Michael O. Begun

Leveling vs. Levelness: On Nietzsche’s Teaching, Inclusive Excellence, and Democratic Outcomes

Introduction

Leveling vs. Levelness: on nietzsche’s teaching, inclusive excellence, and democratic outcomes. Nietzsche's education philosophy: 'leveling' vs. 'levelness.' Connects to outcomes-based learning, inclusive excellence, and democratic outcomes for modern teaching.

Abstract

In this essay, I follow the work of Jonas and Yacek in Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Education by contrasting a process of leveling in morality and education with an approach to levelness in teaching and learning as these relate to the educational philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. While Nietzsche would oppose the former due to its implied uniform standardization, I argue, with reference to the work of educational psychologist John B. Biggs, that his philosophy of education could sustain an outcomes-based approach to teaching and learning. While I hold that Nietzsche’s reflections on his own teaching practice evidence clear sympathy for such an approach, I consider two potential objections against its ascription to Nietzsche. In response to the deeper, second objection, which considers whether an outcomes-based approach to education entails some form of uniform standardization akin to that implied by the leveling process, I propose that a democratic reading of Nietzsche’s perfectionism together with the model of inclusive excellence proposed by Williams et al. may provide a more fitting standard. I conclude by reflecting on the potential democratic outcomes, as noted by Gurin et al., of developing a Nietzschean approach to teaching and learning based on such a standard of inclusive excellence.

Review

This essay undertakes an intriguing and timely re-evaluation of Friedrich Nietzsche's educational philosophy, distinguishing sharply between "leveling" — a process of uniform standardization he would vehemently oppose — and "levelness," posited as an outcomes-based approach to teaching and learning that the author argues Nietzsche could surprisingly endorse. The core contribution lies in meticulously building a case for Nietzsche's potential compatibility with modern educational methodologies, particularly by leveraging his own teaching practices and addressing two critical objections. By framing a "democratic reading of Nietzsche’s perfectionism" alongside the model of inclusive excellence, the paper offers a novel pathway to understanding how a philosopher often associated with elitism might contribute to democratic educational outcomes. The paper's strength lies in its ambitious and interdisciplinary synthesis, weaving together Nietzschean scholarship, educational psychology (specifically John B. Biggs' work on outcomes-based learning), and contemporary discussions on inclusive excellence and democratic education. The attempt to reconcile Nietzsche's complex, often challenging, thought with progressive educational ideals is particularly commendable and thought-provoking. The explicit consideration of potential objections demonstrates intellectual rigor, while the proposed solution of a "democratic reading of Nietzsche’s perfectionism" and the integration of inclusive excellence provide a sophisticated framework for navigating what could otherwise appear as irreconcilable tensions within educational philosophy. While the abstract promises a compelling argument, the full paper would benefit from a more detailed articulation of how "democratic perfectionism" precisely functions within a Nietzschean framework, especially in practice, and how it definitively guards against the dangers of standardization inherent in *some* interpretations of outcomes-based education. Further elaboration on the specific mechanisms through which "inclusive excellence" (Williams et al.) aligns with and moderates Nietzschean ideas, as well as a more concrete illustration of the "Nietzschean approach to teaching and learning" it advocates, would strengthen the practical implications. Clarifying these conceptual bridges will be crucial to fully convincing the reader of the viability and distinctiveness of this proposed educational paradigm.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.