Subjectivity in education is not a new issue. It defines the position and role of participants in educational processes (teacher, students). However, education combined with problems of security may raise some doubts in interpretation. It is about identifying the subjects of security. If you adopt the premise that a set of security subjects is not restricted to man and social groups, then security education should also consider other subjects. Moreover, the hazard society, as a product of the postmodern era involves the need for scientific research and public discussion about man as the subject in the process of education and social relations in general.
The structure of the event -security education- indicates two key processes defining the character of human life. On the one hand, it is about gaining knowledge and exploring the world, on the other, it is about taking such actions which assist those cognitive efforts and ensure permanence of existence. Security education combines these two areas of human activity – epistemological and ontological. The sequence of these processes expressed in the defined phrase indicates the main role of education in forming security. It seems, however, that taking into consideration etymology and a set of designates proper for the notion of security, the permanence of existence (in its biological meaning) conditions higher forms of activity and the creation of all cultural artefacts. It is, therefore, worthwhile looking at the reverse sequence of the mentioned processes where forming security is primary with respect to conscious educational efforts. We thus speak about forming security for education. It must be emphasised that the above aspect of the dissertation concerns security understood in terms of a basic need, namely in the meaning attributed to it by an American psychologist, Abraham Maslow, and by the existentialists. Existence in the physical sense constitutes a pillar of more complex cultural structures including conscious and telelological educational processes. The construction of a dignified form of existence requires physical and somatic stability which is indispensable for steps on the higher levels of abstract thinking. The proper basis for Maslow`s structure of needs is the category of security embracing all physiological needs integrated with the needs of higher order. This universality of security implies the necessity to search for a definite framework which could be later reduced to the methodologically operational fields of research. We may formulate a thesis that all human existence is a set of compiled external and internal factors each of which constitutes an element developing security. Therefore, security is an integral attribute of human existence regardless of its more concrete aspects. Irrespective of what theoretical prism we adopt, man as an individual or member of a social group (ontological, epistemological, ethical), security will be the key problem in the further analysis of its existential condition. Following the ontological train of thought which shaped existentialism and assumed that existence precedes essence, security which supports this existence becomes the constitutive category. However, reducing security to the level of physical existence does not exhaust the in-depth richness of designates included in this concept. Before I proceed to underline the significance of security reaching beyond biological continuity, it is worthwhile looking at security in anthropological terms important from the educational perspective. The area of meaning of the discussed concept is outlined by the anthropological and humanist dimension invoking man as a subject. Close integration of man and security as his attribute is the starting point for further theoretical considerations. Security understood as a general term has no meaning which can be assigned to it with reference to a subject. It is a strictly abstract term for which the right defining framework proper for the logic of defining (
Anthropological and humanist provenance of security is not limited to biologically determined needs whose satisfaction conditions survival. Remaining on the level of sheer biological survival would mean extending the range of meaning of the discussed term to all living nature. However, understanding of security in the abstract context characteristic for products of both material and non-material culture restricts the set of designates of all animal species. Security cannot be reduced solely to biological determinants conditioning physical survival.
A higher cultural level of reflection on security opposed to primary naturalism finds its reflection in security education. Security is the necessary condition to undertake educational effort, but the educational process itself elevates man to a higher level of moral development. Man becomes an expressis verbis cultural subject whose security reaches far beyond biological determinants.
The issue of security perceived as an integral attribute of human life in the total meaning – biological and cultural- reflects a two-fold human nature: on the one hand, remaining in the fetters of biologism embracing all species, and on the other, transcending this naturalism and opening a cultural perspective specific for man. The above vision of man is not a new thing, on the contrary, it grows out of a rich philosophical tradition of thinking about the duality of human nature, but it influences the modern context of research on security
The third perspective which combines the two previous ones seems to reflect best the meaning of security linking physical and biological aspects with ethical and cultural. I think, however, that in contemporary reflection on security what prevails is the cultural perspective which transposes the weight of survival on the abstract level respectively to the modern level of civilisational development.
The image of this cultural trend is security education evolved from the level of preparation for defence and defence education and embracing a broader spectrum of problems extending beyond the information about mandatory defence procedures and useful skills. Security education became a source of the multifaceted development of man integral in developing security. Education causes this development to be orderly, not chaotic, and directed towards gaining knowledge, social competence and most of all creating a bridge to the world of values and their internalisation. Security education puts forward goals which initiate the process of development in the circle of socially recognised axiology. It reflects correlated ethical and teleological factors. The aim is to construct a dignified form of existence and the objective of education serves to achieve the desired shape of this existence. Therefore, aims and values also defining the process related character of developing security by conscious educational actions define its ontological dimension where man is both the subject and goal of securitology efforts. Education supports developing the culture of security and prepares man to face modern threats specifically defined by the dynamics of civilisation transformations. The subject of the education process is man as the reason and goal of the channelled transfer of knowledge.
The cultural perspective which gives direction to modern reflection on security and confirms its humanist dimension is not only a theoretical statement that can be more or less useful in more academic discussions. The contemporary level of civilisation development, almost universal systems, complexity, multifaceted global aspect, high level of specialisation; all these justify the advantage of this cultural concept. Now, the matter is not to survive in the conditions of the laws of nature but to survive in the conditions under the major influence of technology entities modifying the natural environment. In order to prepare appropriately for the actions eliminating the negative influence of reality modified by civilisation, the more advanced programmes of education appear to be necessary, which allow these threats to be identified at all levels of education and inform about the methods to deal with them.
The current position and status of education in the processes developing security cannot be overestimated. The role of educational activities is even more important now when the phenomena of civilisation and cultural modification of man` s surroundings are progressing intensively. The high level of contemporary modernisation action raised man to another level of thinking about the past and future. One of these paradigms rooted in the modern discourse about security is the principle of subjectivity (personal security) assuming the supremacy of the cultural perspective over the naturalist one where man is the centre of efforts to develop security, including its educational aspects. All activity directed towards development of security is embedded in the above paradigm, no matter what kind it is and how it is classified.
In the cultural perspective, other theories are crystallising which aspire to the status of the theoretical paradigm reflecting modern quality differences in security. The concept of risk must be emphasised. The reasons for the rise of the importance of risk must be sought in gradual deconstruction of traditional lifestyles rooted in the past. Cultural values rooted in the tradition dominating in the past have no significant influence on projecting the future and counteract thinking connected with it. The break with the past gave rise to a feeling of uncertainty, existential disorientation and enhanced the risk of taking “non- standard” decisions not established in history. The risk is closely connected with responsibility and internalises anxiety about the effects of the undertaken action. The purpose of education for safety is to minimise risk in times when traditional bonds between past and present are breached. There is an interesting connection between the narrowing down of the space of informal transmission of values between generations and broadening of the space of institutional educational influence aimed at inducing man (young, adult and elderly) into functioning in the complex world of permanent risk. Risk arises from the undefined nature of what is to come, even less predictable now that past values have degenerated due to dynamic changes within one generation. Anthony Giddens emphasises the fact that the concept of risk is particularly significant in a society which breaks with its past and traditional ways of acting and, thus faces, an open but uncertain future” (
As I have already mentioned, the purpose of security education is, among other things, to minimise the above risk through emphasising the role of man as a subject consciously creating reality and gaining the knowledge and values necessary to take decisions that strengthen personal security. So, the traditional values of education have been recently strengthened by the issue of developing security as a specific determinant of our times. The increase of risk not only follows from the fact of broken bonds between generations, but also from the universal cult of individuality and liberalism connected, on the one hand, to the benefits of personal freedom, and on the other, to the threats issuing from the lack of traditional axiological references. The idea of individual creation seems to be attractive, but in practice instills the feeling of threat resulting from the burden of responsibility for individuals’ own decisions and acts.
Criticism of historicism together with the universal cult of liberalism creates dualism of freedom and security characteristics for the post-modern era where man, metaphorically speaking, stands at the crossroads between the route leading to the safe traditional axiology of social relations solidified by generations, and the route to the space of indefinite possibilities, a non-standard form of creation and, thus, to a greater responsibility for the effects of undertaken actions. Failure may lead to loss of the accepted axiological system based on faith in individual possibilities of changing the surrounding world. The hazard connected with modern social cultural atomism consists in unstable internal structures. If passing down values from generation to generation is in deficit, individual basis of evaluation must be constructed, consistent with universal general norms but differentiated enough to emphasise the diversity and specificity of a concrete person. Individualism supports the significance of differentiating elements and its creation is connected with freedom and creativity. However, freedom awakes apprehensiveness and uncertainty as to the shape of the future. The question arises whether each individual is able to make an effort to construct a system of axiological principles which would not only be stable but make an effective anchorage for justifying their actions? The attempt to answer the above doubt should be preceded by quoting some reflections on modern man’s search for security. Giddens, quoted earlier, distinguishes between two kinds of awareness: practical and reflective. Practical awareness defines the set of everyday routines which do not grow from any profound reflection or decision play but are a repetitive cultural ritual. This everyday routine, well known activities, are for man a guarantee of security, of continuation of a sequence of events. Routine makes the future foreseeable and, therefore, known and secure. Values crystallised in cultural transmission and defined by tradition as well as routine forms of everyday life form the most recognisable areas of security. Risk appears in spaces not well enough defined by tradition and routine. Giddens emphasises the role of tradition in creating a bridge between past and present through which the latter is more foreseeable, apt to make prognosis and planning and so bearing a smaller “charge” of risk; “time is not an empty dimension, and a consistent way of life refers the future to the past. Also, tradition creates feelings of permanence that have a cognitive aspect mixed with moral feelings. It is so because it should be so” (
Erich Fromm, while analysing the issue of the freedom of man and his subjectivity, points to the vital problem of facing responsibility whose significance was formed during the process of release from the bonds of nature (freedom from) and creative change of the world (freedom to). Natural bonds, while limiting man, were an existential map where it was easy to identify a consistent strategy for a life of low risk. Positive freedom took away from man the possibility to use “natural instruction”. As Fromm emphasises, “the development of man’s intelligence and emotions on many levels and his unprecedented participation in achievements of culture were accompanied by a disparity between “freedom from” and “freedom to”. This lack of proportion between freedom from all bonds and the lack of possibility for positive realisation of freedom and personality led to an escape in panic in Europe into new bonds or at least to total indifference” (
It is worthwhile underlining that development of civilisation and its accompanying changes in all areas of human life are not characteristic for modernity, but its course and dynamism may cause anxiety. The course of progress accelerated so much that traditional bonds between generations were broken, those which guaranteed the transmission of constitutive principles sustaining their importance in generation after generation. This transmission has now been disrupted by the dynamics of change followed by the inadequacy of material artefacts and moral values. The disruption to the function of traditional communication channels joining one generation to the next is not the only criterion for describing the existential situation of a modern man. The “side effects” of the modernisation process are also important because they have a negative impact not only on the internal axiological structure but also on the biological survival of subjects. Modern dynamism of the postindustrial world influences deconstruction of traditional faith in progress, including scientific (technological) progress. Modernist products of contemporary civilisation went beyond the positive practical context established in history assuming gradual liberation from the bonds of nature and simplification of the forms of everyday activities. The modernisation aim itself became deformed and started to be perceived as a threat which must be dealt with. A. Giddens states that the world we live in is dangerous and full of tension. It contributes not only to a weakening of faith in a happy and more secure social system but also induces reservations about it” (
In light of the above, the following threats must be named which are, at the same time, a challenge in forming concepts and strategies for developing security, including challenges facing security education:
– disruption of communication between generations
– category of risk ( risk of responsibility)
– use of technology products (among others, implementation of military technology, modern biomedicine)
In the context of new postmodern principles criticising some metatheories, the subjectivity of man is not questioned but, on the contrary, emphasised, but on the other hand, endowing it with some concrete and practical content is to raise doubts. This is the background for the main role, as mentioned above, of security education understood as man’s development oriented process supporting him in the search for identity in the conditions of complex systems and sets of relative values. In my opinion, the overriding goal of security education as perceived from a general perspective, is development of a bridge between tradition and modernity, the culture of metatheory and culture of risk, between the lifestyles rooted in history and the contemporary cult of individual creation and positive freedom. It is not only about reducing the gap between tradition and modernity, but about development of new models of activity, norms and principles accelerating the axiological anchorage processes. Education should be neither reproductive nor utopian (counterfactual) but searching for “the golden mean” in developing a model of a modern man-subject. If modernisation is problematic, it is directly linked to defining a modern concept of subjectivity. Man himself is both creator and beneficiary of modernisation. The subject must be constantly defined in the environment of dynamic conditions and new justifications must be introduced. What predestines man to the role of subject today is the changeability and axiological relativity and dynamics of change in the world of social entities. These processes enhance the frequency of defining and justifying the place and role of man in modern social systems. Therefore, personal security problems appear to be an important and topical issue causing, as a consequence, development of theoretical premises and the practice of security education.
Tendency to build personal security on the basis of routine and fairly predictable actions is not extraordinary but follows from natural human needs to be rooted in something known and safe. Criticism of attitudes demonstrating symptoms of escape from risk and uncertainty should take into consideration the inclination and need to search for existential stability established by known and repeated acts identified with security. On the other hand, excessive passivity and escape from positive freedom are not favourable for development, which is an integral element
Abstract context determines anthropomorphic understanding of security. It is man who shapes security not identified only and exclusively with physical survival. He is able to transcend the biological dimension of life, which is important but does not exhaust the richness of meaning ascribed nowadays to security. Man creates culture of which one dimension is security, so he creates the culture of security which distinguishes him as a representative of a species in the set of other species of the living nature (
Immanuel Kant formed an accurate statement reflecting the dual nature of man : “There are two things filling the mind with an always new and growing feeling the more often we think about them. The sky full of stars above me and the law inside me.” The sky full of stars exemplifies nature; moral law is the image of human rationality (
A modern man is involved in the structure of cultural artefacts conditioning criteria of security in both positive and negative meaning. The products of science and technology may generate previously unknown threats developing the character of modern pursuit of existential stability. The subjective sense of security does not issue now from naturalistic reasons but those of culture and civilisation. Relative satisfaction of physiological needs initiated transition to a higher level of thinking about security determined by the category of risk. This problem has been highlighted by Ulrich Beck who stated that “risk society has new sources of conflict and consensus. Instead of overcoming privation we are overcoming risk” (
Karl Popper discussed the subject of the breach with the past as the basis for construction of the present and future calling this problem criticim of historicism. According to the philosopher discovery of the laws of history and applying them for prediction of the events does not fulfill the criteria of scientific method. There is a fundamental difference between scientific prediction and historical prophecy (
Philosophical understanding of security emphasises the evaluation aspect in the existence of man who is first of all a creature of dignity. The dignity dimension is constitutive for defining security and its cultral provenience.