Studies in Philosophy and Education

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 5–17 | Cite as

Aesthetics of Surrender: Levinas and the Disruption of Agency in Moral Education

  • Ann Chinnery

Abstract

Education has long been charged with the taskof forming and shaping subjectivity andidentity. However, the prevailing view ofeducation as a project of producing rationalautonomous subjects has been challenged bypostmodern and poststructuralist critiques ofsubstantial subjectivity. In a similar vein,Emmanuel Levinas inverts the traditionalconception of subjectivity, claiming that weare constituted as subjects only in respondingto the other. In other words, subjectivity isderivative of an existentially priorresponsibility to and for the other. Hisconception of ethical responsibility is thusalso a radical departure from the prevailingview of what it means to be a responsible moralagent. In this paper, I use jazz improvisationas a metaphor to focus on three interrelatedaspects of ethical responsibility on Levinas'saccount: passivity, heteronomy, andinescapability. I then point toward some waysin which reframing responsibility andsubjectivity along this line might offer newpossibilities for conceiving subjectivity andmoral agency in education.

Emmanuel Levinas ethical agency heteronomy inescapability jazz improvisation moral agency passivity responsibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Barrett, F.J. (2000). Cultivating an aesthetic of unfolding: Jazz improvisation as a self-organizing system. In S. Linstead & H. Höpfl (Eds), The Aesthetics of organization (pp. 228–245). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, J. (1995). The act itself. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berliner, P. (1994). Thinking in jazz: The Infinite art of improvisation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blanchot, M. (1995). The writing of the disaster (A. Smock, trans). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buber, M. (1970). I and thou (W. Kaufmann, trans). New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  7. Critchley, S. (1999). The ethics of deconstruction: Derrida and Levinas. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, C. (1996). Levinas: An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Derrida, J. (2001). “A certain 'madness' must watch over thinking”: Refusing to build a philosophical system, derrida privileges experience and writes out of 'compulsion'. A Dialogue Around Traces and Deconstructions, (Jacques Derrida's interview with François Ewald), in G.J.J. Biesta & D. Egéa-Kuehne (Eds), Derrida & Education (pp. 55–76). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Kemp, P. (1996). Ricoeur between Heidegger and Levinas: Original affirmation between ontological contestation and ethical injunction. In R. Kearney (Ed), Paul Ricoeur: The hermeneutics of action (pp. 41–61). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity (A. Lingis, trans). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  12. Levinas, E. (1981). Otherwise than being or beyond essence (A. Lingis, trans). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  13. Levinas, E. (1985). Ethics and infinity (R. Cohen, trans). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Levinas, E. (1993). Outside the subject (M.B. Smith, trans). London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  15. Levinas, E. (1996a). Is ontology fundamental? In A.T. Peperzak, S. Critchley, & R. Bernasconi (Eds), Emmanuel Levinas: Basic philosophical writings (pp. 1–10). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Levinas, E. (1996b). Transcendence and height. In A.T. Peperzak, S. Critchley & R. Bernasconi (Eds), Emmanuel Levinas: Basic philosophical writings (pp. 11–31). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Levinas, E. & Kearney, R. (1986). Dialogue with Emmanuel Levinas. In R.A. Cohen (Ed), Face to face with Levinas (pp. 13–33). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  18. Miller, H. (1995). Reply to Bernard Waldenfels. In A.T. Peperzak (Ed), Ethics as first philosophy: The significance of Emmanuel Levinas for philosophy, literature and religion (pp. 53–58). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Noddings, N. (1992). The Challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Nussbaum, M.C. (1990). Love's knowledge: Essays on philosophy and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Peperzak, A. (1997). Beyond: The philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Usher, R. & Edwards, R. (1994). Postmodernism and education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Waldenfels, B. (1995). Response and responsibility in Levinas. In A.T. Peperzak (Ed), Ethics as first philosophy: The significance of Emmanuel Levinas for philosophy, literature and religion (pp. 39–52). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Chinnery
    • 1
  1. 1.VancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations