**7. What pedagogical paradigms support ethical pluralism in the school and education as communication?**

The question is a fundamental one. Of the four pedagogical paradigms that I have defined on the basis of our understanding of the medium of education [1], namely Herbartianism, humanistic (geistwissenschaftliche) pedagogy, socially critical pedagogy and reform pedagogy, only two are still relevant today. Herbartianism declined after the First World War, while humanistic pedagogy did so after the Second World War. The only contrast that remains today is between socially critical pedagogy and reform pedagogy (*Reformpädagogik*), where the latter means, from the point of view of educational goals, a cross between education (*Bildung*) as internalisation and education as communication. In the socially critical paradigm, education (*Bildung*) is formative and part of (deliberate) socialisation. Socialisation is understood as the "process of the transfer of the (symbolic) structure of society and the (necessarily and spontaneously) reciprocal process of internalisation of symbolic structures at the level of the individual" [26]. Social structure is created by real social conditions, which primarily forms the consciousness of the individual in accordance with universal value patterns. Education is necessary part of these relations and is always an expression of common or prevailing relations in society. The assumption is that society is dominated by a "recognisable" symbolic structure, a kind of uniform teleology that enables identification. Consciously or not, it must be recognisable, since it is impossible to identify with the symbolically unrecognisable or it is possible to internalise it.

model, in order to complete the conversation about how the child has done something wrong and how they have affected someone else, with forgiveness and a promise: "The possible redemption from the predicament of irreversibility – of being unable to undo what one has done though one did not, and could not, have known what one was doing – is the faculty of forgiving. The remedy for unpredictability, for the chaotic uncertainty of the future, is con-

The moral system must remain open in education in order to establish, consequently, awareness of responsibilities and duties. None of the moral levels in public reflection should be imposed on the student, and each should choose their own final decision. This is not a question of application of any of the theories of self-regulation. Rather, it is about forming consciousness, which is based on the simple fact that a moral decision in favour of a specific action *can only be the free choice of the individual*. Only in this way, it is possible to establish awareness of *responsibility* and from it develop awareness of *moral obligation*. Awareness of moral obligation cannot arise simply and directly through the transfer of the right of another, *nor can it be imparted without establishing awareness of responsibility for one's own actions in concrete situations*. Differentiated moral communication demands from the teacher a willingness to confront the objections of his or her students. Teachers do not establish their authority through an instant pedagogical measure, but authority can be established through wisdom and understanding their students' feelings during communication. Even a teacher's admission that they are wrong does not in fact lessen their authority, it confers it. The old image of the authority of the teacher and the school has passed, never to return. The problem that remains is whether teachers are trained to act in unforeseen situations. Education is not in fact a causal process

**7. What pedagogical paradigms support ethical pluralism in the** 

The question is a fundamental one. Of the four pedagogical paradigms that I have defined on the basis of our understanding of the medium of education [1], namely Herbartianism, humanistic (geistwissenschaftliche) pedagogy, socially critical pedagogy and reform pedagogy, only two are still relevant today. Herbartianism declined after the First World War, while humanistic pedagogy did so after the Second World War. The only contrast that remains today is between socially critical pedagogy and reform pedagogy (*Reformpädagogik*), where the latter means, from the point of view of educational goals, a cross between education (*Bildung*) as internalisation and education as communication. In the socially critical paradigm, education (*Bildung*) is formative and part of (deliberate) socialisation. Socialisation is understood as the "process of the transfer of the (symbolic) structure of society and the (necessarily and spontaneously) reciprocal process of internalisation of symbolic structures at the level of the individual" [26]. Social structure is created by real social conditions, which primarily forms the consciousness of the individual in accordance with universal value patterns. Education is necessary part of these relations and is always an expression of common or prevailing relations in society. The assumption

tained in the faculty to make and keep promises" [9].

90 New Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century - Contributions of Research in Education

**school and education as communication?**

but a contingent one.

The medium of reform pedagogy is the child, the human being and the individual. In the last decades of the last century, the idea of the child as the medium of education developed within sociology, as part of systems theory [27], which gives it an entirely new meaning. According to Luhmann's systems theory, society is composed of various *functional systems* (economy, politics, culture, education, healthcare, social services, justice, etc.) which, as they have evolved, have become independent of each other, with the result that in modern societies each of them functions as an independent system, according to its own preferences, rules and criteria. That which is right in one system as a main legitimate aim (e.g. financial efficiency in the economy) cannot be transferred as a main value to another system (e.g. financial efficiency in healthcare) without the latter losing its functionality [28]. The functionality of systems thus makes it impossible for us to define the values of society as a whole in a uniform manner. For the purposes of building on our discussion up to this point, the most important thesis of systems theory is that all value systems are essentially particular, since they belong to functional social systems are not to society as a whole. This theory of Luhmann's is recognised as theoretically productive even by critics of his other radical ideas in the field of education. It is, in fact, doubtful that it would be possible to re-establish a situation in which the development of society were subordinated to some overarching ideology or uniform teleology [29]. This leads to an important conclusion for pedagogy, namely that it is not possible to understand education as "fixing" the individual to common social norms, and it cannot be planned as a means for global social changes [30].

The way in which Luhmann understands the relation between the social and psychological is also important for our purposes. The traditional view of socialisation derives from the theory that the social is transformed through internalisation into the psychological. The transformation of the social into the psychological is not possible in systems theory, because the social system (communication) and the psychological system (consciousness) are two different functional systems. There is no possibility of mediation between the two systems [27]. In the classic theory of socialisation, the transformation (transfer) of the social into the psychological takes place with the help of internalisation. Internalisation is not possible in systems theory. Traditional pedagogical reflection, which is limited to the French Enlightenment, German idealism and neo-humanism, is, in Luhmann's view, far below the level its own theoretical possibilities of analysing the problems of education and, above all, clarifying its belief in the causal relationship between the social and psychological or, to put it in pedagogical terms, between the intent of the educator and the effect in the structure of the consciousness of the learner. According to Luhmann, then, pedagogy has never been capable of developing serious doubt in the possibility of realising the educator's purpose. This is also reflected in the fact that it has used various constructs (pädagogischer Bezug—the pedagogical relationship, the pedagogical eros, internalisation) to explain educational effects that it has been unable to explain or justify scientifically.

Luhmann also holds the radical view that the task of influencing the formation of the system of consciousness via the system of communication is an unattainable and unfeasible task for education, since this would technically mean changing the structure of consciousness itself. Consciousness is organised, in Luhmann's view, as an autopoietic system that constantly builds on some initial point. But it cannot build itself without its own operations such as the ability to learn, memory and the idea of the future. In order to explain external influences on the consciousness, Luhmann uses the concept of the structural coupling of communication and consciousness. Consciousness participates in communication, but in each individual sequence it is autopoietically organised [31]. Within the communication process, each individual responds to another in accordance with their own laws and with their own filters. We can thus only offer the child various alternatives for decision-making and, through communication, open up views of individual alternatives, without pushing any of them. Pedagogy should therefore replace the formula *Bildung* (the will to form) with the formula *ability to learn* [27]. We perceive the educator merely as a stimulator (or *Irritation*, to use Luhmann's term) that, by providing a choice of alternatives, nevertheless sets the frameworks for what can happen. It is therefore important that the alternatives should be plural. The final decision is the individual's decision whether to adapt to or resist the norms of reality.

forgiveness and a promise; in the case of older children, through communication according to the principles of "public reasonableness," Responsibility is loyalty to oneself, which obliges us not to unburden ourselves of it or reset it at every moment. Responsibility is, in the end,

Education (*Bildung*) for Values

93

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72450

We know from history that the education system has tended to cultivate obedience, stability and a number of other negative characteristics, if measured from the point of view of human autonomy and dignity. While it is impossible to deny the achievements that demonstrate how successful schools can be in overcoming many weaknesses in the life of society and the individual (issues such as xenophobia, discrimination against difference, dietary habits, vices, safe sex and so on), changing the views and even the political engagement of the environment is an entirely separate issue. We can agree with Amy Gutmann that it is necessary to "equip children with the intellectual skills that are essential for an evaluation of lifestyles that differ from the lifestyle of their parents" [32]. But to say this is merely to say "A." We also need to say "B"—in other words, what this means for educational practice. This is the professional challenge of this century. I believe that the first step in this direction is taken by understanding education as communication, which gives preference to the pedagogical paradigm that understands the child/individual as the medium of education, which does not, however, mean the "centre of education." Understanding education as communication further strengthens pedagogy's basic mission, that of a scientific discipline

[1] Medveš Z. Conflicting paradigms in the development of Slovene pedagogy. Sodobna

[2] Mollenhauer K. Erziehung und Emanzipation. Polemische Skizzen. Juventa Verlag:

[4] Kovač Šebart M. Spoprijem z diskriminacijo in izključevanjem v javni šoli: med pravi-

[5] Kroflič R. Strengthening the responsibility in the school community between the concepts

[3] Plato. Država (Politeia) Ljubljana: KUD Logos, Celjska Mohorjeva družba; 2009

cami in pripoznanjem. Sodobna pedagogika. 2017;**68**(2):10-33

of civic and moral education. Sodobna pedagogika. 2013;**64**(2):12-31

responsibility for the other in a community, not in an atomised society.

that occupies itself primarily with questions of wise educational behaviour.

Address all correspondence to: zdenko.medves@gmail.com

**Author details**

Zdenko Medveš

**References**

University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

pedagogika. 2015;**66**(3):10-40

München; 1970. p. 183

Education is always the communication of all participants, not only of the educator and educatee. This simultaneous action and effect of all participants (including those not present, thanks to the action of the memory) is the reason why it is not possible to control educational influences in communication. Not because of the multitude of influences, but because the child and everyone else involved in communication act as *self-referential* systems. This thesis of radical constructivism is the basis for Luhmann's idea of education as self-socialisation. He derives it from the nature of human decision-making, rather than by adopting the principle of "freedom of choice." It is simply the fact that, in the final consequence, the individual decides on their own pattern of behaviour, despite the social system and the individual being imbued with each other. The child is the medium of education, but only as a being capable of learning, able to connect its thoughts, feelings, memories, plans and ability to think about the future. On this basis, it can form higher levels of connection and build consciousness. This, however, is an internal process of consciousness that is not evident and cannot be overseen from outside. Revealing this internal process is not a matter for pedagogy but for the cognitive sciences [27].

#### **8. Conclusion**

There are no ideal solutions when it comes to the educational process. As the question of how to ensure adequate social contexts that guarantee the successful development of the individual in the community always remains open in the classic theory of socialisation, it is not always possible in a context of self-socialisation to ensure reasonable and successful agreements and decisions through differentiated moral communication. If the thorn in the side of the classic theory of socialisation is that it is socially deterministic, the banana peel of the theory of selfsocialisation is that it borders on subjectivism or even anarchy. Education as communication can only safeguard itself against anarchic education if it seriously implements the presumption of the responsibility of the individual for their own decisions and in this way builds awareness of the full responsibility of individuals for their decisions and choices, for better or for worse. How? In the case of a small child, through emotional communication that ends in forgiveness and a promise; in the case of older children, through communication according to the principles of "public reasonableness," Responsibility is loyalty to oneself, which obliges us not to unburden ourselves of it or reset it at every moment. Responsibility is, in the end, responsibility for the other in a community, not in an atomised society.

We know from history that the education system has tended to cultivate obedience, stability and a number of other negative characteristics, if measured from the point of view of human autonomy and dignity. While it is impossible to deny the achievements that demonstrate how successful schools can be in overcoming many weaknesses in the life of society and the individual (issues such as xenophobia, discrimination against difference, dietary habits, vices, safe sex and so on), changing the views and even the political engagement of the environment is an entirely separate issue. We can agree with Amy Gutmann that it is necessary to "equip children with the intellectual skills that are essential for an evaluation of lifestyles that differ from the lifestyle of their parents" [32]. But to say this is merely to say "A." We also need to say "B"—in other words, what this means for educational practice. This is the professional challenge of this century. I believe that the first step in this direction is taken by understanding education as communication, which gives preference to the pedagogical paradigm that understands the child/individual as the medium of education, which does not, however, mean the "centre of education." Understanding education as communication further strengthens pedagogy's basic mission, that of a scientific discipline that occupies itself primarily with questions of wise educational behaviour.
