PAULI SILJANDER

6. EDUCABILITY AND BILDUNGBILDUNGBILDUNG IN HERBART’S THEORY OF EDUCATION

In the tradition of pedagogical discussion, Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776- 1841) is usually given the title of the founder of educational science or scientific pedagogy. This is because Herbart attended in a more systematic manner than his predecessors to the difference between education as a practical act and as theory relating to education, and because the central part of his very extensive written work examines questions of educational theory and philosophical principles of education and pedagogy. The movement later well known as Herbartianism and which also spread widely to the USA in the late 19th century has – particularly outside , its country of origin – left later generations with two general ideas relating to Herbart. Firstly, Herbart is seen as a theorist and innovator of school education who developed a systematic structural model of teaching, a so-called theory of formal steps of instruction that can be applied in the training of teachers and in practical teaching work in school classrooms. Secondly, Herbartian pedagogy has been interpreted as a normative theory that derives goals of education from a basis of normative or , and methods or means from a basis of . In that manner, educational science as a science stands upon so- called foundation sciences, namely philosophy and psychology. Although the effects of Herbartianism in the late 1800s and early 1900s were far-reaching and its success as a pedagogical theory has been exceptionally significant, Herbartianism has at times caused quite negative reverberations. In applications of Herbart’s pedagogy, particularly applications of so-called Herbart-Zillerism, educators mainly read that part of Herbart’s work which seemed more easily applicable to practical work in schools and as concrete guidance for teaching arrangements. This meant that the notion of a ‘right way of teaching’, a method by which work in schools must be organised, gradually became the dominant characteristic of Herbartian pedagogy. Over time, from formal steps of instruction, a rigid model of teaching was formed that did not leave room for spontaneity, creativity, and contextual factors in a teaching situation. For that reason, Herbartianism prepared the ground for pedagogical reform movements and so-called progressive pedagogy whose central pedagogical ideas appeared more innovative and questioned ‘old school’ practices. Among others, John Dewey, in his works Democracy and Education (1916) and The School and Society (1915), sharply criticised Herbart and the practices and educational principles of the ‘old school’. While bases for both conceptions can be found in Herbart’s own text, they nonetheless principally describe the history of Herbart’s reception; in other words, they describe Herbartianism more than they do Herbart himself. From a perspective of the theme of this study, it is also worth noting that Herbart is not generally considered a theorist of Bildung. Although the significance of Herbart is undisputed as an early developer of pedagogical theory and

Siljander, P., Kivelä, A. & Sutinen, A. (Eds.), Theories of Bildung and Growth, 87–105. © 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved. SILJANDER educational science, he has been seen more as an educational theorist than as a theorist of Bildung; that is, if we retain a traditional separation of the concepts of education (Erziehung) and Bildung. This is also apparent in the articles contained in this book: from a perspective of the concept and understanding of Bildung, the more central theorists are instead Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803), Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805), (1767-1804), J.G.Fichte (1762-1814),Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835), and, later, the representatives of the German so-called Geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik (in English ‘humanist pedagogy’), among others. For Herbart’s part, the issue is about ‘ways of reading’: although a history of Herbart’s influence does not justify comparing him to the above as a theorist of Bildung, his pedagogy can be read however as both a theory of education and a theory of Bildung. This article examines how aspects of the theory of education and Bildung relate to each other in Herbart’s pedagogical thinking. In particular, this relates to questions regarding a person’s educability and regarding pedagogical influence occurring through education.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT: A CRITIQUE OF IDEALISM

The background for Herbart’s pedagogical and self-formation-philosophical thinking was formed by the principles of the European enlightenment and in the late 1700s. From 1794 to 1795, Herbart studied philosophy at the under the direction of . Fichte directed his student to the central debate of German Idealism, whose major names at the time were Kant and Schelling, in addition to Fichte himself. Initially, Herbart was an enthusiastic supporter of Fichte’s philosophy, but he soon distanced himself from his teacher and was later a sharp critic of Fichte’s and Kant’s transcendental philosophy (see Kühne, 1976; Buck, 1985, Benner, 1993). 37 Herbart’s interest focused at an early stage on a theoretical problem relating to education; namely, ‘How is education possible?’ Behind this interest was a change in the manner of philosophical and education-related argumentation, a change brought about by Kant’s philosophy and theory of . Langewande notes that questions typical of the education-theoretical discussion of the time included, ‘What is the purpose of good education?’, ‘How can it be achieved?’ and, ‘Is there an optimal educational method?’ (Langewand, 1994, p. 2575). A turn occurred from Kant’s philosophical influence to a more fundamental approach in which a search was conducted for a theoretical foundation for education. The basic of that approach followed the idea that ‘a theory of x’ is really an answer to the question ‘how is x possible?’ Therefore, in philosophical argumentation, it was essential to ask, ‘How is knowledge possible?’ and, ‘How is education possible?’ (ibid., p. 2576). From these points of departure, Herbart’s interest focused on the question, ‘Can Kant’s and Fichte’s transcendental philosophy offer a basis for pedagogical action and a theoretical justification for education?’ The central theme that inspired Herbart’s pedagogical thinking was a problem between freedom and the causal determinism of nature, a conflict of sorts between

88