Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Becoming oneself pp 29–54Cite as

Educational Reciprocity and Developing Autonomy: The Social Dimension of Becoming Oneself

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

When we take a look at studies done on autonomy, in education and in training, we quickly realize that the idea is as ambiguous as it is hard to define. The ultimate in self-referentiality, in Gaston Pineau’s formula, the very etymology of autonomy refers to the ability to “define for oneself one’s own laws”. However, autonomy cannot be reduced to self-sufficiency; being autonomous does not simply mean getting by without others. In terms of education, Legendre actually defines it this way.

A short version of this paper was published in 2011 in Parier sur la réciprocité. Vivre la solidarité, Claire Héber-Suffrin (ed.). Lyon : Chronique Sociale. Translation: Kate Davis.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Legendre (1993, p. 120)

  2. 2.

    See Eneau (2005, 2008),Tremblay and Eneau (2006), Eneau and Develotte (2012).

  3. 3.

    Tremblay 2003.

  4. 4.

    Allen Tough, in Canada spoke as early as the 1960s about “self-planned learning”; the first American work, by Malcolm Knowles, on “self-directed learning” was published in 1975; for work in French, Gaston Pineau’s reference research relating “self-education and autobiography” dates to 1983.

  5. 5.

    See Chené (1983).

  6. 6.

    Tremblay (2003, p. 80).

  7. 7.

    See Candy (1991).

  8. 8.

    This is what biologist Francisco Varela described at nearly the same time but using other terms in his work Principles of Biological Autonomy, borrowing from a “complex” and “constructivist” epistemology to reveal the bases of autonomous systems.

  9. 9.

    This dimension, rarely examined in research is nonetheless present in some work on self-directed learning (and adult education in general) in Rosemary Caffarella’s work in the United States as well as René Barbier’s work in France.

  10. 10.

    Ricœur (1996, p. 202).

  11. 11.

    See for example: Alava et al. (2000), Héber-Suffrin et al. (2000), Mayen et al. (2002), Paul (2004), Boutinet et al. (2007).

  12. 12.

    See for example: Fournier (1995), Tarot (2003).

  13. 13.

    Lévi-Strauss (1968).

  14. 14.

    See Caillé (1996), Temple (1998, 2000).

  15. 15.

    Boltanski (1990).

  16. 16.

    ibid, Comte-Sponville (1995), Ricœur (2004).

  17. 17.

    “Men’s love for God or love between men, which is the result of the former” as for Boltanski, agápē comes from “Divine love, if God exists, and perhaps even more so if God does not exist”! says Comte-Sponville (1995, p. 357).

  18. 18.

    Du Roy (1970, pp. 31–42).

  19. 19.

    Cordonnier (1997).

  20. 20.

    Ricœur (1996).

  21. 21.

    ibid.

  22. 22.

    However, as Buber notes, institutions by nature are not just and it is important therefore that one not submit to and accept them as one’s fate: “the only thing that can be fatal for man is to believe in fate […] to stop believing in slavery is to become free” (Buber 2002) which explains the advantages of alliances between autonomous individuals to cooperate in the construction of just institutions (which some call justice and others refer to as citizenship).

  23. 23.

    See Ricœur (1996, 2004, 1998).

  24. 24.

    See Todorov (2003).

  25. 25.

    See Mauss (1968), Lévi-Strauss (1968), Caillé (1996), Temple (1997, 1998), Ricœur (2004).

  26. 26.

    And it is even less something that can be turned to profit, even if, as Douglas (2004) shows, a gift is never entirely “free”; while an exchange creates an asymmetrical situation the “duty of thankfulness” does not have to do with the “symmetry of trade” but with “the heterogeneity of two realities” as stated by Goux (1996).

  27. 27.

    Chabal (1996), Cordonnier (1997).

  28. 28.

    Chabal (1996, p. 135).

  29. 29.

    See Caillé (1996), Douglas (2004).

  30. 30.

    Cordonnier (1997) examines this case: two suspects are taken into custody where the inspector must get a confession out of them (e.g., for armed robbery) but he has no proof of that crime, only of a much more minor one (carrying an illegal weapon). The inspector uses a trick to get the suspects to confess. He meets separately with each one and explains that if neither person confesses, they can only be charged with carrying a weapon, which carries a minor sentence (2 years); if both suspects confess they will be convicted of the more serious crime but the jury will be lenient with them (5 years); finally, if one suspect confesses while the other remains silent, the former will quite simply be released and the latter will get the maximum (10 years). The inspector’s strategy is truly fiendish because what the Prisoner’s Dilemma regularly reveals is the partners’ incapacity to cooperate or to “take a gamble and trust one another” in order to both benefit. By accusing the other, both are surely lost.

  31. 31.

    See Chabal (1996).

  32. 32.

    See Caillé (1996), Godbout (1996, 2007), Cordonnier (1997), Temple (1997), Todorov (2003).

  33. 33.

    See Caillé (1996), Todorov (2003), De Singly (2003), Ricœur (2004), Honeth (2007).

  34. 34.

    See Cordonnier (1997), Temple (1997).

  35. 35.

    Temple (2000, pp. 35–50).

  36. 36.

    Cordonnier (1997, p. 117), refers to Tönnies’s work on this subject (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, 1887), distinguishing between society and community as respectively forming a link between individuals by contract (society) or by harmonious agreement (community), coincidentally (in society) or permanently (in community); in a community, individuals are thus “bound despite their separation” while in society they remain “separate despite their bonds”. In adult education, André Moisan is one of the few French authors to have examined this distinction, in his case looking at the difference between socius and societus (see Moisan 2000, 2002).

  37. 37.

    See Anspach (2002), Ricœur (2004).

  38. 38.

    Ricœur (2004).

  39. 39.

    Baudrillard (2002), Honeth (2007).

  40. 40.

    Caillé (1996, p. 50).

  41. 41.

    Baudrillard (2002, 81 f.).

  42. 42.

    Ricœur (2004, p. 354).

  43. 43.

    Cordonnier (1997, p. 15).

  44. 44.

    Caillé (1996, p. 47)

  45. 45.

    Todorov (2003, p. 20).

  46. 46.

    Todorov (2003, p. 30).

  47. 47.

    Todorov (2003, p. 192).

  48. 48.

    See Temple (1998, 2000).

  49. 49.

    See Eneau (2005).

References

  • Alava S et al (2000) Autoformation et lien social. Editions Universitaires du Sud, Toulouse

    Google Scholar 

  • Anspach M (2002) A charge de revanche. Figures élémentaires de la réciprocité. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudrillard J (2002) Power inferno. Galilée, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski L (1990) L’Amour et la Justice comme compétences. Trois essais de sociologie de l’action. Métailié, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutinet JP, Denoyel N, Pineau G, Robin JY et al (2007) Penser l’accompagnement adulte. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Buber M (2002) Je et Tu [I and thou] (1923). Aubier, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Caillé A (1996) Ni holisme ni individualisme méthodologique: Marcel Mauss et le paradigme du don. Revue MAUSS 105:12–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Candy P (1991) Self-direction for lifelong learning. A comprehensive guide to theory and practice. Jossey Bas, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Chabal M (1996) Quand la réciprocité semble non réciproque. Revue MAUSS 8:132–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordonnier L (1997) Coopération et réciprocité. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Chené A (1983) The concept of autonomy in adult education: a philosophical discussion. Adult Educ Quart 34(1):38–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comte-Sponville A (1995) Petit traité des grandes vertus. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • De Singly F (2003) Les uns avec les autres. Quand l’individualisme crée du lien. Armand Colin, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M (1990) No free gifts. Foreword to the gift. In: Mauss M (ed) The gift. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Roy O (1970) La réciprocité—Essai de morale fondamentale. EPI, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Eneau J (2005) La part d’autrui dans la formation de soi. L’Harmattan, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Eneau J (2008) Du développement de l’autonomie à la construction de soi. In: Labelle JM, Eneau J (eds) Apprentissages pluriels des adultes: Questions d’hier et d’aujourd’hui. L’Harmattan, Paris, pp 189–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Eneau J, Develotte C (2012) Working online together to enhance learner autonomy. ReCALL 24(1):3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier M (1995) Marcel Mauss. Grasset, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Godbout J (1996) Les bonnes raisons de donner. Revue MAUSS 8:167–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Godbout J (2007) Ce qui circule entre nous. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Goux JJ (1996) Don et altérité chez Sénèque. Revue MAUSS 8:114–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Héber-Suffrin C, Pineau G et al (2000) Réciprocité et réseaux en formation. Educ Perman 144:2000–2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Héber-Suffrin C (ed) (2011) Parier sur la réciprocité. Vivre la solidarité. Chronique Sociale, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  • Honeth A (2007) La lutte pour la reconnaissance [The struggle for recognition: the moral grammar of social conflicts] (1992). Cerf, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Labelle JM (1996) La réciprocité éducative. PUF, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Legendre R (1993) Dictionnaire actuel de l’éducation. Guérin et Eska, Montréal et Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Lévi-Strauss C (1968) Introduction à l’œuvre de Marcel Mauss. In: Mauss M (ed) Sociologie et anthropologie (1950). Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp IX–LII

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayen P et al (2002) Apprendre des autres. Educ Perman 151, 87–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Moisan A (2000) Autoformation et lien social: Sociogenèse réciproque par l’échange. In: Alava S (ed) Autoformation et lien social. Editions Universitaires du Sud, Toulouse, pp 21–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Moisan A (2002) L’autoformation au risque de l’incomplétude et de l’échange don/contre-don. In: Moisan A, Carré P (eds) L’autoformation, fait social? Aspects historiques et sociologiques. L’Harmattan, Paris, pp 215–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul M (2004) L’accompagnement, une posture professionnelle spécifique. L’Harmattan, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricœur P (1996) Soi-même comme un autre [Oneself as another] (1990). Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricœur P (1998) De la morale à l’éthique, La Revue Parlée. Centre Pompidou, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricœur P (2004) Parcours de la reconnaissance [Course of recognition]. Stock, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarot C (2003) Sociologie et anthropologie de Marcel Mauss. La Découverte, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple D (1998) Les structures élémentaires de la réciprocité. Revue MAUSS 12:234–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple D (2000) Les origines anthropologiques de la réciprocité. Educ Perman 144(3):35–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Todorov T (2003) La vie commune (1995). Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay NA (2003) L’autoformation. Pour apprendre autrement. Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Montréal

    Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay NA, Eneau J (2006) Sujet, société et autoformation. Regards croisés du Québec et de France. Educ Perman 68(3):5–88

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Sciences de l’Education, UFR Sciences Humaines, Place du Recteur Le Moal, Rennes Université Haute Bretagne, 35000, Rennes, France

    Prof. Dr. Jérôme Eneau

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Jérôme Eneau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jérôme Eneau .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Am Planetarium 4, Jena, 07743, Germany

    Käthe Schneider

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eneau, J. (2012). Educational Reciprocity and Developing Autonomy: The Social Dimension of Becoming Oneself. In: Schneider, K. (eds) Becoming oneself. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19156-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19156-0_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-18635-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-531-19156-0

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation