EUDEC Poland 2015 - Wojciech Eichelberger

Okay, I think this is an introduction to the company. I would like to propose some structure that the structure happens in my mind some time ago when I was thinking about this special, unusual, revolutionary approach to education. I will shortly outline this basic aspect of this whole issue that we should remember. It may. Hopefully it will give some structure to the conference. As it follows, I will share. I know that there is a lot of enthusiasm here about democratic education and I am enthusiastic as well. But I want to share some doubts and questions as well. So I hope my enthusiasm is visible and I will share some doubts and question that probably many people share also in this. So much in this lesson. Okay, so first aspect of democratic education is a historical one, you can say, even political. And this will be my first point here. Why and when it has happened? Why and when it has started. Second aspect is educational. And this is quite important. And as I see many people asking themselves this question from this area. And the basic question is about effectiveness and efficiency of this approach to education. And I saw a few films, documentaries here, and all of them are about it. Is this effective? Is it really efficient? Are we sure we are educating our children well enough? So that will be the second little chapter. The third chapter is a psycho sociological issue which concerns adaptation and maturity. How do we understand adaptation and maturity in this context? In the context of democratic schooling or democratic education? And the fourth aspect is a special one is a psychology of family system, which is also very important. I think that by introducing democratic education, we make a revolution within the family system as well. And we have some questions and doubts about it as well, whether this system can adapt to this revolutionary input and how authority and trust look like in this situation within family systems. And then I will talk about something which is fundamental and basic to the whole idea. But that will be kind of a surprise, quite obvious surprise, as you will see. Okay, so let's start why and when it started? I think it's important to remember that. That the first democratic school, Summerfield, started not so long after the first World War, which was a shock to the whole humanity. It was really unbelievable in the culture that was present at that time and believed in. So, and we should not overlook it, that what the founders had in mind when they started this kind of movement of this is my hypothesis, because I never spoke to. But I imagine that there is a connection between the shock of the first World War and this idea that emerged right after. So what we could say and about this basic ideology or message of this approach, I think it was basically, it was a When you say initiative, let's say that started in order to create a new kind of man, right. And they wanted to create a new culture. The culture that will not produce any more wars. And of course, very rightly they started with education. And there were many followers at that time. They didn't work together, but in different places of the planet the same idea was undertaken. And it was in Poland. We have a very, very good example of creating the same kind of approach. The same kind of approach by Janus Korczak. Have you ever heard about Janus Korczak? Who heard about Janus Korczak from English speaking people. Good. Janus Korczak is really fantastic. He was a fantastic guy, really. And it's good to learn more about him. But actually he embraced the same kind of approach, the same kind of sensitivity, the same kind of ideas that may did. So there were quite a riot or revolutionary approach or revolution against Freudian approach at that time as well. And we had from. We had some other philosopher and humanistic psychology started to its existence at that time, more or less. So we had Wilhelm Reich, for example. Wilhelm Reich, famous and very controversial person that was really going strongly for the revolution in educational systems. And his statement was that the traditional educational system creates neuroses and different. Different defenses that are actually considered pathological. But in his view it was adequate response to the environment that people were educated in. And similar approach we witnessed in later on in our current history. So to say in the movement of anti psychiatry. But Korcha, for example. So let's make some order here, Neil, what was the ideal of what kind of men he wanted to produce by this new revolutionary system of education? First of all, peace loving, democracy loving, free, creative, involved and happy. Very unusual approach at the time. Also it was in culture, it was declared that these values are very important, but they were not practiced. Yes. So his message was that the child, the young people, children are saviors of the world. Actually that he made this metaphor in one of his favorite books for children, the King Matthews. Matthews first. King Matthews first that the power, the political power should be given to children. Of course, it was a metaphor. We don't want children to get involved in politics. But the reading is metaphor. It meant that our inner child, the inner child that is present in every adult being should be engaged in creating this world, in creating policy, in creating economy and so on. Of course. So the child is a source of the positive change and wisdom. Inner child. That's a completely different approach to the child. Especially at the time of when Freud Started with his ideas and his revolution. Because in Freudian terms, child is a suspicious kind of being that should not be really trusted. It should be controlled, educated, suppressed, guided, and this socialized in general. And only under these conditions, the child may become useful adults, useful member of the society. So do we. The question that we should ask ourselves is, do we truly believe that the change of school, the change of the educational system can produce new people? Or are we idealistic about it? What is, what is? We come later to it. But this is a very basic question, and we should not be afraid to ask this question because of course, there is much more to education and growing and becoming a mature person than school and education. We all live and we educate our children and we grow our children, so to say, in a very complicated context, cultural, economical, political, and so on. So do we truly believe that this is possible or this is just idealistic idea and we should be more critical about it and more aware of different traps and obstacles? Okay, so this is the first part about the history and political aspect of democratic education. So now we go to the second one, the quality of education. We asked ourselves this question all over again and again. I've been in this. I've been trying to persuade different people, different politicians to change the system. And I worked with parents and educators and teachers, and this is the most important question they ask. Are you sure that in this system we can efficiently effectively educate our children? And I think that we are not quite sure. You yet we. A little bit. I have a feeling that I also, I also. I'm not sure. I'm not completely sure about it. I have my doubts. So. And it's good to address the doubts. If you. If we try to repress our doubts, we will end up neurotic or psychotic. So it is difficult, but it's good to express our doubts. So the question is, for example, what should we do with tradition? How to deal with tradition? What tradition brings to our educational system? What tradition brings, how it creates and models the minds of our children, our students. And should we get rid of tradition or should we teach tradition? That's a very important and difficult question because of course, when you look critically at tradition, tradition is a source of neurosis. Tradition teaches false needs, false goals, violence, greed, ignorance. And tradition is full of words. So why to teach tradition? But if we don't teach tradition, are we sure that we can really neglect the importance of transmitting tradition, history, and basic knowledge shared by the rest of our human environment? So the effectiveness and efficiency of schooling is not a Closed issue yet. Although I can see that many people pretend that it is and they consider it only marketing problem, so to say how to persuade others. But are we really persuaded? This is. This is a question you should not avoid either. Okay, okay, that's it. I have some notes on you. No, it's not a lecture, it's a speech. The first, the next chapter is the question of this psychoanaly sociological question about adaptation and maturity of our students. And this is quite, very often, frequently asked question. Will our students be able to confront unfriendly, hostile, challenging, competitive reality when they finish our educational system? Many teachers, many parents, many politicians and educators and people responsible for reforming in education, they ask this question. And I think that this question is not close to one either. We don't really truly know, although there are some researches made on students, former students of Summerhill, and they show that they're doing well. But there is another question. Do we really want our students and children to adapt to this crazy culture? So do we want them to adapt or do we want them to become change factors or change leaders? So in traditional culture, and in traditional view, actually expressed very strongly by Freud, is the adaptation, the maturity. Maturity. Maturity is art of adaptation. So maturity is the ability to adapt, adapt to our social environment. And this is what we should learn. Of course, this is a big issue. So do we want our children, our students, to adapt or not? Are we going to create revolutionaries, quiet, peaceful citizens and consumers of our everyday culture? And again, another question that quite often I am confronted with. Are you educating winners or losers? What does it mean? Winner or loser? Of course, again, we have to be aware that our culture is still very hostile, very challenging, very competitive. Will our children manage? What should they do? How should they? How should they live? So we need a new definition of maturity, I think what is maturity? And we should avoid one that is traditional here because it is very sort of degrading and blocking creativeness. Okay, so that's about adaptation and maturity. Now let's talk a little bit about psychology of the family system. That's also very difficult area and often brought up by in different discussions and talks I took part in. So when we, you know, by themselves, by yourself, of course, that, that it's not easy to adapt if you come from the traditional culture, parents, family, that comes from so called traditional culture. I don't see many people like this here. They have a problem with adaptation and assimilation. Revolutionary young man that is educated in democratic school. That's a system revolution. That's very difficult for parents and the family system in general to adapt to such a person, young man, to support him and, and assimilate this kind of idea within the system. Because the reason is very obvious, because it challenges the basic idea of the system. So it's difficult for parents and for families to. And to trust young men, children that participate in democratic education. And they are not trusted by children and by students either. So there is a crisis of trust. How can we overcome? I will tell the two just to illustrate it. I remember some time ago, 45 year old father came to me and he said, oh, I have a problem with my son. How old is your son? 60. So what happened? Okay, he came to me and he asked some question about decisions he was about to make on his educational and you know, he had to choose his educational path or structure. So I started to talk about it and, and the subject became broader and broader. So it became like a discussion about life. Of course it was not a discussion, I was making a monologue. But after a few or few minutes I noticed that he stopped listening. He stopped listening to me. So I asked him, why don't you listen? And he answers, why should I? What do you mean, why should you? So the young man said, but how come you can advise me? Why do you give me so many advices? So I said to him, it's obvious, because you are important for me. I love you, I want the best for you and I want to share, I want to share my experience. It's not enough. And he answered, no, no it's not. So what is missing? And the young man says, you are not a happy person. That's a very important issue. You know, when we create a happy person within a family system, it's not easy because instead of lifts up the standard of happiness and it confronts the other members of the family system with reality of their unhappiness. It's not easy to assimilate. That's a basic mechanism why it's so difficult for some children to find support for their educational endeavor in democratic schools within the family system. When one person from the family system becomes happier, that's a terrible problem for all the others. So we should not overlook it. Of course. So we have a problem with trust and authority within the family system. And in general we have a problem with trust and authority between youngsters and adults. Nowadays it has become much very evident because perhaps we are not happy enough. As I told. So we will hear this question, this argument that you can give me advice, you can be my leader or master or mentor only if you are happy enough. So how about our happiness? Not many of us, you know, finished educational democratic systems and that made a big impact on our psychological and spiritual life, so to say. So we can bear it in mind, we should bear it in mind that the best way to support our children in democratic environment, educational environment is to work on our own happiness. Okay, so that's only way to solve the authority problem. And now we have the surprise, which is quite obvious, surprise, as you probably noticed and you know, your awards that all above questions and problems point to the hidden fundamental question which is anthropological question. And the question is, is our human nature good or what do you think? Both. Okay, but this is a basic assumption here that we should be aware and maybe we should discuss within our hearts and between ourselves what is our belief? What do I think about myself in this terms? What do I think about other people? What do I think about my enemies? Are they good or bad? In essence. So are all our children, students good by nurture, by, by nature or not bad by nature? So that's an important basic question, you must agree. And another question, if we have we, if we assume that human nature is good, is it the beliefs or is it rational knowledge, experience? That's also important because if we are over enthusiastic about our human nature, we can make many mistakes. Another question that follows is whether child is a so called tabula rasa when it is born, or does it bring some past experience, maybe from previous lives, so called, or some he or she participates in a very special way in common consciousness and he or she brings up very special problems that should be solved and that we should be confronted with, to develop. So it's difficult to face the problem, but this is the only way to develop. So my doubt and the doubt of many people that I discuss with about democratic education is whether so we really should create this kind of paradise, paradise like environment that can unconsciously, on the unconscious level, it can provoke our children to repress bedsides because it's not within the culture to show it. Okay, but of course I am a strong believer that the human nature is a good one. And it's not only belief. I had some experience with it as well with my own nature and the nature of other people that I worked with and practiced with. And I think that the founders of the whole idea of democratic education shared this view very strongly. They were sure what they were talking about. I mean male Korcha, right From Rogers, Byrne, Lang, and just to mention contemporary names. So they trusted in good human nature in spite of wars, crime, Crime, violence, exploitation, injustice, greed, suffering, ignorance. They believe they knew. I think that without knowing it for sure, they would not be able to create this kind of a movement that now we participate in. Okay, so let's shortly follow the reasoning. The reasoning, in short, goes as follows. Child is born good and innocent. That's right. And its good, innocent nature is violated and transformed into evil by mistrust, violence, manipulation, hate, anger, lack of freedom, forced education, excessive discipline, and so on. So what is evil? Evil is, you could say in terms of anti psychiatry thinking, evil is a defense. It's a defense against evil culture. Very strong statement. But it really has a lot of support when you work as a psychotherapist and educator, perhaps, that what we call evil is a defense mechanism against these negative aspects of our culture. Because our culture is not evil through and through, but it has a lot of negative aspects. So we can say that evil is created, is induced. And we can say that in traditional thinking, what we call evil is a self fulfilling prophecy. We create what we fight with, and because we fight, we create it. And one other thought that we are, we are what we think we are. So if we start thinking about ourselves in a different way, we become different people. And this traditional input, which is still very strongly present in our culture, that our human nature is basically evil, makes us evil. So we are what we think we are. Okay, and just to close this short discussion, so that's one more important question about tradition and discipline and some kind of procedures that are used in traditional education. Do we really, can we really sort of do away with socialization, tradition and procedures? Do we truly believe that our children, students are able to grow up, develop, mature and be happy without undergoing some procedures of painful socialization? And is there any space to compromise between those two approaches? Is there any space for merging or coexistence and how we can creatively solve these problems? Finally, as I said, I am a strong believer in good human nature. And I consider our children, students are able to develop, mature and be happy adults in our culture and in our environment, whatever it is. But I don't fully trust myself because I never went through democratic education process. I may not be aware that I am very spoiled and broken by the traditional system. So maybe all these questions that I asked are coming from this humiliated mind and spirit. Of course I exaggerate a little bit. So as I said, questions and problems are difficult to face. But in order to strengthen our determination and our faith in developing this fantastic revolutionary movement, we should not avoid them. And so I hope that my little speech was will contribute to the rest of the conference and will not completely destroy your enthusiasm. Thank you very much. It.