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

Author: [German] Wolfgang Br?chling, translated by Hu Jinsong
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2003-06-01
Features: The relationship between the meanings of "purpose" and "goal" is not consistent. The original meaning of the word "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 use. 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 by taking action, the purpose that people want to achieve through action, the task that arises from this, the result that manifests as a terminal point 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 the same 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, people more often discuss what is known as the "goal-means relationship." Thus, "goal" and "means" are interrelated concepts, meaning they exist in a reciprocal relationship.
By comparing the relevant vocabulary in German and English, we find that the German word "purpose" (Zweck) corresponds to the English word "end," while the German "goal-means relationship" is expressed in English as "ends and means." Similarly, the German word "goal" (Ziel) corresponds to the English words "aim" and "goal." Additionally, we must note that the German word "end" (Ende) was also used in the past to mean the same as "goal," "intention," and "purpose." As a supplement to this conceptual analysis, it is necessary to provide further explanation and clarification of the concepts of "purpose" and "goal."
Principally, the scope of use for 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—that is, the desire to do something, or having a 'purpose toward which the intention is directed'—does it become a goal." According to Eisler, there should be a distinction between "direct and intrinsic intentional purpose" and "purpose of action." In other words, "the purpose of action is to realize this or that intentional purpose, and such a purpose can only be realized under the conditions of the corresponding action and only through—or 'with the help of'—this action." Therefore, Eisler argues that the purpose of an action refers to "a change that occurs in consciousness (conceived or imagined), the emotional concept of which 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 this process or state is itself a causal stage on the path to the purpose. It is a prescientiation of the effects of our actions (Wilhelm Wundt), and at the same time, it includes the means required to realize 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, we can cite many other discussions on 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 pseudo-scientific slogan, it can be very useful for some political goals. First, it helps to foster the idea that everyone needs to be encompassed under the concepts of "education," "cultivation," or "teaching." Among them, the term "need" leads to the concept of "necessity." In my view, in addition to what is considered necessary, it must also be supplemented that it is inevitable, unavoidable, and inescapable. At the same time, it must be noted that, apart from this linguistic deception or allure, in reality, people do not consider such questions as 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 evaluation of education as useful that is not based on actual evidence. 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, he avoids examining the questions of why education is necessary and how it should be conducted. The actions or demands made in education often reinforce a facade of rationality, as they are always based on the premise that everyone needs education, and such education is valuable.
To defend the proposition of educational need, the simplest way is, of course, to ensure that any demands made on people are fulfilled 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 corresponding actions as "education" or "cultivation" must account for both ambiguous tendencies of approval and at least weakened tendencies of opposition. The more successful it is in awakening a sense of deficiency, a sense of backwardness, and a sense of guilt in the individuals concerned, the more likely the actions will be fruitful. 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 appear before such a hollow, so humble heart. Finally, the heart follows the ideal of salvation with loud cries of joy from the saved."
People can apply this technique in various ways to individuals and groups, making them express approval for a certain personality ideal set by others, making them approve of the educational actions they are subjected to, and ultimately changing their personality state according to this ideal. Today, although the concept of the need for salvation is rarely mentioned, the concept of general educational need, which serves the same function, 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 apparent empirical characteristics that make it suitable for extending vague but acceptable notions 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, making educators more valuable. If education is necessary for everyone, then educators can be seen as assistants to humanity. This is similar to how a priest is seen as an intermediary for people to achieve salvation in relation to their need for salvation. 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 are also suppliers of the needs of those who have educational needs. If people believe that without education, one cannot become a "person," then under the conditions of modern industrial society, it must also be believed that without obedience to the educational actions of teachers, one cannot become a "person." 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 a "person" depends entirely or at least to a significant extent on education. This further leads to an overestimation of the impact 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 those being educated and 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 emergence of the "new person" they want to create. This is the intellectual background in which many educators and educational theorists tend to at least fantasize about escaping 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 fantasy of an "educational state" emerges, and inevitably, the fantasies of a "belief state" and "educational tyranny" also emerge. The belief that everyone has an educational need is closely linked to the idea that there is a need for "eternal education." It not only promotes the 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 in such a wrong way that it seems as if the natural development of the human body and its growth and maturation, the supplements necessary for 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 processes 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 extension.
In summary, the general concept of educational need is a modern superstition. If this superstition only serves to add luster to the hard work of educators, it would not be too dangerous. But when it is used to serve a political messianism, and its proponents 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.