CHAPTER ONE

ON THE NATURE OF REAL PEDAGOGICAL ESSENCES

W. A. Landman

1. CO-EXISTENTIALITY AND CO-ESSENTIALITY OF REAL PEDAGOGICAL ESSENCES

When it is said that real pedagogical essences are co-existential⁽¹⁾ this means that they only exist in relation to each other, however, not in the sense that the reality (actuality) of one is derivable from another but rather in the sense that one helps actualize the other.  The one's being-there makes the being-there of the other possible.  They allow each other to be⁽²⁾--the one is a precondition for the appearance of the other.  For example, the pedagogical relationship structure (with its essences) allows the sequence structure to be (to appear in its fullness), etc.  As more of the essences (moments) appear in their reciprocal relations the more clearly the structure, of which they are the essentials, appears.  For example, the more essences (aspects) of the pedagogical encounter become observable the clearer this appears as a structure of the pedagogical situation.

Co-essentiality⁽³⁾ means that one essence has its own being-such-and-such in relation to the being-such-and-such of the other essences, however, not in the sense that the being-such-and-such of one essence can be derived from another but in the sense that one essence contributes to allowing another essence to appear in its unique being-such-and-such.  Each essence possesses its own being-such-and-such in relation to other essences.  For example, the relationship of trust is what it is because it is connected essentially to the relationship of authority.  Thus, if there were no connection between the relationship of trust and authority the relationship of trust would be different.  For example, the essence of trust "taking action" [i.e., "active acceptance"] cannot appear in the absence of the essence of authority "being told" because an educator's refusal to tell a child what he ought to do or "being told" will lead immediately to alienation which is an essence of mistrust [distrust].

Co-existentiality requires a mutual/common being-there

When two essences only can be-there if they are related to each other, they also must possess a mutual being-there by which both mutual parts include each other, and when they are made different and dealt with as separate realities, as independent things apart from each other, then there no longer are any real [functioning] essences.⁽⁴⁾  This mutual being-there can be called a structure.  For example, the essences "application and experience of restraint" and "presentation of a new way of living [life style]" have a mutual being-there in the structure "intervention".  In the same way, it can be said that the relationship, sequence, activity and aim structure have their mutual being-there in a pedagogical situation.

Co-essentiality requires a common/mutual being-such-and-such

If essences only possess their own being-such-and-such in relation to other essences then they must also possess a shared being-such-and-such.⁽⁵⁾  When this is not the case, one is not involved with the real essentials of a particular being (structure or situation).  Thus, in order to be real essentials of the pedagogical relationship, sequence, activity and aim structures, the being-such-and-such of each has to be described pedagogically.  Only those essences whose actualizations lead to proper adulthood can be essences of the fundamental pedagogical structures.  For example, if a child can attain proper adulthood without the actualization of "norm identification", it cannot be a real pedagogical essence.  Then, the being-such-and-such of "norm identification" would be considered non-pedagogical in nature.

Co-existentiality (being-there together) and co-essentiality (being-such-and-such), in addition, require a common/mutual ontological sense

That is to say, there is mention of sense that a pedagogician runs across when he reflects on the essences in their being-there and being-such-and-such.  This does not involve sense that a person has created but what he realizes by meaningful activities and which he can actualize.⁽⁶⁾  Such an ontological sense can be shown for each independent structure.⁽⁷⁾  Thus, for example it makes sense that in the pedagogical sequence there will be simultaneity otherwise educator and child will never appear with each other and if that were so, there could not be a pedagogically meaningful event.  The educator makes sure that he actualizes the meaningfulness of simultaneity by him being in the presence of the child.  That is, the educator implements the essence "simultaneity" in its being-such-and-such (as this is in reality, namely, presence at the same place and time) and its being-there: simultaneity as essentiality has then become simultaneity as existentiality.  Further, this means that the educator has to know the being-such-and-such of each pedagogic structure to the extent that it is knowable; thus he has to understand their real essentiality (essence status), meanings and relationships so he can bring about their being-there, thus put them in the present to be actualized.  Thus, it is expected that an expert educator have knowledge of pedagogical essences (knowledge of being-such-and-such) and a readiness to actualize essences (actualizing their being-there).

The real pedagogical essences are there, i.e., in pedagogical situations because they are what they are, i.e., because they are pedagogical in nature: the being-there of the essences is possible on the basis of their being-such-and-such.  On the other hand, real pedagogical essences are as they are, i.e., pedagogical in nature, because they are there where they are, i.e., in pedagogic situations: the being-such-and-such of the essences is possible on the basis of their being-there.

2. SOME METHODOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS

As far as the being-such and such of the essences is concerned the following can be noted:  a particular aim of phenomenology is to be a science of essences.  The phenomenologist wants to describe the essential structure of concrete situations and in doing so bring phenomenological facts (ontic entities, ontic essences) to light.⁽⁸⁾

As a methodology the aim is to acquire a grasp of essences and this grasp is philosophy.⁽⁹⁾  As a particular philosophy of education, and viewed in this light, Fundamental Pedagogics has the aim of acquiring a grasp of the essential-pedagogical.  Now, which essences are pedagogical in nature; i.e., from which essences' being-there in a pedagogical situation seem in their being-such and such to be pedagogical in nature?

Husserl's slogan was "to the things themselves" which points to the recognition of essences as constitutive data that can be encountered.⁽¹⁰⁾ From this the conviction (supposition) is that matters have an essential(s) of their own of which a phenomenological grasp can be acquired.  A purely phenomenological science then is essence-investigating and the phenomenologist is in a position to identify⁽¹¹⁾ essences and their essential relationships with objective validity and to avoid prejudgment that really is a blindness for essences.⁽¹²⁾  Fundamental Pedagogics strives to be a science of essences of the pedagogical situation.  It will not contrive or speculatively construct essences but it reads them from the given pedagogical situation itself.⁽¹³⁾  By applying the phenomenological method⁽¹⁴⁾ and other methods* that also are meaningful, Fundamental Pedagogics searches for fundamentalia (essences) of the phenomenon of educating that show themselves as educative events in educational situations.  Fundamental Pedagogics, then, is a science of fundamentalia of the educational situation, as such, that searches, by thinking, for the structures (and their essences along with their interrelationships) that constitute the "educator-ness" of the educator and the educability of the child.  It searches phenomenologically for the being-such-and-such, the being-there and the relationships of what is characteristic of the pedagogic, i.e., what is evident of all situations in which children are lead and guided by adults to proper adulthood.  From this sense, it now seems that research has to be focused on the meaning of real pedagogical essences as existentialia of the reality of educating.

3. REAL PEDAGOGICAL ESSENCES AS (EXISTENTIALIA) EXISTENTIALS**

(1) If it is said that a real pedagogical essence is an existential of the pedagogical situation, in the first place this acknowledges that it really exists and this means it can be recognized as really functioning by someone who stands in the reality of educating with open eyes.⁽¹⁶⁾  Its being-there is undeniable and unquestionable.  The true being of an essence is determined by its true existence, thus from its durability and unchangeability.  The Greek aletheia refers to the unhiddenness of a being.  Unhiddenness, as being disclosed, guarantees the possibility of the durability and unchangeability of essences coming to light.  Unhiddenness is an illumination of the presence (being-there) of a durability and unchangeability, thus of essentiality.⁽¹⁷⁾   Hence, in everyday educative situations "taking-action-in-function"⁽¹⁸⁾ is seen as durable and unchangeable.  This taking action that is actualized between educator and the children appears clearly, e.g., in the way they address each other:  Educator: "Come here so I can help you."  Child:  "Mom, please come here and help me", etc.

(2) To qualify as an existential, a real pedagogical essence has to possess ontological status.⁽¹⁹⁾  This means that knowledge of such an essence is a precondition for authentically understanding the educative event.  For example, educating cannot be grasped authentically if a relationship of authority is absent; the relationship of authority is incomprehensible if the essence "obedience" is left out of account and is absent from understanding it.  This absence impedes its actualization or even makes it impossible.  Thus, "relationship of authority" and "obedience" each have ontological status. Further, this status refers to the fact that real essences are structures of being and thus are necessary for the educative event to be, thus to appear in its fullness, meaningfulness and universality.  Briefly, these essences are fundamentalia of educating.

Ontological = ontos + logos.  Ontos: these essences comply with demands of reality in the sense that they have a particular reality-status, namely the status of being necessary for something to be and the reality of educating becomes visible through them.  Logos: these essences comply with logical demands because by thinking them away there can no longer be logical (consistent with the demands of Logic) reasoning about the pedagogic.

(3) In the third place, an essence is an existential if it is a conveyer of meaning.⁽²⁰⁾  It gives meaning to the structure (i.e., situation) of which it is an essence and, in addition, it also is a condition for understanding such a structure.  Thus, the essence "disapproval-of-the-objectionable"⁽²¹⁾ gives the particular meaning to the pedagogic intervention that it has, thus to its way of being.  In the absence of disapproval of the objectionable, pedagogic intervention cannot be grasped in its fullness and be actualized.

(4) In the fourth place, as an existential a real essence is a particular unconcealed presence (although concealed initially) that is maintained and appears in this unconcealedness and, therefore, is illuminated--an essence, then, is an illuminated presence.⁽²²⁾  A real pedagogical essence is a light that appears in pedagogical situations.  The pedagogical essences are appearing points of light in those situations and the educator acts in their light.  They cast a light on the path he has to follow and this path is essence actualizing.  In this sense an essence functions as a demand.  Its appearing presence makes an appeal to be complied with.⁽²³⁾  This is an appeal to actualization and the educator who experiences "Engagement"⁽²⁴⁾ heeds this appeal.  This is his calling to obey the appeal and actualize the essences.

(5) In the fifth place, as an existential the real essence is a possibility.  It has the character of possibility and thus makes something else possible.⁽²⁵⁾  This means an essence has existential status because it is a particular precondition (ground⁽²⁶⁾) for educating to be fully actualized.  Further, one essence is the ground (ground structure)⁽²⁷⁾ for actualizing another essence or essences.  For example, the essence "being a co-traveler" is really actualized on the basis of "being a co-standee".  If being a co-standee ("Come stand by me so I can help you") is a precondition for actualizing being a co-traveler ("Come now with me on the way to proper adulthood") the two essences are co-existential.

A possibility creates other possibilities in the sense that one possibility brings to light, along with it, other possibilities belonging to the same reality.⁽²⁸⁾  A real pedagogical essence is merely a possibility because it is in such a relationship with other essences (as other possibilities) that its being-there actualizes the being-there of other essences (= co-existentiality).  For example, "approving the approvable" allows the possibilities of "the experience of concurrence", "presentation of perseverance" and "enhancing a sense of propriety" to appear.⁽²⁹⁾  To be actualized these essences first must be-there as possibilities in pedagogical situations.⁽³⁰⁾

(6) Because a human being is an aim setting being, the existentiality of a pedagogical essence indicates that its actualization can be seen as a meaningful and necessary aim.  To be an authentic aim, real pedagogical essences have to meet the following requirements, among others:

(a) they have to be able to serve as a principle according to which the educating is guided.  For example, an educator who sets the aim of actualizing "unconditional norm identification", "attunement to a philosophy of life", "judging from a standpoint",  "understanding norms", "living the demands of propriety" and "obedience to a philosophy of life" is in an authentic position to actualized "exemplification of norms"⁽³¹⁾ which is a precondition for guiding a child in the direction of proper adulthood.

(b) they have to be concrete-visible examples⁽³²⁾ for acting.  Thus, the educator who, by exemplifying, explaining and creating opportunities for emulating, sets the aim of actualizing "movement toward exertion", "dynamic participation", "taking responsibility",  "attunement to the demands of propriety", "conquering passivity", "choice for exertion", "living the demands of propriety" concretizes the essence "gradual breaking away from lack of exertion"⁽³³⁾ and makes it visible to the child.

(c) for the participants in the event of educating they must be an obligatory matter.  For example, the participants who set the aim of noticing and accepting "a trusting encounter", "an authority acknowledging encounter", "an understanding encounter", "giving meaning together", "co-living the demands of propriety", "venturing together-with-courage" and "accepting responsibility", as particular demands of propriety in combination will be able to actualize the essence "pedagogic venturing together"⁽³⁴⁾ and there can be a meaningful venturing in the direction of proper adulthood.  This means that these participants will value this as worthwhile and enable them directly to experience and accept the demands this requires of them.⁽³⁵⁾  Since the will opposes such experience and acceptance, these participants continually have to make personal choices to subject themselves to these demanding and normative requirements.  When the pedagogic essences really          are worthwhile to these participants, they can function as norms (demands of propriety) for the will and they can promote being-a-person if the will is directed by a philosophy of life to these essentials as pedagogically worthwhile.⁽³⁶⁾

(d) through effort they have to be achieved and actualized  as adequately as possible.⁽³⁷⁾  For example, an educator shows by his explanation and presentation that he has actualized "appreciation of possibilities", "unfolding of possibilities", and "functionalizing of possibilities" and continually works on their adequate actualization.  Only then can "designing possibilities toward adulthood"⁽³⁸⁾ be a meaningful aim for him.

(e) they have to represent a striving.  A person's being-in-the-world is characterized by a being directed to something.  This being directed can be called a striving and essentially is an "I direct myself to something that still has to be actualized".             Thus, here is mention of a being directed to a goal.⁽³⁹⁾  In this light it can be said that pedagogic essences are aims and that the participants in the educative event strive to actualize them.

Setting an aim always involves something being other than it is and indeed something that has to be different.  For example, an essence as possibility has to be actualized.  Essences appear as something to be actualized and the aim is to actualize them.  This having to be different involves much more--it is an ought to be different and so as an aim, actualizing becomes a demand of what ought to be.  This means that the participants in the educative event are called to making something different.  Essence-as-possibility has to be made (designed) into a realizable essence.  Actualizing as an aim (striving) then is a task and because actualizing is a task it points to a further move: with each pedagogic essence that is actualized there is additional movement in the direction of actualizing the aim of educating, namely, proper adulthood.⁽⁴⁰⁾  Such actualizing is possible because the participants who are called to do so exist in the pedagogic situation and thus are privileged to be able to put themselves into a relationship with the essences.⁽⁴¹⁾  This requires essence-knowledge (thus conquering essence-blindness) by the educator and "Engagement" as a personal choice to accept the task of actualizing essences.  Essence actualization is possible because essences are operative, a functioning reality.⁽⁴²⁾  In this sense actualizing is allowing the essence to function.  The educator who has knowledge of pedagogical essences knows that his active representation of pedagogical essences makes possible an adequately functioning pedagogical situation.  This framework of essences⁽⁴³⁾ makes the pedagogical situation an existential field⁽⁴⁴⁾ for him within which these essences become existential ways (particular ways) of being human.⁽⁴⁵⁾

(7) Essences are existentialia because they are universalia.   What is meant by this?

When there is mention of general validity (universality) this does not mean a so-called eternal, unchanging and fixed lawfulness.  The general validity of an essence means that it is in principle valid, thus common to and indispensable for all educative situations: it is experienced⁽⁴⁷⁾ as characteristic of these essences that they are valid for all authentic educating and thus are a precondition (fundamental) for actualizing all meaningful child guiding as well as being repeatable⁽⁴⁸⁾ everywhere where adults guide children in the direction of proper adulthood.  Thus, general validity implies an avoidance of non-essentials⁽⁴⁹⁾ and a thinking search for essentials.  It is this search that can be described as scientific.⁽⁵⁰⁾ That which is generally valid (pedagogical essences) can be made particularly valid by giving them particular content.  For example, "pedagogic intervention", which is experienced as common to, indispensable for and repeatable in all authentic educative situations acquires particular validity and enlivenment (life) for a Protestant-Christian educator when through his Bible studies he notices the following: "In general admonition (intervention) means to lead a Christian away from that which is wrong and to do what is good."  A Christian educator knows: "We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ" (Colossians 1:28).  The following can be an appeal to a child to cooperate in the educative intervention: " ... respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you"; and "Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work" (1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13).  

4. FORMS OF ESSENCE BLINDNESS

A pedagogue aware of essences knows there has to be a vigilance against formalism, essentialism, structuralism and system thinking.

(a) Formalism

Generally valid structures also can be called forms and further there is mention of generally valid (universals) and particular accepted contents and a knowledge that "we do need universals in order to talk about particulars".⁽⁵¹⁾  Thus, there is a distinction between form and content.

The separation between changing contents and enduring forms (general structures) is always relative and cannot be made absolute.⁽⁵²⁾  Therefore, here there is mention only of a distinction and not of a separation.  The contents come to expression in the form and arise therein so that the form determines which contents fit it.  When contents are not taken into account and the form thus is absolutized one falls into a formalism with its meaningless absence of contents.  Form and content together constitute a meaningful whole (Gabriel) and there is not an empty, fixed form (thus without content) and a labile, deterioration of contents (thus without form).  Life points to a meaningful whole where the ordering of form and the depth of contents constitute a synthesis (Wisser).  There is talk of a synthesis of static, ordering forms and dynamic contents (von Rintelen) by which these forms (structures) are drawn into personal existences.  This "will draw in" is an essential characteristic of authentic existence and a denial of this is existential formalism (Wisser).⁽⁵³⁾  Warnach indicates that an unbiased phenomenological analysis clearly shows that each being has two irreducible but profoundly connected ground moments where one follows the other: first a taking in, carrying moment (form) and, second, a content-giving moment.  A being always is an essentiality (essence) that acquires embodiment in a carrier (form, structure) and thus becomes a reality.  The structure is receptive to contents.  Warnach says that when an essence now enters into a structure and becomes its content it loses its universality in the sense that it becomes individualized, i.e., it becomes the content of this particular structure.⁽⁵⁴⁾  For example, when the essences "experiencing security", "gratitude for experiencing security", "security because of acceptance and because of loving presence" are taken into the structure of "gratitude or thankfulness for pedagogic security",⁽⁵⁵⁾ these essences become its contents.  The structure "gratitude for pedagogic security" is universal in so far as its various essences (contents) can be discernible.⁽⁵⁶⁾  There is a polar tension between a structure (form) and its essences (contents) by which it is possible to elevate contents empty of structure and for contents to become independent realities.  These contents can be more or less universal.⁽⁵⁷⁾  Thus, there is mention of universal and particular valid contents, the denial of which leads to formalism.

From the above and from the relevant literature it is clear that Fundamental Pedagogics is no formalism just because it accentuates:

(i) no separation between form and content;

(ii) no absolutizing of either form or content;

(iii) rejection of formlessness;

(iv) rejection of labile deterioration of contents;

(v) synthesis of static, ordering forms and dynamic contents;

(vi) structures as carrying moments; and

(vii) contents becoming reality by being taken into structure.

(b) Essentialism

There has to be a distinction between essence thinking and essentialism.

Essence thinking is authentic phenomenological (i.e., essence revealing) thinking with the knowledge that authentic understanding in reality is knowledge of essences in their meanings and relations.  Essence thinking is further characterized by a stand against essence blindness because of prejudgment (Husserl), general talk, ambiguity, superficial curiosity and confidence (Heidegger).  The essence thinker notices that in thinking about, e.g., the reality of educating there only are two possibilities: either it involves the essentials (essences) or not.  Either that which is essential to educating is sought or there is an involvement with non-essentials and this is not science.

Essentialism is a particular "ism" and, as such, it is guilty of absolutizing.  The following are a few indications of essentialism against which the pedagogue must be vigilant:

(i) that only the pedagogical essences that he has revealed have essence status and an unquestionable right to exist;

(ii) that he is absolutely certain that each essence that he has disclosed clearly has essence status;

(iii) that all of the disclosed essences necessarily have to be actualized before there can be mention of educating; and

(iv) that essences are separate entities each of which has to be actualized in its isolatedness in order to guide a child to proper adulthood.  The mutual relations (meaningful relations) among essences indicating that one is a precondition for actualizing another are denied by essentialism.

Fundamental Pedagogics is no essentialism but a particular form of essence-pedagogics because it has overcome the mentioned absolutizing and is authentic essence disclosing thought.

(c) Structuralism

There must be a distinction between structure analysis and structuralism.

Structure analysis is authentic pedagogical work as is apparent from the following pronouncements by pedagogicians:  M. J. Langeveld⁽⁵⁸⁾ explains that Theoretical Pedagogics involves a phenomenological illumination of particular structural ground relationships.  N. Perquin⁽⁵⁹⁾ says it must be verified whether educating shows a structure, that is, if it possesses particular characteristic qualities that are mutually related and all together exist as a substantial whole.  J. Derbolav⁽⁶⁰⁾ indicates that pedagogical structure theory, among other things, is concerned with categorical moments in the pedagogic situation such as the formability of a child, the mediating role of the educator and the claims of reality.  W. Klafki⁽⁶¹⁾ agrees and indicates that W. Dilthey used the concept structure and described it as a meaningful, functioning interconnection of meaning-carrying moments.  Klafki, himself, talks of a structure analysis that only is possible if the person who undertakes it has experienced and understood the sense of that which is called educating and even is involved in the exercise and accountability of it.  H. Blankertz⁽⁶²⁾ is convinced that all conditions for the success of educative activities have to be made rationally obvious and that this occurs by a structure analysis.  H. Hauke⁽⁶³⁾ indicates that an insight into the dialectic fundamental structure of the pedagogic leads to the conclusion that in Pedagogics theory and practice are inseparably intertwined, that a science of education and educational reality imply each other.  For D. Hoelterschinken⁽⁶⁴⁾ it is the task of a science of education to methodically unlock or reveal the reality of educating and to penetrate and systematically disclose its structures.  F. van der Stoep:⁽⁶⁵⁾ "As is the case with any other phenomenon, an event such as educating is assembled, constructed or constituted by particular structures or categories that make it possible for a thinker to make the pronouncement: that is educating."  M. C. H. Sonnekus:⁽⁶⁶⁾ "It also must be noted that the aim of this work is seen as a search for a categorical structure of Psychopedagogics as an area of knowledge of the Pedagogic ... " C. K. Oberholzer:⁽⁶⁷⁾ "The question is how the structure looks out of which the pedagogic event arises and vise versa: how must the structure look to allow the event of educating to arise."  W. A. Landman: "Phenomenological description and hermeneutics also are fundamental structure disclosing reflections.  The practitioner of Fundamental Pedagogics will allow authentic structures to arise from the reality of educating which are the preconditions for its being, thus for the total being-there and sense of the pedagogic in its unhiddenness ... "⁽⁶⁸⁾  "The thinker has to bring about clarity.  Clarity requires openness and a fight against darkness.  Openness guarantees the accessibility of thinking to what is reflected on, e.g., the pedagogic structures in their real essentiality.  The real essences of these structures and their meaningful relations must appear and be a presence--they must shine."⁽⁶⁹⁾

How is the structure analysis to be distinguished from structuralism?  What is meant by structuralism?

A fundamental axiom of structure analysis is that a structure is a dynamic, functioning basic given, thus is a reality that is objectively available and can be revealed subjectively.⁽⁷⁰⁾  Structuralism begins when "subjective variations" are excluded.  The subject is eliminated.⁽⁷¹⁾  In this light it can be said that Fundamental Pedagogics will fall into a structuralism if it denies the necessity of giving particular contents to the structures (with their essences and their meaningful relations) to enliven them.  Structuralism expounds a sort of all-sufficiency of fundamentalia and, as such, is absolutizing.  The following basic axiom clearly points to the anti-structuralism of Fundamental Pedagogics: "awakening to life" (enlivenment) is a hermeneutic step.  It gives an additional interpretation to the essences of educating.⁽⁷²⁾  "As a precondition for being able to actualize pedagogic activities (pedagogic activity structures) an authentic philosophy of life that underlies, directs and steers them so that they are goal-directed has to be seen."⁽⁷³⁾  "The essences of a philosophy of life serve as life-giving (enlivening) contents of the essences of educating."⁽⁷⁴⁾  All of these pronouncements refer to subjectivity (not to subjectivism!).

Structuralism is further characterized by the autonomy of the acting subject (e.g., the educator) being replaced by the autonomy of the structures.  The "I" (e.g., of the educator) as a constitutive power then is disregarded.⁽⁷⁵⁾  The anti-structuralism of Fundamental Pedagogics in this sense appears in stressing that the educator is an actualizer, a maker of a practice based on fundamentalia.⁽⁷⁶⁾  In addition, when there is reference to the educator as a mover who designs and intensifies movements of actualization in a field of tension of essences of educating as particular values guided by a philosophy of life⁽⁷⁷⁾---the educator decidedly is not powerless before structures!

(d) System thinking

There is a distinction between system thinking and systematics.

Systematics: Primarily the phenomenological method is a search for essences (with their meaningful relations) and is not a system.  Only secondarily is it determined if the essences can be incorporated into a system, always with the recognition that no system can adequately reflect the essence of being a person (being an educator)--the openness of essences must be maintained.

The search for essences that can be systematically ordered is a thinking search, and thinking essentially is systematic because it involves reality (i.e., real essences) that has to be manifested and made surveyable.  One searches for the natural systematics that are in the matter itself (e.g., the reality of educating) but always with the knowledge that a true system as a decisive whole of knowledge of a particular reality never will be attained.⁽⁷⁹⁾

The thinking search for essences (and their meaningful relations) is a dynamic matter.  There is a dynamic strategy that is actualized by which a field of reality (e.g., the reality of educating) is made distinguishable and is organized; e.g., pedagogical essences are organized in the form of pedagogical structures and thereby are made distinguishable from other life world essences and from non-essentials.  This does not involve a mere compilation of available facts but an ordering of what occurs under a particular perspective (e.g., a pedagogical perspective) and from this way of ordering their tenability or untenability appear.  Tenability means that this ordering (organization) has to be an event by which a true-to-reality structuring of essences becomes clear.⁽⁸⁰⁾

The thinking search for essences and most of the true-to-life ways of ordering are practicing science.  All practicing of science requires a systematic approach.⁽⁸¹⁾  All systematics, however, fall under the demands of projectivity, i.e., its results always are provisional and self-transcending made possible by proceeding dialectically.⁽⁸²⁾  In science, also Pedagogics, this has to do with an open system because the scientist does not stop making new discoveries.⁽⁸³⁾  "Open" then refers to the recognition of historical development and further advancement through reflection.  It also refers to a being open to criticism.⁽⁸⁴⁾

By system thinking is meant the contrary of the above and the following are some of its characteristics:

(i) System thinking assumes that the essence of being human (being an educator and an educand) can be grasped            (understood) by a system.  Among other things, this can mean that being human is equated with a particular system chosen and necessarily will lead to a reduction of humanness (being an educator) to less than what it is in reality and in doing so one easily can fall into ideas that are caricatures.  In this sense, system thinking is a form of essence blindness.  Fundamental Pedagogics is anti-system thinking because it emphasizes that a person (educationist, educator and child) is openness⁽⁸⁵⁾ and, as such, is impossible to capture in a system;

(ii) In the second place, system thinking is characterized as a forcedness.  A system is forced on a particular aspect of reality (e.g., the reality of educating) that is not itself situated in the system.  In this sense any way of thinking that tries to make Pedagogics an applied science can be described as system thinking on account of essence blindness.  Fundamental Pedagogics is anti-system thinking because it stresses and shows the autonomy⁽⁸⁶⁾ of the Pedagogic;

(iii) System thinking occurs when there is a dogmatic assumption that complete knowledge is already possessed, i.e.,      that a formal system can be entirely autonomous and completely closed.  Consequently, system thinking is a type of formalism.⁽⁸⁷⁾  Previously it was noted that Fundamental Pedagogics is anti-formalism.⁽⁸⁸⁾  On the other hand, an educational doctrine is decidedly dogmatic in nature and it is a particular pedagogic system⁽⁸⁹⁾ that must make claims having dogma status.  It is the very nature of a particular educational doctrine to make dogmatic pronouncements and prescriptions.⁽⁹⁰⁾  System thinking in the case of educational doctrine is undeniable but then there also is no more movement in the terrain of the science of education based on a doctrine;

(iv) Finally, system thinking sometimes is characterized by the opinion that openness means a suspension and switching off of scientific reflection and thus ignores being scientific.⁽⁹¹⁾  On account of essence blindness, system thinking points to a maximum of speculation and a minimum of being connected with reality itself (reality of educating), and essences will be viewed as nothing more than merely rational constructions.⁽⁹²⁾  Fundamental Pedagogics is fundamental precisely because it stresses phenomenological reflection⁽⁹³⁾ and the fact that pedagogical essences are particular realities that are found in the life world.⁽⁹⁴⁾ 

Fundamental Pedagogics, then, is characterized by:

(1) Essence disclosing thinking;

(2) Seeing the co-existentiality and co-essentiality of real pedagogical essences;

(3) Disclosing the fact of being that pedagogical essences are particular existentialia;

(4) Radical rejection of all forms of essence blindness such as:

(a) formalism;

(b) essentialism;

(c) structuralism;

(d) systemism.