Politički koreni dirkemovog shvatanja uloge vaspitanja i obrazovanja

Abstract

U radu želimo da ukažemo na značaj republikanske misli za Dirkemovo shvatanje vaspitanja i obrazovanja. U sekundarnoj literaturi najčešće se ističu praktični i politički razlozi njegovog interesovanja za pedagogiju. Katolička crkva u Trećoj republici je – u vezi sa njenom ulogom u obrazovanju – doživljavana kao smetnja za dugoročni opstanak Republike. Obrazovanje novih generacija postavljeno je na temelje pozitivnih nauka kako bi se građani vaspitavali u duhu vrednosti novouspostavljene Republike. Proklamovani sekularizam Treće republike se nije mogao pomiriti sa obrazovnim sistemom kojim upravlja crkva. Dirkemov naučni rad je očigledno nosio i određeni politički značaj u Trećoj republici. Zapravo, bio je svojevrsni laički katehizis u obrazovnom sistemu Francuske. Ipak, čini nam se da uloga moralnog vaspitanja u novoj, sekularnoj državi nije bila samo puko provizorno rešenje. Republikanska misao je oduvek isticala značaj obrazovanja, odnosno vaspitanja koje bi omogućilo političku i moralnu stabilnost društvenog poretka. U ovom slučaju mislimo na dela klasika filozofije – Platona, Aristotela, Makijavelija, Monteskjea i Rusoa. Ako je Dirkemova sociologija i pedagogija imala ulogu supstituta katoličke veronauke, onda se sa sigurnošću može tvrditi da je u takvoj ulozi deo i duge tradicije republikanskog vaspitanja. Pomoću heurističkog pristupa pratićemo idejni razvoj republikanske misli o vaspitanju i obrazovanju. Sve navedeno iznosimo kako bismo pokazali na koji način se republikanska tradicija podudara sa projektom izgradnje Treće republike. Dirkemov odnos prema ulozi pedagogije nije puki proizvod određenih biografskih (akademskih) ili političkih kontingentnosti. Ovakav pristup može biti interesantan zbog načina na koji pristupamo razumevanju klasika sociologije i pedagogije. Dela klasika moramo posmatrati i kao proizvod kontinuiteta, a ne samo kroz prizmu njihove originalnosti ili konteksta u kojem su stvarali. U tom slučaju možemo postaviti drugačije interpretacije i posmatrati njihova dela iz drugog ugla.

In the paper we want to point at significance of the Republican thought for Durkheim’s understanding of education and upbringing. The secondary literature usually highlights practical and political reasons for his interest in pedagogy. Catholic Church was in the Third Republic - regarding its role in education - seen as a hindrance to a long-term survival of the Republic. Education of new generations was based on positive sciences so the citizens could be educated in line with the values of newly established Republic. The proclaimed secularism of the Third Republic could not be reconciled with the educational system governed by the church. Durkheim’s academic work clearly bore a certain political significance in the Third Republic. Actually, it was a form of profane catechism in the education system of France. However, it seems that the role of moral education in the new, secular state was not merely a tentative solution. Republican thought has always emphasized the significance of education, i.e. upbringing, which would enable political and moral stability of the social order. In this case we allude to the works of prominent philosophers - Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Rousseau. If Durkheim’s sociology and pedagogy acted as a substitute for Catholic catechism, then it is safe to say that so did a long tradition of Republican upbringing. Using a heuristic approach, we will follow conceptual development of the Republican thought on upbringing and education. The purpose of the above stated is to demonstrate how the Republican tradition coincides with the project of building the Third Republic. Durkheim’s attitude towards the role of pedagogy is not a mere product of particular biographical (academic) or political contingencies. This view can be interesting because of our approach to understanding of classical authors of sociology and pedagogy. We must also regard the works of classical authors as products of continuity, and not just through the prism of their originality or context within which they created. In that case, we can set different interpretations and view their works from a different angle.