追寻“自性”:中国教育人类学的学科演进与范式探索  

Pursuing "Haecceity":The Disciplinary Evolution and Paradigm Exploration of Chinese Educational Anthropology

作　　者：袁同凯[1] 冯朝亮 Yuan Tongkai;Feng Chaoliang(Zhou Enlai School of Government,Nankai University,Tianjin 300350;College of Ethnology and Sociology,Guangxi Minzu University)

机构地区：[1]南开大学周恩来政府管理学院,天津300350 [2]广西民族大学民族学与社会学学院

出　　处：《教育研究》2022年第6期58-73,共16页Educational Research

基　　金：国家社会科学基金2019年度重点项目“多元一体视角下民族地区学校教育中的族群认同与国家认同研究”(项目编号:19AMZ012)的研究成果。

摘　　要：中国教育人类学从学科引入伊始,就并行教育学取向和人类学取向两条脉络。以学科演进为经,以范式构建为纬,梳理两种取向的教育人类学的学科发展脉络。在学科演进中,两种取向都经历了相近的学科萌发、学科初现和学科自觉三个阶段,不同的学科使命、学科价值取向以及研究路线选择促成了两种不同的学科范式。二者的并行发展是在学科反思过程中追寻中国教育人类学的“自性”的结果,但过于强调“学科本位”意识不利于形成真正的学科“自性”。应基于“中国情境”并转向“问题主导”的学科理念,发展趋向学科融合的中国教育人类学。Since it came into existence,Chinese educational anthropology attached equal importance to pedagogical orientation and anthropological orientation. This paper,based on a longitudinal study of disciplinary evolution and a latitudinal study of paradigm construction,reviews the orientations to the disciplinary development of educational anthropology. With these orientations,Chinese educational anthropology experienced three similar stages:disciplinary germination,disciplinary emergence and disciplinary consciousness;different disciplinary missions,disciplinary value orientations and research routes contributed to two different disciplinary paradigms. Their parallel development resulted from the pursuit of the "haecceity" of Chinese educational anthropology in the process of disciplinary reflections.However,too much emphasis on the consciousness of the "disciplinary standard" cannot help to develop the real disciplinary "haecceity". We need to follow China’s national situations,and turn to the disciplinary concept of "problem orientation" to develop Chinese educational anthropology oriented to disciplinary integration.

关 键 词：教育人类学 学科融合 教育学 人类学 自性 

分 类 号：G40-056[文化科学—教育学原理]