Hakibbutzim College of Education, Israel
The term Humanistic Education is generally used to designate a variety of educational theories and practices that are committed to the world-view and ethical code of Humanism; that is, positing the enhancement of human development, well-being, and dignity as the ultimate end of all human thought and action—beyond religious, ideological, or national ideals and values. Based on a long philosophical and moral tradition—from the ancient Biblical prophets and Greek philosophers to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Rights of the Child—the commitment to Humanism further implies the fostering of the following three fundamental tenets.
Historically, humanistic education can be traced back to the times of classical Athens, with its central notion of Paideia, and a few centuries later to the times of ancient Rome with it central notion of Humanitas. Up until the eighteenth-century, Humanistic Education and Liberal Education—studia humanitatis and artes liberales—were interchangeable synonyms, designating the education appropriate for a free man. The aim of such education was the attainment of full and worthy human life with the possession of culture and civic spirit. In the last two centuries, however, the cultural trends of the enlightenment—the shift to scientific and critical thinking and to liberal and egalitarian democracy—brought about changes in the theories and practices of humanistic education. It has become much more democratic and pluralistic, open-minded and critical, sensitive and considerate to cultural as well as individual differences and needs. Notwithstanding the differences in approaches and emphases, it seems that all contemporary humanistic educators share a commitment to humanize their students in a spirit of intellectual freedom, moral autonomy, and pluralistic democracy. They strive to provide the kind of education that, on the one hand, liberates their students from the fetters of ignorance, caprice, prejudice, alienation, and false-consciousness, and, on the other, empowers them to actualize their human potentialities and lead autonomous, full, and fulfilling human lives.
Theoretically, Humanistic Education can be classified into four distinct forms or approaches.
The first might be called the classical, which inherently implies the existence of an ideal of human perfection that should serve as a universal and objective model for regulating the education of all human beings qua human beings. As mentioned earlier, the origins of this form of humanistic education lie in ancient Athens, especially in the ideas of Pericles, Socrates, Protagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and Isocrates. A few centuries later it was the Romans who established the studia humanitatis as a normative and formative education for free persons, which aims at the cultivation of sound judgment and noble character. The Renaissance was the first era in which people called themselves humanists. These humanists were determined to emancipate themselves from the ignorance, dogmatism, and self-abnegation of the “dark ages” towards the kind of truth, beauty, freedom, and dignity that could be produced by the human faculties if only properly cultivated and exercised. It was also these humanists who established the central theme in all classical humanistic education, adopted by Hutchins and Adler, that “no man was considered educated unless he was acquainted with the masterpieces of his tradition” and that “the best way to a liberal education in the West is through the greatest works the West has produced.” Finally, from the Enlightenment to the end of the 20th century—with the ideas of Kant, Mill, Newman, Arnold, Babbit, Hutchins, Maritain, Libingston, Adler, Kirk and others—classical humanistic education has become more egalitarian, critical, and liberal. Its ultimate ideal, however, has not changed: as put in the words of the Renaissance humanists Pier Paolo Vergerio, humanistic education includes “those studies by which we attain and practice virtue and wisdom; that education which calls forth, trains and develops those highest gifts of body and mind which ennoble man.”
The second form of humanistic education is most commonly known as the romantic, naturalistic, or therapeutic approach. It makes its first appearance in the 18th century with the writings of Rousseau who blamed the obsession with cultural progress, encyclopedic knowledge, authoritarian education, and the pursuit of social status for the ills of society and for the production of the alienated, other-directed, and corrupt personality of the bourgeois. Rousseau introduced an alternative conception of the good life that ascribes goodness to man's natural inclinations and self-regulated development, to spontaneous and playful exercise of natural powers, and to self-directedness and personal authenticity. Good human beings, he contended, should manifest holistic integration of sentiment with reason and of personal interest with the common good. These new images of human goodness and naturalistic education have generated in the 19th and 20th centuries a manifold change in educational theory and practice. In the modern educational thought of Pestalozzi, Froebel, Dewey, Neill, Rogers, Maslow, Combs and others, we encounter all of Rousseau’s basic intuitions. To these they have added the presently familiar notions of care, growth, self-actualization, personal fulfillment, self-regulation, trust, experience, relevance, authenticity, democratic and pedagogical climate—all as growth-promoting conditions for the “young plant” in its continual and self-actualizing process of becoming. In sum, the romantic form of humanistic education can be characterized by its fundamental premise that there exists in every one of us an “inner nature” or a “fixed self” that is fundamentally good and unique, and that pushes to unfold and actualize itself—in accordance with its built-in code—toward healthy existence and full humanity. True education, therefore, consists of careful “drawing out” and attentive actualization of the individual's inner nature.
The third form of humanistic education is existentialist, based mainly on the philosophical insights of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jaspers, Sartre, Camus, and Buber. Existenialist educators reject the classical notion of human beings as “rational beings” as well as the romantic assumption that there exists in every one of us an “inner nature” or “fixed self” that is fundamentally good and unique. The alternative advanced by most existentialists is that since the essence of man is freedom, in the matter of values humans can appeal to no external authority, either natural or supernatural, and are therefore destined to choose, define, and create themselves as the true—and therefore responsible—authors of their identities. As Sartre put it, in “The Humanism of Existentialism,” “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself”; and authentic human life, therefore, exhibits an acute sense of self-concern and acceptance of his or her freedom and responsibility for becoming the kind of person he or she eventually becomes. In the light of these philosophical and moral insights, existentialist humanistic educators seek to humanize their students by urging them to pursue neither ultimate truths nor self-realization, but to constantly choose, form, and create their identities and life-projects – enlarging their sense of freedom and responsibility for the meanings, values, and events that constitute the public as well as the private realms of their lives.
The fourth form of humanistic education is most often identified with Radical Education or Critical Pedagogy and with the pedagogical theories of Freire, Apple, Giroux, Simon, and Kozol. From this vantage point, to consider educational issues independent of the larger cultural, social, and economic context involves either serious ignorance or cynical, if not criminal, deception. Poverty, crime, homelessness, drug addiction, wars, ecological crises, suicide, illiteracy, discrimination against women and ethnic minorities, technocratic consciousness, and the disintegration of communities and families, to name some of our most pressing problems, are facts of life that effect directly the physical, emotional, intellectual, and moral development of the great majority of children in our culture. Hence, radical educators argue, “pedagogy should become more political and the political more pedagogical”. This implies three major changes in our educational system. It requires,
Notwithstanding the differences among these four forms of humanistic education, it seems that in their educational projects of humanization they all accept Whitehead’s point that “there is only one subject-matter for education, and that is Life in all its manifestations.” The business of humanistic education is nothing less than to empower and guide individuals to lead a vital and sound life, marked by wide-awakeness and thoughtful deliberation, moral conduct and political involvement, authentic engagement in life and discriminating appreciation of beauty in both nature and art. Humanistic educators should further seek to develop well-rounded and integral persons whose culture is manifested not only in their broad-learning but also in wise and responsible utilization of knowledge—so that the “tree of knowledge” would also serve as a nourishing “tree of life.” Its ideal is to achieve in their students the right integration as well as the right tension between a commitment to high cultural standards and a strong sense of individuality in both the forms of autonomy and authenticity. Finally, to achieve all this, truly humanistic teachers take the responsibility to set personal example in the art of living as well as to create at their schools a pedagogical atmosphere of care, trust, support, dialogue, respect, fairness, tolerance, inquiry, freedom, commitment, responsibility and reciprocity. Without these last elements, even the most beautifully woven theory of humanistic education would fail to become a lived reality for its teachers and students.
Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education