跨越都會多重邊界：從H. A. Giroux邊界教育學探究後塗鴉文化在課程與教學上的意涵

Crossing Multiple Borders within Cities: An Inquiry into Post-Graffiti Culture and Its Implication on Curriculum and Instruction from H. A. Giroux's Viewpoints of Border Pedagogy

10.6384/CIQ.201107.0002

黃文定(Wen-Ding Huang)

都會教育 ； 邊界教育學 ； 季胡 ； 街頭塗鴉 ； urban education ； border pedagogy ； Henry A. Giroux ； graffiti

課程與教學

14卷3期（2011 / 07 / 01）

1 - 25

繁體中文

都會區的人口組成複雜，來自不同種族、文化、性別、階級、年齡、國家、政治團體與宗教的成員聚集於此，這些成員間的身份差異構成了都會區各式各樣有形和無形的多重邊界。而都會教育的課程與教學如何賦予未來公民批判與轉化的知能，以跨越、解構與不斷重塑既有的邊界，誘發與促動這些邊界的變化，解放因身份差異造成的壓抑權力關係，進而以多重形式的差異重建民主的公共生活，將是都會學校的核心工程。因此，本文運用Giroux的邊界教育學觀點作為理論基礎，分析都會區後塗鴉文化之跨越、解構與重構邊界的特性，並探討都會教育如何運用後塗鴉文化跳脫既有課程與教學的主流框架，以不同方式解讀並創造文本和歷史，挑戰、解構並重塑邊界。

Urban population is composed of people from diverse races, cultures, genders, classes, ages, nationalities, political groups, and religions. The multiple differences of identities between populations form a wide range of tangible and intangible borders. It is an essential mission for urban schools to design curriculum for equipping future citizens with critical and transformative competences to transfer, deconstruct, and reconstruct existing borders, to induce and facilitate the shift of borders, to liberate the repressing power relations derived from group differences, and to reconstruct a democratic public life with respect of multiple group differences. Hence, this article adopts Giroux's viewpoints of border pedagogy as theoretical basis to analyze the nature of urban post-graffiti culture, i.e. border crossing, deconstruction and reconstruction. It also attempts to illustrate how post-graffiti culture can be employed in urban education to devise alternative ways of reading and creating texts and history beyond present mainstream curriculum and instruction.

1. 周珮儀(2001)。追求社會正義的課程理論─H.A. Giroux 課程理論之探究。教育研究集刊，46，1-30。
   連結：
2. 周鴻祥(2006)。塗鴉藝術創作觀念之探討。藝術學報，78，57-78。
   連結：
3. 畢恆達、郭一勤、夏瑞媛(2008)。台灣的街頭塗鴉文化。臺灣社會研究季刊，70，79-120。
   連結：
4. Januszczak, W. (2009, June 21). Banksy takes over the Bristol City Museum. The Sunday Times. Retrieved from http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article6530036.ece
5. Davies, C. (2009, August 31). Bristol public given right to decide whether graffiti is art of eyesore. Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/aug/31/graffiti-art-bristol-public vote
6. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. N.Y.: Macmillan
7. Aronowitz, S.,Giroux, H.A.(1991).Postmodern education: Politics, culture, and social criticism.Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota.
8. Ball, Stephen(2006).Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen Ball.London,England:RoutledgeFalmer.
9. Bbrother(2008)。一貣活在牆上！：一切從塗鴉開始，Bbrother 的新青年行動事件簿。臺北巿:原點。
10. Best, C.(2003).Reading graffiti in the Caribbean context.Journal of Popular Culture,36,828-852.
11. Calvin, L.M.(2005).Graffiti, the ultimate realia: Meeting the standards through an unconventional culture lesson.Hispania,88(3),527-530.
12. Cook, I.(2000).Nothing can ever be the case of "us" and "them" again: Exploring the politics of difference through border pedagogy and student journal writing.Journal of Geography in Higher Education,24(1),13-27.
13. D''Amico, D.J.,Block, W.(2007).A legal and economic analysis of graffiti.Humanomics,23(1),29-38.
14. Dickens, L.(2008).Placing post-graffiti: The journey of the Peckham Rock.Cultural Geographies,15,471-496.
15. Edgar, A.(ed.),Sedgwick, P.(ed.)(1999).Key concepts in cultural theory.London:Routledge.
16. Friedman, Thomas L.、楊振富譯、潘勛譯(2005)。世界是平的。臺北市:雅言文化。
17. Giroux, H. A.(1992).Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education.London:Routledge.
18. Giroux, H. A.(1988).Border pedagogy in the age of postmodernism.Journal of Education,170(3),162-181.
19. Giroux, H. A.(1991).Democracy and the discourse of cultural difference: Towards a politics of border pedagogy.British Journal of Sociology of Education,12(4),501-519.
20. Jenks, Chris(ed.)(2004).Urban culture: Critical concepts in literary and cultural studies.London:Routledge.
21. Jones, R.M.(2007).Bowling Green, Ohio,Bowling Green State University.
22. Kincheloe, J.L.(ed.),hayes, k.(ed.),Rose, K.(ed.),Anderson, P.M.(ed.)(2006).The Praeger handbook of urban education.London:Greenwood.
23. Pandit, K.,Alderman, D.(2004).Border crossings in the classroom: The international student interview as a strategy for promoting intercultural understanding.Journal of Geography,103,127-136.
24. Phillips, R.(1998).Contesting the past, constructing the future: History, identity and politics in schools.British Journal of Educational Studies,46(1),40-53.
25. REACH(2008)。塗鴉人：轟炸台灣。臺北巿:大辣。
26. Richardson, D.(1999).Is graffiti art?.Annual World Congress of the International Society for Education through Art,Brisbane, Australia:
27. Savage, M.,Warde, A.(1993).Urban sociology: Capitalism and modernity.New York, NY:Continuum.
28. Wright, S.(2009).Banksy's Bristol: Home sweet home.Bristol:Tangent.
29. Yinger, J.M.(1982).Countercultures: The promise and the peril of a world turned upside down.London:Collier Macmillan Publisher.
30. 李美蓉(2001)。反文化到藝術主流之一─紐約塗鴉藝術。美育，123，46-57。
31. 李家同(2001)。讓高牆倒下吧！。臺北巿:聯經。
32. 周珮儀(1999)。從社會批判到後現代─季胡課程理論之研究。臺北巿:師大書苑。
33. 柯志祥(2003)。臺灣的塗鴉現象。美育，132，92-96。
34. 范信賢(2001)。「文本」：後現代思潮下對「教材」概念的省思。國教學報，13，171-185。
35. 張芬芬(2009)。美國都會教育的歷史背景與啟示：從爭平權到救成績。國教新知，56(3)，2-18。
36. 陳凱恩(2006)。遊走於城巿邊緣的美麗─淺談塗鴉藝術（上）。藝術欣賞，2(3)，19-26。
37. 黃文定、詹寶菁(2009)。都會學校學生的教育測驗與評量─卓越與公平的雙重關照。國教新知，56(3)，104-112。
38. 黃淑君(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北巿，國立臺灣師範大學教育學系。
39. 廖方瑜、孟成瀚(2005)。塗鴉─城巿糖果地圖。臺北巿:田園城巿。
40. 劉春榮、吳清山、陳明終(1995)。都會原住民兒童生活適應與學習適應及其關聯研究。初等教育學刊，4，147-180。
41. 摩壽意善郎、杜里尼文、呂明穎譯(2003)。文藝復興美術。臺北市:藝術家。
42. 羅志平(2009)。民族主義、歷史教育與國家認同。朝陽人文社會學刊，7(1)，229-254。

1. (2020)。Henry Giroux的跨界教學論及其教育蘊義。中正教育研究，19(1)，1-38。