Beyond the Text: The Intellectual Historian's Podcast
Welcome to Beyond the Text, a podcast series dedicated to delving into intellectual history with depth and context. In a world saturated with quick takes, Beyond the Text goes the extra mile. Paying homage to Skinner's insights on the importance of context, this podcast unveils overlooked aspects of historical and intellectual narratives.
Co-hosted by Samuel Woodall and Jack Thomson, Beyond the Text explores the profound impact of thought and ideas throughout human history—forces that have driven change, shaped societies, and sparked revolutions. Beyond the mere words on the page, this podcast unravels the layers surrounding pivotal concepts and moments. Each episode meticulously examines the connections, influences, and societal currents that contribute to their evolution.
Join us on this journey to grasp the true significance of intellectual history. Whether you're an enthusiast, a curious mind, or someone intrigued by the myriad forces shaping our world, Beyond the Text provides a space for nuanced exploration. Tune in and venture beyond the surface to understand the rich tapestry of our intellectual heritage.
Samuel Woodall is a PhD candidate in Intellectual History at the University of Buckingham. He previously earned an MLitt in Intellectual History from the University of St. Andrews and a BA (Hons) in History and Politics from the University of Exeter.
Jack Thomson holds an MA in Philosophy from the University of Buckingham and brings a philosophical lens to the exploration of ideas, ensuring each discussion is both rigorous and thought-provoking.
Can education protect us from the society that forms us? In the final episode of our Rousseau series, Samuel Woodall and Jack Thomson turn to Émile (1762), childhood and the difficult task of learning to be free.
Rousseau wants children to learn through nature and experience rather than arbitrary commands. Yet his tutor quietly arranges the world around the pupil. Samuel and Jack ask whether this hidden control nurtures freedom, how moral judgement grows through pity and experience, and what Rousseau’s treatment of his own children means for our reading of his educational philosophy.
The conversation moves through the Savoyard Vicar, natural religion, the condemnation of Émile, and the sharply unequal education Rousseau proposes for women. Across the series, one question remains: can human beings shape one another without making one another less free?
Beyond the Text: https://beyondthetext.co.uk The Intellectual Historian: https://theintellectualhistorian.com The History of Ideas Club: https://thehistoryofideasclub.co.uk
Editorial notes: Sophie is Émile’s intended wife; Julie is the heroine of Rousseau’s separate novel Julie, or the New Heloise (1761). The discussion occasionally slips between their names. The Book IV quotation reads “but we need not feel them” in Foxley’s translation.
CHAPTERS 00:00 Welcome and the question of formation 00:25 Émile, 1762: education and nature 01:57 The tutor’s hidden control 02:39 Rousseau’s children and the biographical contradiction 04:59 Childhood and three sources of education 06:53 Learning through natural consequences 08:55 Can arranged freedom be real freedom? 10:00 Hobbes, boundaries and experience 10:53 Pity, adolescence and moral education 11:54 The Savoyard Vicar and condemnation 12:57 Freedom, constraint and the end of education 14:18 Montaigne and the formation of judgement 15:21 Sophie, Julie and the education of women 18:10 Responsibility, criticism and moral support 19:22 The series question: shaping others without domination 20:00 Rousseau’s originality and the problem of evil 21:24 Bonus episode and next series
Welcome back to the third and final episode in our Rousseau series. We've moved from the self of Rousseau to the politics, and now we're moving to formation. In the last episode, Rousseau's legitimate polity required citizens capable of willing generally. Today, we ask how such people are made. Émile, or On Education, appeared in 1762, the same year as the Social Contract, so these ideas are very much linked to one another. It's the same context in which he's writing It's organized into five books that follow an imagined pupil, Émile, from infancy to adulthood and marriage. Rousseau opens with a sentence that sounds like a complete philosophy of history."God makes all things good. Man meddles with them, and they become evil." What do you think of that? A great opening. So true. But I'm surprised that it comes from Rousseau. no, in fairness, you know, I was, I was reading, the Discourse on the Arts and Sciences and then the- Mm … Discourse on Inequality yesterday, and, I was struck by his use of the word nature. Yeah. and he really does use this word as something that it, it legislates. It's like an autonomous force that legislate, that prescribes. Mm. it's not- Yeah … simply a part of us. It, we're not part of nature. It, it's also something distinct. And unique, yeah. It's like the totality. And- Mm … so you think, Spinoza said, "God or nature," that was his refrain- Mm'cause he couldn't decide which word was better. he thought they were the same thing. I guess Rousseau's probably the same. But it sound, it sort of sounds like, the individual is left alone, and as you say, that nature's something distinct. But for Émile, for this tutee who's going through the process he's not left alone at all. His apparent natural freedom is the product of an educator, someone very much involved in his life, who controls his surroundings. So Rousseau here wants the child to experience necessity rather than arbitrary command, but the tutor quietly arranges what counts as necessary. And again, if you catch our episode with Dr. Michaël Green on Sunday, which is coming out on Sunday, you will hear some interesting relationships between tutor and tutee in this period. there is also a biographical contradiction that we can't avoid. Rousseau claimed that the five children he had had with his partner Thérèse Levasseur, was sent to the Paris Foundling Hospital. The man who abandoned the direct care of his own children then wrote one of Europe's most important works on education. Biography does not logically refute the book, but it changes the moral pressure under which we read it. So how seriously can we take it? Can we separate Rousseau's educational argument from his che treatment of his own children? Or does that contradiction belong inside our interpretation of him? What do you think, Jack? That's a great question. I suspect, I mean, it would be natural to suppose that this somehow will show up. I've always thought it might be like guilt. I've always wondered whether it was a kind of guilt complex, and that he kind of therefore kind of wanted to write a book that proves what a good father, what a good mentor could be, and that he hadn't been that. And that's what I wonder. Hmm. It's interesting that he begins with that verse, Em, let's say that line- Mm … you just quoted there. That God makes everything good, and man meddles with it. And I understand- Mm … that in the, in the Confessions he sort of justifies this part of his life as just- Mm this, it's kind of something which society compels him to do somehow. Mm … for a reason I'm not so sure of the details of how that argument goes, but it seems to be, you know, p- you can imagine someone saying today, "Well, I don't have enough money to support-" Yeah, yeah … "my children sort of because, there aren't, there isn't enough work." Mm."And maybe I think that the government is culpable for that," let's say. But then, but then, yeah, there remains this awkward question of sort of parental responsibility as something going beyond politics. Which maybe practice can indeed obfuscate- Mm … for a period. But I can understand why that would then sit with Rousseau, and maybe he sees- Mm this work as, yeah, as a corrective. But also maybe he's, he's trying to design an education for his child that will sort of protect him from similar pitfalls. Yeah. No, I do think the contradiction matters, but the argument still has to be tested on its own terms, I guess. Rousseau's first demand is that adults stop treating children as unfinished adults. Now, this was the very unique thing. This was, sort of like the turning point in European education that previously kind of kids had been seen as sort of sinful, sinful agents who were just the same as adults. Whereas this was the moment at which they were blank slates, they were- You know, impressionable. We can train them up. They're innocent, we need to train them up in the ways of kind of being good citizens. So he distinguishes three sources of education, nature things, and human beings. Nature develops our faculties. Things educate us through experience. People teach us how those faculties should be used. Good education brings these influences into alignment. He also divides development into stages. Books one and two concern infancy and childhood with emphasis on bodily freedom the senses, and direct consequences. Book three develops practical judgment and useful knowledge. Book four addresses adolescence, pity, sexuality, religion, and moral relations. Book five introduces Sophie, marriage and the adult social order."We know nothing of childhood. They are always looking for the man in the child without considering what it is when a child is before a man." That's from the preface of, Émile So Jack, what is attractive about this sort of idea of education? Does it respect the child's development or merely disguise the adult's curriculum? Does it merely disguise us wanting to impart what we think is best on the child, or does it kind of keep them pure and kind of, these are the fonts of wisdom, they are innocent, they are pure, and they can teach us something? Hmm. Yeah, it's, it's As you say, it's a very radical departure from, from the classical wisdom- Hmm which has often recommended a more disciplinarian approach to education. He, he's quite explicit that he will never use force to educate his children, but he will let nature, natural necessity educate. So if a child bumps his head, that, yeah, it's force- Hmm … it's discipline, but it- it's nature doing it, not, not the parent. So it’s not got the same character, right? it s- it seems to us less cruel. It's just sort of part of how we learn, through trial and error. and there's something very beautiful about that. It, it strikes sort of an authentic, like, like an authenticity, so imbuing education with authenticity and sort of letting this sort of, the, these natural faculties develop in accordance with our environment. Something very organic about it. but then, yeah, you mentioned also in the opening that the tutor had a lot of liberty to orchestrate the environment Hmm, hmm hmm in which the child learns. And of We're always going to have to be selective about what we expose our children to. we don't probably, probably don't let them watch horror films. Or, we don't take them to rough neighborhoods if we can help it. Hmm, hmm. so we are al- But s- but equally sometimes, especially I think fathers tend to advocate for this, we do give them a little bit of danger, a little bit of exposure- Hmm in order to help them grow and experience a little bit of discomfort. So, so how we orchestrate the environment indeed is the prerogative of the tutor, but then raises all of these questions, at, to what end? when, when, i- is this now truly a question of freedom and agency or i- rather, i- is it the s- role of the tutor to foster freedom- Hmm. I mean- … through the kind of environment and experiences he facilitates? If, if everything has been arranged, if everything has been anticipated by the tutor, could this child, Émile, be truly free? Is it possible? I suspect so. I, 'cause I don't think freedom pertains necessarily to to how one interacts with one's immediate environment. but more precisely how an environment informs choices we make in future. And this is more of a temporal I'm thinking- Yeah … of it in terms of the education. I don't think it matters so much- Mm … that the child can't choose in his- Mm … formative years. This is my, my own view. because I think freedom is something that has to mature, and it matures- Mm through exposure and experience. And so in that sense, we learn from those who have more experience. We, in a trust, in a, in a natural filial trust, devotion- Right … that children have, which we obviously have obligations to by, by- There are bound, boundaries within which it can flourish. Exactly. yeah- Which is very Hobs- Hobbesian in that, that beautiful analogy we discussed at some length in the last series in terms of, in terms of the water flowing and the banks limiting where the water can flow. I, it stuck with me, that- Oh, yes. Exactly, yes, yes. Mm. Which is a, indeed, a curious sort of the boundary- Mm … to make new things possible. A, a very- Mm … pr- simple way to understand this is, you know, if I'm unless I had the experience of, say, coming into error and thereby learning something, I'm not really as free to make wiser, more prudential decisions for how- Yeah I spend my time or, or, - Yeah … where I exercise my freedom. Right. I'm, I'm, I'm lacking something. I'm lacking experience, and experience is, is the substance of freedom. Yeah. Yeah. No, exactly. We're gonna now move to a few other concepts that we've discussed in this series so far, pity, adolescence, and the Savoyard vicar. In Book Four, social feeling becomes unavoidable. Rousseau does not try to eliminate amour-propre. He tries to redirect it. The young person, Émile, learns from shared vulnerability. To pity another's suffering, Rousseau argues, we must understand that their condition could be ours."To pity another's woes, we must indeed know them, but we do not feel them." That's from Book Four of Émile. Moral education therefore grows out of sentiment as well as reason. Abstract duties are less effective than learning And also recognizing another person as a being who can suffer. This is not sentimental softness for Rousseau. It's an attempt to prevent comparative self-love from becoming pleasure and superiority. Book Four also contains, and this will be interesting, the profession of faith of the Savoyard Vicar, where conscience and natural religion are placed against both rigid dogma and reductive materialism. This section was one reason the book became politically explosive. On the 9th of June in 1762, the Parliament of Paris issued an order for Rousseau's arrest and condemned Émile to be torn and burned. He doesn’t have much luck anywhere, does he, Jack? Rousseau fled, reaching Yverdon on the 14th of June. Geneva then condemned both Émile and The Social Contract as well. Does Rousseau ground morality here securely in pity and conscience, or does he make moral education too dependent on feelings shaped by the tutor? This is interesting. Are these kind of emotions being cast in a crucible of the tutor's making, or are they organic and original and genuine? Yeah. That's, that's a, that's difficult. It, it, perhaps it just, in large part comes down to what you think about freedom and its relationship to constraint. I've always found freedom to be on the whole con- constituted by a constraint. But I recognize that there, there is a obligation on the part of the tutor to have a, an understa- a, as true as possible an understanding in himself of what actually is the end of education. What- Mm. And ultimately what is in the interest of the child, but as, as a consequence which would follow from that. So if you have a d- particular view on religious education, that then- Mm … has some relationship to the welfare of the child, and so that becomes quite important whether we include that or not or similarly about any subject, about Latin or about science or, or, or mo- moral philosophy. Mm. Or so there has to be a decision made about what, what serves which subjects serve what end. and how the child's interests relate to that. so is there something that could Yeah, is, is there a way of viewing education where there's something else that the child contributes? I mean, so in Montaigne, for instance, the child's very active. And the tutor is making all these decisions indeed, but it's more scaffolding so that the child can practice judgment. Yes … you can tell me, Sam,'cause I haven't read Émile in such depth. is Rousseau concerned primarily with the formation of judgment or with imbibing principles or facts or skills? I think it, I think it's a bit of both, but I th- I do think it's principles. I, but I do think it's, it's moral formation, - Moral formation because, because- Yeah … m- because for Rousseau, Émile is morally pure in those young, early stages, and the tutor's role is almost to guard him from society. I see. I see. Which it changes everything completely, actually- Mm. Mm … once you understand this. This, this seems less of an, an enculturating and more of a sheltering. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I know, it's interesting, isn't it? That is curious. Mm. But we need to move on. And again, in our bonus episode, any questions we've left unanswered we will try and explore. because there is a big element of Émile and, but then contrary, Julie that causes controversy today and it's kind of for someone who is this kind of revolutionary, proto-Marxist, some people say left-wing sort of icon He's not very good when it comes to women. seen that. Yes, but none of the Marxists were. I think, the But which is interesting to note. I mean- Mm-hmm … the, the Soviets were very conservative on family values Yeah, yeah after that initial five-year period. And does that come from this? Because in book five he says,"Woman is made to please and to be in subjection of man." So it's very interesting that Émile is being raised in this very careful, ornate way. Woman, just subjection of man. now, as I say, we're running out of time, but is this because he's already talked about women? In Julie, in Julie, he says that everything here is pleasant and agreeable. He's basically saying that woman is kind of closer to nature in this way. Everything is agreeable. Everything breathes an air of plenty and propriety. Essentially in this one, he's, he kind of almost creates the woman as the kind of educator in the home, the one who kind of has the loving, natural element without any appearance of pomp and luxury. so not with the s- social kind of, ills inflicted on women. but Émile is the one that most people know and that passage is very damning of Rousseau for many people to say woman is the subjection of man. what do you think, Jack, just briefly in terms of, in terms of that scene? Yeah. I think I can make sense of it in the context of his broader philosophy. It sounds to me like the role Julie will play in the ongoing formation of Émile in adult life will be to keep him grounded in moral sentiment. That's a woman's gift. Yeah. Yeah. to be more a creature of the heart as it were. Mm-hmm. More sensitive to the needs of- Yeah … persons. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. and so her, in her service to Émile is precisely to keep him grounded in the as- in the spirit of his, of his education, which is a moral formation. And is that is therefore almost, is therefore almost a more honorable one. Well, precisely. It, it's more dignified. Mm-hmm. And it, without it you won't have society. I'm sure In Rousseau’s view, and I think there’s something to that. I'm sure we will have plenty of people saying we are massively trying to be apologists for Rousseau here, because there is plenty of criticism of Rousseau for this. Both for what he writes here, but al- also obviously because of his dealings with women and not being particularly great, man. I don't think in terms of anything- Yeah. Yeah … not in te- not in terms of anything sort of malicious, but in terms of obviously not taking a lot of responsibility in these kind of things. Like, his- Yeah … his, his treatment of women in that way is not great. So so- Yeah. Rousseau does indeed struggle with responsibility. That is- Mm … one of his chief vices. And wom- me- several women have been the victim of this in his life. Which lends this, this moral service something of a cop-out maybe. Mm. because it also, I mean men can, can anchor one another, - Yeah … with What is friendship, what is fraternity Mm what is the church? But he didn't, he didn't- But wife also is, is very important too. But, there, there, there are all kinds of anchors. He didn't like that many men either. So it's not like he was like some kind of lad’s lad. And, you know, but- He doesn't look it in his portrait no, no. But these are unresolved tensions, Jack with Rousseau, and it remains so difficult and so productive, I think. And that's why there'll be a bonus episode. He sees that freedom is not merely the absence of restraint. It requires habits, capacities, institutions and relationships. But the creation of those conditions may itself require power. Across the self, the state, the school and the household, Rousseau keeps returning us to the same question, can human beings shape one another without making one another less free? Now Jack, do you have any closing remarks on this grand series that we've powered through I'm struck by what I think is Rousseau's radical shift, which is to make the heart first and foremost or classical language- Mm the passion. to take the passion that rightly ordered in themselves and ordered towards, mutual benefit and trying to build a whole philosophy on this principle, which tries to then work out, okay, so then what exactly denatures our passion if they're rightly ordered from the beginning? If we're content to be simple, what, what, what disrupts that harmony within us? and, yeah, and there's some interesting consequences of this view. I find it to be highly original, and seductive, but I think- Mm I think a little naive in parts. Yeah. It But not in all parts. I was struck in the discourse of arts and sciences by how, yes indeed, one can pursue art and science for reasons of vice. Mm. It's, that's definitely possible. That's very perceptive. Or is it just cynicism? I don't know. Maybe it's hard. Maybe- Mm … I give him too much credit for that, but I don't see him spending enough time with the problem of evil. Mm. don't I don't think he's so sharp there. I think he's a bit He makes too many excuses. No, I'd agree. but if you wanna hear more of these thoughts, then sign up to become a member of the Beyond The Text club, to hear more musings of Jack and I, in our bonus episode. And otherwise, we look forward to seeing you next Monday for Immanuel Kant. So thank you, Jack. Amazing. Thank you, Sam. And we look forward to seeing you on Monday. Au revoir.
