The Purpose of Emile
Rousseau: Emile, Purpose
Concern for the child
Emile shows Rousseau’s concerns about the child and what the education is for.
The educator and the subject
The educator should be well acquainted with the subject (the child) who is to be educated.
Civilisation-nature gap
Emile shows how education might minimise the drawbacks of civilisation and bring the person as near to nature as possible.
Replacement of conventional education
The aim is to replace conventional and formal education with a training that is natural and spontaneous, beyond the limits of school or family.
Ultimate aim
Preservation of natural goodness, of the virtues of the heart, and of a society in harmony with both.
A reader who has worked through Emile eventually asks the same question. What is the book for? What problem does it think it is solving? Rousseau gives a direct answer at the end. The article works through that answer in four pieces: the child, the educator, the civilisation-nature gap, and the ultimate aim of preserving natural goodness.
The child as the subject
Emile opens with the child and never lets the reader forget that the child is the subject of the whole book. The purpose of education, Rousseau insists, has to be defined from the child’s side, not from the teacher’s side, the family’s side, or society’s side.
This sounds simple. It is harder than it looks. Most accounts of education’s purpose start somewhere else: from what society needs, from what employers want, from what the curriculum has historically included, from what parents hope for. Each of these is a real consideration, but none of them is the child. Rousseau’s discipline is to start with the child and let the other considerations adjust.
The book’s purpose is to express the kind of education Rousseau had in mind for a developing child. The phrase had in mind is doing important work. Emile is not a survey of existing schools or a programme reform document. It is one man’s careful attempt to work out, from first principles, what an education built around the child’s nature would look like. The reader takes it as a worked example, not as a finished curriculum.
The subject is the child, and the educator must know the particular child before designing the education
The purpose of education is defined from the child’s side, not from the teacher’s, the family’s, or society’s. Most accounts of education’s purpose start somewhere else; Rousseau’s discipline is to start with the child and let the other considerations adjust. The educator’s first job is to study the actual child in front of them.
The educator who knows the subject
The educator’s first duty, Rousseau writes, is to be well acquainted with the subject who is to be educated. The subject is the child. The educator who does not know the particular child in front of them is designing an education for an imaginary student.
This is a working out of Rousseau’s child-first principle. The educator’s relationship with the child is the foundation of the whole education. Method, curriculum, environment all come second. They come second not because they are unimportant but because they cannot be set well without the prior knowledge of who the child is.
In practical terms, this puts a heavy demand on the teacher. They cannot teach by template. They cannot assume that what worked for one child will work for the next. They have to study each child carefully, adjust the education accordingly, and revise when they find they have misjudged. This is one of the reasons Rousseau’s system spread slowly. It does not lend itself to mass replication. Each application is custom.
For a modern teacher in a class of thirty children, the demand is impossible to meet in its strictest form. The honest adaptation is to know each child as well as time allows, to vary the work where the variation matters most, and to keep alert to the cases where one child’s needs diverge sharply from the class average. Rousseau’s standard cannot always be met in full. It can always be aimed at.
Because an education designed without knowing the child is an education for an imaginary student
The educator’s relationship with the child is the foundation of the whole system. Method, curriculum, and environment all come second; they cannot be set well without the prior knowledge of who the child is. The standard is hard to meet in mass schooling, but it can be aimed at.
The civilisation-nature gap
The third piece of the purpose is the diagnosis. Emile shows how education might minimise the drawbacks of civilisation and bring the person as near to nature as possible.
The diagnosis assumes that there is a gap between what civilisation has made of human beings and what their nature would otherwise produce. Rousseau is not anti-civilisation. He is not arguing that humans should return to a state of nature in any literal sense. He is arguing that the particular civilisation of eighteenth-century Europe had introduced patterns of life that distorted the natural development of the people living inside it. Education’s job is to close the gap as much as possible: to produce people who have the benefits of civilisation without the worst of its distortions.
The purpose, in Rousseau’s own framing, goes beyond the limits of any single institution, whether the school, the family, or any general social arrangement. It seeks to identify a form of action that allows the individual to become free, despite the mutilation that society inflicts on individual sensitivity.
Mutilation is a strong word and Rousseau means it. He is not saying society irritates the individual. He is saying that society as he found it actively cut things out of children that should not have been cut. A successful education, for Rousseau, is one that protects the child from the worst of this and preserves what civilisation otherwise would have damaged.
The conclusion is the replacement claim. Emile aims to replace the conventional and formal education of the time with a training that is both natural and spontaneous. Natural in Rousseau’s threefold sense: socially child-first, psychologically rooted in instinct and emotion, physically tied to natural surroundings. Spontaneous in that the lessons follow the child’s developing readiness rather than the teacher’s pre-set schedule.
The distortion civilisation introduces into human nature, which education can minimise
Rousseau is not anti-civilisation. He is arguing that eighteenth-century European life had introduced patterns that distorted the natural development of the people inside it. The purpose of Emile is to identify an education that lets the individual become free despite the mutilation society inflicts on individual sensitivity, and to replace conventional formal schooling with training that is both natural and spontaneous.
The ultimate aim
Rousseau closes with a statement of the ultimate aim. The purpose of Emile, in the last analysis, is the preservation of natural goodness, of the virtues of the heart, and of a society in harmony with both.
Three pieces are doing the work.
Natural goodness is Rousseau’s claim that children are not born corrupted. Whatever wrong develops in a person comes from the contact between their nature and the social environment around them, not from the nature itself. Education’s job is to preserve the original goodness through the years when the social environment is doing its damage.
Virtues of the heart are the moral capacities that depend on feeling rather than on rule. Sympathy, generosity, honest affection, the sense of justice that resists explanation but recognises injustice on sight. Rousseau is arguing that these capacities are part of human nature and need protection. A purely rule-based moral education kills them. A feeling-based moral education, carried out at the right developmental moments, preserves them.
A society in harmony with both is the political wing of the educational system. Rousseau is not designing an education for one isolated boy and his tutor. He is designing an education that, if widely adopted, would produce a citizenry whose collective life harmonised with the natural goodness and the virtues of the heart of each individual member. The educational project and the political project are connected. He worked the political project out in other books, but the connection is real and is part of what makes him one of the most influential thinkers of the modern age.
A modern teacher does not have to accept Rousseau’s whole metaphysics to take the practical lesson. The lesson is that the ultimate aim of an education is not the test scores, not the credentials, not the employability of the graduate. The ultimate aim is a person whose natural goodness has been preserved, whose moral feelings have been kept alive, and who can take part in a society where both of those things matter. By this standard, many educations succeed only on the surface and fail at the depth Rousseau cared about.
Preservation of natural goodness, the virtues of the heart, and a society in harmony with both
Children are not born corrupted; whatever wrong develops comes from contact with the social environment. The virtues of the heart are moral capacities that depend on feeling rather than rule. A society in harmony with both is the political wing of the educational system. The educational and political projects are connected.
How was this article?