フリッツ・オスターヴァルダー「ペスタロッチー研究のひとつの問題について」

偶像化から批判的距離化へ

抄録

This paper discusses the possibility of the rebirth of Pestalozzi as a classical author in pedagogical historiography. For some time by now Pestalozzi's pedagogical values have been based on his establishment of the 'Bildung' idea. Since the arrival of Luhmann/Shchorr's 'Reflexionsproblem im Erziehungssystem' at the latest, however, Pestalozzi's status as a classical author has undergone considerable depreciation because the former sentenced Pestalozzi's idea of 'Bildung' as dysfunctional as a normative guideline for the decision of modern pedagogical problems.
This paper examines the recent works by Oelkers and Osterwalder which demythologize Pestalozzi. They pose a radical challenge to the established scholarship on Pestalozzi by claiming that the whole Pestalozzi studies so far have simply contributed to his mythologization.
I will argue that the salient accomplishment of demythologization consists in the destruction of the authoritative structure of the past Pestalozzi studies which had the effect of preventing new approaches to the subject, as well as in its location of a new ideological and social context of Pestalozzi's pedagogical ideas. At the same time, however, my analysis shows that the demythologization takes us nowhere with regards to the rebirth of Pestalozzi. Thus I would like to conclude that a way out for the program of his rebirth may be found in Luhmann's suggestion to the effect that the subject matter of study should not be confounded with theory or problem solving. In other words, we should refrain from trying to solve current problems by analyzing classical works. For analysis of classical works becomes valuable only when they are simultaneouly sustained by our theoretical interest in the construction of new theories which will serve for the pedagogical decision making in our own days.