Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell Archives

WHY RUSSELL DIDN'T THINK HE WAS A PHILOSOPHER OF EDUCATION PAUL HAGER School of Adult Vocational Education / University of Technology, Sydney P.O. Box 123, Broadway 2007, Australia 1. INTRODUCTION T he case for maintaining that Russell was not a philosopher of education is considerably boosted by taking serious account of his own views on the matter. While I am not aware of his ever claiming to be a philosopher of education, on various occasions he vigorously asserted the opposite. In his "Reply to Criticisms" Russell states that he has "... always maintained that there was no logical connection ... between my views on social questions and my views on logic and epistemology."1 He points to the example of Hume, with whom he agrees so largely in abstract matters, yet disagrees so totally in politics. In his 1940 submission to his lawyer in the New York "Chair of Indecency" case, in which his social writings, including those on education, were cited in evidence against him, Russell testified as follows: ... the petition is based on a misunderstanding of the word "philosophy" (which I know is often taken by ignorant people to mean theories for the conduct of practical life) .... The books and opinions mentioned are no part of my philosophy and cannot be correctly described as philosophy at all.2 Russell: Philosopher ofEducation? 151 capacity as a philosopher.3 Significantly, in My Philosophical Development , a detailed account of the evolution of his work as a philosopher over a period of seventy years, no mention is made of his social and political writings. Further, Passmore has concluded that a reading of Russell's works supports these assertions ofa dichotomy between his philosophical and his social and political writings. As evidence that this is so, Passmore points out that: In the preface to On Education he made it clear that he was writing as a parent to parents, not as a philosopher to philosophers. Whereas in Our Knowledge ofthe External World he had argued that the philosopher should avoid large untested generalizations and should remember that advocacy is no part of his task, his On Education abounds in large generalizations and is through-and-through advocacy. It is in no sense an application of Russell's general philosophical views to the special field of education. One could not possibly guess, reading On Education, that Russell was at that time committed to the philosophy of logical atomism.4 Passmore further observes that Russell provides a "striking example" of an expert philosopher having written about education when what he had to say has "... not been at all philosophical, in the professional sense of that word." As Hare points out, other philosophers including Ayer, Perry and Park have shared this judgment.5 So, prima facie, the case for denying that Russell was a philosopher of education looks conclusive. At best, Russell tells us, .any connection between his philosophical and socio-political writings is psychological .6 By this he means that the same general critical spirit, the basing of beliefs on evidence, being open to various viewpoints, etc. is exhibited in both. Elsewhere he asserted that Principles of Social Reconstruction, a book often quoted for its views about education, was not written in his 1 In P. A. Schilpp, ed., The Philosophy ofBertrand Russell (Evanston and Chicago: Northwestern U., 1944), p. 727. 2 Quoted in BRA 2: 159. russell: the Journal of the Bertrand Russell Archives McMastet University Libraty Press n.s. 13 (winter 1993-94): 150-67 ISSN 0036-01631 3 See J. G. Slater, "The Political Philosophy of Bertrand Russell", in]. E. Thomas and K. Blackwell, eds., Russell in Review (Toronto: Samuel Stevens, Hakkert, 1976), p. 138. 4 J. Passmore, The Philosophy ofTeaching (London: Duckworrh, 1980), p. 4. 5 W Hare, "Russell's Conrriburion to Philosophy of Education", Russell, n.s. 7 (1987): 25· 6 B. Russell, My Own Philosophy (Hamilton, Onr.: McMaster U. Libraty P., 1972; written in 1946), p. ro. See also Slater, "The Political Philosophy of Bertrand Russell", pp. 138, 153-4· 152 PAUL HAGER Despite all of this, various recent writers, most notably Hare and Woodhouse,? have sought to portray Russell as a philosopher of education . Hare because he believes that...