III 教育社会学研究の評価と期待 教育社会学私史 (<特集>教育社会学のパラダイム展開)

スポンサーリンク

概要

• 論文の詳細を見る

• When I started to study sociology of education, its key concepts and common topics were yet to be agreed upon. Reading Durkheim, max Weber, and anthro-pologists' works I found the concept of culture is indispensable for studying how education functions in society. F.de Saussure's triadic concept langage, langue, and parole, suggested to me another triad, culture, a culture, and action which may be well-suited to account for the relation of a society and its culture to an individual. That man can be defined as a being to be encultured and socialized (homo colendum et socializandum) became a ground assumption for me. With this assumption I came across W.Lloyd Warner's works in sociology of education. A functionalist as he was, Warner never missed pointing out the fact that America was a class structured society, and opportunity for education instrumental to upward mobility was unequally distributed among classes. He also pointed out that the climb from one class to another would oblige the climber to learn the culture of the target class and to unlearn that of the previous one. Until Bernstein and Bourdieu resumed studies of culture in terms of class and education in the late 60's and 70's, study in culture seemed to remain unfashionable. Tracing the history of sociology of education in the 60's and 70's in the introduction to their important Reader published in 1977, Karabel and Halsey enumerated as many as 5 "categories" of research style in the field (p.1). While their paper at the very beginning seemed to be an attempt to refute functionalism in sociology of education in the 40's and 50's and to depict ups and downs of diverse schools of thought, they were careful enough to warn the reader that the categories "are no more than flags of convenience. They do not represent mutually exclusive definitions of legitimate theories and methods..." (p.2). And "the careful reader" of the paper would easily find such passages as follows; "Gouldner and Bowles are clearly influenced by Parsons, however much they disagree with him." (p.28); "the discontinuities between 'old' and 'new' sociology of education are not as drammtic as proponents of 'intepretative paradigm' [or any other] would like to believe." (p.60) While we have seen the rise and fall of a temporary dominant category or "paradigm", questions concerning the relation of individuals to their society and culture in general, and in particular areas, remain the same in principle, and unresolved.

• 日本教育社会学会の論文
• 1992-08-07

著者

• 石黒 毅

  南山大学

関連論文

• III 教育社会学研究の評価と期待 教育社会学私史 (教育社会学のパラダイム展開)
• 産業社会における社会化(課題研究III〔社会化論〕)
• 2 準拠集団と超自我 : 「社会化」分析のひとつの視角(第1部会 教育社会学論)
• 文化の概念-回顧と展望-

スポンサーリンク