Rousseau: An Interesting Madman
Don Closson
Who Was Rousseau?
Popular
song lyrics often have a way of reflecting what many people think, but rarely
articulate. Recently, a song with a catchy tune and lots of airtime
verbalized a way of thinking about God that is quite popular. The song, What
God Said by a group called the Uninvited begins with the lyrics, "I
talked to God and God said ‘Hey! I’ve got a lot of things to say; write it
down this very day and spread the word in every way.’" This is a
remarkably evangelistic idea in this day of absolute tolerance for other
people’s beliefs. However, this god who has revealed himself to the
songwriter doesn’t expect much from the listener. According to the first
verse we are to floss between each meal, drive with both hands on the wheel,
and not be too sexually aggressive on the first date. In the second verse god
wants us to ride bikes more, feed the birds, and clean up after our pets. The third verse gets a
little more interesting. God supposedly reveals that humans killed his only
son and that his creation is undone, but that he can’t help everyone. These
obvious references to the incarnation of Christ and the Fall of Adam set up
the listener for the solution to mankind’s situation which, according to the
song, is to "start with the basics—just be nice and see if that makes
things all right." The chorus drives home this theology by repeating
often that "I talked to God and God said nothing special, I talked to
God and God said nothing that we shouldn’t already know, shouldn’t already
know." This idea, namely that
any revelation from God would consist primarily of common sense notions, is a
product of the Enlightenment and found an extraordinary voice in the
philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau argued that all one needs to know
about God has been revealed in nature or in one’s own conscience. Rousseau is
often called the father of the French revolution, a movement that exalted the
worship of reason and attempted to purge the clergy and Christianity from
French culture. Although Rousseau wasn’t around for the bloodshed of the
revolution itself, his idea of a natural theology helped to provide a
framework for rejecting special revelation and the organized church. Few people in history
have caused such a wide spectrum of responses to their ideas. At his death,
Rousseau’s burial site became a place of pilgrimage. George Sand referred to
him as "Saint Rousseau," Shelly called him a "sublime
genius," and Schiller, a "Christ-like soul for whom only Heaven’s
angels are fit company."{1} However, others had a different perspective.
His one and only true love, Sophie d’Houdetot, referred to him as an
"interesting madman." Diderot, a long time acquaintance, summed him
up as "deceitful, vain as Satan, ungrateful, cruel, hypocritical and
full of malice."{2} In addition to anything else that might be
said about Rousseau, he was at least an expert at being a celebrity. He was a
masterful self-promoter who knew how to violate public norms just enough to
stay in the public eye. Interestingly enough,
Rousseau’s ideas have actually had greater and longer impact outside of
France. Two centuries later, his natural theology plays a significant role in
determining our society’s view of human nature as well as how we educate our
children. Thus it is important to consider the thoughts of Rousseau and see
how they impact our culture today, especially in the realm of education. Rousseau’s Natural
Theology
To begin
our examination of the thoughts of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his impact on
our view of human nature and education, we will turn our attention to the
foundational thoughts of his natural theology. Rousseau often claims in
his writings that all he seeks is the truth, and he is very confident that he
knows it when he sees it. Being a child of the Enlightenment, Rousseau begins
with the Cartesian assumption that he exists and that the universe is real.
He then decides that the first cause of all activity is a will, rather than
matter itself. He states, "I believe therefore that a will moves the
universe and animates nature. This is my first dogma, or my first article of
faith."{3} He then argues that this "will"
that moves matter is also intelligent. Finally, Rousseau writes that
"This ‘being’ which wills and is powerful, this being active in itself,
this being, whatever it may be, which moves the universe and orders all
things, I call God."{4} So
far, so good, but according to Rousseau, to guess the purpose of this being
or to ask questions beyond immediate necessity would be foolish and harmful.
Rousseau writes "But as soon as I want to contemplate Him in Himself, as
soon as I want to find out where He is, what He is, what His substance is, He
escapes me, and my clouded mind no longer perceives anything."{5} The problem with
Rousseau’s view of God is that we can know so little of Him. Rousseau rejects
special revelation and argues that it is only by observing nature and looking
inward that we can perceive anything at all about the Creator. Rousseau
perceives from nature that the earth was made for humans and that humanity is
to have dominion over it. He also argues that humanity will naturally worship
the Creator, stating, "I do not need to be taught this worship; it is
dictated to me by nature itself."{6} In
Rousseau’s opinion, to seek any other source than nature for how to worship
God would be to seek man’s opinion and authority, both of which are rejected
as destructive. Rousseau believes that
humans are autonomous creatures, and that humanity is free to do evil, but
that doing evil detracts from satisfaction with oneself. Rousseau thanks God
for making him in His image so that he can be free, good, and happy like God.{7} Death
is merely the remedy of the evils that we do. As he puts it, "nature did
not want you to suffer forever."{8} Rousseau is clear about
the source of evil. He writes, "Man, seek the author of evil no longer.
It is yourself. No evil exists other than that which you do or suffer, and
both come to you from yourself. . . .Take away the work of man, and everything
is good."{9} It is reason that will lead us to the
"good." A divine instinct has been placed in our conscience that
allows us to judge what is good and bad. The question remains that if each
person possesses this divine instinct to know the good, why do so many not
follow it? Rousseau’s answer is that our conscience speaks to us in
"nature’s voice" and that our education in civil man’s prejudices
causes us to forget how to hear it.{10} So
the battle against evil is not a spiritual one, but one of educational
methods and content. Although Rousseau thought
he was saving God from the rationalists, mankind is left to discern good and
evil with only nature as its measuring rod, and education as its savior. A Philosophy of
Education
Whether
you agree with his ideas or not, Rousseau was an intellectual force of such
magnitude that his ideas still impact our thinking about human nature and the
educational process two centuries later. His work Emile compares to
Plato’s Republic in its remarkable breadth. Not only does the book
describe a pedagogical method for training children to become practically
perfect adults, but he also builds in it an impressive philosophical
foundation for his educational goals. Emile is a very detailed account
of how Rousseau would raise a young lad (Emile) to adulthood, as well as a
description of the perfect wife for his charge. Along the way, Rousseau
proposes his natural theology which finds ardent followers all over the world
today. Although Emile was
written in the suburbs of Paris, Rousseau’s greatest impact on educational
practice has actually been outside of France.{11}
French educators have been decidedly non-Romantic when it comes to early
childhood education. Rousseau had a great deal of influence on the inventor
of the Kindergarten, Friedrich Froebel, as well as the educational Romantics
Johann Pestalozzi and Johann Herbart. These three educators’ names are
engraved on the Horace Mann building on the campus of Teachers College,
Columbia University. Columbia has been, and continues to be, at the center of
educational reform in America, and happens to have been the home of John
Dewey, America’s premier progressive thinker and educational philosopher.
Dewey and William Heard Kilpatrick further secularized and applied the
thinking of Froebel, Pestalozzi, and Herbart, and thus Rousseau. The common bond that
connects these educators is a Romantic view of human nature. Besides a
general faith in the goodness of all humanity, there are two other Romantic
fallacies that are particularly dangerous when carried to extremes. The first
is what is called the doctrine of developmentalism, or natural tempo, which
states that bookish knowledge should not be introduced at an early age.{12}
Second is the notion of holistic learning, which holds that natural or
lifelike, thematic methods of instruction are always superior.{13} Both
ideas tend to be anti-fact oriented and regard the systematic instruction of
any material at an early age harmful. This has had a profound effect on how
we teach reading in this country. The ongoing battle between whole- language
methods and the use of systematic phonics centers on this issue. When the
Romantic view prevails, which it often does in our elementary schools,
systematic phonics disappears. Rousseau’s theology and
educational methods are tightly bound together. He argues against the
biblical view that humanity is fallen and needs a redeemer. He believes that
our reason and intellect are fully capable of discerning what is right and
wrong without the need of special revelation or the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit. As a result, Rousseau argues that a proper education is man’s only
hope for knowing what limited truth is available. Rousseau and Childhood
Education
An
interesting aspect of Rousseau’s child-raising techniques is his reliance on things
to constrain and train a child rather than people. Rousseau rightfully
asserts that education begins at birth, a very modern concept. However, in
his mind early education should consist mainly of allowing as much freedom as
possible for the child. Rebellion against people is to be avoided at all
costs because it could cause an early end to a student’s education and result
in a wicked child. He puts it this way: "As long as children find
resistance only in things and never in wills, they will become neither
rebellious nor irascible and will preserve their health better."{14}
Rousseau believed that a teacher or parent should never lecture or sermonize.
Experience, interaction with things, is a far more effective teacher. This
dependence on experience is at the core of modern progressive education as
well. As a result, Rousseau was
remarkably hostile towards books and traditional education’s dependency on
them. From the very beginning of Emile, he is adamant that books
should play little or no part in the young man’s education. He claims that,
"I take away the instruments of their greatest misery--that is books.
Reading is the plague of childhood and almost the only occupation we know how
to give it. At twelve, Emile will hardly know what a book is."{15} At
one point Rousseau simply says, "I hate books. They only teach one to
talk about what one does not know."{16} A corollary aspect of
this negative view of books is Rousseau’s belief that children should never
be forced to memorize anything. He even suggests that an effort be made to
keep their vocabulary simple prior to their ability to read. This antagonism
towards books and facts fits well with Rousseau’s notion that people
"always try to teach children what they would learn much better by
themselves."{17} He also believed that
children should never memorize what they can not put to immediate use.
Rousseau acknowledged that children memorize easily, but felt that they are
incapable of judgment and do not have what he calls true memory. He argued
that children are unable to learn two languages prior to the age of twelve, a
belief that has been refuted by recent research. Prior to that age, Emile
is allowed to read only one book, Robinson Crusoe. Why Crusoe?
Because Rousseau wants Emile to see himself as Crusoe, totally dependent upon
himself for all of his needs. Emile is to imitate Crusoe’s experience,
allowing necessity to determine what needs to be learned and accomplished.
Rousseau’s hostility towards books and facts continues to impact educational
theory today. There is a strong and growing sentiment in our elementary
schools to remove the shackles of book knowledge and memorization and to
replace them with something called the "tool" model of learning. Rousseau’s Philosophy
and Modern "Tools"
Rousseau
argued against too much bookish knowledge and for natural experiences to
inform young minds. Today, something called the "tool" model
carries on this tradition. It is argued that knowledge is increasing so
rapidly that spending time to stockpile it or to study it in books results in
information that is soon outdated. We need to give our students the
"tools" of learning, and then they can find the requisite facts, as
they become necessary to their experience. Two important assumptions
are foundational to this argument. First, that the "tools" of
learning can be acquired in a content neutral environment without referring
to specific information or facts. And secondly, that an extremely child-
centered, experience driven curriculum is always superior to a direct
instruction, content oriented approach. The "tool"
model argues that "love of learning" and "critical thinking
skills" are more important to understanding, let’s say chemistry, than
are the facts about chemistry itself. Some argue that facts would only slow
them down. Unfortunately, research in the real world does not support this
view of learning. Citing numerous studies, E.D. Hirsch contends that learning
new ideas is built upon previously acquired knowledge. He calls this database
of information "intellectual capital" and just as it takes money to
make money, a knowledge framework is necessary to incorporate new knowledge.
To stress "critical thinking" prior to the acquisition of knowledge
actually reduces a child’s capacity to think critically.{18}
Students who lack intellectual capital must go through a strenuous process
just to catch up with what well-educated children already know. If children
attempt to do algebra without knowing their multiplication tables, they spend
a large amount of time and energy doing simple calculations. This distracts
and frustrates children and makes learning higher math much more difficult.
The same could be said for history students who never learn names and dates. The second idea is that
students should learn via natural experience within a distinctly passive
curriculum. While there is wisdom in letting nature set as many of the limits
as possible for a child--experience is probably the most powerful teaching
method--Rousseau and progressive educational theory go too far in asserting
that a teacher should never preach or sermonize to a child. At an early age,
children can learn from verbal instruction, especially if it occurs along
with significant learning experiences. In fact, certain kinds of learning
often contradict one’s experience. The teaching of morality and democratic
behavior involves teaching principles that cannot be experienced immediately,
and virtually everything that parents or teachers tell children about sexual
behavior has religious foundations based on assumptions about human nature. The bottom line seems to
be that if higher math, morality, and civilized behavior could be learned
from simply interacting with nature, Rousseau’s system would be more
appealing. However, his version of the naturalistic fallacy--assuming that
everything that is natural is right--would not serve our students well.
Rousseau’s observations about the student-teacher relationship fall short
first because of his overly optimistic view of human nature and because we
believe that there is truth to convey to the next generation that cannot be
experienced within nature alone. Notes 1. Paul
Johnson, Intellectuals, (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), 27. 2. Ibid. 3.
Ibid., 273. 4.
Ibid., 277. 5. Ibid. 6.
Ibid., 278. 7.
Ibid., 281. 8. Ibid. 9.
Ibid., 282. 10.
Ibid., 291. 11. E.D.
Hirsch, Jr., The Schools We Need & Why We Don’t Have Them (New
York: Doubleday, 1996), 81. 12. Ibid., 84. 13. Ibid. 14. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile or On
Education, trans. Alan Bloom (Basic Books, 1979), 66. 15.
Ibid., 116. 16.
Ibid., 184. 17.
Ibid., 78. 18. Hirsch, 66. © 1999 Probe Ministries
International About
the Author Don Closson received the B.S. in education from Southern
Illinois University, the M.S. in educational administration from Illinois
State University, and the M.A. in Biblical Studies from Dallas Theological
Seminary. He served as a public school teacher and administrator before
joining Probe Ministries as a research associate in the field of education.
He is the general editor of Kids, Classrooms, and Contemporary Education.
What is Probe? Probe Ministries is a
non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds
of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the
world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games
conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, and
our extensive Web site at www.probe.org. Further information about
Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at: Probe Ministries |