NERA 40 th Conference København 2012 Straume: The Pedagogical Subject and its World (first draft) 1 Ingerid S. Straume University of Oslo The Pedagogical Subject and its World Contemporary reductionism(s) Contemporary educational research has a rather limited range of concepts at its disposal to designate the subject and its inner and outer world. Terms in frequeŶt use aƌe the iŶdiǀidual, the studeŶt, the ageŶt and especially the leaƌŶeƌ. In the discourse of learning, learners are potential vessels of agency and autonomy (learner autonomy). Their cognitive and affective processes are described in mainly psychological and/or systemic terms, and the learning context is conceptualized so that its elements can, at least in principle, be accounted for ;Đf. Weďeƌs EŶtzauďeƌuŶg deƌ WeltͿ. This is of Đouƌse aŶ oǀeƌ -simplification, but the tendency seems clear (cf. the works of G. Biesta, J. Masschelein and P. Simons and others). In contrast, the philosophy of education should be able to offer a richer repertoire for describing the suďjeĐts ŵaŶLJ diŵeŶsioŶs: its inner and outer life, however we choose to conceptualize it. But why would this be important? If nothing else, because such a conceptual repertoire allows teachers (and others) to recognize their own motives and reasons for being teachers as meaningful, and to describe their own activities in a way that is worthy of such recognition (or better: Anerkennung). Adequate terminology/language is also necessary in order to reflect upon and further develop oŶes pƌaĐtiĐes. IŶ faĐt, I ǁould aƌgue that the impoverished language for representing educational activities is a major problem for the educational sector in contemporary Western societies. The traditions with the most developed concepts of subjectivity are probably psychoanalysis and phenomenology, even though some of its representatives have downplayed the socio- political aspects of the suďjeĐts world (notably the phenomenological tradition from Husserl, which has been accused of being egological). As far as psychoanalysis is concerned, the social dimension has been more or less present as the suďjeĐts foƌŵative resources. Afteƌ Fƌeuds iŶitial atteŵpt to fouŶd psLJĐhoaŶalLJsis as a Ŷatuƌal sĐieŶĐe ǁas aďaŶdoŶed – for good reasons, no doubt – his followers have resisted an excessive focus on inner drives and processes (which Freud saw as internal economy) and turned their interest toward intersubjective relations. Many psychoanalysts – and social theorists with an interest in psychoanalysis – have also taken an interest in cultural and political studies, notably the studies of fascism in the twentieth century and the enduring tradition of socialist psychoanalysts in Latin America. In this respect, psychoanalysis stands out from mainstream psychology, which generally takes little interest in the social institution.