Plato《理想國》與Gilman《她鄉》烏托邦主張及教育思想比較研究

Abstract

本研究主要以Plato《理想國》與二十世紀C. P. Gilman《她鄉》作為探究對象，並比較分析兩者烏托邦主張及教育思想之異同。兩者均為歷史中重要的烏托邦及教育思想文獻，也有類似共產社會的觀點，然而，兩者設定烏托邦之基本原則及所呈現出來的教育風貌卻大相逕庭。本研究採文獻分析方法，探討並比較了兩人的烏托邦教育思想，並且闡發了烏托邦在現代社會中教育的重要性。研究結論如下：一、在現代社會中，具備「反偶像崇拜傳統」精神的烏托邦主義，可能才是烏托邦真正精神之所在；二、比起理念論式的「靜態烏托邦」，現代社會中吾人需對演化論式的「動態烏托邦」投以更多關注；三、Plato 與Gilman 欲培養之女性形象可說幾無二致，但兩者最大不同之處在於對於「母性」或「母職」的看法。Plato 並未正視「母職」的重要性，但Gilman卻賦予「母職」最崇高地位。此一差異對我們重思教育定義可說極有意義。

For this article, we mainly compare and analyze two important writings regarding “utopian” educational proposals: Plato’s Republic and C. P. Gilman’s feminist utopian novel Herland. They both are utopian and educational classics, and their ideal societies are both communist societies, but the basic organizing principles and educational proposals vary in numerous ways. After reviewing the above-mentioned two utopian writings and other related studies, we summarize the study’s conclusion: (1) The utopian spirit of modern society should be utopianism consistent with the “iconoclastic utopian tradition”; (2) we require placing more attention on an evolutionary “dynamic utopia” than a theoretically “static utopia”; and (3) the female images that Plato and Gilman attempted to cultivate are similar, but their emphases on “motherhood” are of different degrees. Plato did not consider motherhood, but Gilman honored it as the most important social value, and we argue that such a difference is significant for people to reconsider the meaning of education.