 |
| Picture - Education (Ref - https://pixabay.com/photos/book-asia-children-boys-education-1822474/) |
In this blogpost, I have tried to develop an understanding of the meaning of education. In the process, I have tried to assess the education from points of view of some of the prominent philosophers. Having done so, I have tried to illustrate what is the meaning of education from my own perspective (this is in a way, a further illustration to my work. Which is already published in one of my previous blogs - An Attempt to Link Education, Learning and School).
Some Philosophers View on Education
In this section I have tried to understand education from the point of view of following philosophers: -
Socrates (470 BC – 399 BC)
Plato (427 BC – 348 BC)
Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)
John Dewey (1859–1952)
Friedrich Froebel (1782 – 1852)
In the table below, I have tried to summarize the views of the above philosophers under following aspects of education: -
Meaning - Meaning of Education
Mode - Mode of Imparting Education
Control - Controller of Education
Philosophy - Approach towards distributive justice of Education in Society (Egalitarianism, Libertarianism, Utilitarianism)
Socrates – (Ref - Mares, Martin. "Classical Educational Concepts of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle." Retrieved May 3, no. 2019 (2018): 248-257.)
Socrates believed that our souls are immortal and same can be applied to our knowledge, but each time we are born again, we lost all the knowledge, and therefore we must educate ourselves to remind us of our lost knowledge (Plato, Meno 85b,c).
Socrates did not teach people in an institution, school or one particular place. Socrates roamed through streets, gardens, squares and agora in Athens with his followers and debated about things such as justice, politics, and beauty, a way of life, law and so forth (Plato, Apology, 22c,d,e).
Plato – (Ref - Mares, Martin. "Classical Educational Concepts of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle." Retrieved May 3, no. 2019 (2018): 248-257.)
Education helps people to maintain self-control and the healthy balance of virtues. This explanation can also be found in Plato’s Allegory of Cave which emphasises the need to liberate people from prison full of shadows and ignorance of the truth (Plato, Republic, Book VII. 516a–516b).
Wisdom for Plato is tied to contemplation and wisdom does not represent quantification or aggregation of knowledge.
Plato later shifts towards more utilitarian, institutionalised and state-controlled education as opposed to Socrates' liberal and all-encompassing search for the truth – Aletheia.
Justice is universal for all people, but other virtues are connected to particular class or group of individuals based on their profession and desired contribution to the society (Plato, Republic, book IV. 425b). Consequently, education should teach the specific group of people to maintain the balance associated with certain virtue such as a balance of temperance for artisans, prudence for political leaders or courage for soldiers (Plato, Republic, Book II. 377a,b}. Furthermore, the length of education is determined by a series of examinations each 10, respectively 15 years to decide which individual is capable of higher and higher studies up to an age of fifty. Those that failed to pass examinations were automatically sent to participate in activities and work associated with them, e.g. group of artisans (Plato, Republic,Book III. 409a,b). Those who pass all examinations and finished their education at the age of fifty were selected as ideal rules of the society (Plato, Republic, Book V. 473c).
Aristotle – (Ref - Mares, Martin. "Classical Educational Concepts of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle." Retrieved May 3, no. 2019 (2018): 248-257.)
Subsequently, the deeper sense of morality helps people to distinguish what is just correct and what is truly good, which results in better cooperation and well-organised society that can achieve goals for the common good (Aristotle, Book VII, 1323b.1).
Being good citizen means that one knows the difference between civic virtues and vices, although this does not automatically mean that one has to be the moral man at the same time (Aristotle, Book III, 1276b.34). In conclusion, Aristotelian education aims to make one a good citizen of the polis and therefore the education is tailored to make citizens good and happy because only good citizens can create a good society – the good city-state.
On the other hand, learners should not rely exclusively on education based on reason revealing causes of things, but students should also cultivate their learning through habits (Aristotle, Book I, 1094b.24).
Aristotle clearly emphasised that opportunity to study further as long as one is willing to study should be supported by polis and other citizens producing exceptional scholars is beneficial for the entire society, though such outstanding individuals must act in favour of the community and polis (Aristotle, Book II, 1273b.5).
Aristotle established his school Lyceum in Athens during the later years of his life, it is not clear if he we ever try to introduce such model of education to his students because unfortunately a large number of Aristotle's writings on education had been lost.
(Aristotle’s view as summarized by Curren - On Aristotle and Public Education - Gotz, Ignacio L. "On Aristotle and public education." Studies in Philosophy and Education 22 (2003): 69-82.) Children should be educated, and that this should take place through common instruction by state-appointed teachers in publicly provided places. ... In addition ... first, that this [education] may well in its content include an element of instruction in, and practice in conformity to, the laws of the state; second, that quite apart from this public schooling, Aristotle is arguing for a comprehensive code of juvenile law, aimed at the development of virtue; third, that a component of this juvenile law would specify what is and is not acceptable by way of cultural diversions and adult supervision; and fourth, that this juvenile law might possibly include a role for youths in the common meals in which their fathers participate.
Dewey – (Ref - Sikandar, Aliya. "John Dewey and his philosophy of education." Journal of education and Educational Development 2, no. 2 (2015): 191.)
The role of education to transform the world into a more humane, just, and egalitarian society.
He saw education as a means of serving the democratic process through making corrections in the economic evils and by obtaining political ends that would lead to progression of a society.
Education for Dewey is the culmination of his political ideas. The shaping of a society in which the common goods, among which are the knowledge and social intelligence, are distributed fairly among all who participate in that society (Berding, 1997).
In Democracy and Education (1916), Dewey clearly states that the methodology of teaching leads to the purpose of teaching. As teaching and learning is pedagogical; therefore, the subject matter should be planned in effective ways. He clearly states, “The subject matter of the learner is not … identical with the formulated, the crystallized, and systematized subject matter of the adult” (p. 190). The subject matter alone is not a guarantee of learning and development; rather, the teacher should plan and connect the subject matter to the students, keeping in consideration the needs, desires, interests, and cognitive development of the students.
(Klapisch, Jacques. "" Learning by Doing, by Wondering, by Figuring Things Out:" A New Look at Contemporary Homeschooling and Pedagogical Progressivism." (2021)) Pedagogical progressive education, as defined through the work of John Dewey, Helen Parkhurst, and Carleton Washburne was the precursor to the contemporary homeschooling movement in ideology, practice, and rhetoric as defined by the writing and pedagogy of John Holt.
Education is a growth and a growth from within of the native powers of the child held a great influence on the later thought of teaching theory and practice. His doctrine that knowledge is not the end of education, but the means towards the end minimized the value of verbalism. His recognition of the educational value of play, self activity, creative work, social participation and learning by doing are psychologically, socially and practically sound. Froebel was a person who never ceased to systematize, symbolize, idealize, identities and analyzed among all facts and phenomena of the universe. He made life more simple, clear and more recognizable.
School is a place where children were „allowed to blossom‟. Froebel regarded this school as a garden and the teacher as a gardener who carefully tends the little human plants under his care and helps them grow in beauty and perfection. There is an atmosphere of self activity, play and joy in the school.
He believed that all social institutions like the home, the school, the church and the state, etc. are the agencies of development of the individual wherein he is to realize the unity in diversity.
Froebel aimed that education must enable every child to understand his environment. Education should lift him to knowledge of himself and of mankind, to knowledge of God and nature. To Froebel education is not a preparation for future life, but understanding the life around the individual. It will help the child to develop his individuality through social atmosphere.
My Take on Education
I feel I am a freedom lover and probably, therefore I find Socrates most appealing amongst the philosophers discussed above.
In my opinion, feelings are the essence of life. All the conscious actions of living beings are driven by sense of feeling. One’s feeling can be generated either through one’s acknowledgment of interactions (or observations) in the real world (अनुभूति) or feeling can be generated by acknowledgement of self-created abstractions (imaginations or thoughts – एह्सास). How one makes sense of her/his feelings (in the realm of one’s own view of the world around) is dependent on ‘capacity to understand’.
Similarly, expressions communicate one’s feelings. An ability to express one’s feelings with an intent to make others understand the intended meaning is dependent on ‘capability to express’.
Thus, in my opinion, Education (E) can be considered as a measure of following attributes: -
Capacity to Understand (CU) - sensibility to UNDERSTAND and ACKNOWLEGE one’s FEELINGS.
Capability to Express (CE) - ability to EXPRESS one’s FEELINGS.
However, Realm (R) could be understood as an environment in which the act of understanding and/or act of expression takes place. R sets the context for meaningful exchange of feelings. R can be considered to be analogous to a “Body of Knowledge (BoK)”. Any BoK usually looks at the world with adherence to a framework with an accepted set of beliefs, ethics, principles and values.
Thus, E1 = f ' (CU, under orientation of realm R) and E2 = f "(CE, under orientation of realm R’). Realms (R, R’) could be same or different (the case, when cross-realm expression and understanding takes place). E (Education) = f (E1, E2).
Individual knowledge of a person can be considered as an integrated sense of accumulated feelings using which someone makes sense of feelings to develop an understanding. Morality is embedded in this integrated sense of accumulated feelings and therefore can be considered as a sub-set of knowledge of an individual.
In brief, the measure of education could be considered as the capacity to understand and capability to express at any given instance under a given realm.
With the limited understanding I have today, I believe that we should limit the definition of education at this point. Taking it further in any of the following ways will dilute the position of education as a natural privilege awarded by mother-nature to an individual: -
Attaching morality to education will make it directional with a desired outcome.
Attaching authorization to education will subjugate it to an authorizer.
Restricting education within boundaries of a realm (say – realm of scientifically accepted world view) will not only exclude other realms (say – a theological worldview) but also resist individual attempts to create an altogether a new realm.
Education should strictly be driven by the will of an individual in all respects. However, stretching education to include any (or all) of the above-mentioned three possibilities will need the introduction of an external agency to supervise the act of educating oneself by any individual. Such an external agency makes me uncomfortable. To me giving place to such an agency sounds like an attempt to govern (what should be) the supreme power (that is education) in any society. In today’s world order it is reasonable to expect such an agency to be a bureaucratically run institutionalized body operating through top-down mechanism (which is mostly unidirectional in the interest of those who can influence the institutionalized body). For me, directed education is no education.
Such an arrangement (of education being supervised by an external agency) is not sustainable for longer period of time. This is simply because it may not be possible to have an agency operating for long time without (having) a vested interest in the arrangement. It is nearly impossible to think that the agency in the agency-based education will allow perfect autonomy to education of individuals. Individuals make-up the society and therefore, this arrangement will also influence collective education of the society largely in the same manner as it influences an individual. Thus, we may conclude that the autonomy of education gets eroded by allowing a role to such an agency (to supervise education).
Also, with such an arrangement, it is not possible to exercise complete freedom to express oneself by convincing people, groups and societies advocating for one’s ideas (ideology, narratives, feelings, problems) with a central supervising agency in place to influence, to validate or to support one’s ideas. Reduced freedom of expressing one's feeling will limit the dimensions of expressions. This will obstruct the zeal of an individual to make other individual or other groups feel and get convinced with her/his feelings. Individuals will most likely seek sort of validation of the external supervising agency for expressing oneself. This will reduce tendency of individuals to collaborate through expressing for consensus building. Eventually, this will reduce participation in society.
Thus, it may not be unfair to assume that agency-lead control to the education will severely restrict the spirit of education for an individual and for the society-at-large. Such a society will end-up with an education system having limited: -
Autonomy
Participation
The procedural understanding of this limiting-effect of agency-lead control on education is shown in the following figure:
An individual understands from the nature and society (however, the society can also be considered to be sub-set of nature) and morals are part of understanding (through interactions and experiences). Similarly, an individual expresses herself/himself in society. In many cases an individual may express to get concurrence of understanding or in some cases an individual may introspect and improve understanding and express to make the world understand her/his value-addition to existing understanding.
With an agency acting as a gatekeeper to direct an individual to understand selectively, to authorize understanding of an individual through a standard yardstick and to validate expressions of an individual within a given realm, the likelihood of an individual taking pride in educating oneself is less. Moreover, this gatekeeping approach may exclude much of the understandings and expressions an individual may have otherwise explored, if given an opportunity of enjoying personal freedom in educating oneself.
Unfortunately, the formal education system in today’s world relies heavily on an agency to authorize education (State) with an objective to create desired outcome (Economic Development). The realm of established worldview has earned a social acceptability to the extent that it is considered as the absolute truth. Needless to mention that the true scientific approach allows space for queries, arguments and is convinced about many contradictions and is also open to fundamental changes to establish and re-establish facts (through evidence-based enquiry).
With the above arguments, I feel, the present education system could be considered as a social construction of economic significance, which is legitimized by the state. It may be noted that once an entity becomes a social construction, an investigation of this entity from the first principals is generally discouraged in the society. Once this begins to take place, the entity starts to deviate from delivering its intended objective towards becoming a tool to be exploited by those in possession of power in society.
