Education, Immunity and Autoimmunity—A Study of Medicalized Philosophy of Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper suggests that schools, by being obsessed with diagnosing and seeing what should be acknowledged as part of lives as what should be corrected or prevented(illness), can work as an ‘autoimmune’ system that attacks its own system and values. What is suggested as ‘medicalized use of metaphor’ is also very interesting. I wonder if this account can be further developed.

In general, there are a lot of good sources in this paper and I am very sympathetic to what the authors are attempting to say. Yet, at the moment, it does not seem to be fully developed and I suggest that a large amount of the paper should be revised if it is to be published.

 

I wish to read more of the authors’ own critical views when it comes to philosophical analysis. For example, when the authors draw upon other contemporary philosophers in education such as Brady, Farrell and Mahon, it would be helpful to have more of the authors’ own voice. One way of doing so could be by closely linking authors’ ideas with ‘autoimmunity’ of Derrida and showing how it is different from/similar to others’ ideas. Using the concept of ‘autoimmunity’ works quite well but it should be further developed in relation to the main argument. Some references seem to be reconsidered – such as the stories from Wikipedia. Some accounts of medical information seem to be taking up too much space which could be quite distracting for understanding the general argument. 

Author Response

please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an original attempt to apply Derrida' thought on immunity/autoimmunity to education; specifically, schooling. The overall ambitions are worthy and several sections of the article produce interesting applications of these ideas to education.

The overall clarity of the argument requires some revision. It is not entirely clear what is at stake in the argument presented and there are lots of slippages (with associated assumptions) between different sections of the paper. The authors might consider reflecting on their core argument and making sure it acts as a clearer thread throughout the article. This would greatly assist the reader and would also make clearer the contribution of the authors to the field.

There is also some hyperbolic framing of the context and argument, which should be a little more measured. The first line of the abstract already indicates the issue that I'm pointing to here.

In terms of references, it seems a shame not to bring in other more recent examples of thinking on immunity/autoimmunity that have significantly advanced Derrida's thought in this area (e.g. Roberto Esposito's 'Communitas', 'Immunitas', and 'Bios' ) or existing examples of where this thought has been applied to education (e.g. Emile Bojesen's 'Primacy of Pity' in Ethics and Education).

I would also suggesting potentially cutting parts of the article which do not directly support the core argument and the major contribution of the piece. This would assist in enhancing the clarity of the piece and making it a sharper and more valuable contribution. 

 

Author Response

please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf