Miguel Benasayag is certainly a keen and lively. But what we like most is that his intelligence is militant, fighting for a world view. Benasayag is a philosopher, but not a philosopher who is sitting behind his desk, is a philosopher who has come down and continue down the field in practice, affect the reality of everyday life (militant Guevara, ten years in prison behind him) . Its text is probably best known Praise the conflict, which claimed that a radical postmodern society has effectively banned any idea of \u200b\u200bconflict. Understand the importance of the component of conflict in a world that actually tries to nullify any attempt to place themselves in opposition to the system (or systems) of dominant values, not by all. We live in times when talking about "conflict" seems to be politically incorrect. And without conflict there can not be exceeded without conflict there is the triumph of the status quo.
few days ago, in a speech at La Sapienza University of Rome (the occasion was a conference of the ADI) Benasayag has taken everyone by surprise, reducing to ashes the teaching of skills and constructivism, the in vogue in recent decades in pedagogy. School skills and constructivism are the children of 'utilitarianism contemporary economistic and produce drift deterritorialization and alienation. Bewilderment, confusion, frustration in the room: teaching skills for an hour and Constructivism in poor rose from ruin to salvation of the school. The enemy is no longer the transmissivity and the accumulation of knowledge, but constructivism and teaching for skills. The philosopher is able to convince a large part of the audience, but does not escape the most careful use of "one size" of the terms "competence" and "constructivism", surely fleeting words and not now. If there is no doubt, in fact, that if designed by men of little thickness, the two terms are actually the result of a utilitarian view, and then technically poor school (but this has long been known to the enlightened spirits, we do not want to bring to light some philosophers), we can not fail to note that otherwise competent and constructivism can esserei ways to free up at least partially by the student ' authoritarianism, since EVALUATION, by the rigidity of school-dinosaur contemporary. In short, Benasayag lashes (and knowing his ideological positions is understandable) and skills against constructivism views education as a treatment of 'economic man. "
Actually for us the real problem is not the choice of transmission or the construction of knowledge. The problem is to establish school conceived as a place where men regularly produce dimensional, which are perfectly measurable learning to be incorporated in the global assembly of alienation.
Benasayag is not an educator, but it is his closest collaborators, Angelique Del Rey, which has made it clear in his document:
few days ago, in a speech at La Sapienza University of Rome (the occasion was a conference of the ADI) Benasayag has taken everyone by surprise, reducing to ashes the teaching of skills and constructivism, the in vogue in recent decades in pedagogy. School skills and constructivism are the children of 'utilitarianism contemporary economistic and produce drift deterritorialization and alienation. Bewilderment, confusion, frustration in the room: teaching skills for an hour and Constructivism in poor rose from ruin to salvation of the school. The enemy is no longer the transmissivity and the accumulation of knowledge, but constructivism and teaching for skills. The philosopher is able to convince a large part of the audience, but does not escape the most careful use of "one size" of the terms "competence" and "constructivism", surely fleeting words and not now. If there is no doubt, in fact, that if designed by men of little thickness, the two terms are actually the result of a utilitarian view, and then technically poor school (but this has long been known to the enlightened spirits, we do not want to bring to light some philosophers), we can not fail to note that otherwise competent and constructivism can esserei ways to free up at least partially by the student ' authoritarianism, since EVALUATION, by the rigidity of school-dinosaur contemporary. In short, Benasayag lashes (and knowing his ideological positions is understandable) and skills against constructivism views education as a treatment of 'economic man. "
Actually for us the real problem is not the choice of transmission or the construction of knowledge. The problem is to establish school conceived as a place where men regularly produce dimensional, which are perfectly measurable learning to be incorporated in the global assembly of alienation.
Benasayag is not an educator, but it is his closest collaborators, Angelique Del Rey, which has made it clear in his document:
Such a view (that of the approach to skills and PISA) defines the image of a man to be educated, folded back on itself in the notion of competence and explains the change of active teaching methods to the profit and efficiency. The man is to educate a "man without qualities" on which to apply the skills for success in life, leaving desires, affinities elective tropisms and intrinsic qualities, to be replaced emancipatory education that allows students to be active and to educate themselves while being educated. It is alienating education, which requires not only content and normative behavior, but claims that these accedes free!
In light of this, the teacher asks, "What should I do? If the transmissivity is unnecessary and harmful, and constructivism is the son of utilitarianism economistic, what should I teach?".
The answer would be clear, but nobody wants to come to terms. The problem is a school that wants to reduce the differences, not taken into account and respect the individual quality, measure what they know and can do a guy like an animal for breeding and production. So then it can really come in handy (and beyond his intentions) praised the conflict Benasayag: the school must not reduce conflict, should not normalize those who are different, because it eliminates the possibility of conflict, eliminating the possibility of produce alternatives to the dominant system.
It 'clear that the active pedagogies are more developed than passive teaching methods, but it is equally clear that the really active pedagogies pedagogies must be libertarian, must be within the terms of the anti-education. And: you can not expect a teacher who and servile servant is to educate young people into freedom. There will be no educational theory can make free people used to always obey and bow their heads.
The problem is not the school of skills. The problem is the school as an institution of repressive, authoritarian and reactionary.
And then - go back - what can a teacher? We said it many times and from time : creative autonomy (because there can be no education without education autonomy), critical constructivism (which is different than the fashionable constructivism), school-life.
Deschooling working within the system is not possible, but Our duty is at least in any way undermine the schooling and stupid mass.
The answer would be clear, but nobody wants to come to terms. The problem is a school that wants to reduce the differences, not taken into account and respect the individual quality, measure what they know and can do a guy like an animal for breeding and production. So then it can really come in handy (and beyond his intentions) praised the conflict Benasayag: the school must not reduce conflict, should not normalize those who are different, because it eliminates the possibility of conflict, eliminating the possibility of produce alternatives to the dominant system.
It 'clear that the active pedagogies are more developed than passive teaching methods, but it is equally clear that the really active pedagogies pedagogies must be libertarian, must be within the terms of the anti-education. And: you can not expect a teacher who and servile servant is to educate young people into freedom. There will be no educational theory can make free people used to always obey and bow their heads.
The problem is not the school of skills. The problem is the school as an institution of repressive, authoritarian and reactionary.
And then - go back - what can a teacher? We said it many times and from time : creative autonomy (because there can be no education without education autonomy), critical constructivism (which is different than the fashionable constructivism), school-life.
Deschooling working within the system is not possible, but Our duty is at least in any way undermine the schooling and stupid mass.
Antonio Saccoccio
0 comments:
Post a Comment