Hohenrodter Bund

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hohenrodter Bund (1923–1930), named after the venue Hohenrodt in the Black Forest, was a group of personalities who were largely active in popular education and who felt they belonged to the "free popular education" of the New Direction . As a characteristic it can be stated that participation in the annual discussions could only take place by invitation. A statement by Franz Pöggeler (1958) is selected to indicate the importance of the conferences :

“The name Hohenrodt has an almost magical attraction for connoisseurs of the recent history of education for a variety of reasons: In barely a decade after 1923, a relatively small group of gifted theorists and practitioners produced a literature that made everything that had previously existed seem largely out of date; at the same time, this small Hohenrodter circle, of which no outsider knew exactly who actually belonged to it, won the decisive initiative in German educational policy; [...] What remains until today [...] a lot of respect and on the other hand a lot of envy and mistrust "(p. 134)."

Hermann Herrigel accompanied the Hohenrodter Bund from its formation in 1923 to its end in 1930 with annual articles in the Frankfurter Zeitung . These reports "were almost the only source from which those interested could learn anything about the federal government".

prehistory

The failure of the “ Committee of German People's Education Associations ” and its dissolution on April 1, 1923 is part of the history of the formation of the Hohenrodter Bund . Cooperation had become impossible because of “ideological contradictions” and “over-organization”. "With the dissolution of the A. dd V. at the beginning of 1923, the German public education system had lost its only central organization". In order to enable people active in popular education to have a discussion, the Association for the Promotion of Popular Education in Württemberg invited people to a rest home in Hohenrodt on the initiative of Theodor Bäuerle . The conference plan was taken over by the Prussian Ministry for Popular Education, as it had already planned a similar event.

A major topic should be a debate on the dispute over the direction between “Berliners” ( Werner Picht ) and “Thuringian direction” ( Wilhelm Flitner , Reinhard Buchwald ). In contrast to the Thuringians, Picht sought to promote a select elite.

The meetings

This article or section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

In the "Hochschulblatt" of the Frankfurter Zeitung of July 12, 1923, an article by H. Herrigel appeared on the "State of the Popular Education Question", which contains a report on the first Hohenrodter Week . First of all, Herrigel criticizes the lack of commitment of the “intellectuals” ( Gerhart Hauptmann is mentioned by name ) for popular education in Germany: “It is to be lamented that so-called intellectual Germany is completely uninvolved in the issues of popular education.” Herrigel sees this lack of interest as one The reason for the “inadequacy” of what has been achieved and for “the fact that popular education work is still in its infancy.” What is required is “above all, serious criticism”.

Attendees

Robert von Erdberg died on April 3, 1929 . His death was seen by many as a deep turning point in the work of the popular education movement. Herrigel recalled the importance of Erdberg in his article on the 7th Hohenrodter Conference . "The theme of this year's conference: the old and the young was necessary once, but it turned out to be irrelevant in this group almost from the beginning."

Herrigel also reports that those who belonged to the “old” and who belonged to the “young” didn't necessarily have something to do with age. Fritz Laack (1984, 252) makes the following classification: "At this time, three groups within the federal government could be clearly distinguished from one another: Those who have been involved since the beginning ... was one." They included Theodor Bäuerle , Robert von Erdberg , Anton Heinen , Wolfgang Pfleiderer as the "inner leadership circle" and Otto Wilhelm , Paul Kaestner , Anton Lampa , Otto Stählin , Heinz Marr , Walter Hofmann . Until then, the leadership had been in her hands. After Erdberg's death she resigned as a group. "

The second group, “one or the other of which was there from the very beginning, the 35- to 45-year-olds (...) belonged to the war generation, had mostly started education after 1919 and were clearly determined by their active democratic attitude " (252; What Laack understands by" active-democratic "is not explained). Here the person of Wilhelm Flitner is particularly emphasized. She also included: Eugen Rosenstock , Franz Angermann , Alfred Mann , Fritz Klatt , Erich Less , Emil Blum , Mennicke, Paul Hermberg , Hermann Herrigel , Fritz Kaphahn , Franz Schürholz , Bernhard Merten , Ernst Michel , Rudolf Reuter , Leo Weismantel and Axel Henningsen (father of Jürgen H.). Within this group, Reinhard Buchwald , Franz Mockrauer and Eduard Weitsch are highlighted as “skeptical examiners”

About the third group, the “boys”, Laack says: “For them, popular education was the chosen profession, while the Weimar Republic was the parliamentary-democratic way of life for the state and the people to be developed according to the constitution. ... (their) goal was the developing community of the people. They were ... socially critical, less 'culturally critical' in their ideology, but almost without exception critical believers ” (252). This grouping included a. Heinrich Becker , Oskar Hammelsbeck , Hans Hofmann and Laack himself.

The German School

In order to do justice to the historic achievement of the Hohenrodter Bund, one has to point out its efforts to professionalise adult education. In Hohenrodt, from 1925, the plan to found a school to train people's educators: The German School for People's Research and Adult Education . Fritz Laack was appointed managing director in 1927. The work of the German School was initially started in the form of an "academy" on the Comburg (March 14th - April 9th ​​1927) and repeated several times based on this model. After preliminary considerations and planning by Flitner, it was taken over by Bäuerle, v. Erdberg and Rosenstock headed. The courses were the first to provide further training for adult education staff.
The research efforts were essentially stopped as early as 1929 with reference to lack of funds and staff.
The planned empirical research did not take place because the " Volksgemeinschaft ideology [...] prevented a rationally oriented research approach ".

In the FC of October 12, 1930, Herrigel describes the reorganization of the German School and the sponsoring association, as the situation would have forced a “thorough cleanup”: The “Hohenrodter Bund EV” has been renamed and is now called the “German School for Folk Research and Adult education EV "The entry is possible for" everyone interested ". The function of the association is the sponsorship of the "German School". The school's organs are an educational council and the "management committee". Herrigel reports: " Not quite half of the members of this committee [...] were elected by the general meeting ". " The German School is thus subject to the full control of the public while maintaining its educational autonomy [...] ."

The end

The last attempt to organize a Hohenroden meeting before the war failed in 1932 due to the insufficient number of interested parties. Of 64 Hohenrodtern interviewed, only 19 were in favor of a meeting. Fritz Laack founded the end but by a "turning point by the Nazi regime" that "any further clarification of the relationship between politics and popular education by prohibiting" the "democratic functioning" prevented the Hohenrodter (280). J. Henningsen's opinion about the end of Hohenrodt also points to National Socialism as the cause: "The Hohenrodter Bund itself, which had no organizationally fixed form, could not be banned, but it was of course paralyzed." Pöggeler wrote in 1958 in the aforementioned meeting von Henningsen's book: “... that the internal crisis, where the Hohenrodter Bund ultimately failed, was created by a contradiction: ... The German School, however much it emerged from the Hohenrodter intentions, became its undoing. The aristocratic and the democratic came into conflict here, and it appears as if the Hohenrodter Kreis did not want to recognize this contrast. ” (135) It should be emphasized that Herrigel has been talking about“ dissolution ”,“ conclusion ”or“ termination ”since 1923 End of work wrote. Statements about what effect this had would be speculation.

rating

Herrigel wrote in 1930: "... it is not too much to say that the development of German popular education work in the last seven years has been significantly influenced by Hohenrodt" . This group, which saw itself as a model and anticipation of the small-scale social order, did not allow more publicity until 1930, at least with regard to the "German School". Some of the leading people have only now been elected. The “archetype and model of a real national community”, the “cell of the new national order” (Pöggeler) has given no thought to the possibilities of political education. When looking through the conference topics and presentations, it is noticeable that “democracy” was never on the agenda. With a view to the pluralism of democracy, Franz Pöggeler wrote in 1958: "If a community were to form today in the manner and in the claims of the Hohenrodter Bund, we would even have to consider it dangerous" (135).

swell

It was not until 1926 that the Hohenrodter Bund decided to prepare and publish detailed conference reports. Herrigel's reports were also used to reconstruct the past conferences for the first two years - unchanged except for Herrigel's preface, but only for 1923. In addition, it was possible to fall back on lectures that had been published and on notes by Theodor Bäuerle , who wrote in the In the first few years as the main organizer, he often gave a concluding address. The notes have been preserved (unpublished) and were submitted to Fritz Laack and Jürgen Henningsen. Another source is the reports in the journal “Archive for Adult Education” (Organ des Hohenrodter Bund) and “Freie Volksbildung” (new part of the “Archive for Adult Education”). As a rule, they fluctuated greatly written by Robert von Erdberg. After his death in 1929, no more reports appeared.

In 1958, Henningsen did “a first review” of the sources and limited himself to writing an “external history” of the federal government. Pöggeler, who reviews Henningsen's book, then also criticizes the fact that Henningsen reports “with fine tact”, but leaves some things in “vague hints”. Less, who had been invited to Hohenrodt since 1928, criticized: “From memory, you will see some things differently, the accents set differently: Bäuerle's notes may have influenced the author too much. ... But on the whole we managed to give an accurate picture. "

literature

  • Jürgen Henningsen 1958: The Hohenrodter Bund. For adult education during the Weimar period . Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
  • Jürgen Henningsen 1959: On the theory of popular education
  • Hohenrodter Bund 1924: Founding notification . From: Archive for Adult Education. Organ of the Hohenrodter Bund vol. 1, pp. 39–41.
  • Hohenrodter Bund 1928: Conference reports Volume 1 . 1923-1927. Stuttgart: Silberburg.
  • Hohenrodter Bund 1929: Conference reports Volume 2 . 6th Hohenrodter Week 1928. Stuttgart: Silberburg.
  • Fritz Laack 1984: The interlude of free adult education . Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt ISBN 3-7815-0543-X .
  • Josef Olbrich 2001: History of Adult Education in Germany . Opladen: Leske ISBN 3-8100-3349-9 .
  • Franz Pöggeler 1958: Hohenrodt - To demythologize a term . Book review on Henningsen 1958 From: Adult Education Vol. 4, pp. 134–136.

Supplementary literature on the "German School"

  • Flitner Wilhelm 1927: Plan of a German school for folk research and adult education
  • Hohenrodter Bund 1927: The German School for Folk Research and Adult Education . - The first year. Printed as a manuscript. Stuttgart: Silberburg
  • Wolfgang Scheibe 2009: The Educational Reform Movement 1900–1932. Beltz
  • Rudolf Tippelt, Aiga von Hippel (Ed.) 2010: Handbook for adult education / further education . VS Verlag

References and comments

  1. ↑ Henningsen (1958), p. 25
  2. ↑ cf. Henningsen (1958), p. 19ff and 24
  3. ↑ Henningsen, p. 24
  4. ↑ (FC of October 21, 1929)
  5. ↑ Founding members are u. a .: Bäuerle, Buchwald, v. Erdberg, Flitner, Hofmann, Pfleiderer and Picht: "Archive for Adult Education - Organ of the Hohenrodter Bund" Ed. Picht and v. Erdberg 1st year (1924) p. 41
  6. ^ Franz Georg Angermann (1886–1939), educator, Heimvolkshochschule Sachsenburg
  7. ^ Alfred Mann (1889–1937) from 1919 director of the Breslau VHS
  8. ↑ Fritz Kaphahn (1888-1943) Managing VHS Dresden
  9. ^ Franz Schürholz (1897– ??); Business educator; DINTA
  10. ^ Pöggeler, Franz; Langenfeld, Ludwin; Welzel, Gotthard (ed.) (1961): In the service of adult education. Commemoration for Rudolf Reuter on the completion of his 70th year on July 29, 1961 . Osnabrück: A. Fromm, p. 340
  11. ^ Heinrich Becker (library system) (1891–1971) administrative officer in the Prussian Ministry of Culture (1929–1932)
  12. ↑ See Olbrich (2001), p. 210
  13. ↑ Olbrich (2001), p. 436
  14. ↑ Laack (1984), p. 115ff
  15. ↑ See Scheibe (2009) p. 386
  16. ↑ See Laack (1984), p. 236
  17. ↑ Tippelt (2010) p. 234
  18. ↑ Laack, p. 294
  19. ↑ Henningsen (1958), p. 43.
  20. ↑ (FC of October 12, 1930)
  21. ↑ This formulation originally comes from Eugen Rosenstock. See Olbrich (2001), p. 205.
  22. ↑ Erich Less (1958): Review of: J. Henningsen. The Hohenrodter Bund. From: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik Vol. 4, pp. 448–450.