Steven M. Cahn (1997). Classic and Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of Education. Reviewed by Nicholas C. Burbules

Steven M. Cahn (1997). Classic and Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of Education. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN # 0-07-009619-8, 551 pages Reviewed by Nicholas C. Burbules, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign March 8, 1998 Steven M. Cahn's collection, Classic and Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of Education,[Note 1] is a revised and updated version of a previous collection, The Philosophical Foundations of Education,[Note 2] which is no longer in print. For this new edition, Cahn made fairly minor changes in the "Classic" section, adding selections from J.S. Mill and another essay by John Dewey. For the "Contemporary" section he retained a few authors (Dewey and Whitehead are transported from "Modern" to "Classic" and selections from Sidney Hook and Jacques Maritain are continued; Jane Roland Martin and Israel Scheffler are still included, but represented by different essays) and added twelve others. Revealingly, a prominent section in the 1970 book, on "Analytic Philosophy of Education," is eliminated entirely. In this review, I want to address two primary questions. First, what are the strengths and weaknesses of this text as a teaching resource? Second, what does the composition of this book tell us about the state of teaching in philosophy of education today, inside and outside of Philosophy Departments? With Professor Cahn, I share a preference for primary source materials as a basis for teaching, and this book comprises many excellent pieces; where it takes excerpts, it chooses well. Most of the authors included here under the "Classic" section (Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Mill, Whitehead, and Dewey) would be included in any basic syllabus of the field, with the possible exception of Mill. His "Inaugural Address at Saint Andrews," a laying-out of his views on liberal education and the university curriculum, is not really a work of philosophy, or philosophy of education, at all. Professor Cahn acknowledges this point: "An author who treats [metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, or political concerns] sketchily has not produced a philosophy of education but suggestions concerning educational policy" (p. 144). It is somewhat strange, then, why some of these texts (not only Mill's) are included in a volume with this title. As is demonstrated by several of the selections here, simply being a great philosopher does not make one's thoughts concerning education necessarily original or profound, nor is there always a strong link between one's "philosophy" and one's views about education. The term "philosophy of education" was first used in print in Paul Monroe's Cyclopedia of Education in 1911-13; the first organization that took on this name was formed (in the United States) in 1941.[Note 3] Before such representations of a discrete discipline, it is clear that for many philosophers reflections on education were not seen as a distinct "branch" or area of philosophy, but were simply viewed as the working out in practice of their beliefs about human nature, the formation of an ethical character, the citizenship requirements of a free and just society, and so on. Yet some of the classic selections in Cahn's book show how uneven, idiosyncratic, and even cranky some of these "suggestions concerning educational policy" turn out to be. Then why, one might ask, are such sources important for students to read? If they reveal neither philosophical depth and substance nor educational originality, the only remaining justification is the circular one that, because these canonical texts have been read and discussed by so many before, they have had weighty influences on educators schooled in the West, and so can be read, in hindsight, as a kind of genealogy of ideas about liberal education, vocationalism, discipline, and other relevant notions. But that is not what I understand "philosophy" to be. I certainly do not mean this observation to apply to all the "classic" texts - Plato, for example, is clearly engaged in philosophical reflections about the means and ends of education. In such works as the Meno, Protagoras, and the Republic, all included or excerpted here, Plato was concerned to understand and question skeptically such matters as what can be taught, what is "virtue" and how it can be acquired, how a just system of education should address differences in ability, and so on. This is by no means to suggest that Plato's answers are correct or uncontroversial; but he represents a model of the philosophical investigation of educational methods and aims that several of these other "classic" sources do not attempt. The canonical inclusion of Great Philosophers, who happened not to be great philosophers of education, suggests that something else is going on--something, perhaps having more to do with institutional and disciplinary credibility. On most university campuses (in the Anglo-American context, at least), courses in philosophy of education, and corresponding degree programs, are offered in Schools of Education, not Philosophy Departments. Given the academic status differences between most professional schools and the established disciplines of the Liberal Arts and Sciences, this means that Ph.D.s in philosophy of education are rarely regarded as peers of the "real" philosophers on campus. Ever since philosophy of education became identified as a distinct discipline, with its own journals, graduate programs, and professional societies, it has sought intellectual and institutional credibility as an applied branch of philosophy. One of the ways it has endeavored to do this is by establishing the continuity of "philosophy of education" as something that even the Great Philosophers tried to do; and familiarity with the educational writings of the Great Philosophers has been taken as a mark of disciplinary credibility. Yet, paradoxically, as is demonstrated in these readings, the canonical writings on education by these philosophers may not be where their greatest contributions to philosophy of education reside. For example, it may be that a discussion of Locke's distinction between simple and complex ideas would be of far greater educational relevance and value than his Some Thoughts Concerning Education. Sadly, one suspects that the latter is assigned to students in education because it is assumed that the former is either too difficult or too distant from their practical concerns. But why Locke's views on teaching Latin and Greek (p. 157) are to be regarded as less distant today than his views on epistemology, is a bit of a mystery. The fact is that philosophy of education is generally taught better through works of philosophy than through "suggestions concerning educational policy." Or so it seems to me. I do not mean this primarily as a criticism of Professor Cahn's selections, since they do clearly represent standard reference points in the intellectual history of the field. What I am suggesting is that such collections of "classic" sources serve a very different purpose than they seem to. They serve to authorize the field of investigation and may, in some cases, illustrate or draw attention toward the larger philosophical views of the authors represented. But what they do not do, in my view, is offer a very clear orientation to what "philosophy of education" actually is. Is it an applied branch of philosophy? Does it mean "philosophical reflections on education," or does it mean "reflections on education by philosophers" (which is not the same thing)? Or does it mean "forming a philosophy of education" (as one might form, for instance, a "philosophy of life")? Professor Cahn's collection exemplifies this unresolved issue, and could do more to highlight its importance. Closing in on two decades of teaching in this area, I have been convinced that we do students no favor in shielding them from difficult philosophical texts; and we do them a real disservice by exposing them only to the more "accessible" educational writings of philosophers. These texts, as noted above, may do little to help students understand the philosophical views of the author (so that they may think they "know" Mill, Locke, or Kant from having read very unrepresentative pieces). But even worse than this, the educational writings of these philosophers are often, to my view, quite dated and parochial (even when they were of tremendous influence during their time) - while their philosophical work remains as fresh and challenging today as when it was produced. My greatest concern with such selections is that they suggest that philosophers of education (or philosophers writing about education) are most relevant when they are least philosophical, or that they must step outside their philosophical role to comment upon education. I think that such an implication both undervalues the educational relevance of philosophical issues and, simultaneously, the deep conceptual and normative issues to be engaged when we ponder the means and ends of education seriously. And this undervaluing seems to emerge with the field of philosophy of education in a way that does not arise with philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, or philosophy of law (all of which are routinely represented by courses in Philosophy Departments, whereas in recent years courses in philosophy of education have moved almost entirely to the other side of campus). With the selection of "Contemporary" sources in philosophy of education, Professor Cahn moves into hazardous territory. First of all, there is far greater dispute in recent years about the scope and boundaries of the field.[Note 4] Certainly, many current professional philosophers of education would remark on the inclusion in this book of authors who are not philosophers (such as Wm. Theodore de Bary) or figures of marginal interest today (A.S. Neill); and in North America, at least, would note the absence of many important contemporary figures in philosophy of education who have been productive and influential over a number of years (such as D.C. Phillips, Walter Feinberg, Deanne Bogdan, C.J.B. Macmillan, Kathryn Morgan, Harvey Siegel, James Garrison, Kenneth Strike, or Mary Anne Raywid). Here, too, Professor Cahn takes pains to include "real" philosophers (Michael Walzer, Amy Gutmann, Richard Rorty, John Searle)-- all of whose ideas certainly merit inclusion, but who are, again, mainly represented here by their "educational" writings in the narrow sense.[Note 5] In fact, it is revealing to note that the second section of this book is headed "Contemporary Issues" (Schools, Teaching, and Curriculum); a revealing contrast to the first section of "Classic Theories." This topical organization makes the authors seem selected more as place-holders for contrasting stances within current debates, and less as representatives of developed philosophical positions. Here again, the contemporary sources are given scant philosophical weight, and so the field of philosophy of education appears as little more than a debating society for recent disputes over educational policy and practice.[Note 6] One must quibble, too, with the datedness of many of the "contemporary" sources: with a couple of exceptions, most of the articles selected here pre-date the mid-1980s, and even when figures of considerable currency are included, they are often represented by work now over a decade old--and sometimes more than that. Admittedly, a collection such as this must always weigh the value of contemporary relevance with the desire to include sturdy, enduring works that have had marked influence over a number of years (although I do not think that most of these pieces will ever attain the status of "classics"). Balanced with these considerations, an editor also wants to select essays that frame certain problems in ways that will stimulate classroom discussion; so we see included here pieces that will allow teachers to explore current disputes over multiculturalism, the traditional canon, vouchers, tracking, moral development, teacher authority, and so on. From this standpoint, the juxtaposition of authors is effective and has the virtue of echoing positions represented in several of the "classic" sources as well. This helps students to recognize these issues as not only of contemporary concern, but as intrinsic dilemmas in the educational endeavor itself. My comments here are meant to reflect an ambivalence about this collection, which is also an ambivalence I feel about the field of philosophy of education today. Professor Cahn has produced a good teaching resource, if one believes that the purpose of teaching in this area is to show that a few philosophers have had surprisingly (surprising, that is, to the audience of students) tangible and perceptive things to say about educational issues; that certain educational disputes today have a history in the Western tradition that can be traced back 2500 years or more; and that competing positions in contemporary debates can be represented by reasoned and principled arguments, and not only by politically competitive interest groups. These points all seem to me well worth making. On the other hand, as a representation of a field called "philosophy of education," this collection is of mixed value. It is much stronger in its selection of classic authors, but even here it does not always select the best texts to represent them. The sampling of contemporary figures and texts is more uneven.[Note 7] But even worse, in my view, is that collections such as this reinforce the perception in Philosophy Departments that philosophy of education has little to do with their concerns despite, ironically, the inclusion of so many "A-List" philosophers in this collection. The way that contemporary philosophy of education is characterized as framing sets of "issues," the inclusion of marginal figures and texts, and the way in which the contrast with "classic" sources such as Plato or Dewey makes so much of the "contemporary" work seem philosophically thin and tendentious, all reflect very badly on the state of philosophy of education today (and so? many critics may reply). But in a period when pure, professional, tenure-track positions in Philosophy Departments are becoming more scarce, this may be a crucial time for the development of the "applied" areas of philosophy, and for greater collaboration with philosophically concerned colleagues in other departments and professional schools. Collections such as this should do more to promote and highlight the potential fruitfulness of such interchange. The crux of doing so is to make clear what is philosophical about educational issues, and what is educationally important about philosophical issues. [This review is also scheduled to appear in the American Philosophical Association "Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy," Fall 1998, and is copyrighted there.] Notes [1] Steven M. Cahn, (1997) Classic and Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of Education . New York: McGraw-Hill. [2] Steven M. Cahn, (1970) The Philosophical Foundations of Education . New York: Harper and Row. [3] J.J. Chambliss, "History of philosophy of education," (Pp. 461-472 in J.J. Chambliss, (Ed.) (1996), Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia New York: Garland Publishing. [4] Nicholas C. Burbules, "Philosophy of education." In International Encyclopedic Dictionary of Education, Miriam Ben-Peretz, (Ed.) (Forthcoming) New York: Routledge; Nicholas C. Burbules,(1991) "Continuity and diversity in philosophy of education: An introduction." Educational Theory, Vol. 41 No. 3, 257-263, and other essays in that issue. [5] Not to make too much of it, but one also notes a decided preference here for figures within private universities who often have a more attenuated engagement with school policy and practice, and within that range a decided tilt toward the East Coast and especially the Ivy League. [6] Compare, for the sake of contrast, the edited collection by Jonas Soltis, Philosophy and Education: 80th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Pt. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, whose chapters are organized by the philosophical areas of "epistemology," "ethics," and so on. [7] For a secondary text that provides a well-informed and even-handed overview of the field of philosophy of education, see Nel Noddings, (1995) Philosophy of Education. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press; for an excellent collection of contemporary sources, see Wendy Kohli, (Ed.),(1995) Critical Conversations in Philosophy of Education. New York: Routledge.