The Epistemological Foundations of the Pedagogy of Reciprocity – Part One

Introduction:

When addressing the epistemological framework, the reflection proposed here is situated within a constructivist perspective on the pedagogical and existential paradigm, repositioning knowledge as the outcome of a subjective and intersubjective construction of meaning.

Knowledge, therefore, cannot be understood as a mere objective and indisputable collection of pre-existing data, but rather as the result of an active and dynamic construction of meaning, inevitably shaped both by individual subjectivity and by the relationship between two or more subjects. From this perspective, knowledge assumes a relational and systemic configuration in which the subject is not an impenetrable entity, but a being-in-the-world whose development unfolds within a dynamic and ontologically generative web of shifting relationships and unavoidable educational solicitations.

This reflection is situated within the field of general pedagogy, yet it necessarily engages contributions from developmental psychology, philosophy, the phenomenology of otherness, and sociology. In this direction, the aim is to show how reciprocity can offer both an innovative and unifying perspective for studying identity formation within significant affective relationships—not only during the developmental stages traditionally identified by neuroscience, but across the entire lifespan.

The Relational Turn in Pedagogy:

Also as a result of the gradual liberation from the ideologies of the totalitarian systems of the last century, the constellation of disciplines within the educational sciences began moving toward a profound revision of their epistemological assumptions. This spirit of renewal brought about a significant paradigmatic shift: from a model centered on the autonomous subject to one focused on the relational, intersubjective, and dialogical individual.

What many thinkers have described as the “relational turn” highlighted the centrality of the educational relationship as the primary and generative locus of identity formation, affective development, and the construction of meaning¹. In light of these transformations, a widespread transmissive and deposit-based model of pedagogy, grounded in a linear and unidirectional logic, gradually gave way to dialogical and constructivist approaches characterized by strong relational engagement.

Within this perspective, Raffaele Cambi has emphasized how contemporary pedagogical sensibility is oriented toward a “pedagogy of the subject” and a “pedagogy of communication,” in which formation takes shape through dialogical exchange and the shared construction of meaning². Similarly, Luigina Mortari has underscored how the practice of care constitutes a fundamental dimension of educational action, recognizing in relationship the space in which the subject discovers, forms, and transforms themselves.

Overcoming Transmissive Pedagogy:

Relational anthropology thus emerges as a perspective of exceptional value for interpreting the subject in the educational sphere: no longer an isolated entity, but a unique and unrepeatable unity, present hic et nunc, in the world and with the other. Human development takes shape within the cosmos of affective experience.

From this standpoint, education is no longer a unidirectional process of transmission, but rather a genuine dialogical co-construction of meaning among persons³.

A decisive contribution in this direction comes from Martin Buber, who proposes a philosophy capable of conceiving the human being as a reality that can fully realize itself only within relationship. The individual is called to an existential responsibility whose core lies in the question: “Where are you in your world?” This question implies a radical summons to presence, response, listening, and encounter as unavoidable dimensions in the construction of identity⁴.

An equally crucial contribution comes from Emmanuel Levinas who, in Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, further radicalizes this perspective. The face of the Other imposes itself as an original ethical call: the subject is elected to respond through an irreducible act of responsibility—one that precedes knowledge and grounds the very possibility of an authentic understanding of the world and transcendence⁵.

Within this same line of thought stands Paulo Freire who, in Pedagogy of Freedom, shows how the dialogical dimension and the emancipation of the subject are intrinsically connected. The sharing of the word becomes a space of critical consciousness and mutual liberation, in a process in which educator and learner grow together⁶.

Relational Ontology of the Subject:

Beginning from the contemporary pedagogical paradigm, and in an effort to reach a more complete understanding of the foundational layer underlying a Pedagogy of Reciprocity, we must start from the interpretive key that relational ontology has offered to the human sciences. It fully abandons the modernist and rationalist nuances that exalt the individual’s supposed autonomy, separateness, and mere internal coherence as ultimate ideals. Relational ontology decisively overturns these convictions, maintaining that the subject can only be generated and transformed through a profound and ongoing evolutionary process rooted in reciprocal relationships with others. The human being does not precede encounter, but rather comes into being within it; identity is shaped in response to the solicitations awakened by significant relationships, through a co-constructive process of meaning-making and recognition¹².

Within this context, Martin Buber stands as a foundational figure through his profound dialogical reflection on the I–Thou relationship. He argued that the human being cannot truly rise to the position of an “I” except within a deep relationship with the other. In The Way of Man, he underscores the fundamental importance of the other’s presence, tracing human existence back to the mystery of alterity: “Where are you?” is the existential question God addresses to the human being, and the question to which every individual is summoned by the one who stands before them¹³. Subjectivity, therefore, does not possess an autonomous existential nature; rather, it originates in relationship, in a continuous cycle of interpersonal negotiation renewed throughout the course of life.

Similarly, Emmanuel Levinas conceptualized subjectivity as ethical responsibility toward the other, placing the face of the Other as the original instance that calls forth and grounds the “I.” In Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, Levinas writes: “The Other reveals himself precisely—and by virtue of his alterity—not in a confrontation that negates the I, but as the original phenomenon of gentleness”¹⁴. Identity is constituted in the gesture of response: it is a response to the call of the other, never fully autonomous, but always bound within a relationship.

Within the context of contemporary pedagogy, Luigina Mortari has taken up and further developed relational ontology in educational terms, maintaining that the subject in formation is always immersed in a web of significant relationships. “Subjectivity presents itself as relationship,” Mortari writes in The Practice of Care, emphasizing that the formation of the self takes place in the “in-between” generated by the encounter with the other¹⁵. From this perspective, identity is a dialogical process—never completed, continually shaped by affective, symbolic, and communicative experience.

Carl Rogers, approaching the issue from the standpoint of humanistic psychology, rendered a fundamental contribution to relational ontology. He advances an interpretive framework in which the helping relationship must necessarily be grounded in authenticity, empathy, and unconditional positive regard. In Client-Centered Therapy, Rogers asserts that human potential becomes fully realized only within a welcoming relational environment capable of facilitating self-understanding and self-actualization¹⁶. The individual, therefore, is not a self- and pre-constituted essence, but a becoming—shaped and sustained by the quality of the relationships they experience.

From this perspective, relational ontology emerges as a theoretical framework consistent with the pedagogical aim of fostering subjects capable of encounter, care, and responsibility. It allows education to be conceived not as the transmission of content, but as a process of co-constructing the self, in which the other is a conditio sine qua non for any path of identity formation.

Notes

¹ L. Mortari, La pratica dell’aver cura, Milan, Bruno Mondadori, 2006, pp. 11–16.

² R. Cambi, Le pedagogie del Novecento, Rome-Bari, Laterza, 2000, pp. 85–96.

³ See C. R. Rogers, La terapia centrata sul cliente, Florence, Martinelli, 1970, p. 28.

⁴ See M. Buber, Il cammino dell’uomo, Magnano, Qiqajon, 1990, p. 46.

⁵ See E. Lévinas, Totalità e infinito. Saggio sull’esteriorità, Milan, Jaca Book, 2004.

⁶ See P. Freire, Pedagogia dell’autonomia, Turin, EGA, 2014.

¹² See E. Lévinas, Totalità e infinito. Saggio sull’esteriorità, Milan, Jaca Book, 2004, pp. 84–101; P. Freire, Pedagogia dell’autonomia, Turin, EGA, 2014, pp. 52–56.

¹³ M. Buber, Il cammino dell’uomo, Magnano, Qiqajon, 1990, pp. 5–10.

¹⁴ E. Lévinas, Totalità e infinito. Saggio sull’esteriorità, Milan, Jaca Book, 2004, p. 152.

¹⁵ L. Mortari, La pratica dell’aver cura, Milan, Bruno Mondadori, 2006, pp. 94–101.

¹⁶ C. R. Rogers, La terapia centrata sul cliente, Florence, Martinelli, 1970.