Page 192 - Štrajn, Darko. 2018. Vzgoja družbe. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 192
Vzgoja družbe
quences of judgments from authors such as Aronson, Derrida and Baudril-
lard – following from their perception as it is formed by their philosophical
concepts – are their clear critical formulations of a repudiation of different
naïve expectations of a »better world« after the end of the cold war era. In
other words: the post-cold war globalization restructured and to an extent
changed the very fields, where differences gain shape of confrontations (of
values, cultures, interests, and so forth). The disarmament should be prob-
ably the crucial aim of all activities to get humanity rid of wars. UNESCO
World Congress on Disarmament Education in June 1980 actually did make
the problem of disarmament a focus of peace education. Some evidence that
the worthy goals of the disarmament education could not »make it« can be
found in a collection of texts, edited by Magnus Haavelsrud and published
in 1993. Still, education remains a tool of hope, especially, when we agree
on the international levels what next generations should be taught about. In
such a view discourse of peace is a science of hope. There is a point of a key
difference in understanding the concept of citizenship education, which sub-
sequently determines the form of a particular curriculum and a correspond-
ing practice of teaching and learning. The »key difference« is a signifier un-
der which one direction of formulation of the notion of citizenship educa-
tion leads towards a vision of an autonomous individual and the other direc-
tion of formulation of the notion that leads towards a vision, which advo-
cates a primacy of a community over individuals’ rights and needs. This dif-
ference displays itself as a difference between a »traditional« approach to
the problem, which solves the question of socialisation of young people in a
form of the typical »civics« and a »post-modern« approach, which tries to
rely on a reflexive and open concept invested with diversity, multicultural-
ism, etc. The first tendency relies on a more fixed idea of truth, the other re-
lies on an assumption that the truth depends on being recognised as such by
an individual, making the notion of truth much more a matter of a cognitive
process within a social practice. However, it is probably difficult to find one
or the other notion in any educational reality in a »pure« form – let us say,
as a definitive »model« of a curriculum and/or an educational practice. Two
points of difference mainly broadly shape a discursive space in which, we can
watch a struggle for a definition of the citizenship education within each
country and on the international scale. The concept of citizenship education
has its roots in the universalistic ideas of the European enlightenment peri-
od. Obviously in many countries, that haven’t yet embraced fully the »West-
ern democracy,« they take citizenship education as much more »cultural«
than as a political notion.
quences of judgments from authors such as Aronson, Derrida and Baudril-
lard – following from their perception as it is formed by their philosophical
concepts – are their clear critical formulations of a repudiation of different
naïve expectations of a »better world« after the end of the cold war era. In
other words: the post-cold war globalization restructured and to an extent
changed the very fields, where differences gain shape of confrontations (of
values, cultures, interests, and so forth). The disarmament should be prob-
ably the crucial aim of all activities to get humanity rid of wars. UNESCO
World Congress on Disarmament Education in June 1980 actually did make
the problem of disarmament a focus of peace education. Some evidence that
the worthy goals of the disarmament education could not »make it« can be
found in a collection of texts, edited by Magnus Haavelsrud and published
in 1993. Still, education remains a tool of hope, especially, when we agree
on the international levels what next generations should be taught about. In
such a view discourse of peace is a science of hope. There is a point of a key
difference in understanding the concept of citizenship education, which sub-
sequently determines the form of a particular curriculum and a correspond-
ing practice of teaching and learning. The »key difference« is a signifier un-
der which one direction of formulation of the notion of citizenship educa-
tion leads towards a vision of an autonomous individual and the other direc-
tion of formulation of the notion that leads towards a vision, which advo-
cates a primacy of a community over individuals’ rights and needs. This dif-
ference displays itself as a difference between a »traditional« approach to
the problem, which solves the question of socialisation of young people in a
form of the typical »civics« and a »post-modern« approach, which tries to
rely on a reflexive and open concept invested with diversity, multicultural-
ism, etc. The first tendency relies on a more fixed idea of truth, the other re-
lies on an assumption that the truth depends on being recognised as such by
an individual, making the notion of truth much more a matter of a cognitive
process within a social practice. However, it is probably difficult to find one
or the other notion in any educational reality in a »pure« form – let us say,
as a definitive »model« of a curriculum and/or an educational practice. Two
points of difference mainly broadly shape a discursive space in which, we can
watch a struggle for a definition of the citizenship education within each
country and on the international scale. The concept of citizenship education
has its roots in the universalistic ideas of the European enlightenment peri-
od. Obviously in many countries, that haven’t yet embraced fully the »West-
ern democracy,« they take citizenship education as much more »cultural«
than as a political notion.
