DOCUMENT RESUME ED 453 133 SO 032 792 AUTHOR Biesta, Gert J. J.; Stams, Geert-Jan J. M. TITLE Towards a Postmodern Theory of Moral Education. Part II: Mapping the Terrain (Zygmunt Bauman's Postmodern Ethics). PUB DATE 2001-04-00 NOTE 33p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Seattle, WA, April 10-14, 2001). For "Towards a Postmodern Theory of Moral Education. Part I: Clearing the Terrain," see ED 443 345. PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative (142)-- Speeches/Meeting Papers (150) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Criticism; *Ethical Instruction; Moral Development; *Moral Issues; *Philosophy; *Postmodernism; *Scholarship IDENTIFIERS Empirical Research; Moral Education; Poststructuralism; Theory Development ABSTRACT The project of which this paper is a part consists of three steps. The first step (an American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference 2000 paper subtitled "Clearing the Terrain") provided a critical overview of current debates on moral development and education, focusing on the relationship between empirical and theoretical research. The second step, including this paper, is meant to provide an overview of postmodern and poststructural approaches to ethics and morality. The third step will attempt to articulate a postmodern theory of moral education. This paper focuses on the ideas of Zygmunt Bauman and on his book "Postmodern Ethics." The paper explores Bauman's position to consider what his postmodern ethics is about and what it may have to offer the field of moral education. The major part of the paper consists of a systematic reconstruction of his ideas. It shows that one distinctive quality of Bauman's contribution to the overalldiscussion is that he connects (Levinasian) philosophy with a sociological analysis of modern society and its postmodern "moment." Although Bauman's work has a strong theoretical orientation, the combination of philosophy and sociology gives his writings a practical orientation that is helpful in thinking through the practical "implications" of his approach. The paper's conclusion focuses on what can be learned from Bauman's writings regarding four issues: (1) demarcation of the moral domain;(2) the gap between "is" and "ought," between facts and values;(3) moral motivation and moral action; and (4) moral relativism. Contains 21 references.(BT) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Towards a Postmodern Theoryof Moral Education Part II: Mapping theTerrain [Zygmunt Bauman's PostmodernEthics] A paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Seattle, April 10-14, 2001. SIG: Moral Development and Education. Gert J.J. Biesta University of Exeter, England, UK Geert-Jan J.M. Stams PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Leiden University, The Netherlands TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES N INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1 Address for correspondence: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Dr Gert J.J. Biesta Office of Educational Research and Improvement N EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION University of Exeter CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as School of Education received from the person or organization originating it. O Heavitree Road Minor changes have been made to Exeter improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this EX1 2LU document do not necessarily represent England, UK official OERI position or policy. e-mail: [email protected] BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2 'Morality is not safe in the hands of reason..." Zygmunt Bauman (1993, p.247) INTRODUCTION Over the past decades educational scholarship has been significantlyinfluenced by postmodern and poststructural thought (see, for example, Cherryholmes, 1988; Lather, 1991;Giroux, et al. 1996; Stronach & MacLure, 1997; Peters, 1998). This influence is, however,still remarkably absent in the field of moral development and moral education (for two recent exceptions seeLourenco, 1996; Teo, 1997). This may well be the result of the rather widespreadconviction that postmodern and poststructural philosophy is unable to provide support for the moral and politicalproject that education is. Yet both philosophers and educational theorists have recently beenarguing -- and to our opinion they have done this in a convincing mannerthat postmodern and poststructural thought should not be understood as an expression of relativism and nihilism, but thatit is explicitly motivated by moral and political concerns (see, for example, Bauman, 1993; Critchley, 1992;1999a; 1999b; Biesta, 1995; 1998; Biesta & Egea-Kuehne, 2001). This raises the questionwhat postmodern and poststructural thought have to offer for the field of moral development and moral education. In the paper we presented at AERA 2000 (Stams & Biesta, 2000[1]) weembarked on this task by means of a reconstruction and critical analysis of current (empirical) research programs onmoral development and education. Our analysis included Kohlberg's stage theoryof moral reasoning, Rest's four. component model of moral functioning, Blasi's model of themoral self, Gibbs's integrationist sociomoral theory, Gilligan's ethic of care, Eisenberg's approach toprosocial reasoning, Turiel's domain approach of social knowledge, as well as theories of prosocial behavior,moral emotion, moral character, and critical thinking. Kohlberg's theory functioned as our main pointof reference, since most of the research in the field can be seen as either a reaction to his position, or a(critical) extension of his approach. Since we were especially interested in the relationship betweentheoretical and empirical research our focus was on the question of construct validity inempirical research on moral development and education. 1 3 We structured our discussion around four issues which, so weargued, are central to contemporary research on moral development andeducation. These issues are: [1] the question of the demarcation of the moral domain (Whatconstitutes the moral domain? What counts as moral behavior?); [2] the question of the relationship between "is" and "ought" (Isthere a gap between "is" and "ought"? Can it be bridged? Should it be bridged?); [3] the question of moral motivation and its relationship to moral action(How to move from cognition to action? Is there a gap between cognition and action? Doescognition precede action?); [4] the question of moral relativism (Are there standards for morality? If so,how can they be known and how can they be justified? Can we avoid both rigid dogmatismand empty neutrality?). Our analysis not only revealed the inconclusiveness of manyif not most of the discussions around these four issues. It also became clear that it was not possible to validate central constructsin the research on moral development and education on the basis of the outcome of empiricalresearch alone. Not only did this indicate the need for (further) conceptual investigationand hence for (further) theoretical and philosophical research.It also became clear that conceptualizations define the phenomenon under investigation in such a manner that it is only within the context and onthe basis a specific conceptualization (e.g., of what is considered to be included in the moral domain; orof what is considered to count as moral action) that the outcomes of empirical research (oftenfocussing on developmental processes "within" a specific conceptualization) could be interpreted andbe given meaning. Our analysis further revealed that many of the problems that we encountered inreconstructing the field could be related to a specific conceptualization of morality and moral action, which itselfrelied upon a specific conceptualization of human subjectivityand human agency. The problems that we encountered in the discussions about moral action, moral motivation, and moral behavior (issue3), for example, could all be traced back to a model in which "outer" action is assumed to be causedby "inner" steering mechanisms (such as, for example, cognition). This conception of humansubjectivity also played a prominent role in the notions of morality that we discussed in ouranalysis of the 4 2 discussions on the question what constitutes the moral domain (issue 1). Thisconception also appeared to be influential in the discussions about moralrelativism (issue 4). Not only, then, did our first paper indicate the need for furthertheoretical, conceptual and philosophical research. It also indicated a certain direction for suchinvestigations in that it suggested that many problems could be traced back to a specific understandingof human subjectivity and agency and morality and ethics more generally an understanding that can becharacterized as typically modern. It made sense, in other words, to explore what a postmodern approachmight have to offer. The overall project of which this paper is a part, consists of three steps.The first step (our AERA-2000 paper subtitled 'Clearing the terrain') provided a criticaloverview of the current field. The second step in our project (subtitled Mapping the terrain') is meant toprovide an overview of postmodern and poststructural approaches to ethics and morality. On thebasis of this, our third step (subtitled 'Shifting the terrain') will be an attempt to articulate a postmoderntheory of moral education. One of the problems with the second part of the project is that thenotions 'postmodern' and 'poststructural' refer to a wide variety of different approaches, positions,theories and ideas, even if restricted to