教育政策は価値観に関与しないというテーゼの見直し : 自律する「情愛的個人」という視覚から(教育行政の社会的基盤,I 年報フォーラム)

抄録

This paper clarifies the problems that the theory of the division of interna and externa is now facing. In the late 1950s, in order to criticize educational policies based on the Law Concerning the Organization and Function of Local Educational Administration, Munakata Seiya formed a theory that divided educational factors into interna (=curriculum) and externa (=conditions which are not influential to curriculum). This theory has been widely used to prohibit educational policies intervening with people's values. This theory should now be critically examined for two reasons. First is that those factors categorised in the externa realm obviously have a remarkable influence on curriculum. Recruiting teachers, planning school buildings, and arranging classrooms are clear examples. Secondly, since the late 1980s, when the report of the Ad Hoc Council on Education was introduced, practical research on educational policies has been strongly called for. This, of course, means that research cannot be carried out only with the belief that government should stay passive. In reality, the way in which public authorities treat the private sphere has been changing. The Law for the Prevention of Spousal Violence and the Protection of Victims in 2001 and some other incidents have overtly influenced this change. Troubles and suffering occurring in the private sphere are now considered to be the society's problems. If governments choose not to intervene in people's lives, certain reasons should be presented. It is also now theoretically clear that the private and public spheres are firmly linked. Marxist feminism has shown a strong linkage on the economic side, spotlighting unpaid work in the private sphere. As if compensating for feminism, research results in social history have spotlighted the linkage on the emotional side, employing the aspect of 'mentality'. Edward Shorter, highlighting 'coupling (=marriage) systems', clarifies the generation of 'modern mentality'. This mentality is found at the base of modern society and has become the core of individualism, which Laurence Stone calls 'affective individualism'. Michel Foucault elucidates the modern state as employing a panopticism that is a self-control based on an individual's will or emotion to keep themselves in social order. Other than forcing people what to do, the state wishes to discipline people to adapt themselves voluntarily to what the society requires. However, the fact is that it is not always easy for people to be emotionally stable enough to control themselves, especially in an era of freedom that allows individuals to be liberated from established values and which maintains that people should find their own values. In this context, it is plausible that the state show its concern to see to it that its members are properly 'functioning' as autonomous individuals. As for the education system, which is a key method for governments to realize their goals, the sex education program introduced in the UK in 1994 is a good example of how a government polices their concerns. Education policy should be criticized, if necessary, with regard to examining its effectiveness and not only because policy concerns values. The content of this paper is as follows. 1 The purpose of the paper 2 Questioning the treatment of the private sphere (1) Opposition to the division theory of interna and externa (2) Non-intervention as laziness (3) 'The personal is political' 3 Self-control of 'affective individuals' (1) Affective individualism (2) Self-control 4 Securing self-controlling individuals (1) Hardship of self-control (2) Educational policies concerning values 5 Conclusion