书评:迈克尔·S·梅里,《教育正义:自由理想、持续的不平等和批判的建设性使用》

IF 1.3 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Theory and Research in Education Pub Date : 2020-09-13 DOI:10.1177/1477878520957835
Johannes Drerup
{"title":"书评:迈克尔·S·梅里,《教育正义:自由理想、持续的不平等和批判的建设性使用》","authors":"Johannes Drerup","doi":"10.1177/1477878520957835","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this highly readable and densely written book, Michael S. Merry develops a constructive critique of contemporary conceptions of educational justice. The book is subdivided into three main parts. The first part provides an introduction to the complex debate about educational justice in political philosophy and philosophy of education while presenting the theoretical underpinnings of his own critique. This critique rests on three interrelated methodological pillars, focusing on central blind spots of the currently dominant liberal egalitarian paradigm in the debate about educational justice. The first pillar concerns the debate between ideal and non-ideal theory. According to Merry, one of the major shortcomings of controversies over educational justice is the lack of a sufficiently complex integration of principled normative theorizing and empirical social research. While he repeatedly emphasizes that we cannot and should not do without ideal theory tout court, Merry plausibly argues that with respect to real-world problems standard ideal theories provide only very limited orientation for an adequate, empirically informed assessment of what educational justice requires. Throughout the book, Merry shows how difficult and messy things get in any serious attempt to apply normative frameworks and principles in concrete contexts (as opposed to often stylized, hypothetical cases). Confronted with empirical evidence, liberal egalitarian arguments and assumptions indeed in some cases seem to be based on more or less fantastic, ahistorical constructions (for instance, the ‘ideal’ public school), bearing little resemblance to actual sociopolitical conditions and functions of the educational systems in most, if not all, contexts. This point alone makes the book an absolute rarity in the debate about educational justice and non-ideal theory, especially if the latter is more than just a label which merely signifies that one also and often highly selectively takes empirical research into account in order to confirm one’s normative beliefs. This problem is related to the second pillar, which constitutes an ideology critique: Merry assumes that currently dominant modes of theorizing educational justice within the liberal paradigm are prone to a variety of unconscious biases and related unquestioned empirical assumptions. These include, for instance, cognitive dissonance as the tendency to downplay the relevance of countervailing empirical evidence which does not fit into one’s normative framework. Due to these and other tendencies to which we 957835 TRE0010.1177/1477878520957835Theory and Research in EducationBook reviews book-review2020","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":"18 1","pages":"364 - 366"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1477878520957835","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book review: Michael S. Merry, Educational Justice: Liberal Ideals, Persistent Inequality, and the Constructive Uses of Critique\",\"authors\":\"Johannes Drerup\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1477878520957835\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this highly readable and densely written book, Michael S. Merry develops a constructive critique of contemporary conceptions of educational justice. The book is subdivided into three main parts. The first part provides an introduction to the complex debate about educational justice in political philosophy and philosophy of education while presenting the theoretical underpinnings of his own critique. This critique rests on three interrelated methodological pillars, focusing on central blind spots of the currently dominant liberal egalitarian paradigm in the debate about educational justice. The first pillar concerns the debate between ideal and non-ideal theory. According to Merry, one of the major shortcomings of controversies over educational justice is the lack of a sufficiently complex integration of principled normative theorizing and empirical social research. While he repeatedly emphasizes that we cannot and should not do without ideal theory tout court, Merry plausibly argues that with respect to real-world problems standard ideal theories provide only very limited orientation for an adequate, empirically informed assessment of what educational justice requires. Throughout the book, Merry shows how difficult and messy things get in any serious attempt to apply normative frameworks and principles in concrete contexts (as opposed to often stylized, hypothetical cases). Confronted with empirical evidence, liberal egalitarian arguments and assumptions indeed in some cases seem to be based on more or less fantastic, ahistorical constructions (for instance, the ‘ideal’ public school), bearing little resemblance to actual sociopolitical conditions and functions of the educational systems in most, if not all, contexts. This point alone makes the book an absolute rarity in the debate about educational justice and non-ideal theory, especially if the latter is more than just a label which merely signifies that one also and often highly selectively takes empirical research into account in order to confirm one’s normative beliefs. This problem is related to the second pillar, which constitutes an ideology critique: Merry assumes that currently dominant modes of theorizing educational justice within the liberal paradigm are prone to a variety of unconscious biases and related unquestioned empirical assumptions. These include, for instance, cognitive dissonance as the tendency to downplay the relevance of countervailing empirical evidence which does not fit into one’s normative framework. Due to these and other tendencies to which we 957835 TRE0010.1177/1477878520957835Theory and Research in EducationBook reviews book-review2020\",\"PeriodicalId\":46679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory and Research in Education\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"364 - 366\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1477878520957835\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory and Research in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878520957835\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878520957835","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在这本可读性强、文笔密集的书中,迈克尔·S·梅里对当代教育正义的概念进行了建设性的批判。这本书分为三个主要部分。第一部分介绍了政治哲学和教育哲学中关于教育公正的复杂争论,同时介绍了他自己批评的理论基础。这一批评基于三个相互关联的方法论支柱,重点关注当前占主导地位的自由平等主义范式在教育正义辩论中的核心盲点。第一个支柱涉及理想和非理想理论之间的争论。梅里认为,关于教育公正的争议的主要缺点之一是缺乏原则性规范理论和实证社会研究的足够复杂的结合。尽管梅里一再强调,我们不能也不应该没有理想理论吹捧法庭,但他振振有词地认为,就现实世界的问题而言,标准的理想理论只为充分、凭经验评估教育公正的要求提供了非常有限的方向。在整本书中,梅里展示了在任何认真尝试将规范性框架和原则应用于具体环境中(而不是通常程式化的假设案例)时,事情会变得多么困难和混乱。面对经验证据,自由平等主义的论点和假设——事实上,在某些情况下——似乎或多或少是基于奇妙的、非历史性的构建(例如,“理想”公立学校),与大多数(如果不是全部的话)情况下的实际社会政治条件和教育系统功能几乎没有相似之处。仅凭这一点,这本书在关于教育公正和非理想理论的辩论中就显得绝对罕见,尤其是如果后者不仅仅是一个标签,它仅仅意味着一个人也经常高度选择性地考虑实证研究,以确认自己的规范信念。这个问题与第二个支柱有关,它构成了一种意识形态批判:梅里认为,自由主义范式中目前占主导地位的教育正义理论模式容易产生各种无意识的偏见和相关的毫无疑问的经验假设。例如,其中包括认知失调,即倾向于淡化不符合规范框架的反作用经验证据的相关性。由于这些和其他趋势,我们957835 TRE0010.1177/11477878520957835教育理论与研究书评2020
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Book review: Michael S. Merry, Educational Justice: Liberal Ideals, Persistent Inequality, and the Constructive Uses of Critique
In this highly readable and densely written book, Michael S. Merry develops a constructive critique of contemporary conceptions of educational justice. The book is subdivided into three main parts. The first part provides an introduction to the complex debate about educational justice in political philosophy and philosophy of education while presenting the theoretical underpinnings of his own critique. This critique rests on three interrelated methodological pillars, focusing on central blind spots of the currently dominant liberal egalitarian paradigm in the debate about educational justice. The first pillar concerns the debate between ideal and non-ideal theory. According to Merry, one of the major shortcomings of controversies over educational justice is the lack of a sufficiently complex integration of principled normative theorizing and empirical social research. While he repeatedly emphasizes that we cannot and should not do without ideal theory tout court, Merry plausibly argues that with respect to real-world problems standard ideal theories provide only very limited orientation for an adequate, empirically informed assessment of what educational justice requires. Throughout the book, Merry shows how difficult and messy things get in any serious attempt to apply normative frameworks and principles in concrete contexts (as opposed to often stylized, hypothetical cases). Confronted with empirical evidence, liberal egalitarian arguments and assumptions indeed in some cases seem to be based on more or less fantastic, ahistorical constructions (for instance, the ‘ideal’ public school), bearing little resemblance to actual sociopolitical conditions and functions of the educational systems in most, if not all, contexts. This point alone makes the book an absolute rarity in the debate about educational justice and non-ideal theory, especially if the latter is more than just a label which merely signifies that one also and often highly selectively takes empirical research into account in order to confirm one’s normative beliefs. This problem is related to the second pillar, which constitutes an ideology critique: Merry assumes that currently dominant modes of theorizing educational justice within the liberal paradigm are prone to a variety of unconscious biases and related unquestioned empirical assumptions. These include, for instance, cognitive dissonance as the tendency to downplay the relevance of countervailing empirical evidence which does not fit into one’s normative framework. Due to these and other tendencies to which we 957835 TRE0010.1177/1477878520957835Theory and Research in EducationBook reviews book-review2020
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Theory and Research in Education
Theory and Research in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Theory and Research in Education, formerly known as The School Field, is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes theoretical, empirical and conjectural papers contributing to the development of educational theory, policy and practice.
期刊最新文献
Book Review: Julian Culp, Johannes Drerup and Douglas Yacek (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Democratic Education Education for deliberative democracy through the long-term view Education for flourishing: A social contract for foundational competencies Book review: Barbara S Stengel, Responsibility: Philosophy of Education in Practice How much is too much? Refining normative evaluations of prescriptive curriculum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1