 | This articlemay requirecopy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist byediting it.(June 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Herman Nohl (October 7, 1879, inBerlin – September 27, 1960, inGöttingen) was a Germanphilosopher andpedagogue.
World War I was a major turning point in Herman Nohl's life. The consequences of the war and his involvement with the youth movement and thefolk high school prompted him to devote himself to pedagogy. He subsequently became one of the best-known representatives of reform pedagogy and humanities pedagogy. Nohl worked on establishing pedagogy as an independent science and the foundation of social pedagogy. He was dismissed from his post in 1937, but resumed his work in 1945. Nohl was Professor of Education at theUniversity of Göttingen, co-editor of the journalDie Erziehung and founder and editor of the journalDie Sammlung. He wrote several works on aesthetics, educational anthropology and pedagogy, withDie Pädagogische Bewegung in Deutschland und ihre Theorie being considered his main pedagogical work.
Herman Nohl came from a middle-class family who lived in an apartment on the grounds of the Berlinisches Gymnasium zum Grauen Kloster throughout his childhood and youth. His father Hermann Nohl was a grammar school teacher. His mother Gabriele Nohl (née Doepke) died in 1882. Herman Nohl had a total of four siblings, two (Johannes[1] and Ella) from his father's first marriage and two (Lotte and Hilde) from his second marriage to Elise (née Simon). Nohl metEduard Spranger at boarding school.In the summer semester of 1898, Nohl studiedmedicine in Berlin, but switched to theGeisteswissenschaften in the winter semester of 1898. He studied history, philosophy and German language and literature and studied withFriedrich Paulsen, among others. Paulsen offered Nohl the opportunity to go toDavos as a teacher after his studies, but Nohl had made contact withWilhelm Dilthey in 1901, with whom he established a firm working relationship. In 1902, Nohl decided to write adissertation onSocrates. On Dilthey's and Paulsen's recommendation, he was granted theJüngken-scholarship, which made him financially independent of his father. In August 1904, Nohl completed his dissertation entitledSocrates and Ethics (Sokrates und die Ethik). Nohl's first academic work was the compilation and arrangement of Hegel'sTheologischen Jugendschriften nach den Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek in Berlin which were printed in 1907.
In 1905, Herman Nohl married the pianist Bertha Oser fromVienna, a pupil ofClara Schumann and cousin ofLudwig Wittgenstein. This marriage ensured Nohl's continued financial independence.
Following Dilthey's recommendation toRudolf Eucken, the Nohl family moved to Jena in the fall of 1907, where Herman Nohl habilitated in 1908 with his thesis onDie Weltanschauungen der Malerei. Nohl spent his time in Jena until the beginning of theWorld War I, completing various academic works. During this time, Nohl also came into contact with theGerman youth movement. He became friends withEugen Diederichs and became acquainted withGustav Wyneken'sLanderziehungsheim inWickersdorf. Some of his students were active in the youth movement, which was important for the development of his pedagogy.[2]
Herman Nohl described his first experiences with the German youth movement in a separate chapter of his book Die pädagogische Bewegung in Deutschland und ihre Theorie published in 1935. In it, he saw this movement as outstanding, as it changed the relationship between pedagogy and the generations and had an educational effect on itself. Herman Nohl summarized the youth movement as part of a "German movement" that lasted over 150 years, which also included the Sturm und Drang and Romantic periods. It was a recurring epoch "in which the young forces of our people struggled for a new content in life".[3] This movement seeks "the new unity of a higher spiritual life, which ultimately takes root in the metaphysical foundation of our existence [...] and revives the dead forms of culture and reshapes them from within".[3] Herman Nohl saw parallels between the youngHerder, the youngGoethe and the youth movement, such as "the feeling of the obsolescence of the previous generation, the demand for a new youth, nature, art and religion as the three liberating powers, a new humanity that cannot be separated from an original German nationality, in which at the same time the contrasts between the classes and denominations that tear Germany apart are abolished." Nohl cited "the intrinsic importance of being young [...], the focus on the present and future [...] and, most importantly, a new belief in the nature of man" as the main characteristics of the movement. Nohl was a nature-loving person, which fitted in with the ideals of the youth movement. His own children were also active in theWandervogel and regularly went on hiking trips.
Nohl developed his first thoughts on a specifically educational relationship as early as 1914 in the essayDas Verhältnis der Generationen in der Pädagogik (The Relationship of Generations in Pedagogy), which is understood as a response to the youth movement's claim that young people could organize and lead themselves.[4] For Nohl, an educationally relevant relationship between the generations remained necessary, despite the right of the child and adolescent to their own rights.
The actual basis of pedagogical work lies in the relationship between the two generations, because it is not what it teaches, but precisely this real relationship itself that is its deepest content and its ultimate condition.
— Herman Nohl –Pädagogische Aufsätze[5]
In the summer of 1915, Herman Nohl was conscripted into the army as aLandsturm and stationed in a barracks inWeimar. He spent the war as part of the occupying army inGhent, where he was mainly assigned administrative tasks due to a knee injury and his short-sightedness. His initial enthusiasm for the war and conviction of its legitimacy changed over the course of the war and after the death of several friends. He realized how senseless and contradictory the war was when he met up with Belgian friends while soldiers from both countries were killing each other on thewestern front.
In November 1918, Nohl returned to Jena. As a result of his conversations with the people, he now devoted himself to popular education and became a founding member of the democraticfolk high school in Thuringia in 1919.
In the summer of 1919, at the instigation of his friendGeorg Misch, Herman Nohl became his successor at theUniversity of Göttingen in an extraordinary chair forpractical philosophy with a special focus on education. On May 8, 1922, he became a full professor of education. He remained in Göttingen until his forced dismissal from the civil service in 1937.
Nohl based his pedagogy on the concept of the customer (Kunde), a concept ofpre-scientific knowledge (vorwissenschaftlichen Wissens). According to this, education represents a reality of life that has always existed. The practice of education is therefore older thanscientificreflection on it and therefore has its own value. For theexperience of education (Erziehungserfahrung) is also the result of a possibly unconscious, but in each case very specific question.
Nohl's pedagogy was oriented towards the totality of pedagogical phenomena. He joined the Social Work Guild founded by his student Curt Bondy in 1925 and, together withAloys Fischer, Wilhelm Flitner,Theodor Litt andEduard Spranger, founded the journalDie Erziehung. Monatsschrift für den Zusammenhang von Kultur und Erziehung in Wissenschaft und Leben, which represented the representatives of a humanities-oriented pedagogy. Nohl was involved in the conception of the pedagogical academies reformed inPrussia in 1926 and, from 1928, published the five-volumeHandbuch der Pädagogik together with Ludwig Pallat. In 1929, Nohl sought a connection to practice by founding a home inLippoldsberg, which was affiliated to the pedagogical seminar in Göttingen. There, he held didactic courses for teachers in pedagogical seminars and combined theoretical knowledge with pedagogical practice.
Nohl intervened in the discussions surrounding the school reform of 1927 and formulated the postulate of the "relative autonomy" of education as a demarcation from political claims to power. Accordingly, education is primarily derived from the reality of education, which served Nohl as the starting point for a universally valid theory of education.[6] Dilthey's concept of education was based on the idea that education is a "planned activity through which adults seek to educate the souls of adolescents"[7] should be understood. According to Nohl, the reason for the autonomy of pedagogy lay in the "fact of educational reality as a meaningful whole". The pedagogical idea determines the meaning of that reality, and this also determines the independence of education and its boundary to other areas of society.[8] Pedagogy should therefore assess economic, religious or political interests fromits own point of view and reject them if necessary, and not subordinate itself to these interests.In 1931, Nohl presented a plan for a "national educational organization within the framework of aid to the East". Further lectures from 1931 and 1932, which were published in 1933 asLandbewegung, Osthilfe und die Aufgabe der Pädagogik, emphasized the national aspect of education.
Herman Nohl first used the specific term "pedagogical reference" in his (Sozialpädagogischen Vorträgen) lectures on social pedagogy in 1924 and 1925. In his 1924 lectureDie Pädagogik der Verwahrlosten (The Pedagogy of the Neglected), he named pedagogical reference as a possible cause of neglect, alongside disposition and milieu.[9] In 1925, he called for an unconditional soul connection with the young person in the period of maturity:
However, this connection to the soul can only be maintained if the pedagogical relationship is constantly reshaped at the right time in line with the child's development, if the young person's desire to assert himself and his desire for independence are taken into account and his new spirituality is nourished with the food it requires.
— Herman Nohl –Jugendwohlfahrt. Sozialpädagogische Vorträge[10]
He saw the acquisition of a pedagogical reference as the prerequisite for a pedagogical relationship in general.[11] According to Nohl, the relationship between pupil and educator was a community in which both were dependent on each other:
The basis of education is the educational community between the educator and the pupil with his or her will to learn.
— Herman Nohl –Die Theorie der Bildung[12]
As with Dilthey, for Nohl the relationship between an adult and a younger person formed the basis for educational action. In this way, education is no longer conceived only inasymmetrical relationships, but also as a personal choice based on sympathy.[11] According to Nohl, the starting point of education was not the demands of society, but the sensitivities and learning needs of the adolescent himself. The starting point should be the difficulties that the child has and not those that the child makes for the educator or the parents.[13] The educator should step out of his role as a purely professional interested party and fill his task withpassion (Leidenschaft):
The basis of education is therefore the passionate relationship of a mature human being to a developing human being, for his own sake, so that he may come to his life and his form. This educational relationship is built on an instinctive foundation that is rooted in people's natural relationships to life and their sexuality.
— Herman Nohl –Die Theorie der Bildung[14]
The following points can be derived from this, which are decisive for the pedagogical reference according to Nohl:
In doing so, Nohl resisted a sexual valuation of thislove relationship (Liebesverhältnisses) between educator and pupil. Rather, it should become apassion (Leidenschaft) for the pupil's talents and therefore much more than the sexual aspect.[15] He advocated a form of platonic love or pedagogical Eros, which aims to draw out the potential of adolescents, to recognize their individuality, to promote it and at the same time to ensure that they remain socially acceptable.
The true love of the teacher is the elevating love and not the desiring love [...] The pedagogical love for the child is the love for his ideal [...] Thus pedagogical love demands empathy for the child and his dispositions, for the possibilities of his image, always with a view to his perfect life.
— Herman Nohl –Die Theorie der Bildung[15]
For Nohl, the focus here was on the aspect for its own sake, i.e. that the educator is not the executor of the interests of third parties or society. Not the demands of society, but the sensitivities and learning needs of the adolescent himself should be the starting point of educational activity, and education is therefore "decisively characterized by the fact that it has its starting point absolutely in the pupil, that is, that it does not feel itself to be the executor of any objective powers towards the pupil".[16] For Nohl, the foundation of the pedagogical relationship waspedagogical love based on the model of motherly and fatherly love, which should be detached from its instinctive behavior. Nohl understooduplifting love (hebende Liebe) as a spiritual behavior of its own kind, which is directed towards the higher form of the developing human being.[17] According to Nohl, the so-calledpedagogical community is supported "by two powers: Love and authority, or seen from the child's perspective: Love and obedience".[18] Education as a relationship, as Nohl understood it, is established by the educator earning the pupil's favor through knowledge and empathy. The educator's authority should develop from the educator's personal qualities. This is achieved on the one hand through affection and eros, and on the other through the appreciation of achievements, whereby educational action has the character of a risk and can therefore also fail.[19]
Even if, according to Nohl, pedagogy was solely at the service of the child, it should not be an end in itself, but shouldalso be committed to objective contents and objectives.[20] According to Nohl, education is not realized in the mere adaptation of the pupil to social conditions, but rather in the adaptation of such concerns to the pupil. As a result, the social and individual perspectives come into play, but always with the pupil in mind. At this point, the pedagogical reference sees itself as an advocate for the child.
The present and the future should be linked in the educator's actions. However, future possibilities and the goals derived from them should in no way prevent the fulfillment of present concerns and needs. Rather, Nohl saw an intrinsic value in every stage of a child's life, indeed in every moment, "which must not be sacrificed merely to the future, but demands its independent fulfillment".[16]
The basic attitude with which the pedagogue faces the child is therefore a peculiar mixture of realistic and ideal vision, which results from the insight into the two-sidedness of the human being.
— Herman Nohl –Charakter und Schicksal. Eine pädagogische Menschenkunde[21]
According to Nohl,unconditional obedience and the breaking of the pupil's self-will should be replaced byindependence and activity, culminating inmoral autonomy.[22] The pedagogical relationship is therefore not a one-sided relationship of influence between the educator and the pupil, but rather one of interaction.[23] Nohl spoke of a modern and active pedagogy that no longer sees its counterpart as a merely passively receiving object of educational actions and measures.[24] The educator has a certain advantage over the pupil, on which their authority is based. The pupil, on the other hand, contributes to this relationship as a distinctive personality and his spontaneity, as well as his as yet undiscovered future possibilities, which are to be discovered and promoted through the pedagogical relationship.[23]However, it should not be forgotten that such a relationship cannot be forced, as "irrational factors such as sympathy and antipathy" are at work, which neither the educator nor the pupil can influence. For this reason, the educator should "not be offended or even let the pupil take it out on him if he does not succeed in establishing a relationship".[25] A relationship based onfreedom andfree will always includes the possibility of failure, whereby the recognition of thesubjectivity and sovereignty of the pupil can be demonstrated. Nohl saw a significant advance in pedagogy in theknowledge (Erkenntnis) that the pupil has his or herown right (Eigenrecht) and that taking this into account is what makespedagogical work possible in the first place.[26] In order for thispedagogical work to be possible, the failure of this pedagogical relationship on the part of the educator must not lead to offense and certainly not to reproaches towards the pupil, but must bring about a bond with someone else, "if only the bond takes place at all".[25]
Education ends when a person comes of age, i.e., according to Schleiermacher, when the younger generation is equal to the older generation in its independent contribution to the fulfillment of the moral task; pedagogy therefore has the goal of making itself superfluous and becoming self-education.
— Herman Nohl –Die Theorie der Bildung[27]
The pedagogical reference is therefore not timelessly valid, buta fact of historical change in pedagogical relationships or opinions.[28] Elements such as authority, obedience and trust are therefore not fixed values, but are always to be renegotiated between the generations and their content redefined. The pedagogical relationship also contains atendency towards separation from the outset.[29] With each developmental progress of the pupil, both sides, educator and pupil, strive to dissolve the pedagogical relationship. Even though all education is geared towards independence, the fundamental relationship between the generations remains intact. Pedagogues as advocates of the child, according to Nohl, would have to reshape the demands of society, butwithout the abandonment of these demands.
"[W]hatever demands the child may be confronted with from objective culture and social relations, it must accept a reshaping that arises from the question: what meaning does this demand have in the context of this child's life for its development and the increase of its strength, and what means does this child have to cope with it?"
— Herman Nohl –Die pädagogische Bewegung in Deutschland und ihre Theorie[30]
This transformation should therefore be designed in such a way that the child's abilities are enhanced. The demands of society should be viewed from the context of meaning and the possibilities of the child. Pedagogy should therefore represent a balance between the subjective life of the pupil and the demands of objective culture. It would therefore be uneducational if the educator decided unilaterally in favor of either the subjective life of the pupil or the objective culture.
Two of Herman Nohl's daughtersemigrated during theNational Socialist era, as their husbands were denied employment at German universities. The parents sent their only son toKurt Hahn inScotland so that he could grow up in a better political atmosphere. Herman Nohl's wife also wanted to emigrate due to the political situation. Many of Nohl's pupils also emigrated abroad after being dismissed for their teaching work.[31]
Without foreseeing these developments, Nohl initially welcomed the "seizure of control" as an opportunity to realize his pedagogical ideals: "Much of what the pedagogical movement, together with the youth movement and the adult education movement, had been struggling for since the end of the war has suddenly come within reach. At a stroke, political power has realized the external unity of will, which is also the elementary prerequisite for national education."[32]
Even earlier, Nohl's writings were characterized byvölkisch nationalism ideas. He called for a "national pedagogy" that would take account of Germany's special political situation.[33] In lectures on "aid to the East", Nohl formulated ideas that were also reflected in education under National Socialism: Eastern colonization was intended to initiate a development "without [which] a nation gradually loses its blood, which increases our domestic market, gives new living space for unemployed people and, last but not least, consolidates our national position in the East".[34] He wrote that "our German destiny is being decided here in the East. This East is not only 'the country' to a special degree, but the East has once again become the battlefield of history."[35] As he expressed in his lectures in the winter semester of 1933/34 at Göttingen University entitled: The Foundations of National Education (Die Grundlagen der nationalen Erziehung), this battle was to be about the "defense against inferior germs". Nohl's ideas on Eastern pedagogy also contained elements reminiscent of theblood and soil ideology, some of which would later be implemented by the National Socialists in their educational programs.[36] The image of women that Nohl formulated in this context also later showed parallels to that ofWomen in National Socialism. He spoke of an "inner movement in female existence" that was developing a "new self-consciousness of the function of women in culture", which "in turning away from the old emancipation of women, wants to be based again on their creative powers in the family and at home ..."[37]
In his bookCharacter and Destiny (Charakter und Schicksal), published in 1938 and reprinted in 1947 and 1967, he wrote the following, among other things:
The decisive cause of race formation, i.e. the transformation of the predispositions themselves, is notmutation, butselection. This is the only place whereeugenics and pedagogy can come into play. However, as the well-known racial researcherF. Lenz said at the Natural Scientists' Meeting in Stuttgart (1938), such selection also requires a mental climate in which people of insight, initiative and ability thrive.
— Herman Nohl –Charakter und Schicksal[38]
In April 1937, however, Herman Nohl was dismissed as a university professor, "with all honors and a full salary".[39] The reasons are unclear. Presumably it was because Herman Nohl's wife Berta's mother was a Wittgenstein and she was Ludwig Wittgenstein's cousin, i.e. half-Jewish. He is listed as aFörderndes Mitglied der SS in the Nazi university teachers' register.[40]
In March 1943, the then 64-year-old was drafted into factory work, which lasted until the end of the year. He spent the end of the war in the Lippoldsberger Landheim.
After the end ofWorld War II, Herman Nohl was allowed by the British occupation authorities to help with the reconstruction in various educational areas. Among other things, he worked on reopening schools as quickly as possible and in the meantime was a municipal school inspector inGöttingen. In August 1945, he was involved in the "Marienau curricula" for the rebuilding of the school system. The reopening of Göttingen University was also one of his main goals; it resumed its work on September 17, 1945. Herman Nohl was not only appointed professor again, he also becamedean of his department. He was the contact person for many people who had difficulties withdenazification due to their affiliation with National Socialist organizations and used his influence to help some people obtain a more favourable classification. In 1947, he retired at his own request. One of his students was Leonhard Froese, who received his doctorate[41] in educational science in Göttingen in 1949.
In 1945, Nohl also founded the Institut für Erziehung und Unterricht (Institute for Education and Teaching). He was also editor of the journalDie Sammlung.Zeitschrift für Kultur und Erziehung (1945–1960; successor:Neue Sammlung). In this way, he had a significant influence on post-war education. In the last years of his life, Herman Nohl was frequently ill. He died on September 27, 1960, in his house onHohen Weg (since 1964Hermann-Föge-Weg[42]) in Göttingen's eastern district (Ostviertel). The tomb for Herman Nohl in Göttingen's city cemetery (at the cemetery pond) is a simple limestone stele.[43]
