KEYWORDS: Janusz Korczak, humanistic pedagogy, European educators, reasonable education, nature of education.

ABSTRACT: The article discusses Janusz Korczak`s ideas on reasonable education as opposed to authoritarian and free education. A number of parallels to new approaches in education, composed by L. Gurlitt, E. Key, M. Montessori, C. Freinet, A. Neill, and G. Wyneken in the early 1920s, are drawn. The characteristics of the old and new pedagogy, its nature and content are analyzed in accordance with the cultural context. 

Introduction

The 21st century has reconfirmed the ancient truth, “a man is the measure of everything”. The consequences of the scientific-technical progress and the development of the civilization have proved to be contradictory: the potential created by a human being has suddenly turned out against its creator.  A famous Russian researcher Grigory Kornetov states:

“World wars and mass genocide, nuclear threat and environmental disasters, the deadlocks of scientism and an educational crisis -- these are just very few features of the 21st century civilization that is so proud of its democracy achievements, science-technical progress, and unprecedented level of material production. In these really complicated circumstances a human being becomes a measure of all things, the highest uncontested value, alpha and omega of social progress, its purpose, meaning, criterion, driving force, and an ultimate result”2.

These new conditions could not but affect fundamental concepts of the theory of education, especially the very term “education” and the determination of its nature.

Korczak: two approaches to pedagogy

The works of humanist educators of the early 20th century include, on the one hand, criticism of the former approach to education, and, on the other hand -- an attempt to substantiate new pedagogy fundamentals. This statement fully applies to Janusz Korczak and his activities, and research. Korczak’s undoubted merit in the theory of theory is his subtle analysis of two extremes -- “pedagogy of duty and prohibitions” and “pedagogy of permissiveness”. Staying in direct opposition to one another (at the first glance), these educational principles lead, in fact, to the same results. In the first case, a constant niggling control and a suppression of a child`s will lead to the formation of a weak-willed person, not capable of any serious actions, a passive performer and a bored slave. In the opposite case, the child`s transformation into the family’s absolute center, having educators revolve around him/her and fulfill his/her every whim, shapes a child into a weary tyrant. In either case, he/she becomes a user of other people’s views and achievements, loses any joy of vigorous activities and any happy moments that come when some problems were resolved, any triumph of victory over one’s own shortcomings remains unknown to him/her.

Korczak never supported this kind of approaches. He wrote: “Fearing that the death takes our child away, we take the child away from life. Not willing him to die, we do not let him live”3. Although being haunted by the endless taboos and prejudices, child enjoys ardor of pranks, he clearly aspires to anything bad, and follows the worst models.

Does that mean that we should allow everything?

Korczak warns: “Never! We make a bored tyrant out of a bored slave, and by forbidding, we, after all, harden the will towards restraining and limiting oneself, develop creativity and ability to slip out of supervision, arouse criticism, and it’s something worthwhile, though one-sided preparation for life. Be careful not to crush the strong desire, issued for a whim, when you allow children everything. There we weaken the will, here -- poison it”4. All you have to do is to believe a child, understand him/her, distinguish a simple whim of a great desire, implementation of which will bring him/her the highest joy -- joy of achieved goal, disclosed secret, happiness of independence, mastery, and possession.

An educator (a pedagogue), according to Korczak, should possess reasonable, based on children`s knowledge and respect of their individuality methods, tools, and interventions. Korczak admits that it is necessary to create a system different from the one operating by means of intimidation and despotism, and also different from the other that provides complete freedom and inevitably leads to laxity and disorder. That is why Korczak could be considered a follower of the so-called “reasonable education”.

“Old” and “new” pedagogy: main features and peculiarities

A famous German educator L. Gurlitt (1855-1931) made an attempt to classify all the new trends in the 20th century pedagogy and thus, outlined the following:

• historical pedagogy;
• modernistic pedagogy;
• pedagogy of compromises, which is preferred by anyone who wishes to avoid any struggle5;
• systematic pedagogy, being created by “book scientists.”6
• And finally, new natural-scientific pedagogy, which is based on the knowledge of children’s nature, respect for his/her personality, and aimed at developing children’s independence.

According to Gurlitt, the first four trends refer to the old pedagogy, which is characterized by extreme authoritarianism and rejection of children`s nature and abilities.

Other humanist educators of that period (El. Key, M. Montessori, C. Freinet, A. Neill, etc.) recognized old and new pedagogy. Accordingly, they distinguished old (authoritarian, technocratic) and new (humanistic, individually-oriented) approaches to education, which they considered a key category. It is noteworthy that authoritarian education is exposed to sharp criticism by humanist educators from the point of view of its objectives, attitudes towards a child, methods, and interventions.

El. Key’s book became a type of a manifesto with a symbolic title, A Century of a Child. She pointed out that the most striking characteristic of any authoritarian education was the desire to suppress child's personality and to impose on him/her another person`s individuality. Key considered this type of education and attitude a true educator’s crime committed even by those who spoke out loud about the necessity to develop and to improve an individual nature of a child7. 

All progressive European educators shared Key’s critical remarks. For example, G. Wyneken saw the worst harm of traditional education in the attempts to shape children in accordance with the image imposed by the older generations, not allowing children an opportunity to learn about the boundaries of their own development8. L. Gurlitt considered that a child was only an educational object, a weak-willed creature that was not required to have his/her own will, and therefore, had to grow and develop according to adults` requests and laws, invented by that same adults.

A well-known English scholar, a founder of a free school Alexander Neill believed that the future of mankind depended entirely on what kind of educators (parents) would come to children. If those were supporters of a strict suppressive pedagogy, then the mankind will never be able to get rid of wars and crimes. Neill emphasizes that totalitarianism has begun and still begins in the nursery. For him this was the worst negative outcome of totalitarian pedagogy which was ignoring and suppressing child`s personality.

C. Freinet also pointed out the great danger posed by authoritarian pedagogy, when a child got used to be obedient, but lost the ability for critical thinking. Freinet believed that authoritarian methods naturally “force a child striving for self-realization, to resist them in every possible way. In this case, a child is to be punished, which always accompanies authoritarian education”9.

In other words, according to humanist educators, basic characteristics of authoritarian education include strict determination of the educational process by the adult, pressure on the child, and a refusal to accept a child’s active participation in his/her own development. Charges, levelled against traditional pedagogy, may be cumulatively summarized as follows:

• A rejection of childhood as an important stage in the development of one’s personality and viewing it merely as a preparatory stage for the future "real" adult life.
• Ignoring originality and uniqueness of child`s mind, his/her quest for self-discovery and creative self-realization.
• An appeal to formulaic, formalized methods of education without considering the peculiarities of a child`s personality and nature.
• Lack of knowledge about a child, which should be the basis of humanistic relations between adults and children.

Nature of education in terms of humanistic pedagogy

Let us start with discussing the possibilities of education. Humanistic educators are united in their understanding that education could achieve great results only if it is based on children’s nature and does not suppress children’s personalities. In more general words, this approach was defined by Gurlitt,

“A science about education is feasible, but it is necessary to realize its possible prerequisites and limits, and not to expect too much from it. It is especially important not to await satisfactory answers in every particular case as life is full of various models and chances, and it is impossible to prepare a theoretically-based answer for each individual case.”10

However, there are serious differences among humanistic educators in concern of the necessity of education in principle. Korczak and Gurlitt have no doubt that children need the right lead in their lives. As mentioned above, Korczak belonged to the supporters of  "reasonable education", which included both the rejection of a child’s uncontrolled freedom and the understanding of the necessity to manage children’s development. Korczak compared a child to "a foreigner who does not speak our language... ignorant of the laws and customs.... Treat his ignorance with respect." According to Gurlitt, the correct guidance of children means providing them with the opportunity to gain their own life experience.

Supporters of a more radical approach (El. Key, A. Neill) believe that a specially organized and well-planned educational activity is not necessary. In this regard they were following Rousseau’s ideas: the best education is free from any education. "Not to leave your child on his/her own is the greatest crime of modern education against the child," wrote El. Key11. She believed that education should allow children’s nature to develop freely and by itself. A teacher’s position in this case is not to boost or accelerate this natural process but to maintain and support it by creating all necessary prerequisites and conditions.

Neill also believed in the necessity to limit an organized educational influence. He stated that the only task for any child was to live his/her own life, but not the life forced on him by his/her parents or teachers in accordance with the goals that seemed best for them. This adult’s intervention and guidance could only produce a generation of robots.

The third approach developed by Wyneken could be called communal. Wyneken fully rejected the need of any educational influence of the family, state, and any other social institutions. He recognized education based only on a community spirit without splitting people into ‘subjects’ and ‘objects’ of education, saying that,

“Teachers and students, leaders and those who are led (sometimes, a student also becomes a leader) work together as partners, not because of some personal or any other reasons, but only because of their sense of belonging to the community. First of all, each person is part of this community… We practically witness changes that are happening in our understanding of the concept of education. Social environment itself is supposed to educate. If in contrast, we leave education only to teachers who produce a systematic influence on their students, this by itself might spiritually and morally limit children’s potential and narrow down the process of education to some psychological interventions and tactics. Therefore, there can be no other education except the one within and by the community, which in its turn becomes self-educated”12.

Next issue reveals the correlation between spontaneity and purposefulness in education. Humanistic educators are unanimous in their sensitivity towards children’s nature, they suggest trusting and following it, and doing this nature no harm. They believe that any child is naturally kind, and the society and education can only spoil him/her. Therefore, education should be reasonable (Korczak, Wyneken, Freinet), natural, and free (Key, Gurlitt, Neill). Defining the process of education from this point of view, Wyneken suggested that education essentially meant to organize or arrange young people’s lives. “This kind of education renounces violence over the youth’s nature, and it is not afraid to interfere with the young people’s lives. This education does not mean to destroy everything ‘youthful’, and to make young people feel older; quite on the contrary, it means to uplift their youthful spirits, and to provide these spirits with a practical way out.”

Key believed that a new approach to education allowed every adult to turn into a child again. Following her ideas while answering the question, "How to love a child?" Korczak wrote that a teacher should be able to put himself/herself into the child’s shoes and see the world from the child’s perspective. It means to be straightforward with children, to escape any hypocrisy, to treat them as equals, and to trust them.

In other words, we have come to the issue of borders (limits) in education. Humanist educators are very firm in stating that any education is limited by the nature of a child. Supporting Korczak's opinion that «a birchwill stay a birch, an oak an oak» Gurlitt writes,

"We cannot turn a child with dark hair and eyes into the blond one with fair eyes. All the efforts in this direction will stand condemned as rude and physical violence. It is the same about education that cannot turn a slow child with poor skills, who can hardly catch on and has no any artistic flair into a child with an agile mind, quick understanding, and sensitive to art. This is where the starting point for the new pedagogy should be. It should finally set firm boundaries in advance, so as not to continue, (as it has done for centuries), putting inappropriate demands to unsuitable objects and thus torturing themselves and young people.” 14

Although humanistic educators pay great attention to the issue of the nature of education, they also analyze a number of other issues in this regard. They believe that it is necessary to create conditions for a child’s natural development without destroying it. Moreover, it is important to always start with the goals set by children’s self-knowledge and self-improvement versus the goals imposed by adults. They are convinced that education should involve the personality of every child. That is why it is so important to treat each child as a natural ‘product’ of evolution and culture, encourage his/her personal autonomy and initiative. This is the way the education based on the natural laws should work.

Korczak, as well as other humanistic educators, describes methods and interventions that imply educational cooperation with a developing personality but not an interference with his/her life. The leading role of an educator is indirect in this situation, and mostly reveals itself in the form of helping children, providing them with certain conditions for their development. Humanistic educators fully reject the approach when a teacher remains a sole and only legitimate subject of education, and as such he/she micromanages children, imposes his/her own goals on them, actively using rewards and punishments. That is why humanistic educators choose children’s self-government as the key method of education in their children's institutions. This method has become the form of organizing the interaction among adults and children to help them in creation of a united educational team.

Content and characteristics of modern education

Humanistic educators define the content of education in accordance with their educational objectives. For Korczak, this includes organizing children’s labor, providing guarantees for their proper moral and physical development, and helping to arrange for self-government in any children’s institution. The life of Korczak’s orphanages was based on respect of equal rights, transparency of principles, and connectedness with the surroundings and children’s families.

As for Freinet, his educational system allowed every child to freely express oneself, to be involved in creative activities and in labor education, children's community life organization (school co-op) and transparency in the activities. Summerhill education (Neill) was based on providing freedom and opportunities for free self-realization, individual therapy, children's self-management for the development of norms and rules of their coexistence and conflicts’ resolution, as well as the development of creativity. In his Free School Community Wyneken determined the content of education as the creation and development of the new youth culture, the ability to collaborate with children and adults within the community, and to establish children's self-management, thus generating an opportunity to raise creative and active people.

In conclusion, let us reveal basic qualitative characteristics of new (reasonable and natural) education. The most important of it is unselfishness. Humanistic educators wrestle against a consumer attitude towards children, believing that it is necessary to educate children just for their own sake, for their benefits and happiness, moral and physical health, but not for teachers’ convenience and satisfaction, not in somebody’s own interest and not by an order of the church or the state. These educators are guided by children’s benefits while choosing certain educational methods, or implementing a certain type of children’s self-management.

The most important principle of humanistic education is respect. This kind of attitude to children reflects another important aspect of the new type of education that presupposes to view every child in a dialectical way or to implement an individual approach in the process of his/her development. An abstract child did not exist for humanistic educators. “A hundred children - a hundred individuals,” -- wrote J. Korczak -- “А hundred grades of strength and ability, of temperaments and characters…”15 This kind of attitude towards a child became the basis for humanistic and fair relationships with him/her. In this regard, justice can be described as the educator’s sensitivity to an intellectual world of each individual child, which in its turn allows choosing the most efficient methods of educational interventions.

Another feature of new education is a constant and deep study of a child. J. Korczak used a clinical observation method, and taught young educators this method. Gurlitt also wrote that the knowledge of a child's soul has to provide the same help to a teacher, as anatomy provides to a doctor:

“We have no more right to perform operations on an unknown object using unsuitable tools and methods. This is a scientific error, which can be called inhuman. The one who does not deeply and reflectively study modes of children’s thinking, as well as their feelings, sensations and the development of their souls, cannot and should not be a teacher.”16

Humanistic educators describe the main method of education as weakening negative features in child’s character and developing positive ones (education based on positive features). For example, describing methods of pedagogical influence, Korczak compares pedagogical ethics with medical one. Korczak considers that the first and most important for medicine is not to do anyharm, and this should be applied to education as well. An educator should influence a child with the aim to improve or minimize his/her particular traits, aptitudes or interests.

This belief is reflected in the following statement:

“The recommended treatment of hysteria can be described as following: “You say you are a cockerel. Alright, be a cockerel, as long as you don't crow.” You are quick-tempered, -- I tell the boy. -- All right, fight, but don’t hit somebody too hard; lose your temper but only once a day. This phrase describes the pedagogical method I use.”17

This method of education depicts the principle of gradual influence on a child. It allows to gradually weaken negative features in a child’s character and to promote a steady development of positive personal traits in him or her. In addition, this method demonstrates that humanistic teachers are alien to too much optimism: it is impossible to make a child the one an educator wants, but it is possible to make adjustments gradually, to develop best traits consistently, and reduce the negative ones; it is something that can and should be. Thus, they were far from thinking that a teacher is omnipotent.

Another important aspect of education is to pursue understanding and tolerance in relationships among tutors and children. "Children do not so much need teaching but love and understanding," -- wrote A.Neill18. This is not just sympathy for the child; it is the deep understanding of his/her feelings and thoughts, no matter how stupid and terrible they may seem at the moment. According to Neill, a parent of a child with disciplinary problems should ask him/herself whether he/she really accepted his/her child, trusted him/her, and demonstrated real understanding. Understanding is important for every child even for those who do not have any problems with communication. Teacher’s understanding helps a child to start analyzing one’s own actions. This freedom of self-manifestation and self-evaluation is a necessary prerequisite for humanistic relations. The only condition at this stage is a rejection of any moral or diagnostic evaluation. Only in this case, a child feels that a teacher is on his or her side, and in return a child will be honest in his/her actions and behavior.

In conclusion

In other words, Korczak and other humanistic educators of the first half of the 20th century considered education an activity that could provide the most favorable conditions for a free development of a child. The adult’s position in this process is to help the child to assimilate socially significant experience of previous generations.

Childhood is the period of socialization, and of intellectual and physical development of a child. Humanistic educators consider this period not just a preparation for the ‘future’ life but a true life with its inherent value. They believe that ideal education is the one that fully satisfies children’s natural needs. This type of education becomes part of his/her life and is being perceived as something necessary and clear. It is obvious that such an interpretation of education rejects an authoritarian pressure on the child and on his/her mind; it also rejects any behavior manipulation regardless of adults’ good intentions.

Humanistic education denies rigid determination of this process by adults; it defines a child as an active subject of education in contrast of considering him/her just a passive object. Humanistic education is progressive in its nature and anthropologically oriented, which means that a child and his/her interests and needs are considered most important, and an ideal person is a free creative individual, capable of self-actualization while the purpose of his/her education is his/her development. The implementation of this approach is possible only when full consideration of children’s interests is fully present, and when each child is given access to activities that stimulate his/her growth and development, and help him/her to mature and become a valuable and unique personality.