Emile, or On Education, Jean-Jacques Rousseau in question Between a “Politically Correct” Way of Life and the Danger of a “Sacrificial Crisis”, the “New Deal” of the City, of Education at the 21st Century Daniel Lance Reference: Colloquium : Passions in economy, politics, and media, Innsbruck University, Austria, June 18-june 21, 2003. Abstract: What could teach Jean-Jacques Rousseau to the reader of the 21st century, to the educator of the 21st century? His treatise, Emile, gives many precepts of education of true education. They are just at the opposite of what are the main directions in the Education in western countries. Paradoxically, Rousseau gives us new and fundamental ideas about education, about the role of the educator, or as he would put it, of the “governor”, showing us what is a real intersubjective relationship between a “governor”, a professor and his disciple, his student. Résumé: Quels enseignements prodiguerait Jean Jacques Rousseau au lecteur du Vingt et unième siècle, aux professeurs du Vingt et unième siècle? Son traité, Émile, ou de l’éducation, présente de nombreux préceptes sur l’éducation, sur une réelle éducation. Paradoxalement, Rousseau nous offre des idées nouvelles et fondamentales sur l’éducation, sur le rôle de l’éducateur, du professeur, ou sur le rôle de ce qu’il appelait le “gouverneur”, nous montrant ce qu’est une relation intersubjective entre un “gouverneur”, un professeur et son disciple, son élève. Keywords: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, education, intersubjectivity, authority, Michel Foucault, literature, double bind, and initiation. “Today I abdicate the authority which you gave me; from now on Sophie is your guardian.” (Emile, V, paragraph 1747) (Columbia university translation) « J'abdique aujourd'hui l'autorité que vous m'avez confiée, et voici désormais votre gouverneur » So ended Emile or On Education, de l’éducation, of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The professor, the master (as the British English puts it), abdicates his authority and gives back to his disciple the art of being his own master (or at least to be one under Sophie’s authority). As an educated person, he has the ability to construct himself, even though “ all his life through a man needs a guide and counselor” (Emile, V). Master and disciple have both fulfilled their tasks. They quit each other happy of what they have achieved. The treatise of Rousseau is about education and intends to describe education in its general and complete meaning. Five books going through little childhood to the adult state, paternity, compose the treatise. The text end up as being hybrid, it is a novel related to philosophy, psychology and sociology and intends to give directions to Emile to follow, to be a free, happy and wise man, close to what Rousseau calls the state of nature, of innocence. “Men are born free, everywhere they are imprisoned”. How education contributes to keep the original state of nature corrupted by what Rousseau calls the social mask. Let’s read Emile and lets interrogate what is education.

First remark: who could say, as a teacher that he abdicates the authority that the student gave him. If few teachers could pronounce this sentence, it’s important t go through an analysis of words and their meaning. “Governor”, professor, teacher, master, tutor, those five words, if they don’t have the same meaning, can be used to describe a similarity of “jobs”. Rousseau employs all of them but keeps a preference for the Old French word of “governor”, which we’ll use in our paper. Their meaning, their etymology says a lot about what Rousseau thinks about the role of an educator. This word of “Governor”, used by Rousseau, is an Old French word used for teacher but is meaningful because it shows the importance of authority; because if the Governor is, as the French Dictionary, Le Furetière, seventeen century, is the one “qui a soin de l’éducation d’un jeune Prince,d’un Seigneur, des enfants de bonne maison”, “who takes care of the education of a young Prince, of a Lord, of well born children”, the governor is also, as in English, the one “who commands a Place, a Province”. The governor is a man of authority, and he has authority upon the child who has been confided to him. A master is a man who has mastery upon his art, he is the Latin word of “magister”. He has too authority upon his student. The tutor, in French “précepeteur” he as the Latin indicates the one who has taken before “pre”, before, “capere”, take. It is a meaning close to what Japanese people call a “sensei”, born before as the two kanjis of this word show. As a person “Born before”, he has the privilege of being older and had, especially in the old time, or in Japan, authority upon others. A teacher is in French a “enseignant”, word which comes from the Latin “insignare”, “insignire”, he is indicating as a sign the direction to follow. Teacher-enseignant shows knowledge as he indicates the way to go. Tutor has the meaning too of helping a plant to grow correctly. To indicate a way to go is it to have authority upon somebody? Teachers are asked to be at the same time: educators, teacher, parents, counselors and be aware of pedagogy and didactic. But do they have the possibility to assume this duty; do they have authority for it? By using mainly the word governor, Rousseau asks us to think about one main question, the question of authority, but a very special one an accepted, recognized authority; the imposed doesn’t work for Rousseau. Preliminary remark. One could object to us that the model presented by Rousseau is totally unrealistic, a utopia in our societies. For Rousseau master and disciple are linked for the entire life “(Emile, I, 98) I must add that there is just one other point arising out of this; we must never be separated except by mutual consent. This clause is essential, and I would have tutor and scholar so inseparable that they should regard their fate as one.” because“ when they consider they must always live together, they must love one another, and in this way they will become dear to one another” (Emile, I, 99). Parents are not the main persons “[Emile] must honor his parents, but he must obey only me. That is my first or rather my only condition ” (Emile, I, 97). Weak bodies are put apart “ I would not undertake the care of a feeble, sickly child” (Emil, I, 102) because “A frail body weakens the soul” (Emil, I, 104). And first of all the teacher shouldn’t be teaching for money (he would corrupt his student): “My first requirement, and it implies many more, is that he should not be a man who can be bought.” (Emile, I, 75) Finally, we do know that the education of Emil allows a great deal of time for leisure time and that knowledge, books come afterward, “naturally”, because the governor would have left the desire of knowledge grow gradually as the student needs it. The governor will not put any apparent pressure on his pupil. All those needs are just at the opposite of what is going on in French or European institutions. The teacher, even if he enjoys his job, is a mercenary. He has in charge many classes, many students, and has to teach to a classroom of almost thirty students in France. He has to

follow a unique program imposed by the Ministry of Education. He is free to teach in his classroom, but some Inspectors, specialists of his field and fail-self guarantor of the Institution (maybe as “infallible” as the Pope in Roma) come, more or less regularly in his classroom to verify that the teachers apply correctly the last directives of the Ministry of Education (directives that change which governments though). The teacher receives a grade too. The teacher is not a real educator but has to take care of his own field. Students are not chosen but imposed. And to put the last touch to the picture, one governor, as Rousseau puts it, would be soon suspected to be a kind of strange guru (in the occidental understanding of the word). He would be even more suspected to hide some awful and dark projects and, for sure, in United States, would receive many complaints, and be sued by a crowd of lawyers. Would this teacher be considered as an anarchist? Why spending some time to think about Rousseau’s ideas about education? Why not let this thinker in the own eighteen century, even though this century is known as the enlightenment century? The answer is clear: especially for those reasons, because Rousseau asks for an educational system which is just at the opposite of what our societies recommend. We’ll add a fact. In France, ten per cent of the students quit the school being still unlettered. This statistic is given by the French Ministry and is not taken as the reality for some people. Who cares? We won’t go through a discussion about statistic; we are just puzzled by this fact which gives us some doubts about the efficiency of the Education in France. So, what about the authority described by Rousseau. The thinker wants an accepted and desired authority, how does he do? The authority according to Rousseau is very subtle and never imposed, never forced. The idea is that authority and discipline come from the wish of the student himself. Rousseau knows that the task is difficult: “ Young teacher, I am preaching a difficult art, which is to control without precepts and to do everything without doing anything at all. This art is, I agree, beyond your years, it is not calculated to display your talents nor to make your value known to fathers; but it is the way to succeed.” (Emile, II, 385)To impose a law is to force the student to never think by himself, he always would refer to a competent authority: “. What should he think about, since you do all the thinking for him?” (Emile, II, 382) The French thinkers of the twentieth century lead by Nietzsche, followed by Foucault Bataille and others clearly demonstrated that the structure of power, resentment could be everywhere and that one should be very careful about how work all those power games, power structures. Michel Foucault think about power links, hidden structures of power, Vigarello and Bernard about how the body is symbolic of a society, how he speaks by himself; those philosophers put a question about authority; the illusion of authority of a teacher, in front of neat raw of students who profess a knowledge sure of itself and arrogant. This body is redressed by Institution, by the dominant society, as Vigarello puts it. May 68 might be considered as the accomplishment of this movement of doubt, of suspicion about those magisterial courses, symbol of a unique knowledge, mirror of this middle class or upper class. The body shall be free as Rousseau wrote already in the eighteenth century, the body should be the symbol of freedom and Nature: “ let him work, let him do things, let him run and shout, let him be always on the go; make a man of him in strength, and he will soon be a man in reason.”(Emile, II, 377) and later: “(Emile, II, 379) It is a pitiful error to imagine that bodily activity hinders the working of the mind, as if these two kinds of activity ought not to advance hand in hand, and as if the one were not intended to act as guide to the other.”

Let him shout and run. We see the famous double bind developed by Bateson and Watzlawick. The sport educator has to exercise the body of his students, let them be free and at the same time he has to ask them to constraint themselves, to be loud but quiet not to disrupt other classes. Thanks to Foucault and all those thinkers of the sixties any kind of authority is now suspected. But we end up in a new paradox, by rejecting any kind of discipline; the teacher is not respected as before (so some might not thank them too cheerily, we guess). The teacher has no more authority given by his status, his function; he has to gain it. Rousseau shows a way to get back, or find a new authority, a real authority. The authority comes by presence and testimony. By not forcing the student to bend over an authority of the status, Rousseau presents an authority by what he calls “the virtue”, the facts. “ (Emile, II, 311) Teachers, get rid of these shams. Be good and kind; let your example sink into your pupils' memories until they are old enough to take it to heart. Rather than hasten to demand acts of charity from my pupil I prefer to perform such actions in his presence, even depriving him of the means of imitating me, as an honor beyond his years.” Preaching virtue just gives the opposite effect. As for the reading, Rousseau doesn’t ask his student to read books at first, the need to read, books, reading come later in a pure heart. The book that counts is the “book of nature”. “ Emile, at twelve years old, will hardly know what a book is.” (Emile, II, 370). Rousseau gives the wish to his student to read. “Emile is invited to a dinner, a walk, a boating expedition, to see some public festival. These notes are short, clear, plain, and well written. Some one must read them to him, and he cannot always find someone when he wants; no more consideration is shown to him than he himself showed to you yesterday.” So, little by little he wants to discover by himself what’s written in those notes. “ He receives other notes; they are so short! The subject is so interesting! He would like to try to read them. Sometimes he gets help, sometimes none. He does his best, and at last he makes out half the note; it is something about going tomorrow to have some cream. He doesn't know where or with whom . . . what efforts he makes to read the rest!” (Emile, II, 373). Beyond this example, which is anchored in the eighteen century, sociologically and historically, Rousseau asks a real and unique question which is about desire of learning. By forcing a child to do things that he doesn’t want, we prevent him from following his desire, even worse, from having desire. It’s the question of boredom, boredom at schools, high schools, and college. Imposed programs far from students concerns bring them away from knowledge: this knowledge is the one belonging to the adult, belonging to society which looks so distant, almost like an enemy in some underprivileged cities. Rousseau puts at the center of his education the question of desire: “[373:] Present interest that is the great motive, the only one that leads us safely and far.” As a matter of fact, Rousseau shows that by taking in consideration students’concerns, they begin to be interested, alive. So Rousseau asks two fundamental questions: the question of desire, the question of identity. First question: question of desire. Is desire mimetic, as Rene Girard puts it, is desire erotetic, from the greek “erotema”, interrogation? If desire is mimetic, what about the teacher as a model? If desire is erotetic, what question what kind of interrogation does the teacher puts in his student’s brains? What fields, what instruction tries to ask fundamental questions? Rousseau suggested the interrogation: “If he asks questions let your answers be enough to nurture his curiosity but not enough to satisfy it. (Emile, I, 584)” The question should go on in the student’s mind.

Education tries to fulfill this gap. Teaching philosophy in France is to ask questions around three main questions, human condition, and knowledge and being, acting. History tries to put in context different questions, finding similarity through different times. But those experts do they ask themselves the main question, which is about desire, desire to be present at school. Nevertheless, this could be a direction about education, taking in consideration students concerns, thinking about desire. We could separate two concepts, the teacher who gives knowledge from the top to the student and the concept of education, which makes student grow, and construct himself. Knowledge in art, moral, ethic, religion doesn’t make an education. Formal knowledge doesn’t imply to understand and accepts this knowledge. We could consider that Hitler had some knowledge in music, painting, religion, art and ethic; did he apply them? No. He was not educated. To educate is promoting a “form” of life, according to Wittgenstein. Education is not only to transmit knowledge, but also to bring to. Teacher has to be educator in this meaning. If he doesn’t educate it’s the question of identity which is dismissed. Second question: Question of identity. If children are negated in their development, in their bodies; if he has to stay sited hours a day, what kind of attention can we expect? Education works with the children submissive, or more adapted to social and scholar system. For marginals, marginals because they have too much life, because they don’t belong to the right social classes; because they are too aware of the lessons that they have to listen all day; identity is negated, neglected. Neglected in many ways. Neglected because the scholar rhythm doesn’t respect the biological rhythm; students have to be constant in their studies; the body doesn’t want to be redressed anymore. Neglected as an individual, as a subject, since he is one student between many others, he has to adapts to the mass and not be different. So what is the true meaning of the educative system? Question of meaning. Has the educative system a meaning. We would like to give the example of a high school in the north of Nice. 750 students, only 80 would enter secondary school, only twenty would pass the first year, so very few might get their “baccalauréat”. So what is the meaning of going to the school for the student. What is the meaning of teaching for professors? Both are excluded from the social system, from the educative system. Uneasiness in education is about this question of meaning, of signification. There is also a new paradox there. Teachers are supposed to teach, not to be social educators; and the only teachers who can find a meaning in their job is by taking care of students as persons, not to think so much about their teaching. So, they are paid for what they can’t do (to teach mathematics, physics, literature, etc.), and for their real job of educator, they are not paid for. But that they only way that they can find a meaning in what they are doing: introducing a real intersubjective relationship with their students. However, is an heritage of Michel Foucault, society is being very aware of forms and structure that might take the Power, of what could bring exclusion. Language has to be so polite, has to be so politically correct that it might be sometimes ridiculous. Each University in Europe, in United States shows a policy of non-discrimination. Each minority should be represented. But, how come, this politically correct which we are so proud brings exactly his opposite for marginals, the anti-politically correct destructive. Some rap groups and singers just show that they don’t care about women, that they are homophobic, that killing a cop is something totally possible and accepted. So, we would like to separate what is good rap and bad rap. Separate the

anti-social rap to a social rap, which ask kids not to drug themselves, not to kill, not to have as a unique goal to earn money and have wild sex. Bad luck for us, thousands of kids prefer the hard rap, after the hard rock. Do we ask ourselves why? Foucault, in l’Ordre du discours, shows clearly how the wish of truth is inscribed in our system of values and even ask if many themes of philosophy just reinforce this wish of truth. Truth has his institution, his university, and his system of education, according to Foucault. Roland Barthes denounces language and grammar as being just fascist, extremist. The separation between what is right and what is wrong creates exclusion. Traditional knowledge becomes a symbol of an upper class and becomes, as a consequence, an object of disgust for lower classes, for marginals. The sacrificial crisis his on their side. Traditional society becomes their personal scapegoat. French writer Jean Genet wanted to speak and use the language of the master in order to infiltrate the upper class. For those kids that’s different: the won’t speak the language of the Master, because they know, or they feel, that they will always be excluded from the “real” society. Their violence is deeply mimetic since the copy inverted exactly the values of traditional society. They exist against, but they do exist, at least. Any desire is a desire of existing points out René Girard. This means that desire always comes first, subject comes first, before the object. It’s always the other, which shows me the object to desire, to catch. To exist against others, against society is to exist and not be in resentment. So we are stuck with our two questions of desire and identity. Some extremist religious groups are perfectly aware of that. They give identity to people who don’t have any, who think they don’t have any. In some underprivileged cities those groups (and they might be right) claim to be the only ones able to calm down the violence. Why? Because they speak about identity, transcendence, and initiation. There our educative system has clearly failed. He failed in his own function, which is to educate. What is education? Education is to work on identity and desire. It’s to build on those two grounds. It’s to oppose to indifferenciation of mass, of classrooms, the differentiation of a privilege and deep relationship. The governor of Jean Jacques Rousseau initiates, he initiates desire of life, or according to his own terms, of natural state. In France, the educative system multiplies special classrooms for teenagers who don’t care anymore about education, society: this is called classes relais, or ateliers relais. They can stay there no more than one year. With those classes we should go in this direction. Those classes receive few kids and try (or we do expect so…) to do a real work of education. They participate to what the psychiatrist Boris Cyrulnik calls “resilience” which allows to a harmed person to construct himself, to construct himself differently. Kids should be understood globally as real persons. Working on identity, desire, knowledge, desire to learn comes after (maybe a longtime after, but what’s the matter). Time should have time. After this time, the professor and his student, the governor and his disciple can quit each other; the master can abdicate the power that he had. But to be able to abdicate power, power should have existed before. Power is not manipulation. Power belongs to the one who could have been able to apply the law of Kant, which is to consider the other not as a mean, a medium but as an ending, as a subject, not as a way to get what he wants. This educator has gone from didactic to pedagogy. This educator, this governor brought his student not to knowledge itself, but to the discovery of himself; knowledge comes after.

But this educator wouldn’t it be a follower of Rousseau? At least, it’s what we wish him.

Copyright 2003, Daniel Lance, All Rights Reserved. References: Roland Barthes, Leçon, Seuil, Points Essais, Paris, (1978), 1998. Michel Bernard, Le Corps, Seuil, Le point Essais, 1995. Boris Cyrulnik, Un merveilleux malheur, Éditions Odile Jacob, Paris, 1999. Michel Foucaul, L’Ordre du discours, Nrf Gallimard, Paris, 1971. René Girard, Quand ces choses commenceront, entretiens avec Michel Treguer, Arlea, Paris, 1994. Jacques Gleyse, « Michel Bernard, la chair et le verbe », in Corps et Culture, n° 5, Montpellier, 2001. Francis Jacques, Différence et subjectivité, Analyse et raisons, Aubier, Paris (1982). Francis Jacques, « Dialogue, dialogisme, interlocution », in L'Orientation scolaire et professionnelle 2000, 29, N° 3, p. 547-565. Francis Jacques, “Enseigner-éduquer et quelques autres traits d'union”. The Idea of a University de John Henry Newman, Études newmaniennes. (1999). Philippe Mérieu, « Échec scolaire et pédagogie du sens », in Revue Spirales, n° 4, 1992. Bertrand Poirot-Delpech, “Lettres au Noir”, Le Monde, N° 12823, 20-21 avril 1986. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile or On Education, Columbia University online text. Translated by professor Grace Roosevelt based on the with a translation by Barbara Foxley that was published as a part of the Everyman's Library collection by J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd (London) and E. P. Dutton and Co. (New York) in 1911. Richard Shusterman, Performing live, Aesthetic Alternatives for the ends of Art, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 2000. Jean Starobinsky, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, la transparence de l’obstacle, suivi de sept essais sur Rousseau, Gallimard, Tel, Paris, [1971], 1979. Georges Vigarello, Le corps redressé, Armand Collin, Paris, 2001. Paul Watzlawick, Helmick Beavin, Don D. Jacckson, Une logique de la comunication, Points Essais, Seuil, (1972), 1979. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Le cahier bleu et le cahier brun, NRF, Éditions Gallimard, 1996.