学校教育与社会不平等的产生:我们能做什么,应该做什么?

Carmen Mills, T. Gale
{"title":"学校教育与社会不平等的产生:我们能做什么,应该做什么?","authors":"Carmen Mills, T. Gale","doi":"10.1080/17508480209556395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To speak of an ideal is to lay claim to what ought or should be and to explain ‘reality’ as deviation. That is, ideals serve to provide direction towards some desired goal as well as judgment about how well a perceived reality approximates that desire. In more recent times, the postmodernist critique has provided its own ‘reality check’ on modernist ideals, challenging the notion that there is one best way to reach utopian ends. The emergence of postmodern theories has signalled a general shift in 'the structure of feeling' from acquiescence to censure of the universal. But it is not as if there are no postmodern ideals. In these accounts, utopianism is more cogently understood as ‘heterotopianisms’. While we are convinced by such critique, that there are diverse goals of value and pathways to reach them, we admit to some uneasiness about a ‘postmodern pluralism’ in which ideals have the potential to wash away into relativism, where one ideal is as good as the next and ways of achieving them are also equally regarded. In this article we take up these matters in the context of schooling, particularly as they relate to socially just ideals and practices. We begin by testing how effective schooling ‘really’ is in advancing the interests of all students; asking for whom schooling is effective and the ways in which it recognises and deals with diverse interests. We then consider how things might be better, first in relation to what happens in classrooms and, second, with respect to what happens in school communities. In our view, these two interests – in who benefits (and who does not) by current social arrangements and what can be done about them – are the central tenets of a socially critical orientation. Given our disposition for recognitive justice, we also think the issues are about self-identity and respect, self-expression and development, and self-determination. We regard these as necessary conditions for socially just schooling; they form the ‘tests’ we apply, particularly in relation to how students are connected to schools and how decisions are made within their communities. We recognise that these matters are primarily concerned with the means rather than the ends of schooling although we do not entirely agree with the separation. Neither do we want to signal that a focus on recognitive justice is at the expense of distributive justice. ‘Who gets what’ remains an important issue. Here we address this from the perspective of ‘how’.","PeriodicalId":347655,"journal":{"name":"Melbourne Studies in Education","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Schooling and the production of social inequalities: What can and should we be doing?\",\"authors\":\"Carmen Mills, T. Gale\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17508480209556395\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To speak of an ideal is to lay claim to what ought or should be and to explain ‘reality’ as deviation. That is, ideals serve to provide direction towards some desired goal as well as judgment about how well a perceived reality approximates that desire. In more recent times, the postmodernist critique has provided its own ‘reality check’ on modernist ideals, challenging the notion that there is one best way to reach utopian ends. The emergence of postmodern theories has signalled a general shift in 'the structure of feeling' from acquiescence to censure of the universal. But it is not as if there are no postmodern ideals. In these accounts, utopianism is more cogently understood as ‘heterotopianisms’. While we are convinced by such critique, that there are diverse goals of value and pathways to reach them, we admit to some uneasiness about a ‘postmodern pluralism’ in which ideals have the potential to wash away into relativism, where one ideal is as good as the next and ways of achieving them are also equally regarded. In this article we take up these matters in the context of schooling, particularly as they relate to socially just ideals and practices. We begin by testing how effective schooling ‘really’ is in advancing the interests of all students; asking for whom schooling is effective and the ways in which it recognises and deals with diverse interests. We then consider how things might be better, first in relation to what happens in classrooms and, second, with respect to what happens in school communities. In our view, these two interests – in who benefits (and who does not) by current social arrangements and what can be done about them – are the central tenets of a socially critical orientation. Given our disposition for recognitive justice, we also think the issues are about self-identity and respect, self-expression and development, and self-determination. We regard these as necessary conditions for socially just schooling; they form the ‘tests’ we apply, particularly in relation to how students are connected to schools and how decisions are made within their communities. We recognise that these matters are primarily concerned with the means rather than the ends of schooling although we do not entirely agree with the separation. Neither do we want to signal that a focus on recognitive justice is at the expense of distributive justice. ‘Who gets what’ remains an important issue. Here we address this from the perspective of ‘how’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":347655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Melbourne Studies in Education\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Melbourne Studies in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480209556395\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Melbourne Studies in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480209556395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

所谓理想,就是主张什么是应当的,什么是应当的,而把现实解释为偏差。也就是说,理想提供了实现某些期望目标的方向,以及判断感知到的现实与愿望的接近程度。在最近的时代,后现代主义批判对现代主义理想提供了自己的“现实检查”,挑战了实现乌托邦目标的最佳方式的概念。后现代理论的出现标志着“情感结构”的普遍转变,从对普遍事物的默许到对普遍事物的谴责。但这并不是说没有后现代理想。在这些叙述中,乌托邦主义被更恰当地理解为“异托邦主义”。虽然我们相信这样的批评,有不同的价值目标和途径达到他们,我们承认一些不安的“后现代多元主义”的理想有可能被冲入相对主义,其中一个理想是一样好的下一个,实现它们的方式也同样受到重视。在本文中,我们在学校教育的背景下讨论这些问题,特别是当它们与社会公正的理想和实践有关时。我们首先测试学校教育在提高所有学生的兴趣方面是否“真正”有效;询问学校教育对谁是有效的,以及学校如何认识和处理不同的兴趣。然后,我们考虑如何使事情变得更好,首先是与课堂发生的情况有关,其次是与学校社区发生的情况有关。在我们看来,这两种利益——谁从当前的社会安排中受益(谁没有受益)以及对这些安排可以做些什么——是社会批判取向的核心原则。鉴于我们倾向于承认正义,我们也认为问题是关于自我认同和尊重,自我表达和发展,以及自决。我们认为这些是社会公平教育的必要条件;它们构成了我们应用的“测试”,特别是关于学生如何与学校联系以及如何在社区内做出决定。我们承认,这些问题主要是关于教育的手段而不是目的,尽管我们不完全同意这种分离。我们也不想表明,对承认正义的关注是以牺牲分配正义为代价的。“谁得到什么”仍然是一个重要问题。这里我们从“如何”的角度来解决这个问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Schooling and the production of social inequalities: What can and should we be doing?
To speak of an ideal is to lay claim to what ought or should be and to explain ‘reality’ as deviation. That is, ideals serve to provide direction towards some desired goal as well as judgment about how well a perceived reality approximates that desire. In more recent times, the postmodernist critique has provided its own ‘reality check’ on modernist ideals, challenging the notion that there is one best way to reach utopian ends. The emergence of postmodern theories has signalled a general shift in 'the structure of feeling' from acquiescence to censure of the universal. But it is not as if there are no postmodern ideals. In these accounts, utopianism is more cogently understood as ‘heterotopianisms’. While we are convinced by such critique, that there are diverse goals of value and pathways to reach them, we admit to some uneasiness about a ‘postmodern pluralism’ in which ideals have the potential to wash away into relativism, where one ideal is as good as the next and ways of achieving them are also equally regarded. In this article we take up these matters in the context of schooling, particularly as they relate to socially just ideals and practices. We begin by testing how effective schooling ‘really’ is in advancing the interests of all students; asking for whom schooling is effective and the ways in which it recognises and deals with diverse interests. We then consider how things might be better, first in relation to what happens in classrooms and, second, with respect to what happens in school communities. In our view, these two interests – in who benefits (and who does not) by current social arrangements and what can be done about them – are the central tenets of a socially critical orientation. Given our disposition for recognitive justice, we also think the issues are about self-identity and respect, self-expression and development, and self-determination. We regard these as necessary conditions for socially just schooling; they form the ‘tests’ we apply, particularly in relation to how students are connected to schools and how decisions are made within their communities. We recognise that these matters are primarily concerned with the means rather than the ends of schooling although we do not entirely agree with the separation. Neither do we want to signal that a focus on recognitive justice is at the expense of distributive justice. ‘Who gets what’ remains an important issue. Here we address this from the perspective of ‘how’.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信