For Jacques
The teacher can be (must be) hated. … It is not only the space of the classroom that bestows upon the teacher authority, it is not only the legislation that concentrates in his person the characteristics of a police officer and a torturer. A particular substantial asymmetry (of age, education, experience) raises up a “wall” between the teacher and the student, who are forced to communicate. The teacher is not on the other side of the wall, but on top. The wall persists outside the classroom. In a certain sense, the teacher is merely this wall in the form of a “podium”. Any relation between her/him and the student, any exchange, reproduces the efficacy of the podium: distance (vertical) and difference (of regime). Difference of knowledge and power, of interest and desire. Distance in the hierarchy, the level of education, the order, the series. Difference and distance mixed, confused: distance in the hierarchy is difference of power, the difference of knowledge is distance between degrees. Distance and difference united by the wall as the material of the podium. … To destroy the wall is to abdicate authority … Only in this way can the educator recuperate innocence …
Pedro García Olivo, El Irresponsable
Irreparably, to live is to offer one’s life up for imitation. People teach what they can. People teach what they teach. Everybody teaches everybody else.
This is what I was getting at in deemphasizing the distinction between what can be passed on purposely and what is passed on inevitably. I am more interested in whether such things are done gracefully, as one may live one’s life more or less gracefully. And perhaps the most graceful lesson is that teaching is impossible. But how is that to be passed on?
The only way to teach not teaching is really not to teach.
Alejandro de Acosta, That Teaching is Impossible
The modern school, as an instrument for universal and mandatory education, has never satisfied its purported purpose: the creation of generalised equal opportunity for citizens in the many spheres of the life of a nation, through the common teaching of all.









Alejandro de Acosta: Anarchy as thinking in which anything goes
Whatever becoming anarchist entails, it is ultimately neither the subject of a pedagogy nor the object of an ideology. One can’t say that anarchist philosophy is merely a decision concerning the concepts, theories, intuitions, books, and thinkers that are to be taught. Anarchy can’t be taught!
… our objects and subjects, our gestures and postures, our languages and sign systems, our acoustic and visual images. So many impulsive investments wearing so many masks, ever more carnivalesque, of an anarchic history in which anything goes.
Alejandro de Acosta
Reflections on pedagogy quickly spill over into spaces of politics. And the inverse is equally true. Following on our posting of Alejandro de Acosta’s essay That Teaching is Impossible: How to Live Now or Never, we share a further study by him, this time reflecting on anarchism more broadly.
Continue reading →