Analysis of a problematic series of theories of a political...

Analysis of a problem set of theories of a political orientation

As shown in paragraph 7.32, this set of theories marks the following names: Plato Rousseau Pestalozzi Disterweig → Tolstoy → Dewey → Frenet Makarenko Freire Neil.

Plato is an independent politico-pedagogical figure, a supporter of the principle of justice (but not freedom). The Russoist line was represented by Rousseau himself, as well as his followers - Pestalozzi, Diesterweg and Tolstoy, who professed the principle of freedom. Dewey politically represented a pragmatic concept, guided by the ideals of democracy. For him, the principle of freedom was more relevant than the principle of justice. Frenet, Makarenko, Freire and Neil proceeded from the Marxist position, giving the principle of justice a preference over the principle of freedom. Thus, all authors were guided by one or another political science theory, placing either the principle of justice or freedom in the forefront. Not subjecting to deep analysis of political theories and, in fact, without delving into their conceptual arrangement, these authors involved a pedagogical theory in the political context. Pedagogy became politically relative. To what extent are their views consistent? In the search for an answer to this question, it is useful to first consider the principles of freedom and justice recognized by many researchers as the most relevant in political science as a science of power relations.

Turning to the principle of freedom, we find ourselves in a vague situation. Recognized philosophical authority I. Berlin notes that "almost all moralists in the history of mankind glorified freedom. The meaning of this word, as well as some others - happiness and kindness, nature and reality - is so multilayered that there are few interpretations that will prove to be unfit for it. " It is usually said that a person is free to the extent that no one: neither another person nor a group of people - does not interfere with his actions. " According to his explanations, negative freedom is freedom from under which no one is forced to do anything by other people.

Positive freedom is freedom to (act), when available opportunities are actually used by a person.

Considering the philosophical interpretations of the problem of freedom, we can recall the works of many authors, among which we can not fail to mention J. Locke, I. Kant, A. Smith, JS Mill, MA Bakunin, F. von Hayek, R Nozicka. But, perhaps, most fundamentally the phenomenon of freedom was considered by the existentialists K. Jaspers and J.-P. Sartre. They highlighted the concept of responsibility for freedom (see paragraph 2.5). The concept of justice remained in the shadow of their analysis.

It is believed that the principle of justice was most thoroughly considered in the famous book by John Rawls "Theory of Justice" (1971), who wrote about two principles of justice - the principle of priority of freedom and the principle of difference. The principle of priority of freedom is that "each individual must have an equal right with respect to the most common system of equal fundamental freedoms compatible with such systems of freedoms for all other people". The principle of difference, or the principle of the priority of equity over efficiency and well-being, reads: "Social and economic inequalities should be organized in such a way that they simultaneously (a) lead to the greatest benefit of the least successful in accordance with the principle of fair savings and (b) make open to all positions and positions in conditions of fair equality of opportunity. "

As we see, for Rawls, the principle of freedom in some way precedes the principles of justice. It is understood as a postulate. Its legitimacy is not substantiated. The principles of justice are constructed. Since Rawls began constructing the theory from the principle of freedom, he had the right to qualify himself as a supporter of liberalism, which he did in his second fundamental work. Interestingly, recognized authorities in the field of liberalism, such as Robert Nozick, have always refused to recognize Rawls as a team-mate, and for their critical position there are certain grounds: Rawls developed not the theory of freedom, but the theory of justice. He could not claim that he should be guided by the principle of freedom - no matter how much Rawls understood him, it is obvious that this principle was limited to them, because he was a supporter of ensuring equal freedoms.

So, the principles of freedom and justice do not have a clear content. We believe that this state of affairs is a consequence of the known misunderstanding of the device of political science. Powerful relations permeate our whole life. They inevitably arise where people interact in a certain way with each other. Subjects set themselves some goals and, in connection with this, optimize their initial values. The relevance of values, regardless of the goals set, is denied.

As for the degree of autonomy of a person, it is determined not a priori, but based on the content of the theory. In any substantive science, the degree of conditionality of some objects is determined by others. If we are interested in the degree of dependence of people on each other, then the content of social sciences, in particular, economics, political science, sociology, and jurisprudence should be guided. This relationship may be greater or lesser, but it is never zero.

All pedagogues - supporters of theories of political orientation are dissatisfied with the existing arrangement of states that limit the rights of citizens. Their protest is caused by the fact that people are involved in cases that do not correspond to their own values, that state bodies are not guided by the principle of responsibility. Concerned about this circumstance, they are forced to turn to the consideration of the ratio of pedagogy and political science. It is a question of the correlation of the two branches of science. How is this relationship comprehended? In our opinion, this can be done in a single way - pedagogical relations are seen as signs of political. This means that some inter-scientific model is being built. Modeling in this case is that the concepts of two fundamentally different branches of knowledge are brought into contact with each other. But is this done successfully? There is hardly any reason for a positive response to this question. The fact is that political and pedagogical models are never presented in a clear form. Insufficient attention is paid to the conceptual design of political science. The potential of political science is not properly used. It is the appeal to him that would allow most directly to equip students with an antidote against repressive political order.

Readers wishing to rank pedagogical theories, we would recommend, first, to take as criteria the principles of responsibility, justice and freedom. Second, determine their relative weight. Third, expose theories of evaluation in accordance with the weight of each of the three principles. Fourthly, in accordance with the magnitude of these estimates, determine the rank of theories.

Conclusions

1. Pedagogical theories have political science.

2. It derives its expression when considering the inter-scientific links of pedagogy and political science.

3. It is not right to build pedagogy on the basis of the principles of political science.

thematic pictures

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)