From problem to mystery: How to approach family as a partner in education?

Abstract
Research objectives (aims) and problem(s): In current studies on the
educational triangle of school, family, and local community, the dis
tinct character of the family is generally assumed rather than explicitly
articulated or critically examined. This study aims to fill this gap as a
contribution to dealing with the difficulties of cooperation within the
educational triangle.
Research methods:This study employs a critical cultural-philosophical
analysis of contemporary tendencies in how families are approached
in Western societies. This analysis clarifies the main trends in recent
studies in pedagogy and educational sciences on educational part
nerships between school and family. An investigation of personalist
philosophical understandings of family is used to develop an alterna
tive to current dominant views.
Process of argumentation: First, the research problem is defined by
analyzing how recent pedagogical studies on the educational triangle
approach family. Second, the problem is placed in a broader perspec
tive of current social tendencies in viewing the family: either with sus
picion or appreciation. Third, the reasons for this dual evaluation are
discussed and shown to lead to an impasse: the family is expected to
be both opened up and protected and is often instrumentalized, while
its specific character remains assumed rather than clarified. Fourth, an
alternative approach is explored through the personalist philosophical
perspectives on family offered by Gabriel Marcel and Jean Lacroix.
They distinguish between approaching the family as “problem” and as
“mystery.” The conclusion indicates the value of the mystery approach
for addressing the risks inherent in the current impasse regarding how
to deal with family, including as a partner of schools.
Research findings and their impact on the development of educational sci
ences: The impact of the findings on educational sciences is presented in rela
tion to four acute risks arising from the impasse, which are also relevant in
school–family relations:
1. The risk of overlooking the family’s distinct character.
2. The risk of asking too much of the family.
3. The risk of judging the family.
4. The risk of overly negative, one-sided evaluations of the family’s strong
influence.
Conclusions and/or recommendations: The findings lead to the following rec
ommendations:
1. In schools’ interactions with families, the unnamable distinctiveness of the
family must be respected.
2. To prevent the erosion of the family through excessive external demands,
families must be granted adequate non-instrumental space to develop and
sustain their own specific identity
3. This distinctiveness should be protected through restraint in judging
whether a family is “good.”
4. This also requires restraint in intervening in families from the outside.