No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Disciplinary technologies and the school in the epoch of digital reason: Revisiting Discipline and Punish after 40 years
Abstract
Foucault's masterpiece Discipline and Punish (1975) provided a genealogical analysis of the prison as a model for the disciplinary society that displaces the liberal juridico-political theory of sovereignty with a new kind of disciplinary power exemplified by Bentham's panopticum. This article revisits Foucault's classic as a basis for examining it significance for school in the epoch of digital reason.
... Education in the epoch of digital reason exemplifies the disciplinary power of surveillance and mechanisms of control in terms of 46 increasingly global systems of 'big data' and learning analytics that delivers public education into the hands of the info-utility transnational corporations. (Peters, 2015a) PJ: Capitalism, traditional and new, has always been linked to openness -Karl Popper and The Open Society and Its Enemies (1974) is a typical case in the point. However, in the opposite ideological camp -from counterculture of the 1960s, through early makers of digital technologies, to recent hackers and Internet activists (Turner, 2006(Turner, , 2013Turner & Jandrić, 2015;Assange, Appelbaum, Müller-Maguhn, & Zimmermann, 2012) -openness is also understood as a subversion of capitalism. ...
This conversation explores the relationships between information technologies and education from the perspective of a Frankfurt School philosopher. The first part of the conversation provides a brief insight into distinct features of Andrew Feenberg's philosophy of technology. It looks into lessons from "stabilized" technologies, explores the role of historical examples in contemporary technology studies, and shows that science fiction can be used as a suggestive inspiration for scientific inquiry. Looking at the current state of the art of philosophy of technology, it argues for the need for interdisciplinarity, and places Feenberg's work in the wider context of Science and Technology Studies (STS). In the second part, the conversation moves on to explore the relationships between technology and democracy. Understood in terms of public participation, Feenberg's view of democracy is much wider than standard electoral procedures, and reaches all the way to novel forms of socialism. Based on experiences with Herbert Marcuse in the 1968 May Events in Paris, Feenberg assesses the significance of information and communication technologies in the so-called "Internet revolutions" such as the Arab Spring, and, more generally, the epistemological position of the philosophy of technology. The last part of the conversation looks into the urgent question of the regulation of the Internet. It analyses the false dichotomy between online and offline revolutionary activities. It links Feenberg's philosophy of technology with his engagement in online learning, and assesses its dominant technical codes. It questions what it means to be a radical educator in the age of the Internet, and asks whether illegal activities on the Internet such as downloading can be justified as a form of civil disobedience. Finally, the conversation identifies automating ideology as a constant threat to humanistic education, and calls for a sophisticated evaluation of the relationships between education and digital technologies.
... This may mean that they did not openly express their opinion given the sensitivity of these problems (Belás et al., 2015). At the same time, the battle against corruption and other forms of organizational wrongdoing remains a formidable task especially in Central and Eastern European countries (Bogdanovic & Tyll, 2016;Peters, 2017). The results by Virglerová et al. (2016) confirmed that the problem of corruption increases with company size. ...
The goal of this paper is to analyze the propensity for entrepreneurship shown by university students arising from the state support of entrepreneurship and the quality of higher education. Part of this goal includes a comparison of the defined factors between the Czech Republic and Slovakia. To fulfil such research objectives, we conducted a survey among university students in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. In total, we surveyed 409 students from the Czech Republic and 568 students from Slovakia. To verify the stated scientific hypotheses, we used regression analysis and Z-score. The results of our research delivered some interesting findings. Even though Czech university students rated the state support of entrepreneurship and the quality of education higher compared to their Slovak peers, they declared a statistically lower inclination for entrepreneurship. The regression model between interest in entrepreneurship and the state support of entrepreneurship combined with the quality of higher education in the Czech Republic is not statistically significant. This model is statistically significant in Slovakia. The variability of the selected independent variables - state support of entrepreneurship and quality of higher education – accounts for 88% of the variance of student interest in entrepreneurship in the Czech Republic. The variability of selected independent variables explains only 38% of the variance of student interest in entrepreneurship in the Slovak Republic. © 2017, Academy of Economic Studies from Bucharest. All rights reserved.
Michael Adrian Peters is a philosopher, educator, global public intellectual, and one of the most important figures in contemporary philosophy of education. Like many critical educators of his generation, Michael has working class background and started his career in high school teaching. After seven years, he moved into the world of the academia.
In this conversation, Michael A. Peters analyses the advent of knowledge cultures and their relationships to human learning. The first part of the conversation analyses social transformation towards the network society and links digital technologies to the making of the society of control. It analyses the dynamics between openness, capitalism, and anti-capitalism, and uses various recent examples to link that dynamics to democracy. The second part of the conversation links cybernetic capitalism to learning and knowledge production, and elaborates the movement of open education. Based on work of Paulo Freire, it develops the notion of openness as an (educational) virtue. It links openness and creativity, introduces Michael Peters' political economy of academic publishing, analyzes the importance of editing for learning and knowledge production, and briefly introduces the concept of knowledge cultures. The third part of the conversation shows practical applications of these theoretical insights using the examples of two academic journals edited by Michael Peters: Knowledge Cultures (Addleton), and The Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy (Springer). It explores epistemic consequences of peer-to-peer and wisdom of-the-group approaches, introduces the notions of collective intelligence and col-(labor)ation, and outlines the main features of the new collective imagination. Finally, it shows that doing science is a privilege and a responsibility, and points towards transformation of academic labor from perpetuation of capitalism towards subversion.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.