Philosophical Foundations
Ontological foundation
Today, continuing to define human beings exclusively based on rationality, as has been maintained since Aristotle, is clearly mistaken, as various human dimensions have been vindicated and require characterization. Despite this, rationalist views have been dominant throughout human history in characterizing human nature; from Aristotle to Descartes, Kant, and Piaget, to name a few of the most recognized exponents of this rationalist view.
Various theories in the final decades of the 20th century have advanced toward a more comprehensive and diverse view of intelligences. Among them are those of Gardner (1983), Sternberg (1987 and 1996), Feuerstein (1993 and 1997), and Morin (1999 and 2001).
Gardner (1983) postulated the existence of multiple intelligences, valued differently by human societies and cultures. To achieve this, he highlighted the cultural nature of intelligence, demonstrating empirically and neurologically that both the problems humans solve and the skills required to confront them are culturally determined.
Within the theoretical framework of Merani, and in the educational context, we believe that we should speak of five types of human dimensions, which comprise interrelated but relatively autonomous systems (De Zubiría et al., 2009). Their relative autonomy is evident in the various human dyssynchronies achieved between each of the dimensions, as Terrassier (2002) showed, and in the fact that various mediators, contexts, and environments participate in their evolutionary process.
Hence, the development of one dimension does not necessarily imply the development of another, as we see when we meet profound, brilliant, and sharp people who are immensely immature and emotionally unstable, and who have significant problems loving and expressing affection to members of their own families.
On the other hand, cognitive, evaluative, communicative, social, and practical processes are demarcated by the historical and cultural contexts in which individuals live, as demonstrated by the Historical-Cultural School. In this sense, a theory, a sentiment, or a practice cannot be understood if the social, economic, and political contexts in which they were conceived are unknown.
To conclude this summary of the epistemological principles of a dialogical pedagogical proposal, it is necessary to discuss one of its essential theses: the Theory of Cognitive Modifiability, championed by Reuven Feuerstein, who undoubtedly must be considered one of the recent exponents of historical-cultural approaches. Reuven Feuerstein formulated a profoundly original theory of intelligence, emphasizing its dynamic, relativistic, optimistic, and contextual vision. It emphasizes the central role played by cultural mediators, ensuring that the organism's plasticity and flexibility effectively lead to a high degree of modifiability, making its development unpredictable (Feuerstein, 1997).
Where we might disagree with Feuerstein is his excessive pedagogical optimism and his unlimited trust in modifiability, regardless of age and the social, cultural, and family conditions in which the individual develops. On the one hand, because it is evident that human modifiability is seriously restricted with age; and on the other, because education constitutes only one of the mediating agents, which could even run counter to that of other mediating agents such as the family, the church, or the mass media, among others. As seems evident, the mediation of educational institutions does not necessarily move in the same direction as the mediation exercised by the media, the church, or families, among others.
Not even the mediation carried out by the school at a given moment usually moves in the same direction as the mediation carried out by other levels or agents of the educational system at that same time. Consequently, modifiability is always possible for a child or young person, but for it to become concrete, the presence of mediators and a change in the conditions that fostered development in a certain direction are necessary. This means that modifiability requires a change in context, which is much more difficult to achieve than we often believe, since young people continue to live with their same parents and most likely maintain the same type of relationships with them and their siblings; they continue to live in the same neighborhoods, in fairly similar socioeconomic conditions, and in the same era, society, and culture. Without modifying this context, modifiability for an individual is highly unlikely to occur. And without adult mediation, this is not unlikely, but impossible.
Ethical foundation
The innovation undertaken by the Alberto Merani Institute more than thirty years ago seeks precisely to contribute to our humanization by addressing the individual, society, culture, nature and the cosmos, religions, and spirituality. Thus, humanization is an emergence that stems from a complex education of the human being, its characteristics, and its creations, including the various disciplines through which we attempt to understand the different universes in which we live.
The definition of ethics as "the praxis of humanizing ourselves in history" requires a series of clarifications to grasp its meaning. First, it is necessary to explain that by praxis we understand a type of practice that has a fundamental characteristic in its transformative quality. Through praxis, human beings transform possible realities, which, in turn, transforms us. Praxis substantially affects the structures of realities; it is a transcendent action that produces a form of development that is both subjective and objective.
Our action on relationships is guided by dialogue and care. When we call the pedagogical model we propose "dialoguing," we are speaking of an attitude. This is not a simple qualifier; it is the attitude we assume toward all relationships, through which we recognize different, even antagonistic, logics, but in dialogue. Through dialogue, not limited to verbal language, society will create the virtue of the context, namely, freedom. In this way, we educate for freedom, as Paulo Freire postulated, but we also educate in freedom.
From this perspective, which seeks to overcome the reductionism of previous models, the essence of ethical education must be a subjective experience to build shared meanings through dialogue.
Ethical education begins with understanding oneself and others, with the interpretation of their intentionality, with the recognition of the validity of human subjectivity, which is an encounter between human beings whose essential objective is to generate meaning for life.
From this understanding, we can also speak of understanding the context and understanding the transcendence of the human species.
We therefore propose a competency-based ethical education, that is, learning that does not concern specific aspects but rather ethical situations of a high level of generality and complexity, and involves cognitive, socio-affective, and practical aspects. They are comprehensive, meaning that when understandings, attitudes, or behaviors are acquired, that acquisition modifies the overall ethical structure.
We have named the four ethical competencies "comprehensions," which are the virtues we expect from individuals, society, and the human species:
- Understanding oneself
- Understanding others
- Understanding context
- Understanding the species
Understanding that every educational institution has the formation of human beings as one of its principles, schools must ensure that teachers and parents teach and demonstrate attitudes favorable to community life, civic participation, and social commitment. Therefore, there is a comprehensive training system that allows for the evaluation and fostering of certain attitudes, centered on attitudes of solidarity, autonomy, and interest in knowledge. These attitudes are addressed by all teachers in each subject area, as well as through extracurricular spaces and mechanisms.
They must be fostered on a permanent and daily basis by each teacher, and their contribution to their development is evaluated, with the teacher who best develops each of them being recognized annually.
At the extracurricular level, innovative strategies have been implemented to foster understanding, sensitivity, and recognition of others. Through these practices, the leadership of the institution is handed over to the senior group each quarter, and they freely appoint their leadership and teachers three times a year. and the sharing of feelings is encouraged on special days such as Affection Day or Ethics of Care Day.
