Agency and Sovereignty: Georges Bataille's Anti-Humanist Conception of Child

Abstract

Georges Bataille (1887-1962) is one of the most significant thinkers of the 20th century, whose anti-humanist anthropology influenced subsequent existentialist and post-structuralist philosophy. His wide-ranging writings (across philosophy, archaeology, economics, sociology, poetry, erotica and history of art) frequently mention children, childhood and childishness, and yet there has hitherto been little to no attention paid to this aspect of his work. This article opens up a neglected theme in Bataille studies, and also explores the consequences of Bataille's presentation of the human condition for our understanding of the pedagogical relationship. Of particular interest is the idea of the agentic child, which occupies such an important place in childhood studies, educational theory and public policy. In the light of Bataille's anthropology, I shall explore the idea that the pursuit of children's agency is the victim of its vaunting ambition.

Natality and Development in Education: A Rapprochement Between Hannah Arendt and Gert Biesta?

“…Much of the historical commentary on Ariès is concerned with a defense of past childhoods over and against what he claims is a modern concept, although philosophical arguments about the relevance of the naturalistic thesis versus the sociohistorical thesis of childhood still run (Conroy, 2020). Today, most of the issues in childhood studies crystalize around child agency (Hunter, 2020). These debates tend to go against the naturalistic thesis.…”

“…For example, social theory is highly critical of child development and what is often implied by learning readiness in educational psychology. Biesta’s position is unusual because it appears to support this trend and run afoul of it, notably by his substantive account of subjectivity—what Hunter, mistakenly I believe, calls his individualism (Hunter, 2020). 10 By arguing for a rapprochement between Biesta and Arendt on the matter of development and becoming, I will also be concerned to reclaim a meaningful account of childhood—one that is faithful to Arendt’s (1959) concept of freedom, which she argues is “ontologically rooted” in natality and is still amenable to Biesta’s concern for children’s agency.…”

“… 10. Sharon Hunter has pointed out that Biesta’s ontology leaves him in tension with the social constructivist position because he equates individuation with “subjectification,” which she claims “he describes as ‘the opposite of the socialization function [in education]’” (Hunter, 2020, p. 1188). Hunter argues that such an approach as the one Biesta demonstrates, and evident in much of the children’s agency literature, leads to contradictory postulates that can appear to belong together. …”