Authority in Educational Relationships

The authority of educators in general, and the authority of the moral educator in particular, are central and pervasive themes in John Wilson’s writings. This paper summarises his account of authority in educational relationships, not simply by describing the results of his analysis, but by reconstructing his views in terms of some basic distinctions between different types of authority, in particular the distinction between practical and theoretical authority, and the one between de jure and de facto authority. Next, the paper explores the rather neglected topic of parental authority, applying the same distinctions between basic types of authority. It is argued that the authority of the parent is in important respects different from the authority standardly ascribed to the teacher. Finally, some comments are made on the complex question of whether or not authoritative parental supervision is essential to the upbringing of children and their growth into adult people. John Wilson’s writings are, without doubt, a paragon of many academic skills and intellectual virtues, but perhaps his most remarkable and admirable quality is his vigorous critical attitude towards fashionable doctrines, dominant ideologies and various forms of “political correctness” in both the theory and the practice of education. Indeed, Wilson is a genuine example of an independent thinker, which implies not only being critical and original in one’s Ž eld of expertise but also, and in a way more demandingly, having the courage to defend one’s views publicly, especially if those views are not very popular or are even received with hostility. Take, for example, his account of the nature and function of conceptual analysis. Nowadays conceptual analysis, if given a place at all, is standardly regarded as a possibly useful but rather subordinated part of philosophical inquiry. However, on the basis of penetrating meta-philosophical re ections, Wilson claims that conceptual analysis, if interpreted properly, should be regarded as the Alpha and the Omega of the philosophy of education. Moreover, quite contrary to the communis opinio in recent philosophical thinking, he argues that conceptual analysis is best conceived as a kind of objective examination of concepts that relate to inalienable elements or necessary features of human existence. Conceptual analysis, he claims, is not an inescapably value-infected activity but rather a non-ideological rational enterprise. The things examined in this undertaking should not be conceived as contingent or historical conceptual frameworks, but are to be taken as concepts and ISSN 0305-7240 print; ISSN 1465-3877 online/00/030323-15 Ó 2000 Journal of Moral Education Ltd D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ V r i j e U n i v e r s i t e i t A m s t e r d a m ] A t : 1 6 : 5 9 1 2 J u n e 2 0 1 1 324 J. Steutel & B. Spiecker principles that are logically inevitable parts of the furniture of any conceivable world with people in it (Wilson, 1986, pp. 60–80). Not only is his metaphilosophical account of conceptual analysis indicative of his critical and non-conformist attitude, but the same goes for his philosophical analyses of particular concepts. A major example is his exploration of the concept of authority. During the heydays of liberal and anti-authoritarian doctrines in the Ž eld of education, Wilson repeatedly and persistently pointed out that certain forms of authority and discipline are preconditions of effective education and serious learning. With reference to this relationship between authority and education, he even argues that unquestioning obedience to the legitimate authority of the teacher should be considered a virtue in a pupil—a view that was not received with approval in educational circles, to put it mildly (Wilson, 1977, pp. 43–44). Our Ž rst objective is to give a brief reconstruction of Wilson’s analysis of the authority of educators, in particular by introducing and applying some basic distinctions between different sense or type of authority. In line with his metaphilosophical views, our global explanation of these fundamental distinctions is intended to be completely neutral, which means, roughly, that the results of our analysis are presented as being acceptable to all rational human beings, whatever their values or ideological stance. In the English-speaking world, philosophical accounts of the role of authority in education almost naturally focus on the relation between the teacher and the pupil. However, it is quite conceivable that the nature and function of authority in other educational relationships, especially the one between the parent and the child, are somewhat different. Our second objective is to give an outline of the authority of parents, in particular by explaining its nature in terms of the aforemade distinctions between different senses or types of authority. The basis of parental authority, we shall claim, should be located in some fairly unsophisticated from of practical wisdom regarding matters of prudence and morality. At the end of our paper, we shall go brie y into the question of whether or not parental authority is somehow or other an inevitable or indispensable feature of human existence. We believe that parental authority is indeed inevitable in particular respects, although perhaps not in Wilson’s logical sense of the term. However, because of the many complexities of the question concerned, we shall not elaborate and defend such a view in the present context. We shall restrict ourselves to some preliminary work, in particular by pointing out that the question might be taken in different ways, as well as by reframing the question in terms of a basic paradox of upbringing.