endeavor involving individuals and communities.” Such elements include overly
promoting competition, technological expertise, capitalism, and consumerism.
In seeking a way forward for education in the face of what is identified here as the
destructive character of neoliberal culture, we are once again brought back to a view of
education, and peace education in particular, that privileges the individual. This is so
because it is the individual that is seen as “the primary human gateway to the
achievement of peaceful existence in the world.” As Lieb makes clear in developing her
position throughout the course of the paper, the pedagogy she favors in promoting
education for peace is one that draws heavily on Socratic teaching where the emphasis is
on the development of the capacity of the individual for critical thinking. This approach,
of course, draws on a well-recognized and highly regarded tradition of educational
philosophizing in which the emphasis is upon education for knowledge and
understanding. It differs, however, in a variety of ways and perhaps in particular in that
its focus extends beyond the cognitive, or, intellectual domain. Reminiscent of Johann
Pestalozzi, Lieb draws attention to the importance additionally of the emotional and
physical as “necessary philosophical preparation for making meaning of peace” and
extending expressions of peace “in universally human contexts.”
While Lieb’s paper in part draws attention to education in the tradition that
promotes knowledge and understanding as the primary aim or purpose of education, in
“Corporatization of Leadership Education- Why Subjectivity and Agency Matter” Sarah
Colonna examines the present lauding of leadership as a virtue. Colonna begins with
reflections on Barbara Kellerman’s important book, The End of Leadership, but augment
Kellerman’s argument to include the concepts of subjectivity and agency. While
Previous Page Next Page