Deborah Osberg

Complexity theory has become a major influence in discussions about the theory and practice of education. This book focuses on a question which so far has received relatively little attention in such discussions, which is the question of the politics of complexity. The chapters in this book engage with this question in a range of different ways. Whereas some contributions make a case for the promotion of complexity in education, others focus more explicitly on questions concerning the reduction of complexity in and through education. The chapters do so using theoretical, historical and empirical arguments, paying attention to a range of different educational settings (including early childhood education, school education, post-compulsory education, lifelong learning and work-based education), and focusing on different aspects of these practices (such as curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, architecture, and management). Taken together the chapters not only reveal the potential of complexity for engaging with questions about the politics of education in new and different ways. They also provide examples of a more reflexive engagement with the politics of complexity in education itself. The book will be of interest to scholars in the fields of education studies, curriculum studies, curriculum theory, educational theory, educational policy, and philosophy of education. It should also be of interest to practitioners in more specialised fields such as early childhood education, school education, post-compulsory education, work-based education and lifelong learning.

In modern, Western societies the purpose of schooling is to ensure that school-goers acquire knowledge of pre-existing practices, events, entities and so on. The knowledge that is learned is then tested to see if the learner has acquired a correct or adequate understanding of it. For this reason, it can be argued that schooling is organised around a representational epistemology: one which holds that knowledge is an accurate representation of something that is separate from knowledge itself. Since the object of knowledge is assumed to exist separately from the knowledge itself, this epistemology can also be considered ‘spatial.’ In this paper we show how ideas from complexity have challenged the spatial epistemology’ of representation and we explore possibilities for an alternative ‘temporal’ understanding of knowledge in its relationship to reality. In addition to complexity, our alternative takes its inspiration from Deweyan ‘transactional realism’ and deconstruction. We suggest that ‘knowledge’ and ‘reality’ should not be understood as separate systems which somehow have to be brought into alignment with each other, but that they are part of the same emerging complex system which is never fully ‘present’ in any (discrete) moment in time. This not only introduces the notion of time into our understanding of the relationship between knowledge and reality, but also points to the importance of acknowledging the role of the ‘unrepresentable’ or ‘incalculable’. With this understanding knowledge reaches us not as something we receive but as a response, which brings forth new worlds because it necessarily adds something (which was not present anywhere before it appeared) to what came before. This understanding of knowledge suggests that the acquisition of curricular content should not be considered an end in itself. Rather, curricular content should be used to bring forth that which is incalculable from the perspective of the present. The epistemology of emergence therefore calls for a switch in focus for curricular thinking, away from questions about presentation and representation and towards questions about engagement and response.

This chapter uses the concept of anticipation to reposition a philosophical tension regarding the way in which educational responsibility is usually understood. The tension puts educational practice in conflict with itself, to the extent that many of its practices are self-undermining and incoherent. In addressing this philosophical tension, I first explain its basis. Following this, I argue that the tension is produced by an extrapolatory form of anticipation and futurity that is so dominant in contemporary Western society as to be considered “unavoidable” and “natural.” Finally, I present a symbiotic conception of anticipation and futurity that can reveal the uniqueness and coherence of education’s allegedly “conflicted” responsibilities and which produces an understanding of education as an event that has value “in itself.” That is, education does not serve some other higher purpose but has its own intrinsic value. My primary argument is that this synthesis points to the crucial importance of philosophical work that presents education in a mode outside of taken for granted, extrapolatory forms of anticipatory logic.

The conundrum of the inclusive educational curriculum is that the more inclusive a curriculum becomes in practice, the less inclusive it becomes in principle. In this paper we explain the conundrum and argue that its appearance is a product of what could be called ‘object-based’ logic which is underpinned by a deterministic understanding of causality. As long as we employ object-based logic to think about the curriculum, we cannot avoid asking what a curriculum is for. Whoever answers this question necessarily excludes other possibilities. We argue that a relational or ‘complex’ understanding of causality, which is shared by complexity theories, poststructural theories, deconstruction and Deweyan pragmatism, offers a way out of the conundrum by offering a different understanding of process and hence the guiding role of the curriculum in the educational process. In allowing the possibility of a guiding role for the curriculum, while dispensing with the need for a curricular ‘end’, complex logic can inform an understanding of curriculum which succeeds where humanistic education in its various forms has failed.