판례에 나타난 사회화와 교육의 관계 -미연방대법원의 Ambach 판결과 우리 헌법재판소의 검인정교과서 결정을 중심으로-

As long as the same word is not used the same way, agreement or dissent among men using the word, if not superficial, cannot be reached. No more an agreement about different things is the agreement in the real sense than a dissent about different things is the dissent. Such is the case typically in the decision on educational cases because the meaning of education is not self-containing, depending on the interpretation of socialization. By analogy socialization is a cast, education a product. Therefore to understand a decision on educational cases we must understand the perspective the decision has on socialization and education. Seen from this standpoint, in the case of Ambach v. Norwick all of the Justices agreed that the aim of education is the political socialization, but the agreement was superficial because the meaning of 'political socialization' used by the majority was different from the one used by the minority. On the contrary, in the case of 89헌마88 Justices disagreed on the legitimacy of the ongoing socialization, but we cannot say that there was the real dissent because the 'socialization' used by the majority is the one actually happening in the society while the one used by the minority being the one ought to happen. Had different words been used to different things in the case of Ambach v. Norwick, the agreement could not have been reached. Had the same words been used to the same things in the case of 89헌마88, the concurrence of members could have taken place. Not until having been clarified the concept of education, socialization, and the relationship between them, we could not decide if or not the real conflicts exist and dissolve the disguised problems resulted from the ambiguity of the use of words.