The role of the teacher has without a doubt been in discussion since emergent efforts to systematically treat education. This discussion began to amplify in Western world as far back as ancient Greece and remains a widely examined topic to this day. Amongst the vast body of thinkers who have entered the conversation, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato and American psychologist, philosopher, and pedagogue John Dewey are key figures in the evolution of education. Each believed education had a telos of preparing people to participate in a functional society, but had vastly different ideas of how to go about this preparation. A third figure, the French critical theorist Michel Foucault also acknowledged this goal, but pulled back the veil on the harsh reality of how this preparation actually occurs. In this essay I will compare and contrast how each of these three thinkers conceive the role of the teacher. I will introduce their pedagogical positions in turn and then demonstrate the salient comparisons and differences between them.
Identifying the Role of the Teacher
In his seminal work, The Republic, Plato places education at the cornerstone of a just and ideal society. The most salient features of this text regarding pedagogy include his conceptions of what qualifies someone to teach, the duty of teachers, and the proper method of education. The first two aspects are described in books VI and VII of The Republic, “The Philosopher King” and the “Allegory of the Cave,” respectively, and the latter is implied through his dialogic writing style.
In the “Allegory of the Cave” dialogue, Plato has his interlocutor, Glaucon, visualize a scenario where multiple prisoners are bound by chains at the back of a dark cave. With their heads fixed on the wall ahead, all they have ever come to know are the shadows cast before them and distorted echoes of whatever activities are going on behind them. These unfortunate human beings condemned to stillness and darkness depict the unenlightened student in Plato’s analogy. Unable to liberate themselves, they passively wait for those who were released in the past to return and emancipate them. The teacher is portrayed as this returning character that dutifully seeks to guide (and sometimes drag) students into a world of enlightenment. Only those who have exited the cave and come to a truer understanding of the world should return. In other words, a student needs to achieve some level of knowledge under the guidance of his/her superiors before they are eligible to teach. Despite slight variations in routes, there is only one way out of the cave, and those who have traversed it before are the most suitable to lead the emancipated out into the intellectual world. Despite their adequacy to take on the task, what calls upon them to re-enter such a dreary realm and free the mind of their ignorant others?
Plato justifies this journey as an obligation because he believes it is the only way to create just rulers for a “well ordered state; for only in a state which offers [enlightenment] will those rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom… the true blessings in life” (Plato, p. 6 in the reader). Thus, not only do the enlightened in Plato’s society have a duty to govern and help others gain competency to do the same, but also to crystallize and preserve truth. While he does not explicitly suggest any particular way to properly “bring others to enlightenment,” he points towards a method in the writing style he adopts.
All of Plato’s texts are written as dialogues between his teacher Socrates and less enlightened or dissident others. Socrates’ character is often regarded as Plato’s original thought written out in a fictional dialogue, though it was his teacher’s probing conversations with philosophers and townspeople that inspired his dialectical approach to writing. Through meaningful questioning and deliberate clues, a priori was thought to emerge. Logically following the circumstances in which a competent teacher emerges, Socrates typically holds a dominant position in the teacher-student relationship. While he remains curiosit throughout the dialogues, in many cases he seems to already have the answers to the questions being discussed. The method of the Socratic teacher is to guide his/her students through a proper reasoning process in order to reach “truthful” conclusions.
For over two millennia, the dominant position of the teacher remained virtually uncontested. Relative to the Socratic teaching style, the power differential between the teacher and student even seemed to grow throughout the ages. Despite the changes in subject matter throughout the ages, most clearly marked at advent of the middle ages and modernity, the teacher took on a pastoral approach to education. That is, knowledge was preached by a select few who affirmed and generally reproduced what counted as truth. This pedagogical stance upholds the idea that the teacher is the possessor of truth and the students are passive receivers. It was not until late modernity that this model of education became subject to heavy scrutiny.
John Dewey began to see inconsistencies with this traditional model of teaching and the nature of learning. Instead of seeing education as a linear, unilateral transmission of knowledge, he began to take into consideration the student and the educative context. The student, long assuming the role of a passive subject, was repositioned as the central figure in Dewey’s progressive pedagogy. He acknowledged that the student’s experience played a significant role in effective education, which prompted a reimagining of the teacher’s role. Instead of taking an authoritarian stance in the classroom, the teacher was urged to take on an adaptive and increasingly social role.
Progressive education takes into consideration the individual person, their interests, and their unique experiences (Dewey, 1938, p. 19). The teacher who incorporates this into the classroom has a compounded task of not only mastering the subject matter, but also continuously monitoring and readjusting to the individuals in the collective learning environment. This environment consists of a holistic network of spaces and social milieu that students interact in. For Dewey, the classroom walls are not the boundaries of the student’s learning context, the “conditions of the local community, physical, historical, economic, occupational, etc..” need also to be factored in to the student’s experience (Dewey, 1938, p. 40). Furthermore, each individual’s past experience should be tapped into as a way to draw connections between subject matter and their own subjectivity. By doing so, students are able to appropriate knowledge, that is, make it their own. The personalization of otherwise inert knowledge allows information of the past to become animated within the student and significant to their future.. It is this mode of learning the Dewey believes cultivates curiosity and desire to build upon personalized knowledge. Ultimately, this instills continuity serves a practical purpose rather than a “banking” of incoherent facts (Freire, Ramos, & Ramos, 1973).
Another salient feature of Dewey’s progressive education that modifies the role of the teacher is his emphasis on social interactions. Democratic society, the realm that progressive education ultimately seeks to prepare students to participate effectively in, is essentially a community project. Therefore, the classroom should serve as a place to practice democracy (Dewey, 1938, p. 33). Problem solving skills, moral progress, and effective communication are just a few of the achievements that are apt to emerge in a progressive classroom and help cultivate the ideal citizenry. Therefore, the teacher is to allow social interaction between students and his/herself insofar as it promotes an effective learning environment. Dewey does not completely call for a riddance of traditional, top-town education for he acknowledges that it is capable of working towards the same ideals. Nevertheless, the traditional conception of education in his eyes should be augmented by the principles he advances. While Dewey warns against a strict version of this model, he leaves us with a relatively shallow explication of it.
Progressive education actively seeks to humanize the student, who through the ages had been seen as a subject that knowledge was simply transmitted to. Personal interests, desires, and curiosities were deemphasized and typically considered barriers to efficient education. When these human characteristics could not be affirmed, a covert manipulation takes place in order to homogenize and neutralizes students. Michel Foucault, in his 1975 book Discipline and Punish, pegged this manipulative enterprise as the modern from of discipline. In contrast to the medieval forms of discipline, which was performed in public displays of physical punishment, discipline today is quiet and so normalized that resists being acknowledged. For Foucault, discipline “makes individuals; it is a specific technique of power that regards individuals as objects and as instruments of its exercise” (Foucault and Sheridan, 1977, p. 170). He goes on to elaborate this concept as the force, which created the contemporary education system, which essentially shapes the role of the teacher.
The inconspicuous power structure that he elaborates arises out of the need to control “docile bodies” (Foucault and Sheridan, 1977, p. 136). The modern academic institution emerged around the subjugation of the docile student, and the teacher has been sent to the frontline to protect and maintain this system. Falling in line with institutional protocol, the teacher enforces a network of subtle disciplinary maneuvers that interdependently uphold desired levels of control. These tactics are manifest in both physical and abstract forms. Physically, students are confined in spaces that allow for the teacher to monitor them at all times. Furthermore, the teacher partitions them into easily analyzable cells in order to prevent conglomerate disturbances to the power system and also to monitor individual actions to ensure their compliance. On an abstract level, the teacher implements a ranking system (grades, citizenship, promotion) as to inform the students of how well they reach standards external to them.
Upon repetition of this ranking system throughout successive levels of school, these standards become internalized. At each level, the teacher has the role of maintaining and advancing these standards. For the sake of efficiency, each level is broken down into segments of time in which specific expectations are met. From the first day of formal schooling, the teacher establishes his/her role as the master of time. He/she decides when students may speak, when they are free to leave, and when they must complete various tasks. Their power to rank, punish and reward uphold their dominant status in the classroom.
But why is this position of dominance necessary? Initially it would seem as though the teacher would have the autonomy to upend this power differential, but according to Foucault’s conception of the “correct means for training,” the teacher is subjugated as well (Foucault and Sheridan, 1977, p. 170). He categorizes these means into three categories, namely hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment, and examination. The first of which echoes the above discussion of physical apparatuses to observe students. However, superiors are continuously watching the teacher, as well. Through student evaluations, proximity with peers, and necessary reports to administration., teachers are observed and ranked. They must conform to protocol to uphold certain standards or else their job and honor will be jeopardized. For both the teacher and the student, the abstract system of rewards and punishments “that traverses all points in the disciplinary institutions compares, differentiates, hierarchizes, homogenizes, excludes. In short, it normalizes” (Foucault and Sheridan, 1977, p. 183, his emphasis. In order to efficiently evaluate and stratify subjects at all levels of the institution, examinations are routinely given either overtly, or disguised in many forms (such as credentials, research production, and administrative observations). Naturally, the teacher is manipulated into an efficient instrument that keeps the “learning machine” running smoothly.
Thinkers in Conversation
Underlying each thinker’s conception of the teacher’s role is a unique conception of knowledge and the ways in which it is apprehended. While Plato holds that knowledge is an unchangeable entity with ontology external to the mind, Dewey and Foucault see knowledge as dynamic and that in each case it serves some practical purpose. Plato was under the impression that knowledge existed in “forms” or ideas that were absolute and atemporal. Thus, for Plato, knowledge is necessarily reproductive. While these true forms of reality are not easily attainable, “the capacity of learning exists in the soul already” (Plato, p. 4). Under proper guidance and study of certain subject matter, the student would be able to eventually apprehend the forms and transcend from the ostensible world of becoming to the true world of being.
Plato’s conception of knowledge and its apprehension implies several things for the teacher. First of all, as to properly shape the soul of the student, the teacher is responsible for relaying a particular body of subject matter to them. For Plato, this consisted of the quadrivium arts (geometry, arithmetic, astrology, and music) and physical education. The former was thought to bare the closest relationship to the forms because they are all absolute systems that seemed to wither explain or transcend nature. The latter was of importance to bring the mind and the body into an ideal relationship with one another – he believed the body was a source of knowledge itself. However, I should be quick to point out that Plato took the sensual experiences of the body to be deceptive and lead the soul (mind) astray. This was especially true of sensual pleasures, which he deemed as impediments to the soul’s assent to the intellectual world (Plato, p. 5).
On the contrary, Dewey sees the sensual experience of the student as a key factor in meaningful reflections and personalization of knowledge. The aim of this reflection is to make relevant the knowledge that the student comes into contact with. For Dewey, knowledge serves a limited purpose unless it can be made personally significant and provides some practical use for the learner. Therefore, the progressive teacher allows and creates opportunities for their students to incorporate their senses into the learning environment. Plato sees this type of knowledge apprehension as dangerous because it leads them away from absolute truth and assures plurality (Williams, 2010 p.4). Although, progressive education necessarily welcomes plurality because of the importance of personal experience in the learning process and flexible subject matter, which is determined in part by the student’s interests. For the progressive teacher, selection of subject matter is not necessarily important. While Plato’s selection of subject matter is thought to properly prepare students to grasp truths, Dewey holds that “prescribed amounts of information” about particular subjects causes a loss of the soul (Dewey, 1938, p. 49). In other words, the restrictive nature of the teacher-only selected subject matter saps students of their enthusiasm to learn and limits their ways of understanding.
Also implied in this dispute over subject matter is the possibility of valuable collateral learning. In the case of Plato, the teacher is the only figure who should guide the student toward truth. Remember that his conception of the teacher is someone who has been guided into the intellectual world his/herself – those who have not are unfit for the role. However, Dewey emphasizes the positive nature of collateral learning. He believes it is a way of forming “enduring attitudes” and values (Dewey, 1938, p.48). Furthermore, students are naturally social beings who must learn to interact and cope with others throughout the entirety of their lives. The progressive teacher acknowledges this as part of the learning environment and allows peer interaction insofar as it is perceived to add to the learning experience.
The same cannot be said about the teacher in Foucault’s elaboration of disciplinary education. The occurrence of collateral learning in the classroom he describes is seen as a disturbance and a threat to the maintenance of student subjugation. The teacher must necessarily individualize their students and reproduce the notion that he/she is the sole keeper of knowledge in the class. The examinations in this system of education only test what the teacher has transmitted to the students. In contention with Dewey, this is the way in which attitudes and values are instilled, not by others. Efficiency, punctuality, conformity, and quality of work reside at the forefront of values in this type of system. In accordance with Plato, the student must be disciplined in order to reach some particular understanding. This understanding is most efficiently reached by submitting to an expert of the knowledge at hand, that is, someone who is perceived as enlightened.
In contrast with Plato, knowledge for Foucault is not absolute. Rather, he observes that in each historical period the nature of knowledge has shifted. While this is clearly demonstrated by reviewing what counted as knowledge in different epochs, he would argue that knowledge is constantly in flux, now more so than ever. Governmental agencies, institutional administration, and even the teachers themselves decide what counts as knowledge to their students. This exalted position of picking and choosing knowledge is therefore a form of oppression, because in every case it serves some function for the agent(s) who selected and legitimated it. The teacher, then, is both the oppressed and the oppressor to various degrees depending on their autonomy from superior entities. At the base of this pyramid of power lays the student whose mind is shaped to know the dominant forms of knowledge and whose body is disciplined to write a certain way, stay in line, stay seated, stay quiet.
As mentioned before, this system upholds itself because the teacher is subjugated to the same means of training that the student is. Foucault labels this as “infra-law,” which “extend general forms defined by law to the infinitesimal level of individual lives; or they appear as methods of training that enable individuals to become integrated into these general demands” (Foucault and Sheridan, 1977, p. 222). Since teachers were once in the subjugated position as the students, they have internalized the disciplinary structure so deeply that they fail acknowledge their role to perpetuate it upon their subordinates. This notion of genealogical power structures is a concern for all three thinkers. Dewey fought to upend this system by centralizing the student in the educative process, which necessarily undermines subjugation on all levels. The progressive teacher is in an active fight to dismantle constrictive and oppressive forms of education. Although Plato may partially agree with a constrictive and reproductive form of education, he would fervently disapprove of such a misleading and unilateral system. Even though the teacher in his implicit teaching ideal typically assumed a dominant role, the student had the chance to dialogue with them and contest the ideas upon which they are led. Both of these stances promote a humanistic student-teacher relationship that the disciplinary system resists.
The teacher in each of these cases also has a goal to prepare the student for participation in some society outside of school. Plato believes that the teacher’s role is to prepare students to become upstanding citizens, if not governors of the state. He believed if they were able to apprehend the truths of the world and correct understanding of justice they would be suitable to sustain a well-ordered society. While Dewey’s progressive education is also laid out as an effective way to prepare students to participate in a democratic state, he focuses more on the social and practical elements. There is not a Truth that must be apprehended, but truths that lie within the individual. Each person plays a different role in society and is encouraged to embrace their subjectivity. Plato’s version of preparation for democracy promotes a push towards homogenization. This is true for Foucault’s elaboration of the modern education system as well, because it prepares citizens to cooperate with power structures that have control over them. By the time the student has completed school, they have been properly trained to be an efficient utility to society.
As I have shown, each of the three pedagogical philosophies presented here aim to develop persons who effectively fit into society outside of school. However, there are vast differences in what counts as effective citizenship. Due to these unique goals, the teacher in each case has a different role in preparing their students. What counts as knowledge is a crucial factor in how teachers go about conducting the classroom. For Plato, knowledge was static and immutable; Dewey, dynamic and influenced by personal experiences; Foucault, determined and disseminated by those in power. Logically following these three conceptions of knowledge are the focal points of each philosophy. The teacher assumes the central role in Plato’s pedagogical position because it he/she that had the eligibility and duty to bring the students to a correct understanding of reality. The student is placed in the center of Dewey’s philosophy, because it is his/her interests and personal experiences, which are key factors in effective education. Lastly, Foucault places the institution itself, which has been created by a perpetuated form of covert discipline, as the central force in education. While his conception of education is more of a description and critique rather than a philosophy, it raises awareness of what role the teacher should assume. In light of the teacher’s current situation, the conversation about his/her role welcomes more voices.
Works Cited
Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York: Simon & Schuster Adult
Publishing Group.
Foucault, M., & Sheridan, A. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Freire, P., Ramos, M. B., & Ramos, T. M. B. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed.
Harmondsworth, United Kingdom: Penguin Books.
Plato & Jowett, B.J. (2008). The republic. Boca Raton, FL, United States:
Digireads.com.
Williams, L., (2010). Plato and education. In Richard Bailey (ed.), _ The Sage
Handbook of Philosophy of Education _. Sage Publication 69.
