Similarly, in pedagogical circles neohumanist theoreticians contested the philanthropinist ideology of education as training for citizenship, and articulated the imperative of Bildung to mold the well-rounded individual.
On the pedagogical front, her participation in the debates between the philanthropinist and neohumanist movements is richly textured by her dual focus on pedagogical and gender issues.
By the time of Holst's writing, the utilitarian thrust of the philanthropinist movement was losing currency to the neohumanist movement.
Here she severely critiqued the contemporary pedagogical literature, particularly that of the philanthropinists Campe and Basedow.
Not only did she condemn the philanthropinists for their narrow view of woman's educational needs, she assailed them for their fear that higher learning and development of artistic skills would inspire distaste for maternal tasks (108).
Aside from the philanthropinists, she named only Rousseau, Jakob Mauvillon, Ernst Brandes, and Karl Pockels.
Ironically, the philanthropinists' investment in the paternal educator conjoined with particular societal changes that empowered Holst to professionalize the maternal educator.
Once all women are ensured a thorough education, talented single women could, and should, become teachers--a far cry from the philanthropinists' answer to struggling single women: "It seems to me that this [teaching] is more honorable than to support oneself with handiwork, which is the advice Herr Campe recommends for women in need" (94).