Jacques Rancière's "The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation" doesn't exactly provide five neatly delineated 'lessons' in the typical way we might expect. Rather, the 'five lessons' can be seen as five broad themes or ideas throughout the book, some of which can be summarized as follows:
- The Emancipatory Master: The master or teacher doesn't need to have knowledge of the student's learning process. The master's ignorance can be a powerful tool to stimulate student self-reliance. The master's role is to prompt and provoke rather than to instruct in the traditional sense.
- Equal Intelligence: Rancière promotes the idea of 'universal teaching,' which is based on the belief that all people have equal intelligence. This intelligence doesn't mean equal knowledge or talent but signifies an equal capacity to learn and think. This fundamental assumption guides the rest of his pedagogical method.
- Learning as Verification: Learning is not about the passive absorption of knowledge, but an active process of verification and understanding. Students should not be spoon-fed information but encouraged to understand and interpret information independently.
- Circle of Power and Will: The book critiques the traditional pedagogical relationship between teacher and student, viewing it as a circle of power, where the teacher holds knowledge, and thus power, over the student. It proposes a shift towards a circle of will, where the teacher's role is to incite the student's will to learn.
- Intellectual Emancipation: The goal of the educational process is intellectual emancipation, enabling students to be self-sufficient learners, capable of learning without the guidance of a master. This is not about achieving specific knowledge outcomes but developing the ability to think critically and independently.
These concepts underscore Rancière's broader philosophical arguments against societal hierarchies and in favor of intellectual equality and autonomy. They represent a radical critique of the traditional educational system and its perpetuation of social inequalities.
Notes
- reading stamp: page 6
- explication might be not so necessary in education as we want it to be. what is gained or lossed by inhibiting any explication behavoir?
-
But why should the book need such help? Instead of paying for an explicator, couldn’t a father simply give the book to
his son and the child understand directly the reasonings of the
book? And if he doesn’t understand them, why would he be any
more likely to understand the reasonings that would explain to
him what he hasn’t understood? Are those reasonings of a different nature? And if so, wouldn’t it
-
So the logic of explication calls for the principle of a regression ad infinitum:
Lookup