Advertisement

Mathematics Education as Praying Wheel: How Adults Avoid Mathematics by Pushing It onto Children

  • Sverker LundinEmail author
  • Ditte Storck Christensen
Chapter

Abstract

Why is mathematics education endorsed even by people who know little mathematics and almost never use it? We explore this question with reference to a theoretical framework inspired by anthropology and psychoanalysis. Our answer is that participation in mathematics education generates ambivalence towards mathematics, where it is at the same time loved and feared. The response to this ambivalence is to endorse mathematics per proxy, by sending children to school where they put up a “show” of mathematics-love. By means of a psychological mechanism involving what we will call the naïve observer this arrangement allows people to both seem to love mathematics and at the same time keep it at arm’s length.

Keywords

Mathematics Education Mathematical Knowledge Transitional Object Naive Observer Mathematics Position 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1997). Dialectic of enlightenment. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Matematikdelegationen. (2004). Att lyfta matematiken: Intresse, lärande, kompetens: Betänkande. Statens offentliga utredningar 2004:97. Stockholm: Fritzes offentliga publikationer.Google Scholar
  3. Berggren, H. (1995). Seklets ungdom: Retorik, politik och modernitet 1900-1939. Stockholm: Tiden.Google Scholar
  4. Boltanski, L. (2011). On critique: A sociology of emancipation. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Butler, J., Laclau, E., & Žižek, S. (2000). Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the left. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  7. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2004). Anti-oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  8. Dowling, P. (1998). The sociology of mathematics education: Mathematical myths/pedagogic texts. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  9. Dowling, P. (2010). Abandoning mathematics and hard labour in schools. A new sociology of knowledge and curriculum reform. In C. Bergsten, E. Jablonka, & T. Wedege (Eds.), Mathematics and mathematics education: Cultural and social dimensions: Proceedings of MADIF 7 (pp. 1–30). Linköping: Svensk förening för matematikdidaktisk forskning (SMDF).Google Scholar
  10. Fontaine, J. S. L. (1986). Initiation. Manchester: University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fries, M. (2013). Mathematical anxiety. A literature review regarding research 2008-2013. Malmö högskola, Lärande och samhälle.Google Scholar
  12. Gensing, P., & Reisin, A. (2013). Der Präventivstaat: Warum Gesundheits-, Kontroll- und Verbotswahn Freiheit und Demokratie gefährden. Köln, Germany: Lingen Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Graeber, D. (2015). The utopia of rules: On technology, stupidity, and the secret joys of bureaucracy. Brooklyn: Melville House.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, S. G. (1905). Adolscence, its psychology and its relations to psychology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion and education. London: D. Appleton and Co.Google Scholar
  15. von Hayek, F. A. (2007). The road to serfdom: Text and documents. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huizinga, J. (1998). Homo ludens: A study of play-element in culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Hultén, E. (2010). Mattebluffen. Aftonbladet. Retrieved January 31, 2010.Google Scholar
  18. Illich, I., & Cayley, D. (2005). The rivers north of the future: The testament of Ivan Illich. Toronto, ON; New York: House of Anansi Press; Distributed in the U.S. by Publishers Group West.Google Scholar
  19. Hög tid för matematik. (2001). Göteborg: Nationellt centrum för matematikutbildning, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, C. (2004). Inte så himla viktigt att kunna matematik. DN debatt. Retrieved October 31, 2004.Google Scholar
  21. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lave, J. (1992). Word problems: A microcosm of theories of learning. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 74–92). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Lundin, S. (2008). Skolans matematik: En kritisk analys av den svenska skolmatematikens förhistoria, uppkomst och utveckling. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
  24. Lundin, S. (2010). The missing piece. An interpretation of mathematics education using some ideas from Zizek. In C. Bergsten, E. Jablonka, & T. Wedege (Eds.), Mathematics and mathematics education: Cultural and social dimensions: Proceedings of MADIF 7 (pp. 168–178). Linköping: Svensk förening för matematikdidaktisk forskning (SMDF).Google Scholar
  25. Lundin, S. (2011). Hating school, loving mathematics. The ideological function of critique and reform in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1), 73–85.Google Scholar
  26. Meyer, J. (1977). Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pais, A. (2013). An ideology critique of the use-value of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palm, T. (2002). The realism of mathematical school tasks: Features and consequences. Umeå: Umeå University.Google Scholar
  29. Paulsen, R. (2014). Empty labor: Idleness and workplace resistance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peukert, D. J. K. (1989). Max Webers Diagnose der Moderne. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  31. Pfaller, R. (2014). On the pleasure principle in culture: Illusions without owners. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  32. Pfaller, R. (2011). Wofür es sich zu leben lohnt. Elemente materialistischer Philosophie. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Piaget, J. (1957). The myth of the sensory origin of scientific knowledge. Psychology and Epistemology: Towards a Theory of Knowledge, 45–62.Google Scholar
  34. Popper, K. (2013). The open society and its enemies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rappaport, R. A. (1999). Ritual and religion in the making of humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sloterdijk, P. (1987). Critique of cynical reason. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  38. Walkerdine, V. (1988). The mastery of reason: Cognitive development and the production of rationality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Weber, M. (1992). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Winnicott, D. W. (2005). Playing and reality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Žižek, S. (1999). The ticklish subject: The absent centre of political ontology. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  42. Žižek, S. (2008). The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Literature, History of Ideas and ReligionUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Education and Special EducationUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations