Introduction: From Fromm to Lacan: Habermasand Education in Conversation

Mark Murphy • John Bamber

Published online: 31 January 2012� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Compared to other well-known continental theorists such as Pierre Bourdieu and Michel

Foucault, the work of Jurgen Habermas has received relatively little attention in education.

This may be because, as Young points out (2000, p. 531), Habermas has provided little

commentary on the topic of education, preferring instead to refer to the possibility of

broader social learning processes becoming institutionalized. As a result, his work was

always going to be at a disadvantage compared to someone like Bourdieu, who focused

specifically on educational processes and outcomes, something reflected in his enduring

popularity among theoretically-minded educational researchers.

Having said that, Habermas has proven appeal over the past 30 years among some

sectors of education, particularly in North America. Adult education in the United States

and Canada took strongly to both his theory of knowledge interests and subsequently

his theory of communicative action (see, for example, Brookfield 2005; Collins 1991;

Connelly 1996; Mezirow 1981). Educators in these countries saw in Habermas’ work a

framework from which to build a rationale for alternative forms of education, while also

providing a critical stance in response to the increasing marketisaton that was starting to

affect the sector in the 1980s. His influence in education has also been visible in his home

country of Germany, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, where debates over ‘kritische

padagogik’ took seriously his contribution to theories of democracy, civil society, com-

munication and human interests. Other corners of the education profession have also found

inspiration in his work, for example—in educational technology, educational assessment,

pedagogy, education policy and education theory (Biesta 1994; Ewert 1991; Terry 1997).

It’s a shame that his ideas haven’t appealed to a broader audience, as his work has

much to offer debates over learning and classroom interaction, the relationship between

M. Murphy (&)King’s Learning Institute, King’s College London, Waterloo Bridge Wing, Franklin-Wilkins Building,Waterloo Road, London SE1 9NN, UKe-mail: mark.murphy@kcl.ac.uk

J. BamberUniversity of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UKe-mail: john.bamber@ed.ac.uk

123

Stud Philos Educ (2012) 31:103–107DOI 10.1007/s11217-012-9286-7

education, civil society and the state, forms of democracy, reason and critical thinking, and

performativity, audit cultures and accountability. Sometimes (and ironically), his own use

of language has not done him any favours in this regard. For example, his most famous

phrase ‘ideal speech situation’ has provided something of a sitting duck for even measured

sceptics of the reason/language interface. He has gone on record for regretting the use of

this phrase, saying it was a ‘term whose concretistic connotations are misleading’ (Hab-

ermas 1993, p. 164). He is all too aware of the power of language to distort and dominate,

an awareness that often gets overlooked in the apparent desire to create a straw man out of

his justified concerns with democracy, reason and communication.

Nevertheless, while Habermas’ work can be lauded for its contribution to debates in

sociology, political science, philosophy, law and other areas such as media and commu-

nication studies, it is sometimes suggested that his ideas need more application to everyday

problems in order to fulfil their potential. According to Blaug (1997, p. 117), this lack of

connection to everyday practice, professional or otherwise, is due to the highly abstract

nature of Habermas’ work and, combined with his own theoretical limits, ‘restrict its

practical implications.’ He goes on to refer to Habermasian theory as like a ‘promissory

note: fully written, but as yet uncashed’ (Blaug 1997, p. 117).

One possible mechanism for ‘cashing in’ on the promise of Habermas’ critical theory is

to place his work in the context of other intellectual traditions. The resulting comparisons

and contrasts could potentially aid further understanding and integration of his ideas in the

educational arena. The purpose of this special edition is to provide such an intellectual

context, by situating Habermas in relation to other thinkers, and drawing out the impli-

cations for educational debate. While helping to illuminate the complex nature of his ideas,

the collection should also allow for more nuanced readings of both the benefits and

drawbacks in applying Habermas to educational questions. It should also help to reconnect

Habermas to the field of education, particularly since whatever interest there was in his

work has waned somewhat since the 1990s.

This forms a key part of the rationale for the current collection, but there are other

reasons why such an edition of Studies can make a contribution to educational philosophy

and theory. One reason relates to the connection between the philosophy of education and

philosophy in general. This current historical juncture may provide an opportune moment

to move away from the intellectual monism that has plagued much education research in

the aftermath of often heated exchanges over modernity and postmodernity. It is to some

extent understandable that, living in the shadow of often polarised debates over reason and

rationality, some educators have shown a peculiar devotion to one theory/theorist, at the

expense of a more detached and measured application of theory generally. Educational

theory and research is littered with efforts to transfer and apply one theory and one only

onto a specific educational context or problem, without much in the way of critical

reflection on this devotion. The jury is out on whether such loyalty and dedication shown to

one author brings more benefits than drawbacks to educational questions (Bourdieu being

the obvious candidate). But it should be the case that researchers receive praise for notbeing reluctant to cherrypick from a range of philosophers to support educational ideas and

practice. After all, this is precisely what Habermas et al. have done for decades in efforts to

build their own intellectual and methodological apparatus.

That said, oftentimes debates over modernity over the past two decades have detracted

from the substance of the various arguments being put forward, the sideshow often

becoming the main attraction. Habermas himself has established a sometimes controversial

track record of engaging in dialogue with contemporary (and not so contemporary)

intellectuals. The Philosophical discourse of modernity (Habermas 1987), a collection that

104 M. Murphy, J. Bamber

123

combines an emphasis on the ‘unfinished project of modernity’ with trenchant critiques of

what he terms neo-conservatives in philosophical discourse, is a famous example of

Habermas’ approach to taking intellectual prisoners (or not).

So there is plenty of evidence that intellectual debates can become polarised and

antagonistic. It’s disappointing then when this antagonism transfers over into the education

arena, as if education must reflect these same debates in a parallel fashion. It’s disap-

pointing because there is no logical reason why this should be the case. Even Habermas

himself has helped to build bridges across the modern/post-modern divide, most notably

with Derrida in the dialogues included in Philosophy in the time of terror (Borradori 2004).

This edition of Studies in Philosophy and Education can be viewed as a modest contri-

bution to overcoming such polarisation in educational dialogue.

Another reason why this special edition is relevant to current theory and practice relates

to Habermas and his unwavering commitment to democracy. It is fair to say that in the past

this commitment was viewed in some quarters with some suspicion, a supposed sign of

Habermas’ zealous attachment to outdated Western concepts. But his longstanding dedi-

cation to fleshing out and expanding democratic forms of public life chimes with recent

global international protests and revolutions aimed at renewing and/or instilling democracy

at the heart of nation states. Far from being passe, the ‘philosopher of democracy’ as

Bernstein called him (1991, p. 207) may find that his philosophical discourses have more

relevance today internationally than they had in the past. Further debates over the dem-

ocratic nature of educational governance and the role of citizenship education must surely

follow in the wake of this renewed interest in civil society and the public sphere.

It is in this spirit that the special edition delivers a set of essays that reflect a diversity of

intellectual positions and traditions. The edition contains papers on Dewey, Derrida,

Gramsci, Honneth, Fromm and Lacan. Some of these would be considered fellow trav-

ellers, others less so. Scott Johnston’s paper, for example, connects Habermas to the work

of Dewey and also John Rawls, more ‘obvious’ choices givens the parallel interests in

democracy and pragmatist philosophy. His paper Schools as ethical or schools as politi-cal? examines the relationship between Dewey, Rawls and Habermas and what this

relationship means for our understanding of the conflicted nature of modern schooling. In a

similar vein, Ted Fleming’s contribution Fromm and Habermas: allies for adult educationand democracy examines the parallels between Habermas and the ideas of Erich Fromm, a

theorist that links back to earlier generations of critical theory and also Habermas’ early

reliance on psychoanalytic theory.

Another paper that positions Habermas very much within the critical theory tradition is

that by Rauno Huttunen and Mark Murphy. Their paper Discourse and recognition asnormative grounds for radical pedagogy seeks to examine how the combination of Hab-

ermas and the work of Axel Honneth may contribute to a more effective intellectual

foundation from which radical pedagogy can flourish. Arguing that discourse ethics is a

necessary but insufficient grounding for radical pedagogical practice, Huttunen and

Murphy suggest that Honneth’s theory of recognition provides the necessary affective

component to balance the linguistic demands of interpersonal and political encounters.

The edition also includes articles on the links between Habermas and those not

considered fellow-travellers, for example, Jacques Derrida, whose disagreements with

Habermas have been the subject of much debate in philosophy, but without sparking

similar discussion in educational contexts. Marianna Papastephanou in her paper Crossingthe divide within continental philosophy: Reconstruction, deconstruction, dialogue andeducation, explores some points of convergence between Habermas and Derrida that

revolve around the intersection of ethical and epistemological issues in dialogue. Attention

Introduction: From Fromm to Lacan 105

123

to such a convergence she argues can enrich the teaching material of higher education

courses that usually focus on either Habermasian or Derridean texts but rarely both.

Another unlikely ‘conversation’ included in this edition is with the work of Jacques

Lacan, who like Fromm is associated with psychoanalysis, but with less obvious relevance

to modern day versions of critical theory. Paul Moran and Mark Murphy’s paper Haber-mas, pupil voice, rationalism, and their meeting with Lacan’s objet petit a, examines the

contribution that both thinkers can make to the ongoing discussion over ‘pupil voice’, a

contested concept that can only raise important questions about the nature of reason and

democratic participation in schools.

Last but not least, John Bamber and Jim Crowther’s paper Speaking Habermas toGramsci: Implications for the vocational preparation of community educators, explores the

relationship between Habermas and the author of The Prison Notebooks and one time

leader of the Italian Communist Party. Re-working the Gramscian idea of the ‘organic’

intellectual from the cultural-political sphere to higher education, Bamber and Crowther

suggest that there is a need to develop critical and questioning ‘counter hegemonic’ ideas

and behaviour in community education students. They connect this reworking to the theory

of communicative action, and conclude that students also need to learn how to be con-

structive in developing such knowledge.

We hope that the combination of these papers appeals not only to those who are curious

about Habermasian theory and its educational implications, but also educational

researchers immersed in alternative theoretical paradigms. For those who want to read

more on the topic of Habermas and education, we recommend Habermas, critical theoryand education (Murphy and Fleming 2010), and also a special edition of Journal ofCurriculum Studies in 2006, which explored the work of Habermas on deliberative

democracy and its implications for education. Other valuable sources include Morrow and

Torres (2002); Welton (1995) and Young (1991).

References

Bernstein, R. J. (1991). The new constellation: The ethical-political horizons of modernity/post-modernity.Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Biesta, G. J. J. (1994). Education as practical intersubjectivity. Towards a critical-pragmatic understandingof education. Educational Theory, 44(3), 299–317.

Blaug, R. (1997). Between fear and disappointment: Critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas.Political Studies, 45(1), 100–117.

Borradori, G. (2004). Philosophy in a time of terror: Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and JacquesDerrida. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brookfield, S. (2005). Learning democratic reason: The adult education project of Jurgen Habermas.Teachers College Record, 107(6), 1127–1168.

Collins, M. (1991). Adult education as vocation: A critical role for the adult educator. London: Routledge.Connelly, B. (1996). Interpretations of Jurgen Habermas in adult education writings. Studies in the Edu-

cation of Adults, 28(2), 241–252.Ewert, G. (1991). Habermas and education: A comprehensive overview of the influence of Habermas in

educational literature. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 345–378.Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures (F. Lawrence Trans.).

Cambridge: Polity Press.Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.Habermas, J. (2006). Habermas and education: 4 essays. In T. Englund (Ed.), Journal of Curriculum Studies,

38(5).Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education Quarterly, 32(1),

3–24.

106 M. Murphy, J. Bamber

123

Morrow, R., & Torres, C. A. (2002). Reading Freire and Habermas: Critical pedagogy and transformativesocial change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Murphy, M., & Fleming, T. (Eds.). (2010). Habermas, critical theory and education. New York: Routledge.Terry, P. R. (1997). Habermas and education: Knowledge, communication, discourse. Pedagogy, Culture

and Society, 5(3), 269–279.Welton, M. R. (Ed.). (1995). In defense of the lifeworld: Critical perspectives on adult learning. Albany:

State University of New York Press.Young, R. (1991). A critical theory of education: Habermas and our children’s future. New York: Teachers

College Press.Young, R. (2000). Habermas and education. In L. E. Hahn (Ed.), Perspectives on Habermas (pp. 531–552).

Chicago, IL: Open Court.

Introduction: From Fromm to Lacan 107

123