A Comparative Study of Educational Subject Philosophy in China and Non-Affirmative Theory of Education
Saved in:
| Title: | A Comparative Study of Educational Subject Philosophy in China and Non-Affirmative Theory of Education |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Fangxin Liu (ORCID |
| Source: | Hungarian Educational Research Journal. 2025 15(4):506-525. |
| Availability: | AK Journals. 1117 Budapest, Budafoki str. 187-189, A Building, 3rd floor, Budapest, Hungary. Tel: +36-1-464-8282; Fax: +36-1-464-8251; e-mail: info@akjournals.com; Web site: https://akjournals.com |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 20 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Foreign Countries, Educational Philosophy, Educational Theories, Intellectual Disciplines, Comparative Education, Role of Education, Individual Development, Social Development, Educational Principles |
| Geographic Terms: | China, Europe |
| ISSN: | 2064-2199 |
| Abstract: | Under neoliberalism, instrumentalization of education for economic purposes has been intensely accentuated in post-industrial societies, necessitating critical reflection on both educational practice and theory. How should a theory of education be structured as to consider both societal needs and the individual's right to develop as a cultural subject and political citizen? Non-Affirmative Theory of Education (NAT) and Educational Subject Philosophy (ESP) represent theoretical attempts to address the question in Europe and China. This study undertakes a comparative analysis of the two approaches that seek to respond to the same educational problem from different perspectives. The comparative analysis reveals that ESP conceptualizes the nature of education as "subjectivity" and NAT as "non-affirmativity." Both approaches emphasize education as a specialized activity aimed at cultivating individuals, advocating for the development of culturally reflective and self-determining subjects. They acknowledge that such education must function by summoning students' self-activity or leading their instructional cognition. Crucially, educators cannot provide answers on behalf of the learners. However, regarding how to address the relationship between education and other social practices, NAT advocates for clarifying the boundaries between educational practice and other social practices, while ESP proposes a functionalist approach, emphasizing that respecting the independence of education means nurturing autonomous and responsible social subjects, thereby contributing to the collective progress of various societal domains in the long run. NAT illustrates that the knowledge economy era requires non-affirmative education, whereas ESP's perspective reminds educational researchers that in an age where economic practices are amplified and human economic attributes are emphasized, it is essential to consider the essence of education from a three-dimensional standpoint--encompassing education, human development, and social progress--so that education can unify its functions of promoting the development of individuals' inner powers and fostering societal advancement. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1491464 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Under neoliberalism, instrumentalization of education for economic purposes has been intensely accentuated in post-industrial societies, necessitating critical reflection on both educational practice and theory. How should a theory of education be structured as to consider both societal needs and the individual's right to develop as a cultural subject and political citizen? Non-Affirmative Theory of Education (NAT) and Educational Subject Philosophy (ESP) represent theoretical attempts to address the question in Europe and China. This study undertakes a comparative analysis of the two approaches that seek to respond to the same educational problem from different perspectives. The comparative analysis reveals that ESP conceptualizes the nature of education as "subjectivity" and NAT as "non-affirmativity." Both approaches emphasize education as a specialized activity aimed at cultivating individuals, advocating for the development of culturally reflective and self-determining subjects. They acknowledge that such education must function by summoning students' self-activity or leading their instructional cognition. Crucially, educators cannot provide answers on behalf of the learners. However, regarding how to address the relationship between education and other social practices, NAT advocates for clarifying the boundaries between educational practice and other social practices, while ESP proposes a functionalist approach, emphasizing that respecting the independence of education means nurturing autonomous and responsible social subjects, thereby contributing to the collective progress of various societal domains in the long run. NAT illustrates that the knowledge economy era requires non-affirmative education, whereas ESP's perspective reminds educational researchers that in an age where economic practices are amplified and human economic attributes are emphasized, it is essential to consider the essence of education from a three-dimensional standpoint--encompassing education, human development, and social progress--so that education can unify its functions of promoting the development of individuals' inner powers and fostering societal advancement. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2064-2199 |
