ブラメルドによるハッチンズ批判の検討 : ハッチンズ自由教育思想の再評価に向けて

type:P(論文)

This essay is an endeavor to reexamine the validity of Theodore Brameld's criticism of the philosophy of education of Robert M. Hutchins (1899-1977). It has been said up to the present that the philosophy of education of Hutchins, who is famous for his long presidency at the University of Chicago, puts great emphasis on its rationalistic concept of human nature and traditional views on education. The program of the Great Books and liberal arts curriculum is a good example of it. 　Hutchins' conventional image in textbooks on American philosophy or history of education has been generally been that of an intellectual elitist, and he has commonly been classified as a "perennialist". This largely derived from the fact that Brameld assigned Hutchins to the perennialist category of his typology, that is, "culturology of philosophies of education". Brameld regards Hutchins as the best-known and influential lay perennialist in American contemporary education. Many studies on Hutchins' philosophy of education in the United States and Japan have endorsed this assignation without due consideration of the validity of it. 　Brameld also gives more credit to Hutchins than to anyone else for the movement sometimes termed neo-Scholasticism or neo-Thomism. And he criticizes Hutchins from the two points of view as follows; 1. Hutchins' philosophy of education is unconditionally based on the assumption that there are transcendental truths, one specific metaphysical system: the Aristotelian or Thomist. 2. Hutchins insists that the educator avoid the concept of the elementary and secondary schools as in any sense agencies of social reform. Brameld concludes by saying that the kind of education that perennialists like Hutchins propose for the majority is not primarily education for responsible and participative rule by or of the majority. Accordingly Brameld looks upon Hutchins' philosophy of education as a reactionary challenge to democracy. 　However the comprehensive examination of the corpus of Hutchins' philosophy of education demonstrates that his assignment to the category of "perennialist" lacks validity. Although indeed it might be said that 　Hutchins believed in some metaphysical and transcendental truths in the 1930's, the early stage of his development of philosophy of education, he denies his belief in them later from the 1940's on. Hutchins advocated "liberal education for all" so that everybody could be free socially, politically, and mentally. He denied the concept that the educational systems were the agencies of social reform, because he radically criticized the existing public educational systems which turned into the service stations for the states, in order to realize his ideal of liberal education for all. 　I suppose that Hutchins' philosophy of education is worthy of being reevaluated in the present age. Now the stereotype "perennialist" which Brameld provides for Hutchins prevents us from reevaluating Hutchins' philosophy of education. Herin lies the reason why this essay should reexamine Brameld's criticism of Hutchins' philosophy of education.