Not far off stands a mid-size spruce, thick with needles and seemingly impenetrable to sunlight; in fact it seems to actually absorb light into itself. It is an odd tree compared to the others they’ve been visiting. The Spirit of Bowen leads them up as close to it as one can get without being pricked by its lower branches concealing the base of the tree like a cassock. “What is it about this tree that bothers me?” asks the Veteran. “Certainly this is no protégé of Pestalozzi, or adherent of Rousseau?”
Actually, I think it may very well be”, counters the Young Man. “This is Herbart isn’t it?” he asks looking to Bowen.
As always, the Spirit of Bowen nods first and then explains, “Herbart believed that a genuinely objective, scientific—and therefore ‘exact’—view of the world could be built up in the learner, and error eliminated; morality would therefore develop as the learner acquired a properly constructed ‘circle of thought’ in which the will finds scope for adequate development. As increasing clarity of ideas occurs, as the mind is properly built, then good will ensues” (Bowen, vol. 3, p. 240).
“Wow!” says the Critic, “This goes right back to Kant’s point about all the trees in the forest making each individual tree grow straight rather than crooked. Did Herbart really think that ‘morality’ and ‘good will’ would simply happen as a result of a ‘properly constructed’ pedagogy?”
“Technically speaking, all of these guys did. Unlike Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Kant and Froebel however, Herbart took it to the next level. He systematized it!” responds the Young Man.
“Okay, fine, but so did Froebel, so why does he get a shining, light-filled tree and Herbart gets this dark, black hole of a tree?” asks the Critic.
“That’s a good question,” says the Veteran. “Frankly I don’t see what’s so bad about Herbart’s thinking from what we’ve heard so far.”
Bowen continues, “Methodology is all important in Herbart’s pedagogical theory…. The methodological task…is to make the child’s ideas distinct and clear so that they can be properly organized….The child, if properly approached, will be able to enter easily into the procedure, as his plasticity…is a characteristic feature; indeed, so concerned was Herbart with this concept of the capacity of the child for being ‘moulded’ by appropriate lesson procedures that he commenced his final work, Outlines of Educational Doctrine, with this notion: ‘The plasticity…, or educability, of the pupil is the fundamental postulate of pedagogics’” (Bowen, vol. 3, pp. 238, 239).
“Oh, I see”, says the Veteran. “How discouraging!”
“I’ll say”, says the Young Man, “and don’t you see how easily such a philosophy can be manipulated by people in positions of power?”
“Well sure,” responds the Critic, “but it’s all very abstract and philosophical. Persons in positions of power have simpler, more straightforward needs. Morality and ‘good will’, for example, are philosophical concerns. An oppressive ruler, or ruling class, or corporate sponsor for that matter merely needs docility and compliance from people, and their education systems will reflect this need. Philosophy is only important to the degree that it serves this end.”
“Something tells me there’s an historical connection here?” responds the Young Woman.
Again Bowen nods:
“Herbart’s work constituted an alternative to the systems of his contemporaries Pestalozzi and Froebel, but at the same time his ideas were unpopular. [Yet] with the movement towards empiricism and positivism from mid-century onwards, and with the associated rejection of metaphysical interpretations, Herbart’s work was revived…as an adequate theory of education and pedagogy once it was detached from its complicated metaphysics…” (Bowen, vol. 3, p. 348).
“So in other words other innovators came along, cut his philosophy out of the picture and focused solely on his methods?” asks the Veteran.
“Typical!” scoffs the Young Man.
Momentarily the Spirit of Bowen gazes reflectively up at the dark tree, then continues with his exposition:
“Of course Herbart had intended his educational theory primarily to serve the cultivation of virture; that view was easily discarded….[T]heir removal in no way altered the effectiveness of the theory…, or the instructional procedures…whereby the teacher reconstructs the confused random experiences of the child by means of structured lesson sequences…. precisely what positivism was asserting” (Bowen, vol. 3, p. 348, 349).
“If my historical knowledge serves me correctly, didn’t Herbart’s coopted pedagogy neatly serve the rise of the new industrial class during the mid-nineteenth century?” asks the Young Man.
“It doesn’t sound to me like Herbart was such a bad sort, rigid and overly rational, but generally well-intended.” says the Young Woman. “It’s what people did with his philosophy later that’s the problem.”
“Sure, but his philosophy has flaws that lend itself to those very problems.” Counters the Veteran.
“All of this, this tour of the grove, it is all…well, what it is. Nevertheless I am still waiting for the relevance to our own problems in the modern U.S. to become clear.” Says the Critic.
Concerning the new, modified approach to Herbart in the mid-19th century, Bowen explains:
“Throughout the developed regions of the Western world, Herbartianism flourished, but it was in the United States that it took strongest root, in part because fo the relative absence of well-established, competing conceptions and practices of education, but chiefly because its seemingly scientific character accorded well with the technological, inventive, ‘practical’ ethos of an America self-consciously trying to build a new, progressive society” (Bowen, vol. 3, p. 351).
“I certainly see echoes of this trend in much of today’s pseudo-science of education, so-called ‘research based’ curricula and the like.” Says the Veteran. “I suppose that’s the connection we’re supposed to make here?”
“Sure, in part, but I think there’s more.” Remarks the Young Man. “This ongoing tendency within our society to dumb ideas down and make them reproducible for mass consumption is the bigger point.”
“True, but I think you’re still missing the essential point,” counters the Critic.
“And that is?” asks the Young Woman.
“Look, all of these guys, whether Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Kant, Froebel or Herbart, they were all philosophers”, argues the Critic, “they had bigger ideas that motivated them to pursue the development of educational philosophy. All along I’ve argued that none of this is relevant to the struggle against No Child Left Behind and I hold to this position. The people behind NCLB are not philosophers. Rather they are greedy opportunists seeking a for-profit system of schools. They couldn’t care a wit about philosophy outside of how it can sell their program or justify what they’re doing to the public schools. So, tell me this, what is the relevance of Western educational history in this sense? We’ve devolved from a philosophy-based civilization to a profit-based one over the past two centuries. These men’s ideas are as dead as they are.”
“Well, yes”, responds the Young Man, “but keep in mind that without knowledge of history you wouldn’t be able to put forward that view. What is important here is to realize how deeply rooted today’s trends are in trends of the past, the reason being that our social mentality as Americans has yet to evolve. We still see ourselves as separate from the environment in which we live. We still see ourselves as independent actors on the stage of society; no one is indebted or beholden to anyone else. The holism of Rousseau’s “natural education” sought to transform this fundamental disconnect, to create a harmonious society based on mutual support and…love. But his vision remains unaccomplished to this day. Is this to say we should give up? I argue that to give up is not within the human character. Who are we to be so pessimistic when so many before us strived generation after generation if for no other reason than to keep the idea in our heads? The setbacks we face today in trying to establish a just, equitable and democratic education system are merely that, setbacks. Considering the world we will leave for our children should be more than enough motivation to keep fighting.”
