The history of education is one of unending conflict between two opposing views regarding the aims of schooling. On the one hand are those who argue for “growth from within,” the idea that children have their own ways of knowing and that the goal of education should be to nourish this growth. Famed Brazilian educator, Paulo Friere (Friere 1977) called this aim “liberation.” The opposing view is that of “discipline from without” and the belief that the goal of education should be to socialize children to be responsible citizens. Friere, called this educational aim as one of “domestication.”

It is interesting that philosophers and educators who formulated and supported these opposing positions had quite different temperaments. John Jacques Rousseau, the author of Emile (Rousseau 1956) one of the earliest advocates for growth from within, was a free thinker in a number of domains, in addition to his educational and political tracts (which contributed to the American and French), he wrote plays, operas and one of the first autobiographies. In contrast, John Locke (Locke 1692/2007), one of the earliest advocates of discipline from without, was a compulsive orderly man who was strongly for the English monarchy over the upstart Cromwell.

Likewise, Friedrich Froebel (Froebel 1904), the inventor of the kindergarten defied convention in both manner and dress. The curriculum materials (gifts) he created for his kindergarten charges were open ended and encouraged creativity. One gift was a set of toothpicks and dried peas that children could use to construct different forms. These curriculum materials were far different from those created by Montessori (Montessori 1964). Although Montessori defied convention in becoming the first female physician in Italy, and fought for women’s rights, she was also very disciplined and orderly. The curriculum materials she created emphasized learning the skills and concepts required for social adaptation. For example, she introduced sandpaper letters to help children learn these through touch as well as through sight.

One could argue, along with William James, that educational theory may be as much a matter of temperament as of intellectual conviction. Many different theories of temperament have been offered. Among the most well known, and intuitively, reasonable, has been given different labels. Darwin distinguished between scientists who were “lumpers” and those who were “splitters.” Others have labeled these temperamental differences “synthetic” and “analytic,” i.e., some people see the forest, others the trees.

It does not seem far fetched to argue that parents too, vary in this type of temperament. Those who are mainly concerned with their children learning the tool skills, getting into good schools and so on, are likely to be on the more orderly, conventional end of the lumper/splitter temperament continuum. Those parents concerned that their children have time to play, and to be curious and imaginative may be on the open, less conventional end.

If this interpretation is correct, perhaps we need to rethink our antipathies as to liberation and domestication. When these two orientations are thought of as intellectual preferences, we tend to see the other side as not only wrong, but bad. But, if we see these orientations as reflections of human temperament, rather than wrong headedness, perhaps we would be willing to compromise and see the other side. After all the aim of education, and of child rearing, should be to both liberate and domesticate. In the end, the real challenge is to find ways of integrating these two orientations in a meaningful and productive fashion.

----------
Friere, P. (1977). Pedagogy of the Opressed. Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield.

Froebel, F. (1904). Pedagogics of the Kindergarten. New York, D. Appleton and Company.

Locke, J. (1692/2007). Some Thoughts Concerning Education, NuVision Publications LLC.

Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori Method. New York, Schocken.

Rousseau, J. J. (1956). Emile. New York, Teacher's College Columbia University Press.