When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
Sources

From Lenin To Macron, The Limits Of Pedagogy In Politics

It's tempting to imagine that if our leaders were better teachers, consensus would ensue. But what works in the classroom doesn't necessarily apply to politics.

French President Macron in a classroom last September
French President Macron in a classroom last September
Roger-Pol Droit

-OpEd-

PARIS — It's a sentence that any observer of French politics has heard: We need "pedagogy." The same instruction is repeated president after president, from minister to minister. It seems obvious, at first glance. To clearly spell out policy goals, to explain why and how the measures are taken, and to insist on their benefits and relevance is really the least politicians can do.

That, after all, is the only way to ensure success. Or so we're told. Because after each failure, the fiasco is always attributed to a "lack of pedagogy." If it's not working, it's because we haven't been able to explain it well enough!

In reality, though, such statements are based on a profound misunderstanding about the nature of pedagogy, on the one hand, and of politics in a democracy, on the other. The pedagogue is an essential figure, but a necessarily modest one. His or her role is to steer people toward knowledge, not produce it. The pedagogue leads, provides access, facilitates the way to what already exists. The name itself doesn't mean anything else. The word pedagogue originally refers to the person who transports (agôgeïn, in ancient Greek) children (païdoï) to school. The pedagogue accompanies, nothing more.

After each failure, the fiasco is always attributed to a "lack of pedagogy."

It is a humble but crucial role for all those who are children (with respect to knowledge), meaning, at some point or other, all of us. It opens the door to scientific truths and established disciplines, introduces us to methods and gives us the first keys. The pedagogue makes us discover literary, aesthetic or conceptual heritage and knows how to make it loved. This is of the utmost importance.

But it has nothing to do with the "pedagogy" politicians keep harping on about. Because there are no children in the Republic, only citizens. A well-explained policy can always be refused. Measures that are perfectly explained and argued can lead to persistent disagreement. Everyone will agree that it's desirable to avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretation. But in politics, no pedagogy, no matter how well-executed, can overcome opposition and tensions. Because these are inherent to the plurality of projects and their competition. Hoping to win by dint of pedagogy is, therefore, a mirage.​

French President Emmanuel Macron has launched a nationwide "grand dé​bat" in response to the ongoing yellow vests protests. But while advertised as an opportunity for the government to hear what, Libération daily reported last week that some see the risk that the public meetings will turn into another attempt at "governmental pedagogy.")

Lenin's mistake

At the root of this illusion, a very common but damaging one, is a confusion between political and mathematical truths. It's wrong to think of them as analogous. It's assumed that, just like scientific truths, political truths — well explained, well set out — simply cannot fail to convince universally. It's this confusion that made Lenin say: "The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true."

pedagogy_france_education_politics

Luxemburg speaking to a crowd in 1907 — Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Following in his footsteps, Communist activist Rosa Luxemburg boldly proclaimed: "If everyone knew, the capitalist regime would not last 24 hours." Perhaps the same could be said of Communism. But what matters most is the following bias: Once the only truth has been taught and revealed... everyone should inevitably agree with it.

Overall, this is true for scientific truths, but not for political decisions! The latter are plausible hypotheses, not universal statements. Political projects are proposals to be implemented, not theorems to be demonstrated. For each project, there are other possible choices that compete with each other.

The truths of knowledge can expect and reach a consensus. The political ones are, by definition, subject to deep discord and endless confrontations — in democracies more so than in any other system. Explaining well no longer necessarily means convincing. Justifying your choice is not the same as winning support. This is why pedagogy in politics is, to some extent, illusory.

"The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true."

Still, this is no reason to conclude that it is unnecessary. On the contrary. If it doesn't create agreement, it makes it possible to know, as precisely as possible, what we are in disagreement about and what people are opposing each other about. It would be wrong to underestimate the usefulness of such clarification.

Its virtue, in that sense, is greater than we think. Because the better we know what separates us, the clearer our conflicts are, and the more the debates on democracy can benefit — in lucidity, in sharpness, in clarity. Agreeing on our disagreements is the real merit of good pedagogy. Because democracy is not about eradicating differences. Its purpose is not to smooth out conflicts. Rather, it strives to make them coexist, to regulate clashes.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

A Profound And Simple Reason That Negotiations Are Not An Option For Ukraine

The escalation of war in the Middle East and the stagnation of the Ukrainian counteroffensive have left many leaders in the West, who once supported Ukraine unequivocally, to look toward ceasefire talks with Russia. For Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza, Piotr Andrusieczko argues that Ukraine simply cannot afford this.

Photo of Ukrainian soldiers in winter gear, marching behind a tank in a snowy landscape

Ukrainian soldiers ploughing through the snow on the frontlines

Volodymyr Zelensky's official Facebook account
Piotr Andrusieczko

-Analysis-

KYIVUkraine is fighting for its very existence, and the war will not end soon. What should be done in the face of this reality? How can Kyiv regain its advantage on the front lines?

It's hard to deny that pessimism has been spreading among supporters of the Ukrainian cause, with some even predicting ultimate defeat for Kyiv. It's difficult to agree with this, considering how this war began and what was at stake. Yes, Ukraine has not won yet, but Ukrainians have no choice for now but to continue fighting.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

These assessments are the result of statements by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, General Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, and an interview with him in the British weekly The Economist, where the General analyzes the causes of failures on the front, notes the transition of the war to the positional phase, and, critically, evaluates the prospects and possibilities of breaking the deadlock.

Earlier, an article appeared in the American weekly TIME analyzing the challenges facing President Volodymyr Zelensky. His responses indicate that he is disappointed with the attitude of Western partners, and at the same time remains so determined that, somewhat lying to himself, he unequivocally believes in victory.

Combined, these two publications sparked discussions about the future course of the conflict and whether Ukraine can win at all.

Some people outright predict that what has been known from the beginning will happen: Russia will ultimately win, and Ukraine has already failed.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest