超越 "真实与蓝图 "二分法的教育乌托邦主义

IF 0.9 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Marianna Papastephanou
{"title":"超越 \"真实与蓝图 \"二分法的教育乌托邦主义","authors":"Marianna Papastephanou","doi":"10.1007/s11217-024-09951-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Much educational utopianism revolves around the “real versus blueprint utopia” dichotomy and the prescriptive normativity that utopian education involves. In this paper, I suggest that the “real and blueprint” distinction should not be dichotomized and that a richer set of normativities, apart from prescription, should operate in educational utopias. Ethico-politically and educationally, it is crucial to have affirmative rather than incriminatory utopias, regardless of their being real or blueprint. To argue this out, first I introduce the concepts of incriminatory and affirmative utopianism. Next, I sketch the educational-theoretical setting and discuss the current reliance on the “real versus blueprint utopia” dichotomy. Then I use the conceptual tool of incriminatory utopianism to show that risks of totalitarianism threaten all visions (even liberal anti-utopian ones) and not only blueprint utopianism. Therefore, we need not dichotomize real and blueprint utopias and embrace the former unconditionally. I conclude with some illustrations of why utopian thought involves multiple normativities rather than prescriptivism alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":47069,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Philosophy and Education","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Educational Utopianism beyond the “Real versus Blueprint” Dichotomy\",\"authors\":\"Marianna Papastephanou\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11217-024-09951-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Much educational utopianism revolves around the “real versus blueprint utopia” dichotomy and the prescriptive normativity that utopian education involves. In this paper, I suggest that the “real and blueprint” distinction should not be dichotomized and that a richer set of normativities, apart from prescription, should operate in educational utopias. Ethico-politically and educationally, it is crucial to have affirmative rather than incriminatory utopias, regardless of their being real or blueprint. To argue this out, first I introduce the concepts of incriminatory and affirmative utopianism. Next, I sketch the educational-theoretical setting and discuss the current reliance on the “real versus blueprint utopia” dichotomy. Then I use the conceptual tool of incriminatory utopianism to show that risks of totalitarianism threaten all visions (even liberal anti-utopian ones) and not only blueprint utopianism. Therefore, we need not dichotomize real and blueprint utopias and embrace the former unconditionally. I conclude with some illustrations of why utopian thought involves multiple normativities rather than prescriptivism alone.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Philosophy and Education\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Philosophy and Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-024-09951-6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Philosophy and Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-024-09951-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多教育乌托邦主义都围绕着 "真实与蓝图乌托邦 "二分法以及乌托邦教育所涉及的规范性规定展开。在本文中,我认为不应将 "真实与蓝图 "二分,除了规定性之外,教育乌托邦还应有更丰富的规范性。在伦理政治和教育方面,无论乌托邦是真实的还是蓝图的,关键是要有肯定性的乌托邦,而不是指责性的乌托邦。为了论证这一点,我首先介绍了入罪乌托邦主义和肯定乌托邦主义的概念。接下来,我将勾勒出教育理论的背景,并讨论当前对 "真实乌托邦与蓝图乌托邦 "二分法的依赖。然后,我使用 "有罪乌托邦主义 "这一概念工具来说明,极权主义的风险威胁着所有愿景(甚至是反乌托邦的自由主义愿景),而不仅仅是乌托邦蓝图。因此,我们不必将现实乌托邦与蓝图乌托邦对立起来,无条件地接受前者。最后,我将举例说明为什么乌托邦思想涉及多重规范性,而不仅仅是规定主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Educational Utopianism beyond the “Real versus Blueprint” Dichotomy

Much educational utopianism revolves around the “real versus blueprint utopia” dichotomy and the prescriptive normativity that utopian education involves. In this paper, I suggest that the “real and blueprint” distinction should not be dichotomized and that a richer set of normativities, apart from prescription, should operate in educational utopias. Ethico-politically and educationally, it is crucial to have affirmative rather than incriminatory utopias, regardless of their being real or blueprint. To argue this out, first I introduce the concepts of incriminatory and affirmative utopianism. Next, I sketch the educational-theoretical setting and discuss the current reliance on the “real versus blueprint utopia” dichotomy. Then I use the conceptual tool of incriminatory utopianism to show that risks of totalitarianism threaten all visions (even liberal anti-utopian ones) and not only blueprint utopianism. Therefore, we need not dichotomize real and blueprint utopias and embrace the former unconditionally. I conclude with some illustrations of why utopian thought involves multiple normativities rather than prescriptivism alone.

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
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Studies in Philosophy and Education is an international peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the philosophical, theoretical, normative and conceptual problems and issues in educational research, policy and practice. As such, Studies in Philosophy and Education is not the expression of any one philosophical or theoretical school or cultural tradition. Rather, the journal promotes exchange and collaboration among philosophers, philosophers of education, educational and social science researchers, and educational policy makers throughout the world. Contributions that address this wide audience, while clearly presenting a philosophical argument and reflecting standards of academic excellence, are encouraged. Topics may range widely from important methodological issues in educational research as shaped by the philosophy of science to substantive educational policy problems as shaped by moral and social and political philosophy and educational theory. In addition, single issues of the journal are occasionally devoted to the critical discussion of a special topic of educational and philosophical importance. There is also a frequent Reviews and Rejoinders’ section, featuring book review essays with replies from the authors.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信