After postmodernism in educational theory?

Educational Philosophy and Theory ISSN: 0013-1857 (Print) 1469-5812 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rept20 After postmodernism in educational theory? Jan Jagodzinski To cite this article: Jan Jagodzinski (2018) After postmodernism in educational theory?, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50:14, 1655-1656, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2018.1461393 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1461393 Published online: 25 Nov 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 36 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rept20 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY 2018, VOL. 50, NO. 14, 1655–1656 https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1461393 After postmodernism in educational theory? Jan Jagodzinski Department of Secondary Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada The Academy seems to operate with a swarm consciousness; suddenly we find ourselves on a new landscape laden with new percepts and affects to be deciphered as signs, as Deleuze and Guattari might argue; an emergent ‘structure of feeling,’ to follow Raymond Williams or ‘cultural dominant’ in Fred Jameson’s view, where this acephalous flow of energy takes another flight in yet another direction. The collective ‘we,’ across the spectrum of political, queer, gendered, racial, disability, and neuro-normativity concerns, moves from one ‘turn’ to another: from the ‘linguistic turn’ to now the ‘affective turn,’ bringing with it the conflicted claims within new materialism, object orientated ontologies (OOO), ‘accelerationism,’ and another slough of posts: post-qualitative research, post feminist, postcolonialism and so on, that ends with the importance of speculative quantum physics, along with technogenesis thrown into this heterogeneous mix. A third-wave of cybernetics has now shaped what is an ‘algorithmic governmentality.’ What sort of assemblage is operating here, now in the twenty-first century? While there are many competing claims as to what has come ‘after’ postmodernity (Toth, 2010), which had a sweeping melancholia, nostalgia, and irony running through in its look ‘back’ to the bravado of modernity with its colonial and capitalist legacy that is now deeply entrenched globally, ‘metamodernity’ has emerged as a new placeholder (Vermeulen & Akker, 2010). One should understand this as a transitioning period (but what isn’t?), or better, as an enfoldment between representational and non-representational thought, a shift from the modernist Euclidian geometries where ideology and truth were understood in terms of distortions enabling a decentering of the subject along primary signifiers: the long list of identity markers that still linger: gender, sex, race, class, disability, and so on, forcing an ethical battle between left and right factions as to who has control of the ‘social justice agenda.’ Non-Euclidian typologies mark the current enfoldment, which has placed signification, discourse, and identity in doubt. A significant shift toward grasping the pre-subjective realms of inter- and intra-relations where affects and percepts are in play has resulted in recognizing ‘minor’ mathematics, philosophy, and art that were in the shadows of both modernity and postmodernity. These minor positions have become strengthened over the past decade as the global situation has changed. Here I am referring to the ‘minor’ philosophies of Deleuze and Guattari that shift the ground from psychoanalysis to schizoanalysis; the non-standard philosophy of François Laruelle’s attempt to radicalize the Real, the rise of ‘minor’ literature where science fiction as various forms of ‘hyperstitional’ experimentations are to be found (Land, 2012), ‘theory-fiction’ of the ‘dark enlightenment’ and the numerous artistic experiments that have brought art, science and philosophy together to provide an ‘adequate’ response to the changed speed of space-time where anxiety has become the primary mental pathology. In relation to this, it is impossible to disregard two extraordinary developments; the first is obviously the era of the Anthropocene, better named the Capitaloscence where the anthropogenic labor of our species has altered the planet in the direction of our own self-destruction; and two, the extraordinary acceleration of digitalization and the various biogenetic technologies that are progressing artificial intelligence and artificial life, entwining silicon with carbon. We see the extraordinary devastation taking CONTACT jan jagodzinski [email protected] © 2018 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia 1656 j. jAGODZINSKI place globally as the divide between the 1% and the rest of the 99% in terms of resources and riches brought about by financial capitalism. Fascism is spreading. For education, this is the problem that needs to be addressed, which seems like an impossible task. Yet, without a transevaluation of capitalist values, I believe our ‘species becoming’ will end. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Notes on contributors jan jagodzinski is a professor of Visual Art and Media Education and research interests include the Anthropocene and contemporary theory in media and the arts. References Land, N. (2012). Fanged noumena: Collected writings 1987–2007. In N. Land, R. MacKay, & R. Brassier (Eds.). Falmouth: Urbanomic Press. Toth, J (2010). The passing of postmodernism: A spectroanalysis of the contemporary. New York, NY: SUNY Press. Vermeulen, T., & van den Akker, R. 2010. Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 2(1), 5677. doi:10.3402/ jac.v2i0.5677