The particular challenge of modern pedagogy (as a theory of education) in the value-heterogenous world – insofar as such a world already exists – is to be able to formulate its propositions only within the framework of dialogical efforts. Admittedly, there are still particular sociotopes and social utopias of a unified or even paradisiacal world based on supposedly absolute truths. In the “age of anger” (Mishra, 2017), these continue to fascinate people seeking meaning and support. They usually refer to a normative “Above” of mythical-religious or ideological-political provenance, which the “Below” of the profane world has to follow. In this dichotomous “world of thought”, both spheres are constitutive and hierarchically related. Initially, it was God(s); later, above all, various substitutes for the “absolute” such as the community of the people, nation, cosmic or historical destiny, evolution (recently also neurobiological evolution), “the moral law in us”, “objective spirit”, “race”, etc., with which allegedly unconditional “true” norms and values were claimed for the legitimisation of pedagogical standards.

However, even the many substitutes of the absolute weaken the concept of truth as a symbol of the unconditionally valid and required. Through the increasing weakening of transcendence-related or transcendental (i.e. largely empirically independent) substitutes, the discourse on truth shifted even further “down” to the sphere of intersubjective endeavour (dialogue, discourse, deliberation). In this (hopefully peaceful) endeavour, the absolute is only present formally, namely as the unconditional necessity to come to an understanding about norms and values of the social – to invent them “somehow” – and to bring them to be valid. The concept of truth thus loses its old glamour of an unconditionality of content.

How do we react to this in pedagogy? What could constitute the educational endeavour's crystallisation point after transcendence's weakening?

From its existence, the child articulates an unconditional claim to life. Even in the post-mythic era, or instead, in the myth-critical world of the modern age, education is confronted with the difficult task of responding to this claim—but now without the possibility of legitimising its interventions and actions by appealing to unquestionably absolute authority. First of all, this means questioning the coercion that is primordially inscribed in education.

Thus, since the rebellious discourse of the dignity of man, one cannot avoid including the child, even the wayward one, in the circle of dignity. As in politics and education, dealing with resistance and “deviants” shows the real meaning of values such as freedom, justice, co-decision, public spirit, and the protection of life. The question is how the values are anthropologically justified, normatively interpreted and practically concretised. In more recent times, i.e. in the modern age that is far removed from God and critical of myths, this poses a particular challenge. Now, the legitimisation of education in general and its moments of coercion in particular can no longer be justified with a “Higher Will”, as it was centuries ago. Coercion inevitably emanates from the authoritative counterpart of the child, from the holder of the “educational power” – as a spontaneous action of responsible adults as well as in the form of a longer-term and planned effort on the part of socially legitimised authorities and institutions.

If we extend the time-honoured “didactic triangle” by a fourth point to a “didactic tetrahedron”, namely as the symbol of a “Great Prescript” – interpreted differently in terms of content – the pedagogical challenge can be described in more detail as follows. The weakening or even the disappearance of the “fourth point” of the “didactic tetrahedron” (as a symbol of some reconciling or socially cohesive unconditionally that is superior to the three factors of teacher, pupil and subjects or curriculum) has far-reaching theoretical consequences for these factors as well as for the process of education itself. This is true, provided that the answer to socio-cultural heterogeneity and the weakening of transcendence today cannot be to (re)constitute a new (or an old-new) “fourth point” of absolute normativity of the pedagogical. There is also a metatheoretical consequence to consider. Each participant in the discourse must renounce the claim to be able to speak as the representative of an unquestionable “Great Prescript”.

Following the thoughts mentioned, the thematic issue focuses on Responsive Pedagogy. We understand the term “Responsive Pedagogy” as a serious attempt to do justice to the child's claim to life without reference to absolute authorities (for more details, see Skiera, 2021). According to the Algerian-French philosopher and psychoanalyst Denis Vasse, the child not only has a claim to life, but its existence is a claim to life through and through: “L'enfant est demande de vie” (Vasse, 1982). If the dignity of the child and of the human being in general is recognised as a fundamental value of living together, the child (as well as the educator) acquires a new status. And the “eternal question” of the inherently contradictory relationship between child and educator or individual and community/society now takes on a particular urgency – especially in view of the trace of coercion that is apparently primordially inscribed in this relationship. In the post-mythical era, the child to be educated must be recognised and included as a relevant co-designer of its educational and learning process if it is not to be turned into a mere object of someone else's ambitions. For the possibility of an education that is resolutely orientated towards universalizable values – such as the protection of life and the foundations of life, the legitimate interest of others, the rights of freedom for all, justice, solidarity with the weak – is ultimately dependent on the free consent of the child and the later adult. For education, it means taking the child's “yes” or “no” to educational demands and offers into account, entering into a relevant dialogue (not just pseudo-dialogue) with the child and thus seeking the child's consent. Such an educational attitude would suggest an attempt to explore and practically implement the conditions for intrinsically motivated learning – as a learning process that is for the child/the learner recognisably meaningful, self-willed and at least partially self-determined. What is needed is a creative social sphere (cf. Winnicott's term “creative apperception”, in: Winnicott, 1991, p. 65), which is not extremely rigid in terms of social regulations and curricula, despite the nevertheless necessary orders. Such a space contains sufficient moments of freedom for “creative apperception”. In it, the child does not experience itself as a predominantly reactive being, but as an active and creative person.

Responsive Pedagogy tries to offer a new discoursive view of education as it supports teachers and scholars in reacting to modern challenges and reforming schools as yesterday's organisation.

We collected papers related to the topic in various contexts. Ehrenhard Skiera focuses on the so-called art education movement, which is connected with other ones. Those were an experiment of social life renewal. Art education expression, Skiera stresses, leads us towards a “self-determined life that gives space to the as yet unknown”. Alexander Maier's paper reflects on education for sustainable development. Maier refers to solidarity as a goal of ESD (eg. solidarity with those who are “victims of the consequences of climate change”) and the learning processes based on solidarity. Zsanett Bicsak points out that the mitigation of normative pedagogy caused the need to change the teacher's role. The author cannot reflect on all the details of a new teacher's role. She only points out the importance of a new student-teacher relation in the frame of Responsive Pedagogy.

The main intention of this thematic issue is to provide food for thought for the further development and didactic concretisation of the Responsive Pedagogy approach.