Advertisement

Globalisation and Dis-location: Theoretical Framework

  • Andrew StablesEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Numanities - Arts and Humanities in Progress book series (NAHP, volume 10)

Abstract

The first chapter takes an overview of the argument, explaining its origins in terms of both theory and recent political events. The central ethical premise is explained: that of the Welcome Principle as a feature of a move towards a more place-based ethics, aesthetics, economics and politics. The problematic role of the nation state as a meso level structure between the macro level structures of global corporatism and the micro level structure of the local community is discussed. Four aspects of globalisation, partly intentional and partly not so, are defined: standardisation, impersonalism, a mechanistic approach to life, and universal ethics. Problems arising from these positions include narrow performativity, a sense that many people and communities have been ‘left behind’ and a democratic deficit, whereby local voices are increasingly ignored. The argument also considers the limiting effects of humanism and the need for ecological awareness and action. The theoretical influences on the argument are also explained, particularly its debt to semiotic pragmatism.

References

  1. Aristotle. 2011. The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Lesley Brown and David Ross. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  2. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2000. Liquid modernity. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Blake, William. 1977. The complete poems. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  5. Bonnett, Michael. 2004. Retrieving nature: Education for a post-humanist age. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Bos, Abraham. 2010. Aristotle on the differences between plants, animals and human beings and on the elements as instruments of the soul. The Review of Metaphysics 63 (4): 821–841.Google Scholar
  7. Castells, Manuel. 2000. The rise of the network society. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Comte, Auguste. 2012. Cours de philosophie positive, leçons 46–51. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  9. Deely, John. 2001. Four ages of understanding: The first postmodern survey of philosophy from ancient times to the turn of the twenty-first century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duquette, David. undated. Hegel: Social and political thought. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 26 Jan 2019 from www.iep.utm.edu/hegelsoc/.
  11. Feyerabend, Paul. 2010. Against method. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  12. Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  13. Giddens, Anthony. 2013. The third way: The renewal of social democracy. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, Daniel. 2015. Heraclitus. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 26 Jan 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus.
  15. Guyer, Paul. 1992a. Introduction: The starry heavens and the moral law. In The Cambridge companion to Kant, ed. P. Guyer. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guyer, Paul. 1992b. The Cambridge companion to Kant. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harari, Yuval Noah. 2016. Home Deus: A brief history of tomorrow. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  18. von Hayek, Friedrich. 2006. The constitution of liberty. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Heidegger, Martin. 1977. Question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  20. Herzog, Walter. 2010. Cave of forgotten dreams (documentary film).Google Scholar
  21. Hoopes, James. 1991. Peirce on signs: Writing on semiotic. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hume, David. 1745. A letter from a gentleman to his friend in Edinburgh. Accessed 14 March 2017 from www.davidhume.org/texts/lg.html.
  23. Kuhn, Thomas. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kulstad, Mark. 1997. Leibniz’s philosophy of mind. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 26 Jan 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/.
  25. Lipovetsky, Gilles, and Sebastien Charles. 2006. Hypermodern times. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  26. Locke, John. 1996. An essay concerning human understanding. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  27. Lyotard, Jean-François. 1986. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  28. McCracken, Scott. 1997. Cyborg fictions: The cultural logic of post-humanism. Socialist Register 33: 288–301.Google Scholar
  29. Menand, Louis. 2011. The metaphysical club: A story of ideas in America. New York: Flamingo.Google Scholar
  30. Milton, John. 2005. Paradise lost. Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
  31. Monbiot, George. 2016. How did we get into this mess? Politics, equality, nature. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  32. Olteanu, Alin. 2015. Philosophy of education in the semiotics of charles peirce: A cosmology of learning and loving. New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olteanu, Alin, and Andrew Stables. 2018. Learning and adaptation from a semiotic perspective. Sign Systems Studies 46 (4): 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Plato (2007). The republic, trans. Desmond Lee. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  35. Pollock, Linda. 1983. Forgotten children: Parent-child relationships from 1500 to 1900. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  36. Popper, Karl. 2002. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1997. ‘The social contract’ and other later political writings, ed. Victor Gourevich. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  38. Spinoza. 2016. The chief works of Benedict de Spinoza, ed. R. H. M. Elwes, vols. 1, 2. (unplaced): CreateSpace.Google Scholar
  39. Stables, Andrew. 1998. Proximity and Distance: Moral education and mass communication. Journal of Philosophy of Education 32/3, 399–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stables, Andrew. 2006. Living and learning as semiotic engagement: A new theory of education. New York: Mellen.Google Scholar
  41. Stables, Andrew. 2011. Childhood and the philosophy of education: An anti-Aristotelian perspective. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  42. Stables, Andrew. 2012. Be(com)ing human: Semiosis and the myth of reason. Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stables, Andrew. 2016. Maximal preference utilitarianism as an educational aspiration. Ethics and Education 11 (3): 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stables, Andrew. 2017. Schooling vis-à-vis Learning: the case for reducing compulsion. In Schools in transition. Linking past, present, and future in educational practice, eds. Pauli Siljander, Kimmo Kontio and Eetu Pikkarainen, 241–254. Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stables, Andrew, Winfried Nöth, Alin Olteanu, Sebastien Pesce, and Eetu Pikkarainen. 2018. Semiotic theory of learning: New perspectives in philosophy of education. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sterling, Stephen. 2001. Sustainable education—Towards a deep learning response to unsustainability. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review. Accessed 30 Oct 2018 from https://www.developmenteducationreview.com/issue/issue-6/sustainable-education-towards-deep-learning-response-unsustainability.
  47. Thoreau, Henry David. 1966. Walden. New York: Peter Pauper.Google Scholar
  48. Velez, Abraham. undated. Buddha. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Accessed 26 Jan 2019 from www.iep.utm.edu/buddha/.
  49. Whitehead, Alfred North. 1979. Process and reality. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. Wordsworth, William. 1973. Wordsworth: Poetical works, ed. Thomas Hutchinson, revised Ernest de Selancourt. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.(emeritus), University of RoehamptonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations