Maria Montessori - between human sciences and political reform

$$
#"! !!$$
$
$#
$$
$ $
$
$$#!$
conference paper 2011
Between science and politics
Eva-Maria Ahlquist
Is Maria Montessori’s educational program based on science? When I was
asked to talk about this very interesting issue I accepted almost immediately,
but at the same time I knew that it is a complex question.
I would like to start with a statement that I believe is quite common;
Montessori education isn’t based upon science. I’ve heard it being said quite
often. But is it correct? No, of course not. But this opinion creates difficulties.
It is my hope that my talk will contribute to a wider understanding of this
issue. As an introduction I thought it could be interesting to look at how
Montessori is presented in Wikipedia.
—1—
Montessori in Wikipedia
English
Italian physician, educator, noted humanitarian, devout Catholic.
German
Italienische Ärztin, Philosophin, Philanthropin (Italian physician,
philosopher, philanthropist).
Swedish
Italiensk pedagog, forskare, feminist, filosof, filantrop (Italian
educator, researcher, feminist, philosopher, philanthropist).
Italian
Pedagogista, filosofa, medico, scienziata, educatrice, Volontaria
Italiana (Pedagogue, philosopher, physician, researcher, educator,
Italian volunteer).
Slovakian Talianska lekárka, zakladatel'ka predškolskej výchovy na princípe
individuálneho systému. (Italian doctor, founder of preschool
education on the principle of an individual system).
This voluminous title list gives an indication of the science Maria Montessori was doing and it brings me to quote the Swedish researcher Kenneth
Hultqvist (1998). He sees in Montessori “an excellent case of the modern relationship between power and knowledge, between science and political reform. One is so linked with the other, that the two phases hardly can be
separated” (p. 152). This quote will be the leading issue in this article.
I divided this article into three parts, starting with looking upon the
meaning of the word science, because I believe there exist different ideas about
what science really means. Secondly my attempt is to grasp the scientific doctrine during Montessori’s lifetime and in that context interpret Montessori’s
work. This might help us to understand the complexity. I will call this part
Maria Montessori’s scientific journey. At last I raise the question why Montessori education isn’t more discussed in the academic world? In this part I will
give examples of the criticism Montessori received that was quite common.
What does the word science mean?
The word science is understood differently. In German, in Swedish and in languages originated from Latin, the word science includes social sciences and humanities. However in English spoken countries, science remains adjacent with
natural science. Research in other areas like language, education, politics, history and so on are related to as humanities and social sciences. But let me start
by looking at the significance of the word science. The etymology of the word
goes back to the Latin word Scientia meaning knowledge. The German word
for science is Wissenschaft, and I think this is giving us the meaning of the
—2—
Aristotle.
word, “zu schaffen was zu Wissen ist”, to get what there is to know. We can be
sure that as long as human beings have existed there has been curiosity and
ambition to understand everything that surrounds us. However the history of
science usually starts with the pre-Sokratic philosophers and further to Aristotle who distinguished knowledge, at that time natural philosophy, as something that was possible to experience. It was the essence of reliable knowledge,
explained in a logically and rationally way. Aristotle was interested in biology,
economy, ethics, logic, metaphysics, poetics, politics, and psychology, well in
almost everything. Until the 17th century, for almost 2000 years, natural philosophy included all sciences.
Natural science took during the scientific revolution the great step.
Throughout the period from Galileo physics, chemistry, geology and biology
were the subjects connected to natural science and related to, with the single
word; science. In contrast to the ancient use, it was not enough to experience
knowledge; it was a question of acquiring knowledge through experiments.
The main project was defining the laws of nature, as an example Newton’s laws
of motion. The emphasis was that science had to be exact which the development of math made possible by using theoretical formulas.
Humanities existed from the time of the ancient Greeks but as something
practiced in real life. Humanities were later generally involved with the interpretation of old writings and in new interpretations of the Bible. During the
renaissance humanities was of great magnitude in order to define renaissance
against the middle age.
Wilhelm Dilthey a German historian, psychologist and a hermeneutic
philosopher made a distinction between natural science and sciences regarding
humanities; natural science explains in terms of cause and effect and humani—3—
Husserl, Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty.
ties has as its aim to understand. Life (Geistwissenschaft) could only be understood by intuition and interpretation. Many philosophers and scientists
have been inspired by Dilthey’s view and today this distinction is accepted. Despite the ideas of Dilthey and his followers it was natural science had an impact
on all branches of sciences ever since the scientific revolution. It was in this
context Montessori started her scientific journey.
The philosopher Edmund Husserl brought this issue to mind in his writings dated 1900–1901, Logische Untersuchung. He raised objections against
the influences of natural science in psychology by using instruments measuring
the quality of a person’s psychic state. This objection led to the foundation of
the modern phenomenology.
Husserl was not at all critical to natural science, in contrary, he considered
progress in society, as vital, but according to his view it had nothing to do with
how a human person perceive the world. Let me give an example; colour. How
do we as human beings perceive colour? How do you explain a blue colour?
Would you give an explanation as a physician about visible radiation? I do not
think many of you would. Some of you would talk about the sky, or the sea or
maybe you think of a dress you like. Husserl used the concept “lifeworld” which
are the conditions in which we experience the world. This means interpretation
and description. Phenomenology became an important movement with its European followers the German philosopher Martin Heidegger, the French child
psychologist and philosopher Maurice Merleu-Ponty, and the philosophers of
the Dutch Utrecht School. Heidegger’s philosophy was concerned with existential explorations of being-in-the-world, what it in fact means to exist as humans. Merleau-Ponty’s project is to reveal how our experiences are united in
our bodily action. I will come back to this later.
—4—
What about education as a scientific discipline? In some European countries it became a separate discipline quite
late in history. Many of the names we
know like, Pestalozzi, Herbart, and
Rousseau were philosophers who were
interested in education. The first professor in education (pedagogy) was Ernst
Christian Trapp at the university of
Halle in Germany in 1779. Sweden had
to wait more than 100 years until education was separated from philosophy and
became an independent discipline. In
John Dewey.
the US education was suggested to become an independent discipline by
Dewey (Dewey, 1976, p. xxx)
Dewey’s work was influenced by pragmatism based on empirical studies.
Dewey presented his ideas in several volumes with titles like The School and
Society (1900), The Child and the Curriculum (1902) and the book he wrote
together with his daughter Evelyn Dewey in 1915 entitled Schools of Tomorrow, that among other things discussed Maria Montessori’s educational system.
One of the early followers was the psychologist and philosopher William James.
The pragmatic method was verifying a theory through practice, which the title
of William James book Philosophical conceptions (1898) and practical results
elucidates.
To clarify, let us have a look at natural science versus humanities:
Natural science vs. humanities
Natural science
Human science
Nature as a thing
Does not make things out of humans
Experiment
Other procedures (creativity guides research)
Quantity
Quality, (what is it like …)
Measurable
Content of meaning
Analyses- syntheses
Explicitation (making the implicit explicit)
Established conclusions
Intentional responses
Independent observations
Identity through variation (studying anger …)
Identical repetition
Participant observation, social factors being
there as an observer
Context is independent and abstract
Context is important
(Amedeo Giorgi, lecture in Stockholm 2009)
—5—
Montessori doctor of medicine and surgery
(Association Montessori Internationale, 1970)
Maria Montessori’s scientific journey
Maria Montessori studied, as we all know, medicine during the late 19th century. There exist many attempted explanations why Montessori, decided to become a medical doctor. Several researchers (Marellicani, 2001; Quarfood, 2005;
McDermott 2007) describe Maria Montessori as a person driven by a sense of
justice and with great empathy for those who suffered the most – the children
and the women. It is said that Maria Montessori chose to study medicine in
order to engage in social work. In fact, the last two university years she studied
paediatrics and psychiatry, practicing at a children’s hospital and at a psychiatric
clinic.
Medical education was of course strict positivistic, but the fact that she
met some of the counrties most excellent scholars of medical and experimental
research and furthermore, that several of her teachers were involved in the
young nation’s plans for civil renewal and social development certainly had an
important impact on her education and life. Italy had vast problems. Illiteracy
was among the highest in Europe, agriculture was neglected and industrialization developed mainly around the Po Valley. Tuberculosis and malaria and diseases caused by poor diet and malnutrition were common. Montessori came
in contact with researchers in various disciplines who showed a correlation between human privation and disease. The pioneering work in this field interested Maria Montessori who took two exams in hygiene and completed her
education in health care policy.
—6—
Unione Internationale
feminile per la Pace
During her medical school years Montessori was often reminded of the
prevailing attitude towards women, claiming that women were less intelligent
than men, and actually developmentally at the level of a child. This was something Montessori couldn’t accept.
The same year that Montessori received her medical degree she became
vice president of a feminist group “Unione Internationale feminile per la Pace”
(International Women Union for Peace) formed as a result of Italy’s warfare
in Africa but also with an intention to encourage women to take advantage of
their interests and abilities. Only a month after her graduation from medical
school Montessori travelled to Berlin to represent Italy at a women’s congress.
For Maria Montessori politics, feminism and medicine were, according to Valeria Babini (2000), strongly bound together, which Montessori expressed
when she lectured at the feminist conference. Her presentation pointed to the
problems of poverty and misery that most severely affected women and children. However, the feminist struggle was for Montessori regardless of social
class, it concerned all women’s right to a life equal man. During her first year
as a medical doctor, Montessori continued her research while she a worked at
the children’s hospital and the Women’s Hospital. She was employed as an assistant at the University Hospital and she opened a private practice. At her
own practice Montessori first of all treated poor patients and it is said that she
didn’t separated the role of a nurse from the role of the doctor. Some anecdotes
illustrate how Montessori took care of the housework and cooked nutritious
food to her patients (Kramer, 1975; Standing, 1984).
—7—
Ospidale Santo Spirito, Rome.
Montessori continued her research at the psychiatric clinic at the university
hospital and she took up a voluntary service, which included conversations with
people who had various psychiatric problems at Rom’s psychiatric clinics. Her
commitment to the situation of children at such institutions which she considered to be a prison, grew stronger. A statement that is found in most descriptions (Kramer, 1975; Standing, 1984; Babini, 2000; Quarfood, 2005) is that she
was told by a caretaker that the children were so mentally retarded that as soon
as their meal were finished they throw themselves on the floor to search for
crumbs. Montessori came to the conclusion, after reading the bare room that
the children’s behaviour was of a different reason, it was not because of too little
food, they starved by the lack of experiences and therefore grabbed for anything
that got in their way. “There minds were not totally useless, just unused”
Montessori stated (Kramer, 1975, p. 58). She continues her research publishing
several articles regarding her interest in the problem of deficient children, and
she proceeds with her visits examining the children at the institution.
At Italy’s first educational conference in Turin Montessori lectured about
the necessity to establish special classes and institutions for children with special needs. During 1899 “Lega Nazionale per la Protezione dei Deficienti” a
national organization for health care and education of mentally retarded children was formed by one of her former teachers. Montessori got a central position. She went to Paris to study the ideas from the French scientists Itard and
Seguin and caught sight of an educational model for these mentally retarded
children that could be applied to the children she had in her care. Seguin’s work
was in accordance with her own observations, and she writes; “I felt that mental deficiency presented chiefly a pedagogical, rather than mainly a medical,
problem” (Montessori, 1912, p. 31).
—8—
Maria Montessori,
1900, at the Orthoprenic School.
Back in Rome Montessori was asked to lecture at a course on education
for mentally retarded children, which led to the formation of the Orthogenic
School. She left the school and in 1902 she began to study philosophy, sociology, and pedagogy. One of her teachers was Antonio Labriola. It is, according
to Matellicani (2007), likely to believe that Montessori chose to study under
Labriola because of his un-dogmatic ideas. Montessori’s experience in health
and anthropological pedagogy led to a job at the Female Teachers’ College in
Rome, although management was reluctant because of her progressive ideas.
Montessori’s report titled “Norms for a classification of deficient’s in relation
to special methods of education” was a summary of her experience from the
Orthogenic school and as understood by the title; A methodological consideration. Montessori now questions Seguin’s one-sidedness regarding the intellect.
She could not agree that moral and will only emerged from the intellect. Her
opinion was that it is important to give the child opportunities to experience
affect because there is “a deep biological element still to be discovered, underlying the physiological one, almost to say the same will of life, desire, the instinct of communication with things and with oneself, feelings to blossom from
representations that are not purely intellectual but also affective, artistic, religious and social” (Scocchera, 1997, p. 36).
Montessori implements in 1903 a field study to examine the relationship
between school children’s distinctive features and finds that children who grow
up under good conditions also have a greater intellectual capacity. The survey
shows that nearly three-quarters of the children with the lowest status came
from overcrowded living conditions, half did not bring any school lunch and
—9—
more than a quarter of them brought too little food. Half of the children had
no place to go in the afternoons. The top-rated, by contrast, came from larger
dwelling, three-quarters brought plenty of food for lunch, and eight out of ten
could go home after the school day. Montessori (Quarfood, 2007) did not trust
that teachers were able to assess the children. Teachers carry preconceived notions about the child’s capacity and this has to change to the better, according
to Montessori. What we can notice is that Montessori is interpreting her empirical data in a wider way. She moves at this point, according to the Swedish
researcher Christine Quarfood, from “an anthropology that combats the discrimination of class and gender instead of consolidating them” (2007, p. 171).
Montessori undertook during this time an ethnographic research about
women in Lazio and in a later article entitled The importance of regional ethnology in pedagogical anthropology, where she writes about one of the reasons
for tuberculosis quoting: “…school with its hygienic errors, keeping children
inside closed premises for many hours a day, hunched over their desks”.
Montessori’s research on how humans adapt to their environment, geographic
and cultural was something that interested her, but Montessori meant that
teachers ignore the fact that the environment has a great impact. She claimed
that the books presented a stereotypic view and she suggested thus, that teachers should learn to do field observations.
Montessori pictures some years later the teacher as a scientist. She is not
considering the technique; it is the spirit of a person who is eager to find something remarkable. “So now, we wish to direct the teacher, trying to awaken in
him, in connection with his own particular field, the school, that scientific spirit
which opens the door for him to broader and bigger possibilities.” Montessori
(1912, p. 9).
Montessori taught anthropology at the University of Rome, from 1904
until 1910. Her lectures were, some years later, published in a volume entitled
Antropologica Pedagogica . The book provides an idea of science practiced during her time and Kramer states: “It is hard to find a book more dated in its
style, more obsolete in its factual content, and yet the general principles on
which it is based that the nature of education should follow from an understanding of the nature of the child to be educated – was a significant innovation
at the time” (Kramer, 1976, p. 97).
In 1903 Montessori was invited to lecture at a teacher education course
ran by the medical doctor Ugo Pizzoli. The name of the course was School of
Scientific Pedagogy (Trabalzini, 2011). Education had at the turn of the century become autonomous and its past relationship with psychology, philosophy,
medicine, biology, anthropology and public health turned it into an interdisciplinary subject. Pizzoli’s course aimed at preparing teachers for this. The
teachers were given a thorough training in child psychology, and it was made
clear that it was not possible to teach without this knowledge. The studies were
— 10 —
pragmatic and operational, and for this reason there was a day weekly to practice. The course did also include studies in anthropology and measurements of
various kinds with a required part in order to detect growth disorders and undernourishment. While it for Montessori became a tool for making education
scientific, it was an opportunity to get to know each individual child. Observations and measurements were therefore important, but Montessori points
out that children have individual emotional lives (anima) that were to be respected.
At this point I consider it relevant to speak of a shift from a strict positivistic approach to a science closer to humanities, even if measurements still
where an important tool. The precise measurements and observations that were
performed were, according to Salerno (2009), the prerequisite for Montessori
Education to develop. Salerno describes Montessori as a pioneer in a discipline
that not until 1949 became scientific autonomous, as the “Primary prevention,
the scientific method, an interdisciplinary approach, the child at the centre, in
an organization that promotes child development and health but what is important is that it also meets and recognizes the needs of children. The physical
and cognitive ergonomics developed from Montessori observing psychological
aspects and a having a thorough knowledge of anthropometry” Salerno (2009).
Between 1904 and 1906 one study per year was published, the latest concerning
the importance of ethnography in the field of anthropology.
Now, let me summarize the different scientific fields where Montessori
was involved. Medicine, hygiene, health care, ergonomics, developmental psychology, sociology, environmental psychology, anthropology, sociology ethnography, education and in addition politics.
Medicine, hygiene, health care, ergonomics, developmental
psychology, sociology, environmental psychology, anthropology,
sociology, ethnography, education and in addition politics …
— 11 —
Casa dei Bambini
Montessori’s scientific journey continues,
with a shift from natural science to human science
In 1906 Montessori was asked to run a preschool in a poor district in Rome
and as you know, she accepted; this was an opportunity to continue her research; however this time on children with an average intelligence, but many
of them with social problems. The school was inaugurated in January 1907 and
her research on education started.
Previous experiences with the mentally retarded children had shown that
motor activities were the most appropriate activities for young children, learning was easy and they appreciated doing thing
with their hands, which meant, according to
Montessori, that these exercises satisfied the
children’s needs. Montessori noticed the same
result at Casa dei Bambini. Her research was
now concentrated on observations, even if she
continuously was using her anthropological
methods, measuring each child’s physical
state. All observations gave Montessori important data that led to a continuous development of her educational ideas. The
experiment resulted in a book published in
1909 entitled Il Metodo della Pedagogia Scientifica. The book cover had not only the
— 12 —
name of Montessori, but also her title: Dr. Med., which I assume, should emphasize that the book was based on science.
The development of her ideas is notable in the different editions of the
book, As an example Montessori modified the environment from the first edition where the children are seated in traditional school desks to a setting with
small tables and chairs in the next edition. We all know what about the importance of this modification.
Montessori explains her philosophy as the “birth” of a new science. Something new is born, the child isn’t a helpless child who only needs care, the child
is active and curious to explore his or her environment. Montessori explains as
follows: “A fundamental cornerstone of scientific pedagogy must therefore be
pupil’s liberty, in order to enable the child’s spontaneous individual manifestations. If a pedagogy must emerge from the individual study of the pupil, it
will be from the study meant in this manner – that is, drawn from the observation of free children” (Montessori, 1909, p. 190). This new science, according
to Montessori had not existed other than as an intuition, and had now developed as an experimental science, and she hints that there is a certain connection
to hygiene, anthropology and experimental psychology referring to the School
of Scientific Pedagogy. Montessori had studied the work of Wundt, Weber and
Fechner but she made a distinction between their theoretical models and her
own work. Models from experimental psychology used laboratory experiments
and her children in contrast worked with didactic material in an environment
that provided freedom and as she explains in the third edition of Metodo della
Pedagogia Scientifica, “she looked to a pedagogical and psychological science
of a liberating and transformational kind rather than of a measuring nature”
(Trabalzini, 2011, p. 62). Going back to my introduction and the history of science, we can notice that Montessori distances herself from the methods of natural science. Her background is important and she moves between theory and
— 13 —
It is impossible to observe something that is not known, and it is
not possible for anyone all at once, by a vague intuition, to imagine
that a child may have two natures, and to say, ‘Now I will try to
prove it by experiment.’ Anything new must emerge, so to speak,
by its own energies; it must spring forth and strike the mind, evoked by what we will call chance” (Montessori, 1936, p. 124).
empiricism letting the process lead to an understanding but her intuition and
her ability to make observations plays, of course, a major role.
There is no knowledge about the nature of the child says Montessori
(1936), it is “an undiscovered landscape” but there is more to explore through
extensive scientific observations. Montessori is not only honest, she is, according to Hultqvist (1995), telling us something about the limits of science. “It is
impossible to observe something that is not known, and it is not possible for
anyone all at once, by a vague intuition, to imagine that a child may have two
natures, and to say, ‘Now I will try to prove it by experiment.’ Anything new
must emerge, so to speak, by its own energies; it must spring forth and strike
the mind, evoked by what we will call chance” (Montessori, 1936, p. 124). This
awareness made Montessori distrust most of that research done in the field of
education, which was grounded in the tradition of natural science; the way children were treated and the way the educational system was constructed was according to Montessori, a result of a lack of knowledge and understanding of
the needs of the child.
Why isn’t Montessori education
more discussed in the academic world?
We might get one answer to this question if we look at one critique she received. One well known critique is William H. Kilpatrick who visited Casa dei
— 14 —
“We owe no large
point of view to
Madame Montessori” (Kilpatrick
1914, p. 67).
Bambini and wrote the book Montessori system examined. He meant that that
there was too much stress on the training of the senses, to much manipulation
of materials and too little emphasis on creativity and play, the method was too
individualistic and he considered the idea of self-correcting materials not to be
appropriate. In addition to this harsh critique he claimed that Montessori
hadn’t come up with anything new. There are some positive glimpses, worth
mentioning is the practical material – a concept close to Dewey – and the practical utilization of liberty. However, he concludes, “We owe no large point of
view to Madame Montessori” (Kilpatrick, 1914, p. 67). I would like to give an
example from Sweden where Montessori education has a long history. The critics emphasized the Montessori material as isolated mechanical exercises and
that the work was too exhausting. The criticism was taken from Germany and
one of the most vocal disapprovals came from a school inspector and author of
educational literature, Georg Brandell (Brandell, 1924, p. 143). Let me give an
example of his argumentation: “When children so early acquire skills that
schools should teach much later, there is danger that their minds and bodies
become overworked so that they at a later stage of development will be less
susceptible to the school’s systematic instruction in those subjects they already
briefly came to know and above all they have lost interest in them”. The criticism was based on a view of the child with a limited mind and this contrasted
to Montessori’s opinion where the child is competent who require who require
meaningful activities order to fulfil his or her potential. These preconceptions
are quite resistant.
— 15 —
Another reason for being ignored in the academic world is, according to
Angeline Lillard, Montessori’s lack of interest in theory. She writes “Dr
Montessori clearly has many testable theoretical ideas, but the theory is harder
to reach in her work. She was not really interested in coming up with a theory
of how children learn and develop. She was a practitioner, she wanted to help
children, not theorize about them” (Lillard, 2005, p. 343). And Lillard goes on
reflecting on what would have happened if Montessori hadn’t left her position
at the University, if she had produced articles for scientific journals and lecturing. One interesting aspect is the role that gender plays. Is the fact that for instance Kilpatrick calls Montessori Madame and Dewey professor a sign of
prejudice?
In order to reach the main question of this speech – if Montessori education is based upon science – I would like to take a closer look to the kind of science
Montessori was into? I have found that the philosophy of phenomenology and
Montessori’s ideas have a lot in common. At Casa dei Bambini Montessori observed the child in an environment where the child can act within his or her
own accord and many discoveries were made which according to Montessori
would have been impossible in a laboratory. What Montessori actually is doing
is researching lived experience as the child lives it. Her observations from the
time she was involved in the experiment of the Casa dei Bambini prove that,
quoting van Manen, “On the one hand, it means that phenomenological research requires of the researcher that he or she stands in the fullness of life, in
the midst of the world of living relations and shared situations. On the other
hand it means that the researcher actively explores the category of lived experience in all its modalities and aspects (van Manen, 1990, p. 32).
Let me try to explain what she actually discovered and what her motives
were by using some aspects from the philosophy of Heidegger and MerleauPonty. Montessori’s observations revealed that children have a drive to become
independent, which made her prepare an environment with almost endless possibilities. Heidegger (1993) points at the tools we handle in our everyday practice, which we take for granted, without reflecting on how important they are
to us. The tools form a link between our own existence and the world. In the
Montessori preschool these tools are called the Montessori Material. Montessori understood that children have a desire to become familiar with these everyday tools; using them in the same way they observe adults are using them.
These tools (materials) have to, so to speak, become embodied in the child’s
physical being, with Heidegger terminology, present-at-hand. For a child many
everyday tools are not accessible, they are just “ready-to-hand”. The child can
watch them but doesn’t know how to use them since they have not been put
into practice. Montessori’s intention was letting the materials become unobtrusive extensions of the child’s body by designing tools in a size that made
them possible for a child to handle. We can thus understand Montessori’s critic
— 16 —
to toys that do not work, like a toy iron or a plastic hammer. These kind of
toys do not function and remains as a consequence ready-to-hand; they do not
fulfil an intention. Montessori chose each material with care so that the child’s
interest and desire to make experience could be pleased. It was the quality of
the experience that was of concern to Montessori. Every detail was selected to
match the child’s interest to learn. Consequently the child had to be able to
move freely and choose the materials he or she was attracted to in with the purpose of using their hands.
Another aspect of Montessori’s idea, which is in line with phenomenology, is that the child in order to experience and learn has to be able to use all
their senses. Intellectual activity is not as you may think, states Montessori,
mental activity has to be connected with movement, thus; the child develops
through embodied interaction with the world. This is the reason why the material was made attractive. Montessori’s idea was that the material should call
the child’s attention, “Take me” the material says, she writes (Montessori, 1972,
p. 83). Merleau-Ponty expresses it thus, “In the action of the hand which is
raised towards an object is contained to a reference to the object, not as an object represented but as that highly specific thing towards which we project ourselves, near which we are, in anticipation, and which we haunt” (2004, p. 159).
Montessori was a skilful observer, something she had practiced doing research in the field of anthropology, but did she, in the beginning of her career
as an educator, know about phenomenology? Probably not! Phenomenology
was not well known in Italy in the beginning of second century, but she obviously came in contact with the philosophy later. Embodiment plays a central
role in her book the Absorbent Mind from 1949 where she is referring to Buytendjik, a Dutch phenomenologist. What appeared to Montessori in the Casa
dei Bambini is in accordance with Merleau-Ponty who in contrary to the motto
of Descartes, “I think, therefore I am” he states, “I can” (2004, p. 159). Montessori recognizes human experience as embodied, and her opinion was; that the
child by using their senses, touching and manipulating objects, would get the
necessary preparation and foundation for cognitive development and learning.
Montessori writes “One of the greatest mistakes of our day is to think of movement by itself, as something apart from the higher functions. We think of our
muscles as organs to be used only for health purposes. We “take exercise” or
do gymnastics, to keep ourselves “fit” to make us breathe, eat or sleep better.
It is an error which has been taken over by the schools. […] But to be always
thinking of the mind, on one hand, and the body, on the other, is to break the
continuity that should reign between them” (1973, p. 141).
Montessori’s research could as well be recognized, according to O’Donnell
(1976), as ethnographic inductive. Montessori starts with observations that
she analyses before she builds a theory. There are researchers who consider her
work hermeneutic and philosophical, for example Hermann Röhrs in an article
— 17 —
published in Prospect, UNESCO 1994 and Harald Ludwig in an article published in (2007). It is obvious that Montessori left a strict positivistic view but
that her background was important. She becomes more oriented towards philosophy and in her later work I recognize traces from phenomenology. She describes observations which must be made “without any prejudges” (Tornar
2008). This scientific viewpoint prevented education from uniformity of methods. The shift from a natural science towards a more philosophical approach is
noticeable in her writings. In fact Montessori criticizes, in a lecture several
years later, her own early scientific work. “… I learned how to do research by
investigating every child in an anthropological and psychological way. We then
learned how to measure how the child grows and develops normally and in the
same way we measured the psychological characteristics of the child and we
tried seriously to investigate all this. But we couldn’t use these results […]
This modern pedagogy was as a matter of fact not particularly appropriate”
(Ludwig, 2008). She goes on to reflect on her early work as being materialistic,
leaving out the question what it means to be a child. “I was too much a doctor
and a psychologist, which stands for an experimental psychologist, which means
superficial” (Ludwig, 2008).
As you have read there is a link between different disciplines in Montessori education, from natural sciences to human sciences, withholding a political
message, but I allege that her educational idea is grounded in philosophy. It is
unquestionably that Montessori education is highly relevant today. So let us
not be influenced by the trend only focusing on the schools test result, we
should rather focus on the values, such as motivation, student experience and
the feeling of being happy, on which Montessori education rests. I believe that
among other studies, phenomenology can contribute to a deeper understanding of the great values and qualities of Montessori education, as stated by the
Dutch phenomenologist, Langenvelt (quoted in Maria Montessori, a centenary
anthology, 1870–1970, AMI): “If Maria Montessori’s influence would be confined only to the impact of her ideas and activities on a revival of the attention
for the child as a human being in its own rights, this would already justify her
stature in our heart and mind.”
Montessori is trying to find an answer what it means being a child and
she provides a serious consideration of an existentialist theme by telling us “…
I did not invent a method of education, I simply gave some little children a
chance to live” (Binghampton Republican Herald, 31 January 1914, in Maria
Montessori, a centenary anthology, 1870–1970, AMI). These words also give us a
clear view of a political message relating to the children’s right.
— 18 —
References
litterature
Association Montessori Internationale (1970). Maria Montessori, a centenary
anthology 1870–1970. Amsterdam.
Dewey, John (1976). The middle works, 1899–1924. Carbondale, Ill: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Hultqvist, Kenneth & Dahlgren, Lars (ed.) (1995). Seendet och seendets villkor:
en bok om barns och ungas välfärd. Stockholm: HLS.
Husserl, Edmund (1998–2002). Logiska undersökningar. Stockholm: Thales.
Kilpatrick William H. (1914). The Montessori Method Examined. Boston, New
York and Chicago: Houghton Mifflin Comany.
Kramer, Rita (1976). Maria Montessori: a biography. Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley.
Kullberg, Birgitta (2004). Etnografi i klassrummet. 2., [rev.] uppl. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Lillard, Angeline Stoll (2005). Montessori: the science behind the genius. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Martellicani, Anna (2001). La “Sapienza” di Maria Montessori, Dagli studi universitari alla docenza 1890–1919. Rom: Aracne editrice.
McDermott, John J. & Anderson, Douglas R. (2007). The drama of possibility:
experience as philosophy of culture. 1st ed. New York: Fordham University
Press.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1999). Kroppens fenomenologi. 1. uppl. Göteborg:
Daidalos.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (2004). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.
Montessori, Maria (1909). Il Metodo della Pedagogia Scientifica applicato all’educazione infantile nelle Case dei Bambini (1909/ 1926/ 1935) Città di Catello:
Tip. Casa Editrice S. Lapi.
Montessori, Maria (1913). Pedagogical anthropology. London: Heinemann.
Montessori, Maria (1973). The absorbent mind. Madras: Kalakshetra Publications.
Montessori, Maria ( 1972). The Discovery of the Child. New York: Ballantine
Books.
Quarfood, Christine (2005). Positivism med mänskligt ansikte: montessoripedagogikens idéhistoriska grunder. Eslöv: Östlings bokförlag Symposion.
Ruin, Hans (2005). Kommentar till Heideggers Varat och tiden. Huddinge:
Södertörns högskola.
— 19 —
Scocchera, Augusto (2005). Maria Montessori, Una storia per il nostro tempo. Rom:
Opera Natzionale Montessori.
Standing, E. M. (1984). Maria Montessori: her life and work. New York: New
American Library.
Van Manen, Max (1990). Researching lived experience: human science for an action
sensitive pedagogy. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
periodicals
Babini, Valeria (2000). Science, feminism and education: the early work of
Maria Montessori. History workshop journal, 49, 2000, p. 44–67.
Brandell, Georg (1924).En replik och en kritisk granskning. Pedagogisk tidskrift.
Sextionde årgången, p. 140–150.
Ludwig, Harald (2008). Elevprestationer vid montessoriskolor respektive traditionella skolor. M.E.R. om Montessori, p. 67–77.
Röhrs, Hermann (1994). Maria Montessori. Prospects: quarterly review of education. Unesco, vol. xxiv, no. 1/2, 1994, (89/90), p. 169–183.
Tornar, Clara (2008). Den vetenskapliga aktualiteten av montessorimodellen.
M.E.R. om Montessori, p. 27–40.
Trabalzini, Paola (2011). Maria Montessori Through the seasons of the
“Method”. The NAMTA Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, Spring 2011.
reports from the internet
Salerno, Silvana (2009). Maria Montessori: una lezione de ergonomia. Universita’ di Roma “La sapienza”. Available on Internet: www.isitaorg.com/…/2009/2009_abstract_montessori-1.pdf
— 20 —