Basic Concepts of Educational Science: Analysis, Critique, and Suggestions

Author: (German) Wolfgang Br?chling, translated by Hu Jingsong
Translator: Hu Jingsong
Country:
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2003-06-01
Features: The relationship between the meanings of "purpose" and "goal" is not consistent. The original meaning of "goal" refers to a large-headed, short nail used to mark the bullseye. This meaning is actually also contained in the term "flat nail," which is the name of the nail commonly used by cobblers. Historically, the term "flat nail" (as a feminine noun) was only coined by Campe in 1800 based on the masculine noun "goal" to avoid misunderstandings in language. The original meaning of "goal" is the same as that of "purpose." It refers to the target point aimed at by an archer, the predetermined purpose of an action, the purpose to be achieved through action, the purpose people want to achieve through action, the task that arises from this, the result that manifests as a goal after the action, and the effect of a work that is envisioned and strived for. From the perspective of the history of language development, the meanings of "purpose" and "goal" are sometimes completely identical and sometimes mutually inclusive. Sometimes "goal" is included within "purpose," and sometimes the reverse is true, with "purpose" being subsumed under "goal." In the specialized language of philosophy, "purpose" and "goal" are generally used synonymously. However, some authors still make distinctions. For example, some authors argue that "purpose" can be categorized under the realm of effort, while "goal" can be categorized under the realm of means. Specifically, "purpose" refers to a state of wealth that should be achieved or realized through effort. On the other hand, "goal" refers to a purpose that can only be achieved through the use of certain means. From this perspective, "purpose" and "means" rarely exhibit a direct connection. Instead, the relationship known as "goal-means relationship" is more frequently discussed. Thus, "goal" and "means" are interrelated concepts, meaning they exist in a mutual relationship.
By comparing the relevant vocabulary in German and English, we find that the German word "Zweck" (purpose) corresponds to the English word "end," while the German "Zweck-means relationship" is expressed in English as "ends and means." Similarly, the German word "Ziel" (goal) corresponds to the English words "aim" and "goal." Additionally, we must note that the German word "Ende" (goal) was also used in the past with the same meaning as "goal," "intention," and "purpose."
As a supplement to this conceptual analysis, it is necessary to provide further clarification and explanation of the concepts of "purpose" and "goal." In principle, the scope of use of both terms is limited to situations where clear purposes or goals are consciously set. Among them, "goal" is set through specific intentions, and only through such intentions—i.e., the desire to do something, or having a "purpose toward which the intention is directed"—does it become a "goal." According to Eisler, it is necessary to distinguish between "direct and intrinsic intentional purpose" and "purpose of action." In other words, "the purpose of action" refers to the achievement of a certain intentional purpose. Such an intentional purpose can only be realized under the conditions of a corresponding action and only through—or "by means of"—this action. Therefore, Eisler argues that the purpose of an action refers to "a change that occurs in consciousness (conceived or imagined), whose affective concept triggers an impulse to implement a specific (internal or external) action intention."
According to Schischkoff, a "goal" is "a process or state that is envisioned and intended to be realized, and the realization of which is itself a causal stage on the path to purpose. It is a prescientiation of the effects of our actions (Wilhelm Wundt), and at the same time, it includes the means required to achieve this prescientiation. Therefore, goals and purposes can overlap, and an already achieved purpose can be seen as a goal for the continued realization of the next purpose."
In addition, there are many other discussions about the concepts of purpose and goal. For example, Klaus and Buhr argue that a "goal" is "an action result that is preconsciously recognized in thought and should be realized through the use of specific means." Weinberger points out: "A goal is what one wants to do and achieve through certain means." Although the general concept of educational need is scientifically unsound, as a pseudoscientific slogan, it can be very useful for some political goals. First, it helps to foster the idea that everyone needs to be included under the concepts of "education," "cultivation," or "teaching." The term "need" leads to the concept of "necessity." In my view, in addition to what is considered necessary, it must also be added that it is inevitable, inescapable, and unavoidable. However, it must be noted that, apart from this linguistic deception or allure, in reality, people do not consider the question of whether an action like education can only be evaluated as necessary when it becomes a condition for the emergence of a certain desired state. The general concept of educational need includes an unfounded evaluation of the usefulness of education in fact. Whoever uses this concept unilaterally presents education as valuable, thereby abandoning the specific evaluation of the value of each educational action based on the purpose it serves and the adaptability of a certain form of education as a means to that purpose. Thus, they avoid examining the questions of why and how education is conducted. The actions or demands made in education often reinforce a semblance of rationality, as they are always based on the premise that everyone needs education, and such education is valuable.
The simplest way to defend the proposition of "educational need" is, of course, to ensure that any should-be demands made on people are met and to regard the intervention in personality as necessary, regardless of the fact that, when critically examined, people may find them neither necessary nor useful, nor even moral. In a society filled with the belief that everyone has an educational need, every authority figure who wants to change people according to their own goals and declares their actions as "education" or "cultivation" must anticipate both a vague tendency toward approval and at least a weakened tendency toward opposition. The more successful it is in awakening a sense of inadequacy, a sense of backwardness, and a sense of guilt in the individuals concerned, the more likely the actions are to yield results. Similarly, the relationships that arise when people attempt to provide religious spiritual care around concepts such as original sin, the need for salvation, and the means of liberation offered by approval are very similar to the above. A classic example of this technique is the "religious training" proposed by Ignatius von Loyola. The psychological mechanisms and processes of this training are as follows: "A person is first thrown into a meaningless abyss and is despised in the presence of God. Then, a need for salvation must arise in such an empty and humbled heart. Finally, the heart follows the ideal of salvation with loud cries of joy from the saved."
This technique can be applied to individuals and groups in various ways, making them express approval for a certain personality ideal set by others, as well as for the educational actions they implement, and ultimately changing their personality state according to this ideal. Today, although the concept of "salvation need" is rarely mentioned, the general concept of "educational need" is in fact filled with the mental models of those who want to create "new humans" through education. It is precisely because of its uncertainty and the seemingly empirical features it possesses that it is more suitable for expanding the vague and easily accepted concepts of education and "cultivation." Here, of course, it must be separated from a discussion of its purpose and its specific forms.
The second advantage of using the slogan "educational need" in politics lies in the fact that it is a means or method that is not easily detected to enhance the value of educators. If education is necessary for everyone, educators can be seen as assistants to humanity. This is similar to how priests are seen as intermediaries for people to achieve salvation in relation to their salvation needs. In an era when institutionalized education has become very large-scale and people's attention far exceeds that of non-institutionalized education, the first to emerge are professional educators, who at the same time supply the needs of those who have educational needs. If people believe that without education, one cannot become "human," then under the conditions of modern industrial society, it is inevitable that they must also believe that without obedience to the educational actions of teachers, one cannot become "human." Therefore, teachers also become what are called "secular priests," "guardians, preachers, and healers." They have the power to exercise authority, and the restrictions imposed by constitutional and customary law on this power are far less than those imposed on the power exercised by trustees in other social fields."
The second, and also the most politically important, use of the slogan "educational need" is to serve as a pretext for defending educational utopias. Here, the necessity and possibility of making people "better," "authentic," and "human" according to a plan are indistinguishable in truth. It lures people into accepting the naive assumption that becoming "human" depends entirely or at least to a significant extent on education. This further leads to an overestimation of the influence that educational actions can have on personality formation. However, since we cannot ignore the fact that positive or direct education can only have a relatively small impact, people turn first to indirect or side effects of education. This includes not only the rational organization of the living environment of the educated in a goal-oriented manner, the supervision of their learning content, but also changing society and culture to create favorable external conditions for the formation of the desired personality. People also generally believe that these external conditions determine the production of the "new human." This is the intellectual background under which many educators and educational theorists tend to at least escape work within their limited task areas and are enthusiastic about inventing a more beautiful future society from the perspective of morality and education. As a result, the illusion of an "educational state" arises, and inevitably, the illusions of a "belief state" and "educational dictatorship" also arise.
The belief that everyone has an educational need is closely linked to the view that there is a need for "eternal education." It not only promotes the sense of mission of educators but also encourages politicians to consider the following question: Should and can we determine a normative state for people, and should the entire society plan to achieve this state through education? The theoretical basis for this line of thinking seems at least partially based on the misunderstandings caused by the concept of educational need, specifically the idea that anything that is not determined by the biological characteristics of the organism should and can be produced and formed through education. As a result, these relationships are presented so incorrectly that it seems as if the natural development of the human body and its growth and maturation, which guarantee its natural development, are not obtained by individuals through their own learning but are achieved by others through educational influence. In this way, the achievements actually obtained through the learning process are credited to the merits of education, although the process of these learning largely takes place independently of any form of education. Whether this involves negligence in the cultivation activities and the use of pedagogical concepts or a deliberate rhetorical trick, education is given a new meaning that does not match its original scope.
In summary, the general concept of educational need is a modern. If this only benefits in adding glory to the hard work of educators, it would not be too dangerous. But when it is used to serve a political messianism, and its supporters decide to educate "new humans" for a "perfect" society, its danger truly manifests itself. It can be said that it is the spiritual state of those who believe that not only is it possible but also worthwhile to completely plan the common life of humanity.