On the Education of Children - Literature review Example

 This essay considers the educational theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Michel de Montaigne as embodied in their seminal treatises on education, titled respectively Emile: Or, On Education and On the Education of Children. Through an examination of the writers’ theories of education, and a meditation on the thematic understanding of authority within these seminal works, a greater understanding of the historical and progressive trajectory of education is achieved. Theories of Education The educational theories espoused by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Michel de Montaigne demonstrate striking similarities, and the indelible influence of Montaigne in Rousseau’s work in undeniable. Indeed, in the introduction to Montaigne’s On the Education of Children, William Harris includes a chart that illustrates striking similarities in both the philosophical and literary stylings of the theorists. Both writers seek to shift the traditional assumptions of the education process away from merely treating the student as an open receptacle to whose head knowledge of facts and figures is dutifully filled. Instead, they embrace a progressive concept of education that would later be echoed in the transcendental theories of Emerson and Thoreau, and the self-exploratory theories of Maria Montessori. Rousseau and Montaigne contend that the focus of education must be placed not on the rote memorization of knowledge, but on the acknowledgement that true wisdom is gained in the understanding of the processes of learning. Even as the underlining message of both writers concerning the need of shifting the emphasis of education away from socially constructed knowledge, towards the grasping of the intuitive processes of its attainment is the same, they differ in the extremity of their characterizations. While Montaigne acknowledges the necessity of questioning particular elements of society, he ultimately embraces it for its essential role in personal development. Conversely, Rousseau understands socially constructed knowledge to be inherently unsound and encourages the systematic and perhaps revolutionary questioning of its foundational concepts. In The Social Contract, another influential work, he even goes as far as chastising society because "the social pact gives the body politic absolute power over all its members (Rousseau 70)”. Whereas for Montaige, Harrison writes, “Humanity is too complex to reach the millennium through any single revolution, whether it be in religion, politics, or education. Montaigne saw this vaguely, yet more clearly than did Rousseau two hundred years later (Harrison 10).” Authority in Emile As Rousseau’s central preoccupation is with the natural education of man it follows that his view of authority is equally progressive. To Rousseau the worst part of formal education is the abjection apparent in social engagement. Indeed, central to Rousseau’s theory of education is the transcendence of nature in regards to human intellectual and emotional development. That is, the ultimate goal of education is for the human being to realize that the essential worldly truths exist in large part separated from the formal structure that is embodied in the institution and the formal education process, “Everything is good as it leaves the hands of the Author of things; everything degenerates in the hands of man (Rousseau p. 37)”. While this takes on many forms, throughout Emile: Or, On Education, one particular incarnation of the deleterious effects of social education concerns the teachers or authority figures with whom the student is engaged. Even as Rousseau recognizes the pernicious effects society can have on the student, he contends throughout Emile that it is possible to have the best of both worlds: that is, with careful attention to the process of education, the authority figure can successfully engage the student in ways that promotes their ultimate well-being by continuing to shield them from the corrupting forces of society. While Rousseau naturally displays a thematic distrust of the traditional authority figure in that in great part is the extension and physical embodiment of these corrupting social forces, he paradoxically acknowledges that in for the pupil to achieve this ‘naturalized’ form of education within the formal bounds of society, it requires the steadfast guidance of a teacher to guide them away from the social debasing impulses such as greed, lust, envy, manipulation, and deceitfulness. It is not possible for the student to achieve this natural education naturally, within the bounds of society, without the authority figure. While Rousseau acknowledges the essential role of the authority figure in the child’s emotional development, the role Rousseau envisions is not directly transferable to the normal student – teacher dichotomy. If anything, the traditional incarnation of the student as compliant pupil, open receptacle of knowledge, accepting of all direction and teacherly guidance, is the complete antithesis of what Rousseau has envisioned. It is exactly this mediated and structured form of knowledge and instruction that Rousseau believes is inherently corrupt. Instead, Rousseau believes that the teacher must instruct the student not as this open receptacle of knowledge and social mannerisms, but in how to access the forms of transcendent knowledge that underline the natural world (When one consider the later day American developments of Emerson and Thoreau in regards to the self-reliance of the will and intuitive engagement with this transcendent reality and truth, it’s easy to detect the strong influence of Rousseau’s theory of naturalized education). This does not mean however that all remnants of traditional authority are disregarded for the child’s development. Indeed, Rousseau acknowledges the necessity of the authority figure to take active control of when the child is exposed to specific concepts. For instance, he argues that Emile shouldn’t be exposed to the concept of religion until he is a teenager, as being instructed in it earlier would only result in the pupil acting as an uncritical receptacle of social authority, “it is a lesser evil to be unaware of the divinity than to offend it (Rousseau pg. 259). The exact extent to which Rousseau exalts the authority of this primitive or natural world is a matter of debate among theorists of progressive education. While some interpret Rousseau in a strictly literal sense and content that the authority figure must guide the pupil towards a completely pure acceptance of unmediated truth and reality, others embrace Rousseau’s philosophical insights into the nature of instruction for shifting emphasis of the authority figure away from teacher the socially constructed nature of authority and power, to instead showing or directing the pupil towards a deeper understanding of the ways or processes of knowledge. In this regard, the ultimate understanding the student can attain is the rejection of the traditional authority figure, for the innate and intuitive process of naturalized knowledge and self-reliance. Authority in Montaigne Much like the work of Rousseau, Montaigne’s theory of education set out to restructure traditional characterizations and implementations of educational authority. While the work of both theorists shares many similarities, indeed most theorists recognize in Rousseau the significant influence of Montaigne, it seems that ultimately Rousseau is more willing to embrace the transcendent qualities of natural knowledge, whereas Montaigne remains committed to the social project and working within its socially confined bounds to achieve personal and intellectual development. In this regard, Rousseau’s theories can be said to have a more radical and progressive edge, while Montaigne, although no less revolutionary and influential, is less willing to abandon the institution of culture and tradition. In regards to authority, the two writers similarly characterize the role of the teacher not as a sage lecturing and filling the pupil’s head with knowledge of facts and figures, but as a guide through the intellectual and emotional development process. Rather than simply instructing the child in concepts that they cannot truly comprehend, the role of the authority figure in the child’s life should, "through its paces, making it taste things, choose them, and discern them by itself (Montaigne 110).” Montaigne fully embraces the socially constructed institutions of logic, mathematics, science, and the humanities, and recognizes that the most effective authority will have a master command of these institutions and possess the talent to instruct the pupil in their explication. In this regard, Montaigne recognizes that specific and basic functions of education, such as direct instruction and tutorials in these challenging social institutions cannot be abandoned, and the authority figure must continue to teach in the traditional sense. However, Montaigne contends that the authority figure should be not function as a stringent disciplinarian in the classic way, but as a newly envisioned moral authority. The tutor should not only embody the necessary civic virtues, but be successful in "instructing him (the pupil) in the good precepts concerning valor, prowess, magnanimity, and temperance, and the security of fearing nothing (Montaigne 120)". Montaigne is progressive in that he believes the role of the authority figure should function as in showing the student the way to discover knowledge, rather than to merely convey the knowledge itself. Montaigne is very broad in his characterization of knowledge and says that for the authority figure, “The goal of this instilling of virtues is to create an adult, ‘guided only by reason,’ who is as capable of making wise decisions as well as being educated (Montaigne 114).” In this sense, Montaigne is destructuring classical formulations of education by insisting on the conveyance of processes and forms instead of facts and figures. While the authority figure in Rousseau functions to shield the child from the inherently deleterious effects of social knowledge, Montaigne’s authority figure must responsibly instruct the people in the benefits of social engagement and how to live a life of civic virtue. In this regard, it seems that Montaigne is acknowledging the necessity of social intellectual engagement, yet retaining the objective perspective that there are wrong and immoral ways to become socially engaged. Indeed, Montaigne acknowledges that the last stage of the pupil’s educational development should contain an informal process wherein they understand the means by which advancements in understanding and knowledge are achieved through collaboration. In his Essays Montaigne points out that "...our mind finds just as wide a field for controverting other men's meanings as for delivering its own (Montaigne 344).” In On Education, Montaigne writes the successful edification of the pupil is advanced by interacting their, “brains with the contact with those of others (Montaigne 112).” It’s only through this interaction that the student will learn civic virtue and attain social enlightenment, and it’s the responsibility of the authority figure to guide the student towards the correct processes and forms of achieving this result. The final lesson of the student then is not to disregard authority entirely for personal agency, but instead to understand how to “put everything to use” by pragmatically incorporating the ideas and knowledge of others into their personal understanding of the world (Montaigne 114).” These formulations differ from Rousseau’s later characterizations of similar concepts, as Rousseau understands society to be necessarily corrupt, and that the intellectual knowledge engendered by its institutional hierarchies needs to be circumvented and continually doubted on a foundational level. In conclusion, the writers differ in the extremity to which they believe traditional education should changed. While Montaigne remains committed to social progress and the viability of the institution as a means of intellectual and emotional development, Rousseau adopts a more radical approach that attempts to re-imagine the entire structure of social knowledge. Ultimately, their combined emphasis on the importance of educational processes over facts and figures is what needs to be understood and implemented by teachers, even in contemporary society. Works Cited Montainge, Michel De. Essays. New York. Penguin Books, 1958. Montaigne, Michel, ed. Harrison, William. On the Education of Children. Michigian: University of Michigan, 1897. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Emile, or On Education, trans. with an introd. by Allan Bloom, New York: Basic Books, 1979. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Trans. Maurice Cranston. New York: Penguin Books, 1968. Read More