59 Fragmentation and Subjectification 1 existence as subject, actually begins to matter or comes into play. (Biesta, 2022, p. 54) The accent on subjectification in education implies approaching the student with respect, inviting him or her to engage freely with others and with society. This notion, which was derived from Levinas (1969) and coined for education by Biesta (2022), proved its usefulness to Guoping Zhao (2011) in her analysis of modernist views on childhood. Zhao (2011) distinguished five such views: childhood as a moment of innocence, childhood as lacking reason, childhood as the primitive, childhood as a moment of redemption and childhood as a period of active growth. She complained that all of these views deprive children of their autonomy (in the sense of their own, free responsibility) and agency. Only the latter view (childhood as a period of active growth) somehow seeks to do justice to the agency of children, but even in this case ‘the child’s agency and voice are systematically undermined by the hidden agenda of social control’ (Zhao, 2011, p. 254). Zhao (2011) concluded that ‘the modern subject is not a cohesive whole, but only fragmented pieces where portions of one’s being have to be constantly struggled against’ (p. 254). The ‘deep logic of the modern project’ is that, to enable a person’s freedom and agency, ‘the modern subject must first be subdued, remolded, and kept under control’, which Zhao (2011) termed ‘the paradox of modern thinking’: ‘It can only afford freedom to a transformed and idealized population’ (p. 255). The modern, fragmented approach to education, thus, consistently prioritises socialisation over subjectification. It tends to value manufacturability over agency and personal responsibility, ideological direction over character formation. It moulds students into a fixed world and future rather than inviting them to take responsibility for the shaping of their own world and future. In this way, modernist education strengthens the problem of fragmentation on the personal level, instead of searching for more healing approaches. Levinas’ (1969) unique account of subjectivity provided inspiration for such a healing approach, concluded Zhao (2012). She praised Biesta (2022) for showing how Levinas’ (1969) subjectivity concept can ‘lead us out of the educational predicament of socialization as subjectification’ (Zhao, 2012, p. 660). At the same time, she warned that Biesta’s (2022) interpretation of subjectivity as ‘pure openness and subjection to the other misses its full structure’ (Zhao, 2012, p. 672). Where Biesta (2022) proposed a ‘pedagogy of interruption’, Zhao (2012) pleaded for a ‘pedagogy of becoming’: Viewed from this perspective, Levinas’s account of individuation is intersubjective and dialectical. Such an account considers individual growth
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw