15.4 Pedagogy as Training for Life I: the Enlightenment and
early Modern Era
At the time of the birth of the Modern Era, the motto of Enlightenment
thinkers was
sapere aude (dare to know!). It was a reaction to the Middle Ages’
traditional reliance on external authority. The Enlightenment saw itself as an
age of ripening of mankind, an immense historical milestone when humanity
finally finds the courage to free itself from the grip of ignorance. The means of
this emancipation is the rediscovered human
ratio that man hoped would help
him autonomously ‘discover, describe and explain the natural order of things’
(see Wright 2004).
At the beginning of this era, the emerging scientific and technical paradigm
had little influence on pedagogy. Natural studies, for example, were considered
a peculiar hobby of weirdoes and charlatans until the mid-19
th
century. Even
Lavoisier presented his experiments at the court as a sort of light
entertainment. The practical value of science was started to be appreciated in
the course of the 19
th
century, especially by people involved in production.
Pedagogy had to adapt to the new situation. Up until now, people could do with
just the knowledge, skills and habits passed on through personal relationships –
father to son, master to apprentice, etc., and had no need to training in special
institutions. Those who went to school did not do so because of work but in
order to elevate their spirit, as R. Palouš points out. When a man does not need
to work, has no other worries and is not concerned about gaining his living, he
can afford the luxury of
scholé (Greek for the free use of time for wonder,
curiosity and cultivating discernment) that enables him to look inward, reflect
on his life, devote himself to learning and meditation about the meaning his
actions and daily preoccupations. But new science that leads to modern
production techniques and industrialisation requires a radically new pedagogy
and schools. While in the pre-modern era, the primary goal of education was
the search for and maintenance of the harmony of being, i.e. harmony between
man and the world (and God), the dawn of modern science distances man from
the world (and God). The world becomes objectified. First, it becomes the
object of observation, description and classification and later of analysis and
reconstruction. Reconstruction of the world is made possible by a new set of
concepts that essentially reduce reality while allowing man to efficiently
understand, command and, most importantly make use of reality. Ever since
Francis Bacon, the scientifically minded man does not ask ‘just so’ questions as
a speculative exercise. His aim is always to expand useful knowledge. He strives
to uncover the secrets of nature in order to allow men to usurp it, rule over it
and use it to their advantage. Man will no longer be at the mercy of physical,
biological, chemical or any other natural phenomenon. On the contrary, they
127
will be recruited to his service: steam, pulley systems, the atom, genes – all
shall be at his command. Scientific achievements shall, according to Čapek’s
engineer Prokop, the fictional inventor of the explosive krakatit, ‘give light and
warmth’. The Enlightenments’ humanists do not yet concede that they could
also burn and kill. It is because the humanist believes in good intentions of the
good human nature, which, if constantly enlightened with the light of reason,
will reach a higher evolutionary stage to finally establish the fabled
regnum
hominis (the reign of humaneness). Stenley Grenz expresses this belief quite
accurately: ‘The modern scientist holds it axiomatic that anything yielded by
enquiry will be always good. This assumption of internal goodness of
understanding gives certain optimism to the Enlightenment worldview. It leads
to the faith that progress is inevitable, that science together with the power of
education will eventually free us from our helplessness face to face with nature
and from any form of social slavery.’ (1997, p. 14) Intoxicated with scientific
advances, the modern man started to believe in moral progress, too. After all,
those who know ‘right’ will also act ‘right’. The question of a connection
between
scientia and conscientia was not exactly new per se, but the
assumption that science and education will automatically have a humanising
effect in the processes of ennoblement of the human race received its first
doctrinal form only as part of the modern narrative (see Menck 2001, pp. 261-
275).
Schools and pedagogy are set two specific tasks at this stage. Firstly,
pedagogy becomes a tool for the spread and sharing of the optimistic-rational
meta-narrative. Secondly, it becomes a methodical toolbox designed to provide
the individual with the means necessary for understanding the world (nature)
according to the scientific-technological paradigm. The set of information and
the character of skills that one must master in order to fulfil the modern agenda
can no longer be acquired by the traditional passing down from father to son.
We are dealing now (and will deal in the future) with huge amounts of
encyclopaedic data as well as increasing specialisation demanded by scientific
progress.
The school, since time immemorial a political tool of every system of
government, now appears in the centre of public attention. Assuming with
Bacon that ‘knowledge is power’, it is in every enlightened ruler’s interest to
provide and expand knowledge as much as possible. This is why we start to see
the emergence of compulsory school attendance in European countries in the
course of the 19
th
century. In what is now the Czech Republic, the school
system originally introduced by Maria Theresa was gradually modified in the
Enlightenment spirit under Felbiger’s and Kindermann’s reforms. In 1869, an
amendment of the School Act defined the structure of the educational system
that remains in place more or less unchanged to this day.
128
To illustrate and compare the modern approach to pedagogy with previous
(and subsequent) approaches, let us have a look at the ideas of one of the
most typical representatives of modern pedagogy - Johann Friedrich Herbart. In
the heart of Herbart’s concept lays a specific synthesis of philosophical, ethical,
aesthetic and psychological premises. His formulations and philosophical
deductions were somewhat rigid and hard to understand but the same can be
said about most German thinkers of this time. Simply put, Herbart’s goal was to
bring up a noble (virtuous) individual capable of further independent moral and
intellectual growth. Defined this way, his objective is in no way unique and he
still maintains pre-modern outlines and terminology, but the method proposed
by Herbart for achieving this goal is already in line with the Enlightenment
paradigm.
According to Herbart, the educational process takes place on three levels:
1. Domination (Regierung) – begins immediately after birth. Threats, bans,
punishment and supervision are there to tame the naturally wild
tendencies of the child, which is to be made ready for the systematic
educational and learning experience of attending school. At this stage,
the key objective is to awaken the child’s will because studying without
will bears little fruit.
2. Instruction (Unterricht) – is the core of Herbart’s method and comprises
four formal levels that define the lesson model:
Clarity – careful and conscious penetration into the subject matter
thanks to an awakened interest in the topic.
Association – connecting newly learnt ideas with what the student
already knows; a psychological process whereby pieces of knowledge
are put into mutual context.
System – systematisation of conclusions drawn from the associated
ideas.
Method – practical application of the newly acquired ideas through
practical exercises.
3. Cultivation (Zücht) – character moulding with emphasis on obedience,
discipline, self-control, self-development and fortification of moral
principles.
For Herbart, teaching takes pride of place as the fundamental and primary
means of education. Development of rational education is a basic condition for
a successful moral education. He introduces the concept of educational
teaching, which he uses to unite moral, intellectual and volitional elements, as
can be demonstrated by this quotation: ‘Teaching without moral education is a
mere means without an aim; moral education with teaching is an aim with
means.’ The influence of the newly emerging science of psychology can be
129
detected in Herbart’s emphasis on awakening a multifaceted interest in things,
without which successful teaching is impossible. Interest concentrates
attention, fosters desirable ideas and helps connect pieces of knowledge
together, which allows the student to remember new material voluntarily,
quickly, thoroughly and without greater difficulties. It must be noted at this
point that interest was often aroused through external action, as testified by J.
Úlehla’s critical statement: ‘
Ruhe und Gehorsam, der Geist muss gezüchtigt
Arden, eine heilige Ruhe.’ Úlehla believes such instruction is ‘extortion’ rather
than ‘awakening’ (1904, p. 1).
Herbart’s system is characterised by its systematic and elaborate approach.
However, educational practice has uncovered crucial weaknesses in his concept.
Herbart was the first to propose a universal didactic mechanism that can be
practically applied to any study subject, to any lesson and to any age group.
After all, it is not for nothing that he calls his education levels ‘formal’. As part
of rationalisation of the pedagogical process, he separated didactic means
(method) from the goals and content. Goals no longer dictate the method. This
was revolutionary because up until then goal, content and method were
intimately linked. For Plato, for example, the good life (goal) was unthinkable
without a true understanding of transcendent ideas – the role of education was
to lead man from the darkness of ignorance, lies and illusions towards the light
of truth. For Christianity, too, redemption (goal) was inseparable from the path
or method, namely building an authentic relationship with God.
Herbart invented a mechanism how to teach anything to anybody. It was
met with an immediate success and his method soon started to be used in real
schools. It was lucid, sophisticated, and universally applicable. It a allowed
education on a mass scale, which, by the way, greatly suited the Austro-
Hungarian (essentially totalitarian) establishment that needed to quickly
produce an educated and high-performing population. For the same reasons, it
is no surprise that Herbart’s ideas came to the fore again in Czechoslovakia in
the totalitarian post-war period. Although Herbart had in view nobler (good old)
aims, his method perfectly corresponded to the need to develop a new type of
school that would educate individuals for the new, bright future of the world.
A fundamental problem of Herbart’s pedagogy is that is sees man as
nothing more than a rational mechanism. While Herbart never says this
explicitly his method directly implies such an anthropological reductionism. The
notorious Herbartism that eventually spread through countries in Europe and
overseas was at the same time a development and deformation of Herbart’s
system. Herbart’s defenders vehemently argue that Herbartism has nothing to
do with Herbart and his ideas. However, a less biased critic must concede some
internal connections. The characteristic traits of Herbartism that attracted fierce
130
criticism at the turn of the 19
th
and 20
th
centuries are generally well-known.
Here we summarise the most important ones:
Transmission of ready-made facts to students to memorise
Dominant, almost authoritarian, position of the teacher; student as a
passive object of education
Coercion, moralising, lecturing as basic educational methods
Receptive, passive, verbal character of learning; no space for students’
own initiative
Largely external motivation – rewards, punishments, grades, teaching
aids.
Yüklə Dostları ilə paylaş: |