Educational Philosophy and Theoy, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1999 5

Editorial

Educational Philosophy and Theory at the Turn of the Century

Writing a first editorial for Educational Philosophy and Theoy feels very much like giving my first ‘morning talk’ as a child attending school for the first time. There is, of course, something special about such moments, although as a child one perhaps has not yet learned to recognise the ritual of the moment. My first task as editor is to thank Jim Walker and to acknowledge his work as editor of the journal for some four years. Jim Walker has been a prominent member of the Philosophy of Edu- cation Society of Australasia and he has given of his time freely, holding a number of offices within the Association over the years. He is one of the leading lights of PESA and I know that many members were greatly perturbed when they learned of his resignation as editor.

As the editor of Educational Philosophy and Theoy Jim has been concerned with publishing standards, with his neutrality as editor, with the exercising of good editorial judgement, and with ‘modernising’ the journal. The issues that came out under his editorship display the expected range of concerns: the preservation of a variety of perspectives, the engagement represented by the usual debates and disagreements in print, a number of special issues dedicated to topics like the new vocationalism, the fostering of a dialogical quality that is characteristic of scholarly journals. As editor, Jim took it upon himself to read every article submitted to the journal himself before sending to reviewers, and to do the proof-reading of each issue himself. It was also Jim who, on the basis of some solid calculations and some persuasive arguments, prepared us for the shift from a local publishing endeavour of an association to an agreement with Carfax. While not all members agreed with Jim, his arguments carried the day and we now see the results of his stewardship. It will be, perhaps, a few years more before the journal achieves the international profile promised by its publication by Carfax.

On behalf of the members of PESA I would like to thank Jim Walker sincerely for his years of service as editor of Educational Philosophy and The0 y and to acknowledge also the secretarial efforts of Marian Alleyn, who has carried out much of the day-to-day business required for managing the journal’s affairs. I would also like to acknowledge the support of the Australian Associate Editors, Paul Hager and Marjorie O’Loughlin, who I know have been of assistance to Jim.

Strictly speaking, while the change of editor has officially taken place there are something in the order of three issues in the ‘pipeline’, so to speak, before my stint as editor begins to have any practical or visible effects. This is the first issue for 1999, and was of course prepared by Jim last year. There is, I’m told, also a special issue constituting a dialogue on postmodernism to come and enough papers for a third issue for 1999. I am grateful for this grace and, as a consequence, I asked Jim if he

0013-1 85719910 10005-04 01999 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

6 Editorial

would write this editorial in tandem, as a truly transitional piece, so that he could briefly introduce the papers he selected for the next issue.

This means, of course, that my editorship practically begins in the year 2000. I knew that, as somebody who flirts with ‘poststructuralism’ and ‘postmodernism’, if I looked hard enough I could find some suitableJin-de-sidcle theme-the end of Jim Walker’s editorship but also the end of the millennium, the end of education as we know it!-these apocalyptic ‘end of philosophy’, ‘end of man’ narratives have always struck me as interesting but rather overplayed, and now clichkd, gestures, typical of the romantically inclined French philosophers. And I have always found it difficult to understand how the ethos or the spirit of different epochs or intellectual periods seem to correspond so closely with our urge to chronicle events in neat packages of 10 or 100 years.

Nevertheless, as we usher in the new millennium there are some significant themes as educators and philosophers intellectually we must come to terms with, alongside out traditional concerns. This is not anything like an exhaustive list and I provide these items in no particular order. They are only suggested, tentatively, as areas for invcstigation by special issues of the journal and/or for prospective authors who wish to submit papers in the future:

0 philosophies of education for/against/under globalisation-globalisation (based upon ‘time-space compression’) as a phenomenon of world economic integration and cultural homogeneity and resistance; philosophies of cividcity education-with the decline of the state and the growth of multinationals, it is alleged that there will be a growing importance of the city (and its hinterland) as an important governing political and administrative unit;

0 philosophies of development education-concerned, perhaps, with the imposition of ‘structural adjustment’ policies on Third World countries and the possible cultural spaces for different models of educational development;

0 education and philosophies of cultural difference and multiculturalism- concerned, for example, with the emergence of a one-superpower hegemony, the consolidation of China, Islamisation, and the growth of religious and ethnic nationalisms;

0 feminist philosophies of education that explore the question of gender in relation to thinking, knowledge, teaching and learning or that examine particular contri- butions of feminist thinkers;

0 philosophies of education which explore the ethico-political and epistemological problems concerning the emergence of the knowledge industries, the com- modification of knowledge, the shift from knowledge to knowledge management, and increased importance of intellectual property;

0 philosophies of sex education that explore the ethical and social issues sur- rounding reproductive technologies, questions of sexual orientation, and recent debates in queer theory;

0 philosophies of mathematics education which explore new developments of non- classical spaces and the development of ‘intermaths’;

Editorial 7

philosophies of environmental education that discuss, for example, the problems of the destabilisation of whole ecosystems, the deep pollution of local and usually urban environments, and the growth of shack cities and shack cultures;

0 philosophies of technologies which might analyse the educational implications of the movement from analogue to digital processing technologies, the world-wide growth of the Internet, and emancipatory possibilities tied to communication strategies.

These are only some the ‘millennium themes’ that the journal can explore in the coming years, along with its more traditional concerns. One thing we can be sure of is that with the shift towards what some scholars have called ‘knowledge societies’ and others have called ‘information economies’, education as an ‘industry’ of the future-as a sector that employs increasing numbers and that demands increasing levels of both public and private investment-is to take on a new significance, along with health, as the vital portfolios determining the fortunes of future governments. On the basis of this new significance, I believe, the journal’s future promise also rests. I look forward to working with my Associate Editors, members of the Association and prospective contributors in doing my part to help to continue and fulfil the intellectual promise of Educational Philosophy and Theory.

MICHAEL PETERS

Critical Reflections on Reflectiveness, Intellectual Responsibility, Critical Theory, Experience and the Moral Governance of Schools

First, let me congratulate the new Educational Philosophy and The0 y editor, Michael Peters, on his election and wish him well as he guides this important journal into the next millennium. The themes he has struck, above, will stimulate educators to intellectually challenging and educationally relevant thought, which are among the criteria for choice of articles for publication in the journal.

The present issue exemplifies both rigour and relevance. Issues surrounding the term ‘critical reflection’ are as important as the use of the

term, and indeed the words ‘critical’ and ‘reflective’, separately, are often vague or tendentious. In an original and refreshing attempt to sort out the continuing hype that accompanies the seemingly universal adherence to the concept of ‘reflective teacher/practitioner’ by teacher education institutions, Terence McLaughlin covers a range of positions from Aristotle through Dewey to Schon and recent writings. His article will inform philosophy of education, and cause some thinking and debate among reflection’s disciples, as well as encourage greater intellectual responsibility.

Intellectual responsibility is addressed directly in a delightful piece of scholarship from Thomas Peterson, whose account of the problem of intellectual self-represen- tation compares the pedagogical thinking of Alfred North Whitehead, Gregory Bateson and Bill Readings. Bringing these three together, and also drawing Bateson’s thought into educational theory (to the extent that Readings is a commen-