Apperception and Association

As I read the book I mentioned in the last post, the Humane Psychology of Education, I think I have a bit clearer idea of what Charlotte Mason meant by "apperception mass" and why she didn't much care for unit studies.

"We are familiar with the struggle of ideas on the threshold, with the good luck of those that get in and especially of those that get in first and mount to high places; with the behaviour of ideas, very much like that of persons who fall into groups in an anarchical state. This behaviour is described as the formation of 'apperception masses' and the mass that is sufficiently strong has it all its own way and dominates the mind. Our business is not to examine the psychology of Herbart, a very serious and suggestive contribution to our knowledge of educational principles, but rather to consider how it works out practically in education.'

Now Castiello talks about apperception masses too. From looking online I see that apparently it is a psychological term for what could be called our "context" or "paradigm".

In their phraseology the apperception mass represents the body of memories and meanings deposited in the consciousness of the individual from the totality of his experiences. It is the body of material with which every new datum of experience comes into contact, to which it is related and in connection with which it gets its meaning. When persons interpret data on different grounds, when the apperception mass is radically different, we say popularly- that they live in different worlds.

This is the way Castiello uses it, when mentioning that the teacher ought to be aware that children will understand differently according to the background that they bring to a reading. This is exactly what I read in books about "how to read". They generally say that a person who say, is familiar with art history will be able to read a book on art without too much trouble, while a beginner like me might have to stop often, assimilate new vocabulary, make sense of new concepts, and so on.

I think however that there is a difference between acknowledging this plain truth -- that one's prior knowledge affects how one learns new material -- and planning educational material in a reductionist, associative manner.

Both Castiello and Charlotte Mason seem to be very much opposed to a conclusion that is drawn from misapplying this concept to the whole working of the mind. Castiello opposes what he calls a mere "bond-making" or associative style of education. He says this relies on the lowest part of the human personality. You say "environmental concerns" and a whole package of theory and conclusions springs right away into my mind, especially if I've been taught that way by association from Day One. You say "smoking is bad" and I slap an "adult" label on the early Sesame Street episodes because Cookie Monster brandishes a pipe in imitation of Alistair Cooke.

It's probably a bit like the scenes in Brave New World where the children go to sleep and subliminally absorb taped messages about their place in life and what "truths" the people in charge want them to believe.