The question of whether education should be seen as an instrument of social order is an old topic in the social sciences. There exist several theories concerning this question. Two of these rival theories are dealt with in this paper. On the basis of each, historical data have been looked at anew and empirical research has been carried out into the prevailing conditions in the Netherlands. On the basis of the first theory, which was inspired by Bourdieu and which concerns economic, cultural (including educational) and social capital, data on the Dutch history between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries have been reanalysed with respect to the attitude of the diverse sections of the dominant class towards culture in general and the university in particular. Dutch history can be regarded as a national variant of the universal tensions between ‘culture’and ‘knowledge’and between ‘culture’and ‘economics’in human societies. On the basis of Bourdieu's theory it is assumed that under the prevailing social conditions elementary schools will differ in ‘educational status’in the schools market. Empirical investigation confirms this hypothesis. The ‘educational status’of elementary schools mediates (reproduces) almost all of the influence of the childrens’social background on their school career, and reinforces this influence. On the basis of the second theory, which is based on the work of Meyer, Boli and Ramirez, data on the Dutch history in the Enlightenment period have been reanalysed with respect to the rise of mass education. These historical data give substantial evidence to the theory that the construction of the nation‐state is of decisive importance for the rise of mass education. Our empirical investigation, however, does not confirm the hypothesis that in the actual situation elementary schools differ in ‘comprehensiveness’. Neither schools nor parents are oriented towards integration. Rather, the contrasts seem to be getting sharper in the 1980s and the schools as well as the social classes seem to be distancing themselves further from each other. Various sections of the dominant class are busy strengthening their position of power in education. In short, the use of schools to constitute citizens does not lessen the pressure towards differentiation. Thus, the theory of Boli and Ramirez explains the rise of mass education, but cannot explain its social class bound form, a fact that can be explained very well by Bourdieu's theory. Therefore the theories of both Bourdieu and Boli and Ramirez should be regarded not as rivalizing, but as complementary.
This paper will argue that the Fulbright Program can only add something substantial to what academic exchange normally does when it explicitly goes political. The surplus or added value of official American Studies depends on the way it is organized and programmed, as a command economy or as a negotiation economy and political rather than cultural. The first part of the paper provides some information about the context, history, and method of the Fulbright Program. It states that the program is primarily oriented towards Europe in order to strengthen the Atlantic Alliance and to culturally legitimize America s leading role in the alliance. Proportionally, the Netherlands was one of the most important nations of the program, not just because of its high-standing technical and natural sciences in militarily-strategically significant areas such as nuclear physics, but also because of its mediating role in the world of foreign diplomacy and scholarship. The second part of the paper deals with the transformation of the Fulbright Program in the Netherlands between 1947-1997. It shows that the first period of this time fully emphasized the science of education, whereas the second period focused on political science and political history. From 1985 onwards, a culturalised and depoliticised American Studies discipline has been dominating the scene. Re-politicisation of the Fulbright program in co-ordinated projects is pleaded for
Umfragen, Wahlen und Demokratie Vom Augenblick ihrer Einfuhrung an hat die Praxis der Meinungsumfragen im politischen System ebensowohl positive wie negative Reaktionen gezeitigt. Ihren Befürwortern zufolge gestatteten Meinungsumfragen ein besseres Funktionieren des demokratischen Lebens, weil sie imstande sind, die öffentliche Meinung genauestens zu erfassen, wohingegen es sich fur deren Gegner bloß entweder um eine moderne Technik politischer Manipulation, oder auf der anderen Seite um eine wissenschaftlich äußerst zweifelhafte Art der Erhebung handele. Die jüngste französische Präsidentschaftswahl war durch die Allgegenwart von Umfragen im Vorwahlzeitraum und einer nicht weniger lebhaften, darauf gerichteten Kritik gekennzeichnet. Zum Verständnis der Beharrlichkeit dieser Debatte ist - außerhalb des engeren technischen Bereichs - der Umstand zu berücksichtigen, daß durch die Diskussionen über Meinungsumfragen in Wahrheit eine bestimmte Vorstellung des legitimen politischen Kampfes und darüber hinaus eine bestimmte Demokratieidee auf dem Spiel stehen. In der Tat wird der in demokratischen Systemen zuinnerst herrschende Widerspruch durch Meinungsumfragen in eklatanter Form ans Tageslicht gebracht.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.