Christoph Wulf History and Theory of Anthropology ANTHROPOLOGY Geschichte und Theorie der Ethnologie OF EDUCATION edited by/ herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Klaus-Peter Kopping (University of Heidelberg) Volume/Band 2 LIT LIT Table of Content lntroduction . - .... - . ...................... Part One: The Problem of Human Perfectibility J. The Dream of Education ........... 9 Le 61-000 wtl 61 2. Perfecting the Individual Wilhelm von Humboldt's Anthropology of Education 25 3. Work as Gesture and Ritual .... 37 Part Two: Mimesis in Education, Culture and Anthropology Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheilsaufnahme 4. Mimesis as an Anthropological Concept ..... 51 Wulf, Christoph: 5. Mimesis in Education ...... Anthropology of Education/ Christoph Wulf. - Munster: LIT, 2002 . 77 6. The Mimetic Production of Gestures and Rituals (History and Theory of Anthropology /Geschichte und Theorie dcr Ethnolog1e ; 2) 93 7. Imagination ,md the l'v1irnc:,is oflmagcs .. ISBN 3-82.58-5681-x 103 Part Three: Global and lnterc11lt11ral Education 8. Youth Violence .. , ..... 115 9. The Other . .... 123 Jo. The Globalisation of Education . 139 © LIT VERLAG Munster - Hamburg - London Grcvcner Str. l 79 48159 Miinster Tel. 0251-23 5091 Fax 0251-2319 72 Outlook - Educational Anthropology: A New Pcrspecfr,:e on Education 149 e-Mail: [email protected] http://www.lit-verlag.de Bibliography . Distributed in North America by: 165 Acknowledgements 177 Transaction Publishers Tel.: (732) 445 • 2280 9 Rutgc rs Univcrsily rax: (732) .145.31,~ Transaction Publishers 35 Bcrruc Circle for orders (U.S. only); New Bnu1swick (U,S,A.) and Loodoo (U.K.) Pisca1away, NJ 08854 toll free (888) 999 • 6778 Introduction Educational anthropology constitutes an important field in education today, one that is characterised by pluralism and diversity. No educational theory can claim to produce alone the basic knowledge necessary for education. The same is true in the realm of anthropology. There is no longer such a thing as a normative anthropology based on the universal truth of religions and ideologies. On the contrary, all anthropological knowledge is necessarily plural and heterogeneous. The field of educational anthro~ pology is therefore bound to be relative and fractional, provisional and limited.1 Anthropological knowledge plays an important role both in the realm of educatio­ nal science as well as in the field of practical education. 2 Researchers, educators and instructors possess a certain anthropological knowledge withou~ which they would not be able to work. In the different contexts, an implicit anthropological knowledge is at work. As is true for all implicit knowledge, anthropological knowledge seems to defy explicit thought, and only evolves gradually, in the course of a long process of work. Thus, it is necessary, both for those who deal with educational science as well as for the practitioners of education, that the anthropological premises on which their work is based be exposed and studied. In order to achieve this, the field of education must take on an anthropological stance.3 Educational anthropology functions according to a double historical and cultural contextuality: on the one hand for .those disclosing knowledge, and on the other hand for those relying on that knowledge produced in a particular context. This double historicity and culturality relativises the factual content of anthropology. At the same time however; the constant relation to time allows for new perspectives which under­ line the fact that there is nothing that is true in itself and alone, but that rather, knowl­ edge must always be considered in relation to a specific context.4 Anthropological knowledge is relative. There is no longer a guaranteed system of references; no longer any room for normative anthropology. Thus, anthropological Jmowledge can no longer expect to be acknowledged as any different from other disci­ plines relevant to educational science. This equality of position is all the more justified insofar as the link between educational anthropology and the other social sciences has become vague and uncertain. Anthropolo&ical knowledge is not connected to a fixed subject and can no longer be clearly defined. In addition, anthropology creates new questions, perspectives and themes within education. The end of an era in which the dominant anthropological systems were I Wulfl997. 2 Wulf 1995. 3 Wulf/Zirfas 1994. 4 Kamper/Wulf 1994. - .: ,.1£@ closed upon themselves gives rise to new opportunities to produce new objects. Some examined under a new light which allow new po1·1115 t' - . r · . ' 0 re1 ercnce ,or thotial t d of the new perspectives that arise out of this crossing between anthropology :md the c d ucalronal act1011 to be drawn.9 · "' 1 an other disciplines connected to education are expressed in the following. 5 Anthropology of education includes ref1ection both ti h I. r . on ic competence as well ·is Educational anthropology has become a historical and cultural anthropology of on t e 1mits 01 its own field of knowledoe It anal)'Ses th. 1·1·t- I · · ' '. - · . '° · ' ' c c 1 1cu ties mvolved 117 education that takes into account the historicity and culturality of the researcher as well Irnman se If-clcf1111t10n and education that arise from ti cl', . · f' . i· ' · ie isappearancc of urnvcrsal ;is his object. Historical and cultural anthropology of education still attempts to relate pomts o re erence. Anthropology of education shows ho., th, , · d . fl- , I · d, . , \\ e consequences of these its perspectives and methods to the perspectives and methods of its object. I-Iowcver, 1 1cu tics cpend on the cond1t1ons of their production Jn otll, . d · ·. , ·r·h ., · fr . · er\\ or s It 1s , eflcxrve its purpose is no longer to research say, the human or the child as universal beings, hut c ui ,crcnt d1sc11ss1ons that constitute anthropoloov of' . I 1· , · - . · , d · , . oJ ec uca ton arc sometimes to investigate real people and children in particular historic and social contexts. from contra 1clory. Dzscuss1011 1 eters hen: to the cons1stc t t- t· h . , n orms o t OllITht and lanouao. this point of view, the idea of a concept that could somehow encompass man as a that reveal particular educat10nal contexts. These contribut' t th 1° . ' c ''°c · 1 . c. o c s 1ap1ng of percep- whole loses its value. Historical and cultural anthropology of education is not limited t10n, to t 1e structures and concepts of education an·' re , · • . ' , u present an expression ot ti to certain cultures or certain epochs. In rcf1ecting its own historicity and culturality, the practices of power at work Ill society, in the ,vorld of science d · ·cl ' . le . , · an m e 11cat1onal msti- discipline is able, in theory, to overcome the Eurocentrism of the humanities and the tutes. W 1th111 the framework of education anthropolo,, J 1· . · . o . o , , .. " • • . ' otca c 1scuss1ons contribute purely historical interests of history; it engages in the unresolvt:d problems of the pre­ queJt1011 .. , perspectJ\·eo and important rns10Jits ofrclevanc t ·d · I sent and the future. 6 ;iction. 10 "' e o e ucat10na thought and Educational anthropology aims, on the one hand, to criticise the fantasies of omni­ Anthropology of education is manifold. It is wary of too Ji ·t,, 1-., · . k . ' as )- c1 conso 1uat10n or its potence or powerlessness of education, and, on the other hand, to reveal the tension nowlcdgc and rcmams open to that which is 'different' Tha k' t ti· . · ' 11 s o 11s p 1uralism (as between the possibility of hwnan perfection and the difficulty of human change. and opposed to an attitude that level thmgs out) a distinct open ... ,. ct · . .' . - . , . ness 1Cl\,ar s mter-d1sc1- therefore to show the possihilities and limits or education. These functions result in a plmary work allows rnterest to be shown m the complexit,, ra(h tl I . ·. · - ' er ian t 1c reductwn of cl:rtain concentration on human creations, which focuses on examining and exposing anthropolog1cal knowleclgc. Knowledge of education is const·t t'cl .' . · . i u c on t 11e basis of thl: biological, sucial aml cultural limits· of the human process of dc~'elopmcnt that ~pec1fic cond1t1011s that arc dictated by culture and lanouao. , · 11 , , · . · . "' i:,e, cspecia y dt d time when ccmstitutes education. Ill recent vears the limits of human creation have been rcve::tlcd mternat1onal1ty and rnterculturah(y are tnking on an iwr~·,51·11 al . · . , ,. ' v ~u O ) 1mpo1 tan[ TO 1e. more than ever, as is manifest in popular expressions such as 'the limits or growth', At present, much of the knowledge transmitted bv the educ"t· 1 . • " 1ona stem does not and 'risk society'. An increased humanisation of the world seems to nm parallel to the s, correspond to people·s expectations. This poses the problem of tl ..: 1• · , 7 ,ct · . ., . _. ie ie at1011 between cbnger of its own destruction. e ucat1onal knowledge 311d social, mst1lutional and ccluc-itio 11 .,j 1·t . I . - • . , u rea 1 : . nso 1ar as eel u- Educational anthropology must involve an anthropological criticism of its own cat1011al knowledge contnbutes to thc formation and shc1p 1·11 o- f ti . 1 . , . · , c o 1e next gcncrat1on 1 self~conception, which focuses on its competence as well as on its limits. This must, It must imply human selt-understancl111°, which it"elr is scrtit1· · · l d · · · . "' ~ · nisc;t an questioned b, for instance, work on the simplifications involved in the traditional anthropological the ptob!em of human pcr/ectzbzlity or 11011-per(cclibilirv fn 11 , . t . 1· . ) . · 1e con ext o educational comparisons bct\vccn man and animal. It must also take into account mistakes result­ knowledge, this rrohlcm lies at the core of anthropological resnrch ing from tl1e popular distinction between nature and culture. Further, anthropological \Vithin the realm of educational anthropo!oo-v b~rdcrl· '. b t.. , 1 . -· r.