Education for Integration into Society. Postmodern Pedagogy and Educational Policy between Utopia and Dystopia

Prepoznatljivi signum novije hrvatske tradicije filozofije odgoja – od Vuk-Pavlovića preko Marinkovića do Polića – kritika je ideoloških posezanja u odgoj, njegove instrumentalizacije i svođenja na »gojidbenu manipulaciju«, a napose uloge koju u takvu djelovanju igraju pedagogija i obrazovne znanosti. Ta je kritika po svojim bitnim i nonkonformističkim obilježjima bliska praksisovskoj kritici dogmatskog marksizma i dijelom usporedna s njome. U potonjem je slučaju ujedno riječ o filozofskoj kritici društva i – naročito – društvenih znanosti, koja se razvila kroz direktno suočavanje s povijesnim iskustvom totalitarizma i autoritarnih režima 20. stoljeća. Tim slijedom, očuvanje i unaprjeđenje narečene kritičke tradicije zahtijeva teorijsko suočavanje s izazovima postmodernog i (post)demokratskog društva i politike. No, pri kritičkoj refleksiji o novijoj pedagogiji i obrazovnoj politici potrebno je također oslobađanje od strogih klasifikacijskih okvira dihotomije konzervativnog i progresivnog. O potrebi da se naglasak preusmjeri na autoritet znanja utemeljenog u nastavnim predmetima, na prijenos kulturnog i intelektualnog nasljeđa prošlosti, svjedoče autori koji se mogu svrstati s obje strane ideološke razdjelnice: Arendt, Oakeshott, Gramsci, Furedi, i drugi. Potonjima je također važno oblikovanje odgojnih ciljeva kojima se razvoj osobnosti pojedinca neće zanemariti u korist socijalizacije, integracije u društvo i raznih vidova socijalnog inženjeringa. Također, distanciranje škole od neposrednih imperativa javnosti, ekonomije i kaotičnih utjecaja postmoderne okoline, preduvjet je upravo razvitka kritičkog mišljenja, povijesnog mišljenja, kao i senzibiliziranja za stvarnu društvenu promjenu.The trademark of more recent Croatian traditions in philosophy of education – from Vuk-Pavlović and Marinković to Polić – is criticism of the encroachment of ideology into education, its instrumentalisation, and its reduction to “manipulative breeding”, and especially of the roles played by pedagogy and educational sciences in these actions. The major, non conformist markings of such criticism places it close to the Praxis school’s criticism of dogmatic Marxism, and allows a partial comparison with it. The latter case is both a philosophical criticism of society and of the social sciences, particularly, which developed through a direct confrontation with the historical experience of totalitarianism and 20th century authoritarian regimes. In that order, the maintenance and advancement of the socalled critical tradition demands a theoretical confrontation with the challenges of postmodern and (post)democratic society and politics. However, any critical reflection on more recent pedagogy and educational policy also requires liberation from the strict framework of the dichotomy between conservative and progressive. The need to shift the emphasis from the authority of knowledge founded in subjects to the transmission of the cultural and intellectual heritage of the past is witnessed by authors that can be placed on both sides of the ideological dividing line: Arendt, Oakeshott, Gramsci, Furedi, and others. The latter of these also held as significant the shaping of the educational goal, in which the development of personality should not be ignored in place of socialisation, integration into society, and various forms of social engineering. Also, distancing schools from the direct imperatives of the public, the economy, and the chaotic influence of postmodern surroundings is a precondition for the development of critical thinking, historical thinking, and sensitisation to real social change