Introduction

Since the first democratic elections in 1994, South African society has been subject to ongoing social and political transformation. A new Constitution was introduced, from which an entire series of new legislation flowed to shepherd the South African society towards transformation. Education in particular, had to be restructured and reorganised (at the superstructural level) to redress historical imbalances caused by the policies of the previous political dispensation. However, education is also regarded as the vanguard in helping to shape an ideally transformed South Africa, and educators are often reminded that they are entrusted with ‘our children, the future of our country’. During this period of social and political upheaval, education is challenged to help the country transform, while at the same time requiring urgent transformation itself.

I believe that the notion of ‘education for transformation’ can easily become entangled in particular misconceptions. These fallacies are rooted in confusion about the concepts of social transformation (as explained in the previous chapter), rationality and subsequently, education for transformation. The central thrust of this part of my book is that ‘education for transformation’ should be conceived according to a view of transformation that encompasses both superstructural and infrastructural aspects. Education is fundamentally and conceptually linked to rationality because, essentially, the conception of rationality forms the basis of what education is all about. One can argue that, since a conception of rationality provides the ground rules for education, this particular conception will also be the key foundation on which the concept of ‘education for transformation’ is built.

In this chapter I argue that education can only enhance social transformation if it is underpinned by a framework of rationality that regards the emotions as cognitive and part of rationality itself. Conversely, if we concede the field of rationality to certain adversarial conceptions, the prospects of ‘education for transformation’ will be weakened, because these restricted conceptions of rationality tend to focus mainly on superstructural aspects, thereby marginalising vital infrastructural components. In this sense, one can argue that conceptions of rationality fundamentally affect (and eventually effect) social transformation. These restricted adversarial conceptions can in actual fact become significant impediments to ‘education for transformation’, since they fail to appreciate – and subsequently promote – the foundational role of infrastructural transformation.