Zwischen Selbsttätigkeit und Erziehungsbedürftigkeit: das Kind in der “Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung”
Zwischen Selbsttätigkeit und Erziehungsbedürftigkeit: das Kind in der “Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung”
复制标题
在独立与教育需要之间：《儿童研究杂志》中的孩子。
DOI：
10.1080/00309230902921338
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
0.5
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
在教育史上，区分两种对立的童年观念是相当普遍的：一方面是天真儿童的浪漫形象，另一方面是必须被拯救的邪恶儿童的形象。根据20世纪初的史学，这种二分法在德国教育学中形成了一种特殊的形式：进步教育的倡导者们恢复了儿童，并将他们的教育学建立在对儿童善良本性的信任之上。他们的议程试图克服流行的赫尔巴特教学法。那些“保守的”教育家强调教育技术方面的重要性。据说他们对儿童没有明确的了解，因为他们只把儿童看作是旨在克服其本性的教育的反面。本文试图证明，这种简单的二分法并不足以描述世纪之交德国教育学争论中的复杂的儿童形象。为此目的，本文集中于1896年成立的“Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung”（儿童研究杂志）的第一卷。该杂志的主要编辑的意识形态归因于赫尔巴特主义。在《儿童研究杂志》（Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung）中，这些赫尔巴特人的目标是将教育学与儿童研究以及医学和精神病学结合起来。道德教育是该杂志讨论的一个重要话题，但孩子本身通常不会受到道德评判，因此既不被视为邪恶，也不被视为善良。相反，自然研究和儿童研究的知识适用于了解儿童的性质及其发展。据该杂志的作者说，儿童研究的结果构成了一般专业教育的重要背景。后来，那些没有按照科学预期发展的儿童可以被宣布为特殊教育照顾的对象。如果偏离的发展被归类为病理性的，这种“治疗”将受到医学和精神病学的启发。因此，宗教或伦理的“善”和“恶”范畴部分地被科学的“正常”或“病态”范畴所取代。然而，教学理论化的目标仍然是高度道德化的，设定这些目标被认为是成年人的责任。虽然孩子被理解为一个积极的存在，但教育权威必须由成年一代承担。总的来说，《儿童研究杂志》的教育方案符合威廉二世时代的态度。与大多数“进步”运动相反，这些思想并不是乌托邦式的--它们既不以共和社会为目标，也不以改善德意志民族作为新国家的基础。编辑们显然忽视了儿童作为一个拥有自己权利的政治主体的概念。后来，他们对人性本身的性质持高度怀疑态度，不相信一个新的社会只能建立在对人性的信仰之上。他曾担任该杂志的编辑，后来还参加了新教育奖学金。此外，该杂志的作者要求更新教育类似于那些“进步”运动：他们也呼吁转向儿童作为教育学的基础。这些发现导致了这样一个结果，即童年和教育的历史可能不是从以儿童为中心的进步教育和保守教育之间的区别开始的。像“儿童”或“以儿童为中心”这样的短语可以在非常不同的语言学和语言学中找到。
In the history of education it is rather common to distinguish two opposing ideas of childhood: the romantic image of the innocent child on the one hand and the image of the evil child that has to be rescued on the other. According to historiography at the beginning of the twentieth century this dichotomy has gained a particular shape in German pedagogy: the exponents of Progressive Education recover the child and founded their pedagogy on trust in its good nature. Their agenda tries to overcome the prevailing Herbartian pedagogy. Those “conservative” educators stress the importance of the technological aspects of education. They are said to have no explicit understanding of the child as they would regard it only as the negative counterpart to an education that aims to overcome its nature. This article claims to prove that such a simple dichotomy is not sufficient to describe the complex image of the child in the German pedagogical debates at the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth century. For this purpose the article concentrates on the first volumes of the “Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung” (Journal of Child Studies) that was founded in 1896. The ideology of the main editors of the journal is attributed to Herbartianism. In the “Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung” those Herbartians aim to bring together pedagogy with child studies as well as with medicine and psychiatry. Moral education is an important topic within the journal’s discussion but the child is usually not morally judged itself and therefore regarded neither as evil nor as good. Instead the knowledge of natural research and child studies is adapted to learn about the nature of the child and its development. According to the journal’s authors the results of child studies form a crucial background for professional education in general. Later on, those children that do not develop as scientifically expected can be declared the object of special pedagogical care. Should the deviating development be classified as pathological, this “treatment” will be inspired by medicine and psychiatry. Thus the religious or ethical categories of “good” and “evil” are partly replaced by scientific ones such as “normal” or “pathological”. Nevertheless pedagogical theorising remains highly moral in its goals – and setting these goals is regarded as the duty of adults. Although the child is understood as an active being, the educational authority has to be borne by the grown‐up generation. Altogether the educational programme of the “Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung” conforms to the attitude of the Wilhelminian era. In contrast to most of the “progressive” movements, the ideas are not utopian – they aim neither for a republican society nor for the improvement of the German race as the basis for a new nation. The editors explicitly neglect the notion of a child as a political subject with its own rights. Later they remain highly sceptical about the character of human nature itself and do not believe that a new society can be built only upon the faith in it. Nevertheless some of the key authors are regarded as representatives of Progressive Education today – for example Karl Wilker, who acted as an editor of the journal and was also engaged in the New Education Fellowship later on. Also the journal authors’ claims for a renewal of education resemble those of the “progressive” movements: They also call for a turn to the child as the basis of pedagogy. These findings lead to the result that a history of childhood and education may not start out from a distinction between a child‐centred progressive education on the one hand and a conservative education on the other. Phrases like “the child” or “child‐centred” are to be found in very different pedagogies and …
善良的历史
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1982
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
P. Ariès
通讯作者：
P. Ariès
机构和代际差异：社会教育的本质意义
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
F. Eßer
通讯作者：
F. Eßer