Hegel and Niethammer on the Educational Practice in Civil Society

Abstract

This article examines approaches to education developed by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and his contemporary and close friend, Friedrich Niethammer, two thinkers who significantly contributed to pedagogy. The aim is not only to compare both thinkers' ideas concerning education, analysing the similarities and the differences between their approaches to education, but also to demonstrate the wider social impact of their educational theories for the contemporary democratic society, which demands an educational system that can accomplish seemingly conflicting tasks. Students must develop holistically as individuals and not simply memorize trivia, but at the same time must be prepared to productive labour. Both thinkers offer complex yet practical solutions to achieving these aims, which makes exploration of their ideas valuable and timely. Although much has been written and discussed concerning the philosophy of education, little consideration has been given to Hegel's own conception of it. Hegel's philosophy of education is rooted in the eighteenthearly nineteenth century tradition of Bildung from which Hegel draws many of the key ideas he employs in his own philosophical and pedagogical writings. Hegel's use of Bildung emphasizes not just formal schooling (Ausbildung), but to an even greater extent the (self-)cultivation (or broadly understood self-formation) of a person through which she realizes her place in the world. Despite a recent increase in scholarly interest, the topic of education in Hegel's philosophy still remains understudied. 1 The same can be said about Hegel's contemporary and close friend, Friedrich Niethammer, an architect of Bavarian educational reforms and a vocal supporter of humanitarian education, whose views on education have not received the attention they deserve. 2 The aim of this paper is to examine the approaches to education developed by both thinkers. We attempt to not only compare their ideas concerning education and demonstrate the key similarities and differences between the two, but also explore the social impact that their educational theories had and conceptualize the complexity and substance of the solutions proposed by both thinkers.