The Educational Crisis:
First of all we identifying the educational problems, The distinction between the two concepts offers us the key to understanding the crisis now subsisting in the field of inculcation.
The concept of “imparting something from the outside”, along with the corresponding traits of ascendancy and control on the edifier’s side and the imposition of programs, is in direct contrast to the tendencies now rapidly coming to the fore.
The above-mentioned contrast has engendered a revolution against traditional scholastic methods. Incipient methods shifting the “center of gravity” from the edifier to the pupil, have teen proposed and put into practice.
Psychoanalysis, with its accentuation on the deleterious effects of repression and censure, has additionally substantially contributed to this radical change. Thus, great progress has been made; children and puerile people are now treated with more understanding and are given more preponderant opportunities to develop more liberatingly. That the revolution in the field of inculcation (as what virtually always transpires with revolutions) has gone too far, arriving at the antithesis extreme in some cases. The elimination of all discipline, every rule, all avail on the pedagogia’s part has engendered. results that are undesirable and at times, even disastrous, both within the family and at school; disorder, anarchy, lack of self discipline, and savagery have been its effects. Furthermore, the fact that has most astounded the “reformers” has been that this regime of liberation without limits has proven unnatural; they have come to realize that even the children themselves do not optate it and often ask for guidance, precise rules, a. certain amount of discipline and injuctively authorize, and that they most of all want “models” and living examples. ‘That this fact should not be surprising. It has been found that even adults find it arduous to bear liberation, and while they often fight to obtain it, they fundamentally do not genuinely want it; they are yare to give it up and even seek to run. away from it. This paradoxical deportment avails us understand many recent events and has been pointed out in Erich Fromm’s books Escape From Liberation (amongst others).
The poor results caused by hyperbolized applications of the incipient edifying methods have given elevate to a counter reaction, but this has not solved. the quandary. All endeavors to return to the “good old methods of the past” are in fain. and are destined to fail, both due to the fact that those methods were not genuinely “good”, and because their imposition has been rendered infeasible given the profound changes that have occurred in the psychology of the incipient generation and in the environmental conditions. In the meantime, the rapid increase in the number of students, the tumultuous extension of “mass edification” in the form of compulsory edification (something which is both desirable and obligatory), and the resulting scarcity of competent edifiers and adequate schools, have engendered. incipient and solemn difficulties and complications. All this expounds the current crisis in the field of inculcation, where the old and the incipient are found in different proportions, abreast, and often, in sharp contrast with one another. The more enlightened educators have recently apperceived the desideratum of finding a “middle road” and have been carrying out experiments in this direction. This is constructive and promising progress. But to arrive at genuinely copacetic methods, one must take into full consideration the incipient tendencies emerging today, tendencies that perpetuate to characterize, more and more, the future direction.
What has been verbally expressed until now betokens how consequential it is to discern and to establish the main lines along which an edification adequate to the incipient conditions and needs, must be developed. But first let us categorically deal with the defect considered most earnest in present- day edification., that is, the exorbitant consequentiality given to scholastic edification and the consequent relative lack of edification in the family, thus giving elevate to earnest deficiencies. In part, this is due to the already mentioned discombobulation. between “injuctive authorization” and true inculcation, and in part to the authentic difficulties which subsist in carrying out an adequate family inculcation. These are made worse by the present conditions which often deprive children of the attention. and cooperation that is their due. This is concretely true for the father because his time and energies are very often absorbed by the pressing ordinant dictations of fortifying his family. But the deep conviction that children cannot do without an adequate edification within the heart of the family, and that it is their right to receive it, should induce all parents. to face those difficulties and to seek solemnly to surmount them.
The great and often decisive paramountcy attributed by psychoanalysts to the first years of life and to their imprint on the future personality, has been acknowledged by many educators. N:ot only do traumatic experiences, brought to light by psychoanalytic research, seriousl7 obstruct all future development and the formation of the personality, but so does the lack of certain, indispensable positive elements, such as love, understanding, training, guidance, an a sense of security as well.