S.JONES THEORIES OF EDUCATION AND CHARACTER FORMATION

H.S.JONES THEORIES OF EDUCATION AND CHARACTER FORMATION

Resonances from both the French Enlightenment and Revolution, and the burgeoning consequences of industrialization and urbanization, ensured that nineteenth-century Western European society experienced changes to almost every facet of its fabric. The ‘set of assumptions about society, man, character and education’ contained in the ideas of French Enlightenment philosophers were radical, not least those about education. They encompassed Helvétius’s fundamental belief that ‘l’éducationpeut tout’ those in Jean- Jacques Rousseau’s Émile (1762) and Condorcet’s view that maintenance of a democratic society necessitated a free, compulsory, secular and universal education system (see Silver 1977:59–66; Vaughan and Archer 1971:160–71). Not only were Helvétius’s views seminal for the development of the concept of egalitarianism but, together with those of Rousseau and Condorcet, they indicated that education was not only synonymous with social reform but also a vital precursor. Rousseau uniquely perceived education as the ‘new form of a world that had embarked upon a historical process of dislocation’. For Resonances from both the French Enlightenment and Revolution, and the burgeoning consequences of industrialization and urbanization, ensured that nineteenth-century Western European society experienced changes to almost every facet of its fabric. The ‘set of assumptions about society, man, character and education’ contained in the ideas of French Enlightenment philosophers were radical, not least those about education. They encompassed Helvétius’s fundamental belief that ‘l’éducationpeut tout’ those in Jean- Jacques Rousseau’s Émile (1762) and Condorcet’s view that maintenance of a democratic society necessitated a free, compulsory, secular and universal education system (see Silver 1977:59–66; Vaughan and Archer 1971:160–71). Not only were Helvétius’s views seminal for the development of the concept of egalitarianism but, together with those of Rousseau and Condorcet, they indicated that education was not only synonymous with social reform but also a vital precursor. Rousseau uniquely perceived education as the ‘new form of a world that had embarked upon a historical process of dislocation’. For

Rousseau stated in Émile ‘all that we lack at birth, all that we need when we come to man’s estate, is the gift of education’, which is derived from nature, from men, or from things. He added that since ‘we know nothing of childhood’, that educators had failed to ascertain ‘what a child is capable of learning’, the aim of successful education had to be the ‘goal of nature’ (Rousseau 1911:1, 6). These concepts and their ramifications were influential in the development of the education theory of the Swiss Johann Pestalozzi (1746–1827). Its basis rested on his attempt to reconcile the Rousseauian paradox of education of the (free) individual with that of the (useful) citizen, and he believed the answer lay in the school. As an intermediary, yet separate, structure between the demands of the home and society the education process would not only ensure the transmission of the knowledge deemed worthwhile by society but also enable children to acquire their freedom as autonomous individuals through the natural development of their innate abilities (see Soëtard 1994b). He was aware that to achieve this latter aim, a child had to become aware of the essential nature of things in order to be able to gain a clearer understanding of the world. How a child perceives and understands external reality was crucial to his educational theory, and sense perception was for Pestalozzi the underlying basis of knowledge. Training for the senses consequently dominated much of his method but he also insisted on the need for spontaneous activity in children: they were not to receive passively and reproduce the opinions of others, but to be ‘a free and living agent’ (Fitch 1900:362). The practical success of this approach in his schools, especially at Yverdon, and his publications, attracted considerable interest, not least in Germany.

Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852) is best known for his concept of the kindergarten although most of his life was concerned with the education of a wider age range of children. In his search for greater organic cohesion to Pestalozzi’s subjects of instruction, being concerned by the vagueness of the concept Anschauung Pestalozzi had used, and inspired by Naturphilosophie, Froebel conceived a concept of education based on unity in the natural world. Mankind should be taught to see nature as a fully interlocking system, with itself an integral component, and good schools would be those offering a natural education, teaching pupils ‘the relationships which exist within the material world and which link that world and himself to the ground of all being’ (Froebel 1826:338). In the curriculum, which he wanted split into the Pestalozzian components of language, nature and mathematics, nature was to be ‘studied in its manifold variety, as directly as possible through activity methods and play’ (Froebel 1826:338). Thus, children’s play and their active involvement with the environment would constitute the content of the curriculum as well as the means of implementing it. Like Pestalozzi, he maintained that proper education would enable ‘the child’s powers and aptitudes and his physical and mental activities [to] be developed in the order of succession in which they emerge in his life’ (Froebel 1826:337). Unlike him, Froebel was concerned solely with the education of the

Entries A-Z 645

Encyclopedia of nineteenth-century thought 646

autonomous human being and not with the training and development of a ‘viable’ citizen (see Heiland 1993).

Utilizing some Pestalozzian ideas, the education theory of Johann Herbart (1776– 1841) was, nonetheless, based firmly on his own distinct philosophy and psychology of the mind. The crux of his theory was the concept of educational teaching in which teaching was to be subordinated to education, i.e. only appropriate teaching would be a successful means of promoting education, the ultimate goal of which was character formation. Educational teaching recognized the child’s natural liveliness and focused on the ‘practice and skills of the pupil’: at all times, therefore, teaching was not to ‘encroach upon the individuality of the pupil’ (see Holinger 1993). Equally important was Herbart’s insistence that teaching must be structured to encourage the development of pupils’ interests into a ‘multi-centred interest’: ‘Learning must serve the purpose of creating interest. Learning is transient but interest must be lifelong’ (J.H.Herbart, Paedogogische Schriften, cited in Holinger 1993). Such an interest would enable pupils to be able to continuously expand their circle of thought, acquire a deeper understanding of the world and participate in the development of society. He was careful to point out, however, that this development process was not solely for the acquisition of knowledge, the shaping of attitudes and skills but primarily to develop the pupils’ moral insight and character. By the time Herbart had achieved a definitive, practical form of his theory for employment in the Prussian education system, there was no longer an interest in implementing it. It was only through the proselytizing work of Ziller (1812–82), Stoy (1815–85) and Rein (1847–1929) that his theory exerted any influence on education practice in Europe and the USA.

Committed to the rights of individuals, WILHELM VON HUMBOLDT (1767–1835) believed that not only should they be allowed to develop in accordance with their innate personalities but also, in the case of children, parental rights should be regulated, if necessary, to ensure that they did not ‘exceed normal bounds’. He shared Plato’s view that education should play the key role in the development of society and argued, as a consequence of his belief in French revolutionary ideals as well as being aware of the need for the liberalization of Prussian society, that education should be made universally available. Furthermore, its role was ‘to shape man himself’ to ensure ‘the complete training of the human personality’, by which he meant ‘the highest and best proportioned development of his [man’s] abilities into a harmonious entity’ (W.Humboldt, Gesammelte Schriften,

I, p. 106, 145, cited in Hohendorf 1993:617). This notwithstanding, he was aware of the social nature of man’s existence and the necessity of the individual contributing to society’s development: ‘self-education can only be continued…in the wider context of development of the world’ (W.Humboldt, Gesammelte Schriften,

VII, p. 33, cited in Hohendorf 1993:622). Although he attempted to implement these views while he was charged with reforming Prussian education, his short tenure of office, a distaste for conflict and the volatile political climate of the time ruled out any truly effective implementation of his views: a tragedy for the subsequent development of German education.

While Rousseauian and French revolutionary ideals became integral components of German education theories, ironically this was not the case in France in the first half of the century, the exception being the theory of CHARLES FOURIER (1772–1837). Convinced of the existence of an underlying design in the world, Fourier’s education While Rousseauian and French revolutionary ideals became integral components of German education theories, ironically this was not the case in France in the first half of the century, the exception being the theory of CHARLES FOURIER (1772–1837). Convinced of the existence of an underlying design in the world, Fourier’s education

Rejecting the emphasis upon virtue and morality characteristic of Rousseau and Fichte’s social reform theories, the British socialist ROBERT OWEN (1771–1858) and the utilitarians, including JEREMY BENTHAM (1748–1832), espoused instead the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number as their criterion for social progress. Accepting Helvétius’s view that all individuals are blank at birth, so that ‘education is everything’ in their subsequent development, Owen believed children could ‘be formed collectively to have any human character. And…ultimately moulded into the very image of rational wishes and desires’ by careful teaching (Owen 1813:22). The corollary, that almost all the evils of life were the result of educational errors, meant that for a state to be well governed it ‘ought to direct its chief attention to the formation of character’ (Owen 1814:73). While this view had as its ultimate goal the benefit of society, Owen’s ideas gained wider recognition, partly from their successful implementation in the Institute for the Formation of Character at New Lanark in Scotland, but also for their insight into the significance of early childhood in human development. His approach ensured that the children were active participants in a learning process that focused on understanding, training children to think and act rationally as well as developing an awareness of the needs of others. His emphasis upon character formation and the nexus between education and the environment succeeded, as Silver observes, in making education a mass issue as well as showing ‘that it was possible to educate humanely’ (1977:234).

Bentham’s education theory, published in Chrestomathia (1815–17), contained an innovative approach to the curriculum whereby only socially useful knowledge, or that which would enable children to be prepared for their future careers, was deemed acceptable. This vocational approach, with science and technology as its key components, meant that other knowledge was deemed unacceptable for the education of middle-class children for whom Chrestomathia was intended. The pedagogy advocated was based on a systematic approach, proceeding from the particular to the general, from simple ideas and examples to more complex and abstract ones. To ensure that the children’s learning was based on understanding, Bentham stipulated that their knowledge should be tested

Entries A-Z 647

Encyclopedia of nineteenth-century thought 648

consistently and, as an incentive to learning, he emphasized the need for individual competition. The stress on efficiency and productivity was tempered by other proposals. Thus reward and punishment were to be minimized, corporal punishment was abolished, peer help was advocated, lessons were to be short and varied in content and methodology, while, most significantly, the pupils were to be self-governing. Bentham’s theory emphasized education’s role in increasing productivity, thereby benefiting the general economic good and morality through its contribution to the achievement of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Chrestomathia was an undeniable challenge to the existing education order for it breathed, in Simon’s view, ‘a positive optimism, and advocates a coherent educational policy… with its clear purpose, its efficiency, its close links with the widest spheres of social activity’ (1974:84).

A very different perspective shaped the educational views of Thomas Arnold (1795– 1842), the reforming headmaster of Rugby School. A leading member of the Broad Church Party, Arnold subscribed to the belief that education’s role in forming good character was justified only by its religious content. Its presence, furthermore, would ensure that the development of morality in individuals would be synonymous with the promotion of social order. He remained opposed to the division of secular and spiritual affairs, believing that Church and state should be a unity, initiating reform of social institutions as well as promoting the concepts of state and citizenship. Although he envisaged a complete extension of the franchise, Arnold was pessimistic about the roles to be played by both the middle and working classes given the limitations of their current schooling. This reflected his belief that education had two components, professional and liberal. The first, encompassing the basics relevant to future employment, currently formed the major component of most middle-class children’s education due to their limited time at school. Consequently, a liberal education, fundamental for training in citizenship, was usually ignored, because ‘people are accustomed to think that it is learnt more easily’, and its absence made him sceptical about any future political control likely to be exercised by this class. Similarly, he felt that the schooling given to the working class did not constitute an education, being merely the preparatory steps to it, and to expect any significant moral or religious improvements from it was ‘to look for a crop of corn after sowing a single handful of seed’ (T.Arnold, Sermons, 2, pp. 264–6, cited in Bamford 1970:59). It is not surprising, then, that Arnold stressed character formation, grounded in a liberal education, as the key role of a school. By liberal education, Arnold meant, but only in relation to able pupils, a thorough study of the classics, occupying more than half of the curriculum, and in which religious studies were given as much weighting as the remaining components. His emphasis upon the development of reasoning skills by pupils, together with the acquisition of leadership skills gained from the structure and life of a school, was intended to ensure that education would provide them with a sound foundation in citizenship. Like their author, Arnold’s education views represent something of a paradox. In many respects, his views were not innovative, especially with respect to the curriculum, and ignored the developments in society that would affect the lives and careers of the majority of pupils. Nonetheless, Arnold’s legacy was the indelible linking of character formation with the educational role of the English public school.

Apart from those of Froebel and Arnold, the education theories cited above had little widespread impact on mass-education provision during most of the nineteenth century,

Entries A-Z 649

for the state education systems of Britain, France, Germany and elsewhere developed a limited and conservative approach to educational content and teaching methodologies. It was in reaction to the stultifying effects of these systems, and mounting economic and social problems, that new education theories were formulated during the last two decades of the century. In general the theories may be considered as being representative of one of two distinct approaches to education. One was the ‘New Education’ whose advocates, predominantly British theorist-practitioners, included Edmond Holmes (1850–1936), J.H.Badley (1865–1967), Norman MacMunn (1877–1925) and A.S.Neill (1883–1973), and whose ideas and practices laid the foundation for what became known as ‘progressive’ education. The other approach, derived from the idealist philosophy of Hegel, had its most eminent exponent in the USA with the philosopher JOHN DEWEY (1859–1952).

The importance of the New Education movement rested not only on its advocacy of significant changes to the curriculum but also its pioneering of important changes in teaching methods, especially for young children. Returning to a Rousseauian approach, memorization and rote learning were rejected in favour of an emphasis upon participation and activity, reflecting a belief that the child was ‘a self-educating organism, not a passive recipient of information’ (see Skidelsky 1969; Selleck 1968). Probably the most influential advocate of this view was Edmond Holmes, an inspector of elementary schools for 30 years who ultimately became the chief inspector for elementary schools in England and Wales. He observed that what was required of the pupils by the state system was ‘blind, passive, literal, unintelligent obedience’, for the real aim of the system was to teach them how to behave. This went against the Pestalozzian concept of child development, espoused by the movement, and Holmes argued that if ‘self-realization is the first and last duty of Man’, then a child-centred approach to learning, in which the child’s interests were to predominate, was a prerequisite. Such an approach would place heavy demands upon teachers, for it required ‘a blend of imagination, intelligence, and patience, which we call genius’. While acknowledging that many teachers lacked this quality Holmes believed they could be trained to develop it but would not provide any prescriptions, beyond advocating the need for child studies in the training, fearing that if

he did they would become dogma. Instead, he contented himself by saying that if a spirit of freedom could be developed among teachers, the self-realization of pupils would occur. The considerable criticism these ideas generated when published in What is and what Might be (1911), despite the fact that many had appeared in his published annual inspector’s reports of the previous two decades, was indicative both of the lack of success of the century’s earlier education theories and of the conservatism of national education systems.

An opponent of the extreme aspects of Holmes’s view was John Dewey. In his earliest education tract, My Pedagogic Creed (1896), Dewey emphasized the inter-relationship between individuals and society, observing that for the latter to develop, individuals had to possess the potential to progress beyond the levels reached by their predecessors. Education thus had to ‘begin with a psychological insight into the child’s capacities, interests and habits. It must be controlled at every point by reference to these same considerations’ (1897:86). He added that every pupil had to develop ‘complete possession of all his powers’ for it was only by this approach that children would be prepared for their life in society. Dewey equated the formation of character and self- An opponent of the extreme aspects of Holmes’s view was John Dewey. In his earliest education tract, My Pedagogic Creed (1896), Dewey emphasized the inter-relationship between individuals and society, observing that for the latter to develop, individuals had to possess the potential to progress beyond the levels reached by their predecessors. Education thus had to ‘begin with a psychological insight into the child’s capacities, interests and habits. It must be controlled at every point by reference to these same considerations’ (1897:86). He added that every pupil had to develop ‘complete possession of all his powers’ for it was only by this approach that children would be prepared for their life in society. Dewey equated the formation of character and self-

While Dewey was an education theorist influenced by Hegelian Idealism, by the end of the nineteenth century other concepts of Idealist theory had developed, influenced more by Ancient Greek philosophy, especially that of Plato, than Hegel. With its concerns for ‘society as an organic spiritual community’ and the ‘ethical nature of citizenship’, whereby the individual ‘found happiness and fulfilment…in the development of “mind” and “character” and in service to a larger whole’, one willing advocate was Robert Morant (1863–1920) (Harris 1992:126–8). Educated in the Arnoldian tradition but not an education theorist in the usual sense, being par excellence an administrator in the English education system, Morant had, nonetheless, certain, strong views about education that were conveyed in his numerous, and sometimes lengthy, memoranda and circulars. More importantly, his views cannot be overlooked, for by becoming embodied in national education policy for the best part of a decade at the turn of the century, they effectively shaped the education experienced in state schools by many more children than most education theorists ever achieved. Nowhere was this seen more clearly than in his prefatory memorandum to the 1904 Education Code. Morant’s memorandum outlined the aims for all elementary schools and, headed by the Wykehamist motto ‘Manners makyth Man’, the emphasis was upon character formation. Thus the main aim of elementary education was:

to form and strengthen the character and to develop the intelligence of the children entrusted to it, and to make the best use of the school years available, in assisting both girls and boys, according to their different needs, to fit themselves, practically as well as intellectually, for the work of life.

(Board of Education 1904:vii)

Encyclopedia of nineteenth-century thought 650

Entries A-Z 651

Morant’s aims reflected some aspects of both Idealist and progressive theories for the curriculum took into account the nature and capabilities of children, instead of making education conform to the views of the educator, and also provided an ‘ordered freedom’ for both pupils and teachers. Henceforward, an elementary school was to be seen as ‘living organism’, in relation to pupils and society’s needs.

In some respects, education theory at the onset on the twentieth century remained preoccupied with the same essential concerns as in previous centuries, not least being the formation of character. But there were significant differences, the main ones being that education theory was now much more concerned with the education of all children, rich or poor, male or female, and in which their ideas and interests were to be identified and acted upon. Unfortunately, as the new century progressed it was to reveal in many instances, as the past had done, the continuance of the gap between theory and practice.