A Structural View of Knowledge and A Constitutive View of Knowledge: An Analysis of Reproductive Education Theory
Kim, Chaeyoung
This item is only available for download by members of the University of Illinois community. Students, faculty, and staff at the U of I may log in with your NetID and password to view the item. If you are trying to access an Illinois-restricted dissertation or thesis, you can request a copy through your library's Inter-Library Loan office or purchase a copy directly from ProQuest.
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2142/69088
Description
Title
A Structural View of Knowledge and A Constitutive View of Knowledge: An Analysis of Reproductive Education Theory
Author(s)
Kim, Chaeyoung
Issue Date
1986
Department of Study
Education
Discipline
Education
Degree Granting Institution
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Degree Name
Ph.D.
Degree Level
Dissertation
Keyword(s)
Education, Philosophy of
Abstract
This study is concerned with the ways in which school practices affect the stability and change (or transformation) of existing social relations. The main focus of this dissertation is a critical examination of two debates within reproductive educational theory--structuralism (e.g., Bowles & Gintis's, 1976, 1980, economic structuralism; Althusser's, 1969, 1971, 1976; and Althusser & Balibar's, 1970, discursive structuralism; Bourdieu's, 1977a, 1977b, 1977c, 1980, 1984 cultural structuralism; and Bourdieu & Passeron's, 1977) and culturalism (e.g., Willis, 1977, 1981, 1983; Willis & Corrigan, 1980a, 1980b). The major findings of this study are that (a) both approaches are necessarily limited and inadequate for an explanation of how and why schooling contributes to reproducing and transforming the basic social relations; and (b) both approaches fail to develop a dialectical explanation of the two key ingredients in the reproduction and the transformation of society--structural elements and human subject activity.
Structuralists, despite some minor differences among them, over-emphasize the importance of determining social structures in understanding social practices and their effects on reproduction of the existing social order. From the structuralists' perspective, we would be able to understand certain mechanisms of school in connection with the determining social structure; however, we would not allow room for transforming and reconstructing the ideological forces of the determining social structures within the specific context of school practices. In the case of the culturalist position, we can have an understanding of how the oppressed interpret, tranform, and resist the ideologies of capitalism through their experiences and subcultural understanding. However, we would dismiss the importance of the way in which dominant ideologies and certain mechanisms of school affect the reproduction and change of existing social relations.
In the concluding remarks, a middle ground is proposed to complement the two approaches and to resolve conflicting views. Suggested as theoretically useful for the development of critical distinctions (e.g., between structure and agency, outcome and process, and constraining and constituting) are A. Giddens's (1976, 1977, 1979) duality of structure and his theory of structuralization. Another strategy discussed is to adopt M. Apple's (1981, 1982a, 1982b, 1984) shift from his early structuralist position toward a culturalist approach to educational theory.
Use this login method if you
don't
have an
@illinois.edu
email address.
(Oops, I do have one)
IDEALS migrated to a new platform on June 23, 2022. If you created
your account prior to this date, you will have to reset your password
using the forgot-password link below.
