This essay will analyse the educational ideas offered by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Michel de Montaigne as portrayed in their formative treatises on education, titled respectively Emile: Ou de l'education and de l'institution des enfants. By examining the authors' theories of education and a thought on the theme of power within these motivating works, a greater knowledge of the historical and intensifying journey of education is achieved.
Before getting into the essay, a brief overview of the two novels will be examined. "Les Essais" was printed in 1580, whereby Michel de Montaigne composed a series of 107 essays, each talking about certain styles, such as humanism, faith, law, philosophy and education openly to be able to describe human characteristics. He was inspired by happenings that happened during his time and one which was education, where he presumed there should be a new method of educating children in order so that they can develop within themselves as a person.
Emile ou de l'Education was written in the eighteenth century, in 1762 and Jean Jacques Rousseau discussed mostly his concepts on education in modern culture where he compares the relationship between a person and the world of which he lives in. Most of his concepts remain valid right now, with regards to the educational system. As he was an eighteenth century French philosopher, corresponding to him, children should be able to study by themselves and should not be dictated what things to learn. In other words, through their own living experiences, they will be able to educate themselves, alternatively than studying through men, as culture is corrupted and wicked. In order for Rousseau to present his suggestions to the general public, he uses his main persona 'Emile' to do so. Emile is shown to be a young youngster, who lives in the countryside. The e book has three parts, where Rousseau points out Emiles early life until 12 years old, 15 years old and then adulthood.
Both these authors had their own views on education that they presumed was the right manner for children of that time. These ideas recognized by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Michel de Montaigne reveals eye-catching similarities, and the influence of Montaigne in Rousseau's work is undeniable. In William Harris's release of de l'institution des enfants, he describes a chart which reveals the similarities in both philosophical and varieties of the freelance writers. Both theorists try to take away the traditional considered education, that was to instruct the student a number of facts and characters, so that there brain knowledge would be crammed. Alternatively, they undertake an open-minded idea of education, that would later be repeated.
Rousseau and Montaigne thought a child should learn independently, by personal experience. This is a significant theme in Emile, whereby at the age of twelve she actually is "vigoureux, adroit, heureux de vivre: il n'a guere de notions abstraites, mais child cleverness pratique s'est formee par l'experience. " (L&M : 1965: 297) Rousseau recognized that children were only fascinated by events which worried them and for that reason it had not been necessary to instruct them anything else which would be no use to them. Matching to Ronald Grimsley, "they starting their lives on 'l'interet present et sensible'; given that they make little use of their memory and thoughts, they are content to accept their physical environment and stay in a 'present' that excludes all concern with days gone by or future; they are simply happy because they limit their desires and needs to their immediate experience, thus illustrating the rule enunciated by Rousseau. " (Grimsley :1974:38) In other words, the moral way whereby the technique can be exercised is by the child's own experience. The concentration of education must be on understanding the procedure of learning itself, as opposed to the memorisation of knowledge.
Despite the fact that the underlining subject matter of both writers is to alter the emphasis of education away from socially constructed knowledge towards natural learning, they are doing differ in several ways.
While Montaigne is aware of the necessity of questioning specific elements in world, he eventually allows its essential role in personal development. On the other hand, Rousseau understands that socially produced knowledge is usually to be unsound and stimulates the questioning of its foundational concepts. Harris writes, "Humanity is too complex to reach the millennium through any sole revolution, whether it be in religion, politics, or education. Montaigne noticed this vaguely, yet more obviously than have Rousseau two hundred years later. " (Harrison 10).
As Rousseau's central preoccupation is how man should be educated naturally, it uses that his view of power is equally intensifying. According to Rousseau, the most detrimental part of formal education is the misery which is noticeable in social engagement. Indeed, central to Rousseau's theory of education is characteristics and up to what extent it provides human intellectual and emotional development. That's, the best goal of education is for man to take into account that worldly facts are present, nevertheless they are segregated from the original composition that is shown in the training process. "Tout est bien sortant des mains de l'Auteur des choses, tout degenere entre les mains de l'homme. "(Rousseau P35) It is worthwhile noting that while this takes on many varieties, throughout Emile: ou de l'education, one component of the negative effects of public education concerns the tutors with whom the student is employed with.
Despite the fact that Rousseau recognises the dangerous results contemporary society can have on a student, he is content throughout Emile, due to the fact that it is possible that the key figure, whether it's the tutor or the parents, can effectively help the scholar to engage in ways that will assist their well-being, by continuing to protect them from the corrupting pushes of contemporary society. While Rousseau reveals the distrust of the traditional authority figure, in which plays a large role in the corrupt contemporary society, he acknowledges that the only path where this 'naturalised' method of education within society may be accomplished, is by receiving guidance of an teacher to guide him from the interpersonal corrupts such as greed, envy, manipulation, and deceitfulness. With no help of the authority figure, the college student is unable to accomplish that 'natural' form of education.
Rousseau does indeed recognize that the authority body in the child's mental development comes with an essential role to try out, however these thoughts are not directly suitable to the standard student - educator relationship. If anything, the original thought of students being obedient, an open-minded specific whom allows teacher guidance, is an antithesis of what Rousseau experienced anticipated. It really is exactly this form of set up knowledge and teaching that Rousseau believes is corrupt. Instead, Rousseau thinks that for a student to gain access to the right and perfect knowledge that highlights the natural world, the instructor should never take the scholar as being an open receptacle of knowledge. It must be studied into consideration that does not imply that traditional power is disregarded for the development of a child. In fact, Rousseau appreciates that it's important for the authority shape to seize control when a child has been subjected to specific perceptions. For example, he argues that Emile should not be open to the concept of religion until he's older, preferably a teenager, as though he were to be engaged in it earlier, it would only result in the pupil acting as an naive person of sociable specialist, "it is a smaller evil to be unaware of the divinity than to offend it (Rousseau pg. 259).
Theorists of intensifying education have been in debate when it comes to analysing the precise level to which Rousseau illustrates authority when it is linked with education.
While some think that the authority amount must guide the pupil towards the complete truth and fact of the world, others adopt Rousseau's philosophical insights into the nature of instruction. In other words, they believe that it's important to go the emphasis away from the professor being the power shape, to instead displaying or directing the pupil towards having a better understanding of the ways or procedures of knowledge. With this thought, the scholar can now only understand the rejection of the traditional authority shape, for the essential and natural process knowledge and self-reliance.
Much like the work of Rousseau, Montaigne's theory of education attempt to restructure traditional representations and techniques of educational specialist. As mentioned, the work of both theorists show many similarities, and of course theorists have been recognising that in Rousseau there are significant influences of Montaignes' viewpoint. Furthermore, it appears that in the end Rousseau is more eager to express the fantastic characteristics of natural knowledge. Alternatively, Montaigne remains devoted in believing that whenever you work in just a socially confined bound, you can achieve personal and intellectual development. In this respect, Rousseau's theories can be thought to have a far more serious and advanced border, while Montaigne, even though he is no less innovative and influential, is less willing to abandon culture and tradition.
Shedding light on power, the two authors similarly do not portray the role of the tutor as a coach lecturing and filling the pupil's mind with understanding of facts and figures, but more as a guide through the intellectual and mental development process. Instead of simply forcing the kid with knowledge, which they cannot truly understand, the role of the power physique in the child's life should, "through its paces, making it flavor things, choose them, and discern them by itself (Montaigne 110). "