La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia entre valores y sentimientos en cada interacción

Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador http://doi.org/10.17163/soph.n26.2019.07 the eduCational relationShip iS a ConCept with own meaning, that it requireS ConCordanCe between valueS and feelingS in eaCh interaCtion La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia entre valores y sentimientos en cada interacción José Manuel touriñán lópez* Universidad de Santiago de Compostela / Santiago de Compostela-España [email protected] Orcid Code: https://orcid.org //0000-0002-7553-4483 Abstract From the point of view of Pedagogy it can be founded that the educational relationship is a concept with a meaning of its own, related to the character of education, and it requires agreement between values and feelings in each interaction. The aim of this work is the analysis of the educational relationship as a concept which has its own meaning and so, by purpose and meaning, is a distinct relationship. There are several terms that have been used in the pedagogical literature to identify the educational relationship: caring, coexisting and communicating are the most used. These three concepts are necessary but not sufficient conditions of the educational relationship. These synonyms terms have helped to consolidate what characterizes the educational relationship. From each of these terms there is something that remains in the distinctive traits of the educational relationship as it is based on this article. Sometimes the antinomic pairs have been used to interpret and understand the educational relationship. Authority and freedom, for example, have their own place in the educational relationship, but they do not invalid the necessary reference to the activity and the purpose of education to define the relationship. Defining the educational relationship, really, requires elucidating the traits that determine the meaning of that relationship as an educational relationship. They are traits linked to the founding condition of values in education, the double condition of agentauthor and agent-actor of each subject concerning his/her education, the double condition of field of knowledge and of action for education. These traits are constitutive of the meaning of education as a complex object. The educational relationship is the substantive way of educational intervention, it is its concrete act. It is identified with the interaction which we establish to perform the activity of educating. In educational relationship we must go from thought to action, we must go from attained and attainable value to effective accomplishment. We have to know what the theory-practice relation is like in each interaction. Keywords Educational relationship, education, educability, moral education, affectivity, feelings. Suggested form of citing: Touriñán López, José (2019). The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance between values and feelings in each interaction. Sophia, colección de Filosofía de la Educación, 26(1), pp. 215-269. * Professor of Theory of Education in the Faculty of Educational Sciences of the University of Santiago de Compostela, Department of Pedagogy and Didactics. Researcher ID: L-1032-2014 (http://dondestalaeducacion.com). 216 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia Resumen Desde el punto de vista de la pedagogía se puede afirmar que la relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio, relacionado con el carácter de la educación, y requiere un acuerdo entre valores y sentimientos en cada interacción. El objetivo de este trabajo es el análisis de la relación educativa como un concepto que tiene significado propio y es una relación distinta, por finalidad y significado. Existen diversos términos que se han usado en la literatura pedagógica par a identificar la relación educativa: cuidar, convivir y comunicar son los más utilizados. Estos tres conceptos son condiciones necesarias, pero no suficientes de la relación educativa. Estos sinónimos han contribuido a consolidar aquello que caracteriza a la relación educativa. De cada uno de estos términos hay algo que permanece en los rasgos distintivos de la relación educativa tal como se fundamenta en este artículo. A veces se ha recurrido al uso de pares antinómicos para interpretar y comprender la relación educativa. Autoridad y libertad, por ejemplo, tienen su lugar propio en la relación educativa, pero no anulan la necesaria referencia a la actividad y a la finalidad de la educación para definir la relación. Definir la relación educativa, realmente, elucidar los rasgos que determinan el significado de educación. Son rasgos vinculados a la condición fundamentante del valor, a la doble condición de agente (actor y autor en la misma persona) y a la doble condición de conocimiento y acción. Esos rasgos son constitutivos del significado de educación como un objeto complejo. La relación educativa es la forma sustantiva de la intervención educativa, es su acto concreto. Se identifica con la interacción que establecemos para realizar la actividad de educar. En la relación educativa debemos pasar del pensamiento a la acción, debemos pasar del valor alcanzado y alcanzable al logro efectivo. Tenemos que saber cómo es la relación teoría-práctica en cada interacción. Palabras claves Relación educativa, educación, educabilidad, educación moral, afectividad, sentimientos. Introduction Johan Friedrich Herbart claims for the educator the specialized pedagogical point of view, under the idea of “own visual circle”, that he builds from the pedagogy, something that, according to his own words, completely forget to form the majority of those who educate before surrendering to that effort. Herbart (1806) tells us that: “Most of those who educate forget entirely to form their own visual circle before giving themselves up to that commitment; it appears little by little in their work [...], if it really developed like this (the child), we should congratulate ourselves for that “(p.1). Faced with this type of action, Herbart (1806) wants to build knowledge that provides reasons to support why an educator should continue acting the way he does or why he should change it: A village school teacher, 90 years old, has the experience of his 90-year routine; he has the feeling of his long weariness, but does he also have criticism of his method and his actions? “(p.5). The science of education in Herbart (1806) involves the use of data, but the theory must be built with functional autonomy, because the data are interpreted from a conceptual framework with intrinsic meaning to “education”: 217 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López What pedagogy should do is deliberate on its own concepts and cultivate an independent reflection. In this way it would become the center of a circle of investigations and would not run the risk of being ruled by a foreigner as a distant conquered province (p. 8, the italics are mine). This work is not a reflection on what specialists from other disciplines say about the educational relationship. From the works of Goodwin (1994) we know that the analyzes of specialists from other disciplines are necessary, but they do not exhaust the content of the field of education nor do they demand to live as an apprentice of what they say. A science is used when there is a specific problem of it, which will be, depending on the case, a medical, sociological, psychological or other problem. Every discipline with functional autonomy focuses on the reality it studies, generating the specific mentality of that discipline, which must be externalized in the form of a specialized look of that discipline towards its object of study and intervention. Pedagogy, as an academically consolidated discipline, advances in the development of the continuum “current of knowledge-substantive discipline-focalization-specific mentality-specialized look-discourse-pedagogical intervention” (Touriñán and Sáez, 2015). As it has been possible to justify in a recent work (Touriñán, 2014), this continuum occurs in all the consolidated sciences and, in this case, which is the study and analysis of education, allows to obtain well-founded answers about the structural elements of the intervention (knowledge, function, profession, relationship, agents, processes, product and means). The mental representation of the action of educating from the perspective of the theory-practice relationship, which is the specific pedagogical mentality, works, either as a presupposition of research in pedagogy, or as an assumption, and determines a meaning and validity of a way of singular thought for the pedagogical function, the profession, the educational relationship and for the knowledge of education itself. The pedagogical mentality is not understood without referring to these four components -because they are specified in each actionnor can they be understood in the discourse and intervention that they generate without reference to the mentality -because they would cease to be specified with meaning and validity-. Precisely for that reason it can be said that they are structural components of the intervention linked to the mentality. The pedagogical mentality determines the specifically pedagogical way of thinking for these four elements. The “pedagogical look” is the visual circle that the pedagogue of his performance makes. It is mental representation that the professional makes of his performance as pedagogical. It is the expression of the critical 218 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia vision that the pedagogue has of his method and his actions. It implies the total pedagogical vision, adjusted to the structural elements of the intervention, which are the four structural components of intervention, linked to the mentality (knowledge, function, profession and relationship) and the four components of intervention, linked to the action (agents, processes, products and media). Specific pedagogical mentality and specialized pedagogical approach converge in the pedagogical intervention that is defined as the intentional action that we develop in the educational task in order to perform with, for the learner with ends and means that are justified based on the knowledge of the education (Touriñán, 2017). Within the continuum “current-discipline-focus-mentality-lookspeech-intervention”, every discipline with functional autonomy focuses on the reality it studies, generating the specific mentality of that discipline, which must be externalized in the form of a specialized look towards its object of study and intervention. In each concrete pedagogical action, we pass from thought to action; the double condition of scope of knowledge and action for all intervention is given. The specific mentality and the specialized look are representations (knowledge), intervention is the action. Maintaining these distinctions is a requirement to reach the concrete educational action and its control, through programmed educational action. In recent works (Touriñán, 2013b and 2015), it has been established that educational terms have acquired their own meaning based on knowledge of education, so that the educational relationship is no longer just a moral relationship or a relationship of care and coexistence and communication, but the substantive form of the intervention adjusted to the character traits that determines the meaning of “education” in its real definition. From the perspective of knowledge of education, we must think of the educational relationship as a form of unique and different interaction, whose meaning does not depend on our associating it with terms endorsed from other disciplinary fields. The same activities that we do to educate are done for many other things, so that the activities do not identify the educational action. In education, people live, communicate and take care of each other, but educating is not each of these things separately or together. Any type of influence is not education, but it can be transformed into a process of educational influence, insofar as we adjust it to the purpose of educating and to the criteria of the meaning of education. In this article the discourse is constructed on three axes of reasoning: 219 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López • The educational relationship is a concept with its own meaning and is different by purpose and meaning. • Caring, living together and communicating are necessary but not sufficient conditions of the educational relationship. • The educational relationship requires concordance between values and feelings in each staging and is a form of committed action and not neutral, adjusted to the character traits that determine the meaning of “education”. The educational relationship assumes the criteria of common use and purpose in its meaning In 1984, in the VIII National Congress of Pedagogy, which we organized with the Spanish Pedagogy Society, in Santiago de Compostela, Professor E.B Page (1984), president of AERA, gave a lecture in which he referred to the sensation that occurs when a specialist in a field is called to another field, or what it feels when everything in a field of knowledge is resolved from the postulates and achievements of another field. As if doctors, sociologists, experimental analysts or psychologists could exhaust the content of education. The applied vision of the educational relationship is the vision from the interpretative theories. Interpretive theories, as Professor González Álvarez has said in his classic book Philosophy of Education (1977), are “special treaties” of the generating disciplines. They are applications to the education of the concepts of generating disciplines such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. Interpretive theories are not treated as special psychology or special sociology, but special treatises of psychology, sociology, etc. What is specialized is the task, not the discipline, because discipline is always, in the case of interpretive theories, the same generating discipline-psychology, anthropology, biology, sociology, etc., as appropriate- (p.20). There is talk of general and applied sociology, of general and applied economics, of general and applied biology; we talk about psychology, medicine, anthropology and other autonomous disciplines in the same way. But in each case, when there is that autonomous discipline and we apply it to the interpretation of another field, we are saying, in the words of González Álvarez (1977), that the applied disciplines specialize the task, but not the discipline; they are sociology, psychology, etc. The psychology of education, the psychology of work, the sociology of edu- 220 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia cation, etc., specialize the task and not the discipline; they are and apply sociology, psychology, etc., to different fields; they are applied disciplines. In chapter seven of another work (Touriñán and Sáez, 2015), I have dedicated space to support that, in pedagogy, we also have applied pedagogies (pedagogy of work, of the family, of general education, of professional education, of the adult education and others) that specialize the task, not the discipline. But as it follows the study of the knowledge of education as an activity (Touriñán, 2014), the arguments do not exhaust the pedagogy or annul the sense of pedagogy as a discipline with functional autonomy from concepts with intrinsic significance to the field. We can talk about the psychology of the educational relationship, the sociology of the relationship and so on, but we would always ask ourselves, after applying the analysis of psychology, sociology, etc., why that relationship is educational. We can ask that question with the same legitimacy that we ask the question of why the educational relationship is a psychological relationship from a certain perspective or a sociological relationship from another. We must talk about the educational relationship from pedagogy and face the challenge of solving the relationship in terms of education. From the study of the concept of education (Touriñán, 2015), it follows that to distinguish any other type of influence and educational influences, requires, from the perspective of the common use of the term and of the activities that are carried out when educating, the pedagogical evaluation of diverse modes of conduct, according to the criterion of purpose. Living together is not educating, because there are cohabitations that are not specified and qualify as educational. To communicate is not to educate, because communication is always a symbolic-physical process whose purpose is to elucidate the message to which the speaker wants, and the speaker does not always aim at education. Caring is not educating, because sometimes we take care to heal someone and others take care to educate, and both actions have different meanings. Knowing a cultural area is not teaching, because knowledge can be separated from action and teaching is not education because we can affirm that there are teachings that do not educate. And so with any other activity. In the educational relationship it is necessary to communicate, but it is not enough to communicate to educate. In the educational relationship it is necessary to coexist, but it is not enough to coexist to educate. In the educational relationship it is necessary to take care, but it is not enough to take care to educate. In the educational relationship we teach, but it is not enough to teach to educate. They are necessary conditions, but not enough to characterize the educational relationship, as summarized in the following figure: 221 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López Figure 1 The educational relationship fits the meaning of educating Source: Touriñán, 2015, p. 81 The educational relationship is, to the same extent that meet the criteria of common use of the term “education” and preserve the purpose of education, if not, it will be any other type of relationship. The synonymic definition is appropriate for the educational relationship, but it must be analyzed in its own traits as corresponds to the real definition of any term. And this requires going beyond the criterion of common use of the term and the criterion of activity as purpose, to understand the distinctive features that determine in each educational act its real meaning. At the point of departure, it should be clear that if we can talk about the educational relationship, as a matter of education, that is, as “educational” (Touriñán, 2016), it is because the relationship meets the criteria of common use of the term “education”, which are identified as criteria of content, form, use and balance: 1. The educational relationship is so, because it obeys an axiological criterion of content: we do not qualify as educational those processes in which we learn something that goes against values, and this means that we only qualify as educational the learning 222 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia of axiologically irreproachable contents. Defending something as educational implies a value judgment on the content that is used. If this is not achieved, we are simply in the process of communication, teaching and learning. 2. The educational relationship is, because it obeys an ethical criterion of form: we do not consider educational acting on an educator without respecting their freedom or their dignity as a person. The educational process must respect the dignity and freedom of the learner, because it is also an agent of their own development. If this is not achieved, we are facing a process of instrumentalization. 3. The educational relationship is, because it obeys a criterion of formative use: we do not qualify as educational those learning in which the learner repeats something that he does not understand or knows how to use. The educational process should make possible the development in the student of some kind of own conceptual scheme about what is communicated. If this is not achieved, we are only in the phase of instruction, training and memory training. 4. The educational relationship is, because it obeys a criterion of balanced development: to speak of education requires that an integrated personality be achieved without the excessive or unilateral development of one of the areas of experience producing unbalanced men and women. The educational process always demands balanced results. If this is not achieved, we stop talking about general training and we are in the specialized training phase. In the field of knowledge of education, the application of these criteria puts us in a position not to confuse education with any type of influence. Any type of influence is not education, because influencing a person to stop doing what he must do to educate himself, would also be education. The fact that any type of influence is not education does not nullify or invalidate the possibility of transforming any type of influence in an educational process. Nothing logically prevents the learner, by itself and from the experience that others communicate (self-education process) or through the experiences that others communicate (processes of heteroeducation), can analyze with criteria based on the knowledge of the education that negative influence and transform it into a process of educational influence. Manipulation or transmitting as true knowledge of a cultural area that the theoretical investigation proves false is not edu- 223 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López cational. However, it is educational to unmask the manipulation and use false knowledge to prove its error and exercise the skills of using the theoretical test criteria. The criteria of the language of common use qualifies, in a singular way, the activity that we carry out as education. It can be said that to distinguish any other type of influence and educational influences, requires the pedagogical assessment of various modes of behavior, according to the criterion of the use of language and purpose. From the perspective of the purpose, education is value because the purpose is a value that is chosen (Touriñán, 2016). As a value, the fundamental objective of education as a task, is the development of skills, habits, attitudes and knowledge that enable people to be, move, intervene, act, learn and interrelate with values, because the objective is to build axiological experiences. From the same perspective, the fundamental objective of education, as a result, is the acquisition, during the educational process, of a set of behaviors that enable the learner to decide and realize their personal life project, using the axiological experience to respond, according to the opportunities, to the demands that arise in each situation, because, in short, what this is all about, is to use the axiological experience as an instrument of the construction and formation of oneself: it is an activity, in summary, oriented to recognize the other in a diverse cultural environment of interaction through values. If this is so, it is understood that from a descriptive or expository perspective that takes into account the activities listed above, education is development of the general dimensions of intervention and of the appropriate competencies, specific capacities and basic dispositions of each student for the achievement of knowledge, skills-abilities, attitudes and habits related to the purposes of education and the guide values derived from them in each internal and external activity, using internal and external means suitable for each activity. It is about the student acquiring knowledge, attitudes and skills that enable him, from each internal common activity (think, feel affectivelyhave feelings, want, choose-do [operate], decide-act [project] and create: build symbolizing) and external (game, work, study, profession, research and relationship), to decide and carry out their projects, responding, according to the opportunities, to the demands that arise in each situation. To comply with these criteria of content, form, use and balance and fulfilling the purpose of education, makes that the educational relationship is not confused with any type of activity and that a relationship is not qualified as educational just for doing an activity. 230 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia nication or person with the objective of communicating (It could be a school principal, for example); the encoder or mediator that expresses and translates the purposes of the source for consumers (may be the teacher); the message or content; the channel or medium used to transmit; the decoder, which are the internal and external elements that the receiver has to decipher the message (hearing, sight, thought, hearing aids, etc., of the receiver of the message); and the receiver of the communication, which is the person who receives and acts (p.25). This description of the communication process can be enlarged from the point of view of psychology, under the form of stimulus-response-feedback and from the point of view of the acceptance or not of the meaning of the message to which the sender refers to. In any case, we will always have a place in the discourse for the question about what makes one communication educational and another not. For the purposes of the educational relationship, what we are most interested in emphasizing about the concept of communication is not the process itself or the content -of whose conditions teaching takes care with its own criteria-. When we talk about educating, all communication is a mediated process of teaching. To teach is to show something by means of signs and to make someone know something by means of a method, be it that of a theoretical or practical nature. Teaching is to order the elements that intervene in the process of making something known, for a given time and space, so that teacher and student know what changes are to be achieved, how they are achieved and what should be done if not achieved. Thus, the communication process is integrated into another process that has its own uniqueness in the field of education: the teaching process, which will be educational if it meets the criteria of nominal and real definition, typical of the term “education”. For the purposes of the educational relationship, we are interested in emphasizing the perspective of personal communication, which is also included in the concept of communication. Contrary to what some people think, communication is not always communication between two people or between a person and a group or between groups. As Redondo (1999) says, communication is, in a basic sense, communication with oneself. And just as coexistence is qualified and specified, communication is also qualified and specified: from verbal to non-verbal, from self to hetero communication, from process to result, from subject to object, from content to communication techniques, from existential communication to educational communication (chapter 9). 231 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López Free existential communication, which is a concept analyzed by Jaspers, reflects, according to many authors (Millán Puelles, 1951, Redondo, 1999, chapter 7, Campillo et al., 1974, Gusdorf, 1973), the most basic sense of personal communication. The free communication of existences is an unpretentious dialogue, in which each one opens wide the doors of his privacy to the other, respecting his freedom and refraining from exercising the slightest directive influence. Existential communication, in the words of Redondo, means that the two people are at the same level of equality. Equality is understood not as an arithmetic equivalence, but as the full acceptance of the other, in the promise of accepting it as a “self”, as a subject like me (p.146). Existential communication is the manifestation of the need for communication and its deepest paradox of the relationship of alterity, because (Redondo, 1999): While I must affirm and defend my freedom in front of the other and stand out from him, I can only accomplish this task, embracing him. Neither the others nor I can make isolated what each one wants to do for himself: I, to be myself, need them; they, in order to be themselves, need me (p.135). Existential communication is never educational communication, because that does not admit a directive relationship from one to another, but equality of subjects who communicate as adult beings for the desire to participate something. What characterizes personal communication is, from the point of view of the humane, the relation of one’s participation with oneself or with another or others, or with an object, so that in the contact something is donated. Well understood that the donation in the existential communication is not material and rude, but a donation that does not imply the deprivation of what is given. That is why the donation or transmission of material objects is not communication. Well understood communication, in the words of Redondo (1999), applies to immaterial realities or the mental and spiritual participation of symbols and meanings, however much their results change material things, relationships and realities of all kinds (p. 179). From the point of view of the educational relationship, communication is not education or material donation, but one’s relationship with oneself, with others or with things, in the form of participation that adjusts to two conditions, according to Redondo (1999): contacting and the donation that one of them makes to the other (or to himself, unfolded for self-communication). The absence of one of these two conditions would be enough to destroy communication (p. 210). Whoever communicates 232 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia something does not lose what he communicates, the teacher does not become impoverished, losing what he communicates, a magazine article does not diminish no matter how much we read it and learn its content. Finally, I think it is convenient to highlight another fundamental aspect of personal communication. It is the awareness of what we share in the contact. This is a question in which it is not usually considered from the point of view of education, but which is especially significant when it comes to managing affections. Luft refers to this problem as the model of the four quadrants (open, blind, hidden and unknown) that represents the person as a whole in the relationship with other people, as detailed below: Figure 4 Quadrants that represent the person in relation to other people Source: Luft, 1976, p. 24 From the point of view of communication, the interaction of the quadrants gives rise to the following observations: • A change in any quadrant will affect all others. • The smaller quadrant 1 is, the poorer is the communication. • There is a universal curiosity about area 4, but it is often repressed by social customs and fears. • Interpersonal learning means that there has been a change that increases the space of quadrant 1 and reduces one or more of the other three. 233 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López • Knowing how to appreciate and respect the covert aspects of quadrants 2, 3 and 4 has to do with affective education. In the communication relationship, the interaction between people gives rise to three modalities: expose, propose and impose. Exposing, proposing and imposing are framework concepts in the educational relationship, born of communication and applicable to a relationship between equals and asymmetric relationships. When one exposes, in the interlocutor two actions can take place if attention is achieved: understanding what is exposed or not. When one proposes, in the interlocutor there are two actions -from the perspective of commitment-: accept or reject. When one imposes, in the interlocutor there are two actions -from the perspective of power-: he submits or revolts. It is undeniable that the educational relationship is beyond mere existential communication and it is also undeniable that the educational relationship is not the relationship between two adult subjects trying to influence each other, nor is it a relationship between a subject and an object that is managed to his whim. The relationship of communication is a relationship in which we share, make a contact and donate, and as in the relationship of coexistence, we manage spaces and manage affections. And all this applies to the educational relationship, but that does not imply communication being defined as educational. Communication is necessary, but it is not enough for the educational relationship. Every educational relationship is a relationship of coexistence and communication, but any relationship of coexistence or communication is not an educational relationship. It is necessary to continue advancing and understand, in addition, the limits between which the caring-educating relationship is framed, a type of relationship that demands the effective existence of a directive relationship, but that is not in itself education. The educational relationship is not only caring In the purest sense of the pedagogical tradition (Millán Puelles, 1951, Redondo, 1999, Campillo et al., 1974) there have always been the association between caring and educating, in the conviction that the limits of education would be established in that alliance, against the technical work and political action: • The technical work is understood in this case as the interaction of a subject with an object that handles at will (or with an- 234 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia other subject, which is treated as an object), within a program of mean-end relationship. • Political action is understood, in this case, as the interaction of an adult subject with another adult subject with respect to a project or objective that is the general interest, or the common good, or the interest of each of the subjects, with the intention of influencing each other regarding that project or objective. • The work that corresponds to caring and educating is a peculiar relationship through which a subject is treated, who is dependent on care and education with me, as the goal of my intervention and direct my action and his toward the goal of curing it or educate him. Now, with that said, it should be clear that the educational relationship is not just caring, because caring is not educating: we distinguish by their meaning the expressions “we take care to heal” and “we take care to educate”. When a doctor “looks” at a body, his or her specialized gaze sees the person from the perspective of the anatomy, physiology and pathology that justify their mode of clinical intervention (their diagnosis, their prognosis and their project of action). The same happens in each science, because each time an action takes place, a problem has been defined. Then, the pedagogue is responsible for defining his intervention problem with a specific mentality and a specialized gaze. Care is a concept that has been extended, from the maternal model, to other care needs. Since its origin in the maternal relationship, care has been widened to the learning of social behavior. But as Tobío, Agulló, Gómez and Martín (2010) have emphasized, there is a borderline between caring and educating, between the “assistance” and the “educational”, that the laws themselves should not ignore, to avoid confusing contexts and actions of health and education (p.52). For us it is clear that the Ministry of Health is not the Ministry of Education, although in both cases it is necessary to take care of it. We assume that the care and education are not the same and that the concept of caring applies to people and animals, while that of education only applies properly to people. If we say with sense of meaning that “we take care to heal” and “we take care to educate”, and we say that caring is the same in both cases, we would be saying that two things equal to a third are equal to each other and, therefore, heal and educating would mean the same thing about caring. The truth is that the care we do to heal and the care we take to edu- 235 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López cate are not the same, although in both cases we use the concept of care as attention in a moral sense. Caring for, healing and educating do not mean the same thing. Even maintaining that caring is not the same as educating, it is fair to recognize that there are issues in the concept of care that force us to refine the educational relationship, because in the educational relationship the relationship of care is given as attention in a moral sense. The educational relationship is not only heteroeducation, it is also self-education, one’s relationship with oneself. Care between people, such as education, is a relationship with oneself and is an interaction or encounter between two human beings, in which the two sides of the relationship -who cares and who is taken care ofplays a role: one gives and the other receives, and as Noddings (1992) says: these two roles are exchanged at different moments of the relationship (p.30). Care relationships between people are characterized by a genuine interest in the well-being of the other and of themselves, which is reflected in attitudes and actions in which they experience and build a reciprocal search for well-being. The intersubjective relationship of care is built on respectful interactions of attention and listening to mutual needs. When I carefully observe someone and identify that they need something and I give it to them -for example, a student who needs to understand an instruction better, whom I allow to ask and I respond to their concernthe care relationship is only completed, if that someone claims to have received what I gave him (in our example, the student receives and accepts the clarification). Daza (2009) agrees with what was said by Noddings (2002) regarding care relationships. Noddings argues that promoting caring relationships necessarily implies building community among all and it is also a fact that reciprocity in recognition and attention create bonds that make it possible to develop interest for the common good and create awareness about how the actions of each one affects others (pp. 18-28). The implementation of the ethics of care entails a change of perspective regarding the management of school discipline, going from negative to positive. Justice and caring, which are two concepts that give title to the work of Katz, Nodings and Strike (2002), are alternatives that are part of the relationship of help between people. But it is not to offer in this work a summary of ethics applied to education from the ethics of care that, by the way, enriches much more than the adjustment of the teacher’s action to professional codes of ethics that do not generate, due to the fact that they are formulated, the moral commitment of the profes- 236 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia sional: it is not enough to formulate the code so that it is executed and acted upon in accordance with it (Touriñán, 2013a). The ethic of care takes us to a new perspective of alterity and deference, of the affective relationship, from the point of view of the acceptance of the other and of suffering, because it is unquestionable that, in education, our students, sometimes suffer with our intervention and, sometimes, we make them suffer; but also it is that sometimes they enjoy our work and theirs and they feel satisfied and happy (Noddings, 2002): Attention as a moral orientation requires receptivity, displacement of motivations (that the energy of the person is channeled towards the projects or the needs of the person served). Any policy that systematically excludes this interaction can be considered ipso facto contrary to the concept of attention (p.25). However, for the purposes of this presentation, it is sufficient to note that the ethic of care (Beauchamps and Childress, 1979, Kemp, 2000, Gilligan, 1982, Nussbaum, 2002) has contributed, in terms of moral education, to expanding the perspectives of the analyzes of the moral stages defined by Piaget or Kohlberg, and to grant to the care (attention and assistance of moral sense) the character of universal value, underlining that, neither the care is a character trait univocally defined in a biological way, nor the evaluation of affectivity and attention to the other constitute a feminine inferiority that detracts from the importance and value of care in education. That said, we take it for granted, with Esteve (2010), that the educational relationship, like the care relationship between people, must reconcile two requirements: the purpose of the interaction -which in some way makes the other or itself an object of the actionand the condition of subject of the person with whom we interact. But neither the goals nor the intervention are the same when we take care to educate and when we take care to heal, although in both cases an affective and directive relationship of trust and obedience is established; that is, a relationship of care, of attention in the moral sense that in the most classical tradition of pedagogy has always been analyzed as a relation of authority (Touriñán, 2013a). In another work (Touriñán, 2014) we have addressed in detail the consideration of institutionalized authority as a principle of pedagogical intervention. And precisely because of this, in this study, I assume that every directive relationship is asymmetric, in which there is a leader, the managerial relationship must be a relation of authority. Every directive relationship is a relationship of authority, but sometimes authority is un- 237 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López derstood only as power and not as prestige and won recognition. “Authority” is attributed to any managerial relationship in which one must lead situations, projects and groups with respect to the tasks that are theirs. The connection between authority and managerial relationship is nonempirical conceptual. There is no directive relationship without authority and there is no authority without a directive relationship. Precisely for this reason we can say that authority is a directive relationship and that the directive relationship is a relation of authority. It is not a particular and exclusive condition of the teaching relationship or the educational relationship. And this is precisely why authority is linked as a principle to the professions that grant expert status in project management and personal interaction. But in a particular way, in the directive relations of care and education, the condition of the directive relationship of authority as prestige and gained recognition, is understood as an asymmetric directive relationship. In these cases, the relationship of authority as prestige gained is defined as a directive relationship based on the trust that one person gives to another to direct their behavior in a certain area of their existence. This authority is part of the institutionally recognized authority of the professor as a professional and is compatible, under certain conditions, with the addition of authority as public office. Caring for and educating are two forms of interaction that require a directive relationship. And if not every directive relationship is a relationship of care or education, it can be affirmed that in the relationship of care and education, authority is required as recognition and gained prestige. It is about acting in a special way to get another to change and act, but without forgetting that educational relationship is not the same as relationship of authority and that although the relationship of authority is given in care and education, that does not it makes them the same. The relationship of care is not without more educational relationship, because it makes different sense we take care to heal and take care to educate, but the care relationship causes education to pay attention to several conditions: • The subject condition of the person with whom we interact. • The purpose of the interaction, which in some way makes the other or himself the object of the action. • The concepts of attention and assistance, as a moral requirement with respect to the subject with whom we interact. • The directive nature of the relationship, because it is acted upon by following an established or programmed plan of care 238 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia or education with a subject that is not at the same level, since it is in need of help, direction and care. • The sense of the directive relationship as a relation of authority. • The sense of responsibility to oneself and “to the other” in the interaction, which is situated responsibility, because it is about responding to the demand of the other that is situated (good or bad, but located), and asymmetric because it is not my equal in the relationship and because I am responsible for the other without expecting the same. As the supporters of the pedagogy of alterity maintain (Mínguez, 2012, Ortega, 2014, Arboleda, 2014): none of them is responsible for me. • The character of being a shared and derived responsibility. Shared because we are all training and not all have the same attributions in the subject. Derived because the responsibility and obligation to educate arise from the recognition of the human condition and society, as a factor of educational development, the ethical foundation of the rule of law, the educational value of legislation and education as a factor of development social (we have dedicated other works to these issues: Touriñán, 2008a, 2008b and 2012). In short, care, as moral attention, like justice, is part of the educational relationship and education. They are necessary conditions, but not enough to turn an interaction into an educational one. The educational relationship is “educational” because it has the purpose of educating and conforms to the meaning of that action. But living together, communicating and caring are relations prior to the educational relationship that establish necessary conditions, but not enough. The educational relationship is relationship and is not resolved in antinomian pairs The common use of the term “education” helps us to configure the concept, so that we can discern what it is to educate, what it seems to educate. The analysis of the activities helps us to clarify more: not only do we discern (we know their appearance and configuration), but we move towards defining the proper features of education. Besides knowing that something is education, it is necessary to be able to say what education is. You must know what one thing is as opposed to another. But the analysis allows us to affirm that the activities we carry out in education are not 239 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López those that determine the real meaning. The same activities that we do to educate are done for many other tasks. We have criteria of use of the term that allow us to discern, but we only reach the space of the real definition if we delve into the features that characterize the thing to be defined. In the field of knowledge of education and from the perspective of educational relationship, it can be maintained that the activities we carry out are not those that determine the meaning. In education, it is taught, lived, communicated and cared for, but educating is not each of those things separately or together. None of the above cancels the fact that education is an area of reality that can be known in different ways, in which technical, moral and political decisions are made; a scope that can be analyzed from the epistemological levels of theory, technology and practice; an area in which the relationship is also with oneself and not only with the other and the other. Professor Ibáñez-Martín (2013), in the presentation text of the International Congress of Philosophy of Education, held in Madrid, in June 2012, challenged us from the central problem of the finality, focusing on the care we need do to educate: It is becoming increasingly urgent to rethink an education that is substantially oriented towards care for the integral development of the human being, in which the promotion of the freedom of the learner prevents any design of the educator’s action as an imposition that seeks to mold the others according to their own personal criteria, and in which the realization of those who intervene in the educational process is not understood from an individualistic perspective, but in solidarity, knowing how to care empathically for the care of others. Considering what we have said, it makes sense to affirm that the educational relationship is, generically, a relationship. The relation is one of the Aristotelian categories (Ferrater, 1980). Relationship refers to the “relative”, which is defined as the reference of one thing to another, in a numerical, non-numerical, determined or indeterminate, active or passive way. The concept of relationship also refers to categories deduced from judgments and in this sense, it is spoken in Kantian terms of causality and dependence relation, and community relations or reciprocity of action between the agent and the patient. But, in addition, in contemporary thought, from the works of Menne, (1976), we can talk about relationships as a link between facts ascribed to two or more objects, and so we talk about equality, cause and effect, higher to minor, of mean-end. One of the specific forms of relationship is the relationship of human encounter, which is an interpersonal relationship in which we can integrate the relationships of caring, communicating, coexistence, educating, etc. 246 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia pretation and feeling. For this, at times, he will act as devil’s advocate and sometimes he will ignore the solution to the problem and will even look for the student to see the importance of not taking a stand on something, of abstaining or of making him see his own preference as a sense of action and sense of life, but always from the responsible commitment to teach him to choose, distinguishing the value of something and the choice of that something, whether that something linked to tradition, innovation, greatness of vision or dignity, whether contemplated from the perspective of truth, goodness, beauty or creation. The true position of the school is, as Weiss (1967) affirmed, the position of committed freedom and responsible activity, since the guarantee of freedom is not the teacher’s neutrality, but respect for the integrity of the student’s personality (p.1). The true position of the school was summarized by Jeffreys (1955) as the one that forces to judge and decide on all the fundamental schemes in the formation of man, so that students know what they will receive from the Institution (p. x). Ultimately, it is a position that, rejecting naive concepts of freedom, tries to educate using freedom as a means and as a goal. The education of freedom implies education in and for freedom. The educational relationship is identified with the interaction we establish to educate The educational relationship is the substantive form of educational intervention, is its concrete act. The educational relationship is identified with the interaction we establish to carry out the activity of educating and, precisely for that reason, the educational relationship be the set of caring actions we do to educate. The educational relationship is generically “relationship”, and this means that it respects and adjusts to the conditions of any relationship. However, it is distinguished from other actions that meet the relationship criteria because it is qualified as substantially educational. Precisely for this reason we also say that the educational relationship is specifically “education”, and this means that it must respect the criteria of use, purpose and meaning of “education”, if it really wants to be. In the educational relationship we strengthen the ability to make the action of education compatible and our knowledge of such activity, with the aim of responding in each concrete educational action to the question: what activities do they have to educate and what counts in the educational activities? For this, we must choose and value in relation to 247 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López the knowledge we have of the educational action, since “education” has its own meaning. Therefore, I see the educational relationship as no more than as the interactive relationship we establish to carry out the activity of educating, as reflected in the following figure: Figure 5 Educational relationship as an interaction to educate Source: Touriñán, 2015, p. 120 The complex vision of human reality does not fit two realms, the one of the heart and the one of the head, however much capturing power expressions like this have “educate addressing only to what people have above their neck” or “there are people who only think with their hearts “or” think only below the waist”. Slogans, metaphors and antinomian thought must be assumed in their limitations of meaning, they do not substitute in logical rigor the definition and, precisely for this reason, any position linked to complexity cannot be limited to those two concepts of heart and head. From the complexity, if we keep the compari- 248 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia son, we should talk about affective intelligence, volitional intelligence, operative intelligence, projective intelligence, symbolizing intelligence and reasoning intelligence, because they are applications of intelligence to the real and different dimensions of our activity, which in each case require being well managed. Being stuck to the concept of emotional intelligence is, as we have already developed in another work (Touriñán, 2016), degrading affective education to emotional education, and if we assume that emotion and feeling are not the same, emotional education is not synonymous with affective education, because in the feeling is integrated affection, value and expectations. From the perspective of pedagogy as knowledge of education that values each medium as educational and of education as an area of reality with intrinsic significance in its terms, we are obliged to maintain intellectual education, affective education, volitional education, operational education, projective education and interpretive-mental-symbolizingcreative education, as dimensional spaces of intervention that are not confused with each other, and respond to human dimensions of differentiated internal common activity, to adequate competencies to specific capacities, to basic dispositions, to knowledge, skills, attitudes and fundamental habits of development and specific purposes. The educational relationship requires systematizing character traits As stated above, the educational relationship is, insofar the same extent that the criteria of common use of the term “education” are met and the purpose of education is preserved. Otherwise it would be any other type of relationship. The synomonic definition is appropriate for the educational relationship, but it must be analyzed in its own traits as with the real definition of any term. And this requires going beyond the criterion of common use of the term and the criterion of activity as a purpose to understand the distinctive features that determine in each educational act its real meaning. Distinguish what makes a relationship educational, requires the pedagogical assessment of various modes of behavior, addressing not only criteria of use and purpose, but also criteria of meaning internal to the concept itself. Ultimately, we must build the thought that allows us to justify that the educational activity is “educational”, because: it conforms to the criteria of use of the term, fulfills the purpose of educating 249 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López in its activities and its adjusted to the real meaning of that action, that is, it conforms to the traits of character and meaning that are proper to it, as well as any other entity that is defined and understandable. Character is the distinctive feature or set of characteristics that determine something as what it is. The nature of education is its determination, what determines it and what determines it is born from the object complexity of education that requires solving in each concrete case of action the relationships between value, choice, obligation, decision, feeling, thought and creation that are characteristic of the internal common activity of man. The character, the set of features that determine the meaning of education, is linked to the objectual complexity of education. The objectual complexity is the property of the pedagogical research that makes us maintain with realism the connection of the individual human, social, historical and species condition with the object “education”, and attend to the characteristics of this, whose relations make possible identify their internal determinant traits (of character) and confront each intervention as knowledge and action and as a link between value, choice, obligation, decision, feeling, thought and creation. The relations established between these elements have been developed in other works (Touriñán, 2014 and 2016), here it is enough to affirm that these relationships make it possible to identify the internal determinants (of character) of education. Today we can say from the pedagogy that the complexity of the object of “education” knowledge arises from the very diversity of the activity of man in the educational action: we intervene through the activity to achieve educated activity and this means that we pass from knowledge to the action to form the individual, social, historical and species-specific human condition, taking into account the characteristics of the object “education”, which make it possible to identify its internal determinant traits (of character). The activity is the central pillar of the complexity of the object “education”. It is possible to systematize the complexity of the education object from three axes that determine character traits of education: • The foundational condition of values in education. • The double condition of agent-author and actor-actor of each subject regarding their education. • The double condition for education in the field of knowledge and action. 250 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia Regarding the first condition, we must say that education lacks any intelligible justification when the fundamental character of values is rejected, since we do not have to be all the same in life, it is necessarily inferred that each person would decide how to fulfill his own live, when he is able to reveal the value of that specific way of carrying it out, with its own capabilities and with the help of others. But, moreover, since man is not born perfect nor attains the perfection that is his own in a spontaneous way, he will not correctly understand the value of such a concrete form of realization, as long as education does not provide the adequate means so that he can build skills for lucid choice. And this relationship between education and values is what makes education in values an inexorable necessity. Education is always education in values and choice of values and any type of influence is not education, although any type of influence can be transformed into a process of educational influence. We must know, estimate, and choose values. Education is a value, it teaches values and - when we educate - we are choosing values, because we set goals and the purposes are chosen values. And we give them a sense of action responsibly from the resolution of the mean-end relationship. The educational relationship, from the fundamental condition of value, is made axiological and is necessarily understood as education in values for the construction of processes and operational habits of choice that are specified in the creation of a responsible sense of action, from the perspective of linking means and ends. The fundamental condition of the value makes the object “education” is as it is: chosen values. From the perspective of value, education implies value-choice relationship, because we construct goals and that means we must develop operational habits that allow us to relate the things we choose and order them as ends and as means. We must achieve in each student operating habits, which are linked to the sense of responsible action. Responsibility and the sense of action are principles of education linked to the axiological character of it. Through the first condition, education acquires axiological character, which means that education is always education in values and choice of values and any type of influence is not education, although any type of influence can be transformed into a process of educational influence. In each action we set goals, which are chosen values and we give them a sense of action responsibly from the resolution of the medium-end relationship. Values are eligible, because we set goals, which 251 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López are chosen values. The axiological character determines education as construction of processes, of means-ends relationship. Regarding the second condition we must say that the meaning of agent marks a character trait in education that cannot be ignored, without facing the risk of giving up education. The educational relationship is always thought of as a relationship between two, but the truth is that the educational relationship is -unequivocallya relationship with oneself. In the educational relationship we are each one of us agent-actors who let ourselves be guided and obey the people who exercise the condition of educators. We conduct several guided operations to educate ourselves, but we are also agents-authors who guide ourselves in educational processes, deciding our goals and integrating our actions in our projects. Through education, we undertake the task of being actors and authors of our projects, even if our decision is to act as others tell us. In each case, as agents, we are led by education to undertake the task of being authors and actors of our own projects. From the point of view of agents, the peculiarity of educational action does not lie in the fact that they are one or two agents, but in the unquestionable truth that each person is an agent-actor and author-of their own development in some way, consequently, we must achieve in each student volitional habits, of wanting things and committing to them, compelling oneself; as well as projective habits, that allow us to integrate the things in our projects, identifying with them. Volitional habits are linked to personal commitment and projective habits are linked to the meaning of life, that is, I educate so that the student can educate himself and decide and develop his life project and training. Not only do we operate (we choose to do things, we do operations, we act), we also obligate ourselves (voluntary commitment) and we project (we do projects, we decide to act). In the educational relationship, the learner is also the subject of his education that must find control of his own life, developing the patrimonial sense of his individual, social, historical and species human condition. I set goals and I force myself, and autonomously control my choice, deciding the actions from my project, even if my decided project is to do what others tell me. From the point of view of the agents, different thinkers (Ferrater, 1979, pp. 119-155; Dearden et al., 1982), agree that education is personal and patrimonial, and requires an understanding of the value-obligation and value-decision, because in the educative action, together with the operative habit, volitional habits and projective habits have their place. 252 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia By means of the second condition, education acquires personal and patrimonial character. Personal character means that the educational action respects the agent condition of the student and prepares him to commit and personally bind himself (it is the genuine origin of his choice), voluntarily, in his actions and to invent or create originalsingular ways(that are born in him and of him) of realization of existence, facing his human condition (individual, social, historical and of species), with autonomy and responsibility, within the space participating in a culture, moving away from the repetition or cloning of pre-established models. Regarding education as an action, very diverse authors (Arendt, 1974, Damasio, 2010, Gervilla, 2000, Haidt, 2006, Marina, 2009, Morin, 2009, Pinker, 2011, Mosterín 2008a, Touriñán, 2013a) agree that, in addition to operational habits, we need volitional habits of commitment and personal obligation to action. This marks the personal meaning of education as a personal and original commitment, born of oneself towards education, which should not be seen separated from the existence of the others and the other in each intervention. We commit voluntarily to values to comply with rules and regulations. The commitment and the origin of the action in the person who is an agent are principles of education linked to personal character. The patrimonial nature of education means that, when we set goals, we do not only estimate the value, but we also assume that value in the finality as an integral part of our life project; we make our own patrimony. The identity, the individualization and the sense of life are principles of education linked to the patrimonial character. Affirming the patrimonial nature of education means that we are, each one of us, a legacy; that we learn to choose, to commit ourselves and to define our goals, in order to determine our life project, responding to our needs in each circumstance, building ourselves as our own patrimony. From the point of view of the axiological experience (Touriñán, 2006), deciding which of our needs should be addressed, here and now, in our life project, involves deliberating and assuming, considering the knowledge, values, feelings, attitudes and interests that we have at that moment. It is a patrimony that we can correct, and change sheltered by opportunities, in the circumstances and in the education, we have received, but that we cannot avoid having at the moment of making a decision. The patrimonial character determines education as the construction of personal goals and projects. The end becomes a goal, because it is integrated into our projects. Regarding the third condition, I can choose to do something, I can commit to that something and I can even decide 253 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López to integrate that something as part of my projects, but I must do it, I must move from thought to action, I must pass from the realized and realizable value to the effective realization. From the third condition, we must insist that education is an area of reality susceptible to knowledge and an action that is carried out through the educational relationship. It could be said, therefore, that both methods of thought and methods of action are appropriate for education, in the most classic and universal sense of methods of theoretical rationality and practical rationality (Mosterín, 2008b). This double condition identifies the complexity of the educational action for pedagogical knowledge, which must resolve in each case the theory-practice relationship: I must pass from thought and knowledge to action. For that it is not enough to know, choose, commit and decide, you also must take a step further and feel, that is, to link affection, value and personal expectations so that feeling occurs in the form of a positive attachment to the value of the achieved or what we want to achieve. The effective realization of the action requires -in the executionunderstanding, interpretation and expression of what has been decided. For this to be possible, in addition to making an affective integration -for we express ourselves with the feelings we have in each concrete situation and we link affectively through positive attachment, what we want to achieve with specific valueswe need to achieve cognitive integration relating ideas and beliefs with our expectations and convictions, so that we can articulate thought and believed values with reality, because our action is based from rationality, explicitly, with knowledge. We also need to make a creative integration, that is, we must give meaning to our acts by means of symbols, because every act we perform requires an interpretation of the situation as a whole and the set of our actions and projects within our cultural context: we build culture by symbolizing it. The operative habit, the volitional habit and the projective habit demand, in order to carry out the action, the affective habit that is derived from the value-feeling relationship and generates a felt experience of value. We move from sensitivity to feeling and link, with a positive attachment, what we want to do with what is valuable. We need affective habits, but the concrete realization of the action is not possible without the intellectual habit and without the creative, symbolizing-creative habit. The personal qualities of the agents imprint character to the intervention, as concrete and singular staging, because they cannot stop 254 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia having the values and feelings they have in each specific situation. That personal and unique sense puts us in a position to understand that educational action forces us to assume the value-feeling relationship and offers us not only a theoretical-practical perspective, but also an intrinsic artistic and aesthetic perspective. Through feeling we manifest the state of mind that has occurred, according to whether or not our expectations are fulfilled in the action; we declare and expect recognition of our choice; we express and expect acceptance of our voluntary commitment; we express, and we hope to welcome our projects and express our commitment to them. Choosing, committing, deciding and feeling positively a value has its affective manifestation in attitudes of recognition, acceptance, and dedication to action. What characterizes the attitude is its condition of significant learning experience born of the affective evaluation and the positive or negative results of the performance of a certain behavior. By means of the third condition, education acquires an integral, gnoseological and spiritual character. Integral character means integrated dimensional development of each student from their common internal activity: thinking, feeling affectively, wanting, choosing-doing (operating), deciding-acting (projecting) and creating (constructing symbolizing), to develop the possibilities of success the individual, social, historical and species-specific human condition in situations that arise in all areas of life (personal, family, local, school, professional, etc.). The integral nature of education means education of the student in his entirety as a whole from its internal activity, not as a sum of parts. The positive bonding of attachment and the implication of the agent make that positivity and dimensional development be principles of education derived from the integral character of it. From the perspective of the integral character of education, it can be said that all education is intellectual, but not everything in education is education of intelligence; there are other educable intervention dimensions, which can be specifically addressed. And the same can be said of each of the other dimensions of intervention: all education is affective, but not everything in education is education of affectivity; all education is volitional, but not everything in education is education of the will; all education is operative, but not everything in education is education of the ability to do; all education is projective, but not everything in education is education of the capacity to morally decide; all education is notative, symbolizing, creative and aware, but not every- 255 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López thing in education is education of spirituality, of mental corporeity, of consciousness, of meaningful apprehension, of creativity. From the pedagogical point of view, in the integral educational action are joined intelligence (cognition and reasoning), affectivity and emotions (dimensioned feeling), volition (willingness with determination and commitment), operation and projection (sense of action and meaning of life, construction of processes and goals), creation (construction of symbolizing culture) of the people in development and contextual variables that allow us to configure an “all agreed” between values, thoughts, feelings, obligations, choices, decisions and creations. All dimensions intervene in each case and education is not resolved by attending only one of them. The gnoseological character of education means that we are capable of cognitive integration, that is, we learn to relate ideas and beliefs using the ways of thinking, so that we can articulate thought values and values believed with reality through knowledge and rationality through each of our choices, volitions, projects, feelings, thoughts and creative interpretations. Cognitive integration is the principle of education derived from the gnoseological character. The spiritual nature means that we generate awareness and creativity that makes it possible, from the human condition itself, to create symbols to notice and signify the self, the others and the other, in the physical world, in the world of mental states and in the world of the contents of thought and its products. The spiritual nature of education means that education is done in the human way and generates mental events in the students; we improve the awareness of ourselves and of reality through symbols, in the human way, that is, as mental corporeity that integrates in an emergent way in the brain the physical and the mental, and establishes a form of creative relationship between the self, the others and the other, by means of symbols. Spiritual character means that we can build culture, this means that we can build symbolizing. The creative (symbolizing-creative) integration is the principle of education linked to the spiritual character. For me, education is defined according to character traits that determine the meaning of education. Nothing is education if it does not meet the conditions of common use, purpose and character traits. Every educational action is distinguished from the others by the common use and by the activity, but it is also singled out, considering criteria of real definition because, from the objectual complexity of education, the educational action is attributed character traits that determine 262 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia relationship will be educational. The educational relationship is, therefore, interaction to educate and this implies assuming the complexity of education and the demands derived from the character traits of education, as I have been specifying in the previous section. Conclusions: the educational relationship is not neutral The educational relationship is “educational” because it has the purpose of educating and conforms to the meaning of that action. But coexisting, communicating and caring are relations prior to the educational relationship that establish necessary conditions, although not enough for it. The educational relationship is, generically, relationship and is, specifically, educational. The educational relationship is a concept with its own meaning, linked to the character of education and requires concordance between values and feelings in each interaction. The triple condition derived from the consideration of values, agents and educational action marks the objectual complexity of education “and makes the knowledge of the educational relationship - if that complexity is respected - to be understood without renouncing the features derived from the complexity that determine the meaning of “educational” in the relationship, singling it out for other types of relationships. The educational relationship, I reiterate, is not basically a teaching problem, because it can be used to educate or not, nor a problem of knowledge that can remain separate from the action. The educational relationship is a problem of knowledge and action linked to the meaning of education in each area built to intervene. All this is, in my opinion, is what makes that the educational relationship cannot be understood if it is not interpreted as an exercise of committed freedom and as a responsible activity. There is no neutrality of the task. If the relationship we establish is educational, we must commit ourselves and defend the meaning of education in the educational design of each intervention space categorized as an education area. We have been able to base in other works (Touriñán, 2015, Touriñán and Longueira, 2018) that the field of education is the result of the educational evaluation of the area of experience that we use to educate and that is why in the field of education the meaning of education is integrated, the intervention processes, the intervention dimensions, the areas of experience and the forms of expression in each technical sense of “scope”. 263 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López The intervention is always oriented to action from the educational design, which is a representation of the built education field (we value the area of experience as educational). The design is the ordering of the components of education scope (area of experience, forms of expression, criteria of meaning, general dimensions, intervention processes, technical consensus of discipline). The educational design promotes the educational relationship adjusted to the principles of education and the principles of intervention in each individual pedagogical action, to form the individual, social, historical and species-specific human condition. The educational design is compatible with and necessary to make a coherent instructional design in each pedagogical intervention under the principles of education and pedagogical intervention. To make the educational design we must not only understand the components of “education field”, but we must implement a concrete educational action, controlled and programmed from the common activity of the students, using the appropriate internal and external means in each circumstance and degree school. The educational design is defined for me in this work as the rational ordering (spatial-temporal) of the components of education scope to intervene counting on the internal and external means pertinent in each circumstance and school grade. The educational relationship implies committed activity and, in addition, it is a responsible activity, because we take care to educate, that is, so that each educator, together with the student, generates in each student the educational relationship with oneself, in such a way that he becomes not just an actor, but also the author of his own project of life, in each area of created intervention: • In the educational relationship, a link between value and choice is created, so that we can establish the responsible sense of action, building processes from the means-ends relationship. • In the educational relationship, a link between value and obligation is created, so that we can establish a personal commitment to action. • In the educational relationship, a link between value and decision is created, so that we can establish the individualized sense of life that is sought in that action, building goals. • In the educational relationship, an attachment or dependence between value and feeling is created, so that we speak of felt experience of value as affective integration. 264 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia • In the educational relationship, a connection is created between ideas and beliefs with expectations and convictions, through the forms of thought, so that we can cognitively integrate the thought and believed values with reality. • In the educational relationship a connection between signs and meanings is created, due to the human relationship of the physical and the mental, so that we are able to make symbolizingcreative integration and give meaning to the human condition in the symbolized world, building culture. The educational relationship has a singular and specific meaning from the personal qualities of its agents. Each case of intervention is an exercise of freedom, commitment, decision, passion and compassion, reason and creation, in which the felt experience of the concrete action relates values and feelings in such a way that the execution of the action has to go on creating its specific sense in the very process of realization, from the personal qualities of the agents who cannot stop having the values and feelings that they have in each concrete situation. In the educational relationship, educational areas are managed and in each area each, one of the relations derived from the objectual complexity of education is managed. The educational relationship, I reiterate, is not a question of educability, nor of educativeness, nor of opportunity to educate, but all this together in a concrete action. And as a concrete action, it is defined in its own terms that are established from the fundamental condition of value, the double condition of agent and the double consideration of knowledge and action for the object “education”. From the objectual complexity of “education” it follows that the educational relationship responds to definite real traits of an axiological, personal, patrimonial, integral, epistemological and spiritual character. The way to take responsibility for the educational relationship and to commit oneself pedagogically to it, marks a deep sense of education, also removed from the fundamentalist threat of indoctrination, the anti-pedagogical illusion of neutralism and the manipulative proposal of manipulation, and intimidating coercion, errors always possible, but avoidable, during training. When one educates, a directive relationship of authority is established, based on the trust that one person gives to another to direct their behaviors in a certain area of their existence -in this case, the student-, which is guided by responsible activity so that decide to do what you must, to obey and to undertake the task of being an actor and author of his own projects. 265 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López In short, the educational relationship is “educational” because it meets the criteria for the use of the common language for education, has the purpose of educating and adjusts to the meaning of that action. In the educational relationship we interact to carry out the activity of educating, and for that we care, teach, live together, communicate and mediate, but always with the present purpose of educating, that is, of fulfilling the conditions of meaning of that concept in each concrete educational action. All this makes the educational relationship an exercise of committed freedom and a responsible and compassionate activity that is exercised in each concrete educational action. Something has changed, and something remains in the pedagogical debate regarding the issues that affect the freedom-education relationship. The true position of the School is the position of committed freedom and responsible activity, because the guarantee of freedom is not the neutrality of the teacher, but respect for the integrity of the learner’s personality: a subject who thinks, has feelings,commits, chooses to act, decides projects and creates symbols to signify reality and culture from his own human condition as agent, actor and author. From the perspective of the educational relationship, education is education of the intelligence, of the will, of affectivity, of the construction of processes framed in ends and means, of the construction of goals and determined projects and of the construction of culture. That is what corresponds to the common internal activities and the general dimensions of intervention linked to them. In education in general, each act of realization of value involves the passage of knowledge to action and that means that, given the opportunities and available resources, we must execute, understand, interpret and express. When we choose goals, we do not only make an estimate of the value, but we also assume that value in the finality as an integral part of our life project and we feel it; we make our own patrimony and identify ourselves in the decisions we adopt, with positive feelings towards and from that identification. We act with freedom, determination and decision, and we do affective, cognitive and symbolizing-creative integration. We articulate thought and believed values with reality through knowledge and rationality. We establish a creative relationship between the self, the others and the other, creating culture and symbols to notice and signify reality from the human condition itself. We express the different degree of commitment to ourselves and to the others and the other through the complex relationship between values and common internal activity of the learner. Through feeling we manifest the state of mind that has been produced by fulfilling or not our expectations in the action; 266 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia we declare and expect recognition of our choice; we express and expect acceptance of our voluntary commitment; we express and hope that we welcome our projects and express our commitment to them. Choose, commit, decide and feel positively a value, has its affective manifestation in attitudes of recognition, acknowledgment, acceptance and delivery to action, which always requires cognitive and creative integration. And for all that, regarding the educational relationship, freedom and compassion are principles of intervention: we choose and have feelings towards ourselves and the rest, we must feel compassion, feel with ourselves and with the others and the other in every election, from our human condition. To deprive ourselves of it is to deprive ourselves of a fundamental part, integral to the internal common activity of the man who manifests, whether we like it or not, in the human condition. Bibliography ARBOLEDA, Julio César 2014 La pedagogía de la alteridad en la perspectiva de la comprensión edificadora. Revista Boletín REDIPE, 3(4), marzo, 55-66. ARENDT, Hanna 1974 La condición humana. Barcelona: Seix Barral. BANTOCK, Geoffrey Herman 1970 Freedom and Authority in Education. London: Faber and Faber. BEAUCHAMPS, Tom & CHILDRESS, James 1979 Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BERLO, David Kenneth 1979 El proceso de la comunicación. Introducción a la teoría y a la práctica. Buenos Aires: El Ateneo. CAMPILLO, Joaquín, ESTEVE, José Manuel, IBÁÑEZ-MARTÍN, José Antonio & TOURIÑÁN, José Manuel 1974 Teoría de la educación (Filosofía de la educación). Madrid: UNED. DAMASIO, Antonio 2010 Y el cerebro creó al hombre. Barcelona: Destino. DAZA, Berta Cecilia 2009 Ambiente de aula: ética del cuidado y disciplina positiva. En G. I. Rodríguez (ed.), Educación en valores y ciudadanía desde una perspectiva cotidiana (pp. 29-40). Bogotá: Delfín. DEARDEN, Robert Frederik, HIRST, Paul Heywood & PETERS, Richard Stanley 1982 Educación y desarrollo de la razón: formación del sentido crítico. Madrid: Narcea. DÜRR, Otto 1971 Educación en la libertad. Madrid: Rialp. FERRATER, José 1979 De la materia a la razón. Madrid: Alianza Universidad. 1980 Diccionario de filosofía. Vol. 1-3. Madrid: Alianza. 267 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López FROEBEL, Friedrich 1999 La educación del hombre. Alicante: Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes. (Edición original alemana de 1826. Edición digital basada en la edición neoyorkina de1902 de Appleton). Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2zwd2hj [06/05/2014]. GERVILLA, Enrique 2000 Valores del cuerpo educando: antropología del cuerpo y educación. Barcelona: Herder. GILLIGAN, Carol 1982 In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. GONZÁLEZ ÁLVAREZ, Ángel 1977 Filosofía de la educación. Buenos Aires: Troquel. GOODWIN, Charles 1994 Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, (96), 606-633. GUSDORF, George 1973 ¿Para qué los profesores? Madrid: EDICUSA. HAIDT, Jhonatan 2006 La hipótesis de la felicidad. La búsqueda de verdades modernas en la sabiduría antigua. Barcelona: Gedisa. HERBART, Johan Friedrich 1806 Pedagogía general derivada del fin de la educación. Madrid: La Lectura. IBÁÑEZ-MARTÍN, José Antonio (Coord.) 2013 Educación, libertad y cuidado. Madrid: Dykinson. IBÁÑEZ-MARTÍN, José Antonio 1969 El sentido crítico, objetivo de la educación con temporánea. Revista de Filosofía, XXVIII(108-111), enero-diciembre, 77-93. 2010 ¿Llenar el vaso o encender el fuego? Viejos y nuevos riesgos en la acción educativa. Lección inaugural del curso académico 2010-2011. Facultad de Educación. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. JEFFREYS, Montagu Vaughan Castelman 1955 Beyond Neutrality. Londres: Pitman & Sons. KANT, Immanuel 1966 Reflexions sur l’Education. Paris: Vrin. KATZ, Michael, NODDINGS, Nel & STRIKE, Kenneth 2002 Justicia y cuidado: en busca de una base ética común en educación. Barcelona: Idea Books. KEMP, Peter 2000 Four Ethical Principles in Biolaw. En J. D. Rendorff y P. Kemp (eds.), Bioethics and Biolaw, vol. II (pp.13-22). Partners Research. Copenhagen: Centre for Ethics and Law. LUFT, Joseph 1976 La interacción humana. Madrid: Marova. MARINA, José Antonio 2009 El aprendizaje de la sabiduría. Aprender a vivir/ aprender a convivir. Barcelona: Ariel. MCLUHAN, Marshall & POWERS, Bruce 1995 La aldea global: transformaciones en la vida y los medios de comunicación mundiales en el siglo XXI. Barcelona: Gedisa. 268 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. The educational relationship is a concept with own meaning, that it requires concordance La relación educativa es un concepto con significado propio que requiere concordancia MENNE, Albert 1976 Introducción a la lógica. Madrid: Gredos. MILLÁN PUELLES, Antonio 1951 Los límites de la educación en Karl Jaspers. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 9(35), 439-448. MÍNGUEZ, Ramón 2012 La convivencia como responsabilidad con el otro: una propuesta ético-educativa para la relación identidad-diversidad. En J. M. Touriñán (coord.), Desarrollo cívico, sentido intercultural de la educación y convivencia cualificada y especificada (pp. 281-304). Coruña: Netbiblo. MORIN, Edgar 2009 El método 5: la humanidad de la humanidad. Madrid: Cátedra. MOSTERÍN, Jesús 2008a La naturaleza humana. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. 2008b Lo mejor posible: racionalidad y acción humana. Madrid: Alianza. NODDINGS, Nel 1992 The Challenges of Care in Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. 2002 Atención, justicia y equidad. En M. S. Katz, N. Noddings y K. A. Strike, Justicia y cuidado: en busca de una base ética común en educación (pp. 15-30). Barcelona: Idea Books. NUSSBAUM, Marta Craven 2002 Las mujeres y el desarrollo humano. Barcelona: Herder. ORTEGA, Pedro 2014 Educar en la alteridad. Revista Boletín REDIPE, 3(4), marzo, 6-20. PAGE, Ellis Baten 1984 Un confortable escándalo: deberes para casa y clases sociales. En Educación y sociedad plural (SEP). VIII Congreso Nacional de Pedagogía (pp. 137-145). Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela/Sociedad Española de Pedagogía. PEIRÓ, Salvador 2012 Convivencia y educación: problemas y soluciones: perspectiva europea y latinoamericana. Alicante: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante. PINKER, Steven 2011 Cómo funciona la mente. Barcelona: Destino. 2012 Los ángeles que llevamos dentro: el declive de la violencia y sus implicaciones. Barcelona: Paidós. REDONDO, Emilio 1999 Educación y comunicación. Barcelona: Ariel. SI(E)TE 2010 Violencia, convivencia y educación: claves para la intervención pedagógica en la escuela. Revista de Investigación en Educación, (8), 6-23. STEWART, Daniel 1973 Psicología de la comunicación: teoría y análisis. Buenos Aires: Paidós. TOBÍO, Constanza, AGULLÓ, M.ª Silveria, GÓMEZ, M.ª Victoria & MARTÍN, M.ª Teresa 2010 El cuidado de las personas: un reto para el siglo XXI. Barcelona: Obra Social Fundación La Caixa. TOURIÑÁN, José Manuel 1979 El sentido de la libertad en la educación. Madrid: Magisterio Español. 269 Sophia 26: 2019. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN: 1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 215-269. José Manuel Touriñán López 2006 Educación en valores y experiencia axiológica: el sentido patrimonial de la educación. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 64(234), 227-248. 2013a La relación educativa como ejercicio de libertad comprometida y de actividad responsable. En J. A. Ibáñez-Martín (coord.), Educación, libertad y cuidado (pp. 123-168). Madrid: Dykinson. 2013b ¿Enseñar áreas culturales o educar con las áreas culturales? En Grupo Si(e) te, Desmitificación y crítica de la educación actual (pp. 57-92). Barcelona: Octaedro. 2014 Dónde está la educación: actividad común interna y elementos estructurales de la intervención. A Coruña: Netbiblo. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2zwdLPz 2015 Pedagogía mesoaxiológica y concepto de educación. Santiago de Compostela: Andavira. 2016 Pedagogía general: principios de educación y principios de intervención. A Coruña: Bello y Martínez. 2017 Mentalidad pedagógica y diseño educativo: de la pedagogía general a las pedagogías aplicadas en la función de educar. Santiago de Compostela: Andavira. TOURIÑÁN, José Manuel (coord.) 2008a Educación en valores, sociedad civil y desarrollo cívico. Coruña: Netbiblo. 2008b Educación en valores, educación intercultural y formación para la convivencia pacífica. Coruña: Netbiblo. 2012 Desarrollo cívico, sentido intercultural de la educación y convivencia cualificada y especificada. Coruña: Netbiblo. TOURIÑÁN, José Manuel & LONGUEIRA, Silvana (coords.) 2018 La construcción de ámbitos de educación: pedagogía general y aplicada. Santiago de Compostela: Andavira. TOURIÑÁN, José Manuel & SÁEZ, Rafael 2015 La mirada pedagógica: teoría de la educación, metodología y focalizaciones. Santiago de Compostela: Andavira. WEISS, Peter 1967 The making of men. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. WHITEHEAD, Alfred North 1965 Los fines de la educación y otros ensayos. Buenos Aires: Paidós. YELA, Mariano 1956 La libertad como experiencia y como problema. Arbor, 35(131), 207-219. Date of receipt of document: August 24, 2017 Date of document review: November 25, 2017 Date of document approval: January 22, 2018 Date of publication of the document: January 15, 2019