Current Philosophy

0010 C.A. Bowers. "The Dialectic of Nihilism and the State: Implications for an Emancipatory Theory of Education," Educational Theory 36:3 (Summer 1986), pp. 225-232.

Bowers makes the counter-intuitive claim that educational practices designed to liberate the individual actually strengthen the authority of the state. This occurs because emancipatory forms of education promote nihilism, leading to a decline of individual authority. He begins by noting some of the relevant differences between traditional and modern cultures. The most important difference is a move from tacit implicit forms of knowledge communicated by oral and communal means in traditional cultures to explicit and technological knowledge that relies on abstraction and written transmission in modern cultures. Other distinctions include attitudes toward change (threatening vs. progressive) the locus of authority (varied sources vs. the individual himself) and moral decision-making (religiously based vs. utilitarian).

In the transition to modern society the state has assumed a pastoral role: providing salvation in this world instead of in the next. As Foucault has pointed out, the state's success in this role requires a modern form of individuality (as defined above). This is further promoted by the politicization of areas of life formerly assigned to the private sphere (Habermas).

Schools, at least in North America, have promoted these processes. In the very act of encouraging literacy and citizenship they have helped unravel the tapestry of traditional cultures. While nobly assisting the self-development of their students, teachers have (without deliberately trying to) thereby promoted the modernization of culture and, consequently, nihilism. And it is this vacuum of real authority that the state fills by increasing its own power.

Bowers describes nihilism as the relativization of all ideas values and cultural norms. As Nietzsche observed, the continual search for truth in the face of a belief that ultimate truth cannot be found has the effect of making authority depend on the judgment and feelings of the individual. While this would seem to empower the individual, in fact it weakens him: he cannot place any faith in the shared beliefs and commitments of a community, he has trouble accepting authority outside that of his own experience and he winds up feeling alone and alienated.

The image of the autonomous individual that underlies modern education strengthens this tendency to locate authority in each person separately. It ignores the tacit forms of knowledge characteristic of traditional socities. It emphasizes the progressive nature of change, emancipates from traditions, and sets up the good of society as a principle or criterion of value.

Bowers does not want to set back the educational clock. But by making explicit the personal and political consequences of liberal education he hopes to encourage some modifications. He wants education to be empowering for the individual, not just liberating. The essence of such an educational approach is to recognize the individual not atomistically but as a social-cultural being.

Teachers need to present contexts for ideas, using words, concepts and theoretical frameworks that encourage this social-cultural understanding. They should help students realize the importance of the kind of language they use, how language binds them to or loosens them from traditions. They should present to students the historical context of their ideas. In sum: teachers should help students situate themselves as individuals within a community.

 Contents     Index