In this paper, Bertrand Russell discusses the relationship between education and discipline. He discriminates three views on children's freedom in education, and thinks that children need neither absolute laissez-faire nor Nuo Nuo. This paper mainly introduces Russell's view that he agrees with freedom. He believes that obeying authority will damage children's innovative spirit. But behind the excerpts, he also reflected on the over-indulgence and total non-intervention of children's freedom. (Angelababy)

——————————————

Any serious educational theory must consist of two parts: one is the conception of life goals, and the other is the study of psychological dynamic mechanism, such as the law of spiritual change. Two people who have different views on life goals can't hope to agree on education. Educational machine and western civilization have always been the dominant of two ethical theories since ancient times. Christian theory and nationalist theory. Once these two theories are taken seriously, they are incompatible with each other, and the situation in Germany is already obvious. Personally, I think Christianity is preferable where there are differences between the two, and there are fallacies on both sides where there are identical views. I want to replace it, as the content of educational purport, it can be described as the concept of civilization. According to my understanding, its definition has both personal and social aspects. Personally, civilization includes two qualities: intelligence and morality; In terms of intelligence, they have some basic common sense, their own professional skills and the habit of forming opinions based on evidence; In terms of moral quality, it is fairness, kindness and a little self-control. I should add a quality, which is neither moral nor intellectual, but maybe physical: enthusiasm and happiness for life. In social groups, civilization needs to respect the law, fairness among people, no intention to cause lasting harm to any part of mankind, and wisdom to adapt means to the purpose. If all these become the purport of education, the question that psychology should consider is what measures and actions can be taken to achieve these goals, and more importantly, what degree of freedom can be proved to be effective.

At present, there are mainly three schools of thought to look at educational freedom. One problem stems from the difference of purpose and the other from the difference of psychological theory. Some people say that no matter how naughty a child is, he should enjoy complete freedom; Others say that children, no matter how sensible, should completely obey authority; Others say that children should enjoy freedom, and at the same time, they should always be sensible. The third proposition goes beyond the degree of justification, because children, like adults, will not develop very noble qualities if they enjoy complete freedom. Freedom should guarantee the perfection of morality. This belief is an important legacy of Rousseau's theory. After studying animals and children, beliefs will be broken. People who hold this belief believe that education should not have a clear intention, but should only provide an environment suitable for natural development. I can't agree with this school. In my opinion, this theory is individualistic and ignores the importance of knowledge too much. We live in a social group that needs cooperation, and we expect all necessary cooperation to come from spontaneous impulses. This is a utopian ideal. With a limited area and a large population, the survival in this case can only be attributed to science and technology; Therefore, education must spread the minimum necessary science and technology. The educator who allows the greatest freedom is such a person. Their success depends on some kindness, self-control and well-trained intelligence. However, if all impulses are left unchecked, it is difficult to inspire the above qualities. Therefore, if their methods cannot be improved, their advantages cannot be carried forward for a long time. From the social point of view, education must reflect some positive connotations, not just opportunities conducive to growth. Admittedly, education must provide this opportunity, but at the same time, it must provide a spiritual and moral qualification that children can't get entirely by themselves.

The argument in favor of greater freedom in education does not stem from the innate goodness of human beings, but from the influence of authority, which is embodied in those who assume and exercise authority. People who obey authority either become passive Nuo Nuo or disobey, both of which have their own shortcomings.

Obedience loses initiative, whether in thought or in action; What's more, the anger aroused by setbacks often finds a way to vent when bullying the weak. The reason why the tyrant system can exist for a long time is that adults have suffered from Laozi and passed it on to their sons. He is deeply worried about the humiliation he suffered in public schools. Once he becomes the founder of the empire, he will pass it on to the people. So paying too much attention to authoritative education will turn students into timid tyrants. In the face of innovation in words or actions, they can't open their eyes and can't tolerate it. This kind of education has more serious consequences for educators: they often become a generation accustomed to abuse and discipline, and are willing to inspire terror, just content with it. Because such figures represent knowledge, students get an aversion to knowledge. In the upper class of Britain, this kind of psychology is considered to belong to human nature, but in fact it belongs to people's natural hatred for totalitarian teachers.

On the other hand, rebels may be necessary, but it is difficult to be fair when looking at everything that exists. Moreover, there are many ways to rebel, and only a few are wise. Galileo was a rebellious figure, but he still kept his wisdom; People who believe that the earth is flat are also rebels, but they are stupid. Another big danger lurks in a tendency to think that confronting authority is commendable in nature, and the unconventional view must be correct: smashing lampposts or insisting that Shakespeare is not a poet can't solve any practical and useful problems. However, this excessive rebellious spirit often leads to the imposition of too much authority on energetic students. When rebellious people become educators, they sometimes encourage students' contempt, while trying to create a good environment for students, although these two purposes are difficult to be compatible.

What we really need is neither passivity nor opposition to Nuo Nuo, but a calm and generally friendly attitude when dealing with people and new ideas. One of the qualities should be attributed to substantive factors, and educators of old-fashioned ideas rarely pay attention to this aspect; Mainly can get rid of the dilemma, helpless feeling. Because of the frustration of life impulse, this feeling is produced. If young people grow up to be friendly adults, in most cases, they will feel environmentally friendly. This requires some sympathy for children's important desires, rather than just trying to use children to achieve some abstract purpose. Moreover, in the process of teaching and educating people, we should make every effort to make students feel that what the teacher teaches is worth knowing-at least under the premise that this situation is in line with reality. Once students are willing to cooperate, the learning effect will be twice as effective. All these are legitimate reasons for advocating full freedom.

(Excerpted from Education: Making People Become People, edited by Yang Ziwu, Peking University Publishing House, 20 16).

China Teachers' Newspaper 202 1 10 9th Edition.