Education: Coordination of Action – Mutual Recognition

  • Halvor Hoveid
  • Marit Honerød Hoveid
Part of the Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education book series (COPT, volume 12)


This book follows and refers to the philosophy of Paul Ricoeur. The last chapter relates to the conclusion Ricoeur does in his work. In our reading of his texts, we recognise a line that we have used as our course in writing this book. Ricoeur’s last book is titled: The course of Recognition, and it provides a big help in sorting out different position when deliberating on education. First, we have recognised teaching as action. This is a structure recognising the teacher as an individual person who has a responsibility in teaching. This goes beyond structures that places teachers as representatives of a bureaucratic machinery. When education is framed as a bureaucracy, knowledge in education is reduced to remembering regulative rules.

Second, the responsibility of teaching relates to the reflexivity of teaching. This reflexivity is an expression of memory as a promise to remember. The challenge of teaching is to be able to promise and remember in the mutual relation of the act of memory. These acts of memory must be presented as a gift in the relation between generations. These mutual acts of recognition between generations are exactly what is at stake in education, and they are enacted in teaching.


  1. Arendt, H. (1989). The human condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, H. (1993). Between past and future. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  3. Hogan, P. (2010). The new significance of learning. Imagination’s heartwork. London/New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  4. Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Irigaray, L. (1996). I love to you. Sketch of a possible felicity within history (A. Martin, Trans.). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Irigaray, L. (2001). To be two (M. M. Rhodes & M. F. Cocito-Monoc, Trans.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Lien, M. E. (2001). Likhet og verdighet. Gavebytter og integrasjon i Båtsfjord. In M. E. Lien, H. Vike, & H. Lidén (Eds.), Likhetens paradokser: antropologiske undersøkelser i det moderene Norge. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  8. Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2013). In defense of school a public issue. Leuven, Belgium: E-ducation, Culture & Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Mauss, M. (2000). The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, inc.Google Scholar
  10. Ricoeur, P. (Ed.). (2000). The just. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ricoeur, P. (Ed.). (1994). Oneself as another. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ricoeur, P. (2005). The course of recognition. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Standish, P. (2001). Data return: The sense of the given in educational research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(3), 487–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Halvor Hoveid
    • 1
  • Marit Honerød Hoveid
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Teacher EducationNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of Education and Lifelong LearningNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations