James R. Muir - The Evolution of Philosophy of Education Within Educational Studies (1996)

The evolution

of

philosophy

of

educationwithin educational studies

J.R.

Muir

University of OxfordA number of educationists have recently advocated a broadened conception ofphilosophy of education, which incorporates the history of educational ideas.As a component of this wider discussion, the history of educationalphilosophy within educational studies has become the subject of study andevaluation. One potentially fruitful debate has been between Kevin Harris andJames Kaminsky. Kaminsky argues that:

. .

the discipline

of

educational philosophy has

a

definite beginning date:Sunday, February

24,

1935, when

a

group

of

school superintendents

and

academics met in Atlantic

City

and established the

John

Dewey Society.(Kaminsky 1992,

p.

179)

Yet Harris points out that by defining educational philosophy in terms offormal societies devoted to it, Kaminsky fails to account for thinkers, fromPlato to Rousseau, who engaged in educational philosophy without theformality of, say, the Plato Society (Harris

1988,

p.

51).

As this disagreementsuggests, a better appreciation of the origins and evolution of the philosophyofeducation within educational studies is needed.Although Kaminsky and Harris adopt opposed opinions concerning thehistory of philosophy of education, they share a more fundamental and unself-conscious opinion. Both regard Kaminsky’s history of educational philosophyas

a

radically new one. Yet Kaminsky has merely reiterated presuppositionswhich have been dominant within educational studies for at least

thirty

years.

1

2

J.R.

Muir

J.W. Tibble, for example, writing in 1966, expressed what had been, and is, auniversally, if often tacitly, held opinion among educationists:

The

study

of

education has developed

piecemeal

from its first beginningstowards

the

end

of

the nineteenth century.

(Tibble

1966,

pp.

vii-viii.

Cf.

Kaminsky 1986; Kaminsky

1992)

This astonishingly narrow-and quite unsubstantiated-view was to becomestill more parochial by 1971 when Tibble wrote that

‘

he study of education

is

of very recent origin’, becoming fully developed ‘only within the last decade[1960-19701’ (Tibble 1971).

As

Tibble acknowledges, and as Kaminskyreiterates, the impetus for this study

of

education was not the pursuit of thetruth, or even of a wider perspective, but the pursuit of ‘relevance’ within thepolitical imperatives

of

the current educational institutions (Tibble 1966, p. ix;Kaminsky 1992,

p.

180). One of the consequences of this profoundly narrowand parochial view of philosophy and the study of education has been adevastating loss of historical and philosophical learning, as has been observedfor some time (Wilson

&

Cowell 1989,

pp.

44,

52. Cf. Commission on theHumanities 1980,

pp.

52-53; Darling 1993,

pp.

36-38; Proctor 1988,

p.

xv).

Ifphilosophy of education within educational studies is to have a worthwhilefuture, then a more self-conscious appreciation of the increasing narrownessand loss of learning that define the evolution of the discipline

in

this centurywill be necessary.

The

intention

of

this paper is

to

provide neither anexhaustive nor a definitive discussion of this most difficult problem.

On

thecontrary, it is intended only to show that widespread presuppositions aboutthe evolution of educational philosophy are dubious, and to provide

a

point ofdeparture for debates within educational studies which are now long overdue.

An

llustration:

Isocrates

Classicists have described Isocrates as ‘the educator of Europe’ (Newman1975,

p.

358), and ‘one of the greatest educationalists of history’ (Knowles1962,

p.

60). Medievalist David Knowles has shown thatGreat and permanent, even in this field, as was the influence

of

the

two

philosophers [Plato and Aristotle], the victory and the future

lay

withIsocra tes.

(Knowles

1962,

p.

61)

The

evolution

of

philosophy

of

education within educational studies

3

While classicist historians of education such as Hubbell, Burk, Jaeger, Marrou,Finley and others disagree about the philosophical profundity of Isocrates,particularly in comparison with Plato, all agree that Isocrates was by far themore influential

in

the history of educational thought (Hubbell

1914;

Burk

1923,

pp.

199-224;

Jaeger

1947,

Vol.

3,

p.

46;

Marrou

1948,1984;

Finley

1975.

Cf.Beck

1964;

Scolnicov

1988,

pp.

11-12).

As

the distinguished classicist andhistorian

of

education, Henri-Irenee Marrou argued,

as

early as

1948:

The importance of this fact must be emphasized from the beginning. On thelevel of history Plato had been defeated: he had failed to impose hiseducational ideal on posterity. It was Isocrates who defeated him, and whobecame the educator first of Greece, and subsequently of the whole of theancient world.(Marrou 1948,

p.

292. Cf. p. 128)

This is not to suggest that Isocrates is of merely antiquarian interest.Contemporary practical problems in schooling such as class inequality, genderinequality and the specialisation (or 'vocationalisation')

of

schooling havebeen traced

directly

to the continuing influence of Isocrates (e.g. Finley

1975).

The continuity of the dominant influence of Isocrates in Western educationalthought, from classical Greece until the present day, was once again reiteratedby Marrou,

in

an

essay published

in

1984:

Isocrates' ideas and the system of education which put them into practicereigned virtually unchallenged in Western Europe almost to our owngeneration.(Marrou 1984, p.

200.

Cf. Kimballl986,

p.

11;

Power 1962, p. 102)

Finally, the conclusions of the past four generations of classicist research intothe history

of

education, as summarised by Moses Hadas, give an indication ofthe pervasive and well-established influence of Isocrates.

It was the program

of

Isocrates which has shaped European education to

this

day, which has kept humanism alive, and which has given Westerncivilization such unity as it possesses.(Hadas 1969, p. 129. Cf. Laistner 1957,

p.

447)

Yet in spite of ample historical evidence, and the classical scholarship of thepast four generations, educationists remain unaware that Isocrates everexisted. Standard reference works

in

the history of education and educationalideas, such as Rusk's

The

Doctrines

of

the

Great

Educators,

Curtis and