Article written by

Mark Murphy is a Reader in Education and Public Policy at the University of Glasgow. He previously worked as an academic at King’s College, London, University of Chester, University of Stirling, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, University College Dublin and Northern Illinois University. Mark is an active researcher in the fields of education and public policy. His research interests include educational sociology, critical theory, accountability in higher education, and public sector reform.

2 Responses

  1. Randolph Preisinger-Kleine
    Randolph Preisinger-Kleine at | | Reply

    Guess Habermas’ would not deny the arguments brought to the fore. Although, he probably would ask, how the irrational could reflect itself, if not in a rational discourse.

  2. Randolph Preisinger-Kleine
    Randolph Preisinger-Kleine at | | Reply

    Indeed, Habermas discourse model seems to suggest the idea of “empty” subjects. Drive, emotions, ends, interests or ambivalences. For Habermas’ all of this is nothing like sand in the clockwork of a rational discourse. In order to become “true” subjectivity, the subject has to de-subjectivate itself.

    Funny enough, it is excactly this paradoxy, which Foucault described as the “shaping” of subjectivity in modern societies. One might not be convinced by Foucault’s idea of man as savage. However, at the end of the day the idea of a savage subject to me is more friendly than an empty one.

    Like a true nature child
    We were born
    Born to be wild
    We can climbed so high
    I never wanna die
    Born to be wild
    Born to be wild

    (Steppenwolf)

Please comment with your real name using good manners.

Leave a Reply