Wednesday, 6 March 2013


A few obvious questions

The Hungarian word tiszta is hard to put into English. It means 'clean', 'pure', 'undiluted', 'plain' and 'unalloyed'... In Germany some people refer to Petð-pur. Many people have tended to avoid the hard consequences of making this matter explicit: to do so might involve the difficult task of identifying the essence or essences of Conductive Education, counting some people in and some out, coming out on one side or another, ruffling feathers.

There surely are, however, distinctions to make, and boundaries to be drawn, and some obvious, longstanding questions to be addressed:
  • What is a clean' or a 'pure' way of providing conductive pedagogy'
  • What is its opposite: 'dirty', 'unclean', 'impure', 'alloyed'...?
  • By what criteria might we recognise 'pure conductive pedagogy?
  • Where might one find such criteria explicitly stated?
  • Historically and substantively. is tiszta konduktiv pedagógia even a valid construct?
  • Or just a slogan?
  • What sort of problems does all this cause?
  • What is wrong with alloys anyway?
Move&Walk's persisting advertisements for conductors to work in Sweden, tisztán (cleanly), suggest a need for defensible positions to be defined:


  1. I think this is a bit overreacted... 'Tisztán konduktív' in the Move&Walk post simply means a team of conductors, not anyone else. These days conductors might be working as members of a rehabilitation team, which includes other professionals, such as occupational therapists, speech therapists, AAT-professionals and so on. They just mean that in their team there are only conductors.
    Although there is the possibility of them looking for conductors who completed their studies in the Institute itself, not anywhere else, implying the hungarian speaking.

  2. Your first point is well taken. I think that a possible problem of language here. My understanding of Hungarian is very limited. If 'konduktiv' is the adjective of 'konduktor', exclusively or even primarily, then of course you are 100% right in interpreting what this means here in the way that you do, and you have gone a way towards explaining your own understanding of 'pure conductive pedagogy' (one for which, do not misunderstand me, I have considerable sympathy, at least as a starting point for discussing this question).

    As for your second point this is not what the advert says. Again, though, it goes a way towards defining your own view of what is pure (and presumably impure too).


  3. I think that the word conductive itself had been misused in other languages... The originally latin verb 'conducere' literally means to 'rent', or 'hire'...The verb what we should have used in the Pető-system is 'ducere', meaning to 'lead'... I think the con-prefix implies that conductors educate WITH leading... Or at least this is what logic dictates... Conductive education-konduktív pedagógia,so the adjective existed first,then someone created the noun konduktor out of it, which is very misleading, especially when non-natives try to translate from hungarian, given that the context might be clear for a native speaker, but can cause raising of eyebrows for non-natives.
    I still believe that the swedish-hungarian centre is looking for a hungarian team member because their team works/discusses/plans in hungarian...
    I dont see any implication of an excluding or negative tone in it...

  4. See Comments: