Introduction

The concept of Bildung is a major influence on discussions about, and reflections on, educational goals in the German-speaking countries and other Northern European countries with a similar cultural and linguistic background. Bildung in this regional and linguistic context is the central notion describing the process of personal development and the outcome of this development process. Bildung is more than education, and there is no English term that denotes the concept of Bildung accurately. Nonetheless, it may serve as a bridge between two educational traditions when an American educational researcher proposes the following explanation of the meaning of Bildung:

Bildung is a noun meaning something like ‘being educated, educatedness.’ It also carries the connotations of the word bilden, ‘to form, to shape’. Bildung is thus best translated as ‘formation’, implying both the forming of the personality into a unity as well as the product of this formation and the particular ‘formedness’ that is represented by the person. (Westbury 2000, p. 24)

This might function as a first orientation but it will be clear from the following text that the term “formation” runs the risk of being misinterpreted as a one-sided process.

Historical Roots

In 1784, the philosopher Immanuel Kant began an essay on the question “What is Enlightenment?” with the much-cited sentence: “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.” Scholars of different disciplines adopted this idea and adapted it to their specific area of expertise. It became closely interwoven into the idea of Bildung.

Among these scholars the philosopher of language, anthropologist, neo-humanist, and Prussian politician Wilhelm von Humboldt reflected on consequences for the phase of human beings’ growing up. According to von Humboldt’s ideas, neither adolescents’ alignment to the demands of society, where criteria like usefulness and efficacy play a dominant role, nor their growing up free from cultural influences in the sense of Rousseau should be the guideline for the process and the state of Bildung. Von Humboldt combined both aspects and advocated a balance between them, stating that “the true purpose of humans is their highest and most proportional cultivation of their strengths as a whole.” An indispensable condition for this development is civil liberty and, connected with liberty, diversity of situations. These situations are defined by cultural and societal characteristics. In von Humboldt’s world there is no individuation without cultivation. In his idea of Bildung, the individual and humanity are two facets that are strongly interrelated to each other.

In the 1790s, von Humboldt argued that the ultimate task of life is to endow the concept “humanity” with as rich a content as possible. He believed that this could only be done by associating with the world in the most comprehensive, lively and freest interplay possible. This statement is an early formulation of a characteristic feature of our modern time, i.e., the necessary and paradoxical concurrence of the processes of cultivation and individuation. Or as Immanuel Kant, the great apologist of the idea of liberty, put it shortly after von Humboldt:

One of the most serious problems of education is how to combine the individual’s subjection to the legal constraints with the ability to use his/her freedom … How can I cultivate liberty with this restraint? (Kant 1803, p. 711)

According to Nordenbo (2002), “Bildung seeks to bring the unique individuality into a harmonious relationship with general objectivity” (p. 350). For von Humboldt, the people of ancient Greece were classic examples of humans struggling for a harmonious relationship between the individual self and the world; therefore, he preferred the ancient languages Greek and Roman as paradigmatic media offering appropriate access to Bildung. This preference was one of the reasons for the restriction of von Humboldt’s ideas to the Prussian High School (Gymnasium) and for a lengthy debate about the suitability of different school subjects like mathematics or arts for achieving the goals of Bildung. Natural sciences were not regarded as a domain contributing to Bildung because of their usefulness in the century of industrialization. Members of society who were interested in the integration of the natural sciences into the school curriculum – pedagogues and politicians with a scientific background, representatives of industry and economy – emphasized the potential influences of these subjects on students’ Bildung in the sense of Humboldt. In Germany, it took about a hundred years until the natural sciences were integrated into the school curriculum of the higher educational institutions (e.g., the Gymnasium), on an equal footing with the subjects already established. In the end, two kinds of pedagogical justification have been responsible for this integration: the traditional idea of Bildung (natural sciences are part of the efforts of humans to understand themselves in relation to the world around them) and the demands set by the society which expects the school to lay the foundation of expertise among as many members of society as possible, in order to meet the requirements of a technically oriented world. This twofold rationale nowadays constitutes the framework for all discussions and decisions concerning the structure of the curriculum in all school types.

A Modern Approach to Bildung

The different educational contexts within the historical development of the societies in which the concept of Bildung played a significant role led to various shifts in the meaning of Bildung. Wolfgang Klafki, the most prominent educational scientist seeking to develop for a modern understanding of Bildung, draws on ideas and descriptions presented in the decades around 1800 and points to their most significant features. For him, one of the most fundamental ideas that emerged at this time was the idea of the self-responsible, cosmopolitan person, contributing to his own destiny and capable of knowing, feeling, and acting. For Klafki (2000), the terms “self-determination, freedom, emancipation, autonomy, responsibility, reason, and independence” (p. 87) are crucial notions in relation to Bildung. But this is only one side of the overall meaning of Bildung. Klafki also stresses that this list of concepts could be misinterpreted as a description of Bildung as an individualistic conception; so he adds: “…the basic concept of subject- or self-determination is anything but subjective!” (p. 88). Bildung is also characterized by a second group of factors: humanity, humankind and humaneness, world, objectivity, and the general. Bildung, therefore, develops in the interplay between individual attributes, achievements, and expectations on the one hand and the conditions a person has to cope with on the other. These conditions are results of societal processes and comprise different kinds of social life as well as systems of norms and beliefs that pertain to the fields of politics, arts, science, and other domains. The interplay described mirrors a more differentiated process than Westbury’s notion of “formation” can reflect.

In Klafki’s view, the societal part of this interplay described has been not sufficiently analyzed by those who strive for a widely accepted conception of Bildung. He writes that “… the economic, social, and political conditions needed for the realization of this general demand for Bildung” (p. 89) were not examined consistently. In order to adjust the traditional conception of Bildung to the characteristics of individuals’ contemporary environments, Klafki (1998) points to the direction in which the development of a modern version should be heading. At the core of these processes should be elaborated “a more differentiated and critical determination of the relationship between Bildung and society” (p. 313). Three abilities were, in this way, to be promoted by Bildung:

  • Self-determination

  • Codetermination (all people are invited to take part in the development of the society)

  • Solidarity (with those whose opportunities for self-determination and codetermination are limited)

Bildung, as a process and its result, has to be permanently balanced between an adolescent’s self-determination and his/her conformation to the demands of society. The German word “Erziehung” and the English word “education” are often used with the connotation “preparation for the demands of society.” Therefore, “education” (like “Erziehung”) covers only a part of the considerably broader spectrum of features that are characteristic for Bildung.

Variety

Because of the lack of a generally held understanding, there is a vast variety of contexts in which the notion of Bildung is part of the pedagogical and political discourse and of meanings that are linked to the term. Especially in public discussions, Bildung is reduced to become almost synonymous with “education.” On the level of politics, the notion of Bildung has got such a general connotation that an interpretation is almost impossible. The German ministries that are responsible for the organization and structure of the educational systems (schools, kindergartens, vocational schools), and for the content-related issues within these systems, are ministries of Bildung although their political decisions mainly refer to the functioning of the state-run institutions. Because of this indistinct use of the term, the leading German theorist of Bildung, Tenorth, commented that Bildung can be regarded as a German myth, a pedagogical program, a political slogan, and an ideology of bourgeoisie. Often the term is used in connection with criticism of current society. In the light of this variety of meanings, does it make sense to use the term Bildung when any speaker or writer is likely to have a different conception in mind from that of the listener or reader? In Tenorth’s view, Bildung still has great potential for describing the goals and processes of human growing up, especially if empirical aspects are integrated into the reflections on Bildung that have been shaped by mainly philosophical arguments.

Bildung and Scientific Literacy

In spite of the lack of a generally accepted understanding of Bildung, at least the core of the concept becomes clearer when it is compared or contrasted with the way the term “scientific literacy” has often been used in the last two decades. On the international level, in the OECD PISA project, scientific literacy focuses on the application of knowledge in science and so has a more functional connotation than Bildung. This interpretation of scientific literacy becomes visible in the statement of the OECD that the cognitive aspects of students’ scientific literacy include students’ knowledge and their capacity to use this knowledge effectively. The idea behind this statement is that education should prepare students for the demands imposed on them during their whole life. This idea becomes clearer in the OECD’s more precise affirmation that the PISA tests cover scientific literacy, not so much in terms of mastery of the school curriculum, but in terms of important knowledge and skills needed in adult life. The conception of Bildung does not ignore the task of helping adolescents deal with the challenges of their future life. However, this educational aspect is embedded into a more holistic view, where universal principles like rationality, humanity, and morality are interwoven with an individual’s growing up.

The dominant position of the term “scientific competency” in the description of the PISA program signals additional differences between Bildung and scientific literacy. As discussed above, the functional aspects of students’ knowledge (competencies and skills) contrast with the concept and process of Bildung. So, for example, a phrase like “We teach children to be competent in a special domain,” due to its one-sidedness, is not in line with the concept of Bildung. Bildung cannot be interpreted as the European version of scientific literacy, and in the process of selecting topics for the school curriculum, the question “Is it useful knowledge?” could be a guideline at best of secondary importance. An individual’s knowledge and competencies represent only one facet of Bildung; another points to the individual’s efforts to find his/her place in the rational, humane, scientific, and esthetic world. One of the most distinguished contemporary German pedagogues Hartmut von Hentig, well known as an author of fundamental reflections on Bildung and as a school and university teacher, has condensed these two facets into a depiction widely accepted: Bildung describes the tension or the bridge between ideals passed on and current needs of competence, between philosophical self-assurance and the practice-oriented self-preservation of society. In Plato’s allegory of the cave, Bildung is both the rise towards sunlight and the descent towards the cave. The one without the other makes no sense.

Bildung Within Natural Sciences

Martin Wagenschein (2000) and other scholars have discussed how students’ Bildung in natural sciences can be achieved. For Wagenschein, the main goal of science education is to help students understand phenomena of the natural world. To “understand” means to have gained insight into the essence of scientific relationships; it does not mean just to know the formula or to be able to apply it to a concrete problem. According to Wagenschein, there are three characteristic teaching-learning situations in which Bildung in this sense can develop:

  • Exemplary teaching: In order to gain a deep understanding of a piece of content, it is necessary to invest a sufficient amount of time. Therefore, “we need the courage to leave gaps, in other words to be thorough and to deal intensively with selected examples” (Wagenschein 2000, p. 116). These examples have to be representative of the domain (its topics or methods) and at the same time exemplary as regards their contribution to students’ Bildung.

  • Genetic teaching: If the knowledge is to become an integral part of a student’s Bildung, it is important that he/she has the opportunity to search productively for the solution of a problem, to find it, and to check it critically. From this perspective, Wagenschein, in the early 1950s, introduced elements of an idea that later, in its cognitive dimension, became known as the constructivist view of learning. Wagenschein emphasized the development of knowledge as much more than the result of the process of acquiring knowledge.

  • Socratic teaching: A teaching-learning process which focuses on the development of knowledge is best arranged in a Socratic conversation. The teacher has to talk with his/her students not in a lecturing and dogmatic way but, like Socrates in his dialogues, focusing on their ideas and moderating their learning processes.

According to Wagenschein, teaching environments with this triad of principles are particularly suitable (and often necessary) for learning episodes in which a basic understanding of central notions and processes in natural sciences is to be acquired. This is the case especially in upper grades of elementary school and in lower grades of secondary school. However, Wagenschein’s triad is meant to be effective at all levels, since the process of Bildung does not come to an end. Examples from physics and chemistry education (and a fuller discussion of several of the ideas discussed above) can be found in Fischler (2011).

Critics of Wagenschein’s view of teaching and learning complain that it is too time-consuming and, because of its exemplary character, about students lacking knowledge, that they need to systematically build up concepts of natural sciences. But there is no strict alternative, no either/or. Students have to get to know the basics of natural sciences as a cultural domain of mankind and to have the chance to achieve this goal on the way of exemplary, genetic, and Socratic teaching and learning.

Cross-References