Pedagogiek - Volume 41, Issue 1, 2021

The theoretical pedagogue as a homo clausus

The contributions to Theoretische Pedagogiek (‘Theoretical pedagogy’, eds. B. Spiecker and B. Levering, 1982) predominantly concern the question how theoretical pedagogy contributes to academic pedagogy, and the related question what characterizes this discipline. Some authors defend a specific method, sometimes as attuned to the specific nature of the pedagogical research subject. For example, phenomenological analysis, conceptual analysis, and empirical research pass review. Though each author substantiates the potential contribution of his or her chosen method, (s)he also introduces this method as disqualifying other methods. That does not only leave academic pedagogy a fragmented discipline, it also overstretches the justifiable pretensions of each method, impeding mutual enrichment of these methods at the same time. Other authors contribute by trying to ground the discipline and its methods in purported unique anthropological characteristics of pedagogical phenomena. However, they cannot solve the problems either, because they leave us again with mutually exclusive approaches and a fragmented discipline. It even becomes questionable whether we can speak of ‘one’ discipline at all, as subsequent authors keep writing as a ‘homo clausus’, culminating in the seeming incompatibility of pedagogy as a behavioral science versus pedagogy as a social science. After reading this collection, one wonders whether a more question-guided, interdisciplinary approach, open to mutual enrichment of various methods would not better serve the discipline.

The ethics of the teaching profession around 1900

Around 1900, lively discussions arose on the teaching profession and its ethics, in remarkable simularity to actual discussions on this subject. Was the best education to be seen as moral education, whether and how in combination with the cognitive basics; and on the outcome of that, what kind of teacher qualities were to be required, and how to be developed? Disputes hereon were mixed with the pressing question: must pedagogical quality be defined and prescribed by scientific reasoning, or by teachers themselves on their own terms and insights?

This article compares three positions in these discussions, traced in then influential pedagogical journals: Herbart-followers, as defenders of science based teacher quality; their fierce adversaries in the upcoming teacher union, led by Theo Thijssen; and educational reformers striving for nuanced or deliberatly doubting viewpoints on all this. This third position was favoured by Jan Ligthart and other authors in the journal he drifted.

Interestingly, all parties declared the teachers personality of the uppermost importance for educational quality. In Thijssens circle however, this personality was depicted as a real male, autonomously leading his classroom without ethical fuss. While around Ligthart, good teachership sprang from the capacity to empathize with pupils – including their unwillingness to be educated – but enriched by self-insight in ones own personal development, with the inevitable conflicts and doubts thereabouts. This perspective, gradually growing in Ligtharts writings, was otherwise mostly expressed by female authors. The article leads to persistently awkward discussion points, including gender questions, regarding the teaching profession.

Political pedagogy: In search for predictors of susceptibility to antidemocratic orientations

The traditional movement toward educational reform at the beginning of the last century emphasized the individual child and his or her experiential world. The current paper addresses the question why reform schools such as Rudolf Steiner’s Waldorf schools could easily be incorporated in the National-Socialist political movement in the thirties of the last century. After the Second World War the crucial issue for pedagogues and educators was how children could be guided to become less susceptible to the ideological temptations of Nazism and of totalitarianism in general. The initiators of the Frankfurter Schule (Horkheimer, Adorno) focussed on psychoanalytic determinants of vulnerability for this totalitarian seduction and introduced the concept of ‘the authoritarian personality’.

Instead of psychoanalysis we use here Piaget’s and Kohlberg’s theory and research on moral development to address this same question of susceptibility to anti-democratic racist, sexist, militarist and nationalist movements, following pathfinding work of the second generation Frankfurters Habermas and Lempert. Social-psychological experiments and cultural anthropological studies are consulted to examine what role social-cultural context plays. In most social settings people can be easily nudged into conformism and thus triggered into uncritical acceptance of authoritarian leadership. Individuals with some resilience against such pressures might be characterised with a high level of moral reasoning. Some studies linking moral argumentation to political orientation suggest ways in which a ‘political pedagogy’ might contribute to harnessing such findings for anti-fascist educational applications.

The meaning of ‘general’ in the concept of general education

The author aims at a conceptual-analytical approach. Up to now conceptualization and, above all, the realization of general education remained based on fundamental inconsistencies. Its ‘generality’ was accomplished neither individually nor institutionally. Class- and genderspecific discriminations formed a constitutive part of most concepts and of the educational practice as such. The author then discusses some essential characteristics of a presently relevant concept of general education. He concentrates on the comprehensive, ‘synthesizing’ powers of general education and asks whether the socializing and ‘homogenizing’ (Bourdieu) effects of a truly ‘general’ education can also be regarded as a contribution to autonomizing individuation. The considerations are primarily based on Humboldt and the recent recommendations of the Collège de France (1985).

Individual differences and the common curriculum

This article deals with the issue of individual differences and the common curriculum for 12-16 year old pupils. The central question is: is it possible to maintain high standards for all without reducing opportunities for brighter pupils to achieve educational results according to their individual potential? To answer this question, three research traditions are examined: research about the West-German comprehensive schools; research about class composition; research about effective teaching and Aptitude Treatment Interaction. The conclusion from this examination is that it is difficult to combine high standards for all and excellence for a few.