CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ THE COURT OF PEERS LOST IN TIME The Court of Peers is another form of children’s self-government. The court epitomized the essential self-upbringing means in a dormitory of orphans ( Dom Sierot ). In a contrasting perspective, it become the antipode of the tedious cycle of a military barrack discipline. As part of the educational and self-educational system, the court did not have a consultative foundation. The quintessence of the court rested on authoritarian practice: children decide about themselves and adults as well. The court, as an upbringing experiment, was first established in children’s summer camps. Later, the court project was re-established in an orphanage dormitory at the beginning of the last century. A dormitory is principally different from a general school that pupils regularly attend. Such pupils have a family and a home away from school. Whereas a dormitory, specific social unite, is the main venue for the lives of children. Within its societal boundaries, a child gains experience, separate from the virtual world. As a physician, Korczak saw a dormitory as a children’s hospital department. He likens the dormitory to a clinic where he encounters a variety of bodily and soul sicknesses and weak resistance of the organism. At the same time, this heritage of sickness is prolonging and hampering the recovery of children. He realizes that it is desirable to reform the dormitory into a sanatorium of morals. 4 There, specific social norms of order, integrity, generosity, honesty, promise keeping, doing no harm, or cooperation can be accepted by children, but sometimes also rejected within the frame of institutional interaction. One can establish a tradition of truth, order, diligence, honesty, and sincerity in a dormitory. However, as Korzcak writes, one cannot transform a child into someone they are not ( ale nie przerobię żadnego z dzieci na inne, niż jest ). Consequently, he turns to the naturalistic metaphor, often utilized in the philosophy of education and pedagogy, that “a birch will remain a birch, oak an oak – burdock a burdock”. 5 In a counter argument, nonetheless a distorted perspective, the dormitory may appear to be a nice, harmonious mini-state inhabited by children, where children have only minor concerns and needs. Korczak rejects this wrong perception of the children’s home. Dormitory is a world of a hundred children – a hundred people, a world of not only the small but the great, not the innocent, but of human values, strengths, aspirations, and desires. He rejects the idea of a child dressed in a coat of innocence. On the contrary, he attributes essential weight to childhood and perceives children as morally equal beings, despite their natural diversity. Moral equality, which is unnecessary to prove, prescribes equal treatment. Children deserve equal dignity and equal respect. These values correspond with their moral rights. 3. The Code The Code is a modest collection of norms that were not created by spontaneous interaction between children. The Court Council ( Rada Sądowa ), a small elected body, is the creator of these social standards. The Code does not prescribe standards of daily routine. It does not directly prohibit bullying, quarrels between children, brawls, or queue-jumping. It does not 4 KORCZAK, J. Jak kochać dziecko. Internat. Kolonie letnie. Dom Sierot . Warszawa: Instytut Książki. Biuro Rzecznika Praw Dziecka, 1993, p. 23: “I jeśli internat nie będzie uzdrowiskiem moralnym, grozi mu, że będzie ogniskiem zarazy.” 5 Ibidem , p. 77: “Mogę stworzyć tradycję prawdy, ładu, pracowitości, uczciwości, szczerości, ale nie przerobię żadnego z dzieci na inne, niż jest. Brzoza pozostanie brzozą, dąb dębem – łopuch łopuchem.”

169