文理学院的死与生:自由教育与制度化的精英大学体系
|
摘要
文理学院是西方大学为本科生进行自由教育或通识教育的组织。19世纪的欧洲大学体系经历了古今之变,同源于中世纪巴黎大学艺学院的文理学院在欧陆和英国遭遇了死与生的迥异命运。研究发现,由于自由教育和专业教育两套不同的制度逻辑及相应的制度要素相互作用的方式不同,欧洲文理学院的演变呈现了制度渐进变迁的四种理想类型,而文理学院和自由教育的存在形态取决于它与制度化的精英大学体系之间的关系:当前者与后者相龃龉,产生"制度漂移",导致文理学院与精英大学体系的脱耦、依附或相斥关系;当前者与后者必须共存,新旧制度逻辑协调平衡,出现"制度叠置",衍生出融合古典文理学院与现代专业院系的新组织体系;当现代专业教育重新定义了人们对大学的共同认知,自由教育被除魅,仅仅被理解为专业教育的基础教育,则文理学院从被"转换"走向被"替换"。四种理想类型几乎呈现了文理学院命运的全部可能性。
The faculty of arts and sciences is an institute of liberal education or general education for undergraduate students in Western universities.The 19 th century witnessed the transition from ancient to modern in European university systems.The faculties of arts and sciences in Continental Europe and the United Kingdom,both originated from the Faculty of Arts in the University of Paris in the Middle Ages,encountered the different fate of death and survival.This study finds that,due to the differences in institutional logics and the corresponding interactions of institutional factors between liberal education and professional education,the evolution of the European faculties of arts and sciences presents four ideal types of gradual changes in institutions,and the forms of the faculties and the liberal education depends on their relationships with the institutionalized elite university systems.When there is a conflict between them,a"institution drift"emerges,leading to the decoupling,attachment,or repulsive relationships between the faculty of arts and sciences and the elite university system.When a coexist is in demand,the logic of the old and new systems is coordinated and balanced.The emergence of"institution layering"leads to a new organizational system that merges classical colleges with modern professional schools.When modern professional education redefines people's common understanding of universities,liberal education is derogated and be considered only as the basic education of professional education.Then the faculties of arts and sciences face the fate of being "displaced"instead of being"converted." The four ideal types represent almost all the possible fates of the faculties of arts and sciences.
The faculty of arts and sciences is an institute of liberal education or general education for undergraduate students in Western universities.The 19 th century witnessed the transition from ancient to modern in European university systems.The faculties of arts and sciences in Continental Europe and the United Kingdom,both originated from the Faculty of Arts in the University of Paris in the Middle Ages,encountered the different fate of death and survival.This study finds that,due to the differences in institutional logics and the corresponding interactions of institutional factors between liberal education and professional education,the evolution of the European faculties of arts and sciences presents four ideal types of gradual changes in institutions,and the forms of the faculties and the liberal education depends on their relationships with the institutionalized elite university systems.When there is a conflict between them,a"institution drift"emerges,leading to the decoupling,attachment,or repulsive relationships between the faculty of arts and sciences and the elite university system.When a coexist is in demand,the logic of the old and new systems is coordinated and balanced.The emergence of"institution layering"leads to a new organizational system that merges classical colleges with modern professional schools.When modern professional education redefines people's common understanding of universities,liberal education is derogated and be considered only as the basic education of professional education.Then the faculties of arts and sciences face the fate of being "displaced"instead of being"converted." The four ideal types represent almost all the possible fates of the faculties of arts and sciences.
引文
(1)吕埃格.欧洲大学史[M].张斌贤等译.石家庄:河北大学出版社,2014.160-234.
(2)文理学院在不同时代和不同大学体系中存在称谓上的差异,中世纪巴黎大学称“艺学院”,文艺复兴中德国大学将艺学院改称为“哲学院”,牛桥仿照巴黎大学建立,其文理学院直接称为学院,美国的文理学院则是由牛桥的知识分子建立。这些学院传承关系与脉络清晰,性质与功能一致,按照当前称谓习惯,可以统称为“文理学院”。有学者将巴黎大学艺学院直接翻译为“文理学院”,参见渠敬东.追寻神圣社会:纪念爱弥尔·涂尔干逝世一百周年[J].社会,2017,(6):26-27.
(1)Aharon Aviram,“The Humanist Conception of the University:A Framework for Post-Modern Higher Education,”European Journal of Education,no.4(1992):397-414.
(2)Joseph Ben-David and Abraham Zloczower,“Universities and Academic Systems in Modern Societies,”European Journal of Sociology,no.3(1962):49.
(3)William Clark,Academic Charisma and the Origins of the Research University(Chicago&London:The University of Chicago Press,2006),449.
(4)余东升,崔乃文.自由教育:学院组织的历史考察[J].高等教育研究,2014,(10):96-102.
(5)崔乃文.文理学院模式为什么独存于美国大学体系[J].复旦教育论坛,2018,(2):54-60.
(1)理查德·斯科特.制度与组织——思想观念与物质利益[M].姚伟等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012.65.
(2)James Mahoney and Katherine Thelen,Explaining Institutional Change:Ambiguity,Agency,and Power(Cambrige:Cambridge University Press,2009),15-18.
(3)伯顿·克拉克.探究的场所[M].王承绪等译.杭州:浙江教育出版社,2001.23.
(1)古川安.科学的社会史:从文艺复兴到20世纪[M].杨舰等译.北京:科学出版社,2011.88-91.
(2)Joseph Ben-David,Centers of Learning:Britain,France,Germany and United States(New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company,1977),16.
(3)杨少琳.法国学位制度研究[D].重庆:西南大学,2009.44.
(4)Walter Ruegg,A History of the University in Europe,vol.Ⅲ:Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries(1800-1945)(New York:Cambridge University Press,2004),44-47.
(1)Theodore Zeldin.“Higher Education in France,1848-1940,”Journal of Contemporary History,no.3(1967):57.
(2)伯顿·克拉克.探究的场所[M].王承绪等译.杭州:浙江教育出版社,2001.107.
(3)Walter Ruegg,A History of the University in Europe,vol.Ⅲ:Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries(1800-1945)(New York:Cambridge University Press,2004),35.
(4)Theodore Zeldin,“Higher Education in France,1848-1940,”Journal of Contemporary History,no.3(1967):53.
(5)伯顿·克拉克.探究的场所[M].王承绪等译.杭州:浙江教育出版社,2001.108-109.
(6)Alex Duke,Importing Oxbridge:English Residential Colleges and American Universities(New Heaven:Yale University Press,1996),21.
(1)John Ziman,“The College System at Oxford and Cambridge,”Minerva,no.2(1963):191-208.
(2)麦克法兰.启蒙之所,智识之源:一位剑桥教授看剑桥[M].管可秾译.北京:商务印书馆,2011.171.
(3)Ted Tapper and David Palfreyman,“Understanding Collegiality:The Changing Oxbridge Model,”Tertiary Education&Management,no.3(2002):47-63.
(4)Shelton Rothblatt,The Revolution of the Dons:Cambridge and Society in Victorian England(CUP Archive,1981),257.
(5)沃尔特·鲍威尔等.组织分析的新制度主义[M].姚伟译.上海:上海人民出版社,2008.45-67.
(6)Stephen C.Ferruolo,“Quid dant Artes nisi Luctum?:Learning,Ambition,and Careers in the Medieval University,”History of Education Quarterly,no.1(1988):1-22.
(1)邓晓芒.哲学起步[M].北京:商务印书馆,2017.13.
(2)伯顿·克拉克.高等教育系统——学术组织的跨国研究[M].王承绪等译.杭州:杭州大学出版社,1991.253.
(1)Hermann Von Helmholtz,“On the Relation of Nature Science to Science in General,”in edited by Emil Du Bois-Reymond.Uber Universitatseinrichtungen(Berlin:Rektoratsrede,1869),25-32.
(2)Joseph Ben-David,Centers of Learning:Britain,France,Germany and United States(New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company,1977),38-39.
(3)蒲实,陈赛.大学的精神[M].北京:中信出版集团,2017.227-228.
(4)麦克法兰.启蒙之所,智识之源:一位剑桥教授看剑桥[M].管可秾译.北京:商务印书馆,2011.151-152.
(5)同上,169-170.
(2)文理学院在不同时代和不同大学体系中存在称谓上的差异,中世纪巴黎大学称“艺学院”,文艺复兴中德国大学将艺学院改称为“哲学院”,牛桥仿照巴黎大学建立,其文理学院直接称为学院,美国的文理学院则是由牛桥的知识分子建立。这些学院传承关系与脉络清晰,性质与功能一致,按照当前称谓习惯,可以统称为“文理学院”。有学者将巴黎大学艺学院直接翻译为“文理学院”,参见渠敬东.追寻神圣社会:纪念爱弥尔·涂尔干逝世一百周年[J].社会,2017,(6):26-27.
(1)Aharon Aviram,“The Humanist Conception of the University:A Framework for Post-Modern Higher Education,”European Journal of Education,no.4(1992):397-414.
(2)Joseph Ben-David and Abraham Zloczower,“Universities and Academic Systems in Modern Societies,”European Journal of Sociology,no.3(1962):49.
(3)William Clark,Academic Charisma and the Origins of the Research University(Chicago&London:The University of Chicago Press,2006),449.
(4)余东升,崔乃文.自由教育:学院组织的历史考察[J].高等教育研究,2014,(10):96-102.
(5)崔乃文.文理学院模式为什么独存于美国大学体系[J].复旦教育论坛,2018,(2):54-60.
(1)理查德·斯科特.制度与组织——思想观念与物质利益[M].姚伟等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012.65.
(2)James Mahoney and Katherine Thelen,Explaining Institutional Change:Ambiguity,Agency,and Power(Cambrige:Cambridge University Press,2009),15-18.
(3)伯顿·克拉克.探究的场所[M].王承绪等译.杭州:浙江教育出版社,2001.23.
(1)古川安.科学的社会史:从文艺复兴到20世纪[M].杨舰等译.北京:科学出版社,2011.88-91.
(2)Joseph Ben-David,Centers of Learning:Britain,France,Germany and United States(New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company,1977),16.
(3)杨少琳.法国学位制度研究[D].重庆:西南大学,2009.44.
(4)Walter Ruegg,A History of the University in Europe,vol.Ⅲ:Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries(1800-1945)(New York:Cambridge University Press,2004),44-47.
(1)Theodore Zeldin.“Higher Education in France,1848-1940,”Journal of Contemporary History,no.3(1967):57.
(2)伯顿·克拉克.探究的场所[M].王承绪等译.杭州:浙江教育出版社,2001.107.
(3)Walter Ruegg,A History of the University in Europe,vol.Ⅲ:Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries(1800-1945)(New York:Cambridge University Press,2004),35.
(4)Theodore Zeldin,“Higher Education in France,1848-1940,”Journal of Contemporary History,no.3(1967):53.
(5)伯顿·克拉克.探究的场所[M].王承绪等译.杭州:浙江教育出版社,2001.108-109.
(6)Alex Duke,Importing Oxbridge:English Residential Colleges and American Universities(New Heaven:Yale University Press,1996),21.
(1)John Ziman,“The College System at Oxford and Cambridge,”Minerva,no.2(1963):191-208.
(2)麦克法兰.启蒙之所,智识之源:一位剑桥教授看剑桥[M].管可秾译.北京:商务印书馆,2011.171.
(3)Ted Tapper and David Palfreyman,“Understanding Collegiality:The Changing Oxbridge Model,”Tertiary Education&Management,no.3(2002):47-63.
(4)Shelton Rothblatt,The Revolution of the Dons:Cambridge and Society in Victorian England(CUP Archive,1981),257.
(5)沃尔特·鲍威尔等.组织分析的新制度主义[M].姚伟译.上海:上海人民出版社,2008.45-67.
(6)Stephen C.Ferruolo,“Quid dant Artes nisi Luctum?:Learning,Ambition,and Careers in the Medieval University,”History of Education Quarterly,no.1(1988):1-22.
(1)邓晓芒.哲学起步[M].北京:商务印书馆,2017.13.
(2)伯顿·克拉克.高等教育系统——学术组织的跨国研究[M].王承绪等译.杭州:杭州大学出版社,1991.253.
(1)Hermann Von Helmholtz,“On the Relation of Nature Science to Science in General,”in edited by Emil Du Bois-Reymond.Uber Universitatseinrichtungen(Berlin:Rektoratsrede,1869),25-32.
(2)Joseph Ben-David,Centers of Learning:Britain,France,Germany and United States(New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company,1977),38-39.
(3)蒲实,陈赛.大学的精神[M].北京:中信出版集团,2017.227-228.
(4)麦克法兰.启蒙之所,智识之源:一位剑桥教授看剑桥[M].管可秾译.北京:商务印书馆,2011.151-152.
(5)同上,169-170.