Doctor of Philosophy (candidate of philosophic sciences) finin G.i.

Kharkiv Humanitarian – Pedagogical Academy, Ukraine

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES IN THE CURRICULUM OF MILITARY EDUCATION

In military education to analyze and understand an increasingly complex operating environment it may be more beneficial to approach problems using the primarily analytic, critical and speculative methods of the social sciences rather than largely empirical approaches of the humanitarian disciplines. Subjects such as political science, sociology, philosophy, and scientific management attempt to provide a methodology of decision-making that is more scientific, and thus believed to be a superior method of managing complex problems. The issue, which is analyzed in the article is actual and attracts lots of scientist’s attention [1-3]. Many civilian academics see the military as the subculture with socially unacceptable values, and the presence of social sciences in the curriculum of military education serves as a tool to reinforce the values of this subculture.

The real question with which all reflective educators must grapple is what the curriculum of military education should consist of, not whether it should be part of the prescribed curriculum of higher education. Every institution of higher education must periodically engage in a self-assessment of its educational goals and the extent to which they actually guide curricular practice. There are three important reference points that must be considered in developing a curriculum on any level. The first is the nature and needs of the student; the second is the nature and needs of the society of which students are a part; the third is the subject matter by which the students develop themselves as persons and relate to other persons in their society.

To our mind, the specifically intellectual problems are more severe in the social sciences than in the humanities or the natural sciences. Every student needs to be informed, not only of significant facts and theories about nature, society, and the human psyche, but also of the conflict of values and ideals in our time, of the great maps of life, the paths to salvation or damnation, under which human beings are enrolled. He must learn how to uncover the inescapable presence of values in every policy, how to relate them to their causes and consequences and costs in other values, and the difference between arbitrary and reasonable value judgments. Whenever people get together and discuss the objectives of education and its curriculum, first place – or at least a very important place – is always given to the social sciences. Clearly this is a mandate for the social sciences to play a leading role in education.

It may also be pointed out that opportunities for humanists to do research are more limited; that, in any case, the urgency of research – because of the character and nature of the fields involved – is not as marked for humanists as it is for the natural and social sciences; and that the concentration on a canon of given works means that whether one teaches novices or graduate students one may well be talking about the same thing, which makes the demands of shifting from one level to the other less severe in the humanities. But what appears to us most compelling in explaining the problem of incorporating the social sciences into curriculum is the simple fact that our foundations are insecure, we are uncertain what our foundations are, we cannot agree on what should be taught first and what should be taught second, and it is in the nature of most of the disciplines included in the social sciences that it is not likely that we will soon, or ever, overcome these problems [1, p. 147].

In the social sciences we can see the most radical shifts in a very short time in what is considered essential to learn. In part, these shifts are responses to the changing times, student interest, and the interests of social scientists themselves. This chameleon-like character of the contemporary social sciences, one might think, should be highly popular with students. At times it is; at other times nothing quite seems to work. Social sciences in the curriculum of military education provide us with data – that is, facts; and whatever the state of theory we apply to facts, the facts themselves are useful. They inform us of social conditions, political structures and processes, cultures in various parts of the world, and the like. Parts of all these disciplines have the lineaments of the better-developed sciences: bodies of theory, tested by experiment and data collection. We face a moment in the social sciences in which not only are old approaches questioned but satisfactory new ones have not been formulated. We are well past the enthusiasm for social planning and engineering of the New Deal period, past our self-confidence about reshaping a democratic and productive world with the aid of the social sciences in the post-World-War-II world.

If the history of social-science education has any lesson, it is that analytical methods are essential intellectually and in the long run are even required to maintain student interest and respect. These methods of course differ by field, so that the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities should all be represented in military education. It is undoubtedly desirable that a student know philosophy as it has evolved from Socrates to Camus, but it is infinitely more important that he know something about the analytical methods of philosophy.

The best we can do is try to make the curriculum of military education so intense and meaningful an experience before the onset of specialization that the interest evoked will feed itself in all subsequent experience.

The use of social sciences through the case studies can be an effective method of military education for the complexities of the present and future operating environment that presents a picture of an uncertain and increasingly complex future. Clearly there should be a strong place for such studies in the curriculum of professional military education programs.

REFERENCES:

1. Glazer, N (1975) The Social Sciences in Liberal Education. in: Hook, S., Kurtz, P. and Todorovich, M. (eds.) // The Philosophy of the Curriculum: The Need for General Education. (1975) Buffalo: Prometheus Books. pp 146-155.

2. Hammilton, Mark. The Problem of the Philosophical Curriculum during the Preparation of Young Specialists – Cambridge University, UK. www.cambridge.uni.uk

3. Keller, Tom (2008) The Philosophical Curriculum and Educational Strategies in the Higher Educational system – Higher Education Academy, UK. www.hefce.ac.uk