15315-wolbert

Chapter 3 45 therefore argue that the assumption of these things (clean air, power, etc.) as building blocks of the theory is an example of ‘bad idealisations’, which limits the value of ideal theory. 68 Ruth Cigman finds recent theory on flourishing as an aim of education ‘unpopulated’, by which she means that ‘real’ people are being neglected. 69 People are being formalized (‘the agent’), which is another example of a ‘bad idealisation’, namely of the conception of a person. 70 For instance White gives the example of the life of a fictional girl ‘Willow’ who is ‘enveloped in close, loving relationships’ and whose parents ‘lay further foundations for her well-being’. 71 Willow is not real, she doesn’t really exist, and more importantly she could not be real, for her upbringing is too flawless, too perfect to be perceived of as even possibly real. She is what Cigman calls a ‘snapshot’. Cigman’s question here is not whether such a blueprint of a flourishing life can be given, clearly it can, but she asks what purpose it has. If White’s 2011 book is a ‘guide to making children’s lives more fulfilling’, what is the purpose of an idealised story of an upbringing? It can be argued that it is meant as the presentation of an image that guides the reader by showing what it is that educators ought to aspire to, it functions as a regulative ideal. 72 However, it might also be that such formalization of the agents (here: the parents) might actually reduce the value of the ideal theory, because it takes the theory too far away from the actual human condition and from what human beings are actually like. 3.5 O UTLINES OF A N ONIDEAL T HEORY ON E DUCATION FOR F LOURISHING In view of the problems inherent in ideal theory, it is worth asking whether it is desirable to also theorise education for flourishing in a nonideal way. What would characterise such a nonideal theory, and what would be the merits of nonideal theorising? In our opinion there are two options. The first is to reflect upon education in light of the overarching aim of flourishing and conclude that too many parents, schools and children are so far removed from the ideal that describing an ideal blueprint has little meaning. Therefore we should, for example by following Sen’s suggestion, focus on the instrumental needs of children in particular contexts, and theorise how these can be met in real life. In this sense, the theory focuses on moving away from the nonideal situation, as opposed to starting from the ideal blueprint. Ideal theory on education for flourishing, the argument might run, assumes healthy, motivated, (etc.) children. A pressing 68 Robeyns 2008, p. 358. 69 Cigman 2018. 70 See Robeyns 2008, p. 358, and see also Mills’ explanation of an idealised ontology, 2005. 71 White 2011, p. 124. 72 See Emmet 1994.