Michel de Montaigne is, without a doubt, one of the leading forefathers of French philosophy. His collection of essais has influenced and inspired philosophical writers the world over, from Descartes to Nietzsche, and from Emerson to even Shakespeare (just read a little of The Tempest to see multiple allusions to Of the Cannibals). One of these essays, De l'institution des enfans, or Of the Education of Children, to the English-speakers of the world, happened to be the very first text for one of my 2nd-year Undergraduate modules. Its title, Provoking Thoughts: French Literature and Philosophy from the Renaissance to the 20th Century. It is my opinion that Montaigne is the author on this module that encapsulates this idea completely: Provoking Thoughts. Once you get past the strange additional letters and historic spellings (imagine reading Shakespeare, but its French equivalent), Montaigne is one of the most accessible and interesting philosophical writers to read. The ideas he puts forward in the essais are very often appropriate for today's world, and the fact that someone writing 400 years ago can put forward ideas that we haven't quite grasped even in the 21st Century, is, quite frankly, mind-blowing. I don't claim to be an expert on Montaigne, nor do I claim to have read every single one of his essais (as much as I would like to). I do, however, know that of all of the essais I have read, De l'institution des enfans has to be my favourite. Maybe that's because education, its methods, and workings have always interested me, or maybe it's because this essai is, quite simply, fascinating to read. Either way, it's pretty darn good.
Anyway, I should stop rambling on about how much I like it, and actually start talking about it. Montaigne's De l'institution des enfans essentially gives Montaigne's view on how pupils should be taught. Of course, this being the Renaissance, Montaigne directs his essai towards the education of a young, noble boy. Indeed, throughout his essais, Montaigne does come across as, well, a mysoginist snob. However, despite the fact that every feminist bone in my body (and there are a fair few) bristles when I read some of his work, it doesn't take away from the wonder that is De l'instituion. The ideas Montaigne puts forward about education, whilst aimed towards an "upper" minority of citizens, and also quite hypocritical (Montaigne himself was given a very traditional and classic education), are very forward-thinking and extremely interesting, even today.
Essentially, Montaigne's overriding claim in de l'institution is that learning is about doing, not knowing. He says that students should travel the world, learning by actually experiencing things, rather than reading about them or being told about them: "Il ne dira pas tant sa lecon, comme il la fera". It's all very well reading as much as you can, and learning other people's ideas, but it does not mean that you will fully understand it: it is better to have the worldly experience of actually doing things than to simply 'learn' about them. Montaigne states that he would rather be "un habil'homme, qu'un homme sçavant", that he would rather understand things by being able to experience them directly than simply reading about them, or becoming a 'learned man' through books. He also says that "sçavoir par coeur n'est pas sçavoir". Seems odd, even in this day in age, for someone to say that in learning something, you don't necessarily 'know' it, and it was even more unheard of at the time in which Montaigne was writing in. Education was about reading the works of the ancient philosophers and learning things by heart. Recitation has always been a fundamental part of learning, and learning things by heart is still one of the most common revision methods amongst students today. Just think about the number of times you recited your times-tables, and you see that these ideas are still applicable. Of course, Montaigne does have a point. What he is trying to say is that learning something by heart is all very well, but, ultimately, it is completely useless unless you fully understand what it is that you are trying to learn. And what is the best way to do that? Go out and experience it.
Obviously, there are some things you cannot physically 'do'; there are things that require sitting down and reading up on them, or for someone else to help inform you about them. However, Montaigne covers this, too. He says that in order to understand something, the student must be able to use his "propre raison" in order to embrace the ideas himself. The process of education is not all about the teacher. Montaigne quotes Cicero to develop this point: "The authority of those who teach is very often an impediment to those who desire to learn". I think we can all speak from experience when we say that the worst teachers we had at school, or college, or even at University, are the ones who simply stand in front of a class and talk at them. No discussion, no opinions, simply drone after drone about what it is you are required to learn. And, by the opposite thread, the best teachers we remember are those that really engaged us, that allowed us to form our own ideas, that seemed interested in these ideas, regardless of how often they may have heard it before, or how silly it seemed. In order to get the most out of education, it is not about one person standing up and simply relaying all of their knowledge to a group of people, who all write it down and go and learn it. But of course, that is often what education can seem like, especially during Montaigne's time. Dante said that "I love to doubt, as well as to know", another idea quoted by Montaigne in the essai. It is a very forward-thinking idea, to suggest that the process of learning is ongoing. Teachers can learn from their students in the same way that the students learn from the pupils: it is a two-way process. For want of a better phrase, the art of learning is in the discovery. But the students must first be allowed to embrace the ideas of others using their own opinions and reason.
Montaigne maintains that it is impossible to understand something simply by listening to, reading, and learning the ideas of others. The process of learning becomes much more efficient if the student can form his own ideas and opinions. He says "qui suit un autre, il ne suit rien. Il ne trouve rien, voire il ne cerche rien". Just as you cannot blindly follow others and expect to survive in life, you cannot blindly follow the ideas of others without questioning them and making them your own and expect to fully understand anything you learn. Ideas do not 'belong' to the so-called experts. Whilst a teacher may know a lot about a subject, it does not mean that all of the ideas he presents belong to him and only him. Montaigne points out that when an idea is shared, if the student is allowed to attack that idea using his own understanding and reason, it then becomes a part of his own. He states that "la verité et la raison sont communes à un chacun et ne sont non plus à qui les a dites premierement qu'à qui les dict après".
Learning is an ongoing process, for both the student and the teacher. Students must be allowed to embrace ideas. They must be free to go with them, and use them in whatever way they wish, studying them with their own reason and logic, to form new ideas and opinions. They cannot confine themselves to the classroom, rather, they must be able to go out and 'do', to experience things in a real-life context, rather than simply hearing or reading about them. There is only so much a student can fully 'learn', in the true sense of the word, from reading and learning things by heart. In order to understand something, you have to be able to form your own opinions about it, regardless of whether these were aided by a teacher.
Doesn't sound like something from the Renaissance to me :-P.
No comments:
Post a Comment