Herätys kylässä ja tuvissa : Rääkkylän Oravisalon kylä ja renqvistiläinen herätys 1820-luvulla

A Revival in a Village and its Households. The Village of Oravisalo in Rääkkylä Parish and the Renqvistist Revivalism in the 1820s. My purpose is to apply the science of religion and the study of past communities to the study of religious revivalism. Revivalism will be considered a religious phenomenon as well as a cultural and social phenomenon. What makes this study unique is the possibility to reconstruct a list of participating revivalists based on entries in the communion book of the time. The conflict between the revivalists and the chaplain of Rääkkylä also generated other documentary material. The community in Oravisalo was relatively stratified. People lived in complex and varying forms of households. They also had plentiful contacts both with unrelated inhabitants of Oravisalo and with the neighbouring villages. Through these contacts the inhabitants of Oravisalo were introduced to revivalism. In Oravisalo, the revival for the most part fell into a certain social stratum and did not severely damage existing relationships within families or among acquaintances. The revivalists formed a new community within the village but the community was neither very tightly-knit nor was it closed. The revival was an individual phenomenon affected by general factors. First, there were factors that brought about a quest for an applicable system of meanings. These factors included at least three important issues: the Great Partition of land, the crisis of slash-and-burn cultivation, and a population growth that increased the proportion of the landless in the village. As a result, many of the revivalists had low status and poor expectations for the future. Second, there were factors that appealed to the people in the message and character of the preacher, Henrik Renqvist. Third, the proximity of the village to Liperi, where the revival got its start, was crucial to revivalism s spread to Oravisalo. Culturally, the revival meant a change in the system of symbols or meanings, so it was not solely a matter of intensified religious fervour. For instance, Communion, prayer, reading, and perhaps baptism symbolised different things to the revivalists than to other villagers. However, the revivalists do not seem to have started any moral revolution in their village. The religious aspect defined the limits of the protest and the resistance towards authorities. The revivalists wanted only to have the right to follow their conscience. The freedom granted the female members was limited to the religious sphere. No social or economic claims were made. The revival altered the situation of its members only on a symbolic level, yet it also offered them status within their own group.

Scheffleriläinen rationaalisuus ja kasvatustodellisuuden monikerroksisuus : Jännitteitä ja ratkaisuja Israel Schefflerin kasvatusfilosofiassa

The study is a philosophical analysis of Israel Scheffler’s philosophy of education, focusing on three crucial conceptions in his philosophy: the conception of rationality, the conception of human nature, and the conception of reality. The interrelations of these three concepts as well as their relations to educational theorizing are analysed and elaborated. A conceptual problem concerning Scheffler’s ideal of rationality derives from Scheffler’s supposition of the strong analogy between science education and moral education in terms of the ideal of rationality. This analogy is argued to be conceptually problematic, since the interconnections of rationality, objectivity, and truth, appear to differ from each other in the realms of ethics and science, given the presuppositions of ontological realism and ethical naturalism, to which Scheffler explicitly subscribes. This study considers two philosophical alternatives for solving this problem. The first alternative relates the analogy to the normative concept of personhood deriving from the teleological understanding of human nature. Nevertheless, this position turns out to be problematic for Scheffler, since he rejects all teleological thinking in his philosophy. The problem can be solved, as it is argued, by limiting Scheffler’s rejection of teleology – in light of his philosophical outlook on the whole – in a manner that allows a modest version of a teleological conception of human nature. The second alternative, based especially on Scheffler’s later contributions, is to suggest that reality is actually more complex and manifold than it appears to be in light of a contemporary naturalist worldview. This idea of plurealism – Scheffler’s synthesis of pluralism and realism – is represented especially in Scheffler’s contributions related to his debate with Nelson Goodman dealing with both constructivism and realism. The idea of plurealism is not only related to the ethics-science-distinction, but is more widely related to the relationship between ontological realism and the incommensurable systems of description in diverse realms of human understanding. The Scheffler-Goodman debate is also analysed in relation to the contemporary constructivism-realism debate in educational philosophy. In terms of educational questions, Scheffler’s plurealism is argued as offering a fruitful perspective. Scheffler’s philosophy of education can be interpreted as searching for solutions to the problems deriving from the tension between the tradition of analytical philosophy and the complexity and multiplicity of educational reality. The complexity of reality combined with the supposition of the limitedness of human knowledge does not lead Scheffler to relativism or particularism, but, in contrast, Schefflerian formulations of rationality and objectivity preserve the possibility for critical inquiry in all realms of educational reality. In light of this study, Scheffler’s philosophy of education provides an exceptional example of combining ontological realism, epistemological fallibilism, and the defence of the ideal of rationality, combined with a wide-ranging understanding of educational reality.