however, are unlikely to be attained if, as sometheorists advocate, the arts should be used primarily infurtherance of the objectives of other subject areas.Third, since all the arts possess the capacity to induceaesthetic experience, it seems reasonable to organizeaesthetic studies according to one of the educationalschemes that recommend grouping the arts together.Prospects for the future of aesthetic educationhowever, would appear to be clouded. On the onehand, analytical critiques question the viability of theconcept of the aesthetic, while ideology-driven theoriesof art and arts education often exhibit an antiaestheticbias. On the other hand, the endurance of theAmerican Journal of Aesthetic Education (1966–),evidence of increased cooperation between aesthetic-ians and educators (Moore 1995), the founding of acommittee on education within the American Societyfor Aesthetics, and two essays on aesthetic educationin the first English-language Encyclopedia of Aesthetics(Vol. 2, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998)suggest continuing interest in the subject.4. Definitions of Key TermsAesthetics. A branch of philosophy that inquiresinto the nature, meaning, and value of art; or anycritical reflection about art, culture, and nature.Aesthetic point of iew. A distinctive stance takentoward phenomena, e.g., works of art and nature, forthe purpose of inducing aesthetic experience.Aesthetic experience. A type of experience thatmanifests the savoring of phenomena for their inherentvalues, in contrast to practical activities and values.Aesthetic alue. A type of value, in contrast, e.g., toeconomic value, etc.; also the capacity of something byvirtue of its manifold of qualities to induce aestheticexperience.Aesthetic literacy. A cluster of capacities thatenables engagements of phenomena, especially worksof art, with prerequisite percipience.Aesthetic culture. A distinctive domain of society, incontrast, e.g., to its political culture, and, normatively,sensitivity in matters of art and culture, as in a person’saesthetic culture.Interrelatedness of the arts. Implies features thatdifferent kinds of art have in common; or programsthat group the arts together for purposes of study.See also: Architecture; Art, Sociology of; CommunityAesthetics; Culture, Production of; Culture-rootedExpertise: Psychological and Educational Aspects;Dewey, John (1859–1952); Fine Arts; Oral andLiterate CultureBibliographyArnstine D 1967 Philosophy of Education: Learning and School-ing. Harper and Row, New YorkBeardsley M C 1982 Aesthetic experience. In: Wreen M J, CallenD M (eds.) The Aesthetic Point of View. Cornell UniversityPress, Ithaca, NY, pp. 285–97Broudy H S 1994 [1972] Enlightened Cherishing: An Essay onAesthetic Education. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, ILDewey J 1958 [1934] Art as Experience. Putnam’s Sons, NewYorkEisner E 1991 The Enlightened Eye: Qualitatie Inquiry and theEnhancement of Educational Practice. Macmillan, New YorkGreene M 1981 Aesthetic literacy in general education. In: SoltisJ F (ed.) Philosophy and Education. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago, pp. 115–41Howard V 1992 Learning by All Means: Lessons from the Arts.Peter Lang, New YorkKaelin E F 1989 An Aesthetics for Educators. Teachers CollegePress, New YorkMoore R (ed.) 1995 Aesthetics for Young People. National ArtEducation Association, Reston, VAParsons M, Blocker H G 1993 Aesthetics and Education. Uni-versity of Illinois Press, Urbana, ILRead H 1956 [1943] Education Through Art, 3rd edn. RandomHouse, New YorkRead H 1966 The Redemption of the Robot. Trident Press, NewYorkSchiller F 1967 [1793–95] On the Aesthetic Education of Man ina Series of Letters. Wilkinson E M, Willoughby L A (eds.,trans.). Oxford University Press, OxfordSmith R A 1989 The Sense of Art: A Study in Aesthetic Education.Routledge, New YorkSwanger D 1990 Essays in Aesthetic Education. Mellon ResearchUniversity Press, San FranciscoR. A. SmithAffirmative Action: Comparative Policiesand Controversies1. IntroductionAlthough the phrase ‘affirmative action’ apparentlyoriginated in the United States in 1961, the practice ofproviding benefits or preferential treatment to indi-viduals based on their membership in a disadvantagedgroup can be found in a wide variety of forms in manyother countries. For example, India developed affirm-ative programs as early as 1927, and was probably thefirst country in the world to create a specific con-stitutional provision authorizing affirmative action ingovernment employment. Other countries with morerecently developed affirmative action programs in-clude Australia, Israel, and South Africa.2. Comparatie Issues in Designing AffirmatieAction ProgramsGalanter (1992) identifies several issues that are criticalto a comparative study of affirmative action programs:justifications, program designers, selection of bene-210Aesthetic Educationficiary groups, distribution of benefits within a group,relations between multiple beneficiary groups, de-termination of individual eligibility, resources to bedevoted, monitoring, and termination. This sectionwill provide a comparative analysis of three of theseissues; justifications, selection of groups, and indi-vidual eligibility.2.1 Justifications for Affirmatie ActionAffirmative action programs for racial minorities inthe US typically seek to remedy harm caused tospecific individuals by ‘cognitive bias,’ that is, harmcaused by an actor who is aware of the person’s race,sex, national origin, or other legally-protected statusand who is motivated (consciously or unconsciously)by that awareness. Much of the current skepticism inthe US about affirmative action may result from thisnarrow focus: many white people seem to believethemselves free of such cognitive bias and thus doubtthat it is a continuing problem of sufficient magnitudeto justify affirmative action. Such a focus makesaffirmative action particularly vulnerable in settingslike university admission, where decisions based ongrades and test scores seem, to many, to be immunecognitive bias (see Race and the Law; Gender and theLaw).Although cognitive bias-type discrimination basedon caste status is treated as a serious, continuingproblem in India, affirmative action there is focusedmore on eradicating the enduring effects of centuriesof oppression and segregation. There appears to be amore conscious commitment than in the US to changethe basic social structure of the country. The Indianapproach