ISSN 2410-5708 / e-ISSN 2313-7215

Year 11 | No. 30 | February - May 2022

Traces with a sense of humanity from inhabiting the school again


Submitted on September 28, 2021 / Accepted on November 23, 2021

Maribel Botero Botero

Master in Education and Ph.D. Student in Education Sciences

Bachelor of Basic Education with Emphasis in Natural Sciences and Environmental Education

Educational Institution Celia Duque de Duque Foundation Abejorral, Antioquia, Colombia



Dora Inés Arroyave Giraldo

University of San Buenaventura-Medellín.

Research professor at the Faculty of Education of the Colombia.



Section: Education

Scientific Articles

Keywords: school, paradigm, nature, humanism, education, human dignity


This paper is configured from a reflective look at the reality assisted by a capitalist development system in which the meaning of life, happiness, and human fulfillment have been transposed towards having, dominion and power; an economic model framed in production and usufruct, in which the soft and delicate threads that weave the conditions of life on the planet have been broken and degraded and the humanist traces in the path of the human have been erased; which distorts its condition as a model of development and translates into social inequity, inequality, marginalization, and poverty. Thinking about how to mend the fabrics of life again and configure new humanist traces, requires defining an education whose inspiration is to make the condition of the human being worthy; to inhabit the school again as a scenario to conjugate with actions the verbs humanize and power and to rethink the meaning and essence of teaching and even the role of the teacher and the student from other perspectives, looks, and logics.


And suddenly man attends a new reality in which languages, dynamics, values, and worldviews are changed, which forces him to transform himself into a liquid state to adapt to new ways of living, thinking, and acting about himself, with the other and with the natural world. A reality where acts of love translate into being far from the other, kisses and hugs become weapons that threaten life, human beings are imprisoned and it is visible that power, fame, beauty, and money are insufficient when it comes to needing oxygen to give continuity to existence. It is from the previous reality that this article of reflection is consolidated, in which the need to rethink the role of the human being in the world is legitimized, as soon as he has been instituted as the sole owner and lord of everything that exists, he has forgotten that he is one more guest to inhabit the planet Earth and has left aside the transit through the path of the human to advance by the way of having and power as a noun.

The first lines of the article are developed under the title “Towards humanism by the way of the human” and focus their reflection from the consideration of the non-essential character of being for the existence of life on the planet, based upon the above considerations without the human figure, air, earth, water, and sky can continue their existence, but with their presence without any kind of consciousness and rationality, the future of the common home is uncertain. This implies the need for the world to be inhabited by a new type of man and for a new education to be configured whose inspiration is to make the condition of the human being worthy, to preserve the living character of the planet, and to advance towards humanism by the way of the human.

In the second moment of reflection called “In two ways: back to school - returning to the human”, the need to inhabit the school again and recover the meaning and identity of education is established. The school is given the challenge of educating from the vision of the human being about others and the world; it is about thinking about education from a critical reading of the context so that an intentional school is generated from social changes, with the learning of great significance and with the participation and recognition of the interests of all, but without ignoring that more important than doing and knowing must be placed the being, from an education that allows the return to the human being from the recognition of his dignity.

Finally, in the section “Educating to transform or transform to educate”, the reflective process is accentuated in the analysis of a reality mediated by knowledge and information, which requires legitimizing a new conception of school and therefore of education. From a transformational logic, education must be instituted that, from the recognition of its holistic, humanistic, progressive, developmental, and solidary sense and identity, impacts on the transformation of teaching that responds to the demands of the moment, but without neglecting to teach to be increasingly human.

Towards humanism by way of the human

A new definition of being human

An alternative to mitigate to a large extent the consequences of a capitalist system assisted by man under interests of wealth and power, alien to the recognition of the integrative, diverse, dynamic, and changing character of everything that exists, would be to turn our gaze towards a paradigm where the universe, history, and life are configured from a unifying perspective, the totalitarian and evolutionary character of the world is recognized, diversity is valued and the complexity of the relationships that are woven there is respected.

However, the world conceived as a whole where an infinity of beings and relationships converge requires the emergence of a paradigm that, as Boff (2014,p.11)points out, has been consolidated from a joint perspective between the cosmos, reality, and the living and has some figures of thought that characterize it. This paradigm forces us to think of a new definition of a human being that makes it possible to supply it and in turn the coexistence of all creatures from the recognition of their value, identity, and autonomy. An idea of being human is defined by the imperative need to build a world in which you have a place for everyone, and the inclusive universe, respectful of difference and that allows us to dream of a sustainable life where the social, the political, the economic, the technological and the environmental are harmoniously intertwined to ensure present and future life.

One could think of the existence of a planet as an open and organized system without the presence of a human being. A magical place painted green and blue where all creatures lived under the same sky and became part of a dynamic and complex network woven with the delicate threads of life. But since reality is different and man is part of this system, it is worth asking what kind of individual is needed to preserve the fabric of life or try to recover the systemic and organized character of the world? Is it up to the human being to stop traveling along the path he has taken and to make visible new paths that unfold more harmonious destinies for the universe?

According to Boff “the human being can prolong the conditions of his life and those of the planet” (2014, p. 10). However, his stay in the world has shown that power as a verb has been distorted to give great importance to power as a noun. Man as a rational being is empowered to enable the sustainability of the planet, but in his delirium of superiority over other creatures, this possibility has been denied. As Riechmann states:

What is in crisis is our civilization, that is, the way of producing, consuming, and living that industrialist capitalism has shaped for several centuries; the temporary and transitory thing is the financial and economic crisis and from it, it is going to emerge, effectively, with more or less profound reforms of the system; but, given the expansive nature of this type of civilization, the reforms in the financial and economic system advocated from above and with a neoliberal orientation will not alleviate but will accentuate the other crisis, the ecological or environmental one. (2012, p.177)

It is necessary to value the uniqueness of the human being concerning other beings, insofar as he is empowered to think about himself, to question what he does, what he stops doing, and what he can do. According to Beorlegui “Human beings are the only animal species self-aware of itself and, therefore, capable of asking and questioning its reality” (2011, p. 443). It is his ability to think and create that has allowed him to intervene in nature, transform it and modify it at will. However, just as he has made the most of his rationality and creative capacity to build, he has also used it to destroy, modify or alter the fabric of relationships woven on the planet.

The gestation of a new paradigm requires of course the definition of a new human being capable of taking advantage of his capacity to think and create to act beyond his particular interest in favor of a collectivity, to realize that all beings inhabit a certain time and space and demand that their condition of singularity is respected from an integrative and constitutive vision of a whole.

Power as a verb and not as a noun

It is paradoxical how an invisible virus of a microscopic nature has revealed at a global level several social, political, economic, and environmental deficiencies that evidenced the vulnerability, the fragility of man, and the inequality in the living conditions of the majority of the population, However, despite the uncertainty, the threat and the affectation, the above reality presents some possibilities in which all human beings are actors, understanding possibility as a derivation of the verb power that offers a condition of well-being not only individual but collective from the concretion of actions to advance towards humanism by the way of the human.

It is contradictory that this historical moment, although it requires keeping a distance from the other as a way of taking care of them and taking care of themselves, in turn, demands to be massively infected by gestures of solidarity that can be translated into signs of hope to help the most vulnerable population during the crisis. Solidarity is presented then not only as a possibility to alleviate this reality a little from the immediacy in the relationship with the living conditions of the poorest, but also as a challenge to think and concretize joint actions that from the globality contribute to the definition of public policies that guarantee the protection and promotion of human rights. In agreement with Guarín and Rojas:

The life of the human being, and his action, are marked by the circumstantial, the fragile, and the contradictory. Ethical and political decisions are shaped by observing the suffering that others suffer, from which the motivation to respond to their needs and demands for help is born. In this line of thought, the solidarity response with those who do not have any kind of link, with those who belong to another race or nation, indicates the opening of the borders of affection and responsibility with the unknown. (2018, p.36)

Faced with the existence of a crisis, the challenge lies in the ability to face it, recover, emerge strengthened, and take positive advantage of adversity to make visible opportunities for improvement. Thus, the current crisis must be conceived as a stop sign on the road that has been traveled so far, a signal that allows us to assess how this route has been carried out and whether or not it is necessary to abandon this route. The black and white of nature, conditions of extreme misery, social gaps, poverty, social inequality, marginalization, hunger, and exclusion are more than enough reasons to mark a stop sign and take the path of the human that allows us to move towards humanism. In this line, Morín (2020) expresses:

The broad lines of the new political-ecological-economic-social path imposed by the unprecedented crisis we are experiencing are guided by the need to regenerate politics, the need to humanize society, and the need for a regenerated humanism. (p.49)

According to the above, the school is configured as a scenario from which a new politics of nation, civilization, humanity, the Earth, and a regenerated humanism can be cemented, as long as from there the meaning of the word power as a verb and not as a noun can be instituted. The meaning of the word power as a verb is determined in the ability to think and materialize actions that give great meaning to the value of life about others and the world, while the meaning of the word power as a noun lies in an excessive notion of feeling superiority and dominance over others.

From the meaning of the word power as a verb, from the school can be founded a new policy of nation that translates from responsibility, solidarity, citizen participation, respect for the living character of the planet, awareness of problems, the non-substitution of affection for material goods, the promotion of critical thinking and the promotion of self-concept and discipline. It implies educating in a culture of consumption of the essential, a social and solidarity economy, moving away from forms of creation of needs and overproduction of unnecessary goods, establishing various ways of taking advantage of the resources of nature without compromising its existence and acquiring a great social responsibility from personal ethics. In this sense, Castillejo et al., propose that:

Education for consumption involves information, capacity for critical analysis of situations, and sensitivity to the consequences of excessive consumption, which endangers the very survival of the planet. Consumption is thus confronted with the scale of values that education must defend. (2011, p.35)

It is contradictory to think that most of the problems and evils that today affect humanity and that put at risk his stability, tranquility and even existence in the world have been caused by man himself under a character of domination and power exercised without any rationality. Thus, how envisioning a politics of civilization from school, by and towards the path of humanization imposes the need to overcome the individualistic character of the human being, the ecological degradation of the environment, reduce ambition for money and power, institute new fabrics of coexistence and true spaces of solidarity and encounter with the other effectively and affectionately.

It is from the perspective of a new politics of humanity that it acquires great significance to travel along the path of the human, in that from the recognition of the dignity of man his condition of equality is valued from the difference. It is from this policy that we think of the human being to other beings, great importance is given to live in community, the diversity of knowledge, techniques, and manifestations of various human groups is valued, the multiplicity of forms of expression is accepted and the possibility that infinity of beings can live under the same sky in conditions of equality is recognized, reciprocity and coexistence. As Morín puts it (as quoted in Arroyave, 2021) a politics of humanity would entail a concern to inextricably safeguard human unity and diversity: the treasure of human unity is human diversity, the treasure of human diversity is human unity. (p. 53)

An Earth policy demands that solidarity with the planet be accentuated from school from the awareness that the human being is just one more inhabitant of it and as a child of the Earth it is up to him to protect, order, and respect it. In this regard, Bermejo states that

Humanizing has to do with ecology and the environment, we must consider the world our home; we have to take care of the natural resources and respect the exterior and interior spaces, take care of everyone’s great house and give warmth in our own. (2018, p.6)

From the above considerations, education focused on humanity itself must be thought. An education whose purpose is not to humanize the other but to allow him to be and live humanly, which leads to the formation of free, solitary, autonomous human beings and awareness of their responsibility towards the self, we, and the planet. AS it is expressed in Figure 1. From and towards humanism through education, today’s world demands an education where the dignity of man is recognized from its complexity and uniqueness, where individual fulfillment is linked to life in community, equality is sought in the recognition of rights and difference in respect for the diversity of ways of being, think and act.


From and Towards Humanism by the Way of Education.

Two ways: back to school - back to the human

Inhabit education, school, and the classroom again

Understanding capitalism not only as an economic system but also as a political and social system, in which the sense of capital accumulation has been confused with that of wealth, where a few embrace power and profit at any price, where the action is taken from individual and subjective interests; It merits considering that its implementation as a model of development has derived, more than development, many consequences and social problems that translate into poverty, inequality, the concentration of capital in very small groups, growing precariousness of work, social exclusion, marginality, unemployment, deterioration of the planet and living conditions. As Mejía puts it, “in the critical reading of capitalism, the problems of dualization, marginalization, impoverishment, and exclusion that are generated in the implementation of its development models continued to be seen” (2019, p. 36)

Depending on the political and social dimension of the capitalist regime, it is inescapable to take into account how in this system the state and the market appear as de subjective instances that relativize the value of man and that of nature to grant it to power as a noun and to have. In agreement with Hernández (2017):

In its imprint on progress, capitalism has objectified nature and man himself. The proliferation of misery shows that the transformation of nature has not been for the benefit of humanity, but the benefit of a fairly small proportion of it. (p. 197)

However, as Freire puts it, “The critical reading of the world is the lack of dichotomy pedagogical-political task of political-pedagogical work, that is, of political action that implies the organization of groups and popular classes to intervene in the reinvention of society” (2000, p. 42).

In this context, social movements and popular education emerge in Latin America as organizations of social transformation that envision new forms of thought and action that admit the realization of alternatives to overcome inequality, exclusion, segregation, and injustices in our society. Taking into account that educational activity is not alien to a context in which the political, social, cultural, economic, and environmental converge, it is up to the school to think about itself from the proposal of conditions, educational and social practices that intentionally manage to build more just societies, more human from the understanding of the uniqueness of the human being but with a collectivity and where not there is room for no trace of inequality, but yes, for the recognition of the interests of all.

Taking into account that it was the current global crisis that gave us the challenge of educating without schools, which has silenced the sound of the bells, the entrance disc, and even the voices of the little ones, which has hidden the looks of multiple colors, the faces with different moods, the smiles of varied shapes, the one that forced us to keep the hugs; today more than ever it becomes evident the need to inhabit education, schools, and classrooms again to build from there meaning, a sense framed in a common culture, but diversified according to the dissimilar social and cultural conditions of those who give life to the school, the students, with their cultures, interests, singularities, stories, experiences, values, fantasies, demands, dreams and projects. Indeed, Jaramillo, et al. state that

Anonymity is dissolved when each other’s words vibrate musically at school when the voices resonate. Likewise, when one does not look at the greatness of the height or the ground occupied by the feet of the other, but his heart (co-reason), that which ignites his sensitivity as an opening and possibility of becoming, that which does not tire of being, his vulnerability. (2020, p. 161)

Now, it is worth asking how to build meaning from inhabiting education, school, and the classroom again?

The events that the world is experiencing and therefore the school account for a crisis of meaning that articulates what was once with what is now needed, that is, a demand for transformation, which refers the individual to consider some postulates built from popular education in their struggles to transform society and that deserve to be thought from the educational field as a bet to generate meaning and identity to future from the educational action. And this is where education plays a very important role. Its challenge is to educate from the vision of the human being to others and the world, it is about thinking about education from a critical reading of the context so that an intentional school is generated from social changes, with the learning of great significance and with the participation and recognition of the interests of all. According to Marco (2020), it is necessary to rethink the current political-pedagogical proposals based on the defense of a humanist education where the possibility of envisioning a holistic formation according to the reality of the human being and from the recognition of their dignity and condition of fullness is generated. (p.3)

Product of a globalized society and as an institution with a highly social component that houses different forms of coexistence and determination, the spaces of the school have been inhabited by a childhood and youth rich in differences, ways of living, with diverse behaviors, with experiences rich in cultural expressions around values, political and religious conceptions. Therefore, the construction of meaning in school requires working from the richness of diversity, addressing differences as the foundations of multiple cultural expressions that promote a pluralistic human formation adding the different options to build shared learning for all. In this sense, it is up to the individual to learn to respect the collective and to become part of it, from his own particular identity.

This leads the school to rethink its interventions, to think from the commitment to the maintenance of human values, a school that contributes to the construction of an education where knowledge is a strategic and highly valuable capital for the development of autonomous subjects, with capacity for decision-making and the favoring of the meaning of personal and social life, but without ignoring that more important than doing and knowing must be placed the being, from an education that allows returning to the human being from the recognition of his dignity. To this end is added the Congregation for Catholic Education when it expresses:

It is necessary, therefore, to humanize education; that is, to transform it into a process in which each person can develop their deep aptitudes, their vocation and thus contribute to the vocation of their community. Humanizing education means putting the person at the center of education, in a framework of relationships that constitute a living, interdependent community, united to a common destiny. (2018, p. 17)

Educate for being or for doing and having?

As a consequence of a capitalist system based on an instrumental technocratic educational model in which the meaning of education has been transferred towards schooling, the era we are witnessing demands to legitimize again the value of educating from a holistic vision that conceives not only academic instruction but above all a human formation, from life, in life, and for life; an education that from the recognition of the singularity of making possible the knowledge, the having and the doing. It is a question of reaffirming from the pedagogical action the value and dignity of the human.

In this sense, it is up to the school to enable and create the theoretical, epistemological, and practical conditions for a human formation of individuals that under principles of solidarity, responsibility, respect, and equality allow them to relate harmoniously with others and with the environment, assume responsibilities, make decisions, solve problematic situations, have the critical capacity, be creative people and with the capacity to innovate and undertake. According to Boom “more than education in its conventional sense, we are witnessing a growing process of social schooling supported by theories and technologies whose purpose is the construction of a subject and a society of maximum performance” (2019, p. 309).

From the above perspective, the concept of education has been equated with the concept of social schooling, understanding it as training for work, preparation, or development of effective learning for productivity and competence. Under capitalist interests, the educational process has displaced human, ethical, autonomous formation, with its voice, with democratic, emotional, and communication competencies towards the production of devices for the capitalist system. This requires rethinking educational action from the recognition of human dignity. More than education for competition, productivity, and responding to a system founded on capital, today’s society demands an education based on the human wherefrom the recognition of uniqueness an idea of community is built.

However, schooling understood from the perspective of education for all constitutes an inclusive strategy that allows individuals to establish a link with society and therefore with knowledge. Through this process, the majority of the population is involved in the changes of modernization, they are allowed to participate in the political life of a nation, access employment, be socially recognized, and participate in social changes and the development of the environment.

It is inconceivable to displace the condition of the human being to think of it in terms of business units at the service of a capitalist regime. As Valdés puts it:

Education requires being and doing, but not a homogenizing doing with which the diverse is excluded and the experiential particularities and learning of each subject are not recognized, because in this way each of the educational processes would be avoided and a totalitarian battle would be ventured that does not question the meaning that education should have and the act of inhabiting the classrooms. (2018, p. 18).

It is up to the school to place itself in a new training scenario where the fundamental is the human and where being competent interpersonally and affectively is its priority. From this perspective, it is necessary to have a school that moves towards an integral concept of formation, training where the development of academic competencies is combined with the development of human competencies, a training conducive to happiness, in short, a two-way education; see Figure 2. In two ways: back to school-back to the human.


In two ways: back to school-back to the human

Educating to transform, the transform to educate

Towards a new way of thinking and understanding education

Contemporary society in the full development of its civilization inhabits today a new reality, mediated by scientific-technological advances, by the complexity of relationships and forms of interaction that are woven between the human being and information and communication technologies. Other areas of knowledge have been established, through network connections and multiplicity of screens, which translate into new and diverse forms of thought, expression, communication, learning, knowledge, socialization, and construction of identity. In this regard, Carneiro et al. (2021) point out that “Humanity has been significantly altering the ways of communicating, entertaining, working, negotiating, governing and socializing, based on the dissemination and use of ICT on a global scale” (p.15). This new reality is the protagonist in the construction of environments and social practices linked to virtual experiences defined from information and the plurality of knowledge, which has transcended the barriers of universalization, established new and diverse forms of connection, and which envision a world perspective different from that delimited by physical space, in correspondence with the relationships with the other, the alternatives of a solution to the problems, the dreams and the possibilities of the future. In this sense, Careaga & Avendaño affirm:

This recontextualization of culture, which is rethinking the relations between men and the ways of solving their problems, confronts us with a new model of society, a society based on the development of cultural universalization, based on communicational control as a daily form of human interaction and on the globalization of human relations. A society that tends to full cyberization. (2017, p. 200)

Residing in a reality mediated by knowledge and information requires legitimizing a new conception of school and therefore of education, from an integrative vision that allows responding to the challenges of today’s society, based on the definition of new policies by the state and new roles for teachers and learners in the context of contemporary education. Against the above consideration, the International Bureau for Education (IBE) in the Education 2030 Agenda invites to:

Rethink the rationality, purposes, strategies, management, and scope of educational systems to realize a transformational vision of education that aspires to give each person effective opportunities to educate and learn throughout life. (2017, p.11)

Consequently, living in the era of cybernetics and cyberculture implies considering processes of innovation and modernization of educational systems, which legitimizes the need to define a new cybernetic curriculum capable of responding to the requirements of history and culture with the type of education, teacher, and student that the new social demands. From the above panorama arises the question: what kind of education, school, teacher, a student do today’s world demand and need?

Today we are in a new scenario where digital technologies and their dynamics have crossed and continue to cross all areas of culture, establishing transformations in life, language, and social interactions. This scenario calls for a digitally literate teacher, capable of contributing to the collective construction of knowledge from a position of horizontality concerning the student, competent to read reality and generate knowledge from the recognition of the needs, interests, and knowledge of the communities. As Careaga and Avendaño put it, “the teacher is no longer called to assume the role of mediator between knowledge and the student, but both associate to link with reality, know it and transfer their knowledge to the given society. (2017, p. 224)

From traditional education to the education of our days, knowledge has been deposited in a textbook and the teacher has assumed the role of being a mediator between him and the student. In this new context, knowledge is available to everyone and it is possible to access it from multiple sources and countless contexts. However, it requires the realization of a new figure of cybernetic educator, capable of building learning from a dialogical relationship with the student. In this way, as Freire puts it

The educator is no longer only the one who educates but the one who, as he educates, is educated, is educated through dialogue with the learner, who, being educated, also educates. Thus, both become subjects of the process in which they grow together and in which “the arguments of authority” no longer rule. (2005, p. 92)

Thus, a cyber educator must face the challenge of training in computer, telematics, and communication technologies, so that he can welcome new methodological, didactic, and evaluative proposals that allow him to accompany experientially and actively the process of discovery and construction of knowledge, based on the analysis of reality, the recognition of the problems and needs and in a way that manages to derive in correspondence with the student alternative solutions from the implementation of favorable learning environments so that they arise. In agreement with Osuna:

In an education adapted to the needs of the twenty-first century, the role of students must also be different from those that characterize traditional education. They go from being agents who follow the guidelines of teachers to taking the initiative and taking responsibility for their learning and that of their peers. (2018, p. 81)

It is clear that today’s society demands new ways of teaching and learning that derive from the implementation of pedagogical models far from traditional educational practices. Thus, not only is a change in the role of the teacher envisioned, but the student goes from being a receiving subject to being a subject participating in the construction of knowledge. This requires an education aimed at the formation of autonomous, reflective, critical students, with a creative and transformative thinking, capable of participating in the construction of meaningful learning, an education that is contextualized from different scenarios and that allows learners access to multiple sources of knowledge from a critical reading of reality and with the possibility of transforming it. From the above perspective, for the Santillana Foundation it is time to envision the school we want:

A school oriented to the student (to his integral development, to his potentialities or difficulties, where the student has a higher level of participation and is focused on the construction of his life project); a school more connected to the environment (that opens its doors, that shares spaces and times with the community, that links the contents and learning to the context); a more lively and dynamic school (which is an active part of social, technological and cultural changes, and not a mere passive recipient of transformations); a school where to build stories and discourses, where to learn to relate, to share and to respect diversity, as central values of competent and supportive citizenship. (2020, p. 32)

Thinking about education from the complexity of knowledge

At present, the human being attends an era characterized by the flow of a large amount of information and therefore it is difficult for him to contextualize, organize and understand it. It is possible to access it from all kinds of sources, in different spaces and from different disciplines, however, the problem lies in the lack of critical thinking and inability of the individual to contextualize and filter such information. It is from this perspective that reform of knowledge becomes necessary, which in turn requires a reform of thought. The global information and communication society requires complex thinking capable of integrating knowledge, unifying knowledge, recognizing the local in terms of the global, capable of understanding the complexity of life and the relationships that are woven between the individual and his world. Concerning the above, Morín states that

A tradition of thought well-rooted in our culture and that forms minds from elementary school teaches us to know the world through “clear and different ideas”; it urges us to reduce the complex to the simple, that is, to separate what is linked, to unify what is multiple, to eliminate everything that brings disorder or contradictions to our understanding. (2011, p. 257)

It is to the previous purpose that a new vision of school must be joined. A true information society requires an educational system developed from a complex conception of thought and the recognition of fundamental global problems. In this sense, R. Escobar and M. Escobar (2016) legitimize that:

in the education that is demanded by the society of the present and the future, the development of brain hyper complexity is as important as teaching the human condition and exploring all facets of consciousness and cultural diversity. Only in this way is it possible to acquire a humanistic vision of science, in which knowledge is integrated, disciplines dialogue, and communication links are established between all expressions of the cultural and vital work of human beings. (p. 92)

From a new vision of the educational system, the requirement to teach knowledge is contemplated from what knowledge is, its limits, the errors, certainties, and uncertainties that can derive from it. Thus, knowledge must be relevant and contextualized; teaching must promote analytical, reflective, and synthetic knowledge that responds to the interests, questions, and needs of students; the educator must be trained to educate from an ethical mission, of citizenship and the student must acquire the necessary skills for his autonomy, reflection, and critical capacity, integrate knowledge, intervene in his problems and respond to the demands of the society in which he is immersed.

According to the OIE (2017) education, today has the great challenge of laying the foundations for a formation in values, attitudes, skills, and knowledge that allow learners to be active subjects in the construction and promotion of societies and in that of a sustainable and sustainable planet. The conditions in which our world finds itself and the crises derived from the dependence on a capitalist system, which is governed by the needs of the market, where the human being by his desire for profit and power, breaks or deteriorates the delicate threads of life that weave the relations between the various beings that share the planet; They merit thinking about education for the sustainability and sustainability of the common home in today, an education that enables students not only a scientific literacy, but that prepares them to recognize the problems that affect them and derive from these calls that translate into actions in favor of the harmonious conservation of the fabric of life. As Hessel and Morin put it, “teaching must address the global and fundamental problems of our life and our time, which implies the cooperation of disciplinary knowledge that has remained separate from each other” (2012, p. 271).

A new vision of education involves recontextualizing the conception of the meaning of teaching so that the sense of educating is regained. Relevant teaching for the time to which the human being attends must be thought from the understanding of the meaning of the human, from solidarity and fraternity, from the awareness of the human condition as a finite and situated being, from respect for otherness and the multiplicity of relationships that are woven within the planet and from knowing what knowledge is and its possibilities of error. “It can be said that maintaining and enhancing the dignity, capacity, and well-being of the human person with others and to nature should be the fundamental purpose of education in the twenty-first century.” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2015, p. 38). A graphical approximation to the above can be seen in Figure 3. A new logic in the transformational character of education, where the sense of educating must be transformed towards the consolidation of an increasingly human being from the singularity and collectivity.


New logic in the transformational character of education


We live in a culture that has transposed the meaning of life towards power, individualism, the accumulation of goods, being right, controlling, winning, and imposing; a society that has transferred the sense of happiness and human fulfillment towards the accumulation of material goods, power over others and the dominion of nature. Now, to consider advancing along a path that from the human leads to the human forces us to think not only of a new definition of the human being but also of a new national policy consolidated from the disruption of a capitalist society to advance in the construction of a culture of solidarity that allows forming the meaning of life towards living together in care, responsibility, solidarity, freedom, equality, respect, difference, concertation, equity, and fraternity. In this regard, the school must be articulated as a scenario that allows to combine with actions the power of the verb and humanize to act from the self and we and whose inspiration is to make worthy the condition of the human being, to preserve the living character of the planet and to advance towards humanism by the way of the human.

Taking into account the dynamic and changing character of society, a character that does not become alien to education, it is necessary to think and inhabit the school again, a school where countless cultural identities converge that enable the creation of a common culture based on respect for the diversification of languages, cultures, histories, interests, particularities, values, dreams, demands and projects. The school must become an integrating scenario of various processes of teaching and learning, welcoming different expressions and manifestations of society. It is about making it possible to return to school in two ways: from the need to inhabit education, school and the classroom as a stage to grow and learn in the encounter with the other and with the world and from a school vision thought from the correspondence with the human, a school founded for all pronouns, with possibilities not exclusive for anyone and where each one is offered what he needs for his development, from the recognition of his uniqueness, but as part of a collectivity and to the universe.

Accordingly and according to Reyes, it is worth asking: Should we insist on an education planted as a perverse mechanism that alienates, manipulates, and dehumanizes man, turning him into a utilitarian machine or resume education as the inalienable means that returns dignity, humanity, the faculty of thinking, and the meaning of life to man? (2017, p. 6)

It is inevitable not to realize how in recent years globalization has impacted the way of life of contemporary human beings. Education is not alien to this reality and therefore its meaning is questioned and thought the autonomy of pedagogical and methodological processes, and its mission to educate for life or to respond to a capitalist system framed in the production, usufruct, and degradation of the living conditions of the planet. In this sense, it is necessary to envision a reform in education, which requires rethinking teaching, its essence, the purpose of the school, and even the role of the teacher and the student, under other perspectives and logics. It requires an education based on the idea of the holistic formation of the human being concerning other human beings, where he is recognized not as an object of education to respond to policies of production and consumption, but as a subject of life that seeks through education to be first and foremost more human.


Arroyave, D. (2021). Webinar Guide II: Critical Studies on Education and Curriculum. University of San Buenaventura.

Beorlegui, C. (2011). The uniqueness of the human being as a bio-cultural animal. The reality,443-480.

Bermejo, J.C. (2018). Humanization and action. Revista Iberoamaericana de Bioética,1-16.

Boff, L. (28 of 11, 2014). Koinonia. Obtained from https://www.servicioskoinonia.org/boff/articulo.php?num=676

Boom, A.M. (2019). What are we educated for today? Schooling and educapital. In C. E.

Careaga, M., & Avendaño, A. (2017). Cyber curriculum and knowledge management: fundamentals and reference models. Ril.

Carneiro, R., Toscano, J.C., & Díaz, T. (2021). The challenges of ICT for educational change. Santillana.

Castillejo, J., Colom, A., Rodríguez, T., Sarramona, J., Touriñán, J., & Vásquez, A. P. (2011). Education for consumption. Education XXI,35-58.

Congregation for Catholic Education. (2018). Educating for solidarity humanism. Journal of De la Salle University,12-28.

Escobar, R., & Escobar, M. (2016). The relationship between complex thinking, education, and pedagogy. Administration and Development,88-99.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of indignation: pedagogical letters and other writings. UNESP.

Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. XXI century.

Santillana Foundation. (2020). The school that is coming. Reflection for action. Santillana Foundation

Guarín, E. A., & Rojas, A. (2018). The measure of solidarity as a responsibility of the State. In E. A. Guarín, & A. Rojas, La medida de la solidaridad en as responsibility of the State and the right of associates (p. 113). Catholic University of Colombia.

Hernandez, M. H. (2017). Varieties of capitalism, implications for the development of Latin America. Economics: Theory and Practice,195-226.

Hessel, S., & Morin, E. (2012). The way of hope. A call for civic mobilization. Epub.

Jaramillo, D. A., Cortés, E. J., & Jaramillo, G. (2020). Experience, memory and responsibility: the school as a place of meeting and donation. Teri,147-162.

Marco, M. E. (2020). The sense of education from the human: Notes from Martha Nussbaum and Francisco Ruiz Sánchez. Educare Electronic Magazine,1-18.

Mejia, M. R. (2019). Reinvent social transformation and the new challenges of popular education and social movements. In M. R. Mejia, Collective Social Action and Pedagogy (pp. 35-94). TEACHING.

Morin, E. (2011). The way to the future of humanity. Paidós.

Morin, E. (2020). Let's change the track. Planet.

International Bureau for Education (OIE). (2017). 15 Keys of Analysis to Underpin the 2030 Education Agenda. UNESCO.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking education towards a global common good? UNESCO Editions.

Osuna, S. (2018). The other education. Critical pedagogies for the XXI century. In R. Aparici, C. Escaño, & D. G. Marín, LA OTRA EDUCACIÓN, pedagogías críticas para el siglo XXI (pp. 59-64). UDED.

Reyes, N. R. (2017). Education for the market. Dialogues, 3-6.

Riechmann, J. (2012). Socialism can come only by bicycle. PAPERS of ecosocial relations and global change,175-190.

Valdés, C. (2018). Inhabit education. Linkages and disconnections between school levels. Fondo Editorial Universidad Católica Luis Amigó.