In my last post on education and wonder I upheld the thesis that all learning begins in our emplaced and embodied experience of the world. In particular, in the experience of wonder, in which the startling fact of encounter itself comes to the fore – the fact that we are in the world, belong to the world, and are compelled to therefore question and comprehend that world. I am aware that this may lead some readers to enquire whether I am thereby arguing for a kind of education that is guided solely by the dictates of experience and relevance. For example, do I take the position that subjects or disciplines, those traditional conduits of knowledge that hitherto comprised the form and content of education, are misguided and outdated? I must declare straight away that I do not subscribe to such a view. Let us reflect for a moment on Kant's acute remark in his first Critique:
The question of whether the disciplines disconnect us from the world of experience and thereby from the 'feeling' of being within the whole, has been debated for some time. There was a particular illuminating exchange of views on this topic in the mid seventies, between R.K. Elliot and Paul H. Hirst. This exchange has been since republished in Hirst and White (1998).
R.K. Elliot begins by putting forward the relatively uncontentious view that education should help a child to understand him or herself as a human being in the world together with others, a claim that I can hardly disagree with. If all goes well, the child arrives as at an understanding of Man [sic], history, and the natural world as a totality to which he himself belongs. That is, "he holds them all together in a primitive synoptic unity, and is at home within the totality." (Elliot, 1998: 113) Elliot holds that education in the disciplines can result in the loss of this sense of primitive unity and an estrangement that leads to the child no longer feeling at home within the whole:
"Obtaining breadth within the disciplines is of little value to the individual if this primitive sense of unity is lost, for no such unity is either available or possible within the disciplines. Without it, and estranged from common understanding, the man who possesses breadth within the disciplines is merely possessed by seven disciplines instead of one." (Ibid: 113)
There are a couple of points to draw out from this with regards to my own thinking on this matter, which is still developing. First, though I can concur with Elliot’s rendering of education as an enterprise that seeks to enable the child to better understand their being in the world and others with whom their share that world, previous posts of mine have problematised the notion that coming to 'feel at home in the world' and the sense of totality that goes with this is the most attractive route to achieving this understanding. It comes down to that standoff between Heidegger and Levinas again. Is there not violence inherent in a totality? May it not be the case that a certain amount of estrangement from the world can be a positive thing when it comes to gaining understanding of ourselves and others? These are the important questions that I am trying to investigate, and they are in no way 'airy-fairy'.
So my first point concerns whether or not the cosy and 'primitive' sense of holism that Elliot advocates here is really the best road towards understanding. My second point is less fundamental but no less crucial. Even if we accept that a primitive and synoptic unity is what we are after (and perhaps, in the end, it is, even after the reservations I have just raised) is it reasonable to suggest that subjects always and necessarily remove us from the world of experience and that sense of totality and unity? This is certainly not the case, in my view. It may indeed be correct to say that historically subjects in the grammar school vein, overloaded with information and facts, can and do cause this estrangement. But there are good reasons to suppose that these subjects can be thought otherwise, and can be partly, even largely, rooted in the lived experience of the child.
We do not need to simply imagine what this kind of a subject would look like because there are already some terrific examples of such 'living' subjects in action. To take the example of geography, a subject that I am most closely acquainted with, there are many examples of lessons and schemes of work that draw from and build upon real life examples that will be familiar to students from their day to day experience. For instance, see the Living Geography book (Mitchell, 2009) recently published by Chris Kington and the Geographical Association's recent manifesto, A Different View (GA, 2009), particularly Section 3. What I am trying to establish, through providing these examples, is simply that subjects do not necessarily have to operate in utter isolation from and with absolute disregards to the vicissitudes of experience and the 'primitive synoptic unity' that such experience supposedly leads to.
Of course, this assertion is not sufficient in itself to show that subjects are the most favourable means by which to educate young people in accordance with Elliot’s view of education. It could be that there are methods that are yet more satisfactory when it comes to maintaining that sense of 'being in the whole' and bringing students to understand themselves and others in the world. But if there are such methods, I do not believe that we have as yet found them. For this reasons I cannot help but agree with Paul H. Hirst in his rejoinder to Elliot's essay:
"That those disciplines be used so that they retain their connections with common understanding is precisely what we want in general or liberal education and I see no reason why with suitable teaching it should not be achieved. But I cannot see the disciplines as breaking any valuable unity to common understanding… Rightly used, it seems to me the disciplines can contribute to a continuous development and sophistication of understanding. If thereby unsatisfactory elements of common understanding and false synopses within it become despised, so much the better." (Hirst, 1998: 123)
References
Elliot, R. K. (1998) [1975] 'Education and Human Being' in Hirst and White (Eds.) Philosophy of Education: Major Themes in the Analytic Tradition, Volume II: Education and Human Being. London: Routledge.
GA (2009) A Different View. Sheffield: Geographical Association.
GA (2009) A Different View. Sheffield: Geographical Association.
Hirst, P. H. (1998) [1975] 'Education and Human Being: A Response to R. K. Elliot' in Hirst and White (Eds.) Philosophy of Education: Major Themes in the Analytic Tradition, Volume II: Education and Human Being. London: Routledge.
Mitchell, D (Ed.) (2009) Living Geography. Chris Kington Publishing.
This is a useful - and timely - rejoinder to those who would say, somewhat carelessly, that subjects are 'the problem' in education.
ReplyDeleteJust because we experience the world as a whole,does not mean we learn about it, or can learn about it, as a whole.
The school curriculum is special. It is not the same as everyday experience. The whole point is to induct young people into ways of seeing and understanding the world that are NOT everyday, or common sense. Otherwise, why go to school?
We have, as a society, got ourselves in a bit of a mix up over all this - as your NEXT posting on academies goes on to explore futher. In the 200 or so academies that have been created so far - usually in challenging schools and in disadvantaged social and economic settings, subjects have been undermined in favour of vocational training (as you say). In effect, some young people are denied the opportunity to be educated in the name of not imposing education on them (a point Howard Jacobson made recently in his Independent column).This entrenches social division and is a cruel denial of access to what Michael Young calls 'powerful knowledge'. It is noteworthy that few if any parents who can afford to pay for private school would purchase vocational training for their children.
It is ludicrous to say that subjects are somehow old fashioned nineteenth century constructs that are no longer relevant, as for example Guy Claxton is fond of saying. By all means use ways to 'build learning power' in young people, but do not deny them opportunities to learn extraordinary things: without which young people cannot be said to be educated - AND equipped in the tough, disciplined thinking and argument through which disciplines make progress.
Yes Ben, subjects matter, and I share your curiosity and intrigue with geography as a key subject discipline in the school curriculum
Thanks David, Yes, I think this is an important posting.
ReplyDeleteOf course, its remit is purely to demonstrate that it is not necessarily the case that subjects distance us from the unity of everyday 'common understanding'.
It is also completely possible that they can further such understanding - and enable us to make better sense of the world then everyday experience ever could. This further, positive, argument that particular school subjects, particularly geography, can contribute to the continuous development and sophistication of this understanding is largely an empirical question. Indeed, it is the question I am going to be tackling in my PhD research - how can such common sense notions as place, home and belonging be expanded and deepened through the study of geography?