존 듀이와 그 이후 敎育哲學

Abstract

Implied in any theory of education are answers to two fundamental questions, i.e., 1) What is the status of individuals in the society? and, 2) What is the locus, or source, of human mind? There are two sets of answers to the above questions. The first set of answers are: 1) The individual is set against the society, and he is free to the extent that he is at the outside of the social control, and 2) The individual is endowed with a mind in his inner self, which enables him to gain knowledge from the outside world. The second set of answers are: 1) The individual cannot even claim his identity until he enters into the social context, and he can be free only by subjecting himself to the social influences, and, 2) The individual acquires his mind by internalizing the social stock of knowledge. In this paper, the two sets of answers are identified as characterizing the views of Rousseau and Hegel respectively. An attempt is made to understand Dewey's philosophy of education as a synthesis of those two opposing tenets of thought. Based on this observation, it is further argued that the two contrasting lines of educational thinking in the contemporary scene are the separation of the two opposing elements that Dewey tried to synthesize. According to Dewey, the process of education is the one in which individuals acquire the intellectual and moral dispositions appropriate to the particular society by participating in the conjoint activities of the group. His emphasis on the participation in the group life as the prime force of education reveals the Hegelian influence. However, Dewey makes a strong case that, in order to be educationally significant, the participation must be accompained by 'interest' on the part of those who participate, and in this sense he is also continuing Rousseau's emphasis on individual spontaneity. Dewey's focus in educational thinking lies on the practical situation of social activity in which the individuals participate, and in this situation, the conceptual distinctions between the individual and. the society, and between the development from within and the formation from without necessarily lose their point. However, the development of two opposing lines of educational thinking in the wake of Dewey can be taken as a clear indication that such conceptual distinctions are hardly without point in educational theories. There is the line of the neo-romantists, pushing Rousseau's view to its farthest logical consequences. Opposed to this, is Peters' philosophy of education, which is consistent with Hegelian philosophy. The task at hand seems to be to identify the aspects of education that these two lines of thinking intend to bring into focus. Seen from this perspective, the claim of the neo-romantists is best understood as a warning against the moral danger in education, the danger of indoctrinating the adult knowledge and standards to children, and it is in this claim that they have fallen into prey to the error of disregarding the social aspect of education. The question must be then: How do we guard off the moral danger of education without falling into false theories of society and of mind that characterize the romantic concept of education?