Beiträge

Inhalt/Content

Inhalt

Editorial ................................................................................................................... 7 Beiträge – Articles Heinz-Elmar Tenorth The University of Berlin: A Foundation between Defeat and Crisis, Philosophy and Politics .............................................................................................. 11 Dagmar Hänsel Die nationalsozialistische Hilfsschullehrerausbildung in ihren Kontinuitäten zu vorangegangenen und nachfolgenden Entwicklungen Standardisierung durch Vorbilder? ........................................................................... 29 Daniel Lindmark Educational Media in Sápmi. Religious Instruction in a Missionary Context (1619-1811) ......................................... 51 Eckhardt Fuchs The (Hi)story of Textbooks: Research Trends in a Field of Textbook-Related Research ......................................... 63

Debatte – Discussion Die Erschaffung von Bürgern jenseits der Nation. Die Konstruktion der Europäer und ihre Technologien Fabricating Citizens Beyond the Nations. The Construction of the European and its Technologies ................................................................................................. 81 Thomas S. Popkewitz and Catarina Sofia Silva Martins “Now We Are European!” How DID “WE” get that Way? ....................................... 82 Bob Lingard Making Up European: a Reflection .......................................................................... 96 Bo Stråth The Academic and the Political: a Problematic Relationship ................................... 102 Moritz Rosenmund Neither Official EC Narratives nor Social Sciences – Lampedusa marks the Division Line ....................................................................... 104 Donatella Palomba “Now We Are European!” Are we? .......................................................................... 110 Jan Masschelein “Is it ‚we‘ that are concerned?” “Being Europiean” as Public Issue ........................... 115 IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|5

|

6

Inhalt/Content

Rezensionen – Reviews Jean-Luc Le Cam Gerrit Deutschländer: Dienen lernen, um zu herrschen .......................................... 119 Lukas Boser Rudolf Künzli/Anna-Verena Fries/Werner Hürlimann/Moritz Rosenmund: Der Lehrplan .......................................................................................................... 122 Regula Bürgi Mark Solovey: Shaky foundations ........................................................................... 124 Peter Voss Hervé Le Bras/Emmanuel Todd: Le Mystère français .............................................. 127 Rudolf Künzli Anne Bosche: Schulreformen steuern ..................................................................... 131 Norbert Grube Annette R. Hofmann/Michael Krüger (Hrsg.): Olympia als Bildungsidee .............. 134

Kolumne – Column Richard Aldrich A Future Role for Historians of Education ............................................................. 139

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Editorial

Editorial

Mit der Französischen Revolution und durch die Herrschaft Napoleons in Kontinentaleuropa stellte sich der „Alten Welt“ ein Problem, das in den amerikanischen Kolonien kurz zuvor gelöst worden war: die Verabschiedung einer Verfassung. In diesen nationalen Verfassungen wurde festgelegt, nach welchen Regeln sich die Staaten organisieren und wie das Zusammenleben der Menschen darin funktionieren sollten. Die Verfassungen brachten das jeweils dominante Ideal einer gerechten Gesellschaft und das Ideal der Bürgerinnen und Bürger zum Ausdruck. Die Idee einer Verfassung ging nach Napoleons Sturz nicht verloren und mit Ausnahme Preußens verabschiedeten im Umfeld oder kurz nach dem Wiener Kongress alle territorial anerkannten (National-)Staaten Verfassungen, auf die in der Regel sofort auch Schulgesetze folgten: Die Niederlande 1814, Dänemark 1814, Norwegen 1827, Schweizer Kantone ab 1831, Frankreich 1833, Belgien und Schweden 1842, Luxemburg 1843. Preußens Bildungsreform, von prominenten Reformern unterstützt, scheiterte 1819 und bestätigt die Regel, dass erst Verfassungen Schulgesetze nach sich ziehen. Die Verabschiedung von Schulgesetzen im Umfeld neuer Verfassungen ist also kein Zufall, weil Verfassungen zwar das Ideal der Bürgerinnen und Bürger in einer gerechten Gesellschaft ausdrücken, sie aber nicht „machen“ können. Diese Aufgabe sollte die Reform von Schule und Lehrplan übernehmen und das Ideal – bzw. die Ideale – umsetzen: Schule bildet die nationalen Bürger, welche durch die Verfassung virtuell definiert sind. Der enge Zusammenhang von verfassungsrechtlichem Nationalstaat und Bildung sind Erbstücke des späten 18. und vor allem des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts, und es verwundert nicht, dass im Zeitalter transnationaler Aspirationen Verfassungen diskutiert werden, die – womöglich – in Konkurrenz zu den nationalstaatlichen Verfassungen und ihrem Anspruch auf Souveränität stehen. Dies war der Fall mit dem nicht ratifizierten Vertrag über eine Verfassung für Europa 2004, mit welchem der Europäischen Union eine einheitliche Struktur und Rechtspersönlichkeit gegeben werden sollte. Bekanntlich scheiterte diese Verfassung in Frankreich und den Niederlanden, ohne dass die mit ihr verbundene Idee einer neuen Art von europäischer Bürgerschaft begraben worden wäre. In der Rubrik „Diskussion“ der vorliegenden Nummer analysieren Thomas S. Popkewitz und Catarina Sofia Silva Martins das mit der Aspiration einer Europäischen Verfassung verbundene pädagogische Projekt, europäische Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu bilden und fragen insbesondere nach der Rolle der Sozial- und Erziehungswissenschaften in diesem Transformationsprojekt. Ihre Interpretation, dass der Begriff „Europäer“ bzw. „Europäerin“ als kulturelles Konstrukt zu verstehen sei, in welchem kollektive Wünsche und Ängste erfasst würden, wird von fünf Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler kritisch diskutiert. Die gesamte Diskussion ist ein Beleg dafür, wie zeitgeIJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|7

|

8

Editorial schichtliche Analysen immer in größere historische Zusammenhänge gehören, die wir besser nicht zu schnell vergessen. Die Redaktion

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Editorial

Editorial

With the French Revolution and through the reign of Napoleon in Continental Europe, the Old World was faced with a problem that had been resolved a short time before in the American colonies: the adoption of a constitution. The different national constitutions set out the rules according to which the individual states should be organized and rules on how the respective people living together should function. Constitutions expressed the currently dominant ideal of a just society and the ideal of the citizen. After the fall of Napoleon, the idea of a constitution was not lost. With the exception of Prussia, all territorially recognized nation-states adopted constitutions at the time of, or shortly after, the Congress of Vienna. The constitutions were followed immediately by the passing of education acts and school laws: in the Netherlands in 1814, Denmark in 1814, Norway in 1827, the cantons of Switzerland starting from 1831, France in 1833, Belgium and Sweden in 1842, and Luxembourg in 1843. Educational reforms in Prussia, supported by prominent reformers, failed in 1819, and this exception proves the rule that it is constitutions that subsequently bring about school laws. The passage of school laws in the context of new constitutions is thus not a coincidence, for although constitutions express the ideal of the citizens in a just society, they cannot “make” citizens. This task falls to reform of school and curriculum, and the reform is supposed to implement the ideal, or ideals: The school “builds” the national citizens as conceptualized in the constitution. The close connections between constitutional nation-state and education are heirlooms of the late eighteenth and mainly the early nineteenth century, and it is not surprising that in the age of transnational aspirations constitutions are discussed that – possibly – compete with the national constitutions and their claim of sovereignty. This was the case with the not-ratified EU Constitution of 2004, with which the European Union was to be given a uniform structure and legal personality. As is generally known, the EU Constitution failed in France and in the Netherlands, but the idea of a new type of European citizenship was not abandoned. In the Discussion in this issue, Thomas S. Popkewitz and Catarina Sofia Silva Martins examine the educational project that is connected with the aspiration of a European constitution, the creating of European citizens. They investigate in particular the role of the social and education sciences in this transformation project. Their interpretation, that the concept of “the European” should be seen as a cultural construct to think about collective desires and fears, is discussed critically in this issue by five researchers. The entire discussion illustrates that contemporary analyses always belong in greater historical connections that we should not so quickly forget. The editors

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|9

|

10

|11

Heinz-Elmar Tenorth The University of Berlin: A Foundation between Defeat and Crisis, Philosophy and Politics1 Die Universität zu Berlin – eine Gründung zwischen Krieg und Krise, Philosophie und Politik

(Ed.) The Humboldt University of Berlin is considered to be one of the first research universities, where both research – even non-utilitarian research – and the education of students and junior academic staff are crucial. As the name of the university indicates, its initiator was Wilhelm von Humboldt. Here, Heinz-Elmar Tenorth reconstructs the foundation phase of the Humboldt University of Berlin and shows how complex the prehistory of the foundation was and how careful we should be today, if we in our age of accountability and evidence refer to Humboldt’s ideal of a university. (Red.) Die Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin gilt als eine der ersten Forschungsuniversitäten überhaupt, in welcher der Forschung – auch der nicht zweckgebundenen Forschung – und der Ausbildung des akademischen Nachwuchses großen Stellenwert eingeräumt wird. Als ihr Initiator gilt, wie der Name verrät, Wilhelm von Humboldt. Heinz-Elmar Tenorth zeigt in seiner Rekonstruktion der Gründungsphase der Universität zu Berlin, wie komplex die Vorgeschichte der Universitätsgründung war und wie vorsichtig man sein sollte, wenn heute bei der Rede von accountability und evidence auf Humboldts Universitätsideal verwiesen wird. The central argument of the following paper is, that “foundation” of the University of Berlin does not mean the critical turning point that marks the birth of a university, before there is no single day that we can designate as that date for the University of Berlin. Here, the term “foundation” combines and came to stand for several processes, analyzed in detail in this paper, that did not all start as late as or were in any way finalized in 1810. What was developed in Berlin was the German model of the university,2 one with momentous implications for the whole of Germany and with a growing international impact. But an analysis of the 1  Written version of an extemporary talk given on 18 April 2013 at the University of Luxembourg within the scope of a lecture series on University Founding. For this analysis I make (occasionally verbatim) use of the 2010 history of the university of Berlin which I edited, and which was published on the occasion of the university’s 200th anniversary (Tenorth 2010-2012). For the history of the university’s founding, other works are also of relevance; for more on institutional history, see Tenorth 2012a. And for more on the history of academic fields, see Tenorth 2010a. 2  In this attribution, I adopt the same perspective as Langewiesche 2010, 2011. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|

12

Heinz-Elmar Tenorth

core regulations as set forth in Berlin, one can readily recognize that the ultimate character of the University was determined by a number of special local conditions, both traditional and modern, but despite Humboldt’s central role in founding the university it what was not the “Humboldt model” as it is emphatically invoked to this day.

1  Foundation, Establishment, Opening, Inauguration – What does “Foundation” mean? It might seem that establishing the exact date on which the University of Berlin was “founded” is a simple and unequivocal matter; indeed, the historical record3 dates the founding to 15 October 1810, the day when classes officially began. This was the date used in 2010 to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the University – which is known as the Humboldt University of Berlin today, but which from 1828 to 1918 was called the Royal Friedrich Wilhelms University, and, up to 1945, the Friedrich Wilhelms University of Berlin. Through all of these changes in appellation, 15 October has remained a constant, and was not only the accepted anniversary date in 1910 when its centenary jubilee was celebrated in Prussia and in Berlin (see Schmidt 1911), but also 1935 for the National Socialists’ 125-year anniversary, and 1960 for the East German government’s and university’s (see Göber et al. 1960) 150-year commemoration. Yet on the occasion of the 50th anniversary celebration in 1860, we do find that this date was not as unproblematic as it seems to be. In his foreword to the documents published for the Jubilee festivities, the editor, Ferdinand Ascherson, acknowledged that alternative dates could have been chosen – 16 August 1809, the date of the King’s official proclamation for the foundation, and 24 April 1817, the publication date of the university’s statutes (Ascherson 1863), known today as the university’s “Inauguration Day”. Nevertheless, Ascherson privileged the date on which teaching activities began as the founding date, elevating it over alternatives. However, does this mean that 1810 is the definitive date of the foundation, and that ever since that time, the identity and form of the University of Berlin on Unter den Linden has been preserved continuously? In other words: what exactly do we mean by “founding,” and can we truly claim that 1810 was the year in which this took place? Clearly, this claim is possible, as teaching activities did begin in 1810, but this choice confronts us with some unexpected facts and difficulties – even if we decide to disregard the reality that most faculty members did not start their classes on that date. Only a few professors, such as the physician Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland, actually began lecturing on 15 October; Johann Gottlieb Fichte began on the 21st, and the majority of the others, such as Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, Friedrich Carl von Savigny and Theodor von Schmalz, the jurist and first rector, began on 29 October. Many others did not begin teaching until November, such as the theologian Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette, who began on 29 November, while others again did not begin teaching during the winter semester at all.4 At the same time, we have to see that this date (15th) describes a highly preliminary moment in the built-up of the University; while there were about 50 professors during the first semester in the winter

3  The classic work is Lenz 1910; indispensible in this regard is also Köpke 1860. 4  An overview of lectures provided during the founding phase is provided by Virmond 2011. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The University of Berlin: A Foundation between Defeat and Crisis,

of 1810/11 – 25 of them as full professors (Ordinarius), as well as 256 students5 – the University had not yet any regular statutes. It is true that by the end of September, the Section of Cultus, a ministerial department inside the Ministry of Interior, had come up with the required registration forms and documents, that on 10 October the official ceremony was preceded by the constituent meeting of the University Senate, and that it was not until 24 November that the deed of donation for the Prince Heinrich Palais, the university’s main building to this very day, was signed. But it is also true that the opening day itself was largely ignored by the academic and general public in Berlin, and inside the university, too, it was not marked by any specific festivities: “no celebratory processions and gatherings, no festivities or dedicatory speeches, no regalia or investiture, no proclamations or toasts,” as the first historian of the founding of the University of Berlin, Rudolf Köpke (1860, 91), clearly astonished and also somewhat indignant about the contrast to the celebration that had marked the opening of the Enlightenment-inspired Prussian University in Halle in 1693/94. The difficulties in finding a precise date for the founding day are thus indicative of some systemic problems. Not only did the university come into existence without major public attention, but this quiet opening was consistent with a founding process that was still far from complete. During its first semester, the University of Berlin lacked not only proper statutes (it only had a set of provisional regulations6), but in addition, Prince Heinrich Palais on Unter den Linden, which was donated by the King, was by no means ready for use by the University. In fact, it was occupied by tenants who were disinclined to leave and continued to pose a problem to the University for years to come; even the classrooms were not properly marked. Moreover, the University’s endowment had not been structured in the way that Wilhelm von Humboldt had wanted, when he demanded that the new university should be given large pieces of land to guarantee its financial independence. And of even greater structural importance were the following facts: Because it lacked statutes, the organization of the university had not been adequately defined, neither internally nor externally, as far as committees and the status of the members of the University were concerned; the rights of the State and the University had not been clearly demarcated; and there were no stipulations for the coordination among the faculties or with the University Senate regarding appointments. Furthermore, there was a lack of clarity about who would be in charge of the University and its members. Criteria for qualifications expected from faculty members and for their recruitment had not yet taken on a fixed, statutory form, nor had the curriculum been clearly structured. Moreover, the person considered by historians of the University7 as its most important founding figure, the 5  While the number 256 is often cited in historical accounts, with respect to the 15th of October date, it is entirely fictional (see the first register of students Bahl/Ribbe 2010, 12), while 107 students had enrolled by 15 October 1810, on 11 February 1811, enrollment stood at 257; the number of enrolled students then climbed continuously – without any significant break – from 28 February 1811, while according to the Provisional Regulations (§ 8), the winter semester ends “in the middle of March,” prior to eight to twelve days of vacation; “the second semester starts … eight days after the 15th of March.” By this date – 25 March – 305 students had enrolled. And by the end of the first rectorate year, a total of 457 students had enrolled (under Fichte, 1811/12), then an additional 313. 6  The introduction to the Provisional Regulations states that “the definitive statutes of the University of Berlin can first be published at its festive inauguration” (see Vorläufiges Reglement 1810/1999), as well as the accompanying brief remarks on its historical development by Takamori 1999. 7  On the history of the university’s founding and the depiction of the central role played by Humboldt, see Lenz 1910; from the later literature on “founders” I only name the portrayal circulated in the former East Germany IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|13

|

14

Heinz-Elmar Tenorth

philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt, who, as of February 1809, was Chief of the Section for Education and Culture, was no longer in office by 15 October 1810, as his petition for release on 24 April 1810 had been granted by the King on 19 June. In October of the same year he was under contract only for wrapping up his own activities for the University. By 2 November 1810, his successor in office, the dyed-in-the-wool conservative civil servant Friedrich von Schuckmann, was waiting in the wings to take the university and the Prussian educational policy in an entirely different direction than that envisioned by Humboldt. Overall, the date 15 October 1810 merely facilitates a retrospective stylization of the University’s foundation. It makes it possible to place anniversary celebrations, but it does not mark the completed act of establishing the University. Yes, the University opened its doors on 15 October, but it had not yet constituted itself in a definitive form, and whether it had a shape in 1810 that could justifiably be designated as the “Humboldt Model” becomes extremely problematic once we take a look at its first semester. And yet, 15 October and the 1810 winter semester doubtlessly mark a momentous break with respect to a long dispute that had preceded the decision to establish a university in Berlin. The question that had been debated before 1800 and then again, more intensively, after 1802 and 1806 – namely, “whether there should be a university in Berlin” – had found a definitive and positive answer. Berlin now had its university, and the skepticism expressed by many older authors – ranging before 1800 from the Berlin educator Friedrich Gedike to the minister Julius Eberhard von Massow – had been finally overcome. However provisional its status might have been in the fall of 1810, an embryonic university had come into existence, and one might also think of 1810 as the moment in which the basic elements were established for initiating a dynamic foundational phase and for setting the basic parameters for the ensuing success story. This break or caesura is not marked by a Papal or Imperial edict, nor even by a spectacular and definitive act of foundation. Alongside the determination of the sovereign, who wanted to have a University in his capital, it was essentially the individuals involved in the establishment, the professors and other academics and the students, who turned the idea for a new university into reality – in their practice of research and teaching, in self-administration and recruiting of academics, and, above all, in an active engagement with the world. This reality took on stability and permanence, as Humboldt himself had predicted in his characteristically pragmatic way: “You simply appoint competent men and let the University gradually take form” (letter from Humboldt to his wife Caroline of 11 May 1810, quoted in: Lenz 1910, 219). Therefore, the term “foundation” combines and came to stand for several processes that did not all start as late as or were in any way finalized in 1810. For the University administration, the definitive “Establishment of the University of Berlin (Errichtung der Universität zu Berlin),”8 as the official dossier is entitled, was their principal mission. The documents on this subject began to accumulate with Wilhelm von Humboldt’s talking over the position as Chief of the Section for Education and Culture in the Prussian Interior Ministry. The first major break occurred on 24 July 1809, when Humboldt submitted a Proposal for the Estab-

that creates an impression of continuity from Humboldt and 1810 to the Humboldt University that existed after 1945, which identifies Humboldt “as the actual founder of the University of Berlin” (see Deiters 1960, 35). 8  The records in this regard are contained in Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz (GSTA), I. HA Rep. 76 Va Sekt. 2 Tit. I Nr. 2. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The University of Berlin: A Foundation between Defeat and Crisis,

lishment of the University of Berlin9 (based on a draft dated 9 May 1809) to the King. The King issued a positive response on 16 August 1809 with a cabinet order to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of the Interior and the State Chancellor, in which he declared his “Authorization for Establishment of the University.” The King agreed to all the details of Humboldt’s plan, including the proposal that this institution of higher education be designated as a “university,” and to give it an integrating role between the Academy and its institutions so that the University, the two Academies and the research institutes in the city, together with their collections, could be structured into an “organic whole,” and in such a way that “every part maintains an appropriate degree of independence, and yet works together with the others for common goals” (The Cabinet Order, quoted in: Köpke 1860, 195).10 Earlier, on 3 June 1810, a Commission for Establishing the University had been created by Humboldt in the name of the Section. It was responsible for the critical steps of selecting personnel, designing the internal organization, and doing the preparatory work for the statutes, both for the University (which was completed in 1816) and for the faculties (work which lasted until 1838). Again, the “opening” on 15 October 1810 only marked the start of lectures, whereas the final stage in the official recognition of the foundation, that is, the “inauguration”, was still pending. This definitive act that were to conclude the foundation process took place on 31 October 1816, the date on which the King signed the University statutes, and on 26 April 1817, the day the statutes were handed over to the University.

2  Contexts, Motivations, and Actors If one means by “foundation” the critical turning point that marks the birth of a university, then clearly there is no single day that we can designate as that date for the University of Berlin. On an organizational level and from the perspectives of both academic and civil law, the founding proceeded in stages – and the University has continued to be a perpetually evolving institution. Besides this evolving history, the University also has an institutional pre-history, which started in the last years of the 18th century and had begun to be discussed in the Prussian State Administration after 1802.11 It is only by taking into account this pre-history that we can clearly differentiate the act of founding the University as a social, legal and organizational even from the creation of its intellectual conception, which Helmut Schelsky regarded as the real act of “founding.” Schelsky saw in these preliminary discussions a turning point, a turning point with consequences still felt today, in which the “idea and form of the 9  For more on the origin and subsequent history of this proposal of 12 May 1809, see Humboldt (1809a/1903), as well as the draft texts Zum Kabinettsvortrag of 14 May 1809, that address financing problems (1809b/1903) as well as the relevant explanations concerning the history of the proposal provided by Bruno Gebhardt. 10  Humboldt himself stated in the Unmaßgeblichen Vorschlägen on the conference of 28 August 1809 that followed that it “should form a whole in which each of the three parts retains its independence” (1809c/1903, 158) – the later and often quoted formulation in Ueber die innere und äußere Organisation that it should form an “organic whole” can already be found in the proposal of 24 July 1809; the text also mentions the “lifeless institutes” (1809d/1903, 260); the internal organizational structure is described as “three equally independent and integral parts of the overall institution” (ibid.). 11  For this reason, Köpke (1860, 145ff.) has the history of the decisive documents in the university’s founding start in 1802 (with the sending of the university plan that was developed by Johann Jakob Engel for the Cabinet Councilor Karl Friedrich von Beyme) and end in 1816; Lenz follows suit in this regard, and sees the first end point in the statutes of 1816/17. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|15

|

16

Heinz-Elmar Tenorth

German university and its reforms” manifested itself in its history, indeed, in “solitude and liberty” as Schelsky put it pointedly. However, if we look only at the concrete historical way in which the University of Berlin was established, we will fail to detect any ground breaking act of “founding a new kind of institution,” a “foundation” that, together with revolution and reform, was the realization of a third force, that is, of a “fundamental principle of social action,” as Schelsky interpreted the historical events taking place in Berlin around 1810. He saw the significance of this “founding” act as the fact in which “a new intellectuality” manifested itself. It was “by no means simply the reform of existing institutions” that is to say a reform of a university in the old sense of the word (Schelsky 1963/1971, 48). The question here is, does this emphatic thesis about the innovative nature of what happened in 1810 truly apply? Does the founding of the University of Berlin represent a totally new form for the university as an institution? Looking at the years before the foundation, it is immediately apparent that there was a real need for an innovative creation of this kind of the university as a phenomenon diagnosed throughout Europe during the late 18th century as in a state of crisis.12 Reform universities were founded in the spirit of the Enlightenment, after Halle, and they included the new universities in Göttingen and Jena, in the German speaking areas (see Hammerstein 1996, 2000, 2010). In Prussia and specifically in Berlin, there were local debates about the possibility of founding a university, which started from a diagnosis of crisis and questioned the rationale of founding new universities, because the quality of the old European university in its practice was considered low and its unique function could not longer be clearly recognized; instead, critics looked for progressive institutions based on other university models, for example, modeled along the lines of the institutions of higher learning with a professional focus as they existed in France. As early as 1784, the ideas of the Prussian educator and Enlightenment figure Friedrich Gedike13 played an important role in the discussions taking place in Berlin. In his Letters from an Outsider (Briefe von einem Fremden), published anonymously in the mouth-piece of the Berlin Enlightenment, he spoke skeptically about the question of a university for Berlin. Contemplating the fact that Berlin was still without a university, he wrote with elation in the first letter, “and this place – God bless it! – still doesn’t have its own university, any more than Athens did in its days of glory.” He thought that Berlin’s intellectual standing was just as high without a university, “like Athens in spirit … and in courage, like Sparta.” In a clear allusion to Karl Philipp Moritz, he spoke of this extraordinary intellectual culture as being attributable to the “schoolmen with erudition and authentic insights in psychology and pedagogy,” and claimed that as an academic and intellectual playing-field, Berlin was already well-appointed – with “playwrights, chemists, astronomers, naturalists, historians, doctors, lawyers, politicians, statesmen, mineralogists, botanists, poets, anatomists, mathematicians, surgeons and philologists – respected throughout Germany, and the source of learning for all of Europe, who are virtually unmatched in their specialized fields anywhere.” “Here”, Gedike continued, “the sciences,” were “not the province of a single status group, but instead

12  A number of older studies provide an overview of crises and reform processes (Turner 1973; McClelland 1980; Cobb 1980). 13  Tosch (2007) addresses his role in the educational history of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, yet without taking his theses on the university into account. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The University of Berlin: A Foundation between Defeat and Crisis,

pursued by many individuals and each individual was involved in a number of disciplines” (1784a, 463). Above all, Berlin was to be seen as lucky in that it did not have to deal with the “evils” of all universities, “which insult the impartial observer elsewhere”: “the petty jealousies of the scholars among themselves; the base trickery they use to push others out or ruin their reputation; this disgraceful cabals; all such things have no place here” (ibid., 465). For this man of the Enlightenment, there was no doubt that “knowledge of benefit to mankind can never achieve its benefits if it remains the sole property of a few academics.” In Berlin, he saw that participation in scholarships and science was open, and at the same time, there were “virtually no scholars … who were merely scholars,” if for no other reason than that they couldn’t make a living from just being a scholar and therefore had to educate themselves and extend their activities beyond the narrow confines of an academic profession. Thus, they were able to really speak about experience, and so could “ultimately find the truth, the free spirit of inquiry and general enlightenment” (ibid., 468). For him “university” in the sense of a networking, science- and scholarship-based local culture already existed. Only the “university proper,” the university as an organization, was missing – fortunately. Just a short time later, still in 1784, Friedrich Gedike conceded in the ensuing 16th Letter from an Outsider that perhaps a university would not be superfluous in Berlin, and he went on to speak about possible ways to set it up. This leads him into what would seem today a somewhat surprising assignment of functions to the universities as well as a similarly unusual classification of universities. In his argument, Gedike associates the different types of university with the differences between the metropolis and provinces, between residential cities and small towns, and proposes different remits for these different universities: “in the provinces, the university should be more scholarly, and in the capital, more practical. The former are the proper places for the true scholars of the future … whereas in the capital should also be able to provide instruction in all practical occupations.” For Gedike, both functions, scholarly and practical, should be considered under the category of “Education and Enlightenment” in cultivating politicians and future academics alike (1784b). In the ongoing debate about a new design for the university, both inside and outside Prussia, this double orientation became an increasingly controversial subject of discussion. In Göttingen and Jena, a very different position was expressed about the function and role of scholars and the status of science and research than the one articulated by Gedike. At those universities, thinkers advanced an unambiguous preference toward science and research as opposed to the “bread-and-butter scholar” orientation to service and the professions. Friedrich von Schiller had polemicized against it in his inaugural lecture and Friedrich Wilhelm Josef von Schelling in his commentary On the Methods of Academic Study (Methode des akademischen Studiums). They argued, with respect to both time allotment and subject matter, for the primacy of pure, philosophical education, that is, for “multi-faceted and eternal education” as the mission of the university (Schiller 1789/1966, 10).14 This argument about the function of the university also was the context for an ongoing debate, one that would prove of great consequence for the organizational reform of the University, about the function of the traditional arts faculties that had by then become unclear, and about the question of replacing those traditional faculties with a faculty of philosophy as a new fourth entity committed to the sciences and scholarship rather than to propaedeutic studies or to public 14  In particular for the differentiation see Schelling (1802/1954). IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|17

|

18

Heinz-Elmar Tenorth

service or academic professions. Immanuel Kant’s Dispute Between the Faculties (Streit der Fakultäten) published in 1794 became a guiding text15 for this debate, as it assigned a leading academic role in research and teaching to the faculty of philosophy, and reinterpreted the function and role of the university as a whole. At the same time, however, in Bavaria and in many discussions in Prussia, there were frequent proposals to completely abolish the old faculties and to create an entirely new internal structure for the university. Thus, the debates about founding a university in Berlin, which began in 1802 and were organized by Karl Friedrich von Beyme, the Minister in charge, need to be seen in a specific institutional context marked by the diagnosis of crisis and deliberation about the proper role and goals of the university. The expert opinions Beyme solicited concerning the establishment of a university in Berlin may be read initially against the backdrop of these larger developments in the history of the university. For example, taking up the various alternatives in Johann Jakob Engels’ plans, they put forward arguments for entirely different models for restructuring the universities and the academic system. However, these plans petered out, and the proposals did not bear fruit. Prussia’s defeat by Napoleon however, triggered a general crisis of state and society that unleashed a more powerful and new dynamic. In 1806/07 Beyme was given a new mandate to prepare for the foundation of a university in Berlin. The King ordered that “the state must replace through intellectual powers what it has lost physically”, and from 1806 through 1808, a number of essays and memoranda were written in this context. Many of these texts were written at Beyme’s request, including those by Friedrich A. Wolf, Theodor von Schmalz, Johann Christian Reil, Christian Gottfried Schütz, Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland, Friedrich Wilhelm Loder, and Ludwig Gottfried Madihn, among others.16 Other essays were written at the personal initiative of their authors, including Schleiermacher’s Occasional thoughts about universities in the German sense (Gelegentliche Gedanken über Universitäten in deutschem Sinn, 1808). Several of these writings were later stylized as “fundamental texts” (Anrich) of the German “Idea of the University”. To this very day, scholars seek to locate the intellectual foundations of the University in them. Some important examples beside Schleiermacher are Fichte’s Deduzierter Plan einer zu Berlin zu errichtenden höhern Lehranstalt, die in gehöriger Verbindung mit einer Akademie der Wissenschaften stehe (1808) and a text by the Danish philosopher Henrik Steffens, On the Idea of Universities (Über die Idee der Universitäten, 1809). In retrospect, Schelling’s inaugural lecture could be added to this list as well as Humboldt’s On the Internal and External Organization of the Institutions of Higher Education in Berlin (Über die innere und äußere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten in Berlin), probably written in 1809, which, however, had not effect on the political process after 1808 and was only discovered at the end of the 19th century. If one seeks to define the most important actors in the process and their ideas, focusing on these essays is certainly understandable from an intellectual point of view, but it is misleading in terms of the actual design of the university and the process of its founding. In addition to Karl Friedrich von Beyme and the King, as well as the intellectuals involved – such as Schleiermacher and other professors from Halle and Frankfurt who were seeking to assure 15  For a discussion of his ideas and impacts, see Honnefelder et al. 2012. 16  A great number of such writings are now available in a published edition Müller (1990); the five texts from Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, Wilhelm von Humboldt, and Henrik Steffens are also selectively portrayed as “foundational texts” in Anrich 1956. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The University of Berlin: A Foundation between Defeat and Crisis,

their status or defend their universities – the key participants were members of the ministerial Section for Education and Cultur and, of course, Humboldt himself. In the fall of 1808, at the recommendation of Heinrich Friedrich Karl vom und zum Stein, Humboldt was appointed as head of the Section in the Interior Ministry. There were a number of reasons that he hesitated about accepting this position, including personal considerations, such as his financial situation and the close ties and friendships that he and his wife had developed in Rome, where he was working and living as an envoy. But there were also reasons connected with the working conditions at the office, which among other things, was also responsible for church matters, a fact that was not at all to Humboldt’s liking, and the position of subordination of the Section chief to the Prussian ministers, which Humboldt considered prejudicial to the task and personally unbearable. After long hesitation, he nevertheless accepted the position, returned to Prussia, first only as far as Berlin (the King was still located in Memel), and was officially appointed in February 1809. Humboldt set up his office, recruited the senior officials and began to work. The issues he had to deal with were wide-ranging, including the supervision of the composition of a new songbook for the protestant church; addressing the issue of censorship; the training of elementary school teachers to regulating local authorities in school matters; the establishment of examinations for teachers in the Gymnasium; the creation of the Abitur examination as an entrance requirement for attending university; and finally appointing a Scientific Advisory Deputation to counsel him on matters of educational policy. On 24 July 1809, Humboldt’s petition for the establishment of the University of Berlin was submitted to the King. The petition invoked the benefits of “Education and Enlightenment” – Gedike’s old formula – as well as of schools and universities “particularly at a time like this,” when the critical situation of the state was such a challenge and the availability of personnel was so favorable. It pointed out the potential for Berlin to have “a brilliant university that would also attract foreigners,” making a “university” also desirable for economic reasons. However, very soon after, on 29 April 1810, Humboldt submitted his petition for release, even before the University opened, and at a time when the organizational structure of the university was still largely undefined. Humboldt personally favored the opening of the university, but he considered that few of the basic conditions had been adequately met – e.g. personnel, buildings, or finances. It would be “sufficient, if at this time [the opening] would only undertake doctoral programs, and only if all four faculties could offer a sufficient number of lectures and were able to publicize them in the form of an academic course catalogue”17. After all of the detours and delays in achieving the establishment of the University, he was even ready to consider the possibility that important elements of his philosophy of the university would not come into effect, but it is precisely because of those self-imposed limitations that he became the true founder of the university.

3  Constitution and Tradition The University only acquired its permanent organizational structure through the University Constitution, which was initially developed in the University statutes of 1816/17, as well

17  Generalbericht des Geheimen Staatsraths von Humboldt an des Königs Majestät über die Begründung der Universität und Antrag auf deren Eröffnung zu Michael 1810, 23. Mai 1810 (zit. in: Köpcke 1860, 206). IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|19

|

20

Heinz-Elmar Tenorth

as in the faculty statutes, which were finally adopted after long deliberations in 1838.18 The Constitution, together with the University’s academic, organizational and political practices up to the Vormärz pre-revolutionary period, gradually shaped the internal form of the University and its relationship to the state. What was developed in Berlin was the German model of the university,19 one with momentous implications for the whole of Germany and with a growing international impact. But what one encounters here is not the only model for the modern Western university. In an analysis of the core regulations as set forth in the University statutes in Berlin, one can readily recognize that the ultimate character of the University was determined by a number of special and unique local conditions, both traditional and modern, and after long debates. Next, we can now also try to answer the question if what was realized in Berlin was truly the “Humboldt model” as it is invoked to this day. The statutes of the University are comprised of nine major sections, beginning with the stipulations “I. About the University in General” and ending with the procedures regarding “IX. Academic Titles.” To determine whether the University of Berlin was a paradigm for the design of later universities, and whether the configuration it took on through these statutes is specifically attributable to Humboldt, it should suffice to examine a few substantive aspects. The first of these aspects is the definition of the University’s mission, as it is formulated in the first section: “to further provide properly prepared young men with a general and specifically intellectual education through lectures and other academic exercises and to render them capable of entry to the various branches of higher government and church offices.” The first chapter of the statutes in §1 unequivocally stipulates a “double mission” for the University between scholarship and professional education. It does not legitimate the inference that they privileged education in the emphatic sense of cultivating the individual (i.e. Bildung), as many philosophers might have hoped, nor, on the other hand, do they subordinate the university to purely professional requirements. While this may have run counter to the ideas of some of the programmatic texts, it did not violate Humboldt’s own intentions. For him, the educational preparation of well-trained government functionaries was just as legitimate a task as research. In any case, anyone who invokes Humboldt today to argue for a form of pure Bildung cannot do so based on the example of Berlin or its mission statement. The calls made for a far reaching autonomy were also not implemented in the statutes. Of course, the freedom from censorship accorded to teachers constitutes a guarantee of “intellectual freedom,” but the statutes do not provide any overall guarantee of institutional autonomy, as one might see, for example, in the right to make appointments. The statutes clearly reserve the right to make appointments to the state, although it must ensure that academic criteria are not violated. “The professors … shall be appointed by the State, but the implicit condition is that they must have proven their legitimacy or gain their academic standing or the promise to achieve it” – this was the wording used in §5 of the 1810 provisional regulation, and further reinforced by the Statutes (see Vorläufiges Reglement 1810/1999, I, §3, II, §1). Would Humboldt have endorsed these provisions? Certainly, for he had a generally low opinion of professors, and, in addition, with respect to appointments, he did not wish to grant them any rights of autonomy. He called professors “the most unrestrained and most difficult to satisfy class of humans – with their forever intersecting interests, their jealousy, 18  For a detailed analysis of the University’s constitution, see Tenorth 2012b. I draw on this text here, partially verbatim. 19  In this attribution, I adopt the same perspective as Langewiesche 2010, 2011. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The University of Berlin: A Foundation between Defeat and Crisis,

their pride, their desire to govern, their one-sided viewpoints, where each one claims that only his discipline deserves support and financing.” And he confided to his wife about the difficulties of coping with university politics: “Trying to manage scholars is little better than conducting a troupe of traveling comedians” (Humboldt quoted in Sydow 1909, 19). This definition of autonomy as the paradox of a bounded self-determination not only reflects the imposed structures of the Prussian state but also the general tenor of Humboldt’s maxims. At the same time, one can also detect Schleiermacher’s persuasive influence on the organization of the University and its faculties, as well as links back to the traditional structures of the university and its four faculties. In Section II of the statutes About the Faculties it is clear that the University is first and foremost an “Association” (Schleiermacher 1808), by which the faculties are united. It is in the faculties that the important rights are vested – graduation, curriculum, research – and the remaining committees and powerful authorities come afterward in third place, About the Rector and the Senate. The structure determined by the statutes also documents that by corporate law, the Berlin – and the Humboldtian – University was a “university of tenured professors” (Ordinarienuniversität), a fact that virtually excluded non-tenured professors and assistant professors, not to speak of students, from participating in the corporate rights and in any associated official revenues (with the exception of tuition revenues). Looking at the faculties, it is also clear that the University was to be organized along the demarcations of disciplines, and primarily for the purposes of research. Teaching would be provided as a sideline, so to speak. The major examination functions in relation to the professions are reserved to the state and to its examination system – in all faculties: for theologians, lawyers, physicians and high school teachers. This division of powers also was undertaken in the spirit of Humboldt, since he had personally introduced state examination for the philosophical faculty in 1810 – the examen pro facultate docendi for gymnasium teachers. In the individual disciplines, the first and most essential principle was to “awaken the idea of academic knowledge … to help them gain mastery … in those areas of knowledge to which each of them will be especially devoted … for this is the job of the university” (Schleiermacher 1808, 95, italics HET). The disciplines, that is, each “area of knowledge,” are thus subjected to a research imperative. For Humboldt, research is the purpose “that everything rests upon in the internal organization of institutions of higher learning, the principle that must be maintained, to regard science as something not yet completely discovered and never completely discoverable, and to relentlessly pursue it as such,” in such a way that one “always treats the search for knowledge is never completely finalizable and is something that will never end” (Humboldt 1809d/1903, 250f.). This process was to be reflected in the foundational texts for each discipline, e.g. for the departments of theology and philology: “Producing one’s own work … this is the meaning of the research seminars and practical institutes at the University, which are all fundamentally of an academic nature” (Schleiermacher 1808, 97). Professors were to be appointed in the context of these expectations, initially by the Establishment Committee in 1810, and subsequently by the University in collaboration with the Ministry of Culture (established in 1817), and the man in charge, Johannes Schultze. As of 1810, regarding the selection of faculty staff and the introduction of the Habilitation degree, the regulations provided “that only Doctores rite promoti who have registered for the Habilitation degree at the faculty of the University of Berlin, once it has been constituted in

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|21

|

22

Heinz-Elmar Tenorth

the near future, can obtain permission to give lectures”20. In this regulation, “rite promoti” did not mean the “rite” seen in today’s graduation process, an evaluation of scholarly performance (even if at the lowest level), but instead, a requirement stipulating the quality of the procedures for obtaining doctorate and Habilitation degrees – raised in explicit opposition to the prevailing dreadful state of affairs regarding low quality doctoral degrees. By contrast, in Berlin, being required to submit original work, a ban on doctorates in absentia, a separate oral examination and the transparency of the process for the entire faculty were all explicitly established from the outset. The University of Berlin set such standards early – and also insisted that faculties adhere to them in practice, in clear contradistinction to other universities that continued to have miserable doctoral promotion practices through the end of the 19th century. In this way, the heart of the Humboldtian university model, implementation of a research university, was assured unequivocally and firmly, both with respect to recruitment of faculty and in quality assurance for graduation. The subsequent sections of the statutes regulated the University as an organization, including its members who were not professors or students, such as the initially very small administrative staff (see Section V Organization of the Junior Officers of the University). Especially in Section IV About Academic Jurisdiction, they also served to regulate social control in the University, primarily related to the students and controlling their social behavior, which was also covered by Section VI About the Students (see Tenorth 2012c). Once again, these sections provide autonomy with respect to freedom in designing the internal structure of the University. External political control of the University, about which the statutes are silent, has manifested itself throughout the history of the University. It was already evident after 1819 with the “pursuit of the demagogues,” and later as a result of the Anti-Socialist Laws, culminating in 1933 from the politics of National Socialism, and after 1945 again in the name of socialism. Political control generally took place in tandem with “intellectual freedom,” as no direct encroachment into the academic practice of scientific research took place until after 1933. Section VII About the Institutes and Collections served once again to underscore the primacy of research, but was also intended to demonstrate that the University had elevated itself above the Academy of Sciences as the leading research institution. With the founding of the University, the institutes and collections formerly under the control of the Academy were transferred to the University to use them for its own benefit, and thus, the Academy suffered a significant loss of status. The University was also granted a central function when compared to the other research institutions in the city. Ever since the new University amalgamated the many Berlin research institutions that had constituted a kind of “university-before-the-university” prior to 1810, the University of Berlin has become the University in the city. Its primacy not only applies to the institutes and collections of the Academy of Sciences (since 1700) but also to the cooperation between the Faculty of Medicine and the already existing major hospital, the Charité, founded in 1710, although it only became an integral part of the University after 1945. The scope of academic life in Berlin that cooperated with the University and whose services it requires encompasses also the five classical Gymnasia, including the Berlinische Gymnasium zum Grauen Kloster founded in 1574, the Academy of Arts, the Ritterakademie or Académie militaire, the Artillerie-Academie, the astronomical observatory, the Royal Library, the Botanical Gardens in Schöneberg, the Theatre of Anatomy 20  Uhden, 19. September 1810 (GSTA, HA I, Rep. 76, Nr. 10009, Bl. 59). IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The University of Berlin: A Foundation between Defeat and Crisis,

(1713), the Collegium medico-chirurgicum (1724), the Veterinary College (1790), the Pepinière (since 1795, the military medical college), the Bauakademie (Building Academy, 1799), and the Ackerbauinstitut (Agricultural Institute, 1806). In addition to these institutions, one should include the Royal Collections and Museum, along with civic scientific associations and their collections, whose existence documents Berlin’s constant and intensive demand for the sciences, which these institutions were helping to meet before 1800 through their offerings of “Public and Private Lectures” on nature, literature and the arts. Section VIII On Lectures at the University once again bundles faculty rights and responsibilities with respect to teaching, and also introduces – at the level of the entire University – regulations for the status of Adjunct Professors (Privatdozenten), which continue to govern German universities. Together with Section IX About Academic Ranks, these sections illustrate how the modern university has directly taken over major functions in the areas of graduation and certification from the older European university system. The statutes of the individual faculties regulate detailed aspects of doctoral promotion procedures and the Habilitation degree, and have gradually become models for other universities.

4  The “Humboldt Myth” – Self-Definition and Practice at the University of Berlin If one looks at the University’s constitution in its entirety, a curious blend of traditional and modern elements, the double function of research and training, but also its distance from the great philosophical plans become apparent. The founding of the University of Berlin did not produce the “Humboldtian” model of the university as we imagine it today. It did, however, lay the foundation for a modern research university. Indeed, the new University’s provisions for autonomy – “intellectual freedom” – combined with its legal and financial dependence on the state, its linking of professional education and the recruitment of researchers, of university teaching and examinations, supervised by the state, do create a complex image of the university that continues to determine debate about the German university to this day. It is this same mixed and multifunctional image that has been the frequent object of criticism for having deviated from Humboldt’s intentions, but such criticism ignores the fact that these tensions characterized the University from its very inception. The controversies about the University and the images of the University’s history invoked in such contemporary debates about Humboldt’s role and intentions, as well as about the ways that the formation of the University of Berlin served as a model and template, have culminated in the creation21 and transmission22 of the Humboldt “myth” of which people talk about even when they look back on the founding of the University. There are at least three dimensions that one should distinguish in this debate: (1) the question of whether Humboldt was truly the founder of the University of Berlin, or if, instead, the trumpeting of a “founder” is only a reflection of local interests and self-celebration; (2) the question of whether the emphasis on its function as a model is nothing more than the “invention of a tradition” (see Paletschek 2001, 2002), 21  This myth was created long ago (see Ash 1997, viii for more on the “Humboldt Myth”). Part One bears the title Mythos Humboldt: Universities in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Germany. The same date, but tellingly with a different title Ash 1999. 22  By now, the “truth to the myth” is being discussed (see Eichler 2012), which identifies the relevant literature on the myth debate. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|23

|

24

Heinz-Elmar Tenorth

and (3) to what extent can we legitimately say that in 1810, the “idea of the modern university” had become manifest in Berlin and that it was invented there.23 If we first consider the question of the founder, and thus Humboldt’s role, then it seems to me that the evidence is incontrovertible and it clearly speaks for Humboldt. He substantially influenced the founding of the University; indeed, he played a crucial role in shaping the process. He himself was not reserved when estimating his own importance: “This new founding is still causing me a lot of effort and concern, but since it can only be moved forward by my own efforts, a lot of joy as well” (Humboldt, quoted in: Köpke 1860, 76). At the same time, outside observers of the dynamics of the process also point to Humboldt as the real founder and as an indispensible mover in the University’s founding history. Without him, the University would not have come into being, not at this time, not in this combination of modernity and tradition, nor with these professors or with this emphasis on research – but also not brought to completion through compromises, for example in its financing, which were necessary to drive forward and complete a laborious and protracted founding process that has lumbered along ever since 1800. The magnitude of Humboldt’s role was readily apparent to contemporary observers as well as those born later in the 19th century, and thus well before the 1910 centennial and outside the penchant of the Berlin coteries for self-aggrandizement and commemorative rhetoric. The Southern German educator Gustav Baur was expressing a consensus when he said that everyone understood that “the University of Berlin must truly be regarded as H[umboldt]’s creation” (1862, 649). However, there is much more justification for invoking the “invention of a tradition” when we recall the differences between the structure and intentions of the University at its founding, on the one hand, and the philosophical programs ascribed, often falsely, to Humboldt, on the other. Humboldt’s paper On the Internal and External Organization (Humboldt 1809d/1903) plays a major role in this discourse. This paper was only rediscovered at the very end of the 19th century, but many readers have retrospectively interpreted it as the real mission statement for the University of Berlin. However, in the founding history, we can readily see that this paper never served such a function, and not only because it was entirely absent from the historical debates. In addition, Humboldt did not employ the emphatic theses and objectives he put forth in this paper during the founding phase and its conflicts; rather, he maintained a highly pragmatic stance that was sensitive to political power and was prepared to make compromises in the interest of achieving most of his goals. As we can readily see, today’s fashionable tradition of ascribing the self-understanding of the modern university to Humboldt was invented only much later, in the celebratory mood following the 100th anniversary jubilee in 1910, and later invoked in Berlin during the political conflicts over the autonomy of the university after 1918, and then throughout the German-speaking world until our day (see also Hanningsen/Schlaeger/Tenorth 2013). In the anniversary year 1910, there appeared in Berlin, from inside the University, texts that mythologized Humboldt, and these texts were then handed down to form the modern myth of the exemplary and brilliant philosopher of education and educational reformer. In this context, one should cite Eduard Spranger above all. He wrote the book Wilhelm von Humboldt and the Idea of Humanity (Wilhelm von Humboldt und die Humanitätsidee), published in 1909 in Berlin, which focused on Humboldt as an educational theorist, and the book 23  In the critical discussion of this debate I draw on the results of previously published contributions, see Tenorth 2010b, 2012d. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The University of Berlin: A Foundation between Defeat and Crisis,

Wilhelm von Humboldt and the Reform of the Educational System (Wilhelm von Humboldt und die Reform des Bildungswesens), published in Berlin in 1910, which focused on Humboldt as a politician and educational reformer. If we look at the historical impact of these works, we can see how Spranger invented two myths: Humboldt as the extraordinary theoretician and inventor of modern educational philosophy and Humboldt as the successful educational reformer. Both of these are, indeed, myths, for their historical impact has been weightier than the underlying reality. For Humboldt was only in a metaphorical sense a rigorous educational philosopher who argued consistent positions (Benner 1990, 21ff.), he was hardly the philosopher of education as envisioned by Spranger. Rather, in these books one can see Spranger, inspired by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, reading himself creatively into Humboldt. Humboldt was by no means a vastly successful educational reformer, if for no other reason than the brevity of his tenure in office, and he certainly was not the paradigmatic educational reformer who seamlessly implemented his own ideas to create the Prussian educational system. Yet one should also refrain from reading Humboldt as a benchmark for failure, as if everything that took place in Prussia after 1810 was nothing but a deviation of his ideas. Prussian educational policy after 1810 had a dynamic of its own.24 Can we at least hold on to the notion of the “Humboldt Model” of the University of Berlin as the embodiment of the modern “Idea of the University” that became a model imitated allover the world? The publication of the “Fundamental Texts” and their appropriation in the 20th century clearly generated not only a fixed canon of programs and texts that made it possible to speak about the “Idea of the University,” but also fortified the political use of this discourse and its evocation. Quite recently, during the so-called Bologna Reforms, these ideas were once again called upon in an effort to seal off the university from political incursion and external pressures for reform. The self-defensive function of such battlefield rhetoric is unmistakable, yet the genuine function of this kind of construction and transmission of a universities tradition goes well beyond such expediency. As I would read it, complex organizations such as universities cannot protect their integrity or their operational competency without statements of mission and self-definitions such as those provided by the discourse about the “Idea of the University.” An institution requires the readiness for self-reflexivity to maintain the system’s sensibility and competence, both inwardly and outwardly. Thus, it does not strike me as a coincidence that a discourse about the idea of the university has also developed in English-speaking university systems. That discourse does not fall back on Humboldt, but instead on John Henry Newman and his 1852 paper on the Idea of a University.25 Of course, the Anglo-American discourse does not reflect a literal description of the university system in the English-speaking world,26 but it does serve a self-reflexive function for the system in an analogous way to Humboldt. Clearly, complex modern social systems need a way to symbolize their identities that extends beyond the everyday experience of their actors or their discourse of pain and suffering. In Humboldt’s texts its regulative,

24  In this regard, see Karl-Ernst Jeismann and Peter Lundgreen (1987), which also addresses the incorrect interpretations of Clemens Menze (1975) and Heinrich Bosse (2012). 25  The 1873 edition, which, incidentally, takes the line of argument occasionally identified as German, as it describes the aim of the university as the “cultivation of mind” (Newman 1852, xvi) and expects it to “bring the mind into form,” additionally stating that the function of the university is “to impress upon a boy’s mind the idea of science, method, order, principle, and system” (ibid., xix). 26  In this connection, one should compare the mixture of scepticism and approval found in Rothblatt 1997. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|25

|

26

Heinz-Elmar Tenorth

interpretable, normative and idealistic rhetoric, the idea of the university, helps preserve the image of a practice that is worth striving for, but can never be fully achieved.

References

Anrich, Ernst (Ed.): Die Idee der deutschen Universität: Die fünf Grundschriften aus der Zeit ihrer Neubegründung durch klassischen Idealismus und romantischen Realismus. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1956 Ascherson, Ferdinand (Ed.): Urkunden zur Geschichte der Jubelfeier der Königlichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin im October 1860. Nebst einem Verzeichnis der Lehrer der Universität von der Gründung bis zum 15. October 1862. Berlin: Guttentag 1863 Ash, Mitchell G.: Introduction. In: Mitchell G. Ash (Ed.): German Universities: Past and Future. Crisis or Renewal? Providence: Berghan Books 1997, vii-xx Ash, Mitchell G. (Ed.): Mythos Humboldt: Vergangenheit und Zukunft der deutschen Universität. Wien: Böhlau 1999 Bahl, Peter/Ribbe, Wolfgang (Eds.): Die Matrikel der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin 1810-1850, 3 Volumes. Berlin: de Gruyter 2010 Baur, Gustav: Humboldt, W.v. In: Karl Adolf Schmid: Enzyklopädie des gesammten Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswesens, Band 3. Gotha: Besser 1862, 644-659. Benner, Dietrich: Wilhelm von Humboldts Bildungstheorie. Weinheim: Juventa 1990 Bosse, Heinrich: Bildungsrevolution 1770-1830. Herausgegeben mit einem Gespräch von Nacim Ghanbari. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter 2012 Cobb, James Denis: The Forgotten Reforms: Non-Prussian Universities, 1797-1817. Diss. Madison University 1980 Deiters, Heinrich: Wilhelm von Humboldt als Gründer der Universität Berlin. In: Willi Göber et al. (Eds.): Forschen und Wirken. Festschrift zur 150-Jahr-Feier der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin 1810-1960, Band 1. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaft 1960, 15-39 Eichler, Martin: Die Wahrheit des Mythos Humboldt. In: Historische Zeitschrift 294(2012), Heft 1, 59-78 Gedike, Friedrich (1784a): Von einem Fremden, 15. Brief. In: Berlinische Monatsschrift 3(1784), 1. Stück, 463465 Gedike, Friedrich (1784b): Von einem Fremden, 16. Brief. In: Berlinische Monatsschrift 3(1784), 469-475 Göber, Willi et al. (Eds.): Forschen und Wirken. Festschrift zur 150-Jahr-Feier der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin 1810-1960, 3 Bände. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften 1960 Hammerstein, Notker (Ed.): Universitäten und Aufklärung. Göttingen: Wallstein 1996 Hammerstein, Notker: Res publica litteraria: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur frühneuzeitlichen Bildungs-, Wissenschaftsund Universitätsgeschichte. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 2000 Hammerstein, Notker: Aufbruch in Reformen: Tradition und Innovation zu Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts: Die Universität in Staat und Gesellschaft. In: Rüdiger vom Bruch/Elisabeth Müller-Luckner (Eds.): Die Berliner Universität im Kontext der deutschen Universitätslandschaft nach 1800, um 1860 und um 1910. München: Oldenbourg 2010, 3-19 Henningsen, Bernd/Schlaeger, Jürgen/Tenorth, Heinz-Elmar (Eds.): Humboldt’s Model: The Future of Universities in the World of Research. Conference Report. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag 2013 Honnefelder, Ludger et al. (Eds.): Kants “Streit der Fakultäten” oder der Ort der Bildung zwischen Lebenswelt und Wissenschaft. Berlin: University Press 2012 Humboldt, Wilhelm von (1809a): Antrag auf Errichtung der Universität Berlin (1809). In: Wilhelm von Humboldt: Gesammelte Schriften, Band X. Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Ed.). Berlin: B. Behr’s Verlag 1903, 139-145 Humboldt, Wilhelm von (1809b): Zum Kabinettsvortrag (1809). In: Wilhelm von Humboldt: Gesammelte Schriften, Band X. Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Ed.). Berlin: B. Behr’s Verlag 1903, 145-147 Humboldt, Wilhelm von (1809c): Unmaßgebliche Vorschläge (1809). In: Wilhelm von Humboldt: Gesammelte Schriften, Band X. Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Eds.). Berlin: B. Behr’s Verlag 1903, 158-160 Humboldt: Wilhelm von (1809d): Ueber die innere und äußere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten in Berlin (1809). In: Wilhelm von Humboldt: Gesammelte Schriften, Band X. Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Ed.). Berlin: B. Behr’s Verlag 1903, 250-260 IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The University of Berlin: A Foundation between Defeat and Crisis,

Jeismann, Karl-Ernst/Lundgreen, Peter (Eds.): Von der Neuordnung Deutschlands bis zur Gründung des Deutschen Reiches. 1800 bis 1870. München: Beck 1987 Köpke, Rudolf: Die Gründung der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin. Berlin: Schade 1860 Langewiesche, Dieter: Die “Humboldtsche Universität” als nationaler Mythos: Zum Selbstbild der deutschen Universität im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik. In: Historische Zeitschrift 290(2010), 53-91 Langewiesche, Dieter: Humboldt als Leitbild? Die deutsche Universität in den Berliner Rektoratsreden seit dem 19. Jahrhundert. In: Jahrbuch für Universitätsgeschichte 14(2011), 15-37 Lenz, Max: Geschichte der königlichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin. Band 1: Gründung und Ausbau. Halle: Waisenhaus 1910 McClelland, Charles E.: State, Society, and University in Germany 1700-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1980 Menze, Clemens: Die Bildungsreform Wilhelm von Humboldts. Hannover: Schroedel 1975 Müller, Ernst (Ed.): Gelegentliche Gedanken über Universitäten von J. J. Engel, J. B. Erhard, F. A. Wolf, J. G. Fichte, F. D. E. Schleiermacher, K. F. Savigny, W. v. Humboldt, G. F. W. Hegel. Leipzig: Reclam 1990 Newman, John Henry: The Idea of a University: Defined and Illustrated (1852). Reprint of the 1873 edition. London: Routledge/Thoemmes Press 1994 Paletschek, Sylvia: Verbreitete sich ein ‚Humboldt’sches Modell an den deutschen Universitäten im 19. Jahrhundert? In: Rainer Christoph Schwinges (Ed.): Humboldt International. Der Export des deutschen Universitätsmodells im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Basel: Schwabe 2001, 75-104 Paletschek, Sylvia: Die Erfindung der Humboldtschen Universität. Die Konstruktion der deutschen Universitätsidee in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. In: Historische Anthropologie 10(2002), 183-205 Rothblatt, Sheldon: The idea of the idea of a university and its antithesis. In: Sheldon Rothblatt (Ed.): The Modern University and its Discontents: The Fate of Newman’s Legacies in Britain and America. Cambridge: University Press 1997, 1-49 Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von: Studium Generale. Vorlesungen über die Methode des akademischen Studiums (1802). Stuttgart: Kröner 1954 Schelsky, Helmut: Einsamkeit und Freiheit: Idee und Gestalt der deutschen Universität und ihrer Reformen (1963). Düsseldorf: Bertelsmann 1971 Schiller, Friedrich von: Was heißt und zu welchem Ende studiert man Universalgeschichte? (1789). In: Friedrich von Schiller: Werke in drei Bände, Band 2. München: Carl Hanser Verlag 1966, 9-22 Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst: Gelegentliche Gedanken über Universitäten in deutschem Sinn (1808). In: Ernst Müller (Ed.): Gelegentliche Gedanken über Universitäten von J. J. Engel, J. B. Erhard, F. A. Wolf, J. G. Fichte, F. D. E. Schleiermacher, K. F. Savigny, W. v. Humboldt, G. F. W. Hegel. Leipzig: Reclam 1990, 159-256 Schmidt, Erich: Jahrhundertfeier der Königlichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin, 10. bis 12. Oktober 1910. Berlin: G. Schade 1911 Sydow, Anna von: Wilhelm und Caroline von Humboldt in ihren Briefen, Band 3. Berlin: Mittler 1909 Takamori, Akira: Die erste Berliner Universitätsverfassung und ihr Einfluß auf das japanische Hochschulwesen. Quellenedition des “Vorläufigen Reglements für die Universität Berlin” von 1810. In: Jahrbuch für Universitätsgeschichte 2(1999), 137-150 Tenorth, Heinz-Elmar (Ed.): Geschichte der Universität Unter den Linden, 1810-2010, 6 Bände. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 2010-2012 Tenorth, Heinz-Elmar (2010a): Genese der Disziplinen – Die Konstitution der Universität. Zur Einleitung. In: Heinz-Elmar Tenorth (Ed.): Genese der Disziplinen: Die Konstitution der Universität. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 2010, 9-40 Tenorth, Heinz-Elmar (2010b): Wilhelm von Humboldts (1776-1835) Universitätskonzept und die Reform in Berlin – eine Tradition jenseits des Mythos. In: Zeitschrift für Germanistik, Neue Folge 20(2010), Heft 1, 15-28 Tenorth; Heinz-Elmar (2012a): Eine Universität zu Berlin – Vorgeschichte und Einrichtung. In: Heinz-Elmar Tenorth (Ed.): Gründung und Blütezeit der Universität zu Berlin 1810-1918. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 2012, 3-75 Tenorth, Heinz-Elmar (2012b): Verfassung und Ordnung der Universität. In: Heinz-Elmar Tenorth (Ed.): Gründung und Blütezeit der Universität zu Berlin 1810-1918. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 2012, 77-130 Tenorth, Heinz-Elmar (2012c): Studenten, Studium und Lehre. In: Heinz-Elmar Tenorth (Ed.): Gründung und Blütezeit der Universität zu Berlin 1810-1918. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 2012, 209-267 Tenorth, Heinz-Elmar (2012d): „Mythos Humboldt“ – eine Notiz zu Funktion und Geltung der großen Erzählung über die Tradition der deutschen Universität. In: Carolin Behrmann/Stefan Trinks/Matthias Bruhn (Eds.): Intuition und Institution. Kursbuch Horst Bredekamp. Berlin 2012, 81-92

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|27

|

28

Heinz-Elmar Tenorth

Tosch, Frank (Ed.): Friedrich Gedike (1754-1803) und das moderne Gymnasium: Historische Zugänge und aktuelle Perspektiven. Berlin: Weidler 2007 Turner, Roy Steven: The Prussian Universities and the Research Imperative, 1806 to 1848. Diss. Princeton University 1973 Virmond, Wolfgang (Ed.): Die Vorlesungen der Berliner Universität 1810-1834 nach dem deutschen und lateinischen Lektionskatalog sowie den Ministerialakten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 2011 Vorläufiges Reglement vom 24. November 1810. In: Jahrbuch für Universitätsgeschichte 2(1999), 140-144

Prof. Dr. Heinz-Elmar Tenorth, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Erziehungswissenschaften, Unter den Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin, [email protected]

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|29

Dagmar Hänsel Die nationalsozialistische Hilfsschullehrerausbildung in ihren Kontinuitäten zu vorangegangenen und nachfolgenden Entwicklungen Special Education Teacher Training in the National Socialist Era and Its Continuities with Previous and Subsequent Developments

(Red.) In den sonderpädagogischen Darstellungen zur Entwicklung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung wird die NS-Zeit bis heute als eine Epoche begriffen, die keine Verbindung zu den vorangegangenen wie nachfolgenden Entwicklungen aufweist. Dass dem jedoch nicht so ist, zeigt dieser Beitrag, in dessen Zentrum der Entwurf der reichsweit geltenden Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung für Hilfsschullehrer von 1941 – neben angeschlossenen Dokumenten – steht. Diese von der sonderpädagogischen Geschichtsschreibung vernachlässigte Quelle wird in ihrem synchronen wie diachronen Kontext in den Blick genommen, um die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung im Nationalsozialismus in ihren Kontinuitäten neu zu thematisieren. (Ed.) Up to now, special education histories dealing with the training of special education teachers have portrayed the Nazi era as a period that had no connection to either previous or subsequent developments. Focusing on the training and examination regulations for special education teachers that were in effect at the time as well as further relevant documents, this contribution shows that this narrative is not true. These sources neglected by special education historiography are interpreted here in their synchronous and diachronic context to examine special education teacher training under National Socialism and its continuities from a fresh perspective. Die Entwicklung der Hilfsschule und der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung im Nationalsozialismus ist nach den Vorstellungen der sonderpädagogischen Historiographie durch die Gegnerschaft des Nazi-Regimes gegenüber der Hilfsschule als Einrichtung für „Erbkranke“ und gegenüber den helfenden Bestrebungen der Heilpädagogik und der Heilpädagogen bestimmt. Das Nazi-Regime trachtete nach dieser Vorstellung danach, die Hilfsschule abzuschaffen und verbot die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung. Die NS-Zeit wird von der sonderpädagogischen Historiographie demnach als Leerstelle in der Entwicklung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|

30

Dagmar Hänsel

begriffen, die zu den vorangegangenen und nachfolgenden Entwicklungen keine Verbindung aufweise und in der ein Stillstand und Rückschritt stattgefunden habe. Folglich habe die Entwicklung nach 1945 an die von Wilhelm Hofmann apostrophierte „Hochblüte“ (Hofmann 1966, 92) der Heilpädagogik in den 1920er-Jahren wieder angeknüpft. Die sonderpädagogische Geschichtsschreibung konstruiert somit eine unterbrochene Entwicklungslinie, die vom Erfolg in den 1920er-Jahren über den Niedergang während der NSZeit zum Neuanfang nach 1945 führt. Dementsprechend lautete der Titel der Festschrift zum hundertjährigen Bestehen des Hilfsschulverbands Erfolg, Niedergang, Neuanfang (vgl. Möckel 1998), wie auch bereits 1953 Gustav Lesemann Nach Niedergang – zu neuem Aufbruch in unserer Zeit getitelt hatte (vgl. Lesemann 1953, 47). Diese Rezeption der NS-Zeit als Leerstelle in der Entwicklung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung wird als spezifisch sonderpädagogische Geschichtskonstruktion in diesem Beitrag quellenkritisch analysiert und dekonstruiert. Im Zentrum steht dabei der Entwurf der Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung für Hilfsschullehrer von 1941, der schließlich für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung in den 1950er-Jahren festschreiben sollte. Diese Quelle ist von der sonderpädagogischen Historiographie weder zufällig vernachlässigt noch zufällig aus einem Konvolut von Dokumenten verschwunden, das der promovierte Hilfsschullehrer Karl Tornow seinem Kollegen Erich Beschel nach der NS-Zeit übergeben hatte, um sich als Retter der vom Nazi-Regime bedrohten Hilfsschule darzustellen (vgl. Hänsel 2008, 42). Sie bildet – um im Bild einer Geschichte der NS-Zeit als sonderpädagogischer Leerstelle zu bleiben – gleichsam den ‚missing link‘ zwischen der „Hochblüte“ der Heilpädagogik resp. bayerischer Hilfsschullehrerausbildung während der 1920er-Jahre und deren von Erwin Lesch nach 1945 organisierten Fortsetzung. Die Kontinuitäten, welche die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung über das ‚Dritte Reich‘ hinaus geprägt haben, lassen sich mit dieser Quelle belegen. Zum einen weisen das heilpädagogische Ausbildungscurriculum und sein Inhaltskatalog ebenso Kontinuitäten auf wie das heilpädagogische Ausbildungskonzept. Zum anderen lassen sich Kontinuitäten in der maßgeblichen Beteiligung der Hilfsschullehrer an der Erstellung staatlicher Prüfungsordnungen für die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung nachweisen. Darüber hinaus manifestieren sich darin für die Hilfsschullehrerschaft die Kontinuitäten ihrer professionspolitischen Interessen und Bestrebungen, eine eigenständige, mit der Blinden- und Taubstummenlehrerausbildung gleichgestellte heilpädagogische Ausbildung in Verbindung mit der Universität durchzusetzen und sich als Sonderpädagogen gegenüber ihrer Herkunftsgruppe, den Volksschullehrern, statusund besoldungsmäßig abzugrenzen bzw. sich von dieser abzusetzen. Um diese vielfältigen Kontinuitätsstränge nachzuweisen, wird der bereits genannte, hier so zitierte Entwurf zur Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung für Hilfsschullehrer von 1941 im Folgenden sowohl im Kontext weiterer unveröffentlichter und publizierter Quellen der NSZeit als auch vorangegangener und nachfolgender Entwicklungen untersucht. Vorangehend werden die Geschichtskonstruktionen dargestellt, die von der Sonderpädagogik seit 1949 entwickelt worden sind.

1  Geschichtskonstruktionen der Sonderpädagogik In sonderpädagogischen Monographien zur NS-Zeit wird die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung entweder gar nicht behandelt oder nur am Rande gestreift (vgl. Höck 1979, 301ff.; Brill IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Die nationalsozialistische Hilfsschullehrerausbildung

2011). Das gilt auch für die Geschichten der Sonderschule wie der Sonderpädagogik (vgl. Lesemann 1966; Solarová 1983; Möckel 2007; Ellger-Rüttgardt 2008; Moser 2009). Die Geschichte der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung wird bevorzugt von führenden Vertretern des Hilfsschulverbands im Rahmen von Jubiläen abgehandelt. Es handelt sich dabei um Jahrestage des Hilfsschulverbands (vgl. Hofmann 1973; Kanter/Schmetz 1998), der Ausbildungsstätten für Hilfsschullehrer oder der führenden Ausbildungsvertreter (vgl. Bleidick 1973, 1991; Kanter 1985; Jussen 1988; Hillenbrand 1997). In den Rückblicken wird die Entwicklung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung als besonderes Verdienst des Hilfsschulverbands gewürdigt und in Form von Meistererzählungen als Fortschrittsgeschichte dargeboten, die in drei Stufen von der Autodidaktik und Meisterlehre über Ausbildungskurse zum wissenschaftlichen Studium der Hilfsschullehrer geführt habe (vgl. Bleidick 1969, 1991, 1998; Hofmann 1973; Beschel 1986; Kanter/Schmetz 1998; Stoellger 2001). Schon bei der Neugründung des Hilfsschulverbands im Jahr 1949 wurde die Entwicklung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung während der NS-Zeit im Kontext einer behaupteten „Diskriminierung der Hilfsschule“ wie der Heilpädagogik dargestellt (Bericht 1949, 8). Im ‚Dritten Reich‘ habe die Hilfsschule – so der Bericht über den Verbandstag von 1949 – „durch lange Jahre hindurch nur eine untergeordnete Stellung eingenommen“, so dass das „allgemeine Chaos auf kulturellem Gebiete auch den Lebensnerv der deutschen Heilpädagogik getroffen“ habe (ebd., 7). Diese „Niederhaltung“ der heilpädagogischen Idee habe „ihren sichtbarsten Ausdruck in der Ausschaltung der Frage des Erziehernachwuchses für die Hilfsschule“ gefunden (ebd., 3). Die Hilfsschule, formulierte Gustav Lesemann in seinem Festvortrag auf dem Verbandstag von 1953, sei in der NS-Zeit durch den „Würgegriff des Nationalsozialismus“ an die „unterste Grenze der Existenzmöglichkeit gedrängt“ worden, doch hätten „von der Echtheit der heilpädagogischen Idee und Gesinnung“ durchdrungene Männer und Frauen vermocht, die „Hilfsschule zu retten“ (Lesemann 1953, 47). Zudem betonte dort Wilhelm Hofmann als Ausbildungsexperte des Verbands, dass die NSZeit „hinsichtlich des Ausbaues des Sonderschulwesens und hinsichtlich der wissenschaftlichen Begründung, Untersuchung und Vertiefung der vielseitigen Problematik eine Stagnation, ja einen Rückschritt“ mit sich gebracht habe. Er behauptete: „Allgemein standen wir 1945 vor einem Trümmerhaufen: Von den Erkenntnissen und Erfahrungen der 20er Jahre durch den leeren Raum von 12 Jahren getrennt“, habe 1945 neu angefangen werden müssen, um an die „klassische Zeit der Heilpädagogik“ wieder anknüpfen zu können (Hofmann 1953, 480). In seinem Geschichtsabriss zur Hilfsschule schrieb Hofmann 1966: „Die Nationalsozialisten hatten auf Grund ihrer Rassenlehre und Rassenpolitik für den geschädigten Menschen nicht viel übrig. So schrumpfte fast in ganz Deutschland das Hilfsschulwesen zusammen“, um zu resümieren: „Aus der Hochblüte der Heilpädagogik und dem fortschreitenden Auf- und Ausbau des Sonderschulwesens in der Zeit vor 1933 war 1945 ein Trümmerfeld übriggeblieben“ (Hofmann 1966, 92). In ähnlicher Weise hatte Erich Beschel 1964 die „apädagogische Einstellung“ der nationalsozialistischen Machthaber betont, die sich auch an der Tatsache gezeigt habe, dass die „Ausbildung der Hilfsschullehrer absichtlich unterblieb“ (Beschel 1964, 268), während Ulrich Bleidick 1969 von dem „beispiellosen Rückgang und der Zerstörung mühsamer Errungenschaften der akademischen Lehrerbildung von 1933 bis 1945“ sprach, demzufolge danach „wieder dort, wo man 1903 angefangen hatte“, begonnen worden sei (Bleidick 1969, 4f.; vgl. Bericht 1903).

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|31

|

32

Dagmar Hänsel

Anlässlich der Feiern zum 75-jährigen Bestehen des 1898 gegründeten Hilfsschulverbands referierte Hofmann die Entwicklung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung im Zusammenhang mit der Verbandsgeschichte ausführlich. Die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung war zu diesem Zeitpunkt schon zur gemeinsamen Sonderschullehrerausbildung und der Hilfsschulverband zum Sonderschulverband geworden. „Das ‚klassische‘ Jahrzehnt der Heilpädagogik in Deutschland 1922/1932 fand sein Ende 1933“, erklärte Hofmann in diesem Festvortrag 1973. „Die Ausbildungslehrgänge für Hilfsschullehrer wurden in Preußen verboten“ und die „Sonderschullehrerausbildung im damaligen Deutschland endgültig abgeschrieben“ (Hofmann 1973, 868, 869). „Man war von den Erkenntnissen und Erfahrungen der zwanziger Jahre durch den wissenschaftlich leeren Raum von zwölf Jahren getrennt“, präzisierte Hofmann seine 1953 getroffene Aussage und zog dann das Fazit: „Die Geschichte des Verbandes und nicht zuletzt die Geschichte der Sonderschullehrerausbildung hat eindeutig gezeigt, daß ein Fortschritt auf dem Ausbildungswesen ohne Initiative und Einsatz des Verbandes nicht möglich ist“ (ebd., 877). Ganz ähnlich stellte Beschel 1986 fest: „Die Nationalsozialisten sahen anfangs in den Hilfsschulen Einrichtungen für Untermenschen, die man eigentlich schließen müßte, betrachteten sie aber nach Erlaß der Nürnberger Rassengesetze als ‚Sammelbecken‘ für die ‚Ausmerze kranker Erbgänge‘“, um anschließend erneut zu erklären: „Lehrer für diese Kinder wurden in Preußen bis zum Ende des Dritten Reiches nicht ausgebildet“ (Beschel 1986, 93f.). Wie Beschel und zuvor Lesemann und Hofmann erklärte Heribert Jussen 1988, dass im ‚Dritten Reich‘ „mit der inneren und äußeren Zerschlagung des damaligen Schulwesens für das kranke, lernschwache und körperlich geschädigte Kind auch die heilpädagogische Forschung und Lehre zum Erliegen kamen“. Eine „erfolgversprechende Entwicklung fand damit ein abruptes Ende“ (Jussen 1988, 361f.). Ebenso hatte Gustav Kanter 1985 behauptet – ähnlich wie etwa Bleidick und Hofmann über ein Jahrzehnt zuvor – die Heilpädagogik habe nach der NS-Zeit „praktisch vom ‚Punkte Null‘ aus“ neu anfangen und einen „völligen Neubeginn“ machen müssen (Kanter 1985, 13, 17). Dementsprechend handelten er und Ditmar Schmetz die Entwicklung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung unter nationalsozialistischer Herrschaft in der 1998 erschienenen Festschrift zur Säkularfeier des Hilfsschulverbands unter der Überschrift „Regression in den dreißiger und vierziger Jahren“ ab (Kanter/Schmetz 1998, 197). „Für ‚Schwachsinnige‘, ‚minderwertiges Erbgut‘, ‚Volksschädlinge‘ u. dgl. blieb kaum Raum“, führten diese Autoren aus und stellten ebenfalls ohne Quellenbezug fest, dass „in Preußen die Ausbildungsgänge für Hilfsschullehrer verboten“ worden seien (ebd., 197). Schließlich blieb die Bewertung vorherrschend, die Ulrich Bleidick Ende der 1990er-Jahre zur Sonderschullehrerausbildung formulierte: „Es verbietet sich, den Rückschlag der Lehrerbildung während der Nazidiktatur zwischen 1933 und 1945 noch als Entwicklungsphase zu werten“ (Bleidick 1998, 339). Dem entsprechend erklärte Sieglind Ellger-Rüttgardt noch nach der Jahrtausendwende: „Im Dritten Reich kam die Ausbildung von Sonderpädagogen nahezu vollständig zum Erliegen, und damit wurde zugleich der noch nicht vollendete Akademisierungsprozess der Sonderpädagogik abgebrochen“ (Abschlussbericht 2002, 60f.). Diese hier näher vorgestellten Geschichtsabrisse entwickelten zur Hilfsschule wie zur Heilpädagogik im ‚Dritten Reich‘ die Vorstellung von deren „Niederhaltung“ (vgl. Bericht 1949, 3), die in einem nirgends belegten „Verbot“ der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung in Preußen ihren sichtbarsten Ausdruck gefunden habe. Durch die Behauptung eines Verbots der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung und durch den gleichzeitigen Verweis auf die rassenhygienischen IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Die nationalsozialistische Hilfsschullehrerausbildung

Bestrebungen des Nazi-Regimes wird suggeriert, dass die Einstellung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung in Preußen politisch-ideologisch motiviert gewesen und aus der Gegnerschaft des Nationalsozialismus gegenüber der Hilfsschule und der Heilpädagogik entsprungen sei. Doch entgegen dieser quellenfernen Interpretation von Geschichte, die seit 1949 im Wesentlichen unverändert geblieben ist, lässt sich nachweisen, dass auch noch nach der nationalsozialistischen „Machtergreifung“ sowohl im März 1933 als auch im März 1934 für die Teilnehmer von Ausbildungslehrgängen zum Hilfsschullehrer Prüfungen in Halle an der Saale abgehalten worden sind (vgl. Zentralblatt 1933, 16; 1934, 3). Zwar ist ein dementsprechender Prüfungstermin für 1935 lediglich als „unbestimmt“ angekündigt worden, während in Preußen ab 1936 Prüfungen für Hilfsschullehrer nicht nachweisbar sind (vgl. Deutsche Wissenschaft 1935, 4, sowie folgende Bände), doch haben in Bayern 1935/36 und 1941/42 Lehrgänge für Hilfsschullehrer stattgefunden – wie von Erwin Lesch dokumentiert (vgl. Lesch 1942, 1952) und hier noch näher auszuführen sein wird. Diese und weitere Belege zur Hilfsschullehrerausbildung während der NS-Zeit sind allerdings von der sonderpädagogischen Geschichtsschreibung entweder nicht zur Kenntnis genommen oder in deren seit 1949 entwickelte Geschichtskonstruktion eingepasst worden. Diese Feststellung gilt insbesondere für den Entwurf der reichseinheitlichen Ausbildungsund Prüfungsordnung für Hilfsschullehrer von 1941, den nur Manfred Höck in seiner 1979 erschienenen Monographie über Die Hilfsschule im Dritten Reich berücksichtigt hat. Zu den von ihm als „bemerkenswert“ benannten Punkten dieses Entwurfs zählte Höck unter anderem die Festschreibung eines wissenschaftlichen Studiums, das die „Bindung an eine Universität erforderlich“ mache (Höck 1979, 310). Außerdem wies er darauf hin, dass der Entwurf „überwiegend die Handschrift Tornows, aber auch Elemente der bayerischen Ausbildung – Lesch – enthält“ (ebd., 310). Zur Erklärung der Tatsache, dass dieser Entwurf im ‚Dritten Reich‘ nicht realisiert worden sei, schrieb Höck: „Vermutlich durchkreuzt die Parteikanzlei, wie in mehreren anderen Angelegenheiten im Zusammenhang mit der Regelung des Hilfsschulwesens, jedoch all die gutgemeinten Pläne des RMinWEV [Reichsministerium für Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung, DH] und der für die Durchführung der Lehrgänge in Aussicht genommenen Verwaltungen“ (ebd., 310).

2  Zur Entwicklung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung vom Wilhelminischen Kaiserreich bis zur nationalsozialistischen Herrschaft Die Bedeutung des Hilfsschulverbands für die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung hatte dessen Initiator, der Hilfsschullehrer Heinrich Kielhorn, schon auf der Gründungsversammlung 1898 betont. Denn dieser Verband sollte „dazu dienen, uns auszurüsten für unsern Beruf. Wir wollen aber nicht nur nehmen, sondern auch geben“, um anschließend rhetorisch zu fragen: „Sollten wir im Laufe der Zeit nicht imstande sein, der Psychologie und der Psychiatrie Dienste zu leisten? Sollten wir nicht der allgemeinen Pädagogik hier und da neue Wege erschließen, indem wir eine besondere Hilfsschulpädagogik ausbilden?“ (Bericht 1898, 29). Für die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung entwickelte Kielhorn dort zugleich einen die künftige Entwicklung bestimmenden Plan: „Ein Studium der Ursachen der Geistesschwäche, ein Studium unserer Kinder nach ihrer seelischen und leiblichen Eigenart ist uns unerlässlich“, zu dem „ein Bekanntsein mit der Anatomie, Pathologie, Psychologie, der Psychiatrie und der Hygiene“ gehöre. Besonders sollte er „die Sprachgebrechen hervorheben, deren Heilung gleichfalls auf sorgfältigem Studium der Ursachen sich zu vollziehen hat“ (ebd., 28f.). IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|33

|

34

Dagmar Hänsel

Dementsprechend forderte der Magdeburger Hilfsschullehrer Busch 1905 auf dem fünften Verbandstag als Eckpunkte für die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung eine „spezielle Vorbildung“ für die „besondere Aufgabe“ der Erziehung Schwachsinniger (vgl. Bericht 1905, 24). Ihr sollte eine mindestens zweijährige Tätigkeit in einer Hilfsschule, eine zuvor abgeschlossene Volksschullehrerausbildung und somit bereits eine mehrjährige Unterrichtspraxis in der Volksschule vorausgehen, während die „Befähigung zur Anstellung als Lehrer oder Leiter einer Hilfsschule oder einer ähnlichen Erziehungsanstalt“ mit einer „staatlich einzurichtenden Prüfung“ erworben werden sollte. Als Vorbild dazu nannte Busch die preußische Taubstummenlehrerprüfung (ebd., 20f.). Für den Hilfsschullehrer sei vor allen Dingen eine „gründliche wissenschaftliche Ausbildung“ erforderlich, die ihn befähige, die „mannigfachen Fehler“ der Hilfsschulkinder zu erkennen und die „Lehre von der Behandlung dieser Fehler in die Praxis umzusetzen“ (ebd., 15). Auch in der Ausbildung der Volksschullehrer müsse „die Behandlung der pädagogischen Pathologie eine größere Berücksichtigung erfahren als bisher“, nicht um den Volksschullehrer zu befähigen, „selbst in heilpädagogischer Weise einzugreifen, sondern namentlich deshalb, um die Anfänge der sich entwickelnden Zustände rechtzeitig zu erkennen“ und „darauf aufmerksam zu machen“ (ebd., 15). Zur „wissenschaftlichen Ausbildung“ sollten neben einem spezifizierten medizinischen Grundwissen insbesondere Einführungen in die „Methodik der Kinderpsychologie“, in die Pädagogik schwachsinniger Kinder, in die Sprachheilkunde und in die Literatur und Geschichte der Schwachsinnigenbildung gehören (ebd., 23). Die damit zu verknüpfende praktische Ausbildung sollte in der Hilfsschule stattfinden und der Hilfsschulleiter zugleich Ausbildungsleiter sein. „Vor allem ist aber notwendig“, so wurde betont, „daß von seiten des Staates Kurse für Hilfsschullehrer eingerichtet werden“. Zur Einrichtung solcher Kurse würde sich „ein Ort wie Berlin mit seiner Universität, seinen Hilfsschulen, seiner Idioten-, Taubstummen-, Erziehungs- und Blindenanstalt, sowie seinen schon jetzt bestehenden Sprachheilkursen ganz besonders eignen“ (ebd.). Welche standespolitischen Ziele mit dieser wissenschaftlichen Qualifizierung verbunden waren, wurde nicht verheimlicht; denn dass mit der „definitiven Anstellung“ – so betonte Busch – eine „materielle Besserstellung der Hilfsschullehrer verbunden sein muß, braucht wohl kaum erst gesagt werden“ (ebd., 21). Die 1913 in Preußen für Hilfsschullehrer erlassene staatliche Prüfungsordnung entsprach dann auch zum Teil wörtlich der 1911 für Taubstummenlehrer kodifizierten. August Henze, der als Hilfsschullehrer und Vorstandsmitglied des Hilfsschulverbands zusammen mit Heinrich Kielhorn diese Prüfungsordnung entworfen hatte, stellte im Kriegsjahr 1940 rückblickend fest, „daß danach eigentlich kein Unterschied mehr zwischen Hilfsschullehrern und den Blinden- und Taubstummenlehrern hätte gemacht werden dürfen“ (Henze 1940, 496). Hingegen erfolgte gegenüber der Volksschullehrerausbildung eine scharfe Abgrenzung in zeitlicher, institutioneller und inhaltlicher Hinsicht. Beispielsweise hatte der Hilfsschulverband mit seiner Forderung nach einer mehrjährigen Berufspraxis eine deutliche zeitliche Zäsur zwischen der Volksschul- und der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung und damit zugleich eine klare Abgrenzung und Trennung durchsetzen können, während die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung in ihrem wissenschaftlichen resp. medizinischen Teil mit der Universität in Verbindung gebracht und in ihrem praktischen Teil in der Hilfsschule verortet worden war. Da sich die Hilfsschulpädagogik seit ihren Anfängen als Pädagogische Pathologie (Ludwig Strümpell) und als Pädagogik der Schwachsinnigen (Arno Fuchs) überdies als eine alle Behinderungsar-

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Die nationalsozialistische Hilfsschullehrerausbildung

ten übergreifende Sonderpädagogik verstanden hatte, sollte die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung auch für „ähnliche Erziehungsanstalten“ gelten (Bericht 1905, 25). Die vom Hilfsschulverband erhobenen Forderungen zur Hilfsschullehrerausbildung ließen sich während der 1920er-Jahre weitergehender als in den bisherigen mehrwöchigen Ausbildungskursen realisieren. Denn in München, Berlin und Halle an der Saale wurden als heilpädagogische Studienjahre bezeichnete einjährige Lehrgänge eingerichtet, die in ihrem wissenschaftlichen Teil in Verbindung mit den dortigen Universitäten gestaltet wurden, in ihrem praktischen Teil an Hilfsschulen stattfanden und mit einer staatlichen Prüfung abschlossen. Überdies wurden den Teilnehmern die Gehälter während dieser Ausbildung in der Regel weitergezahlt. Auf diese Weise wurden zum Beispiel in Berlin neben Hilfsschullehrern auch Schwerhörigen-, Sehschwachen-, Sprachheillehrer sowie Lehrer an Erziehungsanstalten entsprechend dem angestrebten vielgliedrigen Sonderschulsystem ausgebildet. „Die verschiedenen Spezialgebiete der heilpädagogischen Wissenschaft haben so viele gemeinsame und so wenig trennende Momente, daß sich der Gedanke der Zentralisation und Konzentration der heilpädagogischen Ausbildung geradezu gewaltsam in den Vordergrund drängt“, betonte Hilfsschulrektor Hugo Koch, Geschäftsführer der Berliner Lehrgänge, 1927 auf der Heilpädagogischen Woche in Berlin in seinem Vortrag Die Ausbildung der Sonderschullehrer (Koch 1928, 51). Während Taubstummen- und Blindenlehrer bisher noch ihre „eigenen Studienanstalten und ihre besonderen Studiengänge“ hatten, sollten sie nach Kochs Ansicht nach dem „Ausbau der heilpädagogischen Ausbildungsstätten zu wirklich wissenschaftlich fundierten und organisierten heilpädagogischen Lehr- und Forschungsinstituten“ dort auch ihre „Pflanz- und Pflegestätten“ finden (ebd., 51). Mit der Forderung nach einer gemeinsamen Sonderschullehrerausbildung war die Forderung nach einer Professur für Heilpädagogik und nach einem heilpädagogischen Institut eng verknüpft. Diese Ansprüche erhob vor allem Rupert Egenberger, der erste Hilfsschullehrer Münchens und Vorsitzende des Bayerischen Hilfsschulverbands, ebenso auf den Versammlungen des Hilfsschulverbands 1922 und 1924 wie 1922 auf dem ersten Kongress der zu diesem Zweck gegründeten Gesellschaft für Heilpädagogik, deren Vorsitzender er war (vgl. Egenberger 1922, 1923, 1925, 1929). Bereits 1922/23 hatte er in München das erste heilpädagogische Studienjahr geleitet. Damit hatte Bayern Preußen in dessen sonderpädagogischer Vorreiterrolle überrundet. In Egenbergers Forderungen flossen rassenhygienische Argumente ein: „Die letzten Jahre bewiesen, daß psychopathische Minderwertigkeiten das größte Übel im Staatsleben sein können“, erklärte Egenberger. „Viele unlogisch denkende Schreier und Hetzer, die Hemmungs- und Gewissenlosen, die Schiffbrüchigen und Existenzunfähigen, die Bildungslosen, die nicht wollenden Menschen, die Verräter aller Art gehören zu der Kategorie der Psychopathen, und zwar sind sie sehr oft das Produkt der Vererbung oder das Resultat einer Degeneration“ (Egenberger 1922, 181), um festzustellen: „Die Frage der Degeneration und Entartung ist eine Lebensfrage für das deutsche Volk“ (Egenberger 1923, 81). Aus der drohenden Entartung des deutschen Volkes leitete Egenberger die Notwendigkeit eines heilpädagogischen Instituts ab. Es sollte sich als „wissenschaftliche Forschungsanstalt“ mit den Formen des Schwachsinns und der Entartung befassen, die „äußerst mannigfaltig“ seien, und zugleich besondere Einrichtung für die heilpädagogische Lehrerausbildung darstellen (ebd.). Auf dem zehnten Verbandstag von 1924 wiederholte er die hier schon dargelegten Forderungen des Hilfsschulverbandes, eine „besondere heilpädagogische Ausbildung“ zu institutionalisieren (Egenberger 1925, 34).

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|35

|

36

Dagmar Hänsel

Wenige Monate später beauftragte der Vorstand des Hilfsschulverbands das Vorstandsmitglied Gustav Lesemann, in Zusammenarbeit mit Martin Breitbarth ein Programm für die Ausbildung der Hilfsschullehrer zu konzipieren, das Lesemann auf dem elften Verbandstag 1926 vortrug (vgl. Sitzung 1925; Bericht 1927). Vor allem aber wurde von Arno Fuchs als führendem heilpädagogischen Theoretiker, wissenschaftlichem Studienleiter und Initiator der Ausbildungslehrgänge in Berlin unmittelbar im Anschluss an die Heilpädagogische Woche 1927 der Entwurf eines Reichssonderschulgesetzes veröffentlicht. Den vom Verband wiederholt erhobenen Forderungen entsprechend, wurde darin für die Sonderschullehrerausbildung „mindestens Volksschullehrerausbildung, dazu aber eine der gewählten Sonderschulart entsprechende heilpädagogische Sonderausbildung“ verlangt, die auf einer „heilpädagogischen Akademie mit einjährigem Studium und praktischer Schularbeit zu erwerben ist und durch eine Sonderprüfung abgeschlossen wird“. Außerdem sollte den Lehrkräften die „nächst höhere Gehaltsstufe der Normalschullehrer“ und eine „angemessene Stundenermäßigung“ gewährt werden (Fuchs 1927, 335). Doch dieser auf einer gemeinsamen Sonderschullehrerausbildung basierende Entwurf eines Reichssonderschulgesetzes stieß bei den organisierten Taubstummenlehrern auf heftigsten Protest, so dass eine Kodifizierung der Sonderschulgesetzgebung schon im parlamentarischen Vorfeld scheiterte. Insgesamt lässt sich für die 1920er-Jahre nicht von einer „Hochblüte“ der Heilpädagogik (Hofmann 1966, 92) bzw. der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung sprechen. Denn ebenso wenig wie die parlamentarische Verabschiedung eines Reichssonderschulgesetzes ließ sich die seit Gründung des Hilfsschulverbands intendierte wissenschaftliche Ausbildung der Hilfsschullehrer an einer Universität realisieren. Zugleich blieben die weitergehenden Ansprüche auf eine gemeinsame Sonderschullehrerausbildung wie auf Einrichtung einer Professur für Heilpädagogik und eines heilpädagogischen Instituts unerfüllt. Nicht zuletzt verbieten die hier dargestellten rassenhygienischen Argumentationsmuster und Begründungen, von einer „Hochblüte“ der Heilpädagogik und der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung in den 1920er-Jahren zu sprechen.

3  Zur Fundierung der Sonderschullehrerausbildung unter nationalsozialistischer Herrschaft – Der Entwurf zur Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung für Hilfsschullehrer von 1941 Die Bemühungen um eine Neugestaltung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung, die von der Fachschaft V Sonderschulen im Nationalsozialistischen Lehrerbund seit 1934 unternommen worden waren, trugen nach dem massiven Ausbau der Hilfsschule, die durch amtliche Regelungen ab 1938 erfolgte, Früchte. Im Runderlass vom 14. März 1942 schien es dem Reichsminister für Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung, also dem Reichskultusminister (vgl. Nagel 2012), trotz der Allgemeinen Anordnung über die Hilfsschulen in Preußen vom 27. April 1938 offenbar geboten, erneut die „Überweisung von Kindern an die Hilfsschulen, Sehschwachen-, Schwerhörigen- und Sprachheilschulen“ anzumahnen (vgl. Hänsel 2006, 223). „Wo die genannten Sonderschulen, insbesondere Hilfsschulen, nicht oder nicht in ausreichender Anzahl vorhanden sind“, sollte nicht nur deren „Neugründung in Aussicht zu nehmen sein, sobald die Zeitverhältnisse dies gestatten“. Vielmehr war dazu auch qualifiziertes Personal bereitzustellen: „Die Einrichtung von Lehrgängen zur Ausbildung der erforderlichen Lehrkräfte wird von mir in die Wege geleitet werden“. Daher hatte MinisteIJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Die nationalsozialistische Hilfsschullehrerausbildung

rialrat Georg Kohlbach, im Reichskultusministerium auf eigenen Wunsch vertretungsweise seit März 1941 mit dem Referat für Hilfsschulen betraut, schon ein halbes Jahr zuvor, am 17. Oktober 1941, den Entwurf einer reichseinheitlichen Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung für Hilfsschullehrer an Ministerialrat Richter als zuständigen Referenten im Reichsfinanzministerium gesandt (BArch R 2/12615). Kohlbach bat im Begleitschreiben seinen Kollegen „von Referat zu Referat“ informell, vorab zu klären, ob dieser „Entwurf“ die Zustimmung des Finanzministers finden werde, und hob dazu die Bedeutung dieses Regelwerks hervor: „Nach den Richtlinien für den Unterricht in der Hilfsschule, die Sie erhalten haben und denen Sie zu meiner Freude zugestimmt haben, habe ich nun die noch dringendere Aufgabe der Ausbildung der Hilfsschullehrer in Angriff genommen“. Zum Geschäftsgang stellte er fest, dass „zunächst noch einige Länder und Regierungspräsidenten, die solche Studiengänge einrichten sollen, gutachtlich zu hören sind“. Daher werde er erst danach „in der Lage sein, auch die Parteikanzlei und die beteiligten Ressorts, also vor allem auch das Reichsfinanzministerium und den Preußischen Finanzminister, zu beteiligen“. Allerdings hegte Kohlbach bereits Zweifel an der Realisierung dieses Regelwerks: „Ob die Studiengänge unter den heutigen Verhältnissen (Hauptschule!) zustandekommen, das heißt, ob überhaupt Meldungen eingehen werden, ist eine Frage für sich“. Für die Hauptschule, in die besonders begabte Volkschüler gehen sollten, waren nämlich ebenfalls besondere Ausbildungslehrgänge geplant. „Der NSLB“, also der Nationalsozialistische Lehrerbund, betonte Kohlbach, „legt besonderen Wert darauf, daß die Studiengänge nicht nur für Hilfsschullehrer, sondern auch für die sogenannten Anstaltslehrer (darunter sind wohl in der Hauptsache die Lehrer an den dem Innenminister unterstehenden Fürsorgeanstalten gemeint) eingerichtet werden“ (ebd.). Kohlbachs auffallend vager und zudem in Parenthese gesetzter Bestimmungsversuch der „Anstaltslehrer“ war keineswegs zufällig. Als „Anstaltslehrer“ ließ sich nämlich das Lehrpersonal unterschiedlicher Ressorts, Bildungseinrichtungen und vor allem auch Besoldungsgruppen bezeichnen: einerseits die an Fürsorgeanstalten und somit beim Reichs- und Preußischen Ministerium des Innern ressortierten Lehrkräfte, andererseits die dem Reichskultusministerium unterstehenden Lehrer – darunter insbesondere die in speziellen Unterrichtsanstalten tätigen und dort gesondert ausgebildeten Blinden- und Taubstummenlehrer, die im Vergleich zu den Hilfsschullehrern besser dotiert und als Oberlehrer eingestuft waren. Die Verwendung des Begriffs „Anstaltslehrer“ kam also nicht von ungefähr, sondern reflektierte das standespolitische Ziel des NSLB resp. dessen Reichsfachschaft V Sonderschulen, eine die bisherigen Trennungen aufhebende gemeinsame Sonderschullehrerausbildung und damit die status- und besoldungsmäßige Gleichstellung der Hilfsschullehrer mit den Blinden- und Taubstummenlehrern durchzusetzen. Obgleich unklar ist, welchen staatlichen Behörden und Ämtern bzw. Dienststellen der NSDAP dieser Entwurf ebenfalls zugesandt worden ist, ist jedoch auffällig, dass dieser Text am 16. Dezember 1941, also nur zwei Monate nach Kohlbachs Schreiben an Richter, vom Reichskultusministerium an den Reichsstatthalter in Hamburg, Karl Kaufmann, adressiert worden ist. Kaufmann unterstand in dieser Funktion zwar dem Innenministerium, fungierte zugleich aber auch als NSDAP-Gauleiter wie als Chef der hamburgischen Staats- und Gemeindeverwaltung. Vor allem aber genoss er eine „Immediatstellung gegenüber Hitler“ (vgl. Bajohr 1995, 270). Zweifellos sollte Kaufmanns „starke Machtstellung“ im polykratischen Herrschaftssystem des Nationalsozialismus vom Reichskultusministerium genutzt werden, um im kurz darauf anbrechenden Jahr 1942 einen Hilfsschullehrer-Lehrgang in Hamburg IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|37

|

38

Dagmar Hänsel

zu eröffnen, zu dem der sofortige Beginn von Vorarbeiten empfohlen wurde. Zudem waren in Hamburg die Voraussetzungen für die Gestaltung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung in Verbindung mit der Universität ganz besonders günstig. Da diesem Schreiben neben dem Entwurf überdies eine ausführliche Erläuterung mit dem Titel Zur Ausbildung der Prüfungsordnung für Hilfsschullehrer sowie eine Übersicht über die „Verteilung der Ausbildungslehrgänge über das Reichsgebiet“ beigefügt worden ist, lassen sich anhand dieser Quellen die Planungen zur praktischen Umsetzung eines Konzepts der Sonderschullehrerausbildung rekonstruieren und somit erstmals Einblicke in Funktion wie Organisation von Qualifizierungsmaßnahmen nationalsozialistischer Sonderpädagogik gewinnen. „Die Ausbildung von Hilfsschullehrern ist heute eine Aufgabe von außerordentlicher Dringlichkeit. Ihre Inangriffnahme kann nicht mehr zurückgestellt werden“, hob diese Erläuterung an (StAH, 4021-17), bevor ein Rückblick auf die preußische Hilfsschullehrerausbildung erfolgen sollte. Rekurriert wurde dabei vor allem auf die Prüfungsordnung von 1913 sowie auf einen Erlass vom 16. September 1930. Demzufolge durften Hilfsschullehrerprüfungen in Preußen nur noch im Anschluss an die „Heilpädagogischen Studiengänge“ in Berlin und Halle an der Saale abgehalten werden. Durch diese Regelung sollte der erreichte Ausbildungsstandard gesichert und die Kursausbildung überwunden werden. Diese Studiengänge, hieß es in der Erläuterung weiter, seien letztmalig 1932/33 durchgeführt worden. Den Wünschen Hamburgs, aber auch Bayerns, solche Studiengänge weiterhin durchzuführen, sei nicht entsprochen worden, um einer „reichseinheitlichen Lösung nicht vorzugreifen“: „Es wurde vielmehr mit der Vorbereitung der reichseinheitlichen Ordnung begonnen“ (ebd.). Doch die „Vorarbeiten dazu“, hieß es in der Erläuterung weiter, „litten unter einem mehrfachen Referatswechsel, der einmal durch den Tod des Referenten, dann durch eine Versetzung des Referenten in die neuen Ostgebiete erforderlich wurde“ (ebd.). Noch mehr sei aber der Fortgang dieser Arbeiten durch „die Unsicherheit gehemmt worden, die sich auf dem Gebiete der Volksschullehrerbildung einstellte. Die Abhängigkeit von dieser war um so größer, als geplant war, die Ausbildung der Hilfsschullehrer einigen in Universitätsstädten befindlichen Hochschulen für Lehrerbildung zu übertragen. Dieser Plan mußte fallen gelassen werden, als die Hochschulen geschlossen wurden“ (ebd.). Nach diesem Rückblick wurde erklärt, warum nun Ende 1941 ein dringender Handlungsbedarf in der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung bestehe. Denn während in den Jahren 1935 und 1937 „noch eine genügend große Anzahl von geprüften Hilfsschullehrern vorhanden war“, sei inzwischen die „Notlage auf dem Gebiete des Ersatzes der fehlenden Lehrkräfte so groß geworden, daß in diesem Jahre dem Wunsche Bayerns, noch einmal einen staatlichen Lehrgang durchführen zu dürfen, wird entsprochen werden müssen“ (ebd.). Und zum größten Land des Reiches wurde sogar festgestellt: „In Preußen mußte in verschiedenen Einzelfällen dazu übergegangen werden, Lehrkräften, die im Hilfsschuldienst längere Zeit tätig waren, die Anstellungsfähigkeit zuzusprechen, obwohl sie keine ordnungsgemäße Ausbildung erhalten hatten. Dieser Zustand ist nicht tragbar. Er entspricht nicht dem weitentwickelten Stand unseres Hilfsschulwesens, vor allem aber auch nicht der Bedeutung, die der Ausbildung des Hilfsschullehrers im nationalsozialistischen Staat zufällt“ (ebd.). Um die somit dringend notwendige Hilfsschullehrerausbildung zu gestalten, sollte auf ein bewährtes Muster zurückgegriffen werden – nämlich auf das in den 1920er-Jahren und somit während der von den Nationalsozialisten verhassten „Systemzeit“ der Weimarer RepuIJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Die nationalsozialistische Hilfsschullehrerausbildung

blik entwickelte: „Inhaltlich konnte sich die in der Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung für Hilfsschullehrer vorgesehene Ausbildung an das Vorbild, das durch die Arbeit der Heilpädagogischen Institute gegeben war, anlehnen. So wurde an der einjährigen Ausbildung und an der Verbindung des wissenschaftlichen Teils der Ausbildung mit der Universität festgehalten“ (ebd.). Wichtigstes Ziel des 1941 erarbeiteten Konzeptes zur Sonderschullehrerausbildung war deren reichsweite Vereinheitlichung: „Das wesentlichste Moment der Neuordnung ist die Übernahme der Ausbildungslehrgänge durch das Reich“, mit welcher die „einheitliche Ausbildung der Hilfsschullehrer im Reich sichergestellt“ werde (ebd.). Der Erfolg eines solchen Lehrgangs sollte vor allem dadurch gewährleistet werden, dass die „Leitung einem als Hilfsschullehrer ausgebildeten Schulrat zu übertragen ist“ (ebd.). Mit dieser als „wesentlich“ für den „Erfolg des Lehrgangs“ erachteten Entscheidung war zugleich eine standespolitische Komponente verknüpft; denn für Hilfsschulrektoren entstand nun „eine festliegende Aufstiegsmöglichkeit“ und mithin eine bessere Besoldung auch für den Fall, dass die Lehrgänge „bei fehlendem Bedarf oder fehlendem Eingang von Meldungen ruhen“ sollten (ebd.). In den weiteren Ausführungen der Erläuterung wurde kalkuliert, dass unter Einbeziehung der dem Innenministerium unterstehenden sogenannten Anstaltslehrer in Fürsorgeanstalten für 161 bis 168 Sonderschullehrer ein jährlicher Ausbildungsbedarf bestehe, zumal „mit einem Rückgang des Bedarfs an Hilfsschullehrern in absehbarer Zeit nicht zu rechnen ist“. Vielmehr war die Neukonzeption von 1941 langfristig angelegt: „Auch wenn der Zeitpunkt kommt, in dem sich die bevölkerungspolitischen Maßnahmen des Staates auswirken, wird der inzwischen erforderlich gewordene Ausbau des Hilfsschulwesens dem noch längere Zeit die Waage halten“ (ebd.). Angesichts dieses Bedarfs sollten die am Lehrgang teilnehmenden Volksschullehrer finanziell entlastet werden, „weil andernfalls mit Bewerbungen kaum zu rechnen sein dürfte“ (ebd.). In der den Erläuterungen angeschlossenen „Übersicht“ über die „Verteilung der Ausbildungslehrgänge über das Reichsgebiet“ wurden mit Hamburg, Berlin, Halle an der Saale, Danzig, Köln, Frankfurt am Main, München und Wien in dieser Reihenfolge acht Standorte aufgeführt, die mit der flächendeckenden Versorgung sowie damit begründet wurden, dass die Lehrerschaft „vom Beruf aus heimatgebunden“ sei. Mit Ausnahme von Danzig, wo lediglich eine Technische Hochschule bestand, handelte es sich um Universitätsstädte. Während in München, Berlin und Halle an der Saale schon in den 1920er-Jahren heilpädagogische Studiengänge durchgeführt worden waren, war Frankfurt am Main erst nach einer Referentenbesprechung im Reichsfinanzministerium an Stelle von Düsseldorf berücksichtigt worden, um eine bessere regionale Verteilung zu ermöglichen. Mit Danzig und Wien wurden der Osten, mit Köln, aber auch München der Westen des damaligen Großdeutschen Reiches abgedeckt. Denn in München sollten an den Lehrgängen beispielsweise Lehrkräfte sowohl aus Bayern als auch aus Württemberg, Baden, Hessen, Tirol, Salzburg sowie den besetzten Gebieten Elsass und Lothringen teilnehmen. Dazu war für jeden Standort und Bereich die Anzahl der vorhandenen Lehrerstellen an Hilfsschulen und an Fürsorgeerziehungsanstalten ermittelt worden; bemerkenswerterweise lag diese Zahl für Halle an der Saale, einem Hauptort der Hilfsschullehrerbewegung, mit 776 Stellen am höchsten. Der hier im Zentrum stehende, 16 Paragraphen und einen Zeugnisvordruck umfassende Entwurf zu einer reichsweit geltenden Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung für Hilfsschullehrer regelte in §1 Dauer und Inhalte dieser „besonderen Lehrgänge“ (vgl. StAH 4021-17). Unterschieden wurden ein „wissenschaftliches Studium der in der leiblich-seelischen Veranlagung IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|39

|

40

Dagmar Hänsel

und Eigenart der Hilfsschulkinder zu Tage tretenden pathologischen Erscheinungen“, eine Einführung in die „dem Hilfsschullehrer zufallenden volksbiologischen und bevölkerungspolitischen Aufgaben“ sowie eine „theoretische und praktische Ausbildung für die erziehlichunterrichtliche Aufgabe des Hilfsschullehrers“, zu der auch eine „Ausbildung in der Werkarbeit“ gehörte (ebd.). Die Ausbildungsinhalte stimmten mit den vom Hilfsschulverband seit seiner Gründungsphase erhobenen und hier oben vorgestellten Forderungen wie mit der in den 1920er-Jahren entwickelten Praxis der heilpädagogischen Studienjahre weitgehend überein. Das gilt auch für die Dauer und den universitären Bezug der Ausbildung. Diese Hochschulaffinität wurde durch Begriffe wie „Semester“, „wissenschaftliches Studium“ und „wissenschaftliche Prüfung“ sowie durch den Hinweis akzentuiert, dass ein wissenschaftliches Studium „die Hilfsmittel einer Universität voraussetzt“ (ebd.). Der nationalsozialistischen Rassenideologie entsprechend, sah der Inhaltskatalog überdies ausdrücklich vor, den angehenden Hilfsschullehrern Kenntnisse über volksbiologische und bevölkerungspolitische Maßnahmen zu vermitteln. Doch auch mit dieser Erweiterung des Inhaltskatalogs wurde an eine bereits bewährte Praxis angeknüpft; denn schon während des oben erwähnten, in München 1922/23 durchgeführten ersten heilpädagogischen Studienjahrs hatte Ernst Rüdin, einer der prominentesten Rassenhygieniker und Kommentatoren des Gesetzes zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses, den Teilnehmern „reichste Belehrung und Anregung“ vermittelt (Schüle 1923, 137). Mit den §§2 und 3 des Entwurfs wurden dem Reichskultusministerium die Lehrgänge einschließlich ihrer Standortbestimmung unterstellt und ihre Teilnehmerzahl auf mindestens 12, maximal 35 festgesetzt. Zu den Lehrgängen sollten Volksschullehrkräfte zugelassen werden, die ihre Befähigung zur endgültigen Anstellung im Volksschuldienst nachgewiesen, das 32. Lebensjahr nicht überschritten und bereits Einblick in die Arbeit der Hilfsschule erhalten hatten. Bewerber mit anderer Vorbildung sollten nach §4 des Entwurfs nur ausnahmsweise zugelassen werden. Laut §5 waren jedoch nicht mehr wie zuvor besonders qualifizierte Hilfsschullehrer für den Lehrgang verantwortlich, sondern dessen Leitung lag nun „in der Hand eines Schulrats, der selbst eine sonderpädagogische Ausbildung als Hilfsschullehrer erhalten hat, und dem die Schulaufsicht über die Hilfsschulen übertragen ist, die für die berufspraktische Ausbildung der Lehrgangsteilnehmer in Betracht kommen“. Hingegen waren wie in den 1920er-Jahren die an einem Lehrgang teilnehmenden Volksschullehrer gemäß §7 „mit vollem Gehalt zu beurlauben“. Die nach §13 geregelte Abschlussprüfung umfasste eine schriftliche Hausarbeit und eine mündliche Prüfung, die sich „in einen schulpraktischen und einen wissenschaftlichen Teil“ gliederte. In der schulpraktischen Prüfung hatte der Bewerber seine „Eignung für den erziehenden Unterricht in der Hilfsschule durch den Unterricht in zwei Unterrichtsfächern zu erbringen“. Im wissenschaftlichen Teil der Prüfung musste er nachweisen, dass er „mit der leiblich-seelischen Eigenart und Veranlagung des Hilfsschulkindes wohl vertraut ist. Dazu gehört eine eingehende Kenntnis der Psychologie und der Psychopathologie der Kindheit und des Jugendalters, des Aufbaus, der Funktionen und Störungen des Zentralnervensystems und der Sinnesorgane, sowie der Sprachstörungen“. Darüber hinaus musste er erkennen lassen, dass er „eine klare Einsicht in die volksbiologische, rassen- und bevölkerungspolitische Bedeutung und Ausrichtung der Hilfsschulerziehung besitzt. Dazu gehört auch die Kenntnis der Rassen- und Vererbungslehre, der nationalsozialistischen Erbgesundheits- und Rassengesetzgebung“. Schließlich war verlangt, dass er „mit den unterrichtlichen und erziehlichen Methoden der Hilfsschule bekannt ist und sie zu beurteilen versteht. Dazu gehört IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Die nationalsozialistische Hilfsschullehrerausbildung

auch die Kenntnis der Geschichte und der Einrichtung der Hilfsschule sowie der wichtigsten Lehr- und Lernmittel“. Mit der bestandenen Prüfung wurde die Befähigung zur Anstellung als Hilfsschullehrer zuerkannt. Neben den zu vermittelnden Kenntnissen entsprach auch die Zusammensetzung des Prüfungsausschusses, der aus Vertretern der Schulverwaltung und der an der Ausbildung beteiligten Lehrkräfte bestand, im Wesentlichen den Forderungen, die vom Hilfsschullehrerverband seit dessen Gründung wiederholt gestellt worden waren. Neu war hingegen, dass dem Reichskultusminister die Ernennung eines Prüfungsleiters, die Bestimmung der Ausbildungsstandorte, die Ernennung der Lehrkräfte und die Entscheidung über die Zulassung der Bewerber und somit die zentrale Kontrolle und Steuerung der Ausbildung obliegen sollte. Zugleich wurde jedoch die Kontinuität der lokalen Ausbildungspraxen gesichert. Denn die Erläuterung der Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung betonte, dass den mit der Einrichtung der Lehrgänge beauftragten Unterrichtsverwaltungen bei der Ausgestaltung der Lehrgänge ein „weiter Spielraum“ gelassen werden sollte, „so daß die Erfahrung, über die diese Stellen verfügen, voll zur Geltung kommen kann“ (ebd.). Gut einen Monat nach Erhalt dieser Verfügung erklärte der Hamburger Reichsstatthalter am 26. Januar 1942 gegenüber dem Reichskultusministerium, dass er „grundsätzlich bereit“ sei, die Einrichtung eines Lehrgangs in Hamburg zu übernehmen, betonte aber: „Ich müßte jedoch erst feststellen lassen, ob gegenwärtig eine genügende Anzahl von Lehrkräften sich zur Teilnahme an einem solchen Lehrgang melden würde. Das erscheint mir im Augenblick wegen der Einberufung gerade der in Frage kommenden Jahrgänge nicht sicher“ (ebd.). Grundsätzlich bewertete er den Entwurf der Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung als „brauchbare Grundlage“ und sah Hamburger Wünsche im Wesentlichen berücksichtigt. Schon am nächsten Tag beauftragte er die „Gemeindeverwaltung der Hansestadt Hamburg“, durch Umfrage in den Volksschulen die Teilnehmerzahl an diesem Lehrgang festzustellen und darüber zu berichten (ebd.). Ob das Reichskultusministerium weitere positive Rückmeldungen zum Entwurf erhalten hat, ist nicht ersichtlich. Doch nach dieser Stellungnahme eines der führenden Repräsentanten nationalsozialistischer Herrschaft hatte das Ministerium nicht nur Ausbildungslehrgänge für Hilfsschullehrer mit Runderlass vom 14. März 1942 angekündigt, sondern legte auch mit Schreiben vom 30. März 1942 den Entwurf dem Reichsfinanzministerium offiziell zur Begutachtung vor. Zwar erklärte sich der Finanzminister im Schreiben vom 14. August 1942 (BArch R 2/12615) mit der Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung und deren Anlagen „grundsätzlich einverstanden“, meldete jedoch zugleich Bedenken zu einigen universitätsspezifischen Begriffen an, die geeignet schienen, bei den Lehrgangsteilnehmern „Hoffnungen auf eine Besoldung hochschulmäßig vorgebildeter Beamter“ zu erwecken (ebd.). Er bat deshalb, die Begriffe „wissenschaftliches Studium“, „Semester“, „Studium“ und „wissenschaftlicher Teil“ durch „Einführung“, „Halbjahr“, „Lehrgang“ und „theoretischer Teil“ zu ersetzen (ebd.). Zudem wurde vorgeschlagen, lediglich die Ablegung der beiden Prüfungen für das Volksschullehramt als Zulassungsvoraussetzung vorzusehen. Grundsätzlich erklärte sich der Finanzminister bereit, mit Verfügung einer Ausnahmeregelung den Teilnehmern während der Ausbildung die Dienstbezüge weiter zukommen zu lassen. Allerdings sollten die Dienstbezüge in voller Höhe nur verheirateten Lehrern mit eigenem Hausstand gewährt werden, während für die übrigen eine abgestufte Regelung gelten sollte. Somit erkannte der Finanzminister zwar weitestgehend die Notwendigkeit von Lehrgängen für Hilfsschullehrer an, verweigerte aber deren höhere Besoldung, wie sie ihm der ReichsIJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|41

|

42

Dagmar Hänsel

kultusminister in einem umfangreichen Schreiben vom 27. Mai 1942 zum Ausbau des Hilfsschulwesens nahegelegt hatte. Diese Denkschrift sollte den weiteren Ausbau der Hilfsschule sichern und somit den Bedarf für die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung nachweisen (BArch R 2/12615). Dazu knüpfte sie nicht nur an die vier Jahre zuvor erlassene Allgemeine Anordnung über die Hilfsschulen in Preußen vom 27. April 1938 an, mit der die flächendeckende Einrichtung von Hilfsschulen festgeschrieben worden war, sondern auch an die Allgemeinen Richtlinien für Erziehung und Unterricht in der Hilfsschule, die erst drei Monate zuvor, am 18. Februar 1942, reichsweit erlassen worden waren (vgl. Hänsel 2006). Doch vor allem wollte der Kultusminister offenbar an die reichsrechtliche Neuordnung der Volksschullehrerbesoldung erinnern; denn mit ihr seien „die wesentlichen Voraussetzungen für die künftige Entwicklung des Hilfsschulwesens geschaffen worden“, so dass nun „der gehobenen Stellung der Hilfsschullehrer auch gehaltlich Rechnung getragen“ werden könne (ebd.). Mit einem Hinweis auf die Kanzlei der NSDAP und somit auf die Parteiführung noch deutlicher werdend, fuhr er fort: „Meine Bemühungen um die Hilfsschule, die auch den Wünschen der Partei-Kanzlei entsprechen, werden jedoch von keinem wesentlichen Erfolg begleitet sein, wenn nicht die Hemmungen, die in der finanziellen Ebene liegen, ausgeräumt werden und zwar handelt es sich hier um die Frage der Beiträge der Gemeinden zu den persönlichen Schullasten“ (ebd.). Pragmatisch war dazu der Vorschlag, dass für die „gemeindliche Kostenbeteiligung an den Hilfsschulen eine besondere Meßzahl entsprechend der niedrigeren Klassenbesuchsziffer (20 bzw. 25 Kinder) zugrunde gelegt“ werden sollte (ebd.). Aber wie der Finanzminister im Antwortschreiben vom 14. August 1942 schließlich zeigen sollte, blieben bei ihm die Bedenken gegen eine höhere Besoldung von Hilfsschullehrern bestehen, während deren Ausbildungslehrgänge wohlwollend zur Kenntnis genommen und entsprechend finanziert werden sollten. Somit hätte nach dieser Zustimmung des Reichsfinanzministeriums die Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung umgesetzt und vom Reichskultusministerium in einem offiziellen Erlass publiziert werden können. Dazu kam es jedoch nicht. Denn nach einem Aktenstück des bayerischen Kultusministeriums teilte das Reichskultusministerium mit Runderlass „vom 15. September 1942“ mit, dass „auf Grund eines Schreibens des Leiters der Partei-Kanzlei vom 23. September 1942 die Vorbereitungsarbeit für den Ausbildungslehrgang 1942/43 bis auf weiteres einzustellen ist“ (LAS H3/7006). Allerdings ist im bayerischen Kultusministerium bei der Wiedergabe der Datierung von beiden nur in diesen Zitationen überlieferten Dokumenten des Reichskultusministeriums und der Parteikanzlei offensichtlich ein Fehler bzw. eine Verwechslung unterlaufen. Doch auch wenn die Daten fehlerhaft wiedergegeben worden sein dürften, so lassen sich die hier dargelegten Vorgänge zum Erlass der Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung für Hilfsschullehrer durch das Reichskultusministerium ebenso wie zu dessen von der Parteikanzlei verfügtem Aufschub dennoch eindeutig nachweisen. Denn darüber informierte das bayerische Kultusministerium mit Schreiben vom 22. Oktober 1942 sowohl den für den Gau „Saarpfalz“ und das besetzte Lothringen zuständigen Reichsstatthalter der „Westmark“ als auch die bayerischen Regierungspräsidenten. Weil das bayerische Kultusministerium mit diesem Schreiben aber außerdem verfügte, die „zu den beabsichtigten Lehrgängen gemeldeten Lehrkräfte bleiben vorerst vorgemerkt“, ist zugleich nachgewiesen, dass im Anschluss an den 1941/42 in München von Erwin Lesch geleiteten Ausbildungslehrgang für Hilfsschullehrer die Durchführung eines weiteren Lehrgangs 1942/43 dort wie auch andernorts – gemäß reichskultusministeriellem Runderlass – nur aufgeschoben, aber keineswegs aufgehoben werden sollte. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Die nationalsozialistische Hilfsschullehrerausbildung

Die Durchführung von Ausbildungslehrgängen für Hilfsschullehrer war im Herbst 1942 also weder an finanzpolitischen oder gar rassenpolitischen Zielsetzungen des Nazi-Regimes gescheitert; vielmehr war lediglich deren Vorbereitung aus hier noch näher zu erläuternden Gründen „bis auf weiteres einzustellen“. Wie aufgeschlossen die Parteikanzlei dem Hilfsschulwesen gegenübergestanden hat, lässt sich beispielsweise dadurch belegen, dass einer ihrer Funktionäre den Münchener Ausbildungslehrgang von 1941/42 als Gast besucht hat – wie auch Ministerialrat Kohlbach (vgl. Lesch 1942). Auch in dem Bericht, den Erwin Lesch am 14. Juli 1941 nach seiner Rückkehr aus Berlin für das Bayerische Staatsministerium für Unterricht und Kultus verfasst und an Oberregierungsrat Max Kolb adressiert hatte, betonte er, das Reichserziehungsministerium „billigt“ nicht nur die Wiederaufnahme des Ausbildungslehrgangs in München, sondern „wünscht“ sie im Hinblick auf den Erlass einer Verordnung zur reichsweiten Ausbildung und Prüfung von Hilfsschullehrkräften, und erklärte, dass der geplante Lehrgang in München jederzeit auf die „Bedürfnisse der Ausbildung von Anstaltslehrern“ ausgedehnt werden könne (BayHStA MK 62266). Die neuzeitliche Hilfsschule, hob Lesch in seinem Bericht hervor, unterscheidet sich „wesentlich von der alten Schwachsinnigenschule und ist stattdessen die Sonderschule für das lernbehinderte, leistungsschwache Kind geworden – die Leistungshilfsschule mit Ertragswert im neuen Geiste“ (ebd.). Die vorläufige Einstellung der Lehrgänge wurde von der Parteikanzlei verfügt und vom Reichskultusministerium durch Runderlass angeordnet, weil sich nicht genügend Teilnehmer fanden. Dieser Bewerbermangel resultierte insbesondere aus der verstärkten Einberufung einschlägiger Jahrgänge durch die Wehrmacht. Der Reichskultusminister hatte daher auch mit Erlass vom 9. März 1942 verfügt, dass die Vorbereitungen zur Einrichtung des geplanten Lehrgangs in Hamburg für das Jahr 1942 mit „Rücksicht auf die fortschreitende Verminderung der Zahl der zur Verfügung stehenden Hilfskräfte“ einzustellen sei, und hinzugefügt: „Ob, gegebenenfalls in welchem Umfange, ein Lehrgang in Berlin stattfinden kann, unterliegt noch der Prüfung“ (StAH 4021-17). Auch der Lehrgang, der 1933/34 in Halle an der Saale stattfinden sollte, war „mangels genügender Beteiligung nicht eröffnet worden“, weil sich nicht ausreichend Volksschullehrkräfte mit zweiter Prüfung gemeldet hatten (StAHS A. 2.36 Nr.1067 Bd. 1). Zum Abschluss dieses Kapitels bleibt die Autorschaft des Entwurfs zur Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung von 1941 zu klären. Zwar ist der Text im ministeriellen und parteiamtlichen Geschäftsgang als Kohlbachs Referentenentwurf dargestellt worden, doch ist, wie Höck berichtet hat, von Ministerialrat Max Kolb als Vertreter des bayerischen Kultusministeriums bezeugt, dass der Entwurf von dem eingangs bereits erwähnten Hilfsschullehrer Karl Tornow wesentlich mitgestaltet, wenn nicht verfasst worden ist und damit „überwiegend die Handschrift Tornows“ (Höck 1979, 310) trägt. Ebenso war die preußische Prüfungsordnung von 1913 von zwei Hilfsschullehrern, von August Henze und Heinrich Kielhorn, verfasst worden. Tornow hatte während der NS-Zeit zahlreiche richtungsweisende Veröffentlichungen zur Hilfsschullehrerausbildung vorgelegt, die ebenso wie die hier dargestellten Quellen von der sonderpädagogischen Geschichtsschreibung unbeachtet geblieben sind (vgl. Tornow 1937, 1939, 1942a, 1942b, 1942c). Seine 1942 erschienenen Beiträge lesen sich wie Kommentare zur Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung von 1941. Auf dieses Regelwerk verwies Tornow wiederholt und wertete es als „Schlußstein in dem seit 1933 mühsam ausgeführten Bau“ (Tornow 1942c, 164). Tornow war als Hilfsschullehrer an der von Martin Breitbarth geleiteten Hilfsschule in Halle an der Saale tätig gewesen und hatte dort als Lehrer an den IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|43

|

44

Dagmar Hänsel

heilpädagogischen Studienjahren 1931/32 und 1932/33 mitgewirkt. Als führender Vertreter der Reichsfachschaft V Sonderschulen im NSLB und als Reichsfachgruppenleiter für Hilfsschulen seit 1939 arbeitete Tornow mit Kohlbach eng zusammen und konnte ihn für die Interessen der Hilfsschullehrer gewinnen (vgl. Hänsel 2008). Die erste Frucht dieser Zusammenarbeit stellten die reichsweiten Hilfsschulrichtlinien vom Februar 1942 dar; sie basierten auf Tornows Dissertation und waren unter Mitwirkung von Lesch und somit im Konsens mit der bayerischen Kultusbürokratie formuliert worden (vgl. BayHStA MK 62266). Nach Ausarbeitung dieser Richtlinien wurde Tornow auf Betreiben Kohlbachs am 1. April 1942 als Provinzialschulrat nach Berlin berufen und dort mit der Aufsicht über sämtliche Hilfs- und Sonderschulen der Stadt und mit der Neuordnung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung betraut. In dieser Funktion hatte Tornow die zum Ausbau der Hilfsschule an das Reichsfinanzministerium adressierte Denkschrift vom 27. Mai 1942 zweifellos verfasst. Mit der neuen, ungewöhnlich detailliert formulierten Regelung des §5 der Ausbildungsund Prüfungsordnung, nach der die Leitung des Lehrgangs in der Hand eines durch eine sonderpädagogische Ausbildung als Hilfsschullehrer qualifizierten Schulrats liegen müsse, wollte Tornow sich überdies die Leitung des Ausbildungslehrgangs in Berlin und damit eine Schlüsselfunktion in der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung sichern. Als Tornow dann zum 1. März 1943 von der Wehrmacht einberufen wurde, fand auch in Berlin kein Ausbildungslehrgang mehr statt.

4  Kontinuitäten nach 1945 Nach 1945 wurde in der Gestaltung der Ausbildung und Lehramtsprüfung für Hilfsschullehrer an die hier dargestellten Entwicklungen während der NS-Zeit nahtlos angeknüpft und die Vorstellung von der Hilfsschule als Leistungsschule für das lernbehinderte Kind fortgeschrieben. Nicht nur im Vergleich der Berichte zu den in München 1941/42 und 1951/52 von Lesch geleiteten Ausbildungslehrgängen (vgl. Lesch 1942, 1952) zeigt sich diese Kontinuität, vielmehr hat Lesch in der Einleitung seines Bericht von 1952 selbst auf sie verwiesen: „Das Bayerische Staatsministerium für Unterricht und Kultus hat staatliche heilpädagogische Ausbildungslehrgänge für Hilfsschullehrkräfte als Jahreslehrgänge in den Jahren 1922/23, 1925/26, 1929/30, 1935/36, 1941/42, 1947/48, 1949/50 und nunmehr wieder 1951 durchgeführt“ (Lesch 1952, 229). Beispielsweise wurden den Teilnehmern des Lehrgangs 1951/52 ebenso wie denen des Lehrgangs 1941/42 die Dienstbezüge fortgezahlt. Beide Lehrgänge wurden mit einer staatlichen Prüfung abgeschlossen, deren Inhaltskataloge weitgehend übereinstimmten. Freilich wurden im Lehrgang 1951/52 nationalsozialistische Ideologeme wie Erblehre, Erbgesundheitspflege und Bevölkerungspolitik, aber auch eine Ausbildung in der Werkarbeit nicht mehr vermittelt, die traditionell zum Ausbildungscurriculum der Hilfsschullehrer gehörte. Die „Leistungssteigerung der Hilfsschule“ werde der „nächste Ertrag des Lehrganges sein“, formulierte Lesch gleichlautend in den Berichten von 1942 und 1952 und schloss beide Male mit Appellen, die „Staatlichen Sonderpädagogischen Ausbildungslehrgänge für Hilfsschullehrkräfte“ bzw. „Bayerns alte Tradition der Führung in der Frage der Ausbildung seiner Hilfsschullehrkräfte“ fortzusetzen (Lesch 1942, 366f., 1952, 231). Ähnliches lässt sich am Beispiel Niedersachsens beobachten. Am 28. Februar 1950 hatte das Kultusministerium in Hannover eine Prüfungsordnung für das Lehramt an Hilfsschulen IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Die nationalsozialistische Hilfsschullehrerausbildung

vorgelegt. Otto Haase, Beamter dieses Kultusministeriums, erläuterte das Regelwerk: „Die Ausbildung der Hilfsschullehrer ist in allen Ländern zu einer der vordringlichsten Aufgaben der Kultusverwaltungen geworden“, um anschließend aufzufordern, „die unerfreulichen Realitäten, die eine schlimme Zeit hinterlassen hat, klar zu erkennen und sie beherzt zum Besseren zu wenden“ (Haase 1950, 1). Es gehe nicht mehr an, führte Haase aus, dass „der Hilfsschullehrer eine Schmalspurausbildung erhält, die sich damit begnügt, methodische Handgriffe oder Rezepte zu vermitteln. Die beste Ausbildung ist gerade gut genug, um die Lücken der vergangenen Zeit schließen zu helfen“. Hierbei könne, so Haase, „weitgehend an die bewährte Tradition der zwanziger Jahre angeknüpft werden“ (ebd., 2). Die niedersächsische Prüfungsordnung für Hilfsschullehrer von 1950 wies mit dem Entwurf der reichseinheitlichen von 1941 ebenfalls deutliche Übereinstimmungen auf. In beiden Regelwerken wurden eine einjährige Ausbildung festgeschrieben, die Zulassung der Bewerber an die Ablegung der zweiten Prüfung für das Volksschullehramt gebunden, eine schriftliche und eine mündliche Prüfung vorgesehen, die sich in einen praktischen und in einen theoretischen Teil gliederte und die mit der Befähigung zur Anstellung als Hilfsschullehrer verknüpft war. Auch die Inhaltskataloge stimmten weitgehend überein. In der Prüfungsordnung von 1950 wurden von den Prüflingen, ähnlich wie in der von 1941, Kenntnisse über Heilerziehung und über Entwicklungshemmungen in der Kindheit und Jugend verlangt sowie das Vertrautsein „mit der Eigenart des kindlichen Schwachsinns, den wichtigsten Störungen der Sinne und Bewegungen und den häufigsten Sprachfehlern“ gefordert (Prüfungsordnung 1950, 3). Darüber hinaus sollten sie eingehende Kenntnisse von der „Methodik aller Unterrichtsgegenstände der Hilfsschule, ihren Einrichtungen, Lehr- und Lernmitteln und ihrer Literatur“ besitzen sowie über Einblick in „Jugendrecht, Jugendwohlfahrt und Schwachsinnigenfürsorge“ verfügen (ebd., 3). Diese 1950 erlassene Prüfungsordnung schrieb somit ein Ausbildungskonzept fort, das in seinen Grundzügen sowohl formal mit der zeitlichen und institutionellen Trennung von der Volksschullehrerausbildung als auch inhaltlich mit der Fortschreibung des heilpädagogischen Ausbildungscurriculums auf bereits 1898 formulierten Verbandszielen basierte. Als Vorsitzender des Hilfsschulverbands kommentierte Paul Dohrmann die Prüfungsordnung und meldete weitergehende Forderungen des Verbands an. Demnach sollte eine zweijährige Ausbildung auf Hochschulbasis in einem selbstständigen Institut für Heilpädagogik mit einer besonderen Professur für Heilpädagogik erfolgen; explizit sollte in diesem Institut die Heilpädagogik nicht Nebenfach, sondern „Lebensaufgabe“ sein (Dohrmann 1950, 5 ). Am wichtigsten aber war ihm die Besoldung: „Es lässt sich aber heute schon sagen, daß diese Kardinalfrage der Ausbildung in großzügiger und vorbildlicher Weise gelöst wird“. Schließlich resümierte Dohrmann: „Wenn auch nicht alle unsere Forderungen restlos erfüllt sind, so sehen wir doch in dem Ministerialerlaß einen Meilenstein in der Geschichte des Hilfsschulwesens“, und hoffte, „daß sich trotz der geringen finanziellen Vorteile, die die aufopfernde Tätigkeit an den schwachen Kindern mit sich bringt, genügend Lehrer zum Studium finden werden“ (ebd., 6). Die Forderungen des Hilfsschulverbands wurden schnell erfüllt. Am 3. Februar 1951 wurde an der Pädagogischen Hochschule Hannover das Institut für Heilpädagogik eröffnet und mit einer Professur für Heilpädagogik ausgestattet. In dem Bericht über die Eröffnung des Instituts, den Lesemann als zentrale Führungsfigur des Verbands verfasste, wurde das Institut als „Schlußstein“ in der planvollen Arbeit der Lehrerbildung bezeichnet und in Anknüpfung an rassenhygienische Ideologeme betont: „Ein Volkskörper, besonders der kranke VolkskörIJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|45

|

46

Dagmar Hänsel

per, muß rechtzeitig die notwendigen Regenerationsprozesse einleiten, wenn er nicht in sich verfallen soll“ (Eröffnung 1951, 145f.). Folglich konnte Tornow 1955 anerkennend feststellen: „Niedersachsen schuf in Hannover die erste deutsche Professur für Heilpädagogik und das erste deutsche Heilpädagogische Institut an einer Pädagogischen Hochschule“ (Tornow 1955, 181f.). Zwar sei „noch nicht abzusehen, ob es zu der erforderlichen einheitlichen Ausrichtung“ der heilpädagogischen Ausbildung komme; dennoch prognostizierte Tornow: „Wesentlich wird es für die zukünftige Entwicklung der aufgezeigten Ausbildungseinrichtungen sein, ob es gelingt, die Ausweitung von den bisherigen Einzelaufgaben auf das Gesamtgebiet der Heilpädagogik zu vollziehen und vor allem neben Praxis und Lehre auch die wissenschaftliche Forschung als Zukunftsaufgabe zu erkennen und auszuüben“ (ebd., 181ff.). Die Ausweitung der „Einzelaufgaben“ sollte mit der Einführung der grundständigen Sonderschullehrerausbildung Ende der 1960er-Jahre gelingen und zur dienstrechtlichen wie einkommensmäßigen Gleichstellung der Hilfsschullehrer mit den Taubstummen- und Blindenlehrern führen. Damit waren alle Ziele erreicht, die mit der Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung von 1941 angestrebt und vom Hilfsschulverband seit 1898 gefordert worden waren. Kontinuitäten sind in der heilpädagogischen Ausbildung aber nicht nur bis in die 1950erJahre, sondern bis in die Gegenwart auszumachen. So ist die von Busch 1905 und danach immer wieder erhobene Forderung des Hilfsschulverbands, die allgemeine Lehrerausbildung um sonderpädagogische Inhalte zu erweitern, inzwischen unter dem Anspruch von Inklusion erfüllt worden, zumindest in der nichtgymnasialen Lehrerausbildung. Durch diese Erweiterung sollen allgemeine Lehrkräfte jedoch damals wie heute nicht befähigt werden, „selbst in heilpädagogischer Weise einzugreifen“, sondern darauf beschränkt werden, auf die „Anfänge“ sich abzeichnender Entwicklungen „aufmerksam“ zu machen (Busch 1905, 15). Dass die auf Abgrenzung und Trennung der Ausbildungen bedachten Bestrebungen der Hilfsschullehrerschaft auch unter dem Anspruch von Inklusion fortbestehen, macht eine Forderung des Verbands Sonderpädagogik deutlich, der aus dem Hilfsschulverband hervorgegangen ist. Dieser hat für die Lehrgänge zum zusätzlichen Erwerb des sonderpädagogischen Lehramts durch allgemeine Lehrkräfte im Zusammenhang von Inklusion gefordert, dass „alle“ Mitglieder des Prüfungsausschusses das Lehramt Sonderpädagogik erworben haben müssen und dass die „Mehrheit des Prüfungsausschusses“ in der Fachrichtung ausgebildet sein müsse, für die das Lehramt Sonderpädagogik vergeben werde (VDS 2012, 14). Die Fachrichtungen korrespondieren mit den Formen des gegliederten Sonderschulsystems und den auf sie zugeschnittenen speziellen Sonderpädagogiken, die auch unter dem Anspruch von Inklusion fortbestehen. Die Sonderschullehrerausbildung befähigt und berechtigt inzwischen nicht nur zur Tätigkeit in den vielfältigen Formen der Sonderschule, sondern auch auf allen Stufen und in allen Formen der allgemeinen Schule (vgl. KMK 1994). Die Sonderpädagogik beansprucht, als inklusive Pädagogik wirklich allgemeine Pädagogik zu sein. Dieser Anspruch wird nicht nur, aber insbesondere die allgemeine Pädagogik herausfordern, den von der Sonderpädagogik angestrebten Primat kritisch zu betrachten (vgl. Oelkers 2013).

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Die nationalsozialistische Hilfsschullehrerausbildung

5 Fazit Das hier erstmals historisch ausgewertete Quellenmaterial zur Entwicklung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung im ‚Dritten Reich‘ zeigt, dass die Bemühungen um deren Neuordnung nicht erst 1941 begonnen haben, sondern in der Kontinuität der heilpädagogischen Studienjahre während der 1920er-Jahre und der Bestrebungen des Hilfsschulverbands seit seiner Gründung im Jahre 1898 zu sehen sind. Die quellenbasierte Analyse macht zudem die begrenzte Wirksamkeit des Nazi-Regimes in inhaltlichen Fragen der Heilpädagogik und damit die Differenz von totalem Anspruch und Wirklichkeit deutlich. Zwar wurde das Ausbildungscurriculum für die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung im ‚Dritten Reich‘ um nationalsozialistische Ideologeme und um Bezüge auf die rassenhygienische Gesetzgebung des NS-Regimes erweitert. In seinen Grundzügen blieb der Inhaltskatalog für die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung jedoch im Wesentlichen gleich. Hilfsschullehrer waren zudem als Fachleute für Sonderpädagogik auch unter den Bedingungen der Nazi-Diktatur an der Erstellung einschlägiger amtlicher Vorgaben maßgeblich beteiligt. Das gilt nicht nur für den Entwurf der Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung von 1941, sondern auch für die Allgemeine Anordnung über die Hilfsschulen in Preußen von 1938, für den Personalbogenerlass von 1940 und für die reichsweiten Hilfsschulrichtlinien von 1942 (vgl. Hänsel 2006, 2008). Die Hilfsschule, die für sich in Anspruch nahm, „Sammelbecken für erbkranken Nachwuchs“ und für die Akzeptanz des Gesetzes zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses durch die Betroffenen unentbehrlich zu sein, machte in ihrer Entwicklung zur Sonderschule während der NS-Zeit erhebliche Fortschritte. Gleichwohl stellte der Entwurf der Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung von 1941 auch etwas grundlegend Neues dar. Denn mit einer staatlichen Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung für Hilfsschullehrer wurde deren Normierung und flächendeckender Ausbau für ein reichseinheitliches Hilfsschulsystem umrissen. Folglich traten die für die Hilfsschulen und die Hilfsschullehrerausbildung verantwortlichen Funktionsträger nationalsozialistischer Herrschaft keineswegs als deren Gegner auf. Die 1941 vom Reichskultusministerium ausgearbeiteten und mit dem Reichsfinanzministerium abgestimmten „gutgemeinten Pläne“, welche die vom Hilfsschulverband seit jeher projizierten Ziele reflektierten, wurden von der Parteikanzlei nicht „durchkreuzt“ (vgl. Höck 1979, 310) und fielen nicht einem „politischen Eingriff“ zum Opfer (ebd., 311), weil diese etwa im Widerspruch zur nationalsozialistischen Ideologie oder zur nationalsozialistischen Rassenhygiene gestanden hätten, sondern weil für die Lehrgänge offenbar kriegsbedingt nicht genügend Bewerber vorhanden waren. Dementsprechend fand in München zwar 1942/43 kein weiterer Ausbildungslehrgang, wohl aber 1943 eine groß angelegte Fortbildungswoche zur Hilfsschule statt, die das bayerische Kultusministerium veranstaltet hatte (vgl. BayHStA MK 62286). In seinem einleitenden Vortrag unterstrich Ministerialrat Kolb, dass die Hilfsschule „als Sonderschule ihre Anerkennung finden“ müsse (ebd.). Schließlich macht die Vernachlässigung des Entwurfs der Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung von 1941 in der sonderpädagogischen Historiographie deutlich, dass das viel beklagte Forschungsdefizit der Sonderpädagogik zur NS-Zeit weder der komplexen Fachstruktur der Sonderpädagogik noch der schubweisen Entwicklung des Sonderschulsystems (so jüngst Kremer 2011, 163) und somit nicht Sachzwängen geschuldet ist, sondern dem Bestreben entspringt, eine Geschichtskonstruktion zu bewahren, aus der die Sonderpädagogik bis heute erheblichen praktischen wie moralischen Nutzen zieht. Denn an die im National-

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|47

|

48

Dagmar Hänsel

sozialismus entwickelten Konzeptionen zur Hilfsschule wie zur Hilfsschullehrerausbildung knüpfte in der Nachkriegszeit die seit 1949 im Verband Deutscher Hilfsschulen – seit 1955 Verband Deutscher Sonderschulen, inzwischen Verband Sonderpädagogik – organisierte Hilfsschullehrerschaft nicht nur nahtlos an, sondern konstruierte zugleich auch eine besondere Historiographie.

Unveröffentlichte Quellen

Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv: MK 62266 und MK 62286 Bundesarchiv Berlin: R 2/12615: Richtlinien für Erziehung und Unterricht in Hilfsschulen, insbesondere in Preußen sowie Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung für Hilfsschullehrer Landesarchiv Speyer: H 3/7006: Fürsorge für schwachbegabte und behinderte Kinder, insbesondere durch Einführung sog. Hilfsschulen (1905-1943) Staatsarchiv Hamburg: 4021-17: Ausbildung von Hilfsschullehrern Stadtarchiv Halle/Saale: A 2.36 Nr.1067 Bd.1: Heilpädagogisches Institut 1929/1933

Veröffentlichte Quellen und Literatur

Abschlussbericht der Arbeitsgruppe Lehrerbildung der Wissenschaftlichen Kommission Niedersachsen: Empfehlungen zur Weiterentwicklung der Lehrerbildung in Niedersachsen. Hannover 2002 Bajohr, Frank: Gauleiter in Hamburg. Zur Person und Tätigkeit Karl Kaufmanns. In: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 43(1995), Heft 2, 267-295 Bericht über den Ersten Verbandstag der Hilfsschulen Deutschlands in Hannover am 12. und 13. April 1898. Magdeburg: Zacharias 1898 Bericht über den Vierten Verbandstag der Hilfsschulen Deutschlands zu Mainz am 14., 15. und 16. April 1903. Hannover: Schrader 1903 Bericht über den Fünften Verbandstag der Hilfsschulen Deutschlands zu Bremen am 25., 26. und 27. April 1905. Hannover: Jänecke 1905 Bericht über den XI. Verbandstag der Hilfsschulen Deutschlands zu München am 30. und 31. Juli 1926. Halle an der Saale: Carl Marhold 1927 Bericht über den 1. Verbandstag. In: Heilpädagogische Blätter 1(1949), Heft 1, 1-9 Beschel, Erich: Stellung und Aufgabe des Heilpädagogischen Instituts an der Pädagogischen Hochschule. In: Pädagogische Hochschule Dortmund (Hrsg.): Die Pädagogische Hochschule. Struktur und Aufgaben. Ratingen: Henn 1964, 268-272 Beschel, Erich: Von den heilpädagogischen Lehrgängen zu einem Fachbereich der Universität Dortmund. In: Verband Deutscher Sonderschulen, Regionalverband Dortmund (Hrsg.): 100 Jahre Sonderschulen in Dortmund. Dortmung: Wulff 1986, 93-108 Bleidick, Ulrich: Aufgabe und Aufbau des sonderpädagogischen Studiums. In: Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik 20(1969), Heft 1, 1-21 Bleidick, Ulrich: Sonderschullehrerausbildung im Umbruch. In: Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik 24(1973), Heft 4, 248-261 Bleidick, Ulrich: Die Ausbildung von Sonderpädagogen in Deutschland – Historische und systematische Übersicht. In: Heribert Jussen/Helga Fründt (Hrsg.): Die Heilpädagogische Fakultät zu Köln. Köln: Dekanat 1991, 1-15 Bleidick, Ulrich: Die deutsche Sonderschullehrerausbildung im Rückblick. In: Die neue Sonderschule 43(1998), Heft 5, 326-360 Brill, Werner: Pädagogik der Abgrenzung. Die Implementierung der Rassenhygiene im Nationalsozialismus durch die Sonderpädagogik. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2011 Deutsche Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung. Amtsblatt des Reichsministeriums für Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung und der Unterrichtsverwaltungen der Länder. Berlin Januar 1935 – November 1945 Dohrmann, Paul: Die Stellungnahme des Verbandes. In: Heilpädagogische Blätter 2(1950), Heft 7/8, 4-6 Egenberger, Rupert: Die Ausbildung der Hilfsschullehrer. In: Die Hilfsschule 15(1922), 181-182, 195-209 Egenberger, Rupert: Die Ausbildung der Heilpädagogen. Hans Goepfert (Hrsg.): Bericht über den ersten Kongreß für Heilpädagogik in München 2.-5. August 1922. Im Auftrage der Gesellschaft für Heilpädagogik. Berlin: Julius Springer 1923, 79-87

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Die nationalsozialistische Hilfsschullehrerausbildung

Egenberger, Rupert: Die heilpädagogische Lehrerausbildung. Bericht über den X. Verbandstag der Hilfsschulen Deutschlands zu Hannover am 3. und 4. August 1924. Halle an der Saale: Carl Marhold 1925, 34-37 Egenberger, Rupert: Heilpädagogischer Neu- und Ausbau. In: Die Hilfsschule 22(1929), 588-601 Ellger-Rüttgardt, Sieglind: Geschichte der Sonderpädagogik. Eine Einführung. München/Basel: Ernst Reinhardt 2008 Eröffnung des Heilpädagogischen Instituts in Hannover. In: Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik 3(1951), 145-147 Fuchs, Arno: Die Heilpädagogik im Reichsschulgesetz oder in einem Reichssonderschulgesetz. In: Die Hilfsschule 20(1927), Heft 8, 330-335 Haase, Otto: Zur Ausbildung des Hilfsschullehrers in Niedersachsen. In: Heilpädagogische Blätter 2(1950), Heft 7/8, 1-2 Hänsel, Dagmar: Die NS-Zeit als Gewinn für Hilfsschullehrer. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2006 Hänsel, Dagmar: Karl Tornow als Wegbereiter der sonderpädagogischen Profession. Die Grundlegung des Bestehenden in der NS-Zeit. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2008 Henze, August: Aus der Geschichte des Hilfsschulwesens. In: Die deutsche Sonderschule 7(1940), Heft 12, 495496 Hillenbrand, Clemens: 75 Jahre universitäre Ausbildung der Sonderpädagogen. In: Sonderpädagogik 27(1997), Heft 3, 158-166 Höck, Manfred: Die Hilfsschule im Dritten Reich. Berlin: Carl Marhold 1979 Hofmann, Wilhelm: Ausbildung. In: Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik 4(1953), 477-483 Hofmann, Wilhelm: Hilfsschule (Sonderschule für Lernbehinderte). Gustav Lesemann (Hrsg.): Beiträge zur Geschichte und Entwicklung des deutschen Sonderschulwesens. Berlin: Carl Marhold 1966, 65-101 Hofmann, Wilhelm: Die Stellung der Lehrerbildung im Laufe der Geschichte des Verbandes Deutscher Sonderschulen und mögliche Konsequenzen für die Gegenwart. In: Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik 24(1973), Heft 10, 858-879 Jussen, Heribert: Zur historischen Entwicklung des Ausbildungsganges „Sondererziehung und Rehabilitation der Lernbehinderten“ an der Heilpädagogischen Fakultät der Universität zu Köln. In: Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik 39(1988), Heft 6, 361-369 Kanter, Gustav: Institutionalisierung von Lehre und Forschung als eine Bedingung wissenschaftlichen Fortschritts in der Heilpädagogik. In: Michael Krüger (Hrsg.): Perspektiven der Hörgeschädigtenpädagogik. Berlin: Marhold 1985, 13-39 Kanter, Gustav/Ditmar Schmetz: Der Verband und der Auf- und Ausbau von Ausbildung und Studium. In: Andreas Möckel (Hrsg.): Erfolg, Niedergang, Neuanfang. 100 Jahre Verband Deutscher Sonderschulen – Fachverband für Behindertenpädagogik. München/Basel: Ernst Reinhardt 1998, 186-207 Koch, Hugo: Die Ausbildung der Sonderschullehrer. In: Arno Fuchs (Hrsg.): Die Heilpädagogische Woche in Berlin vom 15.-22. Mai 1927. Ausführlicher Bericht. Berlin: Wiegandt & Grieben 1928, 49-64 Kremer, Gabriele: Die Sonderschule im Nationalsozialismus: das Beispiel Hilfsschule. In: Klaus-Peter Horn/Jörg-W. Link (Hrsg): Erziehungsverhältnisse im Nationalsozialismus. Totaler Anspruch und Erziehungswirklichkeit. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2011, 163-184 Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK): Rahmenvereinbarungen über die Ausbildung und Prüfung für ein sonderpädagogisches Lehramt. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 6. Mai 1994. Bonn: Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Lesch, Erwin: Bericht über den Staatlichen Ausbildungslehrgang für Hilfsschullehrkräfte. In: Die deutsche Sonderschule 9(1942), Heft 11, 364-367 Lesch, Erwin: Bericht über den Staatlichen Heilpädagogischen Ausbildungslehrgang für Hilfsschullehrkräfte – München 1951. In: Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik 1(1952), Heft 5, 229-231 Lesemann, Gustav: Die Hilfsschulverbandstage und ihre Bedeutung für die Hilfsschulpädagogik. In: Verband Deutscher Hilfsschulen (Hrsg.): Festschrift zum Verbandstage am 24.- 26. Juli 1953. Hannover: Verband Deutscher Hilfsschulen 1953, 36-49 Lesemann, Gustav (Hrsg.): Beiträge zur Geschichte und Entwicklung des deutschen Sonderschulwesens. Berlin: Carl Marhold 1966 Möckel, Andreas (Hrsg.): Erfolg, Niedergang, Neuanfang. 100 Jahre Verband Deutscher Sonderschulen – Fachverband für Behindertenpädagogik. München/Basel: Ernst Reinhardt 1998 Möckel, Andreas: Geschichte der Heilpädagogik oder Macht und Ohnmacht der Erziehung (Zweite, völlig überarbeitete Neuauflage). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta 2007

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|49

|

50

Dagmar Hänsel

Moser, Vera: Die Geschichte der Behindertenpädagogik. Enzyklopädie Erziehungswissenschaft Online. Weinheim/ München: Juventa 2009 Nagel, Anne Christine: Hitlers Bildungsreformer. Das Reichsministerium für Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung 1934-1945. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer 2012 Oelkers, Jürgen: Allgemeine Pädagogik und Sonderpädagogik. In: Hans-Rüdiger Müller/Sabine Bohne/Werner Thole (Hrsg.): Erziehungswissenschaftliche Grenzgänge. Markierungen und Vermessungen. Beiträge zum 23. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft. Opladen/Berlin/Toronto: Barbara Budrich 2013, 219-240 Prüfungsordnung. In: Heilpädagogische Blätter 2(1950), Heft 7/8, 3-4 Schüle, G•••: Erstes bayerisches heilpädagogisches Studienjahr in München. In: Die Hilfsschule 16(1923), 135140 Sitzung des Vorstandes des Verbandes der Hilfsschulen Deutschlands. In: Die Hilfsschule 18(1925), 54-55 Solarová, Svetluse (Hrsg.): Geschichte der Sonderpädagogik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1983 Stoellger, Norbert: Kinder mit Behinderungen brauchen sonderpädagogisch ausgebildete Lehrerinnen und Lehrer. In: Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik 52(2001), Heft 12, 494-498 Tornow, Karl: Gedanken zur Ausbildung des Sonderschullehrernachwuchses. In: Die deutsche Sonderschule 4(1937), Heft 2, 86-93 Tornow, Karl: Führt uns auch eine geschichtliche Betrachtung zur Forderung einer gemeinsamen Sonderschullehrerausbildung? In: Die deutsche Sonderschule 6(1939), Heft 2, 81-98 Tornow, Karl (1942a): Die Ausbildung von Anstaltslehrern ist dringend notwendig. In: Die deutsche Sonderschule 9(1942), Heft 1, 1-4 Tornow, Karl (1942b): Gedanken zur Neugestaltung der Hilfsschullehrerausbildung. In: Der Deutsche Erzieher (Bayreuth) 9(1942), 225-227 Tornow, Karl (1942c): Wird die kommende Neugestaltung der Hilfsschullehrer-Ausbildung den völkischen Gesichtspunkten über Notwendigkeit und Ziel der Hilfsschule gerecht werden? In: Die deutsche Sonderschule 9(1942), Heft 5/6, 161-164 Tornow, Karl: Krisis der Heilpädagogik in Deutschland. In: Acta psychotherapeutica, psychsomatica et orthopaedagogica 3(1955), Heft 2, 174-188 Verband Sonderpädagogik: Stellungnahme zum Entwurf einer Verordnung zur berufsbegleitenden Ausbildung zum Erwerb des Lehramtes für sonderpädagogische Förderung. In: Sonderpädagogische Förderung in NRW 50(2012), Heft 4, 13-14 Zentralblatt für die gesamte Unterrichts-Verwaltung in Preußen. Hrsg. in dem Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Kunst und Volksbildung. Berlin 1(1859)-76(1934)

Prof. emer. Dr. Dagmar Hänsel, Universität Bielefeld, Fakultät für Erziehungswissenschaft, Arbeitsgruppe 3: Schultheorie, Universitätsstraße 25, D-33615 Bielefeld, dagmar.haensel@ uni-bielefeld.de

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|51

Daniel Lindmark Educational Media in Sápmi. Religious Instruction in a Missionary Context (1619-1811) Lehrmittel in Sápmi. Religionsunterricht in einem missionarischen Kontext (1619-1811) (Ed.) Educational media are the focal points of instruction. They formulate the expectations of society concerning education and have broad impacts that have remained largely unexplored. This paper examines this phenomenon taking the example of religious education in the Swedish part of the settlement area of the Saami people in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. (Red.) Lehrmittel sind die Kristallisationspunkte des Unterrichts. In ihnen werden gesellschaftliche Erwartungen an Bildung formuliert und sie haben Breitenwirkungen, die noch weitgehend unerforscht sind. Der nachfolgende Beitrag untersucht dieses Phänomen exemplarisch am Beispiel der religiösen Erziehung im schwedischen Teil des Siedlungsgebiets der Samen im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Two centuries ago, the whole Bible appeared for the first time in a Saami translation. The Saami Bible of 1811 represented the most spectacular landmark in a long row of important milestones in the history of Saami educational media. In this article, I will outline the major achievements in the development of Saami educational media and relate them to such phenomena as Swedish settlement, Christian missions, and Saami language and religion. In the concluding sections, I will address the question as to what extent the Saami educational media of the period had an impact on the practice of Saami pre-Christian religion as well as Saami knowledge of Christianity. The study is restricted to the Swedish part of Sápmi in the period 1619-1811.1

1  Today the North Saami word Sápmi is used to designate the entire area of Saami habitat in the northern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia, which was formerly referred to as Lapland. Originally used in a context of Saami ethno-political mobilization, Sápmi has become the common term for the Saami land in historical research as well. In this article I will use Sápmi, the Saami region, the Saami area and the Saami land synonymously. However, when referring to specific administrative territories, I will use the historical term Lapland in such expressions as Torne Lapland(s). There are different spellings of the noun and adjective Saami (Sami, Sámi, Same), Sami representing the most common alternative to Saami. In this article I will use Saami with reference to Saami language (Saami) and people (the Saami) as well as other Saami-related phenomena (e.g. Saami religion). IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|

52

Daniel Lindmark

Saami People and Language The area of Saami settlement includes major parts of northern Fenno-Scandia and the Kola Peninsula. Today the total number of the Saami population is estimated to somewhere between 70’000 and 100’000. No census has been conducted, and estimates have been based on various methods and data, none of which have resulted in accurate figures. About half of the Saami population are Norwegian citizens. In Sweden, the number of Saami is approximately 17’000 according to estimates based upon registration for elections to the Saami parliament. Other calculations indicate that the figure should be doubled. Traditionally, the Saami were a reindeer herding population that migrated in small groups with their reindeer. In Sweden, the intensive breeding of small herds was gradually abandoned from the late 16th century to the benefit of extensive stock raising with larger herds moving from their summer pastures in the mountains to their winter habitats on the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. This group of mountain Saami still represents the archetypical Saami people to which the indigenous rights to land and water and reindeer herding have been linked in Swedish legislation since 1886. Still, many Saami people continued to find their living in the forest areas, where they supplemented their small-scale herding with fishing and hunting. When in the 18th century the number of Swedish settlers increased, many Saami people tried to protect their land by taking up own settlements. When becoming domiciled the Saami were no longer recognized as Saami but as Swedes in the population registers. Saami language belongs to the Finno-Ugric group of languages that includes Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian. Saami is usually divided into three main varieties: Southern Saami (South Saami and Ume Saami), Central Saami (Pite Saami, Lule Saami and North Saami) and Eastern Saami (Inari Saami, Skolt Saami and Ter Saami). Within the borders of contemporary Sweden, the Southern and Central Saami varieties are represented, and they will all be referred to in this article. Today, North Saami has the largest number of native speakers, while Ume Saami is nearly extinct. However, the Saami varieties of contemporary Sweden are also spoken by Saami people in Norway and Finland. Among the Saami varieties, only the closest related varieties are mutually understandable. Since the varieties differ from each other in terms of lexicography, grammar and orthography, they are often referred to as distinct languages rather than dialects. Since the Saami language belongs to a totally different group than the Scandinavian languages, which constitute a subdivision of Germanic languages, Swedish and Saami are mutually unintelligible. The existence of a number of Saami varieties and the fact that Saami and Swedish languages were no close relatives caused considerable trouble to the missionaries and ministers engaged in Saami mission in the early modern period.

Swedish Domination of Sápmi In the beginning of the 17th century, the State of Sweden intensified its efforts at dominating the northern part of Fennoscandia. Then the sparsely populated area was primarily inhabited by the Saami people. National borders had not yet been established, and the States of Sweden-Finland, Denmark-Norway and Russia competed over the access to the Arctic Sea. In order to claim the right to the land and its inhabitants, in the beginning of the 17th century the State of Sweden developed an ecclesiastical structure in Sápmi by founding new IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Educational Media in Sápmi

parishes, appointing vicars and building churches. This early attempt turned out to be a failure, though, but when silver ore was discovered and a mine was opened in Nasafjäll in the 1630s, the Saami region attracted increasing attention. During the rest of the 17th century, settlement by Swedes and Finns was encouraged, and this for two reasons: to win the riches from the region, and to provide the Saami population with good Christian examples (Lindmark 2006, 13-43). In 1671, the Lapland Act offered tax relief to those who took up new settlements, and settlement was supported by new parishes, ministers and church buildings. However, only in the latter half of the 18th century, Swedish and Finnish settlers started to move into the area in more than very restricted numbers. By 1750 there were less than 80 settlements in the Swedish part of Sápmi, a number that had increased to 343 by the end of the century (Lundmark 1998, 70).

Christian Missions Attempts at Christianizing the Saami people were made already in the Middle Ages, but the missionary activities intensified in the 17th century. Extant Saami religious rites such as the use of ceremonial drums and places of sacrifice motivated new initiatives such as visitations and examinations by the Governor of Västerbotten County and the Superintendent of Härnösand Diocese in the 1680s (Lindmark 2006, 44-91). Some of the Saami shamans (nojd, noyde and more spellings) were prosecuted in the period 1680-1730. While hundreds of men, women and children died in witch hunts in other parts of Sweden, only one Saami individual was executed in the “sorcery processes” of Swedish Sápmi. One explanation of this milder approach to indigenous Saami religion takes into account the risk for causing the Saami to move to Norway if exerting too heavy pressure on them. Another explanation recognises that the authorities took into consideration the limited Christian knowledge that the Saami people could exhibit. Due to their ignorance, they could not be held responsible for holding traditional views and exercising Saami religious rites. Instead of punishment, the authorities intensified their educational efforts. Initiated by a parliamentary decision in 1723 and regulated through a School Instruction of 1735, boarding schools were established in all the seven parishes of Swedish Sápmi (Widén 1964). The new school system integrated the Skyttean Saami School founded in Lycksele in 1632. The first new schools started in the parishes of Jokkmokk and Åsele in 1632, and by the middle of the century schools were in operation in all the parishes. From the 1740s, itinerant Saami teachers (kateket) educated in the Saami Schools reached the children of the most remote areas (Widén 1965). Founded in 1771, the Societas Suecana pro Fide et Christianismo was the only missionary society that took an interest in Saami mission in the 18th century. During the course of the 19th century, the state-supported and church-run school system was gradually replaced with missionary schools set up by various missions, primarily the Swedish Mission Society and the Apostolic Lutherans (Anderzén 2012). In addition to the Saami Schools, the parish clergy made serious efforts to establish a system of teaching and examination among the Saami. After a short-lived experiment with itinerant missionaries in the 1740s, the ministers focused on activities at the churches, including various kinds of services and examinations in accordance with the prevalent model in Swedish-speaking parishes. Also the household examinations were practiced, especially in order to reach the mountain Saami (Widén 1964). IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|53

|

54

Daniel Lindmark

Previous Research, Sources and Methods Our knowledge of educational media used in Sápmi is primarily based upon a bibliography published in 1899, to which only minor addenda have been made (Qvigstad/Wiklund 1899). There are also a number of special studies focusing on specific early Saami imprints (Bergsland 1947, 1982, 1984; Hasselbrink 1958; Nordberg 1969; Tigerström 1950/51; Wiklund 1922a+b). In 1987, Tuuli Forsgren published a report presenting an overview of Saami ecclesiastical and educational books prior to 1850 (second edition, Forsgren 1988; article version, Forsgren 1987). Forsgren (1990) also studied the Finnish literature used in religious instruction and service among the Saami in the northernmost area of Swedish Sápmi. I am most indebted to my late colleague Tuuli Forsgren (1942-2012) and her publications for introducing me to this field of research. To a high degree, the following analysis of Saami educational media will draw on Forsgren’s results. The outcome of early modern educational efforts in Sápmi has been estimated through analysis of ministers’ reports (Widén 1964) and examination registers from specific parishes (Anderzén 1992). Certain Saami boarding schools have also been analysed, but since individual study results appear quite randomly in the sources (Henrysson et al. 1993), more systematic results have been produced only after combination of sources in one specific parish (Anderzén 1992). The earliest extant examination registers and school documents emanate from the 18th century. Consequently, for the 17th century there is only scarce evidence to be found concerning individual reading skills and catechetical knowledge. In this article, I will combine results from previous studies with information in judicial sources and missionary reports.

The First Books in Saami Language (1619-1726) All the Saami-language literature issued in the period 1619-1726 was printed in Sweden. In Denmark-Norway, the first Saami book appeared in 1728, a translation of Martin Luther’s Small Catechism, and only in 1878, the first Saami book was printed in Russia, the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Forsgren 1988, 5). In 1619, the first books in Saami language appeared in print. Supported financially by the State of Sweden, Reverend Nicolaus Andreae managed to publish two books that might have been prepared by his father, who preceded him as a vicar of Piteå Parish (Nordberg 1973, 55; Forsgren 1988, 6). This first book contained prayers, hymns and rituals for church acts, such as baptism, marriage and burial. Only three copies are extant. The ABC book that was published in the same year was not rediscovered until 1921, when a copy was found in the Bremen City Library in Germany. This ABC book has the usual content: the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the words of institution of the Baptism and the Holy Communion, and finally table blessings and an evening prayer. Consequently, since even the order of the contents corresponds with contemporary Swedish ABC books and not with the Small Catechism, it seems reasonable to assume that Reverend Andreae used a Swedish ABC book as a model for his translation. However, latter-day linguists have not given the translator much credit for his language skills. Instead, the language of the ABC book has been characterized as Kauderwelsch, or gibberish (Qvigstad/Wiklund IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Educational Media in Sápmi

1899, 11). Referring to the fact that the language of the ABC book has a very rudimentary grammar with almost no flexion of words, linguist Tryggve Sköld (1984, 15) has put forward the idea that it could have been some kind of pidgin Saami used in commercial contacts. A translation of Martin Luther’s Small Catechism appeared in 1633, issued by Reverend Niurenius, vicar of Umeå Parish. Linguists have judged the language of this book even harder than the gibberish of the first translations (Forsgren 1988, 11f.). Most likely, the Saami catechism was the result of an improvised oral translation taken down by a person not mastering any Saami language (Wiklund 1922a, 22). Only one copy is extant. The first book to appear in a regular Saami language was the bilingual Swedish-Saami ABC book of 1638. A second edition of this primer appeared in 1640. One copy of each edition can be found at Uppsala University Library and the Royal Library in Stockholm, respectively. The bilingual approach with the left hand side in Swedish and the right hand side in Saami language certainly served a pedagogical purpose. Ministers not mastering the Saami language needed the parallel text for their own use of the book, but the bilingual book may also have served as an educational medium for Saami people trying to learn Swedish (Forsgren 1988, 12). While the language of the first three Saami books of 1619 and 1633 were based upon varieties used in the southern parts of the Saami region, the Saami language of the bilingual catechism of 1638 had a more northern touch, emanating from the Lule Laplands. The catechism may derive its origin from Dean Andreas Canuti’s teaching of Saami youngsters in Luleå that started in 1726 (Bergland 1982, 18). The northernmost variety represented in the early book production is the North Saami spoken in the Torne Laplands in the borderland between present-day Sweden and Finland. In 1643, Vicar Johannes Tornaeus of Torneå Parish was commissioned to translate the Swedish Service-book of 1639. The translation appeared in 1648 under the title of Manuale Lapponicum. Opening with extracts from the Psalms, Proverbs and other biblical books, the manual represented a brief service-book, including the biblical texts and prayers prescribed for each Sunday and Holiday. The Manuale Lapponicum represented a major achievement, and to make it comprehensible in more than the northernmost area of Sápmi, Tornaeus had tried to create a dialectum maximam communem. To this end, he had consulted Saami people from various regions speaking different varieties or dialects. To be sure, the manual was never intended for use by the Saami themselves, but rather by the ministers serving among the Saami. Consequently, only indirectly the Saami population were exposed to the language of the service-book. After 1640, the southern varieties continued to dominate in books translated into the Saami language. However, in 1667 Vicar Olaus Graan of Piteå Parish issued three books printed in the local dialect, an ABC book, a Small Catechism and an Explication. While the Small Catechism and the Explication were bilingual with the Swedish and Saami versions on either side, the ABC book offered a Swedish interlinear translation. The catechetical explication represented a translated extract from Archbishop Laurentius Paulinus Gothus’ explication book of 1631, Thesaurus Catecheticus Theoreticus et Practicus. Such books of questions and answers were widely used in popular education to develop and test the parishioners’ understanding of Martin Luther’s Small Catechism. The following year, 1668, schoolmaster Olaus Stephani Graan at the Saami Skyttean School in Lycksele published another bilingual explication book. Also this book was based upon extracts from Archbishop Gothus’ Thesaurus, but it was translated into the Ume Saami variIJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|55

|

56

Daniel Lindmark

ety, i.e. one of the southern varieties. The following year Graan issued a Saami Service-book, Manuale Lapponicum. More condensed than Tornaeus’ service-book of 1648, this manual nevertheless included more religious rituals. The publication of Graan’s service-book in 1668 indicates that Torneus’ manual was not understandable in the southern parts of Sápmi. After a trial print in 1715 of a chapter from the Gospel according to St. John, the next wave of Saami educational literature appeared in the 1720s, when the Saami School Curriculum of 1723 was to be implemented. The curriculum required ABC books and Catechisms in both languages to be printed immediately. When turning to the Härnösand Consistory, censor librorum Rosenadler was informed about the need for books in three different varieties. The consistory advised him of the fact that three ministers serving in Saami parishes had been commissioned to translate the ABC book into different varieties. However, only the southernmost version was printed in 1726. This bilingual book used an Ume Saami dialect close to the language used in the Bible trial print of 1715. The books were mostly printed in Stockholm and transported to northern Sweden for distribution among the Saami population. In the 18th century, the Saami School students could keep the books they received in school, but nothing much is known about book distribution among the wider population. However, in the first period of book production in the Saami language, we find recurrent evidence of close connections between teaching activities and production of educational media. This is true for the books issued in 1619 by the vicar of Piteå Parish, Reverend Nicolaus Andreae, and the Small Catechism published by Dean Andreas Canuti of Luleå Parish in 1638. Even more obvious is the linkage between teaching and book production in the case of Olaus Stephani Graan. He published his catechetical explication and service-book in 1668-1669 when serving as a schoolmaster at the Skyttean Saami School of Lycksele.

Books Published in the Period 1727-1811 The predominant use of southern varieties caused problems in the northern parts of the Saami region. Therefore, in the period after 1727 great efforts were made to create a common language for the entire Saami population. During this period the Southern Saami Book Language was established. Dictionaries and grammars represented other innovations in the Saami book production. In comparison with the previous period when books were published more randomly in various varieties, in the 18th century the book production had a more systematical character. Still, the book production in Saami language continued to be restricted to religious literature of the most basic kind: The ABC book, Luther’s Small Catechism and the Explication. During the 18th century, the Saami books went through a process of standardization also in regard to the literature that was used among the Swedish-speaking majority population. Hence, the commonly used explication book of 1689 written by Archbishop Olaus Svebilius appeared in a Saami translation in 1738. Saami hymnals were also published in 1744 and 1786 with 111 and 133 hymns, respectively. In 1748, Pehr Högström published a catechetical explication and a Saami translation of Johan Gabriel Güttner’s Homily. Finally, the New Testament was translated into Saami language and published in 1755, and in 1811 the entire Bible appeared in print.

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Educational Media in Sápmi

The standardization of the Saami written language took place in the early 1740s through language conferences in 1743 and 1744. The conferences were ordered by the Board of Ecclesiastical Affairs in Sápmi, that had been instituted by the Swedish Government in 1739. At the conferences the summoned ministers discussed matters of grammar, vocabulary and orthography. The conferences resulted in principles for written Saami, but even if the task was to create a language that could be used in the entire Saami area, the new standard was rooted in the southern varieties. The vocabulary utilized the common base in the varieties of Lule, Pite and Ume Laplands, but no attention was paid to the northernmost varieties of the Torne and Kemi Laplands. When Pehr Högström published his translation of Güttner’s homily and a revised edition of the explication of 1738, he incorporated more of northern dialect characteristics, but this linguistic revision did not change the southern character of the new standard. Consequently, when the new books printed in the Southern Saami Book Language were tested in the Torne Laplands, it became obvious that they were not understandable among the Saami population speaking the northern varieties, especially North Saami. Therefore, from the middle of the 18th century Finnish books produced for the vast Finnish-speaking population of Sweden-Finland were used in popular education in the northernmost areas of Swedish Sápmi (Forsgren 1990, 35ff.; Anderzén 1992, 85ff.). Only in the 1830s and 1840s, revivalist Lars Levi Laestadius published the first books written in a Saami variety differing from the Southern Saami Book Language, the Northern Saami Book Language (“Cot Saami”). However, this variety was based upon the Lule Saami and not the North Saami spoken in the Torne Laplands (Forsgren 1988, 5).

Educational Media, Christian Knowledge and Saami Religion in the 1600s From the viewpoint of the State and Church of Sweden, the educational offensive among the Saami in the 17th century turned out to be a failure. The results of the educational efforts were weak all over the Saami area in terms of both reading and religion. When in 1688 a Royal Commission led by the County Governor of Västerbotten and the Superintendent of Härnösand examined the catechetical knowledge of the Saami in Lycksele Parish of the Ume Laplands, it became evident that the vast majority of the parishioners could not account for more than the basic texts of the catechism (Lindmark 2006, 61ff.). Furthermore, they could only recite the wordings of the ABC book at one sweep from the beginning to the end and not distinguish between the Ten Commandments or other content matter. According to the local ministry, this restriction to basic memorization derived its origin from the ministers’ habit to read the ABC book at evening prayers during the market periods when the Saami gathered in the church village. In one of the examined Saami communities, only one person was literate, Olof Sjulsson, but he was keeping away from the meeting since his use of the ceremonial drum had come to the authorities’ knowledge. This was the situation in the parish of Lycksele, where the Skyttean Saami School had been in operation since 1632. No wonder that the Saami of the other parishes could not boast of any deeper Christian knowledge. In Jokkmokk Parish of the Lule Laplands, only one out of two hundred examined Saami individuals could read, and this man had actually attended the Skyttean Saami School of Lycksele (Lindmark 2006, 65). No children went to school in Jokkmokk and the local ministry did not teach any children. Some of the most remotely situated Saami villages had IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|57

|

58

Daniel Lindmark

never been visited by the vicar. Consequently, the catechetical knowledge was restricted to the wordings of the ABC book, but many a parishioner did not even master this basic book completely. Having established the fact that Christian knowledge was very weak among the Saami, members of the Royal Commission started to teach the Ten Commandments, both in Lycksele and Jokkmokk. Special attention was paid to the first commandment, which addressed the exclusive claims of Christian monotheism. The teaching ended up in severe admonitions and exhortations concerning the continued use of Saami religious practice. Several men confessed to using drums and were persuaded into handing them in. Consequently, by the end of the 17th century Christian knowledge was weak and Saami religious practice prevailed. Of course, there was a whole set of causes behind this failure of Christian missionary and educational efforts, but the educational media of the period were certainly not much of a success. However, from the Saami viewpoint, there was no failure – quite the opposite. The Saami people defended their culture and religion successfully, which they would not be able to do in the 18th century. Actually, there are accounts of verbal defense from more than one place. In Lycksele, the eluding literate person Olof Sjulsson in 1687 sent a letter to the King of Sweden asking for permission to use the drum as a means of orientation in the mountains (Lindmark 2006, 70ff.). Obviously, he tried to find a way to secure Saami religious practice by redefining the function of the ceremonial drum, but he pleaded in vain. From Arjeplog Parish, a minister reported about an inspection in the Saami communities that had been carried out in 1686. Having confiscated a drum and an “idol” (seite) from Erich Esskillsson, the minister engaged in a dispute with the owner (Lindmark 2006, 51ff.). Threatened with heavy fines, Esskillsson maintained that he was rich enough to pay. Asked why he had not learnt to read, he stated that his large herd gave him no time for such an activity. Instead, he questioned the minister’s condemnations of the Saami religion in his preachings: “He should know that we will never abandon the ways of our forefathers.” A friend of Esskillsson’s, Amund Thorson, stood up for the two of them, when the minister used the Day of Judgement as his ultimate argument. Thorson said: “If my father went to hell to be punished, I can stand what he stands.”

Educational Media, Christian Knowledge and Saami Religion in the 1700s When visiting Lycksele Parish in 1688, the Royal Commission also examined the knowledge and skills of the twelve students of the Skyttean Saami School. The students were found to master the entire small catechism including Olaus Stephani Graan’s explications of 1668 (Lindmark 2006, 63f.). Some of them could not only read, but also write, and all of them could sing hymns in both Swedish and Saami. Those students who were close to graduation were encouraged to “bring the books to the cots and read from them in the morning and the evening and teach others [to read], as well as sing and praise God every day, especially when not going to church”. In the quoted passage, the commission expressed its expectations concerning the dissemination effects of schooling. The suggested model of using former students as itinerant Saami teachers and lay readers at religious services in the Saami communities was formalized in the 1740s, when the system of Saami schools had been instituted. The itinerant Saami teachers were then provided with literature, including the Güttner IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Educational Media in Sápmi

homily of 1748 (Anderzén 1993). When visiting the Saami School of Jokkmokk in 1749, Superintendent Kiörning found out that student Anders Nilsson was “especially clever, virtuous and of good nature”. Among other things, he answered correctly the questions in the newly issued catechetical explication, and he read fluently from the new Güttner homily, even though its “orthography differed from what he previously had read”. Consequently, he was appointed an itinerant teacher, starting with Nils Ericsson’s children in Sjokksjokk. He was given a Güttner homily and was admonished to “every Sunday read from it in cots for the people of the household and the neighbors”. Before leaving school, he would be trained in holding service in accordance with the order drawn up on the first page of the homily (Anderzén 1999, 76f.). The schoolmasters of the boarding Saami schools in the church villages were ordained theologians who also served as ministers. Consequently, the vicars of the Saami parishes were heavily supported by the new categories of teachers, i.e. itinerant Saami teachers and stationary schoolmasters. By this time the ecclesiastical authorities had given up the idea of recruiting ministers from the Saami population. Instead, Saami-speaking sons of ministers serving in the Saami parishes were supported through special stipends (Lindmark 1990, 75f.). This policy of recruitment to clerical positions in Sápmi soon created a clergy of a few large Saami-speaking families that were frequently intermarried. In the enrolment lists of the Saami schools, random information can be found about the books that had been used. When being matriculated in Åsele Saami School in 1767, Sjul Jonsson could “reasonably read the ABC book”, but when graduating the next year, “he was found to master Luther’s Catechism by heart, and also the three main parts of Svebilius’ Explication” (Johansson/Flodin 1991, 26). Entries from the 1750s bear witness to the significance of the hymnal: “Reads from the hymnal with much stumbling”; “Could read somewhat in the Saami homily and sing some hymns” (Johansson/Flodin 1991, 15). More detailed information is available in the visitation and examination registers. Normally, all the students’ progress is recorded in relation to the books studied in school. In February 1750, examination was held in Jokkmokk Saami School by the vicar of an adjacent parish. After almost three years in school, nine-year-old Olof Larsson could “clearly and fluently read in the hymnal and Güttner’s Homily, and master by heart the whole of Luther’s Catechism, Svebilius’ Explication and Vicar Mr. Pehr Högström’s Catechetical Questions”(Anderzén 1999, 186). The Saami school system of 1723 certainly created new opportunities for Christian mission and religious instruction. In the course of the century, rates of literacy and catechetical knowledge rose considerably, even in Northern Sápmi, where Finnish served as the language of instruction. In Jukkasjärvi Parish of the Torne Laplands where the Saami school was instituted in 1744, Finnish reading ability rates rose from 50 percent of the population above the age of 9 in 1770 to 100 percent in 1795 (Anderzén 1992, 185ff.). Examination registers display a similar development of catechetical knowledge. Christianization took off, clearly demonstrated in church attendance and abandonment of the traditional Saami religion. One of the earliest and most convincing examples of Christianization was provided by Vicar Pehr Högström who in 1745 met Anna Olofsdotter in Gellivare Parish. This young Saami woman told him about a religious vision in which God had sent her to her community to admonish people to repent and convert from their evil deeds (Lindmark 2006, 215f.). When telling the story, Högström characterized Olofsdotter as a timid and virtuous young woman known for her sincerity and credibility. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|59

|

60

Daniel Lindmark

Theophilus Gran, who served as a schoolmaster of Jokkmokk Saami School in the 1760s, provided lots of examples of Christian devotion among the Saami people in a comprehensive manuscript entitled Some collected signs and proofs of the growth of Christianity in Jokkmokk Parish in the Lule Laplands (published in Lindmark 1999, 39-114). An old crippled Saami woman, Karin from the Vaimat community, used to crawl on hands and knees for 20 kilometers to attend service in church. A young student of the Saami School, Elsa Larsdotter, touched everyone visiting her deathbed through her patience and piety. After his conversion, a Saami youngster named Anders turned into a pious Christian devoted to religious reading, yet always tormented by his memories of his former sinful life. The manuscript abounds of such pious Saami individuals leading exemplary Christian lives. The new educational media issued from 1727 were instrumental in Christianizing the Saami. In the 18th century, the books differed decidedly from their forerunners of the previous century. First of all, they were printed in a regular Saami language, in contrast to the broken language of the first imprints. Second, the written language was standardized in terms of grammar, vocabulary and orthography. The establishment of the Southern Saami Book Language in the 1740s represented a significant milestone in this respect. Third, a wider variety of books were printed, and the books were more comprehensive. Fourth, no more bilingual books were printed, obviously reflecting the emergence of a body of fully Saami-speaking ministers and teachers. In addition to the new educational measures, primarily various types of schooling provided by Saami-speaking teachers, the educational media of the 18th century played an important part in the development of literacy and Christian religion among the Saami.

Educational Media as Symbols of Christianity in the Saami Schools Since traditional Saami culture had no written language, the book culture of the Church of Sweden represented an entirely new world for the Saami population. This also meant that books could be regarded as symbols of the Swedish culture with its double footing in Christianity and Western Civilization. In the schools, the Saami students were made subject of massive cultural influences, and their encounter with the new literary culture could certainly lead to identity crises. In this final section, I would like to demonstrate how books could play a part in such identity work. In 1671, fifteen-year-old Olof Sjulsson, a student at the Skyttean Saami School in Lycksele, had a vision when the schoolmaster was absent. According to his schoolmate Nicolaus Lundius, who eyewitnessed the event and later authored a report about it, Sjulsson began to “rage both day and night as if the Devil spoke to him”. When asked about the Devil’s appearance, Sjulsson said “that he was like a minister [and] had a long overcoat”. In his account, Lundius noted that “the Devil urged him to burn up books”. Lundius also stated that Sjulsson had thrown his book under the bench when coming upon the name “Jesus” in his reading (Lundius 1905). Also in the 18th century, symbolic value was attributed to books in the Saami School. In his above-mentioned manuscript, former schoolmaster Theophilus Gran accounted for the conversion of the Saami youngster Anders during his schooldays in Jokkmokk in the 1760s. When Anders had been down with fever for several days, he had a vision in which the Devil appeared in traditional Saami garb and claimed his soul. Trying to escape by offering the IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Educational Media in Sápmi

Devil a book, Anders received the following comment: “I can read more than you can” (Lindmark 1999). While Olof resisted the missionary efforts and became a spokesperson for his Saami community in their attempts at defending their culture (Lindmark, forthcoming), Anders eventually became a virtuous Christian. The difference in outcome corresponds with the appearance of the Devil and the function of the books in the two visions. Throwing away a Christian book when threatened by the Devil in a minister’s clothing, Olof repudiated Christianity. Anders instead saw the Devil appear in Saami costume and refused his claim by using the Christian book as a protective device. Consequently, in both cases the books served as powerful symbols of Christianity. In their diverging response to Christian literary culture, the Saami School students Olof and Anders can serve as representatives of the overall results of Christian mission and schooling in respective century. In the 17th century, Saami religion prevailed since the educational measures were inadequate and the educational media were of poor linguistic quality. In the 18th century, however, the Saami boarding school system and the itinerant auxiliary teachers offered new structural opportunities for intensified schooling supported by new educational media in a standardized language, the Southern Saami Book Language. In this new situation, the Saami population was gradually integrated into Christian literary culture, which was manifested in rising reading ability and catechetical knowledge.

References

Anderzén, Sölve: “Begrepp om salighetens grund, ordning och medel”: Undervisningen i en Lappmarksförsamling: Jukkasjärvi församling 1744-1820. Uppsala: Uppsala University 1992 Anderzén, Sölve: “Förplichtat wara läsa för them”: Byabön i Lappmarken vid 1700-talets mitt? In: Margareta Attius Sohlman/Daniel Lindmark/Karin Snellman (Eds.): Alphabeta varia. Umeå: Research Archives 1993, 9-22 Anderzén, Sölve (Ed.): Jockmock 1749-1775: Ämbetsberättelser, visitationsprotokoll och andra berättelser med anknytning till skolmästaren och kyrkoherden Jonas Hollsten. Umeå: Research Archives 1999 Anderzén, Sölve: De laestadianska missionsskolorna 1848-1862. In: Daniel Lindmark (Ed.): Väckelse i gränsland: Ur laestadianismens tidigaste historia. Umeå: Historical Society of Luleå Diocese 2012, 36-66 Bergsland, Knut: Om språket i den svensk-samiske ABC fra 1726. In: Lapponica: Studia Septentrionalia 3(1947), 40-44 Bergsland, Knut: Den svensk-samiske ABC fra 1638 som sprog-historiskt dokument. In: Språkhistoria och Språkkontakt i Finland och Nordskandinavien: Studier tillägnade Tryggve Sköld den 2 november 1982. Umeå: Royal Skyttean Society 1982, 11-20 Bergsland, Knut: Eldre Samiske Tekster. Tromsø: University of Tromsø 1984 Forsgren, Tuuli: De svenska lappmarksprästernas insats för kyrko- och undervisningslitteraturen på samiska före 1850. In: Oknytt 8(1987), Nos. 3-4, 19-43 Forsgren, Tuuli: Samisk kyrko- och undervisningslitteratur i Sverige 1619-1850 (1987). Umeå: Research Archives 1988 Forsgren, Tuuli: “… först att inhämta språket, och sedan deruppå lära sin Christendom …”: Om finska böcker i sameundervisning i Torne och Kemi lappmarker för 1850. Umeå: Research Archives 1990 Hasselbrink, Gustav: Lapska psalmböcker i Sverige. In: Forum Theologicum 15(1958), 19-51 Henrysson, Sten et al.: Samer, präster och skolmästare: Ett kulturellt perspektiv på samernas och Övre Norrlands historia. Umeå: Centrum för arktisk forskning 1993 Johansson, Carl-Henry/Johnny Flodin (Eds.): Åsele lappskola 1732-1820: Bearbetad och kompletterad elevmatrikel. Umeå: Centrum för arktisk forskning 1991 Lindmark, Daniel: En skola för staden, regionen och kyrkan: Elever, lärare och präster i Piteå skola före 1850. Umeå: Forskningsarkivet 1990 Lindmark, Daniel (Ed.): Berättelser från Jokkmokk: En kommenterad utgåva av två 1700-talsmanuskript till belysning av lappmarkens kristianisering och Pro Fides äldsta historia. Stockholm: Proprius 1999

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|61

|

62

Daniel Lindmark

Lindmark, Daniel: En lappdrängs omvändelse: Svenskar i möte med samer och deras religion på 1600- och 1700-talen. Umeå: Centre for Sami Research 2006 Lindmark, Daniel: Colonial Education and Saami Resistance in Early Modern Sweden. In: Barnita Bagchi/ Eckhardt Fuchs/Kate Rousmaniere (Eds.): Connecting Histories of Education: Transnational Exchanges and Cross-Cultural Transfers. New York: Berghahn Books (forthcoming) Lundius, Nicolaus: Nicolai Lundii Lappi Descriptio Lapponiæ. Uppsala: Ljus 1905 Lundmark, Lennart: Så länge vi har marker: Samerna och staten under sexhundra år. Stockholm: Rabén Prisma 1998 Nordberg, Erik: Specimen Novi Testamenti lapponici: Provtryck år 1715 av Lars Rangius’ översättning av Nya Testamentet till lapska samt Skriftväxlingen mellan Georg Wallin i Härnösand och lappmarksprästerna om lapsk ortografi. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien 1969 Nordberg, Erik (Ed.): Källskrifter rörande kyrka och skola i den svenska lappmarken under 1600-talet. Umeå: Royal Skyttean Society 1973 Qvigstad, Just/Karl Bernhard Wiklund: Bibliographie der lappischen Litteratur (1899). Stockholm: Björck/Börjesson 1978 Sköld, Tryggve: Pehr Fjellström och det svensk-samiska skriftspråket. In: Saga och Sed 1984, 16-26 Tigerström, Harald: Bibeln på lapska. In: Norrbotten 1950/51, 66-89 Widén, Bill: Kristendomsundervisning och nomadliv: Studier i den kyrkliga verksamheten i lappmarkerna 17401809. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University 1964 Widén, Bill: Kateketinstitutionen i Sveriges och Finlands lappmarker 1744-1820. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University 1965 Wiklund, Karl Bernhard (1922a): De första lapska böckerna. In: Tidskrift för Bok- och Biblioteksväsen 9(1922), 13-28 Wiklund, Karl Bernhard (1922b): ABC-bok på lapska: Stockholm 1619: Med en efterskrift om de svenska lapparnas skolundervisning i äldsta tid af Prof. K.B. Wiklund. Stockholm: Bröderna Lagerstörm 1922

Prof. Daniel Lindmark, Umeå University, Department of historical, philosophical and religious studies, SE-90187 Umeå

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|63

Eckhardt Fuchs The (Hi)story of Textbooks: Research Trends in a Field of Textbook-Related Research Die Geschichte der Lehrbücher: Forschungstrends im Feld lehrbuchbezogener Forschung

(Red.) Obgleich Lehrmittel die kanonisierten Wissensbestände einer Zeit enthalten und den schulischen Unterricht maßgeblich prägen, sind sie in der Forschung auffallend unterrepräsentiert. Der nachfolgende Beitrag vermutet, dass diese Vernachlässigung mit dem Umstand zusammenhängt, dass Lehrmittel einen genuin interdisziplinären Forschungskontext voraussetzen, der in den Universitäten – jenseits der Rhetorik – noch zu wenig ausgebildet ist. Ein Überblick über den Stand der Forschung soll das vertiefte wissenschaftliche Interesse an den Lehrmitteln wecken. (Ed.) Although textbooks contain the canons of knowledge of a particular time and decisively shape teaching in the schools, as a research topic they are underrepresented. This article suggests that this neglect is linked to the fact that textbook research requires genuine interdisciplinary research contexts, which are not – beyond rhetoric – well established at the universities. By providing an overview of the current state of research, this essay aims to awaken academic interest in textbooks. Since “textbook research” does not exist as a clearly defined and demarcated discipline I prefer the term “textbook-related research”, as it highlights both the huge diversity found in the topics and methodologies dealt with in this field and the inter- and multidisciplinary nature of these topics and methodologies, which takes them beyond the traditional canon of university research subjects (Fuchs 2010, 2011a, 2011b). The case of historical research on textbooks is similar. It is impossible to assign this area of research unequivocally to a particular discipline; it is part of textbook-related research, the fields of history of education, the history of publishing and bookselling, curriculum history, the history of approaches to learning and teaching, and historical media research. Historical research on textbooks is not firmly rooted in university history faculties and institutes; it practices a highly diverse range of theoretical approaches, such as discourse theory and neo-institutionalism, and methodologies including research into cultures of memory or transnational phenomena. This essay does not intend to be a history of textbooks; instead, its aim is to provide a brief overview of the current state of historical research into textbooks. It will attempt to summarize the research done on the history of textbooks in recent decades, and in so doing to unIJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|

64

Eckhardt Fuchs

cover key trends taking place in this field of research. Textbooks, as carriers of the canons of knowledge and information deemed by a society as requiring to be passed down to successive generations, are located at a point of intersection where academia, economy, policy, education, and knowledge production meet (Lässig 2010). I will therefore structure this overview according to the multifaceted and complex position of textbooks in society: (1) Academia: mapping the field, (2) Economy: the history of textbook production and publication; (3) Politics: the relationship between textbooks, politics and policy as well as textbook revision and “textbook wars”; (4) Education: the place of textbooks in educational discourses; (5) Knowledge: textbooks as carrier and transmitter of knowledge.

1  Academia: Mapping the Field Any inquiry into the findings of historical research into textbooks will inevitably find itself asking in what the distinctive character of a textbook actually consists (Jeismann 1979; Rüsen 1992; Höhne 2003; Lässig 2009; Repoussi/Tutiaux-Guillon 2010). There is universal consensus on the notion that textbooks are a central component of the material culture of education as it takes place in schools. As the primary teaching material used, they are a constituent factor of schools in the modern age. Since the end of the eighteenth century, the development of teaching and learning media played its part in the emergence and eventual dominance of an institutionalized form of education which has remained the essential and self-evident core of educational practice in schools to the present day. Recent years have seen the publication of a number of overviews on the history of textbooks, work which has defined key fundaments of the field (Choppin 1995, 2002, 2008; Del Mar del Pozo 2002; Marsden 2001; Jacobmeyer 2011). Most of those writing on the history of textbooks point out at the outset that the term textbook (or, as the case may be, Schulbuch, libro escolar, libro di scuola, manuel scolaire, and others in other languages) was in competition with other terms until the early twentieth century and that it is impossible to provide an unambiguous and authoritative definition of the term; the way in which a “textbook” is defined is contingent not only upon historical factors, but also upon the issue of whether it is related to schools as institutions or other contexts in which teaching and learning take place. Over a long period of time, a plethora of terms were used to refer to what we understand to be textbooks today. Jacobmeyer speaks in this context of a “baroque diversity of forms” (2011, 13). Defining terms is even more difficult when it comes to the period between ancient times and the advent of humanism in the Renaissance, as the terms used related to all forms of scholarly study, among other things (Schmitt 1988). It was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that the term “textbook” and its equivalents came to predominate in Germany, France and Britain (Marsen 2001; Michael 1993). The question of when in history textbooks appeared for the first time has not received a definitive response via research, for the evident reason that such a response would be highly dependent on the definition of the term chosen to work from. That said, those working in the field today are in agreement that the modern textbook emerged gradually, over a relatively long period of time, and have come to reject the idea, sometimes still to be found in popular works on the subject, that the first ever textbook was Comenius’ Orbis sensualium pictus, although this work was doubtless of irrefutable significance in its age (Michel 1973). Historical research into textbooks views the invention of the printing press as a constitutive IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The (Hi)story of Textbooks

moment in the medium’s genesis (Rommel 1968), a moment which ushered in a radical departure from older ways of producing books and transformed the content of such books and the manner of its communication. Some authors take the view that textbooks were in existence in ancient times or in the medieval period; Pierre Riché, for instance, sees the origins of textbooks as being intertwined with the emergence of the medieval codex, that is, with the evolution of manuscripts, made from sheets of parchment sewn together, which could be easily held in a person’s hands (Choppin 2008, 37). For most authors, however, the history of the textbook commences in the sixteenth century, after the dawn of the new era heralded by the printing press (Grafton 2008). They generally divide this history into two phases, of which the first, running from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, saw the evolution of textbooks as being closely connected to the proliferation of the printing press and developments in education, specifically the replacement of the lingua franca Latin by national languages in the classroom. The institutions which dominated education in this period, local churches and religious orders, also held sway over textbook production (see the introduction in Kreusch 2008 and Viñao 2002). The second phase in the history of textbooks is generally considered to span the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and to be decisively influenced by the increasingly significant role of the state in education and the concomitant expansion of the latter. A further key factor in this second phase in the history of textbooks is the rise of specialist publishers, with major textbook publishing houses coming into being from the mid-nineteenth century onward. Finally, the reforms of educational concepts and methodologies which set in at the end of the nineteenth century were not without their influence on textbooks, particularly in the context of progressive ideas of education. The transition from the first to the second phase took place over a relatively substantial period. Ludwig Fertig (2003), for instance, points out that some religious organizations continued to hold leading positions in the textbook market in the nineteenth century and indeed into the twentieth. We can join William E. Marsden in viewing the development of this paradigm over the centuries as a history of continuous textbook reform marked by both change and continuity (Marsden 2011).

2  Economy: The History of Textbook Production and Publication Textbook publishers Historical synopses of the history of textbook publishers, the production mechanisms by which they worked, their impact on the public sphere, textbook authors and interactions with educational institutions and practitioners were long a rarity. Older studies on the history of textbooks did include discussions of these topics; however, they neglected to provide systematic detail of textbooks’ complex societal location (Rommel 1968; Manz 1966; Nietz 1961). It is not until very recently that German and Austrian academics have published seminal studies on these issues. Julia Kreusch’s work on the Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses in the city of Halle in Saxony-Anhalt is a study of one of the most significant nineteenth-century publishers of history and geography textbooks (Kreusch 2008; Jäger 2003). Ingeborg Jaklin (2003) has produced a comparable study for Austria, exploring the textbook output of two publishing houses of the eighteenth century. Caroline Cody’s work (1990) on the issue in the US is a first for the region. The Swiss educational historian Anne Bosche (2013) has investigated the debate around the textbook publishing system and the IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|65

|

66

Eckhardt Fuchs

introduction of new teaching and learning media and materials at primary schools in the canton of Zürich against the backdrop of the social and cultural changes that unfolded in the 1960s and 1970s. There are overviews of the history of textbook publishers for the period 1871-1945 with specific relation to Germany (Jäger 2003; Kreusch 2012), where the textbook production system was characterized by a number of specific features well into the twentieth century. One of these was the fact that some of the income generated by textbook sales was used to provide social security for primary school teachers and paid into the funds held by regional Lehrervereine to support teachers’ widows and orphans. Accordingly, it was largely the members of these associations who authored textbooks (Jäger 2003). Thomas Keiderling (2002), in his investigation of the shift in the relationship between textbook authors and publishers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, concludes that the professionalization of the textbook production process went hand in hand with the increasing influence exerted by publishers on textbook drafts. An analysis of textbooks enabled Julio Ruiz Berrio to uncover the hidden political agenda pursued by the influential Spanish publisher Calleja, whose textbooks, which were issued from 1876 onwards and generated extremely healthy sales figures, called between the lines for the modernization of Spanish society (Ruiz Berrio 2002). In addition to this work, some scholars have produced biographies of textbook publishers; examples are Jean-Yves Mollier (1999) on Louis Hachette and Hartmut Schröder (2008) on Carl August Schröder, the long-standing director of the Braunschweig-based Georg Westermann publishing house’s textbook division. Some authors have paid attention to issues around state textbook publishing houses: Daniel Tröhler and Jürgen Oelkers (2001) have studied a state publisher for teaching materials in the Swiss canton of Zürich in the nineteenth century, while Georg Jäger (2003) investigates the debate surrounding the nationalization of textbook publishers after the collapse of the German Empire, and Gerard Giordano (2003) looks at a similar discussion which took place in the US at the end of the nineteenth century Textbook Market and Authors A relatively large number of studies are devoted to textbook production and distribution and to the development of the textbook market. The case of Spain (Viñao 2002) demonstrates the extent to which textbook production in the early modern era was contingent upon the granting of printing privileges. The Waisenhaus publishing house in the German city of Halle, to cite another example, founded its success as a major textbook publisher, which continued into the nineteenth century, on the general printing privilege it was granted in 1695 (Kreusch 2008). The work of Emmanuelle Chapron has shown that the French textbook market of the eighteenth century was far from being nationally or even regionally uniform, but instead was structured on a local basis by means of a multiplicity of administrative decrees, family relationships and networks of booksellers (Chapron 2012; Titel 2002; Gordano 2003). In the course of the nineteenth century, in general the textbook market became subject to increasing degrees of direct regulation by state institutions, with the introduction of textbook approval procedures marking a particularly notable development in this regard. At the same time, large and successful textbook publishing houses were becoming established in most western countries (Titel 2002).

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The (Hi)story of Textbooks

Important work in the field is dedicated to textbook authors. Christian Amalvi (2001) and Wolfgang Jacobmeyer (2011) have compiled a bio-bibliography of French and German textbook authors respectively; Hanno Schmitt (1997) examines the life of the illustrator Daniel Chodowiecki; and Hans-Martin Moderow (2002) has cast light on the key role taken by textbook authors in Germany’s nineteenth-century teachers’ associations (Lehrervereine), a circumstance of interest due to the privileged status of the Lehrervereine as partners to the state in issues surrounding textbook approval and licensing for use in schools. Kreusch (2008) has drawn our attention to the way in which the names of some textbook authors evolved into what were essentially brands, possessing great commercial value for their publishers. A key text taking a longue durée view on the history of textbooks is the Habilitation thesis submitted by Michael Baldzuhn (2009), which revealed that the teaching and learning culture of the late Middle Ages saw pupils acting as co-authors of textbooks.

3  Politics: Textbooks and the State Textbook Regulations As nation states emerged, and modern education systems with them, school subjects considered to be crucial for forming pupils’ consciousness and viewpoints gained key significance in the self-legitimation sought and practiced by the authorities of these states (Müller 1981). It is generally accepted in research into the field that textbooks were given decisive importance in the process of nation-building and the legitimation of national patterns of interpretation. This increased significance of textbooks presented systems of state textbook regulation with new challenges. This was, however, not an entirely novel issue, with the state already bringing its influence to bear on textbook production and distribution in the early modern period (Ehrenpreis 2012; Le Cam 2012). The development of state textbook regulation was a process which took place primarily in Protestant areas, driven by the close links between church and state which had arisen from the Reformation, while Catholic regions retained the privileged position given to religious communities and orders in this regard. The work of Hartmut Schröder (2008) draws our attention to the increase, from the sixteenth century onward, in the uniformity of textbooks and therefore in the state’s capacity to monitor and control curricular content via sets of regulations for schools. This development unfolded in the context of the foundation of local authority-based schools for teaching literacy and arithmetic in the early modern period and continued throughout the centuries that followed as school systems expanded. State regulation of textbook production likewise developed in the modern age, with new methods such as textbook approval procedures appearing on the scene. Mariano Narodowski and Laura Manolakis, in their exploration of state textbook regulation in Argentina, come to the conclusion that the essence of this regulation survived a number of changes of regime almost unaltered, with its overarching aim remaining the promotion of the “Argentinian way of life” (Narodowski/Manolakis 2002). The textbook approval procedures have also given rise to lively debate in Germany, and have attracted a broad spectrum of assessments of their activities, ranging from “quality assurance” to “censorship” (Stillemunkes 1998; Müller 1977; Sauer 1991, 1998; Moderow 2002; Wiater 2005; Stöber 2010; Cannadine/Keating/ Sheldon 2011; Titel 2002). William E. Marsden (2001) uncovers similar phenomena in Britain and the US. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|67

|

68

Eckhardt Fuchs

Textbook revision The normative and in many cases highly political character attributed to textbook research was strongly influential in the discipline’s early days and subjected it to political pressures and constraints from its inception. Textbook-related research had a pronounced political and normative function due to its origins in the international textbook revision movement (Faure 2013). The desire, which experienced its initial articulation prior to the First World War, to rid textbooks of nationalistic, chauvinistic and one-sided interpretations and thereby help to build peace and contribute to understanding between nations has remained a defining objective of textbook revision to this day (Höpken 2005; Bachmann 2009; Hüfner 2000). Textbook revision has always been focused on comparative textbook analysis, ranging from the activities of the Norden Association and the League of Nations in the period between the wars to work done in the post-Second World War period by UNESCO, the Council of Europe and bilateral textbook commissions and discussions (Fuchs 2005). A defining characteristic, then, of traditional textbook research, and a feature of some of the textbook-related research taking place today, has been and remains the on occasion tense interaction between academia, the political world and educational practice (Pingel 2010). Very recent research, focusing on the history of international textbook revision, has tackled these phenomena not only in the specific context of approaches to peace education in schools (Bechet 2008), but also in relation to the issue of international processes of knowledge transfer and the role played by transnational institutions (Lindmark 2008, 2010; Fuchs/Tatsuya 2010). The highly political nature of textbooks, and therefore of research into them, is not only in evidence in contexts relating to textbook revision in societies affected by or emerging from conflict; there has additionally been a series of controversies surrounding textbooks, particularly history books, which have arisen from what are known as “history wars” taking place within a society or across national borders (Liakos 2008/09). At the heart of these conflicts are issues of national tradition, the protection of societies’ self-legitimation and the construction of identities. Such controversies transcend the level of academic debate to resonate with wide sections of society and frequently give rise to heated discussion (Repoussi 2006/07, 2008/09; Popp 2008/09; MacIntyre/Clark 2003; Linenthal/Engelhardt 1996; Saaler 2005). Conflicts in or between societies around the interpretation of the past and the authority to issue such interpretations have always left their traces in textbooks, traces which can be found well back into the nineteenth century. The US in particular has seen close analysis of the history of societal debates around textbooks. Controversies surrounding textbooks have generally served as what we might call carrier media for the enactment of overarching conflict on specific social issues (FitzGerald 1979; Giordano 2003; Moreau 2003). The analysis by Christian Amalvi (1979) of the “textbook wars” around political and religious issues in France between 1899 and 1914 takes a similar view. Textbooks as “autobiographies of nations” An approach to textbooks which regards them as an expression of the Zeitgeist of their location and era has long been at the heart of historical research into the medium, and continues to this day to occupy this central place. If textbooks, particularly history textbooks, are viewed as media which not only act as a space for the formation of a condensed canon of the knowledge regarded as relevant to a specific society, but also serve as conduits for the emergence of claims to social legitimation, a historical approach to the medium can allow us

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The (Hi)story of Textbooks

to reconstruct, via its analysis, patterns of perception and interpretation, standards and values which held sway in the past. The formula generally used to describe this phenomenon, which figures history textbooks as “autobiographies of nations”, has attained the status of a classic tenet (Jacobmeyer 1992; 1998). History textbooks are a particularly invaluable source when it comes to investigating the diversity of constructions of national identity. Analysis of national “images of history” thus has a substantial tradition (Schallenberger 1964; Rohfes 1985). For a long period of time, the dominant methodology in this type of research was exemplary content analysis which engaged with textbooks as media instrumental to the creation of national consciousness and identity and regarded particular works as defining exemplars for various eras (Cremin 1980; Katz 1987; Pauly 1991). More recent work benefits from an increased diversity of theoretical and methodological approaches and from the influence of other areas of research within cultural studies. The cultural turn has proved a key moment in the development of new directions in research in recent years, approaches which have gone above and beyond pure content analysis.

4  Education: The Place of Textbooks in Educational Discourses Teaching and learning materials are becoming increasingly central to research into educational methods and didactics, a trend which we can locate as emerging from the development of digital media for the classroom. Historical studies conducted from an educational perspective, however, remain reasonably rare. Hartmut Schröder (2008), in attempting to provide an overview of the treatment of these media in educational and didactic theories and models in Germany, categorizes the corresponding debates into three periods: humanism and early rationalism, philanthropism and the Enlightenment, and restoration. In so doing, he focuses on ideas on education put forward by individuals ranging from Erasmus of Rotterdam to the reformist educationalists. Hans Rudolf Velten (2012) uses an analysis of literacy books and primers of the sixteenth century to demonstrate that textbooks at this time were sites of educational innovation, and that early modern textbooks were instrumental in defining the actual curriculum. Exploration of old library catalogues, for example, indicates that education in religious institutions was more secular in nature than the official principles governing such institutions might lead us to believe (Puchowski 2002; Conrad 2012). Discourses on education proliferated at a breathtaking rate since the eighteenth century, and out of this emerged a new role for textbooks, which were now to serve both an entertaining and an educative function. From the nineteenth century onward, debate was frequently heard around the relationship between textbooks and oral instruction delivered by the teacher (Caruso 2002; Ogier 2007). Eva Matthes and Carsten Heinze (2007) have some historical analysis of elementary education in textbooks, while Jürgen Oelkers’ examination of textbooks for elementary knowledge from the eighteenth century looks not only at their content but at the implicit views on learning held by their authors (Oelkers 2008). Some studies explore the historical dimension of the various components of a textbook, with pictures and images in textbooks frequently the object of investigation (Ringshausen 1976; Matthes/Heinze 2010). Others have looked at tasks in Prussian, Norwegian, Nigerian, Serbian, Spanish, German and French textbooks (Matthes/Schütze 2011). Sylvie Durando and Pierre Guibbert (1996) provide close analysis of French and Spanish textbook covers. And IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|69

|

70

Eckhardt Fuchs

William E. Marsden (2001) has traced changes in history and geography textbooks from Britain and the US, which have included shifts in the ways in which material has been presented, through the addition of illustrations and activities for students, and rising educational quality as realized by the inclusion of primary sources. Latest research is engaging with the evolution of new educational media and the concomitant technocratic ideology inherent to educational processes during the Cold War. The invention of “teaching machines” for the implementation of what was known as “programmed instruction” – whose origins lay in ideas for the conduct of warfare in the Second World War – was intended to lead to greater efficiency in processes of learning. Sharon A. Shrock (2011) has provided a brief history of these “instructional media”, from their inception as media of assistance in military training to their entry into the US education system as “programmed instruction”, which is attributed to the behaviorist Burrhus Frederic Skinner. Daniel Tröhler (2013) casts light on these developments from an international comparative perspective.

5  Knowledge: Textbooks as Carrier and Transmitter of Knowledge Textbooks and Literacy Primers and reading books for the early stages of literacy are a specific medium in historical textbook research and thus an object of research requiring a particular approach; rather than serving to communicate to students particular contents and competencies in relation to a specific subject, as other textbooks do, these media enable pupils to acquire the elementary fundaments of reading as a formative cultural skill and spread literacy within a society (Grömminger 2002). Taking this into consideration, we can consider primers and early reading books to be elementary media whose interaction with their readers makes a decisive contribution to the latter’s induction into the symbolic order in general and into the modern age’s typographical matrix (Kittler 1985; McLuhan 1962) of a child’s appropriation of its world in particular. That said, research into reading books and primers suffers from the tendency of its practitioners to isolate their work within national or regional contexts, as a respected representative of the field has recently observed (Sroka 2011). Research in the field defines a primer or literacy-oriented reading book as a book for the early stages of reading, used in schools for general primary education, whose purpose is to support its users in acquiring literacy. Historically speaking, primers emerged from religious-themed media for the instruction of children in a primary education system which was largely in the hands of the churches until well into the eighteenth century. From the end of the eighteenth century, and above all in the nineteenth, as schooling became compulsory and attendance successively enforced, and primary school instruction gained the status of a state institution in line with this development, primers evolved into more or less secularized mass media for literacy instruction, albeit without losing their religious dimension entirely (Bayer 1993). Reading books and primers transmit, at the very least implicitly, the values and mores which predominate in a specific society and ideas held by that society of what a desirable social order looks like. In the course of the nineteenth century, these books increasingly took on the role of actual vehicles and media of the process by which nation states and linguistic communities came into being, as well as exerting their primary effect of making populations largely literate (Crain 2000). In historians’ terms, this educational, cultural and political development went hand in hand with the discovery and particular semantic definition of IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The (Hi)story of Textbooks

childhood as a specific state and of the child as a specific object and recipient of societal and state-sponsored efforts to raise and educate it. It was in this context that reformist educational discourses arose around the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century and in the years that followed; the impact of these discourses appeared in the increasing calls for primers’ content to be explicitly orientated towards the needs of children as they were formulated in reformist pedagogy (Gabele 2002). Overall, research conducted thus far into primers and early reading books has tended to foreground descriptive work in a wider sense as well as, above all, focusing on educational, historical and genre-related aspects of these media as well as their historical linguistics; there is, however, some historical work in existence which analyses the images used in these books and treats them, in a general sense, as media (Kittler 1985). There have been a number of more or less detailed explorations of specific primers and corpora of primers (Korte/Zimmer 2006; Teistler 2006 and 2007; Grömminger 2002; Soto Alfaro 2005). Some exemplary research focus have emerged in relation to the early modern era, with a prime object of this research being the Orbis Pictus (Fijalkowski 2008, 2006; Hornstein 1997; Alt 1970). In addition to these, there are some analyses, intended to serve as overviews, undertaken from a genre-historical viewpoint, which have reconstructed historical change in primers and reading books within the framework of a periodization of “educational epochs” since the sixteenth century (Schmack 1960; Gabele 2002). Initial work has been done on the place, which has been of considerable significance in terms of the history and politics of education, of primers as media in societal processes of modernization and innovation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Heinze 2011). Textbooks in the classroom environment The study of the history of textbooks’ reception as media, and of the conditions determining this reception, is currently still in its infancy. Although the situation as regards sources in this field is exceptionally problematic, this aspect of historical research on textbooks is drawing increased interest from those working in the field, particularly in the context of the “practical turn” in academic history. Escolano Benito (2002), defining textbooks as sites of memory of teaching, learning and schooling cultures, has attempted to create a historical reconstruction of processes of teaching and learning in Spain via analysis of textbooks. Antonio Brusa (1998), to cite another example, has examined the reading techniques called for by Italian textbooks of the second half of the twentieth century. The corpus of sources used by Michael Baldzuhn has enabled him to chart the process by which pupils were drawn into interaction with textbooks during the medieval period: “Pupils advanced […] successively from being listeners to the lessons given (9th-11th centuries) to being purchasers of textbooks and reading along with the lessons (13th century); they then became writers of textbooks and read along with the lessons in them (14th century), and finally they were purchasers of printed textbooks and both read along with lessons and took notes during them [making them, to a degree, co-creators of lesson content] (16th century)” (Baldzuhn 2009, 423). An approach that would seem to promise a great deal would be an examination of the ways in which textbooks were actually used in the classroom. This is an issue, however, which confronts historians with considerable difficulties; as textbooks were usually destroyed after use, little of them has survived to reach today’s historians, who are thus denied important clues to the forms taken by practices of teaching and learning in former epochs (Hellekamps/Le Cam/Conrad 2012). This said, other sources from the world of schooling may be employed IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|71

|

72

Eckhardt Fuchs

in such research, with profitable results, as proved by Elsie Rockwell (2002), whose work has traced the development, in non-Spanish-language regions of Mexico characterized by large indigenous populations at the outset of the twentieth century, of a “culture of mistrust of textbooks” due to the fact that textbooks were written in Spanish, meaning that pupils were barely capable of understanding them (Rockwell 2002).

6 Conclusion Historical research into textbooks, as part of textbook research in a wider sense and of the history of education, of bookselling and publishing, has emerged in recent years to become a busy field of academic work; during this journey it has made a number of important leaps in terms of the ideas and concepts behind it and the topics it addresses. With regard to the five dimension of textbooks’ embeddedness in society it can be said that considerable historical research on all of these dimensions can be observed. That said, the large numbers of studies now published in these areas should not distract us from the fact that, first, few of them have made any attempt to approach the subject systematically and on a solid theoretical basis (Depaepe/Simon 2003). This is a conclusion reached by, among others, Heinze Carsten, who proposes an approach relating historical research on textbooks to the concept of the “grammar of schooling” developed by David Tyack and William Tobin (Heinze 2010, 2011). This approach, which entails locating textbooks in the particular context of schooling and instruction that is relevant in each case, is shared by Daniel Tröhler and Jürgen Oelkers (2005), while Marcelo Caruso (2002) has based his work on the Foucauldian concept of biopolitics. Second, most studies in this field relate to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; this despite the fact that the work which has been done on the early modern period has proved emphatically that this era has particularly fascinating insights in store and may to an extent be considered definitive for the future direction of the field in its entirety due to its capacity to take the historical long view on established thematic strands such as the history of books or reading. Third, the field is also still lacking a history of the historiography and development of knowledge in textbook research itself, yet the compilation of such a history appears to us to be crucial in order for this research area to access critical reflection on its activities (Graves 2001; Bellmann 2004; Doll/Rehfinger 2012). Looking at recent trends in the field of historical and media research we would like to suggest two research areas that might broaden the perspective of historical research into textbooks in the future. Transnational historical research on textbooks Since 2005, the field of history of education has been gradually taking small steps towards new spatial concepts and trends (Lowe/McCulloch 2003; Burke/Cunningham/Grosvenor 2010). Over the last few years, a number of studies have been published, especially in the UK, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, but also in Latin America (Acevedo/Quintanilla 2009). These studies expand upon an approach centered around national history by analyzing transregional or imperialist phenomena (Charle/Schriewer/Wagner 2004; Schriewer/ Caruso 2005; Myers/Grosvenor/Watts 2008; Sobe 2008; Mar del Pozo 2009). Attempts to IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The (Hi)story of Textbooks

link global history and transnational approaches from historical scholarship and network analysis with the history of education have led to initial case studies (Roldán/Schupp 2005; Fuchs 2006, 2007a, 2007b). Recent publications in the field of gender research have emphasized transnational relationships of transfer and interchange and mutual influences, thus focusing on new spaces and stakeholders (Goodman/Martin 2002; Goodman/McCulloch/ Richardson 2009; Goodman 2011). The field of the history of textbooks, which so far has been mostly conducted from a national perspective can profit from these new research areas as studies on the history of textbook revision (Faure 2013; Fuchs 2005) and the history of textbooks in colonial and postcolonial contexts show. A pioneering role in regard to the latter was taken by the research group around Marc Depaepe in Leuven with its work on the Belgian Congo (Depaepe/Briffaerts/ Kita/Vinck 2003). Current work in the discipline has begun to give greater emphasis to the role of textbooks as a site of the construction of collective memory. In a number of European nation states, and in the European continent in general, debates around the politics of such collective memory are currently emerging with considerable impact upon public consciousness, as these societies increasingly attain awareness of the realities attached to their postcolonial status as centers of immigration. Within this context historical research into textbooks is currently actively engaged in processes of reception of recent research into politics and cultures of memory, locating and pinpointing the implications of this work in the context of schools and the textbooks and other educational media they use. Many discourses and debates now in progress in this arena relate specifically to representations of the colonial past in textbooks (Otto 2011; Grindel 2008; Fuchs/Otto 2013). Knowledge and media research Today’s historical research into educational media is called to conceive of textbook research as research into knowledge, specifically in view of the fact that it turns its attention, among other things, to the practices and stakeholders whose influence has been brought to bear on the production and circulation of knowledge within the state-sanctioned framework of the mass medium and field of knowledge represented by textbooks. We need to create a link between historical textbook research and the history of education on the one hand and media history as well as insights from the history of knowledge on the other. A history of textbooks as media might contextualize textbooks within media history, include an examination of the history of the circumstances under which textbooks have been produced and distributed, engage with the conditions and contexts of textbooks’ reception, and give an account of the history of the transmission, dissemination and canonization of knowledge. The implication of this is that a history of textbooks which conceived of them as media would need to be located and contextualized within social, semantic and discursive structures. Recent research into textbooks has begun to take increasing interest in their position within overarching media landscapes. Following Michael Apple, who led the way in making the point that education is an arena in which the interests of a diverse range of stakeholders enter into interaction and competition and for which a multiplicity of fields, levels and rationales of action need therefore to be taken into account (Apple 2003), this approach aims at doing justice to the ways in which the knowledge contained in textbooks is produced, constructed and incorporated into students’ individual bodies of knowledge, and to processes of translation between textbooks and other forms of media. This applies not only to the interaction of the school setting and the state, or of the business and political worlds, but also to the IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|73

|

74

Eckhardt Fuchs

interrelationships between local, national and global stakeholders in education. There are as yet few empirical studies which have risen to these challenges and borne corresponding fruit for historical research. We may consider that the overview of this research landscape which I have attempted to provide here has revealed a notable reduction, over recent decades, in the gaps in research on the history of textbooks identified by Paul Raabe in 1976 from the viewpoint of the history of publishing (Raabe 1976, 38). Further, it is obvious that research in this field is well and truly no longer satisfied to focus purely on the history of textbooks in a narrow sense. At the heart of the research being conducted today is an attempt to view textbooks not exclusively in their historicity, but also to locate them at all times in their political, economic, social, cultural, educational and knowledge-related contexts; in other words, the history of textbooks, done in this manner, is the history of textbooks in context. And yet, despite all this, the “global perspective” on the history of textbooks called for by Alain Choppin, the doyen of historical research into textbooks, as early on as 1980 (Choppin 1980) remains a long way from being a reality.

References

Acevedo, Ariadna/Quintanilla, Susana: La perspectiva global en la historia de la educación. In: Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa 14(2009), 7-11 Alt, Robert: Herkunft und Bedeutung des Orbis Pictus. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Lehrbuchs. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1970 Amalvi, Christian: Les guerres des manuels autour de l’école primaire en France. In: Revue historique 262(1979), 359-398 Amalvi, Christian: Répertoire des auteurs de manuels scolaires et de livres de vulgarisation historique de langue française de 1660 à 1960. Paris: Boutique de l’Histoire 2001 Apple, Michael W. (Ed.): The State and the Politics of Knowledge. New York/London: RoutledgeFalmer 2003 Bachmann, Siegfried: Internationale Schulbuchrevision als systemübergreifende Kooperation. In: Siegfried Bachmann: Gesellschaft im Übergang. Prozesse soziokulturellen Wandels; kleine Schriften von 1954 bis 1994. Hannover: Ursula Weber 2009, 163-195 Baldzuhn, Michael: Schulbücher im Trivium des Mittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit, 2 Bände. Berlin: De Gruyter 2009 Bayer, Gerhard Christian: Die religiöse Dimension der Erstlesefibeln und Lesebücher der bayerischen Grundschule von 1870 bis 1960. Diss. Augsburg 1993 Bechet, Christophe: La révision pacifiste des manuels scolaires. Les enjeux de la mémoire de la guerre 14-18 dans l’enseignement belge de l’Entre-deux-guerres. In: Cahiers d’Histoire du Temps Présent 20(2008), 49-101 Bellmann, Johannes: Kontextanalyse versus Applikationshermeneutik. Reflexionsprobleme pädagogischer Historiographie In: Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik 80(2004), 182-195 Brusa, Antonio: Manuels à lire, manuels à travailler: l’évolution du rapport entre lecteur et manuel d’histoire en Italie (1950-1998). Analyse et perspectives. In: Internationale Schulbuchforschung 20(1998), 237-262 Burke, Catherine/Cunningham, Peter/Grosvenor, Ian: “Putting Education in Its Place”: Space, Place and Materialities in the History of Education. In: History of Education 39(2010), 677-680 Cannadine, David/Keating, Jenny/Sheldon, Nicola: The Right Kind of History. Teaching the Past in Twentieth-Century England. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2011 Caruso, Marcelo: Biopolitik und Schulbuch: Veränderung der Konzepte zur Verortung des Schulbuches in der Gestaltung des Volksschulunterrichts (Bayern, 1869-1918). In: Padagogica Historica 38(2002), 283-299 Chapron, Emmanuelle: Das Elementarschulbuch im 18. Jahrhundert: Räumlich Ausbreitung und Handelspraktiken zwischen Paris und der Champagne (1680-1730). In: Stephanie Hellekamps/Jean-Luc Le Cam/Anne Conrad (Eds.): Schulbücher und Lektüren in der vormodernen Unterrichtspraxis. Wiesbaden: Springer VS 2012, 91-104 Charle, Christophe/Schriewer, Jürgen/Wagner, Peter (Eds.): Transnational Intellectual Networks: Forms of Academic Knowledge and the Search for Cultural Identities. Frankfurt am Main: Campus 2004 Choppin, Alain: L’Histoire des manuels scolaires: une approche globale. In: Histoire de l’éducation 9(1980), 1-25

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The (Hi)story of Textbooks

Choppin, Alain: L’histoire du livre et de l’édition scolaires: vers un état des lieux. In: Paedagogica Historica 38(2002), 21-49 Choppin, Alain: Le manuel, une fausse évidence historique. In: Histoire de l’éducation 117(2008), 7-56 Choppin, Alain: Les manuels scolaires en France de 1789 à nos jours – Bilan des études et recherches. Paris: Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique 1995 Cody, Caroline: The Politics of Textbook Publishing, Adoption, and Use. In: David Elliott/Arthur Woodward (Eds.): Textbooks and Schooling in the United States. Eights-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1. Chicago: University Press 1990, 127-145 Conrad, Anne: Lernmaterialien und Lesepraxis an Ursulinenschulen des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts. In: Stephanie Hellekamps/Jean-Luc Le Cam/Anne Conrad (Eds.): Schulbücher und Lektüren in der vormodernen Unterrichtspraxis. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Sonderheft 17 (2012), 153-166 Crain, Patricia: The Story of A. The Alphabetization of America from the New England Primer to The Scarlet Letter. Stanford: University Press 2000 Cremin, Lawrence Arthur: American Education. The National Experience 1783-1876. New York: Harper & Row 1980 Depaepe, Marc/Briffaerts, Jan/Masandi, Pierre Kita K./Vinck, Honoré (Eds.): Manuels et chansons scolaires au Congo belge. Leuven: University Press 2003 Depaepe, Marc/Simon, Frank: Schulbücher als Quellen einer dritten Dimension in der Realitätsgeschichte von Erziehung und Unterricht. Über neue Konzeptionen in der historisch-pädagogischen Schulbuchforschung. In: Werner Wiater (Ed.): Schulbuchforschung in Europa – Bestandsaufnahme und Zukunftsperspektive. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2003, 65-77 Doll, Jürgen/Rehfinger, Anna: Historische Forschungsstränge der Schulbuchforschung und aktuelle Beispiele empirischer Schulbuchwirkungsforschung. In: Jürgen Doll/Keno Frank/Detlef Fichermann/Knut Schwippert (Eds.): Schulbücher im Fokus. Nutzungen, Wirkungen und Evaluation. Münster: Waxmann 2012, 19-42 Durando, Sylvie/Guibbert, Pierre: Entrer dans l’Histoire … Les couvertures des manuels espagnols et français (1880-1980). In: Internationale Schulbuchforschung 18(1996), 387-410 Ehrenpreis, Stefan: Katechismen und Katechese. Frühneuzeitliche Schulbücher als politisch-sozialer Konfliktstoff im Konfessionellen Zeitalter. In: Stephanie Hellekamps/Jean-Luc Le Cam/Anne Conrad (Eds.): Schulbücher und Lektüren in der vormodernen Unterrichtspraxis. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Sonderheft 17 (2012), 49-64 Escolano Benito, Augustín: The Historical Codification of the Manualistics in Spain. In: Paedagogica Historica 38(2002), 51-72 Faure, Romain: Netzwerke der Kulturdiplomatie. Die internationale Schulbuchrevision in Europa, 1945-1989. Diss. Braunschweig 2013 Fertig, Ludwig: Buchmarkt und Pädagogik 1750-1850 – Eine Dokumentation. In: Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 57(2003), 1-145 Fijalkowski, Adam: Comenius auf den Schultern von Riesen? Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Orbis pictus des Johan Amon Comenius im Kontext der Geschichte der Leselernarten und der “Voces variae animantium”. In: Jahrbuch für historische Bildungsforschung 12(2006), 147-171 Fijalkowski, Adam: Orbis pictus. świat malowany Jana Amosa Komeńskiego. Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warsazawski 2008 FitzGerald, Francis: America Revised: History Schoolbooks in the Twentieth Century. New York: Vintage Books 1979 Fuchs, Eckhardt (2005): Die internationale Revision von Geschichtsbüchern und -lehrplänen: Historische Perspektiven und aktuelle Tendenzen. In: Eva Matthes/Carsten Heinze (Eds.): Das Schulbuch zwischen Lehrplan und Unterrichtspraxis. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2005, 193-210 Fuchs, Eckhardt (Ed.): Bildung International: Historische Perspektiven und aktuelle Entwicklungen. Würzburg: Ergon 2006 Fuchs, Eckhardt (2007a): Children’s Rights and Global Civil Society. In: Comparative Education 43(2007), 393412 Fuchs, Eckhardt (2007b): Networks and the History of Education: Preliminary Remarks. In: Eckhardt Fuchs/Daniel Lindmark/Christoph Lüth (Eds.): Networking and the History of Education. Special issue of Paedagogica Historica 43(2007), 185-197 Fuchs, Eckhardt: Historische Bildungsforschung in internationaler Perspektive: Geschichte – Stand – Perspektiven. In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 56(2010), 703-724 IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|75

|

76

Eckhardt Fuchs

Fuchs, Eckhardt (2011a): Current Trends in History and Social Studies Textbook Research. In: Journal of International Cooperation in Education 14(2011), N°2, 17-34 Fuchs, Eckhardt (2011b): Aktuelle Entwicklungen der schulbuchbezogenen Forschung in Europa. In: Bildung und Erziehung 64(2011), N°1, 7-22 Fuchs, Eckhardt/Otto, Marcus (Eds.): Postcolonial Memory Politics in Educational Media. JEMMS. Journal of Educational Media, Memory and Society 5(2013), N°1 Fuchs, Eckhardt/Tatsuya, Yoshioka (Eds.): Contextualizing School Textbook Revision. JEMMS. Journal of Educational Media, Memory and Society 2(2010), N°2 Gabele, Paul: Pädagogische Epochen im Abbild der Fibel. In: Arnold Grömminger (Ed.): Geschichte der Fibel. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 2002, 9-54 Giordano, Gerard: Twentieth-Century Textbook Wars. A History of Advocacy and Opposition. New York: Lang 2003 Goodman, Joyce: International Citizenship and the International Federation of University Women before 1939. In: History of Education 40(2011), 701-721 Goodman, Joyce/McCulloch, Gary/Richardson, William (Eds.): “Empires Overseas” and “Empires at Home”: Postcolonial and Transnational Perspectives on Social Change in the History of Education. Abingdon: Routledge 2009 Goodman, Joyce/Jane, Martin (Eds.): Gender, Colonialism and Education: The Politics of Experience. London: Woburn Press 2002 Grafton, Anthony T.: Textbooks and the Disciplines. In: Emidio Campi/Simone De Angelis/Anja-Silvia Goeing/ Anthony T. Grafton (Eds.): Scholarly Knowledge. Textbooks in early modern Europe. Geneva: Droz 2008, 11-36 Graves, Norman: School Textbook Research. The Case of Geography 1800-2000. London: Institute of Education Press 2001 Grindel, Susanne: Deutscher Sonderweg oder europäischer Erinnerungsort? Die Darstellung des modernen Kolonialismus in neueren deutschen Schulbüchern. In: Internationale Schulbuchforschung 30(2008), 695-716 Grömminger, Arnold (Ed.): Geschichte der Fibel. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 2002 Hacker, Hartmut (Ed.): Das Schulbuch. Funktion und Verwendung im Unterricht. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 1980 Heinze, Carsten: Historical Textbook Research: Textbooks in the Context of the „Grammar of Schooling. In: JEMMS. Journal of Educational Media, Memory and Society 2(2010), N°2, 122-131 Heinze, Carsten: Das Schulbuch im Innovationsprozess. Bildungspolitische Steuerung, pädagogischer Anspruch, unterrichtspraktische Wirkungserwartungen. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2011 Hellekamps, Stephanie/Le Cam, Jean-Luc/Conrad, Anne: Einleitung: Schulbücher und Lektüren in der vormodernen Unterrichtspraxis. In: Stephanie Hellekamps/Jean-Luc Le Cam/Anne Conrad (Eds.): Schulbücher und Lektüren in der vormodernen Unterrichtspraxis. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Sonderheft 17 (2012), 1-11 Höhne, Thomas: Schulbuchwissen. Umrisse einer Wissens- und Medientheorie des Schulbuchs. Frankfurt am Main: Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität 2003 Höpken, Wolfgang: Internationale Schulbuchforschung als Beitrag zur interkulturellen Verständigung. In: Polis 1(2005), 20-22 Hornstein, Herbert: Die Dinge sehen, wie sie aus sich selber sind. Überlegungen zum Orbis pictus des Comeniu. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider 1997 Hüfner, Klaus: Konkrete internationale Schulbucharbeit. In: Internationale Verständigung (2000), 312-318 Jacobmeyer, Wolfgang: Konditionierung von Geschichtsbewusstsein. Schulgeschichtsbücher als nationale Autobiographien. In: Gruppendynamik 23(1992), N°4, 375-388 Jacobmeyer, Wolfgang: Das Schulgeschichtsbuch – Gedächtnis der Gesellschaft oder Autobiographie der Nation? In: Geschichte, Politik und ihre Didaktik 26(1998), N°1-2, 26-35 Jacobmeyer, Wolfgang: Das deutsche Schulgeschichtsbuch 1700-1945 – Die erste Epoche seiner Gattungsgeschichte im Spiegel der Vorworte: Berlin/Münster: Lit 2011 Jäger, Georg: Der Schulbuchverlag: In: Georg Jäger (Ed.): Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Vol. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Buchhändler-Vereinigung 2003, 62-102 Jaklin, Ingeborg: Das österreichische Schulbuch im 18. Jahrhundert aus dem Wiener Verlag Trattner und dem Schulbuchverlag. Wien: Edition Praesens 2003

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The (Hi)story of Textbooks

Jeismann, Karl-Ernst: Internationale Schulbuchforschung: Aufgaben und Probleme. In: Internationale Schulbuchforschung 1(1979), 7-22 Katz, Michael B.: Reconstructing American Education. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press 1987 Keiderling, Thomas: Der Schulbuchverleger und sein Autor. Zu Spezialisierungs- und Professionalisierungstendenzen im 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert. In: Heinz-Werner Wollersheim/Hans-Martin Moderow/Cathrin Friedrich (Eds.): Die Rolle von Schulbüchern für Identifikationsprozesse in historischer Perspektive. Leipzig: Universitäts-Verlag 2002, 87-95 Kittler, Friedrich A.: Aufschreibesysteme, 1800, 1900. München: Fink 1985 Korte, Hermann/Zimmer, Ilonka (Eds.): Das Lesebuch 1800-1945. Ein Medium zwischen literarischer Kultur und pädagogischem Diskurs. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 2006 Kreusch, Julia: Der Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses als Schulbuchverlag zwischen 1830 und 1918 – Die erfolgreichen Geografie- und Geschichtslehrbücher und ihre Autoren. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2008 Kreusch, Julia: Der Schulbuchverlag. In: Ernst Fischer/Stephan Füssel (Eds.): Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert – Die Weimarer Republik 1918-1933 – Teil 2. Frankfurt am Main: Buchhändler-Vereinigung 2012, 219-240 Lässig, Simone: Textbooks and Beyond: Educational Media in Context(s). In: JEMMS. Journal of Educational Media, Memory and Society 1(2009), N°1, 1-23 Lässig, Simone: Wer definiert relevantes Wissen? Schulbücher und ihr gesellschaftlicher Kontext. In: Eckhardt Fuchs/Joachim Kahlert/Uwe Sandfuchs (Eds.): Schulbuch konkret. Kontexte – Produktion – Unterricht. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2010, 199-215 Le Cam, Jean-Luc: Schulbücher zwischen Vorschrift, Angebot und Gebrauch am Beispiel des braunschweigischen Gelehrtenschulwesens im 17. Jahrhundert. In: Stephanie Hellekamps/Jean-Luc Le Cam/Anne Conrad (Eds.): Schulbücher und Lektüren in der vormodernen Unterrichtspraxis. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Sonderheft 17 (2012), 121-152 Liakos, Antonis: History Wars – Notes from the Field. In: Jahrbuch der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Geschichtsdidaktik (2008/2009), 57-74 Lindmark, Daniel: ’Vi voro skyldiga världen ett exempel’: Norden i den internationella historieboksrevisionen [‘We Were Obliged to Set an Example for the World’: The Nordic Countries in the International History Textbook Revision]. In: Annika Sandén (Ed.): Se människan: Demografi, rätt och hälsa – en vänbok till Jan Sundin. Linköping: Linköpings Universitet 2008, 43-55 Lindmark, Daniel: Fredsfostran, fredsundervisning och historieboksrevision: Exempel på pedagogiskt fredsarbete i Sverige och Norden 1886-1939 [Peace Education and History Textbook Revision: Examples of Pedagogical Peace Activities in Sweden and the Nordic Countries, 1886-1939]. In: Anna Larsson (Ed.): Fostran i skola och utbildning: Historiska perspektiv. Uppsala: Fören. för svensk undervisningshistoria 2010, 23-59 Linenthal, Edward/Thom Engelhardt (Eds.): History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American Past. New York: Holt 1996 Lowe, Richard/McCulloch, Gary: Introduction: Centre and Periphery – Networks, Space and Geography in the History of Education. In: History of Education 32(2003), 457-459 MacIntyre, Stuart/Clark, Anna: The History Wars. Carlton: University Press 2003 Manz, Walter: Der Königlich-Bayerische Zentralschulbücherverlag 1785-1849. Der Staat als Schulbuchverleger im 19. Jahrhundert In: Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 6(1966), 1-312 Mar del Pozo, María del: Introduction. In: Paedagogica Historica 38(2002), 9-17 Mar del Pozo, María del: The Transnational and National Dimensions of Pedagogical Ideas: The Case of the Project Method, 1918-1939. In: Paedagogica Historica 45(2009), 561-584 Marsden, William E.: The School Textbook – Geography, History and Social Studies. London: Woburn Press 2001 Matthes, Eva/Heinze, Carsten (Eds.): Elementarisierung im Schulbuch. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2007 Matthes, Eva/Heinze, Carsten (Eds.): Das Bild im Schulbuch. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2010 Matthes, Eva/Schütze, Sylvia (Eds.): Aufgaben im Schulbuch. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2011 McLuhan, Marshall: The Gutenberg Galaxy. The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University Press 1962 Michael, Ian: Early textbooks of English, A Guide. Swansea: Colloquium on Textbooks, Schools and Society 1993 Michel, Gerhard: Schulbuch und Curriculum – Comenius im 18. Jahrhundert. Ratingen: A. Henn Verlag 1973 Moderow, Hans-Martin: Schulbuchzulassung und Schulbuchverbreitung in Sachsen und die Rolle der Lehrervereine. In: Heinz-Werner Wollersheim/Hans-Martin Moderow/Cathrin Friedrich (Eds.): Die Rolle von Schulbüchern für Identifikationsprozesse in historischer Perspektive. Leipzig: Universitäts-Verlag 2002, 25-47 Mollier, Jean-Yves: Louis Hachette (1800-1864). Le fondateur d’un empire. Paris: Fayard 1999 IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|77

|

78

Eckhardt Fuchs

Moreau, Joseph: Schoolbook Nation. Conflicts over American History Textbooks from the Civil War to the Present. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 2003 Müller, Detlef K.: Der Prozeß der Systembildung im Schulwesen Preußens während der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 27(1981), 245-269 Müller, Walter: Schulbuchzulassung. Zur Geschichte und Problematik staatlicher Bevormundung von Unterricht und Erziehung. Kastellaun: Henn 1977 Myers, Kevin/Grosvenor, Ian/Watts, Ruth (Eds.): Education and Globalisation. In: History of Education 37(2008), 737-741 Narodowski, Mariano/Manolakis, Laura: Defending the “Argentine Way of Life”. The State and School Textbooks in Argentina. In: Paedagogica Historica 38(2002), 301-316 Nietz, John A.: Old Textbooks. Pittsburgh: University Press 1961 Oelkers, Jürgen: Elementary Textbooks in the 18th Century and their Theory of the Learning Child. In: Emidio Campi/Simone De Angelis/Anja-Silvia Goeing/Anthony T. Grafton (Eds.): Scholarly Knowledge – Textbooks in early modern Europe. Geneva: Dorz 2008, 409-432 Ogier, Angélina: Le rôle du manuel dans la leçon d’histoire à l’école primaire (1870-1969). In: Histoire de l’éducation 114(2007), 87-119 Otto, Marcus: Das Subjekt der Nation in der condition postcoloniale. Krisen der Repräsentation und der Widerstreit postkolonialer Erinnerungspolitik in Frankreich. In: Lendemains. Etudes comparées sur la France 36(2011), 54-76 Pauly, Philipp J.: The Development of High School Biology: New York City, 1900-1925. In: Isis 82(1991), 662688 Pingel, Falk: Geschichtsdeutung als Macht? Schulbuchforschung zwischen wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis- und politischer Entscheidungslogik. In: JEMMS. Journal of Educational Media, Memory and Society 2(2010), N°2, 93-112 Popp, Susanne: National Textbook Controversies in a Globalizing World. In: Jahrbuch der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Geschichtsdidaktik (2008/09), 109-122 Puchowski, Kazimierz: Between Orator Christianus and Orator Politicus. History Teaching and Books in Jesuit Colleges in Poland and Lithuania (1565-1773). In: Paedagogica Historica 38(2002), 229-249 Raabe, Paul: Was ist Geschichte des Buchwesens? Überlegungen zu einem Forschungsbereich und einer Bildungsaufgabe. In: Hundert Jahre Historische Kommission des Börsenverein. 1876-1976. Frankfurt am Main: Börsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels 1976, 9-45 Repoussi, Maria: Common Trends in Contemporary Debates on Historical Education. In: Jahrbuch der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Geschichtsdidaktik (2008/09), 75-90 Repoussi, Maria: Politics Questions History Education. Debates on Greek History Textbooks. In: Jahrbuch der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Geschichtsdidaktik (2006/07), 99-110 Repoussi, Maria/Tutiaux-Guillon, Nicole: New Trends in History Textbook Research. Issues and Methodologies toward a School Historiography. In: JEMMS. Journal of Educational Media, Memory, and Society 2(2010), 154-170 Ringshausen, Gerhard: Von der Buchillustration zum Unterrichtsmedium. Weinheim: Beltz 1976 Rockwell, Elsie: Learning for Life or Learning from Books: Reading Practices in Mexican Rural Schools (1900 to 1935). In: Paedagogica Historica 38(2002), 113-135 Rohfes, Joachim: Politik in Geschichtsbüchern. In: Franz Pöggeler (Ed.): Politik im Schulbuch. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung 1985, 235-265 Roldán Vera Eugenia/Schupp, Thomas: Bridges over the Atlantic: A Network Analysis of the Introduction of the Monitorial System of Education in Early-Independent Spanish America. In: Comparativ 15(2005), N°1, 58-93 Rommel, Heinz: Das Schulbuch im 18. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Fachschriften-Verlag 1968 Ruiz Berrio, Julio: The Hidden Curriculum of the Calleja Publishing House Reading Books. In: Paedagogica Historica 38(2002), 137-159 Rüsen, Jörn: Das ideale Schulbuch. Überlegungen zum Leitmedium des Geschichtsunterrichts. In: Internationale Schulbuchforschung 14(1992), 237-250 Saaler, Sven: Politics, Memory and Public Opinion. The History Textbook Controversy and Japanese Society. München: Judicium 2005 Sandfuchs, Uwe: Schulbücher und Unterrichtsqualität – historische und aktuelle Reflexionen. In: Eckhardt Fuchs/ Joachim Kahlert/Uwe Sandfuchs (Eds.): Schulbuch konkret. Kontexte – Produktion – Unterricht. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2010, 11-24 IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

The (Hi)story of Textbooks

Sauer, Michael: Von der „Negativkontrolle“ zur „Schulbuchpolitik“. Schulbuchzulassung und -einführung in der preußischen Volksschule im 19. Jahrhundert. In: Recht der Jugend und des Bildungswesens 2(1991), 182-194 Sauer, Michael: Zwischen Negativkontrolle und staatlichem Monopol. In: Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 50(1998), 144-156 Schallenberger, Horst: Untersuchungen zum Geschichtsbild der Wilhelminischen Ära und der Weimarer Zeit. Eine vergleichende Schulbuchanalyse deutscher Schulgeschichtsschulbücher aus der Zeit von 1888 bis 1933. Ratingen: Henn 1964 Schmack, Ernst: Der Gestaltwandel der Fibel in vier Jahrhunderten. Ratingen: Henn 1960 Schmitt, Charles: The Rise of the Philosophical Textbook. In: Charles Schmitt/Quentin Skinner (Eds.): The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy. Cambridge: University Press 1988) 792-804 Schmitt, Hanno: Daniel Nikolaus Chodowiecki als Illustrator der Aufklärungspädagogik. In: Hanno Schmitt/ Jörg-W. Link/Frank Tosch (Eds.): Bilder als Quellen der Erziehungsgeschichte. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 1997, 51-76 Schriewer, Jürgen/Caruso, Marcelo (Eds): Nationalerziehung und Universalmethode. Frühe Formen schulorganisatorischer Globalisierung. Special issue of Comparativ 15(2005), N°1 Schröder, Hartmut: Lehr- und Lernmittel in historischer Perspektive – Erscheinungs- und Darstellungsformen anhand des Bildbestands der Pictura Paedagogica online. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2008 Schütze, Sylvia: Grundsätze der Elementarisierung in der Lehrmethode F. A. W. Diesterwegs und ihre Umsetzung in seinen Lehrbüchern. In: Eva Matthes/Carsten Heinze (Eds.): Elementarisierung im Schulbuch. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2007, 77-110 Shrock, Sharon A.: A Brief History of Instructional Development (1991). In: Gary J. Anglin (Ed.): Instructional Technology. Past, Present, and Future. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited 2011, 69-77 Sobe, Noah: Provincializing the Worldly Citizen: Yugoslav Student and Teacher Travel Narratives in the Interwar Era. New York: Lang 2008 Soto Alfaro, Fancisco: Manuales escolares de primera enseñza editados en Navarra de 1800 a 1912. Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia 2005 Sroka, Wendelin: Fibeln und Fibelforschung in Europa. Eine Annäherung, In: Bildung und Erziehung 64(2011), 23-38 Stillemunkes, Christoph: Die Schulbuchzulassung. Qualitätssicherung und Serviceleistung, In: Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 49(1998), 165-175 Stöber, Georg: Schulbuchzulassung in Deutschland. Grundlagen, Verfahrensweisen und Diskussionen. In: Eckert. Beiträge 3(2010) www.lehrmittelsymposium.ch/downloads/Stoeber_Schulbuchzulassung_in_Deutschland.pdf [12.12.2013] Teistler, Gisela (Ed.): Lesen lernen in Diktaturen der 1930er und 1940er Jahre. Fibeln in Deutschland, Italien und Spanien. Hannover: Hahn 2006 Teistler, Gisela: Die Elementarisierung des Elementarlesebuchs: Von der Katechismusfibel zur Fibel “vom Kinde aus”. In: Eva Matthes/Carsten Heinze (Eds.): Elementarisierung im Schulbuch. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2007, 37-68 Titel, Volker: Die Marktsituation des Schulbuchhandels im 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert. In: Heinz-Werner Wollersheim/Hans-Martin Moderow/Cathrin Friedrich (Eds.): Die Rolle von Schulbüchern für Identifikationsprozesse in historischer Perspektive. Leipzig: Universitäts-Verlag 2002, 71-85 Tröhler, Daniel: The Technocratic Momentum after 1945, the Development of Teaching Machines, and Sobering Results. In: JEMMS. Journal of Educational Media, Memory and Society (2013), 1-19 Tröhler, Daniel/Oelkers, Jürgen (Eds.): Über die Mittel des Lernens – Kontextuelle Studien zum staatlichen Lehrmittelwesen im Kanton Zürich des 19. Jahrhunderts. Zürich: Pestalozzianum 2001 Tröhler, Daniel/Oelkers, Jürgen: Historische Lehrmittelforschung und Steuerung des Schulsystems. In: Eva Matthes/Carsten Heinze (Eds.): Das Schulbuch zwischen Lehrplan und Unterrichtspraxis. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2005, 95-107 Velten, Hans Rudolf: Frühe Lese- und Schreiblehrbücher des 16. Jahrhunderts. Zu Valentin Ickelsamers Die rechte weis, aufs kürtzist lesen zu lernen (1527) und Teütsche Grammatica (1532?). In: Stephanie Hellekamps/Jean-Luc Le Cam/Anne Conrad (Eds.): Schulbücher und Lektüren in der vormodernen Unterrichtspraxis. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Sonderheft 17 (2012), 31-48 Viñao, Antonio: Towards a Typology of the Primers for Learning to Read (Spain, c. 1496-1825). In: Paedagogica Historica 38(2002), 73-94

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|79

|

80

Eckhardt Fuchs

Wiater, Werner: Lehrplan und Schulbuch – Reflexionen über zwei Instrumente des Staates zur Steuerung des Bildungswesens. In: Eva Matthes/Carsten Heinze (Eds.): Das Schulbuch zwischen Lehrplan und Unterrichtspraxis. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2005, 41-63

Prof. Dr. Eckhardt Fuchs, Georg-Eckert-Institut, Celler Straße 3, D-38114 Braunschweig, [email protected]

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|81

Debatte – Discussion Die Erschaffung von Bürgern jenseits der Nation: Die Konstruktion der Europäer und ihre Technologien Fabricating Citizens Beyond the Nations: The Construction of the European and its Technologies

Mit Beiträgen von: Bob Lingard, Catarina Sofia Silva Martins, Jan Masschelein, Donatella Palomba, Thomas S. Popkewitz, Moritz Rosenmund, Bo Stråth

(Red.) Auf der politischen Agenda Europas steht die Idee des europäischen Bürgers und der europäischen Bürgerin weit vorne. Dabei funktioniert der Begriff „Europäer“ bzw. „Europäerin“ als kulturelles Konstrukt, in welchem kollektive Wünsche und Ängste erfasst werden, wobei die Sozial- und Erziehungswissenschaften als zentrale Technologien verstanden werden, um diesen neuen Idealtypen zu kreieren. Die von Catarina Sofia Silva Martins und Thomas S. Popkewitz vorgetragene These wird hier von fünf Kolleginnen und Kollegen kritisch diskutiert. (Ed.) Ranking high on the European agenda is the idea of the European citizen, whereby the notion of “the European” functions as cultural construct or concept in which collective desires and fears are captured, and the social and educational sciences are understood as core technologies in creating this new ideal type. In the following, this thesis, presented by Catarina Sofia Silva Martins and Thomas S. Popkewitz, is discussed critically by five colleagues.

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|

82

Debatte

Thomas S. Popkewitz and Catarina Sofia Silva Martins “Now We are European!” How DID “WE” get that Way?1 “The European” is given as a kind of person and as an autonomous subject in contemporary policy and research. It appears most strongly from the 1970s as a cultural concept to think about collective desires and fears of the dangers that may occur if society and people are not properly organized. In the social and educational sciences, the European as a kind of person intersects with national discourses and studies on schooling, crime, family, community, economy and citizenship, among others. It embodies narratives and images about who people are, how to act on particular populations, and as cultural theses for people to act for themselves. We provocatively entitled our essay on the making of the European as “How did ‘we’ get that way?” in order to examine the social and educational science as technologies in constructing this new type of person. In one respect, the human sciences as technologies in making kinds of people are not new. The social and education sciences have been actors in the making individuals into citizens of the nation from the 19th and 20th century to the present. What is different today is how social sciences assemble and connect with multiple policy discourses, institutions, and research practices about a “transnational” citizen inscribed in the notion of European. In our article we first briefly explore the human sciences as historical practices that link the individual to the community. These practices are reassembled and examined descriptively in the second section to explore the making of the European as a particular kind of person from which nation and daily life are to be ordered. In the third and fourth sections, we discuss the cultural technologies of science in forging the memory of a common history that simultaneously erases, forgets, and realigns Europe’s internal differences to become the “world champions” of global competition. Methodologically, we place different social practices in proximity with each other to consider the principles that order the “reason” that fabricates the European and that exploration may lose certain nuances and details; nevertheless, we believe the strategy is worthwhile and necessary for this inquiry. This inquiry about the changing technologies and the borders of identities produced is, as suggested by Foucault’s (1983, 231f.) not necessarily bad but always dangerous and thus require on-going scrutiny.

The Social Sciences, Nations, and Europe as a Home and Belonging The conventional wisdom of science is its magical appearance in the enlightenment, the copying of the natural sciences in the social sciences by the late 19th century, with science given the task of purveyor of progress and correcting social wrongs by the 21st century. Since 1  We appreciate the comments of the Wednesday Group, the graduate student seminar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the POP Group as we worked on this paper. We are also grateful for the documents provided by Sverker Lindblad during the visiting professorship by one of the author’s at the University of Gothenburg, and the comments of provided by Paola Valero of Aalborg University, Denmark. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Popkewitz and Martins: „Now We Are Auropean!“

the Enlightenment, science has no longer attempted to prove the existence of God’s laws. The mastery of the human condition was to design the paths toward progress that eliminates the dangers in making a more progressive and cosmopolitan world. The “Reason” that ordered sciences, however, was not just any old reason but one that entailed a new relation between sensibility and intellect, experience and thought, the sensible word and the intelligible world (Cassirer 1932/1951, 38). Reason was seen as an original intellectual force to formulate the order of the world, and in that process to bring about the fulfillment of progress. The power conferred by knowledge was epitomized by the image of the cosmopolitan individual whose life was ordered by reason and rationality (science). Reason was seen as universal and a transcendental quality possessed by all of humanity that would lead to human agency, progress, and “happiness”. But that is only part of the story that we need to enter into in order to think about the transmogrifications of science in making of “the European” a few centuries later. The Enlightenment’s universal project for humanity was subsequently abandoned and interned into cosmopolitan narratives to represent the citizen. The citizen was a person endowed with rights based on territoriality or membership in historically constituted communities whose participation intertwined with the social norms of civic virtue and responsibilities (Wittrock 2000, 46). The linking of individuality with collective norms of belonging and responsibility of the citizen entailed a particular way of thinking and acting given visibility at the end of the 18th century. The Republic embodied a subject whose modes of living were, if we can use the tropes of political philosophy, aimed at the pursuit of happiness, liberty, and freedom; and in today’s common-sense as children who seek happiness as learners and parents as moral guardians. The citizen as an identity embodied new forms of allegiances, attachments and subjectivities. Norms that linked virtue, participation and individual conduct had to be produced as one was not born as the citizen. The ways of ordering and rationalizing life as a citizen of the nation and now of Europe entailed acquiring particular kinds of knowledge about how people and society should be ordered and prepared for the imagined future. In post-World War Two, Europe entered into a different space of belonging that was called “the European” as a human kind to “build governments that were transnational, passionless and safe” (Brooks 2011). The last part of the European’s story involves the emergence of new expertise in the social and educational sciences. The province of moral philosophy that was central in this social position of knowledge was replaced by the emergence of social sciences, a term given prominence in the19th century. Although there were resistances, “the social scientist was a model citizen helping to improve the life of the community, not a professional, disinterested, disciplinary researcher” (Wittrock/Wagner/Wollmann 1991, 38). The strength of that knowledge was seen as having the power to shape life and bring about the order of things that fulfills what is wished for through social planning and projects of intervention. The use of science to change social conditions also changed people. The double qualities of the human sciences were evident in the sociological and psychological categories that directed attention to the conditions of the city and the consequences of urbanization, industrialization, and immigration. Direct to the perceived moral disorder of the city, the newly emerging disciplines of social science at the turn of the 20th century inscribed ways of “reasoning” about changing the urban poor, the immigrant or ethnic and, in the US, racially IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|83

|

84

Debatte

different populations. The distinctions of primary groups and “community” sociology of the Chicago school were to bring patterns of small town community face-to-face relations were (re)visioned as interactional patterns and communication networks of urban life. The theories and research were not only about the hope of the future but reimagining cosmopolitan notions in bringing moral order and civic virtues into organization of the urban family life. Edward Allworth Ross (1920/1930), an early founder of American sociology, placed faith in the common school to provide social cohesion, “concord and obedience” (524) and “a like-mindedness among diverse populations through stressing the present and the future rather than the past” (259). The French pedagogue Gabriel Compayré saw the science of pedagogy as having the “double purpose of establishing the current government of the class and teaching pupils how to govern themselves when they leave school and the tutelage of their masters” (1896, 493f.). Today, this making of people in the human sciences is bound to different kinds of “cosmopolitanisms” and salvation themes to change social conditions that change people. In the language of the European Council and European Commission (2010a), science is to enable the “European life as a path to future”. While little is actually known about the future, the European Union has established an institute that lists eight key competencies for the future. It is a future inhabited by a particular abstraction of the European called the Lifelong Learner, whose personal fulfillment, active citizenship, social inclusion or employability in a knowledge society fulfils what is described in an epic narrative of Europe (European Commission 2007, 1). The task of research becomes empirically filling-in the abstractions with distinctions and classifications that identify this kind of person.

Social Sciences, the Exceptionalism of Europe and the European If we trace policy and research discourses across documents, Europe and the European are spoken about as a unity that inscribes harmony, consensus and integration among the different institutional practices that surround the European Union.2 There is the President of the European Union describing “the European” in the universalistic language of human characteristics whose “intelligence”, “sensibility”, “memory”, “imagination” and “creativity” provide the resources for an “emergent economy” (Barroso 2007, 7). This unity is echoed in the European Commission’s European Science Foundation, a non-governmental organization funded by national governments. It defines the social sciences as having a common heritage and seeks to a unified European social science “to meet the challenges of the future and to create a common platform for cross-border cooperation in Europe” (European Science Foundation 2009).3 The title of its report “Europeanisation and its Challenges” is for the research communities to become a single entity that treats Europe as a whole. This unity is embodied in the classifications that blur previous national boundaries but asserting a unified whole from which to understand differences. Research is about European issues of “the macroeconomy”, “social and economic inequalities”, and differences as “regional inequalities” that become subcategories in which to approach harmonization in Europe.

2  We use this phrasing as our analysis involves the European Commission which in one way is separate from the legal framework of the European Union but its discourses intersect with Union practices discussed here. 3  It includes over 80 national funding agencies, research agencies, academies and learned societies from 30 countries. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Popkewitz and Martins: „Now We Are Auropean!“

The singularity and unity of the European as given as a determinant category about a kind of person is evident in the emergence of academic educational journals. In the first decade of the 20th century, references to “European” as an autonomous subject of research were almost non-existent. However, in the first decade of the 21st century (see Chart 1), there were 236 000 such references. Tracing the term’s growth, one notes that it appears to be contemporaneous with the 1973 European Community meeting that focused on “European identity” (Stråth 2000). A different indicator of European as an autonomous category about a homogeneous people is the increasing emergence of journals about European Education from the 70’s through the 90’s (see Chart 2).

Chart 1: Google Scholar search for “European”

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|85

|

86

Debatte

Chart 2: Educational European Journals (from-to) The harmony of people and culture is given to set Europe and the European as apart and as exceptional among others in the world through its common values that are portrayed across social science policy as that of “social protection”, “equality” and a “social model”. 4 The calls for research in the EU’s 7th framework for sponsored research, for example, express this exceptionalism. The funding of research is likened to the dawn of a new future in human relationships, and the transformation of Europe into a dream of peace and justice. Whether the task is seeking a knowledge-based economy, creating environmental sustainability, or operating in a global world, the exceptionalism of Europe in world arenas is given through its research. Science is to calculate and provide administrative paths to the promise of human progress. The vital questions for the future of society, economy and the citizen’s happiness are posed within a system of reason that classifies and differentiates difference within the unified whole, asking research to answer “When will the recession end?” “What is the best way of anticipating and defeating terrorist activity?” “How can my children be better educated?” (European Science Foundation 2009, 6). While the nation is still a discernible general category in policy and research, it has become an anonymous and generalized category that has little, if any, territorial distinctions or naming. Nation-ness is subsumed within the unity, and shows up in phrases such as such “all countries” are to use schools to “help shape society and its future citizens” (European Commission 2011a, 12). The integration, coherence and harmony are located as European systems and institutions. The classifications treat Europe as a singularity from which to study education, society, environment and their diversity within nations. Europe is the site of “education for the masses”, with any reference to nations. European research is to enable the

4  We use the notion of nation in quotes to historically tied the processes in which human sciences have produced theories and methods that link individuality and collective belonging such as discussed earlier with the Social Question. What was primarily a cultural process about nation-ness is (re)visioned within the space of Europe. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Popkewitz and Martins: „Now We Are Auropean!“

“making quality education available for all” and “countering persistence of socio-economic inequalities and the skills mismatch” (European Commission 2011a, 12). European education is to unleash potential that is not only about the unity of the present but historically fashioned to define the future. While this phrase of historically fashioned to define the future may seem an oxymoron and thus odd, the unity of Europe is fabricated as a heritage brought through unifying the past. What was previously diverse national histories and diversity connected through wars, treaties, and institutions are now remembered as a common heritage that makes possible the future that is within reach. A number of European documents speak of the common belonging as a natural consequence of the past. Europe, it is asserted, has been culturally shaped by a “tension between history and transcendence” that provides it with its “universal mission” (Giesen 2002, 202). The European Commission’s research priorities for funding projects, for example, broach the issue of “why European research matters” calls for policy-oriented research that is cultural and social. Research is to provide “insights” that can spark important European initiatives aimed at modernization (European Commission 2011a, 13). European science paths to design Europe’s universalism leaches into transmogrifying “the soul” into what should be European citizen. One of the technologies is comparative research on social psychology and national differences. In a study of Turkish and British teacher education students, the research contrasted nations in relation to unarticulated modes of living as a European citizen to explain differences. The British and Turkish students in the research, for example, were interviewed and then compared with regard to the universal values of Europe. Researchers concluded that scepticism and “multiple identities” indeed exist among nations (Wilkins/Busher/Lawson/Acun/Göz 2010, 446). The scepticism and lack of consensus becomes the “democratic deficit in Europe”. The task of schooling is to overcome this deficit and create an identity that does in fact not exist but should. The overriding challenge, the research concluded, is not only to create a specific identity within Europe but also how to prepare others to belong. In the case of Turkey, this is for teacher education to make the soul of the universalism given as European. The European that research enables is called the “lifelong learner” (see Lawn 2001). It is a mode of living absent and not yet been achieved, but which the future is indebted to. That future is of individual problem solving, innovating, and flexibility in a continuous process of making choices. Research is “action-oriented” so that this European will no longer be a mere “vision” but a reality (Nordin 2011). Programs and classrooms become the actions that make the lifelong learners by serving as “supportive … facilitating the self-directed learning process of its citizens” (Wilkins/Busher/Lawson/Acun/Göz 2010, 18). That citizen is not of the nation but of Europe. In this path to the future, educational research is to make the kind of human who “belongs” to Europe through producing “new forms of personal development”. Education is to “mould” the child’s “attitudes, behaviours, values and skills that are socially and politically viable in modern society” (European Commission 2011a, 12). The achievement of the social and educational sciences fabricating the transnational citizen is one whose qualities order European exceptionalism. The lifelong learner is a kind of person that Ong (1999) describes as an individual who moves through simultaneously shifting and changing conditions of cultural interconnectedness and mobility. While Ong (1999) considers this flexibility and transnationality as embodied in the flexible accumulation of capital, this reduction to economy is limiting when reading the European documents. While IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|87

|

88

Debatte

an economic language is often used, the kind of person embodied in the research is cultural and has little direct relation to economy. The European is made, according to documents about turning Europe into a “laboratory” to create unity and integration is to shape people who are lifelong learners. “Europe provides a natural laboratory” (European Science Foundation 2009, 6) that will eliminate and re-define differences to achieve commonality and harmony in a single European community.

Technologies of Science in the Fabrication of the European In the previous section, we focused on the narratives of unity and the social and political exceptionalism attributed to Europe and the European. In the section, the sciences of education are explored as (1) social technologies of memory that displace different national histories; and (2) the use of statistical systems about European conditions to create categories of equivalence within the boundaries of that unity. The technologies that generate principles of unity and exceptionalism are paradoxical, as we argue in the following section, as they embody a comparative style that differentiates and divides. Memory and Displacement: Fabricating Past Unities to Create a Promise for the Future The making of “the European” involves creating memories that give Europe a past that links it to the promise of the present and future. Memory of heritage and common values entails research rather than recuperation. Danziger (2008) reminds us, all human societies remember, but they remember in very different ways. Individual memory in modernity is closely linked to historically changing forms of external memory. It works to carry out tasks whose parameters are set by changing social demands and conventions (Danziger 2008, 5; Hacking 2006). The creation of a “useable” past has been the province of histories of nations in producing cultural and social manifestations that enable us to “see” and think of one’s life in a continuum that links the past, present, and the future with the necessities of collective belonging and individual self-realization. Cultural boundaries are reshaped through defining the European as an “original” concept of common heritage. The unbroken historical lineage of being the European citizen is memorialized in timelines that trace the past to the present. Europe is portrayed as sharing the common heritage of the Enlightenment and its cosmopolitanism made visible through European social science that establishes points of contact among Europe’s vast array of cultures, languages, customs and belief-systems. The assertion of the homogeneity of values and norms plays down national differences by emphasizing what is common – or what should be common – to all human beings. Zones of the individual and collective past, previously linked with the nation, are now employed in memorializing European heritage that previously related to national “patrimony”. Facts, photographs, museums, modern historiography, sociology and psychology construct and order a past that can be learned about who one is. The European Union and the Council of Europe, for example, promote the celebration of European Heritage Days in order to construct the memory of a common “home” and of collective belonging. The event is said to give “Europeans a rare opportunity to appreciate and celebrate their common heritage” (European Commission Press Release 15 September 2011). The opening of the doors of castles, farms, museums and factories throughout Europe aims to create unity by highlighting “the importance of cultural heritage for the European economy, especially during times of

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Popkewitz and Martins: „Now We Are Auropean!“

crisis” (ibid.). Shrines to the recollection of the past such as coffee houses, function as venerable temples for generating ideas, and the myriad European streets and squares named after statesmen, scientists, artists, and writers (Steiner 2007) serve to evoke memories of the past. Research is to find the causes, conditions and consequences of cultural encounters that will give cohesion to the “European identity” and the conditions from which to see “others”. The theme of commonality in The HERA (Humanities in the European Research Area), for example, has called for research on promoting “Cultural Encounters.” HERA stresses the discovery of Europe’s common heritage to sanctifies the present. The past is ordered in a hierarchy of value from which to see the unity of self and “others”. Research proposals “will investigate the phenomenon of cultural encounters in spatial terms (i.e., in terms of cultural encounters within Europe, and between Europe and other parts of the world) and in temporal terms (i.e., in its contemporary forms as well as in historical perspectives)”. The path from the past to the present is linear, coming “from the earliest periods of human settlement to the present day” (HERA 2011, 1f.). What previously was national is now transnational and is aimed at promoting the unique historical features of Europe in the world marketplace. European social sciences are to provide the past with “distinctive features which can be traced back to European scholarly traditions based in European history and social and cultural diversity. The most important among these traditions has been the fact that the distinction between social sciences and humanities has in Europe always been less pronounced than elsewhere – intellectually and institutionally” (The European Science Foundation 2009, 12). The construction of this common heritage, ironically, entails displacements in order to generate the principles of social unity of a single people. The displacements come from national institutional traditions that place obstacles in the way of progress and the fulfillment of European exceptionalism. Tradition that in other contexts is what provides the present with its exceptionalism is also past ways of organizing schools that must be overcome in order to create a modern, flexible and innovative future for Europe. The Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns in the 17th and 18th centuries is revisited but with connections to science, literature and the arts. The old is differentiated from the modern to invert the value of the past. The past in today’s Quarrel are impediments to innovation and the cultural thesis of the flexible life of the lifelong learner. The unity and universalizing of the past displaces the diversity and location of social science in various national traditions. The history of social science and social theory, for example, continually point to the social sciences as embedded in national cultural traditions (Levine 1995) that link the salvation narratives of the state to ideas of universal progress. The British social sciences of the late 19th and early 20th century, for example, conceptualized society and individuality through the Newtonian perspective of a social world that included a secular ethic, an atomistic view of nature in the human world, and evolution as a process that involved a deep concern with measurability. In contrast, traditional French sociology started with postulates of societal realism in which society was seen as a source of normative and moral sentiments that prevailed in the construction of individuality, such as in Durkheimian sociology. German sociology, in contrast, emphasized an interpretive (hermeneutic) subject of Bildung, capable of self-determination through identifying and making choices between good and evil. German sociology was to understand the expressive subject, recognize the cognitive subject, and analyze the voluntaristic subject.

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|89

|

90

Debatte

At this point, we turn to the initial question in the title, “How did we get that way?” and suggest that the answer requires a combination of techniques involving the social and educational sciences. On one level are the techniques of memory that show the linear development, coherence, and distinctiveness of European science. Yet the making of memory, at a different layer, acknowledges diversity and difference in the past that are merged into the unity that are to govern the principles of how future is best achieved. Numbers as the Cultural Logic of Equivalence to (Re)vision Differences A different technology in the forging of identity of the European is numbers. The commonsense of numbers in survey research of economic growth and comparisons of national educational achievement is that numbers are descriptors of the things of the world and not actors in the making of that world. Our discussion here, however, is aimed in a different direction: to view numbers as a technology of social science that “acts” in generating cultural theses about the European as a human kind. Number functions as a technology that provides uniformity across the disparate territories of European nations through systems of equivalencies and magnitudes.5 Differences are ordered as parts of likeness that give Europe as a whole, its things in flux as having stability, and confer a consensus upon the phenomena of the world that makes possible its control. The creation of equivalences as a single entity re-territorializes the citizen as transnational. This is illustrated in the increased institutionalization of large data-bases and statistical techniques through the OECD’s PISA, ESS – the European Social Survey; the CESSDA project to link European social science data archives; and SHARE – the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. The equivalencies of performances and outcomes of schools, businesses and government are seen as technical, calculable, and as a transparent act of exchange through graphs and flow charts that are presented as measurement tools “of accurate data to inform academic debate and European governance” (European Social Survey 2009, 2). The institutionalization of large data-bases shifts governance technologies from institutional indicators, audit and performance-monitoring to governance that combines technical measurement components and procedures that order the capacities and qualities of individuality (Lascoumes/Le Galès 2007). Numbers define the problem space for standardizing the subject of Europe as a stable object of reflection and change. Numbers become cultural devices centered on “social” and “personal” contents that generate and can be compared with normalized “views”. Differences are measured from the standards applied about the collective sameness of Europe. The European Social Survey is presented as the ongoing mission “to paint” a picture of what Europe was, has become, and to monitor change: “Further rounds are planned to paint an accurate picture of changes in European attitudes, values and behavior patterns both across nations and over time.” This social science project portrays itself as the “authoritative monitor of societal change” (European Social Survey 2008, 22). The measurements assume a consensus about the governance of Europe that is then assigned to the psychological qualities of the individual, such as “trust in institutions”, “well-being, health and security” and “moral and social values”.

5  For a discussion of the development of standards across the different fields of policy, and statistical calculations in policy spaces, see Lawn 2011. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Popkewitz and Martins: „Now We Are Auropean!“

The establishing of magnitudes and equivalencies map and monitor change. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s measurement of national educational systems, PISA compares students’ “practical knowledge” of science, mathematics and literature. Its technologies of comparison, it is asserted, are to identify the school systems’ contribution to the competitiveness of the nation in the light of new, global economic demands. While it is hard for economists to agree on what these future demands are and how to best order society to provide the necessary outputs, PISA seems unburdened with these ambiguities of predicting the future. But further to muddle the future, the categories of science learning embody indicators of a generalized mode of life of the citizen that has little relation to the practical knowledge of science or mathematics (Popkewitz 2011). Outcome measures are related to things other than science and mathematics, such as school contexts, instruction, students’ access to and use of computers, parental perceptions of students and schools. These factors are employed to explain differences in performance that are more related to gender and socio-economic gaps that have resulted in “poor performers” and “top performers”. These factors are more about the psychology and sociology of the child and family than about understanding the cognate disciplines whose practical knowledge is supposed to be measured. The divisions and unity inscribed in the apparatus of statistical data evokes European exceptionalism in “worldwide competitions”. In response to the recent international trend toward ranking in the social sciences, The European Science Foundation argues for “seeing” Europe as a single, harmonious collective of researchers. When viewed as a single unit, Europe indeed compares favorably with the data elsewhere: the number of researchers in the United States, Japan and Australia; and with Europe treated as a singular system of higher education that teaches “over 7 million students, 35% of all students in European higher education”. The international comparison embodies a notion of European “identity” bound by the categories of data that orders a harmonious whole the “scholarly output; i.e. publications in journals and, even more so, in books and reports” of different professional scientific groups across European nations (European Science Foundation 2009, 10f.). The statistical information is aimed at cutting across traditional discipline boundaries through collaboration on common problems and long-term planning. But the “surveys of public attitudes” are also means of creating public attitudes that are thought to be in the European Social Survey” as “vital in formulating political responses to the challenges [of Europe through being able to] gather and analyse large amounts of data in many fields” (ibid., 8). The Europe-wide statistics overlap with and, to some extent supersede national data, creating a space of equivalency where one can judge, assess, and order practices about particular kinds of people. The appeal of numbers is bound to the claim of objectivity and the idea of difference born within the creation of equivalences. The objectivity and equivalences, however, are not transcendent notions of pure reason but shaped and fashioned in moral and political discourses. And they function in making particular human kinds.

The Logic of Unity in Comparing the Hopes and Fears for the Future The fabrication of the European as a human kind superseding the past to build a utopian future, if that was all, would be merely that of policy makers and scientists choosing the best moral and political technologies. But the cultural practices are historically more complicated. Paradoxically, the making of the European embodies a comparative system of thought that paradoxically excludes and objects in the impulses to include. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|91

|

92

Debatte

The distinctions and differentiations of the European as a kind of person generate double gestures. The hope for harmony and unity simultaneously embodies fears of the dangers and dangerous population to the exceptionalism inscribed in the European. That hope and fear are often spoken about economically. The hope is that everyone finds successful work and contributes to society. The fears are of populations unprepared for work. Upon closer inspection, the economic words in policy and research quickly morph into cultural themes that, at the end of the day, are not about economics but about morality and civic virtues that govern individuality. Youth is one of the prominent places where the double and comparative gestures of hope and fear are visible. Youth is the promise of the future and the problematic population. The first issue for a large scale collaborative project to guide Europe’s future policy in its 2020 Strategy Challenge: Education systems in the 21st century is youth. Its flagship of an “Innovation Union” is for research “to unleash the potential of its young people and (…) give them the means to develop and define their future in Europe” (European Commission 2011a, 13). The “unleashing of potential” is some youth lack to pose dangers to the future: “only 43%” of Union citizens “know the meaning of the term ‘citizen of the European Union’ and almost half of European citizens (48%) indicate that they are not well informed” (European Commission 2011b, 7). The fear is of the possibility that people won’t “see” themselves as European. The hope about youth being European and its fears are intertwined with the questions of diversity and multiculturalism in the curriculum. The educational question of the hope of integration is fears of the dangers and dangerous populations expressed in studies of the impact of migration and cultural minorities in the problem of European integration. The study of national curriculum agendas to consider “diversity” and ‘multiculturalism” is classified as “The Janus face of migration in Europe” the call for research in the 7th framework6. The immigrant is inscribed as a kind of person recognized to be included through their proper development yet placed in oppositional spaces that can never be of the averages (see Faas 2011; Eurydice 2009, 3). Intercultural education and research on the subject in Italy instantiate the paradox of the immigrant as integrated yet not integrated, and a threat to harmony and order (Kowalczyk in press). Integration and the link between birth and nationality are given as one of the deeper issues underlying the immigrant as foreigner remaining the foreigner. Immigrants are classified as making up more than 5% of the student population in some countries and also “in most countries, immigrant students lag behind native students in performance; in many countries, the difference is considerable” (OECD 2011, 1). The data collected enable researchers and statisticians to create watertight categories of people and affirm that “students with an immigrant background are socio-economically disadvantaged” and that “the parents of these students are less educated and work in lower-status occupations than their native peers”. In addition, it is said, that “these students tend to have access to fewer educational and material resources at home than their native peers” (OECD 2011, 3). But these representations are not only confined to research. They travel as “borders” through cinema and other media, generating an image of abjection even though a “sympathetic perspective on migration” might prevail (O’Healy 2010, 1). 6  It is important to recognize that the universal categories such as migration are particular historical categories referring to what Bauman calls the migrants who are vagabonds and who economically have little rights and money and the travelers, those who receive work permits at the higher ends of the social-economic fields, such as those who work in the London financial sector. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Popkewitz and Martins: „Now We Are Auropean!“

The comparative inscription of difference is not only internal but also in relation to the social and cultural exceptional in geopolitical spheres. Europe is placed in the global competition of global championship against the United States and China, and as a developmental bridge connected to Africa and Latin America. When speaking about its others, European Commission and EU documents speak of Europe as needing to win in “the global championship” that is currently being played. Europe shares its Enlightenment heritage with the United States and the common “firm belief in freedom, democracy, human rights and prosperity. But its exceptionalism, as discussed earlier, places it as the hallmarks in which to see by oneself and “what binds us together” (Barroso 2011). Europe’s unified, moral and cultural project contrasts with America’s avowed liberal individualism. The social sciences are importance in global competition owing to the exceptionalism of Europe’s cultural roots in “the powerful historical idea in the west since, at least, the second half of the 19th century” (European Science Foundation 2009, 11). The narratives to “explain” these differences are translated into empirical “facts” in The European Social Survey, which asks, at one point, “how closely do European expectations of good citizenship correspond with or differ from, say, US expectations?” (European Social Survey 2008, 14). That is where the ghost of the “Other” gives sense to the “Us”. Derrida (2000, 15), for example, questions if we must “ask the foreigner to understand us, to speak our language, in all the senses of this term, in all its possible extensions”?

Conclusions While there is a sizeable literature about current changes under the rubric of “globalization” and the significance or irrelevance of the nation, our discussion focuses on the changes occurring in reterritorizing collective belonging and “home”. The European policies and organization of social science projects discussed above are formed in an historical grid in which memory and heritage are joined with the present and its future to make possible the European as a particular human kind. The social and education sciences in the making of the citizen is, in one sense, not new. Their formations at the turn of the 20th century were connected in processes of producing national identities and difference inscribed in juridical institutions and cultural theories of the nation. While there is an extensive historical and sociological literature about the making of the nation, what is historically significant is the fabrication of the European in erasing prior spatial distances that paradoxically connects to national spaces by activating coordinates that trace “the right way” to be a European. In making this argument, we realized that our exploring the fabrication of “being” European entails much skepticism about “being” European as well as different axes of affiliation. This is evident when members of the EU states held popular votes about participation. It is also evident in its south with the economic crises in the first decade of the 21st century. The doubt cast about the European as a collective identity, however, seems more often than not as bound within the framework of whether the European as a transcendental category has been the promise broken. In making this observation, we have no doubt that further exploration will be helpful in understanding the governance principles being produced through further historicizing the social and education science. Yet we believe that the arguments about memory, identity and the making of “home” should help to dispel the 19th century nominalism or realism dichot-

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|93

|

94

Debatte

omy that elides the cultural or social conditions of what is often associated with notions of modernity: Knowledge is not merely an epiphenomenon to base or superstructures and material structures. Knowledge, as embodying a system of reason, inscribes principles that are integral in the making of conduct. In this respect, the policy statements, programs, and utterances identified are not “merely,” “theoretical”, texts, discourses, or rhetoric that require distinguishing them from how people “really” think and act. The realism or nominalism dichotomy may serve analytical philosophy where it needs such pure concepts. But it introduces an ahistoricism to the social sciences that paradoxically dehumanizes (see Popkewitz 2013). The realism of “text or context” distinction naturalizes the practices of everyday life and places them outside of the historical events and the principles generated for reflection and action (see Tröhler 2011). Policy and research are material, given intelligibility through historically instantiated rules and standards of reason and not epiphenomena to social structures. Ask any European! Finally, our exploring the fabrication of the European is not necessarily to reject it. It is to recognize that one’s history (the past) is continually in production. And to ask about that production is potentially to free one’s self from the causality that interns and encloses the present.

References

Barroso, José Manuel: Prefácio. In: George Steiner: A ideia de Europa. Lisboa: Gradiva 2007, 5-8 Barroso, José Manuel: We have reaffirmed our determination to work closely together for the stability of the global economy. 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/news/speeches-statements/index_en.htm Brooks, David: The technocratic nightmare. The New York Times 2011, November 17 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/opinion/brooks-the-technocratic-nightmare.html?_r=1&ref=opinion Cassirer, Ernst: The philosophy of the enlightenment (1951). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1932 Compayré, Gabriel: As recompensas e os castigos. In: Revista de Educação e Ensino XI(1896), 493-506 Danziger, Kurt: Marking the mind. A History of memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2008 Derrida, Jacques: Of Hospitality. Anne Dufourmantelle invites Jacques Derrida to respond. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press 2000 European Commission: Key Competences for Lifelong Learning – a European Framework. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2007 ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/.../ll-learning/keycomp_en.pdf European Commission (2010a): 2010 joint progress report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the “Education and Training 2010 work programme”. In: Official Journal of the European Union C/117/01. http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning- policy/doc1532_en.htm European Commission (2010b). Draft Work Programme 2012. In: Cooperation Theme 8 Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities. shmesp.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/.../SSH_202012_20WP_Draft_MASTER.pdf European Commission (2011a): FP7 Cooperation Work Programme: Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities, C(2011)5068. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/wp/cooperation/ssh/h-wp-201201_en.pdf European Commission (2011b). Study on Maximizing the Potential of Mobility in Building European Identity and Promoting Civic Participation Final Report http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/news-events/news/20111010_en.htm European Commission Press Release: Celebrating European Heritage. 15 September 2011 http://ec.europa.eu/news/culture/110915_en.htm European Science Foundation: Standing Committee for the Social Sciences Science Position Paper. Vital Questions. The Contribution of European Social Science. Strasbourg: IREG 2009 http://www.esf.org/publications/science-position-papers.html European Social Survey: Exploring public attitudes, informing public policy. Selected findings from the first three rounds. 2008 http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23&Itemid=318

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Popkewitz and Martins: „Now We Are Auropean!“

European Social Survey: European Social Survey: Monitoring attitude change in over 30 countries. 2009 www.europeansocialsurvey.org Eurydice: Citizenship Education at School in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice 2005 www.moec.gov.cy/programs/eurydice/publication.pdf Eurydice: Integrating Immigrant Children into Schools in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice 2009 http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/thematic_studies_en.php Faas, Daniel: The Nation, Europe, and Migration: A comparison of geography, history, and citizenship education curricula in Greece, Germany, and England. In: Journal of Curriculum Studies 43(2011), issue 4, 471-492 Foucault, Michel: The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (1971). New York: Pantheon 1972 Foucault, Michel: On the genealogy of Ethics: An overview of work in progress. In: Hubert Dreyfus/Paul Rabinow (Eds.): Michel Foucault. Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1983, 229-252 Giesen, Bernhard: Constitutional practice or community of memory? Some remarks on the collective identity of Europe. In: Shmuel Eisenstadt/Dominic Sachsenmaier/Jens Riedel (Eds.): Comparative civilizations & multiple modernities. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill 2002, 193-216 Hacking, Ian Comparative civilizations & multiple & the future of identity. In: Daedalus 135(2006), issue 4, fall, 81-95 HERA: Matchmaking Event for the HERA Joint Research Programme Cultural Encounters. 2011 http://www.b2match.eu/hera2012 Huyssen, Andreas: Twilight memories: Marking time in a culture of amnesia. New York: Routledge 1995 Kowalczyk, Jamie: Transgression and democratic convivenza: An analysis of Italian school policy and the discourse of integration. In: Education et Sociétés (in press) Lascoumes, Pièrre/Le Galès, Patrick: Understanding public policy through its instruments: From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. In: Governance 20(2007), 1-21 Lawn, Martin: Borderless education: Imagining a European education space in a time of brands and networks. In: Discourse 22(2001), issue 2, 173-184 Levine, Donald: Visions of the sociological tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1995 Nordin, Aandreas: Making the Lisbon strategy happen: A new phase of lifelong learning discourse in European policy? In: European Educational Research Journal 10(2011), issue 1, 11-20 OECD: Executive summary: PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris: OECD 2007 OECD: Pisa in focus 11, How are school systems adapting to increasing numbers of immigrant students? 2011 http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,2987,en_32252351_32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html O’Healy, Aine: Mediterranean Passages: Abjection and Belonging in Contemporary Italian Cinema. In: California Italian Studies Journal 1(2010), issue 1, 1-19 Ong, Aihwa: Flexible citizenship. The cultural logic of transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke University 1999 Popkewitz, Thomas S.: Comparative studies and unthinking comparative “thought”: The paradox of “reason” and its abjections. In: Marianne Larson (Ed.): New thinking in comparative education, honoring Robert Cowen. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2010, 15-28 Popkewitz, Thomas S.: Pisa: Numbers, Standardizing Conduct, and The Alchemy of School Subjects. In: Miguel A. Pereyra/Hans-Georg Kotthoff/Robert Cowen (Eds.): PISA under Examination: Changing Knowledge, Changing Tests, and Changing Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2011, 31-46 Popkewitz, Thomas S.: Styles of Reason: Historicism, Historicizing and the History of Education. In: Thomas S. Popkewitz (Ed.): Rethinking the History of Education: Transnational Perspectives on Its Questions, Methods, and Knowledge. New York: PalgraveMacMillan 2013, 1-29 Ross, Edward Alsworth: Principles of sociology (1920). New York: The Century Company 1930 Steiner, George: A ideia de Europa. Lisboa: Gradiva 2007 Stråth, Bo (Ed.): Europe and the Other, Europe as the Other (2000). Brussels: Peter Lang 2010 Tröhler, Daniel: Languages of education: Protestant legacies, national identities, and global aspirations. New York: Routledge 2011 Wilkins, Chris/Busher, Hugh/Lawson, Tony/Acun, Ismail/Göz, Nur Leman: European Citizenship and European Union Expansion: perspectives on Europeanness and citizenship education from Britain and Turkey. In: European Educational Research Journal 9(2010), issue 4, 444-456 Wittrock, Bjørn: Modernity: One, none, or many? European origins and modernity as a global condition. In: Daedalus 29(2000), issue 1, 31-60

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|95

|

96

Debatte

Wittrock, Bjørn/Wagner, Peter/Wollman, Hellmut: Social science and the modern state: Policy knowledge and political institutions in Western Europe and the United States. In: Peter Wagner/Carol Weiss/Bjørn Wittrock/ Hellmut Wollmann (Eds.): Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 1991, 28-85

Websites

http://ec.europa.eu/education/focus/focus2519_en.htm http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/

Prof. Dr. Thomas S. Popkewitz, University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Teacher Education, 225 North Mills Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA, [email protected] Dr. Catarina Sofia Silva Martins, Instituto de Investigação em Arte, Design e Sociedade, Avenida Rodrigues de Freitas, 265, Porto 4049-021, Portugal, [email protected]

Bob Lingard Making Up Europeans: a Reflection1 I provide a reflection here on Thomas Popkewitz and Catarina Martins’ essay Now we are European! I comment on their theoretical and epistemological framing of the constitution of the new Europeans of the European Union (EU) and their account of this constitutive work as part of the topological spatialities and temporalities associated with globalization. My title references Ian Hacking’s Foucauldian inspired work on how categories and discourses actually create things and in turn have “looping effects” through these creations, helping to fabricate that which is categorized and producing effects well beyond mere categorization (see Hacking 2007). Popkewtiz and Martins take a similar approach in their fascinating and illuminating essay. They are concerned with the construction – the making up of – Europeans in respect of the supra-national political unit, the EU. As they observe in their conclusion, suggesting a move beyond a Marxist ontology and epistemology, “knowledge is not merely an epiphenomenon to base/superstructures and material structures”. Rather, they point out, “knowledge, as embodying a system of reason, inscribes principles that are integral in the making of conduct”; this point echoes Hacking’s notion of “making up people”(2007). Making up refers to production rather than pretense. They also query the common text/context binary of much policy analysis, suggesting that the text also helps constitute the context.

1  I thank my colleague Dr Sam Sellar for his very helpful comments on a draft of this essay. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Lingard: Making Up Europeans: a Reflection

Nikolas Rose (1999) has written similarly of how numbers and statistical reasoning constitute “inscription devices”, creating that which they classify and measure. Popkewitz and Martins also consider in their paper the importance of numbers, metrics, data, statistics in the construction of the Europe of the EU, as European statistics constitute the European Union as a space of equivalence. In so doing, a new Europe and new Europeans are made up, despite contemporary neo-liberal US politics regarding the EU and its form of social protection as old Europe, a throwback to a Keynesian past. Here we might see the topographical space of Europe being reconstituted as a topological space, changing our conceptions of what is near and far, reconstituting the conception of locals as non-local locals (Lurry et al. 2012; Allen 2011) with metrics and numbers doing this work. As Allen points out concerning topological spaces, “power relationships are not so much positioned in space or extended across it, as compose the spaces of which they are a part” (Allen 2011, 284). This is the constitutive dimension of the attempt to create the Europe of the EU as one place and a single space. Popkewitz and Martins’ work in this essay complements recent research by Martin Lawn and Sotiria Grek (2012) on processes and technologies of Europeanization. The latter write about how Europe is being remade as an educational policy space, a space of learning, through policy networks, meetings and metrics, including performance indicators linked to the Lisbon Declaration. While Lawn and Grek focus on the Europeanization of education, the focus of Popkewitz and Martins is the broader technology of Europeanization. Popkewitz and Martins call these processes, “Numbers as the Central Logic of Equivalence to (Re) vision Differences”. They extend their focus to include science policy, social/cultural policy, research policy, and the (re)construction of European history as part of the move to constitute the EU as a space of equivalence. What Popkewitz and Martins are dealing with is the respatialization associated with globalization (Amin 2002). Most of that literature, as they argue, deals with the global (or local) aspects of this emergence; in contrast, they are dealing with a new supranational entity and its attempt to frame new individual/supranational identity imbrications – in effect to create European citizens. Amin writes most insightfully about three characteristics of globalization as topological respatialization: “An energized space marked by, first, the intensification of mixture and connectivity as more and more things become interdependent (in associative links and exclusions); second, the combination of multiple spatialities of organization and praxis as action and belonging at a distance become possible; and third, the erosion of the ontological distinction between place and space as ‘placement’ in multiple geographies of belonging becomes possible” (Amin 2002, 395). Popkewitz and Martins are dealing with the multiple spatialities of belonging and praxis and focus on how belonging at a distance through the creation of EU Europeans has been and is being constituted. Here we see how the space/place distinction becomes somewhat elided in topologies; we see the European discourses they document, associated with the creation of Europeans, as a discursive move to align the multiple places, times and identities within constituent European nations of its enactment (cf. Rizvi/Lingard 2010). The important work of the historians of statistical reasoning and of statistical systems (e.g. Desrosières 1998; Porter 1995; Hacking 1990) has made us aware that numeracy linked to the constitution of the space of a given nation as a space of equivalence, was also central to the constitution of the nation. We perhaps need to add numeracy to Benedict Anderson’s (1991) argument that mass schooling and universal literacy were central to the creation of IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|97

|

98

Debatte

the “imagined community” that is the nation. The application of similar categories and metrics across the space of the nation also helped to constitute it. Universal numeracy, as with mass literacy, was also central in this assemblage of developments. Mass numeracy was thus also central to the creation of the imagined community of the nation. Likewise with the EU, as Popkewitz and Martins make patently clear in their analysis of how contemporary Europeans have been and are being “made up”. In a way, Popkewitz and Martins are dealing with the creation of “postnational” (Appadurai 1996), or perhaps more appropriately, “transnational” (Vertovec 2009), identities. Vertovec (2009, 4) defines the transnational as “social morphology, as type of consciousness, as mode of cultural reproduction, as avenue of capital, as site of political engagement, and as reconstruction of ‘place’ or locality”. It is this new social morphology of the EU and the consciousness of “European-ness” that Popkewitz and Martins are seeking to document and understand. They also clearly demonstrate that just as with the assumed homology between ethnic identity and national geography within nations, which was a social construction, so too is post- or transnational identity of EU Europeans; a construction that reflects efforts to constitute a new supranational homology. As Hacking has noted (2007, 288): “The idea that peoples just separate naturally into overarching racial, ethnic, or linguistic groups is largely product of a recent invention, the nation state” and so too with the EU and EU Europeans. In a sense, the EU construction is attempting to deal with what contemporary nations have to deal with as the flows of migrants and refugees have challenged the oversimplified notion of a nation/ethnicity homology and raised what Appadurai (2006) has referred to as a “fear of small numbers”, as ethnos in the face of economic globalization remains one domain the nation putatively can still control. The EU construction of the European is attempting to constitute a new unity out of difference and working against the narcissism of minor differences. This is the attempt to make a European ethnos, within a European economy that will compete globally. Perhaps the emphasis is more on European consumers and workers than European citizens. This European ethnos also helps form a European market. This identity constitutive work might be compared with the multicultural project within nations, which sought to create unity with difference. Appadurai (1996) has suggested that, given the multiple kinds of flows of people across nations today (a “scape” associated with globalization), and the related challenge to the ethnicity/nation homology assumption, the nation and the state today have become the project of each other, with the hyphen between “nation-state” having become somewhat attenuated and signifying the necessary imbrication of these projects. We might also see the work of making up EU Europeans that Popkewitz and Martins write about as the project of the political architecture of the EU and its policy regimes. This project seeks to strengthen the hyphen between EU and EU Europeans. Raymond Williams suggested that the concept of history carries many meanings, as we know from historiographical debates and the concerted making of tradition. He also suggested that, “history itself retains its whole range, and still, in different hands, teaches or shows us most kinds of knowable past and almost every kind of imaginable future” (1983, 148), which lasts a long time. Graham Swift (1983), the English novelist, has a wonderful evocation of this conception of the constructedness of history in his novel, Waterland, ostensibly about a history teacher. The history teacher ruminates on the nature of history: “It goes in two directions at once. It goes backwards as it goes forwards. It loops. It takes detours. Do not fall into the illusion that history is a well disciplined and unflagging column marching unswervingly into the future”, and a little later, “there are no compasses for journeying in IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Lingard: Making Up Europeans: a Reflection

time” (117). Here we have another expression of the social and topological construction of the past and of the future. Working with the human construction of histories, Popkewitz and Martins write of how individual identity was linked to collective norms of national citizens at the end of the 18th century (linked to the Enlightenment and modernity) and how the EU is likewise seeking to constitute just such an European individual identity and concept of transnational citizenship across difference. They also show how this singularity and European identity are constituted through a range of European level policies, including in respect of science, research, the humanities and the social sciences, and within education policy, post the Lisbon Declaration, with Europe aiming to be a major knowledge economy. Here we see the construction of Europe as a learning space, despite the subsidiarity notion of schooling systems within the EU (Lawn/Grek 2012). As noted above, Popkewitz and Martins, utilizing Danziger (2008), write about the importance of history and memory to the creation of nations – Anderson’s “imagined community”. They state: “The creation of a ‘useable’ past has been the province of histories of nations in producing cultural and social manifestations that enable us to ‘see’ and think of one’s life in a continuum that links the past, present and the future with the necessities of collective belonging and individual self-realization”. The construction of the new Europeans has to augment this historical work. As Popkewitz and Martins suggest, “the European Union and the Council of Europe, for example, promote the celebration of European heritage Days in order to construct the memory of a ‘common home’; and of collective belonging”. As they also argue, such a creation needs to displace other elements of national histories of the member nations of the EU. Here Popkewitz and Martins note regarding the new European history: “The assertion of homogeneity of values and norms plays down national differences by emphasizing what is common – or what should be common – to all human beings”. This is an Enlightenment construction of Europe. Emile Durkheim, the great French sociologist and a founder of the discipline made the important point in his Rules of Sociological Method, when he noted that the first rule for good sociologists is to understand that social statistics are social facts, as well as simultaneously social constructions. We need, as sociologists, to continually work with this recognition to think social constructedness and reality together. We can see such a conception in Popkewitz’s and Martins’ account of the construction of the Europeans of the EU, but at the same time we need to acknowledge that the EU is a material reality, an assemblage of institutions, policies, discourses, individuals, networks and so on. This brings us to Foucault’s concept of dispositif, where he counters any perception of his work as only emphasizing the discursive. With this concept he was also picking up on other non-discursive materialities, if you like. This echoes Durkheim’s rule, in one sense at least. Foucault (1977) defined a dispositif as: “[A] thoroughly heterogeneous set consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, mores, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral, and philanthropic propositions – in short, the said as much as the unsaid. Such are the elements of the apparatus. The apparatus itself is the network that can be established between these elements” (•••). Stephen Ball (2013, 124), in a recent book on Foucault, has also written about how this dispositif works: “In Foucault’s later work, this attention to the diversity of power can be read as a more decisive move to dispositif or to a ‘topological approach’ that recognizes ‘patterns of correlations’ and the strategic disposition of heterogeneous elements that constitute societies as particular realities”. In Popkewitz and Martins’ terms, this is, of course, the constitution of IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|99

|

100

Debatte

the EU and EU Europeans. In their essay, Popkewitz and Martins work with dispositif, while giving greater emphasis to the discursive and “commensurative work” (Espland 2000), while not denying the centrality of the material, the institutional, the regulations, the technologies of governance. Paraphrasing Bailey (2013), who has recently written about education policy as dispositif, we might see the EU and the making up of the Europeans of the EU as involving both the idea or philosophical conception of what this Europe and Europeans might be, but as well this Europe (the EU) is also constituted through a set of governance technologies. It is the latter that Popkewitz and Martins focus on in their essay. There is one final set of issues to comment on in respect of this Popkewtiz and Martins’ essay. These are matters concerning epistemology, ontology and academic knowledge forms, here specifically the social sciences or sociology. They note the “national embeddedness” of the social sciences. They distinguish between the British social sciences of the late 19th and early 20th century as, inter alia, linked to a calculative, empirical sociology committed to social progress (numbers, data and statistics at the service of progress). In contrast, they describe French sociology of the time “as a source of normative and moral sentiments that prevailed in the construction of individuality”; a stance particularly evident in the sociology of Durkheim. Again in contrast with these two, German sociology, they argue, “emphasized an interpretive (hermeneutic) subject of Bildung”. I mention their observations here because clearly today we understand that there are many modernities and that as argued by Appadurai (2001), we need to deparochialize social science research, recognizing what Connell (2007) sees as the colonial impact of the application (perhaps too soft a noun in this context) of such knowledges to colonized nations as sites of empirical application of Northern Theory. Is the constitution of EU Europeans linked to the construction of European knowledges (a new colonization?) or can it be part of a project of deparochializing our epistemologies and ontologies, “our” social sciences, and allowing for theory from the nations of the Global South (historically colonized by old Europe) to contribute to the development of knowledge?

Conclusion Popkewitz and Martins have provided a productive provocation concerning the constitution of the Europeans of the EU. They echo Foucault in his observation that all knowledge is dangerous. They allude in their conclusion to the challenges the EU is currently facing with the sovereign debt crises, a second financial crisis in Europe, particularly Southern Europe, and its significance for the EU. This brings us to questions of what some have seen as a democratic deficit of the EU as a political entity. Habermas (2012) has been one who has argued this case, suggesting contemporary Europe politically is a form of “post-democratic executive federalism”, not a form of transnational democracy. His argument seems to be validated to some extent, given the economic and social crises now being faced by the member nations of the EU in Southern Europe. Who benefits from the current construction of the European of the EU is another pertinent question here. Bourdieu, of course, was pro-Europe, but was also critical of its construction simply as “Europe reduced to a central bank and a single currency” (2003, 53). However, he called for a European social movement to work towards a “social Europe”, to work against European construction as “social destruction” (53). He saw a social Europe as potentially a transnational bastion of socially protective policies against the marauding thinned out state and social policies that accompany the neo-liberal global economy – the right hand of the state taking priority over the left. Is the European being

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Lingard: Making Up Europeans: a Reflection

constructed by the EU about broader citizenship purposes or simply about a larger open market and the reduction of social protection, about new Europeans as consumers? All of these ideas were provoked for me by this essay. Popkewitz and Martins provide a wonderful problematization of the concept of the EU and the related attempt to create new postnational European identities.

References

Allen, John: Topological twists: power’s shifting geographies. In: Dialogues in Human Geography 1(2011), issue 3, 283-298 Amin, Ash: Spatialities of globalization. In: Environment and Planning 34(2002), issue 3, 385-399 Anderson, Benedict: Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso 1991 Appadurai, Arjun: Modernity at Large. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press 1996 Appadurai, Arjun: Grassroots globalization and the research imagination. In: Arjun Appadurai (Ed.): Globalization. Durham: Duke University Press 2001, 1-21 Appadurai, Arjun: Fear of Small Numbers. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press 2006 Bailey, Patrick: The policy dispositif: historical formation and method. In: Journal of Education Policy (2013) doi: 10.1080/02680939.2013.782512 Ball, Stephen J.: Foucault, Power and Education. New York: Routledge 2013 Bourdieu, Pierre: Firing Back Against the Tyranny of the Market. London: Verso 2003 Connell, Raewyn: Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in the Social Sciences. Sydney: Allen & Unwin 2007 Desrosières, Alain: The Politics of Large Numbers. Harvard: Harvard University Press 1998 Espland, Wendy: Commensuration and Cognition. In: Karen A. Cerulo (Ed.): Culture and Mind: Toward a Sociology of Culture and Cognition. London: Routledge 2000, 63-88 Foucault, Michel: Language, Counter-Memory, Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 1977 Habermas, Jürgen: The Crisis of the European union. A Response. Cambridge: Polity Press 2012 Hacking, Ian: The Taming of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1990 Hacking, Ian: Kinds of people: moving targets. In: Proceedings of the British Academy 151(2007), 285-318 Lawn, Martin/Grek, Sotiria: Europeanizing Education: Governing a New Policy Space. Oxford: Symposium 2012 Lury, Celia/Parisi, Luciana/Terranova, Tiziana: Introduction: the becoming topological of culture. In: Theory, Culture and Society 29(2012), issues 4/5, 3-35 Phillips, John W.: On topology. In: Theory, Culture and Society 30(2013), issue 5, 122-152 Porter, Ted: Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press 1995 Rizvi, Fazal/Lingard, Bob: Globalizing Education Policy. London: Routledge 2010 Rose, Nikolas: Powers of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999 Swift, Graham: Waterland. London: Picador 1983 Vertovec, Steven: Transnationalism. London: Routledge 2009 Williams, Rayomond: Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (1976). London: Flamingo 1983

Prof. Dr. Bob Lingard, University of Queensland, School of Education, Brisbane Qld 4072, Australia, [email protected]

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|101

|

102

Debatte

Bo Stråth The Academic and the Political: a Problematic Relationship The historical use of social and human sciences since the nineteenth century also changed people. The academic occupation with past and present societies in a time of dramatic change was more than a pure reflection and description of what was. It was also the matter of suggestions and prescriptions for a better society. Karl Marx, in a famous statement, argued that the philosophers too long had focused on how to understand the world but forgotten that the chief task was to change it. He has been strongly criticized for this statement, which has been seen as a recommendation which in the long run ended up in the Soviet system. However, the academic thinkers were already when Marx made the statement heavily involved in nation building and did have strong opinions about how to change their emerging nations and states. In many respects his message was pushing at an open door. The issue at stake was rather that the prescriptions of the philosophers were not those of Marx. It is against the backdrop of this nineteenth century heritage not difficult to agree with Thomas Popkewitz and Catarina Martins on the point of departure of their article that the making of people in the human (and social) sciences is bound to different kinds of cosmopolitanisms and salvation themes to change social conditions that change people. The political elites controlling the research financing are open about what they expect from the academic community. Popkewitz and Martins refer to the President of the EU Commission Barroso who in 2007 described “the European” in the universalistic language of human characteristics whose “intelligence”, “sensibility”, “memory”, “imagination” and “creativity” provide the resources for an “emergent economy”. In the same vein the European Science Foundation, which, by the way, as opposed to what Popkewitz and Martins state, is not a child of the EU, proclaims that the role of European social sciences is to meet the challenges of the future and to create a common platform for cross-border cooperation in Europe. Popkewitz and Martins convincingly demonstrate in rich detail how the European leaders since some decades mobilise the European research community in order to map out Europe as a unity in diversity through comparisons. They refer to all investigations on a social Europe, a European identity, and a European citizenship, and of Europe as an immigration and migration society on an internal market. Their function seems to be to call out something which does not (yet) exist. The academic obsession over years with a social Europe or a European identity becomes a kind of compensation for a missing political dimension of the European unity. This missing dimension is experienced as particularly strong since the collapse of the economic and financial world order in 2008. Against the backdrop of that collapse EU emerges as the pure market project it always was. The academic construction of community is accompanied by policy-oriented surveys organised by international organisations such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which has nothing with the Italian city, or the EU (as the article suggests) to do, but with the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), or the European Social Survey initiated by the European Science Foundation in 2002. The surveys deal with IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Stråth: Teh Academic and the Political

issues such as trust in institutions, moral and social values, or social capital. The tenor of several of the policy-oriented surveys is the importance of education and professional training for a successful entrance on the labour market. Youth connotes in the double gestures of the surveys both hope and fear. Youth is in the message of the surveys the promise of the future and the problem of today. Another kind of survey is the Eurobarometer, the European Commission’s monitoring of the evolution of public opinion in the member states since 1973. The problem with these surveys, and the fear of the political leaders of Europe, is that there are no jobs. There is only a belief that education and training somehow will create them. On this point I come to the major flaw of a rich and well-argued article. The authors do not really speak up on the problem of the link between academic research and politics. They state at the very end that their exploration of the mythical fabrication of the European is not necessarily to reject it. I read into the presentation of their exploration a critical subtext, but the authors do not speak up on this point. “Not necessarily to reject” suggests after all the possibility of a rejection. The doubt that Popkewitz and Martins on this point cast on a collective European identity they connect to the issue of whether the European as a transcendental category is a broken promise. However, they avoid going deeper into this crucial question. It is reasonable to argue that it is a broken promise and a political failure. The European integration project has ever since its beginning been a market project. Since the 1990s the EU has been diluted into an intergovernmental market project under erosion of the initial imagery of a political economy managed by a high authority. The dream of a transcending European federation is a dream of yesterday, a past future, a past tool to escape the iron cage of the Cold War, which produced cohesion in the West and at the end opposition in the East. What in the 1990s looked like a final triumph of liberalism twenty years later looks like a collapse also of the neoliberal order that followed on the implosion of the Soviet system under the loadstar of the economy organised as a market-driven self-propelling machine, which performed the better the less political regulation it was exposed to. Karl Polanyi would describe the development since the 1990s as the disembedding of the economic forces. Twenty years after 1990 the neoliberal order collapsed in economic terms. The economic crisis spread to a political crisis and from there to a social crisis and at the end a value crisis. So far the social sciences have not had much to say about this development. They have been happy to confirm what they have been asked to do. Their research has served to bridge gaps in the wake of the construction of Europe as a market. The Commission has mobilised resources for research on a social Europe and a European identity which has conjured up the imagery of their actual existence, but the emperor did not have any clothes, only the market dream. In 2000, the Lisbon Council decided on its strategic goal for the EU to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. There was a recognition that Europe’s education and training systems needed to adapt both to the demands of the knowledge society – whatever these demands now were and are and whatever the knowledge society is – and to the need for higher education. The mobility of students, teachers and research staff should be fostered through making the best use of existing community programmes (Socrates, Leonardo, Youth) and through attracting high-quality teachers. The idea of Lisbon was that the triangular relationships between research, education and innovation will provoke growth and employment dynamics. When 2010 passed and Europe was far from the world-leading knowledge power it had dreamt of in 2000 – think of the fiasco IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|103

|

104

Debatte

of the Galileo project and the fact that Europe is still dependent on the US American gps for navigation, or on the fact that the US fully dominates and controls the internet – the Commission silently just changed the target year to 2020. And now it thinks that a new narrative will do the job. The cosmetic cannot hide the political failures. The academic research in social sciences has served to conceal the failure of a political Europe with a social dimension and with full employment for the youth – and all others in active ages. It could at the end not conjure up the social Europe with a European identity because of the deficit of integrative politics. This is the decisive difference to the construction of the nations in the nineteenth century. The authors refer to the nation-building processes without exploring this difference. The nineteenth century academic construction of community outlined not only national economies but also social states for the guarantee of political communities. Prof. Dr. Bo Stråth, University of Helsinki, Department of World Cultures, P.O. Box 24, FIN-00014 Helsinki, [email protected]

Moritz Rosenmund Neither Official EC Narratives nor Social Sciences – Lampedusa marks the Division Line Precisely forty years ago, in 1973, sociologist and peace researcher Johan Galtung published a book The European Community: A Superpower in the Making. He argued that “a new superpower is emerging. In a stronger version, the thesis is that the European Community is an effort to recreate: 1) a Eurocentric world, a world with its center in Europe, 2) a unicentric Europe, a Europe with its center in the West” (Galtung 1973, 12). He described the development of the EC, at that time consisting of six member-states, as a step-wise process: “deepening [of scopes] with constant membership, followed by extension with constant issues … and so on” (ibid., 18). According to his analysis the process was about “possessing the instruments of ideological, remunerative, and punitive power, in excess of what others have” (ibid., 37) and the policy pursued by the EC was directed to “equality at the top, towards the US and Japan, efforts to dominate in all other directions” (ibid., 63), the latter meaning regaining control over former colonies through “exploitation [of the countries of the Third World; MR] defined as vertical division of labor, fragmentation, and penetration” (ibid., 68). Twenty years later, in 1992, the same author developed an argument about The Emerging European Super-Nationalism (Galtung 1993). He defined nationalism as a mainly unconscious state of mind whose object is the nation as a cultural entity. This nation is not necessarily a nation-state in the familiar understanding of that notion but might equally be a sub-national IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Rosenmund: Neither Official EC Narratives nor Social Sciences

region or a supra-national entity. The basic structure of nationalism is constructed along two axes – self versus other, and good versus evil – and is characterized by equating self with good on one hand and other with evil on the other hand. According to Galtung this relationship had been developed and crystallized over a long European history, starting with the distinction made by the Greeks between civilized and barbarian, followed by the dualism between Christian civilization and oriental despotism at the time of the crusades, and ending up with the distinction between dynamic societies and ahistorical populations as introduced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. But for Galtung nationalism is not just a matter of culture and notions. Rather it is embedded in a triangle of culture, institutions, and structure, the latter being presented as a system of dominance and dependency between a center, i.e. the elites in north-western part of Europe, and concentric circles of peripheries: the periphery within single societies, the European South (Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece), orthodox south-eastern Europe (Serbs), and the “despotic” East particularly including the Muslim part of the world.1 However, while nationalism situated in this structure appears as deeply rooted in history and collective memory of Europe, according to Galtung it became institutionalized only in the course of most recent decades through the creation of the EU and its constituent bodies like the European Commission, the European Parliament, and others. The reason for this sudden shift, the author continues, is to be found in three massive transformation-shocks “classical” nationalism had undergone in the 20th century: two World Wars and the, real or imagined, threat of the Soviet Union. The analysis leads Galtung to his main thesis: The construction of European institutions should be seen as a (super)nationalism in search of institutions rather than as institutions in search of a nationalism. If this thesis proved to be correct there would be no need to invent and develop notions of Europe and “europeanness”. Rather these notions would have already existed for centuries in the brains and hearts of people living in an area commonly known as Europe, particularly Christian Western Europe. Again two decades later, in 2013, Thomas Popkewitz and Catarina Sofia Silva Martins are dealing with European (super)nationalism too. In their paper they argue for an opposite view however. According to their account there are the institutions of the European Union on the one hand and on the other of European social science, in particular educational science, which are tracing the way toward a notion of Europe and corresponding feelings of identity, belonging and citizenship of individuals. Social sciences are presented as assembling a narrative about European unity and exceptionalism “fabricated as a heritage brought through unifying the past.” As a consequence the nation as focus of identity and belonging would be weakened in favor of Europe. In the view of Popkewitz and Martins the tool-kit used to bring about the desired outcome consists of three elements: first, narratives disseminated by the institutional bodies mentioned above emphasizing European unity and exceptionalism; second, the celebration of a common heritage, and third, the use of numbers as a technology of social science to create equivalence. All this is supposed to bring about “the European … as a person and as an autonomous subject in policy and research”. Unfortunately the authors do not inform us where, for them, Europe begins and where it ends. As is well known, Europe is a conceptual construct, which may be assembled in 1  This model is partly mirrored, for example, in a representative survey of 955 Swiss, but not EU, citizens in 1994 (Nef/Rosenmund 1995). While between 90% and 97% of respondents declared that the presence of western Europeans (Austria, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Germany) was “not a problem” or even “an enrichment”, between 42% and 84% articulated “serious reservations” or even rejection of people from Chile, Sri Lanka and Zaire and, in particular, from south-eastern Europe in a period of crisis, i.e. Bosnia, Serbia and Turkey. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|105

|

106

Debatte

different ways. Fernand Braudel, for example, starting with the idea of a distinct European culture, considered countries like Russia and the U.S. as European in a larger understanding of the notion (Braudel 1989). Probably he would not have thought of countries like Georgia or Azerbaijan in the same way. This however is what the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) is doing when it comes to organize a European Championship.2 More seriously, the two colleagues do not really inform us about the specific character of the person they regard as European. Their reference to an autonomous subject in policy and research will hardly be sufficient for distinguishing that person. As, for example, Patricia Bromley and colleagues have demonstrated through the analysis of textbooks from about 100 countries a worldwide trend may be observed, over the last three decades, to conceive the individual as person and autonomous individual (Bromley et al. 2011). Thus, the authors’ diagnosis appears to apply for a consistent sample of non-European countries as well. But let us have a look at the arguments they are presenting to support their theses before turning back again to the opposite accounts of Galtung and Popkewitz/Martins. Starting with the figure argument one has to admit that it had actually been a European who first advocated for comparative education research and education as a positive science. Although the aim was not explicitly quantitative comparison, this idea may have fuelled subsequent endeavors to collect and use comparable statistical data – rarely on education at that time – on western societies. But this did not happen in the last decades of the 20th century, as Popkewitz and Martins are implicitly suggesting. The initial idea was presented in the early 19th century, in 1817 (Jullien 1962), while the tremendous development of comparative statistics occurred in the time around 1900 – some decades and two great wars before the European community came into its formal existence (Ventresca 2003). For education in particular, the subsequent period was shaped by scholars coming from abroad. In the course of the International Examination Inquiry, sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation in the period from 1931 to 1938, technologies of highly sophisticated quantitative (psychometric) research were mainly an import from the U.S. and far from being an instrument bound to create (European) unity and identity (see Lawn 2008). In the same way it looks rather audacious to present a large-scale study like PISA as a European enterprise. Probably neither PISA nor its promoting agency, the OECD with its Directorate for Education and Skills, would have emerged without heavy support by the United States. Moreover, the scope of PISA goes far beyond the European space. OECD’s target is economic and political control by the center of the world system including, for example, the U.S., Australia and Japan: “Through PISA, the OECD is poised to assume a new institutional role as arbiter of global education governance, simultaneously acting as diagnostician, judge, and policy advisor to the world’s school systems” (Meyer/Benavot 2013, 9; emphasis MR). This is not to say that comparing numbers would not have importance in the EU’s striving to create a unified European (Education) Space in general and a European (Education) Research Space in particular (Nóvoa/Lawn 2002; Lawn/Grek 2012; Lawn 2013; Ozga et al. 2011). But the ideological side of such endeavors should not be overemphasized. Instead, as the Lisbon agreement and institutions like the European Qualification Framework are suggesting, the main target appears to be the free movement of labor rather than the fostering of European identity and citizenship. 2  While the UEFA may be less powerful than the European Commission its influence on individual mind-sets about Europe should probably not be understated. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Rosenmund: Neither Official EC Narratives nor Social Sciences

As far as social science and educational research are concerned the authors are certainly right when emphasizing their role in the nation-building period. Looking, for example, at curricula and textbooks over a longer period one will certainly find much more emphasis on national particularism around 1900 than one century later. This may indicate a weakening of classical national nationalism and a shift of borders between (good) self and (bad) other to a different level. However, as everyday experience makes evident national particularism has not disappeared altogether. And where it is loosing importance it is not replaced by distinctive European universalism, but rather by global universalism on one hand and sub-national, i.e. regional particularism on the other. Undeniably a trend toward Europeanization of (educational) research – evidenced, for example, by an increasing number of European scientific associations – can be observed in recent years. And the authors are probably right when implicitly suggesting the existence of a tacit alliance between EU officials and people defining targets for (educational) research programs. Moreover, it is certainly true that these programs are binding financial resources to an extent that independent research becomes increasingly difficult. Finally, they rightly notice that the social and education sciences at the turn of the 20th century were “connected in processes of producing national identities and differences inscribed in juridical institutions and cultural theories of the nation”. And what they are describing themselves is some sort of a revival of the same logic at a larger scale. In this regard the situation appears however as somewhat more ambiguous. One should not forget the starting point of such developments: In fact, modern education systems evolved in an almost symbiotic relationship with the erection of nation-states, and so did educational research, up the 1970s or 1980s, in a close relationship with national school systems. From that point of view Europeanization of educational research might be seen not merely as a ‘replay’ but also as a step toward emancipation from its national framing. Whether this emancipation will prevail over supra-national domestication of social and education sciences or whether the contrary will apply is an open question. Whatever the answer may be it might be wise not to overstate their impact on popular mind-sets. If there is any institution expressing – not creating – a sense of European belonging, togetherness and identity in an almost paradigmatic way it is to be found in the Schengen agreement, conceived to protect a common European border against illegal immigration. It is now for years that in the Mediterranean Sea around a small island, Lampedusa, the gap between Europe and non-Europe is evident. Here, in the daily drama of refugees attempting to reach European soil, but hardly in EU rhetoric or in European (education) research, the idea of a supra-national entity Europe becomes understandable to everyone. And it becomes understandable in its fundamental ambiguity – in the contradiction between Europe’s striving to protect its own supremacy (which is more than just being “world champions”) and its self-representation as the stronghold of humanism, of the good (self ). It appears as if Popkewitz and Martins had themselves interiorized the narrative they are claiming to describe and analyze. If Europe is assumed to develop its distinctiveness and exceptionalism one wonders why it is not explicitly conceived as part of the global world and analyzed in its relationships with that world. In the paper as well as in the discourse of European elites it seems that the world around does not exist, besides the fact that they are rather vaguely mentioning global competition with the U.S. and China as well as the migration issue. And while the elites may actually assume their dissemination strategy to deliver the desired outcome, the authors apparently adopt their view when analyzing exclusively statements of supra-national political and scientific elites. Interestingly, most of these statements IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|107

|

108

Debatte

carefully avoid any explicit mentioning of relationships with the non-European world. In a way they read like attempts to immunize the elites’ Europe and institutions against the global world. It seams that Popkewitz and Martins adopt this perspective in their own account. By this narrowing of scope in a euro-centric and elitist way the authors refrain from powerful resources of analysis, which might be helpful for a sociological understanding of Europe in contemporary globalized world. By presenting Europe as mere player in a world championship seeking to rank high in international comparison and neglecting relationships of dominance and dependency they adopt a view which comes close to the elite’s narrative. Moreover, by dealing with cultural developments exclusively within the European space they cannot even grasp the possibility that, similar to other parts of the globe, Europe might be affected by cultural processes occurring on a worldwide scale. For the analysis of such processes it is not very helpful to criticize the European Social Survey’s self-representation as a “means of creating public attitudes … vital in formulating political responses to the challenges of Europe”. It might be more illuminating to use – as David Kamens is doing in Beyond the Nation-State: The Reconstruction of Nationhood and Citizenship – data from the World Values Surveys. As these data reveal the trend to conceive the individual as an autonomous actor is by no means a European issue. Almost one half of the countries with highest percentages of respondents subscribing to the statement “I See Myself as an Autonomous Person” are non-European (Kamens 2012, 57). Drawing on his analysis the author concludes: “Neither nationalism nor nation-states are dead, but they have been reconfigured around a global culture that celebrates human rights and diversity and that legitimates the role of individuals as major actors in world society. Thus, a good deal of global culture has been added to nation-states and nationalism” (ibid., 305) – not just in Europe but on a world-wide scale, one might add. Another conclusion is interesting in regard of this discussion: “States and elites have important competitors and find their authority reduced vis-à-vis societal groups and citizens alike … democratization and individualism have led to an assault on elite culture and flattened it in all arenas” (ibid., 305). If that statement applied to Europe as well, the implication would be that political and scientific elites are undermining their own authority while promoting the autonomous person. To conclude: Although Popkewitz and Martins do not say it explicitly their contribution is obviously dealing with European super-nationalism. But they are treating nationalism solely as a cultural phenomenon, not as part of inter-societal relationship characterized by structural features. The excluded other and his evils are hardly visible in this discourse, neither ideologically nor structurally. The target to become a center within the global structure of dominance and dependency is reduced to an attempt to become a “distinctive player in globalization” and a kind of “world-champion”. Thus, relationships of power and exploitation are transformed into an issue of simple ranking. Besides this, Europe remains without a context both in elite statements and the authors’ analysis. It’s all about (European) identity, belonging, and citizenship. Only toward the end of the paper the others show up, hesitantly, as a source of “fears” and “doubts”.1 As a consequence, the picture drawn by the authors appears as rather skewed. While assigning high relevance to the discourse of EU elites, borders and walls erected for the sake of defense of the European center’s privileged position are downplayed both structurally and culturally. Institutions like the Schengen agreement 1  As data from World Values Surveys reveal this is not an issue of the elites alone: Among the 23 countries ranking above the overall means of support of ethnic diversity only four are European (Kamens 2012, 165). IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Rosenmund: Neither Official EC Narratives nor Social Sciences

as well as political and public mainstream discourse surrounding the strategy are, at best, briefly mentioned in a paragraph on multiculturalism and immigrants remaining foreigners – although both would neatly illustrate Galtung’s thesis that European super-nationalism is to be seen as an ideology in search of institutions. As far as social and education sciences are among such institutions they actually need to be closely examined and criticized – as tools producing exclusion, isolation and superiority, rather than as assembling identity, citizenship and feelings of belonging.

References

Braudel, Fernand: Europa erobert den Erdkreis. In: Fernand Braudel: Europa: Bausteine seiner Geschichte. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer 1989, 7-37 Bromley, Patricia/Meyer, John W./Ramirez, Francisco O.: Student-Centeredness in Social Science Textbooks, 19702008: A Cross-National Study. In: Social Forces 90(2011), issue 2, 1-24 Galtung, Johan: The European Community: A Superpower in the Making. Oslo/London: Universitetsforlaget/ Allan & Unwin 1973 Galtung, Johan: Eurotopia. Die Zukunft eines Kontinents. Wien: Promedia 1993 Jullien, Marc-Antoine: Esquisse d’un ouvrage sur l’éducation comparée, et séries de questions sur l’éducation (1817). Geneva: Bureau international d’éducation/UNESCO 1962 Kamens, David H.: Beyond the Nation-State: The Reconstruction of Nationhood and Citizenship. Bingley: Emerald 2012 Lawn, Martin: An Atlantic Crossing? The Work of the International Examinations Inquiry, its Researchers, Methods, and Influence. Oxford: Symposium Books 2008 Lawn, Martin (Ed.): The Rise of Data in Education Systems: collection, visualization and uses. Oxford: Symposium Books 2013 Lawn, Martin/Grek, Sotiria: Europeanizing Education: governing a new policy space. Oxford: Symposium Books 2012 Nef, Rolf/Rosenmund, Moritz: ‘Die Ausländer’ im Bild der schweizerischen Bevölkerung. Univox. Zürich: Gesellschaft für Sozialforschung 1995 Nóvoa, António/Lawn, Martin (Eds.): Fabricating Europe: the formation of an education space. Dordrecht: Kluwer 2002 Ozga, Jenny/Dahler-Larsen, Peter/Segerholm, Christina/Simola, Hannu: Fabricating Quality in Education. Data and Governance in Europe. London/New York: Routledge 2011 Ventresca, Marc J.: Global Policy Fields: Conflicts and Settlements in Organized International Attention to Modern Census Activity, 1853-1947. Stanford, CA 2003 (unpublished paper)

Prof. Dr. Moritz Rosenmund, Universität Wien, Institut für Bildungswissenschaft, Sensengasse 3a, A-1090 Wien, [email protected]

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|109

|

110

Debatte

Donatella Palomba “Now We Are European!” Are we? So numerous, important and controversial are the topics raised by Thomas S. Popkewitz and Catarina Sofia Silva Martins in their paper that it is difficult to decide which to choose and what priorities to assign in discussing them: Europe, the use of human and social sciences – history in particular with its controversial epistemological statute – and, deep down, the punctum dolens of inclusion and exclusion, long one of the main leitmotifs of Tom Popkewitz’s work. In seeking an “Ariadne’s thread” enabling me to touch upon at least some of them, I will mainly – though by no means exclusively – recall some instances from the tradition of Italian thought, tradition that has produced much reflection on these topics, which I hope may prove an interesting contribution to the debate. Following one of the possible ways to unravel this thread, I shall commence at the end, expressing full agreement on the view of history indicated at the conclusion of the essay: “One’s history (the past) is continually in production. And to ask about that production is potentially to free one’s self from the causality that interns and encloses the present”. This vision contrasts with the historicism denounced as paradoxical by Tom Popkewitz “organizing the past to speak about the future” (Popkewitz 2013, 2), as well as with the historicism with predictive velleities whose “poverty” Popper had already denounced while also underlining its hubris: “historicists often require the remodeling of man” (Popper 1957). The call to explore the “production” of the past is therefore very appropriate. However, “historicism” itself is of course a concept with diverse acceptations; and some of its versions propose, rather than exclude, a vision of history consistently considering the relation with the present of any historical reconstruction or interpretation. Back in 1938 Benedetto Croce wrote that “history is always contemporary history” (Croce 1938), and a few years later even that “any real history is always autobiographical” (Croce 1941)1. Another Italian historian, Federico Chabod, in a work specifically focused on the idea of Europe, reaffirmed that “the first, vital impulse in historical research always comes from the anxieties and affections and fears of the present, from problems tormenting everyone and involving everyone.” We demand answers from the past, in “the eternal subjective moment of historical research”. This however, in Chabod’s view, does not exempt the historian from philological rigor. “The two moments (…) both condition, in indissoluble harmony, the success of the work. (…) Without philological competence and long, scholarly labour, no lively interest will ever manage to go beyond the stage of the biased work, of the pamphlet, of polemical writing” (Chabod 1995, 15ff.). I believe this to be the tightrope along which move the dynamics between a discursive construction that becomes in fact a-historical, and a serious commitment to historicization. Such considerations are especially relevant to the European topic, for it seems to me that in trying to “produce the European” by means of those policies and documents whose features 1  This approach highlighting the inevitably contemporary nature of historical work has been recently reaffirmed by different authors (see e.g. Rogari 2013). IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Palomba: „Now We Are European!“ Are we?

are stressed by Popkewitz and Martins as being not only rhetorical but effectively concrete, there is in fact a lack of history rather than an excess: in these documents we find a reference to the heritage that is actually so superficial as to be not merely hollow but also misleading, in that it affirms without qualifying and without investing the complexity of the issue. As to the European topic itself, it is unquestionably interesting to consider the 1973 turning point, when the Declaration on European Identity was issued by the nine countries then making up the European Community. The Declaration, approved in December, came into being for reasons explicitly geopolitical, connected to the uncertain balance of world power, and specifically to relations with the United States; but earlier in the year, several documents had been produced in an attempt to offer a cultural foundation for such an identity, pointing to education and culture as essential instruments for its consolidation and development (Commission of EC 1973; Janne 1973). The principle of “diversity as an asset” was retrieved, re-affirmed and propagated, making it also possible to speak of “unity in diversity”. We are here undeniably facing a rhetorical expedient for bringing together the diverse and contradictory tensions within a “European space” which is, to begin with, uncertain precisely as to its own spatial definition. However, beyond the surface and beyond its utilization for contingent political purposes, we must wonder whether in fact there is some more solid foundation, and whether this rhetoric seizes upon some essential element of such an elusive “Europe”. It is well known that over the centuries and up to the present, innumerable reflections have been developed on “Europe”, revealing its complexity: besides the more specifically historical or philosophical thinking, we cannot forget the wealth of literary, musical, and – perhaps even more suggestive – pictorial works on the matter (Cappa 2013). I certainly agree that the specific “profile” of the “European” and his exceptionalism, as promoted by the EC and then by the EU through numerous channels among which – notably – social and educational sciences, show it to be a recent, largely artificial creation trying to sketch out a future that in fact remains to a great extent abstract. It is however hard to forget that the first claims regarding the specific characteristics of “Europeans”, as compared particularly to the Asians, go back to several centuries before Christ. At first, in Aeschylus, the reference was essentially to the Greeks; yet “Europe” was soon spoken of – with Isocrates, Hippocrates, Aristotle and so on down through the centuries (Curcio 1978; Cacciari 2008). A Europe of uncertain borders, fluctuating over time, (yet always including the northern Mediterranean and later the regions further north) but with features distinguishing it from other regions of the world then known. Clearly I am reading these texts through contemporary eyes: but – recalling the two moments indicated by Chabod, contemporary interests and scholarly rigour – the assumption of full responsibility for a reading that is inevitably not “objective”, does not mean ignoring the texts for fear of misunderstanding them. The tracing of a historical thread, enabling us to recognize the presence of an ancient “idea of Europe” does not automatically mean that the idea of Europe and “European identity” coincide, nor that a possible cultural identity is the same thing as a political identity; still less that any forced “European citizenship” can be justified. It does mean, however, that an awareness of the depth of historical events is needed, in order to avoid limiting the debate only to the last few decades or centuries; and also to allow a more accurate critical review of those simplistic claims indicating Charlemagne or Charles V as the predecessors of today’s Europeanism, claims regarded as inane in primis by real historians.

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|111

|

112

Debatte

The reference to Nation States and nationalisms must also heed the complexity of such concepts, if only on account of the immense literature on the topic. State and Nation are clearly two different concepts; but too often in certain discussions State and Nation State are addressed as if they were the same thing. The distinction between them is however fundamental for an understanding of the dynamics leading Europe, at least from the Middle Ages on, to diversify itself internally and then to look ahead to some kind of reunification, and so forward to and through the momentous XIX century in which the idea of Europe and the idea of nation were not only not in contradiction but were organically connected (Ugolini 1997; Frank 2003). Approaching now our own times and the attempt to find a common “trans-national” identity and to create the “European” within the framework of the European Community first and the Union later, particular attention has to be paid to the way in which geopolitical issues have influenced and determined action in this sector. The 1973 Copenhagen Declaration is thoroughly explicit on this right from its opening lines: “The Nine Member Countries of the European Communities have decided that the time has come to draw up a document on the European Identity. This will enable them to achieve a better definition of their relations with other countries and of their responsibilities and the place which they occupy in world affairs.” This specifically concerns reorganization of foreign policy towards the United States, seeking a sort of re-balance of world power to endow Europe with greater weight2. At this point of course the social sciences come into action, first of all educational sciences, to consolidate this identitarian orientation in order to “create” the citizen; hence the enormous increase in “references to the ‘European’ as an autonomous subject” as well as the multiplication of journals about European Education, referred to by Popkewitz and Martins. However, a close look at what has happened in the forty years elapsed since the Copenhagen Declaration and the twenty years since the Maastricht Treaty, including an analysis of events connected to attempts at achieving a European Constitution, suggests that the impact of this action, while strongly influencing policy, research and academic essays, has been definitely mediocre in building a collective identity. Forty years are more than one generation; yet today, from opinion polls to the popular vote and the ever more numerous essays on the European crisis, all indicators seem to point to an increasing detachment. Detachment, if not from Europe, certainly from “European citizenship” and from that figure of a “European” whose features are both too abstract yet too detailed to correspond to any reality, compressed as they are between the reference to a common heritage that has become little more than a mantra and a series of indications linked to “competence” objectives that, rather than being processed at European level, adopt criteria currently prevalent in the wider international context, but lack any content of civic or political identity. We are not referring here only to the signs of resurgent and spreading xenophobia and nationalisms, however alarming in themselves, but also to a declining sensation of a common ‘belonging’ seen to be permeating wider and wider sectors of the population: “an existential crisis of the whole post-1945 project of European unification” in Garton Ash’s (2012) words. 2  National politics fall within this framework. See for example the analysis, centred on France but with European overtones, by A. E. Gfeller in her 2002 publication meaningfully entitled Building a European Identity. France, the United States, and the Oil Shock, 1973-74. IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Palomba: „Now We Are European!“ Are we?

In this, a wide disparity can be perceived with what happened with the Nation States, where political identity was recognized, albeit of course its legitimacy never went wholly uncontested. Therefore the impact that social and educational sciences have had in constructing the Nation State seems to have much less effect on the building of the “European citizen”. On the reasons behind this, there is a burgeoning literature impossible to analyze here. There is however no doubt that elusiveness is one of Europe’s typifying features: and it would seem that while a feeling of affinity, however elitist in the main, has existed for centuries, not only is this not sufficient to create a political community, but the more we try to compact and constrain the citizens of Europe into a common model, the stronger their resistance, and even such affinity fades into the background. As Robert Frank (2003) observes, we have to make a clear distinction between a European cultural identity, with its ancient roots and mainly elitist character, and a political identity with its feeling of belonging to a common public space, defined in the 19th century as associated with being part of a particular nation, and today still linked mostly to national, or even sub-national belonging. The urge to construct a united Europe was triggered by the trauma of the First World War, then the Second, and later the Cold War. But this construction, actually commencing after World War II, did not succeed in founding a real political identity. This has become more and more evident over the last ten years with the repeated failure of any attempt to achieve greater integration, down to the “existential crisis” of today, mentioned above. This situation seems to bear stern witness to the substantial failure of the EU’s documents and actions aimed at “creating the European”. Or, perhaps, not so much a witness to failure as evidence that the objectives sought are not really those laid down, but rather those of the creation of a circuit apart immersed in its own reality, the impact of which on the creation of a sense of community has been extremely poor. Policies can obviously be very coercive, through a plurality of channels, and the strength of discourses can be very concrete: but when it comes to creating a community, in order for rhetorical artifices to become incisive maybe they should in any case be to some extent in line with reality. As classic authors tell us, if the subject of rhetoric is not “the truth”, it is at least “probability”, “what is true in most cases”; or – to relate to our contemporary ears what Aristotle says – “what is held to be true in most cases”. And here perhaps we may find a key to understand the origin of the gap between the two European “identities”. One, centuries old, acknowledging deep common roots, in which rhetoric gains significance from its vicinity with reality – although a cultural and intellectual one: it actually involves only a minority, that however, as it has been noted, has been recently fast increasing thanks to development and internationalization (Vargas Llosa 2006). The other, somewhat hazy, is conceived and invoked rather as a “should be” in response to urgent imperatives arising over the past hundred years on a world scenario undergoing truly tragic events, partly caused by the same intra-European divisions; and more recently to imperatives of an economic and geo-political nature. The difficulties met in trying to turn this “should be” into reality have led to this process becoming increasingly self-referencing; hence it seems to detach itself more and more from the shared feelings of the inhabitants of European lands, right up to the recent paradox of a Europe-wide alliance of anti-European parties and movements. The “scepticism about being European” mentioned by Popkewitz and Martins is for me not unfamiliar; but I believe that any prospect of a “fabrication of the European” “not necessarily IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|113

|

114

Debatte

to reject” will depend on the above-mentioned identity gap and on the possibility of overcoming it. A word now on the last crucial point raised in Popkewitz and Martins’ essay, the “paradox” by which “the making of the European embodies a comparative system of thought that paradoxically excludes and abjects in the impulses to include”. This is the heart of the problem: that double gesture of inclusion and exclusion, recognized here in the profile of the “European”, as Tom Popkewitz has done in many other contexts as well, subtly analyzing in his writings the contradictions inherent in the “inclusive” approach towards the “child” or whoever the object of “education” may be. These contradictions call education severely to task: it is hard to conceive of education without a project; yet any project almost inevitably refers to the promotion of certain values, and therefore of a person who embodies them; and – tragically – this only too easily leads to effectively excluding other human beings who do not match that project. How do we overcome this deadlock? It is on this issue that education must provide answers; this is the contradiction so hard to solve. The issue of inclusion and exclusion has been recently dealt with by Roberto Esposito in a complex analysis that identifies the origin of this “excluding assimilation” as being at the very root of western thinking. According to this analysis, western thinking has, over the centuries, followed “a duality which is not only the outcome, but the constituting feature of western polity”, having a continuous tendency towards unification while actually “separating what it claims to unite and unifying what divides, by means of the submission of one part to the dominance of the other” (Esposito 2013). This makes the relation with otherness a scorching issue – “the Other within us” representing an element both constitutive and lacerating with respect to the community, whose identification and expulsion seems to be the condition for the very existence of a community, however “inclusive” it claims to be. It is no chance that Esposito’s analysis pivots upon the category of “political theology” discussed by Carl Schmitt and upon the latter’s famous formulation of the friend-enemy dyad. His argument, complex and detailed, goes much further in an attempt to find authors within western thinking’s centuries-old tradition who have a different approach that may possibly offer a way out of this deadlock. It is a philosophical discussion which does not deal with educational issues as such, but which may provide a useful conceptual framework for further investigation into that reflection that touches upon such a sensitive point of educational issues, and one on which Tom Popkewitz’s contributions have proved so significant.

References

Cacciari, Massimo: Geofilosofia dell’Europa. Milano: Adelphi 2008 Cappa, Carlo: Armonia e dissonanze: l’educazione, liutaio dell’identità europea. In: I Problemi della Pedagogia 1(2013), 163-208 Chabod, Federico: Storia dell’idea dell’Europa (1961). Bari: Laterza 1995 Commission of the European Communities, Working Program in the field of “Research, science and education” (personal statement by Mr Dahrendorf ), SEC(73) 2000/2, Brussels, 23 May 1973 Croce, Benedetto: La storia come pensiero e come azione. Bari: Laterza 1938 Croce, Benedetto: L’autobiografia come storia e la storia come autobiografia (1941). In: Benedetto Croce: Il carattere della filosofia moderna. Bari: Laterza 1945, 151-154 Curcio, Carlo: Europa. Storia di un’idea. Torino: ERI 1978 Esposito, Roberto: Due. La macchina della teologia politica e il posto del pensiero. Torino: Einaudi 2013

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Masschelein: „Is it ‚we‘ that are concerned?“

Frank, Robert: Evolution de l’idée d’Europe et des identités européennes, XIXe-XXe siècles. In: Euangelos K. Chrysos/Kostas Mpurazeles (Eds.): The idea of European Community in history. Athènes: Ed Université d’Athènes 2003, 213-221 Garton Ash, Timothy: The Crisis of Europe. How the Union came together and how it’s falling apart. In: Foreign Affairs 91(2012), N° 5. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138010/timothy-garton-ash/the-crisis-of-europe [28.11.2013] Janne, Henri: For a Community policy on education. Report. In: Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 10/73, 1973 Popkewitz, Thomas S.: Styles of reason: Historicism, Historicizing, and the History of Education. In: Thomas S. Popkewitz (Ed.): Rethinking the History of Education. Transnational Perspectives on its Questions, Methods, and Knowledge. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, 1-26 Popper, Karl: The poverty of historicism, London/New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul 1957 Rogari, Sandro: La scienza storica. Principi, metodi e percorsi di ricerca. Torino: UTET 2013 Ugolini, Romano: Storia dell’Europa come nazione. Firenze: Le Monnier 1979 Vargas Llosa, Mario: Prefazione. In: George Steiner (Ed.): Una certa idea d’Europa. Milano: Garzanti 2006, 7-12

Prof. Dr. Donatella Palomba, Università degli Studi di Roma, Lettere e Filosofia, Via Orazio Raimondo 18, I-00173 Roma, [email protected]

Jan Masschelein “Is it ‘we’ that are concerned?” “Being European” as Public Issue It is difficult not to agree with the argument that Tom Popkewitz and Caterina Martins elaborate in their paper in a very insightful way: showing us “the European” as a new type of person fabricated in various ways through different discourses, practices and technologies including precisely also those of the social and educational sciences. And it seems equally difficult to disagree with their claim that to ask about this production or fabrication is “potentially to free one’s self from the causality that interns and encloses the present” (my italics). However, I must confess that I feel somewhat at unease reading and rereading the paper. And I have been wondering what it is that instigates this unease, while in general I very much sympathize with the argument and really think that the authors ask some pertinent questions. Of course, one could argue that many more “discourses, practices and technologies” could be described contributing to the fabrication of the European, but that would not touch upon the core of the argument. And the incompleteness regarding what is taken into account is not what causes my unease. Moreover, I do think that this unease has also little to do with de-naturalizing effects that the paper is after. Because indeed, since I am involved as a sort of “European” (at least in the simple sense of living in Europe) and as a sort of educational scientist one could maybe think that historicizing who “we” (and I as part of that IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|115

|

116

Debatte

we) are would have an estranging effect on myself as reader losing my self-understanding of being naturally and self-evidently a European and educational scientist. Or to put it differently: as a reader I do feel unsettled to some extent, but I don’t think it has to do with the paper’s “skepticism about ‘being’ European”. Or with what the authors show: that the European is a fabricated person, or how ‘we’ (the social and educational sciences) contributed in constructing this new type of person, or how it implies the “memory of a common history that simultaneously erases, forgets, and realigns Europe’s internal differences”. I might be wrong, of course, but I think that it is precisely the way in which this kind of de-naturalizing or historicizing addresses the issue of the European and addresses a “we” (and me as part of that we), i.e. it’s critical gesture, that I find difficult to support. In a way the gesture that is performed has become a very common and recognizable one (and as I said in a way difficult to disagree with within “our” scholarly community): de-naturalizing what “we” think or experience as being “natural” (or evident, given, presupposed). Indeed, meanwhile this de-naturalizing, historicizing stance has itself become a very “natural” one within “our” contexts. That is the way “we” got. However, I don’t want to deal with how we got there, but briefly comment on its effects regarding the discussion about Europe and the European. First of all, I am inclined to doubt whether such a stance is (still) potentially “dangerous” as the authors suggest, referring to Foucault and whether their writing is indeed able to “potentially … free one’s self from the causality that interns and encloses the present”. Let me start by referring to a quote of Foucault cited by Paul Rabinow: “I don’t think that the intellectual can, starting only from his erudite and scholarly research, pose true questions concerning the society in which he lives” (Rabinow 2011, 82; my italics) and Rabinow continues saying that the “danger” that Foucault often referred to should not too easily be related to his own work and own scholarly and teaching activities. He writes that “it would be hard to claim that there was any risk of being put to death for fulfilling his statutory obligations at the state-funded Collège de France by lecturing before several hundred auditors on largely textual expositions …. Foucault was keenly aware that the venue he was operating within provided few, if any, overt dangers” (ibid., 83f.). I think that mutatis mutandis this can be translated – without doing it too much injustice – to the paper we discuss here. But leaving this beside, there are in my idea important differences with the (“historical”) exercises of Foucault. I suspect that de-naturalizing or historicizing has in fact turned into a disciplinary exercise of (professional?) historians performing a critical gesture in which they put themselves at a distance (keeping themselves out of the game) and essentially address others (the readers) as not being aware of the way in which what they thought to be self-evident or natural is in fact historical, fabricated and contextualized. And in this case, as not being aware of the way in which they contribute themselves (as educational scientists etc.) to the fabrication of this new type of person: “the European”. So demonstrating the readers lack of awareness or enlightenment. It therefore seems as if the authors of this de-naturalizing and historicizing exercise are not implied in the “we” that they intend to question. At least, it seems as if it is not the “freeing” of their “self ” that is at stake. Or to put it differently, it remains unclear how the authors themselves are related to the We and “WE” that they mention in their title. Are they part of those we’s? Are they “Europeans!”? In which way? Are they part of the fabrication of another “we”? In this context, I want to recall that for Foucault “to think one’s own history” was a “philosophical exercise”, an un-disciplinary “exercise of thought” as “the endeavor to know how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently” (Foucault 1985). For Foucault, IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Masschelein: „Is it ‚we‘ that are concerned?“

it was himself and the we (the present) that he was part of that was at stake. And his writings were not meant to enlighten his readers, but to transform himself and to bring into play the “we” in which he was taking part. His texts were “experience-books”, as he called them (opposing them to “demonstration books”), or essay’s “to explore what might be changed, in [his] own thought” (my italics). These texts “function as an experience, for its writer and reader alike” (Foucault 2000, 243) “something that one comes out of transformed’ (ibid., 239). They are exercises of thought putting oneself to the “test of contemporary reality”, implying an enlightenment not of others but of one-self, but of one-self not as subject of knowledge but as subject of action. They are exercises in the context of self-formation: they seek to transform or modify one’s own mode of being and how one lives in the present. Such exercises imply not so much a critical, historicising distance, but rather an intimate relationship and nearness (beyond a merely cognitive relation) related to an experimental ethos and what Foucault pointed at as “attention sans limite” or even “extrème attention” (Foucault 2001, 1389). The second comment relates also to the critical gesture that is performed. More precisely, I doubt whether this gesture is indeed able to make the issue of the “we” and of the “European” into a public issue. I would suspect that this critical gesture (of historicizing) is rather part of another history of the social sciences and humanities. A history which is not so much about how the social sciences and the humanities contributed to the fabrication of the “European” (which I fully agree they did), but one which is about how they themselves contributed to preventing the issue of “being European” (or other issues of course) to become a public issue. One which would show how they are part of strategies of privatization or immunization by appropriating or attributing the issue and by supporting a general detachment from the issue. These strategies implied the continuous and repeated demonstration that it was impossible to get out of context, history and culture. This made that they implied a critical gesture which more explicitly turned into a de-constructing and explanatory one, demonstrating exactly that and how we are all captured by language, embedded within cultures and histories, caught in discourses and technologies of power. It is a gesture which in fact demonstrates and reconfirms always our appropriations (to language, to culture, to history). Thereby suggesting that the only option would be to develop a detached position. And as far as the paper could be seen as performing this gesture, it would be part of such a strategy that precisely prevents the “being European” becoming a public issue. On the contrary, Foucault’s gesture, I think, is rather a public gesture. Not just because it is a gesture to the public of contemporaries, not only because it would articulate something of public concern, but foremost because throughout this gesture things or issues are made public, that is de-appropriated and a public is gathered around them. Making things public is breaking open the common horizon of our self-understanding and taken for granted practices, but not by attributing them to historical facts or contexts, but precisely by de-historicizing and de-contextualising them – freeing them from these appropriations by historical or contextual understandings. And by making fiction that generates a public that is (not detached but) attached to the issue (e.g. of the European). To conclude, I would say that maybe we – and I explicitly want to include me, since as I said, I am very much in sympathy with what the authors do – would need some more “philosophy”. Not in the sense of a doctrine or of a body of knowledge, but precisely in the Foucauldian sense of “an ‘ascesis’, askesis, an exercise of oneself in the activity of thought” (Foucault 1985, 8f.). And in that sense, my conclusion is somewhat paradoxical: although IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|117

|

118

Debatte

I have been making comments about the gesture of the paper being maybe too detached, too little of a public gesture, it has made me think about myself and ourselves, the “we” that I and “we” are part of. It has me made struggling with “my self ” and has invited a “public comment”.

References

Foucault, Michel: The use of pleasure. The history of sexuality, Volume 2. New York: Pantheon 1985 Foucault, Michel: Interview with Michel Foucault. In: Michel Foucault: Power. Essential Works of Foucault, Volume III. James D. Faubion (Ed.). New York/London: Penguin 2000, 239-297 Foucault, Michel: Qu’est-ce que les Lumières?” In: Michel Foucault: Dits et écrits. Volume II: 1976-1988. Daniel Defert/François Ewald/Jacques Lagrange (Eds.). Paris: Gallimard 2001, 1381-1397 Rabinow, Paul: The Accompaniment. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 2011

Prof. Dr. Jan Masschelein, KU Leuven, Education, Culture and Society, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, box 3761, B-3000 Leuven, [email protected]

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

Rezensionen

Gerrit Deutschländer: Dienen lernen, um zu herrschen

Eine eindrückliche Studie zur höfischen Erziehung von Jean-Luc Le Cam Die an der Universität Halle im Jahre 2009 vorgelegte Dissertation widmet sich der Erziehung der Herrschersöhne im späten Mittelalter. Gerrit Deutschländer rekonstruiert anhand besonders interessanter territorialer Beispiele (Sachsen-Anhalt, Sachsen, Brandenburg) die Bildung des regierenden Adels am Ende des Mittelalters, ein Thema an der Schnittstelle von der Geschichte der Erziehung und Jugend sowie der Gestaltung von Hofkultur und adliger Herrschaft an der Schwelle zur Frühen Neuzeit. Am Hof eignete man sich das Verhalten an, das einen echten Adligen kennzeichnete, weshalb auch in den Blick genommen wird, wie sich der Adel durch höfische Erziehung als Stand behauptete und von anderen Gruppen abgrenzte. In der Literatur zur Adelsbildung ist die Periode vor der Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts seit langem vernachlässigt worden und seit dem Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts wurde zudem ganz grundsätzlich relativ wenig über höfische ErIJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

ziehung geforscht. Die bisherige Historiographie stützt sich außerdem hauptsächlich auf narrative oder theoretische Quellen. Neue Impulse vermochte der von Werner Paravicini und Jörg Wettlaufer herausgegebene Sammelband Erziehung und Bildung bei Hofe (2002) zu geben, da darin unter anderem gezeigt wurde, dass die Fürstenerziehung kein Sonderfall, sondern Kern des Systems adliger Erziehung am Hof darstellte. Im Einführungskapitel (11-33) knüpft Deutschländer an diesen Forschungsstand an. Er legt dar, wie sich die Erziehung des Adels an der Schwelle zur Frühen Neuzeit verändert hat und wie Züge des humanistischen Bildungsideals mit der Tradition der ritterlichen und höfischen Zucht konkurrierten. Während um 1500 die Zurückhaltung oder gar „Faulheit“ des Adels hinsichtlich Schriftlichkeit noch Spuren hinterlassen habe (26-27), würden jetzt häufiger das Schreiben von Briefen und sogar Grundkenntnisse der lateinischen Sprache gelernt. Wachsende Bücherbestände in fürstlichen Bibliotheken und eigenhändige Briefwechsel zwischen adligen Verwandten und Verbündeten in Archiven zeugten zudem von einem veränderten kulturellen Klima (27-32). Diese für den Adel „neue“ Kultur sei auch zum Bestandteil der Selbstinszenierung als Herrscher geworden. Die wichtige Frage nach den Quellen wird im zweiten Kapitel (34-66) diskutiert. Die höfische Literatur, wo tugendhafte Helden seit dem klassischen Mittelalter besungen und als Muster den neuen Generationen vorgestellt wurden, hätten auch im Spätmittelalter noch Verwendung gefunden, wie zahlreiche überlieferte Handschriften belegen. Daneben würden Beispiele idealer Erziehungsgänge, wie etwa das gereimte Loblied von Michael Beheim auf Kurfürst Friedrich I. von der Pfalz (1424-1476) (36) oder Fürstenspiegel in der mittelalterlichen Herrscherbildung Verwendung finden. Eine dieser Schriften war der Traktat von Aegidius Romanus (†1316), von dem rund 350 Handschriften überliefert

|119

|

120

Reviews

sind und der deshalb als einer der Weitverbreitetsten gelten kann (40, 117). Die geistlichen Verfasser solcher Texte lehrten damit die Pflichten und guten Eigenschaften eines Herrschers, der an die göttliche Gewalt gebunden sein sollte und dem Gemeinwohl zu dienen hatte. Sittsamkeit, Frömmigkeit, Kontrolle über seine Worte und sicheres Auftreten gegenüber Dienern und Untergebenen gehörten ebenfalls zum notwendigen Herrschaftswissen (39-44). Der Humanismus verschaffte dieser Literatur erneuten Aufschwung, so auch in den untersuchten Regionen. Am kursächsischen Hof etwa wurde eine Übersetzung des Werkes von Erasmus durch Spalatin publiziert (44). Lebensbeschreibungen von Herrschern bildeten zudem neue Vorbilder für den Adel (45-51). Die Berücksichtigung von Briefwechsel als Quelle eröffnet die Möglichkeit, näher an die alltägliche Realität von Erziehung heranzukommen, wobei diese Briefe zwischen Eltern und Kindern vorsichtig zu interpretieren sind, da darin wohl eher Rollenverhalten und Erwartungshaltungen herauszulesen sind, als echte Gefühle und Realitäten des jugendlichen Benehmens (52-56). In Kombination mit normativen Quellen wie Vorschriften für Lehrer und Erzieher, Bestallungsurkunden von Lehrern und Hofmeistern, Verwaltungsschriftgut, Rechnungen oder Inventaren von Gemächern (57-64) erlauben sie aber zweifellos eine bessere Kenntnis der Erziehungswirklichkeit, was diese Studie eindrücklich belegt. Im dritten Kapitel (67-107) wird der Fürstenhof als Stätte der Erziehung und Bildung vorgestellt. Es wird gezeigt, wie junge Adelige als „Edelknaben“ (der Begriff „Page“ ist erst seit dem 17. Jahrhundert üblich) am Hof zugleich dienten und erzogen wurden (67-78); es wird die Rolle des Fürsten und der Fürstin als höfische Erzieher näher beleuchtet (79-84) sowie die Pflichten und Arbeiten des ganzen Hofpersonals (Ammen, Kindermädchen, Narren, Hofmeister, Lehrer) vorgestellt, das mit der Pflege und der Erziehung der jungen

Herrscher beauftragt war (85-97). Spätestens seit dem 14. Jahrhundert bildete sich das Amt eines Prinzenhofmeisters heraus, dem die Aufsicht über die Kammerdiener und die Leitung der Erziehung der Fürstensöhne und Edelknaben oblag. Wichtig war aber vor allem seine Rolle als Erzieher außerhalb der Unterrichtsstunden. Hofmeister vermittelten höfisches Wissen im Alltag und bei festlichen Gelegenheiten, während gelehrtes Wissen zu festgelegten Zeiten durch theologisch geschulte Männer unterrichtet wurde. Zum Schluss des Kapitels stellt Deutschländer noch kurz die Grundlagen der Unterweisung (97-103) und die zunehmende Anziehungskraft des Universitätsstudiums für den Adel dar (103-107). Den Kern der Studie bildet das umfangreiche vierte Kapitel (111-341). Hier werden zuerst die als Beispiele gewählten Höfe der Anhaltiner, Hohenzollern und Wettiner vorgestellt und die Methodenwahl begründet (111-117). Deutschländer wählt als Ausgangspunkt seiner Forschung die Herrscherfamilie von Sachsen-Anhalt, die ihre Herrschaft durch Bündnisse mit den benachbarten Höfen zu sichern versuchte. Teil dieser Strategie war die gemeinsame Erziehung ihrer Söhne mit den Nachkommen der Hohenzollern und Wettiner an deren Höfe. Dieser Ansatz ermöglicht es dem Autor, einen guten Einblick in die erzieherischen Praktiken der benachbarten und miteinander verwandten Fürstengeschlechter des mitteldeutschen Raums zu gewinnen, wobei auch auf die wichtige erzieherische Rolle einiger Mütter hingewiesen wird (Margarethe von Anhalt, Zdena von Sachsen, Margarethe von Sachsen, Anna von Brandenburg), was durch die Berücksichtigung ihrer Briefwechsel fassbar wird (127-159). Bei den Hohenzollern liegt der Fokus eher auf den Vätern, unter ihnen besonders auf Albrecht von Brandenburg (1414-1486), der vergeblich versucht hatte, seine Söhne zur Sparsamkeit zu erziehen. Der Kurfürst beriet zudem seine verheirateten Töchter, die in fremden, manchmal gar IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

Rezensionen

feindseligen Höfen lebten (159-171). An fünf Beispielen, die entweder aus Gründen der Typologie oder von der Quellenlage her besonders interessant scheinen, wird zudem die erzieherische Situation detailliert untersucht. Es sind dies der Hof des Marktgrafen Joachim I. von Brandenburg (186-222), die geistlichen Höfen und Universitäten (222-260), da der Besuch einer Universität für den Adel, der hohe geistliche Ämter übernehmen wollte, um 1500 erforderlich geworden war, der Hof der Herzöge Georg (260-292), Friedrich II. und Johann von Sachsen (292-309), und schließlich die Frage, wie Mitglieder dieser mitteldeutschen Geschlechter selbst an königlichen und kaiserlichen Höfen Erziehung und Dienst erlebten (309-328). Es ist hier nicht möglich, die sehr detailreichen Teilstudien zusammenzufassen, zumal der Autor oft eher beschreibend vorgeht und kaum eine thematische Analyse oder Typologie entfaltet; ein Mangel, der nur zum Teil durch die Zusammenfassung am Ende des Kapitels (328-331) oder ganz zum Schluss wettgemacht werden kann. Dieser Mangel ist auch eine Folge der Gesamtkonzeption der Studie, die zu Wiederholungen oder künstlichen Trennungen des Inhalts verleitet, da sowohl die ersten drei Kapitel als auch das vierte Kapitel zu einem großen Teil ähnliche Themen behandeln. Während sich die ersten drei Kapitel auf Forschungsliteratur stützen und verschiedene nichtsächsische Regionen im Zentrum stehen, konzentriert sich das vierte Kapitel auf Quellen aus dem sächsischen Kontext. Allerdings werden hier wieder ähnliche oder identische Themen behandelt, weshalb die Frage gestellt werden muss, ob die einzelnen Themen nicht besser zusammengenommen dargestellt und diskutiert worden wären. Ein eher thematisch orientierter Aufbau der Publikation, möglicher-

weise auch in Kombination mit einer etwas anspruchsvolleren Auswertung und Begriffsanalyse wären wohl besser geeignet gewesen, dem vielfältigen Thema gerecht zu werden. Nicht berücksichtigt bleiben beispielsweise die von Norbert Elias ausgehenden Diskussionen über den Prozess der Zivilisation, aber auch das Habituskonzept Pierre Bourdieus, das durchaus hilfreich gewesen wäre, das Ziel und Ergebnis adliger Erziehung am Hof zu beschreiben. Es bleibt aber Gerrit Deutschländers Verdienst, viel neues Material zur Diskussion zusammengetragen zu haben, das sich nicht auf normative Schriften beschränkt, und anhand dessen der konkrete Ablauf einer adligen Erziehung rekonstruiert wird. Diese Bildungsgänge lesen sich spannend, manchmal auch belustigend, wenn beispielsweise ein widerspenstiger Edelknabe in Dessau dem Fürst ins Trinkglas uriniert (179). Die Arbeit zeigt überzeugend, dass auch die Höfe neben den Dom- und Stadtschulen, Klöstern und Universitäten zu den Erziehungsstätten dieser Periode gezählt werden müssen. Weiterführend sind zudem die umfangreiche Bibliografie (57 Seiten), die 24 zum Thema passenden Abbildungen, und nicht zuletzt der interessante, 32 Briefe umfassende Anhang, der die erzieherischen Situationen veranschaulichen und lebendig machen kann.

Literatur

Paravicini, Werner/Wettlaufer, Jörg (Hrsg.): Erziehung und Bildung bei Hofe. Stuttgart: Thorbecke 2002

Gerrit Deutschländer: Dienen lernen, um zu herrschen. Höfische Erziehung im ausgehenden Mittelalter (1450-1550). Berlin: Akademie Verlag 2012, 451 S., 24 Abb. EUR 99,80, CHF 135.ISBN 978-3-05-004911-3

Dr. Jean-Luc Le Cam, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Faculté des Lettres Victor-Segalen, 20 rue Duquesne, CS 93837, F-29238 Brest cedex 3, [email protected] IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

|121

|

122

Reviews

Rudolf Künzli/Anna-Verena Fries/ Werner Hürlimann/ Moritz Rosenmund: Der Lehrplan

Ein bemerkenswertes Lehrbuch von Lukas Boser Kürzlich kommentierte der deutsche Erziehungswissenschaftler Dieter Lenzen eine aktuelle Bildungsdebatte in Deutschland mit der kritischen Bemerkung, in der Schulpolitik sei „die Neigung von Nichtexperten zu intervenieren erstaunlich groß. Kein Mensch käme auf die Idee, einen Blinddarm zu operieren, nur weil er einen hat“ (Spiegel 52/2013, 37). Was Lenzen damit sagen wollte, ist, dass sich in Bildungsfragen auffällig viele Menschen als Expertin oder Experte verstehen, auch wenn sich diese Expertise ausschließlich aus der eigenen Schulerfahrung speist. Und obwohl Lenzens Gegenbeispiel etwas fragwürdig erscheint – denn auch den Blinddarm respektive dessen Entzündung pflegen Laien bei der entsprechenden Gelegenheit ausführlich zu kommentieren –, so ist doch seine erste Feststellung richtig. Im Falle der Schweiz ist dieses Engagement

der Laien nicht einmal besonders erstaunlich, denn hier ist die öffentliche Kontrolle des Bildungswesens nach wie vor ein allgemein akzeptiertes und gelebtes Prinzip. Ein Beispiel dafür, dass in der Schweiz Bildungsfragen auch Nichtexperten zur Teilnahme an einer engagiert bis hitzig geführten Debatte animieren, findet sich gegenwärtig in der Diskussion um einen neuen überkantonalen Lehrplan. Lehrpersonen, Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler, Politikerinnen und Politiker aller Parteien sowie Eltern und besorgte Bürgerinnen und Bürger äußern sich in den Medien zu dieser großen Reform. Was läge nun aus Sicht der Erziehungswissenschaft näher, als das sogenannte Expertenwissen in diese Debatten einzubringen? Genau dies tut das vorliegende Buch mit dem Titel Der Lehrplan – Programm der Schule, auch wenn der Anspruch des Autorenteams, bestehend aus Rudolf Künzli, Anna-Verena Fries, Werner Hürlimann und Moritz Rosenmund, ein anderer ist, verstehen sie doch ihr Buch als ein „Studienbuch“ für „Studierende des Lehrberufs und der Erziehungswissenschaften“ (7). Das Buch beginnt mit einer ausführlichen Einleitung (15-41), die den theoretischen Rahmen absteckt und die historische Entwicklung der Lehrplanarbeit skizziert. Zu letzterem Punkt ist anzumerken, dass die Autorin resp. die Autoren dem historischen Blick auf die Lehrpläne und ihre Entwicklung durch das ganze Buch hindurch immer wieder Platz einräumen. Dass die entsprechende Forschung im deutschsprachigen Raum noch nicht sehr weit gediehen ist und das Autorenteam daher nur auf eine begrenzte Menge an Forschungsergebnissen zurückgreifen kann – die zudem oft auf große Namen wie Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi oder Johann Friedrich Herbart referieren –, ist ihm nicht anzulasten. Zum ersten Punkt, der theoretischen Rahmung ist anzumerken, dass IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

Rezensionen

die vielen Begriffserklärungen zu Lehrplan, Curriculum, Standard, Kompetenz oder Steuerung und Modelle der Bildungssteuerung, Lehrplanentwicklung und -implementierung – obwohl wichtig für das Verständnis der Sache – etwas gar schematisch erscheinen. „Es macht sich ein Reduktionismus breit, eine technokratische Simplifizierung von Schule und Unterricht“ (Herzog 2013, 8), kritisiert der Erziehungswissenschaftler Walter Herzog. Vor dieser Tendenz ist auch die Einleitung in das vorliegende Werk nicht ganz gefeit. Positiv zu erwähnen ist jedoch, dass viele dieser Begriffe, Konzepte und Modelle im weiteren Verlauf das Buches dann in ihren jeweiligen (auch historischen) Zusammenhängen dargestellt und verständlich gemacht werden. An die Einleitung anschließend werden in je einem Kapitel acht Fragen erörtert, die im Zusammenhang mit Lehrplanforschung und Lehrplanentwicklung eine wichtige Rolle spielen. Die Fragen sind die folgenden: Was ist der gesellschaftliche Auftrag der Schule? Wie detailliert und messbar sollen Lehrpläne sein? Welches Wissen ist bedeutsam? Wie entstehen Lehrpläne? Wie wirken Lehrpläne? Was wird in der Schule auch gelernt? Welche Aufgabe kommt dem Lehrmittel bei der curricularen Planung zu? Wie national sind Lehrpläne? Abgeschlossen wird das Buch mit einem Kapitel das die Überschrift Das Ringen um das erziehungswissenschaftliche Curriculum der Lehrerbildung trägt. An dieser Themenauflistung wird ersichtlich, dass sich die Autorin und die Autoren am amerikanischen Konzept des Curriculums orientieren, das weit über das normative Dokument Lehrplan hinausgeht (vgl. 14ff.). Insbesondere die Kapitel zum Hidden Curriculum (197-265) und zu den Lehrbüchern (237-260) vermögen das enge deutschsprachige Konzept des Lehrplans aufzubrechen und sinnvoll zu ergänzen. In den neun Kapiteln wird ausführlich beschrieben, welche Funktionen dem Lehrplan zugeschrieben IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

werden können, wo und wie er wirkt, wie er in der Gesellschaft verankert ist und welche Konsequenzen dies für die Lehrplanarbeit hat, wie er sich veränderte und verändern lässt und wie er als Steuerungsinstrument auf die Schule und den Unterricht Einfluss nimmt. Im Rahmen einer Buchbesprechung in einer bildungshistorischen Zeitschrift muss auch die Frage aufgeworfen werden, was das Buch – abgesehen von den historischen Exkursen und den Beispielen aus der Geschichte – für die historische Bildungsforschung zu bieten hat. Marc Bloch hat die Historiker mit menschenfressenden Ungeheuern verglichen, die vom Geruch von Menschenfleisch angezogen würden (Bloch 1952, 18). So ergeht es dem historisch interessierten Leser auch bei der Lektüre dieses Buches. Es ist immer dann besonders interessant, wenn beschrieben wird, wie Menschen, seien es Lehrpersonen oder Bildungsplaner, im Zusammenhang mit Lehrplänen agieren. Entgegen dem Schematismus, der mit Begriffen wie Governance, Steuerung und Planung einhergeht, wird an diesen Beispielen sichtbar, dass es handelnde Menschen sind, die darüber entscheiden, ob ein Lehrplan seinen Zweck erfüllt oder nicht. Insbesondere in den Kapiteln V (Wie wirken Lehrpläne?, 173-195) und VI (Was wird in der Schule auch gelernt?, 197-265) wird dies deutlich. Äußerst lesenswert ist auch das Kapitel zu den Lehrmitteln. Hier finden sich etliche Hinweise zu Charakteristiken und Funktionen von Lehrmitteln respektive Schulbüchern, die auch für die historische Schulbuchforschung aufschlussreich sein können (250ff.). Die Autorin und die Autoren des Buches besitzen ganz offensichtlich ein sehr großes Wissen zum Thema Lehrpläne. Leider gehen sie mit Literaturhinweisen und Referenzen oftmals ziemlich sparsam um. Die am Ende jedes Kapitels aufgeführten Hinweise auf weiterführende Literatur und Links

|123

|

124

Reviews

können dies nicht kompensieren. Das hat zur Folge, dass der kritischer Leser nicht in der Lage ist, die Thesen und Erkenntnisse der Autorin und der Autoren zu überprüfen. Gerade in einem Lehrbuch für die Tertiärstufe sollte dies aber möglich sein. Ob sich das Buch als Lehrmittel bewährt, wird die Unterrichtspraxis zeigen müssen. Es ist zu hoffen, dass das Werk auch über die Studierenden in Lehrerbildung und Erziehungswissenschaft hinaus eine Leserschaft findet, denn als Beitrag zu den aktuellen Lehrplan-, Standard- und Kompetenzdebatten ist es auf jeden Fall zu begrüßen.

Literatur

Bloch, Marc: Apologie pour l’histoire ou métier d’historien. Paris: A. Colin 1952 Herzog, Walter: Bildungsstandards. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2013

Rudolf Künzli/Anna-Verena Fries/Werner Hürlimann/Moritz Rosenmund: Der Lehrplan – Programm der Schule. Weinheim und Basel: Belz Juventa 2013, 336 S. EUR 24.95, CHF 34.60 ISBN 978-3-7799-2921-5

Dr. Lukas Boser, Université de Lausanne, Section d’histoire, Quartier UNIL-Dorigny, Bâtiment Antropole, CH-1015 Lausanne, [email protected]

Mark Solovey: Shaky foundations

Riding in on the coattails of the natural scientists von Regula Bürgi

Expansion kennzeichnete die amerikanischen Sozialwissenschaften zwischen 1940 und 1960: Die Mitgliederanzahl sozialwissenschaftlicher Vereinigungen verfünffachte sich, die Abteilungen an Universitäten wurden entsprechend vergrößert, GraduiertenProgramme entworfen und neue akademische Zeitschriften initiiert. In seiner Monographie Shaky Foundations. The Politics-Patronage-Social Science Nexus in Cold War America fragt der Historiker Mark Solovey nach den Hintergründen dieser Ausweitung und fokussiert insbesondere die heute nahezu unbeachteten Konfliktlinien. Er setzt dies sorgfältig sowie detailreich um – allerdings ohne strukturiert in die historischen Kontexte einzuführen. Angereichert mit pointierten Zitaten und bemerkenswertem Zahlenmaterial birgt die argumentativ herausragende Analyse ein grundlegendes Puzzleteil, um die Geschichte der Sozialwissenschaften der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts besser zu verstehen. IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

Rezensionen

Solovey vertritt die These, dass die expandierenden Sozialwissenschaften nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg entscheidend durch so genannte außer-universitäre „Patrons“ wie dem Militär oder der Ford Foundation kraft ihrer finanziellen Ressourcen beeinflusst und geformt wurden. Entgegen der Annahme eines widerstandslosen Prozesses geht er davon aus, dass die Unterstützung dieser bundesstaatlichen und privaten Mäzene weder politisch noch intradisziplinär unisono gutgeheißen wurde, sondern auf „shaky foundations“ (16) baute. Solovey demonstriert dies, indem er den Geldströmen („following the money“, 2) nachgeht. Der Autor untersucht die Entwicklung dreier wesentlicher US-amerikanischer „Patrons“ – das Militär, die Ford Foundation und die National Science Foundation (NSF) – hinsichtlich ihres sozialwissenschaftlichen Engagements. Entlang dieser drei Geldgeber gliedert Solovey seine Untersuchung, die sich dadurch einer rein ideengeschichtlichen Betrachtung der sozialwissenschaftlichen Entwicklung entgegenstellt. So zeigt der Autor anhand vielfältiger Quellen, wie sich die Vertreter der Sozialwissenschaften weniger aufgrund wissenschaftlicher Auseinandersetzungen auf einen spezifischen Ziel- und Methodenkanon einließen als vielmehr, um sich im nationalen PatronageGefüge gegenüber den Naturwissenschaften zu behaupten und sich Ressourcen sichern zu können. Letztere hatten ihre Schlagkraft und somit ihren Nutzen für die Nation während des Krieges erfolgreich bewiesen. Unter den Vorzeichen des Kalten Krieges sowie des technologischen Fortschritts blieb ihre umfangreiche Unterstützung von Seiten des Militärs auch in Zukunft gesichert und sollte gleichzeitig durch eine direkt nach dem Krieg initiierte National Science Foundation garantiert werden. In der Folge, wie Solovey überzeugend zeigt, versuchten die Vertreter der Sozialwissenschaften im Rückenwind der Naturwissenschaften ebenfalls nationale IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

Ressourcen zu erhalten: „Riding in on the coattails of the natural scientists“ (51), riet etwa Talcott Parsons seinen Kollegen. Mit dieser „salesmanship“ (44) hätten die Sozialwissenschaften laut Solovey allerdings angefangen, zwei „key commitments“ (4) zu zelebrieren, welche das sozialwissenschaftliche Patronage-Gefüge fortan prägten: „social engineering“ und „scientism“ (4). Letzteres richtete sich insbesondere gegen das weit verbreitete Vorurteil, die Sozialwissenschaften seien nicht wissenschaftlicher als „Christian Science“ (62), wie es Edward Heller, der Vater der Wasserstoffbombe pointiert formulierte. Dem entgegentretend betonten die sozialwissenschaftlichen Vertreter, dass sie in ihrer Wissenschaftlichkeit den Naturwissenschaften nicht unterlägen und deren experimentelle, quantitative Methoden imitieren könnten. Außerdem wären sie genauso wie die Naturwissenschaften in der Lage – mittels „social engineering“ – zum „nationalen Wohlstand“, gar zur „menschlichen Besserung“ (4) beizutragen. Diese von Erfolg gekrönte Strategie erreicht neben den bundesstaatlichen auch private Mäzene, wie Solovey anhand der Ford Foundation demonstriert. Es gelingt ihm erneut aufzuzeigen, dass für die Entwicklung der einzelnen außeruniversitären „Patrons“ ihre Relation zueinander entscheidend war. Hinsichtlich der Ford Foundation wird diese Patronage-Verstrickung insbesondere an der Person von Horace Rowan Gaither, ihrem zweiten Präsidenten, offensichtlich. Dieser war Vorsitzender der dem Militär angegliederten „Denkfabrik“ RAND Corporation. Gleichzeitig entwarf er das Programm, welches die Arbeiten der Ford Foundation seit den 1950er-Jahren prägte und sich sowohl dem „social engineering“ als auch dem „scientism“ verschrieb. Leider greift Solovey nur am Rande auf, wie die anderen großen privaten US-amerikanischen Stiftungen, Rockefeller und Carnegie, auf diese Entwicklungen nach dem Krieg reagierten.

|125

|

126

Reviews

Vielmehr ist es ein Hauptanliegen des Autors aufzuzeigen, dass die so genannten „Schlüsselverpflichtungen“ („social engineering“ und „scientism“) zwar zum erfolgreichen Akquirieren von Ressourcen führten, gleichzeitig jedoch, wie das außeruniversitäre Protegé-Verhältnis insgesamt, von mehreren Seiten Kritik ernteten – eben nicht auf festen, sondern auf „shaky foundations“ gründeten. Solovey legt dar, dass sich gar von mehreren Seiten Widerstand formierte: So etwa intradisziplinär, indem eine mögliche Einheit von Natur- und Sozialwissenschaften („unity of science“, 38) auf Ablehnung stieß. Außerdem wurden Autonomieeinbußen, intellektuelle Begrenzungen und demokratische Defizite befürchtet. Obwohl Solovey diese Kritik aufgreift, unterlässt er es, an einem Beispiel exemplarisch aufzuzeigen, wie die Sozialwissenschaftler, welche von den staatlichen Universitäten finanziert wurden, der außer-universitären, nationalen Forschungsförderung begegneten. Neben der Kritik aus den eigenen Reihen begehrte, so Solovey, die konservative politische Seite auf. Sie verdächtige die „empirischen Quantifizierer“ (160), die Nation in den moralischen Ruin zu treiben. Außerdem – und paradoxerweise – waren Sozialwissenschaftler für einige konservative Politiker geradezu gleichbedeutend mit einer linken politischen Agenda. Dies führte insbesondere während der McCarthy-Ära zu erheblichen Auseinandersetzungen und Überprüfungen der Arbeiten aller außer-universitären „Patrons“. In der Folge bemühten sie sich, wie Solovey anhand zahlreicher Quellen ausführt, verstärkt eine sozialwissenschaftliche Expertise zu fördern, die sich apolitisch, non-ideologisch und wertneutral verstand. Die „Red Scare“, bzw. der Kalte Krieg insgesamt, schwebt als determinierende Variable über der gesamten Untersuchung von Solovey. Diese Referenzfolie erscheint, wie an zahlreichen Beispielen offensichtlich wird, durchaus sinnvoll, doch werden daran auch

Desiderate offenbar: Es stellt sich die Frage, ob der Kalte Krieg als ein per se internationales Phänomen, nicht einen Blick über die amerikanischen Grenzen hinaus erfordern würde (vgl. Greiner/Müller/Weber 2011). Neben der Sowjetunion dürften auch die europäischen Entwicklungen sowie die zahlreichern internationalen sozialwissenschaftlichen Patrons (so etwa die UNESCO oder die OECD), die sich gleichsam nach dem Krieg formierten, von nicht zu unterschätzender Bedeutung sein. Solovey bemerkt in der Konklusion zu Recht, dass den amerikanischen Sozialwissenschaften auf internationaler Ebene eine Vorreiterrolle zukam, doch hatten die internationalen Beziehungen und Agenturen sicherlich auch rückwirkende Effekte. Genauso wäre auch aus umgekehrter Perspektive zu fragen, wie der methodische Universalismus der (Sozial-)Wissenschaften die Vergleichskultur des Kalten Krieges überhaupt erst ermöglichte. Eine solche Betrachtung könnte seine Analyse vermehrt in Richtung eines Gesellschaftsplanungsdiskurses öffnen, wie er vom Autor fast gänzlich ausgespart wird. So erweist sich Soloveys Zugang – den finanziellen Ressourcen zu folgen – spätestens in der Konklusion als etwas eng, insofern der Autor größtenteils die Einleitung wiederholt. Dennoch stellt seine Untersuchung einen Meilenstein für die Erforschung der Geschichte der Sozialwissenschaften dar – mit einem Potenzial, das weit über Amerika hinaus reicht. Solovey erfasst das außeruniversitäre, experimentell quantitativ orientierte und politikberatenden Forschungsparadigma in seinen Anfängen. Dieses dominiert die Sozialwissenschaften gegenwärtig und wird teilweise geradezu alternativlos präsentiert – justiert scheinen dessen „shaky foundations“. Mit der Offenlegung der Entstehungsbedingungen leistet Solovey einen wissenschaftlich fundierten Beitrag, die erlahmte Auseinandersetzung auf konstruktive Weise wieder anzustoßen. IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

Rezensionen

Literatur

Greiner, Bernd/Müller, Tim B./Weber, Claudia (Hrsg.): Macht und Geist im Kalten Krieg. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, HIS 2011

Mark Solovey: Shaky foundations: The politics-patronage-social science nexus in Cold War America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press 2013, 253 S. EUR 29.70 ISBN 978-0-81355-465-5

lic. phil. Regula Bürgi, Universität Luxembourg, Fakultät für Sprachwissenschaften und Literatur, Geisteswissenschaften, Kunst und Erziehungswissenschaften, Route de Diekirch, L-7220 Walferdange, [email protected]

Hervé Le Bras/Emmanuel Todd: Le Mystère français

Eine anthropologisch-demographische Analyse des gesellschaftlichen Wandels in Frankreich von Peter Voss „La France ne se sent pas bien.“ Dieser Befund, mit dem Hervé Le Bras und Emmanuel Todd ihre faszinierende Untersuchung IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

des „französischen Rätsels“ beginnen, dürfte vielen Franzosen aus dem Herzen sprechen. Das westeuropäische Land befindet sich derzeit in einer tiefen Identitätskrise. Mit Ausnahme der Bevölkerungsentwicklung verharren alle wichtigen Indikatoren seit langem im roten Bereich. Auf die Hochkonjunktur und das wirtschaftliche Wachstum der 1950er- bis 1970er-Jahre, der legendären Trente Glorieuses, folgten die Trente Piteuses, die „erbärmlichen“ Jahre 1980 bis 2010, und ein Ende scheint nicht absehbar zu sein, ganz im Gegenteil. Frankreich verliert rapide an Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und entwickelt sich zusehends zum Globalisierungsverlierer. Die ökonomische Krise hat sich längst zu einer gesamtgesellschaftlichen Krise ausgeweitet und macht auch vor den politischen Institutionen des zentralistischen Staates nicht halt. Die in chronischer Reformunfähigkeit gefangene V. Republik scheint gar in ihrer Existenz bedroht. An Essais, die den angeblich bevorstehenden Untergang Frankreichs prophezeien, herrscht kein Mangel. Es ist deshalb das Verdienst Hervé Le Bras’ und Emmanuel Todds, die aktuelle Diskussion nicht um ein weiteres wohlfeiles apokalyptisches Sze-

|127

|

128

Reviews

nario, sondern um eine bestechende wissenschaftliche Studie bereichert zu haben, die ihre Erkenntnisse aus zwei der innovativsten Forschungsgebiete und französischen Paradedisziplinen der letzten Jahrzehnte gewinnt: der Anthropologie und der Historischen Demographie. In der Absicht, die ökonomischen, gesellschaftlichen und kulturellen Veränderungen der letzten drei Jahrzehnte zu verstehen, setzen die Autoren aktuelle Phänomene wie die Bildungsexpansion, die Frauenemanzipation oder das Wahlverhalten mit zwei Grundkonstanten der französischen Gesellschaft, den Familienstrukturen und Siedlungsformen sowie der Religiosität in Form des katholischen Substrates, in Relation. Auf den ersten Blick scheint das anthropologisch-demographische Erklärungsraster, dessen Grundlagen spätestens im frühen Mittelalter gelegt wurden, Lichtjahre von den derzeitigen Problemen Frankreichs entfernt zu sein. Auf den zweiten Blick führt diese Herangehensweise, die an Fernand Braudels Schichtenmodell historischer Zeiten erinnert und sich in 120 Karten und einer thick description von 300 Seiten niederschlägt, zu verblüffenden Erkenntnissen. Mit ihrer Methode weisen die Autoren nach, dass Entwicklungen wie beispielsweise die derzeitige politische Krise tief im Gedächtnis des Raumes – la mémoire des lieux – verankert sind. Die in Frankreich hoch emotional geführte Debatte wird dadurch sprichwörtlich geerdet; das Fazit der Untersuchung fällt verhalten optimistisch aus: „Dans ses profondeurs, la France ne va pas si mal“ (301). Diese Erkenntnis gewinnen die Autoren unter Heranziehung zahlreicher Statistiken (Volkszählungen, Personenstandsregister usw.) und mit Hilfe einer neuartigen Kartographie, die die Verteilung primär auf Gemeinde- und nicht wie bislang üblich auf der Ebene der Départements gewichtet. Ein überraschendes Ergebnis dieses Ansatzes ist, dass die Phase des wirtschaftlichen

Booms der Trente Glorieuses durch gesellschaftlichen Konservatismus gekennzeichnet gewesen sei, während die drei Jahrzehnte von 1980 bis 2010 mit ihrem stagnierenden oder sogar schrumpfenden Wachstum des Bruttoinlandsprodukts eine Zeit des beschleunigten sozialen Wandels darstellten (10). Dieser sei geprägt durch die Bildungsoffensive, eine grundlegende Veränderung der Sitten und Bräuche, das fast vollständige Verschwinden der Religion als Ritus, die Emanzipation der Frau, das demographische Wachstum und eine fortschreitende Urbanisierung Frankreichs. Die Anfang der 1980er-Jahre, zeitgleich mit der Präsidentschaft Mitterands einsetzende Bildungsexpansion stellt für beide Autoren den eigentlichen Motor der Entwicklung dar. Im Zeitraum von 1981 bis 1995 habe sich die Zahl der Abiturienten von 18 auf 37 Prozent eines Geburtsjahrgangs verdoppelt. Rechnet man die Absolventen des Baccalauréat technologique und des Baccalauréat professionnel mit ein, dann würden alljährlich zwei Drittel eines Jahrgangs das Abitur erwerben. Die traditionelle Bildungspyramide stehe somit auf dem Kopf: In der Gruppe der 25-39jährigen verfügten nur 12 Prozent maximal über eine Grundschulbildung, würden aber von der bessergebildeten und zum Teil mit Abstiegsängsten konfrontierten Mehrheit kritisch beäugt. Obwohl die Bildungsabschlüsse ein höheres Ausmaß an gesellschaftlicher und kultureller Teilhabe ermöglichten, führe die Fixierung auf das untere Ende der Pyramide gemeinsam mit der Erfahrung, dass der Prozentsatz der Abiturienten seit dem Spitzenjahr 1995 nicht mehr gesteigert werden konnte, zum Eindruck von Stagnation und einem ausgeprägten Bildungspessimismus in der französischen Gesellschaft (14). Den Wandel der Sitten und Bräuche machen Le Bras und Todd unter anderem an der hohen Zahl der nicht-ehelichen Geburten (54%) fest, die im heutigen Frankreich IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

Rezensionen

die Norm darstellen (15, 122). Die Frauenemanzipation sei ablesbar am mittlerweile erreichten weiblichen Bildungsvorsprung und an der Berufstätigkeit von 84% der Frauen (16, 99). Die im europäischen Vergleich konstant hohe Geburtenrate von 2 Kindern je Frau und das Bevölkerungswachstum von 55 auf 65 Millionen Menschen im Zeitraum von 1981 bis 2011 deuten, so die Autoren, auf einen – der Bevölkerung nicht immer bewussten – grundlegenden Optimismus der französischen Gesellschaft hin (20). Die genannten Entwicklungen spielen sich vor dem Hintergrund anthropologischer Konstanten aus der vorindustriellen Vergangenheit Frankreichs ab. Dabei ließen sich, vereinfacht gesagt, jeweils zwei voneinander getrennte „Frankreichs“ identifizieren, die nicht in allen Fällen geographisch deckungsgleich seien: das Frankreich der Kernfamilie und dasjenige des „erweiterten Haushalts“ oder der kommunitären Großfamilie; das Frankreich der geschlossenen dörflichen Siedlungsform und dasjenige der Streusiedlungen und des Bocage; das Frankreich der Realteilung und dasjenige des Anerbenrechtes; ein individualistisch-egalitäres und ein nicht-individualistisches Frankreich, das nie wirklich an die Gleichheit geglaubt habe; und schließlich ein bereits seit dem 18. Jahrhundert weitgehend säkularisiertes Frankreich und ein Frankreich, in dem der Katholizismus bis in die 1960er-Jahre hinein noch eine gewisse Bedeutung besessen habe (43). Ausgehend von der Feststellung, dass es einen offensichtlichen Zusammenhang gibt zwischen Katholizismus, Streusiedlungen und der Großfamilie einerseits, sowie zwischen Dechristianisierung, geschlossenen Siedlungsformen und Kernfamilie andererseits, berechnen Le Bras und Todd ein „Integrationsniveau“ für die einzelnen französischen Départements. Ein maximales Integrationsniveau sei gegeben, wenn die Siedlungsform offen, die Familie erweitert und die Kirche stark sei bzw. in der jüngeren IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

Vergangenheit stark gewesen sei. Von einem minimalen Integrationsniveau könne gesprochen werden, wenn sich die geschlossene Siedlungsform, die Kernfamilie und eine bis in das 18. Jahrhundert zurückreichende Entkirchlichung nachweisen lassen würden. Die auf dieser Grundlage erstellte Karte des „Systems Frankreich“ zeigt ein „schwach integriertes“ individualistisch-egalitäres und säkularisiertes Zentrum (Pariser Becken, Zentralfrankreich nördlich der Loire mit einer Verbindung über das Rhône-Tal zur Provence und Mittelmeerküste) und eine „stark integrierte“ kommunitäre, nicht-egalitäre katholische Peripherie (Bretagne, West- und Südwestfrankreich, Zentralmassiv, Alpen, Elsass und Lothringen) (64). Vor dem Hintergrund der gesamtgesellschaftlichen Veränderungen seit 1980 verfüge die Peripherie Frankreichs daher erstmalig über zwei entscheidende Strukturvorteile gegenüber dem Zentrum des Landes. Zum einen würden die „holistischen“ und hierarchischen Gesellschaften Westfrankreichs auf Grund des kommunitären Familientypus’ und der offenen Siedlungsstruktur in der aktuellen Krise besser dastehen, weil sie mit dem neoliberalen Postulat der Ungleichheit – oder dem, was davon in Frankreich ankomme – besser zurechtkommen, als das individualistisch-egalitär geprägte Zentralfrankreich, – das revolutionäre Frankreich von 1789 –, das bislang die Entwicklung des Landes dominierte. Zum anderen erweise sich das Erbe des Katholizismus als Vorteil. Dieser sei zwar als rituelle Praxis kaum noch statistisch relevant, jedoch als soziale Praxis in Form eines „Zombie-Katholizismus“ immer noch wirksam (70). Das früh säkularisierte Zentralfrankreich, Träger der revolutionären Utopie von 1789, habe demgegenüber mit dem endgültigen Tod des Kommunismus den Endpunkt eines aus dem 18. Jahrhundert stammenden optimistischen Zukunftsglaubens erreicht. Dieses Vakuum sei bislang nicht gefüllt worden und trage gemeinsam

|129

|

130

Reviews

mit dem Bildungsrückstand und der Deindustrialisierung zur Schwächung des französischen Kernlandes bei (194). Schule und Bildung kommt in diesem Prozess eine Schlüsselbedeutung zu. Hier haben sich die Gewichte in den letzten Jahrzehnten zugunsten der Peripherie verschoben. Der aktuelle Bildungsvorsprung der Peripherie sei darauf zurückzuführen, dass die Regionen südlich der berühmten Linie Saint-Malo – Genf ihren traditionellen Alphabetisierungsrückstand aus den Zeiten, als nur ein geringer Prozentsatz der Franzosen über den Grundschulabschluss des Certificat d’études hinauskam, in einen Vorsprung verwandeln konnten, da sich die bessere Förderung des Nachwuchses in den Familien des „erweiterten“ Typs förderlich auf den Erwerb von Sekundarschulabschlüssen und Universitätsdiplomen auswirke (•••). Durch die unlängst erfolgte Befreiung vom Katholizismus wurden zusätzlich Energien freigesetzt, die in den Erwerb von Bildungskapital investiert werden konnten. Wenn jedoch mittlerweile zwei Drittel eines Jahrgangs das Abitur erwerben, dann ist zu fragen, ob die auf das Abitur fokussierte Bildungsexpansion nicht auch zum Teil auf einen Mangel an attraktiven Ausbildungsund Arbeitsalternativen zurückzuführen sei. Vor diesem Hintergrund erweise es sich als problematisch, dass die Dynamik der gesellschaftlich-kulturellen Entwicklung und die Wirtschaftsleistung im heutigen Frankreich vollkommen auseinander klaffe, und dass die Bildungsexpansion mit Ausnahme der Region um Toulouse (Airbus) und des traditionellen Industriestandorts Rhône-Alpes keinerlei Einfluss auf die Wirtschafts- und Exportstruktur gehabt habe (•••). Mit ihrer Studie haben Hervé Le Bras und Emmanuel Todd den beunruhigenden Zu-

stand des heutigen Frankreichs entmystifiziert. Die Diagnose des Mystère français fällt jedoch ernüchternd aus, insbesondere für die Autoren selbst, die ihre eigenen Untersuchungsergebnisse als Beleg für eine derzeit paradoxe, ja pathologische Situation Frankreichs betrachten. Mit dem schulischen, kulturellen und wirtschaftlichen Abstieg des egalitären Zentralfrankreichs, das unter dem Verlust ideologischer Visionen leidet, und dem Aufstieg der nicht-egalitären, hierarchisch organisierten Gesellschaften der Randgebiete Frankreichs, die von einem gestrigen „Zombie-Katholizismus“ gesteuert werden, ist das anscheinend auf ewig angelegte Gleichgewicht Frankreichs aus dem Lot geraten. Damit offenbaren Le Bras und Todd eine „typisch“ französische, zentralistische Pariser Sicht der Dinge. Ein Frankreich, dessen historisches Zentrum ideologisch und wirtschaftlich ausblutet und einer erstarkten Peripherie ausgesetzt ist, kann seine zivilisatorische Mission als Bannerträger des revolutionären individualistisch-egalitären Fortschritts auf Basis der Kernfamilie nicht weiter fortführen. Es droht daher das klassische Schreckgespenst der im politisch immer schon verdächtigen Westen beheimateten Gegenrevolution (Vendée, Gironde). Gefordert sei daher eine Wiederherstellung der Dominanz des alten revolutionären Frankreichs. Die Chancen dafür scheinen nicht schlecht zu stehen, denn Hervé Le Bras und Emmanuel Todd rechnen durchaus mit einer Implosion der neuen und in ihren Augen unnatürlichen Dynamik der Peripherie, die heute noch an die Bildung glaube, für den Fall, dass die Bildungsexpansion ins Leere laufen sollte. Und dann könne und müsse das ehemals revolutionäre Zentrum mit Paris wieder das Kommando übernehmen. Unklar ist heute jedoch, wie das geschehen soll.

IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

Rezensionen

Hervé Le Bras/Emmanuel Todd (2013): Le Mystère français. Paris: Seuil 2013, 336 S.

EUR 17.90 ISBN 978-2-02-110216-1

Dr. Peter Voss, Université du Luxembourg, Route de Diekirch, L-7220 Walferdange, peter. [email protected]

Anne Bosche: Schulreformen steuern

Kritik der Steuerungsanstrengungen im Bildungsbereich von Rudolf Künzli Gegenstand der Studie sind drei curriculare Reformen im Kanton Zürich in den 1960erund 1970er-Jahren. Die drei Reformen dienen als historische Fälle, an denen die Steuerung von Schulreformen untersucht wird. In einer knapp 50-seitigen Einleitung werden Ziel, theoretischer Rahmen und methodisches Vorgehen beschrieben und begründet, IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

die Quellenlage dargestellt und der Aufbau angezeigt. Das Kapitel 2 referiert die „Wissenschaftsentwicklung, die Bildungsplanung und die Schulreformen“ der 1960er- und 1970er-Jahre als internationalen, nationalen und kantonalen Kontext der drei zu analysierenden kantonalen Schulreformen (61-77). Die folgenden 132 Seiten (Kap. 3, 4 und 5) sind der historischen Rekonstruktion der drei ausgewählten Schulreformen gewidmet. Bei den Fallstudien handelt es sich zum einen um die Einführung der Neuen Mathematik und zum andern um die Einführung des Frühfranzösisch in der Primarschule. Beide Reformen gelten als große Schulreformen von erheblichem Aufwand und Umfang. Beim dritten Fall geht es um die Entwicklung und Einführung eines neuen Lehrmittels für das Fach Lebenskunde, eine Reform von geringerem Umfang und schulpolitischem Gewicht. Die drei historischen Fallstudien sind einheitlich aufgebaut: Nach einer Verortung des Reformthemas im themenbezogenen Schuldiskurs der Zeit folgt eine Rekonstruktion der Ausgangslage der Reform, danach werden die Konstitution der Reformzielsetzung, Konzeption und Einführung der Reform aus den Quellen rekonstruiert. Die Fallstudien werden mit einem Zwischenfazit zu den aufgezeigten Steuerungsprozessen, zu den Akteuren, ihren Prozeduren und Instrumenten abge-

|131

|

132

Reviews

schlossen. Das letzte Kapitel ist als Vergleich der drei Fälle angelegt, in dem die „theoretischen Implikationen der Analyse bildungspolitischer Steuerung“ (•••) expliziert und diskutiert werden. Der Schluss des Kapitels und der ganzen Studie bietet eine Verortung des methodischen Vorgehens und der bildungspolitischen Steuerung in den 1960erbis 1980er-Jahren in der Governance-Forschung (209-253). Die Studie bedient „sowohl ein historisches als auch ein theoretisches Erkenntnisinteresse“ (15). Sie verbindet historische Schulforschung und Governance-Forschung in der Absicht, nicht bloß die historischen Fälle von Schulsteuerung zu rekonstruieren, sondern zugleich den offenen Theorierahmen der Governanceforschung dafür zu spezifizieren und generalisierbare Erkenntnisse zur Steuerung im Bildungsbereich zu erhalten. Das ist eine interessante, aber nicht ganz unproblematische Verbindung, dies vor allem deshalb, weil die historische Rekonstruktion, wenn sie allzu eng auf die theoretischen Vorannahmen fokussiert ist, die Besonderheiten des Einzelfalls leicht aus den Augen verliert und so die Beweiskraft und die Brauchbarkeit der empirischen Befunde für die Theorieentwicklung schwächt. Umgekehrt ermöglicht und stärkt eine solche theoriegeleitete Fokussierung historischer Rekonstruktionen die Vergleichbarkeit der Fälle und damit eine allfällige Generalisierbarkeit ihrer Ergebnisse. So bleibt es denn auch nicht ganz aus, dass die Explikation des gewählten theoretischen Rahmens nicht immer hinreichend deutlich getrennt ist von der Darstellung der historischen Fälle. Ob die Theorie am historischen Beispiel exemplifiziert wird oder der historische Fall theoretisch modelliert und zugeschnitten wird, ist vor allem im vergleichenden Schlusskapitel für den Leser oft nicht leicht zu entscheiden. Der theoretische Rahmen baut auf klassischen und zentralen Elementen der politischen Institutionen- und Governance-

Forschung auf. Dazu gehört zunächst die Beschreibung des Bildungsbereichs als eines „Mehrebenensystems“, deren Ebenen in „loser Koppelung“ miteinander verbunden sind und deren Steuerungsprozesse, die als interdependente und komplexe Interaktionen von Akteuren und Akteursgruppen begriffen werden. „Politische Steuerung ist als Versuch zu sehen, die Muster der Interdependenzbewältigung intentional zu gestalten“ (28), wie die Autorin die Konsequenzen dieses Ansatzes treffend charakterisiert. Deshalb ist eine Identifikation der Akteure und Akteursgruppen, ihrer Positionen und Beziehungen, ihrer Beteiligungsformen, -möglichkeiten und Handlungen für diese Art Zugang wesentlich. Weil in sozialen Prozessen vielfache thematische und strukturelle Interdependenzen bestehen, weder zeitlich noch thematisch Ausgangs- und Endpunkte fixiert sind, muss das offene Feld forschungspraktisch fassbar gemacht werden. Die Autorin lässt ihre Untersuchungen zum einen um einen „inhaltlich bestimmten Dreh- und Angelpunkt herum“ (51) kreisen, hier die drei Reformthemen, und zum andern um „einen politischen Entscheid“ (26) als Initiation des Steuerungsprozesses, ohne aber das Zustandekommen dieses Entscheides aus dem Blick zu verlieren. Nach Art der Policy-Forschung unterstellt sie ferner den vielfach sich überlappenden und zirkulären Reformprozessen ein idealtypisches Verlaufsschema (policy cycle): – „Diskussion um Ziel und Ausmaß der Reform, – Schulversuche, – Konzeption von Lehrmitteln und Lehrplänen, – Einführung von Lehrmitteln und Lehrplänen“ (49). Es kann hier nicht darum gehen, die Ergebnisse dieser Studie im Einzelnen zu diskutieren. Ich möchte hier nur einige wenige Aspekte hervorheben. Zunächst scheint mir die Unterscheidung zwischen schulnahen IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

Rezensionen

Akteuren, implementierenden Akteuren und den politischen Entscheidungsagenten (hier dem Erziehungsrat) nicht bloß plausibel, sondern analytisch hilfreich. Insbesondere ist deren Kampf um Anerkennung ihrer Zuständigkeit und Expertise ein die Reformprozesse maßgeblich beeinflussender Faktor. In dieser Perspektive gewinnen Reformprozesse realpolitischen Boden. Dass Entscheidungsgremium steuert weniger durch Sachentscheidungen bei kontroversen Optionen und Interessen, sondern durch Zuteilung von Kompetenzen und Anerkennung des Expertisestatus’ von Akteuren und Akteursgruppen. Dabei ist es seinerseits auf die Erhaltung seiner Zuteilungskompetenz angewiesen. Politisch unabhängige wissenschaftsnahe Akteure (hier etwa die pädagogische Arbeitsstelle) spielen dabei eine stabilisierende Rolle. Die implementierenden Akteure bilden ein Verbindungsglied zwischen der administrative und der schulpraktischen Ebene und gestalten so die lose Koppelung der Ebenen etwas enger. Die Differenzierung, dass die Position der Akteure und die Zugehörigkeit zu einer Akteursgruppe und deren primären Handlungsorientierung nicht gleichbedeutend sind mit den individuell verfolgten Interessen und Handlungen, ist ein bedeutsamer Befund für weitere Forschungen in dem Gebiet. Dass die Einwirkungen und Einwirkungsmöglichkeiten auf die Reformprozesse und ihre Ausgestaltung nicht der Logik formaler Positionen und Zuständigkeiten gehorcht, sondern vielmehr abhängt von Zugehörigkeit zu Netzwerken und Reputationszuschreibungen, ist zwar nicht überraschend, wird hier aber nochmals bestätigt. Überhaupt ist der Focus der Studie auf die Prozesse „im Schatten der Hierarchie“ (•••), also jene Einflussnahmen, welche nicht im offiziellen Lichtkegel der Aufmerksamkeit auf Entscheidungen stehen, ein kaum zu überschätzender Vorzug dieser Studie. Wenig Aufmerksamkeit erhalten in der StuIJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

die die Akteure der Öffentlichkeit. Dass die Gruppe der schulnahen Akteure nicht gleichzusetzen ist mit der Lehrerschaft, bedürfte einer eigenen differenzierenden Analyse in den Reformprozessen, die hier nicht geleistet wird. Auch wünschte man sich eine explizitere und separate Beschreibung der Rolle der Wissenschaft in den Reformprozessen. Dass das distanzierend abstrakte Sprachspiel der Forschungen zu Governance und politischer Steuerung nicht dazu angetan ist, deren Ergebnisse auch wirklich breit zu rezipieren, mag dazu beitragen, dass diese bei den politisch Handelnden, so scheint es jedenfalls, nicht ernsthaft aufgenommen werden. Das ist auch bei dieser Studie zu befürchten und zu bedauern. Allzu viele Verweise sind auch für Sachkundige Leser in ihrer Relevanz nur schwer zu bewerten, weil sie lediglich pauschal zu ganzen Aufsätze und Büchern ohne konkrete Seitenzahlen führen. Wer einen Einblick in die Steuerungsanstrengungen im Bildungsbereich und die Grundlagen von historischer GovernanceForschung gewinnen möchte, dem kann diese sorgfältige und umsichtige Arbeit nur empfohlen werden. Aber die Lektüre dieser Studie ist darüber hinaus von hohem aktuellen Interesse, weil sie, ohne das so zu formulieren, ein wahrhaftes Remedium gegen die grassierenden Steuerillusionen im Bildungsbereich abgibt. Man versteht nach dem Studium dieser Arbeit kaum noch die Reformeuphorie, welche staatlich initiierte curriculare Reformen im Bildungsbereich immer noch und immer wieder auslösen, nicht bloß bei politisch Verantwortlichen, sondern auch bei den die Reformen begleitenden und tragenden wissenschaftlichen Experten, die es doch besser wissen könnten und auch müssten, weil sie Karl Weick, David Tyack und Larry Cuban, Helmut Fend, Thomas Brüsemeister und Herbert Altrichter gelesen haben und, so ist zu hoffen, nun auch Anne Bosche.

|133

|

134

Reviews

Anne Bosche: Schulreformen steuern. Eine Einführung neuer Lehrmittel und Schulfächer an der Volksschule (Kanton Zürich, 1960er- bis 1980er-Jahre).

Bern: hep verlag 2013, 288 S. EUR 29.-, CHF 35.ISBN 978-3-03905-920-1

Prof. Dr. Rudolf Künzli, Schachen 24, CH-5000 Aarau, [email protected]

Annette R. Hofmann Michael Krüger (Hrsg.): Olympia als Bildungsidee

Ein missglückter Markenversuch von Norbert Grube Sporthistorische und sportpädagogische Publikationen boomen seit geraumer Zeit. Vielleicht erweist sich die mediale Attraktivität und Kommerzialität des Sports für manche als Versuchung, in diesem Bereich auch wissenschaftlich oder publizistisch zu reüssieren.

Das hier zu besprechende Buch resultiert nicht erkennbar aus dieser Ambition, sondern größtenteils aus einer an der Pädagogischen Hochschule Ludwigsburg veranstalteten Ringvorlesung. Es gliedert sich in fünf große Abschnitte: nach den einführenden, wohlmeinend als essayistisch zu bezeichnenden Beiträgen von Ommo Grupe über die „Olympische Idee“ als eine „Erziehungsidee“ (9-22) und Michael Krüger über „Sport zwischen wertorientiertem Leistungsstreben und Siegen um jeden Preis“ (23-33) folgt das Teilkapitel „Historische Aspekte“ mit fünf heterogen zueinander stehenden Einzelbeiträgen (37-131) und ein weiterer Teilabschnitt mit der eigentümlichen Überschrift „Theoretische Aspekte und ethische Probleme der Olympischen Spiele – Frauen und Doping“ (135-182). Danach erfolgt ein Bruch, denn sechs Aufsätze umfassen das so bezeichnete und wiederum mit einer neuerlichen Einleitung versehene, gleichsam einen Sammelband im Sammelband bildende Teilkapitel „Olympia für Kinder und Jugendliche – Olympische Jugendspiele“ in Singapur 2010 (185-273). Der so bezeichnete Ausblick greift nicht die an sich komplexe und sehr disparat ausgebreitete Thematik „Olympia als Bildungsidee“ wieder auf, sondern macht mit der „gescheiterten Münchner Olympiabewerbung um die IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

Rezensionen

Ausrichtung der Winterspiele von 2018“ einen neuen Akzent auf mit Ausführungen zur Sportpolitik und zum Verhältnis von Lokalem und Globalem im internationalen Sport. Diese Hinweise zur Gliederung des Buches deuten bereits an, dass elementare Voraussetzungen für einen gelungenen Sammelband nicht erfüllt sind. Der zentral verwandte Begriff der Bildung bleibt ungeklärt und wird nicht konzeptionalisiert. Die Beiträge nehmen nicht nur aufeinander keinen Bezug – bzw. mit Blick auf die Beiträge von Sven Güldenpfennig und Michael Krüger lediglich in eher polemisierender Weise. Die Aufsätze beziehen sich auch nur selten auf die Ankündigung des Sammelbandes, Olympia als Bildungsidee zu analysieren. Diesem durchgängigen Defizit leisten die einführenden Beiträge Vorschub, denn sie skizzieren keine theoretisch fundierten oder methodisch reflektierten Überlegungen. Ommo Grupe spricht abweichend vom Sammelbandtitel von Erziehungsidee und repetiert apologetisch Coubertins Olympiarhetorik, während Krügers bereits andernorts publizierter Aufsatz keine konzeptionellen Bezüge zum Sammelbandthema bietet und am Ende eher kulturpessimistisch die mediale Bemächtigung der Sportideale beklagt. Theorieangebote, die Bildungsidee Olympia etwa als eine besondere Variante der „educationalisation of social problems“ (Depaepe/Smeyers) zu begreifen, also gerade um die Jahrhundertwende als den Versuch zu verstehen, inmitten von Industrialisierung, Kommerzialisierung, Urbanisierung und Massengesellschaft vermeintlich als verloren gegangen geglaubte Werte und Tugenden, Lebensstile und Haltungen durch den (Amateur-)Sportwettkampf pädagogisierend zu re-etablieren, werden nicht angeboten. In diesem Sinn wäre zu diskutieren und zu untersuchen, warum Olympia als ursprünglich so legitimiertes Veranstaltungstreffen der Jugend der Welt dann 2010 eine eigene IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

Jugendolympiade mit einem pädagogischen Zusatzprogramm beigestellt bekam. Trug oder trägt die Bildungsidee Olympia nicht mal mehr als eine Art educational marketing? Diese und andere Fragen hatte der Rezensent angesichts des Buchtitels erwartet. Doch die historischen Betrachtungen im zweiten Buchabschnitt fallen dürftig aus und stehen unverbunden nebeneinander. Dem fundierten und lesenswerten Aufsatz von Emanuel Hübner über die Antikisierung der Olympischen Spiele im 20. Jahrhundert (37-59) und der Dekonstruktion des Amateurideals und der Friedenspflicht als historische olympische Mythen folgt ein wenig gewinnbringender historischer (Kurz-)Überblick von Alexander Priebe (61-68), bevor zusammenhangslos drei unterschiedliche Fallstudien folgen: die geschichtspositivistische Darstellung von Karl Lennartz über die „Geschichte der Olympischen Ringe“ (69-95) stellt sich eher als eine kuriose Nacherzählung der Genese und Verwendungskontexte der verschiedenen Flaggen der jeweiligen Olympischen Veranstaltungen dar, während Flavio de Almeida Lico und Katia Rubio anhand der brasilianischen Teilnahme an den vom Westen boykottierten Moskauer Sommerspielen 1980 die Verflechtung von politischen und wirtschaftlichen Interessen mit der Olympischen Idee beleuchten (113-131). Heike Tiemanns Beitrag über die Entwicklungslinie „vom ‚Versehrtensport’ zu den Paralympics“ (97-112) verschenkt wiederum die Option, Olympia als Bildungsidee konzeptionell zu schärfen oder kritisch zu hinterfragen, indem sie keinen Bezug auf das im Titel immerhin annoncierte Buchthema nimmt: Ist – so könnte man fragen – mit den Paralympics die olympische Bildungsidee variiert und erfolgten so neue, pädagogisch anschlussfähige Wertsetzungen von körperlicher Leistungsfähigkeit, Fairness, Wertschätzung, Partizipation und Inklusion?

|135

|

136

Reviews

Möglichen Fragestellungen nach Legitimations- und Marketingstrategien, semantischen Anpassungen und auch konzeptionellen Neuausrichtungen von Olympia als Bildungsidee – also Fragen nach Stabilität und Wandel bzw. realer Verortung dieser Idee – gehen auch die folgenden Beiträge nicht nach, obwohl sich dies thematisch durchaus angeboten hätte. Welche Konsequenzen hatte etwa die Entwicklung, dass Frauen bei den Spielen, aber auch in der wissenschaftlich-publizistischen Darstellung der Spiele lange Zeit marginalisiert wurden, für die olympische Bildungsidee? Gertrud Pfister greift diese naheliegende Frage nicht auf, sondern exemplifiziert generelle methodische und konzeptionelle Überlegungen der Gendergeschichte in ihrem Beitrag (135-156). Auch der spannende Aufsatz von Andreas Singler und Gerhard Treutlein über Doping im bundesdeutschen Spitzensport seit den 1960er-Jahren (157-182) hätte anhand des Teilbefundes, wonach Sportmediziner dopingähnliche hormonelle Betreuungen von Spitzensportlern als „Persönlichkeitsentwicklung“ (171) legitimierten, stärker mit dem Sammelbandthema verzahnt werden können: wieweit diente die „Bildungsidee“ zur Legitimation von individueller Leistungssteigerung und von Dopingpraktiken? Diese geringe Bezugnahme mag daran liegen, dass Singlers und Treutleins Aufsatz kein Originalbeitrag und letztlich eine Wiedergabe einer bereits andernorts erfolgten Publikation ist, die einer vom hiesigen Sammelband abweichenden Akzentuierungslogik folgt. Ob die Bildungsidee Olympia letztlich eine Chimäre war und damit zwangsläufig scheitern musste, allerdings eine Art Renaissance in dem Neuformat der 2010 in Singapur erstmals ausgerichteten Olympischen Jugendspiele erfahren hat, hätte das leitende Erkenntnisinteresse der insgesamt sechs Aufsätze des thematisch fast geschlossenen vierten Abschnitts über die Youth Olympic

Games (YOG) mit eigenem Culture and Education Programme (CEP) sein können. Diese Neugründung wird jedoch im Sammelband kaum kritisch-konstruktiv analysiert. Es wird nicht gefragt, ob der olympische Sportwettkampf als solcher den ihm zugeschriebenen Bildungsgehalt überhaupt selbst erfüllen kann und ein als Defizit wahrgenommener gap zwischen bildungsidealem Anspruch und sportkommerzieller Wirklichkeit zur Gründung von YOG und CEP als gleichsam neue, explizit mit Bildungsauftrag versehene Veranstaltungsformate führte. Stattdessen schwanken die sechs Beiträge hierzu zwischen einer als ethnographische Studie getarnten subjektiven Reiseerzählung (189-203), einer oberflächlichen, auf Marketingempfehlungen abzielenden sozialempirisch erhobenen Studie zur Wahrnehmung der YOG (237-248) und einer Beschreibung des didaktischen Konzepts der 2008 in baden-württembergischen Gemeinden realisierten Kinderolympiade (249-260), die eine anwendungsorientierte Empfehlung ist, wie die kaum hinterfragten „Grundideen der Olympischen Erziehung“ (260) in der Praxis umgesetzt werden können. Was letztlich ein Aufsatz zur Entwicklung der Sprintleistungen im olympischen 100m-Lauf seit 1896 und ihres Nutzens für die „physical education“ in diesem Buchabschnitt zu YOG und CEP zu suchen hat, erschließt sich dem Rezensenten nicht. Kritik am Konzept der olympischen Bildungsidee enthalten sicherlich die beiden umfangreichen Aufsätze von Sven Güldenpfennig, der sich sowohl mit der Organisationsgeschichte der YOG auseinandersetzt (205-235), als auch einen für den thematischen Zuschnitt des Sammelbandes eher fragwürdigen abschließenden Beitrag zur gescheiterten Olympiabewerbung Münchens für 2018 bietet (277-314). Güldenpfennig stellt zwar den vermeintlichen „allgemeinen Bildungsauftrag“ der Olympischen „Bewegung“ in Frage (230), setzt jedoch dagegen IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

Rezensionen

die Behauptung, dass sie „vielmehr eine kulturelle Idee“ (230) bleibe. An anderer Stelle spricht er von der „Olympischen Idee [als] Teil des Weltkulturerbes“ (279). Was nun konkret der Kulturbegriff in diesem Zusammenhang bedeutet, bleibt jedoch bedauerlicherweise durch zahlreiche sportpolitische Polemiken und in seinem Beitrag ausgetragene wissenschaftliche Fehden unterkonzeptionalisiert. Güldenpfennigs Beiträge gleichen mehr journalistischen Leitartikeln als wissenschaftlichen Analysen. Am Schluss der Lektüre bleibt der Eindruck eines sehr inkohärenten Sammelbandes, der mit seinem Titel ein analytisch lohnenswer-

tes Thema aufzugreifen verspricht, die damit verbundenen Facetten und Analyseoptionen durch zu viele inhaltliche Nebengleise und aufgrund einer fehlenden konzeptionelltheoretischen Begründung jedoch nicht einlösen kann. Annette R. Hofmann/Michael Krüger (Hrsg.): Olympia als Bildungsidee. Beiträge zur olympischen Geschichte und Pädagogik. (Schriften des Centrums für Bildungsforschung im Sport (CeBiS), 2) Wiesbaden: Verlag Springer VS 2013. 316 S. ISBN 978-3-531-19551-3 EUR 39,99; CHF 50.–

Dr. Norbert Grube, Pädagogische Hochschule Zürich, Lagerstrasse 2, LAA-K034, CH8090 Zürich, [email protected]

IJHE Jg. 3 (2013), H 2

|137

|

138

|139

Richard Aldrich A Future Role for Historians of Education Die zukünftige Rolle der Bildungshistoriker

Popular usage suggests that history is essentially concerned with the past. Hence the saying “that’s history”, meaning something that’s over and done. Dictionary definitions confirm this emphasis on the past, for example: “the total accumulation of past events, esp. relating to human affairs or to the accumulation of developments connected with a particular nation, person, thing, etc. (our island history; the history of astronomy; he has a history of illness)” (Concise Oxford Dictionary 1995, 643). While recent and contemporary history have their advocates, the majority of professional historians are engaged in the study of the more distant past and probably believe that decades, even centuries, need to have elapsed before a dispassionate and scholarly study of human events can take place. Similarly Marc Depaepe has emphasized that history of education is concerned with the past and not the present. The first four of his ten commandments read as follows: 1.  Thou shalt remember that the history of education is history; 2.  Thou shalt write about the educational past; 3.  Thou shalt not fret excessively about presentism; 4.  Thou shalt not write a history of the present, nor for the present (Depaepe 2010, 31). In contrast other historians have valued the contribution that a study of the past may make to an understanding of the present and the future. As Sir John Seeley wrote in 1883 “we shall all no doubt be wise after the event; we study history that we may be wise before the event” (Seeley 1883, 169). I have always believed that one of the main purposes, perhaps the main purpose, of the study of history is the promotion of wisdom. Historical study provides an acquaintance with a much greater range of human experience that would be possible simply by reference to the contemporary world. In so doing it has the potential to lead to an enhanced awareness of the nature of knowledge and of truth. The fulfilment of such a purpose, however, requires a more inclusive definition of history than those cited so far. This paper is based on the premise that history is the occurrence, study, interpretation, recording and representation of human and other events and affairs with specific reference to the dimension of time – past, present and future. In a former paper (Aldrich 2003) I argued that historians of education, in common with all historians, have three duties – to the people of the past, to the people of the present, and to truth. Our obligations to both past and present IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|

140

Richard Aldrich

generations require the provision of as accurate a map of the past as possible. On occasion, however, some historians of education have a further duty – to indicate the potential relevance of that map to current and future concerns. The past does not determine the future but it helps to shape it, and an accurate map of the past may be a good guide to possible routes in the future. As to historical truth, as Fritz Stern has observed “the impossibility of attaining absolute truth heightens the historian’s responsibility” so that “even if the existence of Truth be problematical, truthfulness remains the measure of his intellectual and moral achievement” (Stern 1956/1970, 26). This article has three main purposes. The first is to show that the study of history is not just an exercise in increasing our knowledge and understanding of the past. Such study also has implications for our knowledge and understanding of the present and of possible futures. The second is to demonstrate that we are at a crucial moment in the history of the human race. Finally I would argue that historians of education are uniquely qualified to understand and represent this crucial moment and, in conjunction with others – including fellow historians, anthropologists, educationists, politicians, scientists and technologists – to identify possible future scenarios.

Minutes to Midnight In the second decade of the 20th century there is an urgent need for historical perspectives to be brought to bear upon the several serious issues that confront the human race. In 1947 a group of atomic scientists, fearful of the threat to the human race posed by nuclear weapons, devised the notion of a Doomsday Clock. In 1991 the clock was reckoned to stand at 17 minutes to midnight. At a meeting of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists at the Royal Society in London in 2007 it was set at a mere five minutes to midnight (Dukes 2011, 2). Over the last 60 years as biological, chemical and nuclear weapons have become more widespread the chances that they will be deployed, either intentionally or accidentally, increase. For example, we now know, belatedly, that in the seven years following 1950 the US Air Force recorded no fewer than 87 separate accidents, many of them involving nuclear weapons (Schlosser 2013). Such power is not only in the hands of governments. As Martin Rees, the British Astronomer Royal has argued, modern means of destruction empower a single individual to cause millions of deaths or to render a city uninhabitable for decades. He concludes that “the odds are no better than fifty-fifty that our present civilisation on Earth will survive to the end of the present century without a serious setback” (Rees 2003, 61). Climatic changes have occurred throughout the Earth’s history. These are occasioned by variations in the tilt of the planet’s axis and its orbital path around the Sun and by events on Earth itself, such as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis. The extent to which the release of billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere as the result of human actions is precipitating global warming remains in dispute, but the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013 stated unequivocally that we are in a period of global warming and that it is 95 per cent certain that human activity is the dominant cause. There is no doubt, however, that climatic changes have had a marked effect on human history. So, too, has human mismanagement of the land and sea. For example from the 1950s the waters of the Aral Sea began to recede as the Soviet government instituted irrigation schemes to draw waters for the production of cotton. As a consequence some 60 000 fishermen lost their livelihoods and their boats were abandoned. It is estimated that by 2020 the Aral Sea will virtually have disappeared (Johnson 2010, 151f.). Climatic changes lead to migration IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

A Future Role for Historians of Education

and in our increasingly overpopulated world are a cause of conflict. Even the current crisis in Syria has been partly attributed to a five-year drought induced by climate change that resulted in the deaths of up to 85 per cent of livestock and 75 per cent crop failure. Farmers and their families fled to the cities where they found themselves in competition with other refugees from Palestine and Iraq (Polk 2013). Scientific and technological advances over the past 500 years mean that many members of the human race live longer and healthier lives than their forbears. They enjoy more comfortable homes, speedier travel, near-instant communication and access to unlimited amounts of information. But many do not. The gleaming glass and steel towers of some modern cities are surrounded by teeming outskirts of slum dwellers. The phenomenon of rural flight occasioned by climate change, overuse of the land and mechanization resulting in the creation of mega-cities, has been well charted by Mike Davis. For example Mexico City which had fewer than three million inhabitants in 1950 had grown to over 22 million in 2004. Over the same period São Paulo grew from 2.4 to 19.9 million, Mumbai from 2.9 to 19.1 million and Cairo from 2.4 to 15.1 million (Davis 2006, 4). Much of this growth has taken place in slums. Indeed Davis concludes that many of the cities of the twenty-first century “are largely constructed of crude brick, straw, recycled plastic, cement blocks, and scrap wood” (ibid., 19). Scientific and technological advances have not only been unequally shared amongst the peoples of the world, they have also given some nations the power to subjugate others and in doing so to assume unwarranted mental, moral and racial superiority. Carlo Cipolla (1965) examined European expansion based on superior weaponry in the early modern period while Daniel Headrick (1981) extended the account into the nineteenth century. As a result of this expansion the amount of the world controlled by Europeans rose from 35 per cent in 1800 to nearly 85 per cent in 1914 (Fieldhouse 1973, 3). The first half of the twentieth century saw further advances in weaponry on land, sea and in the air as Europeans and their allies engaged in internecine strife in two World Wars. Indeed Niall Ferguson has argued that with more than 150 million deaths from organized violence. “The hundred years after 1900 were without question the bloodiest century in modern history, far more violent in relative as well as absolute terms than any previous era” (Ferguson 2006, xxxiv). The process continues. In his latest book Headrick cites recent examples from Vietnam, Algeria and Afghanistan to demonstrate the limitations of Western military might, as “technologies are always environment-specific” (Headrick 2010, 370), hence the search for ever more potent and precise methods of waging war. Therefore despite scientific and technological advances that have brought unprecedented benefits to people in some parts of the world, today nearly a quarter of the human race exist in dire poverty and experience a very poor quality of life. The resources of the planet are unequally shared by its seven billion inhabitants. Every day some 25 000 people in the world die from contaminated water. Each year 20 million children are mentally impaired by malnourishment (Wright 2004, 126). In 1992 Francis Fukuyama argued that the European revolutions of 1989 not only heralded the overthrow of authoritarian Communism but that “it makes sense for us once again to speak of a coherent and directional History of mankind” (Fukuyama 1992, xii) that would lead to the spread of liberal democracy. Fukuyama’s vision of a world in which the great majority of people enjoyed political and cultural freedoms, however, has not materialized. Authoritarian regimes flourish in many parts of the world. Theocracy is on the increase. National, racial and tribal ideologies continue to prevail. An increase in religious observance IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|141

|

142

Richard Aldrich

has been accompanied by an increase in religious and sectarian conflicts (Mickelthwait/ Wooldridge 2009). The power and influence of Western nations is in relative decline. Indeed as Samuel P. Huntington has argued “for the first time in history global politics is both multipolar and multicivilizational: modernization is distinct from Westernization and is producing neither a universal civilization in any meaningful sense nor the Westernization of non-Western societies” (Huntington 1997, 20). The current relative decline of Western nations should be set in the context of the broader threat to humanity itself. Throughout history civilizations and empires have risen only to decline. Many regions of the world bear physical evidence of the demise of great civilizations, for example monuments of the Roman Empire still adorn many places in Africa, Asia and Europe. Bryan Ward-Perkins (2005) has shown that the fall of the Roman Empire was not simply marked by a collapse of political power but accompanied and followed by centuries of economic and social decline. In the twenty-first century, however, it is not so much individual civilizations and empires that are threatened; rather it is civilization itself.

Future History Is there a role for historians of education in the current situation? Should we carry on researching the past with no thought for the present or future? Or could historians be as, or even more important, than scientists and technologists in shaping the future? One important step is a re-positioning of history of education to encompass a global approach. The International Standing Conference for the History of Education (ISCHE) and the journal Paedagogica Historica encourage membership and contributions from around the world, but both still bear the mark of their European origins. In the preface to her recent important edited volume, A Concise Companion to History, Ulinka Rublack provides a useful blueprint when she argues that “no Companion to History should any more read like a Companion to Western History, in which the West is taken as a universal model and overall provides the central experience of the past. Yet startlingly, nothing like this book with its comparative discussion around themes and concepts which concern all of us in this world so far exists” (Rublack 2012, xiii). Thus the book’s contributors, although all located at universities in England and the USA, are “outstandingly original historians of diverse specializations – from Africa to the Caribbean, China and Japan to India, and Europe to Latin America” (ibid.). The first four chapters of this book are concerned with “Writing History”; the remaining 12 with “Themes and Structures”. Many of the themes have educational dimensions, for example “Communication”, “Culture”, “Emotions” and “The Power of Ideas”. Sadly there is no separate chapter on “Education”. Nevertheless the treatment of these themes, together with others such as “Ethnicity”, “Gender”, “Power” and “Religion” that have formed the subject of recent ISCHE congresses, provide useful examples of how a more global approach might be applied to future historical studies of education. While religion has long been a subject of study for historians of education it is interesting to note ethnicity, gender and power are of more recent vintage. These additions to the historical agenda were prompted in large part by the concerns of the day. Contemporary concerns such as climate change, disease, environmental degradation, famine, migration and overpopulation, have educational dimensions and are worthy subjects of study. A second development is for historians of education to engage in multi-disciplinary activities. Specialization is a fact of academic life, but as the amount of knowledge in the world proliferates there is a danger that we become isolated, knowing more and more about less IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

A Future Role for Historians of Education

and less, living in increasingly esoteric worlds, attending specialist conferences, writing for specialist journals, and communicating with an ever-diminishing group of colleagues. If historians of education are to make a genuine contribution to understanding the world as it is and as it might be in the future, they will need to collaborate with others, not only historians and educationists but also those in the humanities more broadly, in the sciences and with those in political power. As Marc Bloch observed “a good half of all we see is seen through the eyes of others” (Bloch 1954, 49). There is an urgent need for consilience, a reintegration of knowledge across the disciplines (Wilson 1998). For example, some of the current controversy about the rate of global warming depends on the choice of starting date. Indeed in 2013 the IPCC failed to decide on 1850 or 1900 as the start of industrial era. Atmospheric chemist Paul J. Crutzen and marine scientist Eugene F. Stoermer coined the term, the Anthropocene Era, the age in which human activity began to have a significant impact upon the Earth’s geology. By examining the increase in concentrations of carbon dioxide in glacial ice cores they identified a likely starting point in the second half of the eighteenth century (Crutzen/Stoermer 2000, 17f.). This was challenged by the palaeoclimatologist, William Ruddiman, who argued that thousands of years ago forest clearances and cultivation in the Neolithic period led to a rise in levels of carbon dioxide and methane and affected climatic patterns (Ruddiman 2003). In Minutes to Midnight (Dukes 2011, 11-27) the historian Paul Dukes draws upon a range of political, social, commercial and cultural as well as scientific and technological factors to assign a date of 1763 to the start of the Anthropocene Era. His overall purpose in writing the book, however, was to note major advances in the natural sciences and their applications, to provide an analytical narrative of the Anthropocene Era and also to “pay particular attention to the development of history as an academic discipline in association with other humanities, the social and natural sciences, and to illustrate its response to the changing circumstances of successive periods” (ibid., x). As Robin G. Collingwood famously observed “the historian has no gift of prophecy” and cannot “establish a framework to which all future history must conform” (Collingwood 1961, 220). Nevertheless it may be possible to identify potential futures. A recent ground-breaking study of an area of the planet that so far has had a very blank history provides an interesting example. In The Future History of the Arctic, Charles Emmerson examines possible future scenarios for a part of the world that so far has attracted little attention from historians. He concludes that our ideas of the Arctic, “cold, isolated, empty, white, pristine” (Emmerson 2010, 4), may be about to change. Human actions have speeded up the natural pattern of climatic cycles. Neighbouring countries, from Greenland and Iceland to Russia and the USA, have different interests in the region. The Arctic may become an area of global co-operation with an emphasis on protection and scientific research. On the other hand Emmerson draws on historical evidence to conclude that it is more likely that the region will become a battleground, “fought over not just by states but by the different economic and political interests which are jostling for their part of the Arctic future, trying either to develop its economic potential or to protect its environment” (ibid., 344).

Future Education If, as Dukes has argued “we need to make as much use as possible of history as we contemplate current problems” (Duke 2011, 133) what is the role of education and the particular role for historians of education? History, as the earlier quotation from Seeley suggests, is IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|143

|

144

Richard Aldrich

an educative subject par excellence in that it has the potential to promote wisdom. John Abbott’s definition of education as “That reflective activity which enables the learner to draw upon previous experience to understand and evaluate the present, so as to shape future action and formulate new knowledge” (Abbott 1994, vii) clearly shows the connection between history and education. Historians in general can draw upon the record of past behaviour to suggest that the human race must modify many of actions in the present or face a potentially catastrophic future. They can also identify possible future scenarios. Historians of education, however, are uniquely qualified to review past and present systems of education, gauge how appropriate they will be in the future and suggest remedies for any perceived deficiencies. In a previous paper (Aldrich 2010) I surveyed past and present aims of education under three headings – education for salvation, education for the state and education for progress – and concluded that while each had great strengths, none of these as currently pursued was appropriate for the world in which we live. Just as we need a new type of history, one that recognizes and responds to the current crisis, is global in approach, and forward- as well as backward-looking, so, too, we need a new type of education, one that contributes to a reintegration of knowledge and to a world in which human beings treat each other and the planet on which they live with respect, an education that is directed as much at adults as at children. In pleading the urgent need for an academic revolution, Nicholas Maxwell has argued that “two great problems of learning confront humanity: first learning about the nature of the universe and about ourselves as a part of the universe, and second, learning to live wisely – learning how to make progress towards as good a world as possible” (Maxwell 2010, 80). In making such progress the human race will require both a new type of history and a new type of education. Historians of education are well placed to contribute to both of these developments. Their future role is assured.

References

Abbott, John: Learning Makes Sense: Re-creating Education for a Changing Future (1994). Letchworth: Education 2000 Aldrich, Richard: The Three Duties of the Historian of Education. In: History of Education 32(2003), vol. 3, 133-143 Aldrich, Richard: Education for Survival: An Historical Perspective. In: History of Education 39(2010), vol. 1, 1-14 Bloch Marc: The Historian’s Craft. Manchester: Manchester University Press 1946 Cipolla, Carlo: Guns, Sails and Empires: Technological Innovation and the Early Phases of European Expansion, 1400-1700. New York: Random House 1965 Collingwood, Robin G.: The Idea of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1961 Crutzen, Paul J./Stoermer, Eugene F.: The Anthropocene. In: Global Change Newsletter 41(2000), 17-18 Davis, Mike: Planet of Slums. London: Verso 2006 Depaepe, Marc: The Ten Commandments of Good Practices in History of Education Research. In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Historiographie 16(2010), vol. 1, 31-34 Dukes, Paul: Minutes to Midnight: History and the Anthropocene Era from 1763. London: Anthem Press 2011 Emmerson, Charles: The Future History of the Arctic. London: The Bodley Head 2010 Ferguson, Niall: The War of the World. History’s Age of Hatred. London: Allen Lane 2006 Fieldhouse, David K.: Economics and Empire. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1973 Fukuyama, Francis: The End of History and the Last Man. London: Hamish Hamilton 1992 Headrick, Daniel R.: The Tools of Empire: Technology and European Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press 1981 Headrick, Daniel R.: Power over Peoples. Technology, Environments, and Western Imperialism, 1400 to the Present. Princeton: Princeton University Press 2010

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

A Future Role for Historians of Education

Huntington, Samuel P.: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. London: Simon and Schuster 1997 Johnson, Rob: Climate Change, Resources and Future War: The Case of Central Asia. In: Mark Levene/Rob Johnson/Penny Roberts (Eds.): History at the End of the World? Penrith: Humanities-Ebooks/LLP 2010, 148-165 Maxwell, Nicholas: The Urgent Need for an Academic Revolution. In: Mark Levene/Rob Johnson/Penny Roberts (Eds.): History at the End of the World? Penrith: Humanities-Ebooks/LLP 2010, 80-93 Mickelthwait, John/Wooldridge, Adrian: God is Back. How the Global Rise of Faith is Changing the World. London: Allen Lane 2009 Polk, William: Williampolk.com [23. September 2013] Rees, Martin: Our Final Century: Will Civilization Survive the Twenty-First Century? London: Heinemann 2003 Rublack, Ulinka (Ed.): A Concise Companion to History. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012 Ruddiman, William F.: The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago. In: Climatic Change 61(2003), 261-293 Schlosser, Eric: Command and Control. London: Allen Lane 2013 Seeley, Sir John: The Expansion of England. London: Macmillan 1883 Stern, Fritz: The Varieties of History. From Voltaire to the Present (1956). London: Macmillan 1970 Ward-Perkins, Bryan: The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005 Wilson, Edward O.: Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. London: Little/Brown 1998 Wright, Ronald: A Short History of Progress. Toronto: Anansi 2004

Prof. Dr. Richard Aldrich, Institute of Education, University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAL, [email protected]

IJHE Jg. 4 (2014), H 1

|145