I have been reviewing educational philosophies of the past and have come to the conclusion that they have evolved in much the same manners in which the dominant societies of the times have. This should not be such a surprise, as education and leadership have tended to go hand-in-hand throughout history.
What is interesting is that these societies also undergo thematic shifts throughout historical periods: generally from a “gemeinschaft”, communal focus to a more recent “gesellschaft”, capitalistic/individualistic focus. This is of course the economy at work. What is interesting is that this trend appears to have brought us full circle.
And in this tumult, education gets dragged along too.
Hellenistic and Roman societies emphasized the role of an educated individual as a “model citizen”, destined and groomed to serve the State. This model’s ideal is Plato’s Philosopher King. As the proper purpose of the State in this context is to teach and govern the people with virtue (“Virtu”?), helping the state ultimately helps everyone. It would be a few more centuries until Machiavelli tore this idea to shreds.
The fall of Rome took with it much of the accumulated knowledge, which became the provenance of the Church. It is thus little surprise that the next educational model to emerge was one heavily steeped in Christian doctrine: emphasis was placed less on rigorous understanding as it was on morality, religious study, and interpretation of classical works and traditions. In essence, the purpose of education was to become “sacred” and promote the glory of God on earth. The ostensible Ideal of this era was Aristotle (whose errors and insights alike became incredibly canonical); as actually practiced, however, it was probably Ptolemy. While this model may have been beneficial at the individual level, it drew attention away from reality into a metaphysical realm, and thus caused progress in this earthly realm to stagnate for several centuries – the Early Middle Ages, also called the “Dark Ages”.
With the High Middle Ages came a shift in culture and the beginnings of the university model in Western culture. The philosophy in this era was one of syncretism and reconciliation: the union of doctrine with scientific, reasoned thought (again with an unfortunate over-reliance on the classics). The champion of this era was undoubtedly St. Thomas Aquinas. By wrenching the focus back to solving problems in the real world, society began to again limber onward. This age more than any demonstrated that religion and science can indeed coexist if neither intrude into the domain of the other.
The Renaissance, Reformation, and Scientific Revolution were proto-“Modernist” reactions against ingrained tradition and blind doctrine, and it was here that the individual as an individual began to shine. Most would choose Calvin as an exemplar, but his ideas fell more squarely into the preceding century; I would argue that Pico della Mirandola gave these eras dignity and Descartes gave them rigor.
The result of this was astounding, and has reverberated to this day. Many of the foundations for calculus, chemistry, physics, biology, art, music, and literature were set in these time periods. And why not, when the central theme is the ability of the individual, armed with the power of reason, to overcome any obstacle? In my mind, it was the first era in which it was acceptable for human beings to live as human beings should: rationally, passionately, transcendently (yet grounded in reality), and confidently, and it is to this period that I begin to look with great interest.
The Enlightenment abruptly took the focus back to the State. The new ideas and ideals applied so successfully to the natural world during the preceding era were now being tested in government. The role of education in such a society was again to train a model citizen, ultimately to become involved once again in the governmental process (noticing an association between democratic governments and a civic-focused, “participatory” system of education?), but now in the sense of dictating how he wished to be governed! Paine and Locke wrote extensively on these ideals, but it was Thomas Jefferson who actually lived them: “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”
As in Rome, such a nationalistic philosophy was bound to end in violence. And so it did, this time in the form of popular revolts. But people arguably had more freedom to determine their own destinies when the heads had finally stopped rolling. As in Rome, such a nationalistic philosophy was bound to end in violence. And so it did, this time in the form of popular revolts. But people arguably had more freedom to determine their own destinies when the heads had finally stopped rolling. And from the tumult, “new nations conceived in liberty” were created.
It is at the industrial revolution and with the advent of Modernity that progress in education reaches its present form (albeit one now universally mandated). The state-centric motivation remains, but the driver behind education now becomes economic rather than political in origin. It is here that the great systematization of education begins, with students treated in much the same rigorous, rule-based, inflexible manner as a product on an assembly line. The key philosophy is one that remains painfully obvious to this day: the purpose of an education is now to be useful to the workforce and thus to society: to Get a Job and Make Money.
Coupled with a system of organic solidarity, this system works reasonably well, but it represents a regression in philosophy from one in which the individual is valued as an individual to one in which one’s worth is solely determined by one’s usefulness.
Here the history ends and my argument begins: for the majority of the population, these “canned” methods work, just as the majority of components on an assembly line will fit perfectly into a functional yet clonal final product.
Nevertheless, as with any method that caters to a mean, the outliers are left by the wayside.
What is missing here is individualism, and with it, a license to be creative or different. More precisely, what is missing at this crucial point in time is something that has never been systematized: a synergy between the individual and the social.
And to finally bring this to a pitch (since I wouldn’t have such an interest if I didn’t have an idea for a better model…): this is what we are trying to do with Project Polymath: place the focus of education on becoming a more creative, more skilled individual for its own sake, yet show these individuals how they can make a difference in the world using not just what we are teaching them, but everything they are and everything we hope they will become.
The responsibility of education must ultimately lie with the student, for the student. There is more latent potential today than at any time in human history, for individuals to put towards realization of their own creative visions for themselves and for society: one aids the other.
For them and for us, now is the time that this potential must be realized.
