Fundamental pedagogic is the relationship between learner and educator. This relationship positions the learner as being a child and the educator is the one accompanying the child through the complex world. The learner, thus, does not have enough understanding of the world and requires input to get through the dangers of the world and therefore needs accompaniment. The learner is considered inadequate and insecure. The educator plays the role of the accompaniment by being rational, able, in control and mature in guiding the learner through understanding the world. Essentially fundamental pedagogic is a relationship between a transmitter and an acquirer.
Positivism is the reasoning of science that data is derived from sensible and scientific treatment and reports of sensory experiences are the selective wellspring of all definitive learning and that there is substantial information (truth) just in this determined information. Confirmed information from the faculties is known as exact proof. Positivism holds that society, in the same way as the physical world, works as indicated by general laws. Thoughtful and natural learning is rejected, as is mysticism and religious philosophy. In spite of the fact that the positivist methodology has been an intermittent topic, the advanced feeling of the methodology was created by the scholar Auguste Comte in the mid nineteenth century. Comte contended that, much as the physical world works as indicated by gravity and other outright laws, so does society.
The relationship between Christian National Education (CNE) and Fundamental Pedagogy
Afrikaans-medium universities embraced fundamental pedagogics in the years which followed World War two. The significance of this is that during this time the National Party introduced there apartheid policy in the year 1948. At the time of the National Party’s ruling National Education became a component of apartheid ideology. The consequences which the CNE Policy of 1948 brought about is argued by Enslin (1984) to have been far-reaching for the education of South African learners and not just for white Afrikaans speaking learners. According to the CNE policy the following features were set out for black education : it should be instructed in their mother tongue; blacks should not be prepared for equal participation in the social and economic life; funding of black education should not be to the detriment of white education; the black communities’ cultural identity should be preserved (even though its main aim is leading ‘the native’ to accepting the principles embedded within the CNE policy) ;then also whites must of necessity be the administers and organisers (Enslin ,1984). The final point, which Enslin (1984) elaborates, reflects a paternalistic element. Black education was considered the responsibility of the Afrikaner who were viewed as superior and entrusted to educate black learners. Christianising the non-white races was what the Afrikaners were set out to do. Basing black education on principles embedded in the CNE policy was the Afrikaner’s sacred obligation. Their belief was that only when coloured men have been Christianised will they be secure against their own heathen and all other foreign ideologies which falsely promise them happiness. The intention of the CNE policy was clearly a justification of an inferior and separate education system for blacks. According to (Enslin,1984), many educational theorists have critically scrutinised CNE since 1948. Fundamental pedagogics received significant response due to this context. Fundamental pedagogics, although not aimed at the replacement of the CNE, in South Africa became the main focus in certain academic circles. During the 1960s all the way to the 1980s, Afrikaans-medium universities were indoctrinated by fundamental pedagogics. The education faculties of black universities and black colleges of education were also indoctrinated by fundamental pedagogics.
The ‘scientific method’ of studying education was argued by fundamental pedagogicians to be the only method of doing so. According to Viljoen and Pienaar (1971), to many fundamental pedagogicians the phenomenological method was the more appropriate scientific method for studying education. It was believed that this method, through ‘radical reflection’ on the instructive circumstance the fundamental pedagogician would figure out how to know the phenomenon (Enslin, 1984). Enslin (1984) states, that the pedagogic categories along with its corresponding criteria are used by pedagogicians to describe the educational situation. Viljoen and Pienaar (1971) recognise in there course reading titled ‘Fundamental Pedagogics’ three stages in experimental examination: the prescientific in which the first phenomena uncover themselves and which excite the wonderment of the researcher; the exploratory reflection on the marvel and the widespread assemblage of information gathered by reflecting and; the post-investigative collection of learning being executed . Viljoen and Pienaar (1971) recognised that amid the logical stage qualities are avoided, while in the prescientific and post-experimental stages, qualities or life-perspectives assume an unmistakable part. They also point out that during the scientific stage extrinsic aims and beliefs are bracketed by pedagogicians. Thus, according to Enslin (1990), the political becomes forbidden speech, since the political has no place in the scientific framework. The problem with fundamental pedagogics was that it failed to critically exam the subject of qualities in both the prescientific and post-experimental stages. As opposed to being ‘generally legitimate’ information about instruction, central pedagogics basically imitated the belief system by legitimising the CNE approach. As a matter of fact Viljoen and Pienaar (1971) make explicit links between Christianity and fundamental pedagogics. Christianity is claimed to be the main convention on which instruction can be securely based. The Christian instructor recognises that children are born in sin and thus they are inclined to evil (De Vries, 1986). She knows that without authority the ability to educate a child is paralysed. However, human authority is seen as being delegated authority for she recognises God as the absolute authority. The practice of authoritarian education in South Africa during the apartheid era was justified by providing links between Christianity and pedagogy. According to Enslin (1990) the fundamental pedagogics holds that education is the means by which a helpless dependent child is lead by the adult pedagogue. This claim justifies the authoritarian practices. Enslin (1990) points out, that fundamental pedagogics is the dominant theoretical discourse in South African teacher education. The exclusion of the political as a legitimate dimension of theoretical discourse by the fundamental pedagogics failure to acknowledge the political as being one of the dimensions of theoretical discourse resulted in it not being able to provide a language of critique and neither a language of possibility.
‘Fundamental Pedagogics’ was part of the education philosophy that emerged under the apartheid notion of difference according to race when the National Party had come into power in South Africa towards the end of 1940s. Fundamental Pedagogics was defined as a ‘true’ scientific theory and therefore undisputable under Christian National Education. It was based on a combination of a positivistic idea of truth, behaviourism and specific needs of different racial communities.
...(download the rest of the essay above)