Prosveta i prosvetiteljstvo: predračun troškova ustanovljenja savremene politike obrazovanja

Abstract

У овом раду аутор истражује однос просветне теорије и праксе осамнаестог века и ставова оног интелектуалног и друштвеног покрета који је као „просве-титељство“ обележио то доба. Налази се да просветитељи не само да нису били, како се уобичајено мисли, заговорници и заступници обавезног и универзалног основног образовања, него су се најчешће директно супротстављали таквој зами-сли и исказивали озбиљне резерве у погледу могућности њеног остварења. Аутор указује на два могућа тумачења упадљивог одбијања просветитеља да подрже општеобразовна просветна настојања свог времена. Према једном, просвети-тељска концепција образовања се разликовала од просветне, као што се и „про-свећеност“ разликовала од „образованости“, те су просветитељи пре продубили јаз између образованих о необразованих, елите и пука, владара и народа, разложно упозоравајући да њено брисање може да се извшри само на штету оба. Друго ту-мачење гласи да наглашена уздржаност просветитеља према масовном образо-вању није била (толико) визионарско, разложно и рефлектовано упозорење на друштвене трошкове обавезног општег образовања, чија оправданост је посве-дочена његовим неретко фарсичним увођењем после Француске револуције, ко-лико рефлекс оних епохалних, пре свега материјалних и кадровских ограничења, из чије перспективе је свака његова доследна реализација морала да изгледа непо-жељном и практично неостваривом. Аутор сугерише да су и они „концептуални“ и ови „историјски“ мотиви, у једној асиметричној и неједнозначној интеракцији, играли улогу у, само на први поглед, неочекиваној артикулацији изразито нега-тивног држања просветитељства према идеји народне просвете.

In this paper the author undertakes the exploration of the relationship between educational theory and practice of the eighteenth century and, on the other side, the stances of the intellectual and social movement of the age called "Enlightenment". The finding is not only that enlighteners were not, as commonly thought, proponents and advocates of universal and compulsory primary education, but that they have oftenly directly opposed to such ideas and expressed serious reservations about the possibility of its realization. Through its most important representatives, they have demonstrated very little trust in the people and almost no faith in the ability of its indigenous enlightenment. However, they felt less futile the commitment to the education "from the top", which they tried to implement in words and deeds, relying on "the minds of the rulers". On the other hand, attempts at establishing or reforming school system taken by the European states of the eighteenth century, in order to make education as widely available as possible, mostly ends in failure. The educational effects, if there were any, were not directly succeeded from organized efforts of the massification of education. Certain measured and operational liberalization of teaching, if were practiced at all or even gain momentum, since the beginning encounters with the resistance, especially of the parents of the students. That was the testimony of wanderings in the quest for universal model of educational standard. The results were far below the ideals set by the ambitious "educationists" and educational reformers. The formal schools offer was unequally available, chronically insufficient and often of poor quality. Besides that, it was fraught with structural inertia, which reform requested vast and non-existent resources. The author points out two possible interpretations of conspicuous refusal of enlighteners to support the educational efforts for the general education of their time. According to one, the Enlightenment's conception of education was different from the educational one, as was "enlightenment" different from "education". Enlighteners were rather widened the gap between the educated and the uneducated, the elite and the common people, the rulers and the people, reasonable warning that its bridging may be accomplished only to the detriment of both. The second interpretation explains that emphasized restraint of the enlighteners toward mass-education was not (so much) visionary, prudent and reflected warning to social costs of compulsory general education – warning which justification witnessed often farcical introduction of such education after the French Revolution – as it was a reflex of epochal, in the first place material and personnel constraints. Having later in mind, its consistent realization must looks to them as a undesirable and practically infeasible perspective. The author suggests that both "conceptual" and "historical" reasons, in an asymmetric and ambiguous interaction, played a role in, at first glance, unexpected articulation of the pronouncedly negative posture of Enlightenment towards the idea of popular education.