Russell's Relevance Today: "Education and Discipline" - A Critique

Call it sheer coincidence, or what you may, but, today, even as i was preparing for this essay by Bertrand Russell on Education and Discipline, given in 1935, little did i realise that it would have such a huge relevance to today’s academic environment. Even as chennaiites woke up this morning to the gory news of a teacher stabbed to death by a 15-year old boy who was upset because of the written remarks on his poor performance, The Hindu came out with an article that screamed “It’s time that school managements learnt a lesson!”.

The question is, who should teach the lesson? And at whose expense?

Well, let's have a peek into the great social critic Russell’s views on Education, which is part of my lesson plan for my II year Part II class.

According to Russell, the purpose of education is to civilize the individual, which is partly individual and partly social.

Apart from imparting general knowledge, technical skill etc which are intellectual qualities, and

Impartiality, kindliness, and self-control which are moral qualities, students should also be imparted the physiological quality of zest and joy of life.

There are three main schools of thought on the question of ‘freedom in education’.

There are those who say that children should be completely free, however bad they may be.

There are those who say that they should be completely subject to authority, however good they may be, and,

There are those who say that they should be free, but in spite of freedom they should be always good.

Commenting on the last thought, Russell himself admits that children, like adults, will not all be virtuous if they are all free.

He feels that education, viewed from a social standpoint, must be something more positive than a mere opportunity for growth.

Students who are subject to authority become either submissive or rebellious, and each attitude has its own drawbacks. The submissive lose initiative, and the feeling of being thwarted tends to find outlet in bullying those who are weaker. That is why tyrannical institutions, according to Russell, are, self-perpetuating.

Thus, an unduly authoritative education turns the pupils into timid tyrants, incapable of either claiming or tolerating originality in word or deed. The effect upon the educators is even worse. They tend to become sadistic disciplinarians, glad to inspire terror, and content to inspire nothing else. As these teachers represent knowledge, the pupils acquire a horror of knowledge.

Russell opines that, what is wanted is neither submissiveness nor rebellion, but good nature, and general friendliness both to people and to new ideas.

If the young are to grow into friendly adults, it is necessary, in most cases, that they should feel their environment friendly. When the pupil cooperates willingly, he learns twice as fast and with half the fatigue. All these are valid reasons for a very great degree of freedom.

Consideration for others, not only in great matters, but also in little everyday things, is an essential element in civilization, without which social life would be intolerable. Consideration for others does not, with most children, arise spontaneously, but has to be taught.

Children who have been driven wild by parental tyranny may require a longer or shorter period of complete liberty before they can view any adult without suspicion. But children who have been sensibly handled at home can be checked in minor ways, so long as they feel that they are being helped in the ways that they themselves regard as important.

Russell says: I think modern educational theorists are inclined to attach too much importance to the negative virtue of not interfering with children, and too little to the positive merit of enjoying their company. If you have the sort of liking for children that many people have for horses or dogs, they will be apt to respond to your suggestions, and to accept prohibitions, perhaps with some good-humoured grumbling, but without resentment.

Russell also advocates teachers to have spontaneous pleasure in the presence of children, without any ulterior purpose.

At the same time, he says that, unfortunately it is utterly impossible for over-worked teachers to preserve an instinctive liking for children. So teachers should be de-stressed.

“The child is bound to accept your words if he/she feels that you like him/her. No rules, however wise, are a substitute for affection and tact”, he signs off.

How true!!!