By Dr Sarah Odhner
Samuel Wilderspin’s nineteenth-century early childhood pedagogy is widely recognised to be of global significance. His manual, On the Importance of Educating the Infant Children of the Poor, was the first work to set out innovative methods for teaching young children in Britain.[1] By 1825 it had been translated into in French and German and distributed transnationally.[2] Wilderspin’s works abound with practical tips and examples, making them an accessible teaching resource. Yet, the apparent lack of a theoretical framework has puzzled educational historians, with the result that some have distinguished Wilderspin for his avoidance of theory.[3] Others have interpreted his methods as the product of observation.[4] It is well documented that Wilderspin was a Swedenborgian. In fact, Stewart and McCann recognised that Oberlin, Buchanan and Wilderspin all read the works of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) and posited, ‘if early infant schools … had any theoretical basis at all, it was Swedenborgianism.’[5] However, researchers have found Swedenborg’s footprint elusive.[6]
The answer to Swedenborg’s elusiveness lies in the degree to which he and his followers were ostracised. By way of illustration despite being acclaimed an excellent superintendent, James Buchanan, Wilderspin’s mentor, was dismissed following his public profession of Swedenborgianism. Wilderspin skirted this issue by embedding Swedenborg’s ideas in his pedagogic praxis, thereby pushing theoretical considerations into the background.
The problem is made more complex by the fact that Swedenborg did not compile a separate work on education but interspersed his theories throughout an extensive oeuvre, making them difficult to trace. Yet, if we compare Swedenborg’s educational principles with Wilderspin’s infant pedagogy, striking parallels emerge.
Take, for example, Swedenborg’s concept of the mind. Like others, Swedenborg adopted the view that the mind comprised the faculties of will and understanding. But Swedenborg was unique in assigning primacy to the will. Consequently, delight was a key factor in learning.[7] Wilderspin likewise submitted that pleasing children or engaging their wills was critical for positive learning outcomes. He stated, ‘Whatever children are delighted with, they will follow, and it will form a kind of main spring to all their actions.’ Teachers were to monitor engagement, and change course if children visibly lost interest because, ‘one hours’ instruction with children’s hearts, or wills, is better than twenty hours of instruction when children are thinking of something else.’ Therefore, Wilderspin identified appealing to the will as the key to learning.
Swedenborg also viewed sensory impressions to be critical for mental development from infancy.[8] Wilderspin reflected this by incorporating sensory methods in his practice. Infants used their whole body when learning to count. Children sat down, stood up, pounded their fists, and touched their fingers, knees or toes. Wilderspin also used one-inch cubes to model arithmetic problems. If a child struggled to grasp a particular concept, Wilderspin increased the sensory input by inviting children to handle the blocks themselves. Consequently, Wilderspin made the senses integral to learning.
A thorough comparison between Swedenborg’s theories of heredity, innocence, infancy, play, caregiving and the social with Wilderspin’s pedagogy reveals far-reaching parallels. These equivalences establish Swedenborg’s ideology as the basis for Wilderspin’s infant pedagogy. Wilderspin’s decision to relay Swedenborg’s theories as actionable teaching strategies gave them global reach, despite catalysing the misconception that his praxis was not grounded in theory.
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
[1] Wilderspin, S. (1823) On the Importance of Educating the Infant Children of the Poor. London: T. Goyder.
[2] Luc, J. (2015) ‘The Spread of Infant School Models in Europe during the First Half of the Nineteenth Century’, in Willekens, H., Scheiwe, K. and Nawrotzki, K. (eds) The Development of Early Childhood Education in Europe and North America. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 31-50; Westberg, J. (2020). The transnational dissemination of the infant school to the periphery of Europe: the role of primary schools, religion, travels, and handbooks in the case of nineteenth-century Sweden. Paedagogica Historica, 58(1), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2020.1803936
[3] May, H., Kaur, B., and Prochner, L., (2014), Empire, Education, and Indigenous Childhoods. Abingdon: Ashgate Publishing, p. 93.
[4] Whitbread, N., (1972) The Evolution of the Nursery-Infant School. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, p. 14.
[5] Stewart, W.A.C. and McCann, W. P., (1967) The Educational Innovators: 1750-1880. London: Macmillan and Company, p. 245.
[6] May, Kaur, and Prochner, p. 93.
[7] Swedenborg, E. (1995) Delights of Wisdom Relating to Conjugial Love. Translated from the Neo-Latin by N. B. Rogers. Bryn Athyn, PA: General Church of the New Jerusalem, §461.
[8] Swedenborg, E. (1983-1999) Arcana Coelestia. Translated from the Neo-Latin by J. Elliott. London: Swedenborg Society, §4612.
Blog Writer Biography:
Sarah Odhner is an experienced educator, curriculum developer and lecturer in education at Bryn Athyn College, PA. She was awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Canterbury Christ Church University in 2024. Her thesis, The Swedenborgian Infant School Pedagogy of Samuel Wilderspin, 1820-1825: An Actor-Network Analysis, was the first to inspect Wilderspin’s work from within the prism of Swedenborgianism. Her examiners noted, Sarah’s background “adds an important aspect to building bridges across two distinctive camps of scholars in Swedenborgian Studies and History of Education, allowing her insight and understanding often closed to scholars outside the Swedenborgian tradition.”