Del i serien SUNY series, Global Conflict and Peace Education

John Dewey and the Paradox of Liberal Reform

Häftad, Engelska, 1990

569 kr

Beställningsvara. Skickas inom 5-8 vardagar. Fri frakt för medlemmar vid köp för minst 249 kr.

This book provides a fresh critique of John Dewey and the progressive tradition and warns against the superficial renaissance of Deweyan philosophy present in many of today's modern liberal educational reform movements. Challenging the four pillars of Dewey's pragmatism - science, nature, democracy, experience - Paringer argues for a critical or radical education praxis that more sensitively comes to grips with the difficulties of the nuclearized, postmodern world.

Produktinformation

Utgivningsdatum1990-07-05
Mått152 x 229 x 14 mm
Vikt313 g
FormatHäftad
SpråkEngelska
SerieSUNY series, Global Conflict and Peace Education
Antal sidor215
FörlagState University of New York Press
ISBN9780791402542

Tillhör följande kategorier

Liberalism och centerideologier inom Samhälle och politik

Acknowledgments ForewordBetty Reardon Preface Introduction: Problem and Crisis Reform and SchoolingNuclearizationIdeologyTowards Social JusticeEducational Praxis Part I. The Scientific and the Transformational DemocracyPragmatismIndividualismDemocracy and EducationScientificIdeology Critique or Educative MethodSocial Justice Part II: The Natural and the Historical Nature and the NaturalThe FunctionalDevelopmentProgressivismHistory Part III: The Personal and the Political ExperiencePraxis Epilogue Notes Bibliography Index

"Paringer's critique of Dewey's key concepts of democracy, science, nature, and experience are genuinely fresh and insightful. There is power in his call for a radical structural analysis to show the limitations of Dewey's theory of democracy, and the need to supplement or replace it with the concept of social justice." — Arthur G. Wirth, Washington University"This work makes Dewey accessible to a new generation. Dewey finally gets demystified here when his central conceptions are explored against a set of 1980s social theory concerns." — William D. Taylor, The Ohio State University