Select your language

author: Iryna Mordous


Urgency of the research. The philosophy of education is a relatively new direction of the exclusive research attention of the humanities. Due to the fact that education has been the subject of philosophical analysis throughout the history of worldview research, such researches were rather contextual, fragmentary in nature against the background of issues of a more universal and global nature. With the rapid development of new technologies and artificial intelligence, the formation of information / digital society and knowledge economy, defining the role and importance of education as a social institution (a certain model of operational practices) changes significantly, which formed the relevance of our research.

Target setting. The range of the problem field of the philosophy of education balances between two extreme positions: defining the role of education in the life of an individual (the position of anthropocentrism) and understanding the importance of education in a broad social context (globalism). According to a number of questions about the nature and purpose of education, researchers distinguish between the ontology and epistemology of education, the logic and axiology of educational processes, the history and methodology of educational technologies conceptualizing educational institutionalism.

Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. For the most part, analyzing the problematic field of philosophy of education in the context of institutionalism, we relied on the research of well-known modern scientists: Anthony Giddens, John Clark, Finn Thorbjørn Hansen, Carlo Ricci, Martin B. Carstensen & Vivien A. Schmidt, Christine R. Stenersen & Tine S. Prøitz etc. In the context of substantiation of the subject of this study (values, tolerance, trust) attention was focused on the works of Jürgen Habermas, Milton Rokeach, Zygmunt Bauman, Piotr Sztompka and others.

The research objective. Education is simultaneously a process, system, value, social institution, etc., which shapes both the individual and its meaning, place, role in society. This variable ratio of individual and universal-essential contains a dialectical contradiction. Thus, the task of the study is to substantiate a possible model for resolving this contradiction within a stable worldview paradigm, the verification of which is carried out by the philosophy of education as a separate area of worldview research.

The statement of basic material. The main function of education is to broadcast the content and values of culture. This mission is especially important in modern society, when information and possession of it can be used as a positive factor in self-realization and success of man, community, or project, and as a manipulative or simply destructive factor in relation to the subject and society. That is why critical thinking and dialogical model of communication are defined as fundamental principles of the modern paradigm of education.

Conclusions. The values of freedom, tolerance and trust determine the integral essence of the current state of society, or at least its desired configuration. Philosophy of education in the context of the problem of social institutionalization, as a specific synthesized knowledge, combines worldview, pedagogical, sociological, historical and other techniques and approaches to carry out a critical and sound analysis of the content of ideational components of educational practices and strategies.

Keywords: philosophy of education, institutionalism, tolerance, social institute, freedom, phenomena of trust.

 

References:

  1. Bauman, 3 2006. Svoboda (Freedom), per. s angl. GM Dashevskogo, predisl. YuA Levady, Moskva: Novoe izdatelstvo, 132 s.
  2. Budye, P 2004. ʻFormy kapitala (Forms of Capital)ʼ, v kn. Zapadnaya ekonomicheskaya sociologiya: Hrestomatiya sovremennoj klassiki, Moskva: ROSSPEN, 884 s.
  3. Vilyamson, O 2001. Ekonomichni instituciyi kapitalizmu: firmi, marketing, uklukladannya kontraktiv (Economic institutions of capitalism: firms, marketing, contracting), Kiyiv: Artek, 472 s.
  4. Giddens, E 2011. Posledstviya sovremennosti (Consequences of modernity), per. s angl. GK Olhovikova, DA Kibalchicha, [vstup. statya TA Dmitrieva], Moskva: Praksis, 343 s.
  5. 1Kouz, R 1993. Firma, rynok, pravo (Firm, market, law), per. s angl. B Pinskera [pod nauch. red. RK Pelyushnikova], Moskva: Delo, 192 s.
  6. Luman, N 2007. Socialnye sistemy. Ocherk obshej teorii (Social systems. Essay on general theory), per. s nem. ID Gazieva, [pod red. NA Golovina], SPb.: Nauka, 648 c.
  7. Rokich, M 2009. ʻMetodika “Cennostnye orientacii” (Methodology "Value orientations)ʼ, v kn. Bolshaya enciklopediya psihologicheskih testov [avt.-sost. AA Karelin], Moskva: Eksmo, s. 26-28.
  8. Habermas, Yu 2006. ʻKogda my dolzhny byt tolerantnymi? O konkurencii videnij mira, cennostej i teorij (When Should We Be Tolerant? On the Competition of World Visions, Values and Theories)ʼ, Sociologicheskie issledovaniya, № 1, s. 45 53.
  9. Shtompka, P 2012. Doverie osnova obshestva (Trust is the basis of society), per. s polsk. NV Morozova, Moskva: Logos, 440 s.
  10. Carstensen, MB & Schmidt, VA 2015. ʻPower through, over and in ideas: conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalismʼ, Journal of European Public Policy, Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1115534> [18 December 2020].
  11. Chiang, Tien-Hui 2018. ʻParadigms of education researchʼ, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50:14, р. 1533-1534. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1462462> [18 December 2020].
  12. Christou, ThM & Bullock, ShM 2012. ʻThe Case for Philosophical Mindednessʼ, Paideusis, Volume 20, № 1, p. 14–23.
  13. Clark, J 2006. ʻPhilosophy of Education in Today’s Worldʼ, Paideusis, Volume 15, № 1, p. 21-30
  14. Gough, S 2017. ʻEducation after sustainabilityʼ, Global Discourse, 7:1, p. 131-145. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/23269995.2017.1300435> [18 December 2020].
  15. Hansen, Finn Thorbjørn 2007. ʻPhronesis and Authenticity as Keywords for Philosophical Praxis in Teacher Trainingʼ, Paideusis, Volume 16, № 3, p. 15-32.
  16. Higgins, D, Refai, D & Keita, D 2018. ʻFocus point: the need for alternative insight into the entrepreneurial education paradigmʼ, Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1466851> [18 December 2020].
  17. Hofstede, G & Minkov, M 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Revised and expanded, New York: McGraw Hill USA, 550 р.
  18. Inglehart, R 1997. Modernization and post modernization: Cultural economic and political change in 43 societies, L.: Princeton; N. J., Princeton University Press, 168 р.
  19. Ricci, C 2009. ʻPhilosophical Clashes: Rethinking Scholarship, Paideusis, Volume 18, № 2, p. 55-59.
  20. Roland, Meighan & Iram, Siraj-Blatchford 1997. ʻA Sociology of Educatingʼ, Faculty of Social Sciences – Papers, 1263 p.
  21. Silova, I & Brehm, WC 2015. ʻFrom myths to models: the (re)production of world culture in comparative educationʼ, Globalisation, Societies and Education, Volume 13, Issue 1: Beyond the world culture debate in comparative education: critiques, alternatives, and a noisy conversation, р. 8-33.  Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.967483> [18 December 2020].
  22. Stenersen, CR & Prøitz, TS 2020. ʻJust a Buzzword? The use of Concepts and Ideas in Educational Governanceʼ, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1788153> [18 December 2020].
  23. Uljens, M (ed) & Ylimaki, RM (ed) 2017. ʻImplications and Future Directions for A New Research Agenda Grounded on NonAffirmative Education Theoryʼ, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Volume 16, Issue 2: Theorizing Educational Leadership Studies, Curriculum, and Didaktik - NonAffirmative Education Theory in Bridging Disparate Fields, p. 389-396.