Just a very short extract from "How we should study failure at school", which argues Freud's contribution, among others is 'ontological maze peopled by absurd homunculi'
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburgh, 20-23 September 2000
None of this is to deny the particular and specific insights which may come from particular kinds of theory and which may be used as thinking tools in considering particular problems which arise out of children's reluctance to learn. It is the seeking of form, in Marx, Freud, the Frankfurt School or wherever, which is of concern - and this is important when we are looking to explain the history of special education, since the grand theory postulated by the grand theorists has been highly influential. Even to the present day, notions of emotional disturbance dominate explanations of behaviour difficulty and these rely for their legitimacy on a Freudian ontology, even if that ontology is, as Crews (1997: 298) has put it, an 'ontological maze peopled by absurd homunculi'. Even with, as Rorty (1998: 76) puts it, a 'partial substitution of Freud for Marx as a source of social theory', there remains the seemingly willing dependence on the structure of a theory or what Dewey (1982: 187) called the 'logic of general notions under which specific situations are to be brought'. Dewey asserted that instead of these general notions ... 'What we want is light upon this or that group of individuals, this or that concrete human being, this or that special institution or social arrangement'.