By Aditi
Present: Darren, Emily, Issa, Jae, Manla, Nicol, Shelly, Wang Ge, Lucia (via Skype)
Chair/reporter: Issa
Recording: Nicol
After our regular reflection and report on our own progress of writing in the past weekend, Aditi brought sociological perspective on education by introducing the key concepts of Bourdieu.
With the detailed handout as circulated via email, Aditi first introduced two main sociological perspectives(the functional and conflict perspectives) and their impact on education. She continued to talk about Bourdieu's key concepts: social reproduction, Habitus, Field, Capital, and Symbolic violence.
Our heated discussion focused mainly on 1) the application of Bourdieu's concepts in understanding education, 2) the relation between structure(reproduction) and agency(mobility), 3) limitations of Bourdieu's concepts, 4) how to achieve social change and educational change, 5) issues like reflexivity, agency, reality and perceived reality, labelling, role of teachers in the educational structure, space, illiteracy, etc. Samples were given by participants to further discuss the above issues, such as educational innovation in HK, how a particular discussion topic in classroom was shaped by class, social and cultural capital, etc.
I have noted down only a few sentences for sharing, as I was busy keeping connecting Lucia via skype and joining the heated discussion. Other participants are welcome to add more:
1) Bourdieu's wanted to bridge the structure and agency through reflexivity, but he didn't talk much about how to achieve social change through reflexivity. People criticises his model of reflexivity is weak. He is contradictory himself.
2) Reflexivity alone can't solve the problem. ... To bridge subjectivity and objectivity, you have to touch objectivity itself. You have to change the society. You can not just solve the problem by changing yourself, thinking reflexively. ...
3) Schooling and education are very different. ... It is important to ask who set the standards, what is successful, etc. If these questions are not asked, a lot of students just fail through schooling system.
4) Reflexivity is hard to achieve. ... I think you have to learn how to be reflexive.
I add Lucia's comment in skype below as bonus:
Lucia: Maybe the concept of education Nicol and Aditi talking about is different, Aditi focus on the idealist side of education, and Nicol more focus on the actual situation of education.
Next Thursday (June 18) at 12pm, Aditi will continue to talk how to use Bourdieu's concepts in educational research by introducing her own research design.
Looking forward to that.
Issa
P.S. Further reference:
Walter Benjamin and his famous writing in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benjamin#Further_reading
Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2009). When Knowledge Wins: Transcending the Sense and Nonsense of Academic Rankings. The Academy of Management Learning and Education (AMLE), 8(1), 72-95.
Bourdieu, P. (1996). The rules of art : genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Johnson, R. (1993). The field of cultural production : essays on art and literature. Cambridge: Polity Press.
1 条评论:
Just to carry on the thinking from the Bourdieu discussion.
One of my friends was a writer, and she pointed out that a great writer should mantain a non-judemental and empathetic attitude towards the subject of his/her writing, and able to reflect and illustrate how society and human behaviors are 'conditioned', rather than simply good vs evil.
Her comments made me think about Marx and Bouridieu because obviously they were both great writers, and great thinkers. And what they achieved in their writing was exactly to illustrate and expose to the readers so brilliantly how society and human behaviors are conditioned and structured. And how inequality is sustained through the conditioning of human beings.
But of course they are not simply writers because they also tried to offer solutions to the problems that they themselves discovered.
Marx's solution was through class struggle and revolution which of course ends in violence and blood and the rise of new political powers. But as we can see, new types of suppression and inequality emerge and such revolution didn't eradicate human suffering.
Bourdieu to me is more empathetic, with less anger but people criticize him for not being able to offer any real solutions. People think we can only change the world through political actions, but they often result in conflict, and violent actions.
Postmodern thinkers on the other hand totally avoid political actions, they simply don't want to get their hands dirty. And so that's why they received lots of criticism too.
As far as I'm concerned, the western thinking hasn't been able to offer any real and non-violent solutions. So people will go on writing and theorizing as long as there's still human suffering.
On this note, I'm really looking forward to Jae's topic because it sounds like the Ancient Greeks has something to offer in terms of making the world a better place through actions.
发表评论