中学课堂场域背景下学生话语权缺失探究
|
摘要
和其他社会场域一样,课堂场域也包含了权力、资本、冲突和惯习等。课堂场域里的冲突首先是老师和学生的冲突,冲突根源在于他们拥有的不同文化资本、经济资本、社会资本和社会转型带来的价值观的改变。其次是学生之间的冲突,冲突根源在于不同学生拥有的不同文化资本、经济资本、社会资本和由此生成的不同象征资本。在不同类型学校课堂,学生间各种资本所发挥的作用,也表现各异。
规训,作为课堂场域的一种惯习性行为,既制约着课堂里多种权力和资本使其在冲突中保持平衡,也使得课堂场域里的各种权力和资本产生意义,生成了永远稀缺的象征资本。课堂规训的重要依据和形式是课堂行为规范和惩罚。课堂规训的主要作用点之一是学生身体,表现为对身体的惩罚和磨练、身体的格式化和空间限制。课程(知识)和考试则是一种隐形的规训。
师生间应然的学生话语权特征为生命性、自由性和发展性。可实际上师生间学生话语权却表现为无声或独白无群或被规训的缺失状态。这些缺失的原因都可以理解为规训使然,也可以从社会学、伦理文化、心理学和生理学、意识形态等角度之分析。
学生间话语权的应然原则既要考虑平等又要考虑差异,可实际上却是既有不平等现象(包括量的方面和质的方面),又有不正确对待差异现象。无论那一种缺失,其原因都可以从不同学生之间拥有的不同资本去探究。在农村中学和职业中学课堂场域内部,学生拥有的文化资本(即学生成绩)和学生课堂话语权之间有较大的相关性,即成绩优异者拥有较大的话语权:在市重点中学的课堂场域内部,学生拥有的文化资本和学生课堂话语权之间没有明显的相关性。在不同类型中学的部分课堂之间,学生总的话语权差异极大,一般说来,市重点中学学生课堂上有充分的话语时间,而农村中学和职业中学课堂上,学生话语时间少。市重点中学,学生更多的经济资本带来学生强势话语,会在部分课堂出现:农村普通中学和职业中学,学生经济资本对学生课堂话语权影响不大。在3种类型中学课堂上,学生间拥有社会资本的多少都直接影响到学生的话语权。
所以,要想改变课堂学生话语权的缺失状况,只有立足于课堂场域,先从社会学角度出发,来消解课堂里的规训,改善弱势学生的资本。在此基础上,再辅之以教育学、心理学和伦理学等诸多规律,才能事半功倍。
Class field includes power, capital, conflict and habitus just like other social field. In class field, various power and capital conflict. Firstly, teachers and students have conflict the root of which lies with the different cultural capital, economic capital, social capital between them and the change of values brought about by the social transition. Secondly, conflict happens between students, the root of which lies with different cultural capital, economic capital, social capital and different symbolic capital among them. The difference of students' capital plays a different role in different type of class.
Discipline, a kind of habitus of the class field, not only restricts the powers and capitals of the class to keep balance in the conflict, but also makes the powers and capitals in the class field have significance. As a result, the rare symbolic capital comes into being. Class discipline's basis and forms are class rule of conduct and punishment. Students' bodies are one of what Class discipline has effects on. Physical punishment, furnace, body formatting and physical space constraints are all class disciplines. Courses (knowledge) or examination is an invisible discipline.
Equitable students' discourse power between teachers and students should be based on living, liberty and development. In fact, students' discourse power between teachers and students is silent or isolated or disciplined. The reasons for these shortcomings can not only be understood as the result of discipline, but also be analyzed from sociology, ethics, culture, ideological, psychology and physiology perspective.
We should consider not only the principle of equality but also the differences about students discourse power among themselves. In fact, there are both inequalities (including the volume and in terms of quality) and fault in dealing with differences. Whatever kind of fault can be reasoned from the different capital of different students. In the rural middle and vocational middle schools' classes, students' cultural capital (that is, students' achievement) and discourse power are relevant, that is, outstanding students have greater voice. In the city key middle schools' classes, there was no obvious correlation between students' cultural capital and discourse power. In some classes of different kinds of middle school, students' total discourse power is obviously different. In general, students in the city key middle schools' classes have much more discourse time than the other two kinds of classes. In some classes of the city key middle school, more economic capital brings stronger discourse power, but in the other two kinds of classes, there is no such phenomenon. In each class of these 3 kinds of schools, students' social capital has a direct impact on the discourse power.
Therefore, if we want to change the fault situation of students' discourse power, we should dispel the class discipline and improve the disadvantaged students' capital basing on class field from the perspective of sociology. On this basis, it can be more effective with the help of the methods on education, psychology, ethics, and so on.
规训,作为课堂场域的一种惯习性行为,既制约着课堂里多种权力和资本使其在冲突中保持平衡,也使得课堂场域里的各种权力和资本产生意义,生成了永远稀缺的象征资本。课堂规训的重要依据和形式是课堂行为规范和惩罚。课堂规训的主要作用点之一是学生身体,表现为对身体的惩罚和磨练、身体的格式化和空间限制。课程(知识)和考试则是一种隐形的规训。
师生间应然的学生话语权特征为生命性、自由性和发展性。可实际上师生间学生话语权却表现为无声或独白无群或被规训的缺失状态。这些缺失的原因都可以理解为规训使然,也可以从社会学、伦理文化、心理学和生理学、意识形态等角度之分析。
学生间话语权的应然原则既要考虑平等又要考虑差异,可实际上却是既有不平等现象(包括量的方面和质的方面),又有不正确对待差异现象。无论那一种缺失,其原因都可以从不同学生之间拥有的不同资本去探究。在农村中学和职业中学课堂场域内部,学生拥有的文化资本(即学生成绩)和学生课堂话语权之间有较大的相关性,即成绩优异者拥有较大的话语权:在市重点中学的课堂场域内部,学生拥有的文化资本和学生课堂话语权之间没有明显的相关性。在不同类型中学的部分课堂之间,学生总的话语权差异极大,一般说来,市重点中学学生课堂上有充分的话语时间,而农村中学和职业中学课堂上,学生话语时间少。市重点中学,学生更多的经济资本带来学生强势话语,会在部分课堂出现:农村普通中学和职业中学,学生经济资本对学生课堂话语权影响不大。在3种类型中学课堂上,学生间拥有社会资本的多少都直接影响到学生的话语权。
所以,要想改变课堂学生话语权的缺失状况,只有立足于课堂场域,先从社会学角度出发,来消解课堂里的规训,改善弱势学生的资本。在此基础上,再辅之以教育学、心理学和伦理学等诸多规律,才能事半功倍。
Class field includes power, capital, conflict and habitus just like other social field. In class field, various power and capital conflict. Firstly, teachers and students have conflict the root of which lies with the different cultural capital, economic capital, social capital between them and the change of values brought about by the social transition. Secondly, conflict happens between students, the root of which lies with different cultural capital, economic capital, social capital and different symbolic capital among them. The difference of students' capital plays a different role in different type of class.
Discipline, a kind of habitus of the class field, not only restricts the powers and capitals of the class to keep balance in the conflict, but also makes the powers and capitals in the class field have significance. As a result, the rare symbolic capital comes into being. Class discipline's basis and forms are class rule of conduct and punishment. Students' bodies are one of what Class discipline has effects on. Physical punishment, furnace, body formatting and physical space constraints are all class disciplines. Courses (knowledge) or examination is an invisible discipline.
Equitable students' discourse power between teachers and students should be based on living, liberty and development. In fact, students' discourse power between teachers and students is silent or isolated or disciplined. The reasons for these shortcomings can not only be understood as the result of discipline, but also be analyzed from sociology, ethics, culture, ideological, psychology and physiology perspective.
We should consider not only the principle of equality but also the differences about students discourse power among themselves. In fact, there are both inequalities (including the volume and in terms of quality) and fault in dealing with differences. Whatever kind of fault can be reasoned from the different capital of different students. In the rural middle and vocational middle schools' classes, students' cultural capital (that is, students' achievement) and discourse power are relevant, that is, outstanding students have greater voice. In the city key middle schools' classes, there was no obvious correlation between students' cultural capital and discourse power. In some classes of different kinds of middle school, students' total discourse power is obviously different. In general, students in the city key middle schools' classes have much more discourse time than the other two kinds of classes. In some classes of the city key middle school, more economic capital brings stronger discourse power, but in the other two kinds of classes, there is no such phenomenon. In each class of these 3 kinds of schools, students' social capital has a direct impact on the discourse power.
Therefore, if we want to change the fault situation of students' discourse power, we should dispel the class discipline and improve the disadvantaged students' capital basing on class field from the perspective of sociology. On this basis, it can be more effective with the help of the methods on education, psychology, ethics, and so on.
引文
[1]吴康宁.课堂教学社会学[M].南京:南京师范大学出版社,1999.
[2]Stardict project.高级汉语词典[CP/DK].licensed under GPL terms,2006.
[3]布迪厄,华康德.实践与反思:反思社会学导引[M].李猛,李康,译.北京:中央编译出版社,1998:134.
[4]杨善华.当代西方社会学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1999.
[5]朋尼维兹.布赫迪厄社会学的第一课[M].孙智绮,译.台北:麦田出版公司,2002:72-87.转引自许纪霖.都市空间视野中的知识分子研究[J].天津社会科学,2004年第3期:123-130.
[6]李全生.布迪厄场域理论简析[J].烟台大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002年第2期:146-150.
[7]马维娜.局外生存:相遇在学校场域[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2003.
[8]范宣文.中学班级场域中的师生冲突探析[D].曲阜师范大学教育学院,2006.
[9]杨广军.符号的批判--消费社会“课堂场域”的“形上”分析[R].上海:华东师范大学课程教学与研究所博士后研究工作报告,2006.
[10]王从庆.论学校场域之外的资本运作[D].南京师范大学教育科学学院,2006.
[11]刘生全.论教育场域[J].北京大学教育评论,2006年第1期:78-91.
[12]李松林.课堂场域中的权力运作与学生的生存境域[J].教育科学,2006年第4期:37-40.
[13]郑乐平.超越现代主义和后现代主义--论新的社会理论空间之建构[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2003:65.
[14]权衡.中国经济学:话语权、范式转换及其他[J].探索与争鸣,2006年第3期:38-40.
[15]程晓云.“话语霸权”与“失语”现象的消解之路--师生对话交往模式的建构[J].宁夏大学学报,2005年第4期:100-103.
[16]饶国慧,罗瑞麟.教师课堂话语霸权--我国师生平等交流的“绊脚石”[J].电子科技大学学报(社科版),2006年校庆专辑:199-202.
[17]姬蕾.关于“教师权威消解说”的辩证分析[D].东北师范大学教育学院,2006.
[18]周健敏,赵风雨.新课程背景下课堂社会的教师话语权探析[J].当代教育科学,2005年第14期:29-31.
[19]丛海燕.教师话语:存在问题与理想架构[D].山东师范大学教育学院,2006.
[20]邢思珍.课堂教学话语权力的反思与建构[D].西南师范大学教育科学研究所,2005.
[21]欧阳林舟.“教学话语权”探析[J].湖南第一师范学报,2006年第2期:37-39.
[22]宗锦莲.学校场域中话语权的社会学分析[J].江苏教育学院学报(社会科学版),2006年第2期:18-21.
[23]陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2000:425.
[24]吴康宁.教育社会学[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1998:180-193.
[25]刘秀艳.班干部任职对中学生社会化的影响[D].曲阜师范大学教育学院,2007.
[26]米歇尔·福柯.规训与惩罚:监狱的诞生[M].刘北成,杨远婴,译.北京:三联书店, 1999.
[27]金生鈜.规训与教化[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2004:3..
[28]《孝经·开宗明义》.
[29]《孟子·告子下》.
[30]《学记》
[31]石中英.自由教育三题[J].湖南师范大学教育科学学报,2003年第1期:3-7.
[32]刘少杰.国外社会学理论[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006:364-365.
[33]蒋茵.遗忘与追寻:关于教师话语权的问题[J].当代教育科学,2003年第14期:11-13.
[34]罗尔斯.作为公平的正义--正义新论[M].姚大志,译.上海:三联书店,2002:70.
[35]中华人民共和国教育法[M].北京:法律出版社,1995:4.
[36]汪昌华.班级学生社会分层的涵义及成因[J].教学与管理,2006年第2期:22-24.
[2]Stardict project.高级汉语词典[CP/DK].licensed under GPL terms,2006.
[3]布迪厄,华康德.实践与反思:反思社会学导引[M].李猛,李康,译.北京:中央编译出版社,1998:134.
[4]杨善华.当代西方社会学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1999.
[5]朋尼维兹.布赫迪厄社会学的第一课[M].孙智绮,译.台北:麦田出版公司,2002:72-87.转引自许纪霖.都市空间视野中的知识分子研究[J].天津社会科学,2004年第3期:123-130.
[6]李全生.布迪厄场域理论简析[J].烟台大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002年第2期:146-150.
[7]马维娜.局外生存:相遇在学校场域[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2003.
[8]范宣文.中学班级场域中的师生冲突探析[D].曲阜师范大学教育学院,2006.
[9]杨广军.符号的批判--消费社会“课堂场域”的“形上”分析[R].上海:华东师范大学课程教学与研究所博士后研究工作报告,2006.
[10]王从庆.论学校场域之外的资本运作[D].南京师范大学教育科学学院,2006.
[11]刘生全.论教育场域[J].北京大学教育评论,2006年第1期:78-91.
[12]李松林.课堂场域中的权力运作与学生的生存境域[J].教育科学,2006年第4期:37-40.
[13]郑乐平.超越现代主义和后现代主义--论新的社会理论空间之建构[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2003:65.
[14]权衡.中国经济学:话语权、范式转换及其他[J].探索与争鸣,2006年第3期:38-40.
[15]程晓云.“话语霸权”与“失语”现象的消解之路--师生对话交往模式的建构[J].宁夏大学学报,2005年第4期:100-103.
[16]饶国慧,罗瑞麟.教师课堂话语霸权--我国师生平等交流的“绊脚石”[J].电子科技大学学报(社科版),2006年校庆专辑:199-202.
[17]姬蕾.关于“教师权威消解说”的辩证分析[D].东北师范大学教育学院,2006.
[18]周健敏,赵风雨.新课程背景下课堂社会的教师话语权探析[J].当代教育科学,2005年第14期:29-31.
[19]丛海燕.教师话语:存在问题与理想架构[D].山东师范大学教育学院,2006.
[20]邢思珍.课堂教学话语权力的反思与建构[D].西南师范大学教育科学研究所,2005.
[21]欧阳林舟.“教学话语权”探析[J].湖南第一师范学报,2006年第2期:37-39.
[22]宗锦莲.学校场域中话语权的社会学分析[J].江苏教育学院学报(社会科学版),2006年第2期:18-21.
[23]陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2000:425.
[24]吴康宁.教育社会学[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1998:180-193.
[25]刘秀艳.班干部任职对中学生社会化的影响[D].曲阜师范大学教育学院,2007.
[26]米歇尔·福柯.规训与惩罚:监狱的诞生[M].刘北成,杨远婴,译.北京:三联书店, 1999.
[27]金生鈜.规训与教化[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2004:3..
[28]《孝经·开宗明义》.
[29]《孟子·告子下》.
[30]《学记》
[31]石中英.自由教育三题[J].湖南师范大学教育科学学报,2003年第1期:3-7.
[32]刘少杰.国外社会学理论[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006:364-365.
[33]蒋茵.遗忘与追寻:关于教师话语权的问题[J].当代教育科学,2003年第14期:11-13.
[34]罗尔斯.作为公平的正义--正义新论[M].姚大志,译.上海:三联书店,2002:70.
[35]中华人民共和国教育法[M].北京:法律出版社,1995:4.
[36]汪昌华.班级学生社会分层的涵义及成因[J].教学与管理,2006年第2期:22-24.