Educational Philosophy: Existentialism, Utopianism, Totalitarianism, and Deweyism
6/29/08
It often appears that Existentialism is a rather negative view of things: anguish of being, anguish of freedom, and anguish of the here and now. However, one should not see Existentialism as a religion or a “world-view”, but rather as a purposeful rejection of the constraints of categorization. One can feel disturbed, if not afraid, of the view that there really is no boundary or pattern in life from which one could derive comfort. However, Existentialism is also a view of the universe that stresses freedom, rejection of often inhibitory social structures and norms, and lastly empowers people with the right or even more so the responsibility to enhance their own human subjective self.
There is a current or an inertia toward associating with those people, objects or ideas we find familiar. This probably is an evolutionary artifact or vestige, and unbeknownst to us still remains a useful first-order rule. This tendency is the cause for many of the “-isms” that exist today, since all people tend to congregate with similar people. Despite what we say, we often yearn to be pigeon-holed and categorized. However, as people mature and become more self-sufficient they often acknowledge the self-actualization (Maslow’s term) that is possible through destroying self-limiting constraints. In this sense, there is little doubt that Existentialism’s focus on avoiding the “tyranny of the average”.
Personally, I found that I am more Existentialist than I ever thought and the concept of free will is central to my entire belief system! As a note of general reflection, perhaps each philosophy is best focused on during various points of development. E.g., clearly Existentialism isn’t the most appropriate view for a child of less than say six years old, as during these ages children are firmly Realist, with a dash of Idealism. (There isn’t enough room to expand on this idea here.)
Educationally, the central ideas of Existentialism, that of freedom, are important in carefully prescribed doses. The open classroom can work only when the children are able to tolerate the “anxiety of freedom”. It is merely the teacher’s skills that counterbalances the children’s deficit in self-control (i.e., better teachers can probably handle more open classrooms). To this end, schools should be centered around the open classroom only when it is found that the particular teacher can handle that specific situation.
The most dangerous possible outgrowth of an Existentialist learning environment is that of a dogmatic existentialist. All good teachers bring students from learning the facts and rules, to learning of opinions and exceptions, and if those people are in a group setting (which of course is a highly contradictory outcome of a completely self-based view such as Existentialism), there is the risk that the teacher will gradually tend toward getting the groups to arrive at a nice-and-neat conclusion. Any individual based philosophy must allow the individual the full freedom to “fail”, or at least to arrive at unusual conclusions.
"Take away paradox from the thinker and you have a professor." -- Søren Kierkegaard
I would like to specifically address one aspect of Utopianism, Marxism and Totalitarianism.
The primary thread that I notice is that all three of these “isms” is that they are generally dead in a global sense. (There are certainly some relatively minor exceptions.) However, there is still importance in studying these philosophies, for three major reasons: (1) There are aspects to these beliefs that are ideals that we should strive for, or at least recognize, (2) in a classroom a teacher could attempt to create these types of environments (3) these philosophies may not be dead, but merely asleep.
Each of the three philosophies contains ideals for which we in the US should strive. In Utopianism, there are ideals relating to gender equality under law, universal respect and general peace that would serve us well. Marxists share the ideals of equality of sex, class and occupation.
Although it is harder to find desirable ideals in a Totalitarian regime, in some cases it may be a preferred government to other forms, such as anarchy. While it is a stretch, Hitler did unite Germany, and perhaps he could have done so without using the Jews as a scapegoat for her ills. There is some value in unification and developing a national identify of strength. There are some places in the world that are suffering from an incredibly weak and corrupt government that perhaps would benefit from some sort of benevolent dictator or monarchy.
In a classroom, a teacher has carte blanche to create the type of classroom that he or she wants. This creates some anguish of freedom, but also allows the enlightened teacher to create the best learning environment for the students. In relation to the three philosophies in this paper, I submit that each has a particular setting in which it is most appropriate. The Utopian concepts would work best if one had very motivated students, perhaps in the higher grades. The Marxist concepts would probably fare best when students were intrinsically motivated. The totalitarian approach would mesh best with problem or younger students that are not yet able to be trusted to stay focused for long periods of time.
As I stated above, it is somewhat foolhardy to assume that these philosophies are dead in any way. Utopianism, which enjoyed its heyday in the early 19th century, is even more possible today as the role of technology grows and the typical workweek has dropped dramatically since Owen’s Utopian communities. Marxism, declared deceased in the late 1980’s with the fall of Communism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, still remains a viable type of government. Witness Venezuela. Perhaps we haven’t heard the last from Karl Marx!
Totalitarianism certainly peaked in the 1930’s and 1940’s, but actually there are still a dozen regimes (many in Africa) that are essentially totalitarian. While I generally abhor the moral relativism that pervades college campuses and other places insulated from the “real world”, I find that our best defense against these types of beliefs is to understand them and their impact on those people that have experienced them.
In contrast to the philosophies discussed above, John Dewey was an educational philosopher. His precise use of language, his strict and exact defining of terms, his lack of scientific analyses, and his sheer verbosity put him strictly in the “philosopher” category.
Many of Dewey’s ideas and beliefs trace back to the Pragmatism of Edmund Burke, an English philosopher in the late 18th century. Both Dewey and Burke stress resistance to the temptation of the classification of ideas into one end of the spectrum. Dewey calls this the Either-Or philosophy, while classical logic calls it the “Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.” Dewey and Burke attempt to moderate the progression of thoughts and beliefs by analyzing not just the evils of the traditional (Dewey focusing on schools; Burke focusing on the French revolution), but also the graces thereof. In this manner, Dewey takes a few hundred pages to warn readers not to throw the baby out with the bath water. (Maybe philosophers get paid by the page?)
The Either-Or philosophy that dominates the first part of the book requires comment. Clearly, Dewey is warning us against taking too radical an approach to education. It is interesting to note that this point is made by one of the key founders of Progressive Education. Most curricular decisions in modern education are not based on pragmatism or scientific research, but rather on “high-level” decisions accepted without comment. In this manner, I believe that many of Dewey’s warnings are going unheeded.
On a more ideological note, I find it interesting that Dewey’s main points, that of the Principle of Learning through Personal Experience, and that of incrementalism as discussed above, are essentially two of the very bases of conservatism. Those two thrusts are merely restatements of the same idea, but then again philosophers get paid by the page. These beliefs tend to confirm or at least imply the superiority of conservatism to the impulsive and whimsical approach to teaching strategies, administrative organizations and choices of curricula. In schools today the value of the collective wisdom of the ages is being ignored. Overall, it is interesting to juxtapose this general ideology with the heterodoxy of most of the educational industry, teachers and administrators, are typically ideologically liberal in the newer sense of the word.
Dewey’s view of the traditional school as being “autocratic, anti-democracy and harsh” also requires comment. In a sense it can be conceded that schools in general are autocratic, if not dictatorial, since by definition it is the teacher that is entrusted in teaching, if not leading, the students through carefully chosen experiences. It would be silly to have it any other way.
Since Dewey uses the term “autocratic” to describe the classroom, I assume that his use of the term “anti-democratic” would not be merely redundant, but would reflect on the belief that traditional schools hinder the success of democracy in the country, or the world. Much of his writing are from the 1930s, during a major popularity of Socialist views among the faculty in American colleges and universities. Here Dewey is flatly wrong. I have as little evidence to support my argument as Dewey has for his. I fail to see the connection between traditional learning environments and views opposed to democracy.
The harshness that Dewey saw in his views of traditional schools certainly are no longer a major problem, as now the laws on corporal punishment extend far beyond even physical contact. The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.