Jane Martin’s Concept of Education

Jane Martin’s Concept of Education

In Jane Martin’s “concept of education,” she attempts to outline what defines an educated man while at the same protesting the concepts laid down by English philosophers such as R.S Peters. Jane Martins chooses to discuss R.S Peter’s ideal because of its significance in the philosophical field. According to Peters, education refers to the family of processes that result in the development of an educated person. He defined as an educated person as one who does not only possess a body of knowledge but one who also has some type of conceptual scheme that will enable him to raise the knowledge he has above the degree of a collection of disjointed facts (Martin, 1981). This, according to Peter, also implies that education is defined by some understanding of the principles of organizing information.

Also, according to Peters, the knowledge of an educated person cannot be described as inert and that the person cares about the standards of evidence that are implicit in science and proven in mathematics. Peter argued that the educated man must have a cognitive perspective and that their pursuits can be both theoretical and practical as long as they delight in them for their own sake (Martin, 1981). Lastly, he stated that knowledge is incorporated into his idea of an educated person in three dimensions: depth, breadth, and knowledge for good.

Jane Martins also highlights the concept of education as outlined by Downie, Telfer, and Loudfoot, as described in their book Education and Relationships. According to their conception, the educated man has knowledge which is diverse in scope stretching from disciplines such as history and geography to natural science and social science, up to the present affairs. They further argued that the educated person has what can be described as the inclination to apply the knowledge they possess and be critical and curious in their thirst for more knowledge. She compares the Peters conception with that of Downie, Loudfoot, and Telfer, concluding that the latter’s educated person only differs from the former only in detail (Martin, 1981). The main difference between the two conceptions, according to Jane Martins, is that in the latter, the educated person must not only possess the knowledge about art and moral and religious theories but must know them as distinct things.

According to Jane Martins, women are hardly mentioned in the historical narratives neither as subjects nor objects. She goes ahead to argue that if women’s lives and experiences have been ignored in history, it follows that the works they have produced have also been excluded when it comes to literature and fine arts. I strongly agree with her argument since it is clear how most communities in history until the mid-twentieth century were characterized by gender-biased policies (Martin, 1981). Most women were not allowed to occupy a significant role in society, while the few that we’re privileged to do so had their works undermined. This can also be drawn from the theoretical conceptions of great philosophers like R.S Peters using the phrase “Educated Man,” which is gender-biased instead of the universal “Educated Person.”

It’s also true that the educated person, as portrayed by most philosophers, is in accordance with our cultural stereotype of the male gender. The stereotype perpetuates the characterization of the male as objective and rational, with a low sense of sensitivity or empathy. The stereotype regards nurturance, empathy, and sensitivity as female traits. It is also true that psychologists have defined moral development and human development in the male gender’s terms. This is wrong since the female gender can also possess the dispositions and traits described in R.S Peter’s conceptualization of the “Educated Man.”

Also, on close evaluation of the conventional traits attributed to an aggressive man versus those attributed to an aggressive man, it is evident that Peter’s description of the educated person is more inclined towards masculinity. I, however, disagree with Jane’s assertion that females can possess some qualities that men have and vice versa (Martin, 1981). There are traits that are dictated by hormones, for example, strength. Scientifically, men have more muscles than women, and it follows then that strength is attributed more to the male gender than the female gender. I, however, agree with Martin’s argument that the use of the phrase “educated man” has placed a burden on female education as far as education is concerned.

Despite the possibility that he used “man” as a universal term for any human being, most women will be victimized for exhibiting positive qualities simply because they are associated with males. This is evident even in most societies today where women in positions of power have faced a lot of resistance from their communities and have been labeled with negative descriptions for possessing what could have otherwise been positive if possessed by a man. I agree with Jane Martin’s assertion that if Peter’s educated person was female, she would have been presented with a small number of role models in her discipline, while if it were a man, he would be able to identify with the makers of history.

In conclusion, I support Jane Martins thought that for the ideal of the educated person to be profound as it should be, the societal processes of productivity and reproductivity must be intertwined. Men should not be exclusively given the productive role that also women can do, while women should not be exclusively given the role of reproductivity that also men are involved in. This is because an idea that is only tied to production can hardly accommodate the essential social values such as compassion and caring that are categorized for women.