In the debate on education, the neologism that some of us are using (I think we can call it that) is pedagogy, which perhaps needs an explanation. The idea is to give pedagogy a chance, separating the two things. As in the distinction between science and science, pedagogy would be an abuse of pedagogy, of twisting and distorting it. Unfortunately, one side of pedagogy often slips into pedagogy. Let's take a look at it.

Pedagogy is about education. Education is a fact that exists in every society, but when it comes to determining what it is, it inevitably crosses our semi-corrupt beliefs about what it should be. As a result, it is not easy to agree on a definition: there are very different and even contradictory descriptions and assessments of education.

In the long course of hominization, the ability to manufacture instruments was of great importance. Beyond the ability to use objects (stone, branches, coarse bone), I am talking about the power to mold and work them, to create new and more efficient tools. And to do it deliberately, consciously and in a planned manner, following pre-established patterns. These models were transmitted from parents to children and improved over time. As it is the transmission of knowledge (in this case, technical knowledge, skills), education is therefore very ancient. It is reasonable to assume that it is also ancestral in terms of transmitting values and promoting coexistence. It seems that one of the first words of articulated language could have been "no" in relation to the social and educational contexts of human puppies (don't go up there, don't eat that, don't hit your sister... Happy Borders! ).

When the transmission of knowledge acquired sufficient substance, it became an object of reflection in itself. For Plato, for example, contrary to what he attributes to the sophists, education, and specifically teaching within it, does not consist in introducing the contents into an empty container (in the minds of the students), but in helping to extract what they carry within them (as his teacher Socrates said) or in helping to direct their gaze in the right direction so that they can see and learn what is valuable and true. I don't know if it's pedagogy, but there's an incipient philosophy of education. There have been several approaches throughout history that have explored how cultural transmission occurs, but it was not until the 19th century that pedagogy emerged as an autonomous branch of knowledge.

As a biologist specialized in ants does (because he observes insects and describes in detail their modes of action, their life cycle, etc.), one could imagine that the pedagogue would be dedicated to observing what those who educate, teach and learn do – interested in what happens when we teach and learn – in order to reveal, perhaps, the internal mechanisms of this event. But, in a curious circular reasoning, the aim of pedagogy is not only to describe and know education, but also to change and improve the educational system... following the indications established by pedagogy itself (Wikipedia dixit).

It is true that, since pedagogy is a normative discipline, we cannot understand it as a science of education, which cannot exist unless the word is abused. In any case, pedagogy is committed to the constant change and innovation of methodologies; its websites have the appearance of decorative or fashion magazines that tell us what will be dressed this season. Pedagogy has the greatest impact on pedagogy itself; and education, of course. It places them under the changing wind of modes.