Conceptions of Human Nature And Education
At the heart of any educational program is one, or more, theories of human nature - of whom we are; of what our potential is; of why we are, rather than not at all; of how we learn and understand; of how we develop physically, emotionally, psychologically, and/or spiritually; and what, how, when, and why we should be taught in the light of all of the foregoing considerations. Usually, the underlying theories are not overtly stated, but they are there - shaping, organizing, coloring, orienting, and directing everything which takes place within the realm of a given educational program.
In short, there is no such thing as an educational process without presuppositions about human nature and the implications which such nature has for the educational process. One cannot even have a 'purely practical' educational program because every 'how to' course presupposes a reason as to why the resources (such as time, energy, materials, occupation of space, talents, money, and so on) being expended during the course are a reasonable, desirable, valuable, and/or useful way for such resources to be consumed in terms of the structure of human nature.
People argue that we need education to find the purpose of life. Or, we need education to be good citizens. Or, we need education to acquire a career in order to make our mark in life, as well as contribute to the community. Or, we need education to be able to get a job and pay our own way. Or, we need education to further human progress. Or, we need education to fill up time in lives that we don't know what else to do with. Or, we need education to accomplish all of the foregoing, plus whatever else we decide to include as important to, or inherent in, human nature.
Purpose, citizenship, career, jobs, progress, and so on, become the foci for educational programs because, implicitly or explicitly, individually and/or collectively, people have made decisions based on the belief, rightly or wrongly, that such things are desirable to pursue as important expressions of human nature.
Happiness, success, identity, peace, self-realization, potential, knowledge, community, freedom, commitment, responsibility, morality, excellence, accomplishment, truth, and purpose all take their direction from the theory of human nature which is being championed. Programs of education are pursued because they are considered to be crucial venues for coming to understand and/or realize and/or fulfill dimensions of human nature, and in so doing, help lay the foundations for obtaining such things as happiness, success, and so on, since the latter are not possible unless human nature is properly cultivated, and, education is the means to bring about this sort of cultivation.
Probably, everyone can agree that education - whatever it may be, and however it may be conceived - should help us to work toward the acquisition of such elusive qualities as happiness, self-realization, truth, identity, and purpose. But, the specific meaning of these terms is a function of the underlying concept of human nature and what constitutes, for example, true happiness in the context of what human nature actually entails.
Politicians, school administrators, and others are often quite adept at using terms like "freedom", "realization", "purpose", along with the other terms noted above, without ever touching on the theory of human nature which gives these terms real substance or 'meat'. Thus, they can proclaim that, say, education should help every individual realize his or her full potential as a human being. Now, most of us might agree with what these individuals are saying. In truth, however, such individuals haven't really said anything because until the underlying theory of human potential is spelled out, everyone is investing the official's statement with one's own personal theory of human nature and is assuming that what the official is saying is the same as what the individual citizen holds to be true in such matters.
A person can't address the issue of fulfilling human potential until she or he has some insight into the structure of human nature. If we don't understand human nature, then, we are not in any position to say what is meant by the idea of fulfilling human nature, nor, given this sort of ignorance, would be able to say how education should fit into the process of fulfilling human nature - it is like setting out to build a house without any blueprints or idea of how to go about constructing a building.
Conflicts in education arise when alternative theories of human nature - whether well-articulated or not - come into opposition with one another. Students, teachers, administrators, parents, school boards, politicians, and businesses come into opposition with one another, over educational issues and policy, because the various sides have different views of what human nature is about and how and why education should engage that nature. When a student, teacher, parent, government official, or company president asks why something is being taught, they are, in effect, asking: what relevance does this material have to do with my understanding of human nature? Mistrust arises in such situations when the answer to the question does not make sense in the context of the questioner's theory of human nature, because the tendency, under these sort of circumstances, is to feel that one is being sold a bill of goods which is being foisted onto one and, in the process, one's sense of human nature is being violated and/or denied.
One of the undeniable sources of continuing conflict within public education is the fact that not everyone's theory of human nature can be true, simultaneously. Consequently, the issue becomes one of: whose interests - that is, whose theory of human nature - does the educational process serve?
Is it possible for an educational system to serve an array of diverse theories of human nature? In other words, could such a system be so structured that it merely provides people with 'facts' or 'methods' that, then, can be taken away by the ones being educated and used in the context of their respective theories of human nature?
Not necessarily! All facts and methods are theory-laden.
That is, all 'facts' and methods are laden with theories about what constitutes objectivity, truth, balance, judiciousness, rigor, knowledge, belief, the relationship between theory and experience, competent judgment, and expertise. These theories, which define and shape what constitutes a 'fact' or acceptable methodology are, themselves, rooted in theories of human nature, and this includes ideas about how human beings come to learn, know and understand the significance and character of experience.
What we call 'facts' and 'methods' are looking glasses through which we view the world. The lenses of these glasses are ground in accordance with the optical properties of the underlying theories of 'facticity', methodology, and human nature.
Just because some people are able to 'see' through such lenses does not necessarily mean that everyone will be able to see through the glasses which are being dispensed via an educational process. And, when these constructed lenses are thrust upon people, damage may result - either short term or long term or both - to vision.
I say "may result" because much depends on whether, or not - and to what extent - the facts and methods that are being dispensed give accurate expression to the character and structure of human nature. But, even when such facts and methods are appropriately rooted in the actual character of human nature, if the person who is being 'fitted' for the glasses is not ready for them or is resisting use of the lenses because of adherence to some other, conflicting theory of human nature, then, one is faced with the problem of trying to determine what is the best thing to do in the face of such conflict - and 'best' is a theory-laden term which is colored by theories of human nature which stand behind the asking and answering of this question.
Thus, we have arrived back, more or less, where we started. A complete circuit of the issue has been made, and we are ready for subsequent go-arounds. If one is not careful, one can get very dizzy during such a journey, and, even though the presence of conceptual movement would seem to indicate that progress is being made, going around in circles usually doesn't take one very far.
| Return to Education Menu |
|
