U N I W E R S Y T E T Z I E L O N O G Ó R S K I

DYSKURSY MŁODYCH ANDRAGOGÓW 19 • ZIELONA GÓRA 2018

Peter Alheit*

THE CONCEPT OF “BIOGRAPHICITY”

AS BACKGROUND THEORY OF LIFELONG LEARNING?1

The concept of the ‘educational biography’ frequently appears in programmes and

documents relating to lifelong learning. What is meant by that often remains unclear.
Like many notions pertaining to the field of the social sciences, the concept of biog-
raphy has a peculiar dual nature. It is both an everyday term as well as an elaborate
scientific concept. Even though it may cause us consternation at times, in everyday
life we basically have no problem in accepting that we ‘have’ a biography. In the social
sciences, however, ‘biography’ relates to a highly sophisticated social construct that is
by no means self-evident. Biography (in the sense of the tension between the concepts
of one’s life course as opposed to the story of someone’s life story), is a social form of
self-construction and self-projection arising from a particular historical and social
context. This concept is one that is historically still relatively ‘young’.
In my contribution, I would like to trace the already mentioned historical process.
Then, by using three perspectives, I will discuss the current conditions relating to bio-
graphical learning and introduce the strange phenomenon of ‘biographicity’. Finally,
I will use two empirical studies to show, in an exemplary manner, how we need to
consider significant cultural differences when talking about biographies. I will conclude
with a proposal for research with a comparative perspective.

The origin of modern life courses

In brief, according to the generally accepted theory in social sciences, the process of
socialisation, that is, the way in which the individual is integrated into society, has
fundamentally changed in the transition into modernity. It is no longer the affiliation
to groups into which one is born, castes or family that regulate rights, duties and the
scope of the individual’s permissible actions; rather these are pre-structured into life as
a kind of temporally layered programme which is itself directly linked to the individual
and to be ‘slaved away at’ by him or her.

*  Peter Alheit, Prof. em. Dr. Dr. – Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Institute of Educa-
tion, Goettingen, Germany; e-mail: [email protected].
1
  Keynote at the 4th International Conference “Culture, Biography and Lifelong Learning”, Pusan
National University, 19-21 March 2015.
10 Peter Alheit

In the mid-1980s, the Swiss sociologist Martin Kohli wrote in his thesis on the
‘Institutionalisation of the Life Course’ (Kohli 1985) that the allocation of key societal
responsibilities (education, gainful employment, participation in civil society) according
to the specific age of an individual is highly functional for the organisation of modern
political systems. It offers society (with Foucault: ‘government of the people’) as well
as individual subjects (‘self-government’) a rational basis for planning in order both
prospectively to design and retrospectively to evaluate actions and decisions.
Indeed, this system saw a kind of ‘standard biography’ develop in western societies
in the twentieth century which orientated itself along the job market and divided an
individual’s lifetime into three phases: preparation (childhood and education); an active
phase consisting of gainful employment; and the quiet time associated with retirement
(see Kohli 1985). However, this has never been the empirical normality or even reality
for all (or at least almost all) members of society. Women have never been included
(see Dausien 1996). The dramatic diagnoses of the decay of the standard biography
are therefore empirically wrong. However, what has changed is the unquestioned pre-
dominance of the three-phase-model for social institutions as well as for individual
life plans and life stories.
The concept of lifelong learning is a symptom of the de-institutionalisation of
the ‘classic’ model of what a life course is and also an active engine for the political
implementation of new concepts. It is, however, still historically new enough that its
longterm effectiveness cannot yet be judged. The phenomenon of biography would
remain incomprehensible, were it limited only to this level. In order to become ‘real’,
in any case, the societal programme of the life course therefore needs to direct the ac-
tions and thoughts of the individual, it needs concrete subjects which, to some extent,
incorporate this programme and make it their own: It needs subjects which make it
into a plan and into a story. The life course as a normative framework with actions
and a subjective sense must be filled with real life to create a unique story – in order
to create a biography of an individual subject.
Martin Kohli (1985) describes this achievement as ‘biographisation’. A biography
is therefore not only superficially a sequence of events and evidence based on dates and
facts as may be demonstrated by a socially ‘presentable’ or documented curriculum
vitae. It consists also of the subjective meaning, the experiences and stories associated
with a life course (Schulze 1993). Furthermore, it consists of the multitude of stories,
images (of the past) that are not only relevant to the subject ‘behind’, ‘beyond’ or ‘de-
spite’ the objective life course dates, but also that can be connected with one another
in a narrative structure (Alheit 2008). The result of this construction process (which
in principle is neverending and rather one that can be redrawn and reconstructed) is
The Concept of  “Biographicity” as Background Theory of Lifelong Learning? 11

the latent meaning of the ‘individual life course’. This meaning, too, is not fixed but
can – in principle – be retold again and again (see).

The distinctive feature of the modern biography

The German cultural sociologist Alois Hahn (2000) asserted that ‘biography’ is a spe-
cific diachronic formula for identity construction and representation. This is a feature
of the development of a modern society as life’s journey is no longer predetermined
therein but instead becomes more variable for both the individual as well as for whole
groups in society through educational processes and social mobility, migration and
technical-cultural change.
Social mobility – the ability to leave one’s social background or the ‘class’ into which
one was born, to take on a job or make a life-plan that distinguishes itself from the
experiences or normative expectation of the previous generation – means that the social
position one has reached (as well as its associated social identity), no longer reveal the
nature of the life-path from which one has come.
In a class society a peasant would in all likelihood have been the son of a peasant;
a craftsman the son of craftsman who had completed a clearly defined apprenticeship;
the wife of a nobleman the daughter of a nobleman. In the modern contemporary soci-
ety, however (at least in the broad realm of middle social positions), one can no longer
determine a particular ancestry based on current societal status. While a professor
can be the son of a professor, he could also be the son of a butcher; a prime minister
could be part of the educated urban middle class or the son of an unskilled worker etc.
Hahn writes: “the temporalisation of self-representation […] only becomes impera-
tive where an identical contemporary existence can be the result of two extremely dif-
ferent past-lives; where the present no longer adequately illuminates much of the past”
(Hahn 2000, p. 107; translation by the author). In order to present convincingly and
make comprehensible one’s own social position as well as one’s unmistakable identity,
it is no longer sufficient to say who one ‘is’. Instead, the individual has to relate how
he or she has ‘come to be’ what they are today. The ‘gap between origin and fate’, which
has become part of the common experience of the modern individual, can be in some
sense ‘remedied’ through the construction of a biography.
Hahn closely considered the development of biographical design formulas in his
studies and developed the theory that the individual relied upon societal ‘biography
generators’ (such as any form of religious confession) in the production of a biographical
identity (see Hahn 1982; 1987; 2000). Other forms and processes of self-discovery and
self-representation encompass pleas for clemency as well as defence petitions in courts
of law; travel journals and diaries dealing with the (German) coming-of-age novels;
12 Peter Alheit

letters of friendship; psychiatric case histories and psychological theories of develop-

ment; and can even include ‘Facebook’ as well as the talk-shows of our (post)modern
media-world.
The theory that the new variability of journeys through societal space also requires
new principles for the construction of one’s self – which allow the individual to endow
this journey with individuality, to design it and permit one’s ‘self ’ to proceed along it –,
can be deduced from this historical perspective. The concept of learning associated
with the Enlightenment (with education freed from the shackles of social and religious
constraints), for a number of centuries fulfilled the function of such a theory of con-
struction. It is reinforced with a Protestant ethic and an ideology of merit pertaining
to the capitalist job market which, in its profane version, ‘promises’ that everyone can
be the architect of one’s own fortune.

Symptoms of ‘governmentality effects’ in a Foucaultian sense

In this process, the concept of a linear ‘standard biography’ based on education and
vocation (in specific historical phases and for a specific part of the population), has
provided a viable framework for both the individual and collective formation of mean-
ings. While it may have recently become less relevant, or could even be said to have
‘collapsed’ dramatically, it does not, however, detract from the biographical principle
of ‘self ’. If anything, according to my thesis, it strengthens it.
Apart from some (post)modern semantic variations, the idea of ‘self-management’
and ‘lifelong learning’ can also be integrated into this briefly described historical re-
lationship where they function as contemporary variations that have not yet proven
their historical validity and effect. When in the current debate reference is made back
to the heightened need for educational counselling and career guidance relating to
‘educational biographies’ (Bröckling 2000; 2007) or ‘lifelong learning’ (Fejes 2008; Rothe
2010), this by no means refers to facts or distinct tendencies. Instead, it relates to the
most demanding societal and scientific constructions that still leave their construc-
tive character largely obscured. Foucault, in his reflections on “governmentality”, has
convincingly criticised those hidden constraints into “self-governance” (see Foucault
1976; 2000).

A new theoretical framing of lifelong learning

This assessment is especially true for the concept of ‘lifelong learning’ where the sci-
entific content has not yet been satisfactorily resolved despite numerous publications.
Hence, I propose for it to be treated as an educational strategy which can be subject to
The Concept of  “Biographicity” as Background Theory of Lifelong Learning? 13

scientific analysis but that is not, however, itself to be a scientific term with analytical
precision or theoretical content (see Dausien & Rothe 2007; Dausien 2008). Conversely,
I consider a perspective relating to biographical or educational theory to be useful for
an analysis focused on educational and adult learning in the dimension of the life span.
It is useful for reflecting on (pedagogical) consultancy processes that relate to indi-
vidual education and employment pathways where the processes can claim to build on
the subjective, experiential and learned structures of the consulted subjects – on their
biographical ‘self-constructions’. Even if this claim cannot be said to apply to all forms
of consultancy in this field, it nonetheless appears to constitute a kind of core pedagogi-
cal professionalism. It therefore seems reasonable, at this point, to outline briefly the
specific characteristics of a biographically theoretical approach to ‘lifelong learning’, or,
more generally, to educational processes within the life span (Dausien 2008; Alheit &
Dausien 2009a; 2009b). I want to highlight three aspects of such an approach that can be
used for the analysis of educational processes: temporality, contextuality and reflexivity.
Temporality. The focus of using a biographically theoretical approach is essentially
one of a differentiated notion of how learning processes are structured temporally; how
(through the intertwining of various time structures – such as past, present, future,
everyday life, life time, societal time; ‘own-time’ and ‘institutionalised’ time structures)
they lead to the construction of high-order structures of experience and meaning.
Therefore, a biographical analysis enquires about the temporal structure, the tem-
poral order and ‘re-order’ of education and learning within a life span. This is no linear
structure in the sense of links in a ‘chain of ongoing-learning’, nor is it a quantitative
accumulation of knowledge in the sense of a ‘knowledge-account’. They are considered
to be more of a complex overlay of various logical approaches to temporal structures.
Educational pathways often encompass detours, interruptions, revisions and repeated
processes. This applies to both the required level of qualifications and education that are
structured according to the social context (e.g.: institutionalised curricula, changes in
the job market, the interconnectedness of institutions, guidelines on further education)
as well as to their ‘own’ time structure formed and reformed through experiences and
perspectives relating to biographical subjects and social groups. In this way, biographi-
cal research allows an elaborated analysis of the dimension of a lifetime of learning
which, after all, is central to the principle of lifelong learning. This becomes especially
significant in consultation processes during periods of biographical transition.
Contextuality. The second aspect relates to social contextuality or sociability.
Biographical learning processes are not to be found ‘in’ the individual as simple cog-
nitive activity of a self-referential brain, instead, they are located in the social world and
dependent upon it (see Dewey 1916). The ‘worlds’ (in which learning processes take
place as individual and interactive practices) are then not arbitrary learning environ-
14 Peter Alheit

ments but complex and inconsistently organised and multi-‘layered’ social contexts of
varying levels of relevance: There are concrete situations, life-settings and structured
historical-social spaces that are marked by specific power structures and structures of
inequality. Learning processes virtually take place ‘between’ subjects and the worlds
relevant to them – and these worlds change and are themselves historically variable.
I can only intimate the theoretical background for this conceptualisation. I use a bio-
graphical concept that is principally characterised by the theoretical tradition of social
constructionism and is rooted in pragmatism, symbolic interactionism and societal
phenomenology. It also focuses on the everyday view of the biographical subjects and
on their relationship with themselves as well with the rest of the world. Furthermore,
analyses of societal power relationships and inequalities are included following on from
the ideas of Pierre Bourdieu or Michel Foucault as well as narrative-scientific concepts.
Educational biographies can thus be understood to be a subject-context-relationship
and the question is then one of the concrete ‘How’ of the temporal and meaningful
structure of such relationships, or, more precisely, of such ‘configurations’. Particularly
the perspective of biographical research that is supposedly ‘only’ directed at the indi-
vidual opens up a view on the social structure of biographical processes, on the insti-
tutional and societal conditions and practices that add to the formation of biographies;
that support, inhibit or block off pathways.
Such a concept of biographical theory within the pedagogical-consultative practice
challenges us to examine the role of educational institutions as well as connection with
other institutions and spheres of life in concrete biographies. It challenges us not only to
look at the ‘competencies’ and ‘profiles’ of an individual as suggested by individualised
approaches to learning. ‘Biography’, in contrast to these, is an attempt to take into con-
sideration the interaction between institutional structures and societal conditions
on the one hand; and the course of education shaped by the actions, experiences and
interpretations of the biographical subjects on the other.
Reflexivity. A third facet comes into play in a biographical approach to educational
processes: iographical reflexivity. In the first instance this refers to learning being
understood as a process of ‘making-experiences’ and of the construction of mean-
ing where the subject recursively refers to his or her own experiences and yields new
knowledge and adventures. A specific biographical structure of experiences manifests
itself through the many processes of learning. This occurs over the life course and in
each of the relevant (and potentially changing) everyday contexts. This biographical
structure virtually constitutes the individuality of the self. It can be understood to be
a temporally layered, individual configuration consisting of social experiences – includ-
ing, of course, embodied and emotional sentiments.
The Concept of  “Biographicity” as Background Theory of Lifelong Learning? 15

New experiences and knowledge are continually built into this biographical con-
figuration of meaning – which can also be labelled as temporally layered ‘biographical
knowledge’ (Alheit & Hoerning 1989). In this way the biographical sum of knowledge
is successively being built and rebuilt. Put metaphorically, ‘life is a building site’ and
learning is the constructive process where knowledge and sense are produced from
actions and experiences. As to which biographical sense, which configuration of knowl-
edge are produced depends on the ‘material’ and the tools that are available on any given
building site. It also depends upon what the given options are for all possible concrete
forms of action, whether for first time attempts, for repeated trying, for mistakes, for
modifications and new designs, and, finally, through the communicative space for
reflecting individually and in groups.
Such a space that offers the means, temporally, to ‘exit’ the process of biographical
work to reflect upon it from a certain distance can, for example, be afforded through
a situation relating professional training or consultation. It can, however, also be blocked
or closed off by such a situation. The latter can occur when learning or consultative
situations are set up in such a way that the individual experiences and expectations of
the learners are not incorporated productively. These experiences and expectations may
even be rejected, aggrieved or annulled through rigid guidelines, pressure to perform
or power structures.
The concept of biographical reflexivity, however, also contains a second facet that
I label ‘biographicity’ (see Alheit 1995; Alheit & Dausien 2002). This facet alludes to
the fact that the ‘inherent logic’ of the already formed biographical sense structures
subsequent actions and interpretations of a subject. A biography is formed not only
through learning; a biography also impacts reflexively back on the same learning pro-
cesses. Staying with the metaphor: How and what is actually and concretely constructed
on a building site depends primarily upon the experiences, competencies and routines
the ‘builders’ bring in from previous building works. That is what contributes to their
biographical work. It also depends upon the attitudes to, expectations of and designs
on the future with which they approach the task. This complex biographical structure
of experiences that is formed in the past and relates to the future ‘arranges’ the actions
and learning processes of a subject. It thus restricts, in a ‘self-made’, reflexive way, the
scope for action that is possible in principle (see Bröckling 2000).
The limitation is both (and that identifies ‘biographicity’): a narrowing and an
enablement. Not all conceivable constructions are built. However, there exists the
creative potential to newly create a specific, individual construction from the general
possibilities, even to the surprise of the producer. The biographical potential creates
‘self-will’ (‘Eigensinn’) that eludes not just pedagogical access but can also only be
steered by the subject.
16 Peter Alheit

A fundamental difference, however, becomes apparent between a biographical­

‑theoretical concept of learning processes and the idea of ‘self-management’ or of the
‘entrepreneurial self ’. This seems to be fully self-explanatory, balances itself, plans and
aims to avoid ‘mistakes’, and develops improvements – always with the goal of ‘self­
‑optimisation’ in mind. Biographical learning in contrast is incalculable and surprises
itself (see Bröckling 2000).
To summarise: A biographically-scientific approach to educational and professional
biographies (i.e.: to a theoretically convincing concept of lifelong learning)
– assumes a complex and fundamentally ‘non-linear’ time structure of learning
processes;
– it directs the focus not onto the isolated individual, but instead onto the subject­
‑context-relationship that also always enquires about the institutional and societal
conditions within which the subjects make their own experiences and
– it expects a wilful reflexivity of the biographical formation of experiences that mani-
fests itself within concrete learning processes (as resistance, but also as creativity
and surprise) and that paradoxically removes learning processes from pedagogical
analysis and brings it to this strange idea of ‘biographicity’.

The cultural bias of ‘biographicity’

As far as this third point is concerned – that complicated phenomenon that I described
as ‘biographicity’ – I have just returned from Washington where I was involved with
Karen Nestor’s defence procedure, a PhD student who wrote about this concept in her
dissertation. My impression was that she had developed my theoretical idea in a most
creative way and, furthermore, had empirically substantiated it (see Nestor 2015). She
complemented the original thoughts on concepts from the ‘enactive paradigm’ (e.g. Di
Paolo 2005; Stewart 2010) and was plausibly able to link important results stemming
from her qualitative data with Axel Honneth’s philosophical ‘theory of recognition’
(Honneth 1995). The wonderful picture she created gives an impression of her complex
theoretical thinking:
Something else, however, was significant for me: a ‘productive misunderstand-
ing’ of my thinking, as it were. Karen Nestor comprehends ‘biographicity’ radically as
the ability in principle to reshape one’s life and initiate learning processes – like they
say in America: ‘where the sky’s the limit’. The possibility that biographically layered
experiences can also block and limit new learning processes is not really taken into
consideration. Interestingly, she can plausibly evidence her optimism through life
and educational experiences of young adults from educationally disadvantaged back-
The Concept of  “Biographicity” as Background Theory of Lifelong Learning? 17

(taken from Nestor 2015, p. 226)

grounds. Her protagonists also share her conviction that learning keeps all pathways
open (see Nestor 2015, 168 ff.).
Nonetheless, she has to state empirically that in every one of the successful stories
of learning and advancement a dimension exists that guaranteed success: very one
of the individuals concerned had the profound experience of recognition in their
educational history. This may have come from parents, siblings, teachers, supporters
and friends or, occasionally, even from the public. And it is exactly this constellation
that creates the experiential foundation for a willingness to reflect upon one’s own life
and to try new things.
It was this difference that made me consider a notion that I would like to discuss:
Could it be that we think about biographical learning with an astonishing level of cul-
tural bias? Does the clandestine myth of going ‘from dishwasher to millionaire’ reflect
the unbroken optimism of American pedagogues; while, mirrored in the ambiguous
nature of the concept of biographicity (of ‘narrowing and enablement’), do we see the
scepticism of European intellectuals?
I am in the process of discussing with Zhiwei Chen, a Chinese PhD student, the
interesting results arising from the differences in mentalities to education between
 18 Peter Alheit

Germany and China. In the analysis of his qualitative data (having biographical in-
terviews with German and Chinese students), he was able to identify four key types
of educational biographies common to both German and Chinese students (Chen
2015). These consisted, as he labelled it, of a ‘family type’, a ‘school or institution type’,
a ‘social type’ and an ‘individualisation type’. The labels express the scope of sense that
was relevant for each of the educational biographies.
He then placed these types from both the German and Chinese sample into a men-
tality-field that is characterised by two distinctive polarisations: according to the ten-
Fig.1. Field ofbetween
sion educational mentalities
‘modernity’ and ‘tradition’ as well as the contrast between ‘sociality’ and
‘individualisation’.

modern

tensions

individual social

tensions

[A: źródło] traditional

Figure 1. Field of educational mentalities

Resources: Chen Z. (2016), Comparative Research on the Motivations, Influential Factors, and Current Status of
The ‘types’ discovered
Lifelong Learning inin the
China and Chinese field had
Germany, Dissertation a strong ‘traditional
at. Georg-August-University Goet- Even the
of Goettingen,bias’.
tingen, p. 276.
‘individualisation type’ (IT), which is surely the one most closely aligned with modern pole, still
appeared to be
Thevery socially
‘types’ orientated.
discovered The ‘family’
in the Chinese field had a(FT),
strong‘social’ (ST)bias’.
‘traditional and Even
‘school/institution’
the
‘individualisation type’ (IT), which is surely the one most closely aligned with mod-
types (SIT) had a more or less clear orientation towards the traditional pole. This generated a
ern pole, still appeared to be very socially orientated. The ‘family’ (FT), ‘social’ (ST)
mentality and
cluster focussed between
‘school/institution’ typesthe social
(SIT) had and traditional
a more poles:
or less clear orientation towards the
traditional pole. This generated a mentality cluster focussed between the social and
Fig. 2. Chinese educational
traditional poles (seementality
Fig. 2).
The German types are orientated in a wholly different manner. Each one appears
almost systematically to take up a different position within the field of educational
mentalities: the ‘family type’ (FT) appearsmodern
to have generally freed itself from traditional
restrictions and is drawn to the individualisation pole. The ‘school / institution type’

ITc

individual social
types (SIT) had a more or less clear orientation towards the traditional pole. This generated a
mentality cluster focussed between the social and traditional poles:

Fig. 2. Chinese educational

The Concept mentality
of  “Biographicity” as Background Theory of Lifelong Learning? 19
[A: źródło]

modern
The German types are orientated in a wholly different manner. Each one appears almost
systematically to take up a different position within the field of educational mentalities: the
‘family type’ (FT) appears toindividual social
ITc from traditional
have generally freed itself restrictions and is drawn
to the individualisation pole. The ‘school / institution type’ (SIT) has modernised and must find
c SIT
its place in the upper left quadrant of the field. This is especially the case for the
‘individualisation type’ (IT). In the German sample,STconly the ‘social type’ (ST) maintains a
FTc
position relative to the social pole. The mentality cluster, however, has its focal point between the
individualisation and the modernity poles – in direct contrast to the Chinese sample:
traditional

Figure 2. Chinese educational mentality

Resources: Chen Z. (2016), Comparative Research on the Motivations, Influential Factors, and Current Status of 11
Lifelong Learning in China and Germany, Dissertation at. Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Goet-
tingen, p. 276.

(SIT) has modernised and must find its place in the upper left quadrant of the field.
This is especially the case for the ‘individualisation type’ (IT). In the German sample,
only the ‘social type’ (ST) maintains a position relative to the social pole. The mentality
Fig. 3. German educational mentality
cluster, however, has its focal point between the individualisation and the modernity
poles – in direct contrast to the Chinese sample:

modern

g
IT

g
SIT

g g
FT ST social
individual

traditional

Fig. 3. German educational mentality

Resources: Chen Z. (2016), Comparative Research on the Motivations, Influential Factors, and Current Status of
Lifelong Learning in China and Germany, Dissertation at. Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Goet-
[A: źródło] tingen, p. 276.

I cannot claim that this interim result really surprised me, but I must admit that the fundamental
difference is astonishment. In contemporary China, can education and lifelong learning in their
20 Peter Alheit

I cannot claim that this interim result really surprised me, but I must admit that
the fundamental difference is astonishment. In contemporary China, can education
and lifelong learning in their subject-context-figuration be so far removed from the
European constellations?
As I said, it is exactly this that I would like to discuss in the future. And I am re-
minded of a South-Korean doctoral student of mine, Seong-Hie Park (2000), who had
had extraordinary problems to motivate older women to participate in a biographical
narrative interview. The presentation of the personal ‘I’ within the religious setting of
Confucianism appeared to be an ethical problem. We are learning that the modern ‘self ’
is a western creation and we are unsure if an uncritical application to other cultures
is useful or legitimate.

Outlook

What does make sense meanwhile, is to have an intelligent comparison of ‘movements’

(scientific but also practical) that have the desire to combine the themes of biography
and learning. I am thinking of the ‘constructionist turn’ within American and European
educational research. However, I am also thinking of the quasi-dynamic biographical
research undertaken in Brazil where more than 2,000 conferencegoers regularly come
together every two years. I am thinking of approaches in South-East Asia, especially
about conferences in South-Korea which are now taking place for the fourth time. I have
a secret desire to understand the cultural idiosyncrasies of these different ‘movements’
and to compare them with each other – for the benefit of all. You may have the wish
to help me in this quest. I most warmly invite you to join me.

References
Alheit P. (1995), Biographizität als Lernpotential. Konzeptionelle Überlegungen zum biographischen
Ansatz in der Erwachsenenbildung, [in:] Erziehungswissenschaftliche Biographieforschung,
H.-H. Krüger & W. Marotzki (eds), Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 276-307.
Alheit P. (2008), Lebenslanges Lernen und soziales Kapital, [in:] Lebenslanges Lernen. Theoretische
Perspektiven und empirische Befunde im Kontext der Erwachsenenbildung, H. Herzberg (ed.),
Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main et al, pp. 13-30.
Alheit P. & Dausien B. (2002), The ‘double face’ of lifelong learning: Two analytical perspectives
on a ‘silent revolution’, “Studies in the Education of Adults”, 34, 1, pp. 3-22.
Alheit P. & Dausien B. (2009a), Bildungsprozesse über die Lebensspanne: Zur Politik und Theorie
Lebenslangen Lernens, [in:] Handbuch Bildungsforschung, R. Tippelt (ed.), 2., überarbeitete
Auflage, Wiesbaden: VS, pp. 713-734.
Alheit P. & Dausien B. (2009b), „Biographie” in den Sozialwissenschaften. Anmerkungen zu his-
torischen und aktuellen Problemen einer Forschungsperspektive, [in:] Die Biographie – Zur
The Concept of  “Biographicity” as Background Theory of Lifelong Learning? 21

Grundlegung ihrer Theorie. B. Fetz (Hg., unter Mitarbeit von H. Schweiger), De Gruyter,
Berlin-New York, pp. 285-315.
Alheit P., & Hoerning E.M. (Hg.) (1989), Biographisches Wissen. Beiträge zu einer Theorie le-
bensgeschichtlicher Erfahrung, Campus, Frankfurt/Main.
Bröckling U. (2000), Totale Mobilmachung. Menschenfuhrung im Qualitäts- und Selbstmanage-
ment, [in:] Gouvernementalität der Gegenwart. Studien zur Ökonomisierung des Sozialen,
U. Bröckling et al. (ed.), Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 131-167.
Bröckling U. (2007), Das unternehmerische Selbst. Soziologie einer Subjektivierungsform, Suhr-
kamp, Frankfurt/Main.
Chen Z. (2015), A Comparison of Chinese and German Higher Education Systems (working
title), University of Göttingen, Göttingen.
Chen Z. (2016), Comparative Research on the Motivations, Influential Factors, and Current Status
of Lifelong Learning in China and Germany, Dissertation at. Georg-August-University of
Goettingen, Goettingen, p. 276.
Dausien B. (1996), Biographie und Geschlecht. Zur biographischen Konstruktion sozialer Wirk-
lichkeit in Frauenlebensgeschichten, Donat, Bremen. Dausien B. (2008), Lebenslanges Lernen
als Leitlinie für die Bildungspraxis? Überlegungen zur pädagogischen Konstruktion von Lernen
aus biographietheoretischer Sicht, [in:] Lebenslanges Lernen. Theoretische Perspektiven und
empirische Befunde im Kontext der Erwachsenenbildung, H. Herzberg (ed.), Peter Lang,
Frankfurt/Main, pp. 151-174.
Dausien B. & Rothe D. (2007), „Neue Lerndienstleistungen”. Kritische Gedanken zu einem bil­
dungs­politischen Programm, “Widerspruche. Zeitschrift fur sozialistische Politik im Bildungs-,
Gesundheits- und Sozialbereich”, 104, pp. 85-99.
Dewey J. (1916), Democracy and Education. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education,
Macmillan, New York.
Di Paolo E.A. (2005), Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency, “Phenomenology and the Cog-
nitive Sciences”, 4, pp. 429-452.
Fejes A. (2008), European citizens under construction – the Bologna process analysed from
a governmentality perspective, “Educational Philosophy and Theory”, 40, 4, pp. 515-530.
Foucault M. (1976), Überwachen und Strafen. Die Geburt des Gefängnisses, Suhrkamp, Frank-
furt/Main.
Foucault M. (2000), Die Gouvernementalität, [in:] Gouvernementalität der Gegenwart. Studien zur
Ökonomisierung des Sozialen, U. Bröckling et al. (ed.), Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 41-67.
Hahn A. (1982), Zur Soziologie der Beichte und anderer Formen institutionalisierter Bekennt-
nisse. Selbstthematisierung und Zivilisationsprozeß, “Kölner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und
Sozialpsychologie”, 34, pp. 408-434.
Hahn A. (1987), Identität und Selbstthematisierung, [in:] Selbstthematisierung und Selbstzeugnis:
Bekenntnis und Geständnis, A. Hahn & V. Kapp (eds), Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 9-24.
Hahn A. (2000), Konstruktionen des Selbst, der Welt und der Geschichte. Aufsätze zur Kulturso-
ziologie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.
Honneth A. (1995), The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts, MA: MIT
Press, Cambridge.
Kohli M. (1985), Die Institutionalisierung des Lebenslaufs. Historische Befunde und theoretische
Argumente, “Kölner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie”, 37, pp. 1-29.
Nestor K. (2015), Understanding Biographicity: Redesigning and Reshaping Lives in Young Adult-
hood. Dissertation subitted to the Graduate School of Education and Human Development of
the George-Washington-University, Washington.
22 Peter Alheit

Park S.-H. (2000), Zur Modernisierung von weiblichen Bildungsbiographien in Südkorea. PhD
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Georg-August-University of Goettingen,
Goettingen.
Rothe D. (2010), Lebenslanges Lernen als Regierungsprogramm. Rekonstruktion einer diskursiven
Formation im bildungspolitischen Feld, Göttingen: Dissertation am Pädagogischen Seminar
der Universitt Göttingen (011: Frankfurt/Main-New York: Campus).
Schulze T. (1993), Lebenslauf und Lebensgeschichte, [in:] Aus Geschichten lernen. Zur Einübung
pdagogischen Verstehens, D. Baacke & T. Schulze (eds), Juventa Verlag, Weinheim-München,
pp. 174-226.
Stewart J. (2010), Foundational issues in enaction as a paradigm for cognitive science, [in:] Enac-
tion: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science, J. Stewart, O. Gapenne & E.A. Di Paolo
(eds), MA: MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-31.

THE CONCEPT OF “BIOGRAPHICITY” AS BACKGROUND THEORY OF LIFELONG LEARNING?

summary: The article gives an idea of a new conceptualization of lifelong learning taking into account
that learning in the life course is framed by cultural and mentality patterns. The background resource
of our learning potential represents both an intimate personal dimension and a vivid social aspect.
The concept of ‘biographicity’ has been created as an expression of this interwovenness. Empirical
examples from the US society, from China and Germany show interesting differences of mental
framing patterns in lifelong learning processes.
keywords: Lifelong learning, biographisation, biographicity, temporality, contextuality, reflexivity,
cultural bias.

KONCEPCJA „BIOGRAFICZNOŚCI” JAKO TEORETYCZNE TŁO DLA OPISU I ROZUMIENIA

PROCESU CAŁOŻYCIOWEGO UCZENIA SIĘ?
streszczenie: W niniejszym artykule autor stara się pokazać nowe ujęcie idei uczenia się przez całe
życie. W swoim opisie tej kwestii bierze on pod uwagę to, że nasze ścieżki edukacyjne są kształtowa-
ne przez kulturę i mentalność w niej zakotwiczoną. W tym sensie potencjał naszego uczenia się jest
wypadkową zarówno indywidualnych, jak i społecznych aspektów życia, a koncepcja biograficzno-
ści – do której odwołują się andragodzy – stanowi odzwierciedlenie tego mechanizmu. Przywołane
w tekście empiryczne przykłady uczenia się w takich społeczeństwach jak społeczeństwo Stanów
Zjednoczonych, Chin, Niemiec świadczą, zdaniem autora, o interesujących wzorach różnic w procesie
całożyciowego uczenia się ukształtowanych mentalnie i kulturowo.
słowa kluczowe: uczenie się przez całe życie, biografizacja, biograficzność, tymczasowość, kontek-
stowość, refleksyjność, podstawy kulturowe.