The Coexistence of Several Ideas of a University

Narisada Kaoru

(Hiroshima University, Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences)

In the 19th century, one theory emerged from all of the debates over university reform in Germany, which said that the most important mission for universities and people connected to them was "pursuit of the truth". As a result, a high level of research ability was required of these people, and along with that, the phrase "the unity of research and education" became popular, and it was believed that only excellent researchers made excellent educators. In addition, for both university teachers and students, just being loyal to one's own intellectual pursuits raised the idea of "academic freedom" up high, and the various powers and authorities outside the universities had the maximum respect for universities, and for the concept of "academic freedom". That kind of "idea of the university", coupled with the competitive environment that existed between universities everywhere in Germany, led to the considerable expansion of academic research at German universities throughout the 19th century, and Germany became a mecca for scientific research. At that time, W. von Humboldt founded Berlin University (1810), and led the remarkable growth of German universities. To that end, the idea of the university which emphasizes research is sometimes known as "Humboldt's idea". This is the general story behind the expansion of German universities in the 19th century and the "idea of the university" which supported this expansion.

Professor Miyasaka reported in his "Historical Research Trends concerning the Founding of Berlin University and the Humboldtian Idea of the University", that modern historical research has started to criticize and revise the commonly accepted theories outlined above. Professor Miyasaka asserts that, according to modern historical research, it was more probable that a university was established in Berlin, the Prussian capital as a emergency refuge measure, so to speak, following the defeat of Prussia in the Napoleonic Wars, rather than being built as a result of the discussions over university reform led by German intellectuals with Humboldt at their center.

This is not the only revision; amongst others is the view that the establishment of Berlin University was based on contingent factors rather than conceptual ideas. "Humboldtian ideology" itself was created out of the discourse over what place the centennial of Berlin University should be given in history. This Humboldtian ideology was exported all over the world, and was utilized as the basis or model whenever a modern university was founded or equipped in areas other than Europe. That is to say, Humboldtian ideology was not created by Humboldt himself, but rather shaped by the hands of subsequent generations. Furthermore, advancing a few decades to the university reform movements of the 1960s, Schelsky's widely read book "Einsamkeit und Freiheit: Idee und Gestalt der deutschen Universitat und ihrer Reformen" (1963) ("Solitude and Freedom on the role of the university") firmly established Humboldt's idea and the image of the German university based on that idea, as quoted in the opening paragraphs of this paper, but the opinion of recent historians suggest that the book is based on the practical motivation of the writer himself, who was concerned with university reform, and he cannot be called a pure historical researcher.

Generally, views of history and historical opinions are inevitably accompanied by criticisms, revisions and corrections. There is even debate over whether the scientific revolution of the 17th century and the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century which widely divide European history, really provoked enough change to actually call them "revolutions". However, Professor Miyasaka's report came like a bolt out of the blue at least for this writer.

Professor Beppu, responsible for commenting on Professor MiyasakaĠs report, claims, based on his many years of acheivements in the field of historical research on German universities, that there is nothing even remotely surprising about the "Trends in Historical Research" in Professor Miyasaka's report. Professor Beppu cites the example of the Rules of Berlin University Faculty of Philosophy (1838), and argues that it was actually Humboldt's idea which guided the founding of Berlin University, and that "Einsamkeit und Freiheit" has continued to illustrate the distinctive characteristics of German universities until recently.

It was thought that a fierce debate would rage between Professor Miyasaka and Professor Beppu, pulling in other participants, but due to the time constraints and the limitations of using Japanese and English simultaneously, it was indeed a shame that the debate did not deepen enough. I am looking forward to the publication of this book which will be a good chance to develop the discussion over the fundamental questions of the history of German universities.

Critical points concerning Humboldt's idea, that is to say, the idea of the German university have been raised above, but we can see a common point in all of the following reports: the Goldman report on universities in Victorian England, the Helpst report on American specialized work training, the Nakayama report on the American graduate school education system and the Hata report on historical changes in the concept of "universities" in our own country. This common point is the co-existence of various types of "ideas of the university".

Dr. Goldman's report examined the debate about the Oxford University Bill in Parliament in England in 1854, and explained "there was no single 'idea of the university' but many different ideas held simultaneously, sometimes in creative tension with each other, and sometimes in disabling competition". That is to say, with reference to Oxford University in the Victorian era, several ideas of the university (and their corresponding social functions), co-existed with each other. For example, these included the university as a resource for the people, the university as a autonomous community, the university at the center of advanced research, the university as a place to train political leaders, and the university as a place for general education.

Professor Helpst discussed the history of specialized work training (the training of doctors, teachers and ministers, and so on) in America, and explained the problems of the double work strategy, brought about by unavoidable circumstances, of the professors of schools for specialized training. They firstly, have to make an effort to research and publish in order not to be beaten by those colleagues who have academic tendencies, and secondly, have to satisfy the needs and demands of those students who enter in the hope of gaining practical specialized work. The professors have been forced into difficulties brought about by the two frequently opposing ideologies of practical education for specialized work training, and academic research.

Professor Nakayama, while delving into his own personal experience as a graduate student at Harvard University, discussed the American graduate school as a place for professional training, and at the same time, as a place for original research. We can of course say that professional schools such as medical schools and law schools are places for strict professional training, but graduate schools also train students for disciplines through strict coursework in the beginning after admission. In American graduate schools, the ideology of training specialists (specialized work) through professional training has developed from a multi-layered structure of the ideology of advanced, original training.

Professor Hata explained how it came about that "daigaku", the Japanese translation of "university" which has become firmly entrenched since the Meiji Era, has subsumed various insitutes of higher education. In the history of universities in our country, various types of education institutes with differing organizing bodies and social functions have all aspired to the authoritive title of "daigaku", which denotes institutes of higher learning, and are in the process of grasping the chance to realize that "dream". As a result, even if there is a possibility to discuss for the individual university "the Founder's Idea of the University", there is seldom the chance to debate "the idea of the university" in general as in "what a university is" apart from with people who are interested in university history. Perhaps it is better to say that a single "idea of the university" should not exist at all.

Looking at Miyasaka's presentation on the question of Humboldtian philosophy in German universities, Goldman's report on the absence of one "idea of the university" in Oxford University, and Helpst's and Nakayama's reports on American graduate schools being places of professional training as well as places of research, it seems natural that there is not only one single "idea of the university" in our country as well. (We must give thought to whether there is any difference between not having only a single "idea of the university", and it not existing at all.)

To use a cliche, throughout the long history of the university, the process of adapting to the circumstances of each country, and fulfilling various functions has led to the co-existence of several "ideas of the university".

In fact, Dr. Goldman argues that (the Victorians) "bequeathed several different ideas of a university in a single insitution, and it is our task to ensure that the many are not reduced towards the one", and I am absolutely of the same opinion. For example, research and education, and specialized education and cultural training are frequently said to be in opposition to each other, and pull against each other in the context of "the idea of the university", but if we actively accept the co-existence of several types of "ideas of the university", we can avoid this unproductive opposition.

However, it is essential for universities to have rich resources (personnel, finances, facilities) in order to allow several types of "ideas of the university" to co-exist, and to function properly. Apart from Oxford University, Harvard University or Tokyo University, it is the truth that generally most universities are doing the best they can with limited resources. On that point, the world's universities are facing a reduction in public resources, and there are apprehensions that the present situation of inclination towards academic capitalism will not permit the co-existence of several "ideas of the university".

On top of the limits on public funds applied to universities, a certain rationality in the way to discriminate universities must be accepted as university policy to plan the effective distribution of resources. Our country's university policy of encouraging "universities shining with individuality" is a reflection of those circumstances.

K. Senba, Y. Yasuhara, and T.Hata(eds.),The Idea of a University in Historical Perspective: Germany, Britain, USA and Japan(Reviews in Higher Education 84), Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University, November 2005, pp.79-84.