Very common in the context of educational research (and practise) according the teacher as a professional are phrases such as: “The teacher is no longer assumed to be the knowledge expert, but more a facilitator of the learning process and the provider of a rich learning environment.” (van Veen et al. 2001, 175). In this view, the teacher as a coach of learning processes, creator of learning conditions, facilitator of learning projects, moderator of information and developer of curriculum is the one who is able to meet the demands and needs of our information society. More and more scholars criticise what they call the very narrow conception of the pedagogical expert as ‘moral facilitator’ (stimulator or communicator). One prefers to speak instead of the teacher in terms of a ‘moral inspirator’ (e.g. Hanson 1995; 2001). In order to get a clearer view on the (public) role of the teacher, we will focus in this paper on the current debate on teachers’ work. In order to conceive of oneself as a ‘professional teacher’ today, one has to understand oneself as an expert. We will argue that teaching today involves a ‘relation of the self to the self’ (that is, a way of looking at the self) where ‘having expertise’ is of central importance. Furthermore, two types of expertise (and two conceptions of the public character of teaching) are being discussed today (e.g. Hargreaves 2006). On the one hand, the expectations towards the teacher as an expert are expressed in ‘having competencies’ (e.g. Medley & Crook, 1980). Teaching appears from this point of view as a ‘profession’ (a ‘job’ or profession). On the other hand, teaching is considered in terms of an ‘intrinsic morality or self-knowledge’ (e.g. Kelchtermans 2005). From this point of view, the public role of the teacher is described in terms of ‘calling’ (a ‘mission’ or professio). We will shortly explore these different existing expectations towards the (public) role of the teacher today. Based on our examination of this debate, we will clarify that the discussion is about what type of expertise should be appropriated, viz.: competencies or personal knowledge, and that each type of expertise is related to a particular conception of the public. It is not our intention to collect arguments against or in favour of one of the two types of expertise and conceptions of the public. The aim of this paper is rather to show that the ‘expert’ relation of the self to the self (that is, regarding oneself as an expert) is not an essential or universal human capacity but part of the modern figure of the teacher (Simons 2007).

Literature research

Although the expertise required for teaching has changed constantly through times, what is underlying the (public) role of the modern ‘expert’ teacher is precisely the ‘capacity for self-reflection or self-regulation’. Relying on the work of Ian Hunter (and inspired by M. Foucault), we will show from a historical-genealogical point of view, that we do not regard this ‘capacity’ as universal or essential, but as the result of a particular (historically established) relation of the self to the self (Hunter 1994; 1996).