教師教育における〈排除／包摂〉の複層性

トーマス・S・ポプケヴィッツの「二重のジェスチャー」の 議論を中心に

抄録

This paper provides a theoretical basis for examining “exclusion/inclusion” in teacher education, which has been attracting attention in recent years. Despite this interest, opportunities to learn about minorities are scarce in teacher education. In Japan, the “poverty/exclusion theory” centered on the sociology of education has identified the exclusion of the children living in poverty both inside and outside of schools. However, in teacher education research, few have considered a theoretical perspective that captures the multilayered structure of “exclusion/ inclusion.” 　　 In this paper, I examine the arguments of Thomas S. Popkewitz, an American education scholar, focusing on how he discusses “inclusion/exclusion” in teacher education and reconstructs his argument. Therefore, I argue that Popkewitz views teacher education as an activity of “governance” and that terms such as “alchemy” and “double gesture” capture the multilayered and complex interweaving of “exclusion/inclusion.” Based on his argument, I examine current Japanese teacher education. Consequently, I discover a situation that coincides with the “double gesture” highlighted by Popkewitz on the positions of “poverty.” 　　 This study is organized as follows. First, I focus on existing teacher education research on the theme of “exclusion/inclusion,” especially the “poverty/exclusion theory,” and clarify the problems with the help of the debate. To overcome these problems, I consider Popkewitz’s argument, using Popkewitz’s term “double gesture” as a starting point for a discussion of the multiple layers of “exclusion/inclusion” in teacher education. Additionally, by connecting Popkewitz’s argument to the debate on poverty studies, this paper elaborates on the perspective of understanding the positioning of “poverty” in teacher education. As an example of examining this framework’s possibilities and limitations, I examine the positioning of “poverty” in the Core Curriculum for Teacher Education compiled in 2017. Finally, I discuss the direction required for future teacher education research.