Call for Papers for both events and publications.
CFP: Teaching Heidegger: Learning, Thinking, Being
Deadline: May 19, 2019
I am seeking chapter proposals for a proposed book with working title Teaching Heidegger: Learning, Thinking, Being, hopefully to be published by Rowman & Littlefield as part of the New Heidegger Research series, edited by Gregory Fried and Richard Polt. I am looking for chapters by philosophers, educators, and other thinkers/researchers who draw on Heidegger’s thought.
Submission: by email, approximately 1 page, with:
● Chapter Title
● Proposed Length/Word Count
● Summary (1-2 paragraphs)
● A short bio and email contact
Email your proposal to Dr. Matthew Kruger-Ross, Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Foundations & Policy Studies, College of Education and Social Work, West Chester University of Pennsylvania.
CFP: EPAT - Critical Philosophy of Technology
Deadline: May 31, 2019
Eds. Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley, Marek Tesar, & Liz Jackson
Critical Philosophy of Technology: Disruption, Convergence, Addiction
The notion of technological disruption was coined by Clayton M. Christensen in an article written with JosephThe notion of technological disruption was coined by Clayton M. Christensen in an article written with JosephBower in 1995. Christensen refined the concept and theory in a variety of books and papers over the next decadeand scholars and practitioners have systematically applied the concept to many fields including higher education.Technologies such as ‘AI-first’, personalisation and customisation, personal data value platforms, sustainability,Industry 4.0, Blockchain, CRISPR, commercial drones, the voice economy, and quantum computing have beendescribed as Disruptive Technology Trends For 2018-2019. There have been many reviews and criticisms andyet the concept has passed into common use. As many commentators have pointed out including Christensenhimself, the idea has a lineage that goes back to Schumpeter’s ‘creative destruction’ who adapted it from Marx.Disruption can have disastrous psycho-social consequences.
In another setting, the US National Science Foundation selected ‘convergent technology’ as one of ten ‘big ideas’In another setting, the US National Science Foundation selected ‘convergent technology’ as one of ten ‘big ideas’to describe the ‘Nano-bio-info-cogno’ paradigm that has developed over the last decade, starting in the early2000s. These are ‘convergent technologies’ are purported to drive the next stage of the knowledge society. Theyhave clear implications for education in the intermediate term with some disturbing convergences that harnessinfo, bio and nano-technologies in relation to cognitive science driven model of education.
We might say the nano-self has arrived and employ a Foucauldian riff on ‘bio-politics’ to argue that researchbiological knowledge and information science now treats the population as a living mass to be made cognitivelyefficient in the chain of the nano-bio-info-cogno paradigm, disrupting our bodily identities and diminishing ourcontrol over our subjectivities in the name of optimising national cognitive advantage. While computer-basedapplications clearly help with the development of some cognitive skills they also demonstrate negative impactson verbal and social skills and a curtailment of ‘deep thinking’, sometimes promoting anti-social behaviour andforms of technological addiction.
Does the ‘post-information’ ‘postdigital’ technology wave represent a new moral vision based on increasedDoes the ‘post-information’ ‘postdigital’ technology wave represent a new moral vision based on increasedhuman-machine connectivity or does it require the surrender of our autonomous subjectivities, the re-wiringof neurological pathways, and the numbing of the biological body?
We welcome different submissions for this Special Issue:We welcome different submissions for this Special Issue:
- Short commentaries 600 words
- Research notes 1000 words
- Full papers 6000 words
Please send all queries and expressions of interest (including a 300-word abstract) to
Editor-in-Chief Michael A. Peters
by 31st May, 2019.
Expression of Interest (300 words) by 31 May 2019.
Full Submission by 31 August 2019
CFP: Special Issue of Educational Philosophy and Theory
Deadline: May 1, 2019
ESD in the ”Capitalocene”: Caught up in an impasse between Critique and Transformation?
Special Issue Editors: Helena Pedersen, Beniamin Knutsson, Dawn Sanders, Sally Windsor (University of Gothenburg), Arjen Wals (University of Wageningen).
Has Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) reached an impasse? Offering an application of Baudrillard’s thoughts to educational research, Paul Moran and Alex Kendall wrote in 2009 that education researchers are engaged in an act of forgery; a manufacture of presuppositions about what education is. Moran and Kendall argue that our research approaches, produce nothing but illusions of education, not because our approaches and methodologies are somehow flawed, rather that these illusions are what education is. Education, they claim, does not exist beyond its simulation.
Perhaps more provocatively, this implies that all critique of educational practice, from the revolutionary critical theory of Marx and the Frankfurt School via Foucauldian power analyses, as well as more recent ”new materialist” and post-qualitative approaches and beyond –are also part of the simulation of education process. These movements constitute an “improvement agenda” of education, and over and over again, more interventions are produced and critiques are repeated to foster improvements, pursued as if they were possible (Moran & Kendall 2009, p. 329).
We would like to take this Baudrillardian analysis of education as a springboard for thinking around ESD and capitalism. ESD is paradoxically positioned right at the nexus of looming ecological crises (”the Anthropocene” [Crutzen & Stoermer 2000]; the ”Capitalocene” [Malm & Hornborg 2014]) while at the same time the ESD field has been severely criticised for its presumed normativity (Jickling 1994). Quite regardless of the validity of this critique, embedded in the core idea of ESD is, arguably, a grandiose ”improvement agenda” – not only of education, but of the planetary condition as such. There is an asssumption that if we can find the appropriate way of ”doing” ESD, a sustainable world is within reach.
However, if there is nothing that may be called education “that exists independently of the methodologies, comments, curricula designs, testing regimes, forms of discrimination”, as Moran and Kendall (2009, p. 333) put it, what place is there – if any – for ESD under current conditions of predatory capitalism, exploitation of natural “resources”, transgression of planetary boundaries, and the destructive fantasy of infinite growth? Does ESD generate nothing but reproduction, much like capitalism itself (e.g. Hellberg & Knutsson 2018)? Is ESD an affect-organizing “comfort-machine” in the classroom (Pedersen 2019), sustaining the present order of things? Perhaps Bruno Latour (2004) captures the point most aptly: ”Are we not like those mechanical toys that endlessly make the same gesture when everything else has changed around them?” (p. 225) Latour suggests, that the critic “is not the one who lifts the rugs from under the feet of the naïve believers, but the one who offers the participants arenas in which to gather” (p. 246). Such arenas, Giroux observes, need “an understanding of how the political becomes pedagogical, particularly in terms of how private issues are connected to larger social conditions and collective force” (Giroux 2004, p.62).
Stratford (2017) has recently called for education researchers to identify and respond to the challenging philosophical issues evoked by the current ecological crises. Our initiative is a response to Stratfords’s call; however, our starting point differs from how educational philosophy can “improve education in the Anthropocene” (p. 3) and is rather concerned with the “impossibility” of this claim.
We suggest that the idea of ESD as producing illusions of education rather than a sustainable world, does not necessarily lead to an impasse, but can, in Moran and Kendall’s (2009) words, be a very useful place to begin. We are looking for theory-, philosophy-, and empirically-driven papers that address the ”impossible” position of ESD in ”the Capitalocene” at an urgent juncture in history.
Contributions may address, for instance, the following areas of inquiry;
- Has ESD reached an impasse, and if so; how can it be understood?
- Are there ”functions” of ESD beyond the improvement agenda, and beyond the cycle of Critique and Transformation?
- Is ESD a form of simulation and, if so, what purposes might such simulation serve?
- How can ESD effectively interfere with capitalism, its forces and threats to life-supporting Earth systems?
- In what arenas of intervention and action can ESD assemble its participants?
- How can we reimagine education in extinction and post-extinction narratives?
Crutzen, P. & Stoermer, E. (2000). The Anthropocene. IGBP Newsletter 41, 17-18.
Giroux, H.A. (2004). Cultural Studies, Public Pedagogy, and the Responsibility of Intellectuals. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies (1)1, 59–79
Hellberg, S. & Knutsson, B. (2018). Sustaining the life-chance divide? Education for sustainable development and global biopolitical regime. Critical Studies in Education, 59(1), 93–107.
Jickling, B. (1994). Why I don't want my children to be educated for sustainable development: Sustainable belief. Trumpeter, 11(3), 114-116.
Latour, B. (2004). Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225-248.
Malm, A. & Hornborg, A. (2014). The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. The Anthropocene Review, 1(1), 62-69.
Moran, P. & Kendall, A. (2009). Baudrillard and the end of education. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(3), 327-335.
Pedersen, H. (2019). Schizoanalysis and Animal Science Education. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Stratford, R. (2017). Educational philosophy, ecology and the Anthropocene. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2017.1403803
Please send your abstract of 250-500 words, along with references and a brief bio, to
Final article manuscripts will be approx. 6000 words.
Abstract due: May 1, 2019
Notification of acceptance: May 20, 2019
Manuscript submission deadline: November 1, 2019
Call for Papers for Special Chinese Issue 2020
Deadline: Sep 30, 2019
Theme: Forgive, Forget, or Regret? The Dao of education in times of catastrophe
We are living in times of catastrophes, natural or man-made, such as hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, tsunamis, global warming, extreme weather, wildfire, terrorism, industrial accidents, chemical and nuclear accidents, transportation accidents, war, and so on. Catastrophes, as sudden and unexpected events, are mostly unescapable. Any unexpected event can happen to anyone. Catastrophes cause great psychological or physiological sufferings and damage to survivors or witnesses. From the viewpoint of educators, the point is how to avoid or reduce the disaster, and how to overcome the consequent damage and suffering. This is the so-called catastrophe education, disaster education, or disaster prevention education. The practising of a fire drill, an air defence drill or an earthquake drill could be the most popular part of disaster education in schools. The real challenges are to survive the pains and sufferings caused by the catastrophe, to do justice to the victims, to take responsibility, and to forgive.
Where shall catastrophe education take place? Ground zero, museums, concentration camps, detention centres, prisons, or the historical sites? Where and how shall we learn about the contesting memory and the disturbing place?
How shall we teach about the memory? Or shall we forget?
Who should learn or teach catastrophe education?
How can we learn about a disaster with or without hardship? How do we live and learn from great loss?
How can we do justice to victims or survivors?
Can we learn to overcome the difficulties caused by the disasters from Eastern wisdom? What inspiration can we gain from Confucius’ saying, ‘Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness’ (以直報怨，以德報德。)? In contrast, as the traditional Daoists and Buddhists teach, in order to following the dao, we learn to cultivate ourselves to be ‘wúwŏ’ (無我nonself) and to do ‘wúwéi’ (無為nonaction). Does it imply that we accept whatever happens to us and do nothing, say, meaning no need to pursue the compensatory or restorative justice? What does ‘justice’ mean in catastrophe education?
This special issue invites submissions considering every aspect of catastrophe education. Any article of philosophical elaboration of the space and the place, the witness and the survivor, the perpetrator and the victim, the curriculum and the pedagogy concerning catastrophe education from any tradition, in particular Chinese and comparative philosophy, is welcomed.
Papers for peer review should be no more than 6000 words in length, including references. Submitted papers should not have been previously published nor currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. A guide for authors, sample issues, and other relevant information is available on the EPAT website.
Deadline for submission: 30 September 2019
All manuscripts should be made online at the Educational Philosophy and Theory ScholarOne Manuscripts site located at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/epat
Please mark as Special Issue under manuscript type and later in submission process when asked note that it is for the Chinese Special Issue 2020.
We recommend manuscripts to be 6, 000 words in length including references, but excluding the abstract.
General guidelines and details about manuscript preparation can be found on the website