보울즈와 긴티스의 포스트 마르크스주의로의 전환과 신교육이론

서지정보

ㆍ발행기관 : 한국교육학회 ㆍ수록지정보 : 교육학연구 / 31권 / 5호
ㆍ저자명 : 김천기

목차

요 약
Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 사회적 재생산이론의 한계성: 이론적 한계와 그 시대적 맥락의 변화
Ⅲ. 사회영역 - 사회적 행동 이론: 자본주의와 민주주의의 갈등 탐색
Ⅳ. 포스트 마르크스적 미국 사회 위기 분석과 현행 교육개혁 이해
Ⅴ. 맺는 말

Abstract

한국어 초록

본 연구에서는 마르크스적 재생산 이론가로 알려진 보울즈와 긴티스가 종전의 마르크스적 입장을 탈피, 새롭게 제시한 소위 “포스트 마르크스”적 교육이론을 고찰하고 있다. 특히 (1)
종래의 사회적 재생산이론 이후 새롭게 제시한 신이론의 포스트 마르크스적 특징은 무엇일까? (2) 신이론에서는 선진자본주의의 교육을 어떻게 이해하고 있으며, 이는 종래의 마르크스적 재생산 이론과 어떻게 다른가? (3) 그리고 포스트 마르크스적 시각에서는 신우익의 주도로 이루어진 1980년대 미국 사회의 변화와 교육개혁의 성격을 어떻게 설명할 수 있는가?와 같은 질문들에 대한 논의를 통해 보울즈와 긴티스의 포스트 마르크스 이론이 자본주의 사회의 교육의 역할에 대한 이해 방식에 새로운 패러다임적 전환을 가져왔는가를 평가하고, 또한 사회, 교육 변혁 운동에 갖는 함의가 무엇인지를 논의하고 있다.

영어 초록

In this study my aim is to examine the paradigmic shift of postMarxist educational theory of S. Bowles and H. Gintis, and its implication for the social and educational transformations in liberal democratic capitalism through the analyses of the following questions : (1) what are postMarxist characteristics of the new theory set forth by Bowles and Gintis ; (2) how education is understood from this postMarxist theory ; and (3) how the understanding of education in the postMarxist theory is different from that of Marxist social reproduction theory. In particular, its implication is examined and discussed through the additional analysis of the social and educational changes made by the American New Right in the 1980s from this theoretical perspective.
In the new PostMarxist approach the Marxist reproductive argument that schoolings' role is to reproduce the capitalist hierachical relations of production is considered as too simple. Instead the role of edcuation must be seen as contradictory. That is, it is argued, education plays dual democratic and reproductive role. This new view on the role of education derives from the new postMarxist theoretical position on social formation is contradictory. This contradiction between democratic person rights and capitalist property rights is not the contradiction in Marxist sense. The contradiction of Marxism is the one ingerent in the social relations of production. Neither it is the contradiction in liberal sense, because liberals have generally assumed harmonious relationship between person rights and property rights. However, although the postMarxist approach rejucted the liberals' assumption, the hard core of the postMarxit approach is not beyond liberal, so far as Bowles and Gintis take as their postMarxist theoretical base the liberal discourse of rights. The conclusion is that the postMarxist educational approach has made paradigmic shift from the Marxist reproduction approach, but that it is difficult to assess the post<arxist approach as a new paradigm distince from liberal paradigm, though it may be called as a "postliberal" approach.
On the other hand, in this postMarxist perspective, the social and educational changes made by the New Right in the 1980s can be understood as the case in which the New Right has advanced its claims for the restoration and extension of property rights in all the social spheres including education. The implication of the postMarxism for progressive social and educational changes is that it is critical to realize the importance of the democratic person rights and extend it In the face of no less expansionalry claims of property rights. This suggests the need of new social movements in which we appropriate the discourse of person rights in the hegemonic struggle for a democratic society. This new postMarxist discourse of social struggle is redically different from the Marxist discourse of class struggle.

참고 자료

없음