The aim of this paper is to show and discuss the necessity of analyzing potentiality as general didactical concept in order to gain a wider understanding of teacher identity in democratic education. This is the first part of a post-doctoral project where I research both theoretical and empirical notions of potentiality in relation to democracy. My interest in this topic stems from the following: Teaching for democracy and nurturing students´ potentiality to take part in society are deeply embedded visions in modern thought on the didactical relation between teacher, student and educational settings. Most commonly two conceptions of a necessary unity between democracy and schooling of youth respond to these visions, and have greatly influenced ideas on teaching students about democratic society. Democracy is either regarded as an overarching modern societal order, calling school to guarantee democracy onwards through civic education of youth, or, marks the name of an actual egalitarian practice within school. Either way, teaching is assumed as something potentially good for democracy – in the long term for society or more directly for the students within the classroom. Teaching for democracy may transform an “abstract potential sense” of free society into reality, argues Benjamin R. Barber (1997, p. ix). Potentiality of a free society in this sense is fully attributed to the students growing up, but what about the teachers?

Both these understandings of democracy and schooling for democracy can be described with theoretical concepts from curriculum theory. School is from the first viewpoint seen as an institution for social efficiency, where students learn to act in accordance with societal rules, and from the second viewpoint seen as a possible place for social reconstruction, where young ones learn to see beyond rules and onwards reshape the social order (Schiro, 2013). However, in both these stances, the teacher is seen as a mere function in systemized thought on how to teach for democracy, hence she often becomes idealized or stereotypical.

I argue in this paper that conceptions on potentiality play a key role in understanding often idealized and visionary conceptions on teaching for democracy. Using some key distinctions of concepts of potentiality, I suggest we can clarify preconditions for real relations between teachers and students within an educational setting that proposes teaching for democracy. Firstly, discussing potentiality and teaching begs the question of who or what harbors potentiality for democracy through education. That is, is potentiality for democracy through education mainly a question of subjectivity or setting? Secondly, further discussing potentiality and teaching entails a distinction between general and specific potentiality. What does it mean to speak of students´ potentiality? Do we assume some sort of general, composite potentiality waiting to unfold, or a specific, delimited ability nurtured through training? The discussion takes theoretical stance both in classic aristotelean notions of potentiality, and in more modern notions, such as Agambens’ (Agamben, 1999; Lewis, 2013).

Agamben, G. (1999). Potentialities. Collected Essays in Philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Barber, B. R. (1997). Foreword. I G. Reeher & J. Cammarano (Red.). Education for Citizenship. Ideas and Innovations in Political Learning. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Glynos, J. & Howarth, D. (Red.). (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. London & New York: Routledge. Howarth, D. & Stavrakis, Y. (2000). Introducing Discourse Theory and Political Analysis. I D. Howarth, A. J. Norval & Y. Stavrakis (Red.). Discourse theory and political analysis: Identities, hegemonies and social change. Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press. Lewis, T. E. (2015). On Study: Giorgio Agamben and Educational Potentiality. Oxon & New York: Taylor & Francis. Schiro, S. S. (2013). Curriculum Theory. Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns. 2nd ed. Los Angeles & London: SAGE publications.