The concept of citizenship education has undergone significant transformations, particularly with the rise of the “Third Way” and the emphasis on “active citizenship” since the 1990s. This shift prioritizes voluntary participation in public issues to achieve the common good. However, Jeremy Bentham, a prominent figure in utilitarian philosophy, presented a unique perspective on democratic education rooted in intellectual development aimed at establishing a liberal society. This approach contrasts sharply with contemporary citizenship education models and offers valuable insights into lifelong learning. This paper will delve into Bentham’s educational philosophy, highlighting the influence of thinkers like Helvetius, and explore its relevance to the concept of lifelong learning in fostering an informed and engaged citizenry.
Contemporary discourse on citizenship education, as articulated by educational philosopher Gert Biesta, critiques the depoliticization and privatization of citizenship. Biesta points out a tendency to emphasize individual responsibilities over political dimensions, and consensus over contestation in democracy. He contrasts socialization, focused on integrating individuals into existing socio-political orders, with subjectification, which promotes political agency. Biesta advocates for “learning democracy” through participation, moving away from an aggregative model that merely aggregates individual preferences, towards a deliberative model that emphasizes collective interest and the common good. This “deliberative turn” is echoed in political philosophy, with theorists like Amy Gutmann emphasizing deliberative democracy as crucial for equal citizenship in multicultural societies. Gutmann stresses the cultivation of deliberative skills and virtues through repeated participation in the search for mutually justifiable decisions. This aligns with John Stuart Mill’s view on the moral benefits of active political participation, which encourages citizens to focus on the common good beyond narrow self-interests.
However, critics like Biesta and Rancière point out the limitations of deliberative democracy, particularly concerning entry qualifications for deliberation. They advocate for dissensus and the role of “ignorant citizens” who challenge pre-determined civic identities, disrupting established “police orders” in the logic of equality. Bentham’s educational thought diverges from both the “good citizens” of deliberative democracy and the “ignorant citizens” of dissensus. His approach, often misconstrued as authoritarian, is better understood through the lens of his unique vision for democratic education, profoundly influenced by thinkers like Claude Adrien Helvétius, and geared towards establishing a liberal society through intellectual empowerment and lifelong learning.
Bentham and Foucault: Reassessing the Panopticon
Bentham’s educational ideas are frequently overshadowed by interpretations of his Panopticon concept as a symbol of authoritarian disciplinary power, largely due to Michel Foucault’s analysis in Discipline and Punish. Foucault’s perspective has led some scholars to view Bentham negatively in the context of education. However, recent scholarship has revisited the Bentham-Foucault relationship, revealing a more nuanced understanding. Bentham scholars like Janet Semple and Philip Schofield argue that Foucault overlooked Bentham’s broader theory of government and his intentions behind the Panopticon. Conversely, Foucault scholars like Sonoe Omoda contend that criticisms of Foucault often fail to fully engage with Foucault’s own readings of Bentham, especially in his lectures on governmentality.
Brunon-Ernst’s categorization of Bentham’s Panopticon into prison, pauper, Chrestomathic, and constitutional types clarifies Foucault’s focus primarily on the first two. Importantly, Bentham’s constitutional-Panopticon, detailed in his Constitutional Code, introduces the Public Opinion Tribunal, demonstrating a democratic dimension to his thought. This tribunal, designed to monitor governors, has roots in the Panopticon Letters (1791), emphasizing publicity and public scrutiny. Bentham advocated for open access to public institutions, envisioning the public as a “great open committee” holding power accountable.
Foucault himself acknowledged this democratic aspect, noting the Panopticon’s potential for public inspection, ensuring that disciplinary mechanisms are “democratically controlled” by the “great tribunal committee of the world.” This recognition of the democratic element in Bentham’s work is further highlighted in Foucault’s lectures on liberal governmentality, where he positions Bentham’s utilitarianism as a technology for governing a liberal society, rather than merely an instrument of authoritarian control.
Bentham’s Utilitarianism and Liberal Government
The revisionist view of Bentham, emerging since the 1980s, counters the image of him as solely authoritarian. Foucault, in his lectures on governmentality, recognized Bentham’s utilitarianism as integral to liberal government. In the 18th century, governmental reason shifted towards intrinsic regulation based on utility, replacing raison d’État. This “frugal government,” as Foucault described it, is limited by the principle of utility, defining its competence by what is useful for it to do or not do. “Utilitarianism,” Foucault stated, “is a technology for government,” viewing Bentham not as an authoritarian figure, but as a precursor who explored the utility of government, particularly in relation to individual liberty.
Foucault argued that liberalism and disciplinary techniques are intertwined, linking Bentham’s Constitutional Code to liberalism and the Panopticon to disciplinary techniques. He noted Bentham’s proposition that the Panopticon formula, initially conceived for institutions like schools and prisons to supervise conduct and increase productivity, could be applied to the entire government as a formula for liberal governance. This perspective emphasizes the constitutional Panopticon alongside the prison and pauper versions, as highlighted by scholars like Brunon-Ernst in discussions of “frugal government.”
Despite acknowledging the market as a verification tool for governmental practice, Foucault overlooked Bentham’s emphasis on contract-management within the Panopticon. Bentham critiqued trust-management, the prevailing prison management model, favoring contract-management for its accountability. Contract-management, with its emphasis on joining “interest with duty” and public transparency, aimed to prevent misrule and ensure efficient governance. This principle, aligning self-interest with institutional duty, was central to Bentham’s approach, applicable to both governors and the governed within the Panopticon.
Bentham’s consistent view of human motivation by pain and pleasure led him to prioritize institutional architecture that ensured humane governance. This principle extended to rewarding prisoners based on performance, creating a system where both rulers and ruled were subject to the same motivational framework. As Guillaume Tusseau notes, Bentham aimed to apply utility across society, from individual institutions to the entire political structure. The Panopticon principle and its focus on aligning interest and duty was not limited to prisons but was envisioned as a broader model for societal governance and, importantly, education.
Bentham’s Educational Thought: Intellect and Citizenship
Bentham’s application of the Panopticon principle extends to the Chrestomathic School, planned in the early 19th century. This “Chrestomathic-Panopticon” has drawn criticism from educational scholars who question the suitability of prison management principles for education. Some argue that Bentham’s democratic shift did not necessarily translate to a morally significant or educationally empowered citizenry. Conversely, Bentham scholars suggest that the Panopticon’s applicability to non-disciplinary contexts like schools undermines its interpretation solely as a tool of disciplinary power.
Shuntaro Obata, a Japanese Bentham scholar, emphasizes the crucial link between Bentham’s constitutional and educational plans. He argues that the Chrestomathic School aimed to cultivate “good citizens” equipped with the intellectual capacity to critically assess laws and institutions, and to resist “mischievous delusion” through useful arts and sciences. In Chrestomathia, Bentham outlined the advantages of intellectual instruction, particularly its role in providing “security afforded against groundless terrors, mischievous impostures, and self-delusions.” He believed ignorance made individuals susceptible to delusion, and knowledge, especially of physical sciences, provided the necessary mental fortitude and confidence to counter baseless fears.
Obata also highlights the alignment between the Chrestomathic curriculum and the knowledge required by governing officials, suggesting the school was designed to cultivate future leaders. Bentham envisioned an educational system that would produce both informed citizens capable of participating in the Public Opinion Tribunal and competent rulers equipped to lead or follow public opinion. This educational vision emerged during Bentham’s radical political phase in the early 19th century, marked by his focus on “sinister interest” as a driver of misrule and delusion. He believed that rulers exploited the “intellectual weakness” of the populace, necessitating education as a countermeasure.
Crucially, Bentham recognized intellectual vulnerability in both the governed and governors. Just as the Panopticon principle applied universally, his educational philosophy targeted intellectual improvement across all societal levels. This emphasis on intellectual instruction to create informed citizens distinguishes Bentham’s approach from contemporary civic education focused on deliberative democracy. While deliberative democracy emphasizes transformative dialogue, Bentham acknowledged the persistent presence of self-interest in human nature, both among rulers and the ruled. He focused on intellectual development as a safeguard against corruption and misgovernance, rather than solely relying on moral sanctions or deliberative processes.
The curriculum of the Chrestomathic School further differentiates Bentham’s approach. Gutmann’s deliberative virtues emphasize complex skills like literacy, numeracy, critical thinking, contextual knowledge, and virtues such as veracity and civic integrity. In contrast, the Chrestomathic curriculum prioritized subjects in “Natural Philosophy,” relying heavily on “senses and memory,” deemed fundamental for foundational learning. Knowledge requiring “judgement,” derived from History and Biography, was considered appropriate for later, self-directed learning. While valuing intellectual learning for all, Bentham distinguished between early-stage instruction and later-stage enlightenment, indicating a phased approach to lifelong learning, starting with foundational knowledge and progressing to more complex understanding. This phased approach and the emphasis on intellectual development, influenced by thinkers like Helvetius, is a key aspect of Bentham’s vision for lifelong learning.
Experimentation and Lifelong Learning: The Influence of Helvetius
The concluding section of Panopticon Letters addresses schools, seemingly as an afterthought, described by Bentham as a “jeu d’esprit.” Yet, this section is surprisingly extensive, indicating the significant, though perhaps understated, role of education in his broader societal vision. Bentham saw the Panopticon school as a bulwark against corruption, similar to its function in other institutions like prisons and hospitals. He illustrated its practical benefits by referencing Westminster School, highlighting how the Panopticon design could eliminate practices like “cribbing” (cheating) and ensure equal learning opportunities regardless of social status.
Beyond mere institutional efficiency, Bentham envisioned the Panopticon school as a site for social experimentation. Referencing King Psammitichus’ language experiment, Bentham proposed that a Panopticon school, housing children from birth, could offer even more compelling social experiments. This experimental aspect of education, starting from early childhood, aligns with Bentham’s broader societal reform goals and his belief in the malleability of human nature through education and environment – a concept heavily influenced by Claude Adrien Helvetius.
Bentham explicitly mentions Helvetius in the Panopticon Letters, stating that Helvetius “would have been delighted to set up an Inspection-School, if it were only for the experiment’s sake.” He connects this to Helvetius’ principle that “anybody may be taught anything, one person as well as another,” suggesting Bentham saw the Panopticon school as a potential testing ground for Helvetius’ educational theories. This connection to Helvetius underscores a crucial dimension of Bentham’s educational thought: the belief in the transformative power of education and the potential for lifelong learning to shape individuals and society.
This experimental approach is further evident in Bentham’s pauper management plan, the National Charity Company. This ambitious project aimed to overhaul pauper relief, employing Panopticon principles of contract-management and publicity across numerous Industry Houses. Bentham saw “unripe hands” – children within these houses – as central to the company’s profitability, emphasizing their potential for education and apprenticeship. He envisioned these Industry Houses not just as workhouses, but as educational institutions where paupers, especially children, would receive training and education, contributing to their self-sufficiency and societal integration.
Bentham’s pauper management plan projected a significant societal impact. He envisioned hundreds of Industry Houses, each housing thousands, potentially leading to a substantial portion of the population being educated within this system. This grand vision suggests Bentham’s pauper plan was not merely about poverty relief, but about societal design based on early childhood education and, implicitly, lifelong learning initiated from birth within these institutions. His statement, “Education is government in miniature: legislation and administration in miniature,” encapsulates his belief in education as a foundational tool for societal governance and reform.
Conclusion: Bentham, Helvetius, and the Future of Lifelong Learning
Bentham envisioned education as a transformative experiment capable of reshaping society from its foundations. To reform existing society marred by “sinister interest,” he championed intellectual instruction and public transparency. His concept of “good citizens” differed from both contemporary citizenship education and radical dissensus models. Bentham sought to create a liberal democratic society composed even of self-interested individuals, relying on intellectual competence to prevent delusion and misrule among both governors and governed.
However, Bentham also entertained a more utopian vision: a society ideally constructed from the outset, based on utilitarian principles and “artificial identification of interests.” This vision hinged on educating children from birth in optimal conditions, creating a category of “good citizens” pre-emptively equipped, intellectually and morally, to maximize collective happiness. This future-oriented perspective, deeply influenced by Helvetius’ belief in the unlimited potential of education, positions lifelong learning as a cornerstone of societal progress.
Bentham’s educational thought, therefore, operates on two levels: addressing immediate societal reforms through intellectual empowerment and envisioning a future society shaped by comprehensive, lifelong education. Both dimensions underscore his commitment to utilitarianism as a guiding principle for education and societal development, and highlight the enduring relevance of his ideas, particularly when viewed through the lens of lifelong learning and its potential to cultivate intellect for a truly liberal society.
References
Bentham, J. (1791), Panopticon; or the Inspection-House, Dublin: Thomas Byrne, Reprinted in London.
Bentham, J. (1983), Constitutional Code, vol. I, F. Rosen and J.H. Burns (eds.), Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bentham, J. (1990), Security against Misrule and Other Constitutional Writings for Tripoli and Greece, Ph. Schofield (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bentham, J. (1993), Chrestomathia, M.J. Smith and W.H. Burston (eds.), Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bentham, J., (2010), Writing on the Poor Laws, Vol. II, M. Quinn (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Biesta, G. (2010), Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy, Abingdon: Routledge
Biesta, G. (2011), Learning Democracy in School and Society: Education, Lifelong Learning, and the Politics of Citizenship, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Bozzo-Rey, M. (2010), ‘‘Publicity and Nomography: Bentham’s School of Legislation,’’ Journal of Bentham Studies, vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.2045-757X.037
Brunon-Ernst, A. (2007), ‘‘Foucault Revisited,’’ Journal of Bentham Studies, vol.9, No.1, pp. 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.2045-757X.029
Brunon-Ernst, A. (2016), ‘‘Deconstructing Panopticism into the Plural Panopticons,’’ in A. Brunon-Ernst (ed.), Beyond Foucault: New Perspectives on Bentham’s Panopticon, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 17-41.
Donner, W. (2007), ‘‘John Stuart Mill on Education and Democracy,’’ in N. Urbinati & A. Zakaras (eds.), J.S. Mill’s Political Thought: A Bicentennial Reassessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 250-274.
Dryzek, J.S. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, Oxford: Oxford U.P.
Foucault, M. (1975), Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison, Paris: Gallimar.
Foucault, M. (1979), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London: Penguin Books.
Foucault, M. (2008), The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978-1979, M. Senellart (ed.), N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gutmann, A. (1980), Liberal Equality, Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
Gutmann, A. (2003), ‘‘Education’’, in R.G. Frey and Ch. H. Wellman (eds.), A Companion to Applied Ethics, Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, pp.498-511.
Gutmann, A. (2009) ‘‘Educating for Individual Freedom and Democratic Citizenship: In Unity and Diversity there is Strength,’’ in H. Siegel (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 409-427.
Hirai, Y. (2017), The Educational Theory of Amy Gutmann: Development of Egalitarian Arguments in the Contemporary American Philosophy of Education, (in Japanese) Yokohama: Seori Shobo.
Kelly, P.J., (1990), Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Bentham and Civil Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Komatsu, K. (2006), Social Government and Education: The Educational Thought of Bentham, (in Japanese) Ryugasaki: Ryutsu Keizai U.P.
Laval, Ch. (2011) ‘‘Ce que Foucault a appris de Bentham,’’ Revue d’études benthamiennes, 8, 2001, pp.1-10, DOI: 10.4000/etudes-benthamiennes.259.
Laval, Ch. (2016) ‘‘From Discipline and Punish to The Birth of Biopolitics,’’ in A. Brunon-Ernst (ed.), Beyond Foucault: New Perspectives on Bentham’s Panopticon, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 43-60.
Miles, T.G. (1992), ‘‘Utilitarianism and Education: a reply to James Tarrant,’’ Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 261-264.
Obata, S. (2013), Jeremy Bentham and the English Constitution: State, Church, and Public Opinion, (in Japanese) Tokyo: Keio U.P.
Omoda, S. (2018), The History of Conflict of Government: Foucault’s Lecture of 1978-1979, (in Japanese) Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.
Rosen, F. (1983), Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy: A Study of Constitutional Code, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Semple, J. (1993), Bentham’s Prison: A Study of the Panopticon Penitentiary, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Schofield, Ph. (2006), Utility and Democracy: The Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford: Oxford U.P.
Schofield, Ph. (2009) Bentham: A Guide for the Perplexed, London: Continuum.
Schofield, Ph. (2018), ‘‘Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832),’’ in M. D. Dubber (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Legal History, Oxford: Oxford U.P., pp. 379-395.
Takashima, K. (2017), Bentham on Language: Utilitarianism and Pragmatism in the Thought of Jeremy Bentham, (in Japanese) Tokyo: Keio U.P.
Tarrant, J. (1991), ‘‘Utilitarianism, Education and the Philosophy of Moral Insignificance,’’ Journal of Philosophy of Education, vol.25, No.1, pp. 59-67.
Tusseau, G. (2016), ‘‘From the Penitentiary to the Political Panoptic Paradigm,’ in A. Brunon-Ernst ed., Beyond Foucault: New Perspectives on Bentham’s Panopticon, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 115-140.
