Skip to main content
Log in

The Problem of Bildung and the Basic Structure of Bildungstheorie

Studies in Philosophy and Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, an attempt is made to introduce a systematization of the loosely connected group of authors called Bildungstheorie. This ought to not only be of significance for German-speaking educational science, for the concept of Bildung is also increasingly used internationally for the formulation and development of pedagogical issues. It is proposed that the concept of complexity could be suitable for bringing attention to common presuppositions in the theoretical dealing with the problem of Bildung. The thesis is that Bildung in theories of Bildung is described from various perspectives as complex, meaning it is an open and uncertain interplay of components irreducibly associated with planning and governance problems. As this thesis is corroborated by means of selected positions within Bildungstheorie, evidence is provided that complexity in educational science—differently than it may seem at first glance—is not for the first time today a theme of importance. Rather, it is demonstrated that a nascent discipline-specific complexity research can be linked to already existing traditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ‘Science’ is to be understood here in the broad sense of the German word Wissenschaft, encompassing the sciences and the humanities (see Hoyningen-Huene 2013).

  2. Our terminology in this article is influenced by the academic study of education in the German-speaking world. This form of academic study differs significantly from that in the English-speaking world, where ‘educational studies’ designates generally a multidisciplinary field. This field includes, among others, disciplines such as psychology, history, sociology and philosophy. In contrast to this, there is a specific academic discipline in the German-speaking world that deals with education (see Biesta 2013a, pp. 8ff). This discipline is called either ‘pedagogy’ (Pädagogik) or ‘educational science’ (Erziehungswissenschaft). For reasons of space we cannot go into details about historical and/or theoretical differentiations between these two concepts. Instead, we would like to briefly point out the place of philosophy of education (Erziehungs- und Bildungsphilosophie) in pedagogy or educational science respectively. As will be shown in more detail, philosophy of education shall mean the methodically controlled reflection on the theoretical and methodical presuppositions of educational knowledge—a reflection, which is located in educational science itself (Tenorth 2016, p. 52).

  3. In order to avoid possible misunderstandings, we would like to explicitly note that we are not concerned with a clarification of the basic structure of Bildung (see Ballauff 1953). Rather, we aim to examine the basic structure of the theoretical dealing with the problem of Bildung. In this perspective of reflection Bildung itself only comes into view via already existing descriptions of Bildung (see Luhmann 1992, p. 668).

  4. This does not mean that Bildung is ultimately described identically in theories of Bildung. Instead, we argue that the complexity of Bildung in various theories of Bildung can and will be spelled out in different ways. It makes a difference whether, for instance, the openness of Bildung is associated with ideological criticism (see Bünger 2013, pp. 175ff) or with transcendental criticism and skepticism (see Ruhloff 2004, pp. 389ff). This, however, does not alter the fact that Bildung in either case is described as a process that is not finalized to an already fixed state.

  5. We have made an effort to quote texts already available in English. For the cases in which this was not possible we undertook the corresponding translations.

  6. Against this background, we refer to authors who can be attributed to different theoretical contexts. We focus primarily on contemporary theories of Bildung. However, our analysis also takes into account theories of older dates. An investigation of different theories of Bildung relative to specific contextual conditions has recently been presented by Horlacher (2016).

  7. In contrast, for everyday language another concept of complexity is characteristic: “When someone says, ‘It’s complex. It’s very complex!’, the word ‘complex’ does not constitute an explanation, but rather indicates the difficulty in explaining. The word serves to designate something we really can’t explain, but that we shall call: ‘complex.’” (Morin 2008, p. 84).

  8. Stojanov pursues this thought even further by connecting considerations of the theories of Bildung and recognition. This connection leads Stojanov to the differentiation of three forms of recognition: empathy, respect and appreciation, which in his opinion form the foundational social conditions for making Bildung possible (Stojanov 2012, pp. 84ff).

  9. This is the point where one is confronted with “one of the greatest Problems in education”: “How shall I cultivate freedom under conditions of compulsion?” (Kant 1803/1904, p. 131). However, this challenge is not infrequently solved in a one-sided manner. See also Pikkarainen 2012, p. 21: “The division of educational questions and theory in the continental way, between Bildung theory and Erziehung theory can be seen based just on that pedagogical paradox”.

References

  • Anhalt, E. 2012. Komplexität der Erziehung: Geisteswissenschaft—Modelltheorie—Differenztheorie. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baecker, D. 2007. Studien zur nächsten Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhurst, D. 2011. The formation of reason. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ballauff, T. 1953. Die Grundstruktur der Bildung. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballauff, T. 1993. Über die Unerläßlichkeit der Bildung. In Deutsche Gegenwartspädagogik, vol. 1, ed. M. Borelli, 1–19. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, D. 1988/1995. Bildsamkeit und Bestimmung. Zu Fragestellung und Ansatz nicht-affirmativer Bildungstheorie. In Studien zur Theorie der Erziehung und Bildung, ed. D. Benner, 141–159. Weinheim and München: Juventa.

  • Benner, D. 2005. Über pädagogisch relevante und erziehungswissenschaftlich fruchtbare Aspekte der Negativität menschlicher Erfahrung. In Erziehung—Bildung—Negativität, ed. D. Benner, 7–21. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, D. 2010. Allgemeine Pädagogik: Eine systematisch-problemgeschichtliche Einführung in die Grundstruktur pädagogischen Denkens und Handelns, 6th ed. Weinheim und München: Juventa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, D., and A. English. 2004. Critique and negativity. Towards the pluralisation of critique in educational practice, theory and research. Journal of Philosophy of Education 38 (3): 409–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. 2007. Why “what works” won’t work. Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit of educational research. Educational Theory 57 (1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. 2013a. On the idea of educational theory. In The handbook of educational theories, ed. B.J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, and S. Jackson, 5–15. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. 2013b. The beautiful risk of education. London: Boulder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G., and D. Osberg. 2010. Complexity, education and politics from the inside-out and the outside-in. An introduction. In Complexity theory and the politics of education, ed. D. Osberg, and G. Biesta, 1–3. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blankertz, H. 1969/2000. Theorien und Modelle der Didaktik. Weinheim und München: Juventa.

  • Blankertz, H. 1979. Kritische Erziehungswissenschaft. In Erziehungswissenschaft der Gegenwart: Prinzipien und Perspektiven moderner Pädagogik, ed. K. Schaller, 28–45. Bochum: Kamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogg, J., and R. Geyer. 2007. Complexity, science and society. Abingdon: Radcliffe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandom, R. 1994. Making it explicit. Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bünger, C. 2013. Die offene Frage der Mündigkeit. Studien zur Politizität der Bildung. Paderborn: Schöningh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D., and G. Callaghan. 2013. Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, B., and D. Sumara. 2006. Complexity and education. Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driebe, D.J., and R.R. McDaniel. 2005. Complexity, uncertainty and surprise: An integrated view. In Uncertainty and surprise in complex systems, ed. R.R. McDaniel, and D.J. Driebe, 19–30. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, P., D. Kurth, and H. Stiehl. 1995. Wie Neues entsteht: Die Wissenschaft des Komplexen und Fraktalen. Reinbek: Rowohlt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. W. 1830/1983. Self culture. In Young Emerson speaks: Unpublished discourses on many subjects, ed. A. C. McGiffert Jr., 99–104. Boston: Houghton Mifflin and Co.

  • Euler, P. 2003. Bildung als »kritische« Kategorie. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 49 (3): 413–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, W. 1997. Über die Bedeutung der Philosophie für die Pädagogik als Wissenschaft. In Erziehungswissenschaft—Bildung—Philosophie, ed. B. Frischmann, and G. Mohr, 21–34. Weinheim: Deutscher Studienverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flitner, W. 1950/1997. Allgemeine Pädagogik, 15th ed. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glouberman, S., and B. Zimmerman. 2004. Complicated and complex systems: What would successfull reform of Medicare look like? In Changing health care in Canada, ed. P.-G. Forest, G.P. Marchildon, and T. McIntosh, 21–52. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girmes, R. 1997. Sich zeigen und die Welt zeigen. Bildung und Erziehung in posttraditionalen Gesellschaften. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenfeld, N., and L.P. Kadanoff. 1999. Simple lessons from complexity. Science 284 (5411): 87–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heitger, M. 1989/2004. Selbstbestimmung als regulative Idee der Bildung. In Bildung als Selbstbestimmung, ed. M. Heitger, 19–34. Paderborn: Schönigh.

  • Herbart, J. F. 1806/1908. The science of education: Its general principles deduced from its aim. In The science of education: Its general principles deduced from its aim, and the aesthetic revelation of the world, ed. J. F. Herbart, 78–268. Boston: Heath.

  • Herzog, W. 2008. Unterwegs zur 08/15-Schule? Wider die Instrumentalisierung der Erziehungswissenschaft durch die Bildungspolitik. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung 30 (1): 13–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höltershinken, D. 2013. Die Nichtplanbarkeit in Erziehung und Bildung. Ein Essay über vergessene Erfahrungen und Erkenntnisse in der Pädagogik. Bochum and Freiburg: Projekt Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horlacher, R. 2016. The educated subject and the German concept of Bildung: A comparative cultural history. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyningen-Huene, P. 2013. Systematicity. The nature of science. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Humboldt, W. V. 1793/2000. Theory of Bildung. In Teaching as a reflective practice. The German Didaktik tradition, ed. J. Westbury, S. Hopmann and K. Riquarts, 57–61. Mahwah: New Jersey.

  • Jörg, T. 2009. Thinking in complexity about learning and education: A programmatic view. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education 6 (1): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jörg, T., B. Davis, and G. Nickmanns. 2007. Towards a new complexity science of learning and education. Educational Research Review 2 (2): 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. 1803/1904. The educational theory of Immanuel Kant. Philadelphia and London: J. B. Lippincott Company.

  • Klafki, W. 1986/2000. The significance of classical theories of Bildung for a contemporary concept of Allgemeinbildung. In Teaching as a reflective practice. The German Didaktik tradition, ed. J. Westbury, S. Hopmann and K. Riquarts, 85–107. Mahwah: New Jersey.

  • Koller, H-Ch. 2011. The Research of Transformational Education Processes: Exemplary considerations on the relation oft he philosophy of education and educational research. European Educational Research Journal 10 (3): 375–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriz, J. 1996. Chaos und Selbstorganisation. In Handbuch Selbstorganisiertes Lernen, ed. S. Greif, and H. J. Kurtz, 33–43. Göttingen: Verlag für angewandte Psychologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krohn, W., and G. Küppers. 1990. Selbstreferenz und Planung. In Selbstorganisation: Jahrbuch für Komplexität in den Natur-, Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften, vol. 1, ed. U. Niedersen, and L. Pohlmann, 109–128. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Küppers, G. 1996. Chaos: Unordnung im Reich der Gesetze. Wissenschaftsphilosophische Betrachtungen zur Chaosforschung. In Chaos und Ordnung. Formen der Selbstorganisation in Natur und Gesellschaft, ed. G. Küppers, 92–98. Stuttgart: Reclam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løvlie, L., K.P. Mortensen, and S.E. Nordenbo (eds.). 2003. Educating humanity: Bildung in postmodernity. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. 1992. Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinberg, E. 2010. Über das ungewisse Etwas in Bildungsprozessen. In Ungewissheit—Sportpädagogische Felder im Wandel, ed. P. Frei, and S. Körner, 41–50. Hamburg: Czwalina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainzer, K. 1997. Thinking in complexity. The complex dynamics of matter, mind, and mankind, 3rd ed. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainzer, K. 2008. Komplexität. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marotzki, W. 1990. Entwurf einer strukturalen Bildungstheorie. Biographietheoretische Auslegung von Bildungsprozessen in hochkomplexen Gesellschaften. Weinheim: Deutscher Studienverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M. (ed.). 2008. Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, J. 1996. Mind and world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merry, U. 1995. Coping with uncertainty. Insights from the new sciences of chaos, self-organization, and complexity. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Drawe, K. 2015. Lernen und Bildung als Erfahrung. Zur Rolle der Herkunft in Subjektivationsvollzügen. In Bildung und Macht. Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme, ed. E. Christof, and E. Ribolits, 115–132. Wien: Löcker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. 2009. Complexity. A guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstrass, J. 2011. On transdisciplinarity. Trames 15 (65/60): 329–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mollenhauer, K. 1983/2013. Forgotten connections. On culture and upbringing, ed. N. Friesen. New York: Routledge.

  • Morin, E. 2008. On complexity. New Jersey: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H. 2016. The cunning of uncertainty. Malden: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osberg, D., and G. Biesta (eds.). 2010. Complexity theory and the politics of education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, R. 2001. Demokratisches Selbst und dilettantisches Subjekt: Demokratische Bildung und Erziehung in der Spätmoderne. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, R. 2002/2003. On irritation and transformation: A-teleological Bildung and its significance for the democratic form of living. In Educating humanity: Bildung in postmodernity, ed. L. Løvlie, K.-P. Mortensen and S. E. Nordenbo, 93–104. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Richardson, K., and P. Cilliers. 2001. What is complexity science? A view from different directions. Development 3 (1): 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricken, N. 1999. Subjektivität und Kontingenz. Markierungen im pädagogischen Diskurs. Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rucker, T. 2014. Komplexität der Bildung. Beobachtungen zur Grundstruktur bildungstheoretischen Denkens in der (Spät-)Moderne. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rucker, T., and E. Anhalt. 2017. Perspektivität und Dynamik. Studien zur erziehungswissenschaftlichen Komplexitätsforschung. Weilerswist: Velbrück.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhloff, J. 1996. Bildung im problematisierenden Vernunftgebrauch. In Deutsche Gegenwartspädagogik, vol. 2, ed. M. Borelli, and J. Ruhloff, 148–157. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhloff, J. 2001. The problematic employment of Reason in philosophy of Bildung and education. In Methods in philosophy of education, ed. F. Heyting, D. Lenzen, and J. White, 57–72. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhloff, J. 2004. Problematising critique in pedagogy. Journal of Philosophy of Education 38 (3): 379–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, I. 1998. Strategic thinking and the new science: Planning in the midst of chaos, complexity, and change. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, A. 2009. Bildung. In Handbuch schulische Sonderpädagogik, ed. G. Opp, and G. Theunissen, 44–53. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siljander, P., A. Kivelä, and A. Sutinen (eds.). 2012. Theories of Bildung and growth. Connections and controversies between continental educational thinking and American pragmatism. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stojanov, K. 2012. The concept of Bildung and its moral implications. In Becoming oneself. Dimensions of ›Bildung‹ and the faciliation of personality development, ed. K. Schneider, 75–88. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Strunk, G., and G. Schiepek. 2006. Systemische Psychologie. In Eine Einführung in die komplexen Grundlagen menschlichen Verhaltens. München: Elsevier.

  • Tenorth, H.-E. 1988. Skepsis und Kritik. Über die Leistungen kritischer Philosophie im System des Erziehungswissens. In Pädagogische Skepsis, ed. D.H. Löwisch, J. Ruhloff, and P. Vogel, 23–34. Sankt Augustin: Academia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenorth, H.-E. 2012. Bildungsphilosophie—Bildungsforschung—Erziehungswissenschaft. Anmerkungen zu Krassimir Stojanovs Kritik. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 15 (2): 403–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenorth, H.-E. 2016. Bildungstheorie und Bildungsforschung, Bildung und kulturelle Basiskompetenzen—Ein Klärungsversuch, auch am Beispiel der PISA-Studien. In Empirische Bildungsforschung. Der kritische Blick und die Antwort auf die Kritiker, ed. J. Baumert, and K.-J. Tillmann, 45–71. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. 2009. Bildung und die Grenzen der Erfahrung: Randgänge der Bildungsphilosophie. Paderborn: Schöningh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tröhler, D. 2012. The German idea of Bildung and the anti-Western ideology. In Theories of Bildung and growth. Connections and controversies between continental educational thinking and American pragmatism, ed. P. Siljander, A. Kivelä, and A. Sutinen, 149–164. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urry, J. 2005. The complexity turn. Theory, Culture and Society 22 (5): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winch, C., and J. Gingell. 2008. Philosophy of education. The key concepts, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Bradley Schmidt (Leipzig) and Tyler Langendorfer (New York) for their help with the translation of the text.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Rucker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rucker, T., Gerónimo, E.D. The Problem of Bildung and the Basic Structure of Bildungstheorie . Stud Philos Educ 36, 569–584 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-017-9573-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-017-9573-4

Keywords

Navigation