Article

Power and Education

2023, Vol. 15(2) 122–131
Revisiting the sense of education © The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
from a critical perspective to sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17577438221116030
journals.sagepub.com/home/pae
contribute to social justice

Priscilla Echeverria 
Lancaster University, UK

Abstract
This discussion article offers a revision of the meaning of educating in times of neoliberalism when we
care about social justice, proposing that more than a speech about it, a critical education would
consist in putting efforts into developing democratic human interactions.The Western neoliberal
societies in which we live nowadays, have given education an important place as an engine of
development, but paradoxically, have acquired instrumental rationality as common sense, making
decisions in educational processes driven by an interest of control. Thus, these societies have
developed educational systems obsessed with instrumental criteria to improve quality, such as
effectiveness, efficiency, and performance. Therefore, the micro educational level, the human
interaction, has impregnated with this instrumental logic, dehumanizing the people involved, mainly
teachers and students, turning them into objects that must be able to achieve predetermined
results.Considering this concern and following the thinking of Iris Young and Hanna Arendt, this
work seeks to shed light to orient educational processes to strengthen social justice. In order to
reach such aim, this article defends that any attempt to educate should start from the micro
educational level, trying to confront dehumanizing logics of control and rejecting domination by
interacting in a democratic way that strengthen the capacity of action of others.

Keywords
Human being, culture, education, critical awareness, democracy, human interaction, micropolitics,
social justice

Corresponding author:
Priscilla Echeverria, Educational Research¸ Lancaster University, County South, Lancaster, Lancashire LA1 4YD, UK.
Email: p.echeverriadelaiglesia@lancaster.ac.uk
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.
com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Echeverria 123

Introduction
In the context of my PhD research “Initial Teacher Formation for Social Justice in the Chilean
neoliberal context” that I am carrying out as an ANID (ex Conicyt) fellow at Lancaster University, I
explore in my theoretical framework the meaning of education to identify critical aspects of the
process of human development to contribute to social justice, understood critically as the fulfilment
of recognition (Honneth, 1995) and lack of institutionalized oppression (Young, 1990). This
discussion article is part of that work.
Western neoliberal societies have given to education a crucial importance, putting it in many
cases as a priority at the level of public policies. Much it is said that education is important, but
scarcely it is said if the meaning of the word “education” is much more than just going to school, and
what it translates into in the ordinary and immediate life. Consequently, this article proposes to break
down the concept to understand its deep meaning.
As education is a process of cultural transmission that takes part at all times and places, and the
common sense imposed by neoliberalism is instrumental, then human relations, and with that,
educational processes, distort when try to dominate instead of liberate. Then, it is crucial to re-visit
the concept of education and its foundations to reflect deeply on what we are doing when we take
part in the growth of a human being. In this discussion article, I intend to remind the reader that
education is woven at the primary level—human interaction—so as to remark that education is
much more than providing someone a place in an educational institution: as discussed in this article,
education is played out in the kind of relationships lived by people through their lives.
If education has anything to do with the formation of human beings, the obligated reference to
start this discussion is a reflection about what the human being is, followed by a discussion on other
concepts related: culture, democracy, human interaction, critical awareness, and agency, to end with
a discussion regarding the relation between the concepts of education and social justice.

Notion of human being

The importance of developing a clear conception of human being is that, as a deep belief, impact our
expectations and in turn, influences the way we treat each other. Here, we will start this revision with
an analytical position to visualize the different elements implied, to understand what makes us
human. An excellent analysis is made by the Spanish philosopher of education Octavi Fullat, who
reflects about the distinction between human and non-human animals. He says:

The other animals, when they are born, have already finished their careers; I mean that they are born
prefabricated, although not dead. What they are going to be is already programmed in their genetic
code, concretized over time in the environment that they had in luck or in disgrace. The human animal,
on the contrary, has the feeling that it is unfinished, that it is always to be done (Fullat, 1992, own
translation).

Thus, there is a key distinction between non-human and human animals, which is that the
biological inheritance determines the whole existence of the former, meanwhile it is just a part of the
constitution of the latter, which makes them absolutely dependent of other kind of inheritance: a
cultural one. This is, they depend on other human beings to live and to be inserted in the cultural
world to learn how to be human, which is to develop capacities and acquire behaviours and habits
typical of the human group in which they were born. This process of becoming humans occurs as
124 Power and Education 15(2)

they have something that distinguishes them from other sentient beings: language as an articulator of
awareness (Freire, 1996; Fullat, 1992).
But not only language, it was also their capacity to create things to facilitate their survival, which
meant new information that began to accumulate, information that was not trespassed by the genetic
transmission: it was then when a socialization process was required to the human being inserted in
the world, now not just a natural world, but a cultural one. Thus, although born with capacities,
human being needs cultural stimulation to unfold, to learn skills. It needs cultural transmission, or, in
other words, education (Pérez Tapias, 1996).
Even though this clear distinction, the difference between non-human animals and human
animals is not only that the former are just the result of their biological inheritance and the latter the
result between their biological and cultural inheritance. It is also another and deeper distinction: Eric
Fromm affirms that what distinguishes man from animals is self-awareness. Animals, says Fromm,
have awareness too: they are aware of objects; they know this is one thing and that another. But
humans have a different consciousness, a consciousness of themselves; they know that they exist
and that they are something different, they experience themselves. That is the specific quality that
makes human beings, actually human (Fromm, 2014).
Nevertheless, developing this capacity for consciousness is not guaranteed by the mere fact of
being human: it depends on the quality of the process of cultural transmission. It could be that the
person will be limited to the cultural heritage received from their caregivers, resulting in adapting to
the cultural world; or, if he/she is offered the opportunity to do something new, resulting in a being of
options, who is able to transform the world they live in (Freire, 1996). It is this latter development of
awareness that Fullat names nous, a Greek ancient concept, saying:

Education of human beings is more than biological mechanisms configured by sociocultural mech-
anisms. The human being is also nous, that is, the urge for projects. If education is resolved by un-
derstanding only the first, the human being will be formed only as an adaptive being. If the person is also
understood to be nous, then he/she will be formed to trace his/her own path (Fullat, 1992, own
translation).

Fullat affirms then that the human being is a subject, as also Freire states, when he declares that a
human being´s vocation is to be a subject, not an object. This is a very interesting meeting point with
Critical Theory, which refuses to understand human beings as means to an end. As Kellner says
introducing the Marcuse´s work One dimensional man: “Alienated from the powers of being-a-self,
one-dimensional man thus becomes an object of administration and conformity” (Kellner, in
Marcuse, 1994: xxix).
Thus, the element that makes us human is our capacity to inherit culture—language, knowledge,
habits, behaviours, beliefs, traditions, etc.—and to transform it and contribute with new things
coming from our own singularity. We are more human when we develop our nous (Fullat, 1992) or,
when we are aware of our inconclusiveness (Freire, 2012: 76).
Arendt contributes to this issue in her work The human condition, making the difference between
diverse human activities, highlighting as properly human our capacity to begin (Arendt, 2018), this
is, our capacity to initiate something new, as opposite to be a bureaucrat, who has a limited and
predefined capacity to act from a pre-established role. As Arendt says, when the discriminating
ability to think is not exercised, the habit of questioning oneself about what is being done or what is
thought to be abandoned. Under such conditions, the initiative of action atrophies and is replaced by
the automatism of behaviours (Goyenechea de Benvenuto, 2012).
Echeverria 125

Our humanizing dimension must be exercised through the development of our capacity of
thinking and doing things in new ways; on the contrary, we would be condemned to be just living
predictable entities, this is, non-humans in human bodies, automatons. The danger of this is ex-
pressed by Arendt when she says that total power “can be achieved and safeguarded in a world of
conditioned reflexes, of puppets without the slightest trace of spontaneity” (Arendt, 2003: 677).
The fragility of this is that developing this capacity depends on how we are treated by others
appealing or not to our interiority, or capacity of consciousness, as we will discuss later.

Notion of culture
Having argued that what distinguishes us as humans is our dependence on cultural transmission, it is
important now that we discuss the concept of culture, and we will do it from the perspective of three
important scholars in the critical tradition: Bauman, Freire, and Arendt. Bauman offers the complete
picture of culture explaining the different senses in which the term is used; Freire, reaffirms a notion
of culture based on praxis; and Arendt, develops the notion of action, which has deep political and
educational implications.
In his work Culture as Praxis, Bauman (1998) offers three different perspectives from which
culture can be understood: as a concept, as a structure and as a praxis. Beyond the positions that
distinguish cultured from uncultured persons, as if culture was a detachable part of a human being,
or there was an ideal form as the right and the true, Bauman defends the meaning of culture as
praxis, which implies that culture is intrinsically part of the human existence. Bauman understands
that culture is unique for humankind in the sense that only humans, of all living creatures, are able to
challenge their reality and to call for a deep meaning, justice, freedom, and good—whether in-
dividual or collective (Bauman, 1998).
Also alluding to culture as praxis, Freire defines praxis in his work Pedagogy of the Oppressed
(2012) as reflection and action aimed at the structures to be transformed. Thus, through praxis,
oppressed people can acquire a critical awareness of their own condition to struggle for liberation
(Freire, 2012). Thus, praxis is the process by which theory is enacted or realized by human beings in
the social and natural world, which has deep implications in political and educational realms,
because it implies interaction and transformation.
This notion is intimately related to the notion of active life (vita activa) of Arendt, who un-
derstands praxis as the highest and most important level of the active life, the true realization of
human freedom. Arendt (2018) distinguishes three sorts of human activities: labour, work, and
action. The first one, labour, is understood by Arendt as a human activity directed at meeting
biological needs for self-preservation, that is never completely fulfilled, so never really reaches an
end. The second one, work, unlike labour, has a clearly defined beginning and end, comprising the
whole process, from the original idea of the object to the obtaining of raw materials, to the finished
product. Finally, action, which includes speech, is how humans disclose themselves to others, which
allows us to distinguish ourselves from others as unique and unexchangeable beings (Arendt, 2018).

An education to become and remain human

Considering then that culture is a human praxis, and this praxis has to do with activities related to
action, this is, the true realization of human freedom by participating in public life (Arendt, 2018),
we can say then that an education at the service of humanization should help people to develop their
capacity for action to be included in public life. This kind of education would need two basic
elements: (1) a human interaction that develops self-awareness and (2) a balance between this
126 Power and Education 15(2)

individualization process with a socialization process (Pérez Tapias, 1996). We will revise both as
follows.

A human interaction that develops self-awareness. As processes of cultural transmission occur in the
human relation, it is important to reflect about a constant tension between carer and growing-person,
especially if they are children and young people: the possibility to influence and being influenced,
and, at the same time, to promote the right to have an own voice, to develop a self-awareness, an
original and singular position. It seems to be paradoxical, but it is not if we accept that influencing is
inevitable but still leaves room for freedom to the influenced person.
It is inevitable to have to decided between a process that imposes messages as truths, no matter
how well intentioned it is, and a process that appeals to the growing person´s inner self to evaluate
these messages before incorporating them as truths, teaching to question what is being taught. The
first is unilateral, a one-way transmission of a message; the second, dialogue. It is in that decision
that there is an implicit and subconscious message, a hidden curriculum: I allow you or not to be
conscious about the cultural heritance I want you to absorb and shape you. That requires first,
obviously, a critical awareness from the carer to transmits a culture from a conscious decision.
Therefore, we are in a delicate process that can be a vicious or a virtuous cycle: reproductive or
transformative.
An important action to take is to develop a kind of relation that enables becoming aware of the
self-existence due to the person is treated as if he was able to behave as a legitimate person. As
Pritchard (1972) says that rather than appeal to the capacity for a sense of justice, he prefers to appeal
to the capacity for developing it (Pritchard, 1972). Accordingly, I would add that it is preferable to
appeal to the capacity for having a conscious, for developing it. And this can be extended to appeal
to the capacity to feel, think, reflect, value, understand, and create… understanding that a human
being is marvellous, able to do unexpected things.
We can infer, then, that a relationship based on dialogue will generate better conditions to nourish
awareness than if it was based on one-way transmission. Unfortunately, in most areas of human
interactions, the primacy of imposition over shared decision-making to become co-creators of the
circumstances that are lived is the usual. This lack of possibilities of being a co-creator threatens no
less than our human condition, relegating us to be adaptive beings. We cannot speak about ed-
ucational processes if they undermine our human condition. Cultural transmission processes can be,
then, something different from education, resulting even in indoctrination if they do not leave room
to raise people´s own voice.

A process that balances individual and social dimensions. When speaking about education, in modern
western liberal societies great importance is attributed to the process of individuation of the person.
This, however, should not mean ignoring the social dimension in the formation, as participating in
public life, as well as capacity of action (Arendt, 2018) is what makes us being human.
To achieve this necessary balance, Pérez Tapias (1996) affirms that an education at the service of
humanization should harmonize the problematic interrelation of individual and social dimensions,
balancing individual and social demands, developing in every person the feeling of being part of
something that represents them, and, at the same time, feel respected by the whole in their sin-
gularity, because we are neither just individual beings nor standard components of a whole. A
perspective of democracy is implicitly valued here, as a way of living in every space of people’s
daily life, in which decisions are made with the participation of the ones affected by the norms to
develop a fair and impartial sense of justice.
Echeverria 127

This perspective of democracy overcomes the representative paradigm by being deliberative and
participative, allowing to develop a sense of belonging to every individual who wants to contribute
to the whole, feeling responsible for their community; and society values every one of its members
as a unique and singular contribution. We are describing then, the participation in a public sphere
that is pluralistic, respectful of the differences, inclusive, diverse, and empathetic with others’
realities.
This is intimately related to the Arendtian conception of active citizenship, the value and
importance of civic engagement and collective deliberation about all matters affecting the political
community (Passerin, 2019). According to this tradition, politics finds its authentic expression
whenever citizens gather in a public space to deliberate and decide about matters of collective
concern. Here, democracy is more than a means: it is an end by itself.
This position overcomes the liberal notion of autonomy inherited from modernity, that applies to
the individual, and considers the close relationship between autonomy and recognition (Honneth,
1995). As we recognize ourselves, which is a process that originates thanks to others, we know who
we are, and can develop a self-conscious of our existence, needs, and expectations. We cannot be
free if we do not display our beings in a stage shared with others, nor can the collective space be so if
it does not have individuals who contribute to its collective emancipation.

Critical education: Reflecting on our Western cultural heritage for a fairer world
A critical education recognizes that no cultural transmission process can be neutral because all of
them transmit thoughts, beliefs, traditions, habits, etc., that imply a model of a human being and
society. As it is impossible not to influence others, Critical Theory is very helpful to define education
at the service of humanizing, as it provides categories to think education in terms of why, what, how,
and what for, to understand that common sense and goodwill are not enough.
Critical Theory could help people to understand their living conditions, to aspire to a more
dignified life and to realize that the majority is oppressed by a controlling dominant discourse that
seeks to shape culture to continue oppressing in a veiled form. Accordingly, Critical Education is a
philosophy of education connected to those struggles against oppression in all its forms which
develops reflective thought and practice for social change from the ground up for challenging power
structures from the immediate and real context.
As every person absorbs a cultural legacy through human interaction and develops a subjectivity,
the most important decision to make from critical education is how to allow others to absorb cultural
transmission in a critical way, this is, with some filters or criteria to protect themselves from
manipulation and dominion. This demands to accept that our subjectivities are impregnated with
notions inherited from modernity that must be revised to decide if we want to repeat them, as the
notions of autonomy, reason, progress, and democracy, among others.
In the case of autonomy, it could be appropriate to consider that is more than the absence of
external obstacles, because they can also be internal. How do we know how “independent” our
desires, decisions, and options are, if they are influenced or are a deeply reflect the cultural
transmission we have received? It is inevitable to be influenced by them, nonetheless, absorbing this
influence uncritically is completely different from having clear criteria—filters—to decide which to
absorb and, therefore, accepting that such influence shapes who we are.
In relation to progress, we also must reflect about its meaning, as the advance of modernity
showed us a horrible reality: stop being human. Let us think about the German soldiers who made
the holocaust possible by choosing to become just gears in a machine, giving up their own will to act
like mere puppets. In Arendtian terms, it is precisely such lack of self-reflection the precondition for
128 Power and Education 15(2)

the appearance of automatisms, both in thought and behaviour. Bárcena and Mélich say about it that
“it is not unwise to claim that without a large-scale bureaucratic organization of subjects who are
incapable of thinking for by themselves and without a technology developed outside of a morally
formed conscience, mass murder would not have been possible” (Bárcena and Mélich, 2000: 45,
own translation). Thus, the progress that we thought we had made in the last century as humanity is
not such, if we consider that the effect it has produced on a human scale has been devastating.
Other concept important to revise is the notion of democracy, wondering how free we are in the
kind of life administration we live in. Although we know we do not live in totalitarianisms but in
modern liberal representative democracies, it is important to consider that there are ways of control
that deprive citizens of the ability to act in the world. As Bárcena and Mélich point out:

…the management of life, its administration and putting it into circulation in the market under the
perhaps less fearsome, but no less cruel names, of globalization and all that jargon of competitiveness
and efficiency (…) Under this new face, apparently more friendly, politics uses whatever it takes to
achieve its purposes, and one of its effects is to control, to avoid surprises and uncertainties, the ability of
initiative and radical novelty of citizens (Bárcena and Mélich, 2000: 42–43, own translation).

Maybe the most important concept behind all this conception of world is reason. As our recent
history shows, the reason unfolded along modernity, instrumental reason, did not turn out to be a
tool for progress, but rather for barbarism. Horkheimer and Adorno affirm that reason perverted in
its own trajectory by deploying unilaterally, as an instrumental-strategic reason, to the detriment of
its other dimensions, such as moral reason (Horkheimer and Adorno, 1994; in Pérez Tapias, 1996).
This invites us to interact with the world from a broader perspective overcoming the means-ends
spirit, as it is restricted to technical development that hindered the moral field. An education that is
able to assume critically the modernity legacy should promote instead a situated and dialogic
rationality, moral reason (Pérez Tapias, 1996).
Considering that technical rationality has reached all areas of modern human life, a critical
education should find ways to raise new generations through processes of cultural transmission
guided by a moral instead of instrumental reason. Thus, critical education is at the service of social
justice when we are against oppression and domination, as I discuss in the next section.

Education for social justice: The importance of human interaction

I am concerned about the threat of dehumanization in the face of the advance of instrumental
rationality—as the background spirit of neoliberalism—which permeates everyday events ex-
pressed in the logics of domination and instrumentalization we live, making us unconscious re-
producers of the logic of domination that oppresses us. Genuine attention should be paid to how to
remain human, dealing with a culture in which we feel powerless as we do not know how to
articulate with others to develop projects to make our individual and collective existence meaningful
so as to overcome the feelings of frustration or anger that may arise when we find no alternatives to
face injustice.
In this sense, the project of Iris Young is very helpful to orient a critical education towards social
justice, which is the elimination of institutionalized domination and oppression (Young, 1990: 15).
Accordingly, an education for social justice is the one that promotes capacities to deal against
oppression. Even though it is known that a critical education considers in particular this ideal, what I
will offer in this section is a reflection about some specific elements that a critical education should
consider.
Echeverria 129

I propose that an education oriented to social justice, more than giving an explicit speech about
justice or cover topics directly related to it, should put human interaction as the core of its doing, as
it is through interactions that we are allowed to be ourselves, and with that, develop an awareness
and capacity of action.
Human interaction is crucial because is the place where subjectivity is gestated. As Pérez Tapias
says, through interactions pass attitudes, a key factor that configures individuals. As he says:

The most important thing that is transmitted through the web of relationships through which education
runs are attitudes. These, much more than the contents that are expressly taught, are what end up being
decisive in shaping the ethos or mood of each individual, as well as the mood that is dominant in a
society (Pérez Tapias, 1996: 58).

An education for social justice centred on human interactions as its sensitive core demands
educators to develop relations of such a quality that, instead of dominating, are able to take care.
This is especially important, necessary, and challenging in a role of offering others a relation with
power that, instead of meaning oppression, means sharing wills to carry out things together.
From this perspective, it is possible to implicitly understand that power is a central element of
every human interaction. As Foucault says, power is not an extension of the power of the State:
Power has autonomy from it and has its own configuration (Foucault, 1980). Micro-mechanisms of
power remind us that power is grounded in everyday life (Gledhill, 1994: 126). This perspective
allows us to understand critical education as a micropolitical issue, in which are at stake the
formation of desire, beliefs, inclinations, and judgements in political subjects (Scherer, 2015).
When interactions unfold, they influence and transform people, in a dynamic and spontaneous
process, conforming an experience that a human being has by being there, unconsciously becoming
human beings of certain characteristics, according to the way they are treated by others. It is in an
imperceptible level, which is cumulative and, day after day, it gestates the persons we are. I would
like to invite here to think about micropolitics as that everyday space that, expected or not, for better
or worse, we as human beings fill with daily interactions that have an impact in all of us, especially
the youngest.
If we accept our responsibility of the implicit messages we give through our attitudes in our daily
interactions with others, then we must accept that this thing we call “the system,” the society, is
nothing more than what we revive in our encounters with others. We reproduce our cultural legacy
through our attitudes unless we decide to change it. Any people responsible to educate newcomers,
must reflect on: What kind of society do I want to contribute to build up? What kind of human being
do I want to contribute to form? Do I want to reproduce this society? What needs to be maintained
and what needs to be changed? How coherent are my intentions with my attitudes towards others?
Micropolitics is the level at which we can hold ourselves accountable.
Micropolitics is then the space of human interaction in which this delicate and fundamental task
of helping other being to become and remain human can be carried out, by, as Fullat (1992) would
say, starting from the person, this is, appealing to the opinion of the growing person, instead of
imposing a must-be. If we want them to learn something, we should remember that learning is a
search of something, and this cannot start from an already solved knowledge. Starting from a
question that is carefully posed, inviting other to genuinely express their point of view, far from
intimidating, promotes awareness on the appearance of the starting point of comprehension of
something in the learner, inviting the growing person to look for answers into themselves, exploring
in their authentic inner world: feelings, sensations, intuitions, and thoughts, to create an own and
authentic position about something. What is at stake in the interaction is the possibility of becoming
130 Power and Education 15(2)

aware of one’s own way of feeling and understanding the world; it is at this micropolitical level that
the formation of subjectivity and capacity of action is played out.
If we understand that attitudes are the reflect of our internal subjectivity, and if we consider that
this subjectivity as a reflection of how it has been shaped by others’ attitudes, then, to break free
from our cultural legacy and feel responsible of its change, it will be possible, being careful with our
attitudes and also being responsible with the source or origin of these attitudes, checking and
reflecting about those virtues, vices, kindness, and selfishness acquired from the cultural trans-
mission received, hopefully trying to answer the question What this social culture has made with
me?, revealing the complex, close, and imbricated relation between culture, sociology, and
psychology.

As a way of closure
As a general definition, we can say that an education for social justice, from a critical perspective, is
then a humanizing process based on a relation free from domination and oppression, and at the same
time leads to develop a uniqueness and singularity helping being part of a whole to build alternatives
to decide a common destiny together.
We need to reflect on our understanding about the human being, since an education at the service
of social justice must understand the sense of human as the ability to create novelty and have an own
voice. Consequently, this depends on the possibility this person has to bring out their inner self, as
their caregivers promote and stimulate them to become aware of their feelings, thoughts, sensations,
fears, and expectations, to make appear their voice, the singularity of their person.
This will be possible as the educational processes are based on human interactions led by a moral
reason, the one which asks about the good and the just, instead of the useful, as instrumental reason
does. A way to relate each other not to control others, but to let them be and create new ways to do
things together, in a way respectfully enough to develop an own identity as unique and singular
human beings; flexible enough to give the person the possibility to develop their own initiative,
awareness of their own existence as an individual and social human being; dialogical and reflexive
enough to develop an own voice as a starting point to give experience a personal meaning; and free
enough to develop an own will to make decisions conquering and living freedom responsibly with
others.
Finally, I want to offer what for me is the finest and most concise definition of education, given by
Bárcena and Mélich in their book Education as an ethical event: “Education, the authentic ex-
perience of formation, constitutes an event of an ethical order within which, as the central nucleus,
there is a relationship” (Bárcena and Mélich, 2000: 35, own translation). Considering this, an
education for social justice, this is, that promotes liberation through recognition and rejects op-
pression and domination, is gestated in human interaction. And every one of us could be ac-
countable for that.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Echeverria 131

ORCID iD
Priscilla Echeverria  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4698-1022

References
Arendt H (2003) Los Orı́genes Del Totalitarismo. Madrid: Alianza.
Arendt H (2018) The Human Condition. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.
Bárcena F and Mélich J (2000) La Educación Como Acontecimiento Etico. Barcelona, Spain: Paidós.
Bauman Z (1998) Culture as Praxis. London: SAGE Publications.
Foucault M (1980) Power/Knowledge. 1972-7. New York: Pantheon Books.
Freire P (1996) Polı́tica Y Educación. México: Siglo XXI.
Freire P (2012) Pedagogı́a Del Oprimido. México: Siglo XXI.
Fromm E (2014) The Erich Fromm Reader. Readings Selected and Edited by Funk R, Open Road Distribution.
Fullat O (1992) Paideia. Barcelona: CEAC Ediciones.
Gledhill J (1994) The power and its disguises. Anthropological perspectives on Politics. London: Pluto Press.
Goyenechea de Benvenuto E (2012) Hanna Arendt Y Walter Benjamin: Masa, Multitud, Populacho.
COL - 2012 Año XVII Nro. 22. Available: https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/6992
(Accessed 12 July 2021).
Honneth A (1995) The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Horkheimer M and Adorno T (1994) Dialéctica de la IlustraciÃ3n. Madrid: Trotta.
Marcuse H (1994) One-Dimensional Man. London: Routledge.
Passerin M (2019) Hannah Arendt. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition). Zalta EN
(ed). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arendt/ (Accessed 10 June 2021).
Pérez Tapias JA (1996) Claves Humanistas Para Una Educación Democrática. Madrid: Grupo Anaya.
Pritchard M (1972) Human dignity and justice. Ethics 1972; 82(4): 299–313.The University of Chicago Press.
Scherer M (2015) Micropolitics. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. Chicago, IL: Publisher Encyclopædia Bri-
tannica, inc. (Accessed 05 March 2015).
Young I (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.