教育與政治的對話——以Wilhelm Flitner的教育學說為例

Dialogue between Education and Politics: W. Flitner’s Doctrine of Education

精神科學教育學（geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik）在教育學史上，常被批評缺乏社會批判力，故對於納粹獨裁政權的興起束手無策。主要原因在於1945年之前的精神科學教育學因為重視社會—文化價值的重建，而缺乏批判地反思這些既有的傳統文化。然而這是否也適用於1945年之後該項教育學說的發展？是否精神科學教育學在第二次世界大戰後也無法對社會—政治問題進行反省，並提出未來在教育上的因應之道？為回答這些問題，本研究以該學派的代表人物之一，W. Flitner的教育學說為例，進行探討。Flitner在第二次世界大戰前後的教育學說有不同的著重點。在1945年前的學說除了重視學習者能力陶冶及由歷史的角度詮釋教育的意義外，也關注教育的社會功能，尤其是文化的傳承與創新，亦即以社會—文化面向的討論為主。但對社會中的政治問題，則較少著墨。然而，在1945年之後，Flitner不論在理論與實務，都明確地表達出對於政治問題的關注；在理論方面，亦即在教育學性質的界定上，認為教育學應成為具有行動力的科學，教育人員對社會，尤其是政治的問題，要具有加以解決的責任感。至於在學校教育目的、教學原則與教材等實務面，則關切啟蒙學習者的政治意識與教導有關的學科知識，以培養自由與成熟的個體，避免類似納粹獨裁政權再現。Flitner在1945年之後的學說，重視教育應當要發揮在社會—政治層面的功能。這顯示了精神科學教育學具有關切政治問題，並加以回應的面向。

In history, “geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik” was often accused of a lack of critique towards the authoritarian regime in Nazi Germany. To evaluate the rightness of the censure, this article enquires the educational theory of W. Flitner, who was an important figure in this school of thought. This article founds that before 1945, Flitner’s theory focused on the cultivation of learners’ abilities and emphasized cultural inheritance and innovation as part of educational functions. In comparison to his earlier writing, which tended to discuss educational questions from a socialcultural perspective, after 1945, Flitner increasingly paid more attention to political issues. In redefining the nature of pedagogy, he argued that pedagogy should become a science for action, implying that educators should take responsibility for solving social and political problems. As for schooling practice, he also made efforts to establish a new understanding of some categories of schooling such as its purpose, teaching principles and materials to prevent the recurrence of authoritarianism. Flitner maintained that by awakening learners’ political awareness and providing relevant subject knowledge, educators should cultivate them as free and mature individuals. Given this context, this article argues that the censure of “geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik,” which was based on critics’ neglect of Flitner’s postwar ideas, is inappropriate and should be open to question.