發(fā)布時間：2018-05-13 00:11

  本文選題：個體權(quán)利 + 教育現(xiàn)代性�。� 參考：《東北師范大學(xué)》2011年博士論文

【摘要】：教育現(xiàn)代性既是當(dāng)下研究的熱點,也呈現(xiàn)出較大的認(rèn)識分歧。為了澄清教育觀念,防止觀念混亂給教育實踐造成困擾,有必要對問題進行深入研究。論文從社會發(fā)展實際出發(fā),從個體生存境況變遷的視角,在個體權(quán)利視域中考察現(xiàn)代教育,意在追問個體權(quán)利本性的教育現(xiàn)代性是否具有正當(dāng)性,存在的主要問題是什么,可能采取什么辦法解決問題。 論文采用社會學(xué)與政治哲學(xué)相融合的社會政治哲學(xué)研究方法,通過理論與實踐的不斷轉(zhuǎn)換,綜合運用文獻法、歷史法與比較法對論題進行了研究。在具體行文過程中,也嘗試運用了個案法、觀念史敘事法及生活體驗的研究方法。論文的主要觀點:在個體權(quán)利視域中教育現(xiàn)代性具有正當(dāng)性,但權(quán)利個體并未全部成為現(xiàn)實個體,可以在私人領(lǐng)域與公共領(lǐng)域進一步落實個體權(quán)利,為個體建立一種可能的存在方式。 論文提出個體權(quán)利是反思教育現(xiàn)代性的原點,以個體權(quán)利為本是教育現(xiàn)代性的根本特性�？梢詮摹鞍l(fā)生的進路”與“目的的進路”兩條道路論證個體權(quán)利視域中的教育現(xiàn)代性是否具有正當(dāng)性。從“發(fā)生的進路”來看,現(xiàn)代教育以權(quán)利平等取代特權(quán),打破了等級化的教育生存模式,更能夠得到認(rèn)同;從“目的的進路”來看,現(xiàn)代教育的自由還不夠充分,個體生存方式大眾化甚至孤獨化,說明教育現(xiàn)代性的正當(dāng)性水平有待提高。 論文認(rèn)為權(quán)利個體未能全部成為現(xiàn)實個體的原因主要在于權(quán)力的濫用與邊界意識的缺乏,具體原因有多種:“統(tǒng)一”思想觀念的束縛;現(xiàn)代教育秩序的強制;公共權(quán)力制約機制的缺乏;教育邊界的固化。解決問題應(yīng)具備的前提條件是:道德人——超越權(quán)利為本的人性論假設(shè);邊界意識——教育理論新思維;尊嚴(yán)至上——由權(quán)力轉(zhuǎn)向權(quán)利的法治保障;“整合”的權(quán)利文化——現(xiàn)代教育制度建構(gòu)的必要條件。 論文提出可以在私人領(lǐng)域與公共領(lǐng)域兩個層面落實個體權(quán)利。私人領(lǐng)域解決個體權(quán)利問題應(yīng)遵循私人領(lǐng)域的游戲規(guī)則,教育權(quán)力只能有限介入;公共領(lǐng)域解決個體權(quán)利問題應(yīng)遵循公共領(lǐng)域的游戲規(guī)則,要站在他者的立場,擁有公共的情懷,更要借助于公正的教育制度。
[Abstract]:Educational modernity is not only the hot spot of current research, but also presents a great difference of understanding. In order to clarify the concept of education and prevent confusion in educational practice, it is necessary to study the problem deeply. Starting from the reality of social development and from the perspective of the vicissitudes of individual living conditions, this paper examines modern education from the perspective of individual rights, in order to inquire whether the educational modernity of individual rights has legitimacy and what the main problems are. What solution might be taken to the problem. The thesis adopts the research method of sociological and political philosophy, through the continuous transformation of theory and practice, the comprehensive use of literature law, historical law and comparative law to study the topic. In the process of writing, we also try to use the case method, concept history narrative method and life experience research methods. The main points of the paper are: the educational modernity is legitimate in the perspective of individual rights, but the individual rights are not all real individuals, so they can further implement individual rights in the private and public fields. Establish a possible way of being for the individual. The author points out that individual right is the origin of reflection on educational modernity, and individual right is the fundamental characteristic of educational modernity. It is possible to prove whether the educational modernity in the field of individual rights is justified from the two ways of "the path of occurrence" and "the path of purpose". From the point of view of "the path of occurrence", modern education replaces privileges with equal rights, breaks the hierarchical educational survival mode and is more acceptable. From the point of view of "the path of purpose", the freedom of modern education is not enough. The popularization and even loneliness of individual living style indicate that the legitimacy level of educational modernity needs to be improved. The author thinks that the reason why the individual of right can not become a real individual mainly lies in the abuse of power and the lack of consciousness of the boundary. The specific reasons are as follows: the bondage of the idea of "unification", the compulsion of the modern educational order, and the lack of the consciousness of the boundary. The lack of public power restriction mechanism and the solidification of educational boundary. The preconditions for solving the problem are: moral person-surpassing the human nature hypothesis based on right; Boundary consciousness-New thought of education theory; Dignity supreme-the rule of law guarantee from power to right; The right Culture of Integration: a necessary condition for the Construction of Modern Educational system. This paper proposes that individual rights can be implemented in both private and public spheres. The private sphere should follow the rules of the game in the private sphere, and the educational power can only intervene in the private sphere, while the public sphere should follow the rules of the game in the public domain and stand at the standpoint of others. With public feelings, we must resort to a just educational system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：G40

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 邁克爾·阿普爾;韋恩·歐;閻光才;;批判教育學(xué)中的政治、理論與現(xiàn)實(上)[J];比較教育研究;2007年09期

2 周勇;;哲學(xué)、詩歌與智術(shù)——柏拉圖的千古課程難題[J];北京大學(xué)教育評論;2008年04期

3 渠敬東;;盧梭對現(xiàn)代教育傳統(tǒng)的奠基[J];北京大學(xué)教育評論;2009年03期

4 李培林;走出布迪厄主義的波爾坦斯基[J];讀書;1997年06期

5 侯健;三種權(quán)力制約機制及其比較[J];復(fù)旦學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2001年03期

6 陳華興;個人生活的自然——論吉登斯生活政治的本質(zhì)[J];復(fù)旦學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2004年03期

7 李江源;論教育制度的現(xiàn)代轉(zhuǎn)型[J];湖南師范大學(xué)教育科學(xué)學(xué)報;2005年04期

8 馬越;對我國社會轉(zhuǎn)型時期公共權(quán)力與私人權(quán)利的法理學(xué)探究[J];公安研究;2000年01期

9 朱旭東;試論盧梭的現(xiàn)代民族國家教育思想——兼論盧梭的雙重教育目的論[J];高等師范教育研究;1997年06期

10 李曉輝;公域與私域的劃分及其內(nèi)涵[J];哈爾濱商業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2003年04期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前2條

1 中南民族大學(xué)公共管理學(xué)院 吳開松;[N];光明日報;2008年

2 本報特約評論員 張生;[N];21世紀(jì)經(jīng)濟報道;2006年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 楊帆;自然權(quán)利理論研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年

2 梁淑紅;利益的博弈：英國高等教育大眾化政策的制定過程研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2008年

3 王景斌;論行政權(quán)對私域的有限介入[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年

4 楊進;論美好生活與學(xué)校教育[D];東北師范大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號：1880775