当前位置: X-MOL 学术Policy Futures in Education › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Education for potentiality (against instrumentality)
Policy Futures in Education Pub Date : 2020-05-03 , DOI: 10.1177/1478210320922742
Tyson E Lewis 1
Affiliation  

In this article, the author problematizes two well-known positions on the relationship between means and ends in education. On the one side, there are those who problematize the means of education without necessarily redefining its ends, and on the other hand, there are those who challenge the purported ends of education while maintaining certain means. These two positions can take any number of progressive and conservative forms. While there are virtues to these projects, this article argues that both take for granted an underlying sense of education as a means to an end, and thus lend themselves to some version of instrumentality. Proposing a radically different formulation, this article turns to Giorgio Agamben and his notions of the impotential act, pure means, and use. The author suggests that the current challenge to think education beyond instrumentality ought to conceptualize education not as a means to an end or an end in itself but as a pure means. The article then offers three versions of education as a pure means: allowing, preferring not to, and contemplating. Each of these examples proposes a specific kind of inoperative, non-instrumental form of educational life for teachers and studiers, respectively.

中文翻译:

潜力教育(针对工具性)

在本文中,作者对教育中手段与目的之间的关系提出了两个著名的观点。一方面,有些人在没有必要重新定义教育手段的情况下对教育手段提出问题,另一方面,有些人在维护某些手段的同时挑战所谓的教育目的。这两个职位可以采取任何数量的渐进和保守形式。尽管这些项目有其优点,但本文认为,两者都将一种基本的教育意识视为达到目的的一种手段,因此适合某种形式的工具。提出了一种截然不同的表述,本文转向乔治·阿甘本(Giorgio Agamben)及其对无能作为,纯手段和使用的观念。作者认为,当前思考超越工具性的教育的挑战应该将教育概念化,而不是将其概念化为达到目的或目的的手段,而应将其概念化为纯手段。然后,本文提供了三种纯粹的教育方式:允许,不愿意和考虑。这些例子中的每一个都分别为教师和学习者提出了一种特殊的,不起作用的,非工具性的教育生活形式。
更新日期:2020-05-03
down
wechat
bug