Notes on Jean Jacques Rousseau's "Emile"

In gray font are some of the highlights of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s philosophy on education (Emile) as paraphrased by me. Following each main point are my notes/comments (pink font).

(Disclaimer: These are not the only highlights of the book; just the things I chose to comment on. This entry is based on the critique I submitted to my EDFD class, but it is not the actual text nor does it follow the actual format.)



Humans are naturally good, but somehow, in the course of their lives, they tend to depart from their nature. Hence, like plants, they must be cultivated through education; for without education, they will be trampled upon by social conditions.

I am also of the belief — which, I must admit, is spawned forth by religion — that everything created by God (the author) is by nature good; but somehow, as we live among our fellow human beings, we tend to pick up habits that make us very far removed from our natural state; that is, of goodness.

That like a young plant, man must be fashioned through education and that without education, man would be trampled upon by social conditions, I completely agree. Education does refine man and enhance the gifts with which he is endowed.


The education of humans comes from three masters — nature, through which our organs and faculties are developed; men, from whom we learn the use to make of our growth; and things, from which we gain our experiences of our surroundings. The teachings of these three masters should not conflict. If they do, the education of man will be jeopardized.

Rousseau’s concept of three masters is acceptable to me. We do learn from nature, from the people around us, and from our experiences. But for the teachings of these three masters to not ever conflict with each other — that I consider a question of what might be the ideal and what is the reality. It is next to impossible, I think, for these three to be always in agreement with each other.


The teachings of nature are beyond the control of man; but the teachings of man and of things are. Hence, the teacher must control those teachings that can be controlled so that they remain in accordance with the teachings of that which cannot be controlled. Likewise, the teacher must control those factors that present themselves to the child much too early, when the child is not yet ready for them; as well as those that corrupt the child and lead him away from his nature. He must keep everything that might hinder the child from getting proper education, but he must do so such that the child does not learn of his interference.

Rousseau espouses the idea that the teacher must control the environment in which he places his pupil. I think such idea is rather doubtful. For one, it would require a perfect teacher to do that; sadly, there is no such teacher. Second, even the things that are not from nature which he considers to be within the control of man most often do not succumb to anyone’s control. Third, the teacher controlling a student’s environment is just like a researcher conducting and controlling an experiment. To me, such environment is artificial. It simply does not exist in the real world.



The ideal form of teaching is one that adheres to man’s nature. Hence, children are best educated not in the city where they are exposed to elements that will rob them off their nature, but in the rural areas where they are most in touched with it.

For Rousseau, the best education takes place in rural area. Howver, even if his arguments were correct, such would fall under what I consider a matter of what is and what should be. You just cannot transport all the kids to the rural areas. Besides, there are types of knowledge rural children are better at than the city children (like their knowledge of plants, animals and other natural phenomena they are exposed to). But it can also not be denied that children in the city have better knowledge of other things, such as technology, than the rural children.


The best method of teaching is showing, rather than telling. Pupils are better taught if they are made to experience the things that they must learn (experiential learning). They are better off being allowed to discover the facts of life on their own (learning by discovery), rather than being taught about them. The teacher must encourage them to draw conclusions from their experiences, and not to rely on what authorities or experts say about such experiences.

I can see some semblance between present teaching methods and Rousseau’s point that the best method of teaching is showing rather than telling, and letting students learn by experience. There are now teaching theories that support experiential learning and learning by discovery. There is no question, I think, that such theories are effective. However, I also would not discredit the effectiveness of learning by instruction (Rousseau does). If I were a teacher, I would opt to integrate these three methods to teach my students; and if in some instances I favor one over the other, my decision to do so shall be based on what type of lesson I am giving the students.


The ideal form of teaching is in accordance with the pupil’s age. Children must be allowed to be children. They must be allowed to play, and should not be given lessons that are beyond what they are ready to take nor should they be introduced to concepts not within their grasp.

Human development is divided into five phases: infancy, (birth to two years), the age of nature, (two to 12 years), pre-adolescence (12 to 15 years), puberty, (15 to 20) and adulthood (20 to 25).

Education must start at birth, well before the child “can speak or understand he is learning.” During the infancy period, education focuses on (1) not letting the child “contract habits,” for habits interfere with the child’s nature; and (2) giving the child more liberty and less power. Children must be taught to be self-reliant, to “do more for themselves and to demand less of others.” Confining their wishes within the limits of their powers will make them not desire things that are beyond their power.

When children are already in the second stage of development, they are given only “negative education.” Children’s education at this stage focuses on their physical development, and on the use of their senses. Neither moral instruction nor verbal learning is given them. At this stage, the children’s faculties are not yet fully developed; hence it is best that their mind is left undisturbed.

The third stage of development is where the children’s strength increases faster than their needs. In no other stage of development is the children’s strength more abundant than in the third. It is at this period that learning takes a mental form, for they are now more capable of having a sustained attention.

At fifteen, the age at which the fourth stage of development begins, the children’s reason is already well developed. They are now able to deal with the emotions of adolescence as well as with religion and moral issues. Children this age may now enter into community life, but they must still hold back from societal pressures and influences.

The last and final stage, adulthood, signals the full development of humans. It is at this point that they are expected to be ready to deal with love and relationship (marriage) and to be ready to re-enter into the society.

At all stages of development, children must be taught to be independent and to not want things that are not within their power to provide for themselves. To not to rely on anyone but themselves being one of the main goals of their education, they must be safeguarded against the “seductive illusions” of the society. They must “not be seduced by too much learning, too much imaginative literature or art” for these might stir in them wants they cannot satisfy and lead them to become dependent. Practical knowledge of things that are directly relevant is preferable to insatiable pursuits of wisdom of which they do not have any need. Rather than endeavoring in such pursuits, children should focus instead on the practical aspects of things. Likewise, they must veer away from human interactions, except in instances where the people they are to interact with are rehearsed players in a planned environment.

That children must be allowed to be children and that they must be taught according to their level, I completely agree. Like Rousseau, I too believe that children must not be rushed to learn things they would eventually learn. However, I disagree with Rousseau that such activities as singing to children, reading to them, guiding them to walk, and guiding them to speak are forms of rushing children to learn. There are now studies showing that babies, even while they are in their mother’s wombs, are able to recognize voices and are picking up from the things in their mother’s surroundings. These studies show that introducing activities previously thought to be too high or too advance for children does not have negative impact on the children’s development; that, on the contrary, doing so facilitates the children’s learning.

My idea of teaching children according to their level is different from Rousseau’s. He would not facilitate learning of the things he says will be learnt by the child eventually, I would. He would not read to the child, I would. For me, doing so is not rushing the child to learn; it is providing him the things he might already be capable of picking up.

Rousseau’s program of education, which involves classifying activities and then deciding which of them are suitable for each stage of human development, (i.e., affective learning for the first stage; sense-focused lessons on the second stage) — of this I am not comfortable. I would rather adhere to the present educational system, where all types of learning are taught in each of the stages of development; only, they are taught gradually. Lessons are prepared such that children are taught the same concepts but the method and language of instruction differ in complexity (depending on the children’s level).

I am also not comfortable with Rousseau’s decision not to give children the gift of literary and art appreciation. As a struggling writer, I derive profound happiness and satisfaction from reading and creating literary works. I pity a child denied that kind of experience, especially if such child would have had the talent to create works of art had his talent been nurtured.

And while I agree that practical knowledge is very important for it is that form of knowledge that would help the children go through life as they grow older, I also would not dream of denying them the chance to pursue higher thinking if they are so inclined. (I will always say NO to mediocrity.)


On the whole, I would say that Rousseau’s idea of proper education is far removed from what is achievable. It is too “ideal.” As a manual on child rearing and teaching, his treatise is definitely impossible and impractical. The conditions one needs to create one Emile are beyond what one teacher — even the perfect one — can provide.

However, Rousseau’s treatise must not be completely ignored, either. There are points in the book which we can adapt to better teach our children. The idea of learning by discovery and by experience is one good example. Another is the idea of a child-centered learning, which now has good theories supporting its effectiveness and “superiority” over other methods.