Education as the “continuation of politics by other means”: J. S. Mill and W. Whewell on the idea of university

Abstract

The authors reconstruct the concepts of university by John Stewart Mill and William Whewell. They argue that modernization of Russian society requires a deep reconsideration of the idea of university education, especially, in terms of the humanities. The analysis of the discussion between Mill and Whewell could contribute to the understanding of the spirit of Victorian England as well as of some significant controversies between liberals and conservators in their debate on the social purpose of the university. The authors claim that this debate is still relevant for the current Russian reform of higher education. In the first part of the paper the authors discuss anthropological assumptions that gave rise to Whewell's and Mill's differences in viewing the human nature as well as in the meaning of history. While following empiricism, Mill accepted the idea of tabula rasa. Hence, he argued that the university should firstly give space for self-realization of individuality. At the same time, Whewell considered the human nature as an inalienable part of cultural tradition. In accordance with this, the university should primarily provide connection of the times and integrity of intellectual tradition. The authors discuss the ideological attribution of Whewell's ideas, namely, his so-called “traditionalism”. They argue that Whewell should not be considered as an old-fashioned hunker, since he claimed that tradition was to be saved as long as it generated some new fruitful ideas. The authors pay special attention to Whewell's philosophy of history. He considered rises and falls of civilizations as a cyclic process, which was congruent to the periods of dominance of mathematics and philosophy in culture. Whewell argued that the decline of Greek culture was predetermined, when simple geometrical conceptions of the school of Plato were debased and weighed down by a cumbrous apparatus of crystalline spheres. The authors claim that this visual image comes from the basic presumption of Whewell's philosophy of science: the development of scientific knowledge should be considered as an advancement in a clear and definite understanding of object. Hence, clearness and visual simplicity of model representations are the most reliable proof of knowledge enhancement. The authors analyze the historical context of the Whewell-Mill debate. They put Whewell's ideas into the context of his reformist activity in Cambridge University. They argue that Whewell tried to adapt W. Humboldt's model of the university to the context of Victorian England. In the final part of the paper, the authors discuss how Whewell's ideas could be used for the modernization of philosophy education in Russia. They propose that the integration of the STS (science & technology studies) into the university programs in philosophy could make philosophical knowledge more relevant and attractive for scientists. This turn to the more “practical” (in Whewell's sense) way of teaching philosophy could be used for the justification of the heuristic potential of philosophical knowledge in science as well. The authors conclude that nowadays this mode of self-representation of philosophy is the most relevant one.