Melbourne Graduate School of Education - Theses

Permanent URI for this collection

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Raymond Williams : a critique of his theory of culture and education
    Tranter, Bernard C ( 1980)
    This thesis is a critical exposition of Williams' theory of culture as expounded in two of his early works, Culture and Society 1780-1950, and The Long Revolution, and of the influence of that theory on his views on education. Williams' views on man, on valued knowledge and on the ideal society, being fundamental to an understanding of his theory of culture and its connection with education, are given particular attention. Williams sees man as evolving into a being with a unique brain and hence as having the potential to learn, to reason, to communicate and to create. The process of realising this potential is identified by Williams as both the process of interaction within culture and also the characteristic achievement of culture. However, this thesis argues that such a view of man, allegedly drawn from experience, is selectively based and conjectural. Williams' account of what constitutes valued knowledge is based partly on his attempt to re-define culture by a synthesis of previous definitions, and partly on his argument that knowledge is socially created. But, despite his own overt objections to a distinctive 'high' culture, it is evident that Williams himself is extending the selection of valued knowledge and activity, not avoiding selection. At the same time, he is preserving the distinction between skilled intellectual activities (associated with the ideal of 'high culture') and the more 'ordinary' activities of a culture. The thesis also questions Williams' proposition that knowledge is a social creation based ideally on a pooling of common experience. It argues that 'experience' is not invariably the sound basis for knowledge that Williams assumes it to be and it questions the need for his strong emphasis on commonly shared experience. A 'common culture' functioning both for the expression of, and as the necessary basis for an egalitarian society is the distinctive mark of Williams' ideal society, a society which he believes will nurture man's evolving potential and hence his cultural progress. The characteristics of that ideal society - communal solidarity, participating democracy, consensus by open communication, and the principal of 'equality of being' - are critically examined, and attention is drawn to some ambiguities and apparent contradictions in their exposition. Finally, the function Williams ascribes to education, namely, that of being an important means of developing man's individual and collective potential, is examined. Williams' concern for developing intellectual skills, and for directing these towards the changing of society, is contrasted with his tendency to subordinate education to stated social ends. This, it is argued, may lead in practice to less dynamic results and be more open to distortion than Williams obviously intends. In summary, it is maintained that Williams' arguments from experience form an inadequate base for the claims his theory of culture is called on to support; that his attempt to redefine culture by a synthesis of existing and to some degree conflicting definitions leaves unresolved a number of ambiguities and contradictions; and that these weaknesses are reflected in some of his prescriptions for education.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    An evaluation of aspects of the proposition by Professor G.H. Bantock that "ultimately education both formal and informal is concerned with cultural transmission"
    Blackler, Stuart Edward ( 1976)
    This thesis explores both the meaning and the application of. Bantock's assertion. Firstly, the notion of 'culture' is examined. I3antock identifies two common interpretations of the word: the anthropological and the Arnoldian 'pursuit of excellence.' He claims that his understanding is somewhere between the two. However, an analysis of his works shows that his thinking for education is far more identifiable with the Arnoldian idea of culture as what people should do, than it is with the anthropological notion that culture is what the people do. The meaning of I3antock's assertion about education's 'ultimate concern' is then examined with respect to his recommendations on curriculum. Bantock usefully distinguishes between 'cognitive' and 'affective' learning. Yet this distinction is not as sharp as one might expect: the criterion of the rational - or cognitive - as the arbiter limits his recommendations affecting curricula. If education is to be transmitted, this entails a discussion of how the transmission is to take place. �3sntack rejects 'discovery methods' as a mesas to transmit cultural values. The validity of his rejection is disputed both on the grounds of his failure to perceive the structure underlying discovery methods and the motivation of these methods. Transmission has to be undertaken by someone: thus, the role of school and not - school is examined, and the role of the teacher is explored. The former is affected by the whole area of the responsibility of the educator to his society; the latter is complicated by the fact, not explored by Bantock in any depth, that the teacher himself is necessarily involved in the wider community. lf cultural transmission is to be seen as the ultimate concern of education, then other claimants need to be described and assessed. The thesis examines the claims of self-realization, social improvement and social .usefulness, and proceeds to examine what claim cultural transmission knight have against other claims. The thesis examines the contribution which cultural transmission has over and against other claimants: its complementary nature, its sense of continuity with the past and for the future, and its dynamic spirit are explored. Finally, the thesis seeks to assess the contribution of G. H. Bantock to educational thinking. Negatively. there is a criticism of his failure to recognise the pluralistic nature of modern society, and his tendency to over-simplify the attitudes of those with whom he disagrees. But, positively, he does draw attention to the need for educational discourse to identify aims, his open-ness to a changing society, and his identification that the decisions affecting education are less and less in the hands of educators.