The straightforward concept of “voice” refers not only to the physiological and acoustic “sound” but also to the socio-cultural phenomenon of “asserting an individual opinion.” Between the minority whose right to raise their voices is oppressed and those involved in that oppression, political tensions inevitably arise over liberation from oppression.

 However, if people have much to gain in their daily lives by avoiding the tensions that come with speaking out, they will suppress their own voices. If education as a discourse distribution system promotes the de-manifestation of the political “voice,” then we are already narrowing the base of publicness and the opportunity for democratic correction of the tyranny of the majority in a curriculum that fosters human freedom and publicness shaped by emphasis on minority freedom of thought, conscience, speech, and expression.

 In considering the problematic “voice” system, this study draws support from the philosophy of Maxine Greene (1917–2014). In particular, it emphasizes the literary approach she utilized for philosophical argumentation and the central role she assigned to the arts in curriculum development.

 This study is structured as follows. First, it organizes the criticisms of Greene's literary approach, in order to express the “voices” of people swirling in the lifeworld and show the characteristics of this approach.

 Specifically, based on analysis of Green's writings and articles, the study examines the frameworks and critiques related to interpreting her as an existential phenomenologist, pragmatist, and literary critic. It explores Greene's own “voice” as a woman practicing a feminist philosophy of education, an aspect not detailed in other frameworks. Throughout her career in academia, her colleagues often criticized her approach as being “too soft,” “too literary,” and “too female.” However, these criticisms from male ordinary language philosophers provided a “reality enforcement” indeed: Virginia Woolf's concept of “shock-receiving capacity,” discovering and expressing one's own voice by writing about the shock of multiple realities beyond what the majority considers “real” in ordinary life, influenced Greene's approach to the feminist philosophy of education.

 Next, referring to the multiplicities of “voice” that inspired Greene, the study presents her philosophy of aesthetic education and artistic-aesthetic curriculum structure as a response to the problematic “voice” system. This structure, called the “arts' centrality,” gives students' lifeworlds presence through the encounter with aesthetic symbol systems, and makes the students' voices real by putting them into the arts constructs shared by the art worlds between cultural majorities and minorities, thus opening public spaces in schools. For Greene, education involves creating these open spaces and prompting educators to critically assess their own cultures. Education aims to develop the “shock-receiving capacity” by understanding one's own “voice” in tandem with the learner.

 As the number of World War II survivors declines, the issue of how to pass on the memory of war becomes more important. Most memory studies that focus on this subject criticize the history of the nation-state as a grand narrative and insist on the importance of passing on the memory of each individual citizen. These memory studies often refer to Maurice Halbwachs' theory of collective memory (mémoire collective).

 Many previous studies on collective memory have focused exclusively on the interpretation that the past is reconstructed from the perspective of the present. However, the most significant feature of Halbwachs' theory of memory is that he views memory as a collective. Therefore, this paper focuses on the concept of "collectif" to clarify the truth of Halbwachs' theory of collective memory.

 First, the paper clarifies the social and ideological background that led Halbwachs to conceive of collective memory. For this purpose, it focuses on the solidarité concepts raised by Renouvier and Durkheim. What they had in common was the a priori positing of personality (personnalité) as universal and transcendent. Human relations based on this concept of solidarité did not respect the individuality of people, who ought to be unique and diverse, but rather integrated all members of the group into a universal and transcendent personality in general.

 Next, the paper examines Halbwachs' theory of memory as an idea that attempts to critically overcome the solidarité concept. In particular, the paper focuses on the concept of collectif, which is a characteristic of the theory of collective memory. Important in this concept is the idea of continuously generated diverse memories. These memories are generated through the concrete interactions that occur constantly in the actual world (le monde) in which diverse people live. According to Halbwachs, these memories are different from history, which he criticizes in its form of positivist historiography. This history, based on "authentic" sources, neither generates nor transforms.

 Based on the theory of memory, which emphasizes the concept of collectif as clarified in this paper, previous studies that have interpreted collective memory in terms of constructionism have overlooked an important aspect of Halbwachs' theory of memory. Certainly, it is significant that previous studies have criticized the "history of the nation-state" which may exclude the memory of some citizens. However, the most important point of Halbwachs' criticism of positivist history is that it is fixed and not open to transformability. This critique might also be directed at the memory of citizens, which has been made a counterpoint to the history of the "nation-state." For example, the memories of war survivors may be considered "sacred" because of the absoluteness of their experiences. This view, however, may render their memories fixed. These memories should be open to the possibility of continued transformation and generation through interaction with diverse people in the actual world.

 Reformpädagogik is one of the most controversial concepts in German pedagogy. After its critical examination as an epochal concept, it was developed into a systematic concept for examining educational reform. Since then, Reformpädagogik has been understood as a concept referring to the ever-reformable function of the modern educational system. Several assumptions are involved when Reformpädagogik is understood as the “ever-reformability of education.” First, the purpose of Reformpädagogik is the new “normalization and/or nationalization” of education. Second, the “ever-reformability of education” is based on the polar understanding of “non-reform versus reform.” Third, reform, which supposedly operates with some intentionality, is handled through self-reference and autopoiesis of the system.

 However, caution is required with regard to the uncritical acceptance of the relationship between education and reform as “the ever-reformability of education”; the tendency of educational reform to find an ideal image from a perspective not necessarily based on the logic of pedagogy has been noted in the current situation. Therefore, in a situation where it is difficult for pedagogy to present its own ideal image in a normative approach, the practices compatible with the current social situation are “reformative.” This is the new “general pedagogy.” In this case, the construction of the ideal image is not considered, and the only role expected of the educational system is to create the technology for the new “general pedagogy” being proposed.

 How can a pedagogically oriented theory of educational reform that includes social reform be formulated in response to a reform situation subordinated by social change? This article is based on the problematic assumption that Reformpädagogik, as “the reformability of education,” cannot function effectively today because it is based on “normalization as the goal of reform,” “the polar understanding of non-reform/reform,” and “the unquestioning of the norms by which reform operates.” Therefore, this article aims to educe a format of thought about educational reform by reconstructing the discussion of Reformpädagogik. For this purpose, the article summarizes the development of Reformpädagogik research in German pedagogy and presents an understanding of Reformpädagogik that critically examines the premise of its image as the “ever-reformability of education.”

 Based on the understanding of Reformpädagogik presented by Theodor Schulze, Alban Schraut, and Ralf Koerrenz, this article relativizes the premise of Reformpädagogik as the “ever-reformability of education.” The following three points characterize the consideration of educational reform based on “pedagogical orientations”: (1) Reform does not mean 'new' or 'better', but only an alternative way. (2) Educational reform always operates on the basis of some norm. It is therefore important to understand what the reforms’ 'criteria' take as their worldviews or values. (3) It is necessary to envision educational reforms that include social reforms based on “pedagogical orientations,” distinct from education reforms dependent on social change. Educational reform is based on the plurality of “goodness” in education.