Can Stieglers interpretation of Simondons concept of individuation help

reinterpret Bildung?
Robert van Boeschoten (University for Humanistic Studies)
Introduction
This paper addresses the issues around a renewed interest in Bildung in
education. It builds an argument for using the notion of individuation from
Simondon and later Stiegler to be used for education as clarification of what
should be indicated by Bildung as a process in education. Through individuation
education can be seen as a life long project that could be of central value to
organisations.
Keywords: Individuation, Imagination, Bildung, Transduction, Pharmacology.
In academia there is growing concern for more attention for what should be
central to shaping the minds of students. There is criticism on the so-called
efficiency rhetorics or accountability based on purely financial gain. Universities
see themselves as companies having to prove their value for society by showing
a positive balance sheet. Students and teachers alike are protesting against such
strategies on the grounds that they feel that education should be based on
personal development in order to help them find a purpose in life that stimulates
a growing interest in each other. Education should contribute to the society at
large and not only to specific economic targets. What is needed to this purpose is
imagination, for a future that is still not clear and not framed by short-term welldefined goals. In this debate by educators the term Bildung pops up regularly.
There it implies something like enabling students to grow up and be responsible
citizens and have richly developed skills to deal with the challenges of society.
To be a responsible citizen implies having great skill at continuous learning since
our environment physically and socially is developing rapidly, mainly because of
technological innovations. Life long learning is the relatively new catchphrase.
Universities, just like many organisations, expect continuous development and
training of all involved. In these educational institutes this means that students,
teachers, professors and management alike are part of this process. The

development of any professional position needs constant care. Identities,

professional or otherwise, are not allowed to be fixed.
This state of these institutes corresponds to the ontological position described
by Simondons notion of individuation, a notion picked up by Stiegler in his
discussion of education as care for coming generations (Stiegler 2010). Therefor
in this article I would like to explore how individuation can be framed as part of
Bildung. An exploration on how an ontological notion can be worthwhile for a
normative process in education and how a normative position can help explore
the ontological consequences.
What is meant by Bildung and why does it need to be redefined.
The notion of Bildung pops up in the 18 th and 19th century in Germany
indicating that education should serve the upbringing of coming generations in
becoming responsible citizens. Young people have to grow up to be aware of the
needs of society and make a choice in how they want to address the issues they
feel are important. Bildung implies as von Humboldt describes a political
upbringing. To be formed correctly means shaping yourself in relation to certain
ideals. This has been part of education since ancient times when paideia was
introduced. Education meant raising people to become ideal persons for a
responsible positions in society. Of course within such a description it is
assumed that such positions are relatively stable and that one could, at a young
age, be formed so that one can then fulfil ones tasks.
With the introduction of Bildung education became more focussed on the
possibility of free choice within that society. People should be free in choosing
how they want to develop as a member of that society, as public political
individuals. Politics for von Humboldt, should be a matter of choice creating the
opportunities for maximisation of potential in relation to others within that
society(Nordenbo, 2002). This is what Hegel would later call the internalisation
of the historical development reflected in the public sphere by the Bildung of its
individuals. The development of the individual is for society a matter of coming
to terms with its history and enabling individuals to be part of this history..
People develop in relation to others and by others. Bildung is the process by
which we give form to our political ideals. One of the notably humanist

assumptions in this ideal is that of a kind of universal human beings who have
potential that, through education, is developed.
Bildung has been part of the discourse on education for decades but nowadays it
has a renewed interest by people who look for notions that help them against a
pure economic perspective on learning. It used to be a term describing a
curriculum for all people who would be considered responsible citizens when
they had completed it. The content of this type of education gives you a general
background in all matters of society. Lately different interpretations of Bildung
become more dominant. Education should be concerned with continuous
development, and a need to discipline yourself to realise such development.
The criticism implied in this notion is that there is no longer one image of the
educated person who can be part of society. Education is concerned with many
ideals related to a great variety of practices people are involved with. There is
not one society but many. The term Bildung related to a single ideal is no longer
appropriate. Marli Huijer states that it is therefore not wise to keep on using this
term. It still has too many references to one ideal you can strive for as the perfect
goal for education or upbringing. The term refers to issues in the 18 th and 19th
century and those times were fundamentally different from ours. By applying
their notions of forming and educating to our times we make them too general to
be politically active. They do not give us the guidelines to inform us about where
we are and want to go, they are too broad and thus lack clear consequences of
(political) responsibility. It could make us into obedient servants of the state
without any concern for what our practical public life asks for.
What kind of education is needed?
Marli Huijer interprets our current situation in Western industrialised countries
as one of abundance, and argues that we need to find constructive new forms of
discipline (2013). Our culture offers so many things that we need to discipline
ourselves in order to find out what we really need or want. She suggests self
discipline is not well understood and should be conceived relationally. Not
simply training yourself for yourself, but training yourself in order to develop
meaningful relations. In order to be part of a system or society you need to
choose for a certain responsibility. Based on Arendts notion of selfdiscipline

Huijer does not imply sovereignty but a need for supportive inter-subjective
networks, possibly even mediated by technology.
A similar call for reshaping the individual is made by Peter Sloterdijk , who
proposes in Du Muss dein leben andern (2009) a lifeproject. Your identity is not a
given, not a fixed entity, but calls for continuous maintenance. The forms in
which you need to put yourself in order to be recognized as something and
therefore allegeable for creating meaning in society, are shifting. Meaning is
related to the way it is being expressed, so therefore to form. In our
contemporary culture communication networks are mostly digital which has its
specific form. If I interpret Sloterdijk well this means that you have to learn how
these networks are interpreted and how this affects you. Sloterdijk sees the
school as immune system that does not bother itself with daily problems but
concentrates on the upbringing of people for the future. Education should help
people to be ready for future challenges, in part by taking some distance from
short term crises and delusions. Efficiency as a guideline for education is
considered damaging to the students and the society as well. The concern is for
creating imagination that helps overcoming daily issues and gives moral
direction to where we as citizens want to go. This needs to be done by training in
different fields of expertise. School is the place of freedom where people can
practice in mental and practical challenges. This refers to its original meaning of
skole, where school was meant to be a place free of work for lecture and practice
(Gude, van Stralen, 2012). Education is the place where you can explore your
ambitions and can find out what part your want to play in society.
When Stiegler calls for a concern for future generations, he also refers to this
ability to practice and be free from direct instrumental relations. Upbringing has
to do with taking care for the imagination of the future. Dealing with the
problems of change asks for a broader perspective then just learning how to
solve an issue. Change in our society mostly involves the implementation of
digital technologies. Most of our interaction and communication is based on
software so therefore the relationship between this technological environment
and our imagination should be of interest to educators.
Technics and education

Stiegler draws attention to the relationship between imagination and tekne, or

technics, as skill. His concern for imagination is similar to Sloterdijk, but Stiegler
focuses on the role of techniques and technology based on what Simondon
explains with his use of the term individuation. For Stiegler imagination is based
on the skills people have. You acquire a skill by mastering a technique to produce
something. This can be physical production but also mental production. The
anthropological assumption underlying his philosophy is the anti-essentialist
idea that people have no inherent skills. People have to learn everything that
they do throughout their lives: to eat, to speak, to handle a spoon, to read, to
write, or to type, to like, click, to check in, etc. A skill is a technique; a capability
to apply technics. Since this is learned with others, or with the tools (language
being one of those) developed by others, any capability is inherently social. In
order to be recognised by others as a skilled person one has to engage with
others through the work produced through the use of skill. Autonomy is slowly
won over heteronomy and is never completely self-generative. Technology is but
the logos of skill, a discourse on technics (Stiegler 1998, p. 93). The use of skill
leads to recognition. It gives the use of technique meaning. Technology shows us
why we apply certain techniques and why we need to skill ourselves. It enables
us to engage with the world, it shows its consequence for the way we understand
the world. It is through this technology that we are able to understand our world
differently and create new ideals for our society. There is no given, natural way
to live, but by experiencing different ways by making a world human beings
develop a desire to become or to have something (again) through the use of
technics. Humans thus always have potential for becoming something new,
something other, and are constituted by their relationship to this other-to-come
to which they relate through technology. The process of becoming is called
individuation as Simondon explained in his work. It is a process of realisation of
potentialities, without ever exhausting those potentialities.
The concept of individuation is in the way Stiegler applies it normative. People
and technology need to develop in such a way that they keep a promise for the
future alive. Stieglers book Taking care of next generations (2012) aims at
explaining why individuation and imagination go together. Bildung, which is
used in education to describe the development of younger generations, could be

replaced by Stieglers notion of individuation. It addresses the process of

development much stronger. Individuation makes room for diversity (there are
many different skills in a great variety of communities) in development and is
connected through imagination with politics. The reappropriation of Bildung in
contemporary debates still carries its connotation to a specific goal which could
hinder the focus on the process of education.
Bildung as the normative term that originally was used for younger generations
could be applied in contemporary society as a focus on continuous learning, as a
goal for all people. It indicates a need for all to develop oneself in order to take
care of the society at large or within an organisation. The need to skill oneself
enables you to become a responsible member of the organisation where this skill
is applied. Since these skills depend on the technology used, which is being
updated all the time, there is a constant need for reskilling. One has to work on
ones capacity to adapt. This kind of adaptation is not directed to a specific goal
that indicates how people should be. It is focussed on the normative principle
that development should encompass the individual as well as the group.
Individuation describes this process of adaptation to the new, while Bildung as a
term is mainly used as a goal for this adaptation.

Individuation
The term individuation was used by Simondon to indicate a process of
becoming. People are not complete, are not entities that can be affirmed as one
identity. We cannot claim that we are, by simply stating that. If we want to
understand the world and our experience of the world we need to postpone any
claims on what should be a ground for making this understanding possible. The
human as an entity is not given anymore. If we say I or we it is not clear on
how the two relate to other entities. The I presumes a we and visa versa
according to Simondon.
His goal is to understand the process of being as something that unfolds in time.
It cannot be affirmed by itself it needs something outside to realize its being.
At the moment that you can start talking about the individual you realize the
community as well. Not only through language (the means of the community by

which you realize meaning), but by making a distinction between yourself and
the other. Understanding yourself is realizing that you become in the process of
interaction. This is what Simondon describes as individuation; as a
communication process within. You make a difference inside by presupposing
yourself as belonging to a certain form (the social) but creating this form at the
same time (Scott, 126). This is what language does as medium. It takes
experiences as impressions and then frames these as notions in language. In
language the impressions get meaning. Language is the form but the notions you
use to express the impressions are not fixed. They get their meaning by relating
them to these impressions. The form is open to change or is in fact created in the
process of giving meaning to impressions. Form and content are both not fixed
entities but come about in the process of interaction (Scott, 33)
This is Simondons critique on Aristoteles notion of hylomorphism. In his
metaphysics every form presumes a certain singular unity that fits this form as
an independent attribute. (Scott, 30). To attribute a quality of being to something
means that there are at least two things in relation to one another that constitute
each other. It is as if organisation theory presumes organisations to be there as
something that exists by themselves. The theory as subject is naming the
organisation as some thing. But there is no subject independent of the object as
in a dialectical sense, both are created at the same time. This relational aspect of
things being formed in a certain way is the ground for understanding Simondons
notion of individuation. Matter is not in form, or informed but forms itself
through interaction (Scott, p.30). The way in which we can create meaning is by
technologies like language. Living organisms differ from things in the sense that
they are singularities but no identities. Becoming happens in many forms since it
is grounded on a tension within itself as something that needs to develop but
specifically in living organisms also open to its environment, which creates
another ground for change. A living organism is in constant confusion, the
tension with its environment is expressed in an interaction process of
communication which is in itself another form of becoming. It searches for
structures to create meaning. The process of creating meaning is what
Simondon describes as transduction resulting in individuation. Everything that

individuates has a potential of becoming something. This becoming happens in

an environment that is also becoming and that has a different potential.
Transduction
All these potentials together create a tension in time and space that are created
at the same time. This tension itself is the ground for the process of transduction.
You can describe this as a creative leap to an unknown future of being. It is a
state of becoming that is full of interaction, of communication to understand a
future world. Just like deduction and induction transduction tries to solve the
issues at hand of what meaning there is to experiencing this world (Scott, p.150).
It is a logic for emerging meaning, or logic of invention itself. We explore this
world through the process of transduction and at the same time we create this
world.
We have to relate to this world and through it we create meaning. As complex
organic entities we choose our being involved with the world. Sense and
meaning are created through these actions. At the same time we create our time
and our world because we give it certain meaning and act accordingly.
When you look at this individuation process as a kind of dialectical process you
miss a fundamental issue relating to history and memory (De Bestegui, p.150). In
a dialectical process time is presupposed as a constant that will end at a certain
time. Time in individuation is related to how we change through it. It never stops
changing. We only pretend to hold on to time through our memories imbedded
in stories. These stories are objects of meaning in which time resides as a
potential ground for change.
In a working environment these stories are also the ground for change within the
organisation.
Creating stories means that we use technology to capture our impressions and
make them into meaningful objects. Every time we use technology we create
these objects that need to be interpreted. In order to do so we need skill.
People work together with colleagues and use tools that form the ground for
their relationship. The recognition of skill and of potential gain in the
organisation is formed through the use of tools. These tools create meaning for
all organisms in the organisation. It is as McLuhan stated in the 60-ies; The

medium is the message (1965) or We shape our tools and therefore our tools
shape us (1971). Meaning is depending on how we relate to the technology we
use and how this technology is part of the imagination of a society or group of
people.
Stiegler explains these relations as twofold, both having to do with how we
create and use memories. Every technique creates a memory and all objects
coming from applying this technique as well. Take a picture from a camera. As a
technique it refers to how we are able to represent a moment at a certain place
to be framed by using a technological object. The camera clicks and a technical or
chemical process takes place that results in a representation on a piece of paper
or a screen. The whole process of making this representation is based upon years
of research and skill that resulted in the camera. This was a development by a
group of people who took this challenge of making a better representation at
heart. They developed a logic of representation, resulting in a technology that
enables people to use cameras. Time in this process can be described as on the
one hand related to the intensity of the imagination of the developers and on the
other hand based on their skill of cooperation. Both being forms of interaction, of
communication that is referred to by Simondon as transduction.
The other notion of time is related to the picture itself for the individual who
looks at it. It brings us back to a moment in time that we see on this image. Not
only the content makes us remember but the technical artefact itself as well. Its
texture and the way things are represented on it make us relate to a certain past.
It feels as if you have to cross time in order to recreate meaning in the present
when you get impressions of the image. The object enables you to make yourself
present as an entity of becoming. It presents you with the opportunity to project
yourself in the future.
This process is based in imagination by projecting a future on the ground of ones
experience. That is, on the ground of some interpretation of ones past, but also
the experience that is still in the body. When you have learned how to use the
camera, it becomes possible to make realistic projections about something you
want to picture. On the ground of these experiences we project possibilities for
ourselves and use them to work on our goals, ideals, etc. Being skilled means
being capable of such projections.

Transindividuation and the creation of meaning as social process

Placing skill and learning at the heart of meaning creation, means placing
technology and the social at the heart of a human organism. Thus it is technology
that makes organisations historical. It are the stories about why certain
techniques were more important than others and how these techniques enabled
a society to develop in a certain way which forms our culture and is called
transindividuation by Stiegler (2012). Consider everything that is specific about
a culture: it is always related to specific tools that create shared meaning.
Humans and organisations are historical entities, because of the possibility of
handing down skills that have some material ground. This is why we can still
remember Greek society and think of what they knew because of the skills and
technologies that conserve traces of their past - reading, writing, artefacts
through which we can imagine this as part of our past. Humans are cultural
beings, because of the possibility of preserving knowledge in stories, and
identities, through the techniques we share. How could a culture or organisation
(or organisational culture) exist without this material ground in which its
heritage is developed over time, without individuals continually (trans)forming
their future on the basis of this past? Thus a group of people that belong together
also individuate. They are also in the process of becoming based in their
technological milieu. Transindividuation and individual individuation coconstitute each other. The technology, individual and the society as a group
individuate together, which Stiegler calls organology. The organic as that which
creates the opportunity for growth is in the relations between these three
entities. Stiegler makes a claim in that it is our task to preserve this organology
and therefor makes this normative. It is this connection to a normative idea
about individuation that connects it to the ideals expressed in the term Bildung.
The call for Bildung in contemporary education has to do with a resistance to
alienation. Management in higher education demands from educators and
students alike that they adapt themselves to the systematics of accountability of
the organisation. This system has nothing to do with the goals educators and
students see for themselves within this organisation. The stories about the skills
they want to develop are not part of that system, hence the revolt against the

management. Short term goals related to financial profit is no ambition for

educators. The value of their work is sought in stimulating the imagination of
students to create a better world. To make financial gain equivalent to the
creation of a better world is to them alienating. Specifically in these times of
financial crisis.
How does individuation according to Stiegler work in education nowadays?
In education people are involved in learning new skills and need to be
inspired for creating a new future. They have to acquire skills and create
meaning in cooperation with others. The development of an individual depends
on how good its relationship is with others. The group or organisation develops
according to what the individuals bring to the interaction, teacher, manager or
other student. The challenge for all within the perspective of techniques and the
technical object as main source for development, is to enlarge the imagination.
In contemporary education this technology is mainly related to ICT. It is
predominantly used for designing programs that create particulars that measure
targets. Care for the individuation of all is generally not a goal, only the concern
for reaching well defined targets. An organology as Stiegler prescribes for
keeping the organisation healthy, can only blossom when the processes of
interaction between individuals and interaction within the group are related to
the techniques that are used. Not only the individuals in the organisation but the
organisation itself can only grow into its next phase of development when the
imagination related to the techniques used by all individuals as part of the
transduction within this culture is being addressed openly. While Simondon
describes the process of transduction as an immanent process of being, Stiegler
notices the possibilities under capitalist conditions that transduction is being
frustrated by consumption. Tensions within the organology are no longer in
open interval but blocked by consumption of individual entities. These entities
no longer develop into something based on a desire to change into a future
world, but are made dependent on the technology by becoming mere consumers
of it. Within an educational context you could recognise this as management
being absorbed in getting scores (like average score of graduates or amount of
student getting a degree within a certain time) higher as ultimate goal for the

quality in education. The software program that organises these scores becomes
the leading means for managers to evaluate their work and the way that they
interact with others in the organisation. The transduction process where
different forms of imagination collide based on different tools for evaluating
quality in education is hindered. The tools or technology that enables people to
interact become biased in the interaction. Since people depend in their
development on the way they can stimulate their imagination through the use of
technology, the process of transduction need to be open. Transduction becomes
in Stieglers terms no longer a term merely describing an ontological process but
is made in to a normative process.

In Simondon technology, the individual and the group have different

forms of transduction. Organic matter is multi-layered and has options in how to
develop into a next phase. Depending on how the inner tension is being framed,
other possibilities of transformation occur. Human beings experience the world
differently and therefor relate to others in many ways. The group and the
individual develop in many ways. Things are structured in such a way that they
transform in a prefixed process. For Stiegler the technological artefacts are not
separate from human beings; they develop in cooperation with human beings.
Our identity depends on the way we relate to these artefacts. We make sense of
the world by using technical objects that enable us to interact with others.
Stiegler adds to this that the change can go right or wrong in the sense
that individuation should stimulate imagination but not always does. If
technology is only one-sidedly evaluated it cannot grow into its potential as
ground for imagining a different future. Stiegler describes this process as
pharmacological. All technology works as medicine and poison at the same time.
In order to be working as a medicine the processes need to be given time so they
can create their own time as well. You need to learn every new technique in
order to use it as part of your imagination. At first new tools make you
heteronomous dependent on how it will affect you, but after some training and
experience it can help you shape your ideals and make you autonomous. Stiegler
calls this autonomy an expression of being free; being capable of desiring

something projected on the ground of some experience. Within the tradition of

education this is being framed as the choice for any human being to become what
he or she aspires. Stiegler connects autonomy to care, for oneself and each other,
(Stiegler, 2010). The first stage in dealing with new technologies is adaptation
(subjection) when one is still heteronomous, the second stage is adoption (care).
These are political choices made in a society. Autonomy and heteronomy are not
opposed though they are part of a continuous process of becoming (Stiegler
2013). Autonomy is not achieved once and for all after learning something. The
skills one had to master develops parallel to the technological developments
related to the skill. When writing was first done with a pen, one needed different
skills compared to contemporary keyboard interfaces for writing. Every new
capacity brings some form of incapacity of continuous change. These processes
are always taking place. Autonomy and heteronomy are two sides of the same
coin, which are part of the process of individuation.
Through Stieglers notion of individuation education can be framed as a
necessary ontological process of becoming. Traditionally the term refers to
upbringing and making children into responsible adults. Within the term bildung
this educational process is even explained as a need for making people free
citizen of a community that can take responsibility for actions. It is implied that
there should always be the possibility of choice for evaluating the value of
certain actions in relation to the goals of the community. This choice means that
bildung is a normative principle. Stieglers use of individuation refers to this
normative principle as well. We should be taking care of the pharmacological
qualities of our technology (Stiegler, 2010).
Take the example of assessing the quality in education. Since we have
moved in a globalized world comparisons between nation states has become
standard in looking at educational output. Through Program for International
Student Assesment (PISA) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) figures are being produced that make this comparison
possible. Everywhere in the world education should be directed to specific
targets based on maths, reading and science. Because of that differentiation
between systems of education is made irrelevant. The possibility for

communities to educate its people related to the needs and values of this
community is not part of the evaluation. How to interpret the scores based on
PISA becomes problematic in the sense that goals related to these scores are not
automatically linked to these needs and values. The systems of accountability are
not taking account of the values of this community. This also applies on an
organisational level in higher education. Educators are asked to organise their
work in such a way that it produces the right figures for certain programs. These
figures produce automatically statistics that indicate an average output that
make comparisons possible. The values educators have in relation to their
educational goals are not into consideration. The system of accountability is only
focussed on how to produce valuable outcomes for a computer programme. The
way in which these figures are produced depend on certain software to which
you have to make yourself familiar, which takes time. Every year management
introduces new software that demands adjustment again and thus takes more
time. Educators normally do not get this time to get to know the programme and
adopt it. This means that the output of these programs can not be made part of
their ambitions and imagination. This characteristic of ICT in education and
organisations in general, is that it speeds up processes of change within the
organisation. The reason why software programs are regularly updated is
because they need to be more encompassing and more efficient. Management
has found in ICT a means to desire or imagine ever more transparency and
efficiency, bringing the whole organisation into the realm of clear and specific
targets as part of management goals. Originally in education ICT was used to
measure results of pupils but very soon it started to measure others forms of
output as well. Educators have to work with systems to which they are
subordinate. In Flussers terms these educators become mere operators (Flusser,
2011). According to Stieglers such use of ICT makes educators only
heteronomous. Within the parameters of continuous learning, educators are not
able to learn to apply new technology for their purposes and ambitions. Their
imagination is cut short to behave as mere consumers of this information
technology. The poisonous effect of this technology is predominant.
This let some educators to picture their position as that of coolies (Jansen,
2009), indicating the darker side of being an educator in contemporary society.

The educator becomes a subaltern; on the one hand doing administratively what
is demanded of them by the organisation, but on the other hand trying to achieve
recognition for their educational goals with their students.
Educators need their skill in order to be able to facilitate transformation
for themselves and their pupils. This form of education is an ethical ground for
taking care of next generations as Stiegler frames it (2010). Being skilled means
being able to judge the consequences of your actions, at least to a minimal
degree. Having to work with new tools thus brings a situation in which an
educator is not capable of producing so called good work (Ewijk and
Kunneman, 2013) in an ethical sense, even if the result fits the goals the tools
were used for. If you cannot foresee the effects you produce, you cannot act
ethically. Skills and imagination go hand in hand with this concept of
individuation as part of education. Organisations need this type of education to
create the imagination of their professionals. They need to organise a ground for
dialogue within the organisation to make clear how skills produce meaning and
ambition.
Why a normative form of individuation in organisations?
Bildung and individuation can go together as notions for an organisation in their
development programme as long as the connotation in bildung to one perfect
goal are being set aside. Dealing with change and life long learning means that
we continuously have to learn new skills and be able to evaluate these skills
related to the goals of our organisation. Simondons notion of individuation can
help understand where imagination resides within the organism. Central
questions in making this notion applicable have to do with how we communicate
with what media, or tools and what notions of understanding are formed by
them, that give direction to the imagination in the organisation. On the one hand
this development is inevitable; it is the way organisation develop, but on the
other hand it also shows where development has choices or could get stuck
according to Stiegler. When it gets stuck individuation becomes individualisation
in which case members of the organisation have been made into mere
consumers of a production line. Where in the mid 20th century the concern was
for estrangement due to dull repetitive work in large factories on conveyer belts,

contemporary workers are alienated by information production lines that

demand the same kind of repetitive workflow without making sense to the
people involved. Stiegler calls this power in organisations noopower, the power
over the minds of the workers related to noopolitics (the politics of the mind)
that is a fundamental part of western capitalism(Stiegler, 2012, Barker 2012).
To frame these developments no longer as inevitable a need for choice should be
made aware in organisations. Training and educating people means giving them
opportunities to develop into members of the organisation that can take
responsibility for future developments. Bildung as individuation in Stieglers
terms could be a model for this type of education.

References
Biesta, G.J.J. (2010) Good education in an age of measurement. Ethics, Politics,
Democracy. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers ISBN 978-1594517914
De Boever et al. (2013) Gilbert Simondon, Being and Technology, Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh
Coeckelbergh, M. (2012) Technology as Skill and Activity: Revisiting the Problem of
Alienation. Techn 16 (3). p.208 230.
Combes, M. (2012) Gilbert Simondon and the Philosophy of the Transindividual,
MIT press, London
Ewijk, H. van and Kunneman, H. (2013) Praktijken van normatieve
professionalisering. Amsterdam: SWP.
Flusser, V. (2011) Into the universe of technical images. (Trans. N. A. Roth).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Horlacher R., (2004), Bildung, a Construction of History of Philosophy of Education,
Springer

Kohn, A. (2011) Feel-bad education. And other contrarian essays on children &
schooling. Boston: Beacon Press

Lemmens, P. (2011) This system does not produce pleasure anymore. An interview
with Bernard Stiegler. Krisis Journal for Contemporary Philosophy 1. p.33 41.
Scott, D. (2014) Gilbert Simondons Psychic and Collective Individuation, a critical
introduction and guide, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh
McLuhan M. (1964) Understanding Media, the extensions of man, McGraw Hill,
New YorkMcLuhan M., Nevitt, B.(1972) Take Today: the Executive as Dropout,
Harcourt Brace, New York
Nordenbo S.E., (2002), Bildung and the Thinking of Bildung, Journal of Philosophy
of Education vol. 36 nr. 3
Stiegler, B. (2010) Taking care of youth and the generations. (Trans. S. Barker).
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
(2012) Disbelief and Discredit. Volume 2: Uncontrollable societies of
disaffected individuals. (Trans. D. Ross). Cambridge: Polity.
(2013) What makes life worth living. On pharmacology. (Trans. D. Ross).
Cambridge: Polity.
(1994) La Technique et le temps. La faute d'pimthe. Paris: Editions
Galilee.
(1996) La Technique et le temps. La dsorientation. Paris: Editions Galilee
(2001). La Technique et le temps. Le temps du cinma et la question du maltre. Paris: Editions Galilee
(1998) Technics and time 1: the fault of Epimetheus. (Trans. R. Beardsworth and G.
Collins). Stanford: Stanford University Press.