In Plato's dialogue, the State, tells his mentor, Socrates, on a myth: You have to imagine a number of people who all their lives have lived in an underground cavern. In addition, the strapped with chains, and their eyes are fixated on the rear of the cave. In and they are chained, and this throughout their lives, they are not aware that there exists a world outside the cave. Furthermore, you must imagine that across the cave runs a wall and that this wall burning a fire. There are people walking along the wall, but can not be seen by the clamped. The shadows as the migrant men's gear throws are what they are chained think it is real, and when the migrant speaks, sees the shadows as those who speak. According to Plato, it is this world that we are many who live in. We need insight into the realities, and knowing that there are other truths than those we just take for granted. We often live as "they" are wont to do. Formation concept comes in. In this context, since it will often be the formation that can lead the way free from the shackles and into the light.
Today's youth very much lacking in formation, and probably the same degree as past youth did. My generation was brought up to be loners, we have got it into the breast milk that we can what we want and become what we want. This issue I will break down later. Lack of education is certainly not a new fad that has unfolded in recent times. I will not sit and be precocious and tell how the formation of the concept began in romance, whether Andersen's grand tour to Italy, or Bertel Thorvaldsen, for that matter, it is written more than enough about. I would however try to give a more nuanced look at what modern education is, and who will stand for this.
An article in Weekend newspaper reports Thomas Ziehe, professor of pedagogy, about what problems the contemporary generation are faced with. A phenomenon he works with is what he calls "relevance Corridor", a term that refers to ability of young people, only to choose what exactly best suits them. So a very narrow frame of reference with respect to learning contexts, should hit accurately. This phenomenon spanning well over the names that our generation has been granted; "generation x" "generation fucked-up" and what labels they would otherwise have been able to find us glued. So names to describe us as a generation of child care, which has no greater purpose in life. And although I probably fall into these categories, I still feel able to give them, and Thomas Ziehe, right at this point. Self-centeredness and selfishness thrive best in kicking in the western world's youth, and even kept alive by the many mass media and thundering messages we are bombarded with daily. "Man is here to acknowledge the order and put in order" (Meir Aaron Goldsmith), and now that we have recognized generally, it is surely only reasonable to shift the focus on himself - egocentrien long live? Well, it is often called "me, me, me", and in everything you do and are doing, whether it's about education, jobs, careers, family, then you always, even in the center. Super Ego, which feels it is entitled to have a child as 60-year, knowing that the child probably will not know his mother or father more than a couple of twenty years, young STUDINN with circular saws on the elbows, which primarily refer to his own whim and disclaims any social responsibility. But to say that selfishness only thrive among youth will be decidedly wrong and untrue. One sign of this is, unfortunately, widespread xenophobia which bloom throughout the population, but, perhaps, especially among older generations. Assertions such as, "we have built the community, and now they come and parasites" are heard before. And if our generation is schooled in social responsibility and tolerance, will tomorrow's older generations undoubtedly come up with roughly the same obscure allegations. With regard to youth stupidity Thomas Ziehe believe that a solution must be found in the school and its teachers. They must "open up other horizons for young people," he says. This is indeed a very fine, though populist message which I still find it hard to connect. Educators must obviously be to demonstrate to the student in the direction that would be forming; direction toward new horizons. But the parents in this way would be able to shirk any responsibility is simply unheard of. If the family is not with the idea of changing the horizon, and ungens frame of reference, and here mainly refers to immigrant families where upheavals are a rarity, as they will often run counter to cultural and religious dogma, it just ends up with even one case a la "Dead Poets Society", ie a teacher who violate its powers and direct a student to follow her (play) dreams, knowing that the family is against it.
Another criticism which comes with Ziehe, is the fact, as I have mentioned earlier that the reference frame must suffer, and also at a level that could be related to the young people themselves and to life. This, I believe, however, does not quite true. There should, in my opinion, always be a part of the theoretical are now even be taught to be able to put into perspective the actual concrete. This is also for the sake of learning situation, if it is to be learned is not put in a kind of context, but floats freely, learning will be lowered dramatically. Reform pedagogy, which emerged in the liberated '60s and who preached liberation from old doctrines, freedom of education, anti-authoritarian pedagogy, and first and foremost, the student center, according Ziehe "... become a natural part of students' mental outfit ... "and especially on two points, namely the mantra that we must learn what they want, which is linked to the second message, which is," you can, what you want ". These are two messages that should long since have been deleted and kicked out. A vivid example of the latter message is still bonded to many minds, and cause major social problems can be seen in the world of education, especially higher education: In many of the faculties are dropout rates at about 50% against, which shows that Too many think they can what they want and that they just do what they want. However, I should mention that I do not think that education teaching methods and pedagogical tools be bombed back to the medieval Latin schools. One should for example not tell his kid that "oh so want to be astronauts," the probability of it happening are about the same as the moon would collapse - it can happen, but do not enough. I just think that in some areas should be adjusted a bit. An "awareness towards the goal," as Thomas Ziehe explains it is a good place to start. Life in all its facets, is certainly not an eternal and blissful bed of roses. It is sometimes painful, and if one goes through life without failures, I doubt that he has seen successes. A concrete example of "raising [n] on the path towards the goal" could be the student counselor, who, when the student with a cut in the respectable way limit want to be a doctor, should say from, and tell about the practical reality in each instance. Again, with regard to the role of school, think Ziehe, and that message can I better join the school should offer an alternative to the egodyrkende mass culture that surrounds us, it must, so to speak, offering otherness. An otherness could be to show students what it did not believe it could. This is obviously very broad, but successful experiences in various areas, including school contexts, can be a huge plus in every human self-consciousness and self-image. Ziehe will furthermore not be scandalized at youth: Enough has its problems, shortcomings and difficulties, but there are also many bright spots, and historically there may well not exist a generation of youth is flawless, what this concept so than masks. Youth missing just a little training and a push in the right direction, and then it all okay.
What does the term "formation" as above? If, for a brief moment, looks at the concept in a historical light, and sees Plato's cave parable, which I began with, this is an example of a classical myth formation. Myth is the picture of how both the individual, by virtue of its own activities, may acquire a deeper understanding of different ethical dilemmas, but also how people in the community can gain insight and free itself from doctrinal mindset and gudstro. Thus, the formation say that learning of a series of impersonal, more or less universal principles that give structure and coherence, from the concept of "good" and "right thing". Being an educated person would even say that they found themselves, in virtue of the fact that they found his life. Whether this definition is still valid, I will answer "yes". An educated person may outweigh arguments put others' needs before his own, acquire new knowledge, which according Ziehe should be outside their own frame of reference, make decisions, and all this with the concept and image of "good" in mind. School's role in all this is, a contemporary term, is to give young people the tools to realize this. If we stick to the cave parable, the teachers and the school's role be to liberate students from the shackles that keeps their eyes in a Authoritarianism and limited direction - show them the path to self-reflection. I just feel that there is a central point of contention if the teacher's role is replaced with mentoring role, that is where the student not only figuratively, will be freed from the shackles, but also being taken in hand and looked up into the light. This must be the young person's own responsibility - and in an extent where parents and hinterland. If there are taught in separate tanks, but that the teacher assumes the role of the sermon will be one set of glasses view of life just be replaced with another, and independent of position will be well.
How the formation, at the institutional level, specifically was done, Ziehe not come with any bid. Whether to copy the grand tour concept and create a version 2.0, I will let stand unanswered. I would argue that concept formation operates in three main areas: general education, personality development and education. The first concept is the high school has taken as its main task. The general formation thus consists in the fact that students are aware of a number of areas that may lie outside their usual frame of reference. Personality development is not a single step, but a stairway with many stages, which spans most of the liver. Herein lies the general literacy, and a later more specific formation, which is closely linked to the last point, the training and the personal choices of this. It is especially here, are formed itself, and creates an identity through the choice made, and the election can not take. The tools I mentioned earlier would be the young, which will probably be in the first box, general literacy, could well be the insight. Insight into older cultures, both our own and from foreign places, access to ancient literature, art, science and faith. It is essential to know its roots, and to have a concept of what it means to be Danish, and to be a world citizen. Especially in this time where the definition of "is to be Danish" is a much discussed topic. However, it should be, to know his roots, not manage to fully national sentiment and pride, xenophobia and lack of solidarity behavior just because you think that the grass is greener on our side of the fence. But the second aspect of the traditional education, it to know foreign cultures, is about the same as 1800 century intellectuals dedicated themselves in their educational journey. Insight, both domestic, from the foreign cultures, the self-acquired, and the writing appropriated, gives all knowledge, which in turn can be used to make the choice that undeniably would be taken. In this opaque jungle of information, inputs and attempts to tamper with the school, with parents and students themselves, try to give the young people an insight into the possibilities, and lead up to the self-appointed, an election where the young, hopefully will have the idea of "good" in mind and thus to act upon these broad, universal principles, and acquire access to view. It can in any case close the hope and desire could also be that the prevailing thinking went from "me, me, me" to be "me, me, and others."
