The Explanation of the social education concept in childhood based on the Islamic theory of action

Document Type : پژوهشی

Authors

• Maryam Mohammadi ¹
• Narges Sadat Sajjadieh ²
• Khosrow Bagheri Noaparast ³

¹ MA in Philosophy of education, University of Tehran, Iran

² Assistant Professor, University of Tehran, Iran

³ Professor, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

10.22067/fedu.2024.75692.1143

Abstract

The aim of this paper is explaining the social education concept in childhood based on the Islamic theory of action. For this purpose, the concept development method is used. Therefore, the prevalent controversies in childhood social education are faced with the Islamic theory of action, and the position of this theory in these controversies is reviewed. After delineating the position of this theory in the continuum of these controversies, it is revealed that this theory according to two statements “two-face identity” and “interactional development “, has the necessary premises to enter the social education discussion and conceptualization about it. The result of this paper showed that the concept of social education in this theory surpasses the society and the individual and is related to a higher concept and formed regarding to centrality of "right and truth". In this case, the definition of social education in childhood in this theory is preparing a situation for the child to have "right-based interaction". On the other hand, in this definition, we can emphasize the social accompaniment of a child. Considerations as a symmetrical interaction with peers, asymmetrical interaction with adults, interpretation of the past and future about “social role creation” and “ current meaningfulness”, a child's relation with all social layers, using the “modeling” methods, “Primary unconditioned kindness, secondary structured kindness, flexible discipline and dialogical necessity in social education and consensus rationality are the social action criteria which are gained in reaching to a social education concept in childhood based on the Islamic theory of action.
Keywords: social education, childhood, Islamic theory of action
 
Synopsis
In addition to moving in the individual orbit, a human being is a social being who is affected by the interactions with others and his identity is constructed in his social life (Bagheri, 2010a). Regarding the importance of the social dimension of human life, some intellectuals call humans human because of their sociality. Considering this truth, the educational system should concentrate on social education and prepare a program for the social education of the children.  So, some social scientists hold that the aim of education is children's socialization.
On the other hand, childhood is a special period of human life that has special properties. Any program for social education in this period should regard these properties. In this paper, we attempted to explain social education in the childhood period based on the Islamic theory of action as a philosophical foundation. This theory considers society as a context in which the agency of persons will emerge.
In this paper, regarding the challenges of social education, we will try to formulate them as dichotomies are located in continuums and identify our positions on each continuum. The first dichotomy shows different views about assumptions of social education. While the first position defines human beings as atomic individuals, the second thesis identifies them as social creatures who are interrelated with each other. For example, Richard Rorty (1989) holds that during childhood we should concentrate on social aspects of children’s identities. Oppositely, Rousseau (2011) holds that the child is not an active member of society and he (she) should be free and detached from society. Regarding the Islamic view of action and its view of human beings, we can find various components. While some components like Fetra and Kerama differentiate a person from his (her) society (Bagheri, 2020), other components like social aspects of rationality connect his (her) to his (her) society. So, we can assume two dimensions for a person’s identity.
Also, while some intellectuals consider human development as individualistic growth, others regard it as a social one. Bases upon Islamic view of action. We can assume two sides for human development. Then, one can say that some aspects of human development are related to society and interrelationships and the other aspects are independent from his (her) social interactions.
The second dichotomy is related to social education aims. Whereas some philosophers identify social education as socialization, others explain it as struggling with society. Moreover, some intellectuals define it as rule-following and in contrast, others hold that it can be rule-establishing.
Regarding the interactions of the child with the social environment, we can trace some opposite threads again. While some educators emphasize the interactions with peers, others underline interactions with adults. In addition, some educators are inclined to revivalism, others prefer futurism; and whereas some educators emphasize local identity, others underline world civic. Considering methods of social education, we can regard internal obligation versus external obligation, discipline versus affection, and independence versus imitation. Moreover, while some intellectuals consider individual rationality as a criterion of social action, others hold that there are no criteria for social action.
 
Conclusion: 
After locating the Islamic theory of action on the continuum of conflicts of social education in childhood, social education can be explained as follows in a summary:
This theory has two presuppositions necessary to enter social education, i.e. "collective identity", and "social environmental growth" in the form of two propositions: "two-faced identity", and "interactive growth". Therefore, this theory can conceptualize social education.
The concept of social education in this theory goes beyond society and individual dichotomy and considers a concept higher than these two and that concept is formed with the center of "truth". This means that society and social relations by themselves have no value and originality, and what is determined here, is truth. Therefore, the definition of social education in childhood can be the creating grounds for the child's true-oriented interactions. In other words, grounds must be created so that all the child's interactions with society become subject to truth.
Also, in the concept of social education of the child, from the perspective of this approach, it is possible to emphasize the child's "helping society". Helping society means that the child should be recognized as an active member of society. To participate and accompany in the affairs of the society and to think about criticism and reformation of the society in small cases. It means that his (her) macro view is positive and aligned with the society and his (her) micro view is critical towards some minor parts of the society. Of course, all these activities and goals should flow around the main center of the concept of social education, which is truth.
The considerations that need to be taken into account to reach this concept are as follows: the child's interaction with his (her) peers should be "symmetric" and "asymmetric" with adults. The perception of the past and the future should follow the child's social role-playing and current meaning. The child's relationship with all social layers should be established sequentially. On the other hand, in social education methods, "modeling", "unconditional primary love, organized secondary love, flexible discipline", and "conversational obligation" should be used. "Consensual rationality" should also be considered as a measure of social action.

Keywords

• Social education
• Childhood
• Islamic theory of action

Main Subjects

• Educational Philosophy

---

References

Al-Hadid, I. A. (1984). Nahjol-Balaghah Commentaries. Ketabkhaneh Maraashi.

Azadmanesh, S. (2014). The exploration of childhood nature from the perspective of Islamic view of action and inferring moral education aims of child from it Tehran University. Tehran. (In Persian).

Bagheri, N. K. (2000). The Principles social education in Imam Ali thought. Islamic Education, 4, 383-422. (In Persian).

Bagheri, N. K. (2006). Phases and Principles of Education in Rorty’s Neo-pragmatic point of view. Psychology and Educational Sciences, 1, 1-27. (In Persian).

Bagheri, N. K. (2010a). A Review to Islamic Education (19 ed., Vol. 1). Madrese. (In Persian).

Bagheri, N. K. (2010b). An Intruduction to the Philosophy of Education of the Islamic Republic of Iran: Aims, foundation & Principle (2 ed., Vol. 1). Elmi Farhangi. (In Persian).

Bagheri, N. K. (2010c). An Intruduction to the Philosophy of Education of the Islamic Republic of Iran: A Philosophy of Curriculum (2 ed., Vol. 2). Elmi Farhangi. (In Persian).

Bagheri, N. K. (2011). A Review to Islamic Education (5 ed., Vol. 2). Madrese. (In Persian).

Bagheri, N. K. (2013a). The Education Proper Pattern in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Madrese. (In Persian).

Bagheri, N. K. (2013b). Teaching ‘to’ and Learning ‘from’, 3(2), 5-16. Foundations of Education, 3, 5-16. (In Persian).

Bagheri, N. K. (2016). Islamic Education as Asymmetrical Democratic Interaction. In The Palgrave International Handbook of Alternative Education (pp. 339-353). Springer.

Bagheri, N. K. (2020). Human Agency: A Religious and Philosophical Approach. Javaneh Roshd. (In Persian).

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism (Vol. 9). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Coombs, J. R. D., L. B. (2009). Philosophical Inquiry: Conceptual Analysis In Edmund C. Short (Eds), Forms of Curriculum Inquiry. Tehran: samt. (In Persian). (N. K. Bagheri, Trans.). Samt.

Durkheim, E. (1956). Education and sociology. Simon and Schuster.

Durkheim, E. (2019). The division of labor in society. Routledge.

Freire, P. (1992). Pedagogy of hope (RR Barr, Trans. 2004 ed.). In: New York: Continuum Publishing Company.

Ghaemi Moghadam, M. (2003). Modeling method in Islamic education. Marifat, 69, 25-37. (In Persian).

Hejri, M. (2004). Children's literature in Iran, mutual influence and modernity. Children's and Adolescent Literature Research Journal, 10th year(38), 85-99.

Hunt, P. (1994). An introduction to children's literature (Vol. 37). Oxford University Press Oxford.

Hurrelmann, K. (1988). Social structure and personality development: The individual as a productive processor of reality. CUP Archive.

Joseph, B., P. (2010). Cultures of Curriculum (M. a. O. Mehrmohammadi, Trans.). Samt. (In Persian).

Kant, I. (1989). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (A. Enayat. H & Gheissari, Trans.). Kharzami. (In Persian).

Karimi, A. (2008). Social education pathology. Danesh va andishe moaaser. (In Persian).

Kiyan, M. (2015). Explaining the dimensions of child education in the family system from the perspective of Islam. Akhlagh, 18, 9-36. (In Persian).

Kozulin, A. (2002). Vygotsky's Psychology: A Biography of Ideas (H.Ghasemzadeh, Trans.). Arjmand. (In Persian).

Mazbouhi, S. M., H.&Beheshti, s.&Abaspour, A.&Mofidi, F. (2013). Designing an Optimal Model for Social education Curriculum based on Quran in Primary Education. Educational Psychology, 9, 149-192. (In Persian).

McNally, S. A., & Slutsky, R. (2017). Key elements of the Reggio Emilia approach and how they are interconnected to create the highly regarded system of early childhood education. Early Child Development and Care, 187(12), 1925-1937.

Mohammadi, M. (2017). A conception of social education in childhood (7-11) from the viewpoint of Islamic theory of action and it’s applicability in the area of educational action. Tehran University]. Tehran. (In Persian).

Montessori, M. (1912). A critical consideration of the new pedagogy in its relation to modern science.

Montessori, M. (1949). The Absorbent Mind. The Clio Montessori Series Vol. 1. In: Oxford, England: Clio Press. First published.

Niazi. M, J. B. M., Shafaei Moghadam.E. (2014). The Explanation of the Relationship between the Trilogy of Individual, Social and National Identity and the amount of Citizens’ fidelity toward Citizenship Culture (Case of Study: Tehran Citizens in 2014). journal of iranian social development studies, 6(4), 71-85. (In Persian).

Perez-Felkner, L. (2013). Socialization in childhood and adolescence. In Handbook of social psychology (pp. 119-149). Springer.

Ramezani, F. (2010). Methods for Child Social Education Based on Quran and Nahjulbalaghah Research in curriculum planning, 9, 1-19. (In Persian).

Rorty, R. (1999). Education as socialization and as individualization. Philosophy and social hope, 114-126.

Rousseau, J. J. (2011). Emil (G. Zirakzade, Trans.). Nahid. (In Persian).

Saif, A. (2011). Modern Educational Psychology: Psychology of Learning and Instruction.. Doran. (In Persian).

Sajadieh, N. (2005). Comparative Analysis of human agency in Rorty’s neo pragmatist view and Islamic view of action Tehran University]. Tehran. (In Persian).

Sajadieh, N., &Bagheri, N.Kh., &Madanifar, M.. (2015). Mediational goals of education in childhood based on Islamic action approach. Islamic Education, 10, 29-55. (In Persian).

Sajjadieh, N. F., h. (2017). Rethinking the relationship between cultural capital with family and school: a way toward agency The first International Conference on Culture, psychopathology and Education, https://civilica.com/doc/649296/ (In Persian).

Vygotsky, L. (2008). Thought and Language (H. Ghasemzadeh, Trans.). Arjmand. (In Persian).