Tina Vrieler

by Tina Vrieler

Abstract

This short essay offers a critique of A Manifesto for Education by Gert Biesta and Carl Anders Säfström (2011), identifying three key assumptions that limit its transformative potential: (i) A vague notion of freedom as an alternative to educational idealism, (ii) freedom without liberation and beyond oppression, and (iii) epistemological exclusivity in education. While the manifesto claims to defend education from populism and idealism, it constructs a narrow and abstract framework that fails to account for systemic oppression and practical realities in the classroom. Drawing on feminist epistemology and critical pedagogy, this essay challenges the manifesto’s denial of structural power and argues for an expansive, pluralistic, and justice-oriented vision of education—one that embraces complexity, honors lived experience, and promotes mutual liberation.

1. Introduction

On May 7, 2025, Mälardalen University hosted a one-day colloquium celebrating A Manifesto for Education, authored by Gert Biesta and Carl Anders Säfström in 2011. At the time of its publication, the manifesto was framed as a response to pressing challenges in educational research and the broader socio-political landscape. Since then, it has been translated into several languages—including Icelandic and Swedish—and has positioned itself as a defense of the educational domain against the forces of populism, neoliberalism, and idealism.

However, beneath its philosophical claims lie a number of problematic assumptions, including the rejection of interdisciplinary contributions to education and an abstract conception of freedom that evades critical grounding. This essay offers a critique of three underlying assumptions of the manifesto, which I argue to be the most problematic, including (i) a vague notion of freedom as an alternative to educational idealism, (ii) freedom without liberation and beyond oppression, and (iii) epistemological exclusivity in education. In discussing these limitations, an alternative vision for freedom in education is offered, advocating for an education grounded in wholeness rather than dichotomy, epistemological plurality rather than disciplinary isolation, and an honest reckoning with power, discrimination, and shared responsibility rather than the denial of systemic oppression.

Assumption 1: A vague notion of freedom as an alternative to educational idealism

Idealism, according to the authors, is associated with projects such as democracy, solidarity, inclusion, tolerance, social justice, peace, and—more recently—sustainability (Biesta, 2025).  One of the manifesto’s core assumptions is that embracing such idealism in education is unrealistic, as it places excessively high expectations on what education should be able to achieve. These far-reaching aspirations, they argue, set education up for inevitable failure. Instead, the authors propose that the solution lies in shifting the focus to the notion of “freedom”—a concept that was deliberately left undefined. In their own words, it is: “a freedom that is ‘difficult’ because it is connected, related […] that also cannot be pinned down, that cannot be captured, and that, in that sense, also cannot be defined”, but must somehow be enacted in the moment (Biesta & Säfström, 2011, p. 543).

The authors present the idea of freedom not as idealistic, but as “realistic,” implying that this abstract notion is somehow immune to failure (Biesta, 2025). Yet, the manifesto’s portrayal of freedom—as vague, elusive, and impossible to define—paradoxically comes across as highly idealistic in itself. This notion of freedom is elevated as the very essence of what makes education educational, in contrast to the democratic and emancipatory projects the authors dismiss as overly idealistic (Biesta, 2025).

One could argue that this emphasis on freedom is simply a rebranded form of idealism, now stripped of any concrete direction for practice. By leaving the concept of freedom deliberately undefined, the authors effectively evade accountability, making their approach difficult to critique. This vagueness shields the notion of freedom from scrutiny by placing the responsibility of interpretation entirely on the reader, allowing the concept to remain unaccountable. Imagine teachers reading the manifesto to inform their education, only to find a concept that resists articulation, rendering them confused and placing them in an impossible position (cf. hooks, 1994).  This in itself can be seen as an irresponsible demand, and raises the question of how educators are expected to respond when educational philosophy is framed in such an abstract way that it feels entirely disconnected from the realities of the classroom. If teachers cannot meaningfully see the connection between the ideas proposed and how it can be applied, what value does the manifesto offer? At “best”, the text risks alienating its intended audience; at worst, it may serve primarily to reinforce the authors’ academic positions. Rather than empowering teachers or inviting critical engagement, the manifesto risks becoming an exercise in intellectual domination—undermining, rather than supporting, educators in their efforts to pursue thoughtful and reflective pedagogy.

A significant problem in the authors’ call to remove or minimize the so-called “idealistic” elements of education is that such a move may itself result in a reduction of freedom. In a society that embraces democratic and humanistic values such as care, tolerance, equality, and sustainability, these ideals cannot be compartmentalized or left to be upheld solely by those in positions of greater power. It is not the exclusive responsibility of political institutions to sustain these values; rather, every actor within the educational and societal system must embody them. Without such collective practice, the notion of a cohesive democratic society is undermined, reinforcing a fragmented view of social responsibility and fostering a mentality in which no one assumes accountability for their actions.

Assumption 2: Freedom without liberation and beyond oppression

The manifesto conceives of freedom not as individual autonomy or self-expression, but as the emergence of dissensus—a moment in which the learner’s subjectivity “comes into the world” (Biesta & Säfström, 2011, p. 541). From a teacher’s perspective, this notion of freedom can be understood as a relational and ethical commitment to the freedom of the other—namely, the child, pupil, or student. While this vision resonates with the idea that educators bear responsibility for creating environments where learners are encouraged to think for themselves, it is troubling that the manifesto speaks of freedom and equality without addressing what learners need to be freed from. In other words, it fails to name or confront the systemic forces that limit subjectivity and agency—be they racism, sexism, ableism, or economic inequality. By failing to acknowledge the presence of oppression, the manifesto risks reinforcing—rather than challenging—the oppressive practices occurring in schools and society, ultimately rendering meaningful educational transformation unattainable. Moreover, what is even more problematic is that this silence reflects a position of privilege; the ability to overlook systems of oppression is a stance typically afforded only to those who have benefited from them.

The manifesto critiques the sociological argument focusing on social change, liberation from oppression, and the overcoming of inequality, claiming it is too entangled with the idea of progress and defers educational purpose to a future that may never arrive. However, this dismissal is deeply problematic, as it sidelines the structural realities—such as patriarchy, colonialism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, and economic injustice—that must be acknowledged and challenged for any genuine freedom to emerge. By rejecting the contributions of sociology, the manifesto de-legitimizes and invalidates the social, cultural, and material conditions that shape the structure of the classroom and constrain learners’ lives, particularly those of marginalized groups. In doing so, it perpetuates a privileged, White, masculine, abstract notion of freedom—one that is disconnected from struggle, responsibility, and the intersectional work required to make education emancipatory in both theory and practice.

Rather than placing the work of “freeing” students solely on teachers, a feminist discourse on freedom in education emphasizes a shared journey of intellectual and spiritual growth between educators and learners. As bell hooks (1994) argues, education must be a space where both teachers and learners engage in mutual transformation. This begins with acknowledging that education operates within systems of oppression, and that both educators and students live within a broader culture of domination. Therefore, the task of the teacher is not to transfer knowledge, but to create conditions in which learners are given tools, space, and possibility to critically examine their own, others’ (including the teachers’) and society’s “truths”, assumptions, beliefs, and values. Through this dialogical and reflective process, students are empowered to raise their voices, engage with knowledge as a means to improve their lives, and continually disrupt the harm caused by oppressive ways of learning and thinking (Kumashiro, 2009).

Assumption 3: Epistemological exclusivity in education

A third key assumption of the manifesto is that knowledge from other scientific disciplines, such as sociology and psychology, cannot adequately capture the educational dimension of education. The core issue here lies in how the authors themselves define what is considered “educational.” According to the manifesto, the educational moment—one that leads to freedom—occurs in the tension between “what is” and “what is not.” Based on this framing, the authors argue that definitions borrowed from other academic disciplines are insufficient, as these fields are allegedly too focused either on the present (“what is”) or on a deferred, developmental future (“what is not”).

This discourse to assert definitional authority represents a kind of policing of knowledge through the claim of ownership over the concept of what is considered “educational”. It implies that only one epistemological framework can legitimately define the educational moment. Such a protectionist discourse, which seeks to delineate insiders and outsiders, and to shield education from the influence of other disciplines, is deeply problematic. It constrains and denigrates valuable knowledge from fields that have long informed educational thought and practice—contributions without which it would be impossible to make education truly educational. By reducing the educational experience to a narrowly philosophical abstraction, the manifesto becomes disconnected from the complex psychological, social, emotional, material, cultural, and bodily realities that fundamentally influence how human beings teach and learn.

Feminist research advocates for epistemological plurality—the recognition and validation of multiple ways of knowing and understanding the world to counteract a hegemonic view of what is considered “educational” about education (see e.g., Anderson, 2024). This means acknowledging that what constitutes the “educational” is, and always will be, complex, never to be reduced to a single framework or discipline. A fundamental part of what makes education educational in a pluralistic sense lies in appreciating how different scientific fields approach questions of concern, each grounded in distinct epistemological assumptions and conceptions of social phenomena, and therefore, reality (Blaikie, 2007). To fully grasp the complexity of what is educational, it is essential to remain attuned to our situatedness—our partial perspectives and incomplete voices, to use the words of Haraway (1998). This means acknowledging the limits and contradictions of our perspective and our knowledge, while embracing the full spectrum of what it means to be a learning human being—one shaped by social, cultural, biological, psychological, and emotional dimensions. For these reasons, the field of education must be expanded, not reduced, because the complexity of education and what is educational can never be fully described. The reality of education is more nuanced than can ever be defined by one discipline or philosophical strand. Therefore, I believe it is indispensable to allow and accept contributions from diverse disciplinary viewpoints because this mosaic best reflects the multifaceted nature of being human, the act of engaging in educational experience, and the complex contexts in which that experience is embedded.

Conclusion

A Manifesto for Education sets out to defend education against the reductive pressures of populism, neoliberalism, and idealism. However, a critical reading reveals that it reproduces a series of assumptions that limit rather than expand the emancipatory potential of education. By rejecting idealism while offering a vague, abstract, and allegedly “realistic” notion of freedom, the manifesto imposes impractical and ungrounded expectations on teachers. Its refusal to engage with systemic oppression and its dismissal of interdisciplinary insights reinforce a privileged and exclusionary vision of education that is disconnected from lived experience. This critique argues for an alternative: an education grounded in complexity, relationality, and epistemological plurality—an education that recognizes power, acknowledges oppression, and fosters mutual transformation. Only through such a reorientation can freedom in education be made meaningful, actionable, and just.

References

Anderson, E. (2024). Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/feminism-epistemology/

Biesta, G. (2025, May 7). Revisiting the Manifesto [Presentation]. Conference at Mälardalen University.

Biesta, G., & Säfström, C. A. (2011). A Manifesto for Education. Policy Futures in Education, 9(5), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2011.9.5.540

Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to Social Enquiry: Advancing Knowledge (2nd edition). Polity Press.

Haraway, D. (1998). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.

Kumashiro, K. (2009). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice (2nd ed.). Routledge.