ANTIPEDAGOGY (Greek ’αντι- [anti]—against; παιδγωγικα [paidagogika]—pedagogy)—a new school in education that denies the need for education or upbringing (also described as post-pedagogy).
Antipedagogy appeared in the late 1960s and 1970s and referred to the achievements of humanist psychology (C. R. Rogers) and the American Children’s Rights Movement (A. Miller, R. Farson, J. Holt). The first time the concept of antipedagogy as the name of a school appears was in an article by J. Kupffer called Antypsychiatria a antipedagogika [Antipsychiatry and antipedagogy] (1974); E. von Braunmühl formulated the basic theoretical assumptions of antipedagogy in the book Antipädagogik (Weinheim 1975). The representatives of this school regard the following as their precursors: M. Montessori, A. Neilla, T. Gordon, C. Freinet, O. Decroly, and J. Korczak. Antipedagogy developed most greatly in Germany; the leading figures of this school include E. von Braunmühl, H. v. Schoenebeck, H. Ostermeyer, W. Hinte, and C. Rochefort.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS. Antipedagogy argues against the soundness of educating man and does not regard man as homo educandus. It denies the fact of the potentiality of human nature as actualized in the process of the formation of cognitive powers (reason) and appetitive powers (will). It rejects the classic structure of human faculties with the leading position held by the reason as it knows reality, while it accents the role of feelings, intuition, etc., as the source of knowledge about the world and the reason for making decisions. Responsibility for human acts is not conditioned by rationality and freedom (understood as a lack of determination from factors other than the will) in choices that are made. Antipedagogy holds that freedom in action is a result of the harmony of action with feelings, and this occurs in the child from the beginning of his life. They should be externalized but not formed. Feelings are the most important factor in action, as opposed to the thought of classical pedagogy where feelings as a secondary factor are subordinate to spiritual powers (the reason and will) that are actualized and formed in the process of education.
CONSEQUENCES IN EDUCATION. As a result, antipedagogy denies that it is necessary for parents to have an educational influence. By the same token, it rejects the parents’ responsibility for the behavior of their children recognizing that the children can sense what is good for them, for they possess full self-determination from the moment of birth and consequently have full responsibility. Therefore antipedagogy demands that children be granted the same economic, political, and social rights that adults possess. Antipedagogy treats traditional education with its methods as a repressive activity that does not respect that dignity, freedom, and sovereignty of the child, causes a non- beneficial change in the child’s personality, and makes it impossible to express his true “self”. The ultimate consequence of antipedagogy’s theses is the full autonomy (independence) of the child in relation to his parents by the breaking of the natural bonds that create the family. Antipedagogy also situates the fact of education on the political plane. It sees children as a group suffering discrimination, deprived of due rights, and subject to coercion and enslavement. It sees the school as a place where ideology is impressed upon children and the prevailing culture is perpetuated; hence antipedagogy calls for the abolition of the institution of schools (descholarization). Antipedagogy calls for a principle of noninterference expressed in the form of “empathy” and “support” instead of educative influences. It calls for the abandonment of the definition of the goals of education, personal models, and authorities so that the child may develop freely without hindrance. It also denies that it is possible to define objective measures of human conduct and to define good and evil in human acts. This rejection of the teleological dimension and the inability to formulate norms of conduct restricts pedagogy to a description and critique of traditional education.
C. Rochefort, Les petits enfants de siècle, P 1961; C. R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person, Ba 1961; E. von Braunmühl, H. Kupfer, H. Ostermeyer, Die Gleichberechtigung des Kindes, F 1976; H. Ostermeyer, Die Revolution der Vernunft, F 1977; W. Hinte, Non-direktive Pädagogik, Opladen 1980; C. R. Rogers, Freedom to Learn for the 80s, Lo 1982; H. von Schoenebeck, Unterstützen statt Erziehen. Die neue Eltern-Kind- Beziehung, Mn 1982 (Antypedagogika. Być i wspierać zamiast wychowywać[Antipedagogy. To be and to support, instead of educating], Wwa 1994); idem, Antipädagogik im Dialog. Eine Einführung in antipädagogisches Denken, Weinheim, 1985 (Antypedagogika w dialogu. Wprowadzenie w rozmyślanie antypedagogiczne [Antipedagogy in dialogue. Introduction to antipedagogical thinking], To 1991); B. Śliwerski, Antipedagogika jako alternatywna koncepcja radykalnej zmiany wychowania [Antipedagogy as an alternative conception of radical change in education], in: Ku pedagogii pogranicza[Toward pedagogy of the frontier], To 1990, 192–213; idem, Antypedagogika [Antipedagogy], Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny [Pedagogical Quarterly] 35 (1990) n. 1, 75–88; H. von Schoenebeck, Rozstanie z pedagogiką [Departure from pedagogy], in: Edukacja alternatywna [Alternative education], Kr 1992, 1–2, 249–255; T. Szkudlarek, B. Śliwerski, Wyzwanie pedagogiki krytycznej i antipedagogiki [The call of critical pedagogy and antipedagogy], Kr 1992; B. Śliwerski, Antipedagogika—rewolucja w naukach o wychowaniu [Antipedagogy—revolution in sciences about education], Społeczeństwo Otwarte [Open Society]3 (1992), b. 4, 38–40; n. 4, 38–40; Przekraczanie granic wychowania od “pedagogiki dziecka” do antipedagogiki [Crossing the borders of education from “child pedagogy” to antipedagogy], Łódź 1992; idem, Wyzwania antipedagogiki [Calls of antipedagogy], Szkoła Zawodowa [Professional School] (1992) n. 7, 2–4; S. Galkwoski, Założenia, implikacje i konsekwencje antipedagogiki [Assuptions, implications, and consequences of antipedagogy], Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny 38 (1993) n. 3, 23–34.