Education: Rousseau Jean Jacques Rousseau

¶ … education: ROUSSEAU

Jean Jacques Rousseau until very recently was considered one of the most well-known education theorists who chose law and will over nature as means of instill the best knowledge and most useful information in a child's mind. However this view has changed significantly and some people believe that Rousseau never really ignored the role of nature but believed that man could achieve more if he applied his will power and was appropriately trained. Nature he felt could sometimes take a backseat. In his Magnus Opus Emile, or on Education, Rousseau takes on the role of a governor for an imaginary child and creates his education plan. The word 'governor' might appear unfamiliar to most people since we are more accustomed to child being in care of governesses and not governors. But Rousseau doesn't believe in this view and feels that male or female, it is the attributes of a governor or governess that make him/her a good teacher and not exactly his/her gender. "We spend a lot of time trying to figure out the qualities of a good governor. The first quality I would exact of him, and this one alone presupposes many others, is that he not be a man for sale." (p. 49)

There are various paths that Rousseau takes during this educational journey and takes the child along to show him what is more suitable for him in the long run. Emile is divided into six Books, each one of which deals with some particular aspect of education and mental development. For example in the first book, Rousseau exposes the child to the cold and harsh conditions of nature in order to help him develop immunity against harshness of life in later years. Book II focuses on physical development of the child. And similarly each book deals with something specific ending with the child Emile falling in love with Sophie. Rousseau believed that a child should be made strong from within. Instead of depending on external forces and circumstances, the child should be taught to be self-reliant and thus draw happiness and satisfaction from within him.

Rousseau thus exposes the child to rigors of life from a very young age. Emile is shown the harsh side of nature for his own long-term happiness and strength. The author believes that a child must not be brought up too delicately as excessive pampering can make him vulnerable. "Thetis, to make her son invulnerable, plunged him, according to the fable, in the water of the Styx. This allegory is a lovely one, and it is clear. The cruel mothers of whom I speak do otherwise: by dint of plunging their children in softness, they prepare them for suffering; they open their pores to ills of every sort to which they will not fail to be prey when grown." (47) He raises the same point again when he says "People raised too delicately no longer find sleep elsewhere than on down; people accustomed to sleep on boards find it everywhere. There is no hard bed for him who falls asleep as soon as he lies down." (129-130)

This is a rather debatable point. Is a child really better off without pampering and love in his early life. I am certain that many psychologists and educationists of modern times would choose to disagree with Rousseau on this issue. A child in his early stages needs constant love and protection and therefore to expose him to the rigors of life at such a time might prove traumatic and potentially damaging.

Similarly the author makes another controversial observation when he refuses to use medicine for Emile believing that a virtuous child might not need such cures. This is rather ridiculous and paradoxical. If we expose the child to nature, it is not always possible for him to stay in perfectly healthy state. During his illness, it is medicine and not virtue that he needs to survive and recover. Thus I fail to see validity of the argument: "The only useful part of medicine is hygiene. And hygiene is itself less a science than a virtue. Temperance and work are the two true doctors of man. Work sharpens his appetite, and temperance prevents him from abusing it." (p. 55)

For Rousseau, nature is the best education tool we can use for our young children. To impart knowledge and to make a child invulnerable to harshness of the world, it was important to connect him to nature and make him an active learner through natural means. The author maintains that "The [rapport] of nature does not depend on us... The one of things depends on us only to some extent...the one of men is the only one of which we are the masters" (Emile 247). He combined nature and education claiming:

What is [the] aim of [education]? It is [the aim] of nature itself.... Since the participation of the three educations is necessary... one must direct the other two toward [nature] about which we can do nothing" (Emile 247)

The few things I truly admire about this theory include the use of nature for familiarizing the child with various objects. I feel that while exposing a child to harshness of nature is synonymous with cruelty, taking him out for walks through fields and parks to expose him to the beauty of nature is certainly useful. This helps him in development of his senses that usually lie dormant when world is shown through illustrations in a book. "We are born with the use of our senses, and from our birth we are affected in various ways by the objects surrounding us. As soon as we have, so to speak, consciousness of our sensations, we are disposed to seek or avoid the objects which produce them, at first according to whether they are pleasant or unpleasant to us, then according to the conformity or lack of it that we find between us and these objects, and finally according to the judgments we make about them on the basis of the idea of happiness or of perfection given us by reason." (p. 139)

Another note-worthy point in Emile's education is the use of lessons based on ancient wisdom. Rousseau maintains that a while needs to be wise and virtuous and must therefore be repeatedly told to do the right thing. However the way this lesson is imparted makes all the difference. Rousseau feels that it is better to teach the child to 'Do No Harm" than to instruct him to do good since the first lesson contains more wisdom.

The only lesson of morality appropriate to childhood, and the most important for every age, is never to harm anyone. The very precept of doing good, if it is not subordinated to this one, is dangerous, false, and contradictory." (p. 104)

However while most of the lessons taught in the book would make sense, there are some observations made by the author that are controversial and thus need more research. For example we must find out what child psychologists or theorists would say about exposing the child to the rough world at an early age. Similarly it is important to conduct deeper research into some other observations made including the argument on 'stupidity' being a sign of genius. Rousseau argues that a young quiet child is always more intelligent than loud and aggressive ones. He notes: