Teaching and the Barricades to Inquiry

Two Key Virtues

Once a good question makes its way onto the philosophical agenda, it proves to have remarkable staying power. This is connected with what makes it a good philosophical question in the first place, one that raises an intriguing problem for which a fully satisfactory solution is bewilderingly elusive. Fresh versions of the problem appear and solutions temporarily gain favor only to pass into obscurity. It is useful from time to time to remind ourselves of an early formulation of the question to regain a sense of what is at the heart of the issue.

The problem of how to identify or characterize a good teacher made its way into philosophy early on in the emergence of the subject in Western culture. Socrates formulated the issue in the following way when remarking on the fact that a friend had spent a considerable sum of money sending his sons to the Sophists for instruction: "But now, since they are two human beings, whom have you in mind to get as overseer? Who has knowledge of that kind of excellence, that of a man and a citizen?" (Plato, Apology 20b, qtd. in Fowler, 1960). Socrates drew attention to the fact that the matter of education is complex and controversial, with the result that the selection of a teacher raises questions that are deeply problematic and philosophical. What are the qualities or virtues we expect teachers to have?

Interest in this question is generated by both philosophical and pragmatic considerations. With something as fundamental and omnipresent as teaching, there is the challenge of trying to develop and articulate an adequate account of the relevant virtues, an account that reflects and supports a defensible notion of education. As we should be well aware, there are dire consequences if we fall victim to an impoverished view of the qualities teachers need. In Canada, for example, we are still coming to terms with the fact that, in recent memory, a person who was known to be propounding anti-Semitic ideas in the classroom was, nevertheless, widely regarded as a good teacher. ¹ Superficial criteria usurped the place of more fundamental qualities and virtues, which philosophers of education have identified and defended.

Notwithstanding the distinguished origins of the question and the enormous interest it continues to generate, it may be suggested that it is time to set the question aside. It will be objected that different students and different realities require different sorts of teachers, hence there is no useful, general answer to the question of what qualities teachers need; that for any quality or virtue one might propose, one can think of circumstances or personalities where its opposite would be desirable; and that possession of such virtues is, in any case, no guarantee that teachers will be able to cope with the ambiguities and complexities of practice. And so on.

These are important points and they help to put the significance of the virtues into perspective. I have considered related objections elsewhere (Hare, 1995), and will limit myself here to remarking that the two virtues discussed below, open-mindedness and critical ability, are not to be thought of as a blueprint for success in teaching; they are vital just because good teaching does not lend itself to what Paulo Freire called a formulaic interpretation and application. These virtues do not presuppose a world of sameness and certainty; they serve teachers well just because they have the potential to help us respond to the situational context and changing circumstances of practice and experience. The elusive character of these qualities, and the uncertainty we feel with respect to ways in which they can be promoted, may be readily conceded; it does not follow that these virtues are not worth holding out as ideals that may serve to inspire the work of teachers.

There is a tendency in some quarters, however, to think that such pedagogical virtues need no philosophical clarification or defense because their merits are...