72

Søren Hegstrup

Tendencies and trends in social pedagogyin Denmark at the turn of the millennium

An attempt at providing a brief etymological explanation of the concept social pedagogy

Social pedagogy as a concept is a construction; it is a compound of two words related to two different sciences: sociology and pedagogy. To be social comes from the Latin ‘socius’, meaning ‘friend’, ‘mate’ or, in the socialist tradition, ‘comrade’. Pedagogy comes from the Greek ‘paidagogos’, which is a compound of ‘pais’ (boy) and ‘agagos’ (guide). One may ask how one can guide a child (boy) without being friendly? The scene is easy to imagine; the slave guiding the boy from his home in the village to Acropolis. Certainly they must have had some kind of relationship, i.e. they were friendly. It could of course be said that walking some 3 miles together was a social process. In any case, the concept social pedagogy is a blending of two different words from two different cultures, languages and traditions.

A lexical reference to a dictionary states that the concept ‘social pedagogy’ comes from German. The German term for the theoreti-cal concept is ‘Sozialpädagogik’ and the term for someone practising the profession is ‘Sozialpädagog/in’. The concept is generally less well-known in the UK or USA, where the term makes little sense, and even professionals within the pedagogical field may be unfamil-iar with it. In the UK, the term has encountered some resistance as

73

it carries certain connotations. In France, the term for this concept is ‘educateur’. The Latin countries do not have terms that come close to describing social pedagogy per se. The Dutch word for a social pedagogue is ‘sociaalpedagoog’ or ‘hulpverlerner’ (Ligthart, 2000). It appears that all three Scandinavian languages and Finn-ish have concepts that are close to the German one. In Danish, the terms used are ‘Socialpædagogik/socialpædagog’, Norwegian has the terms ‘sosialpedagogikk/barnevernspedagog’, Swedish has ‘socialpedagogik/socialpedagog’, and in Finnish, the terms are ‘Sosiaalipedagogiika/sosiaalipedagogi/sosiaalikasvataja’.

As mentioned above, the concept social pedagogy comes from the German word ‘Sozialpädagogik’. This can be dated back to 1835, when it was used by the German, Adolph Diesterweg. He used the draft in a book Wegweiser zur Bildung für deutsche Lehrer (Giesecke, 1978). It is my belief that most of us in the German and Nordic tradition believe that it can be dated back to the neo Kantian, Paul Natorp (1854– 1924) and perhaps even further back to Johann Hein-rich Pestalozzi (1746– 1824).

When we examine the meaning of the concept ‘social pedagogy’ theoretically and in practice, it soon becomes clear that it has as many meanings as there are countries, e.g. in Europe, north of Munich. There are some differences in the use of the term even in the Nordic countries, which is theoretically concerned with traditions. In many instances it is a question of who is setting the agenda for the social pedagogue in theory and in practice. Regard-ing theory, there has often been disagreement between the sciences of psychology and sociology as well as between philosophy and anthropology with regard to theory, not to mention disagreement within the different traditions and convictions in the science of pedagogy. With regard to practice, the disagreement has been con-cerned with educational and social policy and tradition in concrete social pedagogical work, as well as with the agenda that the unions set for their members. I shall return to this disagreement later.

In summary, it is evident that problems still exist with regard to how the term, the concept of social pedagogy, is understood in theory and in practice. This is not only a matter of translation, it is a question of differences in culture, traditions and history. For

74

example, in some countries social pedagogy is written as one word. In Sweden the tradition is different – this symposium is called the ‘Symposium on Perspectives and Theory in Social Pedagogy’.

An outline of social pedagogical theory and practice during the last three decades of the 20th century—1970, 1980 and 1990

The 18th century saw the construction of many residential homes in Denmark. These are known as ‘Optagelseshjem’ in Danish. The staff members had no pedagogical education (Perch, 1983), and the aim for child and youth care was training and practise in ‘hard work in and on the farm’ (Øgendahl, 2000). Many children and young people experienced their stay in an ‘Optagelseshjem’ as a long imprisonment with hard labour (Petersen, 1987). At the end of the century, a prison chaplain, S.H. Nissen, attempted to prevent this. He established a childcare and welfare organisation ‘Kristlig Forening til Bistand for Børn og Unge’. His idea was that children and young people who for some reason could not live with their own family should live in the countryside in beautiful surroundings with fresh air and good food (Kyrø, 1998). In 1905, the Government legislated a new law protecting children against exploitation. This was the beginning of a new era.

In 1900, a young theologian, Ludvig Beck (1866– 1948) was recruited to be the superintendent of a residential home ‘Orø Strand’. There he experienced the necessity of having educated staff members. He visited many residential homes on a study visit to Switzerland in 1906. He learned about Pestalozzi and his theory on working with children in residential homes. More visits to Swit-zerland were made, and Beck began to offer short courses for his staff in Denmark. In 1939, he was invited to make a presentation in Switzerland entitled ‘Dänische Heime für Schwererziehbare’. He did not go, but his paper was published in a Swiss journal (Boje Rasmussen, 1970). From 1923–32, Beck was the editor of the jour-nal Nordisk tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik. He was very internationally oriented, and could perhaps be called the pioneer who educated Danish child and youth care (Hegstrup, 1999).

75

In 1934, Beck established the college ‘Barnets Højskole’ where uneducated staff members involved in childcare and youth wel-fare could participate in authorised courses. 1958 brought the first authorised education in childcare, at the current Hindholm Social-pædagogiske Seminarium (Lauritsen/Hegstrup, 2000). During the first half of the 20th century, theory on social pedagogy was pre-dominantly based on Christianity and inspirations from Switzerland and Germany. The influences from Germany were largely inspired by Paul Natorp, who is thought of as the ‘father’ of the concept social pedagogy also as it is used in 2001 (Hegstrup, 1998).

In 1940 Sofie Rifbjerg et al. established an organisation called ‘Socialpædagogisk Forening for nye Opdragelse’. The organisa-tion addressed pre-school teachers employed in kindergartens. The object was clearly to demonstrate that, for political reasons, kindergartens were a social pedagogical prevention—a way to help low-income families.

From 1958, a new generation of psychologists entered the social pedagogical field. H.C. Rasmussen became the first principal of the ‘Jægerspris Socialpædagogiske Seminarium’. His 1970 textbook ‘Synspunkter på Døgninstitutioner’ states that the context he refers to is predominated by American, French and German psychol-ogy and sociology. Unfortunately the textbook was published at the beginning of a decade that in many ways became known as the Marxist decade. It more or less brings to an end the decade 1960– 1970, where the social pedagogical agenda was set by, among others, H.C. and Liss Rasmussen, Wulff Feldmann, and Karen-Lykke Poulsen.

The decade 1970–1980

As previously mentioned, changes occurred during the late sixties, and the new decade came under the influence of Marxism. This was an influence which came largely from the universities in the form of pedagogy, psychology and sociology studies, and also from the unions. In 1973, Harald Rasmussen wrote his textbook Socialpæda-gogik. This was a rewriting of his doctoral dissertation which had

76

been accepted at the University of Humbolt in the German Demo-cratic Republic in 1971.

The study of textbooks on pedagogy, psychology and sociol-ogy translated from Russian became very popular. The students’ movement and the unions in the Western World were very pro Soviet Union and anti USA. Demonstrations and the terrorist acts took place in Germany, Italy and France. In a way this became the decade of wretchedness thinking, however, it was also the decade when universities and colleges developed new study methods such as ‘Sociologische Phantasie und exemplarisches Lernen’, (Negt & Kluge 1971). Problem-based learning became the new mantra at the end of the decade. In the memory of many social pedagogues, 1970– 1980 was the Freudian-Marxist decade.

The decade 1980–1990

This was the decade of No Future Generation. Marxism was no longer highlighted, and it appeared that management and therapy took over. Denmark had a conservative/ liberal government from 1982 to 1992. The study of sociology at Copenhagen University was suspended, and cultural sociology was simply erased; it is no longer to be found at any faculty of any university in Denmark. For many social pedagogues this was a depressing decade, and many public institutions were closed because of privatisation of the public sector. Very few textbooks on the social pedagogical concept were pro-duced, however, among those that were was the series ‘Socialpæda-gogiske Tekster’; mainly written by the lecturers and students from the ‘Socialpædagogisk Højskole’, a college for further education in social pedagogy. In 1992, the two institutions for further education for pedagogues in Denmark, the ‘Videreuddannelsen for Pædagoger ved Danmarks Lærerhøjskole’ and the ‘Socialpædagogisk Højskole’ merged to form a new institution ‘Danmarks Pædagoghøjskole’.

The decade 1990–2000

In 1992, the three courses of education leading to the pedagogical qualifications of ‘børnehave- fritids of socialpædagogisk uddannelse’ (pre-school teacher, leisure time teacher and social pedagogue) were

77

brought to an end, and a new form of pedagogical education was introduced which focused on all three former courses. From 1992, practical pedagogical work incorporated all its various forms: day nurseries; kindergartens; pre-schools; leisure time places (clubs); all forms of residential homes for children and young people; peda-gogical work with people with all forms of disability and special needs; pedagogical work in hospitals and homes for the elderly; street work; treatment of drug addicts and alcoholics.

A ministerial evaluation of psychology studies at the University of Copenhagen took place in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. The result of the evaluation was clear – compared to similar psychology studies in other European countries the standard was not good enough. This may have been one of the reasons

1 why the role of

psychology in the new pedagogical studies was reduced to half. ‘Socialpædagogik’ as a subject was excluded from the new curri-cula, and there was no further education in social pedagogy. By the middle of the 1990’s, the terms ‘social pedagogy’, ‘social pedagogue’ and ‘social pedagogical’ could no longer be found in any Statute Book. It was at this time, in 1994, that Bent Madsen published his textbook ‘Socialpædagogik og samfundsforvandling’, which is still very popular as a textbook.

It has been difficult to translate this new training for pedagogues into English. Since the late 1990’s, the common term for the studies has been ‘Social Education’, and the pedagogues have been termed ‘Social Educators’. In my opinion, these terms convey little meaning to teachers and educators in the UK, for example. I often have the opportunity to meet researchers, university lectures and government officials from the UK, and when I do, I always ask them if they are familiar with the concepts ‘Social pedagogy’, ‘social pedagogue’, ‘social educator’ and ‘social education’. Very few are actually familiar with the precise Nordic and German meaning of these terms.

In 1990, the organisation ‘Socialpædagogik Forening’ changed its name to the ‘Pædagogisk Forum’. In 1996, a group of researchers, university and college lectures, and practising social pedagogues

1 Other reasons could be that the psychologists simply were not good enough

– their methods were outdated, if useable at all.

78

took the initiative to establish a new organisation, the ‘Dansk Forening for Socialpædagogik’. The organisation publishes a journal twice a year, the Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik. The first edition was published 1998. The organisation also holds annual conferences. In 1997, its first guest speaker was Hermann Giesecke whose presenta-tion was mainly on the topic The German School – the German Family. He is convinced that, as it is a conservative element in the German culture, the school must clearly define its task. Social peda-gogues work with children’s and young people’s problems outside of the school and the family. In Giesecke’s opinion, the German school should be more strict and conservative. Social pedagogy has to be preventive and adjusting.

In summary, it appears that the concept ‘social pedagogy’ is diverse; it ebbs and flows. It may be that this the ‘soul’ of the concept. In the following I shall try to present the kaleidoscope of tendencies and trends in social pedagogy at the turn of the millen-nium.

Tendencies and trends in social pedagogy at the turn of themillennium

First you clipped the wings of psychology – then sociology took over. And what happened? Now all students read sociology – and you make them believe that it is pedagogy.

Benny Lihme, February 2001. From a lecture given at Hindholm Socialpæda-gogisk Seminarium.

Lars-Henrik Schmidt, who at that time was director of the Dansk Pædagogisk Institut, was another of the speakers at the Dansk Forening for Socialpædagogik’s conference in 1997. His presentation was called ‘Socialpædagogikkens genskomst—The reappearance of social pedagogy’. He emphasised that the reappearance was a neces-sity because the concept of social pedagogy was to take care of that which is not ‘normal’. Now it seems that social pedagogy has taken over the role of pedagogy in general. It is, so to say, a must.

On July 1st 2000, a new university was established in Den-mark, ‘Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitet—DPU’ the Danish

79

University of Education2. The staff members came mainly from

the four closed institutions ‘Danmarks Lærerhøjskole’, ‘Danmarks Pædagoghøjskole’, Learning Lab Denmark’ and ‘Danmarks pæda-gogiske Institut’. Lars-Henrik Schmidt is the principal. Four aca-demic degrees: diploma, bachelor, master, and doctoral are offered at the university. There is no faculty of social pedagogy, but there is a faculty of “pedagogical sociology” (‘pædagogisk sociology’). To date, there is no academic subject social pedagogy, and one cannot be graduate in this subject. However, it is rumoured

3 that there are

plans to offer a master’s programme in social pedagogy.So who sets the agenda for social pedagogy in the year 2001? I

believe that Benny Lihme is still one of them. He has been very active in the last 30 years, and has written books on the concept and many articles. He also is very popular as a speaker at congresses, conferences and symposia. He is the ‘enfant terrible’ of the concept of social pedagogy. The above quotation comes from a dialogue from the Hindholm Socialpædagogiske Seminarium conference. Lihme said further that most of the textbooks on pedagogy and social pedagogy are an induction into sociology. As an example he referred to the textbook ‘Tæt på relationerne’.

Many others also set up agendas for social pedagogues: Jesper Holst, Johny Lauritsen, Bent Madsen, Karsten Tuft et al.

What textbooks are actually used to educate pedagogues? With regard to the concept of pedagogy, it is quite clear that many text-books refer to Giddens, Bourdieu, Luhmann, Beck, Habermas and other sociologists. This begs the question of whether or not it is possible to have a concept of pedagogy based on the theories of these gentlemen. The only professor in pedagogy at the University of Copenhagen, Staff Callewaert, brought Pierre Bourdieu with him from France. Students who study pedagogy at Copenhagen University all read Bourdieu, and they are all very familiar with the new mantra ‘Habitus’.

2 This again highlights the problem of translating Pædagogiske. Education is

used.3 This is a rumour which, to my knowledge, has not been confirmed.

80

Very few of the students have read books written by e.g. N.F.S. Grundtvig or K. Kold. Even fewer read books on social pedagogy

4.

This being so, it is especially interesting to see that many of the stu-dents from the 32 Institutes of Social Education in Denmark choose social pedagogical topics for their theses. The students obviously focus on children, young people and people in general with special needs, disabilities or social problems.

The Danish union for social pedagogues, ‘Socialpædagogernes Landsforbund’ has an official social policy: everyone has the right to be different. The vice-president, Mogens Seider, gave a speech at the annual conference in 1998, in which he emphasised that the new education for pedagogues from 1992 was not good enough. He pointed out some topics that he felt were missing from the current education. These included pedagogical work with people with spe-cial needs, people with disability in general—and with e.g. autistic disability. He pointed out areas in special pedagogical fields. In his opinion, many of the tasks faced by a social pedagogue are in the field of special pedagogy. This is an opinion echoed in the textbook ‘Specialpædagogik i en brydningstid’ (Holst, 2000, p. 133).

The articles in the six editions of the journal ‘Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik’ (1998–2000) are on different topics. Considering that this is the only journal in Denmark that has social pedagogy as its main theme, it shows the patchwork trend that they form. Some statistics showing the variations are presented below:

4 This is an allegation based on information given by lecturers from the Institut

for filosofi, pædagogik og retorik, KUA.

Total number of articles 46Articles on disability 7Articles on research 5Articles on: — (social pedagogical) education 7— (social pedagogical) history 3— (common) social pedagogy 22Articles on social pedagogy in nursing 2Articles from Nordic countries:— Norway 3— Sweden 3

81

Conclusion

Social pedagogy is like rock and roll music—not exactly ‘suit-able for the drawing room’. There seems to be an inward struggle between two incommensurate conditions. Rock and roll wants to be approved while disregarding the authorities with the power to approve what is suitable for the drawing room. Looking back, there is much historical documentation which shows that whenever some-one tries to form a basis for social pedagogy, someone else defines a new one which is again unsuitable for the drawing room.

Bibliography

Boje Rasmussen, K.A. (1970) Bogen om Ludvig Beck. København: Børnesagens Fællesråd.

Giesecke, H. (1978) Einfürung in die Pädagogik. München: Juventa Verlag.

Hegstrup, S. (1998) Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik. No. 1, p. 44.

Hegstrup, S. (1999) Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik. No. 4, p. 54.

Hegstrup, S. Tuft, K. (eds) (1997–2002) Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik. No. 1– 10.

Holst, J. et al. (2000) Specialpædagogik i en brydningstid. Aarhus: Systime.

Kyrø, Ø. (1998) Du Herlige Land. København: KFBU.

Lauritsen, J., Hegstrup, S. (2000) Socialpædagogiske Tekster Hindholm: Rapport 2000:16.

Lauritsen, J., Hegstrup, S. (2001) Socialpædagogiske Tekster Hindholm: Rapport 2001:17.

Ligthart, L. et al. (2000) International Woordenboek. Den Haag: FICE.

Madsen, B. (1994) Socialpædagogik og samfundsforvandling. København: Social-pædagogiske Bibliotek.

Madsen, B. et al. (1998) Tæt på relationen. København: Socialpædagogisk Biblio-tek.

Negt, O., Kluge A. (1971) Sociologische Phantasie und exemplarisches Lernen. Frank-furt: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.

Petersen, L. (1987) Stiftelsestøser Kongebørn. København: Dansk psykolog Forlag.

From Europe:— Germany 3— The Netherlands 1From the USA 1

82

Perch, P. W. (1983) Uddannelse til Socialpædagog dens oprindelse og udvikling. Køben-havn: Socialstyrelsen.

Rasmussen, H C. (1971) Synspunkter på Døgninstitutioner. København: Gylden-dal.

Rasmussen, H. (1973) Socialpædagogik. København: Socialpædagogik Bibliotek.

Schmidt, L.-H. (1998) Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik. No. 1, p. 12.

Øgendahl, C. (2000) Socialpædagogernes historie. København: SL.