Why has Holistic Education not “caught on”…?
Holism appears to have the potential to profoundly motivate and inspire pedagogues, curricularists, education administrators and policymakers, but it has not succeeded in influencing significant change. I am intrigued as to why. As with critical pedagogies, holism challenges traditional teaching models, it counters “the economic-technocratic-statist worldview” (Orr, 1991) that mechanizes and commoditizes education. So, why hasn’t it caught on?
Miller (2000) states that the holistic education movement is perceived as “quasi-religious” (p. 19), “transcendent” (p. 45) and hence, has not gained serious scholarly credit. Holism’s critique of conventional educational models and its endeavour to achieve moral outcomes appears closely affiliated with critical pedagogy, which IS firmly established. Miller states though, that currently, the bridge between the two has not been built, largely because a coherent holistic theory has not been forwarded.
Miller argues that the inconsequential influence of holism could be due to the fact that its theory is based on assumptions regarded by its adherents as intuitive and implicit. If the idea of wholeness is taken for granted as rational and self-evident, its theoretical framework may be perceived as shallow. That is, much is taken for granted as “basic understanding” but in fact, is not. For instance, spiritual and religious people may see the interconnectedness of the world and their role within it, perhaps because they were raised from an early age with such an understanding. Those who did not grow up, or have not adopted a specific religious doctrine or spiritual path may simply not see such interconnections; thus an explicitly articulated theoretical framework is needed.
Elsewhere, Miller states that holism makes “grandiose claim[s]” (p. 22) that make it difficult for people to comprehend. This reasoning is not personally convincing. Complexity has not kept modern society away from adopting other theories. Rather, I believe that holistic theory threatens the utilitarian constructs of mass public schooling. It disputes campaigns like the recent “21st century skills” and “standards and accountability” movements which aim to instill competencies in our children that yield efficiency, productivity, and economic success. Holism, unlike such frameworks positioned to increase Knowledge Age output, rests on a moral foundation that seeks to increase spiritual sensitivity, integrity, and global sustainability.
As Miller seems to imply, perhaps holism can become more influential if it piggybacks on critical pedagogies in the phenomenological form of “holism-as-critical-theory” (p. 43).
Samah
References
Miller, R. (2000). Caring for new life: Essays on holistic education. Brandon, VT: Foundation for Educational Renewal.
Orr, D. (1991).What is education for? In InContext: A Quarterly of Human Sustainable Culture. Retrieved from http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC27/Orr.htm
Miller (2000) states that the holistic education movement is perceived as “quasi-religious” (p. 19), “transcendent” (p. 45) and hence, has not gained serious scholarly credit. Holism’s critique of conventional educational models and its endeavour to achieve moral outcomes appears closely affiliated with critical pedagogy, which IS firmly established. Miller states though, that currently, the bridge between the two has not been built, largely because a coherent holistic theory has not been forwarded.
Miller argues that the inconsequential influence of holism could be due to the fact that its theory is based on assumptions regarded by its adherents as intuitive and implicit. If the idea of wholeness is taken for granted as rational and self-evident, its theoretical framework may be perceived as shallow. That is, much is taken for granted as “basic understanding” but in fact, is not. For instance, spiritual and religious people may see the interconnectedness of the world and their role within it, perhaps because they were raised from an early age with such an understanding. Those who did not grow up, or have not adopted a specific religious doctrine or spiritual path may simply not see such interconnections; thus an explicitly articulated theoretical framework is needed.
Elsewhere, Miller states that holism makes “grandiose claim[s]” (p. 22) that make it difficult for people to comprehend. This reasoning is not personally convincing. Complexity has not kept modern society away from adopting other theories. Rather, I believe that holistic theory threatens the utilitarian constructs of mass public schooling. It disputes campaigns like the recent “21st century skills” and “standards and accountability” movements which aim to instill competencies in our children that yield efficiency, productivity, and economic success. Holism, unlike such frameworks positioned to increase Knowledge Age output, rests on a moral foundation that seeks to increase spiritual sensitivity, integrity, and global sustainability.
As Miller seems to imply, perhaps holism can become more influential if it piggybacks on critical pedagogies in the phenomenological form of “holism-as-critical-theory” (p. 43).
Samah
References
Miller, R. (2000). Caring for new life: Essays on holistic education. Brandon, VT: Foundation for Educational Renewal.
Orr, D. (1991).What is education for? In InContext: A Quarterly of Human Sustainable Culture. Retrieved from http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC27/Orr.htm
