Full recordShow full item record
はじめに I. 1970年代のアメリカにおける女性解放運動と女性学 (1) 「女性学」の登場 (2) 「女性学」研究のゆきづまり II. 教育思想史研究における性差別の問題 (1) 論文の要旨・構成 (2) プラトン教育の「生産モデル」 (3) ルソーにおける教育の「成長モデル」と「生産モデル」 III. 考察 (1) 『国家』及び『エミール』の統一的解釈について (2) 「性別(ジェンダー)に敏感な理想」 : 二つの生産と教育
This paper reviews recent works by Jane Roland Martin concerning sexism or sex bias in the history of educational thought and also examines her assertion that sex or gender must be taken into account seriously in education if an ideal of educated person is not to be sex-biased. For this purposes, this paper consists of the following three parts. I. A brief overview of women's studies courses sprung up on campuses across the United States at the end of the 1960's and into the 1970's. I think that J. R. Martin's works appeared in order to overcome some of the critical defects which the early women's studies had in common. II. A Review of J. R. Martin's paper ("Sophie and Emile", 1981) which argues that the accepted interpretation of Rousseau's model of education is fundamentally mistaken and that in place of the growth model of education the production model of education explains his account of the education of the both sexes. III. A discussion of J. R. Martin's paper mentioned above and also of her proposal (which she obtained from her analytical studies of accepted ideals of educated person) that since there is "trait genderization" in our society, both "gender-bound" educational ideal and "gender-free" educational ideal are irrelevant and "gender-sensitive" ideal which takes the reproductive processes of society into account will make our philosophy of education complete. Although I agree with many of her assertions, I think that her "gender-sensitive" ideal is problematic because she presupposes "the truly feminine qualities" which is to be related to biorogical determinism.
oai:哲學 (79), 121-145. (1984-12)