See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343396370

Philosophy of education in a new key: Education for justice now

Article  in  Educational Philosophy and Theory · August 2020

DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1793539

CITATIONS READS

20 657

10 authors, including:

Marianna Papastephanou Michalinos Zembylas

University of Cyprus Open University of Cyprus
143 PUBLICATIONS   1,005 CITATIONS    418 PUBLICATIONS   11,284 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Inga Bostad Kalli Drousioti

University of Oslo Independent Researcher
32 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Neoliberalism View project

Re-conceptualizing socially just pedagogies across diverse geopolitical settings in higher education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marek Tesar on 21 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Educational Philosophy and Theory

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rept20

Philosophy of education in a new key: Education

for justice now

Marianna Papastephanou , Michalinos Zembylas , Inga Bostad , Sevget

Benhur Oral , Kalli Drousioti , Anna Kouppanou , Torill Strand , Kenneth
Wain , Michael A. Peters ((Open Reviewer)) & Marek Tesar ((Open Reviewer))

To cite this article: Marianna Papastephanou , Michalinos Zembylas , Inga Bostad , Sevget
Benhur Oral , Kalli Drousioti , Anna Kouppanou , Torill Strand , Kenneth Wain , Michael
A. Peters ((Open Reviewer)) & Marek Tesar ((Open Reviewer)) (2020): Philosophy of
education in a new key: Education for justice now, Educational Philosophy and Theory, DOI:
10.1080/00131857.2020.1793539

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1793539

Published online: 02 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rept20
EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1793539

THE LONG READ

Philosophy of education in a new key: Education for

justice now
Marianna Papastephanoua , Michalinos Zembylasa , Inga Bostada , Sevget
Benhur Orala , Kalli Drousiotia , Anna Kouppanoua , Torill Stranda , Kenneth
Waina, Michael A. Peters, (Open Reviewer)a and Marek Tesar, (Open Reviewer)a

Introduction: Looking for (our) keys

Marianna Papastephanoua
University of Cyprus

Since Plato’s allegory of the cave two educational-philosophical critical modes have stood out: the
descriptive (reality as it is) and the normative (reality as it should/could be). Reality resembles or is
felt as an epistemic, political and existential permanent lockdown,1 a state of isolation where
access to ideality is too restricted and rare. Confined to a dystopian(ized) place of limited light and
scant possibility the philosopher aspires to help others ascend to a utopian(ized) place of luminos-
ity and promise. Granted, the philosophical-educational community has, as a historical and contem-
porary collectivity, contrasted the ideal and the real in richer and more complex modes than those
of a neat ‘descriptive versus normative’ binarism. Nevertheless, the search operation for finding the
key to unlock the lockdown is persistent and evident in most and otherwise diverse educational-
philosophical endeavours, especially in difficult times. As such a time, the recent pandemic has
turned the philosophical, figurative lockdown, literally, into a palpable reality that incites more
thinking about the tension between the ideal and the real. Discontent with reality is constitutive
of philosophical explorations of education as preparation for an alternative and more desirable
situation. Proof of this is the present collective paper and that which (Peters et al., 2020a) has
inspired it. Collectively though varyingly, we describe the world of today and normativize the edi-
fying thought and action that could lead to a better world. We lament and revoke a gloomy pre-
sent to invoke and authorize a brighter future. ‘We are stuck in the toxic ‘Anthropocene,’ while we
need to embrace the curative ‘Neganthropocene’’ (Sturm et al., 2020, p. 15).
Thinking and writing together (Madjar et al., 2020, p. 12), in a world of suspicion and fear
(Ozoliņ
s et al., 2020, p. 7), has produced several possibilities of what the key to opening the gate
of a better future might be. ‘Among other examples, there are references to a rehumanising of
teaching, a revival of the ancient ideal of wisdom, and the development of post-digital pedago-
gies’ (Roberts et al., 2020, p. 16). One such pedagogy, immersive education, redeems much ‘yet
unexplored philosophical and pedagogical potentiality’ (Novak et al., 2020, p. 14). Other escape
routes add to collective effort the affectivity of philia: ‘we need to reclaim educational, philo-
sophical and political activity through the practice of friendship’ (Madjar et al., 2020, p. 13). We
deplore the existing state of affairs, while cultivating hope for change; but we often discern
glimpses of light and try to make them endure. We do so especially in times when such

CONTACT Marianna Papastephanou edmari@ucy.ac.cy Department of Education, University of Cyprus, POBox 20537,
Nicosia, 1678, Cyprus.
ß 2020 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
2 M. PAPASTEPHANOU ET AL.

glimpses are fading away and the real worsens to the point that, before imagining a better
future, we first need to keep open the narrow clefts from where the light comes. We must pre-
vent the worst and block further asphyxiating enclosure. Educational philosophy ‘needs to
develop collective strategies to examine the faltering of social democracy and to protect the
open society’ (Peters, 2020, p. 3).
From Plato to Adorno down to the recent collective writing (Peters et al., 2020a), musical
metaphors accompany philosophers’ choirs or vocal solos and provide the key to expressing dis-
content with the contemporary world and to imagining transformation. The key of educational
philosophical diagnostics is the ‘F] Minor’ (Mika et al., 2020, p. 6). Let me carry Carl Mika’s
musical homology further. ‘Dealing with the world in the key of discontent followed up with
self-parody’ (Mika et al., 2020, p. 6) requires a section in some contrasting key to complete the
theme of the utopian soundtrack: ‘F] Major’ for promise and triumph over evil; A Major for joy
and optimism; BB Major for aspiration and action for a better world; G Major for the idyllic and
peaceful;2 and, for Sean Sturm et al. (2020, p. 16) in particular, ‘philosophy in the key of G(aia)
would let the digital and the planet speak’.
From one key to another, like musical phrases standing as complete units concluded by a
cadence, variations of utopian vision and philosophical phrases in dispute arrange philosophical
sound and silence differently. Philosophy, at times legato, occasionally staccato, articulates cri-
tiques of persisting pathologies (racism, sexism, xenophobia, nationalism, etc) or sometimes the-
matizes less discernible, though profound, challenges. But developments on the planet are not
encouraging. The philosophical voice is applauded when echoing the easily perceived and
deemed high-pitched when its tone becomes too excited. In ‘inauspicious times for philosophy
of education’ (Orchard et al., 2020, p. 9), being heard as a screech further incites educational-
philosophical discontent with the world as it is and new insights into unexplored possibilities.
The question then is ‘what education, and the philosophy of education, might be able to do to
counter’ such developments (Teschers et al., 2020, p. 8). Metaphorized as interlocutor conversing
with its temporal setting educational philosophy must ‘speak to this situation in the new decade’
(Madjar et al., 2020, p. 12). ‘Engaging with the here and now’ (Buchanan et al., 2020, p. 11),
‘philosophy of education in a new key needs to become politically engaged’ (Peters, 2020, p. 3).
‘Philosophers of education can play a key role in educational and societal challenges, by reinte-
grating the personal and political’ (Jackson et al., 2020, p. 5). But how? As Marek Tesar et al.
(2020, p. 4) pertinently asks: ‘what is the new key?’ Our difficulty, I think, is not coming from vis-
ible evil forces but from an entrapment in the vocabulary of evil. This ignores the unspoken and
the invisible that passes for good and makes room for the easily detectable evil and for the easy
detectability of evil. A related effect is our bypassing the good, the worthy counterfactual and
the undercurrent (Papastephanou, 2011) and our missing chances to rephrase it and to make
it endure.
The singular of the musical key3 prompts a search for another metaphor of keys. Another alle-
gorical image of diagnoses of the times and recommendations for change could use the mean-
ing of keys as devices that control ‘access to places or facilities restricted by a lock’.4 The image:
two distinct places, the ideal and the real, are separated by a gate. Gatekeepers (typically, regres-
sive forces and/or ‘outdated’ theories) block our access to the doornail and we remain in lock-
down. But even when we escape their attention, or neutralize them somehow, we realize that
we need a key. There can be a happy ending: we find the key and enter. There can also be a
twist in the tale: upon closer inspection we realize that there are many locks and we need many
keys. We start searching and this requires collective effort. We find some keys but then we real-
ize that we do not know which goes where. We miss the interconnectivity of the lock and of its
keys. Keys now also mean pieces of information that control ‘the operation of a cryptography
algorithm’.5 In more nightmarish versions, the ending could be that there are no locks, no keys,
no gates or no other world beyond the present or that the portal, if at all existing, opens out to
sameness or to nothingness. This would invite yet another philosophy to educate the present.
 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY 3

Aware of lockdowns and disputing their permanence, we, educational philosophers, are, as
our collective writings also prove, in a state of searching for keys. The broader collectivity of
which we are part, the global We, seems to ask too few searching questions. ‘We have accepted
the political, cultural, and lately also health crises of humankind as a new normality. Global polit-
ics feature a growing apathy, which increasingly is replacing the revolutionary engagement of
the 20th century’ (Tesar et al., 2020, p. 3). This apathetic acceptance proves the continuity of our
learning to live with injustice. Each of the ills (that both collective writings diagnose) of such a
dedicated lifelong learning corresponds to an injustice. To treat them each piece (thought
through) in both collective papers singles out as a remedy a specific vision of justice or a norma-
tivized principle that may be read as authorizing justice. Each individual perspective provides to
philosophy of education a key for unlocking the lockdown. In addition to the four foci that
Michael Peters (2020, p. 3) has proposed, and to Ruyu Hung’s et al. (2020, p. 5) addition of crisis
as another focus of educational philosophy in a new key, this collective paper emphasizes one
more focus: educating for justice. Pedagogy of precarity as pedagogy for justice;
transcendentalization of metamorphosis and normativization of the new; ecology in the face of
anthropocentric bias; childhood as recipient of injustice and potential claimant of justice; age-/
class-/race- and gender-accented injustices, etc., are examples of key issues of ‘justice now’ in
this collective paper. As Nancy Fraser’s (2010) ‘scales of justice’ double image of the balance and
the map conveys, of relevance are issues of power asymmetry, disadvantage and (im)partially
weighed claims along with issues of frames and spaces of justice across the globe. The question
of Fraser’s (2010, p. 5) cartographic imagery ‘which mapping of political space is just?’ helps us
understand keys also as guides ‘to a map’s symbology’.6
In this collective paper, I have accompanied Philosophy of Education in a New Key with the
subtitle: ‘education for justice now’, echoing a manifesto tone. Psychoanalytically, this tone
evokes the urgency of the fulfillment of desire that resists deferral. ‘For justice’ qualifies educa-
tion as not ‘just’ education qua merely, simply, education for becoming a PISA success story.
However, this now, this timeliness, this emphatic ending in the present makes me uneasy.
‘Assumptions about the particularity of this time as new and ripe with opportunity to make a dif-
ference through philosophy of education are not new and there’s much to learn from the per-
sistence of wanting to imagine that they are’ (Gibbons et al., 2020, p. 17). Looking for our keys
in an amnesiac present does not increase the visibility of the overlooked nor does it do them
justice. ‘Justice now’ should not compel attunement to the tonality of justice in the contempor-
ary world. The ‘now’ should not modernly celebrate one’s being in tune with the current, nor
should it demarcate the realities to which education for justice may be answerable or adaptable.
Togetherness, not currency, should frame the search for keys. Not only the ‘togetherness’ of all
of us that Sonja Arndt et al. (2020, p. 10) justly emphasizes, but also the ‘togetherness’ of dimen-
sions of (in)justice (environmental, social, cosmopolitan, etc.), their interconnectivity and their
tensions; but, more on this in my postscript.

A pedagogy for precarity in the post-covid-19 era

Michalinos Zembylasb
Open University of Cyprus

Perhaps it is still inappropriate to speak about the ‘post-Covid-19’ era, just when the dust of suf-
fering around the world has not even settled, if it ever does. And yet, we must confront here
and now a simple yet fundamental reality that has re-emerged in this era, as our quest for a
new ‘key’ to education continues: the continuing and intensifying precarity of humans on the
basis of social, economic and racial inequalities (Butler, 2020). As Butler has written aptly: ‘The
virus alone does not discriminate, but we humans surely do, formed and animated as we are by
4 M. PAPASTEPHANOU ET AL.

the interlocking powers of nationalism, racism, xenophobia, and capitalism.’ The pandemic has
exposed and re-inscribed, according to Butler, ‘the spurious distinction between grievable and
ungrievable lives, that is, those who should be protected against death at all costs and those
whose lives are considered not worth safeguarding against illness and death.’ As this reality
becomes more profound, one wonders whether there can be any viable pedagogical response
that would further possibilities for justice in this world.
If we live indeed in a ‘totally pedagogized society’ (Bernstein, 2001), a society in which all
sites of socialization and work become pedagogical sites, then a fundamental question in search-
ing for a new key in philosophy of education—reminding ourselves of course that ‘The key that
opens is also the key that locks’ as an African proverb says—is the following: Can precarity func-
tion pedagogically in any way? If yes, how can we—educators, in particular— develop more pro-
ductive theorizations for precarity in ways that serve better those communities who suffer most
the impacts of racism, inequality, nationalism, xenophobia, and capitalism? As I have recently
suggested (Zembylas, 2019), when one attempts to draw out a pedagogical framework out of
theorizing precarity, there are several complexities and risks involved as much as there are
opportunities for ethical transformation and action-oriented empathy in schools and other sites
of socialization and work. However, it is important that efforts to ‘translate’ ethics and politics of
precarity into pedagogical propositions are accompanied by a reformulation and recontextualiza-
tion of the meaning(s) of precarity.
Precarity in the post-Covid-19 era has been reframed not as a war against an invisible virus,
as many political leaders around the world would have liked us to believe so that they could jus-
tify the sacrifice of some (vulnerable/lower class) people to ensure the safety of (privileged)
others; if there is ever any war against anything or anyone, this is a war against poverty and
injustice. If we, educators, cannot find new productive ways of engaging pedagogically with the
public to communicate this message, then no pedagogic theory about/for justice can remedy
the profound precarity that has surfaced in the pandemic. As Lingard has once argued, ‘it is
through pedagogies that education gets done’ (2007, p. 247). Invoking the term ‘pedagogy for
precarity’ as a ‘pedagogy for justice’, then, foregrounds the questions raised earlier, and links
pedagogical practices to debates over the purposes of education in a global community haunted
by the deaths of hundreds of thousands of precarious lives.

Reformulating promises of justice—with a view from the humanities

Inga Bostadc
University of Oslo

In all, philosophy is about engaging in a conversation, hence collective writing and conjoint
argumentation are closely linked to the uniqueness of philosophy. At the same time, a tension
persists between, on the one hand, the inner conversation we have with ourselves, enduring a
conversation with oneself as a two-in-one, something that characterizes thinking according to
Hannah Arendt (Arendt, 1994), and on the other hand, the participation in and relation to the
texts of others in a kind of joint project with a common collective responsibility, group identity
and solidarity (Peters et al., 2020b). Hopefully, this tension creates the subtle pressure needed to
argue, defend and carefully criticize the relation between pedagogy and justice, and as I see it,
the manner in which education promises justice, resting on a tragic mix of competing, invisible
and paradoxical imagines of justice. Ideals of autonomy, independence and rationality imbedded
in the theories of justice challenge and empower vulnerable groups (Bostad & Hanisch, 2016)
due to the competing theories of justice entailing contrasts and dilemmas: Educational justice
for the individual, society, for the legal order or for the world?
 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY 5

Philosophy of pedagogy can be characterized as a critique of pedagogical reason (Kemp,

2011), that is, a form of self-reflection on the role pedagogy should have for upbringing, practical
and theoretical insight and the future of collective living, and as such the concept of justice is
probably one of the most fruitful lenses to which we may visualize the role of education and
how it works. Educational justice is on the political scene, and thus powerfully dominated by
myths and symbols, encouraging a view from the humanities (Nussbaum, 2019), ‘to find ways of
living, thinking, acting, and reflecting that belong to times and spaces we have never known’
(Butler, 2013). At the same time, criticism from the humanities may be used as rhetorical lip ser-
vice in educational policies as performances at anniversary speeches while economic models
continue to dominate everyday life. A view from the humanities offers reformulations; instead of
diversity, imagines and experiences of disgust, shame and stigma, instead of equality references
to human worth and dignity, instead of repeating the promises of democracy, dependent auton-
omy, interdependence and ability to be heard, instead of humanity investigating historically the
discourse of love, solidarity, grievable lives and precariousness.
Who are the ungrievable today and do we have an image for it? (Butler, 2015). Could we talk
about education as a place to be, schools as no longer a place to be a home? What justifies a
good topos, a place to be (a Utopia) or a place to be different? The ethics of justice is to be
responsive to both justice and injustice that presents challenges to the individual. Injustice is a
lived experience also rooted in a conception of normality, difference and rationality. Education is
(or should, therefore, be) a preparedness for the injustice to come, which is also a promise of
justice; to foster values and norms for action and dynamic empowerment.

Beginning anew
d
Sevket Benhur Oral
Khalifa University of Science and Technology

Is it still conceivable to imagine schools as a common good and organize them for socially equit-
able ends amidst the privatization (and the ensuing decay) of the commons in all domains of
life: the land, oceans, air, minerals, rainforests, coral reefs, plants and animals, genetic informa-
tion, and scientific knowledge? Can the school remain a dedicated space and time separate from
that of the family, the economy and the political sphere so that free and undestinated (unpro-
ductive) time is given to all under its care so that each cultivates the ability to begin something
new as a common good (Masschelein & Simons, 2013)?
Is the new thus understood even possible? How can philosophy of education in a new key
ask the question of the new under the condition of Ge-stell? Isn’t the question of the new ana-
chronistic? Or is it conceivable, as Heidegger implores us to do employing ‘the term Gestellnis to
accentuate the possibility of getting out of the Ge-stell from within the Ge-stell’ (Ma & van Brakel,
2014, p. 527), to break free of a Black Mirror kind of reality, which is increasingly more likely than
ever? These are the questions. What about the answers?
Should not at least one answer come from ecological thinking, a non-metaphysical thinking
about how we always already belong to each other and to the world? A thinking that does not
prescribe the ways to belong but opens itself out into the myriad ways of belonging to the
world and to each other? Belonging to the world physically, cognitively, emotionally, aesthetic-
ally, politically, spiritually? Isn’t the school as a common good the place of learning and re-learn-
ing how to belong to the world and to each other freely given to all?
Malabou (2011), in her compelling reading of Heidegger, provides some hints as to the possi-
bility of an ecological thinking without the pseudo-assurance of a metaphysical ground. Her
focus concerns the originary mutability of the It that gives, the self-giving and the self-givenness
of being, what Heidegger sometimes called Ereignis. Self-giving is not a one-time event but a
6 M. PAPASTEPHANOU ET AL.

metamorphosing that endures. It is not that there is an it and that it constantly metamorphoses.
There isn’t an it that metamorphoses. Rather, it is nothing but its metamorphoses.
This is ecological thinking at its purest. The It that gives is not a Gaia, not a Mother Earth, not
a Spaceship Earth. It is not something whose coordinates can be determined. The it continues to
be undetermined insofar as we are non-metaphysical. That is, the it never transcends what it
gives. It is groundless. ‘There is/it gives’ is originary, without being able to anywhere begin. It
simply begins anew, constantly, which implies that this giving is in a constant state of mutability.
As a matter of fact, beginning anew is the same as mutability. Giving, beginning, and changing.
These are equivalent. Being is beginning; Being is giving; Being is changing. We are given (gifted)
to Being. We belong to the world. Philosophy of education in a new key has to begin
anew, constantly.

Anthropocentrism in the time of Covid-19

Kalli Drousiotie
Independent Scholar

The coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic has dramatically changed people’s lives and habits.
Worldwide lockdown led to unprecedented measures, seriously affecting daily routines. People
are trying to make sense of the new situation, but, most importantly, they are confronted with
new fears. Some such fears may be realistic (i.e. ‘what if we or our beloved get seriously ill’), but
some may be unsubstantiated, though no less unbearable (‘the virus has been purposely created
in laboratories, so we are helpless victims of conspiracies’). Such unbearable fears are often
explained as residues of pre-modern religious-metaphysical and ‘apocalyptic’ worldviews (El
Maarouf et al., 2020), but, I argue, they may equally stem from anthropo-centric views on nature
and the ecosystem.
This argument can be deployed as follows. Rumors on social media have it that Covid-19 was
generated by humans to decrease the world population or that scientists have developed the
vaccine against coronavirus, yet they keep it secret for the same reason. Such assumptions reflect
and also presuppose anthropo-centric, exceptionalist illusions of grandeur. Humans are:
‘protagonists’ in the drama of life; rulers in the kingdom of earth; the only meaning-producers in
the world (see Eckersley, 1992); and ‘the most important’ creature of the universe. Hence a virus
threatening humanity ‘must’ have been created by humans. The essential rather than supple-
mentary presence of other species of life is thus ignored and people are unprepared to accept
that new forms of life, occasionally deadly for humans, for example, new viruses, may be born.
This anthropocentrism fuels unbearable, hysterical fears by constructing human-made
‘unbeatable enemies’ of human beings who are now presented as helpless victims of perfectly
concealed conspiracies. Modern humanity was prepared to learn from Nature only ‘how to use it
in order wholly to dominate it’ (Horkheimer & Adorno, 1972, p. 4). This anthropocentrism has
had not only the pragmatic implications of anti-ecological behavior and ecological catastrophe
(Plumwood, 1999), but also the affective implication of illusions of omnipotent control over
Nature and concomitant fear of human agency.
By implication, another challenge for philosophy of education in a new key is to explore and
combat the pedagogy of fear that anthropocentrism has produced. Understanding the relation-
ship of humanity to nature in terms of interrelatedness and reciprocity (Hung, 2008) entails that:
(a) humans might (intentionally or unintentionally) harm nature and affect the whole ecosystem;
(b) similarly, nature may affect humans, change their way of living and even harm them. Both
cases have been empirically confirmed. This understanding, which, in my opinion, chimes with a
‘philosophy of interconnectivity understood as a fundamental educational principle’ (Peters et al.,
2020b, p. 19), makes the crucial role of a pandemic education for environmental justice stand
 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY 7

out. A philosophy of interconnectivity as a shift away from anthropocentrism enables new inter-
pretations and teachings of what is happening in our interconnected and interdependent world.
In addition, this philosophy of (pandemic) education may also enhance humanity’s doing justice
to reality by preventing imaginary, hysterical fears from reigning in times of global changes.

Thinking about children in times of crisis

Anna Kouppanouf
Cyprus Pedagogical Institute

We are currently living through times of crisis: Refugee, economic, environmental crisis and a
global pandemic. Children are in the midst of it all. Especially with the COVID 19 pandemic,
children’s lives were completely changed. As Chang and Yano (2020), at UNESCO’s Section of
Education Policy report, ‘Close to 80% of the world’s student population 1.3 billion children
and youth—is affected by school closures in 138 countries’. Children were, and some of them
still are, abruptly cut off from everything that at least in western societies seems to constitute or
to be indispensable to childness. What’s more, different populations of children were affected in
different ways—because of gender, country of origin, family’s socio-economic status, etc.
(Giannini, 2020). Still theorized as humanity’s future, children are, in time of crisis, thought as not
having a future at all. Crisis suggests, however, a time of destruction and a time of reorientation.
Both in theory and in praxis, we are invited to think about this in/post/human condition and are
challenged to consider anew children’s lives, care and education. So, in the time of the
Anthropocene, how can we think crisis, and children together?
New materialist and posthumanist thinking seems to be a way of responding to the situation.
Reacting to the destructiveness of human agency, which presupposes an almighty Anthropos
and a passive inactive nature, new materialist thinking perceives the world as a manifestation of
material-discursive phenomena, granting agency to materiality and to any excluded other, like
animals, viruses and children (see Barad, 2007; Bennett, 2010; Latour, 2005; Braidotti, 2013). This
interactive participation is thought to give rise to categories—and not the other way around.
The current COVID19 pandemic, for example, can be seen from a new materialist perspective as
a phenomenon emerging from the interaction of participating forces and elements, such as the
novel coronavirus itself, medical and educational institutions, individual agents, government
bodies, etc. Furthermore, the virus itself can also be discussed as the reorganizing force affecting
societies, personal and professional time-spaces—reorganizing adults’ and children’s lives. At the
same time, children can be thought as having agentic power, and indeed, studied through such
a lens by bringing to the fore their interactions with the virus - their participations in readings
and artistic events - that were often suggested to them during this time, and their discussions or
even fears of it. However, a great injustice would be done to children if their agency was not
understood in its singularity differentiated from adults’ agency, from the Anthropos’ agency and
from other nonhuman beings’ and nature’s agency.
Children have been traditionally conflated with nature (see Taylor, 2011). A possible conflation
of their particular agency with nature’s agency bares the potential to connect them only to spe-
cific material modalities of agency, excluding children from traditional humanist types of agency,
such as political activism, which are considered anthropocentric and logocentric. Humanist types
of agency, however, are still offering human beings a niche in the arena of power negotiation. In
consequence, excluding groups from such types of agency could constitute a reproduction of
anthropocentrism. At the same time, an overemphasis on the micro-events of individual child-
ren’s lives and not on categories and ideologies, which are thought not to pre-exist each inter-
action but to emerge with it, may leave many injustices unquestioned. New materialist thinking
8 M. PAPASTEPHANOU ET AL.

thus faces childness as perhaps its ultimate challenge, as a notion with a constant shifting pos-
ition in the nature/culture binary, and also as its most critical space for transformation.

Thinking a pedagogy for justice now

Torill Strandg
University of Oslo

These days we are experiencing global waves of high profile protests, such as those throughout
the Arab world, Iran, Latin America, India, Europe and USA. From the streets of Hong Kong,
Washington, Barcelona, Beirut, New Delhi and Santiago young people cry out for justice, be it in
the name of political freedom, climate justice, discrimination, economic inequalities or a corrupt
police state (Amnesty International, 2019; Wikipedia, 2020).7
According to the French philosopher Alain Badiou (2005), these protests are political events.
First, because the protests address issues that at every moment concern people all over the
world. Second, because they reveal the endless character of the situation. Third, because they
put the state—in both the ontological and historical senses of the term—at a distance by
assigning a measure to its superpower. ‘For way too long, the politicians and the people in
power have gotten away with not doing anything to fight the climate crisis, but we will make
sure that they will not get away with it any longer. We are striking because we have done
our homework and they have not,’ Greta Thunberg, a 16-year old Swedish climate activ-
ist, says.
The global waves of protests call for a rethinking of contemporary philosophies of education, as
they bring to pass instituted outlooks, knowledge and opinions (Badiou, 2009; Strand, 2019). I
claim that

 These waves of political protests call for a rethinking of ethical-political education

 The global youths’ commitment to the protests illustrate some vital issues that should inform
that rethinking
 Contemporary political philosophy, such as the new French materialism, offers valu-
able resources

Today, conventional philosophies and theories of ethical-political education lack explanatory

and transformative power (Horlacher, 2017; Strand, 2020a). Generated at very different times
and places, they contain outdated worldviews, outlooks and societal missions that limit truth-
ful elucidations of young people’s ethical-political formation. A vital mission is therefore to
think the historical and ontological conditions generating contemporary youths emerging eth-
ical-political awareness. Next, to model an ethical-political education that considers
these conditions.
The new French materialism seems to offer tools to do so. Thinkers affiliated with this new
school of thought—including Stiegler, Malabou, Ranciere and Badiou—explore the nature of
transformative change while taking a clear stance against the linguistic paradigm that dominated
the 20th century philosophy (Hallward, 2003; James, 2012). In short, they reconsider philosophical
conceptions of materiality, worldliness, shared embodied existence and human agency. In doing
so, they radically renew the philosophical thinking, and thereby the transformative power of phil-
osophy itself.
Alain Badiou (2009), for example, strongly promotes the prospects of ‘an education by truths.’
To him, ‘truths’ are existential, ongoing and open-ended ontological operations. An education by
such truths works through a subtraction from the state of the situation and proposes a different
direction regarding the true life (Strand, 2020b). The task of philosophy is to think these truths.
 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY 9

Philosophers of education should therefore aspire to diligently read the situation (the world),
appreciate the unusual, and ask new questions.

Philosophy of education in a new key: A pedagogy for justice now

Kenneth Wainh
University of Malta

The title asks for a re-consideration of philosophy of education in a ‘new key’; a philosophy of
education written in a different tone. It leaves open the intriguing question: ‘new’ in relation to
what? An important question because it is always important to know what anything proposed as
‘new’ is intended to replace. In this case, what the ‘old’ philosophy of education is it is intended
to revise, or depose and supplant as the case may be. There is no similar ambiguity about what
the new philosophy being proposed would be: ‘a pedagogy for justice now’. The ‘now’ could be
taken to mean two things: ‘at this present time’, and ‘different from before’. The first meaning
suggests that the object of the new philosophy would be to respond to the contemporary polit-
ical state of the world judged, by implication, to be unjust. Which would suggest a philosophy
of education with an explicitly political programme; to support a politics of justice in education
in opposition to the ‘old’ prevalent one, which, in this context, would be the current, dominant,
neoliberal programme at work in the contemporary world and in the realm of education. The
title leaves open the crucial question what kind of justice it is being proposed that philosophy
of education would be the pedagogy of. This first meaning of ‘now’ I have just elaborated briefly
would suggest that of social justice as the answer, in opposition to the neoliberal. The second
meaning of ‘now’ as ‘different from before’ would seem to refer to the current state of philoso-
phy of education rather than the contemporary world. What would be ‘new’ in that case, besides
its explicit affiliation with a political programme would be its representation as a ‘pedagogy’, a
tool for teaching and learning, as against its more usual representation as a discipline, a tool of
inquiry. I don’t think one needs to choose between them. I think that philosophy of education
should be both; a praxis, or practical tool to serve a political programme, and a tool of inquiry in
the ‘old’ traditional sense of addressing educational policies and practices at the more general,
theoretical level. This implies two kinds of philosophical discourses for philosophers of education
to be involved with, two constituencies to address, two kinds of conversations to have. One in
their traditional role of philosophers engaged in scholarly philosophical inquiry with fellow phi-
losophers continuing with a conversation going back to Plato that has grown its own jargon
along the way, and is conducted in scholarly journals. The other in their pedagogical one where
they are members of the public, public intellectual in the manner of Dewey, Habermas, Rorty
and others; where, recognizing their public duty as educators in the Socratic tradition, they
engage in jargon-free language with other intellectuals and non-intellectuals in the public media
calling upon the resources of philosophy to sustain the positions they support or reject. The lat-
ter is not new but it has been sadly neglected in our times.

Education for justice now (Open Review)

Michael A. Peters i
Beijing Normal University

Marianna Papastephanou sets the tone for the collective paper by emphasising the need to over-
come the ‘descriptive versus normative’ binarism: ‘Discontent with reality is constitutive of philo-
sophical explorations of education as preparation for an alternative and more desirable
10 M. PAPASTEPHANOU ET AL.

situation’. The title and timing historically are in deep synchrony with the death of George Floyd
and the BlackLivesMatter movement as an emerging global movement against US police brutal-
ity and for justice now (and possibly a way out of the current US authoritarianism).
Papastephanou sets up the collective paper well anchoring it in the original experiment and
playing with the metaphor of ‘key’ to ‘unlock the lockdown’ which is followed by ‘A Pedagogy
for Precarity’ (Zembylas) to develop and rework ‘a pedagogical framework out of theorizing pre-
carity’. COVID-19 has deepened an existing crisis of precarity that follows on from austerity polit-
ics and the GFC. It heightens the lack of an equal health infrastructure in the US that has never
had a welfare state. Inga Bostad, following Butler and Nussbaum, looks for a way of reformulat-
ing the relation between justice and education from a view of the humanities: ‘Education is …
a preparedness for the injustice to come, which is also a promise of justice’. Benhur Oral asks
whether it is still possible after decades of neoliberalism to imagine schools as a common good
and finds an answer in ecological thinking (and Malabou’s reading of Heidegger in terms of self-
giving). Kalli Drousioti also follows a similar line of thinking in suggesting that apocalyptic fears
stem from ‘anthropo-centric views on nature and the ecosystem.’ In ‘Thinking about Children in
Times of Crisis’ Anna Kouppanou focuses on the plight of children and ‘in the time of the
Anthropocene, how can we think crisis, and children together?’ She likes a number of others
finds the ‘new materialist and posthumanist thinking’ an approach equal to the task. Torill
Strand focuses on ‘a pedagogy for justice now’ that understands the current waves of protest as
a call for ‘rethinking of ethical-political education.’ Kenneth Wain argues that philosophy of edu-
cation in a new key that demands justice now should be both ‘a praxis, or practical tool to serve
a political programme, and a tool of inquiry in the ‘old’ traditional sense of addressing educa-
tional policies and practices at the more general, theoretical level’. In these compact mini-essays
the reader gets a set of interrelated insights and coherent theoretical stance for addressing
‘education for justice now’.

Justice for education for justice now (Open Review)

Marek Tesarj
The University of Auckland

It is impossible to give justice to education for justice now. We live in a time when the temporal-
ity of the concept ‘now’ may seem impatient, buoyant, or even inappropriate. But perhaps as
Black Lives Matter reminds us, ‘now’ is already far too late. When Peters et al. (2016) addressed
the methodology of writing as a collective endeavor, raising ideas of critical responsibility, ques-
tions of collegiality, and the opportunity to focus on the power of the collective, only few would
imagine that this will become a powerful philosophical method to explore complex ideas, and
provide thinkers, theorists and philosophers of education an opportunity to hit a new ‘key’.
Similarly, to Hung’s et al. (2020) work on East Asia, this collective writing work focuses on ques-
tions and concerns that are both local and global at the same time. Papastephanou in this paper
argues that ‘[a]ware of lockdowns and disputing their permanence, we, educational philosophers,
are, as our collective writings also prove, in a state of searching for keys’. And what follows are
indeed statements by leading scholars who clearly articulate opportunities, and/or ask questions,
for the ‘New Key’. Michalinos Zembylas thinks with Covid-19 and problematises both the post-
virus discourse and opens up possibilities for pedagogical discussions, reminding us that we are,
globally, haunted by the loss of so many lives, which education will have to address. Inga Bostad
reminds us of criticism from the humanities, to engage in a debate as philosophers of education
while acknowledging the tensions such ideas and performances present. What is the place for
theories for justice, particularly in a world that is divided and fragmented? Benhur Oral asks of
us many [ecological] questions, including perhaps one of the most pertinent ones ‘[s]hould not
 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY 11

at least one answer come from ecological thinking, a non-metaphysical thinking about how we
always already belong to each other and to the world?’ Kalli Drousioti asks what
Anthropocentrism in the time of Covid-19 could look like, and questions the pedagogy of fear
which we have experienced. Anna Kouppanou turns to posthuman thinking to consider children
in the time of crises. Torill Strand runs a Badiou’s argument through a close reading of his work,
while Kenneth Wain provides an excellent problematisation of meaning of ‘new’ and ‘now’. And
asks perhaps a critical question: ‘What kind of justice is being proposed?’ Justice for Education
Now, as this collective writing critically, passionately and with urgency cries out.

Postscript: A stereoscopic approach to justice

Marianna Papastephanou

Following up from Peters et al.’ (2020a) collective writing, we have searched ‘for our keys’ in the
direction of justice. Reflecting diverse sensibilities, contributions to this paper have valuably
singled out one dimension of justice or related examples of injustice, often echoing how (in)just-
ice is now (educationally-)philosophically being explored. Interconnectivity (Besley et al., 2020,
p. 15) enacted in collective writing also involves dimensions of justice. By engaging ‘two or more
individuals who attempt to follow an agreed upon course of action together’ (Peters et al.,
2020a, p. 1) collective writing combines an ethic of dialogue, inclusion and critique with epi-
stemic justice and discursive justice. By ‘discursive justice’ here I mean justice to what our dis-
courses should take into consideration. If the full normative power of justice lies precisely in the
brittle whole created by the synergy of its dimensions (as I argue below), then, our explorations
of justice and education should do discursive justice to each dimension of education for justice,
social, cosmopolitan, legal, environmental, animal-oriented, etc.
Interconnectivity ‘points to the notion of non-linear dynamics that follows from the idea that
all parts of a system interact with and rely on one another and that a system is difficult or some-
times impossible to analyze through its individual parts considered alone’ (Peters et al., 2020b,
p. 18); not just its parts, I would add, but also its cracks. That the whole is less of a system and
more of a set dragging along its incompleteness (considering Kurt Go €del’s famous theorems)
becomes visible through the above etc that I have italicized. The interconnectivity step of ana-
lysis has not been taken for justice and has not yet informed theorizations of justice. In this post-
script, I extend the idea of interconnectivity and ‘moral interconnectedness’ (Peters et al., 2020b,
p. 18) to dimensions of justice in order to indicate (since I cannot argue out here) the possibility
of theorizing justice stereoscopically.
If the attuned sometimes complies with the ‘clear message to make everything that appears
complex simple’ (Tesar et al., 2020, p. 3) and if this has not left justice and its (educational) phil-
osophy unaffected, then, justice, our key term, may also need the out of tune. Attuned to the
current, we typically consider justice in singular. Or we singularize justice as ‘social’ or
‘ecological’, as if causalities and intricacies of injustice were reducible to a single failure and as if
we had the luxury of the drastic choice of only one front of struggle, as if there were only one
key and one lock. Beneath ‘questions of social justice, equity and human flourishing’ (Teschers
et al., 2020, p. 8), which cover the imaginative reach of educational-philosophical normativity,
often lie, I argue, reductions of justice to social justice, silencing other claims of justice, and sim-
plifications of equity and of human and non-human/more-than-human flourishing. These norma-
tive concepts are more complex than their elevation to educational remedies allows us to think.
Adjectives such as ‘social’, ‘global’, ‘environmental’, ‘epistemic’, ‘restorative’, ‘distributive’, etc.,
when attached to justice, specify its scope. They differentiate subjects, contexts and modes of
applicability of justice. They instantiate what space invites justice, who has the right or power to
place herself in the position of the wronged, the claimant, and possibly, the recipient of justice.
12 M. PAPASTEPHANOU ET AL.

This raises neglected questions concerning the self-standing8 and general character of justice (or
its reduction to social justice) as a qualifier of education: which justice - the social, the global,
the environmental, etc., - is key to ‘educational philosophy in a new key’? Could it be just any
kind of justice? Or could the key be the synergy, complex and difficult, of all dimensions
of justice?
Each dimension of justice has its province and is irreducible to other dimensions. Consider
the social and the global. Most educational(-philosophical) engagements with justice, even at
their most cosmopolitan moments, acknowledge as claimants of justice the people who, being
co-citizens or having come ashore, challenge consolidated practices, party politics, public docu-
ments and policies of social justice.
When adjectival specifications of dimensions of justice are missing from explorations of just-
ice, we notice the following operation: the global becomes invisible or, at most, reducible to the
social and translatable into it. True, the social is crucial for complicating individual justice, for
realizing that people face injustice not just as persons wronged by other persons, institutions,
control mechanisms of the state, etc., but also as members of groups, categories, communities
and designations. But the social, if it signifies consociation within territory in state control, can-
not cover the ground of the global and of international relations, rights and practices that affect
collectivities, countries and the planet.
Likewise, the education which treats all students equally in classrooms may be partly just; it is
not just in the generic sense of justice in the subtitle of our collective paper. It does not address
the scope of a justice composed of a variety of determinants that are irreducible to one another.
Consider the social and the global again: social justice makes different demands on just educa-
tion from those that cosmopolitan justice makes in the name and for the sake of whoever is not
in our classrooms. Cosmopolitan justice is not only about welcoming and accommodating the
other in schools; it is also about challenging the very world order, the ‘now’ that produces and
perpetuates global injustice, and about undoing the material conditions that force people into
the position of the wronged. There is much silence about claims to international and other
dimensions of justice concerning humans, animals and ecology that have not passed the social/
global cultural filter of what challenges our daily life and stirs memory. A digital search such as
Sturm et al. (2020) concerning the G(aia) key, but this time concerning what counts as (in)justice
and extended to all journals of educational philosophy, proves the point. The odd and occasional
exception is nevertheless out of tune. We tend to associate interconnectivity and interconnected-
ness with human rather than conceptual relationality and plurality, having learned to live harmo-
niously with singularized ‘(in)justices’ and with the singular of ‘key’. The synergy of the attuned
and the dissonant or atonal may reveal other interconnectivities, this time of dimensions
of (in)justice.
Education should consider the migrant, the vulnerable, Gaia, animals, etc., but the list of recip-
ients of justice could be much longer and the very tendency of turning the list into a checklist
should be rethought. There is no compelling argument why loyalty to some claimants of justice
should exclude loyalty to the other outside the frontier or outside our scope. Teaching ‘needs to
be re-collectivised as a counter to individualising, divisive, data-driven processes’ (Buchanan
et al., 2020, p. 11); however, justice and the content of teaching for justice also needs re-collect-
ivization. For instance, knowledge about Gaia or about other versions of the ecological also
requires knowledge about geo-political, global power relations and their effects. We often miss
this interconnectivity when we teach students not to use plastic bags but we forget how, by
being citizens, by authorizing governmental power, we are implicated in major natural destruc-
tion at a global level. Students are not taught or PISA tested in knowledge about how their own
old digital devices, once precious but now replaced by ever new gadgets, become e-waste
dumped by their governments to poor countries.9 We seem to exhaust our ecological sensitivity
in teaching about individual responsibility to nature and we often fail to extend biological and
 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY 13

global interconnectivity (Peters et al., 2020b, p. 18) to social, political, cultural, etc., dimensions of
normative concepts such as justice.
We encounter assumptions that turn post-humanism into an all-encompassing notion, a
passe-partout (master-key) or a magic repair-key that fixes all matters of justice. Related implicit
assumptions promote related master discourses, as if unfashionable issues of justice were: unre-
lated to glaring injustices; already resolved; or rendered obsolete and invisible by the new, mod-
ernly faith in new materialism/new cosmopolitanism. Against such assumptions, I suggest a
stereoscopic conception of justice. Justice, as I see it, needs a technology, here more figurative
than literal, which ‘captures all viewing angles stereoscopically’ (Novak et al., 2020, p. 13). The
conceptual and political interconnectivity of dimensions of justice may be likened to inner pro-
jections of the stereoscopic visual structure (stereoscopic depth perception or illusion).
Stereoscopic technology relates to ‘functions that occur within the brain’ when the mind
‘interprets what the eyes see’ and assesses ‘the relative distances of objects from the viewer, and
the depth dimension of those objects’.10 It enables sighting sets of images that, outside the
viewing apparatus, could have escaped the eye. In a way, a stereoscopic justice is a more
‘collective’ vision of justice within scanned space and time. But even if its set of keys is found,
for, I argue, there is more than one key, there are also issues of how keys are decoded or turned
in the locks, who turns the keys or activates the code, through what processes doors get
unlocked, etc.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes
1. For some philosophers, the lockdown is political and temporary; for others, epistemic or existential and long-
lasting; for some, the lockdown will be unlocked if humanity follows philosophical prescription; for others,
philosophy is only suggestive, and so on and so forth.
2. For a brief account and translation of Christian Schubart’s Ideen zu einer Aesthetik der Tonkunst (1806) see
https://www.wmich.edu/mus-theo/courses/keys.html See also https://ledgernote.com/blog/interesting/musical-
key-characteristics-emotions/
3. There is, of course, the plurality of musical keys but this does not undo the singularity of its instantiations.
When in plural the metaphor of the musical key produces rich but not simultaneously co-present variations,
that is, a musical phrase is actualized in one key at a time.
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key
7. Wikipedia (2020). Protests of 2019.
8. As self-standing I theorize justice that is used in writings with no other determinants (e.g. cosmopolitan,
political, social, restorative, transitional, etc), with no adjectives that qualify its scope or province.
9. ‘Millions of mobile phones, laptops, tablets, toys, digital cameras and other electronic devices bought this
Christmas [2013] are destined to create a flood of dangerous ‘e-waste’ that is being dumped illegally in
developing countries, the UN has warned’. https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/toxic-e-waste-dumped-in-poor-
nations-says-united-nations
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy

ORCID
Marianna Papastephanou http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7304-9249
Michalinos Zembylas http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6896-7347
Inga Bostad http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0391-0133
Sevget Benhur Oral http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2503-9249
Kalli Drousioti http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7855-2444
14 M. PAPASTEPHANOU ET AL.

Anna Kouppanou http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9679-9862

Torill Strand http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0803-1202
Michael A. Peters http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1482-2975
Marek Tesar http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7771-2880
Sevket Benhur Oral http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2503-9249
Michael A. Peters http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1482-2975
Marek Tesar http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7771-2880

References
Amnesty International. (2019). Protests around the world explained. Retrieved June 2020, from https://www.amnesty.
org/en/latest/news/2019/10/protests-around-the-world-explained/
Arendt, H. (1994). Zwischen Vergangenheit und Zukunft. Ubungen € im politischen Denken. Ludz, U. (ed). Piper. in
Mahrdt, H. (2012). Hannah Arendt—Political Bildung and Reflective Judgment. Norsk filosofisk tidsskrift, 3, 5.
Arndt, S. (2020). A new key of collective otherness. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020). Philosophy of education in a new
key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22, 10–11. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Badiou, A. (2005). Metapolitics. Verso.
Badiou, A. (2009). Logics of worlds. Being and Event II. Continuum.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke
University Press.
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.
Besley, T., & Peters, M. A. (2020). The knowledge ecology approach to discourse in philosophy of education. In
Peters, M. A. et al. (2020). Philosophy of education in a new key: A collective project of the PESA executive.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22, 14–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Bostad, I., & Hanisch, H. (2016). Freedom and disability rights: Dependence, independence, and interdependence.
Metaphilosophy, 47(3), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12192
Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Polity.
Buchanan, R. (2020). Collective thinking to ensure a collective future. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020). Philosophy of
education in a new key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22,
11–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Butler, J. (2013). What value do the humanities have? Commencement address McGill University 2013/06/07.
https://speakola.com/grad/judith-butler-humanities-mcgill-university-2013
Butler, J. (2015). Precariousness and Grievability. VERSO blog. (15.11.2015). https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2339-
judith-butler-precariousness-and-grievability-when-is-life-grievable
Butler, J. (2020, March 30). Capitalism has its limits [Blog post]. https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4603-capitalism-
has-its-limits
Bernstein, B. (2001). From pedagogies to knowledges. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a
sociology of pedagogy. The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. 363–368). Peter Lang.
Chang, G-C., Yano, S., & UNESCO’s Section of Education Policy. (2020, March 25). How are countries addressing the
Covid-19 challenges in education? A snapshot of policy measures. World Education Blog. https://gemreportu-
nesco.wordpress.com/2020/03/24/how-are-countries-addressing-the-covid-19-challenges-in-education-a-snapshot-
of-policy-measures/
Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism and political theory. State University of New York Press.
El Maarouf, M. D., Belghazi, T., & El Maarouf, F. (2020). COVID–19: A critical ontology of the present1. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1757426
Fraser, N. (2010). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Columbia University Press.
Giannini, S. (2020). Prioritize health and well-being now and when schools reopen. UNESCO. Retrieved April 30,
2020, from https://en.unesco.org/news/prioritize-health-and-well-being-now-and-when-schools-reopen
Gibbons, A. (2020). An open peer review on philosophy of education in a new key. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020).
Philosophy of education in a new key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 1-22, 17–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Hallward, P. (2003). The one or the other. French philosophy today. Angelaki, 8(2), 1–32.
Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. (1972). Dialectic of enlightenment. (J. Cunning, Trans.). Seabury.
Horlacher, R. (2017). The educated subject and the german concept of bildung: A comparative cultural history.
Routledge.
Hung, R. (2008). Educating for and through nature: A Merleau-Pontian approach. Studies in Philosophy and
Education, 27(5), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9059-x
 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY 15

Hung, R., Zhengmei, P., Kato, M., Nishihira, T., Okabe, M., Di, X., Kwak, D.-J., Hwang, K., Tschong, Y., Chien, C.-H.,
Peters, M. A., & Tesar, M. (2020). Philosophy of education in a New Key: East Asia. Educational Philosophy and
Theory. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1772028
Hung, R. (2020). Crisis education and meaningfulness for life. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020). Philosophy of education
in a new key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22, 5–6. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Jackson, L. (2020). Resilience reconceived. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020). Philosophy of education in a new key: A col-
lective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22, 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00131857.2020.1759194
James, I. (2012). The new French philosophy. Polity.
Kemp, P. (2011). Kampen om dannelse. In H. Hagtvet, G. Ognjenovic (Eds.), Dannelse—tenkning, modning, refleksjon.
Dreyer.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor network theory. Oxford University Press.
Lingard, B. (2007). Pedagogies of indifference. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(3), 245–266. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13603110701237498
Ma, L., & van Brakel, J. (2014). Out of the Ge-Stell? The role of the East in Heidegger’s Das andere Denken.
Philosophy East and West, 64(3), 527–562. https://doi.org/10.1353/pew.2014.0047
Madjar, A. (2020). Thinking in the era of antisocial media. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020). Philosophy of education in a
new key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22, 12–13. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Malabou, C. (2011). The Heidegger change: On the fantastic in philosophy (Peter Skafish, Trans.). SUNY.
Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2013). In defense of the school: A public issue (Jack McMartin, Trans.). E-ducation,
Culture & Society Publishers.
Mika, C. (2020). In the key of despondence and self-doubt. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020). Philosophy of education in
a new key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22, 6–7. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Novak, R (2020). Immersive education: A philosophical response to the age of infomania. In Peters, M. A. et al.
(2020). Philosophy of education in a new key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy
and Theory, 1-22, 13–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Nussbaum, N. (2019). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press.
Orchard, J. (2020). Rehumanising teaching. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020). Philosophy of education in a new key: A
collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22, 9–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00131857.2020.1759194
Ozoliņ
s, J. T. (2020). The necessity of virtue and wisdom. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020). Philosophy of education in a
new key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22, 7. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Papastephanou, M. (2011). The Philosopher, the Sophist, the Undercurrent and Alain Badiou. Speculations, 2, 49–85.
Peters, M. A. (2020). A return of political philosophy. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020). Philosophy of education in a new
key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22, 2–3. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Peters, M. A., Arndt, S., Tesar, M., Jackson, L., Hung, R., Mika, C., Ozolins, J. T., Teschers, C., Orchard, J., Buchanan, R.,
Madjar, A., Novak, R., Besley, T., Sturm, S., Roberts, P., Gibbons, A. (2020a). Philosophy of education in a new key:
A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00131857.2020.1759194
Peters, M. A., Jandric, P., Irwin, R., Locke, K., Devine, N., Heraud, R., Gibbons, A., Besley, T., White, J., Forster, D.,
Jackson, L., Grierson, E., Mika, C., Stewart, G., Tesar, M., Brighouse, S., Arndt, S., Lazaroiu, G., Mihaila, R., Legg, C.,
& Benade, L. (2016). Towards a philosophy of academic publishing. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(14),
1401–1425. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1240987
Peters, M. A., Arndt, S., Tesar, M. (2020b). Postscript: Pandemic education: Philosophy of education in the time of
Covid-19. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020). Philosophy of education in a new key: A collective project of the PESA
executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22, 18–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Plumwood, V. (1999). Path beyond human-centeredness: Lessons from liberation struggles. In A. Weston (Ed.), An
invitation to environmental philosophy (pp. 69–106). Oxford University Press.
Roberts, P. (2020). Writing, politics and solidarity. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020). Philosophy of education in a new
key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22, 16–17. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Strand, T. (2019). “We are striking because we have done our homework”. Two perspectives on contemporary youths’
emerging ethical-political awareness [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 16th ISSEI Conference.
Strand, T. (2020a). Rethinking ethical-political education. Beyond the Nordic model. In T. Strand (Ed.), Rethinking eth-
ical-political education. Springer.
16 M. PAPASTEPHANOU ET AL.

Strand, T. (2020b). Badiou and education. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia on education. Oxford
University Press.
Sturm, S. (2020). Philosophy in the key of G: A response to “philosophy of education in a new key”. In Peters, M. A.
et al. (2020). Philosophy of education in a new key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 1-22, 15–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Taylor, A. (2011). Reconceptualizing the ‘nature’ of childhood. Childhood, 18(4), 420–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0907568211404951
Tesar, M. (2020). Ethics and axiology of philosophy of education in a new key. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020).
Philosophy of education in a new key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 1-22, 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1759194
Teschers, C. (2020). A familiar tone in a new key. In Peters, M. A. et al. (2020). Philosophy of education in a new
key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22, 8–9.
Wikipedia. (2020). Protests of 2019. Retrieved June 2020 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_2019
Zembylas, M. (2019). The ethics and politics of precarity: Risks and productive possibilities of a critical pedagogy for
precarity. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 38(2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-018-9625-4

View publication stats