Myths in Contemporary Upbringing in a Famaly

Dace Medne

Abstract


Family discourse has been topical in all periods of anthropogenesis; also nowadays it hasn’t lost its topicality because family is declared as one of the principal values also in this period. Family structure (number of parents and children) is emphasised mainly in contemporary public discourse about a family. Concurrently it is discussed unconnectedly in the public discourse on different kinds of children behavioural difficulties. In this discourse, an important family function – upbringing is disregarded. Aim of upbringing is improvement of attitudes by cooperation of all participants of upbringing in the upbringing environment. Children perspective idea is the leading one in the postmodernism leading pedagogical paradigm that has become the ruling one in the theory and practice. Irrespective of the declared humane principal approaches and principal values myths manifest in the public discourses and in the upbringing area in a family that are made legitimate. Myths develop actively in places where there is lack of information and knowledge and where it is necessary to maintain a sense of safety and emotional balance. So innovative processes of contemporary society activate also the issues on place of myths on the upbringing process.

Aim of the article is to analyse theoretically the subjective and objective provisions for creation of myths, their importance in the upbringing process in a family, outlining the risks in upbringing.

 


Keywords


upbringing in a family; myths in upbringing; pedagogical trend; family

Full Text:

PDF

References


Barthes, R. (1957). Mythologies. Paris: Seuil.

Bergmann, W. (2006). Gute Autorität. Grundsätze einer zeitgemässen Erziehung. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag.

Böhnisch, L., Schröer, W., Thiersch, H. (2005). Sozialpädagogisches Denken. Wege zu einer Neubestimmung. Weinheim und München: Juventa Verlag.

Dux, G. (2000). Historisch-genetische Theory der Kultur. Instabile Welten. Zur prozessualen Logik im kulturellen Wandel. Weilerswist: Velbrück.

Frith, S. (2000). Entertainment. In Curran, J., Gurevitch, M. (Eds.). In: Mass media and society. (3rd Eds.). London: Arnold.

Harkness, S., Super, C. M., van Tijen, N. (2000). Individualism and the “Western mind” reconsidered: American and Dutch parents’ ethnotheories of children and family. In Harkness S., Raeff C., Super C. M. (Eds.) Variability in the social construction of the child ( pp. 23–39). San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Hubner, K. (1985). Die Wahrheit des Mythos. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.

Juang, L.P.; Silbereisen, R.K. (1999). Elterliche Erziehung in verschiedenen ökologischen Nischen und zu unterschiedlichen Zeiten während der Jugend. In: Silbereisen Rainar K., Zinnecker Jürgen (Hrsg). Entwicklung im sozialen Wandel. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag. Psychologie Verlag Union.

Kahneman, D.,Tversky, A. (2000) Choices, Values and Frames. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Matsumoto, D. (2000). Culture and Psychology. People Around the World. Wadsworth: Thomson Learning Inc.

Medne, Dace (2012). Pedagoģisko vērtību interpretācija žurnālā „Mans mazais”. LU rakstu sērija Pedagoģija un skolotāju izglītība, 781, 174. - 185.

Miller, J. D. (2007) Science Literacy and Pseudoscience. Report on American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting. USA: San Francisco.

Moscovici, S. (1981). On social representations. In: R. Farr and S. Moscovici (Eds.) Social Represantations. (pp. 1-35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mqueil, D.; Windhal, S. (1993). Communcation models for study of mass communication. London: Arnold.

Napier, Y. Augustus; Whitaker, A. Carl (1988). The Famyly Crucible. One family’s therapy – an experience that illuminates all our lives.New York: Harper Paperbacks.

Pikler, E. (2007). Friedliche Babys – zufriedene Mütter. Freiburg, Basel, Wien: fgb.

Peseshkian, N. (1987). Psychotherapie des Alltagslebens. Konfliktlösung und Selbsthilfe. Frankfurt am Main: Fisher Tashenbuch Verlag GmbH. .

Raipulis, J. (2008). Dažādu aplamību izplatīšanās iespējamās negatīvās sekas. In: Sabiedrība un kultūra. Rakstu krājums X.Liepāja: LiePA. 547.: 412.–418.

Reņģe, V., Austers, I. (2008) Sociālie priekšstati par psiholoģiju populāros un zinātniskos psiholoģijas žurnālos. In: Latvijas Universitātes raksti NR. 729. 3. – 69.

Rubene, Z. (2008). Kritiskā domāšana studiju procesā. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds.

Stierlin, H. (2001). Psychoanalyse-Familien therapie-systemische Therapie. Entwicklungslinien, Schnittstellen, Unterschiede. Stuttgart: Klett-Kotta.

Лидерс, А. (2008). Психологическое обследование семьи. Москва: АКАДЕМIА.

Лосев, А. (1994). Миф. Число. Сущность. Москва: Мысль.

Максакова, В.(2008). Педагогическая антропология. Москва: АКАДЕМIА.

Олифрович, Н., Зинкевич-Куземкина, Т., Велента, Т. (2007). Психология семейных кризисов. Санкт-Петербург: Речь.

Эйдемиллер, Э., Добряков, И., Никольская, И. (2006). Семейный диагноз и семейная психотерапия. Санкт-Петербург: Речь.

Черников, А. (2005). Системная семейная терапия. Москва: Класс.

Шнейдер, Л. (2007). Семейная психология. Москва: Академичесий Проект.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/sie2015vol3.360

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.