|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Philosophy of Education and Wittgenstein's Concept of Language-Games, by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. (Continued)
Language-Games and the Philosophy of Education Language-games involve a form of life and are expressive of the activities that exist in the life of a group of people. What is called "language" is the class of an indefinite number of language-games which, while having no essential feature in common that entitles them to be called a language, do have certain properties which are called "family resemblances." Many philosophical problems may be solved through a recognition of the language-game which is being used and the meanings of terms as they are used in that specific language-game. Particular attention must be paid, when searching for the meaning of a term, to the situation or context in which the term is being employed. Such, in sum, is Wittgenstein's general admonition to ordinary language analysis in education. Educational discourse is permeated with concepts and generalizations which have not been adequately analyzed. It has only been in the recent past that attempts have been made to wrestle with the various meanings of educational terminology. [57] The necessity for subjecting the language of education and educational philosophy to careful analysis was supported by Kneller, who stated:
Educators and educational philosophers risk the danger of becoming unnecessarily divided over issues because they are not aware of the necessity for clarifying the expressions in the language through which they are communicating. While it does not guarantee agreement on the issues, effective communication based on common understandings of terms at least guarantees that the issues and the concepts involved in them are mutually known and understood. Many of the terms used in education are drawn from the common language of men or from one or more of education's allied or supportive disciplines. Therefore many of these terms have numerous meanings and one cannot comfortably assume that the meanings of terms remain consistent from ordinary language to discipline or from discipline to discipline. Consider, for example, the word "understands." What does it mean to understand something? Does the term "understand" mean the same thing to an educational philosopher as it does to an experimental psychologist investigating learning styles, to a school administrator enforcing the rules of a school, or to a mother teaching her daughter to bake a cake? Does it mean the same thing to understand a rule in mathematics as it does to understand the concept of democracy? Does one verify understanding of historical concepts the same way one verifies an understanding of a school regulation? Is understanding a recipe the same as understanding the meaning of a word? Other examples of words commonly used in educational discourse, such as "knowing," "learning," and "adjustment," could be cited to show that many words are used in other disciplines in quite specific ways as well as used in the ordinary discourse of laymen. The point to be made, however, is that many terms have a variety of meanings and, unless steps are taken to clarify the meanings one is using, confusion and misunderstanding can enter into any discourse. Another problem that faces educators and educational philosophers in attempting to communicate with one another, as well as with laymen, is that many of the same educational terms can function in a variety of ways. The same word, for instance, may be descriptive, prescriptive, and motivational. The same word may be used to summarize facts, thereby being descriptive, as well as to recommend policies, thereby being prescriptive, or to move some toward acceptance, thereby being motivational. The concept of "equality" may be used to describe an actual situation such as "this pencil is equal in length to another pencil," or it may be used to prescribe a desirable state of affairs such as "everyone in the world should have equality when it comes to equal human rights." On the other hand, "equality" may be used as a motivational term to urge people to support equal rights. Other concepts, such as "student needs" and "learning by experience," have been identified as having different functions, descriptive, prescriptive, and motivational, depending on the context in which they are used and the intentions of the user. [59] Since these and many other terms of education and educational philosophy may be used in a number of sense, it is important that the uses be clarified by careful and painstaking analysis so as to prevent confusion and misunderstanding. Generally speaking, the language used within professional education is ordinary language, the common language of men. [60] Education has not developed a highly technical vocabulary such as has been the case in the physical and biological sciences. The language of the "exact" sciences appears, it is true, in many examples of educational research, but the larger problems within the field of education tend to be philosophical and "practical" in nature and discussed in the language of ordinary life. [61] It is the use of ordinary language to discuss complex issues in education that tends to give rise to the perplexities that often face educators and educational philosophers in communicating with one another. Particularly in the use of normative words, the making of normative statements, and the formulation of normative theory, many problems arise because of misunderstandings about the uses of words and the context in which they are used. The function of an analysis of educational terminology is to make one aware of the different senses in which words in ordinary language are used within education and to clarify the concepts, slogans, and other expressions that so often lead to linguistic problems. The analytic movement in philosophy has given rise to techniques sometimes referred to as informal analysis or ordinary language analysis. These techniques have become very helpful in analyzing the terms and statements appearing in educational discourse. [62] Ludwig Wittgenstein, one of the participants in the analytic movement, has been considered one of the major leaders in the development of ordinary language analysis and one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. [63] The techniques he specifically developed may well be very valuable in helping educational theorists, philosophers, and practitioners deal with important concepts in educational theory and practice. Conclusion Wittgenstein seldom wrote in an organized manner, in fact, most of his writings are presented in the form of aphorisms and some are notes that were taken down by his students as he lectured. The main contribution to language analysis made by Wittgenstein, which has been the concern here, is his concept of language-games. Hedley has informed the educational community that Wittgenstein's concept of language-games "remains as yet unrelated to the area of educational philosophy in a specific manner." [64] It is my hope that the situation Hedley refers to will not remain the status quo and that educational philosophers and practitioners will acknowledge the value that analytic philosophy, and particularly Wittgenstein's concept of language-games, has to offer in cleaning up the current linguistic muddle in educational theory and practice.
-- Notes &
References --
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
|||||||
|
Main Page & Index |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.