The purpose of this paper is to clarify the distinctive features of Karl Marx's educational thought. Many studies on Marx fail to distinguish Marxism from Marx. However, Marx's thought is different from Marxism and has distinctively historical meanings. This paper pays attention to Marx's criticism of Max Stirner in “Die deutsche Ideologie”. Because Stirner developed the criticism of pedagogy in “Der Einzige und sein Eigentum”, Marx's educational thought can be reconstructed by means of Marx's criticism of Stirner.
Stirner assumed that the rule of the spirit by the concept of “Man” was a distinctive feature of modernity and that education was its means. He criticized the suppression of the individual by “Man”. Before Stirner's book was published Marx had envigioned “Communism as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man”. Stirner' s criticism turned out to match this Vision of communism and awakened Marx from philosophical consciousness. Marx thus stopped regarding the human essence as the assumption of the discussion and came to understand it as “the ensemble of social relations” based on the materialistic view of history. He called the refusal of this human essence theory the settlement of account with philosophical conscience. Because Stirner's pedagogy was based upon the assumption of the human essence, it can be considered that the settlement of account with philosophical conscience implied the settlement of account with pedagogical conscience. Marx changed the way of viewing pedagogy of terms of the human essence theory by explaining how such an idea as “Man” was abstracted from material relations.

抄録全体を表示

This paper examines Charles Taylor's idea of self-becoming in his cultural-pluralistic philosophy with a focus on his “anti-naturalistic” notion of the self. Although Taylor and his essay “The Politics of Recognition” have been introduced as the philosophy of multiculturalism or communitarianism in contemporary educational studies, it is not well understood that his cultural-pluralistic ideas are inspired, influenced and invoked by his sympathy with modern Romanticism and antipathy against modern naturalism concerning the concept of self-understanding. I characterize his philosophy of self-becoming as “anti-naturalism” and attempt to clarify his contributions to education including multicultural education.
First, this paper conducts an analysis of Taylor's original notion of the “selfinterpreting” self with reference to his stance against modern natural sciences of man. Through this examination, we recognize that Taylor proposes the dialogical and hermeneutic notion of the self or self-becoming against the disengaged, neutral, or atomistic view of the self in natural sciences.
Second, I present his “anti-naturalistic” philosophy of self-becoming as one based upon his positive evaluation of the ideas of individuality and authenticity in modern Romanticism. This is a view that an individual self is constituted by language and hence embedded in community, culture and history. I argue that the Romantic idea of the self is central to his “anti-naturalist” interpretation of the self as he views Romanticism as a reactionary movement against the analytic science of man in Enlightenment.
Finally, as Taylor claims that the world of education is the main locus of multiculturalism, I examine his contribution to education including multicultural education. The conclusion runs as follows : Taylor's “anti-naturalistic” philosophy suggests the possibilities of multicultural education for us to rethink modern education from the standpoint of his Romantic appreciation of the originality of the individual and culture, while at the same time his philosophy has difficulties precisely because of that position.

抄録全体を表示

It is a specific conceptualization of the twentieth century, the century of the linguistic turn, that language is in general 'performative'. Building from Austinian notion of performativity and Althusseruan notion of interpellation, this essay explores the production/construction of the subjects based upon the main work of Judith Butler.
Butler begins with her contention that as linguistic beings, our existence is unavoidably dependent on language. For her, the subject is constructed through the process of subjection; it can be explained as the simultaneous process of becoming the subject and being compelled to participate in reproducing dominant discourse. Butler's understanding that the status of the subject is thus constituted and her insistence that the compelled reiteration of conventions is the essence of performativity help us clarify how the subject is unwittingly complicit in sustaining hegemonic social structures.
To deconstruct this discursive and social formation involving the subject, it is necessary to focus on the very process of the construction of the subject. As Butler explains the subject is subjected to a norm while being the agent of its use. Accordingly if the formation of the subject is the repeated inculcation of the norm, it will be possible to repeat that norm in unexpected ways. The norms of performative identity resemble the sign, and they are vulnerable to the recitation of the same and semantic excesses. The subject performatively and linguistically constituted is not ultimately defined by the interpellative call; neither is the subject fully determined or radically free from the deployed discourse. Steering a careful middle course between voluntarism and determinism, Butler distances herself from the strategic deployment of the category of the “essential” identity in political practices. What she offers instead is rejection and resignification in her alternative political mode.
Crucially, the deconstruction of the subject is by no means equivalent to its destruction as Butler argues. In seeking out the instabilities of language and of the constitutive terms of identity we are guided to a new sense of ethics, with the limit and inevitable opacity of the subject that always fails to define itself.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this paper is to examine new eugenics and education.
For the last several years, such ideas as “Designers Baby” and “Perfect Baby” have been discussed in terms of “New Eugenics”. This idea means the artificial production of babies by genetic technology according to the desire of parents. If educational values can be realized to some extent by genetic technology, new eugenics will necessitate our views on education to change. From this perspective, this paper examines the implications of new eugenics for education.
First of all, the history of eugenics is surveyed and new eugenics is positioned historically. Here, new eugenics can be positioned in an eugenical trend after the 1970s. Next, the theoretical features of new eugenics are clarified in its contrast to old eugenics. This makes it clear that new eugenics is based on the principle of selfdetermination and on the principle of scientific validity. (2)
Then, the criticisms of new eugenics are reviewed. Here, by considering Glen McGee's and others' arguments, it becomes clear that any fatal criticism of new eugenics does not exist yet. However, in the argument by Jürgen Habermas, education and new eugenics are distinguished in view of the existence of “others.” It enables us to find out a positive value to the conditions of “others” in education that cannot be fully satisfied. (3)
Finally, it is clarified from the standpoint of the system theory of Niklas Luhmann that children as “others” are indispensable as the media in an educational system. Based on Emmanuel Levinas' concept of “désir”, I present the point of view of “the desire for others”, one that gives a positive value to the “existence of others”. (4)
“New eugenics” and education have affinity in terms of operational intervention in children. However, from the point of view of “the desire for others”, it becomes clear that both are fundamentally in conflict.

抄録全体を表示

現代の人間形成論においては、「美」「倫理」という言葉によって、人間形成をめぐる現代的状況を解明しようとする議論や人間形成論の可能性を提起しようとする議論が少なからず見受けられる。だが「美」と「倫理」の概念の接点をさぐりながら人間形成論の現代的射程を探る共同研究の試みは、いまだ豊かに展開されているとはいいがたい。
教育哲学会第四八回大会 (香川大学) において「美」と「倫理」の概念に関心を寄せる若手研究者が集まり、「美的・倫理的人間形成論の現在性をめぐって」と題したラウンドテーブルを開催した。ドイツ語圏の美的人間形成論 (白銀・久保田) 、英語圏の道徳や倫理を扱う人間形成論 (奥野・村田) 、ドイツ教育思想史における「美」「倫理」概念 (小野) といった各々の関心から、現代の「美」「倫理」概念の人間形成論的射程を議論した。以下はラウンドテーブル当日の提案者四名 (村田、久保田、奥野、白銀) と指定討論者 (小野) による報告である。本論の最終的な文責は企画者 (白銀) が負うが、それぞれの項目は担当者が執筆したものである。

抄録全体を表示

いまこの文章を読んでくださっている皆さんであれば、すでに文字をめぐるさまざまな経験をお持ちだろう。書店あるいは図書館の膨大な文献を前にして目のくらむような思いをされたことはなかっただろうか。あるいは、慣れない横文字と格闘しながら「読み」にともなう摩擦を実感されたこと、買ったばかりのペンで何度も自分の名前や恋い焦がれるひとの名前を白い紙に書き連ねてみた経験。もちろん、文字のない文化に生まれ育ってもひとはまっとうに生きていけよう。一方、文字を持ってしまったわれわれには、もはや文字は-意識しようがしていまいが-われわれの身体と感情と思考と願望を方向付ける枠組みの一つとなっている。文字はわれわれの生活を制限付けるとともに豊かにもしてくれているのだ。本書は、文字に生きたひとびとに著者自身が寄り添いながらそうした生活の豊かな広がりを描き出した作品である。
森田氏は本書について次のように言う。「本書は、ここ数年来私の研究関心を占めてきた、言語、とりわけ文字言語が人間にとって持つ意味について考察をまとめたものです」 (二七五頁) 。本編には、既発表論文四篇が全体構成にあわせて裁断され書き直されて組み込まれているものの、「全体としてはほぼ書き下ろしといっていいもの」である。四篇の論文のうちには古くは一九八七年に発表されたものもあり、森田氏がこのテーマに長く関心を寄せられていたことがうかがえる。それどころか、「文字の人」であったご両親への想いが綴られているように (二七七頁以降) 、氏の研究関心はパーソナルな強い思いに裏打ちされている。氏が「本書は研究書として書かれたというよりは、私の自由な考察を述べたものになりました」 (二七六頁) と言うのも、本書が専門家に留まらず広い読者に向けて書かれたからだけでなく、文字に生きたひとびとへの共感があるからであろう。
また、本書のねらいについて森田氏は次のように言う。「本書では、文字をめぐるさまざまな思索と経験について書かれたテクストを取り上げ、できる限りその思索と経験を忠実に追体験してみることに努めてみたい」 (iV頁) 。そして、読者は森田氏に誘われてさまざまな物語を追体験することになる。フランシス・コッポラ監督の映画『アウトサイダー』に描かれたジョニーとダラスの死に立ち会い、パリの裏町を舞台にした映画から、親になかば捨てられたユダヤ人少年モモとトルコ移民の老人イブラヒムとの交流を見守る。二人の「文盲」、一八世紀フランスの羊飼いデュヴァルと二〇世紀イタリアの羊飼いガヴィーノの自伝。ドラッグとセックスの日常を生きる若者を描いた小説『レス・ザン・ゼロ』の主人公クレイの救い。フィクションであれ、ノンフィクションであれ、固有名を持つ個人の多様な生が文字をめぐる人生として確認されるのである。こうした人生の追体験を縦糸にして、さまざまなリテラシー観、啓示・啓蒙・聾教育・国民形成における文字思想の検討を横糸として本書は編まれている。

抄録全体を表示