Classical vs Neoclassical? What's the Difference?

[Southern Ivy]

I keep seeing classical and neoclassical on various homeschooling blogs, but I can't seem to pinpoint the exact difference between the two. I know the neoclassicism movement began around the 18th century, but I assume neoclassical education isn't focusing only on the 18th century and beyond. Maybe I'm wrong. 

Would someone mind telling me what the difference is between these two? 

[Chris in VA]

Not an expert, but I think the neoclassical is just classical but updated to use materials that are out now (and weren't, during the Classical period...;-) ); it's all neoclassical now.

[Southern Ivy]

Interesting. Thanks!

[NavyMommy]

I was just listening to SWBs lecture "The Joy of Classical Education" and she actually makes that point early on. Basically that in spite of what the movement's purists would argue there is no way (nor would we want to) to recreate an authentic classical education. For example back then women weren't schooled. Everything we do today is neoclassical. 

[Southern Ivy]

That makes a lot of sense. :) I had wondered if it wasn't something along those lines, but I wasn't sure. I appreciate it. 

[ElizaG]

I was just listening to SWBs lecture "The Joy of Classical Education" and she actually makes that point early on. Basically that in spite of what the movement's purists would argue there is no way (nor would we want to) to recreate an authentic classical education. For example back then women weren't schooled. Everything we do today is neoclassical. 

 

This line of thinking seems to assume that "classical education" means "an education just like that of ancient Greece and Rome."   But this is different from the standard definition that's been used by scholars, historians, and pretty much everyone in the West (other than the US homeschool and Christian school movement since the 1980s or so).   They've always understood the term to mean "a type of liberal education that's centered on the intensive study of Latin and Greek language and literature."   And this is a living tradition that's been going (with some branching off) from ancient times, until quite recently:

 

- in American Protestant prep schools and colleges, and public high schools, to around 1900

- in American Catholic colleges, to around the 1920s or 30s

- in the school system of Quebec, to the 1950s

- in some European countries, to the present day (e.g., see Ester Maria's old posts)

 

As for whether or not women were involved, this depends on the cultural context.  When classical schools were seen mainly as places to prepare leaders for society or the Church, they were generally limited to boys.   On the other hand, when classical education was seen more as a standard course of rigorous studies in the humanities -- as it was in Quebec, and in the late 19th century US, and in contemporary Europe -- it was often available to both boys and girls.   And even at times and places where girls didn't have access to classical schools, there have always been a few who were classically educated privately, by tutors or other people in their household (e.g., some studious nuns; St. Thomas More's daughters; Queen Elizabeth I; some colonial American women).

 

This clearly has some connection with societal ideas about gender roles, but I think it's also related to the availability of resources.  Classical education required a highly trained teacher, so it couldn't be provided to everyone.   In times of scarcity, in a pagan or secular context, the main concern was to form orators to take on leadership roles in the law and politics.  In a Christian context, priority was given to the training of seminarians.  Everything else was gravy, more or less. 

 

To me, one feature of "neo-classical" methods -- TWTM, LCC, CiRCE, etc. -- is that they try to take what they consider to be the best features of classical education (based on the authors' understanding of what that means), and put those in a form that anyone can teach.  The goal is usually to make this type of education -- or something in the general ball park -- available to every child.  There are obviously both advantages and disadvantages to this.   If a given neo-classical method is well designed, it might help a large number of children.  But some families are still going to find it too much of a stretch, and others are going to be looking for ways to go farther -- or, at least, to add in some of the aspects that were left out. 

 

BTW, I'm surprised that SWB is supposed to have said that girls "weren't schooled" in the ancient world.  This was pretty much the situation in ancient Greece, but in Roman times, there's evidence that girls were given a similar elementary education to boys, and that they often attended schools.   Their formal schooling typically ended by age 11, though.   This was also true for boys from less affluent families.   As in later times, only a minority of students were classically schooled, in the sense of going on to receive a secondary education from the grammarian and rhetorician.

 

Wikipedia's article on Education in Ancient Rome has some good references, as does Marrou's History of Education in Antiquity.

 

In any case, setting a standard of recreating all the details of something from that long ago would be a pretty pointless endeavor, IMO.  It wouldn't even be a "purist" attitude, so much as an antiquarian one.  So I think it's a good thing that we don't need to go back 2000 years -- or even 200 years -- to find examples of Western schooling that were generally recognized as "classical." 

[Susan Wise Bauer]

BTW, I'm surprised that SWB is supposed to have said that girls "weren't schooled" in the ancient world.  This was pretty much the situation in ancient Greece, but in Roman times, there's evidence that girls were given a similar elementary education to boys, and that they often attended schools.   Their formal schooling typically ended by age 11, though.   This was also true for boys from less affluent families.   As in later times, only a minority of students were classically schooled, in the sense of going on to receive a secondary education from the grammarian and rhetorician.

 

Just to clarify, what I actually said is that we wouldn't want to go back to Plato's day, when girls weren't schooled. Most "purist" proponents of classical education spend more time talking about ancient Greece than ancient Rome.

 

Interesting post, interesting discussion.

 

SWB

[maryanne]

Since I don't know of anyone in real life actually trying to reproduce a classical education from the ancient world or even from the Middle Ages or Renaissance, I tend to think of Classical as it used nowadays as content-based and focused on Latin and Great Books and Neoclassical as method-based developing the skills of the Trivium without necessarily including the Classical content.  I do not see them as mutually exclusive so any particular implementation might have elements of both.  I think that Neoclassical, as I have defined it, could be used along with more modern or global content, while Classical is inherently Western-centric. Both have the potential to develop the Trivium skills.

 

The WTM certainly has elements of both, but in my opinion leans more towards Neoclassical because, although it includes a lot of Classical content, its organizing principle is Trivium-based stages. Based on my definitions (which may or may not be shared by anyone else) Classical Conversations and most other new homeschooling curriculum that claim to be Classical are in reality Neoclassical.  Veritas Press and Latin Centered Curriculum are the most Classical modern homeschooling curriculums that I am familiar with.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing how this topic develops.

[HS Mom in NC]

Classical Education is an incredibly broad term like Christianity.  Neo-classical is a subcategory of one specific version of Classical Education like any one of many different Christian denominations are subcategories of Christianity. Most people who use the term "neo-Classical" that I know are referring to Trivium Classical Education as defined by Dorothy Sayers. It refers to the Trivium as more developmental stages than individual subjects although content, teaching techniques and skill sets usually factor into each variation.  See how hard this discussion is?

 

As with anything that's 3,000+ years old and developed all over the world, you're going to have lots of different schools of thought, interpretations and definitions.  The biggest rookie mistake Classical Educators make is deciding that their preferred definition is the only "right" or "pure" one and all others could not possibly be considered real Classical Education.