Abstract
Theories about relationships impact the ways in which we imagine that teachers and students can or should interact. These theories often involve either individualistic or relational assumptions. A contrast has been made between theories that assume that the individual is primary, and the relationship secondary, and those that assume that the relationship is primary and the individual secondary. Roughly mapping on to these assumptions are the implications that educational relationships either ought to facilitate autonomy or community, emancipation or socialization. I argue that educational contexts occupy a liminal space at the boundaries of multiple contexts, and so have limited ability to either emancipate or socialize students relative to these contexts. However, the very liminality of the educational space allows for a unique view and exploration of these contexts using autonomy and community as means rather than ends of education. Learning, described here as re-co-gnition, is facilitated as students move away from and then return to the liminal (relational), and teachers and students view again together (recognize) the boundaries of these various contexts as they intersect at the school. Implications for teaching in this liminal space are explored for recognizing relationships between student and teacher, childhood and adulthood, home and the “outside world,” and boundaries within and between disciplines.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Biesta, G.J.J. 2014. The beautiful risk of education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Campbell, J. 1949. The hero with a thousand faces. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Cornelius-White, J. 2007. Learner-centered teacher–student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 77(1): 113–143. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298563.
Davis, H. 2003. Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist 38: 207–234.
Egan, K. 2001. Why education is so difficult and contentious. Teachers College Record 103(6): 923–941.
Griffiths, M. 2015. Educational relationships: Rousseau, Wollstonecraft and social justice. In Re-imagining relationships in education: Ethics, politics and practices, ed. M. Griffiths, M.H. Hoveid, S. Todd, and C. Winter, 1–22. Chichester: Wiley.
Griffiths, M., M.H. Hoveid, S. Todd, and C. Winter. 2015. Re-imagining relationships in education: Ethics, politics and practices. Chichester: Wiley.
Hoveid, M.H., and A. Finne. 2015. ‘You have to give of yourself’: Care and love in pedagogical relations. In Re-imagining relationships in education: Ethics, politics and practices, ed. M. Griffiths, M.H. Hoveid, S. Todd, and C. Winter, 73–88. Chichester: Wiley.
Jones, R. 2015. Re-reading Diotima: Resources for a relational pedagogy. In Re-imagining relationships in education: Ethics, politics and practices, ed. M. Griffiths, M.H. Hoveid, S. Todd, and C. Winter, 1–22. Chichester: Wiley.
Marcia, J.E. 2002. Adolescence, identity, and the Bernardone family. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research 2(3): 199–209.
Noddings, N. 1984. Caring, a feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Noddings, N. 1993. Educating for intelligent belief or unbelief. New York: Teachers College Press.
Noddings, N. 2010. The maternal factor: Two paths to morality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Richardson, M.J. 2017. Religious liberty, moral recognition, and strong relationality. Journal of Moral Education 46(4): 363–377.
Roorda, D.L., S. Jak, M. Zee, F.J. Oort, and H.M.Y. Koomen. 2017. Affective teacher–student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review 46(3): 239–261.
Roorda, D.L., H.M.Y. Koomen, J.L. Spilt, and F.J. Oort. 2011. The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research 81(4): 493–529. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793.
Thayer-Bacon, B. 2003. Relational “(e)pistemologies”. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers.
Thayer-Bacon, B. 2017. Relational ontologies. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers.
Todd, S. 2015. Between body and spirit: The liminality of pedagogical relationships. In Re-imagining relationships in education: Ethics, politics and practices, ed. M. Griffiths, M.H. Hoveid, S. Todd, and C. Winter, 1–22. Chichester: Wiley.
Wilson, C. 2015. Towards a thinking and practice of sexual difference: Putting the practice of relationship at the centre. In Re-imagining relationships in education: Ethics, politics and practices, ed. M. Griffiths, M.H. Hoveid, S. Todd, and C. Winter, 23–37. Chichester: Wiley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Richardson, M.J. Relational Recognition, Educational Liminality, and Teacher–Student Relationships. Stud Philos Educ 38, 453–466 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-019-09672-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-019-09672-1