Suchergebnisse

Već više od dve godine traje velika pan-evropska debata o Budućnosti evropske socijal-demokratije (2009-2011) kao pokušaj odgovora na izazove globalne krize, ali i na duboku i dugotrajnu krizu same socijal-demokratije. Dok su tokom 2000. godine socijal-demokrati bila na vlasti u većini evropskih zemalja (11 od 15 članica EU ), danas vladaju u samo nekoliko perifernih zemalja Evrope (4 od 27 članica EU u 2011). Iako u nekoliko velikih zemalja još uvek privlače 20-30% birača, odnosno poseduju koalicioni kapacitet i za osvajanje vlasti, ipak je marginalizacija ključni trend. U traganju za vlastitim identitetom, novom paradigmom, pan-evropska debata problematizuje ključne teme i izazove naše civilizacije, kao što su globalizacija, logika kapitalizma i njegove moguće reforme, smisao i značaj Evropske Unije. Ova debata ponovo vraća u javni diskurs i niz ključnih koncepata na kojima se gradi zamisao o 'dobrom društvu', kao što su društvene vrednosti, kultura, značaj srednje klase i ekološka i socijalna održivost. ; We are in the third year of the pan-european debate on the future of European Social Democracy (ESD). It is a response to the challenges of the global economic crisis, but also a response to the deep internal crisis within the ESD. While the social democrats were in power in the majority of European countries in the year 2000 (11 of 15 EU members), they are rulling parties in only few peripheral countries in 2011 (4 of 27 EU countries). Althouth they are still able to attact 20-30% of voters, and with toghether with their partners are even able to form goverments in some countries, their margananalization is a major trend. This is not only because of electoral defeats, but it is due to membership decline, shaken ties with trade unions, lack of an alternative program in a situation when neoliberalism is shaken and political actors have searching for new formulae. In a search of their own identity, new paradigm and attractive program, pan-european debate critically analyze key issues and challenges of our civilization, such as globalization, nature of capitalism and its possible reforms, meaning and importance of the EU , the role of government regarding markets. This debate has brouth back into public discourse many important concepts that constitute the idea of 'good society,' such as social values (equailty, solidarity, social justice), buth also importance of culture, middle class, and social and environmental sustainability.

In the research traditions of social and political science two central answers are being sought. The first is, what is the relationship between the specific con-figurations of the proponents of social changes and the particular outcomes of their activity? The other is, which changes in the configuration of the proponents lead to better results than the existing ones relative to th value criteria such as peace, feasible development, or social justice? This makes the reference frame-work of contemporary discussions on institutional shaping of the relations between the state and the society. In this work, the author first mentions three dominant dimensions of social change to which all of us are exposed. Second, by changing perspective, he goes over from a passive to an active approach in order to observe the actors (citizens) and the forms of their activity (civilness) that might challenge th forces of change and transform them into tolerable or even desirable outcomes. And third, he contributes to the discussion about civilness and depicts in bigger detail six fallacies that must be avoided if one wants to attain a competent configuration of activity. (SOI : SOEU: S. 37)

The basic problem that the process of Euro integrations faces today is the absence of the European identity. There are ideas how it could be built, on what it should be based, but the basic problem is the EU has give up in a great extent from the real European values - the ideals like freedom, equality, solidarity, social justice, etc. Human rights are the European achievement, but a distinctive, therefore identity difference between the European and the Anglo-American interpretation is that the European variant guaranteed social-economic rights, which was actually a concretization of the great ideal of solidarity. Today, with prevailing ideology of globalism, just this element of human rights has been brutally waded, a part of the European identity with it. A similar situation is with what the Europeans consider the greatest achievement of the EU - free movement of people, goods and capital. Free movement of people is questioned by building barbed wires and creation of a new ante murale christianitatis, even in Islamic states, far away from the Schengen Area that is proclaimed untouchable. Moreover, all those people swarming to the Europe actually have close connections with it - they originate from former European colonies, brutally exploited by their metropolises for decades and centuries. Not only that, but recently their new 'Europeanization' has been attempted through the initialization of the 'Arab Spring' , which resulted with increase of the Islamic fundamentalism, disintegration of certain Arab states and tribal war in them, increase of terrorism and, of course, migrants from those areas. Although it would be justified to try to return the evil gotten to them at least partly, by refusing to accept the miserable the Europe gives the mortal strike to some of the main values that are considered its identity characteristics - free movement of people and solidarity. All this, actually, indicates on the absence of the European identity consciousness. There is no clearly defined content of the idea of the Euroidentity, nor there is consciousness of it with the citizens of the EU. The citizens of the EU are still more French, Englishmen, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Poles, Czechs rather than the Europeans. Their Europeanism exists only on the level of usefulness and efficacy, therefore, the prediction is that the model of the EU as an international organizations generis will be kept for a long time, while identities in future will be tied for (European) nations.

Imajući na umu da je Strategijom razvoja obrazovanja u Srbiji primećeno da u obrazovanju u Srbiji postoji "problem sa pravednošću" i da je kao jedan od ciljeva razvoja obrazovanja navedeno stvaranje "socijalno pravičnog društva", u ovom radu se preispituje u kojoj meri su donošenje Zakona o dualnom obrazovanju i javno insistiranje na ekspanziji ovog vida obrazovanja koraci usmereni ka smanjenju nejednakosti. Oslanjajući se na ideje različitih francuskih sociologa obrazovanja (Burdije, Budon, Bodlo i Estable), kroz rad se ispituje u kojoj meri dualno obrazovanje otvara prostor za izjednačavanje obrazovnih šansi i uspostavljanje pravičnijeg društva. Iz teorijskih uvida spomenutih autora koji se tiču povezanosti klasnih struktura sa obrazovnim šansama, može se zaključiti da svako "grananje" unutar obrazovnog sistema doprinosi većim nejednakostima, o čemu eksplicitno govori Rejmon Budon. Odlike dualnog obrazovanja podsećaju na "primarno zanatsko" obrazovanje o kojem govore Bodlo i Estable koji pokazuju da je ovakvo obrazovanje predviđeno za učenike iz neprivilegovanih društvenih slojeva kojima se kroz ovaj vid obrazovanja ograničava mogućnost vertikalne društvene pokretljivosti. Analizirajući različite interesne optike aktera, Burdije smatra da opšte obrazovanje, nasuprot obuci u firmi, radnicima daje određeni vid slobode, jer ih čini manje vezanim za jedno preduzeće. Školski sistem povezan sa industrijom, prema mišljenju ovog autora, oblikovan je interesima poslodavaca i suprotan je interesima radnika, jer čini društvo manje pravičnim umanjujući šanse za vertikalnu i horizontalnu društvenu pokretljivost. Na osnovu navedenog se može zaključiti da dualno obrazovanje ne doprinosi smanjenju društvenih nejednakosti, te da bi u cilju stvaranja pravičnijeg društva od ovakvih obrazovnih politika trebalo odustati. ; Bearing in mind that the Strategy for Education Development in Serbia perceives the existence of a "justice issue" in education in Serbia, and that one of the stated goals of education development is creating a "socially just society", this paper explores to which extent adopting the Law on Dual Education and public insistence on expansion of this mode of education are the steps towards reducing injustice. Relying on the ideas of different French sociologists of education (Bourdieu, Boudon, Baudelot and Establet), the paper examines to which extent dual education opens up the space for balancing educational opportunities and establishing a more just society. From theoretical insights of the aforementioned authors regarding the relation between class structures and educational opportunities, it can be concluded that any "branching" within an educational system contributes to greater inequalities, as explicitly asserted by Raymond Boudon. The characteristics of dual education correlate to the "primary professional" education mentioned by Baudelot and Establet, illustrating that such education is intended for students from underprivileged social strata, who have limited opportunities for vertical social mobility due to this kind of education. By analysing various interest optics of the actors, Bourdieu finds that general education, as opposed to company training, provides workers with a certain form of freedom because it makes them less attached to a single company. The school system associated with industry, in the opinion of this author, is shaped by the interests of employers and contrary to the interests of workers, as it makes society less fair by reducing the chances of vertical and horizontal social mobility. Based on the above, it can be concluded that dual education does not contribute to reducing social inequalities, and that in order to create a fairer society, such educational policies should be abandoned. ; Zbornik rezimea / 24. Međunarodna naučna konferencija "Pedagoška istraživanja i školska praksa ; Book of abstracts / 24th International Scientific Conference "Educational Research and School Practice"