듀이 교육철학에서 열린 마음과 협동에 대한 논의

A Study on Practical Fallibilities of Dewey's Educational Theory : focus on open-mindedness, cooperation and politicization

이 연구는 민주사회 구성원의 인격 요소로서 열린 마음과 협동의 습관 형성의 필요성을 강조하고, 근본적으로 학교가 사회개혁의 원동력이 되어야 한다고 주장하는 듀이의 교육철학이 역설적으로 민주주의에 봉사한다는 미명하에 교육을 정치화하고 순응성을 조장할 수 있다는 ‘생각’에서, 열린 마음과 협동의 의미를 중심으로 듀이 교육철학의 오류가능성에 대하여 살펴보았다. 물론 듀이 자신은 순응성과 교육의 정치화에 대해 경계하고 강하게 비판하였지만, 듀이의 교육철학을 실제에 적용하려는 일련의 시도에서 그러한 오류가 실제적 결과로 나타날 수도 있다는 것에 대하여 논의하였다. 특히 듀이를 주목한 것은, 지금까지 그의 사상만큼 현대의 교육이론과 실제에 큰 영향을 끼친 이론은 없지만, 동시에 그의 사상만큼 여러 가지 그릇된 오해를 불러일으킨 것도 없었기 때문이다. 따라서 이 연구에서는 듀이의 기본적 주장들과 그의 사상에 대한 잘못된 이해가 가져올 수 있는 오류에 초점을 맞추어 논의를 전개하였다.

The purpose of this study is to discuss practical fallibilities of Dewey's educational theory focusing on open-mindedness and cooperation. One of the central problems any serious account of education must address is the nature of the distinction between education and politicization. Dewey's education theory is particularly vulnerable to charges that it encourages conformity and politicize education in the name of serving democracy. This is a function of his heavy emphasis on the need to develop habits of open-mindedness and cooperation, and more fundamentally, his claim that school should be engines of social reform. Dewey himself strongly attacked conformism and the reduction of education to politicization. The primary thrust of my argument in this thesis is that they are nonetheless likely practical outcomes of any systematic attempt to put his educational theory into practice. In relation to this problem, first, I considered the problems that arise out of Dewey's heavy emphasis on open-mindedness. His account of the education of open-mind fails to consider sufficiently what it is appropriate to teach children to be open-minded about and when, and this has potential serious and undesirable consequences. Moreover, the focus on open-mindedness combines with his deep distaste for custom and tradition such that Dewey too readily discounts or simply ignores that need to develop respected for authority and tradition, even in democratic regimes. I also addressed the tension between the education of cooperation and conformity. Dewey gives considerable attention to this problem, but I argued that in the end his heavy emphasis on the formation of habits of cooperation is likely to stifle spirited individualism. And the dangerous of Dewey's focus on open-mindedness and cooperation are reinforced by what I claimed is the most dangerous aspect of Dewey's thought on education, his insistence that schools should be used as a means to social reform. Dewey often writes as if we ought to enlist schools in a crusade to create new democratic men. It is to this aspect of Dewey's thought, and the disastrous consequences it would entail if pursued in practice. Dewey's democratic men would lead to the extreme politicization of education.