讨论RE中的争议问题是促进社会凝聚力的灵丹妙药吗?基于以往研究的机遇与挑战映射

IF 1.4 0 RELIGION
Jan-Hendrik Herbst
{"title":"讨论RE中的争议问题是促进社会凝聚力的灵丹妙药吗?基于以往研究的机遇与挑战映射","authors":"Jan-Hendrik Herbst","doi":"10.1163/15709256-20231147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn the public debate, it is often argued that RE is important because it promotes social cohesion. In the academic debate, however, this position is controversial because, firstly, this goal is associated with a politicization of RE and, secondly, empirical evidence on whether or how RE causes this effect seems to be lacking. In this article, I argue first that cohesion is an adequate subgoal of RE, assuming a social rather than a state-political understanding of cohesion. Second, I refer to international studies on teaching controversial issues (CIs), which show that students can learn participation, tolerance, and common good orientation through high-quality exploration of CIs in class. However, due to methodological difficulties and negative side effects, the discussion of CIs in RE cannot be assumed to be a magic bullet for achieving cohesion. For instance, uncertainties and ambiguities accompany forms of dissent in the classroom, which may lead to authoritarian dispositions and political intolerance. In addition, there are particular challenges for inclusive and especially denominational RE in terms of teachers, issues, students, and external factors.","PeriodicalId":42786,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Theology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Discussing Controversial Issues in RE a Magic Bullet to Promote Social Cohesion? Mapping Opportunities and Challenges Based on Previous Research\",\"authors\":\"Jan-Hendrik Herbst\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15709256-20231147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nIn the public debate, it is often argued that RE is important because it promotes social cohesion. In the academic debate, however, this position is controversial because, firstly, this goal is associated with a politicization of RE and, secondly, empirical evidence on whether or how RE causes this effect seems to be lacking. In this article, I argue first that cohesion is an adequate subgoal of RE, assuming a social rather than a state-political understanding of cohesion. Second, I refer to international studies on teaching controversial issues (CIs), which show that students can learn participation, tolerance, and common good orientation through high-quality exploration of CIs in class. However, due to methodological difficulties and negative side effects, the discussion of CIs in RE cannot be assumed to be a magic bullet for achieving cohesion. For instance, uncertainties and ambiguities accompany forms of dissent in the classroom, which may lead to authoritarian dispositions and political intolerance. In addition, there are particular challenges for inclusive and especially denominational RE in terms of teachers, issues, students, and external factors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Theology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15709256-20231147\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15709256-20231147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在公开辩论中,人们经常认为可再生能源很重要,因为它能促进社会凝聚力。然而,在学术辩论中,这一立场是有争议的,因为首先,这一目标与可再生能源的政治化有关,其次,似乎缺乏关于可再生能源是否或如何造成这种影响的经验证据。在这篇文章中,我首先认为,凝聚力是RE的一个适当的子目标,假设对凝聚力的社会而非国家政治理解。其次,我参考了国际上关于教学争议问题(CI)的研究,这些研究表明,学生可以通过在课堂上高质量地探索CI来学习参与、宽容和共同的良好导向。然而,由于方法上的困难和负面副作用,不能认为RE中对CI的讨论是实现凝聚力的灵丹妙药。例如,不确定性和模糊性伴随着课堂上各种形式的异议,这可能导致独裁倾向和政治不容忍。此外,在教师、问题、学生和外部因素方面,包容性特别是教派RE面临着特殊的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is Discussing Controversial Issues in RE a Magic Bullet to Promote Social Cohesion? Mapping Opportunities and Challenges Based on Previous Research
In the public debate, it is often argued that RE is important because it promotes social cohesion. In the academic debate, however, this position is controversial because, firstly, this goal is associated with a politicization of RE and, secondly, empirical evidence on whether or how RE causes this effect seems to be lacking. In this article, I argue first that cohesion is an adequate subgoal of RE, assuming a social rather than a state-political understanding of cohesion. Second, I refer to international studies on teaching controversial issues (CIs), which show that students can learn participation, tolerance, and common good orientation through high-quality exploration of CIs in class. However, due to methodological difficulties and negative side effects, the discussion of CIs in RE cannot be assumed to be a magic bullet for achieving cohesion. For instance, uncertainties and ambiguities accompany forms of dissent in the classroom, which may lead to authoritarian dispositions and political intolerance. In addition, there are particular challenges for inclusive and especially denominational RE in terms of teachers, issues, students, and external factors.
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
1.00
自引率
25.00%
发文量
7
×
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