Conference Agenda

The discourse on Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s theory of language has, hitherto, focused mostly on his Discourse on Inequality and the Essay on the Origin of Languages which treats of Melody and Musical Imitation. However, in his Emile, Rousseau presents significant and interesting postulations and insights regarding language, language learning and language teaching, which merit attention and analysis. The paper aims, first and foremost, to point out, explore and interpret some of these notions as they feature toward the end of Book I: (1) a universal natural language which develops as the child matures; (2) “private” words invented by children; (3) the challenge that children are faced with in their comprehension of exceptions to general rules of the mother tongue; (4) recommended methods of teaching the mother tongue. To the best of my knowledge, these themes in Emile have not been sufficiently explored, and highlighting them will hopefully contribute to the scholarship on Emile and on Rousseau’s philosophy at large.

Secondly, the discussion aims to show how Rousseau’s ideas relate to seventeenth-and eighteenth- century discourse on language education in two ways: (1) by demonstrating that Rousseau advocates the encouragement of language acquisition rather than of language imposition. This issue is important because, as Calder (2003) points out, “Eighteenth-century discourse on education is determined by two distinct currents of thought concerning methods of teaching language to a child: the imposition of language upon the child, and the more gentle practice of allowing the child to acquire language by encouraging his own initiative” (p.123); (2) by references to Amos Comenus (1592-1670) and John Locke (1632-1704) which show similarities between some of their ideas to some of Rousseau’s. Thirdly, it aims to show that many of Rousseau’s notions coincide with modern research on the subject. In this context, there are references to Donaldson (1979), Fisher and Gleitman (2002), Gleitman and Newport (1995) and Pinker (1994). Fourthly, the discussion aims to contribute to the scholarship on Rousseau’s philosophy of education by exploring how his ideas regarding language, language teaching and learning relate to his general principles of education. In this context there are, throughout the discussion, references to contemporary scholarship on Emile, such as Griffiths (2014), Laverty (2011), Lewis (2012), Mintz (2012), Lovlie (2002) and Shuffelton (2012).

The myth of Education – as all good myths should be – is powerful and pervasive. For clarity, I refer to the Sorelian conceptualisation of myth here (Sorel, 1908), rather than any recourse to the exclusively fictional or supernatural. Georges Sorel described a myth as a strong belief that, in the course of perpetuating that same myth, keeps a group, or society, together. Protecting the myth should invoke a strength of feeling, such that Sorel comes to describe the myth itself as a kind of tableau enchanteur: an enchanting, or bewitching, picture. This suggests that the myth has a hold over a group, rather than the converse. Even the critique of a myth necessarily alludes to this mythical enchantment.

From a Scottish perspective, what is alluring about the myth of education in our culture is hope and possibility – of equal opportunity, of social mobility, of a population that fulfils the four desirable capacities of successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors (Education Scotland, 2023). Education in Scotland, then, paints a picture of itself as a boon not only for the individual but for the society as a whole. It is an important caveat to note that the myth of education will be different in different societies but rarely the case that it is ever painted as something negative.

It is no wonder, then, that such a strong myth necessitates perpetuating itself not only in its natural domain – schools, colleges and universities – but also in the arena of popular culture and its associated subcultures. It is likely that many of us will be familiar with shows such as Sesame Street with its explicit educational intention woven into every episode. Don’t Hug Me I’m Scared parodies this so-called educational programming with its garish sets, charming puppetry and regular lessons. Each episode sees an anthropomorphised object spring to life to teach the main characters their respective areas of expertise. In the course of its 12 episodes, it has dealt with such lofty concepts as time, love and creativity; and less mysterious ideas like electricity and transportation.

I intend to show how this object of popular culture parodies, and therefore critiques, the myth of education in two ways, and in doing so, contributes to its permeation. First, there is an obvious, and overall, critique of (formal) education in general. The characters are housed in an environment that they cannot easily leave, as such these didactic interludes are often framed as impositions from what they would otherwise be doing. This can be effectively construed as reflective of mandatory schooling. Further to this, despite all of the lessons delivered, nothing ever changes. If Don’t Hug Me I’m Scared is considered unsettling (Pozes, 2022), it is in part due to this implicit comment against the myth of education as conducive to positive change.

Second, one particular episode (Jobs) looks specifically at the myth of education (and its relationship to the myth of work (Ellul, 1973)). It is here that symbols of formal education are used to deliver the lesson that education is important because it leads to work, even if that job is not one that brings the desired hope and social mobility that features in our tableau enchanteur. Again, this challenges the content of the myth but inevitably referring back to it because, whether we are agreeing with it or critiquing it, we are all bound up in the myth of education.

Should education serve socio-political missions, or should it be non-instrumental? In this paper I analyze a tension between two views concerning purpose in education, and I suggest a model that may help to reconcile it.

First we have social-mission approaches, subordinating education to socio-economic goals. One educational system can serve two masters or more, with inner contradictions: high-schools in countries in conflict are nationally committed to army-recruitment, encouraging obedience, are asked to "feed" high-tech industries with creative, open-minded people, and to promote academic and emotional skills of students. Additionally, education is conceived of as necessarily political (Freire1987, Lam1999) and so not only capitalist powers "use" it. educators are also expected to eliminate racism, violence, and injustice, promote democracy, and social justice.

In contrast, I recognise non-instrumental approaches, rooted in ancient traditions. Aristotle (1973) recognised pure study as an end in itself, and placed it at the top of human existence. Judaism attributes high religious and moral value to "Torah Lishma" - studying the Bible for its own sake. Islamic philosophy identifies the purposes of learning as morality and happiness – two inner purposes, not subordinated to external goals (Arar&Haj-Yehia2018).

Kant established the values attributed to non-instrumentalism, both morally and aesthetically, with the categorial imperative ordering "to always respect humanity as an end and never merely as a means" (Kant,1785/1998,38) and the definition of beauty as "delight without interest" (1790/1951,38-39); Another moment of beauty is "purposiveness without purpose" (1790/1951, 55), which mixes a subjective feeling of inner purpose, with the freedom from external objectives. Referring to education we conclude that only pedagogies in which teachers and students are respected as human subject are morally justified, and that educational processes with inner purposefulness have aesthetic qualities.

Indeed, current thinkers criticize instrumentalism in education in various forms: seeing teachers as instruments instead of respecting their professional judgement (Biesta2015), subordinating educational processes to external goals, instead of acknowledging them as emergent (Osberg&Biesta 2021), treating schools functionally, focusing on efficiency, measurements of outcomes and quality not recognising them as homes for holistic processes (Magrini,2014; Biesta,2022).

Interestingly, two thinkers who support non-instrumentalism, hold this inner tension un-explicitly within their theory. Martha Nusbaum (2010) criticizes materialism in national education-systems, oriented to technological competition and economic considerations. She suggests turning back to liberal curriculum, emphasizing humanities. However, the reason for Nussbaum’s preference, is protecting democracy, which she believes is threatened by the utilitarian approach. Nussbaum’s writing is not theoretical but practical – she defines it as a manifesto. Her book's name, “Not for Profit - Why Democracy Needs the Humanities” reflects the duality: the non-instrumental title is followed by a practical subtitle. I warmly identify with her moral and political preferences, but I must admit that her approach is not less instrumental than that of her capitalist opponents, it is just subordinated to different objectives.

Daniel Pink criticizes the use of external motivation for complex missions (like learning) and proposes to businesses and educators to allow inner motivation (i.e. supporting non-instrumentalism). However, his argument is based on the lesser efficiency of external motivation, namely, a very instrumental argument. Furthermore, in analysing the factors of inner motivation he mentions a sense of purpose, leading again to a dualistic message: Whoever is internally motivated, sees his action as subordinate to a purpose external to the action in itself.

To sum up the problem, I recognise two voices: one that "recruits" education in the service of external goals, and another that attributes value to non-instrumentalism. Furthermore, but I argue that within liberal-humanist educational discourse, these two voices are often inter-related thus creating tension, confusion or contradictions.