.
-2017, “Kyoiku mokuteki (The Purpose of Education),” in History of Educational
Thought Society (ed.), Kyoiku Shiso Jiten, Zoho kaitei ban (Encyclopedia ofEducational Thought, Increased and Revised edition), Tokyo: Keiso Shobo,
pp.187-191.
Murai, M., 1976, Kyoiku-gaku Nyumon, Jokan (An Introduction to Pedagogy, vol.1),
Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Noddings, N.,-1984, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, California:
University of California Press.
-2002, Starting at Home: Caring and Social Policy, California: University ofCalifornia Press.
Ozaki, H., 2021, “‘Kyoiku-mokuteki’ wo ‘Kankei-sei’ kara tou koto no Igi (Why Should
We Discuss ‘Aims of Education’ From the Standpoint of ‘Relationship’?),” Forumon Modern Education, vol. 30, pp. 1-12, History of Educational Thought Society.
Peters, R. S., 1966, Ethics and Education, London: Allen &Unwin.
Schaeffler, I., 1960, The Language of Education, Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Shinagawa T., 2007, Seigi to sakai wo sessuru mono (Justice and Bordering Things),
Kyoto: Nakanishiya Publishing.
Suzuki, Y., 2018, Kyoshi no “Senmon-ka kyodotai” no Keisei to Tenkai (The Formation
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

48

H. Ozakiand Development of the "Professional Community" of Teachers), Tokyo: Keiso
Shobo.
Tokunaga, T., 2021, Seigi to Kea no gendai tetsugaku (Contemporary Philosophy ofJustice and Care), Kyoto: Koyo Shobo.
Yamaguchi H., 2023, “Peters (Peters),” in Philosophy of Education Society (ed.), Kyoikutetsugaku jiten (Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education), Tokyo: Maruzen
Publishing, pp.402-403.

Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

Rethinking the “We”: Tomasello and Winnicott
Ryo SHIBUYA

Ryukoku University
Abstract

Since the late 19th century, evolutionary theory has transformed our approach to thequestions about human origins by providing a scientific basis for understanding therelationship between animals and humans. Pedagogy has also been influenced byevolutionary theory through concepts such as “natural” development and “heredity andenvironment.” As a result, pedagogy has shaped its own role in promoting “humanization”
while assuming the undecidability of human nature. Nevertheless, it is important to examine
human diversity and explore intermediate areas in which human diversity is intertwined. To
this end, this report examines Michael Tomasello’s and Donald W. Winnicott’s arguments
and rethinks the nature of relationality and community in humans.
Examining the differences between humans and other great apes, Tomasello argues that acollective identity of “we” is formed in collaborative activities involving joint intentionality.
He situates human thinking and education in the context of this unique relationship.
Winnicott, however, finds an intermediate area by focusing on the infant’s illusion andplaying prior to joint intentionality. Winnicott’s argument will offer a new “we” thatcomplements Tomasello's “we” with slight relationships.
Key words: Evolutionary Theory, Anthropological Machine, Tomasello, Joint Intentionality,

Winnicott, Illusion and Playing

Introduction
What is human nature? What were primordial humans and society like? Questions
about human origins have been asked repeatedly. Whether one views the primordial man
as a struggling being, as Thomas Hobbes did, or as an exchanging being, as Adam Smith
did, is not merely a theoretical problem but a practical one that enables the formation of
Correspondence:
Ryo SHIBUYA, Ryukoku University. Email: r-shibuy@hotmail.co.jp

50

R. Shibuya

new images of humans and society. In the second half of the 19th century, the theory of
evolution provided a basis for scientific thinking about the relationship between humans
and animals, transforming our approach to the questions about origins. Even in recent
years, new knowledge about humans informed by evolutionary theory has continued toaccumulate.
The purpose of this report is to rethink the nature of relationality and community inhuman beings by focusing on Michael Tomasello’s attempt. He relates evolution andchild development and explores primordial human society. His discussion provides astarting point for considering the meaning of education for human beings. I will firstoutline the purpose of this report by examining Giorgio Agamben’s argument about the“anthropological machine.” Next, I will delve into Tomasello’s discussion of primordial
human society, with a focus on joint intentionality and the form of cooperation unique tohumans, namely “we.” Finally, I explore the relationality preceding joint intentionality
and complement Tomasello’s discussion of “we” by examining psychoanalyst Donald
W. Winnicott’s theory of child development.

1. Evolutionary Theory, Anthropological Machine, and Pedagogy
As is well known, Sigmund Freud (1986 [1917]) argued that his own
psychoanalysis, along with Copernicus’ heliocentrism and Darwin’s theory of evolution,
did damage to human narcissism. According to him, heliocentrism broke the illusion thatman was the center of the universe, evolutionary theory challenged the hubris that man
differed from animals and was superior, and psychoanalysis sought to dismantle theauthority of the ego (SS. 7–12). However, heliocentrism demonstrated divine providence
without denying the existence of God (Canguilhem 1988, pp. 103–105), and Freud’s
psychoanalysis preserved the human authority to use language. Considering this, it canbe said that Darwin’s theory dealt the most profound blow.
Takashi Sakagami (2003) summarizes Darwin’s innovations in three ways: first,
placing the notion of transformation at the foundation of his theory and rejecting “species
essentialism;” second, eliminating teleology by introducing the ideas of environmentdependent natural selection and the aimlessness of individual variation; and third,
considering “the statistical and probabilistic law” (pp. 15–17). In other words, Darwin
placed animals and humans in a process of randomness and diversity, revealing theundecidability of human nature. As Georges Canguilhem (1991) noted, this enabled a
new understanding that humans and animals were mutually independent andSymposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Rethinking the “We”: Tomasello and Winnicott

51

transforming without a hierarchy (pp. 126–144). However, Darwin’s theory activated
non-Darwinian concepts of progressive evolution in the second half of the 19th century.
Herbert Spencer, Ernst Haeckel, and others developed teleological theories of evolution
based on ideas such as the inheritance of acquired characteristics or the theory ofrecapitulation. The concept of evolution, lacking purpose and direction, was replaced by
the concept of linear progress, implying human superiority (Bowler 1992). Sakagami
interprets these trends as alleviating the blow to human narcissism (Sakagami 2003, p.
16).
Given the circumstances of the time, it seems inevitable that Darwin’s theory of
evolution, while highlighting the undecidability of human nature, also spurred amovement to obscure this complexity. If Darwin’s theory and progressive evolutionary
theories are understood as discursive devices that form a single unity, they can beconsidered to have played a central role in what Agamben calls the “anthropologicalmachine.” The “anthropological machine” is an accumulation of knowledge andtechniques that define human beings through complex operations of exclusion andinclusion. According to Agamben, in antiquity, modes of thought that defined humanity
in relation to animals attempted to humanize animals, resulting in the creation of hybrid
entities such as Homo ferus. Contrastingly, the modern “anthropological machine,” while
attempting to demarcate humans and animals, is confronted with a lack of humanspecificity and attempts to draw a line of demarcation within human beings.
Consequently, the nonhuman (e.g., animal life or organic life) is found inside humanbeings and is excluded. A residue that is neither man nor animal, or a “bare life” strippedof all humanity, is thus produced (Agamben 2004, pp. 29–38). From this perspective, theevolutionary discourse of the late 19th century has drawn a dividing line within humanity
and created exceptional beings. The evolutionary discourse not only revealed the lack ofhuman specificity, as demonstrated by Darwin, but also prompted psychiatry’s theory ofdegeneration as well as anthropological investigations of “savagery” and “uncivilization”
as early stages of humanity.
Pedagogy is also not unrelated to the “anthropological machine” associated withevolutionary theory. According to Hisato Morita, Darwin’s theory of evolution frameddevelopmental psychology by introducing the concept of adaptation and providing abinary scheme of “heredity and environment.” There, on the one hand, scholars such as
Stanley Hall explored “natural” development on the basis of teleological evolutionary
theories, and on the other hand, William James and others emphasized “random selection”
without direction and focused on the interaction between organism and environment(Morita 1992, 1994, 2000). Here we find an attempt to explore human nature and
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

52

R. Shibuya

establish education in the face of the lack of human specificity. In this context, pedagogy
has focused on “natural” development and defined unruly children as exceptional beings,
while concurrently being aware of the lack of human specificity and boldly tackling thedifficult task of “humanization.” In this sense, it can be said that since the end of the 19th
century, pedagogy has established its own foundations by promoting “humanization”
within the framework of developmental theory, while acknowledging the undecidabilityof human nature1.
Of course, pedagogy has not simply involved setting up an “anthropologicalmachine” in motion. Recent themes in the philosophy of education such as the Infans,
the Other, and the Becoming are attempts to redefine the residue produced by the“anthropological machine.” Specifically, Satoji Yano (2019) proposed a different
approach to education than “humanization,” by examining the origins of education in
relation to external factors beyond the community and emphasizing the continuity
between animals and humans 2 . This would be one way of suspending the“anthropological machine” that operates within pedagogy. What is emphasized here isthat there is no simple escape from the “anthropological machine.” As Yano states, theabandonment of demarcation can lead to the spread of disorder and violence. Therefore,
it is inevitable to establish the boundary between human and nonhuman in a more
appropriate way and to promote “humanization” in each situation (p. 138)3. Nevertheless,See also Yasuo Imai’s (2022) discussion on the relationship between evolutionary theory and education.
Imai analyzes the controversy in the German-speaking world at the end of the 19th century. The issue
there was whether the theory of evolution, considered as a “hypothesis,” should be taught in schools.
According to Imai, this controversy shows that with the development of natural science, absoluteknowledge was shaken, and difficulties arose in teaching correct knowledge about the “world.” Imai’s
assumption is that the concepts of “nature” and “development” of children were needed to overcome
these difficulties, and that thus the evolutionary theories of Spencer, Haeckel, and others were drawn upon.
Such a teleological theory of evolution reinforced the notion of progressive development and facilitatedthe naturalistic reduction of education. Imai further discusses that Friedrich Nietzsche and John Dewey
attempted to open up a realm of education distinct from the realm of nature, through a non-teleologicalunderstanding of evolutionary theory (pp. 55–113). Imai’s discussion is an attempt to delineate theappropriate boundaries between culture and nature, human and nonhuman. Contrastingly, the purpose ofthis report is to identify the area of intertwining between the two, before delineating the boundary betweenthem.
2
Yano (2019) examines how the boundary between humans and animals has been questioned inpedagogy. Considering Agamben’s argument, he notes that an important task of education is not only toestablish the boundary between human and nonhuman but also to understand how to cross this boundary(pp. 101–106, pp. 119–141).
3
In recent anthropology, as seen in Bruno Latour, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Tim Ingold and others,
attempts have been made to break down the dichotomy between culture and nature, human andnonhuman, and to describe the two in terms of symmetry (Kasuga 2011). However, even in such attempts,
the boundary between human and nonhuman is not unconditionally discarded. For example, Latour
1

Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Rethinking the “We”: Tomasello and Winnicott

53

even in such cases, it is necessary to change the mechanisms of anthropological machines.
One approach is to examine human diversity and identify an intermediate space between
humans and nonhumans, where diversity is intertwined and residue is rested.
Since the emergence of sociobiology in the 1970s, attempts have been made to
explain altruism and sociality in terms of genes and natural selection. In this context, theconventional views of human nature and society have been challenged. These studies
provide an essential basis for delineating certain boundaries. Tomasello’s work is one
such case study. He explores the fundamental nature of human society throughcomparative experiments with infants and chimpanzees. The primordial humans
described by Tomasello are not in conflict with each other. Rather, they came together toshare intentions and goals, forming a collective identity, namely “we.” Thus, Tomaselloplaces human thought, morality, and education in the context of relationality andcommunity unique to humans. However, he does not pay much attention to intermediateareas. In the following discussion, I examine his argument, focusing on the concept of“we.” I then raise some questions and clarify the direction in which “we” should bereconsidered.

2. Joint Intentionality and “We”: Tomasello’s Theory of Evolution andDevelopment
Tomasello describes the remarkable behaviors of nonhuman apes. They reason,judge, group, and help each other. The differences between humans and other great apes
are not always clear. Beginning with a discussion on joint attention, Tomasello regards
the collaborative nature of humans as distinguishing between the two. In The Cultural
Origins of Human Cognition (1999), human cultural evolution and language acquisition
are explained in terms of a nine-month revolution and joint attention.
According to Tomasello (2000 [1999]), the infant engages early in emotionallycharged interactions with others (“proto-conversations”) through touching and vocalizing.
At around nine months of age, the infant’s world is reorganized, and the infant begins tounderstand that others are also agents with intentions. During this stage, the binary(1993) criticizes that modern society is creating the appearance of a boundary between human andnonhuman on the one hand, while producing a hybrid of the two on the other. His aim would not be somuch to abolish the demarcation of human and nonhuman, but to seek a new “humanization” byexamining how the two are mixed together. This report also examines the “in-between” of human andnonhuman in a different way than Latour and explores new humanization.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

54

R. Shibuya

relationship between the self and others evolves into the ternary relationship involving
the self, objects, and others. The infant becomes aware of others’ reactions and sharesattention with them (pp. 58–65).
Since the work of Jerome Bruner and others, joint attention has been argued as thebasis for sharing semantic worlds with others and acquiring language (see Bruner 1995).
For example, Sumio Hamada (1992) suggested that through joint attention, infants
exchange viewpoints with others and learn how familiar people see and behave toward
the third term (pp. 79–85). Tomasello (2000) also examined the function of joint attention
and viewed it as an essential scene in developmental process. According to him, first,
joint attentional scenes provide opportunities to share intentions and contexts. Thisprepares infants to read others’ intentions and develop imitative learning through anunderstanding of intentions. Second, joint attentional scenes allow infants to distancethemselves from their own perspectives. There, infants become aware that others arepaying attention to them, and they begin to see themselves from the perspective of others(pp. 96–100). These processes of sharing intentions and pluralizing one’s own
perspectives form the basis for symbol formation and language acquisition.
Further, Tomasello focuses on collaborative activities, which entail joint attention
and understanding of others’ intentions. He situates them within an evolutionary scenario
as what constituted the primordial human community. In The Natural History of Human
Thinking (2014), he discusses how collaborative activities involving joint intentionality
and shared goals form a “we” relationship and constitutes a feature of human thinking.
Tomasello suggests that hundreds of thousands of years ago, early humans became more
inclined toward collaborative foraging. This led to the formation of a “we” that shared a“common-ground” for communication and engaged in self-monitoring from theperspective of others (Tomasello 2014). The Natural History of Human Morality (2016)
also traces a similar scenario regarding the emergence of moral values such as fairness
and equality. Let us now turn to this book, which elaborates on the normative nature of“we.”According to Tomasello (2016), most primates care for kin and “friends” and live
interdependently, on the basis of “sympathetic concern.” They “form emotional bonds
with those who help them (…), and then they naturally help those with whom they aresocially bonded ― kin and ‘friends’ as it were” (p. 14). But such “emotional reciprocity”
is often embedded in competition and dominance. Cooperation in nonhuman apes
therefore occurs only in the context of conflicts with neighboring groups and competition
within a group. Tomasello’s question concerns the transformation of this situation. In his
view, the forced collaboration and interdependence in the hunting of large prey led to the
Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Rethinking the “We”: Tomasello and Winnicott

55

expansion and transformation of “sympathetic concern,” which established the “we”
involving the emergence of social norms (ibid., pp. 43–50).
What, then, is the “we” that Tomasello refers to? It is a “joint agent” formed throughcollaborative activities in which participants share intentionality and goals―a “secondpersonal agency” that encompasses “I” and “you” but does not belong to either.
Tomasello explains this concept from the following perspectives. First, a “commonground” is formed, comprising shared knowledge and understanding. This provokes asense of “openness” and a feeling of “ought” (normative trust and responsibility). Second,
when participants in a collaborative activity adopt each other’s point of view, an exchangeof roles becomes possible. Thus, a “bird’s-eye view” is generated, which enables
participants to conceptualize their cooperative efforts as a whole (ibid., pp. 51–53). Third,with role exchange comes “self-other equivalence,” which leads individuals to regard
themselves and others as equals (ibid., pp. 55–56). In this way, interaction within acollaborative activity produces mechanisms such as a common-ground, bird’s-eye view,and self-other equivalence. These mechanisms represent the ideal form of collaborative
activity and govern the relationship between “I” and “you.”
Tomasello suggests that partner choice plays a crucial role in the broader functioningof such mechanisms. According to him, obligate collaborative foraging requires
individuals to choose good partners. In such situations, early humans recognized that
others were evaluating themselves, and they attempted to manipulate others' impressions
based on the ideals of cooperative activities4. Further, those who acted as free riders or
could not participate were excluded. As a result, distribution became a reward for active
participation (ibid., pp. 57–62). As the “partner choice market” was established, thesecond-personal “we” as a “supraindividual entity” began to wield normative power5.
When partners failed to fulfill their role, they were sanctioned on the basis of “we.”However, Tomasello notes that these markets were only partial at first, as early humans did notaccumulate enough information and included free riders.
5Here, we can assume that economic calculations entered into human relationships and community,
leading to the principle of efficiency. Tomasello, however, seems to understand the process fromcollaborative activity to the principle of efficiency in an overly linear manner. Contrastingly, David
Graeber (2014) criticizes discussions that understand social relations only in terms of the exchange
principle; that is, in terms of accounts and calculations. He notes that there are moral principles not basedon these calculations: hierarchy and communism. He further identifies communism as a “baseline
communism,” which is not a social system but operates in everyday relationships. It is “any humanrelationship that operates on the principle of ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to hisneeds’” (p. 131). Such baseline communism is at work even in situations in which the principle ofexchange dominates. Graeber’s argument seems to indicate a different type of relationship andcommunity than the “we” described by Tomasello.
4

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

56

R. Shibuya

Concurrently, protests against unfair treatment, termed “second-personal protest,”
became possible. Rather than merely demanding food, protests began to arise fromfeelings of “resentment against disrespect, resentment against being treated as something
less than equal” (ibid., p. 70).
Thus, a new set of social principles emerged, distinct from the sympathetic concernsand great apes’ ranking system. Within this framework, each person’s behavior isregulated by a collective identity of “we.” For a long time, however, this “we” hadremained temporary. Tomasello explains that it achieved stability only in the era ofmodern humans. As modern humans formed cultural groups, a temporary “we” wasextended into a customary “we,” and an unstable “common-ground” became a “culturalcommon ground” that was assumed to be known by all members of the group.
Consequently, the authority and “objective” perspective of “we,” independent of
individuals, was established, and social norms related to fairness and equality wereformed. However, “we” do not only establish a basis for fairness and equality. Whencertain individuals gain the power to represent the authority of “we,” it could also mean
the emergence of a hierarchy based on authority, which is different from the ranking
system of animal society (ibid., pp. 67–68). Therein lies the ambivalence between
equality and hierarchy.
Here, we can consider the nature of human education. For Tomasello, primordialeducation is that which is based on the authority of “we” and creates an equilibrium ofknowledge, forming a “common-ground.” Tomasello suggests that the formation ofcultural groups and the difference between “us” and “them” brought about the need for
education (ibid., pp. 96–97). Interestingly, even the youngest children try to teach, which
involves a duality of equality and hierarchy. Tomasello notes that children use “normative
language” to their peers, such as “one must put it here” and objectification, such as “itgoes here” (ibid., pp. 97). This is already education that refers to the customary “we,” but
concurrently it is an act of assuming the position of representing authority. Education
promotes an equal “we” and concurrently empowers a teaching person to embody theauthority of “we.”As described above, Tomasello takes the interaction in joint attention as a starting
point and then reveals the relationality and community unique to human beings. He
argues that during interactions, humans constantly form a second-personal “we,” out of
which they create fixed institutions and objectivities. This also demonstrates that
institutions and cultures are never static but are shaped by interaction and influenced by“second-personal protest.” As Tomasello himself suggests, the resistance against
disrespect argued by Axel Honneth in The Struggle for Recognition is also a struggle over
Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Rethinking the “We”: Tomasello and Winnicott

57“we” (Tomasello 2016, p. 72; see also Honneth 1992). While assuming a “we,” people
reform the way “we” are (who is included in “we,” what constitutes a fair evaluation,
what equality means, etc.) as equal members of society or as individuals demanding afair evaluation of their own role6. This is where the diversity of human society comesfrom. However, some questions remain unanswered, such as how the scope of “we” isdecided and how relationships between “us” and “them” are established. To begin with,can “we” function independently?
Here I would like to go beyond Tomasello’s argument and consider that there is atransitional state between the shared intentionality and the earlier stage, and that the two
are often intertwined. In discussing forms of learning, Tomasello (2000) distinguishes
between “ontogenetic ritualization,” which is also found in chimpanzees, and “imitative
learning,” which is unique to humans. Ritualization is a form of learning in which twoorganisms shape “each other’s behavior through repeated instances of social interaction”
without sharing intentions (p. 31). Certain rituals are established through the repetition ofinteractions such as the infant performing an action and the mother responding to it. Thisis learning through emotional coordination, which is characteristic of the binary
relationship prior to joint attention. Imitative learning, on the other hand, is a form oflearning to reproduce the actions of others based on an understanding of their intentions.
However, as Tomasello himself argues, an infant’s pointing, for example, can beeither imitative learning or ritualization in response to an adult’s action (ibid., pp. 87–89).
Indeed, even when we think we have a shared intention, this is often not the case. In manycases, ritualization and imitative learning are intertwined. This is also true of collaborative
activities. Tomasello (2016) emphasized that even when chimpanzees cooperate to forage
for food, they do not share the same goal. It is not a “we,” he says, but a “group behavior
in I-mode” (p. 27), which is simply coordination between individuals. However, since
many collaborations are supported by emotional coordination, “we” and “I-mode” seemto be intertwined.
This will lead to a rethinking of “we.” There may be myriad holes in Tomasello’s
Tomasello’s argument overlaps considerably with that of Honneth. Tomasello (2016) regards theresistance to disrespect in Honneth’s discussion as presupposing a “we” (p. 72). Honneth (2012) also
refers to Tomasello in Reification, in which he argues for the priority of “emotional attachment or
identification” over cognition of objects (pp. 42–45). However, Honneth (1992) refers to Winnicott anddiscusses the process by which the infant moves from a state of fusion, through the destruction of objects,
to the recognition of others (SS. 153–172). He thus focuses on a transitional state between sympathetic
concern and joint attention. This perspective is not so evident in Tomasello. However, Honneth does notemphasize the peculiar forms of relationality and recognition in illusion as much. In exploring this point,
this report takes Winnicott's argument in a different direction than Honneth’s.
6

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

58

R. Shibuya“we,” and “we” may be intertwined with and filled by different levels of relationality.
However, I do not have the expertise to examine this point through empirical research.
Here, I explore the developmental theory of psychoanalysis, specifically Winnicott’s
arguments, to discuss how infants come to share intentionality with others. This isbecause Winnicott discusses this process in terms of illusion and playing, demonstratinga different level of relationality than “we.” Indeed, Tomasello’s argument andpsychoanalysis have different origins and levels, and it may be inappropriate to link them.
However, attempts to integrate the psychoanalytic debate with infant research since the1980s are ongoing7. In particular, Jessica Benjamin (1995) links the work of Daniel N.
Stern and others to Winnicott's argument (pp. 81–115). With these attempts in mind, let
us examine the relationality in Winnicott's developmental theory.

3. Illusion and Playing: Winnicott’s Theory of Development
Freud also addressed the question of how a community with morals and norms cameinto being. In Totem and Taboo (1912), he constructed the myth of prehistoric patricide
as the origin of morality and community. According to Freud (2000 [1912–1913]),prehistoric men formed small groups in which the strongest male occupied all women as
the father. The sons collaborated to kill and eat their father. Consequently, they were torn
between the two extremes of emotion: hostility and love for their father. They began tofeel guilty to resolve this division. After that, they formed a “male coalition” comprising“members with equal rights” and established taboos. Guilt over the absent father made it
possible for them to recognize other people and maintain a normative community ofequals (SS. 424–430).
Freud’s narrative is peculiar, but it demonstrates a general scheme in which theconflict between primordial love and hostility is transformed into guilt, resulting in therecognition of others. This scheme was further developed by Melanie Klein as an infant’s
phantasy. According to Klein, through conflict over a good object (good breast) and a bad
object (bad breast), an infant develops a sense of guilt for aggression and begins torecognize the mother as a holistic object (Likierman 2001, pp. 100–135; see also Klein
1984). Klein viewed the process of recognizing the other and sharing reality with others

For example, Anne Alvarez (1992) draws on the work of Colwyn Trevarthen, Daniel N. Stern, andothers to present a new theory and technique of psychoanalytic intervention with autistic, abused, andother children.
7

Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Rethinking the “We”: Tomasello and Winnicott

59

as the development of a phantasy. Contrastingly, Winnicott discussed this process throughthe interaction between the infant and mother, similar to Tomasello’s approach. However,Winnicott focuses on the transitional area preceding the sharing of intentionality. The
central issue is the conflict of recognizing the other as possessing an inner reality distinct
from one’s own. Winnicott discussed this transitional area in terms of illusion and playing,both of which are riddled with contradictions8.
First, we provide an overview of Winnicott’s developmental theories. He discusses
infant development from three perspectives: integration, personalization and objectrelating (realization)9. According to Winnicott, an infant is initially an unintegrated being
whose experiences are fragmented. What protects the infant is care such as holding, warm
wrapping, and bathing, as well as the caregiver’s gaze, which brings together the infant’s
experiences. Winnicott refers to these as “holding” or the “holding environment.”
Supported by “holding,” the infant can remain unintegrated in a comfortable state andoccasionally develop an integrative “I,” despite the threats posed by internal instincts andexternal invasions. This forms the basis for the “True Self” outside communication10.
Next, in personalization, the coordination of body and mind is established, and the psyche
becomes “indwelling in the soma” (Winnicott 2018, p. 45). This is facilitated by the“handling” as initial playing. As the infant and others (the mother) are brought together
at the same wavelength and engage in various interactions, a distinction between the self
and others is established. This fosters a sense of “I am.” Finally, when others (the mother)
repeatedly present an object (breast), the infant foresees that others have an inner world,and steps into a reality that can be shared with others11.
It is important to note that this process occurs in the earliest stages and is not a linear
I have discussed Winnicott’s arguments regarding illusion and playing at length in another article(Shibuya 2021). The following discussion summarizes this and adds some new perspectives.
9
In “Primitive Emotional Development,” Winnicott formulated the tasks that the infant faces (Winnicott
2014, pp. 145–156). In later years, he argues how the infant is encouraged by their environment(Winnicott 2018, pp. 56–63). Here, I integrate and reconfigure these two aspects.
10
According to Winnicott (2018), infants form the “True Self” in the illusion of omnipotence when they
are raised in “facilitating environments.” However, if they are required early to adapt to reality ininadequate environments, they develop the “False Self” through compliance. It is a patchwork self thatlacks a sense of reality and wholeness (pp. 140–152). Contrastingly, the “True Self” is usually hidden andengaged with subjective objects (which are one with the subject in illusion) outside of communication.
Winnicott believed that such a self is the source of the sense of reality (ibid., pp. 179-192).
11
Winnicott's theory of development overlaps with that of Daniel Stern (2000). The “I” formed inunintegration can be said to correspond to “the sense of an emergent self” that perceives the world through“vitality affects” and “amodal perceptions.” Personalization and “I am” correspond to “the sense of a coreself” that constitutes a coherent self. Object-relating may correspond to “the sense of a subjective self”
and “affect attunement” in which the infant shares emotions with others.
8

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

60

R. Shibuya

sequence of steps. Rather, it is an overlapping, back-and-forth process that unfolds overa considerable period12. Further, the infant is “an immature being who is all the time on
the brink of unthinkable anxiety” and is threatened by preverbal anxieties such as “goingto pieces” or “falling forever” (Winnicott 2018, pp. 57–58). Despite facing these crises,
the infant, supported by holding, handling, and presenting-objects, forms a “True Self”
and also encounter the world of others. Winnicott views this first encounter as an “illusion”
that is neither real nor delusional but a primordial form of relationality.
Compared with topics such as delusions, fantasies, and dreams, illusions have been
set aside in the development of psychoanalysis. However, this does not imply that
illusions have not yet been discussed. In his later work, The Future of an Illusion, Freud(2000 [1927]) interpreted religion and God the Father as illusions. According to him,
illusion ignores reality and provides momentary comfort, whereas delusion is anti-reality.
Freud argued that humans, feeling powerless in the face of nature’s reality, created theillusion of an order-giving God, or father, to find temporary solace. His conclusion wasthat humanity should break through the illusion of God and listen to the subtle voice of
reason to advance intellectual inquiry (S. 186). This reflects Freud’s heroic gesture ofbreaking free from the false refuge of God.
However, Winnicott’s perspective contrasts with Freud’s. Winnicott focuses on theillusion of union with the mother, which precedes the illusion of God, or father, andexamines how this illusion forms the basis of shared reality. What matters here are thegaps that inevitably intrude before an infant’s perspective is pluralized and shared withothers. This involves the struggle to recognize that others have different intentions andworlds13. Benjamin argues that this approach subverts Freud’s patriarchal framework.
The illusion of union with the mother inevitably accompanies the process of
separation insofar as the mother plays a central nurturing role. According to Benjamin(1995), when this illusion is successfully navigated, the mother can be recognized as theother. However, in cases of failure, the mother’s power is transferred to the father,resulting in the dehumanization of the mother and the creation of the illusion that God or
Winnicott believes that the processes of integration, personalization and object-relating occur before
the age of five or six months. He also states that it is during this period that infants come to understandthat others have inner lives.
13
Illusions are usually recognized only after differences from reality have been noticed. In this sense,
illusion always precedes reality and is only discerned afterward, once the shared reality with others is
acknowledged. However, the illusion that Winnicott addresses exists in the intermediate area between
fantasy and reality, that is, before the full development of reality-testing, or in a state where both singularand plural perspectives are present simultaneously. If we understand illusion in this way, we can argue
that the establishment of shared reality inevitably involves this potential illusion.
12

Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Rethinking the “We”: Tomasello and Winnicott

61

father provides protection and order (pp. 96–97). The terror of nature and reality that gives
rise to the illusion of God is itself the product of a failure to confront reality. Thus, Freud’s
heroic gestures mask this failure by defeating the illusion. Contrastingly, Winnicott
revisits the primal illusion, not to defeat it but to explore how to play with it and come toterms with it. Now, let us delve into Winnicott’s narrative of illusion.
In “Primitive Emotional Development” (1945), the primal relationship between
infant and mother is described as a “moment of illusion.” According to Winnicott,although infants and their mothers interact, their inner worlds do not intersect14. However,if the mother repeatedly offers the breast to the infant when the infant desires it and tries
to create it within his or her inner world, a “moment of illusion” occurs, in which theinfant’s world and the mother’s world overlap. Winnicott writes:
I think of the process as if two lines came from opposite directions, liable to comenear each other. If they overlap, there is a moment of illusion―a bit of experience
which the infant can take as either as his hallucination or as a thing belonging toexternal reality. (Winnicott 2014, p. 152)
As Thomas H. Ogden (2018) notes regarding this passage, Winnicott suggests thatthe overlapping of the two lines is ultimately an illusion, but in this illusion a specificrelationship emerges (pp. 225–229). In this illusion, the infant creates the breast, feels
united with it, and simultaneously has slight contact with the world of the mother whobrings the breast into being. This is not an undifferentiated fusion. As Benjamin (1995)
argues, the infant is beginning to realize that the mother has a different intentionality andworld. In attempting to reject this reality, the infant perceives the illusion of union andomnipotence. That is to say, the illusion of union is created afterwards in the tension
between separation and rejection, and the infant anticipates the other person’s different
world within this illusion. Moreover, when this tension is disrupted, the infant may
become entangled in a relationship of domination and subjugation, faced with a choice
between the fantasy of omnipotence and the powerlessness of the self (pp. 89–93)15.
Drawing on recent developmental studies, Benjamin (2018) argues that a rhythm emerges in theinteraction between the infant and the mother, which does not belong to either side. She conceptualizes
this rhythm as the “rhythmic Third,” which can be the locus of primordial recognition (p. 30). Furthermore,
Benjamin suggests that this “rhythmic Third” develops into the “differentiating Third,” in which
individuals engage with others while recognizing their differences (ibid., pp. 21–48).
15
Benjamin suggests that Freud and other (male) psychoanalysts fell into this trap. Winnicott believedthat the tension between the illusion of union and the reality of separation is maintained in playing. Perhaps
he saw this tension as essential for fostering individual freedom, creativity, and the recognition of
14

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

62

R. Shibuya

In this sense, illusion is a form of a slight relationship in which the fusion anddifference between the self and others are intertwined. Here, the worlds of the infant andthe mother are related in a misaligned way. This illusory sense of togetherness forms thefoundation for the infant’s experience of “living together.” In this way, Winnicott foundan intermediate area between infants and mothers where the fusion and differentiation
remain indeterminate. For Winnicott, this is not simply something to overcome but
constitutes a space of its own. He later conceptualizes it as a “potential space” andunderstands it as a place for playing. What emerges there as a successor to the illusory
breast is the “transitional object,” such as scraps of blankets and tattered dolls to whichchildren have a special attachment. Winnicott (2005) defines it as the first “‘not-me’possession”—an ambiguous intermediate term between inside and outside (pp. 1–34).
By playing with a transitional object, infants or young children develop an illusion in an
unintegrated state and take a half-step into a world shared with others. At that time, it isimportant not to threaten the ambiguity of the transitional object. Winnicott says that weshould refrain from asking the question, “Did you conceive this or was it presented toyou from outside?” (ibid., p. 17). This is because if we make a clear distinction between
the inside and outside and determine their origin and ownership, the potential space
disappears and the transitional object is broken.
The play discussed here is not the type of game Tomasello discusses, which is basedon shared rules or role exchange16. Instead, it involves children manipulating their toys in
the presence of another person. Winnicott presents the images of this playing as theinteraction of the surfaces of two curtains or two jugs, with reference to Marion Milner(Winnicott 2005, p. 132). On one hand, there is a movement that develops an isolated
world without knowing the outside; on the other hand, there are moments when thismovement slightly intersects with the other world.
Let us examine an example of such a play by Winnicott. For example, Edmund,aged two and a half years, at first asked “Where’s toys?” but then never said a word. hedifferences with others.
16
Tomasello occasionally refers to children’s play. Play in his discussion is a game with shared intentions
and norms, or early symbolic play in which intentions are first shared and then extracted (Tomasello 2000,
pp. 84–85). Further, Tomasello (2014) finds the evolutionary origins of pretend play in “pantomiming asa serious communicative activity.” He suggests that pretend play originally evolved from gesture language
for conveying information (pp. 63–64). It was through these “young children’s joint pretense” that rulegames were established (ibid., pp. 91). Tomasello considers the transmission of information and thesharing of intentions as essential aspects that precede play. For him, play is only secondary. Contrastingly,
Winnicott links playing to illusion as a precursor to the sharing of intentions and discusses it as the basis
for a shared reality.
Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Rethinking the “We”: Tomasello and Winnicott

63

sat on his mother’s lap or played silently with toys while Winnicott talked to his mother.
Initially, he played cautiously; then he began blowing bubbles into his mouth and became
preoccupied with the string he had brought from another room. He then moved back andforth toward his mother. Winnicott did not directly engage with Edmund. He was justthere. But not without a relationship. He writes, “As it happened I was there mirroring
what was taking place and thus giving it a quality of communication” (ibid., p. 59).
What we have here is a different picture from that of collaborative activities
involving joint intentionality. This child does not share the same intentionality or goals as
the adults around him. They are “together” in the same place from different perspectives.
In this circumstance, the toddler is in a relaxed and unintegrated state, and develops
illusions using the transitional object of the string as the medium. The adults who watch
over him become the environment for the toddler, feeling that the toddler is anticipating
the world of others. Indeed, there was communication. Nevertheless, it is acommunication involving irrelevance, in which the toddler forms a “True Self” outsideof communication. In this process, the toddler acquires the “capacity to be alone.”
Of course, young children will eventually emerge from the illusion, acknowledge
that their world differs from that of others, and enter reality, sharing intentionality withothers. The transitional object also survives, albeit under intense attack. It then serves its
purpose and is no longer being examined. However, it does not simply disappear:
It is not forgotten, and it is not mourned. It loses meaning, and this is because thetransitional phenomenon have become diffused, have become spread out over thewhole of the intermediate territory between ‘inner psychic reality’ and ‘the external
world as perceived by two persons in common.’ That is to say, over the whole cultural
field. (ibid., p. 7)
The transitional object is not simply lost but becomes diffusely spread throughout
the cultural field. This implies that the themes of illusion and playing are not confined toinfancy. What Winnicott stated is that behind a culture that is based on shared reality and“common-ground,” there exists a vast realm of illusion that remains slightly relational(illusory culture). Illusions give rise to countless gaps in images and connections outside
cultural norms. In fact, even within the “we,” individuals are constantly alone anddeveloping illusions. Only when a small part of such illusions takes shape and is shared
can the culture of “we” be constructed. If this is true, then illusion becomes the foundationof the “we” and the source of cultural creation and human freedom.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

64

R. Shibuya

Conclusion
Through examining the differences between humans and other great apes,
Tomasello argues that the relationality and community of “we” are formed incollaborative activities involving joint intentionality. As a “supraindividual entity,” “we”
governs the relationship between “I” and “you,” forming the basis for a sense of equality
and the foundation of culture. Contrastingly, Winnicott found a peculiar intermediate area
between joint attention and emotional coordination. In this area, the infant experiences
the illusion in which the fusion and difference between the self and others are intertwined.
Through this illusion, the infant comes into slight contact with the world of others.
Eventually, this area becomes a space of playing, intertwined with “we” and spreading
into the background of culture. This aspect of Winnicott’s argument serves as a starting
point for thinking about creativity and freedom among humans.
Certainly, Winnicott’s arguments are more concerned with care than education.
Nevertheless, it can be argued that education not only establishes a “common-ground,”but is also closely intertwined with care, and that illusion and playing continually haunt
the workings of education. In addition to social norms, equality, and authority, humannature includes caring, playing, and engaging in illusions. These elements are constantlyintertwined and contribute to human diversity.
In The Dawn of Everything (2022), David Graeber and David Wengrow attempt todemonstrate that human beings have exercised their social freedom in playful ways fromtheir earliest beginnings. The authors suggest that prehistoric hunter-gatherers
experimented with a variety of social relationships. According to the authors, there is no
single form of human nature. Humans have moved, cared for, supported each other, madepromises, fought, teased others, and connected with diverse others while inventing
various social relationships17. Could we not consider the realm of illusion and playing, as

Graeber and Wengrow’s aim is to explore why human intrinsic freedoms (the freedom to relocate, thefreedom to disobey, the freedom to shape new social realities) have been diminished and linked to thedomination of others. They suggest that this question involves “the profound ambivalence (…) of (…)
caring relationships” (Graeber & Wengrow 2022, p. 191). Presumably, the caring relationships aretransformed when responsibility for care, once confined to a particular relationship, is transferred to those
who have no connection with the cared-for individual. Slaves exemplify this transformation. According
to Graeber and Wengrow, slaves can be seen as those who are forcibly separated from social ties throughviolence with the aim of producing caregivers (ibid., pp. 502–514). In this context, the caregiver isperceived as “them” within “us,” with whom the cared-for individual does not have to share a common
perspective. Consequently, a domination-subjugation relationship is established, and freedom becomes17

Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Rethinking the “We”: Tomasello and Winnicott

65

Winnicott showed, as giving rise to such human diversity and freedom, from which a
new “we” always emerges?

References
Agamben, G. (2004). The Open: Man and Animal. Attell, K. (trans.). Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press.
Alvarez, A. (1992). Live Company: Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy with Autistic,
Borderline Deprived and Abused Children. New York: Routledge.
Benjamin, J. (1995). Like Subjects, Love Objects: Essays on Recognition and Sexual
Difference. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Benjamin, J. (2018). Beyond Doer and Done to: Recognition theory, Intersubjectivity and
the Third. New York: Routledge.
Bowler, P. J. (1992). Darwin Kakumei no Shinwa (The Non-Darwinian Revolution:
Reinterpreting a Historical Myth). translated by Matsunaga, T. Asahi Shinbun Sha.
Bruner J. (1995). “Foreword: From Joint Attention to the Meeting of Minds.” In Moore,
C. & Dunham, P. J. (eds.) Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. pp. 1–14.
Canguilhem, G. (1988). Ideology and Rationality in the History of the Life Sciences.
Goldhammer. A. (trans.). Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Canguilhem, G. (1991). Kagaku-shi Kagaku-Tetsugaku Kenkyu (Studies in History andPhilosophy of Science). translation supervised by Kanamori, O. Housei Daigaku
Shuppan-kyoku.
Freud, S. (2000 [1912–1913]). “Totem und Taboo.” In, Sigmund Freud Studienausgabe
IX, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Verlag. SS. 287–444.
Freud, S. (1986 [1917]). “Eine Schwierigkeit der Psychoanalyse.” In Sigm. Freud
Gesammelte Werke: Chronologisch Geordenet XII: Werke Aus den Jahren 1917–
1920. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag. SS. 1–12.
Freud, S. (2000 [1927]). “Die Zukunft einer Illusion.” In, Sigmund Freud Studienausgabe
IX, Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag. SS.135–189.
Graeber, D. (2014[2011]). Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Brooklyn NY: Melville House
Publishing. [Kindle.]
synonymous with domination. This link between caring and domination can be understood as involving
a failure to maintain the delicate balance between fusion and separation in the illusion.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

66

R. Shibuya

Graeber, D. & Wengrow, D. (2022 [2021]). The Dawn of Everything: A New History of
Humanity. UK: Penguin Books.
Hamada, Sumio (1992). “Watashi” toiu Mono no Naritachi (How Does Work Out What
I Am). Minerva Shoboh.
Honneth, A. (1992). Kampf um Anerkennung: Zur Moralischen Grammatik Sozialer
Konflikte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Honneth, A. et al. (2012[2008]). Reification: A New Look at an Old Idea. Jay, M. (ed.)
New York: Oxford University Press.
Imai, Yasuo (2022). Han-Sizen Shugi no Kyouiku Shisoh: ‘Sekai he no Dohnyu’ ni
Mukete (Educational Thought for Anti-naturalism: Toward Introduction to theWorld). Iwanami Shoten.
Kasuga, Naoki (ed.) (2011). Genjitsu-Hihan no Jinrui-Gaku: Shin-Sedai no Ethnographyhe (Anthropology of Reality Criticism: Toward a New Generation of Ethnography).
Sekai Shisoh Sha.
Klein, M. (1984 [1935]). “A Contribution to the Psvchogenesis of Manic-Depressive
States.” in Love, Guilt and Reparation and Other Works 1921–1945. New York:The Free Press. pp. 262–289
Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Porter, C. (trans.). Cambridge Mass:
Harvard University Press.
Likierman, M. (2001). Melanie Klein: Her Work in Context. London & New York:
Continuum.
Morita, Hisato (1992). “Darwin-Shinkaron to Hattatsu-Gainen no Tenkan (Jyou): ‘Iden– Kankyo’ Ronsoh no Shisohteki Kiban (Darwinian Evolution and the Shift in theConcept of Development: The Ideological Basis of the “Heredity-Environment”
Debates 1).” Chuo Daigaku Kyoiku Kenkyu-Kai (ed). Kyoiku-Gaku Ronshu. Vol.
34, pp. 125–145.
Morita, Hisato (1994). “Darwin-Shinkaron to Hattatsu-Gainen no Tenkan (Chu): ‘Iden –Kankyo’ Ronsoh no Shisohteki Kiban (Darwinian Evolution and the Shift in theConcept of Development: The Ideological Basis of the “Heredity-Environment”
Debates 2).” Chuo Daigaku Kyoiku Kenkyu-Kai (ed). Kyoiku-Gaku Ronshu. Vol.
36, pp. 173–198.
Morita, Hisato (2000). “Darwin-Shinkaron to Hattatsu-Gainen no Tenkan (Ge): ‘Iden –Kankyo’ Ronsoh no Shisohteki Kiban (Darwinian Evolution and the Shift in theConcept of Development: The Ideological Basis of the “Heredity-Environment”
Debates 3).” Chuo Daigaku Kyoiku Kenkyu-Kai (ed). Kyoiku-Gaku Ronshu. Vol.
42, pp. 125–164.
Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Rethinking the “We”: Tomasello and Winnicott

67

Ogden, T. H. (2018 [2001]). Conversations at the Frontier of Dreaming. New York:
Routledge. [Kindle.]
Sakagami, Takashi (2003). “Darwinism to Jinbun-Shakai Gaku (Darwinism andHumanities-Social Sciences).” In Sakagami, Takashi (ed.). Heni Suru Darwinism:
Shinkaron to Shakai(Mutating Darwinism: Evolutionary Theory and Society).
Kyoto Daigaku Gakujyutsu Shuppan-Kai. pp. 3–43.
Stern, D. N. (2000 [1985]). The Interpersonal World of the Infant: A View from
Psychoanalysis and Developmental Psychology. New York: Basic Books.
Shibuya, Ryo (2021). “Kohi toshite no Asobi: Seishin-Bunseki ni okeru Asobiron no
Kohsatsu (Playing as an Action: A Study of Play Theory in Psychoanalysis).”Ryukoku Kyoshoku Journal. Vol. 8, pp. 29–49.
Tomasello., M. (2000 [1999]). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge
Mass: Harvard University Press. [Kindle.]
Tomasello., M. (2014). A Natural History of Human Thinking. Cambridge Mas: Harvard
University Press. [Kindle.]
Tomasello., M. (2016). A Natural History of Human Morarity. Cambridge Mass:
Harvard University Press. [Kindle.]
Winnicott, D. W. (2014 [1958]). Collected Papers: Through Paediatrics to
Psychoanalysis. New York: Routledge.
Winnicott, D. W. (2018 [1965]). The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating
Environment, New York, Routledge.
Winnicott, D. W. (2005 [1971]). Playing and Reality, New York: Routledge.
Yano, Satoji (2019). Kantai to Sensoh no Kyoiku-Gaku: Kokumin-Kyoiku to SekaiShimin no Keisei (Pedagogy of Hospitality and War: the Formation of National
Education and World Citizens). Tokyo Daigaku Shuppan.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

Thinking about Education through Examining Human Beings
Yuhi FUJITA
Kyushu University
Yuzo HIROSE
Kyoto University
Yoshitsugu HIRATA
Okayama University
More than 200 years after Immanuel Kant's statement that ‘the human being is the
only creature that must be educated’, it is now obvious to those of us living in the modern
world that humans are beings that indeed require education. This view of human beings,
also known as 'Homo educandus', has been the basis of various institutions, cultures, andideas that shaped subsequent eras, supported by the objectivity of the human condition as
being 'educated'.
However, contemporary insights from biology and evolutionary psychology push
us to rethink the human condition from the aspect of 'educating' rather than 'being
educated'. While learning is a widely observable phenomenon in a broad range of
biological species, 'teaching' has only been observed in a limited number of species, withhumans being a unique species that has maintained society and created and passed on
culture through this practice of 'teaching'. Evolutionary psychology has revealed thecharacteristics of the human cognitive system (shared intentionality), the tendency
towards collaboration and the 'we-ness' that supports these characteristics, and has
clarified the basis on which humans learn norms, internalize values and inherit culture in
the social environment.
In this research discussion, through dialogue between these contemporary Human
Sciences and Educational Studies, we would like to redefine the relationship between
education and human beings, and the nature of 'education'. What does education look liketo us when we rethink it not from the perspective of Persons, but from the perspective of
Correspondence:
Yuhi FUJITA, Kyushu University. Email: fujita.yuhi.043@m.kyushu-u.ac.jp
Yuzo HIROSE, Kyoto University. Email: hirose.yuzo.3n@kyoto-u.ac.jp
Yoshitsugu HIRATA, Okayama University. Email: yoshitsugu@okayama-u.ac.jp

Thinking about Education through Examining Human Beings

69‘Human Beings who have built up history’? This work will also lead us to reconsider theuniqueness of human culture and human society.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

Philosophy of Education as Clinical and Critical Action
Mika OKABE
Osaka University
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to explore a future possibility for the philosophy of education, drawing upon
the achievements of existing educational sciences, including the philosophy of education, and using
the history and research trends of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan as a case study. In
Japan, philosophers of education have created and refined concepts and frameworks of thought for
students, teachers, and researchers of various other educational sciences to re-examine education in
ways previously unexplored, thereby enriching present and future education and educational sciences
as components of modern enlightenment projects. However, the current philosophy of education, as
evidenced by the current research trends seen in the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education editedby the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan and published in July 2023, tends to be confinedwithin the bounds of Western modernity. From a postmodern and postcolonial perspective, it isnecessary to cautiously acknowledge that the actions and practices of contemporary philosophy ofeducation in Japan are somewhat lacking in terms of self-reflection and self-critique. Consequently,
this paper highlights the potential of a clinical philosophy of education, building upon thecomprehensive self-reflection practices found in cultural anthropology.
Key words: Thorough (self-) reflection, (Cultural) Anthropology, Clinical philosophy of education,
Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education, (Avoiding) the modern enlightenment hubris

Achievements of Educational Sciences in the Modern Age
Our world teems with myriad activities involving countless individuals, numerous
non-human organisms, and inanimate objects. Thus, the world is in a perpetual state offlux that is both unpredictable and beyond our control; as a result, the world may becomeincongruous with our understanding, or we may find ourselves disconnected andalienated from it. Consequently, institutionalised habits and customs that ought to guide
Correspondence:
Mika OKABE, Osaka University. Email: mioka@hus.osaka-u.ac.jp

Philosophy of Education as Clinical and Critical Action71

us through life may no longer be dependable and robust.1 As we navigate through thepassivity imposed by our constant involvement in the vicissitudes of the world we cannot
wholly comprehend or even be conscious of, we are compelled to initiate our own actions
and practices, including inaction, despite lacking a comprehensive understanding of theworld.
The logos of the enlightenment (Aufklärung/lumières) have endeavoured totransform the inherent passivity and struggle of human existence into activeness as a
subject. The educational sciences generate and accumulate knowledge, techniques, andtechnologies that enable individuals’ participation in education as a modern Westernenlightenment project.

Achievements of the Philosophy of Education
A shift from passivity to activeness has assisted educators, students, andeducational researchers in avoiding nihilism, providing hope and motivation for theactions and practices within education and educational sciences. Nevertheless, this shift
might entice individuals into the ‘hubris’ trap, wherein they seek to control what lies
beyond the realm of human knowledge and capability, which ought to be consideredsacrosanct even if technically accessible. Consequently, the aspiration for actions andpractices is subconsciously supplanted by an expectation that one’s desires can, or indeed
must, be fulfilled in the future, and the impetus for actions and practices is replaced by anurge to achieve predetermined objectives.
Although we cannot entirely extricate ourselves from this system of ‘expectation’and ‘urge’ for the future—given our perpetual involvement in education and educational
sciences as part of the modern enlightenment project—we ought to initiate actions andpractices as free agents to sidestep the ‘hubris’ pitfall of the modern enlightenment
projects. I argue that the philosophy of education generates and refines concepts andtheoretical frameworks, enabling those engaged in education and educational sciences to(re)consider, conceive, and discuss ideas anew, thereby averting the ‘hubris’ trap.
The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education2, edited by the Philosophy ofSuch instances are abundant, ranging from mundane issues, such as our understanding of ourselves and others
and the interpersonal relationships, to global matters, such as generative artificial intelligence, pandemics, andclimate change.
2
The Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, ed. (2023), Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education, Tokyo,
Maruzen Publishing.
1

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

72

M. Okabe

Education Society of Japan, published in July 2023 (hereinafter referred to as theEncyclopaedia) encompasses numerous entries and phrases elucidating how thephilosophy of education clarifies and critiques the principles underpinning the actions
and practices of conventional modern education and educational sciences. Furthermore,
it depicts how the philosophy of education has endeavoured to introduce alternative
concepts and theoretical frameworks for considering, conceiving, and discussing actions
and practices of education and educational sciences in a manner distinct from the past. In
essence, the philosophy of education aims to challenge and generate
difference―‘différance’ in the terminology of J. Derrida—, and to incorporate this into
the actual actions and practices of education and educational sciences, whereconventional principles persist irrespective of their efficacy.
Furthermore, the Encyclopaedia elucidates how the Philosophy of Education
Society of Japan has critically revised and updated its ‘political positionality’, enhancing
the depth and precision of reflection on the principles that function both overtly andcovertly within the Society’s discussions and research. According to Takuo Nishimura(the Encyclopaedia, pp. 568–571), upon the Society’s establishment in 1957, politics
were viewed as an external obstacle to education. This notion, accepted as a self-evident
truth, dictated that researchers in the philosophy of education should lead educators andresearchers in other fields of educational sciences by offering ‘universal and objective’
guidelines rooted in the ‘genuine’ logic of education in its ideal state, whilst distancing
themselves from ‘external political’ influences on education and from other sectors ofeducational sciences engaged with politics.
However, the emergence of postmodernism and postcolonialism, which critiquedconventional Western and modern ideas—an approach widely adopted by Japanese
educational philosophers in their studies—began to gain public recognition in Japan in
the 1990s. These movements instigated a complete reversal in the political stance ofJapanese educational philosophy. Educators, students, and researchers in the philosophyof education and other fields of educational sciences are now perceived to be inherently
engaged in modern Western enlightenment project initiatives. Consequently, politicalissues, such as the dynamics of power and the central-peripheral structures, are also
regarded as inherently embedded within education and educational sciences, functioning
both overtly and covertly, rather than as external elements. Following this postmodern
and postcolonial realisation, Nishimura articulated that the raison d’être of educational
philosophers in Japan could be discerned solely through the rigour of self-reflection on
their narrative and construction of reality via language (the Encyclopaedia, p. 570). This
insight, along with the influence of the linguistic turn in the humanities and social sciences
Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Philosophy of Education as Clinical and Critical Action

73

at large, became a ‘common understanding’ within the Philosophy of Education Societyof Japan.
How can one reasonably reflect on the validity and thoroughness of one’s
reflections? In other words, how can one inquire about the political operation andinfluence of one’s positionality that guides their reflections? If the philosophy ofeducation is an academic discipline pursued by human beings capable of committing the‘banality of evil’ (H. Arendt), and the raison d’être of educational philosophers lies invalid and thorough reflections on their narrations and constructions of the reality ofeducation and educational sciences, then the fundamental responsibility of educational
philosophers should be to maintain the self-awareness and self-reflection regarding their
linguistic actions and practices, and the mechanisms that motivate them. This isparticularly imperative for any researcher who has lived after and through the historicalexperience of the modern barbarism of reason and enlightenment.

Achievements of Cultural Anthropology
The subsequent section investigates the mechanisms that facilitate the actions andpractices of reflection within the philosophy of education, taking Japan as a case study.
However, initially, this section delves into the mechanisms of the actions and practices ofreflection in cultural anthropology. The philosophy of education shares two significant
points with cultural anthropology.3 The first is the politics of their origins, establishedand evolved as disciplines for assimilating, dominating, and controlling ‘savages’ orchildren to convert them into ‘human beings’ fashioned after Western adults. The second
is the gradual revision and enhancement of the initial politics by researchers, particularly
the operations of power within the centre-periphery structure of academic perspectives,
through rigorous self-reflection on their research approach amidst the critique of post20th-century modernity and the West.4
Cultural anthropology has been significantly influenced by the linguistic turn,Yujiro Nakamura (1984), ‘Kodomo: Shinso-teki Nin’gen, Chi’isai Otona, to Ibunka’ (Children: Deep Level of
Human Beings, Little Adults, and Different Cultures), Yujiro Nakamura, Jutsugo-syu: Kininaru Kotoba (Glossary:Words of Interest), Tokyo, Iwanami Shinsho, pp. 76-80 [in Japanese].
4
Okabe (2021) discusses the process of reflection on academic perspectives in cultural anthropology andprimatology (ecological anthropology). Mika Okabe (2021), ‘Mou wo Hiraku Pathos, Mou ni Hiraku Pathos’(Pathos to Enlighten the Ignorant, and Pathos for Opening to the Ignorant), Mika Okabe and Fumio Ono, eds.,
Kyouikugaku no Pathos-ron-teki Tenkai (The Pathological Turn in Education), Tokyo, University of Tokyo Press,
pp. 218-224 [in Japanese].
3

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

74

M. Okaberesulting in the development of notable theories, such as the structuralist anthropology of
Lévi-Strauss and the interpretive anthropology of Geertz. In recent years, a number ofradical reflective theories have critiqued anthropocentrism and logocentrism, entrenchedin human thought and behaviour. These include Latour’s actor-network theory and thetheories of ontological anthropology by Strathern and Cohn. These theories have exerted
a wide influence across the humanities and social sciences, beyond cultural anthropology
alone.
This profound reflection in cultural anthropology is facilitated not only by the deepeducational and cultural experiences of individual researchers in the humanities andsocial sciences but also by the academic methodologies employed by researchers
conducting fieldwork in cultures that are extraordinary to them and that help define themas a ‘minority’. During fieldwork, cultural anthropologists reside alone or in small groups
among the local people in diverse cultures for extended periods, such as one or two years,
undertaking participant observations and interviews in the local language. ‘Minority’ inthis context refers to individuals regardless of their number, whose thoughts, words, andactions are likely to be perceived as ‘strange’, ‘exceptional’, or ‘abnormal’, despite being
natural and self-evident to themselves, leading them to adopt a position of articulating‘excuses’ for their ‘unique’ thoughts and actions to those in the majority. Cultural
anthropologists introduce a ‘strong parallax’ into their own thoughts and actions, acquired
over time in their native region, by living long-term in other distinct cultures andexperiencing the positionality of ‘minority’. Cultural anthropologists strive to become
more receptive to opportunities to challenge the creation of differences and incorporate
them into their familiar, often Western and/or modern thoughts and actions. Moreover,they seize opportunities to regard their own thoughts and actions as ‘strange’,‘exceptional’, and ‘abnormal’ and to scrutinise their positionality as the ‘majority’, which
they have considered ‘standard’, ‘typical’, and ‘normal’. Thus, cultural anthropologists
aim to avoid adopting a stable position as part of the ‘majority’ with a safe and secure
attitude. Instead, they aspire to assume a ‘minority’ stance, questioning the self-evidence
and certainty of their thoughts and actions. This position enables them to thoroughlyreflect on their actions and practices when engaging with other cultures and facing
incommensurable situations. Furthermore, conducting interviews in the local language,
with translations that do not rely on the stable foundation of their mother tongue,
empowers cultural anthropologists to become acutely self-aware and reflective on their‘minority’ premise.
Consequently, we are led to pose the following fundamental question: do Japanese
educational philosophers have the same mechanism for profound self-reflection as
Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Philosophy of Education as Clinical and Critical Action75

cultural anthropologists?

Challenges revealed by the Encyclopaedia
The methodologies employed in the philosophy of education can broadly be
categorised into philosophical and intellectual-historical approaches. Philosophers ofeducation refine their methodologies through the critique of other people’s thoughts.
In the Encyclopaedia, entries on ancient and medieval thought (both Eastern andWestern) include few members from the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan.
Furthermore, the majority of entries in the Encyclopaedia focus on Japan and the West.
In the discipline of philosophy and cultural anthropology, theories of postmodernism andpostcolonialism, which deeply reflect on modern and Western thoughts, are often
developed through the critical study of ancient and/or medieval thought and fieldwork in‘peripheral’ regions of the world—such as Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the islands of
the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. In contrast, the philosophy of education in Japan, heavily
influenced by Western and modern thought, finds the range of texts for study that provide
clues for researchers to actively distance themselves from thoughts and behaviours
deemed self-evidently ‘standard’ or ‘normal’ to be limited, both in terms of periods andregions, despite such clues being crucial for the proper and thorough conduct of reflective
actions and practices.
Research in the philosophy of education in Japan has undeniably focused onmodern criticism, particularly since the 1990s, but only within a Westernised andmodernised context. The geopolitical position of Japan as the ‘East’ or ‘Far East’ country,
which may have served to avoid the pitfalls of colonialism and orientalism in the past,requires careful reflection among contemporary philosophers of education in Japan. Most
modern philosophers of education inhabit a world that favours global standardisation andpredominantly engage with Western modern thought rather than Japanese classicalthought.
However, even within the contexts of modernity and the West, many researchers
have reflected—due to their ‘minority’ positions—on their political positionality andchampioned postmodern and postcolonial ideas that challenge conventional academia.
The crux is that the intensity and accuracy of researchers’ self-reflections must bepreserved. Cultural anthropology underscores the necessity for researchers to create
opportunities for encounters with diverse people and incommensurable situations as a‘minority.’ I advocate that practising a clinical philosophy of education in public spheres
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

76

M. Okabealongside diverse individuals can facilitate the creation of such opportunities forphilosophers of education.
Philosophical educational research employing the methodologies of philosophy
or intellectual history can indeed be clinical. These methodologies engage with theoriginal linguistic situation and the original multifaceted contexts of concepts andtheoretical frameworks through one’s linguistic abilities and critical interpretation of texts
from their own perspective and positionality. This clinical approach sheds light on
historical problematic situations, linking them with the present. It might be considered tocreate a virtual reconstruction of past situations and contexts as another culture throughlinguistic and academic imaginative skills, as opposed to cultural anthropologists’ direct
and physical experience of these situations and contexts.
Researchers ought not to adopt concepts or theoretical frameworks from differing
periods, regions, and contexts by unconsciously applying their own modes of thought,
linguistic usage, or perspectives. Nonetheless, the current state of philosophy of educationin Japan, as depicted in the Encyclopaedia, indicates numerous challenges in avoiding
such appropriation.
Given this scenario, could adopting a ‘minority’ stance and engaging in discursive
actions and practices in a pluralistic public sphere with others committed to different
principles help maintain or enhance the intensity and precision of our reflective actions
and practices? Indeed, such actions and practices have been explored through various
means by several members of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan. Could theirinsights and bricolage5 abilities be recognised as public knowledge, benefitting not only
the Society but also the global field of educational philosophy?
Japanese philosopher Megumi Sakabe posits that the actions and practices ofclinical reflection should be ‘philosophical practice’. 6 According to Sakabe,philosophical scholars should avoid placing themselves in a ‘privileged’ position, whichis ‘exceedingly inaccessible to non-specialists’. The language of philosophy extends fromeveryday natural language rather than being distinct from it. The engagement in clinicalphilosophy of education within the public realms of daily life, alongside individuals ofdiverse backgrounds, necessitates a return to this essential understanding of language use
According to de Certeau, actions and practices of/as a ‘minority’ are an alternative type of creative activities,
referred to as the poetics of everyday practice. They also differ from production activities and language production
by the elite. The creative activity exercised in such contexts is called ‘bricolage’ and can secretly form another webof anti-discipline that cannot be controlled by the ‘majority’, such as the elite. (Michel de Certeau (1980), ART DE
FAIRE, Paris, Union Générale d’Editions.)
6
Megumi Sakabe (2007), Sakabe Megumi Shu 4: ‘Shirushi’, ‘Katari’, ‘Furumai’ (Collected Works of Megumi
Sakabe 4: ‘Symbols’, ‘Narratives’, ‘Practice’), Tokyo, Iwanami Shoten, pp.359-368.
5

Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Philosophy of Education as Clinical and Critical Action

77

in philosophy and the pursuit of comprehensive and appropriate reflection.
Sakabe further suggests that ‘the role of philosophy is to prepare dictionaries andgrammar for ordinary people’s thought’.7
Publishing the Encyclopaedia could be seen as fulfilling one of the roles of thephilosophy of education. The Encyclopaedia ought not to serve as a means for readers toaccumulate and flaunt knowledge to secure a privileged status and bolster existing
theories within their own culture. Instead, it should enable them to seek, explore, andrefine their use of language to initiate in-depth reflection on their actions and practices
regarding education and educational research.
This positionality aids philosophers of education in developing alternative terms
and frameworks, enhancing the efficacy of their research approaches within education,
educational sciences, and philosophy of education. Philosophers are encouraged toembrace the continuous intervention of anti-foundational translation in their interactions
and engagements with others and the incommensurable. Moreover, philosophers ofeducation may discover that the same terms and frameworks can lead to vastly different,
and occasionally conflicting, principles compared to conventional education, educational
sciences, and, particularly, conventional philosophy of education. In public spheres,philosophers of education have the opportunity to contemplate and refine their use ofterms and frameworks while undertaking research actions and engagements with others
and the incommensurable. This could promote profound self-reflection on
anthropocentrism, orientalism, logocentrism, and ethnocentrism, which may have
inadvertently infiltrated their actions and practices.
Despite such extensive self-reflection, mistakes are inevitable. Complete immunityfrom errors and biases is unattainable, given the world’s perpetual state ofunpredictability and uncontrollability, and the constant evolution and transformation ofhuman beings. Hannah Arendt underscores the importance of ‘forgiveness’ (verzeihen)and ‘promise’ (versprechen) in safeguarding discursive actions and practices fromsuccumbing to modern enlightenment hubris or the banality of evil.8 Building on this, I
would like to aim to explore which issues the philosophy of education should address andrespond to, through rigour and thorough reflection in future research.
Ibid.: p.369
Hannah Arendt (1967), VITA ACTIVA, oder Vom tätigen Leben Piper Verlag GmbH, München. Chapter 5
discusses ‘Forgive’ (Verzeihen) and ‘Promise’ (Versprechen). Zeihen means to blame or condemn someone for a sin,whereas sprechen means to speak, talk, or tell a story either intentionally or involuntarily. It is prefixed by ver-, whichmeans substitution, exceeding temporal limits, and various changes (such as closure, prevention, elimination,
removal, consumption, distortion, reversal, and coercion). The original terms in German have nuances not present
in Japanese or English.
7
8

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

Intelligence toward Truthfulness:
A Perspective Based on Ranciére’s Educational Theory
Satoshi TANAKAThe University of Tokyo
Abstract
What Jacques Rancière requires teachers to do is to hold an attitude of "ignorance.'' This is aroundabout way of stimulating the "intelligence'' of the students themselves. This intelligence means
the ability to understand the "truth," and it is assumed to be the same for all people. However, incontemporary Japanese society, education is expected to lean heavily toward "competence
formation''(qualification and socialization), and is far from the intelligence that seeks the "truth."Though, if we value properly our natural sensibilities in a proper way, we can stimulate our own
intelligence. The "truth" here means "truthfulness without truth.'' It is one’s own destination ("telos'')
where the "inner other'' is heading toward. The activity toward one’s own telos is limited to what one
testifies = expressing oneself. In sum, the education proposed here is to position one’s own intelligence
toward truthfulness as the indispensable foundation of education. Therefore, it can be said that
education is a new type of human formation.
Key words: competence formation, human formation, ignorance, Jacques Rancière, intelligence,
sensibility, telos, testify, truth, truthfulness.

1 Envisioning education
In order to envision ''education'' as a new type of human formation, I would like to use
the French philosopher Jacques Rancière's conception of teachers' activity as a foundationof this discussion(JR, MI). What Rancière demands of teachers in his educational theory
is, above all else, to be ''ignorant.'' Of course, this ''ignorant'' does not mean in a literal
sense, but rather refers to the behavior that teachers act like ''as if'' he/she does not havemuch knowledge. It is the prerequisite for teachers to carry out the act of ''teaching.'' In
Correspondence:
Satoshi TANAKA, The University of Tokyo. Email: sgf-liberalitas@nifty.com

Intelligence toward Truthfulness: A Perspective Based on Ranciére’s Educational Theory

79

short, it is the basic attitude. The teaching act based on this premise is ''teaching without
explication.'' In other words, ''teaching'' is equal to ''stimulating the intelligence'' ofstudents.
At first glance, Rancière's theory of teachers seems to emphasize students' ''selflearning'' rather than teachers' ''teaching''(GB, RT). However, if we remand Rancière'sconcept of intelligence to the history of European thought, as Rancière himself suggests,
the excitation (activation) of intelligence may be caused by not only a concrete otherperson, but also by someone who can be called ''inner other.'' For example, the inner otheris what Augustine called the ''inner person'' (homo interior)(AA, C: 10. 6. 9; DVR: 39.
72). If we think of Rancière's theory of teachers in this way, even though at first glance it
may seem like ''learning by him/himself,'' it actually means ''being taught by the innerother. ''However, what is considered here is not whether education means teachingcentered or learning-centered, but education is becoming increasingly tilted tocompetence formation (qualification and socialization) and moving away from the ''will
to truth.'' This ''truth'' includes not only the truth of natural science, but also the telos thata person desires. Moreover, that ''will'' is not only inherent in oneself, but also derives
from one’s ''inner other'' (deep ''self''). To put it simply, the basics of the education
proposed here are that competence formation should be carried out based on the ''will totruth'' that is unique to oneself and responding singularly to the ''inner other.''

2 Will of Intelligence, Equality of Intelligence
1 Intelligence penetrated by the will to gain truthfulness
Let us summarize the two characteristics of Rancière's concept of intelligence. The firstis that Rancière's intelligence is not so-called intelligence, such as ''academic knowledge''or ''educatedness,'' but rather ''power to understand oneself[puissance de se fairecomprendre] through the verification of others[vérification de l'autre]''(JR, MI: 123). In
other words, Rancière's intelligence is ''the ability to think'' that is permeated by''will''(volonté) toward the ''truthfulness''(vérité) of oneself and others(the difference of''truth'' and ''truthfulness'' will be mentioned later). Basically, Rancière says that a person
is a ''will'' subjugated to an intelligence''(JR, MI: 88).
Let us elaborate a little. Rancière, relying on the 18th century French poet Jean
François de Saint-Lambert(1716–1803), writes: ''It[=Will] is the divine intelligence,
already written as the norms gifted to human beings by Divinity, as the very acts of
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

80

S. TANAKA

language. It is not original [human] nature or human skill, but a gift of Divinity'' (JR, MI:89). In other words, a person's ''will'' does not belong to him/her, but to God, and is a
dynamic movement towards God.
The second is the assumption that intelligence is equally endowed to all persons.
Looking back at the history of European thought, Rancière's intelligence is, for example,
the ''intellectus'' or ''spiritus'' as ''humanitas'' talked about in ancient era by Aurelius
Augustine(354-430) and in the medieval era by Thomas Aquinas(1225-74). Rancière
himself writes ''intelligence'' as ''esprit'' (JR, MI: 85). Intelligence, which has been talked
about in Christian thought since at least the ancient era, is a gift from God to all persons,and is another name for the ''inner other''(''inner person'') mentioned earlier.
Let us elaborate on this. In the case of Thomas, the activity of the ''anima'' that
overflows in human hearts can be divided into two abilities called ''potentia intellectivae''and ''potentia appetivae'' (TA, ST: I, q. 78, pr.). ''Potentia intellectivae'' is the intellectual
activity of ''understanding'' God (intellegere), which is accompanied by the ''will''(voluntas) that originates from God and returns to God(TA, ST: I, q. 79). The ''potentia
appetivae'' is ''the ability to seek sensual comfort and escape from what is harmful.'' Theability to seek sensual comfort is called ''concupiscibilis,'' and the ability to escape fromwhat is harmful is called ''irascibilis''(TA, ST: I, q. 81, ad. 2, co).

2 Sincerity toward truthfulness
Now, the ''truthfulness'' to which Rancière's ''will'' directs is sharply distinguished fromthe language to describe things. That is, the ''will'' is not something that can be described.
The truthfulness becomes envisagemental and felt. Rancière said, ''Truthfulness does not
speak of itself. Truthfulness is one thing(une), language activity is scattered. Truthfulness
is necessary, and language is arbitrary'' (JR, MI: 102). In other words, ''significations'' thatpeople make are manifestations of will [which are diverse but come from one divinity] ''(JR, MI: 95).
However, the truthfulness that Rancière refers to is not the metaphysical''substance'' talked about in medieval theology, but rather the destination that each person
uniquely heads towards with ''sincerity''(véracité). For Rancière, ''truthful- ness is not to
be found in models that are represented by or transformed to [concrete] shapes''(JR,CM: 26). In other words, what is described(defined) as such-and-such is not truthfulness.
''Thinking does not describe [something] as truthfulness(vérité); it is [naturally] expressed
as sincerity(véracité)''(JR, MI: 106). ''Truthfulness exists by itself. It exists and is not
something that can be told [by human consciousness or intention] '' (JR, MI: 99).
''Nothing has any bearing on truthfulness, it is in [someone's] unique [thinking]
Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Intelligence toward Truthfulness: A Perspective Based on Ranciére’s Educational Theory81

trajectory.'' ''Truthfulness is only a friend of one's own thinking''(JR, MI: 101-2).
The reason why I translate Rancière's word ''vérité'' as ''truthfulness'' is because I
use the word ''truth'' to describe(= to predicate) something that is not known. Also, thereason why I use the word ''truthfulness'' is because I wanted to express(= to appear by
itself) something that is intelligible(intelligibilis). The word ''verité'' which Rancière uses
positively means truthfulness. It is shown by the fact that the ''will'' he refers to is theintention that proposes the method of conjecture(JR, MI: 106). ''Sincerity'' is “eachperson's privileged way of thinking of the truthfulness'' (JR, MI: 98), and this sincerity iscalled ''fictional truth'' («vérité» de la fiction)(JR, CM: 105).

3 Intelligence as subject
If we strengthen our imagination to some extent, this kind of intelligence toward
truthfulness can also be found in ''factuality'' (Martin Heidegger(1889-1976)) and''activity'' (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe(1749-1832) and Friedrich Nietzsche (18441900)) in the sense of the thinking power that is naturally generated. Rancière said, ''The
intelligence is attention and inquiry, which precedes the combination of ideas; and thewill [of intelligence] is the force that moves oneself, acting by peculiar movement(propre
mouvement), preceding [the ego's] choice'' (JR, MI: 92). This ''choice'' is probably
indicating ''free will'' (liberum arbitrium) that does not exclude human arbitrariness andself-righteousness.
In Rancière’s claim, ''will'' is described as ''rational force''(pouvoir rationnel),''rational being''(être raisonnable), and, simply, ''self''' (soi-même)(JR, MI: 92-3, 97). The''self'' that Rancière refers to is the ''self to which I return'' (retour sur lui-même), so to
speak, the inner other(JR, MI: 97). This ''self'' is the universal immanence that was often
talked about in the history of European thoughts, and can be found, for example, in
Goethe and Nietzsche, as well as in Augustine and Thomas.
For Rancière, the ''root of evil''(le principe du mal) is equal to ''unfaithfulness tooneself''(infidélité à soi)(JR, MI: 98). In brief, this indicates the a lack of sincerity.
Rancière said, ''Evil is wandering around, straying from the path [ that the ''self'' leads to],paying no attention to what those [who follow one's ''self''] say(qu'on dit), forgetting what
it is to be a person(qu'on est)[who is fighting toward ons’s own ''self'']. Therefore, [you]must go your own way(Va donc ton chemin) ''. Being true to one's ''self'' is being''sincere''(véracité) and ''being a person'' in one's own way'' (JR, MI: 98 bold is by quotor).
That is, to be human is to continue to face the telos of one's own ''self'' with sincerity.
Rancière says, ''People think, because they exist''(l'homme pense parce qu'il existe)(JR,
MI: 105).
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

82

S. TANAKA

3 (Lost) intelligence toward truthfulness
1 Being Explicated and Understanding
As mentioned earlier, Rancière's intelligence does not require ''explication'' by teachers.
For Rancière, ''teaching'' does not mean explicating something to students. This isbecause explications put students' intelligence into doze mode. Teachers who stimulate
students' intelligence are ''ignorant teachers.'' In Rancière’s theory, teaching is to teachwhat teachers do not know (JR, MI: 100). It is about encouraging students to use theirown intelligence and to move toward their own unique and singular ''understanding. ''Each student's unique and singular ''understanding'' is something that teachers cannot
grasp. In Rancière, ''explication is a myth of pedagogy'' (JR, MI: 15). The explication is
not really ''teaching''. This is because explications can create ''accepting it as it is'' and''impression''(worship) of the person who is giving the explication.
For Rancière, the ''driving force'' of education is the human desire to ''understand''(comprendre). Indeed, it can be recognized that the desire to understand, that is, to''want to understand what we do not understand'' is universally found among all humanbeings. However, if a teacher tries to make his/her students understand in the same way
as he/she understands (isomorphically), that is to make their understanding foolish.
Keeping in mind the uniqueness(otherness) of each person's thinking, Rancière describes
this desire as the “power of translation''(puissance de traduction)(JR, MI: 108), and hemakes ''improvisation,'' produced by this desire, the center of his educational method(JR,MI: 109). It is a unique idea, trial, and invention that occurs together with the ''other'', even
if they are modest or small. And if we infer from Rancière's expression ''the silent
dialogue of the soul''(le dialoque muet de l'âme)(JR, MI: 116), the ''other'' shall beconsidered to include the “inner person''(=''self'') .

2 Truthfulness without Truth
Elaborating Rancière's thought in my own way, Rancière's intelligence toward
truthfulness has an inclination toward European theology and metaphysics, so, even if itwere introduced into modern Japanese pedagogy, it would not take root and would
disappear. Although this is just an impressionistic outlook, the background of thisinference is the social spread of utilitarianism and ICT in contemporary Japanese society.
In addition, the social tendency to prioritize the pleasure principle in decision-making
Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Intelligence toward Truthfulness: A Perspective Based on Ranciére’s Educational Theory83

may also be mentioned, as the background. Among these factors, the utilitarianorientation is most conspicuous.
I also think that, in this social trend of utilitarianism or prioritizing the principle ofpleasure, the emotion as the irreplaceability of a singular life would be lost. The emotion
comes from the ephemerality of a life’s transience that once was expressed in the word''Schein''(appearances) by Goethe and Friedrich von Schiller(1759-1805). This is because''Schein'' is the opposite of ''Wahrheit'' (truth), the eternal and universal ''Life'' (because alife is an ''appearance''(Schein) of ''Life''). Incidentally, Nietzsche said, ''we have also lost
the world of appearances[scheinbare], along with the world of truth [wahren Welt]''(KS6, GD: 81). The ''will to power'' (Der Wille zur Macht) that Nietzsche sought beyond thedistinction and association between truth and appearance was something that Nietzsche
earnestly sought ''without faith.'' It can also be described as ''truthfulness. ''Anyway, if we lose interest in the truth, as a result of this, we will also lose interestin the truthfulness, and the intelligence that Rancière refers to will be lost too. In otherwords, intelligence, although somehow assumed, will be virtually forgotten. Intelligence
will become, so to speak, just a ''margin'' (marge), and the world of education will
overflow with ordered and justified knowledge and skills that can be taught throughaccurate explications. As a result, teachers (as instructors) will set up ''individually
optimized'' student learning.
What governs school education, in which ordered and justified knowledge andskills are taught effectively and efficiently, would be ''competence'' in which the content
is defined by the main social trend(for example, OECD's ''agency''). The competence iscertainly important, it can be thought of as ''truth'' (meaning justified knowledge andskills). However, the competence formation would make difficult to hope for some kindof ''invention'' while moving toward truthfulness. Simply put, some kind of ''chaos'' isnecessary for the emergence or arrival of truthfulness. For example, as Nietzsche said inThus Spoke Zarathustra, ''In order to produce dancing brilliance, a person must havechaos within himself''(KS 4, ASZ: 19).

4 Intelligence that testifies to oneself
Even if intelligence toward truthfulness is forgotten socially, it would be rememberedempirically in each individual. ''Empirical'' here refers to sensitive and perceptive original
experience(''primary experience'') of external things that gives rise to inner ''reality.'' It isa raw ''thing that is the sensible''(le sensible) before being incorporated into Rancière's
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

84

S. TANAKA''regime of sensibility'' as ''the sharing of the sensible''(partage du sensible), and ''theaesthetic experience''(expérience esthétique)(JR, PS; JR, ME).
If we think of our experience in this way, what philosophy of education should tell
us is that each person is intelligent in their own way. It is not something that can be told
to others or verified as an objective fact, but something that each person says to oneself.
It is the imagination of aesthetic reality, and it enriches one's own mind. To be intelligent,
as it were, means to bear witness to one's autopoiesis (self-creation) of truthfulness. It canbe said that each person is uniquely and singularly ''being a person''(existence). This''existence'' is likened to a skillful physical technique. A skillful physical technique
embodies a fleeting and unsatisfactory endeavor, but it also constantly creates a self witha unique and singular purpose. Just as a person who continues to make extraordinary
efforts is simply beautiful, the functionality of a physical technique which has beenenhanced to the utmost is beautiful. In any case, as mentioned earlier, what is proposed
here as a new conception of education is to place ''intelligence toward truthfulness, ''as thefoundation of competence formation.
However, this kind of support for intelligence(or existence) toward truthfulness is
not a universal(meaning ''all the same'' or ''uniform'') school lesson being enacted in our
national educational policy, but rather the foundation of each individual's thinking. It is
to reserve for each one’s each intelligence that is permeated by each one’s own will totruthfulness. Perhaps the will to truthfulness helps each person's unique and singularstruggle in the real world. Some persons with a sincere self will struggle with their own
foolish ego, and we can imagine that some beautiful wonders will shine faintly in thegloomy real world. In sum, the task of philosophy of education that I propose is not to
extrapolate some plausible and specious educational policy (for example: “individually
optimized learning'') but rather to bring about a ''thinking environment” that encourages
each individual's intelligence to be stimulated by him/herself.'' he goal is to secure aunique and singular realm of thought in educational practice, and to support the struggleof the ''self'' against the real world; the ''self, '' behind the ''ego,'' which is one and only one.

References
Aquinas, Thomas 2006- Thomas Aquinas, Ecclesiae Doctores, Migne, J. P., De Ecclesiae
Patribus Doctoribusque, Documenta Catholica Omnia. Cooperatorum Veritatis
Societas.
[//www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu] [ab: TA]
Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Intelligence toward Truthfulness: A Perspective Based on Ranciére’s Educational Theory

85

ST=Summa Theologiae.[q=quaestio, a=articulus, ad=ad, arg=argumentum,
co=responde, Pr.=prooemium]Augustinus, Aurelius 2006- Augustinus-Opera Omnia, Documenta Catholica Omnia.
Cooperatorum Veritatis Societas.
[//www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu][ab: AA]
C = Confessionum, PL 32.
DVR = De Vera Religione, PL 34.
Nietzsche, Friedrich
1988
Friedrich Nietzsche Samtliche Werke: kritischeStudienausgabe, 15 Bden, Hrsg. von Giorgio Colli und Mazzino Montinari.
Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. [ab: KS]
ASZ = Also sprach Zarathustra, 1883-35, KS, Bd. 4.
GD = Götzen-Dämmerung, 1889, KS, Bd. 6.
Rancière, Jacques 1987 Le maître ignorant. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard. [ab: JR,MI]
Rancière, Jacques 1995 La mésentente: politique et philosophie. Paris: Éditions
Galilée. [ab: JR, M]
Rancière, Jacques 1998 La chair des mots: politique de l'écriture. Paris: Éditions
Galilée. [ab: JR, CM]
Rancière, Jacques 2000 Le partage du sensible: esthétique et politique. Paris: La
Fabrique Éditions. [ab: JR, PS]
Rancière, Jacques 2004 Malaise dans l'esthétique. Paris: Éditions Galilée. [ab: JR,ME]

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

Analytic Philosophy of Education, Then and Now
Koichiro MISAWA
Kyoto University
Abstract
Analytic philosophy of education is now a somewhat forgotten tradition of enquiry in Japan, or so it
often appears. In this paper, I challenge this ignorance or indifference by highlighting the striking
parallel between the historical and contemporary thinking and literature on reason, represented mostclearly by the so-called London line’s Education and the Development of Reason (1972) and David
Bakhurst’s The Formation of Reason (2011). I have no wish to claim that looking into the parallel isthe only right way to give analytic philosophy of education the fuller attention it deserves. Exploring
the parallel, however, offers the advantage of allowing us to recognise that reason and humanrationality pervade human life and to acknowledge the importance of enquiring into education withthat recognition. Questions regarding acquiring a mind at all and having the capacity to reason at all
are therefore part and parcel of philosophical studies of education. Significant attention to the twooverlapping threads of analytic philosophy of education reminds us of the commonsensical, but often
academically overlooked, notion that the question of what it is to be a human being is inseparable fromthe question of what it is to become a human being. Such a philosophical-educational exploration, or‘philosophical anthropology’, can be advanced most substantially when we pay due respect to thefruitful interactions between early and contemporary analytic philosophy of education without
favouring one at the expense of the other.
Key words: analytic philosophy of education, reason, human nature, the London line, David Bakhurst

I. Introduction
The last fifteen years have witnessed the deaths of the founding figures of the socalled analytic philosophy of education. The eastern side of the Atlantic lost Richard
Stanley Peters (1919–2011) and Paul Heywood Hirst (1927–2020); the western side lost
Israel Scheffler (1923–2014).
Correspondence:
Koichiro MISAWA, Kyoto University. Email: misawa.koichiro.5i@kyoto-u.ac.jp

Analytic Philosophy of Education, Then and Now

87

Many readers of this journal might see the deaths of such principal protagonists ofyore as threatening the existence of, or representing the demise of, the analytic philosophyof education itself. Indeed, this classical discipline easily succumbs to caricature,especially in Japan – painted as constantly and hopelessly engaging itself in thefoundationalist business of formulating high-level/foundational directives which would
guide educational research and practice, through the austere but inadequate methodology
of logical/conceptual analysis (cf. Carr 2004). I am highly sceptical, however, of this andmany other criticisms directed at analytic philosophy of education.
In this paper, I attempt to justify my scepticism, thereby underlining the importanceof giving analytic philosophy of education the attention it merits. Contrary to the standard
image in Japan, and though often neglected and sometimes even maligned, analytic
philosophy of education is surviving and even flourishing – to the point of resurrection.
Addressing its resurrection clearly requires attention to two periods. One is obvious: theperiod of excitement and enthusiasm in the 1960s and early 1970s when Peters, Hirst andScheffler played leading roles in establishing and solidifying the philosophy of education
as an independent academic discipline, whose methods, insights and outlooks derived
from analytic philosophy. The precise dating of the other period and, in fact, the existenceof the resurrection itself might well be much more controversial, but I would identify theperiod of resurrection with the 2010s and after, taking David Bakhurst’s The Formationof Reason (2011) as a primary point of departure for an analytic new wave.
It might be objected that no such landmark revival occurred around 2010. My
insistence, critics might continue, makes it sound as though the account I provide is little
more than a manifesto for a preferred history, and tendentious as a result. Only time will
tell, of course, whether and how my resurrection perspective makes sense in the historyof analytic philosophy of education. It is by no means my intention, however, to boldly
assert that Bakhurst’s book will prove to have been seminal of a whole new tradition. Nor
am I intent on claiming that currently there exists a large cadre of philosophers who
identify themselves as analytic philosophers of education, working towards a common
goal; Bakhurst and like-minded thinkers are, unlike the London line, not developers or
promotors of a new academic discipline. My aim is simply to draw attention to a clear
and interesting parallel between what progenitors of analytic philosophy of education didin the heyday of the discipline and what Bakhurst and others have recently been trying todo, bringing out not just that the analytic discipline is neither moribund nor already deadbut that it keeps evolving in ways that would enrich philosophy of education discourse.
The following sections provide a lens through which the evolution – as opposed totwo separate programmes in separate periods – can be recognised. In Section II, I lay out
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

88

K. Misawaa historical account of the way in which (British) analytic philosophy of education took
distinct shape in the 1960s and developed subsequently as a new academic discipline. As
reliable commentators (e.g. Cuypers 2018) as well as some founders themselves (e.g.
Hirst 1993) admit, analytic philosophy of education at that time had a rather ‘rationalist’
ring. (Those already well acquainted with the contours of the analytic paradigm may wish
to skip to Section III.) In Section III, I describe why this paper omits (i) the NorthAmerican tradition of analytic philosophy of education (represented by Scheffler andHarvey Siegel, for instance) and (ii) a considerable body of work by analytic philosophersof education in the intervening period (roughly from 1980 to 2010), in favour of theremarkable similarities that contemporary analytic philosophy of education bears to early
analytic philosophy of education. The account is intended to indicate that the two strands
can be seen to work with so broad a conception of reason – broader than is standardly
interpreted – that it informs and even permeates human life. In Section IV, after
elaborating on John McDowell’s philosophical view of transformation from humananimals to rational agents, a view that may not be identical with but is closely analogous
to Peters’s conception of ‘education as initiation’, I look to Bakhurst’s philosophicaleducational exploitation of McDowell’s transformational view. In Section V, I seek toclear the ground for fascinating future investigations into how the early and contemporary
versions of analytic philosophy of education feed into each other, appreciating thecentrality of education (in the broadest sense) for the human condition and thus for thehuman life-form. I conclude with some remarks on the distinctive character of thephilosophical-educational exploration adumbrated in the preceding sections, with one
caveat that calling such an exploration ‘analytic philosophy of education’ might be amisnomer – ‘philosophical anthropology’ being a better candidate.

II. The London Line and Analytic Philosophy of Education in its Heyday
British philosophy of education, also known as analytic philosophy of education, isroughly sixty years old. As the sobriquet indicates, it has its explicit origin in analytic
philosophy, which appeared on the scene through what Gilbert Ryle and others called a‘revolution in philosophy’ (Ryle, et al. 1956) during the first half of the twentieth century
and has since been prevalent in many Anglophone countries and their zone of influence.
The founding figures of analytic philosophy of education, often called the ‘London line’,1
1. In his final published work, Peters recalls a description by Bernard Williams of him and his fellow analytic
Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Analytic Philosophy of Education, Then and Now

89

successfully applied the techniques developed in such a revolutionised philosophy, inparticular the methodology of logical and conceptual analysis (of the sort the so-called‘ordinary language philosophy’ had honed), to educational problems and practices or,perhaps more accurately, to educational concepts,2 such as learning, teaching, training,
creativity, autonomy, indoctrination and punishment. The analytic paradigm came into
prominence, however, not only by virtue of its method or approach, but also of a familyof substantive conceptions of education – education understood as a distinctive epistemic
and moral enterprise concerned with the promotion of mind, knowledge, understanding
and rationality (Martin 2021: 98). The general climate of the analytic philosophy ofeducation in its heyday is well epitomised by the title of the compilation edited by thecentral members of the London line (i.e. Peters, Hirst and Robert Dearden): Educationand the Development of Reason (2010/1972).
By the mid-1960s, analytic philosophy of education had taken clear shape andprogressed as an autonomous academic discipline. In 1962, R. S. Peters, who was alreadyan established analytic philosopher with one co-authored book, Social Principles and the
Democratic State (1959, with S. I. Benn) and two monographs, Hobbs (1956) and The
Concept of Motivation (1958)3 as well as having been described by John White as ‘thefounding father of British philosophy of education as practised in the second half of thetwentieth century’ (White 2001: 118), was appointed to the Chair of Philosophy of
Education at the Institute of Education, University of London.4 In 1964, Peters and P. H.
Hirst, who, alongside Peters, played a major role in the establishment and developmentof the analytic philosophy of education, launched the Philosophy of Education Society ofGreat Britain (PESGB), where Peters occupied the seat of Chairman from 1964 to 1975;
Peters was also the editor of the society’s annual conference Proceedings and its
successor the Journal of Philosophy of Education from 1966 to 1982. In 1966, Peters
published his ground-breaking chef d'oeuvre in the philosophy of education, Ethics andphilosophers of education as the ‘khaki regulars from Malet Street’ (Peters 1983: 36). The London line dominatedthe subject, at least during the decade of 1965–1975 (ibid.). The majority of philosophers of education during thisperiod, who tried, along with Peters, to bring about a revolutionary break with the past styles of philosophy ofeducation, were based in, or had intimate connections with, the Department of Philosophy of Education at the
London Institute, which itself, under Peters’s influential leadership, expanded rapidly to become the largest in theworld. In addition to Peters and Hirst, the London line included, among others, Robert Dearden, R. K. Elliot,
David Cooper and John White (Cuypers and Martin 2013: 6).
2. Thanks to John White for this point.
3. In addition, Peters published Authority, Responsibility and Education (1959), whose first edition was based on histalks delivered mainly on the Home Service and Third Programme of the BBC between April 1956 and January
1959. Its revised edition (1973) incorporates his further work in the decade that followed, and it is this revised
edition that was reprinted in 2015 by Routledge.
4. Peters was the second Chair of Philosophy of Education at the London Institute, preceded only by Louis Arnaud
Reid, who took office in 1947 as the first Chair.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

90

K. Misawa

Education (Peters 1966a), whose influence can easily be perceived in the fact that that
title has been adopted for the official journal of the International Network of Philosophersof Education (INPE).
In the ‘General editor’s preface’ to the first volume of the acclaimed book series
International Library of the Philosophy of Education 5 starting in 1965, Peters, after
describing the volume as ‘the first English collection of essays on philosophy ofeducation written from the “analytic” point of view’, proclaimed: ‘Philosophy ofeducation has now become firmly established in England as a branch both of educational
theory and of philosophy’ (Peters 2010/1965: xi, italics added). It is of crucial importancehere to understand how this newly established academic discipline diverged,
conceptually and substantively, from the then extant types of philosophy of education: (i)‘principles of education’, (ii) ‘the history of educational ideas’ and (iii) ‘philosophy andeducation’ (Peters 2010/1966b: 62–9; Peters 2010/1983: 30–2). Peters claimed thatcalling (i) ‘principles of education’ philosophy of education is tantamount to ‘[making] atakeover bid for the philosopher as a kind of oracle’ (Peters 2010/1983: 32). Principles of
education consisted, at their best, in ‘wisdom and aphorisms about education’ (ibid., 31),and Peters and other analytic philosophers of education neither made little of theirimportance, nor were they sceptical about whether they have any place at all in
educational research or in the training of teachers. Nonetheless, Peters averred, and others
agreed, that ‘the philosopher, qua philosopher, cannot formulate such principles’ (Peters
2010/1966b: 63) on the grounds that they necessarily contain empirical elements. And
empirical speculation, as found in A. N. Whitehead’s The Aims of Education (1967/1929)
and Percy Nunn’s Education: Its Data and First Principles (2009/1920), is not a task forphilosophers proper; philosophers are not oracles.
The analytic conception of philosophy of education differs also from (ii) ‘the historyof educational ideas’ or ‘the Great Educator’s approach’ (Peters 2010/1983: 31). On thelatter conception, students in most colleges of education were taken on ‘a Cook’s tour ofthinkers’ typically from Plato (Republic) through J. J. Rousseau (Emile) to John Dewey(Democracy and Education), mainly by historians, 6 with the aim of relating great
educators’ thought to current educational problems (Peters 1966b: 64; Peters 2010/1983:
31; Cuypers and Martin 2013: 9). Peters saw (at least some of) the ideas of the great
5. International Library of the Philosophy of Education comprises 24 distinguished books and essay collections,published by Routledge & Kegan Paul. Volume 1 is Reginald Archambault’s edited Philosophical Analysis andEducation (1965), and all 24 texts were reprinted in 2010 by Routledge.
6. This was not surprising, given the fact that while ‘philosophers were not, in general, interested in the study ofeducation’, educational psychology and the history of education were ‘most fully developed within the orbit ofteacher education itself in the first half of [the twentieth] century’ (Tibble 1966: viii).
Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Analytic Philosophy of Education, Then and Now

91

thinkers of the past as ‘the heritage’ into which every teacher ought to be initiated at somestage of their career, but regarded such initiation as ‘supplementary to and not a substitutefor the philosophy of education’ (Peters 2010/1966b: 65). This historical conception does
not count, according to Peters, as philosophy of education due to two main flaws. For one
thing, works treated in courses of this kind were ‘works in general theory of education’;thus, those works also have components other than philosophical ones, such as ‘empiricalgeneralizations’ (ibid.). They were thereby ‘only minimally philosophical’ (Peters
2010/1983: 31). For another, those courses seldom bear fruit unless students are given
some philosophical training, without which they will be unable to critically evaluate theideas offered; ‘Plato Today has to be very skilfully contrived to be effective’ (ibid., italics
in original). In effect, students with no such philosophical preparations, almost inevitably,found difficulties in grasping the relevance of classical ideas to the pressing issues withwhich they were confronted (ibid.).
Finally, the analytic style of philosophy of education must not be conflated with theconception of philosophy of education as (iii) ‘philosophy and education’. This thirdconception concerns itself with drawing out and examining the ‘implications’ of ‘pure
philosophy’ for education (Peters 2010/1983: 30). There were, and are, basically two
motives for this conception of philosophy of education. The first is sociological or
institutional. Those working in colleges or departments of education were (and are) often
eager to convince their ‘pure’ colleagues in the Faculties of Arts or Philosophy
Departments, who were (and are) occasionally ‘supercilious critics’, that they are
genuinely and competently doing philosophy. The second, more philosophical motive
derives from the belief that ‘one cannot go very far without tackling fundamental issues
in logic, epistemology, and metaphysics’ (Peters 2010/1966b: 67). This ‘applied
approach’ (Cuypers and Martin 2013: 9) struck Peters as quite dubious, because, in his
conception, philosophy of education must start from actual problems of education. So,
while the first two conceptions of philosophy of education from which the analytic
conception sought to mark itself off were concerned with ‘many matters that are notstrictly philosophical’, the third conception was ‘not concerned specifically enough withwhat is educational’ (Peters 2010/1966b: 67, italics added). Not surprisingly, therefore,Peters thought more highly of John Dewey’s writings on education (though he foundthem insufficiently analytic) than of D. J. O’Connor’s An Introduction to the Philosophyof Education (1957), which is quintessentially analytic in style.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

92

K. Misawa

III. Analytic Trajectories
Analytic philosophy of education was established and prospered in the 1960s andthe early 1970s as a branch both of educational theory (like educational psychology andthe sociology of education) and of academic philosophy (like the philosophy of scienceand political philosophy). For the founding figures, ‘analytic philosophy of education’
was a pleonasm, as it were, since they believed all philosophy of education worthy of thename was analytic.
According to the generally accepted account (at least, in Japan), the excitement andenthusiasm did not last long (e.g. Miyadera 1997; Carr 2005; White 2024). From the late1970s onwards, the analytic paradigm was subjected to serious criticism from various
quarters (e.g. existentialism, phenomenology, (neo-)Marxism, neo-Aristotelianism,
critical theory, multiculturalism, postmodernism and poststructuralism). This
diversification of philosophical traditions and intellectual resources that contemporary
philosophers of education draw on characterises the philosophy of education in the postanalytic era; the place of the analytic approach, within the discipline, is now accordingly
peripheral in a recognisable sense.
This account, while not entirely without foundation, is untenable. Analytic
philosophy in no way faded from the philosophy of education scene around 1980 (in the
U.K. or, more broadly, in Anglophone areas). On the contrary, much philosophy ofeducation in the ensuing decades might well have been described as ‘footnotes to Peters’7
in many respects, through to the end of the century and after. Many carved their own
significant paths in the analytic tradition – e.g. Robin Barrow, Eric Bredo, Eamonn Callan,
Emily Robertson, Hugh Sockett in North America and David Bridges, Andrew Davis,
Penny Enslin, Richard Pring, Judith Suissa in the U.K., to name but a few.
But if the familiar account fails to carry conviction, would it not follow that my
picture that places considerable emphasis on a close parallel between the London line andDavid Bakhurst also loses ground? Why not give closer consideration to the North
American tradition of analytic philosophy of education? More specifically, why suppose,in relation to the London line’s conception of the development of reason, that Bakhurst’s
The Formation of Reason has more to say about reason and rationality than Harvey
Siegel’s Educating Reason and Rationality Redeemed? have to say about them?
Certainly, my description of post-Second World War English-language philosophyof education is severely partial, not least because it makes little or no mention of what
7. I owe this phrase to Paul Standish.
Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Analytic Philosophy of Education, Then and Now

93happened on the western side of the Atlantic, which has clearly also served its own role
as a vital and leading force in the Anglophone philosophy of education. Indeed, the U.S.
also witnessed the analytic turn in philosophy of education around the 1960s, advocatedand promoted most notably by the American counterpart to Peters, Israel Scheffler, whois perhaps better known than his British counterpart in the world of academic philosophy
today.8 Analytic developments in North America were undoubtedly and inarguably anessential and integral part of the development of analytic philosophy of education.
My aim is not to offer an exhaustive historical account, however. For my purposes,
I opt to emphasise the analytic trajectories in the U.K. rather than giving both sides of theAtlantic equal billing. The primary reason for this is, apart from my personal commitment
to British philosophy of education (as an outsider to both sides of the Atlantic), that there
does seem to have been a North American tendency to address the issues of reason andhuman rationality in the light of critical thinking. The work of Harvey Siegel, a powerful
successor to Scheffler, at least in terms of his analytic spirit, exemplifies this tendency.
Few would, of course, deny the importance of fostering one’s reasoning ability in schools
or elsewhere. The ability to reason well (or better), or to think critically (or more critically),
is necessary for a flourishing life. Yet the ability is often (naturally enough) associatedwith the ability to step back from situations with which one is (unreflectively) engaged.
Whether the scope of reason extends beyond the ability to step back into our unreflective
perceiving and acting is an issue as yet unresolved but one that needs to be addressed if
we want to make sense of the character of reason and rationality and of the place theyoccupy in education and in human life more generally. And the question requires attention
to the capacity to reason at all, including but not exclusive to the ability to step back, andthis in turn necessitates attention to the nature of human beings as such, which at least
some of the London line set themselves the task of considering. Largely for this reason,
while fully aware that it is possible to cast, in a different context, Siegel’s seminal works,
such as Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking and Education (1988) and
Rationality Redeemed?: Further Dialogues on an Educational Ideal (1997), as sequels
to the London line’s Education and the Development of Reason (2010/1972) and as
precursors of Bakhurst’s The Formation of Reason (2011), I highlight the likenesses and
8. Like the London line, Scheffler thought of philosophy of education as a discipline, whose methods, insights andoutlooks should derive from analytic philosophy. Scheffler’s inclination is well represented in, for example, his‘Toward an Analytic Philosophy of Education’ (1954), The Language of Education (1960) and Conditions ofKnowledge: An Introduction to Epistemology and Education (1965). The clear parallel between Scheffler and theLondon line was not a strange coincidence; they fed each other. For instance, Peters took advantage of Scheffler’s
invitation to Harvard and spent some time there as a Visiting Professor in 1961 (White 2001: 119; Cuypers andMartin 2013: 6).
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

94

K. Misawadifferences between the latter two.9
The two versions of analytic philosophy of education – one led by the London line
and the other reanimated by Bakhurst and others – have much in common, especially interms of their endeavour to develop accounts of human beings as rational animals. They
share the conviction that we cannot understand how (best) to educate our children if we
do not take due account of the human condition. And yet, Peters, reflecting back on thetwo decades after the establishment of analytic philosophy of education, deplored the lackof ‘an explicit theory of human nature’ (Peters 2010/1983: 33, italics added). In thosedays, philosophers of education were enamoured with analysing such concepts as‘reason’, ‘autonomy’, ‘needs’, ‘interests’ and ‘learning’, but Peters was adamant that‘they drifted on the surface with no general account of man [sic] and his place in thenatural world and social order to anchor them’ (ibid.). This is what many contemporary
analytic philosophers of education are centrally concerned with, as far as I can see. Oneof the major issues addressed in such a new analytic philosophy of education is thequestion of what it is to be distinctively human.10 In other words, the reinvigorated
analytic philosophy of education attempts to provide a fuller account of not just reason
but of human nature – the latter of which Peters diagnosed as remaining largely andproblematically unexplored in the analytic philosophy of education of his time.
Despite Peters’s diagnosis, however, I do not think it is the case that the issue ofhuman nature was totally ignored for the first twenty years in the history of analytic
philosophy of education. The work by the London line – in particular, Peters himself –did yield insights about human nature and the human condition. And yet it is the case thatthey are often only implicit and lurk in the discussions that focus on other issues, such asreason, mind and initiation. Hence, revisiting this and other neglected aspects of the ‘old’
analytic philosophy of education, with twenty-first-century eyes, deserves to be promoted
and deepened. No substantial treatment has yet been offered of their affinities andtensions and of the transition between early and more recent strands of analytic
philosophy of education. To embark on such a project, it is advisable to situate the line ofargument advocated by the ‘new’ analytic philosophy of education vis-à-vis that provided
by the London line. The next section is an initial effort for that.

9. I hasten to add, though, that attempts to draw a sharp line between British and American lines of development inphilosophy of education are practically useless, especially in recent times. It is also noteworthy here that theagenda of research on critical thinking continues to expand, too. For a succinct account of recent scholarship in
critical thinking, see Kunimasa Sato’s contribution to Misawa, Tsuchiya and Sato (forthcoming).
10. The title of Jan Derry’s recent article, ‘A Problem for Cognitive Load Theory—the Distinctively Human Lifeform’ (Derry 2020), exemplifies this present-day trend.
Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Analytic Philosophy of Education, Then and Now

95

IV. The McDowellian Preliminary to the Resurgence of Analytic
Philosophy of Education
In an oft-cited passage of Mind and World, John McDowell claims: ‘Human beings
are not [born at home in the space of reasons]: they are born mere animals, and they aretransformed into thinkers and intentional agents in the course of coming to maturity’(McDowell 1996: 125, italics added).11 There immediately arises a familiar temptation
to dismiss this claim as being ignorant or uninformed of the achievements of, say, thebiological and ecological sciences (e.g. MacIntyre 1999: 60–1). There is indeed noshortage of empirical studies that seem to show that newborn human babies and at least
some of the ‘mere animals’ exercise or are guided by a kind of practical reasoning –reasoning about what to do – implying that it is hubristic and anachronisticallyanthropocentric to suppose that rationality is the sole preserve of mature human beings.
Such an implication is ostensible, however; McDowell’s claim does notnecessarily conflict with the best discoveries of today’s natural-scientific investigations.
His point is that a human animal with no second nature becomes a human individual who
is capable of responding to reasons with a distinctive mode of rational-conceptual
intelligibility that is open to the world. It is ‘initiation into conceptual capacities’(McDowell 1996: 84, italics added) that makes us inhabitants of what Wilfrid Sellars calls‘the logical space of reasons’ (Sellars 1997/1956: 76), where its denizens are rational, notjust in the sense that they can, like non-human animals, flee from danger, but also in thesense that they are, unlike non-human animals, responsive to reasons as such. McDowellclaims that we need not be spooked by this transformation, for which he evokes theGerman idea, Bildung (ibid.). There is no mystery in the story, he urges, because suchinitiation is a normal part of human maturation as long as we are first initiated, except invery special conditions or circumstances, into a natural language. McDowell writes:
In being initiated into a language, a human being is introduced into
something that already embodies putatively rational linkages between
concepts, putatively constitutive of the layout of the space of reasons,
before she comes on the scene. … [A] natural language, the sort oflanguage into which human beings are first initiated, serves as a repositoryof tradition, a store of historically accumulated wisdom about what is areason for what. The tradition is subject to reflective modification by eachgeneration that inherits it. (McDowell 1996: 125–6)

11. Compare Peters’s ‘No man is born with a mind’ (Peters 1965/1964: 102).
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

96

K. MisawaThrough this initiation into the space of reasons, an individual human being acquires
a mind – i.e. the capacity to think and act intentionally at all, the capacity that enables her
to live her life in the world (ibid.). McDowell’s line of argument is strikingly analogous
to what Peters insists in ‘Education as Initiation’: ‘To have a mind is not to enjoy a private
picture-show or to exercise some inner diaphanous organ; it is to have an awarenessdifferentiated in accordance with the canons implicit in all these inherited traditions[constituted by distinctive forms of knowledge such as science, history, mathematics,
religious and aesthetic appreciation as well as the practical types of knowledge involved
in moral, prudential, and technical forms of thought and action]. “Education” marks out
the processes by means of which the individual is initiated into them’ (Peters 1965/1964:
103).
The picture of initiation into the logical space of reasons is key to apprehending theway in which McDowell painstakingly denies the prevailing view, which he calls‘modern naturalism’ (e.g. McDowell 1996: 85), the view that our being natural animals
is profoundly at odds with the distinctive character of our mindedness, namely with thesui generis character of our responsiveness to reasons as such. The seeming oddity andthe threat of incoherence disappear once we acknowledge that such initiation equips us
to acquire rational powers by means of which we can live a certain kind of life – adistinctively human life. Human life is our natural way of being, which is ‘already shapedby meaning’ (McDowell 1996: 95), but this ‘natural’ cannot be exhausted by the modern
conception of nature that tends, as in the natural sciences, to suppose ‘whatever is natural
is as such empty of meaning’ (McDowell 2000: 107). McDowell’s corrective to thisexcessive domination of the modern conception of nature is to bring into view the simple‘reminder’ that ‘our nature is largely second nature’ (McDowell 1996: 91) since‘responsiveness to reasons is second nature to human beings’ (McDowell 2008: 225).
With the notion of second nature in mind, he seeks to accomplish the overarching projectof Mind and World and many other writings: ‘We need to recapture the Aristotelian ideathat a normal mature human being is a rational animal, but without losing the Kantianidea that rationality operates freely in its own sphere’ (McDowell 1996: 85).
Obviously, the notion that human animals are transformed into thinkers andintentional agents through initiation into conceptual capacities that enable us to become
able to be at home in the logical space of reasons – i.e. to live our lives in the world – hasdevelopmental and educational aspects and implications. McDowell is notoriously silent,
nonetheless, about such dimensions (except his frequent reference to Aristotle’s story of
moral education, in which, McDowell thinks, the idea of second nature finds expression).
It does not mean, of course, that McDowell fails to countenance the importance ofThematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Analytic Philosophy of Education, Then and Now

97

Bildung in human life; it is rather that talk of Bildung in detail does not fall within thesphere of philosophical enquiry as he conceives it.
Greatly inspired by McDowell’s line of argument, David Bakhurst, a former studentof McDowell’s at Oxford, brings illuminating the Bildungsprozess into focus as a genuine
philosophical exploration. Extending and complementing McDowell’s picture, his
programme culminates in The Formation of Reason (2011). As he admits, Bakhurst
originally did not set out to write a book in philosophy of education, but, through the
influence of Jan Derry and others, the book came out as part of The Journal of Philosophy
Education Book Series. 12 In that widely read book, he develops a socio-historicalaccount of the human mind primarily by defending and expanding McDowell’s
philosophy, along with the work of thinkers on which he has extensively written, such asthat of Lev Vygotsky, Evald Ilyenkov and Jerome Bruner. The broad thrust of Bakhurst’s
argument is that the distinctive character of human mindedness resides in our
responsiveness to reasons, which is not an inborn ability but one that we normally acquire
as a child through initiation, typically via the acquisition of our first language, into stylesof thinking and reasoning by virtue of which we can navigate the relevant normative
landscape. In the process, human children become minded beings, that is, rational agents
who self-consciously appreciate reasons about what to think and do. Thus, one of themost significant educational ends is the cultivation of autonomy, the power to determine
for oneself what to think and do in light of what there is reason to think and do. In thisway, the philosophy of McDowell in general and what Bakhurst terms McDowell’s‘“transformational view” of human development’ (Bakhurst 2015: 302) in particularhave been successfully brought to the attention of philosophers of education, leading to
the symposium ‘Second Nature, Bildung and McDowell: David Bakhurst’s The
Formation of Reason’, which appeared in the first issue of the 50th anniversary volumeof the Journal of Philosophy of Education in 2016.13

V. The Centrality of Education in Human Life: The Bakhurstian
Orientation
I was – and, in fact, still am – enamoured of Bakhurst’s philosophical accounts (with
12. Bakhurst, who was not originally trained as a philosopher of education (in colleges or departments of education),has taken over as Executive Editor of the Journal of Philosophy of Education since 2021.
13. For a good overview of the current state of the debate about the transformational view, see C. J. An (2018, esp.
sections 1–3); I have also discussed each symposium contribution in Misawa (2017).
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

98

K. Misawa

relevant empirical insights) of the process of initiation, and thought – and still think – thatthey have a vital bearing on the way we think about education in human life. I therefore
thought The Formation of Reason and his subsequent writings broke new ground in
philosophy of education (especially in its analytic tradition). It is not that I was unawareof Peters’s well-known conception of ‘education as initiation’ and that that conception
had been honed and amplified by the London line and subsequent generations. It is rather
that I held ‘initiation’ in the educationally relevant context applies to two different levels
and that the London line’s conception is concerned, as Hirst’s famous ‘forms ofknowledge’ thesis exemplifies,14 with the later stage of initiation – i.e. initiation into
particular knowledge domains (e.g. physics). For this stage of initiation to come about,someone who will be initiated into or participate in a particular domain of knowledge
needs to have a mind at all, even if she has no knowledge or skill in the domain in question
prior to the initiation or participation. Bakhurst’s McDowellian conception of initiation,in contrast, focuses attention on the earlier stage – i.e. the very beginning of human life,a special kind of life being transformed from a merely animal mode of living. I therefore
took the view that whereas the London line’s conception still afforded a framework
capable of examining and improving the way we consider schooling, it said little about
the issue of our fundamental condition as rational beings, which Bakhurst’s conception
directly addressed. In effect, their difference in emphasis seemed to be vividly reflectedin the titles of their representative works: the London line’s edited Education and theDevelopment of Reason (2010/1972) and Bakhurst’s The Formation of Reason (2011).15
The analytic philosophy of education as the London line established and advanced it
would be rejuvenated, I thought, if it incorporated the new wave of philosophicaleducational interest in the human condition, human nature and the human life-form, thewave that had almost brought about a sea change in (analytic) philosophy of education
by Bakhurst and like-minded philosophers (of education).
I now find the view I took – that the publication of The Formation of Reason
inaugurated a new era in philosophy of education – rather premature and perhaps
tendentious. It is true that central members of the London line were eager to engage withthe development of reason and Bakhurst is keen, as the 2011 book title shows, to elucidate
the formation of reason. The former members – notably Peters – did, however, give asubstantial treatment of the formative period of human development without necessarily
14. For more on Hirst’s forms of knowledge thesis and his later turn of focus from forms of knowledge to forms ofsocial practices, see Misawa and Watanabe (2023) and Misawa (2023).
15. Perhaps, the two apparently different levels (of initiation into the realm of reason) can be seen to be implicit in
the block quote from McDowell and the quote from Peters that follows in the previous section.
Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Analytic Philosophy of Education, Then and Now

99

presupposing children’s capacity to exercise rationality; Bakhurst has, from the 2010s
onwards, taken further steps towards enriching the development of reasons. Thereemerges the question, then, of the extent to which, and the sense in which, the London
line (especially Peters) and Bakhurst share a similar view on such fundamental elements
necessary in contemplating education as mind, reason, initiation, experience, personhood,
freedom, knowledge, understanding, rational autonomy, human development and liberal
education. Further questions would be whether and how ideas and conceptions,especially concerning reason and human nature, developed in the twenty-first-century
analytic philosophy of education, are really anything more than an echo of the insights ofthe traditional analytic philosophy of education; and whether and how the London line
might, if we look back from the twenty-first century, have actually gone beyond what has
generally been found in their work.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to pursue these issues in detail, but I want to takenote, before closing, of Bakhurst’s recent slight modification of his McDowellian‘transformational view’ of human development.
Neo-Aristotelian ethical naturalism features the concept of human nature. As Irene
Liu notes, however, neo-Aristotelians have focused more on advancing ‘a satisfactory
naturalism of first nature’ than on fully developing the naturalism of second nature (Liu
2017: 598, fn. 5, italics added). Rosalind Hursthouse, a leading proponent of that ethicalnaturalism, provides a vivid gloss on the basic Aristotelian idea that is supposed to lend
credence to the naturalism of first nature: ‘what human beings are is a species of rational,social animals and thereby a species of living things—which, unlike “persons” or“rational beings”, have a particular biological make-up and a natural life cycle’(Hursthouse 1999: 206, italics in original, note deleted). Hence comes the central conceptof the naturalism of first nature: ‘species nature’ or ‘life form’ (Liu 2017: 600). This lineof thinking readily invites us to see the findings of natural-scientific investigations asconstituting the primary part (if not the whole) of our understanding of the humancondition.
Bakhurst’s main project is roughly the following: he seeks to substantiate theclassical view that humans are rational animals, in a way which basically agrees with a
McDowellian naturalism of second nature, but whose key focus is on a sine qua non fora fuller realisation of the nature of the beings we are that has largely escaped the attentionof McDowell and his followers: the educational character of the human condition.
Bakhurst once liked to call this line of argument McDowell’s ‘“transformational view”
of human development’, as we have seen. This view is, of course, not without its critics;
for instance, Sebastian Rödl and Andrea Kern recommend conceiving of the process as
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

100

K. Misawa

an actualisation (of potentials) rather than a transformation (e.g. Rödl 2016; Kern 2020).
This is a matter of debate in contemporary philosophy of education, in the course ofwhich Bakhurst has made some concession to the actualisation view according to which
we have a single nature—i.e. human nature (e.g. Bakhurst 2016, 2020, 2021). Whatmatters here is not to pursue and analyse the relevant arguments (with which I will engage
on another occasion) but to recognise the basic thrust of his argument: the centrality ofeducation to human nature or our life-form (Bakhurst 2021, 2023).
Many current discussions around, say, human nature, practical rationality and theformation of reason are moving on in step with recent developments in the broadly
analytic tradition of philosophy (whether in a neo-Aristotelian fashion or not). In otherwords, new conversations between philosophers of education and ‘mainstream’
philosophers interested in education (broadly conceived) have now re-started, where
education is no longer almost exclusively associated with ‘learning’ and ‘teaching’ inschools but is taken (by many, though not most, philosophers) as central and critical tothe human condition.
Such new conversations have now ‘re-started’ because there was a period in which
the disciplinary and institutional barriers between philosophy of education and generalphilosophy were far less stringent than was the case during the intervening period. The
period was, of course, the 1960s and early 1970s when British philosophy of education –i.e. analytic philosophy of education – was born and advanced. The London line may not
be Bakhurst’s direct intellectual ancestors, but they are, no doubt, intellectual relatives invarious respects.

VI. Concluding Remarks
It is absurd to try to turn the clock back to the heyday of analytic philosophy ofeducation – the 1960s and early 1970s. No room is left for nostalgia for the better times,
economically and institutionally, that enabled its ‘heyday’. And a diverse range ofphilosophical traditions and intellectual resources that characterise contemporary
philosophy of education may well be a sign of the health of the discipline rather than asource of misery. A sharp distinction should be drawn, however, between the fact that
Anglophone philosophy of education today is no longer equivalent to the analytic
philosophy of education and the capricious observation that it has (long) run out of steam.
In this paper, I have tried to build a case for bringing into view striking points ofaffinity between the work by the London line and the McDowell-derived Bakhurstian
Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Analytic Philosophy of Education, Then and Now

101line of philosophical-educational exploration. My attempt must not be taken as glorifying
the resemblances with a halo, since such a glorification and/or a simplification might givethe reader the wrong impression that during the intervening period between the two inquestion there did not emerge much work that seeks to answer the need for a theory ofhuman nature, as Peters had put it. As alluded to in the third section, many analytic
philosophers of education have attempted to broaden the focus of reason and humannature, even if their works frequently have not advertised themselves in those terms. But
the resemblances between early and contemporary analytic philosophy of education
scarcely need repeating, most vividly with respect to the formation and development of
human reason and to the conceptuality that permeates human life.
Analytic philosophy of education is now a somewhat forgotten tradition of enquiryin Japan, or so it often appears. I hope I have made it explicit that this indifference
constitutes a massive loss for the philosophical study of education, by demonstrating thatthe underlying rumour that the analytic discipline is obsolescent is not true. The adventof the recent ‘resurrection’ can stimulate renewed interest in the earlier ‘incarnation’.
With today’s philosophical-educational perspective, for instance, one can read the workof Peters as concerning himself with not only later stages but also the most formative
years of human development (e.g. Peters 2015/1981); hence, the familiar accusation thatPeters’s concept of education is much too narrow (e.g. Martin 2011, 2020) is unwarranted.
The relationship between the London line and Bakhurst (and scholars broadly alignedwith him) goes the other way also. Just as the work by the latter can rekindle interest in
the work by the former (with twenty-first-century eyes), so the latter work can and ought
to be situated more thoroughly in the context of the history of analytic philosophy ofeducation. This is so that we can gauge the extent to which contemporary analytic
philosophy of education has moved the way forward and, pari passu, acknowledge thesense in which it sheds new light on the educationally fundamental issues previously
discussed by classical analytic philosophers of education, such as mind, reason, nature,normativity, personhood, freedom, knowledge, understanding, rational autonomy andliberal education. (Remember that in the Introduction I wrote that analytic philosophy ofeducation keeps evolving, which does not imply that newer stages are better than earlier
ones.)As the London line guards against the ‘philosophy and education’ approach (asdescribed in the second section), the Bakhurstian line of philosophical-educational
exploration is also not one that seeks to glean educational implications and lessons from(purely) philosophical discussions of reason, human nature and other profound issues.
Rather, it is an exploration that contends that educational questions are inherent and (atE-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

102

K. Misawaleast sometimes) fundamental to these philosophical discussions. In other words, theexploration is premised on the assumption that it is utterly wrong to think that ‘What is it
to be a human being?’ is a question addressed (purely philosophically) in ‘mainstream’
philosophy, whereas ‘What is it to become a human being?’ is a question addressed (moreeducationally) in the philosophy of education—the latter being regarded as an applied
sub-branch of the former. The question of what it is to be a human being cannot
adequately be approached in isolation: it entails first and foremost, or, perhaps moreaccurately, presupposes, the other question. The cogency of the assumption that thequestion of the nature of the beings that we are is a single, philosophical-educationalquestion will become more apparent in further investigations.
One final point worthy of attention: it might not be necessary to make so much ofthe ‘analytic’ identity in advancing and amplifying the philosophical-educational
exploration just outlined. Given that both McDowell and Bakhurst are not exactly typicalanalytic philosophers in that their works do not confine themselves to the narrow senseof the discipline, and that they are widely read beyond it and often hailed as bridging theanalytic-continental divide or moving beyond those terms, it might well seem somewhat
odd that I depict their works as being celebrated for their contributions to a revival of‘analytic’ philosophy of education. Understood in the way I have been delineating,‘philosophical anthropology’, as Bakhurst puts it (e.g. Bakhurst 2020, 2021), might be abetter label for such philosophical human studies, although I have used the expression‘contemporary analytic philosophy of education’ or its cognates for ease of discussion.
Whatever the label, the philosophical-educational exploration as we see it will, no doubt,
make a fresh contribution, together with renewed focus on the works by early analytic
philosophy of education, to addressing perhaps the most difficult question throughout theentire history of the human race: what is the nature of the beings we are?

Acknowledgments
This paper is a substantially revised version of a manuscript prepared for a
symposium on ‘How to Envision “Education”’ held at the 2023 annual meeting of theJapanese Philosophy of Education Society. Portions of the manuscript have appeared in
Studies in the Philosophy of Education (written in Japanese), under the title ‘Revisiting
Analytic Philosophy of Education: Reappraisals and Future Prospects’. I am grateful tothe symposium organisers, Yasuo Imai and Masamichi Ueno, and to other speakers, Mika
Okabe and Satoshi Tanaka. I am also grateful to David Bakhurst, Jan Derry, Paul Standish,
Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Analytic Philosophy of Education, Then and Now

103

Keiichi Takaya and Fukutaro Watanabe for their helpful and critical comments on earlier
drafts of this paper, including drafts that did not take a journal article form. Emailexchanges with John White greatly aided me in describing Peters’s project in the 1960s,
for which I am deeply indebted. Finally, I wish to thank the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (JSPS) Kakenhi [grant number JP22K02199] for financial support
that enabled me to work on this project.

References
An, C. J. (2018) ‘On Learning, Playfulness, and Becoming Human’, Philosophy, 93: 3–
29.
Archambault, R. (ed.) (2010/1965) Philosophical Analysis and Education. London:
Routledge.
Bakhurst, D. (2011) The Formation of Reason. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bakhurst, D. (2015) ‘Training, Transformation and Education’, Royal Institute ofPhilosophy Supplement, 76: 301–27.
Bakhurst, D. (2016) ‘Response to Rödl, Standish and Derry’, Journal of Philosophy of
Education, 50: 123–9.
Bakhurst, D. (2020) ‘Teaching and Learning: Epistemic, Metaphysical and Ethical
Dimensions—Introduction’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 54: 255–67.
Bakhurst, D. (2021) ‘Human Nature, Reason and Morality’, Journal of Philosophy of
Education, 55: 1029–44.
Bakhurst, D. (2023) ‘Philosophy’s Blindspot’. Aeon, https://aeon.co/essays/educationshould-matter-to-philosophy-what-took-so-long, accessed 18 March 2024.
Benn, S. I. and Peters, R. S. (1959) Social Principles and the Democratic State.
London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Carr, W. (2004) ‘Philosophy and Education’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38:
55–73.
Carr, W. (2005) ‘Introduction: What is the Philosophy of Education?’, in W. Carr (ed.)
The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Philosophy of Education, pp. 1–14. London:
Routledge.
Cuypers, S. E. (2018) ‘Analytic Philosophy of Education and the Concept of Liberal
Education’, in P. Smeyers (ed.) International Handbook of Philosophy of
Education: Volume 1, pp. 1083–96. Cham: Springer.
Cuypers, S. E. and Martin, C. (2013) R. S. Peters. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

104

K. Misawa

Dearden, R. F., Hirst, P. H. and Peters, R. S. (eds) (2010/1972) Education and theDevelopment of Reason. London: Routledge.
Derry, J. (2020) ‘A Problem for Cognitive Load Theory—the Distinctively Human
Life-form’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 54: 5–22.
Hirst, P. H. (1993) ‘Education, Knowledge and Practices’, in R. Barrow and P. White(eds) Beyond Liberal Education: Essays in Honour of Paul H. Hirst, pp. 184–99
London: Routledge.
Hursthouse, R. (1999) On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kern, A. (2020) ‘Human Life, Rationality and Education’, Journal of Philosophy of
Education, 54: 268–89.
Liu, I. (2017) ‘Elevating Human Being: Towards a New Sort of Naturalism’,Philosophy, 92: 597–622.
MacIntyre, A. C. (1999) Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the
Virtues. Chicago, Ill: Open Court.
Martin, C. (2021) ‘Analytic Philosophy of Education’, in A. Pagès (ed.) A History ofWestern Philosophy of Education in the Contemporary Landscapes, pp. 85–106.
London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Martin, J. R. (2011) Education Reconfigured. New York: Routledge.
Martin, J. R. (2020) ‘The Path Not Taken’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 54:
744–56.
McDowell, J. (1996) Mind and World, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
McDowell, J. (2000) ‘Responses’, in M. Willaschek (ed.), John McDowell: Reason andNature, pp. 91–114. Münster, Germany: LIT.
McDowell, J. (2008) ‘Responses’, in J. Lindgaard (ed.) John McDowell: Experience,
Norm, and Nature, pp. 200–67. Malden, MA, Blackwell.
Misawa, K. (2017) ‘Humans, Animals and the World We Inhabit: On and beyond the
Symposium “Second Nature, Bildung, and McDowell—David Bakhurst’s The
Formation of Reason”’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51: 744–59.
Misawa, K. (2023) ‘Practical Rationality in Education: Beyond the Hirst–Carr Debate’,Journal of Philosophy of Education, 57: 164–81.
Misawa, K. and Watanabe, F. (2023) ‘P. H. Hirst no Kyoiku Tetsugaku: Gorishugi to
Jissenteki Tenkai’ (‘P. H. Hirst’s Philosophy of Education: Rationalism and his
Practical Turn’), Tetsugaku, 150: 59–84.
Misawa, K., Tsuchiya, Y. and Sato, K. (forthcoming) ‘“Chiteki Toku” to Kyoiku wo
Meguru Gendaiteki Tenkai’ (‘Recent Developments in Virtue Epistemology:
Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

Analytic Philosophy of Education, Then and Now

105Intellectual Virtues and Education’), Kyoiku Tetsugaku Kenkyu.
Miyadera, A. (1997) Gendai Igirisu Kyoiku Tetsugaku no Tenkai (The Developments inContemporary British Philosophy of Education). Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.
Nunn, P. (2009/1920) Education: Its Data and First Principles. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Library.
O’Connor, D. J. (1957) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Peters, R. S. (1956) Hobbs. Harmondsworth: Pelican Books.
Peters, R. S. (1958) The Concept of Motivation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Peters, R. S. (1959) Authority, Responsibility and Education. London: George Allen &Unwin Ltd.
Peters, R. S. (1965/1964) ‘Education as Initiation’, in R. Archambault (ed.)
Philosophical Analysis and Education, pp. 87–111. London: Routledge.
Peters, R. S. (1965) ‘General Editor’s Preface’, in R. Archambault (ed.) PhilosophicalAnalysis and Education, p. xi. London: Routledge.
Peters, R. S. (1966a) Ethics and Education. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Peters, R. S. (2010/1966b) ‘The Philosophy of Education’, in J. W. Tibble (ed.) The
Study of Education, pp. 59–89. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Peters, R. S. (2010/1983) ‘Philosophy of Education’, in P. H. Hirst (ed.) Educational
Theory and Its Foundation Disciplines, pp. 33–61. London: Routledge.
Peters, R. S. (2015/1981) Moral Development and Moral Education. London:
Routledge.
Ryle, G., et al (eds) (1956) The Revolution of Philosophy. London: Macmillan.
Rödl, S. (2016) ‘Education and Autonomy’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 50:
84–97.
Scheffler, I. (1954) ‘Toward an Analytic Philosophy of Education’, Harvard Educational
Review, 24: 223–30.
Scheffler, I. (1960) The Language of Education. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Scheffler, I. (1965) Conditions of Education: An Introduction and Epistemology.
Chicago, IL: Scot, Foresman.
Sellars, W. (1997/1956) Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, with an Introduction
by R. Rorty, and a Study Guide by R. Brandom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Siegel, H. (1988) Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking and Education.
New York: Routledge.
Siegel, H. (1997) Rationality Redeemed?: Further Dialogues on an Educational Ideal.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

106

K. Misawa

New York: Routledge.
Tibble, J. W. (1966) ‘Introduction’, in J. W. Tibble (ed.) The Study of Education, pp. vii–
x. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
White, J. (2001) ‘R. S. Peters’, in J. Palmer (ed.) Fifty Major Thinkers on Education:
From Confucius to Dewey, pp. 118–22. London: Routledge.
White, J. (2024) ‘What is Philosophy of Education? Overlaps and Contrasts between
Different Conceptions’, Journal of Philosophy of Education.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhae019
Whitehead, A. N. (1967/1929) The Aims of Education and Other Essays. New York: The
Free Press.

Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

Summary Report on the Thematic Research
Yasuo IMAIThe University of Tokyo (Prof. em.)
Masamichi UENO
Sophia University
On October 8, 2023, the 66th annual meeting of the Philosophy of Education
Society of Japan was held at Kyushu University. At the event, a Thematic Research
titled "How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of Encyclopediaof Philosophy of Education" was conducted. The concept statement for the theme of thisproject was as follows.
Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education, whose project was initiated in 2019, waspublished by Maruzen Publishing in July of this year with the collaboration of manymembers of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan. This encyclopedia represents
the first attempt by the society to create a specialized encyclopedia and covers over 300
items across three parts and fifteen chapters, presenting the forefront of contemporary
educational philosophy research. The preface, titled "On the Publication," contains thefollowing passage:
Education, whether it is interpersonal educational activities or public educational
policies, involves influencing others who may not necessarily follow our intentions.
Furthermore, the success of these influences is determined not in the present but inan uncertain future that cannot be predicted with certainty. This uncertainty in
education cannot be eliminated even through empirical scientific research.
Regardless of how meticulously one designs empirical investigations anddemonstrates causal relationships, the very premises of those causal relationships
may be unexpectedly overturned by unforeseen others or may change over time.
Philosophy underpinning education needs to overcome this uncertainty that arises
in both the social and temporal dimensions. This does not mean denying or
excluding uncertainty but rather having the capacity to encompass it. Multiple
Correspondence:
Yasuo IMAI, The University of Tokyo (Prof. em.). Email: imaiyapa@gmail.com
Masamichi UENO, Sophia University. Email: maueno@sophia.ac.jp

108

Y. IMAI & M. UENO

perspectives on an unpredictable future, a broad consideration of unintended
consequences, flexible and robust value consciousness to support decision-making,and a historical perspective that looks from the past to the future are all required.
Therefore, philosophy of education needs to have the depth and endurance that go
beyond individual experiences and empirical data limitations. Encyclopedia of
Philosophy of Education aims to provide a solid foundation for this purpose.
As mentioned, Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education as a whole strongly
emphasizes the standpoint of "education." However, considering the current state ofeducational discourse in our country, there is a noticeable trend towards "Individualized
Optimal Learning" and "collaborative learning," with recent discussions on the potentialof "learner and learning environment matching" using "educational AI tools" (asarticulated in the 2018 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology's
statement on "Human Resource Development for Society 5.0"). This trend is evident,
echoing what Gert Biesta terms "the 'learnification' of education," where "the languageof education is increasingly replaced by language that is specific to learning." In light ofthese developments, how can we academically conceptualize "education" from thestandpoint of educational philosophy? Or should we perhaps contemplate its
impossibility?
In this year's research project, we aim to deepen the discussion around the questionof "How to envision 'education,'" as outlined above. To do this, we have invited threemembers to present their views. These members include Satoshi Tanaka, who played acentral role in selecting entries for the encyclopedia as the editorial coordinator, Mika
Okabe, who was involved in the editorial work of the encyclopedia as an editorial board
member, and Koichiro Misawa, who can offer critical perspectives from a position ofrelative detachment from the editorial process. It is important to note that we haverequested each presenter to provide insights and perspectives that directly address theaforementioned question, rather than merely reflecting on the editorial process and its
outcomes. The three presentations will differ significantly in terms of their foundational
perspectives and the prospects they offer. It is in the coexistence of such diverse
perspectives and outlooks that the significance of this academic society lies. By
interweaving diverse and alternative viewpoints, we hope to create a forum that allows
us, as the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, to fundamentally question"education."

Thematic Research: How to Envision 'Education': Based on the Publication of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of
Education

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

Touch and Force: On the Ambivalence of Touching as a Possible
Theme in the Philosophy of Education
Jun YAMANAThe University of Tokyo
Abstract
The impacts of COVID19 have led to major changes in the social lives of people on a global scale inthe years since 2020. This has provided an opportunity to rethink the fundamental issues of various
social activities. Education is one such activity. During the pandemic, human contact was severely
restricted to prevent infection. Education has traditionally been seen as inherently based on the premiseof “touching,” both literally and figuratively. One of the questions that arose in the era of “social
distancing” was what touching means for education. In this essay, I draw on the theories of asylum
and the sacred to focus on the view that touching has an ambivalence that gives rise to both the power
to protect and the power to exclude. According to such a view, the pandemic may have endangered
the protected status of individuals and at the same time made it possible for us to distance ourselvesfrom the forces of exclusion. This essay explores the implications of such a hypothesis for the field of
education.
Key words: force, touching, asylum, power, violence, human transformation

The Emerging Issue of “Touching”
What would happen if the element of “touch” were removed from human lives?
Due to the outbreak of COVID19, we have inevitably become involved in such an“experiment” on a global scale. Avoidance of direct touching has been universally
recommended, and “social distancing” has become the catchphrase of our time. Thisso-called ‘new lifestyle’1 has impacted all cultural spheres, including that of education.
1

The “new lifestyle” is an action guideline published by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare to preventthe spread of novel coronavirus infection. In layman's terms, it refers to a lifestyle that incorporates measures

Correspondence:
Jun YAMANA, The University of Tokyo. Email: jyamana6s@p.u-tokyo.ac.jp

110

J. Yamana

In its 122nd number (November 2020), the editorial board of Studies in the
Philosophy of Education (『教育哲学研究』), in the Journal of the Philosophy of
Education Society of Japan (PESJ), announced a special issue on “Fureru (Touch) and
the Philosophy of Education”, and called for submissions (SPE 2020: 119). In the end, a
total of nine essays were published in a special issue, the 124th number of the journal,2indicating the importance of this theme for contemporary educational philosophers.
As the Editor-in-Chief at that time, I was responsible for this initiative. In soliciting
papers for the special issue, the editorial committee envisioned several specific topics; forexample, attachment and physical contact, the significance of touching in schooling, thepossibility of education being paradoxically enhanced by non-touching situations, andthe problem of the binary thinking that makes a hard distinction between “online” and“offline” (i.e., in-person) contact. As it turned out, however, the contributed articles dealt
with a wider variety of topics, and considered the relation between a broader range ofphilosophical perspectives on “touching”, than the editorial board had expected. In my
own case, the keyword “touching” prompted consideration of the relationship between
touch and force. The philosophy of “touch” turns out to be dizzyingly complex; and in
this brief paper, I will explore the reasons for this complexity.

Power and Asylum for Protection through Touching
The relationship between touching and power is also of profound significance toeducation, especially through its connection to the element of protection in the concept
of asylum. The term “asylum” (Asyl in German, asile in French) derives from the Greek
asylos, meaning “inviolable,” which in turn suggests “shelter” or “refuge.” Themonograph Formen des Asylrechts und ihre Verbreitung bei den Germanen (Forms of
the Right of Asylum and Their Connection with the Germanic Peoples) (1954), by
Ortwin Henssler (1923- 2017), which focuses on the history of legal systems, describes
the evolution of asylum law.3 The theoretical potential of his thought has been more
appreciated, accepted, and developed in Japan, mainly in the context of historiography,
than in his native Germany (see Yamana 2021 for an overview of the process of
acceptance of his theory).
against novel coronavirus infection in daily life.
The call for papers for the special issue is in Japanese; however, the special issue includes a table of contents andabstracts of the essays in English at its end (SPE 124 2021: 276-284 and back cover of the journal).
3
The following summary of Henssler’s asylum theory is based on my previous paper (Yamana 2021).
2

Special Essay

Touch and Force: On the Ambivalence of Touching as a Possible Theme in the Philosophy of111
Education

Henssler’s account of the essential logic of asylum is the most important feature of
the monograph for our purposes. In his view, in the primitive “sacred-magical stage,”the “constant crisis of survival” (Henssler 1954: 23) - the human struggle with otherhumans, animals, nature, and even ghosts - is a prerequisite for the emergence of placeof asylum. Such a critical state triggers the fundamental emotions of “fear and anxiety”(ibid 14) and “the search for a protective principle” (ibid 15). One becomes an object ofmagical awe when he or she is in touch with an “orenda” (sacred power).4 Thus, “inorder not to disturb the harmony with the transcendent, the community must refrainfrom any further action against such an orendized person, at least as long as theorendization continues” (ibid 18 f.). This is the source of the power to create a space andtime of protection.
In Henssler’s view, the thesis that the sacred touch exerts a protective effect is itself
a finding of religious anthropology; the importance of Henssler's approach lies in his
historical and systematic thesis regarding the evolution of asylum culture from thereligious phase to the phase of secularization and modernization. On the basis of hisanalysis of the example of asylum law, he proposes a historical-stage theory of asylum,arguing that asylum culture is still present, in an evolved form.
In Japan, Henssler's theory of asylum attracted especial attention from the late 1970s
to the 1990s. The Japanese historian Kinya Abe (1979), for example, examined
Henssler’s theory more closely from a historical perspective, and discussed the German
medieval culture of asylum; while another Japanese historian, Yoshihiko Amino (1978),using Henssler's thesis as a theoretical foundation, argued that asylum culture also existed
in Japan. He notes that Japanese temples were referred to as muen-jo (無縁所) , places
where one can be in touch with the gods; and at the same time, spaces severed from thedomain of secular power, which may thus also serve as places of escape. Amino notes
that, in Japan, the “unattached culture (無縁文化)” symbolized by temples “has taken
extremely diverse forms and permeates every area of people's lives in minute detail”(Amino 1978: 255).
Inspired by Abe's and Amino's studies, sociology and other fields in Japan havealso discussed asylum culture in the modern era, but the theory of asylum has neverbeen fully accepted in the field of educational sciences, including the philosophy ofeducation. However, given the fundamental vulnerability of children and their need for

4

Henssler calls the sacred power, “orendism,” recalling the Iroquois belief in the existence of strong, tangible andintangible forces and spirits (Henssler 1954: 16).

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

112

J. Yamana

protection, the possibility of asylum being created through touching offers a suggestive
locus for discussion of protective space for children.5

Forced Exclusion through Touching
It is a curious fact of cultural history that the sacred touch can also be a source of
impurity, and thus an occasion for prompting forced exclusion. French thinkers such as
Georges Bataille and Roger Caillois drew attention to this point, which Henssler rarely
emphasized. They talked about the issue philosophically. Caillois, for example, writes in
his book, L'homme et le sacré (Man and the Sacred) (1939), “Even in the most advanced
civilizations, a certain word very often means both ‘impurity’ and ‘holiness’. The Greek
word asylos also means ‘impurity’ and ‘the sacrifice to remove it” (Caillois 1994: 47).
The exclusion from the community of a person who has come in touch with theoverwhelming force of the sacred, and the protection of that person, are here regarded as
inseparable. As aforementioned, the Greek word asylos, which means purifying sacrifice
as well as impurity, is also the root of the word “asylum”.
Caillois draws attention to those, such as the clergy, who can transform impurity into
“blessing,” exercising a cleansing force (ibid 62). The modern state system has sought toexpunge the force of the sacred, with its mixture of the pure and the impure, and hasquestioned, even to the point of undermining, the authority of religion. Returning toHenssler's argument, focusing on legal history, he advances the thesis that the area ofasylum generated by the sacred has shrunk in the modern era. “The state, he writes,monopolizes all coercive power and law” (Henssler 1954: 37), and “increasing
differentiation of the individual areas of life takes place.” The events of life, once
governed by religion, are subjugated to a more rational order in modern times, and theasylum laws become not only “superfluous, but hostile to the legal system” (ibid 37).
This is because, in the increasingly complex legal system, “asylum granted neverthelessbrings uncertainty and arbitrariness into the organizing principle of law” (ibid 37). In thisera, “the right of asylum loses its function and sinks to form without content” (ibid 38).
Nonetheless, every culture needs a time and space of protection - both from the5

The pedagogical objects of consideration as potential spaces of asylum could be established in a variety of ways.
As examples, we may think of the “child-centered” spaces in the new education movement at the beginning of the20th century, or the institutions that rescue children from abuse or bullying in the modern era. Alternatively, schools
themselves can be interpreted as a kind of asylum for children. See Yamana 2015 and 2021 for discussion of
education and space from the viewpoint of asylum theory.

Special Essay

Touch and Force: On the Ambivalence of Touching as a Possible Theme in the Philosophy of113
Education

standpoint of vulnerable individuals and from the communal standpoint for the
maintenance of collective order. Nowadays, the clergy and religious organizations
generating asylum have largely been replaced by modern institutions such as nation states.
The mixed energies of protective and exclusionary forces are divided into two types. One
is the power that governs the community, and the other is the violence that threatens the“security” of the community. However, the power of modern institutions, which aresupposed to provide protection, can itself be violent, stigmatizing as “heretics” those who
threaten the institutions, and marginalizing or excluding them from the community.
Walter Benjamin's essay, Zur Kiritik der Gewalt (1920/21), emphasizes this point. Gewalt
is a German concept that can originally mean both “power” and “violence” (Waldenfels
1990). The young Benjamin argues for a distinction between power through humaninstitutions (“die mytische Gewalt”) and power beyond them (“die göttliche Gewalt”);
and attempts to justify revolutions by placing them in the latter category. The creaking of
the modern system, dividing inherently ambivalent forces into two, seems to be alluded
to his theory. What is power? What is violence? The answer ultimately depends on thestandpoint of the individual who experiences the force.
I might summarize the essential lineaments of my approach here in the following
manner. According to the asylum theory, the force generated by the sacred touch cancreate a space-time of protection. However, that same force can also evoke the violenceof exclusion, based on the notion of sacrificial purification. The modern system tries toavoid such complications and ambiguities inherent in such force. However, the system isitself caught up in the ambiguity of the force in other ways. How, then, can we best
approach the question of human transformation and education with respect to therelationship between touch and force outlined above?

Dealing with Force and Human Transformation
Japanese researchers on asylums often allude to a prototypical children's gamecalled engacho, based on an old folk custom, a form of play that is unusually suggestive
to anyone interested in human transformation. The “play” starts suddenly. Children
abruptly begin teasing one child, saying “engacho”. The child is considered to be “impure”
and becomes untouchable by the other children. In order to be cleansed of the impurity,
he/she needs to touch someone, and thus the child chases after other children who arerunning away to escape from his/her touching. There is, however, a spell which can breakthe cycle of the impurity transfer. If you make a circle with your thumb and forefinger,
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

114

J. Yamana

and ask someone to cut the circle with their hand, the child will no longer be affected by
the impurity. According to Amino, the en in engacho means “impurity (穢)”, but can alsosignify “connection (縁)”; cho signifies “cutting” (Amino 1978: 13).
There are two elements of touch at work in this play: one that transfers the impurity,and the other that halts its spread. In light of our discussion above, the engacho game can,I think, be understood as a kind of lesson in dealing with the complex relationshipbetween touch and force, already in childhood. Of course, this play is not without its
problems, at least from the perspective of modern society; for example, the play may turninto bullying, and we can imagine a case in which the child who intervenes to save a childfrom a bullying situation can themselves become the next target. Through touching, theforces of exclusion and protection can alternate in complex ways, as the sacrificial
cleansing viewpoint on bullying suggests (Sugano 1997). Bataille and Caillois'
understanding of the violence of exclusion has evolved into the ritual theory, which alsointerprets such force positively, as an aspect of the death and rebirth of a community.
However, when the focus is on the excluded, especially when children are assumed to be
the object of exclusion, such force may be decidedly negative in nature.
In order to spare children such complexities of force, the Act for the Promotion of
Measures to Prevent Bullying (2013) was enacted in Japan, according to which a “school
bullying task force” should be established within a given school when bullying occurs,
and the school board is required to intervene more proactively. In light of the seriousnessof the problems surrounding bullying, the establishment of such a law is certainly to becommended as an improvement in society’s response. However, given the problem of
the complexities of force that persists in the modern state, are we right in viewing suchinstitutional measures as sufficient to address the many difficulties presented by bullying?
Moreover, the problematic relationship between touch and force extends well beyond
bullying behavior. The complexities of force at work in such cases lie buried also in thedepths of education, as modern anxieties regarding the growth of children and youth.
At the beginning of this paper, I noted that we have been forced by the pandemic toparticipate in a grand experiment in non-touching. Of course, this is an unfavorable
situation; however, I sometimes wonder if it might actually conceal an opportunity for a
temporary escape from the complicated influence of the forces associated with touching.
I may be the only one who feels this way. What about children and students? I wonder if,
when the world of touching is restored, some of them will feel uncomfortable with thisinfluence, which had been accepted as “normal” before the pandemic. Has the Internet
space become their new asylum? Or might it be the case that even in the online world,
where there is no direct touching at the physical level, a shadow of the problematics ofSpecial Essay

Touch and Force: On the Ambivalence of Touching as a Possible Theme in the Philosophy of115
Education

force may persist, in the metaphorical role of digital “touching”? It is far from easy tocome to terms with the ambiguous yet compelling forces associated with touching; andthis is a major reason why, as I said at the outset, the philosophy of touch is dizzyingly
complex.

Bibliography
Abe, Kinya (1978), Asylums in the Late Middle Ages of Germany, Fukuya Kurihara etal. (eds.), European Economy, Society and Culture, Sobun-Sha: Tokyo, (eds.),
European Economy, Society and Culture, Sobun-Sha: Tokyo, pp. 269 - 310.
Amino, Yoshihiko (1978), Muen, Kougai, Raku: Freedom and Peace in the Middle Agesin Japan, Heibonsha: Tokyo.
Amino, Yoshihiko (2018), Muen, Kougai, Raku: Freedom and Peace in the Middle Agesin Japan (Enlarged and Revised Version), Heibonsha: Tokyo, (Japanese, firstpublished in 1996.
Benjamin, Walter (1999 [orig. 1920/21]), Zur Kritik der Gewalt, Walter BenjaminGesammelte Schriften, vol. II.1, hrg. von R. Tiedemann e H. Schweppenhäuser,Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, S. 179- 204 .
Caillois, Roger (1994 in English [orig. in French 1939]), Human and the Sacred,translated by Fumi Tsukahara et al. Tokyo: Serika- Shobo (Japanese)
Editorial Board of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan (eds.) (2021), Studies in
the Philosopy of Educaion (Sepcial Issue: “Fureru (Touch)” and the Philosophy of
Education), No. 124 . (Japanese)
Editorial Board of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan (2021), Call for Papers:“Fureru (Touch)” and the Philosophy of Education, Studies in the Philosopy of
Educaion (Sepcial Issue: “Fureru (Touch)” and the Philosophy of Education), No.
122, p. 119. (Japanese)
Henssler, Ortwin (1954), Formen des Asylrechts und ihre Verbreitung bei den Germanen(Frankfurter wissenschaftliche Beiträge, Rechts- und wirtschaftswissenschaftliche
Reihe; Bd. 8), V. Klostermann: Frankfurt a.M. (Germany) = Ortwin Henssler (1954),
Asylums: On their History and Forms, translated by Tetsuo Funaki, KokushoKanko-Kai: Tokyo.
Sugano, Tateki (1997), Ijime: Gakkyu no Ningen-Gaku (Mobing: Anthropology ofClasses), Tokyo: Shinyo-Sha.
Waldenfels,Bernhard (1990), Grenzen der Legitimierung und die Frage nach der Gewalt,
Bernhard Waldenfels, Der Stachel des Fremden, Frankfurt a. M. : Suhrkamp, S.
103- 119 .
Yamana, Jun (2015), Educational Thoughts on Cities and Architecture, Keiso-Shobo:
Tokyo.
Yamana, Jun (2022), Free spaces and 'pedagogical protection': On the asylum theory of
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

J. Yamana

116

Ortwin Hensler and its implications for education, Morimichi Kato (eds.),
Philosophical Reflections on Modern Education in Japan: Strategies and Prospects(EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY), 2022, ahead of print, pp. 1-10.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2094246

Acknowledgement
This essay was prompted by an invitation to the 2022 Annual Conference of KPES
“A Pedagogy of ‘Touching’ in the Viral Era: Rethinking Teaching and Learning” on
November 25-26, 2022 at the Korean National University. Although I presented on adifferent topic at the conference, the invitation gave me the impetus to write this essay. I
would like to express my deepest gratitude to everyone involved in the conference,
especially Professor Duck-Joo Kwak (Korean National University), who was in chargeof the conference.

Special Essay