Hirst’s 1965 paper on liberal education is, with no exaggeration, one of the most important and influential arguments about education made in the post-WWII era. Even if we don’t talk about Hirst today his argument underlies much of our recent thinking on the nature and scope of education, especially at the post-secondary level. And even those who don’t agree with Hirst acknowledge his contribution to educational discourse (you can survey some of the influence by looking at the papers that cite his in Google Scholar.) I was required to read Hirst in my first teacher education class as an undergraduate back in 2001. I point this out for two reasons: one, his paper is still seen as a worthwhile classic in our 21st century but also because if you think Hirst is hard reading for well-educated graduate students, imagine trying to read it when you’re a naive 22 year-old undergrad 🙂

Hirst’s main point was to try and show that a broad education was valuable, not because it promoted general critical thinking skills or communication skills or other competencies, but because it initiated the learner into forms of knowledge. (Note here how debates about education resurface in different ways at different times – everyone seems to be talking about competencies these days – are they worthwhile or do they involve the de-skilling of the learner, for example?).

The idea of forms of knowledge should be familiar to you from our introductory reading. As a reminder, forms of knowledge are the ways that humanity, over time, has tried to understand the world around them. For example, Math represents our attempt as a species to understand quantity and pattern. Philosophy is our attempt to understand what it means to live a good life. History is an attempt to understand the past, and what it means to HAVE a past. Art is an attempt to understand what beauty is…and so on. For defenders of the forms of knowledge approach, education should be about ensuring that students have an opportunity to share equally in that “human heritage” to which everyone has a stake in (see Michael Oakeshott for more on this idea).

There’s much more to Hirst’s argument. But suffice to say, his work ended up having a lot of influence on various branches of educational policy and practice, especially in the UK. (Unlike, say, in North America where John Dewey had more of an influence).

As you might have expected (and as you can see this kind of pattern repeat itself in our course) there ended up being something of a counter-argument that sought to push back on Hirst and those who shared his view. We’re taking about the late 1960’s and 70’s. Counter-culture is gaining influence. A major student movement was taking place. Educational progressivism experienced renewed popularity. In educational research this manifested itself in the so-called “new sociology of education”. These sociologists argued that schools were designed to reproduce social class and that “knowledge” is in actual fact a means by which the State could impose the dominant beliefs and assumptions of an elite on the poor and oppressed. (Those of you who are fans of Michael Apple or Henry Giroux or Peters Mclaren might be familiar with this educational tradition).

Madan Sarup’s paper was one of the harshest rebukes of Hirst’s account of liberal education. (We can decide together  if his critique is actually a solid one). For Sarup, the very idea of ‘forms of knowledge’ assumes a universe of ‘knowers’ and ‘not-knowers’, ‘experts’ and ‘non-experts’. This approach is an ideology that divides society into the powerful and the powerless.

While both readings are challenging, they are an interesting study in contrasts. They show just how different (and interestingly) different disciplines and traditions take up the topic of education is discourse.

Spend some time trying to see to what extent you can grasp Hirst’s argument. To help get the ball rolling, I’ve added some ‘content’ questions below in order to see if we can, as a class. develop a shared understanding of what his paper is actually saying. Then, eventually, we will move onto Sarup.

Is “therapy” an aim of education? In some ways that answer turns on the question of what we mean by “therapy” in education. Certainly, in recent years there has been a turn toward what some researchers call “non-cognitive virtues” such as self-esteem, grit and “pro-social behavior”. But there seems to be more to it than this. On the one hand, it seems clear that learners require some basic mental function and wellbeing in order to learn. Just as one requires food in order to be able to participate in sports, one needs a healthy mental state in order to expand one’s knowledge and understanding. But we would not say that food is the point of sports. Food is a means to engaging in sport. (I put hot-dog eating contests to the side, for now 🙂 It’s also the case that caring for the ‘self’ has long been a part of the Western tradition of education (see Mintz, 2009).

But the so-called “therapy” approach to education appears to take this a step further. On this view, the development and cultivation of positive mental functioning is not only means to education or a healthy practice, rather, it is the point and purpose of schooling. There is a sense in which this view has gone mainstream. Talk of positive psychology, social-emotional learning, wellbeing and pro-social interaction has had a greater and greater presence. Ecclestone’s paper, which serves as an introduction to our first debate, asks if this talk doesn’t eclipse a more fundamental task of education – to expand the knowledge and understanding of the learner. Is this something to be concerned about, or is the rise of therapy simply an evolution in our understanding of education? If education really is about therapy, what ought this mean for schools or universities?

Optional further reading in this debate:

MINTZ, A. (2009), Has Therapy Intruded into Education?. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43: 633–647. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2009.00720.x

House, R., & Loewenthal, D. (2012). The Rise of Therapeutic Education: Beneficent, Uncertain, or Dangerous?. Self & Society, 39(3), 6-18.

Wright, K. (2008). Theorizing therapeutic culture Past influences, future directions. Journal of Sociology, 44(4), 321-336.

If you have specific questions about the assignments, please post them here (AFTER YOU HAVE READ THE COURSE OUTLINE) and I’ll address them here so that other students will be “in the know”.

Chris

When a person claims they are educating, or addressing an educational problem, or have an interest in ‘education’, what exactly are they talking about? How (or is) ‘education’ distinctive different from, say, socialization a person or reforming them? As a domain of professional practice how (or is) education different from what social workers or physicians or police officers are concerned with? Are claims about education (what it is; what is should be; how to best go about it) different from claims about schooling?

(Reading: What are the Aims and Values of Education?, Gereluk et al, 2016).