___________________________

___

Egéa-Kuehne, D. (ed.) 2011

WHO IS EMMANUEL LEVINAS?

• “one of the most profound, exacting and original

philosophers of twentieth-century Europe”

• Levinas’ works have been the object of

increasing attention among Anglophone

intellectuals (i.e. intelligent English speaking

people) as more of his texts are translated.

• Levinas explains: “My task does not consist in

constructing ethics; I only try to find its meaning.”

• Chapter 8 – it is neither an interpretation of the

philosophy of Levinas nor an attempt to outline

the consequences of his philosophy of the other

for rethinking pedagogical concepts, problems,

or theories.

• For Levinas, the relation to the Other is a relation

of solicitude (be responsible for the other), where

the Other is not knowable and cannot be made

into an object of the Self.

Applications

• Relevance of Levinas’ philosophy: One must be

reminded of the traditional division of labor

between pedagogy and philosophy [i.e.

philosophy is responsible for the determination

and rationalization of ethical goals and pedagogy

is to justify the means used to fulfil these goals

and thus guide their practical realization with a

theory of action].

• For Levinas, the purpose of education is to

convert “the ignorant immature into the

knowledgeable mature”.

• The concept of the Other invokes ethical and

religious connotations. The Other is also the

subject of pedagogical efforts.

Ruptures, Aporias, Paradoxes

• Speech which cites the Other, points to the

Other, or believes to be able to express the

Other as such remains within the horizon of the

power it may believe to have overcome in turning

toward the Other.

• The decision to turn to the Other might be the

most indirect and secret way of escaping from

the Other and turning away.

• The Other cannot be determined in the light and

in the dark, but it must manifest himself/herself to

be experienced, and if not in space, then in time.

The Other would have to be imagined as

someone speaking, yet speaking would be

unthinkable without something spoken.

• For Levinas, the enigma is the “face”, which must

not be regarded as the image of a face.

• The experience of the Other brings the

impossible, the unreal, and the undecidable into

play.

Dealing with Paradoxes

• Undecidability is a condition for a judgement thatmust, and yet cannot, be guided by given rules,norms, bodies of knowledge or presettings if it isto do justice to the singularity of the Other.

• The deconstructionist method could then bedescribed as a skeptical method, in which themaking of a judgement, manifests in texts of allkinds:-

- in philosophies

- in interpretations set into institutions

- in all cultural systems of meaning

• Deconstruction must therefore be considered asan “experience of the impossible and the ‘there is’”

• Hence, the great decisions that must be taken andaffirmed should do so at the very moment in whichthey are no longer possible, they become possible,i.e. “These are the only decisions possible:impossible ones.”

• Derrida explains then that a kind of thinking whichwould be suited to the paradox might be called aperceptive thinking, which may comply with theduty to respond, articulated in itself as a paradox.

• In this case; morality, politics, responsible thoughtand action, would only be possible to take anydecision under the condition of the paradox.

Some Consequences for pedagogicaldiscourse

• Wimmer explains that the “mindset” decideswhether to remain conscious of its own limitationof undecidability in the very moment when onefeels one has to make a decision, or to decidesomething in accordance with an objectivecriterion.

• He also explains that deconstruction resolves theresolutions in which the problem, the object, andpedagogy disappear, and reinscribes paradoxinto the discourse.

• The impossible and the undecidable areconstitutive of pedagogical thought anddisappear the resolution of paradoxes.

• Action itself must be understood as adeconstructionist experience inasmuch as it isconfronted with the singularity of the Other andof the situation, with the problem ofundecidability and justice.

Conclusion

It was not the author’s intention at all to propose anew model for action but rather to lay out adifferent possible approach to the paradoxproblem, starting from which fundamental andcollateral issues of pedagogy may bereconsidered.