Philosophy in mass education system: Teaching as a mimetic practice

Introduction. The article tackles the problem of changing the role and place of philosophy in the mass education system. Today, mass education is closely connected with pragmatisation and technologisation; and these two processes spawn a concern whether it is useful to study philosophy, and, as a consequence, an aspiration to transform the understanding of teaching itself.

Aim. The aim of the present paper was to reconceptualise the bespoke teaching experience within the framework of personalised academic tracks launched in the University of Tyumen in an attempt to address the problem.

Methodology and research methods. The theoretical part of the research lays out the foundation of philosophy teaching as a mimetic practice based on a methodology, which is developed through the following concepts: the dichotomy of E. Giddens’ practical and discursive consciousness, M. Polanyi’s tacit knowledge, E. Mach’s economy of thought, and C. Wulf’s mimesis. This was a starting point of a philosophy teaching practice that was tested on a batch of students, approximately a quarter of which agreed to take an anonymous survey about the process and the results of the joined work.

Results and scientific novelty. A draft of a conceptual foundation of mass philosophy teaching in the current context is laid out. At the core of the process, there is a mimetic transfer of tacit knowledge, ensuring a skill to philosophise. This process presupposes an interaction of four actors: a teacher, a student, a text and a group of students. The lecture is a demonstration of a personal philosophic style, and the Socratic seminar is a joint practice with an unpredictable finale. In this practice, there is a system, where the teacher is an inquiring moderator launching the student’s personal search, the text provides a connection with a philosophic tradition, and the group – with the everyday life. The survey showed that this approach is effective: students like the process, they understand the connection of the philosophical ideas with the real life, and they track the level of their own understanding of philosophical texts.

Practical significance. The research results may be useful for other philosophy teachers who on the basis of this study may adjust their teaching practices to a mass philosophy course delivered in the current conditions; and for further development of the theory, first and foremost, in terms of formulating the philosophical content being used.  

1. Bezgodov D. N., Vologin E. A., Shilova S. V. Philosophy as an academic discipline for technical undergraduates and specialist degree students. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2018; 27 (3): 135–143. (In Russ.)

2. Vorobyeva M. V., Kochukhova E. S. Why a philosophy teacher would use liberal education teaching methods? A regional college case. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. 2017; 1: 167–183. DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2017-1-167-183 (In Russ.)

3. Karelin V. M., Kuznetsova N. I., Griftsova I. N. “Philosophy” as an educational course: The change of the concept. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2017; 10 (216): 64–74. (In Russ.)

4. Lazutina T. V., Tempel Yu. A., Tempel O. A. Philosophy’s role as a form of worldview in mastering competences by students of the technical specialisations in the modern Russia’s higher education system. Integratsiya obrazovaniya = Integration of Education. 2017; 21 (1): 19–34. DOI: 10.15507/1991-9468.086.021.201701.019-034 (In Russ.)

5. Filippov A. F. Humanities’ education aporia. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. 2006; 4: 53–62. (In Russ.)

6. Siess D. Per una nuova didattica della filosofia. Comunicazione Filosofica. 2019; 43: 43–56. (In Italian)

7. Rodrigues R. Educação e emancipação para além da filosofia herbartiana: por uma escuta do não saber como parte constituinte do conhecimento na prática educative. Perspectivas em Diálogo: Revista de Educação e Sociedade. 2018; 5 (10): 80–104. (In Portuguese)

8. Rodrigues A., Gelamo R. A filosofia no ensino médio: o que se transmite quando se pressupõe transmitir conhecimentos filosóficos? Nuances: Estudos Sobre Educação. 2019; 30 (1): 460–480. DOI: 10.32930/nuances.v30i1.6849 (In Portuguese)

9. Rodrigues A., Gelamo R. O ensino de filosofia na Educação Básica: uma problematização à luz da filosofia antiga. Educação. 2018; 43 (3): 449–464. DOI: 10.5902/19846444 (In Portuguese)

10. Londoño C., Rojas-Devia J. Crisis y práctica filosófica en la educación. Praxis & Saber. 2020; 11 (25): 155–178. DOI: 10.19053/22160159.v11.n25.2020.9910 (In Spanish)

11. Roth W.-M. The invisible subject in educational science. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2018; 50 (3): 315–332. DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2017.1373863

12. Šimenc M. Cilji pouka filozofije, instrumentalizacija in didaktike filozofije. Phainomena. 2018; 27 (104): 209–230. DOI: 10.32022/PHI27.2018.104-105.9 (In Slovene)

13. Zorin A. L. Humanities in the system of non-humanities education. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. 2006; 4: 106–114. (In Russ.)

14. Erden Y. We need to talk about Wittgenstein: The practice of dialogue in the classroom and in assessment. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education. 2019; 18 (1): 34–48. DOI: 10.1177/1474022216670618

15. Hartner-Tiefenthaler M., Roetzer K., Bottaro G., Peschl M. When relational and epistemological uncertainty act as driving forces in collaborative knowledge creation processes among university students. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2018; 28: 21–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.013

16. Nosella P., Gaidargi A. Revolução passiva e o papel formativo da filosofia no Ensino Médio. EccoS‑Revista Cientifica. 2018; 47: 289–300. DOI: 10.5585/eccos.n47.6020 (In Portuguese)

17. Scotton P. Pensar en común, vivir en plenitud. La experiencia de la filosofía con los niños y niñas. Revista Española de Pedagogía. 2020; 78 (275): 103–118. DOI: 10.2307/26868327 (In Spanish)

18. Silva K. Sobre por qué enseñar filosofía en la actualidad. Ariel‑Revista de Filosofia. 2019; 23: 67–70 (In Spanish)

19. Burroughs M. How to survive a crisis: reclaiming philosophy as a public practice. Palgrave Communications. 2018; 4: 106. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-018-0163-2

20. Saulius T., Malinauskas R. Students’ experiences of philosophy classes in higher education: A case study. European Journal of Contemporary Education. 2019; 8 (4): 879–888. DOI: 10.13187/ejced.2019.4.879

21. Karelin V. M. Education in the humanities and the democratic utopia of Martha Nussbaum. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2017; 4 (211): 76–87. (In Russ.)

22. Giddens A. Comments on the theory of structuration. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 1983 (1): 75–80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1983.tb00463.x

23. Polani M. The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy. 1966; 41 (155): 1–18. DOI: 10.1017/S0031819100066110

24. Brock R., Hay D. Keeping students out of Mary’s (class)room. Approaches to supporting students’ acquisition of non-propositional knowledge in science education. Science & Education. 2019; 28: 985–1000. DOI: 10.1007/s11191-019-00079-5

25. Gebauer G. Die Konstruktion der Gesellschaft aus dem Geist? Searle versus Bourdieu. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. 2000; 52: 428–449. DOI: 10.1007/s11577-000-0067-x (In German)

26. Hanafizadeh P., Ghamkhari F. Elicitation of tacit knowledge using soft systems methodology. Systemic Practice and Action Research. 2019; 32 (5): 521–555. DOI: 10.1007/s11213-018-9472-9

27. Belas O. On tacit knowledge for philosophy of education. Studies in Philosophy and Education. 2018; 37 (4): 347–365. DOI: 10.1007/s11217-017-9585-0

28. Wulf C. Die mimetische Aneignung der Welt. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft. 2013; 16: 15–25. DOI: 10.1007/s11618-013-0409-x (In German)

29. Valentini A. Ambivalence of the notion of “mimesis”: Between the opening towards the other and the repetition of the same. Aisthesis. 2018; 11 (1): 193–205. DOI: 10.13128/aisthesis-23283

30. Chan S. The reciprocity of ‘imitative learning’ through apprenticeship. Vocations and Learning. 2017; 10 (3): 325–342. DOI: 10.1007/s12186-017-9175-x

31. Schubert S., Giles D. Exploring the ontological nature of teachers’ conversations. Issues in Educational Research. 2019; 29 (3): 923–937.

32. Gärdenfors P. Demonstration and pantomime in the evolution of teaching. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017; 8: 415. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00415

33. Di Paolantonio M. Wonder, guarding against thoughtlessness in education. Studies in Philosophy and Education. 2019; 38: 213–228. DOI: 10.1007/s11217-018-9626-3

34. Dall’Alba G., Bengtsen S. Re-imagining active learning: Delving into darkness. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2019; 51 (14): 1477–1489. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2018.1561367

35. Neitzel O. As velhas novas perspectivas educativas frente à crise ética. Educar em Revista. 2019: 35 (77): 205–222. DOI: 10.1590/0104-4060.63019 (In Portuguese)

36. Baranova J., Duobliene L. Meeting with the ‘Unfamiliar other’ in multimodal education. Ethics and Education. 2019; 15 (1): 33–47. DOI: 10.1080/17449642.2019.1700446

37. Morales-Gomez G., Reza-Suarez L., Galindo-Mosquera S., Rizzo-Bajana P. ¿Qué significa “fundamentos filosóficos” de un modelo educativo de calidad? Ciencia UNEMI. 2019; 12 (31): 116–127. (In Spanish)