體驗區
|
| 篇名 |
當涂爾幹遇見托爾斯泰：對照以規訓作為道德教育的兩種概念
|
| 並列篇名 |
When E. Durkheim Meets L. Tolstoy: Contrasting Two Conceptions of Discipline as Moral Education
|
| 作者 |
楊雅捷
、杜明城
|
| 中文摘要 |
社會學家涂爾幹在其《道德教育》一書裡強調規訓是道德的首要元素，依照邏輯順序則為對社會群體的依附與個人的自律、自主。他將這概念延伸到學校的實踐，進而主張權威是道德教育所不可或缺。小說家托爾斯泰則凸顯自由作為追求道德的目的，並認為規訓不僅將徒勞無功且有害。盧梭對兩者的影響皆很明顯，托爾斯泰是其浪漫唯心論的繼承者，而涂爾幹則是其批評者。托爾斯泰認為規律的需要根植於人性，與自由的追求相呼應；而涂爾幹則認為需要將規訓納入教育過程，以作為自律的基礎。本文作者主張兩者其實是一體之兩面，其差異源自於其所代表的時代及相應的對國家主導學校教育的態度。
|
| 英文摘要 |
In his work Moral Education, the sociologist Emile Durkheim emphasized the spirit of discipline as the first element of morality, followed by attachment to social groups and then individual autonomy or selfdetermination. He extended this conception to the practice of schooling and suggested that the exertion of authority is indispensable for moral education. The novelist and anarchist Leo Tolstoy, however, highlighted freedom as the goal of moral pursuit. In Tolstoy's view, any intended exertion of discipline is fruitless or even harmful. Rousseau's influence on both theories is evident with Tolstoy as successor and Durkheim as critic of his romantic idealism. For Tolstoy, the need for discipline is inherent in human nature because of its accordance with the quest for freedom. Yet for Durkheim, discipline should be involved as part of the pedagogical process to serve as a foundation for the consequential autonomy. The authors of this article argue that they are two sides of one coin that may complement, rather than contradict each other. Their differences are largely embedded in the contexts of their respective periods and the corresponding attitudes toward public schooling. The major texts engaged with to assert the above argument include Durkheim's Moral Education, and The Evolution of Educational Thought, as well as Tolstoy's What is Art? and On Education.
|
| 頁次 |
001-032
|
| 關鍵詞 |
自律
、規訓
、涂爾幹
、道德教育
、托爾斯泰
、autonomy
、discipline
、E. Durkheim
、moral education
、L. Tolstoy
|
| 卷期 |
11:2
|
| 日期 |
201212
|
| 刊名 |
中正教育研究
|
| 出版單位 |
國立中正大學教育學院
|
|
相關文獻 :
客服信箱