Abstract
Focusing on the controversy concerning "Reformpädagogik" (="New Education" in Germany) from the 1980s to the 1990s, this thesis aims to provide an outline of the specific methods of relativization of "Reformpädagogik" and their variations arising in this controversy and to explore the theoretical background that made this relativization possible. Through this research, I examine the methods of relativizing the pedagogical canon (the knowledge and texts viewed as standard in pedagogy) and their problems. After outlining the aims of this thesis in Section 1, Section 2 examines the following methods of inquiry as important studies that attempt to analyze "Reformpädagogik" as a conceptual construct and summarizes their distinctive characteristics: (1) the systems theory method of Niklas Luhmann and Karl-Eberhard Schorr; (2) the method of the "critical historical study of dogma" of Jürgen Oelkers; (3) the history of pedagogical philosophy method of Dietrich Benner and Herwart Kemper; and (4) the pedagogical history method of Heinz-Elmar Tenorth. In Section 3, I show that "postmodern thought" played a vital role as an important background to researches for "Reformpädagogik". The Section focuses especially on the fact that differences can be seen among relativization theories with regard to the fictional nature of "Reformpädagogik". While Oelkers stresses the fictional nature of "Reformpädagogik", Tenorth states that it can be described in terms of "historical-social recognizing," basing his argument on the results of social history, among other factors. In this section, I examine the validity of "historical-social recognizing". In Section 4, having confirmed that "Reformpädagogik"-relativization-theory still exerts considerable influence in pedagogical discussions today, I consider what significance the controversy of the 1980s and 1990s has for contemporary pedagogical theory.
