Post-socialism is not dead: (re)reading the global in comparative education
Post-socialism is not dead: (re)reading the global in comparative education
复制标题
后社会主义并未消亡：（重新）解读比较教育中的全球
DOI：
10.1080/03050068.2011.577985
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
R. Cowen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Cowen
这是一本学术上非常好的书。间接地说，对于比较教育来说，它是一本令人眼花缭乱的书;在某些方面，它是一本令人眼花缭乱的书。请允许我进一步解释一下。这本书是一个非常好的书学术，因为编辑工作的卷，包括其概念化和控制的细节，是杰出的。这本书是一本令人眼花缭乱的书，因为它可能会让所有研究和访问过国家社会主义和后社会主义国家社会并思考其教育模式的人（但最严肃和专注的专家除外）深刻认识到，我们的叙事知识和我们对如何理解叙事知识的理论把握可能并不像我们想象的那样强大。这是一本令人眼花缭乱的书--因此也是一本令人愉快的书--因为它很难控制文本所激发的一系列联系和空白。西洛娃的开篇社论（《在比较教育中重新发现后社会主义》）是一个小小的杰作。它能解决你在打开书之前想知道的所有事情，还有更多。西洛娃讨论了比较教育知识政治与另一个世界的政治，即所谓的真实的世界：冷战的关系。她很犀利：“...这种与苏联学的密切关系使比较教育付出了高昂的方法论、认识论和伦理代价--这是今天比较教育经常回避的讨论。她非常好地阅读了一系列的文学作品，她构建了一套关于我们当前对“后社会主义”感兴趣的概念的困难问题，并迫使稍微吃惊的读者解决后社会主义与全球化理论化，现代性理论，趋同和危机，线性，拯救概念，时间性和过渡概念的关系主题，以及如何理论化不确定性。她坚持自己的直觉，即对后社会主义的研究在智力上打开了局面，而不是把我们拉进一个时髦的“地区研究”版本。她勾勒出了一种可能性...后社会主义成为一个知识空间，我们可以自信地挑战西方现代性的既定框架。(9)并指出，正是在这个空间，她的作者将发挥：“通过质疑一个共同的期望，即后社会主义社会将不可避免地向西方规范趋同，这本书认为后社会主义是开放的，多元的，不可避免的不确定性。西洛娃还设法提供了一个明确的规范的主题和问题的书-连续性和不连续性在后社会主义设置;“合理性”的基础上的目的，教育改革;解释，
This is a very good book academically. Indirectly it is, for comparative education, a dazzling book; and in some ways it is a dizzying book. Permit me to explain a little further. The book is a very good book academically because the editorial work on the volume, including both its conceptualisation and its control of detail, is outstanding. The book is a dazzling book because it is likely to bring sharply home to all (but the most serious and dedicated specialists) who have studied and visited state-socialist and post-socialist-state societies and thought about their educational patternings that our narrative knowledge and our theoretical grip on how to understand that narrative knowledge were not, perhaps, as powerful as we had thought. And it is a dizzying book–and therefore a delightful one–because it is hard to bring back under control the flurry of connections and aperçus which the text inspires.The opening editorial essay by Silova (‘Rediscovering post-socialism in comparative education’) is a small tour de force. It does all of the things you wonder about before you open the book–and a few more. Silova discusses the relationship of the politics of comparative education knowledge and the politics of the other world, the so-called real one: the Cold War. She is sharp:‘... such a close relationship with Sovietology came at a high methodological, epistemological and ethical cost for comparative education–a discussion frequently avoided by comparative education today’(2). She is extremely well read in a range of literature and she constructs a difficult set of questions about the concepts which frame our current interest in ‘post-socialism’and crisply forces the slightly startled reader to address themes of the relationship of post-socialism to globalisation theorisation, modernity theory, convergence and crisis, linearity, notions of salvation, notions of temporality and transition, and how to theorise uncertainty. She sustains her own intuition that the study of post-socialism opens things up, intellectually, rather than pulls us into a posh version of ‘area studies’. She sketches the possibility that ‘... post-socialism becomes an intellectual space from which we can confidently challenge the established frameworks of Western modernity...’(9) and indicates that it is in this space that her authors will play:‘by contesting a common expectation that post-socialist societies would inevitably converge towards Western norms, this book sees post-socialism as open, plural, and inevitably uncertain’(9). Silova also manages to offer a clear specification of the themes and questions of the book–continuities and discontinuities in post-socialist settings; the ‘rationalities’ which underpin the purposes of educational transformation; the interpretation of