「ボーダーレス」下における学校の限界線の拡張可能性(<特集>教育・福祉・労働-ボーダーレス化の中での教育学の役割) [in Japanese] Possibility for Expanding the Limits of School under "Borderless Situation"(<Special Issue>Education, Welfare Services, and Work: Vanishing Borders and the Task of Educational Science) [in Japanese]
Access this Article
Search this Article
This paper presents some ideas for inquiring about the possibility for expanding the limits of school-based education. It is intended to clarify the meaning of "border" related to education, welfare and workplace as the limit of Civil Society. It also will extract the logic of the practices for expanding the limit from three activities in welfare field. Finally, the paper will examine their implications for school-based education using a term of community of difference. In Japan, the concept of "normal" citizen has been situated in the distinction between education and welfare work or social education until around the 1980s. The mission of school education has been refining "normal" students, and on the other hand, the mission of welfare work has been relieving and observing the deviants from civil society. Unfortunately, a result of this distinction is leaving them in "limbo". This also means that they have to face "the double-bind" (G. Bateson). However, recent years, an alternative mode of welfare work has been suggested, which is based on the dialogical and cooperative activity model. Some features of this activity are as followings: 1) The starting point of activity is an uncertain feeling of people in "limbo", which means "the need state" as objectless desire. When voices are listened to by others, this state will change to the resource for creating new world. 2) In the dialog process, a support practitioner is not a teacher who has the correct answer, but a co-inquirer. 3) Cooperation work includes pluralization of context by mutual-mediation and creation of new contexts as a product of cooperation. Participants of cooperative work become able to expand their world and meanings by acquiring these functions. 4) The field that is acquired by these activities can be called a "soft field", which creates stability by flexible change to adjust itself to different situations. 5) Alternative culture is produced by the above-mentioned process. It brings new words as a tool for resolving the double-bind. In order to consider what this activity means for expanding the limits of schooling, the concept of school community has to be redefined. It is hypothesized that school community has two dimensions that can be defined as the 'institutionalizing community' and the 'generative community.' The institutionalizing community reflects and is structured by the imperatives dictated by the state and the economic system. The essential characteristics of a generative community, on the other hand, are that it consists of negotiation of meaning arrived at through dialogical and collaborative activity. The limit of school community is defined as a way of solution of contradiction between these two dimensions. From this view point, we can provide some tools for an alternative way of solving the contradiction with alternative modes of welfare work. This will make the generative community-based mode of school community. However, at the same time as the institutionalizing community is defined by the world of workplace, we also have to gaze at intervention between workplace and democracy raised from alternative ways of solving the double bind mainly brought from welfare work.
- THE JAPANESE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
THE JAPANESE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 78(2), 126-137, 2011
Japanese Educational Research Association