Skip to main content
Log in

The Ethics and Politics of Precarity: Risks and Productive Possibilities of a Critical Pedagogy for Precarity

Studies in Philosophy and Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses Butler’s theory on the possibility of precarity to serve as the nexus of ethical relations, while also exploring some of the pitfalls of her theorization to reconceptualize the pedagogical implications of a critical pedagogy for precarity. In particular, the paper asks: How can precarity—understood as an ambivalent concept, as a paradoxical nexus of both possibilities and constraints—function pedagogically in a way that challenges its moralization? How can educators engage with precarity in ways that ‘re-frame’ it so that both the dangers and prospects of ethics and politics of precarity are properly acknowledged and critically interrogated in pedagogical practice? The risks and possibilities of a critical pedagogy for precarity are addressed, highlighting that there are several complexities involved as much as there are opportunities for ethical transformation and political action in school and beyond.

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

Notes

  1. Concerning the differences and similarities among the concepts of vulnerability, precarity and precariousness, Gilson (2014) explains that “vulnerability is a more general notion than precariousness, with a broader scope and application,” adding that “although vulnerability pertains to life, it is not a condition that is limited to life as precariousness is” (p. 46). In this article, although I use these terms more or less synonymously, I prefer the latter two (i.e. precarity and precariousness), precisely because of their emphasis on life, namely, precarity as a human condition. Interestingly, as I discuss later in the paper, some conceptual distinctions can be drawn between precarity and precariousness (see Butler in Puar 2012).

  2. Psychologization is the process of using psychological vocabularies to explain everything in everyday and institutional life, claiming that psychological truths can solve the problems identified in these sites (De Vos 2012, 2015). The development of a universal model of what constitutes a ‘normal’ child—and by extension, ‘abnormal’ child—is an example of psychologization and pathologization of children. As Coppock and McGovern (2014) explain, various assumptions about “the developmental vulnerabilities and incapacities of children became institutionalized in state responses to children and young people via a myriad of child welfare laws, policies and practices, forming a complex ‘disciplinary network’ of regulation of childhood’ (p. 249). The psychologization of children has provided the State with a wide range of technologies of power (e.g. (psychometric tests, diagnostic screening tools, profiling techniques, specialized interventions) to intervene and correct ‘pathological’ behaviors, thus restoring children to an imagined ‘normal’ behavior (Coppock and McGovern 2014). Psychologizing discourses in education tend to pathologize social problems and treat them as nothing less than individual psychological ‘deficiencies’ or traits that can be remedied through diagnosis and subsequent intervention (Madsen 2014; McLaughlin 2011; Zembylas 2016b).

  3. As I was writing this article, I came across Hafiz’s (2017) paper in which he also uses the term ‘critical pedagogy for precarity.’ As it will become clearer, my use of the term is conceptualized and framed in a completely different way than his; Hafiz’s concern is precarity as vulnerability in the changing landscape of UK workplace, whereas my concerns are focused on theorizing a pedagogy that acknowledges the ambivalence of precarity.

  4. For Butler critique is not judgment, but rather “a new practice of values based on that very suspension [of judgment]’ (Butler 2004a, p. 304). Butler understands critique as a mode of resistance and a means of survival that operates by subverting and reformulating structures of power. Critique is necessary when life becomes unliveable as such, that is, societal categories and norms make subjectivity abject or impossible (Bolant 2007). Importantly, Butler theorizes critique in relation to subject formation: “To be critical of an authority that poses as absolute requires a critical practice that has self-transformation at its core” (2004a, p. 311).

  5. I specifically delve into Butler’s position in more details in the next part of the paper, so my analysis in this section focuses on discussing conceptualizations of precarity at a more general level.

  6. Difficult Matters refer to issues that are violent, tragic, traumatic and painful and, therefore, are difficult to deal with—such as war, genocide, and human rights violations.

References

  • Applebaum, B. 2012. Reframing responsibility in the social justice classroom. Race Ethnicity and Education 15 (5): 615–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applebaum, B. 2017. Comforting discomfort as complicity: White fragility and the pursuit of invulnerability. Hypatia 32 (4): 862–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlant, L. 2011. Cruel optimism. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bolant, T. 2007. Critique as a technique of self: A Butlerian analysis of Judith Butler’s prefaces. History of the Human Sciences 20 (3): 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 1988. Acts of resistance: Against the tyranny of the market. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. 2005. Edgework: Critical essays on knowledge and politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunila, K., and L.-M. Rossi. 2018. Identity politics, the ethos of vulnerability, and education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 50 (3): 287–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. 1997. The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. 2004a. What is critique? An essay on Foucault’s virtue. In The Judith Butler reader, ed. S. Salih, 302–322. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. 2004b. Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. 2009. Frames of war: When life is grievable. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. 2011. Is Judaism Zionsim? In The power of religion in the public sphere, ed. J. Butler, E. Mendieta, and J. VanAntwerpen, 70–91. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. 2012. Precarious life, vulnerability, and the ethics of cohabitation. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 26 (2): 134–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. 2016. Rethinking vulnerability and resistance. In Vulnerability in resistance, ed. J. Butler, Z. Gambetti, and L. Sabsay, 12–27. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J., and A. Athanasiou. 2013. Dispossession: The performative in the political. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J., Z. Gambetti, and L. Sabsay. 2016. Introduction. In Vulnerability in resistance, ed. J. Butler, Z. Gambetti, and L. Sabsay, 1–11. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, A. 2016. All of us are vulnerable, but some are more vulnerable than others: The political ambiguity of vulnerability studies, an ambivalent critique. Critical Horizons 17 (2): 260–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. 2016. Common bodies. Angelaki 21 (2): 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppock, V., and M. McGovern. 2014. ‘Dangerous minds’? Deconstructing counter-terrorism discourse, radicalisation and the ‘psychological vulnerability’ of Muslim children and young people in Britain. Children and Society 28: 242–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, V. 2016. The boundaries of the “we”: Cruelty, responsibility and forms of life. Critical Horizons 17 (2): 168–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vos, J. 2012. Psychologization in times of globalization. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vos, J. 2015. Deneurologizing education? From psychologisation to neurologisation and back. Studies in Philosophy and Education 34: 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecclestone, K. 2011. Emotionally vulnerable subjects and new inequalities: the educational implications of an ‘epistemology of the emotions’. International Studies in Sociology of Education 21 (2): 91–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecclestone, K. 2012. From emotional and psychological well-being to character education: Challenging policy discourses of behavioral science and ‘vulnerability’. Research Papers in Education 27 (4): 463–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecclestone, K., and K. Brunila. 2015. Governing emotionally vulnerable subjects and ‘therapization’ of social justice. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 23 (4): 485–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecclestone, K., and D. Goodley. 2016. Political and educational springboard or straitjacket? Theorizing post/human subjects in an age of vulnerability. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 37 (2): 175–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ecclestone, K., and D. Hayes. 2009. The dangerous rise of therapeutic education. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrarese, E. 2016. Vulnerability: A concept with which to undo the world as is? Critical Horizons 17 (2): 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, M. 2008. The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20 (1): 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, J. 2011. “The walking wounded”: Youth, public education, and the turn to precarious pedagogy. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 33 (5): 379–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilson, E. 2011. Vulnerability, ignorance, and oppression. Hypatia 26 (2): 308–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilson, E. 2014. The ethics of vulnerability: A feminist analysis of social life and practice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilson, E. 2016. Vulnerability and vitctimization: Rethinking key concepts in feminist discourses on sexual violence. Signs 42 (1): 71–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafiz, A. 2017. Precarity as resistance and cultural solidarity: A critical pedagogy for exploitative flexibilization. Prism: Casting New Light on Learning, Theory and Practice 1 (1): 97–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hekman, S. 2014. Vulnerability and ontology. Australian Feminist Studies 29 (82): 452–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Held, V. 1987. Non-contractual society. In Science, morality and feminist theory, ed. M. Hanen and K. Nielsen, 111–137. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honig, B. 2010. Antigone’s two laws: Greek tragedy and the politics of humanism. New Literary History 41 (1): 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honig, B. 2013. Antigone interrupted. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, J., and P. Kraftl. 2009. Small acts, kind words and “not too much fuss”: Implicit activisms. Emotion, Space and Society 2: 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kittay, E. 1999. Love’s labor: Essays on women, equality, and dependency. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, M.S. 2015. The ethics and politics of vulnerable bodies. In Butler and ethics, ed. M.S. Lloyd, 167–192. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, C., W. Rogers, and S. Dodds. 2014. Introduction: What is vulnerability and why does it matter for moral theory. In Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, ed. C. Mackenzie, W. Rogers, and S. Dodds, 1–29. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, J. 2014. The therapeutic turn: How psychology altered western culture. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCormack, D., and S. Salmenniemi. 2016. The biopolitics of precarity and the self. European Journal of Cultural Studies 19 (1): 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, K. 2011. Surviving identity: Vulnerability and the psychology of recognition. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel, N. 2016. Accounts of injury as misappropriations of race: Towards a critical black politics of vulnerability. Critical Horizons 17 (2): 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, K.M. 2017. Towards a critical politics of precarity. Sociology Compass 11 (6): 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puar, J. 2012. Precarity talk: A virtual roundtable with Lauren Berlant, Judith Butler, Bojana Cvejić, Isabell Lorey, Jasbir Puar, and Ana Vujanović. TDR: The Drama Review 56 (4): 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, J. 2010. The ethical turn in politics and aesthetics. In Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics, ed. S. Corcoran, 184–202. New York: Continuum Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, W., C. Mackenzie, and S. Dodds. 2012. Why bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 5 (2): 11–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruti, M. 2017. The ethics of precarity: Judith Butler’s reluctant universalism. In Remains of the social: Desiring the post-apartheid, ed. M. Donker, R. Truscott, G. Minkley, and P. Lalu, 92–116. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sabsay, L. 2016. Permeable bodies: Vulnerability, affective powers, hegemony. In Vulnerability in resistance, ed. J. Butler, Z. Gambetti, and L. Sabsay, 278–302. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Standing, G. 2011. The precariat: The new dangerous class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinning, K. 2018. Vulnerability as a key concept in museum pedagogy on difficult matters. Studies in Philosophy and Education 37: 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembylas, M. 2013. The ‘crisis of pity’ and the radicalization of solidarity: Towards critical pedagogies of compassion. Educational Studies: A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association 49: 504–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembylas, M. 2014. Theorizing ‘difficult knowledge’ in the aftermath of the ‘affective turn’: Implications for curriculum and pedagogy in handling traumatic representations. Curriculum Inquiry 44 (3): 390–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembylas, M. 2016a. Toward a critical-sentimental orientation in human rights education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 48 (11): 1151–1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembylas, M. 2016b. The therapization of social justice as an emotional regime: Towards a politics of vulnerability in critical education. Journal of Professional Capital and Community 1 (4): 286–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembylas, M. 2018a. Counter-conducts as affective practices in the classroom: The task of pedagogies of estrangement. Teaching Education 29 (1): 98–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembylas, M. 2018b. Political depression, cruel optimism and pedagogies of reparation: Questions of criticality and affect in human rights education. Critical Studies in Education 59 (1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembylas, M. 2018c. Affect, race, and white discomfort in schooling: Decolonial strategies for ‘pedagogies of discomfort’. Ethics and Education 13 (1): 86–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. 2004. A plea for ethical violence. The Bible and Critical Theory 1 (1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. 2008. Violence: Six sideways reflections. New York: Picador.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michalinos Zembylas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zembylas, M. The Ethics and Politics of Precarity: Risks and Productive Possibilities of a Critical Pedagogy for Precarity. Stud Philos Educ 38, 95–111 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-018-9625-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-018-9625-4

Keywords

Navigation