The term sozial pädagogik came into usage in Germany
around the middle of the nineteenth century. Karl Mager is said to have coined
the term in 1844 (he was editor of the Pädogische Revue from 1840-48). It
was used as an alternative to 'Collectivpädagogik' - and in contrast to 'Individualpädagogik'
(van Ghent 1994: 95). However, it was the work of Friedrich Diesterweg (1790 -
1866), the Prussian educational thinker, whose concern with primary education
brought the idea to a broader audience. He was exercised by the separation of
theory and practice within teaching and is sometimes credited with originating
the maxim 'learn to do by doing' (see Kliebard 1987: 37).
In the second half of the twentieth century social pedagogy became increasingly associated with social work and notions of social education in a number of European countries. Within the traditions that emerged there has been a concern with the well-being or happiness of the person, and with what might described as a more holistic and educational approach. This has included a much stronger interest in social groups - and how they might be worked with (see social groupwork). The term 'social pedagogy' has been used in countries such as Germany, Holland and Hungary to embrace the activities of youth workers, residential or day care workers (with children or adults), and play and occupational therapists. In some European countries the notion of animation has been used to cover a similar arena of practice. More recently, with the development of more integrated children's services in Britain, there has been a growing interest in social pedagogy as a means of making sense of the professional development of staff in these areas of state service (Edwards and Hatch 2003; Cameron 2004; DfES 2005).
In this piece we explore the historical development of the concept, and some of the issues that inform its usage.
Diesterweg looked to Rousseau, Pestalozzi and, later, Froebel. He believed that people were able to develop, to respect and care for others, and to work for the good of the community (see Günther 1994: 296 - 297). He came to emphasise the idea of people carrying out their own activity, and of the fundamental importance of democracy, especially following the 1848 Revolution. Evolution was his central organizing idea:
The educational principle of evolution demands in the educational field: respect for human nature and of the individual; its stimulation to full development, expression, activity and initiative; natural, hence joyful, experience of life; stimulation to develop the senses, strengthening the body, to explore, to be lucid and to discover things; providing the minds with suitable nourishment; constant progress. It forbids; arbitrary assumptions and manipulations of human nature; any encouragement to act blindly and mechanically; any kind of drill; rote learning; uniformity; force-feeding with subject matter that is not understood etc. (quoted in Günther 1994: 297)
Diestersweg was keen to reform
schooling - to take it away from the influence of the church and politics - and
to turn it into a force for social change. He believed that general education
should be open to everyone: 'First educate men, before worrying about their
professional training or class, [because] the proletarian and the peasant should
both be educated to become human beings'. (Let's hope its patronising tone lost
something in the translation!) He went to argue for a social pedagogy:
'educational action by which one aims to help the poor in society' (1850, quoted
in Cannan et al 1992: 73). Van Ghent comments, that as far as the poor was
concerned, he did not distinguish between adolescents and adults, whereas such a
distinction was necessary in the educational doctrines that were applied to the
bourgeoisie. 'The threat of socio-economic struggles was apparently considered
to be far more dangerous than the conflicts between generations' (va n Ghent
1994: 96).
What began to emerge was a conception of education concerned with societal (social) development. Here the contribution of Friedrich Ernest Schleiermacher (1768-1834) was of some significance. He went 'beyond the pedagogical principles of "natural self-development" to embrace an "education for community" (Gemeinschaft)' (Lorenz 1994: 91). 'Social' in this sense could relate to the aim of the educational endeavour - the creation of community - and to the site for the process - in society. Examining Schleiermacher's thinking, Lorenz says the following:
One of his theories is that individual intentions are already directed (by their nature as human intentions) towards sociability, towards universal social goals. The other is that only democracy allows the individual will to form. Public life needs to correspond to and reflect what is pedagogically, psychologically necessary for the healthy growth of the individual. The conditions for good education are those of a sound democracy; pedagogical and political processes condition each other. (op cit. 91-92)
This linking of pedagogy with community and democracy has remained a key theme - and can be seen in the work of later writers such as Dewey and Freire. However, it did not instantly recommend itself to those charged with responsibility for developing German schooling.
As the nineteenth century progressed debates and insights around the idea of community developed. For example, Tönnies (1855-1936) published Gemeinschaft and Gessellschaft (Community and Society) in 1887. There community was defined as 'the permanent and real form of living together, while society is only transitory and apparent, and therefore community should be seen as a living organism and society as a mechanical aggregate and artefact'. It was this idea of community, van Ghent argues, that became fixed in one of the most influential versions of social pedagogy - that proposed by Paul Natorp (1854-1924). According to him atomization had made Germany sick - what was needed was a strong sense of community (Gemeinschaft), and education that encouraged this, and that fought to close the gap between rich and poor. Such education was to take place in three environments: 'from the educating community of the household, through the national and uniform school, into the free self-education of adults of all social backgrounds' Marburger 1979 quoted in van Ghent 1994: 97).
Natorp may have been a progressive but such a vision of social pedagogy can, in the hands of a paternalistic state, serve as a new form of social engineering and adjustment (see Lorenz 1994). We have here a question of lasting significance:
Is social pedagogy essentially the embodiment of dominant societal interests which regard all educational projects, schools, kindergarten or adult education, as a way of taking its values to all sections of the population and of exercising more effective social control; or is social pedagogy the critical conscience of pedagogy, the thorn in the flesh of official agenda, an emancipatory programme for self-directed learning processes inside and outside the education system geared towards the transformation of society? (op cit.: 93)
The basic issue is whether the vision of community or society entailed is pluralistic and inclusive, or narrow and exclusive. The former is concerned with education so that all may share in a common life (as Dewey put it); the latter with advantaging a particular group. This question has special significance given the nature of the ideologies that informed the activities of National Socialists in Germany during the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s. It emerges in the experiences of a number of societies struggling to throw off the shackles of colonialism such as in the Indian social education programmes of the late 1940s (see Steele and Taylor 1994) and has been a feature of some of the educational debates around nationalism.
In a narrow and exclusive form, social pedagogy
can become 'education' that directs the individual will towards the 'higher
level of a communal will'. For example Ernst Krieck argued for
Nationalpolitische Erziehung (national-political education - 'a totalitarian
kind of education', based on irrationalism (van Ghent 1994: 100).
As
Sunker and Otto (1997) have shown when the pivotal notion of 'Volk
community' (Volksgemeinschaft) is introduced into the notion of social
pedagogy there is considerable danger in this. They argue (following Franz
Neumann), that the totalitarian state, the Führer principle, and the
ideology of the Volk community are intertwined. National socialist
rule involved putting total, authoritarian organization in the place of
pluralism; and the atomization of the individual. This latter element
entailed breaking down the influence of groupings such as the family, the
church and unions and replacing them with an identity to the Volk
community and to its guardians/leaders. In the Volk community social
contradictions and conflicts are overcome. Character would be formed as part
of a larger whole and one's first duty was to the Volk. A pernicious
twist comes in the politics of inclusion and exclusion. The Volk was
one of 'blood and soil'. Those of other 'races', those with disabilities,
those who sought to question were not fit to be members.
In Germany it was young people who were to become the particular object of such education (see, for example, Becker 1946, Harvey 1993). Youth organizations such as the Bund Deutscher Mädel (League of German Girls) involved a strict separation of the adult world and that of youth. They assigned girls to youth and this allowed for their intervention in the 'modernization' of female life and in countering the influence of family (see Reese in Sunker and Otto 1997). 'Because the state here penetrated by means of racist legislation into the most intimate spheres, in the area of the family, education, reproduction and the body, it displaced the personal bonds that were still dominant there and replaced them with new societal authorities and state violence' (Reese 1997: 114). One of the particular forms utilized as an instrument of social discipline was the camp. Dudek (in Sunker and Otto 1997) has examined some of the key practices and ideas. For example, how the idea of team and service could be used to bind the behaviour of the individual and the camp community into the collective Volk community; and how 'comradeship' strengthened group identification. In a similar fashion Schiedeck and Stahlman have focused on the totalizing experience of education camps. (See organized camps).
Unsurprisingly, there was a reaction to this understanding of social pedagogy during post-war reconstruction. The fear that the educational socialization apparently implied within social pedagogy could be directed to the needs of the nation at the cost of individuals and of significant groups hung heavy. Moves towards more individual, problem-based work seemed a safer option than the mass and group work of the then recent past. However, there was a limited counterbalance through the influence of writers such as Lewin (1948; 1951) on American 're-education' efforts. He made a strong case for the use of small groups in the resolution of conflicts and the promotion of democracy. It was a theme also taken up by somewhat more pessimistically by Lindeman (who also advised the British army education service in Germany - see Stewart 1987: 212-214). Thus, as the German social welfare system evolved social pedagogy did not take quite the course that Diestersweg envisaged. Rather than informing the shape of schooling it became seen as the 'third' area of welfare beside the family and school. It can be represented today as:
a perspective, including social action which aims to promote human welfare through child-rearing and education practices; and to prevent or ease social problems by providing people with the means to manage their own lives, and make changes in their circumstances. (Cannan et al 1992: 73-74)
Conceived in this way it includes a wide range of practice including youth projects, crèches and nurseries, day-care centres, work with offenders and some areas of church work. The linkage with social problems and crisis work situates social pedagogy alongside social work. Social work in Germany is currently divided into two major branches: Sozialarbeit (casework) and Sozial Pädagogik. The former is a 'general social work service to families and other selected groups' (Cannan et al 1992: 73). Workers in both areas undertake a common first foundation year of training (Sozial Wegen) and then specialize in the different approaches. Around half of those qualified as social workers in Germany train as social pedagogues.
Many of the ideas that informed debates around social pedagogy in the late nineteenth century began to influence developments in American educational thought. From the late nineteenth century on there was a US journal and community of practice centred around social education (see, for example, Scott 1908). Dewey, through the work of Hebart - and his knowledge of Rousseau, Froebel and Pestalozzi - sought to develop what could be described as child-centred theory. But he added to this a powerful dimension (and one that connects with the concerns of many early champions of social pedagogy) - that the experience required for learning was participation in community life (community was defined by Dewey in terms of sharing in a common life). Thus, his classroom was to be a community in itself - a place where there are group activities - where people cooperate. Teachers were to join in with the activities - to take part in a common endeavour. A critical point here is that Dewey saw the environment as social. People learn through interacting with a social environment
This then links across to to his - and other contemporary American writers concern for democracy. People like Mary Parker Follett and Eduard Lindeman studied German developments. We can see a number of similarities with the concerns identified in Follett's notion of training 'for the new democracy' (see la vie associative).
These ideas also aroused considerable interest amongst British educators - especially those operating within what might be called the informal education tradition. They were reflected in some of the key post-war developments around community centres and associations, community work, community education and youth work. Perhaps the most significant shift in terms of practice was the reconceptualization of youth work as social education during the second half of the 1960s (see, in particular, the work of Davies and Gibson 1967) and a growing sophistication around groupwork.
The notion of social education as being concerned with the relationship we have with ourselves, others and the world became a significant aspect of debates around schooling. Social and personal education, then social, personal and health education became a part of the curriculum of many schools. Significantly, in terms of social work and care work, there was a trend in the 1970s of re-labelling centres for adults with special education needs as social education centres.
This discussion raises a number of questions about how informal educators and care workers label themselves as practitioners. Some reading this will be resistant to the notion that they could be considered as social workers, others that they might be described as educators. Others, perhaps used to the ways of discussing social work that are dominant in the UK, might be surprised at the extent to which education could be considered as part of the work. As Cannan et. al. (1992: 139) comment, within Britain there has been a long and political battle between two schools of activity - social work and community work.
This distinction exists in other European countries, but there is not quite the same separate philosophical or political rhetoric. Many people who work in community and social action programmes... in Britain, describe themselves as community workers or perhaps just project workers. There would be less shyness about using the term 'social worker' in may other European countries. (ibid.)
What is also of interest in the German tradition is the readiness of significant numbers of social workers to describe themselves as pedagogues. Pedagogy and casework appeal to different theoretical traditions - but both provide insights to the other. Furthermore, and of significance in relation to the growing usage of the notion of informal education (as, say against youth work) in the UK, is the way in which the notion of social pedagogy similarly transcends particular organizational settings.
Social pedagogy defines the task and the process of all 'social activity' from theoretical positions beyond any distinct institutional setting and instrumental interest, and thereby safeguards the autonomy of the profession and appeals to the reflective and communicative abilities of the worker as the key to competence. Social work, by contrast, tends to take the diversity of social services and agency settings as the starting point for the search for appropriate theories, a search which used to be guided by the desire to find a general, unifying theory of social work but has since given way to the more pragmatic and often eclectic use of theory elements from neighbouring disciplines. (Lorenz 1994: 97)
In other words, the taking of the notion of 'pedagogy' (or education) into the way in which you name yourself makes a direct appeal to a particular body of theory and practice. The title social work (like youth work) connects with a certain array of institutions and agencies.
In much of this debate and discussion around social pedagogy, however, it is the notion of the 'social' that has not received adequate attention. Within recent British discussion a rather narrow appreciation has been dominant. This has largely been the result of the location of the debate within the largely individualistic and deficit frameworks of contemporary social work and social care. A pedagogy for sociality has a rather different character - one that involves engagement with associational life, civic society, and local social systems.
There is a marked shortage of English-language explorations of social pedagogy and animation. However, the situation is slowly changing - and here we are particularly indebted to the work of Walter Lorenz and Crescy Cannan.
Aluffi-Pentini, A. and Lorenz, W. (eds.) Anti-Racist Work with Young People. European experiences and approaches, Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing. 208 + x pages. Collection of material which explores racism and the nation state; oppositional and relational identities; pedagogical principles and approaches plus case material from Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands. Particularly welcome as the editors contribute substantial chapters concerning pedagogy.
Cannan, C., Berry, L. and Lyons, K. (1992) Social Work and Europe, London: Macmillan. 181 + xii pages. Includes some discussion of social pedagogy, animation etc. Has chapters on social Europe; social policies and social trends in Europe; social workers, organizations and the state; branches and themes of social work (concentrates on Germany and France); French social work; participation; and social a ction.
Cannan, C. and Warren, C. (eds.) (1997) Social Action with Children and Families. A community development approach to child and family welfare, London: Routledge. 225 + xiv pages. This book looks beyond the usual narrow confines of British social work texts - looking at more community oriented forms of engagement (especially family centres) and drawing on traditions of practice from the UK, Germany and France. There is some recognition of the potential of more educative approaches and a concern with local networks and institutions.
Lorenz, W. (1994) Social Work in a Changing Europe, London: Routledge. 206 + xii pages. Excellent discussion of social work in Europe this century - especially strong on animation and social pedagogy. Chapters on social work within different welfare regimes; ideological positions; social work Fascism and democratic reconstruction; social work and social movements; social work , multiculturalism and anti-racist practice; and emerging issues.
Sunker,
H. and Otto, H-U. (eds.) (1997) Education and Fascism. Political identity and
social education in Nazi Germany, London: Taylor and Francis. 180 + viii
pages. Excellent collection of papers that explore the use of social pedagogy
(pedagogy oriented toward 'folk community') to develop an ideology sympathetic
to the social framework and programmes of the Nazis. Chapters explore the
context; identity formation and social practice; work camps; correctional
education; emancipation or social incorporation - the experience of girls and
young women; why social workers adopted the new order; social work as social
education; the quest for democratic education.
Becker, H. (1946) German Youth: Bond or free? London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co.
Cameron, C. and Boddy, J. (2005) With Heart, Head and Hands. Community Care, 19th – 25th May 2005, pp 36-37.
Cameron, C. (2004) Social Pedagogy and Care: Danish and German practice in young people's residential care, Journal of Social Work. Vol 4, no 2, pp 133 – 151.
Davies, B. and Gibson, A. (1967) The Social Education of the Adolescent, London: London University Press.
Department for Education and Skills (2005a) Children’s Workforce Strategy. A strategy to build a world-class workforce for children and young people, London: Department for Education and Skills. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/5958-DfES-ECM.pdf
Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education. An introduction to the philosophy of education (1966 edn.), New York: Free Press.
Edwards, L and Hatch, B. (2003) Passing Time: a report about young people and communities, London: Institute of Public Policy Research. Key findings are available in the informal education archives: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/ippr_passing_time.htm; full report: http://www.ippr.org/publications/files/PassingTimefinalreport.pdf
Follett, M. P. (1918) The New State. Group organization the solution of popular government (3rd impression [1920] with introduction by Lord Haldane), London: Longmans Green.
van Gent, B. (1994) 'The invention of Dutch andragogy: The role of Octavia Hill and Paul Natorp' in S. Marriott and B. J. Hake (eds.) Cultural and Interculteral Experiences in European Adult Education. Essays on popular higher education since 1890, Leeds: University of Leeds.
Gunn, G. (1992) Thinking Across the American Grain. Ideology, intellect and the new pragmatism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Günther, K-H. (1994) 'Friedrich Adolph Wilhelm Diesterweg' in Z. Morsy (ed.) Thinkers on Education, Paris: UNESCO.
Harvey, E. (1993) Youth and the Welfare State in Weimar Germany, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts. Selected papers on group dynamics, New York: Harper and Row.
Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science, New York: Harper and Row.
Linton, D. S. (1991) 'Who has the youth has the future' The campaign to save young workers in imperial Germany, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Petrie, P. (2002) Social Pedagogy: An historical account of care and education as social control, in Brannen, J. and Moss, P. (eds.) Rethinking Children’s Care, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Steele, T. and Taylor, R. (1994) Learning Independence. A political outline of Indian adult education, Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.
Stewart, D. S. (1987) Adult Learning in America. Eduard Lindeman and his agenda for lifelong education, Malabar, Florida: Krieger.
How to cite this piece: Smith, M. K. (1999, 2007) 'Social pedagogy' in the encyclopaedia of informal education, [http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-socped.htm].
© Mark K. Smith 1999, 2007
