processing received knowledge but actually transforming it as part of a more expansive
struggle for individual rights and social justice” (Giroux, 2011, p. 72). Giroux's (2011)
salient comments and standpoint are echoed by a range of critical scholars (Freire, 2001;
Greene, 2000; hooks, 2010; Shapiro, 2010).
Thus far, we have seen the profound relationship between education,
subjectification, emancipation, equality, freedom, and democracy. As an educator, while
I feel the pressure to resist the idea that subjectification and emancipation (taken
together) can be a goal of education (for the reasons elaborated earlier), I do feel strongly
that it can and should be a legitimate hope of education. This hope is largely fueled by
the democratic possibilities that arise when authentic subjectification and emancipation
are realized in the life of a person. Arendt saw a relationship between education and the
renewal of the world that I find both encouraging and daunting. Arendt placed on
educators “the responsibility for both, for life and development of the child and for
continuance of the world” (Arendt, 1968, p. 182). From an Arendtian standpoint, Gordon
(2001) reminds that “education should be aimed at preparing the young to a life of action,
to a life of involvement in and transformation of the world” (p. 53).
Such ideas are encouraging for obvious reasons. But they are also daunting.
Daunting because it means we must educate in such a way that has world renewal in view
while being careful not to do the very thing that Ranciere (1991) warned against:
Creating stultified students trapped in being forever co-dependent on someone else’s
ostensibly superior knowledge and perpetually feeling “less than” because of it.
While I strongly believe that educational spaces can be places where
subjectification and emancipation can occur leading to democratic interruptions by