Defining Education
Jaspers: Defining Education
What education is not
Education is distinct from making, shaping, tending, and ruling. None of those four describe what an educator is doing when the work is going well.
Jaspers’s definition
Helping the individual to come into their own in a spirit of freedom, not like a trained animal. Education is accomplished when contents are freely acquired; it fails when it is authoritarian.
How to acquire education
From an early age, children must be called on to act of their own free volition. They must learn through personal insight into the need for learning, not out of mere obedience.
Love and authority
Love is the driving force of genuine education. True authority is the source of it.
Moral content
Jaspers advocates the need for moral content in all teaching.
Jaspers takes the time to define education sharply because the word is overused and underspecified. He treats it as a special activity, distinct from several other things adults do with children, and constrained by specific conditions that have to be met for the activity actually to be education. The article works through the definition and its consequences.
What education is not
Jaspers begins by distinguishing education from four things that often look like it: making, shaping, tending, and ruling.
Making is what a craftsman does with materials. The materials are passive; the craftsman imposes a form; the product is what the craftsman intended. A teacher who treats a student as material to be made into a product is not actually educating; they are doing something more like the work of a craftsman, with the student as the material being worked.
Shaping is what a sculptor does with stone. The stone has no agency; the sculptor removes what is not the statue. A teacher who treats a student as stone to be shaped is also not educating. The student is treated as having no agency, and the teacher’s work is to remove what they consider unwanted.
Tending is what a gardener does with plants. This is closer to education in some ways. The gardener provides conditions and the plant grows under its own power. But the plant is still a different kind of thing from a person. The plant has no choices to make about how to grow; the person does. A teacher who treats a student as a plant to be tended is missing the choice-making that is part of what makes the student a person.
Ruling is what an authority does with subjects. The subject obeys; the authority commands; the relationship is one of power. A teacher who treats students as subjects to be ruled is doing the work of authority, not the work of education. The students may comply, but they are not coming into their own in the way Jaspers means.
The four contrasts together produce a negative picture of what education is not. Education is not the imposition of form on passive material, not the removal of what is not wanted, not the supplying of conditions for non-deliberate growth, and not the exercise of authority over subjects. It is something different.
Making, shaping, tending, and ruling
Making treats the student as passive material to be worked into a product. Shaping treats the student as stone from which the sculptor removes what is not wanted. Tending treats the student as a plant grown under conditions the gardener provides. Ruling treats the student as a subject to be commanded by authority. None of the four captures what an educator is doing when the work is going well, because none of them respects the student’s own choice-making.
The positive definition
The positive definition: education is helping the individual to come into their own in a spirit of freedom, and not like a trained animal.
Three pieces are doing work.
Helping the individual to come into their own: the work is the individual’s own. The educator does not make the individual come into themselves; the individual does that. The educator helps. The relationship is one of support for someone else’s primary work, not the doing of work on a passive subject.
In a spirit of freedom: the conditions matter. The same outward result (the student acquires some content, develops some habit, takes on some understanding) can be reached through free engagement or through coerced compliance. Only the first counts as education in Jaspers’s sense. Coerced compliance produces something that looks like education from outside but is not education at all.
Not like a trained animal: the contrast is sharp. A trained animal has been conditioned to perform certain responses on certain stimuli. The performance is reliable; the animal does the behaviour. But the animal has not come into its own through the training; it has been shaped to produce particular outputs. A student trained the same way may produce the same outputs, but the training is not education.
The companion definition: education is accomplished when contents are freely acquired; but it fails when it is authoritarian. The condition under which content counts as educated content is the freedom with which the student acquires it. The same content, acquired under coercion, fails the educational test even when the test of the content itself is passed.
This is a demanding standard. Many schools that produce passing exam results would, by Jaspers’s definition, not have produced any education at all. The students performed the behaviours; the educational result did not occur because the conditions of freedom were not met.
Helping the individual to come into their own in a spirit of freedom, not like a trained animal
Three pieces: the work is the individual’s own (the educator helps); the conditions matter (free engagement, not coerced compliance); the contrast with animal training is sharp (training produces reliable outputs without coming-into-one’s-own). Education is accomplished when contents are freely acquired; it fails when it is authoritarian. A school that produces passing exam results through coerced learning has, by this standard, not produced any education.
How to acquire education
Jaspers gives a specific account of how education is actually acquired. From an early age, children must be called upon to act of their own free volition. They must learn through personal insight into the need for learning, not out of mere obedience.
Two practical claims are bundled in this. First, the free volition has to be activated early. A child who has been treated as a passive recipient through the early years will struggle to develop the self-directed engagement that education requires later. The capacity for free engagement has to be exercised from the beginning. The educator who waits until the student is older to start treating them as a free agent is treating them too late.
Second, the motivation has to be personal insight rather than mere obedience. A student who studies because they have been told to study is studying out of obedience. They may study hard, and the content may stick to some extent, but the studying is not connected to the student’s own understanding of why the studying matters. A student who studies because they have come to see why this material is worth learning is studying out of personal insight. The studying is connected to the student’s own understanding, and the educational result is therefore deeper.
The educator’s job is to help the student arrive at personal insight rather than to substitute the educator’s authority for the student’s own understanding. This is harder work than commanding obedience. It requires showing the student why the material matters, in terms the student can connect to, rather than simply telling them it matters.
The pay-off is large. A student who has learned through personal insight will continue to learn when no one is supervising them. A student who has learned through obedience will stop learning the moment the supervision stops. The first is the foundation of the lifelong learning that the previous chapters’ authors also commended. The second is the foundation of nothing in particular.
Through children acting of their own free volition from an early age, learning through personal insight rather than mere obedience
Two practical claims. (1) Free volition must be activated early; a child treated as passive through the early years will struggle later to develop self-directed engagement. (2) Motivation must be personal insight (seeing why the material matters) rather than obedience (studying because told to). The educator helps the student arrive at insight rather than substituting authority for understanding. The pay-off is students who continue learning when no one is supervising them.
Love, authority, and moral content
Jaspers closes the definitional chapter with three short claims that anchor the rest of his account.
Love is the driving force of genuine education. The relationship between educator and student is, at its best, a relationship of care. The educator cares about the student as a person; the student feels the care and is willing to engage seriously because of it. Education built on care produces students who can take on serious work; education built on coercion or indifference does not, however well the coercion or indifference is dressed up.
Authority is the source of genuine education. The word may seem in tension with the freedom emphasis of the rest of the definition. Jaspers means true authority (the authority that comes from genuinely knowing something, having genuinely lived something, having genuinely worked through what they are now teaching) rather than mere institutional authority (the authority that comes from holding a position). True authority earns the student’s respect through what it actually has to offer; the student engages with it from their own free volition. Mere institutional authority demands compliance through power; the student complies out of obedience. True authority and freedom are compatible; mere institutional authority and freedom are not.
Moral content is needed in all teaching. Jaspers does not separate moral education from other education. Every subject taught carries moral content of some kind: how the subject is approached, what is treated as important, how the people connected to the subject are spoken about. The teacher who pretends to teach a value-free subject is teaching a covert set of values about what counts as serious work, how one should engage with material, what is worth caring about. Making the moral content explicit is part of the educator’s job.
The three together (love, true authority, moral content) describe the relational and substantive conditions within which education can happen. Without love, the relationship does not bear the weight of serious work. Without true authority, there is nothing for the student to learn from. Without moral content, the subject is not worth learning. All three are needed.
Love, true authority, and moral content in all teaching
Love is the driving force: the educator cares about the student as a person, the student feels the care and engages seriously. True authority (from genuinely knowing or having lived something) is the source, in contrast with mere institutional authority that demands compliance from power. Moral content is needed in all teaching; a teacher who pretends to teach a value-free subject is teaching covert values about what is worth caring about. All three are needed.
How was this article?