Abstract
Teachers are often placed in a space of tensionbetween responding to students as persons andresponding to students through theirinstitutionally-defined roles. Particularlywith respect to eros, which has becomeincreasingly the subject of strictinstitutional legislation and regulation,teachers have little recourse to a language ofresponsibility outside an institutional frame. By studying the significance of communicativeambiguity for responsibility, this paperexplores what is ethically at stake forteachers in erotic forms of communication. Specifically, it is Levinas's own ambiguousunderstanding of the ethical significance oferos, and what we have to learn from it, thatoffers a way of reading the place of eros inresponsibility. I conclude my discussion withsome thoughts on what a renewed understandingof responsibility might mean at the personaland institutional levels.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Alston, K. (1991). Teaching, philosophy, and eros: Love as a relation to truth. Educational Theory, 41, 385–395.
Chanter, T. (1995). Ethics of eros: Irigaray's rewriting of the philosophers. New York: Routledge.
Gallop, J. (1997). Feminist accused of sexual harassment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Gallop, J. (1999). Resisting reasonableness. Critical Inquiry, 25, 599–609.
Irigaray, L. (1991). Questions to Emmanuel Levinas. In R. Bernasconi & S. Critchley (Eds), Re-reading Levinas (pp. 109–118). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Johnson, R. (1997). The 'no touch' policy. In J. Tobin (Ed), Making a place for pleasure in early childhood education (pp. 101–118). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (A. Lingis, trans). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Levinas, E. (1987). Time and the other and additional essays (R.A. Cohen, trans). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Levinas, E. (1998a). Philosophy, justice, and love. In Entre nous: On thinking-of-the-other (M.B. Smith and B. Harshav, trans) (pp. 103–122). New York: Columbia University Press.
Levinas, E. (1998b). Otherwise than being or beyond essence (A. Lingis, trans). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
McWilliam, E. (1997). Beyond the missionary position: Teacher desire and radical pedagogy. In S. Todd (Ed), Learning desire: Perspectives on pedagogy, culture, and the unsaid (pp. 217–236). New York: Routledge.
Pellegrini, A. (1999). Pedagogy's turn: Observations on students, teachers, and transference-love. Critical Inquiry, 25, 617–625.
Phelan, A.M. (1997). Classroom management and the erasure of teacher desire. In J. Tobin (Ed), Making a place for pleasure in early childhood education (pp. 16–100). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Silin, J.G. (1995). Sex, death, and the education of children: Our passion for ignorance in the age of aids. New York: Teachers College Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Todd, S. A Fine Risk To Be Run? The Ambiguity of Eros and Teacher Responsibility. Studies in Philosophy and Education 22, 31–44 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021133410527
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021133410527