There is an alluring and haunting desire of modernity of science as the elixir for enabling the good life of a just and equitable society. The enduring hope is that research - its rules, standards, and distinctions – can describe and change social conditions for the better collective and individual life. The desires entangled in the social sciences embody practices in making the kinds of people that anticipate that “better life” as the good citizen, parent, or worker. The desire of activating the good life and people haunts the 19^th century emergence of the social and educational sciences and their inscriptions in American Progressive schools of the early 20^th century. The sciences carried philosophical ideals of the potentialities of children in the curriculum and learning psychologies ordering the conduct of children. The paper explores this allure of science in three icons of the sciences relates to the formation of pedagogy in the American common school: G. Stanley Hall’s Child Studies, Edward L. Thorndike’s Connectionist psychology, and John Dewey’s anthropological psychology. Four themes organize the analysis:It explores how these sciences perform as a social actor. They epistemes or ‘styles of reasoning” that generate patterns of recognition and expectations of experiences. The calculative practices of science in the school curriculum are explored as anticipatory practices about the potentialities of kinds of people that are elided in a non-polemic language such as “intelligent action”, creativity, curiosity, “needs”, and motivation. Second, the sciences “act” as desires inscribed in the cognitive structuring as the will-to-know. Third, the sciences were comparative. While all science is comparative, the comparative reasoning of the social and psychological sciences were double gestures; gestures of hope of activating the potentialities-to-be of the child that imagines the good life. And simultaneous in gestures of hope were gestures to the potentialities-not-to-be, those qualities affectively directly to the dangers and dangerous populations threatening that hope. Fourth, patterns of recognition and expectations of the sciences travels and settles in schooling as a space of action. The knowledge that travels into the school is thought of as an external knowledge that travels into the internal qualities of the school to activate the “good” social and individual life, what I call indigenous foreigners. The reading of the sciences in school, however, is never a sole act. Science enters the school at the interstices of multiple ideas, traditions, historical and cultural traditions, what I explore as traveling libraries. The “libraries” are affectively attached and mobilized as a system of reason in registers of children’s learning and the expertise of the teacher.

Chile, as soon as it gained independence from Spain in 1810, set itself the task of consolidating the republic and, along with it, building and expanding its own public education system. As it was not an easy task to quickly gain independence from Spain, the young State, on the one hand, had no alternative but to force the Catholic Church to cooperate in this task and, on the other hand, concentrated its efforts on creating new educational institutions with the objective of having an educational system in a relatively short period of time. With this objective in mind, the government imported countless foreign pedagogical ideas and practices to guide and govern the education system, mainly English and French (1813); even from Latin America with Andrés Bello (1842) and Sarmiento (1842). However, Germany became, years later, the dominant reference country for a long time (1883-1910), when it came to undertake substantive reforms to the education system. Despite the efforts of the State, the results of educational policy were not very encouraging at the turn of the 20th century: more than 50% of the population was illiterate; children dropped out of school early; the State lacked the legal means for children to attend school; there were very few well-trained teachers; there were two public systems that did not cooperate with each other: primary schools for poor children and high schools and lyceums for the better-off children. An important part of society and the teaching profession associated the educational problem with the excessive ‘foreignization” of the education system. The solution to this problem was the ‘nationalization” of education, that is, the decolonization of the educational system from foreign educational influence -especially German- and to have a law of compulsory primary education as soon as possible. The motto was: American education for the American child (Labarca, 1939). In view of this purpose, the United States was considered an example for the solution of the country’s educational and economic problems. It is in this context that the Chilean government decided to send four teachers to the United States in 1905 to study and improve their systems of primary education and teacher training, among other subjects. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to present in an analytical and comparative way the relationship between the central pedagogical ideas and practices, contained in the 13 memoirs of the travel commission, rescued from the Revista de Instrucción Primaria (1907-1909), and the educational ideas and practices contained in the Ley de Educación Primaria Obligatoria (LEPO). This relationship, by the way, alludes to a pedagogical and epistemic turn in primary education, which can be understood -this is the central thesis -as a relatively successful attempt of late decolonization of the primary education subsystem in Chile. Finally, we want to discuss whether, being a decolonization with ideas lending and borrowed from the United States, it necessarily leads to a new cultural dependence or, in other words, to a kind of internal colonization of primary education in Chile.

Chile, apenas independizado de España en 1810, se dio a la tarea de consolidar la república y, junto con ello, construir y expandir un sistema público de enseñanza propio. Como no era una tarea fácil independizarse rápidamente de España, el joven Estado, por una parte, no tuvo otra alternativa que obligar a la Iglesia Católica a cooperar en esta tarea y, por otra parte, concentró sus esfuerzos en crear nuevas instituciones educativas con el objetivo de contar con un sistema de enseñanza en un plazo relativamente corto. Con este objetivo, el Gobierno importó un sinnúmero de ideas y prácticas pedagógicas extranjeras que permitieran orientar y gobernar el sistema de enseñanza, principalmente inglesas y francesas (1813); incluso de América Latina con Andrés Bello (1842) y Sarmiento (1842). Sin embargo, Alemania se convirtió años más tarde, en el país de referencia dominante por largo tiempo (1883-1910), a la hora de emprender reformas sustantivas al sistema de enseñanza. No obstante los esfuerzos del Estado, los resultados de la política educativa no eran muy alentadores a la llegada del siglo XX: más del 50% de la población era analfabeta; los niños abandonaban tempranamente la escuela; el Estado carecía de los medios legales para que los niños asistieran a la escuela; habían muy pocos profesores bien formados; habían dos sistemas públicos que no cooperaban entre sí: escuelas primarias para niños pobres y las preparatorias y liceos para los niños de más recursos. Una parte importante de la sociedad y del magisterio asociaba el problema educativo con la excesiva “extranjerización” del sistema de enseñanza. La solución a este problema era la “nacionalización” de la enseñanza, es decir, la descolonización del sistema de enseñanza de la influencia educativa extranjera -sobre todo, la germana- y contar lo antes posible con una ley de educación primaria obligatoria. El lema era: educación americana para el niño americano (Labarca, 1939). Ante este propósito, Estados Unidos se considera ejemplo para la solución del problema educativo y económico del país. Es en este contexto que el Estado chileno decide enviar en 1905 a cuatro normalistas al país del norte a perfeccionarse y estudiar sus sistemas de enseñanza primario y de formación de profesores, entre otros temas. Por consiguiente, el objetivo de esta ponencia es presentar de manera analítica y comparada la relación existente entre las ideas y prácticas pedagógicas centrales, contenidas en las 13 memorias de la comisión de viaje, rescatadas de la Revista de Instrucción Primaria (1907-1909), y las ideas y prácticas educativas contenidas en la Ley de Educación Primaria Obligatoria (LEPO). Esta relación, por cierto, alude a un giro pedagógico y epistémico en la enseñanza primaria, que puede entenderse –esta es la tesis central– como un intento relativamente exitoso de descolonización tardía del subsistema de enseñanza primaria en Chile. Por último, queremos discutir si, al ser una descolonización con ideas tomadas y prestadas desde Estados Unidos, conlleva necesariamente a una nueva dependencia cultural o, dicho de otra manera, a un tipo de colonización interna de la educación primaria en Chile.

In 2024, we celebrate the 300th anniversary of Immanuel Kant's birth. In keeping with the anniversary, a critical look at his work will be expected and undoubtedly worthwhile. In a way, this is what this paper aims to do. In 1803, the text "On Pedagogy" was published for the first time in German, with the authorship attributed to Kant. Shortly after its publication, this work was translated into Danish and Italian (1807 and 1808, respectively); to date, the text has been translated into 18 languages and is available in 100 translations, including new editions. Interest seems to have increased significantly in the last 24 years, with 16 first editions in foreign languages alone since 2000. If you colour in all the nations on a world map where the text has been published to date, you can speak of a global distribution of the text (Laub/Mikhail 2023). However, this does not take into account that the spread of languages does not necessarily coincide with national borders, nor does it consider that the publication of the text is not the same as its reception. Nevertheless, it can be asked whether the spread of this writing is a form of colonisation of pedagogical thought.
The proposed contribution refers to an ongoing research project and focuses its analysis on the prefaces and introductions (Wirth 2004) to the translations of the text "On Pedagogy".

• What is it that attracts people to Kant and this text specifically?
• How do the editors frame the text? In other words, in what national, institutional or epistemological context do they place it?
• What expectations are associated with the text, and to which (historical) problems is it proposed as an answer (especially with the references to cosmopolitism)?
• Who are the editors, and in what contexts do they operate?
• To what extent are (pedagogical, anthropological) ideas adopted, transferred or translated here?
• Can the thesis of colonisation with Kant, a "world tour" (Laub/Mikhail 2023), be upheld?

The "history of education" is not only a history of educational thinking or the historical conditions of education and schools (Troehler/Horlacher 2019; Bruno-Jofré/Troehler 2014). From a historicising perspective, it also takes a (comparative) look at the (transnational) developments and dissemination of ideas and concepts (Popkewitz 2005, 2013), which are ultimately also reflected in policies (Lindblad/Popkewitz 2004). Initial analyses show that the prefaces both classify the text in terms of content and pedagogy (about the child, cf Davids 1899) and, at the same time (carefully) point out the respective contextualisation (picking up Kant's "Weltbürger", cf Davids 1899). In line with the above questions, the lecture will be orientated more towards the second perspective mentioned here (but will not completely disregard the former). The planned transnational and historical comparison (Popkewitz 2014) of the English-, French- and Italian-language prefaces, dating from 1808 to 2015, will provide insights into the contextualisation and institutionalisations of pedagogical thought in the editors' self-chosen locations.