Studies in Philosophy and Education

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 183–197 | Cite as

Speaking Habermas to Gramsci: Implications for the Vocational Preparation of Community Educators

Article

Abstract

Re-working the Gramscian idea of the ‘organic’ intellectual from the cultural-political sphere to Higher Education (HE), suggests the need to develop critical and questioning ‘counter hegemonic’ ideas and behaviour in community education students. Connecting this reworking to the Habermasian theory of communicative action, suggests that these students also need to learn how to be constructive in developing such knowledge. Working towards critical and constructive capacities is particularly relevant for students who learn through acting in practice settings where general principles and purposes acquired in the academy need to be interpreted in response to the unique demands of specific situations. From a Gramscian perspective, enabling students to develop the qualities of organic intellectuals means that lecturers have a duty to teach critical knowledges which the student will be unfamiliar with and unlikely to possess. If teaching is not to become simply didactic, however, there is also a need to acknowledge Habermas’s contention that all knowledge is contingent. This does not mean that knowledge is merely relative, subjective, or essentially interest serving, as some postmodernists would have it. In Habermasian terms, knowledge is developed through a rigorous process of contesting validity claims according to procedures appropriate to discipline areas. In these procedures, contestation occurs to the point where there is general agreement about the best current understanding, until such time as this is overtaken by ideas with a better claim. The danger is that over commitment to contestation in the classroom undermines subject knowledge and ultimately the authority of the educator. Speaking Habermas to Gramsci, and vice versa, helps socially and politically committed educators to construct a space in which didactic and discursive moments purposefully alternate.

References

  1. Bamber, J. (2007). Towards a discursive pedagogy in the professional training of community educators. Unpublished Thesis. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauman, Z. (1987). Legislators and interpreters. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Borg, C., Cardona, M., & Caruana, S. (2009). Letter to a teacher. Lorenzo Milani’s contribution to critical citizenship. Malta: Agenda.Google Scholar
  5. Brookfield, S. D. (2005). The power of critical theory for adult learning and teaching. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. CeVe. (1995). Community education validation and endorsement—guidelines for training agencies. Edinburgh: Communities Scotland, Learning Connections.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, M. (1991). Adult education as vocation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Davidson, A. (1974). Gramsci and Lenin 1917–1922. In R. Miliband & J. Saville (Eds.) The Socialist Register (pp. 125–150). London: Merlin Press.Google Scholar
  9. Englund, T. (2006). Deliberative communication: A pragmatist proposal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Entwistle, H. (1979). Antonio Gramsci: Conservative schooling for radical politics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  11. Eriksen, E. O., & Weigard, J. (2004). Understanding Habermas—communicative action and deliberative democracy. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  12. Giroux, H. A., Holly, D., & Hoare, Q. (1980). Review symposium—Antonio Gramsci: Conservative schooling for radical politics. British Journal of the Sociology of Education, 1(3), 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gramsci, A. (1971). Prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  14. Habermas, J. (1973). A postscript to knowledge and human interest. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 3(1), 157–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Habermas, J. (2003a). Moral consciousness and communicative action (C. Lenhardt & N. S. Weber, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, J. (2003b). On the pragmatics of communication (M. Cooke, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (2003c). On the pragmatics of social interaction (B. Fultner, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pusey, M. (1987). Jurgen Habermas. Sussex: Ellis Horwood Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scottish Executive. (2004). Working and learning together to build stronger communities. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Tett, L. (2002). Community education lifelong learning and social inclusion. Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Tisdell, E. J. (2001). The politis of positionality-teaching for social change in higher education. In R. M. Cervero, A. L. Wilson & Associates (Eds.), Power in practice: Adult education and the struggle for knowledge and power in society (pp 145–163). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Welton, M. (1995). In defense of the lifeworld: A Habermasian approach to adult learning. In M. Welton (Ed.) In defense of the lifeworld. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of EdinburghEdinburghScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations