When E. Durkheim Meets L. Tolstoy: Contrasting Two Conceptions of Discipline as Moral Education
In his work Moral Education, the sociologist Emile Durkheim emphasized the spirit of discipline as the first element of morality, followed by attachment to social groups and then individual autonomy or selfdetermination. He extended this conception to the practice of schooling and suggested that the exertion of authority is indispensable for moral education. The novelist and anarchist Leo Tolstoy, however, highlighted freedom as the goal of moral pursuit. In Tolstoy's view, any intended exertion of discipline is fruitless or even harmful. Rousseau's influence on both theories is evident with Tolstoy as successor and Durkheim as critic of his romantic idealism. For Tolstoy, the need for discipline is inherent in human nature because of its accordance with the quest for freedom. Yet for Durkheim, discipline should be involved as part of the pedagogical process to serve as a foundation for the consequential autonomy. The authors of this article argue that they are two sides of one coin that may complement, rather than contradict each other. Their differences are largely embedded in the contexts of their respective periods and the corresponding attitudes toward public schooling. The major texts engaged with to assert the above argument include Durkheim's Moral Education, and The Evolution of Educational Thought, as well as Tolstoy's What is Art? and On Education.
|關鍵詞||自律、規訓、涂爾幹、道德教育、托爾斯泰、autonomy、discipline、E. Durkheim、moral education、L. Tolstoy|