emancipation. Instead of bringing the student from the valley of inequality to the
mountain top of equality, where the master teacher resides, explication does the opposite;
it simply re-inscribes the mutually exclusive silos of inequality and equality. “Before
being the act of the pedagogue, explication is the myth of pedagogy, the parable of the
world divided into knowing minds and ignorant ones, ripe minds and immature ones, the
capable and the incapable, the intelligent and the stupid” (Ranciere, 1991, p. 6).
As Bingham and Biesta (2010) remind us, “This is the lesson one draws from
Ranciere’s account of the schools explanatory function: There cannot be a method of
education that does not partake in the explanatory order of sociality” (p. 114). And here
is the rub. Since educational models and approaches (regardless of whether they are
tethered to conservative, progressive, or critical pedagogical paradigms) are replete with
explication as a means of instruction, subjectification and emancipation can never be a
goal of education. But it can (and must be) a primary hope of education. As we have
said, there is no method of explication that can produce subjectification and
emancipation, nevertheless, the teacher can be intentional in how she exercises her
legitimate authority (in the context of equal intelligence) in the classroom with a view
and a hope that subjectification and emancipation might arise. “The educator is still
there, but not as an explicator, not as a superior intelligence, but as a will, as someone
who demands the effort from the student and verifies that an effort has been made”
(Bingham & Biesta, 2010, p. 138). The teacher is to interrogate and verify. He is to do
this by demanding speech from his students. “The emancipatory schoolmaster demands
speech, that is to say, the manifestation of an intelligence that wasn’t aware of itself or
had given up” (Bingham & Biesta, 2010, p. 142). Ultimately, the primary role of
Previous Page Next Page