No abstract

Si l’éducation a toujours eu partie liée avec la responsabilité, ne serait-ce qu’en raison du fait que le terme educare, de par sa signification, invite à s’engager à nourrir, élever, cultiver, on a pu néanmoins assister ces dernières années, tant au Québec qu’en Europe, à une redéfinition à différents niveaux du partage des responsabilités entre l’ensemble des acteurs du système éducatif. Nous présentons les principaux lieux concernés par cette redéfinition (gouvernance scolaire, éducateurs, apprenants), et analysons succinctement certains enjeux et tensions engendrés par celle-ci sur le plan de la responsabilité morale et des principales significations qui lui sont assignées dans les écrits scientifiques. De plus, nous décrivons brièvement les articles de ce numéro thématique qui font état d’analyses et de résultats de recherches illustrant éloquemment diverses dimensions contemporaines de la responsabilité en éducation.If education has always been connected with responsibility simply because the word educare by definition involves nourishing, raising, cultivating, the past few years have witnessed, both in Quebec and in Europe, a redefinition in various ways of the sharing of responsibilities among participants in the educational system. This text presents the principal areas concerned by this redefinition (school management, educators, learners) and briefly analyzes certain issues and tensions caused by it in terms of moral responsibility and the main meanings assigned to it in the scientific literature. Moreover, it introduces articles of this special issue that report research analyses and results which eloquently illustrate various contemporary dimensions of responsibility in education.La educación siempre ha estado en parte relacionada con la responsabilidad, aunque sólo sea por el hecho de que el término educare, por su significado, invita a comprometerse “alimentar, criar y elevar, cultivar”. Sin embargo, en estos últimos años, tanto en Quebec como en Europa, ha tenido lugar una redefinición a varios niveles del reparto de responsabilidades entre los diferentes actores del sistema educativo. Este introducción presenta los principales sectores afectados por esta redefinición (administración escolar, educadores, alumnos) y analiza brevemente ciertos desafíos y tensiones engendrados por ésta en las cuestiones relacionadas con la responsabilidad moral y los significados principales que se le asignan en la literatura científica. Además, introduce los artículos de este número temático, que describen análisis y resultados de investigaciones que ilustran elocuentemente diversas dimensiones contemporáneas de la responsabilidad en educación

No abstract

No abstract

to fate' in antiquity was rare'' and that, when used, it should be seen as ''part of a rhetorical strategy for demarcating and excluding one group from another. When we find it used, I suspect that it derives from those individuals who came to consider themselves outside the prevailing socio-religious system or ethos'' (28). She carries this task out in subsequent chapters devoted to discussing several Nag Hammadi writings (especially the Apocryphon of John, Eugnostos, and the untitled writing On the Origin of the World), Middle Platonist thought, Pauline letters, the Hermetic writings, and the thoroughly depressing Gospel of Judas, which comes the closest of any of the sources that Denzey Lewis mentions to living up to the gnostic predetermination cliché. In these discussions, she weaves her way carefully through related but not identical concepts such as ananke, heimarmene, and pronoia, showing the nuanced ways in which they interact in the systems of the various texts. Denzey Lewis's focus in these discussions is on the first and second centuries of the Common Era, which is unproblematic with regard to securely dated writings and figures, but which is less certain with regard to the gnostic writings, whose only sure attestations are from fourth or fifth century Egyptian sources. It is true that we do tend to date these sources to the second century; it is also true that we might be wrong in doing so, or at least overlooking major elements of the redaction histories of these texts.Overall, this slim volume presents a convincing and clear argument, not that the cliché of belief in astral fatalism needs to be jettisoned, but rather that it needs to be nuanced. Denzey Lewis shows that, as far as we can tell, true understanding or even perception of the problem only arose after one's resolution of the problem, so that ''cosmic enslavement exists but only as a state of ignorance for others'' (137). Ultimately, it comes down to the distinction between ''them''-who suffer from the reign of fate or the stars-and ''us,'' who do not. And this is so whether the ''us'' are the gnostics and other authors of the early Christian era who regard their contemporaries as ''them,'' or whether the ''us'' are modern scholars looking back at the ''them'' who populated late antiquity. My only complaint about the volume is that it is short; more expanded discussions of the issue would have been welcome, and no doubt will come, whether from Denzey Lewis herself or from those who take up her revaluatory task.