In this presentation, we shall briefly describe the main ideas of our research project, the project for a general theory of pedagogical action. We make two important claims concerning education and educational research. First, we claim that despite past discussion concerning the postmodern as a cultural, social, or educational phenomenon, the basic questions of modern educational thought still remain relevant and important. It seems that the so-called "theories of postmodern education", such as the theory of Stanley Aronowitz and Henry Giroux (1991), only reproduce the basic ideas of modern educational thought: These are the anticipation of a better and more reasonable future and the realization of this future through education. Even though we don't believe that professor Purpel is actually a postmodernist, and while we don't believe that he himself would make such a claim, there seem to be some elements of postmodernism present in his works. Professor Purpel has, for example in his book The Moral & Spiritual Crisis in Education (1989), claimed that we are living in situation of crisis, at a cultural and societal crossroads, and our old modes of thinking, action, and education are no longer relevant. Another postmodern element in professor Purpel's argumentation seems to be the emphasis put on political action. As he stated in his lecture at the University of Oulu on Monday 6. March 1995, education is essentially political, and in fact, every human act should be considered primarily as political or moral. The interesting thing here is that despite these notions, even professor Purpel is reproducing the aforementioned classical elements of modern educational thought in his conception of "prophetic education" (see Purpel 1989). Somehow, the basic ideas of modern education seem to be reappearing in an inevitable way in the most surprising of places, even in the theories of postmodern education. We believe that this fact is not a coincidence. Rather, the basic ideas of modern educational thought keep reappearing - especially in times of cultural crisis - mainly because modern education is based on the notion of cultural and societal crisis. Modern education is in essence a proposed solution to an overwhelming cultural crisis, the crisis that appeared at the end of the premodern form of life at the dawn of modern society. It is because of this fact that the traditions of education seem to be an element which run uninterruptedly from the modern into the postmodern.
Because the postmodern theories of education or the notion of "education in the situation of cultural crisis" as proposed by professor Purpel actually seem to reproduce the main ingredients of modern educational theory, it doesn't seem reasonable to abandon the modern idea of education. In this respect, the postmodern-sounding phrases like " everything is political", "there are no educational issues", or "everything has something to do with gender", are as such not really relevant starting points for educational research and theory. We are not saying that these notions are not important, on the contrary, they highlight some very important issues, but as a basic starting point for educational theory or research, they are not useful. The more valuable thing to do would be to reconstruct the essential and most fundamental ideas in the tradition of modern educational thought. This is, actually, the basic idea of our research project.
The second important claim we are proposing is the idea that the research object of educational research should be pedagogical action.
In this paper, we briefly describe a theory of pedagogical action. This theory is based on a so-called praxeological approach (see figure 1), which we will not elaborate upon in this presentation. It is sufficient to say that according to the praxeological view, a human being is first and foremost a creature of action, a creature, who is constantly engaged in practical human action which takes place in symbolic, historical, and partially prestructured world. Thus, the main research object of educational research should be the form of action classified as education, or pedagogical action as we have chosen to call it. Even if one is not familiar with the praxeological approach, the choice we have made - to study education as a form of action - seems quite relevant since it is obvious that education is essentially a form of action. It is not something that is inside the pupil or a child, or inside the teacher, it is not something that is hidden in a textbook of mathematics or geography. Education is - in essence - a form of action.
What is this pedagogical action and how does it differ from other forms of human action? Before we introduce the four main principles or characteristics of pedagogical action, we shall shortly discuss the important distinction between the concepts of "Bildung" and education (or Erziehung in German). The difference between these two terms is vitally important for developing a theory of education, and we suspect that the incapability of Anglo-American educational research to generate a relevant critique of prevailing educational practices can be traced back to the fact that Anglo-American theorists and researchers are not familiar with this distinction. Thus, they often overemphasize either the aspect of "Bildung" or the aspect of education in their theories.
The concept of pedagogical action we have introduced contains two aspects that define interaction between an adult and a child. The first aspect has been in the Continental tradition expressed with the word "Bildung". The "Bildung" can be defined as a formative process during which a human being acts and interacts in her/his cultural, social, and natural environment. During the process of "Bildung", the human being forms, defines, and literally creates her/himself and her/his environment. The fundamental meaning of the process of "Bildung" is the active mode of being as being-in-the world (the Dasein, in philosophical terms). Also, the "Bildung" is a process that takes place primarily through and in human language, which in the first place makes possible both the reproduction and intermediation of cultural meanings and on the other hand the active and creative production of new meanings and interpretations and thus the development of the individual, culture, and society.
The concept of "Bildung" , however, is not a sufficient definition for pedagogical action, since in pedagogical action the relation between the child and the culture is not direct, but mediated by different kinds of more or less intentionally carried out pedagogical procedures and activities. This aspect of mediation in pedagogical action can be called education (Erziehung). In this regard, education may be understood as a form of action in which an adult person intentionally tries to influence the process of "Bildung" of a child in such a way that the process of "Bildung" will be carried towards its hypothetical end: For example, to moral and democratic subjectivity and to society. Basically, there are no guarantees that the process of "Bildung" itself could actually lead to the realization of the ideals of "Bildung" Thus, specific educational procedures and forms of pedagogical action are needed to effect the course of the process of "Bildung" and shape the whole process in a desirable way.
The problem here is that it seems that these two conceptions, "Bildung" and education, are contradictory or even downright paradoxical. The educator is in a paradoxical situation where s/he at the same time should acknowledge and respect the child as an autonomous actor, and at the same time, s/he should interfere with the development of the presupposedly autonomous child. This paradoxical situation is traditionally known as the "pedagogical paradox". (See figure 2.)
Figure 2. "Bildung", education, and the pedagogical paradox
The following analysis of the main principles of pedagogical action is essentially an attempt to solve this paradox.
And now we, finally, arrive at the concept of pedagogical action. Our research group proposes that the main principles of pedagogical action, the principles or characteristics any form of human action must posses in order to be classified as pedagogical action, are
The principle of "Bildsamkeit" has two different meanings or aspects of meaning. The first aspect of its meaning refers to the plasticity or formatibility of human being. This means that there is a fundamental possibility for human being to create and define his own being. It is a human's inherent ability to free and autonomous action. The other aspect of meaning of the "Bildsamkeit" highlights the point that "Bildsamkeit" is essentially a relational concept. The "Bildsamkeit" in this sense is constituted, defined, determined, and made possible only in and through the pedagogical interaction which actually produces it. Moreover, the "Bildsamkeit" becomes possible only in such situations of human interaction where the educandee is acknowledged as capable of becoming an autonomous rational and moral subject. (See e.g. Benner 1991.)
How is it then possible in the pedagogical interaction to realize the "Bildsamkeit"? In order to answer this question, we need the second principle of pedagogical action: the Demand for autonomous action. As we mentioned, the "Bildsamkeit" becomes realized only in pedagogical interaction. Moreover, the "Bildsamkeit" is possible inasmuch as the educator demands the educandee to act autonomously. Thus the second principle, the Demand for autonomous action, means that pedagogical interaction is structured in such a way that it requires the child to act autonomously and to have an effect on her/his own process of "Bildung". In more practical terms, this means that in pedagogical interaction, the educandee is generally required to perform something s/he is not yet fully capable of achieving. (Benner 1991.) These two principles are in a dialectical relationship, and it is just the peculiar dialectics between the principles of "Bildsamkeit" and Demand for autonomous action that seems to resolve the aforementioned pedagogical paradox.
Even though the principles of "Bildsamkeit" and Demand for autonomous action clarify the nature of pedagogical action, a theory of pedagogical action based only on these two principles would suffer from several major deficiencies. What remains inadequately accounted for is the fact that pedagogical action always takes place in some larger social and cultural context. In order to theoretically grasp this fact we need the two remaining principles (Mollenhauer 1985).
Briefly described, the principle of Cultural determination means that pedagogical interaction always takes place in a larger social and cultural context, which produces a symbolically and historically prestructured horizon for pedagogical action - namely, the cultural determination. It is essential to notice that the horizons of the child and the educator are not intersubjectively shared; the child is not yet socialized into the cultural conventions. Thus, the child and the educator do not operate on the basis of a common, shared horizon as is - or at least should be - the case in general social action. In pedagogical interaction, the educator tries to bring the child to the prevailing, symbolically structured cultural horizon. This effort is absolutely necessary, because autonomous action of the educandee is only possible in some symbolically and historically pre-defined environment. It is essential to notice that the Cultural determination is by no means absolute. Pedagogical action is not only socialization into a prevailing form of life, even though it can never fully escape its cultural determination. Historical, social, and Cultural determination is always produced and reproduced through our own action. For this reason, it is in principle possible for us to break free from this determination. This aspect of pedagogical action can be conceptualized with the fourth and last principle of pedagogical action, the principle of Exceeding the determination of present culture by representing the cultural meanings.
This last principle refers to such aspects of pedagogical action that are directed towards the future. It highlights the point that in pedagogical action, it is always possible to exceed the prevailing or present culture by mediating it in a such way that the mediation focuses specifically on those contents of tradition that most likely will have meaning in the future life of the upcoming generation. All the cultural contents of present culture are not necessarily meaningful, relevant, or "good" in this sense, and thus it is not relevant to try to reproduce them by pedagogical means. By mediating just those cultural contents that are relevant in the future, it is possible to create a new cultural horizon of interpretation. Actually, it is not possible to give any more precise or accurate definition to the principle of Exceeding the determination of present culture by representing the cultural meanings. This principle refers only to that specific formal condition of pedagogical action that makes possible the anticipation of a more rational, a more moral, and an overall better future. These four principles are, in our view, the main principles of pedagogical action (see figure 3).
Figure 3. The structure of pedagogical action
This theory of pedagogical action seems to have some important implications on educational research, for example in the fields of moral education and environmental education as well as in the research dealing with the relation between education and politics.