Orwell: 1984 and Counselor Educators

In 1949, Eric Blair, the English Socialist, wrote his powerful novel, 1984, under the pen name of George Orwell. The novel depicted a world in the year 1984 where the masses would be controlled by technology masterfully manipulated by “Big Brother.” The Ministry of Truth would provide such slogans as “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” and “Ignorance is Strength.” The old languages of the world would be replaced by the official language of 1984, Newspeak. This article discusses how close we are, in 1984, to an Orwellian world and what the role of counselor educators is in combating an Orwellian philosophy. How can we use the knowledge, skills, and technologies we possess to assist ourselves and our fellow human beings in reaching higher levels of personal, intellectual, and social development and awareness? What changes are needed in counselor education to prepare counselors for the rest of this century and the first quarter of the 21st century?     

奥威尔的反面乌托邦及其对现实政治的关注——浅评奥威尔和他的代表作《1984年》

与美化未来的乌托邦文学相反 ,反面乌托邦文学所描述的未来是把现实社会的黑暗面夸大到最坏程度 ,以讽刺社会现实。奥威尔的《1984年》是反面乌托邦文学的经典之作 ,小说揭露和批判了个人独裁 ,并警告人们提防其危险性。研究它 ,对于我们有着重大的借鉴意义和警醒作用。     

Differing to agree: a reply to Hammersley and Abraham

In this paper Gewirtz and Cribb offer a response to Hammersley and Abraham's criticisms of their arguments about the place of values in social research published in this issue of BJSE. In doing so, they make clear that most of the positions that Hammersley and Abraham attribute to them are ones that they do not identify with and that, like Hammersley and Abraham, they would reject. In order to further clarify and specify their own position, Gewirtz and Cribb argue that: their advocacy of ethical reflexivity rests on the assumption that there are many incompatible sets of values in play within even a single vantage point; researchers should sometimes take an interest in knowledge use although they should not always be required to do so; and, whilst at the level of propositions it is always possible to abstract out and distinguish between factual claims and value claims, at the level of practice there can be significant resonances and linkages between the two, so it is important to be ethically reflexive about these entanglements. Finally, the authors agree that values should not be seen purely as a source of contamination but that attention to values can help to underpin ‘objectivity’.     

Utilitarianism and Education: a reply to James Tarrant

ABSTRACT This article focuses on Part III of Tarrant's paper, 'Utilitarianism, education and the philosophy of moral insignificance'. His argument that Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures appeals to non-utilitarian values is rejected on the grounds that he misconstrues Mill's concept of'content' and fails to give an adequate critique of Mills attempt to distinguish between the quantity and quality of pleasures. An improved criticism is offered, and it is argued that utilitarianism fails through the dependence of happiness itself upon non-utilitarian values. It is concluded that utilitarianism would devalue the role of liberal arts subjects in sensitising pupils to the problematic nature of human happiness.     

Moral development: a reply to Richmond and Cummings

My paper on moral development has been criticized on three main counts: firstly, that I have confused romantic and progressive ideology; secondly, that I have failed to appreciate the teleological character of (cognitive) developmental theory; thirdly, that I have failed to show that normativity of developmental theory goes, as it were, ‘all the way down’. In this reply, I maintain that the first two charges are based on distortion and misrepresentation of my argument, and—in relation to the third charge—that my critics have simply failed to offer any discernible counter‐argument to my case that it is misguided to seek empirical theoretical grounding for developmental theories of the kind in question.     

Beyond Culture: a reply to Mark Halstead

This paper is a response to Mark Halstead's communitarian argument for a curriculum which includes education for cultural attachment. In particular it explores the difficulty of combining education for cultural attachment with education for democratic citizenship and cross-cultural understanding wherever the cultural attachment excludes the culture of liberalism. Halstead bases his proposals on a view of minority communities as separate and distinct cultural entities each determining the way of life of its members. This paper concludes by offering a different view of culture and identity, one which suggests a curriculum for going beyond culture.