This is a wandering and wondering post.
I often wondered through my career in education, whether it is possible to teach ‘wonder’ in schools. I always thought not.
In his book, The Master and His Emissary (p. 178), Iain McGilchrist quotes Arne Naess as saying, ‘Philosophy begins and ends with wondering – profound wondering.’ And Aristotle wrote ‘For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin, and at first began, to philosophize.’ Also, in ‘The Master and His Emissary’ McGilchrist quotes other philosophers as making similar statements, e.g. Descartes, Wittgenstein, Goethe, Plato, Heidegger.
This suggests that it must be important that children have some experience of a sense of wonder, as it would seem linked to curiosity, a questioning approach to life, and a search for meaning. In other words, children need to be taught to philosophise. But philosophy, if taught at all in our UK schools, seems to be a very low priority subject.
I have a friend who has told me that she has never felt a sense of wonder or awe and that she doesn’t know what it is. From this, can we assume that there are children in our schools who never have an experience of wonder? Can this be true or is it that the language we use is confusing? Is wondering (profound or not) the same as a sense or experience of wonder, and is wonder the same experience as awe? Can children/adults experience awe, wonder and enchantment without knowing it, or is it more that we don’t have the language to express this?
Patrick Curry uses the word enchantment to encompass the experience of awe and wonder, saying that there are degrees of intensity of enchantment from charm to delight to deep enchantment (which we sometimes refer to as joy, or awe). Enchantment is not the same as happiness or pleasure.
In a recent conversation with Iain McGilchrist on YouTube, Patrick Curry draws on his recently published book, Art and Enchantment: How Wonder Works, to explain what he means by this.
I haven’t read his book, but there are points in this video which I think could usefully be noted by teachers when thinking about ensuring that children have experiences of enchantment in their classrooms.
One of the key points that came out of this video for me, is that enchantment (wonder) cannot be willed. A teacher cannot write a lesson plan to teach wonder! Enchantment is not biddable. It cannot be managed or organised or put to work. Nobody is in charge, but it does require a participatory relationship, in the sense that we have to be open to it. It is personal and relational and takes the form of a meeting or encounter across a gap of differences.
Enchantment is a way of being in the world, of presencing. It is not about knowing but is ontological. As Wittgenstein thought, we’re better to wonder at things than believe that we know them. You can’t possess enchantment or be possessed by it. If you try and put it to work, it cannot bring its gift.
So, what attitude should we (teachers) adopt?
We must create the conditions which favour enchantment – fearless receptivity. We must help/encourage children (and adults) to stay open to it and pay attention to it if it does happen. We know that young children have it but then tend to lose it. Enchantment cannot be micromanaged or controlled. This is to lose it. You can’t make it happen, but you can stop it happening. It requires humility and wildness (which I equate to uncertainty). Ultimately enchantment is love, a non-possessive love, as necessary for the health of humans as sunlight is for life.
My interpretation of the discussion between Patrick Curry and Iain McGilchrist, when related to education and teaching, is that wonder cannot be taught, but the conditions for experiencing it can be created. These conditions will require the teacher to forego micromanagement and control, to realise that it will not be possible to have planned a learning objective for the lesson, or to assess the outcome of the lesson, to allow for a degree of ‘wildness’ and openness that might be unfamiliar to the teacher and children alike, and to ‘go with the flow’.
I’m not sure whether this is possible in today’s education system where everything is measured, and humanities subjects (philosophy in particular), seem to be awarded so little time in schools where the emphasis is on the STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Whilst the STEM subjects can also offer experiences of wonder and enchantment, perhaps we should reflect on Wittgenstein’s comment that ‘Man has to awaken to wonder – and so perhaps do peoples. Science is a way of sending him to sleep again.’ (quoted by McGilchrist on p.157, The Master and His Emissary).
‘Remember that life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but the moments that take our breath away’. (anonymous)
In this post I have not attempted to cover the conversation between Patrick Curry and Iain McGilchrist in any depth. For that please view the video and read their books:
References
Curry, P. (2023). Art and Enchantment: How Wonder Works (Contemporary Liminality). Routledge.
McGilchrist, I. (2009). The Master and his Emissary. The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. Yale University Press.