교육 철학의 性 中立性과 교육에서의 여성소외

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국교육학회
· 수록지 정보 : 교육학연구 / 30권 / 1호
· 저자명 : 兪炫玉

목차

Ⅰ. 문제 제기
Ⅱ. 삶의 영역 간의 갈등과 性
Ⅲ. 교육과 性
Ⅳ. 兩者 擇一의 극복과 代案 탐색
ABSTRACT

영어초록

Some of our strongest rhetoric about education involves discussion of how to prepare people to live well in two of our most important domains of existence-the family and the workplace. Yet serious preparation for one area of life often runs contrary to that for the other area of life. And thus, education has been geared predominantly to only the preparation for the workplace area of life.
Family obligations tend to be directed specifically toward particular individuals. The relations among these individuals, in their roles as husband, wife, parent, and child, are described ideally in terms of the virtues of love and devotion, putting the needs of those loved ahead of one's own. The home is charged with fostering a side of our life which we might call personal, private, intimate and nurturing.
The ideals of workplace are significantly different. Here the general goals of production and social benefit are seen as resulting from motivations which are more self-centered and competitive. Individuals, and their skills and ideas, are pitted against one another, allowing an ideally free marketplace to select the hest of these for special reward and for our allegiance. This sometimes purposely heartless and impersonal arrangement serves different ends than the family does, and requires of its participants different kinds of motivations and skills.
This value conflict cuts too deeply into our lives to be redressed by attempted elimination of gender from education. Yet because of these differences between family and workplace, the problem of education which traditionally has been involved with attempts to remove gender from each part of schooling can be described like this : in a society in which political and economic power and prestige have been associated primarily with one gender perspective, it is likely that the other gender perspective will be sacrificed through the attempts to remove gender altogether from education.
By encouraging women to participate equally with men in education, while seeing to it that education is geared predominantly to only one side of the two conflicting sets of values in our society, we neither treat women justly nor serve the larger society. Women lose because they are still given more than their share of responsibility in maintaining the values omitted from the workplace without educational preparation and officially sanctioned social support. Society loses because we fail to develop the strongest kinds of understanding and values unique to the family life we care about.
If it is agreed that gendered arrangements exhibit two sets of crucial human concerns, perhaps for now the best policy is to seek to give both sides of the conflict the best possible hearing, striving to develop each to its ideal potential. Philosophy of education appears to be one of the important segments which might be suited to consideration for the development of the family side of the conflict. If it is so, it should not be gender neutral. It's because a genuine conversation requires at least two parties each with something unique to contribute. And for the conversation to be fruitful, both parties must be able to express effectively their unique contribution and both parties must be given equal respect. To develop a conversation and the values and understandings unique to each side of the conflict, philosophy of education has to overcome its traditional gender-neutral or gender-ignorant position, and may have to involve in the arrangements of some areas of education to be concerned primarily with the values associated with a single gender.
The involvement in this gender biased way will help us all to understand that one side of this deep social conflict is receiving less attention than it deserves. Philosophy of education should work toward seeing to it that a conversation regarding this conflict is truly developed, including the mutual respect and equal public voice that this implies.

참고자료

· 없음