Becoming a Good Teacher: A Levinasian Perspective Towards an Ethical

Teaching

Abstract

Some moral problems in teaching result from distasteful and unethical behaviors of
teachers, such as their lack of sensitivity, empathy and concern for the well-being and
learning growth of their students. Similarly, teaching methods and approaches that are
characterized as teacher-dominated can affect students’ desire and motivation for
learning. Although the teacher’s code of ethics and the code of professional conduct for
teachers are essential components in teacher education and provide useful guidance in
averting these moral problems, they seemingly fail to provide the moral perspective and
inspiration that can help teachers become more sympathetic, sensitive and responsible
both in their teaching relationship and practice. Thus, this paper aims to provide ethical
perspectives on these ethical problems based on the philosophy of the French
philosopher Emmanuel Levinas and by addressing the following key questions: What
valuable ethical insights can we draw out from the ethics of Emmanuel Levinas that
could serve as a response to the current ethical problems that affect not just the
teacher-student relationship, but most importantly, the learning process itself? And how
in general can Levinas’s ethics help teachers practice ethical teaching? Invoking the
Levinasian ethical concepts of the “Other,” hostage and substitution, this paper aims to
answer these questions and argue for the relevance and significant implications of
Levinas’s ethics in promoting an ethical teaching practice and relationship.

Keywords: Levinas, sensitivity, subjectivity, hostage, substitution

Introduction

Moral problems and issues caused by teachers who are callous, insensitive and

dominating have always been one of the vexed issues in many educational institutions,

which are regarded as having the integral role of fostering good behavior and of shaping

the moral character of their students in addition to cultivating their intellectual abilities.

Moreover, there is also a need to be aware of the moral implications of some teaching

methods and approaches that, although are commonly perceived to be effective, are

morally objectionable. On account of the significant evidence showing that the moral

problems resulting from these behaviors and practices affect both the ethical

relationship between a teacher and his/her students and the latter’s motivation and
condition for learning, a serious moral reflection and discussion are therefore

necessary. Thus, this article aims to address these pressing moral problems by

providing valuable insights based on the ethics of the French philosopher Emmanuel

Levinas.

In drawing insights from the ethics of Levinas, this paper utilizes his concept of

the “Other,” characterized by weakness, vulnerability, and destitution. Grounding on

these concepts, I am going to provide a response to the problem of power and

domination by arguing that the student is the master in the teaching encounter. In

addition, this paper also employs the Levinasian concept of the subject constituted by

affectivity and characterized by hostage and substitution to provide ethical insights and

inspiration in response to teachers’ lack of sensitivity, sympathy, responsibility, and

understanding towards their students. In presenting these arguments I will first discuss

the significance and consequences of the moral problems that this paper aims to

address. This will be followed by a discussion of the ethical concepts of Levinas and

their implications as a response to the moral problems.

Why is a teacher’s behavior or conduct towards his/her students worthy of

serious consideration? The undesirable effects of a teacher’s crude behavior on the

learning motivation of students in the classroom and in the educational environment at

large are palpable and apparent both in the scathing letters and in the comments

section of the online student evaluation posted by students complaining of their crass

and distasteful teachers. These student evaluations reveal that a considerable number

of students complain of dominating, unsympathetic, biased, and abusive or “terror”

teachers who intimidate, control, and threaten them.

 One’s attention can also be drawn to the fact that most complaints in these

student evaluations are not about inefficiencies in teaching methods or strategies

employed by teachers. Rather, most complaints are related to what they perceived as a

distasteful and unethical behavior of teachers’ towards them. While some would dismiss

those remarks as tepid complaints unworthy of serious consideration, in reality,

however, such moral problems have glaringly negative consequences, one of which is

that students tend to lose their desire and motivation to learn, thereby affecting their

classroom performance and motivation to learn. Unfortunately, some educational

practitioners and institutions neither give due attention to address these moral problems

nor provide interventions that aim to promote an ethical relationship between teachers

and students.

In addition to these moral concerns regarding the ethical conduct and behavior of

teachers, some teaching practices and approaches also have moral implications that

are rarely evaluated. Elizabeth Campbell (2008), in her work The Ethics of Teaching as

a Moral Profession, noted that this lack of moral evaluation with regard to the ethical

dimension of teaching practices is because of too much emphasis on the cognitive

theories and aspects of learning and teaching:

The moral dimensions of teaching and the ethical nature of the teacher’s
professional responsibilities often seems to be taken for granted in both
the academy and the practitioner communities, overshadowed by
cognitive theories connected to teaching and learning, effective
approaches to measurement and assessment, classroom management
strategies, and other aspects that, while naturally important, are rarely
viewed from a moral or ethical perspective. (p.358)

In addition to what Campbell has said, it can also be observed that we often neglect to

emphasize the ethical nature of teaching since we only tend to evaluate methods and
approaches based on their effectivity in attaining the desired learning outcomes.

Consequently, we have taken for granted the moral or ethical implications of teaching

practices and strategies. The problem, therefore, is more than just about their effectivity;

an essential aspect is their ethical dimension and implications as well. This is what

Sharon Todd means when she claims that teaching must be an “implied ethics.” For

Todd (2001), teaching approaches and practices should partake in the ethical: “An

implied ethics means educational practices, technologies, discourses, and relationships

always already participate in a field of ethicality, that is to say, a domain or realm in

which non-violent relations to the Other are always possible” (p.71).

Todd’s notion of teaching invites us to reflect on some important moral questions

involving teaching practices and relationship: How can teaching be ethical when

teachers dominate students to the point that the latter lose their desire to learn? How

can teaching be ethical when teachers fail to understand and sympathize with their

students? And how can teaching be ethical when some of the approaches stifle the

uniqueness and creativity of the students? In view of these questions, there is definitely

a need to emphasize ethical theories in teacher education in order for teachers to

evaluate the moral dimension of their teaching practices and strategies, as well as to

inspire them to develop an ethical relationship and approach towards their students.

Hence, in the sections to come, I will discuss particular moral problems related to

teaching and teacher’s conduct and their impact on student learning, after which I will

discuss the relevant ethical concepts of Levinas’s in order to provide ethical insights and

response to the problem.

The Problem of Power and Domination in Teaching and the Levinasian Response

According to the traditional and common notion of teaching, the teacher is

portrayed as the one who is in charge —that is, someone who has the power and

authority to command; the students, on the other hand, are perceived as powerless and

subjected to the teacher. Joseph Kupfer (1990), author of Autonomy and Social

Interaction, noted that this emphasis on the power and authority of the teacher is even

manifested in the way classrooms are designed and structured: “Students see the

backs of other students and the teacher’s front, which means that their options are

reduced to one; they can only address and receive response from the teacher.

Responses to each other must be bounced off the teacher. [The teacher] is in charge;

the students are virtually powerless” (p.151). This clearly shows that the teacher, from

whom students must follow and obey instructions, is normally considered as the

powerful and authoritative figure in the teaching scenario.

Research also shows that this teacher dominated approach in teaching was

prevalent in North America, in which a study of nearly 7,000 accounts of classroom

practice from 1890 to 1980 revealed that most classroom teaching may be described as

teacher-centered and teacher dominated (McNamara, 1994, p. 17). Unfortunately, these

teacher-centered approaches and teacher dominated practices appears to continue to

have significant influence and followers among the current generation of educators. A

student, for instance, wrote the following in the comment section of a teacher’s

evaluation: “Mam Anna1 is actually a great teacher. I understand her lessons, but

sometimes she would come off as too strong and dominating, and sometimes we
1
Not the teacher’s real name
cannot voice out because we are scared to do so.” Another student also wrote the

following: “Mam Karen2 is so strict, and I’m afraid to participate in class because she

gets angry when we give a wrong answer or when we contradict her views. Moreover,

there was very little exchange with the students.”

What these examples illustrate is that teacher’s approaches and behavior

towards their students, as well as their manner and style of teaching, can result in

ethical problems that can seriously affect student’s motivation and participation. This

claim is corroborated by Jim Knight, who has spent more than two decades studying

professional learning and effective teaching. Knight (2010) remarks that the problem of

domination in teaching is one of the destructive temptations that teachers may succumb

to; as a consequence, it affects the desire of the students to learn: “Dominating teachers

can make students feel impotent, and as a result of feeling powerless or hopeless,

some students lose the desire to learn” (para. 6). Furthermore, Knight also notes that

undue “exertion of power over students can be detrimental to everyone in the

classroom, including the teacher” (para. 5).

On the contrary, students must own or at least share in the learning process.

Thus, Peter Mortimore (1999), author of Understanding Pedagogy and its Impact on

Learning, argues that teachers must share their power and authority with the students:

“If we are serious about bringing the student into some ownership of the learning and

assessment process…it means teachers sharing power with students-rather than

exerting power over them” (p. 58). Similarly, Gert Biesta (2013) asserts that teachers

must provide space for student’s autonomy rather than aiming for “total control.” He

2
Not the teacher’s real name
writes, “Teachers should not aim for total control of their students but should always

encounter them as human subjects in their own right” (Biesta, 2013, p. 35). However, I

believe that in order for these ethical relationships to be possible, teachers need to shift

their perspectives and perceptions of their students. Thus, in the following section, I will

argue—employing Levinas’s concept of the “Other”—for a notion of the student as the

master who has the power and authority in the teaching encounter.

a. The Student as the Weak, Vulnerable and Destitute Other

In Totality and Infinity, Levinas himself criticized the notion of teaching as a form

of domination. Levinas (1969), on the other hand, describes teaching as a “non-violent

transitivity” (p.51). He further claimed that “teaching is not a species of a genus called

domination” (Levinas, 1969, 171). For Levinas teaching is an ethical relationship; it is a

welcoming rather than the conquering of the infinite Other. It is a face-to-face encounter

with the Other that reveals the ethical and puts the self under an obligation to the Other.

In this encounter, it is revealed to the teacher that he is responsible to the student

whose face appeals and asks him to respond to his needs. The encounter also reveals

to the teacher that the student is the weak and the vulnerable Other in the relationship,

thus making the teacher aware that he is responsible towards the student (for this see

also Joldersma, 2001).

The face of the student, without uttering a word, expresses a command not only

by claiming, “Thou shalt not kill!” It also expresses a plea to the teacher to put the

student’s need before himself. By making this plea and command, the face of the

student reveals to the teacher his inescapable responsibility. In being faced by the

student, the teacher realizes that he is compelled to respond to the command and plea
of the student, because to see the face of the student is “to see her wants and needs,

her vulnerability and mortality” (Lingis, 2009, p. 86). The vulnerability and weakness of

the Other affect the teacher and moves him to respond. Levinas (1996) writes, “The

epiphany of the Absolutely Other challenges and commands me through his nakedness,

through his destitution” (p.17).

In teaching, the teacher encounters the student as Other and sees that “the face

of the Other is destitute; it is the poor for whom I can do all and to whom I owe all”

(Levinas, 1985, p. 89). In facing the poor and the destitute, the teacher realizes that he

has “the resources to respond to the call” (Levinas, 1985, p. 89). Because of this, the

teacher is all the more compelled and obligated to respond to his needs. As a teacher,

the face of the student reveals to me “a being whose ultimate vulnerability and need

always put[s] me in a position of obligation” (Standish, 2008, p. 59). This poverty of the

student, however, is not in the material aspect, but rather it is expressed in his need to

acquire the necessary knowledge, skills, and character from the teacher.

b. The Student as the Master

The weakness and vulnerability of the student, however, isn’t an opportunity for

the teacher to exploit or to dominate, for it is not a manifestation of his powerlessness.

On the contrary, it is a source of power and authority. It has the power and authority to

command the teacher. Thus, the student is “my Master, as he calls me to responsibility

from his position of vulnerability” (Strhan, 2012, p. 26). This reveals the paradox in

Levinas’s notion of the Other as weak and vulnerable, for power does not reside in the

strong, but it resides in the weak. Zdenko Kodelja (2008) describes this as the “moral

power”: “The weakness of the face is, in fact, its power, it is moral power, or in Levinas’s
words, it is its authority” (p.190). Consequently, as a moral power, it cannot be

characterized as dominating, but simply a form of obligating. Anna Strhan (2007)

powerfully illustrates how this power works through the character of a child whose

vulnerability places his mother in a position of inexcusable obligation:

“The authority of the Other does not come from a concrete relationship of
power. The mastery of the Other stems from his very vulnerability: his
vulnerability gives his interpellation an urgency and places his need
before my own. This is the sense in which he has authority over me: it is
not an authority to compel or demand from me: it is the authority of
vulnerability. Does the infant then have mastery over his mother? The
mother will put the infant’s need before her own, where mastery will reside
in the power of this vulnerability’s appeal.” (p.425)

The power and authority that emanates from one’s vulnerability is even much

stronger, for it obligates the self even before the self accepts and acknowledges its

power and authority. Therefore, the student, who commands the teacher through his

ultimate vulnerability, is the real master in the teaching encounter. Levinas (1985)

writes, “There is a commandment in the appearance of the face, as if a master spoke to

me” (p.89). This means that the teacher simply appears as a servant to the student,

who commands and obligates him to respond to his needs. Thus, it also reveals the

superiority of the student over me as the teacher. But it is once again important to take

note that this superiority is due to his vulnerability and not because of his physical or

intellectual prowess. As Peperzak (1997) writes, “The Other comes from ‘on high’ is

superior to me, not necessarily of course, in the sense of superior intelligence, skills,

talents, virtues or holiness, but as human existence that, in its poverty and needs,

surprises and inevitably obligates me” (p.23). This affirms that there is indeed power in

the Other’s weakness. The more the teacher realizes that he has something that his
student doesn’t have, the more he realized that he is responsible for him and for his

future.

The face of the student is a constant reminder of my responsibility towards him: “I

am [his] servant, responsible for [his] life and destiny” (Peperzak, 1997, p. 23). This

relationship between the servant and the master is a relationship of inequality; that is,

the master and the servant are not in the same level of position. In the same manner,

the relationship between the teacher and the student is a relation of inequality, an

asymmetrical relationship. The student stands above the teacher, calling from “[t]he

dimension of height” (Levinas, 1969, p. 86, italics in original.) The teacher is the one

who feels more obligated to the student. The Other is above the self and is not on the

same plane as with the self because the Other is differently other. The student is above

the teacher while the teacher is subjected to the student.

The image of the student as the master poses a challenge to the traditional

notion of the teacher as the superior and master. If the student is considered as the

master, are the teachers willing to take orders from their students? By recognizing that

their subjectivity is founded on their responsibility towards their students, teachers may

be more than willing to subject themselves to the authority of the students. It is because

the self is neither “destroyed” nor “crushed” when it is subjected to the Other (Morgan,

2007, p. 153). Rather, in responding to the call of the face, the self finds its fulfillment. A

teacher is truly a subject in the act of responding and in taking over of his responsibility.

The teacher “is a subject only in so far as [he] is awakened or ‘sobered up’ to

responsibility for the other person” (Levinas, 1991, p.108). The fulfillment of one’s

subjectivity as a being that has unique consciousness and experiences is connected to

responsibility. Thus, to be a self is to be for-the-other. “Responsibility for the other,”

Levinas writes, “is the locus in which is situated the null site of subjectivity” (Levinas,

1991, p. 10). In other words, responsibility is what constitutes the very subjectivity of the

self. The teacher only becomes a self in subjecting himself to the responsibility imposed

by the face of the student.

Based on the discussions thus far, we can draw out some important implications

for an ethical teaching approach and relationship, one of which is that the teacher is no

longer the center of attention; rather, it is the student. As a result, teachers may see the

urgent need to develop and promote a student-centered teaching approach. In addition,

teachers must not only learn to empower their students, but they must also recognize

the superiority and authority of the students, which means that they must be willing to

submit themselves and take orders from them. By acknowledging the superiority and

authority of the students, teachers also provide an opportunity for themselves to

exercise their responsibility, thus fulfilling their own subjectivity. Lastly, the insights and

the discussions presented above may also provide inspiration for teachers to dismiss

the image of the teacher as a master who dominates and control, thus liberating

themselves from having an all-powerful and all-knowing complex.

Having discussed the problem of power and domination in teaching, its serious

effects on the learning motivation of the students, and the moral insights and response

from a Levinasian perspective, we will consider, in the next section of this paper,

another important moral problem that also affects teaching relationship and the learning

condition: the lack of sensitivity, compassion, and affectivity on the part of some

teachers towards their students.

Insensitive and Irresponsible Teachers

Based on several accounts and observations, students oftentimes encounter

teachers who fail to act responsibly or express their genuine concern for their learning

and welfare. Unfortunately, this lack of concern, understanding, and sensitivity also has

moral implications and consequences that can also seriously affect students’

performance and learning. A national newspaper in the Philippines, for instance,

reported an account of an insensitive teacher who scolded a student for not participating

in the class, oblivious to the fact that at that time the student was greatly affected and

was mourning the death of her grandmother. Unfortunately, such experience was

traumatic for the student, who got dropped out of the class for failing to report for a long

period of time, exceeding the 20 percent allowed by the Department of Education

(Soliven, 2013).

In response to unfortunate situations such as the ones illustrated above, teachers

also need to be sensitive to the emotional and psychological needs of the students. In

the first place, it is part of the ethical nature of their profession that they have to be

compassionate, understanding, and sensitive to the difficulties, needs, and challenges

that their students are experiencing, most especially if they can seriously affect a

student’s desire and motivation to learn. Because of the ethical nature of the teacher’s

profession, David T. Hansen (2001) considered teaching as a “moral activity,” which,

according to him, involves “being patient with others, attentive to them, respectful of

them, [and] open-minded to their views” (p.828).

Conversely, insensitivity towards the needs and difficulties of the students

causes them serious harm and can even be devastating on their part. This insensitivity
of the teachers towards their students is not only manifested in their lack of concern for

their needs. It also takes the form of demeaning remarks, hurtful and discouraging

comments, and inappropriate behavior or conduct. Alan McEvoy (2014), professor of

sociology at Northern Michigan University, confirms that such behavior among teachers

do exist by having observed that some teachers have “an ugly undercurrent of mean-

spirited and disdainful conduct toward students,” and he further added that “this conduct

constitutes a corruption of the role of educator and does enormous damage to students,

colleagues, and the public’s faith in schools” (p.51). Indeed, this shows that teacher’s

unethical conduct and lack of sensitivity are serious moral problems that put students’

motivation and the trust in schools in peril.

Having shown the urgency and significance of the problem, it is now a challenge

for us to provide helpful ethical insights that, although cannot really promise to solve nor

put an end to these problems, can at least raise teacher’s ethical awareness and

awaken their sense of responsibility, compassion, and understanding. Thus, in what

follows, I will be discussing Levinas’s concept of the subject as constituted by affectivity

and his concept of hostage and substitution in relation to teaching.

a. Affectivity and the Teacher’s Subjectivity

The self as a subject, according to Levinas, is truly a subject in being affected by

the sufferings of the Other, that is, in responding to the demand of responsibility.

“Ethical subjectivity [is] only possible in response to an infinite demand that comes to

self from outside” (Strhan, 2012, p. 45). But in order to respond to the infinite demand of

responsibility, one must first be susceptible, open, and sensitive to the needs of the

Other. Thus, for Levinas (1991), “subjectivity is sensibility - an exposure to others, a

vulnerability and a responsibility in the proximity of the others, the one-for-the-other”

(p.77).

One cannot respond to the Other without first being affected by the sufferings

and needs of the Other. Elaborating on Levinas, Eirick Prairat affirmed the importance

of affectivity in ethics. He claims that without affectivity, ethics is not possible: “There is

no ethics without affect; men are not moral beings for the sole reason that they are

endowed with reason, but because they possess the capacity to be affected” (Prairat,

2008, p. 162). As such, subjectivity, which is fulfilled through responsibility, is possible

only when the self is disposed to the needs and sufferings of the Other. When

translated into teaching practice and relationship, teachers, in this sense, are called to

be open to the needs of the students, a characteristic that requires listening and being

affected by the sufferings of the Other. Therefore, to be an ethical teacher means to be

affected and to be open to the needs of the Other.

Affectivity, which involves openness and susceptibility, plays an important role in

promoting an ethical relationship in the teaching encounter. It leads teachers to reflect

and reconsider their relationship with their students. Do teachers also feel the sufferings

and difficulties of their students? Or have we turned a deaf ear and remained apathetic

with regard to their concerns? Unfortunately, some teachers themselves are the cause

of the sufferings of the students, and it is disheartening to listen to students who

complain about teachers who are inconsiderate, harsh, and insensitive towards them.

Consider, for instance, the case of a teacher who is always the subject of complaints

lodged by students because he/she always gets angry for no apparent reason or would

always look for a reason to scold them. Or think of a teacher who is always being
complained by students for her snobbish response when they approach her to inquire

about their performance in class. Thus, the concept of subjectivity, founded on being

affected by the Other and being exposed to the Other, poses a challenge to educators

who are distanced and apathetic to the sufferings of the students.

Seeking inspiration and guidance from Levinas’s notion of the subject as

constituted by affectivity and responsibility, teachers may learn to ‘feel the other side’

because according to Chris Higgins (2002) “without such palpable instruction in the

sensitivities and needs of the student, the teacher’s quest to select and represent the

‘effective world’ to and for the student becomes arbitrary, willful and illegitimate” (p.298).

Thus, teachers need to get in touch with their students in order to effectively guide them

and respond to their needs.

In the last section of this article, I will discuss the significance and implication of

Levinas’s concept of responsibility as substitution and hostage in relation to teaching. It

aims to provide further insights and inspirations for teachers to take up the responsibility

not just for their own failures and shortcomings but even that of their students, thus

heightening their sense of responsibility.

b. Teaching as Substitution and Being a Hostage to the Other

Levinas describes the extreme form of responsibility and passivity of the self

towards the Other in terms of the notion of substitution and hostage. As we shall see

later, both terms are connected to each other since to substitute for the Other also

means to be a hostage to the Other. But what does substitution means? For Levinas,

substitution is the putting of the self in the place of the Other whereby the self also

bears the sufferings, hardships, and burdens of the Other. Moreover, in substituting for
the Other, the self also becomes responsible even for the Other’s responsibility. Thus,

to substitute is to carry another responsibility, that is, to be responsible not only for the

Other but also for the Other’s responsibility as well. Levinas (1987) writes, “I am

responsible even for their responsibility. It is by virtue of this supplementary

responsibility that subjectivity is not the ego, but me” (p.50).

Being a hostage to Other, on the other hand, is a metaphor that Levinas’s uses in

order to explain what substitution entails. Thus, through his concept of the hostage, we

can further illustrate and understand what it means to substitute for the Other. To be a

hostage to the Other means to be subjected to the demand of responsibility that comes

from the poverty and vulnerability of the Other. However, it doesn’t only mean that the

self simply allows himself to be affected by the poverty and weakness of the Other, for

according to Levinas (1991), to be a hostage to the Other also means “to bear the

wretchedness and bankruptcy of the other, and even the responsibility that the other

can have for me. To be oneself, the state of being a hostage is always to have one

degree of responsibility more, the responsibility for the responsibility of the other” (p.17).

This is the very essence of being a hostage: to bear the sufferings of the Other and to

be responsible even for their own responsibility. Levinas (1991) further added that “it is

through the condition being a hostage [to the Other] that there can be in the world pity,

compassion [and] pardon” (p.117).

Contrary to the ordinary notion of responsibility, the sense of responsibility

demanded by substitution and being a hostage extends even beyond the simple notion

of responsibility as a kind of accountability in which the self is only responsible for his

own responsibility (Perpich, 2008). Furthermore, to be responsible even for the Other’s
responsibility entails another further responsibility, that is, to be responsible even for the

Other’s faults, mistakes, and shortcomings, which means that the self is responsible

even for what the Other does. This is what it truly means to be truly a subject and a self,

for according to Levinas (1991), “The uniqueness of the self is the very fact of bearing

the fault of another” (p.112). The Other’s mistakes are also my mistakes; I am,

therefore, responsible for the life and future of the Other. As Peperzak (2009) puts it, “I

am always responsible not only for [his] survival and well-being but also for [his] future

and past, good and bad behavior, even for [his] crimes” (p.10).

In the context of teaching encounter, ideally, the teacher substitutes for the

student and is held hostage by the student. The teacher also feels responsible and

answerable for the mistakes and errors of the student; that is, teachers also carry the

responsibility even for the mistakes of their students because they are mindful that such

mistakes are results of their own mistakes and shortcomings as teachers, who are

responsible for the learning, the development, maturity, and even for the well-being of

their students. The teacher, right from the start, didn’t have a choice to have this “one

degree of responsibility more” toward the student; in fact, it is already what constitutes

him. The teacher has always already substituted for them in his very own subjectivity.

The teacher, thus, is held hostage, not because his will is restricted, but because he is

defined by that command.

The responsibility of the teacher toward his students is not only confined to the

boundary of the classroom. For instance, a teacher could feel a sense of guilt and

responsibility for the transgressions committed by a student, whether outside or inside

the school premises. A teacher feels that he/she could have taught that student to be a
better and productive human person, and his failures and shortcomings made him feel

guilty and responsible. In this manner, the teachers, in similarity to the parents, have

“one degree of responsibility more”; that is, both are responsible for the responsibility of

the Other. As a matter of fact, teachers are even considered as second parents of the

students. Hence, teachers feel responsible towards their students because they see

them as their responsibilities. Consequently, as a hostage and in substitution to the

student as Other, the teacher is always already liable to the miseries, wretchedness,

failures, and fault of the student. The teacher cannot easily avoid accusation and

responsibility. Thus, to substitute for the student is to bear not just her joys, but more so

her sufferings.

A further example is that a teacher may feel implicated when a student failed in

his exam and such feeling is accompanied by a certain feeling of guilt that he could

have done better to help him. In feeling implicated, the teacher is aware that he is also

part of the failure. It is ordinary for teachers to rejoice when their students achieve

something or when they are successful because they feel that they are part of such

accomplishments. A teacher, however, may also feel frustrated and implicated over a

student who failed in the board exam and feels that he is in some way is part of such

failure. There is no way that the teacher can claim that such student is none of his

concern or responsibility. Rather, a teacher should view both the achievements and

failures of the student as his responsibility.

The countless encounters that have taken place between the teacher and the

student create an interconnection that continues even after the student has finished his

education. It has created, on the part of the teacher, a sense of responsibility even for
the future actions and decisions of the student. To make this concrete, let us borrow an

illustration from Julian Edgoose (2008):

“Imagine you hear that an ex-student has become a Nobel laureate.

Would you feel…responsible? Perhaps that’s too conceited. However,
would you feel implicated? Would you glow after hearing the news, and
walk with a certain spring in your step? Or what if you heard that an ex-
student had become a mass murderer? Now would you feel responsible
or implicated?” (p.109)

If you were the teacher, how would you respond to these questions? Would you

feel responsible for both the success and failure of your former students? Surely, many

would normally answer yes. If so, then we truly have substituted and is held hostage by

our students; that is, we have borne the responsibility not just for their present mistakes

but even for their future bad actions and crimes. Moreover, our positive response to

those questions affirms that Levinas’s is right—that our subjectivity as a teacher is

constituted by our responsibility for the Other even to the extent of bearing the Other’s

fault and responsibility.

Finally, a teacher is held hostage by the students whenever a teacher reaches

out to the needs of the students, understands their sufferings, addresses their worries,

fears, and concerns, and most of all, by claiming responsibility for the failures and

mistakes of the students and to whatever becomes of the students. Likewise, being a

hostage demands that the teacher makes dedicated efforts to help, correct, and

educate his students; in this manner, he is truly responsible for them.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have shown the serious consequences of the moral problems in

teaching in terms of student motivation and teacher-student relationship, As a response,

this paper has offered insights from a Levinasian perspective by arguing that the

student is the master to whom the teacher substitutes and is held hostage. It is also

noteworthy that even though this paper has shown the relevance and significance of

Levinas’s ethical concepts in promoting an ethical teaching approach, it did not offer

concrete moral prescriptions. Nor did it propose a set of rules for right conduct for

teachers to adhere. It is due to the fact that one cannot simply apply Levinas’s ethics in

the teaching encounter, for it evades easy translation and application into a set of rules

or precepts, following its non-normative and non-traditional nature. Nevertheless, as this

paper has shown, his ethics provides powerful insights and compelling reasons for

teachers to develop an ethical, sympathetic, and sensitive approach and relationship

towards their students. Finally, this paper has also shown that his ethics also provides

the ethical framework and inspiration for a more serious rethinking and emphasis on the

moral nature and aspect of the teaching profession.

REFERENCES

Biesta, G.J.J. (2013). Giving teaching back to education: Responding to the

disappearance of the teacher. Phenomenology\& Practice, 6 (2), 35-49.

Campbell, E. (2008). The ethics of teaching as a moral profession. Curriculum Inquiry,

38 (4), 357- 385.

Edgoose, J. (2008). Teaching our way out when nobody knows the way: A Levinasian
response to modern hope. In D. Egéa-Kuehne (Ed.), Levinas and education: At
the intersection of faith and reason (pp. 100-114). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hansen, D. T. (2001). Teaching as a moral activity. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of

research on teaching (4th ed.), (pp. 826–857). Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.

Higgins, C. (2002). Teaching and the dynamics of recognition. In S. Fletcher (Ed.),

Philosophy of education 2002 (pp. 296-304). Urbana, Ill.: Philosophy of
Education Society.
Joldersma, C. W. (2001). Pedagogy of the other: A Levinasian approach to the teacher-
student relationship. In S. Rice (Ed.), Philosophy of education 2001 (pp. 181-
188). Urbana, Ill.: Philosophy of Education Society.

Kodelja, Z. (2008) Autonomy and heteronomy: Kant and Levinas. In D. Egéa-Kuehne

(Ed.), Levinas and education: At the intersection of faith and reason (pp. 190).
New York, NY: Routledge.

Knight, J. (2010, September 30) The five temptations of teachers, temptation four:
destructive power over empathy. Retrieved from Instructional Coaching website:
https://www.instructionalcoaching.com/destructivepower/

Kupfer, J. H. (1990). Autonomy and social interaction. New York, NY: SUNY Press.

Levinas, E. (1996). Transcendence and height. In A. T. Peperzak, S. Critchley & R.

Bernasconi (Eds.), Emmanuel Levinas: Basic philosophical writings (pp. 11-32).
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Levinas, E. (1991). Otherwise than being or beyond essence. (A. Lingis, Trans.).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Levinas, E. (1987). Philosophy and the idea of infinity. In A. Lingis (Trans.). Collected
philosophical papers, (pp. 47-60). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

Levinas, E. (1985). Ethics and infinity. (R. Cohen, Trans.). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne
University Press.

Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity. An essay on exteriority (A. Lingis, Trans.).
Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Lingis, A. (2009). The fundamental ethical experience. In B. Hofmeyr (Ed.), Radical

passivity (pp. 81-94). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

McNamara, D. (1994). Classroom pedagogy and primary practice. London, England:

Routledge.

Morgan, M. L. (2007). Discovering Levinas. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Mortimore, P. (1999). Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning. London,

England Chapman Press.

Parini, J. (2005). The art of teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Peperzak, A. T. (2009). Sincerely yours. Towards a phenomenology of me. In B.

Hofmeyr (Ed.), Radical passivity (pp. 55-56). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
Perpich, D. (2008). The ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.

Prairat, E. (2008). Thinking educational ethics with Levinas and Jonas. In D. Egéa-
Kuehne (Ed.), Levinas and education: At the intersection of faith and reason (pp.
155-169). New York, NY: Routledge.

Todd, S. (2008). Welcoming and difficult learning: Reading Levinas with education. In D.
Egéa-Kuehne (Ed.), Levinas and education: At the intersection of faith and
reason (pp. 170-185). New York, NY: Routledge.

Todd, S. (2001). On not knowing the other, or learning from Levinas. In S. Rice (Ed.),
Philosophy of education 2001 (pp. 67-84). Urbana, Ill.: Philosophy of Education
Society.

Soliven, P. S. (2013, March 30). The teacher’s code of ethics and moral responsibility.
Philippine Star. Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com/education-and-
home/2013/05/30/947913/teachers-code-ethics-and-moral responsibility.

Standish, P. (2008). Levinas and the language of the curriculum. In D. Egéa-Kuehne

(Ed.), Levinas and education: At the intersection of faith and reason (pp. 55-56).
New York, NY: Routledge.

Strhan, A. (2012). Levinas, subjectivity, education: Towards an ethics of radical

responsibility. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.