{"id":3822,"date":"2023-06-10T07:51:57","date_gmt":"2023-06-10T12:51:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/educationalrenaissance.com\/?p=3822"},"modified":"2025-08-02T07:55:22","modified_gmt":"2025-08-02T12:55:22","slug":"charlotte-mason-the-educational-philosopher","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/educationalrenaissance.com\/2023\/06\/10\/charlotte-mason-the-educational-philosopher\/","title":{"rendered":"Charlotte Mason, the Educational Philosopher"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In researching\u00a0Charlotte Mason<\/a>\u2019s life for my book on her with Classical Academic Press (published 2023:\u00a0Charlotte Mason: A Liberal Education for all<\/a>!), the latest in the\u00a0Giants in the History of Education series<\/a>\u00a0(see my recorded\u00a0webinar with Classical Academic Press<\/a>!) I was struck by Mason\u2019s insistence on the importance of educational philosophy. This stands in contrast to many of the other \u201cgiants\u201d in this series (Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Milton, C.S. Lewis), who were not educational philosophers first and foremost, but philosophers and theologians simply, who also happened to address education specifically. None of these thinkers felt the need to press the point of philosophy\u2019s importance in the same way.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Preorder now!<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

We might posit the source of this confusion in the modern turn to pragmatic considerations as the main focus of educational theory. Or we could note the human tendency in general to focus on a part of the truth, the need for a student to be prepared for a job, for instance, as if it were the whole of education. We set our sights too narrowly on a certain educational outcome and miss the forest for the trees. We can detect these problems in Mason\u2019s diatribe on the topic:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

We do not sufficiently realise the need for unity of principle in education. We have no Captain Idea which shall marshal for us the fighting host of educational ideas which throng the air; so, in default of a guiding principle, a leading idea, we feel ourselves at liberty to pick and choose. This man thinks he is free to make science the sum of his son\u2019s education, the other chooses the classics, a third prefers a mechanical, a fourth, a commercial program. . . . <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

Everyone feels himself at liberty to do that which is right in his own eyes with regard to the education of his children. Let it be our negative purpose to discourage in every way we can the educational faddist, that is, the person who accepts a one-sided notion in place of a universal idea as his educational guide. Our positive purpose is to present, in season and out of season, one such universal idea; that is, that education is the science of relations. (Mason, School Education, 160\u2013161)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I am grateful to Karen Glass for pointing out this passage in her book In Vital Harmony: Charlotte Mason and the Natural Laws of Education<\/a><\/em> (23). This diatribe is remarkable for Mason\u2019s insistence on a harmony, coherence or unity to the philosophy and practice of education. Her allusion to the biblical book of Judges reinforces her point that confusion and disorder reign when a guiding law is not followed. Salvation from the oppression of educational faddism can only be attained by a Captain Idea, a Judge, who will unite the tribes and marshal the hosts to restore right worship of the divine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n