Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Exploring an Alternative Justification for the Importance of Curiosity in Education: Social Curiosity and Løgstrup’s Sovereign Expression of Life

Studies in Philosophy and Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There seems to be a broad agreement that curiosity is important in education. However, current research often seeks to answer the question of how best to nurture curiosity and fails to ask the normative question of why this should be done. A closer look reveals that the reasons for justifying the importance of curiosity vary, with some theorists pointing to its role in cognitive development as a starting point for learning, and others praising it as an element of democracy and a child’s right to participation. Most of these approaches understand curiosity as an individual urge or desire for knowledge. In contrast, this article will examine a relational understanding of the concept by focussing on social curiosity. Instead of following a cognitive developmentalist, intellectual virtue or emancipatory approach to valuing curiosity, I will employ relational ethical theory. The argument then explores a possible analogy between social curiosity and the concept of sovereign expressions of life, as developed by the Danish philosopher and theologian K.E. Løgstrup. By drawing on his relational ethics, the article aims to expand the theoretical grounds on which curiosity can be normatively legitimised in education. With children spending longer and longer hours in educational, structured and adult-led settings, I conclude with a twofold normative claim: Social curiosity should be a part of all relations in education and its absence should lead to an ethical demand. In addition, an awareness of the actual deeds through which social curiosity is realised is also a topic that must be addressed by educators.

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. Early childhood education has been described as more fruitful area for studying curiosity, as research has suggested that opportunities for curiosity appear to shrink throughout the school career (Engel 2011).

  2. In the Nordic languages the equivalent term is nysgjerighet/nyfikenhet/nysgjerrighet, which is linked to the German term Neugier, and literally translates as craving/greed for the new. In this construction the negative connotations of the past are readily more visible. For an overview of the different etymological developments of curiosity in European languages and its history, see Kenny (1998).

  3. An analysis of official political documents regarding the value connected to curiosity in preschool suggests that the social element in curiosity is not rendered visible when authorities legitimise the notion (Menning 2017).

  4. Thaumazein is normally translated as “wonder” (for a possible distinction between curiosity and wonder, see Menning 2017).

  5. For an overview see Mueller (1984).

  6. See, for example, Manson (2012).

  7. Miscevic (2016) even describes it as the basic epistemic virtue.

  8. In my review of his original work I was unable to locate any passages where Løgstrup himself connected curiosity (Danish: nysgerrighed) to s.e.l. or where he comments on it in general. He mentions curiosity only in his work on Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit (1927/2007), where he describes Heidegger’s understanding of curiosity, in which it is linked to Augustine’s lust of the eye and with the aim of seeing and not understanding (Løgstrup 2015).

  9. In an earlier English translation of his work, the term was named life-manifestation (Løgstrup 1995b). Although this seems, in my view, a valid interpretation, the translation expression of life is closer to the original Danish term.

  10. As I have chosen to use Løgstrup’s ethics as an ethical lens on social curiosity, this means that, to follow the argument, one has to accept Løgstrup’s fundamental ethical ontology as a starting point. Due to limited space, I will not elaborate on the critique on Løgstrup’s approach per se (such as his limited acknowledgement of his own situatedness in a paradigm of western humanist and essentialist Christian theological thought) when exploring universal ethics. Another critique is raised by Kantian moral philosophers who deny this form of spontaneous morality (Stokes 2016, p. 140).

  11. An observation e.eg. made during a study on curiosity among pre-schoolers (age 3–5) in Norway (Menning 2018).

  12. The reference is taken from Løgstrup’s book Beyond the Ethical Demand (2007) which is a translated collection of extracts from Løgstrup’s work following The Ethical Demand. It consists of six extracts from several books, such as Art and Ethics from 1961, Norm and Spontaneity from 1972 and System and Symbol from 1982 (Løgstrup 2007).

  13. My translation.

  14. Løgstrup’s description of these encircling expressions as encircling can be compared to the description of sin as incurvatus in se (a life turned inward) by Luther (who draws on Augustine) (Stern 2017).

  15. Where available, I have quoted from the English translations of Løgstrup’s books. In cases where a translation was not available, I have translated the quotes myself, marking these instances with a footnote indicating “my translation”.

  16. Obviously, there is the example of the eremite, who distances him- or herself from social relations and denies social curiosity. However, this example would also prove problematic for Løgstrup’s understanding of s.e.l. as the foundation for our coexistence in that our daily lives could not be lived without others.

  17. Løgstrup pointed out in his later work that he was unsure if ‘spontaneous’ was the best term to use. However, he carried on using it; though defining it further as pre-moral and unconditional in itself (Løgstrup 1993, p. 19).

  18. This still means that one can consciously decide whether to follow up or ignore one’s social curiosity.

  19. My translation.

  20. Obviously, you might claim that you are “just a little bit” curious. However, this is usually a sign that you are quite curious, as you are making the effort to ask about something, while probably hoping to hide how interested you really are.

  21. My translation.

  22. My translation.

  23. Again, this presupposes a distinction between social curiosity and individualistic voyeurism.

  24. Stated by practitioners in a prior research project (Menning 2016).

  25. I follow the translation of Beyond the Ethical Demand (2007) using the term “picture” for the Danish “bildet”, although “image” might also be a suitable translation.

  26. My translation.

  27. Mercy is described as another category.

  28. When based on Løgstrup’s fundamental relational ontology.

  29. Though in his later work he argues that there is an ethical responsibility towards nature; Løgstrup primarily focusses on interhuman relationships and interdependence in his work.

  30. Hintze et al. (2015) go as far as arguing that proximity ethics legitimise certain aspects of process education, such as the emotional investment of educators and the educators’ ethical responsibility towards facilitating success among students.

  31. My translation.

  32. My translation.

  33. My translation.

  34. My translation.

  35. As it might be in the case of voyeurism pointed out earlier.

  36. Manson (2012) connects curiosity to epistemic virtues, “traits and disposition[s] relevant to acquiring knowledge” (1). In addition, he argues that trust is a part of restraining curiosity and focusses on respecting privacy.

  37. An analogy with Løgstrup’s s.e.l. is but one way to challenge an individualistic conceptualisation of curiosity. Alternative arguments could be built around a relational ontology, which also includes non-human entities.

References

  • Baehr, Jason. 2011. The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baehr, Jason. 2013. Educating for Intellectual Virtues: From Theory to Practice. Journal of Philosophy of Education 47(2): 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgarten, Elias. 2001. Curiosity as a Moral Virtue. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 15(2): 169–184. https://doi.org/10.5840/ijap200115215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedict, Barbara M. 2001. Curiosity: A Cultural History of Early Modern Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D.E. 1960. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenberg, Hans. 1988. Der Prozess Der Theoretischen Neugierde. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugge, David. 2014a. Talens Åbenhed [Openess of Speach]. In Løgstrup & Skolen [Løgstrup and School], ed. David Bugge, 61–68. Aarhus: Klim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugge, David. 2014b. Tillid[Trust]. In Løgstrup & Skolen, ed. David Bugge, 69–75. Aarhus: Klim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chak, Amy. 2007. Teachers’ and Parents’ Conceptions of Children’s Curiosity and Exploration. International Journal of Early Years Education 15(2): 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chak, Amy. 2010. Adult Response to Children’s Exploratory Behaviours: An Exploratory Study. Early Child Development and Care 180(5): 633–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christoffersen, Svein Aage. 1999. Etikk, eksistens og modernitet: innføring i Løgstrups tenkning [Ethics, existence and modernity: en introduction to the thinking of Løgstrup]. Oslo: Tano Aschehoug. http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2008090300009.

  • “Curiosity | Definition of Curiosity in English by Oxford Dictionaries.” n.d. Oxford Dictionaries | English. Accessed February 7, 2018. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/curiosity.

  • Dewey, John. 1997. How We Think, Revised ed. Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, Susan. 2011. Children’s Need to Know: Curiosity in Schools. Harvard Educational Review 81(4): 625–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freire, Paulo. 1998. Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grøn, Arne. 2005. Livsytring, Person, Situation: Løgstrup Og Subjektiviteten [Expressions of Life, Person, Situation: Løgstrup and Subjektivity]. In Løgstrups Mange Ansigter [Løgstrups Many Faces], ed. David Bugge, Pia Rose Böwadt, and Peter Aaboe Sørensen, 27–42. Fredriksberg: Anis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, Nils Gunder. 1998. En afgrund af tillid: guide til Løgstrups univers [A abyss of trust: a guide to Løgstrups universe]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartung, Freda-Marie, and Britta Renner. 2013. Social Curiosity and Gossip: Related but Different Drives of Social Functioning. PLoS ONE 8(7): e69996. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin. 2007. Væren og tid [Time and Being]. Oslo: Pax filosofi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintze, Denna, Knut Are Romann-Aas, and Hanne Kristin Aas. 2015. Between You and Me: A Comparison of Proximity Ethics and Process Education. International Journal of Process Education 7(1): 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inan, Ilhan. 2012. The Philosophy of Curiosity. Vol. 34. Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy; New York: Routledge. http://www.tandfebooks.com/isbn/9780203128893.

  • Jirout, Jamie, and David Klahr. 2012. Children’s Scientific Curiosity. In Search of an Operational Definition of an Elusive Concept. Developmental Review 32(2): 125–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashdan, Todd B., Patrick E. McKnight, Frank D. Fincham, and Paul Rose. 2011. When Curiosity Breeds Intimacy: Taking Advantage of Intimacy Opportunities and Transforming Boring Conversations. Journal of Personality 79(6): 1369–1402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00697.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Heidi, and Hans-Georg Voss. 1983. Curiosity and Exploration: Theories and Results. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, Neil. 1998. Curiosity in Early Modern Europe: Word Histories. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, Neil. 2004. The Uses of Curiosity in Early Modern France and Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, Tyson E. 2012. Teaching with Pensive Images: Rethinking Curiosity in Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The Journal of Aesthetic Education 46(1): 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. 1994. The Psychology of Curiosity—A Review and Reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin 116(1): 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, George, and Amanda Markey. 2014. “Curiosity.” In International Handbook of Emotions in Education, edited by Reinhard Pekrun and Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia, 228–45. Educational Psychology Handbook Series. New York: Routledge.

  • Løgstrup, Knud Ejler. 1976. Emancipation og solidaritet [Emancipation and solidarity]. In Skete der noget?: en tidebog [Did something happen: A book of hours], ed. Erik Vagn Jensen, 78–91. Copenhagen: Gyldendals julebog.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løgstrup, Knud Ejler. 1982. System og symbol: Essays [System and symbol:essays]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løgstrup, Knud Ejler. 1987. Solidaritet og kærlighed og andre essays [Solidarity and love and other essays]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løgstrup, Knud Ejler. 1993. Norm og spontaneitet: etik og politik mellem teknokrati og dilettantokrati [Norm and spontaneity: ethics and politics between technocracy and dilettantocracy]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løgstrup, Knud Ejler. 1995a. Metafysik: 4 : Skabelse og tilintetgørelse : religionsfilosofiske betragtninger [Metaphysics: 4: Creation and Destruction: religious philosophical contemplations]. 2. udg. Vol. 4. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

  • Løgstrup, Knud Ejler. 1995b. Metaphysics. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løgstrup, Knud Ejler. 1996. Etiske begreber og problemer [Ethical concepts and problems]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løgstrup, Knud Ejler. 1997. The Ethical Demand. Translated by Theodor Jensen, David Puckering, and Eric Watkins. Notre Dame, IL: University of Notre Dame Press.

  • Løgstrup, Knud Ejler. 2007. Beyond the Ethical Demand. Translated by Susan Dew and Heidi Flegal. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press.

  • Løgstrup, Knud Ejler. 2015. Martin Heidegger. Klim.

  • Manson, Neil C. 2012. Epistemic Restraint and the Vice of Curiosity. Philosophy 87(2): 239–259. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819112000046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens, Ekkehard. 2003. Vom Staunen oder Die Rückkehr der Neugier. Leipzig: Reclam, Leipzig.

  • Menning, Soern Finn. 2016. Nysgjerrig på nysgjerrighet! Å sette fokus på nysgjerrighetsprosesser [Curious på curiosity! Processes of Curioisty in focus]. In Blikk fra barnehagen, ed. Tona Gulpinar, Leif Hernes, and Nina Winger, 163–174. Bergen: Fagbokforl.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menning, Soern Finn. 2017. Tracing Curiosity with a Value Perspective. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Pedagogikk Og Kritikk. https://doi.org/10.23865/ntpk.v3.531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menning, Soern Finn. 2018. Mapping the Dilemmatic Space of Early Childhood Education and Care Practitioners When Challenged by Children’s Curiosity. Journal of Early Childhood Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X18775769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miscevic, Nenad. 2016. Curiosity—The Basic Epistemic Virtue. In Moral and Intellectual Virtues in Western and Chinese Philosophy, ed. Chienkuo Mi, Michael Slote, and Ernest Sosa, 145–163. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, G. 1984. Neugier [Curiosity]. In Historisches Wörterbuch Der Philosphie, ed. J. Ritter and K. Gruender. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Christopher, and Martin Seligman. 2004. Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification, 1st ed. New York: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Richard. 2015. Curiosity: Care, Virtue and Pleasure in Uncovering the New. Theory, Culture & Society 32(3): 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414565718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Richard. 2016. Curious about Others: Relational and Empathetic Curiosity for Diverse Societies. New Formations 88(88): 123–142. https://doi.org/10.3898/NEWF.88.02.2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, Jean. 1953. The Origin of Intelligence in the Child: By Jean Piaget ; [Translated from the French by Margaret Cook]. International Library of Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Method. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

  • Silvia, Paul J. 2006. Exploring the Psychology of Interest, 1st ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Silvia, Paul J. 2012. Curiosity and Motivation. The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, February.. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloterdijk, Peter. 2013. You Must Change Your Life: On Anthropotechnics. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spektor-Levy, Ornit, Yael Kesner Baruch, and Zemira Mevarech. 2013. Science and Scientific Curiosity in Pre-School—The Teacher’s Point of View. International Journal of Science Education 35(13): 2226–2253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, Robert. 2017. Freedom from the Self: Luther and Løgstrup on Sin as ‘Incurvatus in Se.’ In. Århus. http://www.reformation500.uk/userfiles/files/Robert%20Stern%20Symposium%20%20St%20Margaret%27s.pdf.

  • Stokes, Patrick. 2016. The Problem of Spontaneous Goodness: From Kierkegaard to Løgstrup (via Zhuangzi and Eckhart). Continental Philosophy Review 49(2): 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-016-9377-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kooten Niekerk, K. 2007. Introduction. In Beyond the Ethical Demand, ix–xxxiv. University of Notre Dame Press.

  • Zuss, Mark. 2012. The Practice of Theoretical Curiosity. Vol. 20. Explorations of Educational Purpose, vol. 20. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Professor Elisabet Haakedal (University of Agder), Professor Paul Leer-Salvesen (University of Agder), Professor Karin Murris (University of Cape Town) and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soern Finn Menning.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Menning, S.F. Exploring an Alternative Justification for the Importance of Curiosity in Education: Social Curiosity and Løgstrup’s Sovereign Expression of Life. Stud Philos Educ 38, 241–260 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-018-9629-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-018-9629-0

Keywords

Navigation