Abstract
The point of departure for this paper is the well-known analytic requirement of R. S. Peters, more fully expounded in epistemic and curriculum terms by P. H. Hirst, that any activity claiming to be must also be, in some minimal sense of the word, rational-that is, concerned with the development of mind. This requirement is usually taken to mean that educational and curriculum activities must be justified in relation to recognizable public criteria. Because in a social and economic climate which is increasingly rationalistic and accountability-oriented the expressive and performing arts either do not meet these criteria or do not acknowledge their validity, the expressive and performing arts become ready-made targets for the efficiency experts. It is against this context that G. H. Bantock's articulation of 'expression' in the arts has some relevance. Although Bantock was one of the first English educational theorists to assess what has become, arguably, the dominant movement in contemporary educational theory,1 there are nevertheless some salutary features about his conceptualization of the status of 'expression' in the arts which strengthen their case in terms of the ground marked out by educational philosophers of the so-called London school. This paper is limited in scope to analyzing and elaborating these general features. The precise extent to which Bantock's articulation strengthens the case for a rational justification of the arts will be left unanswered, if only because of the complexity of the task and the accompanying difficulty in confining the discussion to a short, exploratory type of paper. However, it is hoped that some general appreciation of the educational importance of Bantock's position will emerge.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call