83

Johny Lauritsen

In between post structuralismand phenomenology?

Some neorealistic1 reflections on the intrusiveness of social frame

factors into the cultural relationship between the practitioner and the client in the field of social pedagogy—the unavoidable Pierre Bourdieu.

1. A social pedagogical situation?

In social welfare institutions in Denmark during the 1970s and at the beginning of the 1980s, the theoretical way of thinking concern-ing social pedagogy for children and young people could be roughly divided into two different schools of thought.

One of these was the marxist-dialectic school of thought. This was based on Makarenko’s famous book Pedagogitjeskaja Poema and the studies of the Danish marxist, dr. Harald Rasmussen, educated in East Germany, combined with the reality-therapy studies of the American psychologist, William Glasser (Lauritsen/Hegstrup 2000). In short, I would characterise this social pedagogy as a

1 With this term I try to grasp the perspective of societal power relation as a

realistic foundation of the more idealistic psychological relation of communi-cation in social pedagogy, in a mode where the social power relation override the pedagogcial communication, but at the same time in a way that gives communication its own, but local significence. In other words: the question is how to install the relation of subjectivity into the objective social proces. (Bourdieu, P. In Other Words, 1990)

84

transformation of American behavioural social psychology into a marxist context, with an emphasis on the relationship between the leader and the group, inspired by some politically grounded dia-lectic-materialistic principles. In Denmark this was referred to as living-group-pedagogy. It is worth noticing that, until the middle of the 1980s, the more interesting cultural psychology of the Russians, such as Rubinstein, Leontjev, Luria and Vygotsky, was non-existent in Danish pedagogical discussion. The reason for this may have been connected to the Stalinistic unions.

Conversely, the North-American dynamic and symbolic social psychology of G.H. Mead, K. Lewin, and E. Goffmann has been incorporated into practice, and has inspired the works of several Danish social psychologists, such as A. Sjølund, K. Erik Sabroe, K. Palsvig, and H.C. Rasmussen (Lauritsen/Hegstrup 2001). In short, I would characterise this type of thinking in social pedagogy as a psychological result of the pragmatic everyday life experience studies, which are currently represented in theoretical sociology like Glasser/Strauss and social constructionism. The latter is probably more present in Norway than in Denmark.

However, empirically based research in the real life of the modern institutions dealing with and practising social pedagogy was miss-ing in these micro-social abstractions of psychological experiments, which are provided as reading studies for the Danish-educated socialpedagogue. More specifically, what was missing was scientific research into the professional’s practice combining both the inter-view, related to the professional’s and the client’s concrete experi-ence, and the participant or non-participant observation, related to the narrow registration of daily life working practice as a doing. Practice in the form of a pedagogical project and a social bodily process is relevant for both the practitioner and the client.

2. The modernisation of social pedagogy?

Most of the modern Danish theoretical studies in the late 1980s and 1990s in the field of social pedagogy are connected with theo-ries from the German Frankfurt and Hannover schools, especially Habermas, Negt, and Ziehe, as well as with the interesting studies

85

of the research pedagogue Bent Madsen (1996). On the other hand, the latest approach (2001) is more connected to the symbolic inter-action-theory of G.H. Mead in the Habermas tradition (1981).

This development of Freudian-Marxist-critical thinking has a strong basis in Danish theoretical pedagogy, although not yet in social pedagogical practice. However, the theoretical concentration on face-to-face communication, emphasising emotional exchange, is one of the main results of the transformation of post-modern dis-cussion into the practice-field. At Hindholm (National Institue for Social Education), we work with interaction and social exchange, not only as a spoken language-phenomena, but, particularly in social pedagogy, as a body language occurrence

2; something that we

can videotape and subsequently analyse, in order to find the cues of opening, closing and regulate contact. To be more exact, this is the Marte-Meo-method, (Aarts, 2002) which is also offered as train-ing for social pedagogues. However, this begs for the question of whether or not video-recording the spoken and video-acted reality is sufficient in scientific research.

Many modern Danish pedagogues regard themselves as repre-sentatives of the German Critical Theory based on opposition to non-legitimative authority, where scientific criticism to the capitalist society goes hand in hand with emancipation and liberation. The symbolic historical and global breakdown in the modern European and North-American world of parental and educational authority is, in general, substituted and reduced to the question of the libera-tion of the intellectual as a professional; not in the interest of the emancipation of the parents or the working class, but mostly in the

2 It is important, for future pedagogical analyses, to examine the differences

between occurrence, appearance and phenomenon in order to get the concept from the point (of view), from where the analyses are made. Or in a neore-alistic way: from the stanced place, where your body looks. In this article, it could be said that what goes through the body for the mind occurs, what comes out of the mouth appears for the ear, and what is seen for the intellect is a phenomenon. Modern and post-modern science has a tendency to take only what it sees! What happened to the rest of the 5 senses; to taste and smell? Further reading is recommended in Bourdieu: Kritikk of den skolastiske fornuft, NO Sosiologisk tidsskrift, Årgang 6 nr. 1–2 1998.

86

struggle for the liberation of the academic, intellectual, humanistic pedagogues, teachers and researchers (Petersen 2001). This comes as the result of the great wealth of the middleclass, individualisation in capitalistic societies, the post-modern relativism of science and the web-context, and is largely a language-reading-and-writing intellec-tual way of capturing the concepts of realities, based on tape- and video-recordings of the spoken life in general and in institutions. This way of thinking, at some points, transforms itself into the post-modern middle-class-sensitive sociological theories of the Eng-lish sociologist, Anthony Giddens (Lauritsen/Hegstrup, 2000).

It seems to me that social groups in society embrace and conquer the language that suits their own particular social situation, in order to ensure and develop their social domination in the struggle for power in society. In a way, this is something that all social groups do out of necessity, and is what Bourdieu documents in his ‘Distinc-tion’ (Bourdieu, 1984) and ‘Homo Academicus’ (Bourdieu, 1988). But is it sufficiently scientific?

3. Theory and/or practice—a never-ending story

I would also like to approach a third theoretical point of view, related to French philosophy, epistemology and sociology from Bachelard over Althusser and Foucault to Bourdieu. In Sweden, this is brilliantly represented by Donald Broady (Broady, 1991), University of Uppsala and in Denmark by Staff Callewaert and the Bourdieu-program at the University of Copenhagen’s, Department of Education (Callewaert, 1997/00). Here the agenda contains a specific understanding between scientific social and humanistic theory and professional practice as a sociological occurrence, and not only as an experienced phenomenon.

To some degree, the main problem of theoretical work with social pedagogy is the classic relationship between theory and practice. For many years, this problem has been recognised as a question of how to work in practice in accordance with theory: to find a practical theory that works theoretically. Most of the pedagogical scientific thinking in Denmark takes a very naive approach to this problem. When one pedagogical theory fades out on the market, a new wave

87

of pedagogical narrative solutions begins over and over again. One solution takes over from the last, disregarding the systematic evalu-ation of the succession of pedagogical theories or more grounded considerations of why practice does not work in accordance with intention, or more precisely: language-logically. This problem, the educational forcing of different kinds of theory into the practi-tioner, is mainly a problem for the educated practitioner who is confronted with limited possibilities in daily working life. It brings the problem of the impact of competition between intellectuals and scientific institutions out into the field of the practitioner.

Slowness or inertia3 in social practice prevents social pedagogy

from working as a rational rule regulation, guided by logical think-ing—an anticipated master plan. Social pedagogy is mainly experi-enced as practically-logical, next to irrational experience compared with the descriptions in the educational textbooks and the lawful regulations of the community, county and state. Although daily working-life, in some ways, can be interpreted as grounded on con-ditions that are logically correlated to concepts in textbooks, it is essential for this French way of thinking, that the logic of thinking is completely different and separate from the logic of acting.

I would like, in some way, to develop this notion of slowness/inertia in social practice, and thereby Man’s relation to rules, and especially in the work of the social pedagogue. This problem calls for accurate social analyses of how humans relate themselves to regularities in the working life of the socialpedagogue. Contrarily, it also requires analyses of how opposites, dilemmas and tensions between conditions embodied in resources (time, space, buildings, architecture, manpower and materials), and purposes (objectives, regularities in the social life of social pedagogy) in a symbolic way, transform into the routine-hungry socialpedagogue, living in a sur-rational experienced working world. In a symbolic social pedagogi-cal world, the distance between word and action is a benchmark 3 Inertia is a mainconcept of the french philosopher Jean Paul Sartres theory of

praxis in Critique of Dialectical Reason vol II, cap. III: “Singularity of praxis: Disintegration of the Organic Cycle and the Advent of History”, Verso 1991), and descibes the process in which the body meets the environment by using instruments, with the result of inertia as foundation for reflection.

88

for quality, and this is in direct opposition to the way in which the pedagogical researcher thinks and works (Lauritsen/Hegstrup 2001).

In Outline of a theory of Practice, (Bourdieu, 1977:22–30): The fallacies of the rule, Bourdieu discusses this complex problem of regularity, for example, in statistics as frequency, or ruling in eve-ryday life, consciously laid-down and consciously respected, or in Bourdieu’s words, ‘the unconscious regulating by a mysterious cer-ebral and/or social mechanism’. He concludes that ‘Rules connect with plans and policies in a way that regularities do not’ (Bourdieu, 1977:29) and transfers this insight into the question of language usage: ‘To argue that ... there must be rules in the natural language is like arguing that roads must be red if they correspond to red lines on the map’. This means that children do not speak according to the rules of grammar, they speaks through practice, and not because of rules. It is their experience with the practice of language that gives them speech regularity; this is not acquired through school training in grammar.

Although the science of linguistics can subsequently reconstruct rules in the use of the language, children do not make use of these rules as if they were known to them prior to this. Children work through action, not through rules. Spoken language appears for Man not as a consciously used rule, but as preconscious regulation, that owes it genesis and efficacy to practice, not to remembering which rules are correct in a given situation. The same problem occurs in social life. If one wants to change someone’s conduct, one must change his or her practice, and in order to change prac-tice one must change the condition under which that person lives. This brings us to the habitus, which have been closely analysed by Callewaert in: Kultur, Pædagogik og Videnskab (1992).

In traditional philosophy-psychological thinking, this is con-ceived as the problem of ethics and morals in the working life of social pedagogy, formulated in a finalistic point of view—it is a question of the energy of the intention. However, in my opinion, this is a very precise social, educational and pedagogical problem, which is deeply connected to the social condition of social life with consequences for the range and effects of social pedagogical work.

89

4. Social pedagogy?

In Denmark, social pedagogy deals with 3 main groups of clients (Lauritsen/Hegstrup, 2000):

a) Children and young people placed in residential homes for chil-dren and young persons, or in professional and private homes.

b) Children, young people, adults and elderly mentally retarded people placed in residential homes for the mentally retarded or small living-groups.

c) People suffering from all kinds of abuse; alcohol, drugs, pros-titution and violence, unemployment, homelessness and social poverty.

This gives rise to the problem of education in relation to all fields of social pedagogy; not as a specialised function as in the field of special education (training and stimulation), but as a question of general intervention into the relationship between:

— social and pedagogical disassociation with and non-integration in society and its institutions: family, schools and business (cre-ating most of the social effects of the problems); and

— the social and anthropological disassociation and non-integra-tion of some groups of people and their capacity to integrate themselves (creating most of the psychological effects of the problems)

According to Bourdieu’s thinking, this is the study of the question of power relations. In particular, it is the implementation of the symbolic power of domination between social groups, focusing on how dominated groups, such as the outsiders mentioned above, accept and include the symbolic ‘natural’ reasons for their decline (Bourdieu/Passeron, 1977). On the other hand, it is also how the dominators legitimise their domination, in order to reproduce the relations between social groups and their power relations.

From a theoretical point of view, this is a transformation of the analysis of the historical change from the traditional feudal society

90

into the modern society, based on establishing the economical rela-tionship between capital and labour, grounding the social relation between the dominating bourgeoisie and the dominated working-class. In the social exchange between accumulated stiffening work such as capital, and actual work such as potential living time, there are the obvious agreed exchanges of the same work, which exchange itself with its own history.

These concepts and transactions are transformed into the relationship between the culturally dominating ‘normals’ and the socially dominated ‘outcasts’, but in such a way that they delib-erately misrecognize the medical, legal, psychological and edu-cational scientific journals with the ‘natural’ constructed reasons for their position as non-integrated persons, confirmed by the society (Lauritsen/Hegstrup 2000). In a radical way, this can also be claimed in relation to people who are mentally retarded or with mental illness. My question is how does the dominating culture construct the misrecognition of the cultural exploitation of the subcultures of the dominated? Not in a conscious way, but through the very structure of the society as symbolic violence. Bourdieu claims that these transactions and exchanges in the modern society are sown and conceptualised in the field of education in a particular mode, where symbolic power attributes its own force to the ongo-ing artless pedagogical communication (Bourdieu/Passeron 1977) and thereby reinforces the social power allready laid down in he pedagogical relation.

In Denmark, the pedagogical domain took over responsibility for the mentally retarded in 1958, thanks to the social administrator Niels Bank Mikkelsen. Until then, the art of medical knowledge with its doctoral dissertation and medical nursing care had domi-nated work with those with mental retardation. Since 1958, this has been the domain of the social pedagogue. In the period from 1958 until the present, it must be stressed that the relative death rate for this group has fallen, and that, strangely, medicine abuse has also decreased. So the paradoxical result of moving away from the medical knowledge regime is opposite to normal expectations. One could ask if the same paradox exists between living and the study of living in the field of mental psychiatric illness. In a provocative

91

way, one could also ask if we are healthy enough to trust the medi-cal results. Is this paradox only a question of results or is it also a question of scientific methods?

This is where the role of the scholastic educated doctor, lawyer or psychologist reaches its limits in social pedagogy. This way is not the scientific way—it is too practical, it works! It does not contrib-ute to the regions of science, unexplainably exactly because it works in reality, not in experiments. Social pedagogy does not heal, repair or train human beings who have some kind of social, cultural or psychological disability. Social pedagogy is a practical professional action which works together with any kind of human being, what-ever the disability. The professional point of view is that the person in question is only dominated by the disability, in the eyes of the doctor, lawyer or the psychologist. They are first a person, next a sex and then someone with a habitus situated in her environment surrounded by regulations, rules and power. The person in ques-tion is living on her own ground before living with the disability (Lauritsen/Hegstrup 2001).

This point of view does require a scientific rationale in its work, it needs space and arenas for practical reasoning to grow on its own. However, social pedagogy does need social and human science to register and describe its actions and working results—but not to prescribe its actions. In a paradoxical way, social pedagogy demands objectivity from the social and human sciences, which in the recent years have been increasingly phenomenological and subjectivated. In order to keep the potential normativity that results from human science, especially psychology, the practical and pragmatic social pedagogy has to claim its own practical and professional know-ledge. This is precisely the opposite of what the scientific sphere thinks it is doing itself, and similarly is the logical result of the lack of theoretical respect for the practical world as the logic of things (which to a degree is logical), and not the things of logic (which to a degree are practical).

At the end of this article, I would like to develop this radical point of view further with another example of this impotence in the potency of knowing. In an excellent example of social pedagogical

92

research, the Danish-Dutch researcher Jan Jaap Rothuizen4 very

neatly concludes: “that the pedagogues are good at decoding that they do not act well enough, even when they do it all in the right way”

— one can do it all right in accordance with the textbooks, the rules and the phenomenological intentions of the socialpedagogues.

— without having sufficient effects, in relation to changes of conduct under the actual social conditions,

— and one can see this, the professionals note this discrepancy between intention, condition and effects, and they seek expla-nations.

The social pedagogues are eager for and ready to embrace the next practical theory of communication at the next course at the nearest college or university. However, the problem is not only inadequate theory, it is the naive concept of practice and how this works in relation to the agents’ living strategies under the social conditions of their living

5. The question is the exactness of the relationship

between condition, activity, effort and effect, and especially, what dominates what? It is a question of how finalisms and causality works together.

In the social pedagogical situation, the social frame bound to economy, rules and legal objectives is turned into regulations, which on the one hand are a limitation of what can be done and changed, and on the other hand similarly give rise to the whole setup. When the social structure has structured the situation in such a way that it reproduces itself, it gives rise to a symbolic exchange, which gives the social pedagogue exaggerated subjectivity:

4 Jan Jaap Rothuizen: “Det kommunikative fællesskab i socialpædagogisk

arbejde” DK, i Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik nr. 4, 19995 Bourdieu develops this concept in his research: “The Weight of the World”

(1999) in the last chapter “Understanding”. The concept expresses how the experienced interviewer works in the actual interview situation using her “metier”, her feeling and touch for what the situation demands. This concept of reflexive reflexivity one can generalise in opposition to the concept of tacit knowledge, avoiding the tacitness. Hereby the practitioner can reconquer her professional knowledge of practice as something which is in her hands (but not in her head) instead of being hidden in the researchers head and reports.

93

You can make things happen if you just try harder or are smarter, or

You did not understand your professional education – get some more education!

The pedagogical structure uses this phenomenological circulation of intentions (education and personal investments) in order to misrecognize and cover the social inertia bound to the condition of the social pedagogical setup, which is less pedagogically easy to direct from the inside, but more politically changeable from the outside.

6

There are at least 5 strata or processes working consecutively in social pedagogical practice seen by the professional:

— the habitus in the Bourdieu-sense, linked to the social relations in the situation; its agents, conditions and the network around the event,

— the practitioners reflexive reflexivity as a part of the habitus which is accumulated experience combined with an ability to profession-ally control the “metier”; working in the actual situation,

— the letting things slide that makes what is undone in the social situation becomes a pedagogical instrument both in the con-scious and the unconscious mode

7,

— the doing as a process and the done as a result, bound to the reg-istration when present, not as an interview subsequent, but as an anthropological observation at the place where the act took place

— the assembled effects of the efforts, the habitus, the acts, the undoing, what is said and the reflections, that are not only the sum of the intentions of the agents, but rather the result of the interaction between human craft, tools and materials.

6 In describing this complex relation, one meight be inspered by Althusser’s con-

cept of imaginarity to an imaginary world see: Althusser “Ideologi og ideologiske statsapparater” (1972/1983).

7 See the interesting writings of the dutch-canadian phenomenologist Max van

Manen: “The Tact of Teaching. The Meaning of Pedagogical Thoughtfulness”, translated into Danish: “Pedagogisk takt”, Caspers 1993.

94

We must study the interaction of condition, operation and effect as a social nature of the second order. Precisely how the social space works like nature, when it makes things work—not in a conscious mode, but in the mode where the objective structures give subjec-tivity its place, something which people both reproduce and try to break every day themselves as they make plans.

5. Social pedogogy – talking heads or dancing queens?

The opposite problem concerning theory and practice is mainly for the theorist. How to get close to practice and, at the same time, retain the distance that allows the licence to make human science. It is the question of how to ‘dance’ with the practitioner, subject to the authority of the consequences of the condition, operations and effects concerning both the practitioner and the researcher.

And the normal answer is often an intellectual-practical solution: qualitative studies using the tape-recorder. Hereby the spoken lan-guage, examined afterwards, takes priority over the body-interaction recorded at the place; something which, in my opinion, has impor-tant consequences for the reliability of the studies of social pedagogy in particular. These methods misrecognise exactly what the power of the respondent and the situations is—precisely the interaction. This has the effect of ensuring the symbolic power of the researcher and his limited tools, and thereby the control over the language-effects of the research, which is the major precondition of the scientific and educational release. No new knowledge slips out of this bench, only confirmation of what is previously constructed. Scientific knowledge in the field of social pedagogy becomes the reconstruc-tion of the thinking in the head of the pedagogical or philosophical researcher

8. By avoiding the symbolic and powerful realities of the

social conditions of the post-modern researchers’ dominions, the researcher can confirm the absolute statement: science is relative and only dependent on his own thought. This is because nothing else has occurred; only an exchange of phenomenon!

8 On a very abstract level this is what is occurring in the very interesting text of

the Danish philosopher Ole Fogh Kirkeby “Verden Ord og Tanke”. 1994.

95

These preconditions work unobserved in human-care profes-sions in which the treatment of the body and its liquids is crucial. Socialpedagogy is in many ways an interaction with bodies and a handicraft with the domination of senses such as touch, smell and taste as the language to be understood, rather than the aca-demic seeing and hearing. An ambition of scientific research in this field must be not only to consider the spoken language as an information-tool, but also and especially to take into account body language, which is sadly excluded from scientific textbooks. And thereby the embodiment of the condition for the work installed in the persons, their skills, their relations, and the relationship that makes the interaction develop as a social pedagogical inter-action. One cannot understand the experienced social pedagogue exercising her “metier”, without a methodological grasp of what is not to be (cannot be) seen or heard.

9

The division of labour in the modern society creates these forms of the non- or misunderstanding of what is done, said or written between human beings and in their social relationship to their living conditions. When one bases one’s research solely on language-recording, the research focuses on the communication content—what is said about what matter, but disregards the signs of the embodied habitus and the force of power-relations that are established before, under and throug during the interview. These powerful social relations work their way into the interaction. The researcher may be able to reduce the power relation between the researcher himself and the respondent, with the help of neutral interviewing based on a prestructured schema. However, in this way one does not respond sufficiently to the social condition of the interview, only to the linguistic condition which the researcher, having been educated masters. One must reconsider the difference between interview and interaction, and the methodological conse-quences of this difference. (P. Bourdieu 1999, chap. “Understand-ing” p. 607).9 For this point of view see especially the analyses in P. Bourdieu: Pascalian

Meditiations (1997) chap. 4: “Bodily Knowledge”—we learn bodily and com-munication is an exchange between bodies, before it becomes a communica-tion between minds!

96

6. Social pedagogical research

In the very small research department of Hindholm, National Institution of Social Education, we attempt to fill some of these empirical gaps, in two ways. One is Søren Hegstrup’s comparative research into 4 different types of institutions, with the working title: “Social pedogogy Signals of the modern care-institutions” and the other is Johny Lauritsen’s: “Educational practice in professions and pedagogical sense”. Both studies attempt to tackle the question of the empirical problems in different ways. The first study reaches the practice of the social pedagogue through tape recorded interviews, discussions and participation in corporation with the respondents. The second study encompasses the problem of the embodied data, by using text analysis of the writings of students in educational practice, combined with deep-interviews with the same students as practitioners two years after leaving education, and some “on-the-job observations” later in the project.

The second study is inspired by the works of Bourdieu (1999), especially the interview-methods in “The Weight of the World”. In short, the empirical data will be discussed theoretically using J.P. Sartre’s practical subject philosophy, which will be critically evalu-ated using Bourdieu’s social action theory. These internal and exter-nal theories will be viewed from the perspective of the philosophy of L. Wittgenstein’s language usage.

Although the main focus is language usage in an educational profession (social pedagogue), the project similarly focuses on the geneses and structure of the sense of education as an outcome of the working co-operation between the sense of practice and the lan-guage of an ‘educational profession’. The sense of practice, accord-ing to Bourdieu, can be described as an embodiment of Man’s relation to the social conditions in which he was raised, and that sense through which the habitus is produced. The social effect is a lasting disposition of thinking, acting and feeling. The theoretical language can be described as the language, models and procedures of thinking that the educated human acquires through education in a modern society. This is often characterised as an abstraction

97

of reality or the concepts that Man uses to describe, modulate and control his reality.

On a phenomenological level, ‘the pedagogical sense’ can be described as an interpersonal relation in a relationship between men about Man. Described as an experience of common local meaning-rational contact, empathy, understanding of togetherness and acting-control or corporation, which reaches out and goes further than the actual inhabited horizon of understanding. As an archetype, one could refer to the relation between parents and their children as an example, but this is insufficient. The research tries to map out and reconstruct the geneses and structure of the pedagogi-cal sense in the body of the social pedagogue.

But we have not found the methodological keys to the questions. We are still locked inside the contradictions between researching a field that is not dominated by language usage using tools that are based on language.

When one begins an act of analysis, one must stop the social world and pretend that everything is reachable at the same time in the same space. The description of the occurrence of things must be considered in relation to the matter described. Agents, actors and persons give rise to the phenomenon and can be reached by language. Social positions and relations only occur in symbolic ways and can be reached both by language and by interpretation of sig-nals and symbols, from the agents as well as from the researchers. Dispositions rest as possibilities and come forward, when the social situation with its positions and relations so require.

Scientific explanations must be laid down as if the things of real-ity are lined up in one dimension—which can be reconstructed in history as the things of logic. In reality and as a social pedagogue, it is the occurrences that guide the logic of practice—one acts because one must. What Bourdieu tries to do is to reinstall the subjective phenomenon in the objective social occurrence, and give the subjec-tive its objective appearance.

98

7. Conclusion

Where Habermas places dialogue at the centre of social life, Bourdieu puts dominions and the main questions become: how dialogue works under the conditions of dominions and how domin-ions work in dialogue? These questions are crucial, especially in social pedagogy.

After having deconstructed the constructed reasons for the inte-gration problems of the outcasts related to the cultural misuse of their social position to determine the grade of normality in nor-malisation, the disintegration of the society must be recognised as a political and cultural problem, rather than a scientific or psycho-logical one. In this social and pedagogical deconstruction of the construction, one is left with an existent idealistic situation: How to grab the social pedagogical future by acting on the scientific experience from the past advice of what not to do, because realistic science only provides warnings—not predictions.

Finally, one could ask: How do we get to know the seeds of future impact? In practice this is not a scientific research problem, it is a personal investment of willingness in a constantly changing world of hope for the future for all human beings. Then social pedagogy becomes a complement of history, practice and exist-ence—not a technique used to engineer whatever one wants to dialogue or dominate.

References

Althusser, L. (1972/1983) Ideologi og Ideologiske statsapparater. Ålborg: Forlaget GRUS.

Aarts, M. (2002) Marte Meo Grundbog. Holland, Hardderwijk: Aarts Produc-tion.

Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J.-C. (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage.

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction. London: Routledge&Keegan Paul.

Bourdieu, P. (1988) Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1999) The Weight of the World. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990) In Other Words. Cambridge: Polity Press.

99

Bourdieu, P. (1997) Pascalian Meditiations. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Broady, D. (1991) Sociologi och epistemologi. Stockholm: HLS förlag.

Callewaert, S. (1992) Kultur, Pædagogik og Videnskab. København: Akademisk forlag.

Callewaert, S. (1994) Centrale tekster inden for sociologi og kulturteori. København: Akademisk forlag.

Callewaert, S. (1997/00) Bourdieustudier I–IV. Institut for Filosofi, Pædagogik og Retorik, København: Københavns Universitet.

Kirkeby, O. F. (1994) Verden, Ord og Tanke. København: Handelshøjskolens forlag.

Lauritsen, J., Hegstrup, S. (2000) Forskning, Uddannelse, Arbejde. Fuglebjerg: Hindholm.

Lauritsen, J., Hegstrup, S. (2001) Dynamisk Socialpædagogik. Fuglebjerg: Hind-holm.

Madsen, Bent (1996) Socialpædagogik og samfundsforvandling. København: Social-pædagogisk Bibliotek, Nordisk forlag.

Madsen, Bent (2001) Tæt på relationen. København: Socialpædagogisk Bibliotek, Nordisk forlag.

Nygren, P. (1979) Den Sociala Grammatiken. København: Munksgaards forlag.

Petersen, K.A. (2001) Praktikker i erhverv og uddannelse. København: Akademisk forlag.

Rønn, E.M. (1996) De fattige i Ånden. København: Museum Tusculanums forlag.

Van Manen, Max (1991) The Tact of Teaching, The Althouse Press, Ontario.

— (1993) Pedagogisk takt, Bergen: Casper Forlag.

Wittgenstein, L. (1989) Om vished (Über Gewissheit), Århus: v. forlaget Philoso-phia.