Bruno Bettelheim: contradictions, controversies and continuities

ABSTRACT

The work of Bruno Bettelheim presents a range of challenges, in respect of its meaning, relevance and, not least, its overall credibility. These have long been apparent in the early years education. Adopting an English perspective, the paper explores a thesis that Bettelheim’s work, although fragile in its scientific grounding, has nevertheless held successive generations of educators in its thrall, enabling the maintenance of a focus on the emotional dimension of education. Its importance in contributing to progressing a ‘living theory’ which helps inform the way that teachers engage with all learners. I suggest that – in common with other historical figures in education – his influence has gradually dissipated, largely absorbed, illustrating this by a set of snapshot observations from two groups of teachers, whose initial teacher training is separated by over 40 years. Ultimately, the paper argues that Bettelheim’s contribution to practice should be celebrated for its capacity to trigger a way of personalizing learning – at a time of increasing homogeneity in education systems in England, and even worldwide.

KEYWORDS:

• Bettelheim
• critique
• legacy
• practitioner

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Teacher Training: this term was in common use prior to the 1980s in England. The preferred expression is now ‘teacher education’, although the two descriptors are regarded as interchangeable by some.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Philip Garner

Philip Garner has held academic positions in 3 universities in the UK, and is currently Professor of Education at Brunel University London. He has undertaken research projects in diverse international locations in the the field of special education and inclusion, and has a particular interest in teacher development. He has published extensively in these areas of work.