Marcelo Caruso, Order through the Gaze: A ComparativePerspective of the Construction of Visibilityin Monitorial Schooling(German States — Spain, approx. 1815–1848)

8/8/2019 Marcelo Caruso, Order through the Gaze: A ComparativePerspective of the Construction of Visibilityin Monitorial Sch…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marcelo-caruso-order-through-the-gaze-a-comparativeperspective-of-the-construction 1/26

147

Date of submission: 17-06-08Date of acceptance: 15-09-08

Encounters on Education

Volume 9, Fall 2008 pp. 147–172

Order through the Gaze: A ComparativePerspective of the Construction of Visibility

in Monitorial Schooling(German States — Spain, approx. 1815–1848)

Orden a Través de la Mirada: Una PerspectivaComparada de la Construcción

de la Visibilidad en las Escuelas Mutuas(Estados Alemanes — España, ca. 1815–1848)

L’Ordre par le Regard : Une PerspectiveComparative de la Construction de la Visibilité

dans l’Enseignement Mutuel (États del’Allemagne — de l’Espagne, approx. 1815–1848)

Marcelo CarusoHumboldt University (Berlin)1

ABSTRACTVisibility o bodies and actions in the classroom is a major eature o modern schooling as adisciplinary institution. The mere act that children attended elementary schools in early mod-ern times did not mean that eective work took place. Old techniques o schooling were chal-lenged by new proposals at the beginning o the nineteenth century. Among them, monitorialschooling represented a crucial movement towards an increased standardisation o educationalpractices and institutions. This British model o schooling was based on a strict routine in theclassroom, carried out by numerous children in the role o helpers, also called monitors. In this

system o teaching, a hierarchical structure o monitors guaranteed continuous activity o a well-ordered mass o pupils. The worldwide spread o monitorial schooling was a rst attemptto extend a disciplined daily lie into the classrooms beore group teaching techniques took the oreront. Evidently, the challenge o teaching 200–300 pupils in a room made demandson control and surveillance, in order to interrupt possible alliances between children. This



contribution describes dierent versions o the control o large groups o children throughvisibility in German and Spanish schools. In both contexts, educationalists and schoolteachersreormed many aspects o the “British” system, which oresaw “pyramidal” structure o gazes.In the German states, a general concern about the position o the teacher arose. Germans

criticised the teaching role o monitors and reinorced the role o the adult’s gaze in orderingthe classroom. In the Spanish case, educationists started copying the English original, but they later reinorced the stability o authority by giving a more substantive role to the “intermedi-ate” gazes o the general monitors. Both developments are traced back to prevailing notionso teaching in each context. The dierent paths o reception and interpretation o this highly codied system o teaching display the existence o dierent “cultures o discipline.”Key words: classroom, discipline, visibility, authority, Spain, Germany.

RESUMENLa visibilidad de cuerpos y acciones en las aulas es una de las características centrales de esco-

laridad moderna como institución disciplinaria. El hecho de que los niños vayan a una escuelaelemental no signica en los tiempos de la modernidad temprana que allí tuviera lugar untrabajo eectivo. Viejas técnicas de enseñanza ueron cuestionadas por nuevos modelos hacia elcomienzo del siglo XIX. Entre ellos, el sistema de enseñanza mutua representó un momentocrucial en torno a una estandarización creciente de las instituciones y prácticas educativas. Estemodelo inglés de enseñanza se basaba en una rutina estricta en el aula que era garantizada a tra-vés del uso de niños como ayudantes, los monitores. En este sistema de enseñanza, la estructura

jerárquica de monitores garantizaba una actividad continua y un ordenamiento apropiado de lamasa de alumnos. La expansión mundial de este sistema ue el primer intento de extender unacotidianeidad disciplinaria en las aulas antes del triuno de las técnicas de enseñanza grupal.Evidentemente, el desaío de enseñar 200 a 300 niños en un aula acrecentó las demandas de

control y supervisión con el objeto de interrumpir alianzas posibles entre los niños. Este artí-culo describe las dierentes versiones de control de grandes grupos de niños a través de técnicasde visibilización en las escuelas mutuas españolas y alemanas. En ambos contextos, educadoresy maestros reormaron varios aspectos del “sistema británico” que preveía una estructura pi-ramidal de las miradas. En los estados alemanes, una preocupación general sobre la posicióndel docente adulto predominó en la discusión. Los alemanes criticaron el rol de los mnitoresy reorzaron el rol de la mirada del adulto en el ordenamiento del aula. En el caso español, loseducadores comenzaron por copiar el modelo inglés, pero más tarde reorzaron las miradas“intermediarias” de los monitores generales. Ambos desarrollos son explicados a través de lasnociones predominantes de la enseñanza en cada contexto. Los diversos senderos de recepcióne interpretación de este sistemat de enseñanza altamente codicado pone en evidencia la exis-

tencia de diversas “culturas de la disciplina.”Descriptores: sala de clase, disciplina, visibilidad, autoridad, España, Alemania.

RÉSUMÉLa visibilité corporelle et celle des actions dans la salle de classe est un aspect majeur de l’ins-truction moderne comme institution disciplinaire. Le simple ait que les enants aient ré-quenté les écoles élémentaires aux débuts des temps modernes ne signiait pas qu’un travailecace y avait eu lieu. Les anciennes techniques d’instruction urent contestées par de nou-velles propositions au début du 19e siècle. Entre autres, l’instruction mutuelle représentait unmouvement crucial vers une standardisation accrue des pratiques et des institutions éducatives.

Ce modèle britannique d’instruction était basé sur une routine rigide dans la salle de classe,eectuée par de nombreux enants dans le rôle d’auxiliaires, aussi appelés moniteurs. Dans cesystème d’enseignement, une structure hiérarchique de moniteurs assurait l’activité ininter-rompue d’un grand nombre d’élèves. La dissémination mondiale de l’enseignement mutuelut une première tentative pour étendre une vie quotidienne disciplinée dans les salles de classeavant que les techniques d’enseignement de groupe n’aient pris le premier rang. Évidemment,

Encounters/Encuentros/Rencontres 148



le dé d’enseigner à 200–300 élèves dans une seule salle exigeait du contrôle et de la surveillan-ce, pour prévenir les alliances possibles entre enants. Ce papier décrit diérentes versions ducontrôle de grands groupes d’enants par la visibilité dans les écoles allemandes et espagnoles.Dans les deux contextes, les éducateurs et les enseignants ont réormé plusieurs aspects du

système « britannique » qui prévoyait une structure « pyramidale » du regard (la surveillance).Dans les états germaniques, un souci général au sujet de la position de l’enseignant surgit. Les

Allemands critiquèrent le rôle pédagogique des moniteurs et renorcèrent celui du « regardxe » de l’adulte pour ordonner la classe. Dans le cas de l’Espagne, les éducateurs entreprirentde copier l’original anglais, mais ils renorcèrent plus tard la stabilité de l’autorité en donnantun rôle substantiel aux « regards intermédiaires » des moniteurs généraux. Les deux dévelop-pements retrouvent leur origine dans les notions dominantes de l’enseignement dans chaquecontexte. Les diérents sentiers de réception et d’interprétation de ce système hautement codi-é démontrent l’existence de « cultures de disciplines » diérentes.Mots-clés : salle de classe, discipline, visibilité, autorité, Espagne, Allemagne.

Introduction: Visibility in the Classroom and the Emergence of

Modern Schooling

One of the most enduring transformations o mass-schooling during thenineteenth century was the consolidation o a consistent pattern o teaching

that was characterized by group instruction in graded schools. Group instruction isnow considered a central eature o modern schooling, but was only implemented asthe result o a long, disputed and demanding process o re-shaping pedagogical prac-

tices by imposing comprehensive and rational models o order on classrooms.In early modern times, the mere act that children attended elementary schoolsdid not necessarily mean that eective schoolwork, understood both as providingelementary skills and moralizing populations, actually took place. In the second hal o the eighteenth century in particular, enlightened critics observed that inheritedmodels o teaching and learning were inadequate in guaranteeing a well-ordered daily lie in classrooms. These complaints put into question the legitimacy o the “old” or“individual” teaching method, prevalent in many European elementary schools untilthe middle o the nineteenth century. Sporadically arranged interrogations and reci-

tations supervised by the schoolmaster ocused on the perormance o each child, andthey did not necessarily address the whole group o heterogeneous pupils.2 Althoughstudents were supposed to work steadily and under supervision, this device requiredthat they remained passive and uncontrolled or most o their school time.

Overcoming this unsatisactory state o aairs primarily entailed adopting com-prehensive and calculated models o order, enabling pupils o dierent ages and levelso achievement to work at the same time in a continuous and systematic way. Inthis context, many proposals or reorming the old model o schooling emerged in Western Europe. Group teaching as we know it today, monitorial schooling, and a

wide range o mixed systems o teaching oered many alternatives to counteract thepassivity and much-lamented idleness o the students. Considering the large sizes o the mixed-age groups to be schooled, visibility o all children in the classroom becamea key to making elementary schooling eective. The issue o extending surveillance was addressed in particular by all these organizational and pedagogical proposals.

149Education, movement of ideas, social and political agendas: an historical approach



They have strongly shaped our image o modern schooling and promoted one o themajor technological shits in the history o education.

Disciplining and its ocus on the visibility o bodies set orth a theoretical rame

or understanding the visual aspect underlying the reshaping o very dierent insti-tutional settings, including actories, hospitals, prisons and schools.3 Discipliningconstituted a task that had to be achieved by means o visual arrangements; thesehave been designated “an order o light.” 4 The architecture o institutions and thedisposition o bodies and things became essential conditions or an experience o theordered world that has been a part o the “hidden curriculum” o schools in recentcenturies.5 These arrangements enabled the interplay o “gazes” characteristic o themodern classroom. By “gaze” I mean the active, searching, and projective aspectso seeing as an embodied social strategy rather than a mere process o perception.6

Modern subjectivities resulted rom, among other sources, analytically ordered insti-tutional experiences strongly marked by consciousness o one’s own visibility.7

I wish to argue that the basic unction o ordering modern institutions by impos-ing a general visibility o bodies and actions on them was by no means as homo-geneous as much critical and postmodern scholarship would suggest. It is certainly ironic that Foucauldian theory, usually associated with the so-called “new culturalhistory”, has so rarely been implemented in assessing the role o cultural dierencesin the constitution o “disciplined” modern institutions and orms o subjectivity.Reshaping institutions, making them “ordered”, has repeatedly been equated with

the spread o a very homogeneous work o disciplining, ignoring cultural dier-ences between the respective settings.8 By contrast, I would like to point out thatthe process o disciplining subjectivities in daily lie institutions utilized dierenttechniques and arrangements and these culturally distinct preerences led to a varia-tion in disciplining strategies. These dierences were not mere miscellanea but they also aected very central aspects o the program o disciplining, such as the con-struction o visibility in classrooms, leading eventually to contoured “cultures o disciplining.”

Here I will present variations o ordering classrooms along the lines o the vis-

ibility o bodies and actions in the discussions and practices related to one o themost sensational proposals o school ordering — the English monitorial system o education — in two dierent contexts in the frst hal o the nineteenth century: theGerman States and Spain. Searching or cultural dierences in schooling requiresthe analysis o settings with dierent traditions and cultural conditions. Spain andthe German States are not only very dierent in their religious and political history.

At the beginning o the nineteenth century, they had also developed very dierentrapport with their own pedagogical traditions. Whereas Spain underwent a bit-ter process o political and educational modernization ater 1812 and Spaniards

discarded many aspects o the own educational heritage, the German States had witnessed an unprecedented increase o local educational initiatives based on theirown religious and political traditions. In this sense, a comparison between Spainand Germany can show the dierent receptivity o oreign models o schooling by local orces.




In the ollowing, I will assess the transcontinental importance o the monitorialschools in the transition rom old orms o “disorganized” teaching to the disciplin-ary reshaping o classrooms. Ater this, I will succinctly describe the paths by which

the monitorial model was introduced and received in the contexts o both Spanishand German States and ocus on their distinctive preerences regarding the issue o the necessary interplay o gazes in the classroom. At the end, I will trace back thesedierences to the use o children in monitorial schools as “teachers in miniature” onthe one hand and on the other hand to the respective views o schools as social placesin each context.

The Transcontinental Spread of the Monitorial System of Education1.

The dynamics o the expansion, adoption, and even decline o the monitorial systemo education was a novelty in the history o diusion o educational innovations.Practiced by Andrew Bell around 1790 in Madras (India) and by Joseph Lancasterrom 1798 in London, their pioneer reports, published respectively in 1797 and1803,9 unleashed an unprecedented wave o didactical publishing and educationalenthusiasm. Optimistic anthropological views o children and their educability to-gether with a growing demand or mass schooling devices avored the new model.Monitorial teaching oered a promising solution to the problem o ordering class-rooms by using students — also called “monitors” — as direct instructors o small

groups o students.

A writing class with a teaching monitor. Source: Joachim Catalá, Manual práctico o compendio del método de enseñanza mutua (Barcelona: Imprenta de José Torner, 1821), LII.




Monitors were selected as “teachers” rom among the best pupils. Lessons con-ducted by monitors were tightly planned, both in terms o the amount o time de-voted to each group o students and in terms o the amount o content that had to be

learned each time. Monitors were all linked by a strict chain o command in whichtheir responsibilities were constantly changing — in some subjects they would act asmonitors, in others simply as pupils. There were dierent kinds o monitors: “generalmonitors” commanded the so-called “monitors o order”, who in turn controlled the“teaching monitors” (in charge o groups). The constant grouping and re-grouping o pupils according to their roles and the teaching content created a kind o choreogra-phy in the classroom; a choreography which was regulated by a series o standardizedsigns and commands supported by new didactical materials such as sand-desks orthe learning o writing and tables o lessons or collective reading. It is noteworthy

that this model o organization o teaching was highly recommended or both maleand emale schools. This idea o universal application beyond gender boundariescaused some anxieties in conservative circles, particularly in the Catholic world.10

This systemic character o teaching and Lancaster‘s promise that up to a thousandchildren could be taught by only one schoolmaster impressed elites all over the world. Although other proposals or ordering elementary classrooms that had been set orthrom the seventeenth century on also emphasized visibility and had tried to ree the

teacher‘s gaze rom a consecutive occupation with only one pupil at a time,11

surveil-lance became a central issue in monitorial schooling. The unctioning o this systemrequired not only the teacher’s sagacious coordination o the whole ensemble, butalso the controlling gazes o all monitors, who had to compete in order to attain andretain their positions. In this economy o competition and emulation in a crowded


“View o the main male school o the British and Foreign School Society.” Source: Joseph Hamel, Dergegenseitige Unterricht (Paris: Didot, 1818), Appendix, plate IV.



setting, the visibility o bodies and actions, which was meant to lead to sel-controland sel-awareness, became particularly crucial or the unctioning o the whole.12 Accordingly, the monitorial system o education constituted one central piece in the

history o reshaping elementary teaching with disciplinary techniques in the nine-teenth century.Not least because o its promise o reshaping patterns o teaching using new orms

o systematic interaction in the classroom, this system o teaching was not only wide-ly implemented in Europe, but also in the ve continents.13 O course, whereas theappropriation o undamental eatures o monitorial schooling always stressed therepresentation o an exact and rational order, the meanings attached to this exactnessand rationality varied strongly across the dierent settings. I will present briefy the“German” and Spanish paths o reception in order to assess dissimilarities within

Western Europe.

The Monitorial System in the German States and Spain2.

Despite all cultural, social and religious dierences between the German States andSpain, both political settings bore some resemblances to each other. German andSpanish Liberal orces intended to establish a constitutional monarchy, and they ound decided opposition in restorative groups.14 Enlightened and liberal eorts weresuccessively successul in Spain (1812) — with a much-admired and disputed consti-

tutional charter — in some central German states such as Bavaria and Württemberg(1818–1820), in Prussia (1848) and nally in Denmark (1849), which governed theGerman principalities o Schleswig and Holstein.15

I the political raming o the reception o the monitorial system did not lead tosubstantial variations o meaning and interpretation, educational trajectories did. TheGerman States in particular had witnessed a real food o educational and pedagogi-cal literature rom the last third o the eighteenth century on. Under the infuenceo pietism,16 the struggle or an ordered classroom became o utmost importance,reached a growing audience,17 and nally led to the establishment o institutions or

teacher education in most o the States.18

The renement o didactical discussion inthe German States was unique at this time. Educational knowledge expanded anddiversied, even reaching the highest spheres o systematic knowledge. This was thecase or the rst chair or education worldwide, held by Christian Trapp (1745–1818)in Halle in 1779,19 or or Kant’s lessons on education (1724–1804) in Königsberg.20 In addition, numerous publications, magazines, and educational journals supportedthe dynamics o educational discussion and controversy.

Germans and Austrians were possibly the rst to ban the old structure o individ-ual interrogation and recitation rom elementary classrooms. At the beginning o the

nineteenth century group teaching was increasing and in the middle o the century there were no traces o individual instruction. Germans had ound a rst solution inpure group teaching or the imperative o institutional ordering, when the monitorialsystem emerged. Consequently, the very translations o Bell’s and Lancaster’s semi-nal books into German included a great deal o criticism o certain principles and




eatures o the method.21 Nonetheless, the impressive quantity o literature discussingthe monitorial method between 1808 and 1850 displayed both the anxiety Germanselt because o the challenge o the new system and the demographic pressure in these

decades, which consistently led to larger elementary classrooms. Although German educational elites eschewed the promises o monitorial school-ing, it is interesting to note that their bastions, the seminaries or teacher education,became one o the most signicant places o experimentation with the new device. Inmany small cities in Prussia, Württemberg, and Hesse, experimental classes practic-ing monitorial techniques and the interest o the states — above all, Prussia, Saxony and Württemberg — in this system o teaching remained a striking issue until themiddle o the century.22 But it was in Schleswig and Holstein, two German-speakingprincipalities under Danish rule, where a variation o monitorial schooling marked

the pedagogy o elementary schooling.23

Danish militaries interested in monitorialschooling or the reshaping o their own military schools had introduced the systemin a ew Danish common schools, and the ocial educational policy then avored itsgeneral expansion in all parts o the kingdom. With the Normal school at Eckernörde,established in 1820, Schleswig and Holstein experienced a orced change o tech-niques which consolidated a kind o mixed method. This German mixed systemdenied children the capacity o teaching their classmates, limiting the collaborationo monitors to moments o repetition and to practice exercises. A whole ideology o “real” teaching, which included notions o an insurmountable dierence between the

words and deeds o adults and o children, had the upper hand.24

Aside rom numer-ous, but only locally relevant experiments with monitorial techniques in cities suchas Königsberg, Magdeburg, and Aschersleben, the model o monitorial schooling, inits “mixed version”, spread consistently only in Schleswig and Holstein.25

For one to take a look at Spain at this time entails dealing with the Europeanperiphery, even in educational issues. Ater two centuries o economic decline andcultural decay, enlightened eorts to modernize the country gained ground between1770 and 1800.26 Modernizing circles organized in economic societies (Sociedades Económicas de Amigos del País ) preached utilitarian notions o productive work, ratio-

nalization o agriculture, and the struggle against superstition and ignorance.27

They also initiated many projects o vocational and elementary schooling. However, thesesocial and cultural orces only represented a tiny minority o Spanish elites and oundvarying support among some Churchmen. Educational issues became an issue, butnot a serious concern or the state. Ater the rst attempt to create a “well-ordered”and homogeneous daily lie in primary schools between 1790 and 1792, when JuanRubio and other agents sent rom Madrid introduced Rubio’s well-known system o elementary teaching in some cities,28 the only noticeable innovation was the ailedimport o the Pestalozzian method between 1805 and 1808.29

Beyond these limited initiatives o the central state, the only generally acknowl-edged group in educational issues ater the expulsion o the Jesuit Order in 1767 wasthat o the Piarists, an Order (established in 1617) working in elementary educa-tion with considerable success across southern Europe. The Piarists were pioneerso pedagogical standardization in the country, as their unied method or Castile




rom 1780 onwards displays.30 On the whole, individual teaching was still popularamong elementary teachers. Educational and pedagogical discussions animated by enlightened circles only reached a section o urban teachers and did not bring about

a rationalized orm o teaching.Both the absolutist government and the local economic societies, being the mod-ernizing agents par excellence, imported monitorial schooling at the same time. Whereas the captain John Kearney, a Spaniard o Irish descent, was sent by a groupo important Court personalities to England in order to learn about the system inthe Normal School in London,31 the economic society o the harbor city o Cadizollowed its own plans or the establishment o a monitorial school.32 Kearney estab-lished a normal school at the court o Madrid with ocial protection, and shortly ater the king authorized all economic societies to establish monitorial schools at

their expense.33

Additional support or monitorial schooling came rom liberal orces, which took power in 1820, in order to spread literacy among the masses at low cost.34 This urgency stemmed rom the Spanish constitution o 1812, which oresaw thatilliterate male adults would be excluded rom ranchise ater 1830. In the liberal-radical period known as Trienio (1820–1823) monitorial schooling became closely associated with reemasonry and radical patriotic societies, which initiated many monitorial schools in some regions o the country.35

Absolutist repression ater 1823 aected monitorial expansion and the generalregulations or primary schools rom 1825 made the method o the Piarist Order

mandatory, which also oresaw the help o the older children. The political changetowards constitutional monarchy ater 1834 opened up new opportunities or thediusion o monitorial schooling, but drats were initially more numerous than real-izations. Monitorial schooling, at least in its pure orm, remained a marginal devicein Spanish primary schools, and the old individual method disappeared only in thelast decades o the nineteenth century. However, Spaniards appreciated the advan-tages o the monitorial system and integrated it with some eatures o group teachingin the so-called método mixto, which prevailed in Spanish elementary schools untilthe end o the century.

In both settings, shared concerns about the ordering o the institutions or thepopulace met local conditions o interpretation, specic notions o acceptable teach-ing, and dierent educational backgrounds. The unction o rendering hundreds o children visible was one crucial eld where these conceptions became eectual and were not only “ideas.” The strategies o producing “visibility” in the classroom usingthe heavily codied monitorial system did not lead to a homogenization o practices;rather, it generated dierent approaches to control, surveillance and visibility.

Visibility for Ordering (I): The German Experience 3.

The translations o Bell’s and Lancaster’s works into German, both published in1808, already contained comments on the topic o visibility or disciplining. Thepriest Friedrich Tilgenkamp, in the introduction to his translation o Bell’s book,asserted that the new system represented a better model o discipline because it was




about observing and controlling: “the morality o the students will be thoroughly observed, each mistake will be noticed, careully recorded and censured by a special jury.” 36 Ludwig Natorp, a very infuential school inspector engaged in teacher educa-

tion and a translator o Lancaster’s book, asserted that a real teacher — in contrast tothe helpers and monitors — has to be an expert in “observation.”37

The problem was that in monitorial schooling and its variations the power o thegaze included teachers as well as monitors o all kinds and ages. Instead, Germansinsisted that children were not able to teach and considered pedagogical authority asa rapport among unequal subjectivities. With regard to visibility, the Bavarian schoolinspector Johannes Baptist Grasser was more precise: The “schoolmaster’s eye” hasto be active, more than the eyes o the monitors or helpers.38 This was importantbecause “a student could not learn anything rom another student.” 39 This idea o

the impossibility o teaching by children ound eminent visual ormulations: “How could a blind man show the way to another blind man?” 40

This rejection was not only an issue o interpretation. More than that, the preer-ence or the gaze o the schoolmaster as a guarantee o teaching and control led toconsiderably dierent practices o monitorial schooling. In schools characterized aspure “Lancastrian”, Germans were already practicing a mix o monitorial techniquescombined with moments o direct teaching by the schoolmaster. A good descriptiono this mix o adult’s and children’s gazes was provided by the monitorial school in thecity o Augsburg (Bavaria). There, “the schoolmaster can keep an eye on the learning

progress.” Yet it was not sucient to control helpers and the general arrangement o the school. The teacher had to actually attend the classes in order to directly observethe course o the exercises: “During the mutual instruction, he goes continuously rom one class to another and he is able to notice every negligence or every mistakeo the monitors.” 41

The teaching at the Normal School in Eckernörde (Schleswig) showed similarpractices and displayed a very prominent case o great consequence or the princi-palities under Danish rule. Danish and German ocials elaborated a set o prac-tices combining direct group teaching and monitorial techniques entitled “mutual

school arrangement” (wechselseitige Schuleinrichtung ), which became paramount orurthering the discussion in Germany. In Eckernörde, children were oten awareo the intervention o the schoolmaster. In his description o the Normal School inEckernörde, Henning Dieckmann, a teacher rom Brunsbüttel (Schleswig), assertedthat “the scrupulous teacher tends to see everything.” 42 Johann Möller, a catechistrom Altona, also attended the Normal School and reported that the “upper monitoralways has to be close to the schoolteacher; both have to be on a platorm higher thanthe foor in order to see all sections and classes.” 43 Visibility exceeded this generalattention rom the platorm and included a shrewdly calculated intervention o the

teacher’s gaze. I the students committed an oence during the exercises under thesupervision o the monitor, the monitor could give the teacher a warning sign or hecould call him. The adult had to decide the punishment, because this was not a unc-tion o the monitors.44 The presence o the adult’s gaze was then signicant in many schools using the German mutual method. Johann Friedrich Dücker’s description o




a rural school in Holstein organized according to the mutual method also showed thetension between the whole school and the specic class both simultaneously demand-ing the orce o the teacher’s gaze. Ater having introduced a new student and given

numerous instructions, “he directed his eyes to the children o the upper class andobserved them or some seconds.” He told a story rom the Bible, and gave the classmore exercises on the story. “Then he came down rom the platorm… he crossedthrough the lower class in order to have a look, he looked at the exercises o the smallstudents, prized here and scolded there and then called ‘wash slates!’.” 45

The original idea o a pyramid o gazes — leading rom the bottom level o themonitors through the middle level o the general monitors to the upper level o theteacher — was not prevalent. In his description o the Normal School in Eckernörde,the schoolmaster Lars Hansen, rom Flensburg, described the central dierence be-

tween the English monitorial system and the variation practiced in the school interms o the dominance o a passive gaze in the ormer. In the Lancastrian system theteacher only had “to classiy the students, to select the monitors and to adapt the con-tents.” “Then he is only incumbent or the conduction o the whole, or the overallcontrol… His participation during the teaching is not necessary at all: He may only see that when the others work. He is nothing more than a actory inspector, just asthis whole arrangement is an evident imitation o English actories.” 46 Hansen’s claimor a more active gaze by the teacher was opinio communis in the German discussion.Christian Roger, a regional well-known teacher in Esslingen (Württemberg), shared

their view and recommended more changes in the classroom — such as the positiono the tableaus — “to keep an eye on each student during the exercises.” 47 On the whole, a general distrust o children’s gaze was prevalent. Clearly, the participation o children in the ordering o the class was necessary. In the words o the schoolmasterin Vollmerhausen (Rhineland), this concept o a division o work was a “relie.”48 Yetthis concentration also had to be balanced by some moments in which the school-master was observing other classes. In this sense, he recommended the return o theschoolmaster’s gaze so as to reinorce the helpers’ control.

Germans consistently insisted on limiting this division o work. Even teachers

who accepted the positive aspects o children teaching their schoolmates were very cautious about visibility via the children’s gaze. I a teacher used the help o the mostadvanced pupils in teaching and repeating too oten, they believed, the disadvanta-geous aspects o this technique would have the upper hand. “The teaching (by chil-dren, XX) always has to be controlled by the teacher, so that he can intervene whendisadvantages creep in.” 49 Another visitor to the Normal School in Eckernörde, theSchool Director Carl Baumelder rom Dresden (Saxony), described the role o thehelpers skeptically: “Nobody will think that the helpers could represent the spirit o the teacher, but only his body; they should help only his eyes, his hands and his eet

as best they can.”50

Germans preerred a gaze that was active in its controlling unction, close to thechildren, and marked by the presence o adults. Supporters o the German versiono monitorialism accepted the collaboration o students, but they insisted that directcontact between students and the adult teacher reinorced the general practices o




control via the monitors. The general supervision o the whole scene o teaching was not enough; it had to be reinorced by the personal interventions o the adult.Teachers depicted as actory supervisors implied the idea o cautious intervention.

The schoolmaster’s gaze simply had to be more preventive and productive rather thana gaze ocused on sanctions and punishment.

Visibility for Ordering (II): The Spanish Experience 4.

Spain’s rst experiences o monitorial schooling were very close to those o the origi-nal English version. John Kearney’s male, model school in Madrid was certainly nota variation o the schools in London, but rather a copy.51 The Spaniards, who showedinterest in this system o teaching, embraced it enthusiastically, and their supple-

ments only aected the religious instruction (now Catholic) and some technical is-sues such as the order o letters on the reading tables. The pyramidal structure o visibility attached to the system did not meet signicant opposition in bourgeois andnobles’ circles52 and its power o “avoiding distractions” was generally praised.53

Joaquín Catalá, a Catalonian priest who was very committed to the monitorialsystem, was very explicit in his support or the pyramidal and machine-like structureo seeing: “The presence o the teacher is not always necessary or instruction; butnonetheless their unctions are also important in the continuous surveillance o thecorrectors.” 54 Consequently, the correctors (monitors) had the right to punish the

students, and they did not need the presence or authorization o the teacher.55

Catalátrusted in the ecacy o the system, which worked almost automatically or, in theory at least, could work without the continuous presence o the teacher. Following thisprinciple, Catalá and his ollowers installed many monitorial schools in Cataloniaand also in the countryside.56

The monitorial school established by the economic society in Cadiz and theNormal School in Madrid, both exclusively male schools, were the best known o their time. Teachers came rom the countryside and rom Seville to the ormer inorder to learn about the system in this pioneer school. It was organized along the lines

o the French manual o Nyon, which ollowed Lancaster’s instructions very closely.57

Consequently, this rst school had its platorm and its inclination geared towardsbetter visibility o the students.58 On the whole, the rst school in Cadiz — a second was opened in the 1820s and a school or girls was established in 1827 — applied thepyramidal structure o seeing and controlling, which partly renounced the omnipres-ent gaze o the adults. A visitor to the Normal School in Madrid detected the pyra-midal structure o the controlling gazes and asserted that “the teacher can always seeall children rom his distant chair.”59 It is possible that the rst liberal parliamentary drat or primary schools in 1822 was thinking o this economy o the visual when

it recommended the monitorial system “in all the aspects related to the particulardisposition o each school, the economy o school time and its inner order.” 60

In spite o the backlashes in the spread o the system during the adamant restor-ative years leading up to 1833, a principled support to monitorial visibility remained.Not only the monitorial system, but also other systems o elementary teaching such as




those o Mariano Vallejo and Domingo Bacas Rojo stressed imitation and emulationas basic mechanisms or a well-ordered classroom.61 Both imitation and emulationpresupposed the existence o a eld o mutual visibility among pupils and not only

the visibility o students’ bodies and actions rom the position o the adult teacher.Laureano Figuerola, a Catalonian teacher, then inspector and at the end o the cen-tury one o the most amous liberal economists o the country, deended the use o monitors due to its compatibility with certain spontaneous eatures o childhood: “Itis a continuous observation that the children are great imitators, they imitate theirmates more easily than the persons o more advanced age.” 62 His criticism o the oldsystem o individual instruction highlighted the absence o common eld o visibil-ity: “What kind o emulation dominates in a school governed in this manner, whereno kind o comparisons can be established between the daily tasks?” 63 Each child not

only has to compare their ormer perormance with their current one, but also thedierence between themselves and their mates, in order to promote competition andprogress. In this context, visibility among children had its own pedagogical purposes,and the intervention o the gaze o the adults was not as prominent as in Germany.

At the same time, Spaniards also reconsidered the role o the adult teacher inmonitorial schooling. Closely in tune with related English developments, they variedmonitorial teaching in order to give the adult teacher a more prominent, but at alater stage, limited role. The leading educationalist o this time and ounder o therst school or teacher education in Madrid, the physician Pablo Montesino (1791–

1849), insisted that monitors were mere delegates o the adult teacher, also in termso the production o a controlling visibility. These “helpers” multiply the powers o the “teacher’s eyes.” 64 His infuential views helped shape the rst general Spanish law or primary schools, issued in 1838. Having the teacher’s desk on the platorm “orkeeping his eye continuously on the whole school” was universally recommended,irrespective o the method practiced in the school.65 Montesino intended at the sametime to develop a orm o visibility which had more active intermediary gazes thanthose in the traditional monitorial classroom, and recommended sending the gen-eral monitors to inspect “the semicircles, going continuously rom one to the other

when the children are reading.”66

The ounding generation o “proessional” modernSpanish educational thought and practice, the so-called normalistas , whose leader wasindisputably Montesino, mostly ollowed this pattern o order.

Visibility through architecture consequently surpassed that o the German platorm.In the words o the normalista Figuerola: “the foor o slightly crowded schools has toorm an inclination o one oot or each 24 eet o length. The most elevated part willbe on the opposite side o the teacher’s desk.”67 The teacher had to have a platorm (twoor three eet), “in order to supervise the whole class rom his seat.” 68 It is likely thatthese recommendations were adopted in the organization o the rst common schools

o Barcelona in 1841, because the local school commission repeatedly asked Figuerolaor advice on how to organize them. He designed the new classrooms and calculated thecosts o these arrangements.69 In a classroom arrangement in which the teacher was notintervening continuously, the inclination o the foor, also available in the rst monito-rial school in Cadiz, had to guarantee the distant, but ree gaze o the teacher.




Although Spanish educationalists increasingly preerred a mixed model o monito-rial schooling and group teaching, the prevalence o the ormer was still apparent. Thedrat o a manual o monitorial schooling or the town o Cazalla, near Seville, by the

teacher Andrés del Pino, insisted on technically constructing the classroom with re-gard to the pyramidal structure o the gazes. It is noteworthy that the platorm or theteacher now had to be spacious enough so that “the instructors [another Spanish nameor monitors, MC] could give a lesson in ront o the whole school (…)” 70 He alsocombined the gaze o the monitors with his own as a teacher in the exercises, whenthe correction o exercises by monitors and by the teacher proceeded simultaneously.71 Notably ater 1850, many slight variations o the monitorial pyramidal structure wereset orth and practiced in other cities such as Saragossa72 and San Sebastián,73 withoutentirely abandoning the central role played by the monitors’ gazes.

Clearly, mutual control among children produced a number o concerns amongSpaniards. Teachers in the city o Madrid, more sympathetic to old practices o teach-ing, denied that the presence o monitors could bring more light — the “light” o the observer — to relations between children. For them, this relation was a source o “shadows”, where immoral habits could be spread among children.74 The teacher onhis platorm has to be so isolated, that “he sees and hears nothing.” In all the estab-lishments, “where the teacher does not see and does not hear, everything will be over-looked and vice and demoralization will necessarily grow, and this not only amongthe spoiled children…” 75 However, these voices were in a deensive position and the

increasing number o teachers trained in the normal schools probably ollowed thevariations conceived by Montesino, Figuerola and others.On the whole, the Spanish experience recognized both a close imitation o the

actory-like organization o visibility attached to the English original, and somevariations on the pyramidal structure o the gazes leading to a reinorcement o theteacher’s authority. Controlling was not an exclusive business o the adults, but thegaze o the helpers had to become accustomed to order and authority. The increasingemphasis on the intermediary gazes o the general monitors, and the group lessonscarried out by monitors in ront o the whole school in del Pino’s proposals indicated

the increasing role o adult infuence without discarding the role o monitors’ gazes.This was accomplished by means o a stronger presence o those monitors with acloser relation to the teacher, the general monitors, or in situations where adults’ andchildren’s gazes intertwined in order to guarantee an ordered interaction. Spaniards were reluctant to accept the instability suggested by the many intermediary gazes, yetat the same time they did not consider these gazes to be intrinsically worthless, as inthe German discussion. This view eventually led to a more stable “play o gazes.” Upuntil the organization o the rst graded schools rom 1898 on, this strategy o vis-ibility, which relied on monitorial techniques, was still heavily in use.

Explaining Differences: Patterns of Educational Knowledge 5.

The dierent ways in which the unction o visibility was implemented in orderingthe elementary classroom in both contexts shows that the perceived necessity o a




specic social unction, such as the ordering o classrooms, only opens up a eld o possibilities and does not predict “outcomes” in detail. Indeed, the crucial unctiono rendering bodies and actions visible in elementary classrooms could be perormed

in many dierent ways. In this eld o possibilities, actors dealt with new proposalsto comprehensively reshape daily lie in schools within their cultural horizons and,in so doing, they examined and reproduced their own educational and pedagogicaltraditions.

In the German case, both the wide rejection o the pure model o monitorialschooling and the variations practiced in some schools were encapsulated by a centralidea o eighteenth century German educational discourse: Children are not able toteach other children. Although German educators had traditionally practiced ormso monitorial teaching in both Lutheran and Catholic territories,76 it was the preacher

August Herrmann Francke (1663–1727), who drew a dividing line between teach-ing and learning. In his program, education, conceived as a work o spiritual rebirth,could not be carried out by children, who were considered to be sinul by nature.77 Deep mistrust o interaction between children together with the modeling o teach-ing along the lines o preaching led to a consistent discourse and to a set o tech-niques in which teaching was unmistakably equated with the work o a pious adult.78 His ollowers spread this model o group teaching and tolerated the act that groupteaching in crowded elementary schools was only possible i the teacher instructedeach class or group separately, leaving the other classes in “silent seating” or “silent

work.” The adoption o this model by the Abbot Johan Ignaz Felbiger (1724–1788)in Silesia was the rst step towards making this model acceptable or all denomina-tions.79 Such a blatant propagation o Pietistic techniques in Catholic regions is notso surprising i we take into account the act that Francke himsel had been heavily infuenced by the educational discourse o French Jansenism.80

This view o teaching as being part o a broader holy work pervaded German edu-cational thinking and consistently excluded the assistance o children in teaching.81 The gaze o the adult became the dominating source o order, not only in momentso direct class teaching but also in moments o punishment, and in the dynamics o

control in the classrooms. Accordingly, the crucial production o visibility could by no means be entirely delegated to children. Even in those regions in which monito-rial schooling was somewhat accepted, local practices displayed this deep mistrust. A rejection o the pyramidal structure o gazes refected a undamental rejection o chil-dren as “teachers in miniature”, reinorced by both liberal and conservative Germanpedagogy throughout the nineteenth century. At the same time, the prevalence o the adult’s gaze, even in schools practicing variations o monitorial schooling, carriedorward the deep-rooted idea that schooling, a holy work still under the supervi-sion o churchmen, required its own model o moralizing visibility. From this view-

point, the orm o visibility displayed in actories and the military represented only a “mechanical” order o no educational value. By contrast, “educational” visibility displayed a scene o “closer gazes”, in which the presence o the adults dened theproximity. Evidently, the pyramidal structure o gazes did not comply with this pat-tern o meaning.




Considering the act that Spanish elementary schools had no convincing proposalor how to order elementary schools in the eighteenth century, it is hardly surprisingthat monitorial schooling was received so enthusiastically. All relevant educational

agents o the eighteenth century — Piarists, Jesuits and the teachers organized by Juan Rubio in Madrid — knew some orm o monitorial teaching.82 Unlike Germanpatterns o educational meaning, the sharp division between teaching and learning was not perceived as being crucial in dening the educational value o a certain tech-nique. In addition, the clear popularity o sensualistic theories o knowledge amongSpanish elites acilitated the acceptance o monitorial schooling, since this “machine”o teaching guaranteed a huge number o repetitions and exercises.83 In sensualistictheories, these were central mechanisms or the orming o mental representationsand or the transmission o knowledge. The general order o these exercises and rep-

etitions under the general supervision o the adult teacher was widely accepted at rstas a model o order.Even when Spaniards varied the model o pyramidal surveillance and tried to gen-

erate situations in which the adult’s “closer” gaze played a role, they principally ad-dressed the issue o the instability o this structure o visibility. Numerous proposalsconsequently recommended many orms o diminishing rotation and instability o monitors’ positions, xing the gaze o authority to certain children such as the generalmonitors. Analogous to Germany, where decisions regarding the construction o vis-ibility partly refected views o the legitimacy o teaching children, Spanish variations

accepted the pyramidal structure o visibility. Unlike Germany, the work o teaching was not considered to be a holy one, but rather a kind o mechanical art o moral sig-nicance. In this sense, changes in the construction o visibility in Spanish monitorialclassrooms tended to display uneasiness with the requent changes o position in theclassroom which the Spaniards met with models containing ordered or limited rotationo positions,84 rather than the pyramidal structure o the gazes as such. Disparagingreerences to actories and the military and their “distant” orms o visibility are notpresent in the Spanish discussion, and the ew allusions there were to these social situ-ations tended instead to emphasize the positive view o these social practices.

Concluding Words: Cultures of Classroom Visibility 6.

A gaze is not only perception. A gaze is active: it searches, identies and locates.The gaze, as used in the old metaphors o early modern times, was a kind o lightgiven to the conusion o the world. In a pedagogical situation, which included upto 400 students, the task o exercising authority via the eye was o eminent signi-cance. Although all drats and practices related to the monitorial system o educationstemmed rom the very explicit strategy o making the behavior o the students vis-

ible, the resources and meanings attached to this general idea were quite dierent inboth examined contexts. As Germans highlighted, visibility in schools was not the same as visibility in ac-

tories. The explicit task o orming subjectivities attached to schools is quite dierentrom the disciplinarian eects o working in actories, because disciplined behavior




there is rather a (welcome) by-product o daily lie. In schools, where the ocus wason the production o disciplined behavior rather than the random visibility o a workplace, the unction o shaping subjectivities led to models o seeing that were

decisively “closer” and more “constant.” In the case o Spain, educational reormerseschewed the requent changes in the structure o authority associated to the task o monitors. Although they accepted the more “distant” and “randomized” gaze o theadult teacher, they considered visibility as being better guaranteed by the intermedi-ate gazes o the general monitors and by a stable sta o teaching monitors.

Both Spaniards and Germans sought order in the classrooms and achieved it by making didactical work more systematic, and by reinorcing control and the vis-ibility o the students’ bodies and actions. Even this perceived purpose o schoolingcommon to both contexts underwent cultural notions elaborated by the elites about

acceptable techniques or producing order. The dierent responses to the shared prob-lem o making students visible and controllable were by no means a product o eth-nocultural dierences. Since elementary schooling at that time had become a eld o rational intervention shaped by experts, the responses briefy presented in this essay were closely related to knowledge traditions acceptable to the respective elites. It isin this sense that educational traditions became relevant, not as popular traditions o schooling, but rather as traditions o elaborated knowledge. Stemming rom dierentdominant traditions in the German States and Spain, divergent notions o child-hood, learning and authority shaped decisions about achieving an orderly classroom

through the visibility o bodies and actions.The gaze, a central mechanism o disciplining and a transition between the “ex-teriority” o social relations and the “interiority” o the subjects,85 is by no means anatural phenomenon, but rather a cultural exercise, also in schools. The act thatthe visibility o bodies and actions as a kind o “unctional imperative” increasingly became a major eature o “well-ordered” Western institutions does not reveal muchabout the specic orms with which this general “unction” was locally perormed. Although Foucault wisely identied a common set o techniques with which to makeall bodies and actions “visible” in “disciplinary institutions”, both the increasing mor-

alizing purposes o elementary schooling and the dierent cultural meanings o edu-cational and pedagogical authority “ltered” these general purposes.

Notes1. Research or this paper has been carried out within the scope o the project “National

education and universal method: Dynamics o global diusion and culture-specic orms o adoption o the Bell-Lancaster method in the 19th century“, ounded by the German Agency or Research (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschat) and coordinated by Jürgen Schriewer andMarcelo Caruso (Berlin).

2. David Hamilton, Towards a Theory o Schooling (London, New York, Philadelphia:The Falmer Press, 1989); Gerhardt Petrat, Schulunterricht: Seine Sozialgeschichte inDeutschland 1750–1850 (München: Ehrenwirth, 1979).




3. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth o the Prison (Harmondsworth:Penguin Books, 1982); Niklas Luhmann, Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschat (Frankurt/M.:Suhrkamp, 2002), 102–10.

4. Gilles Deleuze, Foucault (Frankurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1992), 49.5. Upton Dell, “Lancasterian Schools, Republican Citizenship, and the SpatialImagination in Early Nineteenth-Century America,” Journal o the Society o Architectural Historians 55, no. 3 (1996); Peter E. Kurtze, “ ‘a School House Well Arranged’: BaltimorePublic School Buildings on the Lancasterian Plan, 1829–1839,” in Gender, Class, and Shelter.Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture , ed. Elizabeth Collins Cromley and Carter L. Hudgins(Knoxville, TN: The University o Tennessee Press, 1995).

6. Judith Butler, Theories in Subjection. The Psychic Lie o Power (Stanord: StanordUniversity Press, 1997), 83–106; Georges Vigarello, “Du regard projeté au regard aecté,”Communications , no. 75 (2004).

7. Ian Hunter, Rethinking the School. Subjectivity, Bureaucracy, Criticism (New York: St.Martin Press, 1994).

8. Anne Querrien, L’école mutuelle. Une pédagogiet trop efcace? (Paris: Le Seuil, 2005),Selçuk Aksin Somel, The Modernization o Public Education in the Ottoman Empire, 1839– 1908. Islamization, Autocracy and Discipline (Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2001).

9. Andrew Bell, An Experiment in Education, Made at the Male Asylum o Madras (London: Printed or Cadell and Davies, 1797), Joseph Lancaster, Improvements in Education,as It Respects the Industrious Classes o the Community: Containing, a Short Account o Its Present State, Hints Towards Its Improvement, and a Detail o Some Practical Experiments Conducive to That End , 1st ed. (London: Printed and Sold by Darton and Harvey, J. Mathews, W.

Hatchard, 1803).10. For instance: Jean-Baptiste-Auguste Curet, De l’Enseignement mutuel, de son

parallèle avec la méthode des écoles primaires et celles des Frères de la doctrine chrétienne, et de l’inconvenance de cette nouvelle méthode appliquée aux jeunes demoiselles (Béziers: H. Bousquet,1819), 32.

11. Johann Amos Comenius, Große Didaktik. Die vollständige Kunst, alle Menschen alles zu lehren (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1993), 121. Original publication 1657.

12. David Hogan, “The Market Revolution and Disciplinary Power: Joseph Lancasterand the Psychology o the Early Classroom System,” History o Education Quarterly 29, no. 3(1989).

13. Stean Hopman, “The Monitorial Movement and the Rise o Curriculum Administration: A Comparative View,” in Case Studies in Curriculum AdministrationHistory , ed. Henning Hat and Stean Hopman (London: The Falmer Press, 1990); Carl F.Kaestle, Joseph Lancaster and the Monitorial School Movement. A Documentary History (New

York/London: Teachers College Press, 1973); Eugenia Roldán Vera and Thomas Schupp,“Bridges over the Atlantic: A Network Analysis o the Introduction o the MonitorialSystem o Education in Early-Independent Spanish America,” in Nationalerziehung und Universalmethode. Frühe Formen schulorganisatorischer Globalisierung , ed. Jürgen Schriewerand Marcelo Caruso (Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2005).

14. For Spain: Walther Bernecker, España entre tradición y modernidad. Política, economía,sociedad (siglos XIX y XX) (Madrid: Siglo XXI de España ed., 1999); Josep Fontana, Lacrisis del Antiguo Régimen, 1808–1833, 4. ed. (Barcelona: Grijalbo, 1992). For Germany:Manred Botzenhart, Reorm, Restauration, Krise. Deutschland 1789–1847 (Frankurt amMain: Suhrkamp, 1985); Matthew Levinger, Enlightened Nationalism. The Transormation o Prussian Political Culture, 1806–1848 (Oxord: Oxord University Press, 2000).






32. Raael Jiménez Gámez, La Sociedad Económica gaditana y la educación en el siglo XIX (Jerez de la Frontera: Caja de Ahorros de Jerez, 1991).

33. Julio Ruiz Berrio, Política escolar de España en el siglo XIX (1808–1833) (Madrid:

Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientícas, 1970), 182–83.34. For the Basque Provinces, see Jesús de Benito Pascual, La enseñanza de primeras letras en Gipuzkoa (1800–1825) (Bilbao: Diputación oral de Gipuzkoa, 1994); or Mallorca,Bernat Sureda García, La ormación del proesorado en Mallorca. Antecedentes y origen de laEscuela Normal (Palma de Mallorca: Universitat de Palma de Mallorca, 1984).

35. Alberto Gil Novales, Las Sociedades Patrióticas (1820–1823). Las libertades de expresión y de reunión en el origen de los partidos políticos , 2 vols., vol. 1 (Madrid: Tecnos,1975), 322–24.

36. F. W. Tilgenkamp, “Vorerinnerung,” in: Bell, Schulmethodus , V.

37. B. C. L. Natorp, Note 3 in Lancaster, Ein einziger Schulmeister unter Tausend Kindern, 225.

38. Johannes Baptist Graser, Der erste Kindes-Unterricht, die erste Kindes-Qual. Eine Kritik der bisher üblichen Leselehrmethoden und eine nöthige Beilage zu der Elementarschule ürs Leben (Baireuth, Ho: Granische Buchhandlung, 1819), 62.

39. Ibid., 67.

40. Photophilus, Briee Über Die Lancaster-Methode , 32.

41. Both in: Franz Joseph Müller, Die Erziehung in Volksschulen (Kempten: Druck undVerlag von T. Dannheimer, 1823), 158.

42. Henning Diekmann, Briee darstellend die wechselseitige Schuleinrichtung nach ihremBestehen in der Normalschule zu Eckernörde (Altona: Bei J. F. Hammerich, 1826), 58.

43. J. C. Möller, Ueber Anwendung der wechselseitigen Schuleinrichtung in Volksschulenunserer Herzogthümer (Altona: Bei J. F. Hammerich, 1826), VII.

44. Diekmann, Briee darstellend die wechselseitige Schuleinrichtung , 58–59.

45. Johann Friedrich Dücker, “Die “wechselseitige Schuleinrichtung”,” inSchülererinnerungen aus Schleswig-Holstein, ed. G. Rickers (Husum: Wachholtz, 1987), 62.

46. Quoted in: Hans W. Gondesen, “Die Normalschule mit wechselseitigerSchuleinrichtung,” Jahrbuch ür die Schleswigsche Geest 42 (1994): 106–07.

47. Roger, “Resultate bezüglich der — seit dem November 1842 in der Knaben-Elementarschule zu Esslingen angewendeten — wechselseitigen Schuleinrichtung,” Die Volksschule IV (1844): 289–314, 292.

48. C. P. Mörchen, Versuch einer kurzen Beschreibung und praktischen Darstellung der wechselseitigen Schuleinrichtung oder gegenseitigen Einübung in der Elementarschule (Gummersbach: In Commission bei Friedrich Luyken, 1838), 66.

49. F. C. Anthes, “Ist es rathsam, die größeren Schüler zum Unterrichte der kleineren,resp. Schwächeren zu benutzen?”, Allgemeine Schulzeitung 20 (1843): 1177–1180, 1180.

50. Carl Friedrich Gotthel Baumelder, Die Eckernörder Elementarschuleinrichtung (Dresden: Ch. F. Grimmer‘sche Buchhandlung, 1835), 23.

51. See Kearney’s drat or a manual o the system: Archivo Histórico Nacional (Madrid),Consejos, 3597 (5).




52. For the divergent opinion o some teachers, see José Díaz Manzanares, Nulidades de la enseñanza mutua por Lancaster comparada con los sistemas españoles (Madrid: Imprenta deD. Fermín Villalpando, 1821).

53. Pedro Ferrer y Casaus, Introduction to José M. Lancaster, Sistema ingles de instruccion, ó colección completa de las invenciones y mejoras puestas en práctica en las escuelas reales de Inglaterra, trans. Pedro Ferrer y Casaus (Madrid: En la Imprenta de la Calle de laGreda, 1818), VII.

54. Joachim Catalá, Manual práctico o compendio del método de enseñanza mutua(Barcelona: Imprenta de José Torner, 1821), 35.

55. Ibid., 36.

56. Alredo Sáenz-Rico Urbina, La educación general en Cataluña durante el TrienioConstitucional (Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona, 1973).

57. Real Sociedad Económica de Amigos del País de Cádiz, Manual práctico del métodode mutua enseñanza para las escuelas de primeras letras (Cádiz: Imprenta de Hércules, 1818).

58. Exercicios de enseñanza mutua (Cádiz: Imprenta de Carreño, 1818), I.

59. Report by Ramón Chimioni to the economic society in Madrid, July 18, 1818. Archivo de la Sociedad Económica Matritense de Amigos del País (Madrid), 262/12.

60. Esposicion sobre el estado de la enseñanza pública hecha á las Cortes por la DireccionGeneral de Estudios (Madrid: Imprenta de Alban y Cía., 1822), 7.

61. Domingo Bacas Roxo, Enseñanza universal de las primeras letras (Madrid: Imprentade Don Eusebio Alvarez, 1832); José Mariano Vallejo, Instrucción práctica para enseñar á leer

por el nuevo método contenido en la teoría de la lectura (Madrid: Imprenta de D. M. de Burgos,

1834).62. Laureano Figuerola, Manual completo de enseñanza simultánea, mutua y mixta

(Madrid: Imprenta de D. Antonio Reyes, 1841), 26.

63. Ibid., 23.

64. Pablo Montesino, Curso de educación. Métodos de enseñanza y pedagogía (Madrid:Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, 1988), 198. His lesssons were delivered between 1841and 1849.

65. “Métodos de enseñanza — arreglo mecánico de las escuelas. Continuacion,” BoletínOfcial de Instrucción Pública N°17 (October 31, 1841): 259–264.

66. “Métodos de enseñanza. Enseñanza mútua. Continuación,” Boletín Ofcial de Instrucción Pública N°25 (February 28, 1842): 144–150, 146.

67. Figuerola, Manual Completo, 30.

68. Ibid., 36.

69. See the plans or the Lancastrian schools o the city signed by Figuerola (undated,probably 1840) in Arxiu administrativo de Barcelona (Barcelona), Comisión de Gobierno,2634.

70. Andrés del Pino, “Manual practico de Enseñanza mutua, por el cual, muy bien, sepuede enseñar y gratuitamente a todos los niños, y costear los utensilios a los pobres de la

Villa de Cazalla,” approx. 1837, Box 6, Folder 3, 1–12, Blanco White amily collection,University o Princeton, 4, art. 7. The lessons held by monitors were oreseen in art. 49,Ibid., 10.




71. Ibid., 9, art. 45.

72. Valentín Zabala and Julián López Catalán, Sistema universal de enseñanza (Zaragoza:Imprenta de D. Calisto Ariño, 1860).

73. Reglamento para el gobierno y régimen interior de las escuelas públicas, elemental y superior de San Sebastián (San Sebastián: Imprenta de Ignacio Ramón Baroja, 1857).

74. Academia de proesores de primera educación, Inorme de la Academia de Proesores de Primera Educación (Madrid: Imprenta de D. Hernando, 1838), 13.

75. Ibid., 21.

76. Karl Schrems, “Der “Modus Catechizandi” der katholischen Kirchenkatechesein Deutschland im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert,” Verhandlungen des historischen Vereins ür Oberpalz und Regensburg 106 (1966): 237; Gerald Strauss, Luther’s House o Learning:Indoctrination o the Young in the German Reormation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), 173.

77. August Hermann Francke, “Kurzer und einältiger Unterricht, Wie die Kinder zur wahren Glückseligkeit, und christlichen Klugheit anzuühren Sind,” in Pädagogische Schriten (Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1966).

78. August Hermann Francke, “Ordnung Und Lehrart, Wie Selbige in denen zum Waisenhause gehörigen Schulen eingeühret Ist,” in Pädagogische Schriten (Osnabrück:Biblio-Verlag, 1966).

79. James van Horn Melton, Absolutism and the Eighteenth-Century Origins o Compulsory Schooling in Prussia and Austria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 175–84.

80. Fritz Osterwalder, “Theologische Konzepte von Erziehung. Das Verhältnis von

Fénelon und Francke,” in Das Kind in Pietismus und Auklärung , ed. Jose N. Neumann andUdo Sträter (Tübingen: Max-Niemeyer-Verlag, 2000).

81. On the consistent rejection o “teaching monitors” in Germany, see Marcelo Caruso,“Locating Educational Authority: Teaching Monitors, Educational Meanings and theImporting o Pedagogical Models. Spain and the German States in the 19th Century,” inEducational Policy Borrowing: Historical Perspectives , ed. David Phillips and Kimberley Ochs(Oxord (UK): Symposium books, 2004).

82. Vicente Faubell Zapata, Acción educativa de los Escolapios en España (1733–1845) (Madrid: Fundación Santa María, 1987); Juan Rubio, Prevenciones dirigidas a los maestros de

primeras letras (Madrid: En la Imprenta Real, 1788).

83. Marcelo Caruso, “Wirksamkeit der Oberfäche. Anthropologien der Gewöhungoder des Subjekts? Deutsche und spanische Deutungen des Bell-Lancaster-Systems im 19.

Jahrhundert,” in Pädagogische Anthropologie — Mechanismus einer Praxis , ed. Heinz-ElmarTenorth, Ulrike Mietzner, and Nicole Welter (Weinheim: Beltz, 2007).

84. For this point, see Caruso, “Locating Educational Authority,” 72–76.

85. Anne Vincent Buault, “Regards, égards, égarements dans la ville aux XVIIIe Et XIXe Siècles,” Communications , no. 75 (2004).






———. Improvements in Education, as It Respects the Industrious Classes o the Community:Containing, a Short Account o Its Present State, Hints Towards Its Improvement, and aDetail o Some Practical Experiments Conducive to That End . 1st ed. London: Printed andSold by Darton and Harvey, J. Mathews, W. Hatchard, 1803.

Möller, J. C. Ueber Anwendung der wechselseitigen Schuleinrichtung in Volksschulen unserer Herzogthümer . Altona: Bei J. F. Hammerich, 1826.

Montesino, Pablo. Curso de educación. Métodos de enseñanza y pedagogía. Madrid: Ministeriode Educación y Ciencia, 1988. Original rom 1841.

Mörchen, C. P. Versuch einer kurzen Beschreibung und praktischen Darstellung der wechselseitigen Schuleinrichtung oder gegenseitigen Einübung in der Elementarschule .Gummersbach: In Commission bei Friedrich Luyken, 1838.

Müller, Franz Joseph. Die Erziehung in Volksschulen. Kempten: Druck und Verlag von T.Dannheimer, 1823.

Photophilus, Justus. Briee über die Lancaster-Methode im deutschen Sinne und Geiste, oder das Nachtheilige der deutschen Lancasterei . Leipzig: bei C. H. F. Hartmann, 1827.

Real Sociedad Económica de Amigos del País de Cádiz. Manual práctico del método de mutuaenseñanza para las escuelas de primeras letras . Cádiz: Imprenta de Hércules, 1818.

Reglamento para el gobierno y régimen interior de las escuelas públicas, elemental y superior de San Sebastián. San Sebastián: Imprenta de Ignacio Ramón Baroja, 1857.

Rubio, Juan. Prevenciones dirigidas a los maestros de primeras letras . Madrid: En la ImprentaReal, 1788.

Scío, Felipe. Método uniorme para las escuelas de cartilla, deletrear, leer, escribir, aritmética, gramática castellana y ejercicios de doctrina cristiana como se practica por los padres de las Escuelas Pías . Madrid: Imprenta de Pedro Marín, 1780.

Trapp, Ernst Christian. Versuch einer Pädagogik . Berlin: Nicolai, 1780.

Vallejo, José Mariano. Instrucción práctica para enseñar á leer por el nuevo método contenido enla teoría de la lectura. Madrid: Imprenta de D. M. de Burgos, 1834.

Literature

Bernecker, Walther. España entre tradición y modernidad. Política, economía, sociedad (siglos XIX y XXx). Madrid: Siglo XXI de España ed., 1999.

Blanco y Sánchez, Runo. Pestalozzi. Su vida y obras. Pestalozzi en España. Madrid: Imprentade la Revista de Archivos, 1909.

Botzenhart, Manred. Reorm, Restauration, Krise. Deutschland 1789–1847 . Frankurt amMain: Suhrkamp, 1985.

Buault, Anne Vincent. “Regards, égards, égarements dans la ville aux XVIIIe et XIXe

siècles.” Communications , no. 75 (2004): 39–56.Butler, Judith. Theories in Subjection. The Psychic Lie o Power . Stanord: Stanord University Press, 1997.

Caruso, Marcelo. “Locating Educational Authority: Teaching Monitors, EducationalMeanings and the Importing o Pedagogical Models. Spain and the German States inthe 19th Century.” In Educational Policy Borrowing: Historical Perspectives , edited by David Phillips and Kimberley Ochs, Oxord (UK): Symposium books, 2004, 59–87.

———. “Wirksamkeit der Oberfäche. Anthropologien der Gewöhnung oder des Subjekts?Deutsche und spanische Deutungen des Bell-Lancaster-Systems im 19. Jahrhundert.” InPädagogische Anthropologie — Mechanismus Einer Praxis , edited by Heinz-Elmar Tenorth,Ulrike Mietzner and Nicole Welter, Weinheim: Beltz, 2007, 64–77.

Castells, Irene, and Antonio Moliner. Crisis del Antiguo Régimen y revolución liberal en España(1789–1845). Barcelona: Ariel, 2000.

de Benito Pascual, Jesús. La enseñanza de primeras letras en Gipuzkoa (1800–1825). Bilbao:Diputación oral de Gipuzkoa, 1994.

Deleuze, Gilles. Foucault . Frankurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1992.




Dell, Upton. “Lancasterian Schools, Republican Citizenship, and the Spatial Imagination inEarly Nineteenth-Century America.” Journal o the Society o Architectural Historians 55,no. 3 (1996): 238–53.

Faubell Zapata, Vicente. Acción educativa de los Escolapios en España (1733–1845). Madrid:

Fundación Santa María, 1987.Fontana, Josep. La crisis del Antiguo Régimen, 1808–1833. 4. ed. Barcelona: Grijalbo, 1992.Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth o the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Books, 1982.Francke, August Hermann. “Kurzer und einältiger Unterricht, Wie die Kinder zur wahren

Glückseligkeit, und christlichen Klugheit anzuühren sind.” In Pädagogische Schriten,15–71. Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1966.

———. “Ordnung und Lehrart, Wie Selbige in denen zum Waisenhause gehörigen Schuleneingeühret Ist.” In Pädagogische Schriten, Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1966, 107–203.

Gawthrop, Richard L. Pietism and the Making o Eighteenth-Century Prussia. Cambridge(UK): Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Gil Novales, Alberto. Las sociedades patrióticas (1820–1823). Las libertades de expresión y de reunión en el origen de los partidos políticos . 2 vols. Vol. 1. Madrid: Tecnos, 1975.

Gondesen, Hans W. “Die Normalschule mit wechselseitiger Schuleinrichtung.” Jahrbuch ür die Schleswigsche Geest 42 (1994): 91–116.

Hamilton, David. Towards a Theory o Schooling . London, New York, Philadelphia: TheFalmer Press, 1989.

Hogan, David. “The Market Revolution and Disciplinary Power: Joseph Lancaster and thePsychology o the Early Classroom System.” History o Education Quarterly 29, no. 3(1989): 381–417.

Hopman, Stean. “The Monitorial Movement and the Rise o Curriculum Administration:

A Comparative View.” In Case Studies in Curriculum Administration History , edited by Henning Hat and Stean Hopman, London: The Falmer Press, 1990, 13–30.Hunter, Ian. Rethinking the School. Subjectivity, Bureaucracy, Criticism. New York: St. Martin

Press, 1994.Hüttner, Dieter. Von der Normalschule zum Lehrerseminar. Die Entstehung der seminaristischen

Lehrerbildung in Bayern (1770–1825). München: UNI-Druck, 1982. Jespersen, Knud J. V. A History o Denmark . Hampshire, New York: Palgrave, 2004. Jiménez Gámez, Raael. La Sociedad Económica gaditana y la educación en el siglo XIX . Jerez

de la Frontera: Caja de Ahorros de Jerez, 1991.Kaestle, Carl F. Joseph Lancaster and the Monitorial School Movement. A Documentary History .

New York/London: Teachers College Press, 1973.

Kamen, Henry. Golden Age Spain. 2nd ed. Hampshire (UK), New York: Palgrave, 2005.Kant, Immanuel. “Vorlesung über Pädagogik.” In Ausgewählte Schriten zur Pädagogik und ihrer Begründung , edited by Hans-Hermann Grootho, Paderborn: FerdinandSchöningh, 1963, 7–59.

Kurtze, Peter E. “ ‘a School House Well Arranged’: Baltimore Public School Buildings on theLancasterian Plan, 1829–1839.” In Gender, Class, and Shelter. Perspectives in Vernacular

Architecture , edited by Elizabeth Collins Cromley and Carter L. Hudgins, Knoxville,TN: The University o Tennessee Press, 1995, 70–77.

Levinger, Matthew. Enlightened Nationalism. The Transormation o Prussian Political Culture,1806–1848 . Oxord: Oxord University Press, 2000.

Luhmann, Niklas. Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschat . Frankurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 2002.

Nalle, Sara T. “Literacy and Culture in Early Modern Castile.” Past & Present , no. 125(1989): 65–96.

Nipperdey, Thomas. Deutsche Geschichte 1800–1866. Bürgerwelt und starker Staat . München:Beck, 1994.




Osterwalder, Fritz. “Theologische Konzepte von Erziehung. Das Verhältnis von Fénelon undFrancke.” In Das Kind in Pietismus und Auklärung , edited by Jose N. Neumann andUdo Sträter, Tübingen: Max-Niemeyer-Verlag, 2000, 79–94.

Petrat, Gerhardt. Schulunterricht: Seine Sozialgeschichte in Deutschland 1750–1850 .

München: Ehrenwirth, 1979.Querrien, Anne. L‘école mutuelle. Une pédagogie trop efcace? Paris: Le Seuil, 2005.Roldán Vera, Eugenia, and Thomas Schupp. “Bridges over the Atlantic: A Network Analysis

o the Introduction o the Monitorial System o Education in Early-IndependentSpanish America.” In Nationalerziehung und Universalmethode. Frühe Formenschulorganisatorischer Globalisierung , edited by Jürgen Schriewer and Marcelo Caruso,Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2005, 58–93.

Ruiz Berrio, Julio. Política escolar de España en el Siglo XIX (1808–1833). Madrid: ConsejoSuperior de Investigaciones Cientícas, 1970.

Sáenz-Rico Urbina, Alredo. La educación general en Cataluña durante el TrienioConstitucional . Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona, 1973.

Sarraillh, Jean. La España ilustrada de la segunda mitad del siglo XVIII . FCE: Mexico &Madrid, 1957.Sauer, Michael. Volksschullehrerbildung in Preußen. Die Seminare und Präparandenanstalten

vom 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Weimarer Republik . Köln, Wien: Böhlau, 1987.Schrems, Karl. “Der “Modus Catechizandi” der Katholischen Kirchenkatechese in

Deutschland im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert.” Verhandlungen des historischen Vereins ür Oberpalz und Regensburg 106 (1966): 219–41.

Somel, Selçuk Aksin. The Modernization o Public Education in the Ottoman Empire, 1839– 1908. Islamization, Autocracy and Discipline . Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2001.

Strauss, Gerald. Luther’s House o Learning: Indoctrination o the Young in the GermanReormation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.

Sureda García, Bernat. La ormación del proesorado en Mallorca. Antecedentes y origen de laEscuela Normal . Palma de Mallorca: Universitat de Palma de Mallorca, 1984.

van Horn Melton, James. Absolutism and the Eighteenth-Century Origins o Compulsory Schooling in Prussia and Austria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Vigarello, Georges. “Du regard projeté au regard aecté.” Communications , no. 75 (2004):9–17.

Zabala, Valentín, and Julián López Catalán. Sistema universal de enseñanza. Zaragoza:Imprenta de D. Calisto Ariño, 1860.


Documents

Marcelo Caruso, Order through the Gaze: A ComparativePerspective of the Construction of Visibilityin Monitorial Schooling(German States — Spain, approx. 1815–1848)