教育的概念、口號與隱喻

CONCEPTS, SLOGANS AND METAPHORS, IN EDUCATION

歐陽教(Oscar Jiaw Ouyang)

《國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所集刊》 32輯 (1990/06) Pp. 29-49

https://doi.org/10.6910/BGIENTNU.199006_(32).0002

摘要

本文旨在評析教育的概念、定義、規準、口號與隱喻，並略述其關係與應用限制。本文原名「教育的概念分析」，係應此間「教育導論」一書編者之邀而寫，列為該書第一章，導述教育的概念，文早已於一九八九年四月完成，全書原擬於一九八九年初夏出版，因其他章節約稿未交齊，延誤迄今未出版。故先此刊出以就正於同道。顧名思義，「教育導論」應該是「教育學入門」之類的淺近教科書體裁，本文為了評析高度抽象的教育概念，且顧及初學者學習興趣，在行文中列舉不少具體實例，作為教育概念分析的根據。如此寫法，作為入門的教科書，可讀性似乎較高，而且也可以平衡行文的過度理論化。本文分三節：第一節　教育的概念1.教育的概念2.教育的定義。第二節　教育的規準1.教育與反教育引例2.教育的規準。第三節　教育的口號與隱喻1.教育的口號（涵義、功能、限制、與評析）2.教育的隱喻（涵義、功能、限制、與評析）。第一節先從複合的概念、爭議性的概念、多樣態的歷程、工作－成效的概念等四個角度，論述教育的概念性質，以顯示其抽象、紛歧與複雜程度；然後進一步從規範性、功能性、內涵性與時代性等四個面向，來評析教育的定義，一面嘗試界定教育的定義，一面分析其種種層次與角度的定義特性。第二節先示範分析教育與反教育的六個具體引例，然後再舉例詮釋教育的合價值性、合認知性及合自願性規準。本節論點認為教育概念雖難免歧見爭議，但是，教育與反教育的外延性規準應妥為奠立，否則無法討論教育。第三節先探索教育的口號與隱喻，各就其涵義、功能、限制及關係作深入分析，然後再各就其教育應用作評論。例如：從接生、塑造、雕刻及生長四個隱喻，評析其教育學理及實際應用的短長。本節論述顯示隱喻雖可強化口號宣傳之情緒感染力量，也可使教育理論具象化、感性化，然此終非教育之嚴肅性本義，此應辨明。最後，本文殿以結語四點：難下教育定義；應妥訂教育規準；更應釐清口號與隱喻；尤應耐心教人成人，否則，人而不如草履蟲，不學乖，（A man is worthless than a paramecium in the process of learning how to right the wrong）則其奈教育何？

並列摘要

Education is an essentially contested concept. Laymen an educationists alike are easily to be befogged by the foggy ideas of education. This paper intends to defog some, if not all, of the fogs in the field of educational discourses. It is therefore aimed at making explicit some relevant concepts, definitions, criteria, slogans and metaphors in education. There are roughly three parts in this paper. The first part analyzes the concept of education in terms of a complicated concept, contested concept, task-achievement concept, and polymorphous process; it furthermore scrutinizes the definition of education by virtue of the prescriptivity, functionality, connotation and Zeitgeist. It tries to show the complexity of education and criticizes in detail some popular definitions in education. The second part expounds Peters' three criteria of education, namely, worthwhileness, cognitiveness and voluntariness, by means of some mundane examples to demarcate educative activities from non-educative or miseducative ones. Some higher order criteria as such, it is argued, are the minimum demands for any meaningful and rational discourse in education, otherwise, it is undoubtedly irrational. The third part probes into the meanings, functions and limitations of educational slogans as well as that of educational metaphors, respectively. As usual, definitions and criteria emphasize the cognitive seriousness in educational discourses; educational slogans however put more emphasis on emotive meaning. Therefore, the vivid images of educational metaphors are always used as the best instruments to vivify educational slogans as rallying symbols in education. Yet, any modes of metaphor in education, such as midwifery, molding, sculpturing and growth metaphors, are just a descriptive analogy of similarity rather than identity between education and these metaphorical modes. Thus, their applicabilities are surely not unlimited. In concluding remarks, this paper although tries to solve some thorny problems in defining an exact definition of education, it is not strongly intended for such a one, instead if propounds the usefulness of constructing some universal criteria of education; moreover, it demands the clarification between the use and abuse of educational slogans and that of educational metaphors; finally it claims that the educability of human nature must be strenuously enhanced, otherwise a rational animal is worthless than a mere paramecium in the process of learning how to right the wrong, because foolish enough and paradoxical enough, man, certainly not paramecia, is the only animal capable of stubbing his toe twice on the same stone. Man is the last enemy of himself. Education rather than miseducation can somewhat stop his repeating stupidities and errors and heal his sufferings, if he will.