Autonomy, authority and antagonism : a critique of liberal rationalist ideology in philosophy of education

The dominant strand of Analytic Philosophy of Education (APE), at least in England and some other countries has been what will be called "Liberal Rationalism" (LR) — basically the work of R.S. Peters, P.H. Hirst and R.F. Dearden. This thesis is a critique of LR and APE, arguing that LR is an ideological theory, and that the philosophical methods of APE obscure rather than clarify the issues with which LR theorists have dealt. The method of the critique is theory—formulation, comparison and criticism. The critique is based on the theory of Historical Materialism (HM). LR is displayed in contrast and competition with is main rival, Progressivism. Through this procedure the centrality to LR of certain doctrines of personal autonomy and professional authority become apparent. These are shown against their historical background, especially in ancient Greek thought and practice, and their presupposition of social class and other antagonisms is expounded. The HM theory of ideology is developed, indicating the importance of historical-practical contexts for theorizing, and arguing for the superiority of a materialist epistemology. A HM account of the educational process as centred on an exchange relation is presented. The importance of professionalization, both in education and in the production of ideology, is suggested and its position within the antagonistic social relations of capitalist society is explained. I The HM theory is used as an interpretive and critical tool in the formulation and analysis of LR. The historical basis of LR is located in the growth of APE, within the context of broad social developments, and the relation between historical and logical assessments of a theory is discussed, it being argued that these are interdependent. It is contended that LR is essentialist, this being related to its elitism and its problems of applicability, reflected in its erroneous "doctrines of necessity, and crucial in its ideological functions within education. The systematic error and misrepresentativeness of LR is displayed with reference to each of its main methods and doctrines: conceptual analysis, transcendental argument, the authority of ordinary language, two-domainism, the forms of knowledge, the nature of educational theory, the concept of education and the theory of rational development towards personal autonomy. 'It is shown that the nexus between theory and practice in LR is constituted through logical and historical—causal contradictions, and encrusted with with ideological vagueness and vacillation. The practical outcome,. much of which, given a sufficiently rigorous formulation, can be deduced within LR theory, is to impose unjustified professional authority and privilege on children as a putative condition of their development towards personal autonomy, and to endorse antagonism within education and social relations more generally. The thesis is intended in form and content to suggest the desirability of alternative procedures in philosophy of education, and to demonstrate the viability of HM as a potential replacement for the hitherto dominant philosophies of LR and APE