My claim is that Bourdieu＇s concept of habitus is not consistent and its ambiguities conceal an imprecision concerning the subject of social action. Indeed, Bourdieu defines habitus in three different ways： as a cap...My claim is that Bourdieu＇s concept of habitus is not consistent and its ambiguities conceal an imprecision concerning the subject of social action. Indeed, Bourdieu defines habitus in three different ways： as a capacity, as a set of dispositions, and as a scheme for practice. That is why he cannot solve the problem of the duality of agent and habitus and produces a problem offundamentation, as we can see in his troubles to determine which is the substratum of social actions. Though Bourdieu claims he borrows the concept of habitus from Husserl and other phenomenologists, many divergences can be stated in the way they conceive it. Unlike Bourdieu, phenomenology can establish precise relations of fundamentation between agent, habitus, and the ego because it avoids the fallacy of the wrong level involved in the attribution of systemic properties to personal eogic structures. Accordingly, it provides a consistent and precise concept of the habitus,展开更多
Education has enormous influence on individual prospects for a flourishing life, thus, the justice of an education system is a key indicator of the justice in a society. Normally, the debate over educational justice r...Education has enormous influence on individual prospects for a flourishing life, thus, the justice of an education system is a key indicator of the justice in a society. Normally, the debate over educational justice refers to two fundamental questions： the conception of justice and the aims and purposes of education. We may agree about the meaning of justice, but disagree about the aim of education, and vice versa, and thus come to very different perspective about what educational policies should entail. However, what does justice look like when it comes to the distribution of educational goods？ Should we ensure that all children have equal educational resources and opportunities or should we rather concentrate on equal educational attachment？ Recently, there is a debate on educational justice which mainly focuses on the status and role of comparatively considerations within a just distribution of educational benefits. According to the adequacy approach, the state is required to ensure all children have enough or adequate education. Once the adequate threshold of educational resources is obtained, there is no injustice in the fact that some children have better education than others. In contrast with adequacy approach, proponents of what can be called educational equality approach have instead argued that justice requires prospects for educational achievement to be dependent upon a child＇s ability and willingness to learn, and not on factors outside of her control. Therefore, the state is required to ensure that an individual＇s prospects for educational achievement should be a function only of that individual＇s effort and talent, not of his or her social class background or other factors outside of her control. It seems that the debate between proponents of adequacy and proponents of equality in educational opportunity reflects very different ways to think about just educational policy and practice. This paper is trying to address this debate. It proceeds as follows. In the next section, I will outline the Equality vs. Adequacy debate. Then, in section III, I would like to take issue with these approaches. I will argue that both approaches have negative effects on equality and justice in education. Finally, inspired by Harvard political philosopher Danielle Allen＇s work on education and equality, I will propose an alternative conception of educational equality. I believe it is a better way of understanding the meaning of educational justice for a democratic society.展开更多
This paper reports on an ethnographic inquiry into the linguistic and sociocultural affordances available to English and Japanese foreign language learners through their engagement in a social learning space at a Japa...This paper reports on an ethnographic inquiry into the linguistic and sociocultural affordances available to English and Japanese foreign language learners through their engagement in a social learning space at a Japanese university. By social learning space we refer to a facility in which students come together in order to learn with and from each other in a non- formal setting. To explore the social learning dynamic in this environment, we carried out a longitudinal ethnographic inquiry. Data came primarily from interviews with learners and administrators, supported by participant-observations. A thematic analysis of the data, informed by ecological and community of practice perspectives, pointed to the emergence of a community of learners and revealed how closely the affordances were connected with the emergent community. In this paper we report on the findings related to the affordances which gave rise to language learning opportunities, the relationship of these affordances to the conditions which supported the development of a community of learners, and the role of learner autonomy in regard to these two interrelated phenomena.展开更多
文摘My claim is that Bourdieu＇s concept of habitus is not consistent and its ambiguities conceal an imprecision concerning the subject of social action. Indeed, Bourdieu defines habitus in three different ways： as a capacity, as a set of dispositions, and as a scheme for practice. That is why he cannot solve the problem of the duality of agent and habitus and produces a problem offundamentation, as we can see in his troubles to determine which is the substratum of social actions. Though Bourdieu claims he borrows the concept of habitus from Husserl and other phenomenologists, many divergences can be stated in the way they conceive it. Unlike Bourdieu, phenomenology can establish precise relations of fundamentation between agent, habitus, and the ego because it avoids the fallacy of the wrong level involved in the attribution of systemic properties to personal eogic structures. Accordingly, it provides a consistent and precise concept of the habitus,
文摘Education has enormous influence on individual prospects for a flourishing life, thus, the justice of an education system is a key indicator of the justice in a society. Normally, the debate over educational justice refers to two fundamental questions： the conception of justice and the aims and purposes of education. We may agree about the meaning of justice, but disagree about the aim of education, and vice versa, and thus come to very different perspective about what educational policies should entail. However, what does justice look like when it comes to the distribution of educational goods？ Should we ensure that all children have equal educational resources and opportunities or should we rather concentrate on equal educational attachment？ Recently, there is a debate on educational justice which mainly focuses on the status and role of comparatively considerations within a just distribution of educational benefits. According to the adequacy approach, the state is required to ensure all children have enough or adequate education. Once the adequate threshold of educational resources is obtained, there is no injustice in the fact that some children have better education than others. In contrast with adequacy approach, proponents of what can be called educational equality approach have instead argued that justice requires prospects for educational achievement to be dependent upon a child＇s ability and willingness to learn, and not on factors outside of her control. Therefore, the state is required to ensure that an individual＇s prospects for educational achievement should be a function only of that individual＇s effort and talent, not of his or her social class background or other factors outside of her control. It seems that the debate between proponents of adequacy and proponents of equality in educational opportunity reflects very different ways to think about just educational policy and practice. This paper is trying to address this debate. It proceeds as follows. In the next section, I will outline the Equality vs. Adequacy debate. Then, in section III, I would like to take issue with these approaches. I will argue that both approaches have negative effects on equality and justice in education. Finally, inspired by Harvard political philosopher Danielle Allen＇s work on education and equality, I will propose an alternative conception of educational equality. I believe it is a better way of understanding the meaning of educational justice for a democratic society.
基金the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) [No.23520674] which has enabled us to extend this study for an additional four years
文摘This paper reports on an ethnographic inquiry into the linguistic and sociocultural affordances available to English and Japanese foreign language learners through their engagement in a social learning space at a Japanese university. By social learning space we refer to a facility in which students come together in order to learn with and from each other in a non- formal setting. To explore the social learning dynamic in this environment, we carried out a longitudinal ethnographic inquiry. Data came primarily from interviews with learners and administrators, supported by participant-observations. A thematic analysis of the data, informed by ecological and community of practice perspectives, pointed to the emergence of a community of learners and revealed how closely the affordances were connected with the emergent community. In this paper we report on the findings related to the affordances which gave rise to language learning opportunities, the relationship of these affordances to the conditions which supported the development of a community of learners, and the role of learner autonomy in regard to these two interrelated phenomena.
