Messy things in #rhizo15, http://www.hybridpedagogy.com/journal/insoumis/ and a text of Jürgen Habermas connect to some rhizomatic (?) “Mode of communication”.
Habermas: … With the performative attitude that we should take as we want to discuss something , every speaker is (certainly not traditionally been utilized in an articulated manner) the possibility to use the ‘I/me’ of the illocutionary act to use in such a way, to impose the understandable requirement that I/me as an individual, who is taking my own history/story of life irreplaceable as my own, is being recognized as a person.
At the same time alter as well as ego know, while consulting with each other on the universality of a propositional subject, that they are part of the very special context of their environment...
(my translation from p. 151 of a Dutch book with some texts and speeches of Habermas: Na-metafysisch denken (Jürgen Habermas) 1990.
It is the recognition as a person that is at the heart of (rhizomatic) teaching.
The academic way of conceptualization of data and of personal stories is in my view an almost metaphysical discourse. In these almost metaphysical discourses (in education) inter-subjectivity is damaged.
The question is now: Is the academic discourse on education useful in some way? Should academic discourses on education and teaching as a rule take in account the inter-subjectivity and the importance of the informal and personal sphere?