EDUCATION FROM HEIDEGGAR’S LENS

Martin heideggar was not into philosophy of education, yet his ideas are reflected in educational realm
due to powerful constructs of his theory. A most popular association of Heideggarian concept with
education would be, ‘How to make education and educational beings more authentic, capable of
realizing their da-sein?’ Where Socrates would talk about the soul that has all the knowledge and all it
needs is remembrance, hence education is nothing but recalling of the knowledge within the soul;
Heideggar talked more in terms of being to whom da-sein is revealed. If education is the process
through which an individual reorients the being, then an educated person is likely to see the world not
just as an external passive object but a world that is situated in a historical time and place and sees its
being as an active agent in changing or influencing it and also be aware of the subjective bias in
interpreting the world. The essence of teaching and learning thus form the core of da-seinised
education. Also, the individual is not separate from the education; both dwell in togetherness and even
if an individual is not a part of school or college, education is all around that person, it’s a part of the
world and cannot be separated from the person.

Idle talk and education

Idle talk is a way in which the being shows itself. Idle talk is carried out all the time, when you hear
others and when you speak to others in a superficial manner; when you are part of a conversation
without engaging with the entities of it. Most of what we talk and speak, ‘We think we already know’.
Heidegger has empathized with the significance of Idle talk asserting it to be the reflection of our causal
minds. In education then, in the name of higher attainment of knowledge and information, we lose out
the significance of everyday classroom discourse. The primary learning that happens is not in learning
textbook theories, though those too are a crucial source of learning, but what gets learnt is reflected in
students’ lunch time discussions, the transfer of learning in their everyday informal casual talks, which is
enjoyable and maintains their interest in school or university itself. Even during classroom teaching,
rather than the organized coherent speech of the professor, or a well pre-scripted lesson by a school
teacher doesn’t reflect Being as much as the questions asked by the student or the chaos that results
from a discussion based on the text. This idle talk then, which Mikhael Bakhtin calls as ‘ the Third
Discourse’ , holds huge significance and would reveal more about education and learning rather than
structured lecture based classroom events.

In one of my classes, there was a huge fight pertaining to gender bias and feminism, the most popular
topic of our times. I got to witness the mean behavior or girls against each other, and unseen feminist
side of the boys-turning-to-be-men. I also saw the faces who had never spoken up in my class ever
willing to assert their opinions about the matter of discussion. I in that moment was not a teacher, but
just a spectator of passive silent minds turning into active radiant beings, asserting their identities. In
such an effortless discourse, the students merely displayed their current knowledge but its potential to
transform the students learning will happen during the discussions that would have taken place after
the class, in the evening and probably the day after that as well.
 Technologizing Education

Heidegger’s views on technology never became popular but nevertheless can explain the use of tools in
modern science and technology era which also has implications for the way education is seen. We also
face this constant struggle to keep away from techno devises and live a real life. In education, we are at
a transformative period where we don’t know how to appropriately use technology without losing the
essence of learning itself, and the transformation is not smooth. I face this anxiety while using a power
point presentation in class, it makes my life easy as well as difficult. Even though it disinhibits a more
dialogic and deep learning environment, I won’t deny it does offer itself as a useful tool. The truth is,
there is no escape from technology, whether we like it or not. Technology according to Heidegger is not
only devises and scientific tools but a man- made wooden chair is technology as well. In his text, ’the
question concerning technology’, written in 1954, he highlighted some notable interpretations.

One is, Technology is a human activity. Non-living things and objects and tools are not seen as an
external phenomenon, rather a part of humans since humans are in the world, and hence, tools become
part of humans not separate from them. Just like I choose certain clothes for myself on wearing which I
will look more of ‘me’, this dialectical relation between objects and humans is revealed, hence, not only
I change my clothes, but the clothes I choose change me as well, when I come in contact with people
who make impression of me by what I wear, just like I make of them. It can be said that educational
tools change humans in a similar fashion. The tools, such as gadgets and other social media usage
techno devices are not only delivering global content, but also changing the way I interact with
information, changing my usage of time, and the way I am in this world.

While technology per se is not as such seen in a negative light by Heidegger, it just has to be seen its
own essence. It has a way of revealing itself, he asserts. According to this perspective, we are creating
the problem of mistaking technology as a means to an end and not seeing in its essence. Technology is
not just for talking on phone with people, staying in touch with far away people, connecting to the
global world etc., but it’s the world itself. Humans dilute the essence of technology when we see it just
as a tool. He gives an example of how land is now seen as a resource rather than just a land itself, a thing
in terms of serving its function and not a thing in itself. The reductionism of seeing objects as only for
their purpose of utilization and limited functioning loosens the essence of it. This philosophical
argument of treating humans as objects echoes with Martin Buber’s I-It concept. It is when we reduce
nature to an object (a tree to cut and make a house), we reduce the I (the human or any living object) to
It (a lifeless object). We reduce humans to an object when we see individuals in an instrumental fashion.
The authoritative technological education replaces the knowledgeable teacher capable of constructing
knowledge with an internet video, and the role of teacher becomes mere facilitator to assemble the
videos, fixing it and making it available to the students. Thus, the role and skill requirement of a teacher
has shifted from a Socratic wisdom holder Guru to a technological gadget manager.

Just like technology is reduced to mechanical process, in education, students are seen as consumers of
knowledge, products to be consumed by market and skill building machines. The corporatization of
education in the name of international schooling is a way of technologizing education, which is seen as a
mechanical industry. The system of education which relies on routine classes, curriculum, assessment
and discipline based on homogeneity, lacks individuality and fails to see education as a learning and
transformatory space rather reduces itself to a market based training center. In this traditional to
technical technological shift of the world spreading onto the education system, the outcome of learning
and teaching, even though appears modern, in real is not progressive per se.

On Authenticity

Being authentic means being an architect of your own life, own your life. It means, turning away from
the everyday world and the ‘them’. It means, having a mind of one’s own, being true to one’s own self,
to be one’s own person. Is it always possible? No! Remember, I was thrown into this world without my
choosing. I could choose my death but not my birth, not the events in my past. Most of the activities I
carry out are not decided consciously by me, for instance, writing this book. I could decide to write it in a
particular fashion, but I couldn’t write it in any other language. But it’s always possible. If I really want, I
could learn the desired language and write the book. I can still learn and translate the book in that
language. If I believe that the thoughts of Heidegger must be read by the people in my home town, I am
free to make the text available to them in my home language, thus not doing what everyone else is
doing, that is, publishing in English language.

Da-sein is inauthentic in so far as it does things simply because that is what one does. Education is one
of the biggest mode of making individuals confirm to the social norms. It is through this moral
upholstery of the institute of education that society can make people do what it wants. Put it into the
textbook, gulp it into the throats of education boards and there you have the perfect mix on the answer
sheet- 100 marks to the most conformist answer. The motive behind the concept of da-sein is the
illusion of infinitudeness in a living being. To make the best of our beings into this world, it is essential to
do things in an authentic manner. Education for example must be carried out by owning the
responsibility of making myself educated, and not because everyone does it, in a superficial manner. The
loss of creativity in the educational setup is the loss of possibilities of my da-sein. Confirming in
education is done in multiple ways- confirming to global standards of upgrading education through
technology, education only in dominant languages, educating in subjects and courses that enables one
to have only one or two ways of life ie., manager, engineer or banker; confirming by giving education to
only certain sections of society, and so on and so forth. To prevent the further genocide of educational
system, there is a need to collectively build the individuality of education that challenges the practices
encouraging conformity.

There are multiple instances of an inauthentic education. The system of education so far doesn’t
facilitate the clearing of a being, doesn’t reveal the being of the student. An authentic education is one,
in which students taking ownership of what they learn. They learn matter than reveals their being to
them. Thus, subjects and the pedagogies that brings them closer to their beings. An instance of a
classroom discourse where authentic education prevails would be one in which learning occurs by
student and not teacher lead questions. When students own their learning, they are curious to ask
authentic questions that further their learning in the subject matter. The nature of questions would this
not be closed ended, in yes or no, or with one answer, but that probes more into the source of the
knowledge, questions its being and is explorative not instrumental on marks and examinations.

Discipline and Da-sein

To give a structure to the system of education, it was divided into multiple fields of study leading to
creation of disciplines. The segregation of disciplines has helped create different formations of the
system such as departments and organisations which base their work on the principles of those
disciplinary fundamentals. However, just like every action has an opposite reaction, the fragmentation
of knowledge into disciplines lead to the movement of interdisciplinary education. The ontology of such
a movement can be understood from the perspective of da-sein. Just like the disciplines, our beings
have come to be understood as separate identities. Thus, we are all gender, national identity, age,
religion, sexual orientation, and also class and caste categories. Some are totally biological, some totally
social constructs and some in the middle or mix of both. However, these identities are also given
attributes depending on the society we live in. These attributes are power and political based. They lead
to stereotypes. We believe these stereotypes and we too see ourselves as based on these stereotypes.
Such self-beliefs limits the potential of da-sein.

Sociological critical and conflict theories argue against the dissolution of identities, the absence of seeing
oneself in terms of these identities is lack of critical consciousness, they argue. The labelling of such
nature for the purpose of rights is a practical matter, and beneficial for the social empowerment of the
marginalized. Unless I as a woman who was deprived of my rights for centuries, am not provided certain
rights due to my identity as a woman, the justice and equality would not prevail. However, my being a
woman enables my existence in a social sphere due to such label, is also limiting when my identity as a
woman takes dominance over my identity as a human. It is possible that I myself never really saw myself
as a woman, nor even a man or a transgender. As a matter of fact, I never perceived myself as a Hindu as
well, I followed the rituals till as a child, but as I grew up, I got aware of the imposed identity. This makes
us question, are people really who they are labelled as? They are made to believe that they are, since
that’s crucial for the functioning and stability of the society that believes in this kind of belief. What
about people who change their sex, or religion, or caste? Is it like a switch 1 and switch 2 they press for
the transformation? Do they cross the category-less zone during this change?

Da-sein is revealed in moments when one sees oneself beyond these imposed social categories. In fact,
such categories are not just studied in the subject matter of sociology. Clinical and Personality
psychology, for instance, reveals a human being who is either an introvert/ extrovert/ ambivert;
psychotic/ neurotic/ normal; low self- esteem/high self- esteem; anxious/ not anxious; depressed/not
depressed and endless such categorical reductionism. The labelling of people in such manner amounts
to dangers of them perceiving themselves as these categories and limiting their potential selves. It is this
labelling that has lead to movement of spreading awareness of mental illness and removing the
stigmatization attached to it.

The theory of dialogism by Mikhael Bakhtin reveals to us the multivoicedness an individual

encompasses. An identity of an individual is not just one, but multiple. For example, I am a woman, a
teacher, a student, an Indian, a daughter, a friend, a colleague etc. The different roles that I play
pertaining to multiple existing identities are always in conflict, it becoming a cause of disturbance within
me. It is such awareness that can protect me from the disturbance and the awareness that I am beyond
all such identities would reveal the essence of my being human.

References:
Glendinning, Simon. "A new rootedness? Education in the technological age." Studies in Philosophy and
Education 37.1 (2018): 81-96.
Heidegger, Martin. Being and time: A translation of Sein und Zeit. SUNY press, 1996.

Heidegger, Martin. "The question concerning technology, and other essays." (1977).

Kouppanou, Anna. Technologies of being in Martin Heidegger: Nearness, metaphor and the question of
education in digital times. Routledge, 2017.

Solomon, Robert. "Reflections on Heidegger's Discussion on ‘Idle Talk’." The Focusing Institute–
Focusing. org.