Charlotte
Mason in Modern English
Charlotte
Mason's ideas are too
important not to be
understood and implemented in the 21st century, but her Victorian style
of writing sometimes prevents parents from attempting to read her
books. This is an imperfect
attempt to make Charlotte's words accessible to
modern parents. You may read
these, print them out, share them freely--but they are copyrighted to
me, so please don't post or publish them without asking.
~L. N. Laurio
pg 1
Chapter
1 - Submission and Authority in the Home and in the School
Better
Relationships between Children and Adults
All of us who feel that education is our calling are very aware of the
changes we see in the way children behave and how they act. In at least
one thing we can take pride: relationships between children and their
parents, in fact, between children and all of their grown-up friends,
are much closer, open and friendly than they were in the past. There
doesn't seem to be a gaping gulf anymore between child thought and
adult thought. Those of us who are older remember trying to bridge that
gulf with desperate attempts, but with no success. When we were little,
the
heads of the household were as authoritarian as the Czar of Russia.
Everything we received, whether bread and milk or mother's love, came
from their hands, and we received it with submission, if not gratitude.
If our parents had nagging questions about what was best for us,
pg 2
they kept them to themselves. From our position, everything was
commanded, and all commands were final. There might have been a few
rebellious children, maybe one in twenty, or even one in a hundred, but
their rebellion had to have the courage of Satan in Milton's Paradise
Lost. They dared everything and stood firm in bold opposition. These
were blatant rebels who were doomed to come to bad ends. At least,
that's what we were told, and we secretly believed it. For all other
children, there was no other option but to submit. They were brought
under the
subjection of arbitrary rule without appeal.
The
Elder Generation of Parents Were Autocratic
That's the way children were brought up 40 or 50 years ago [around 1850]. Even many of today's
young parents grew up under a benevolent dictatorship that, although it
may have been happy, loving and wise, was, above all things,
unquestioningly arbitrary. There were a few homes that Scottish people
called 'ill guided.' Those were the kinds of homes where the children
did whatever they wanted. As long as there are weak, lazy parents who
don't care about their responsibility, these kinds of homes will
continue to exist. But they were the exception. In most middle-class
homes, the norm and tradition was a well-ordered, well-governed
childhood. Every biography of the people who made their mark on history
in the first half of the 1800's proves this. John Stuart Mill, John
Ruskin, the Lawrences [probably
brothers John and Henry, who served in India in the mid 1800's],
Alfred Tennyson--almost everyone who made a name for himself grew up
under absolute authority. In fact, it was just the other day that we
heard of another case. This was a man who remembered 70 years ago, when
he'd been twelve or thirteen years old, he was out shooting rabbits one
winter
day. He came home just as it was getting dark, and the evening was
bitterly cold. His father
pg 3
asked him which gate he had come through as he entered their property.
The boy named the gate. 'Did you shut it?' 'I don't remember.' 'Go back
and check.' And he went, even though he was already exhausted and the
gate was over a mile away from the house! That kind of thing would
hardly happen these days. The boy would protest, complain about how
cold and tired he was, or suggest that a man go shut the gate if it was
that important--and the story doesn't seem to indicate that it was. Yet
this man was considered a kind father who was both loved and honored by
his children. Arbitrary rule and unquestioning obedience were simply
the habits of the household. And this style of household government
still exists. The other day I heard about a Scottish father who
confined his eighteen-year-old daughter to her room for a week because
of a breach of discipline that wasn't even very serious. But where this
kind of parent exists, it's because he's out of touch with
current thought and culture. A few decades ago, parents were expected
to have certain principles. The more cultivated and intelligent they
were, the more they were expected to abide by such principles.
Arbitrary
Rule Isn't Always a Failure
We have to admit that arbitrary rule wasn't a complete failure. It
turned out men and women who were reliable, competent, trained,
self-controlled, and well-mannered. In our own moments of doubt, we
look at the children of our day and age and wonder whether they'll
measure up to their fathers and grandfathers. But we don't
need to worry. Educational thought evolves like the incoming tide. The
waves come and go and you can't tell whether the tide is ebbing or
flowing, but if you wait an hour, it will be obvious.
pg 4
Better,
Truer Educational Philosophy Results in Better, Worthier Character
Aside from allowances for ebb and flow, with a few mistakes and
failures here and there along the way, any truer educational thinking
can only be distinguished by producing worthier character in the
students it influences. The arbitrary nature of the old system was
needed because of limitations--parents knew that they had to govern
first and foremost. Abraham, the righteous father who 'ruled his house'
was their example. It's easier to govern from a position of superiority
than it is if you maintain an intimate relationship as equals. At the
same time, inferiors can't be open and casual with authoritarians who
are so obviously in a higher plane or order--at least, not if the
inferiors are little boys. And this is one of the reasons why little
children are so impenetrably secretive. Even when they're in good
spirits, they carry on all kinds of chatter--but they keep it all to
themselves, within the hidden depths of their own inner minds. All of
us can remember some distressing anxiety we had as children that a
simple word could have dispelled, but that became a dark secret,
clouding
years of our childhood. Mrs. Charles wrote in her autobiography about a
troubling dream that haunted her childhood. In her dream, she had lost
her mother and searched for her for hours in the rooms and endless
halls of an unknown building without finding her. Her parents assumed
her distress was caused by fear of the dark--she never told her loving
mother about the dream. I doubt that any amount of loving care will
permanently open the locked doors of a child's inner world. This
mysterious burden of this confusing world is probably rooted early in
the conscious soul, and each person has to make sense of his conception
of the world for himself. But it's immensely helpful for a child simply
to know that it's okay to ask questions. It's a relief to know that he
can talk about things that
pg 5
trouble him, and that there are answers to the things that confuse him.
But it's a mistake to respond with gushing sympathy. That will either
bore the child or make him feel patronized. It's enough just to know
that you can ask and talk about things. For the parent, this provides a
means to direct the child. For the child, it allows more free, natural
development.
The
Concept of Infallible Reason
As one line of educational thought becomes more prominent, another one
fades away. In this case, the thought that's fading away is an
important principle. Early in the century [1800's], authority was everything
when it came to governing a household. The submission of the children
was assumed as a given, except for the few cases of true rebel spirits.
Although we may not realize it, the evolution of English philosophical
thinking has greatly impacted the way parents and children in every
home relate to each other. Two hundred years ago, John Locke promoted
the concept of infallible reason. Once that concept is accepted,
individual reason becomes the ultimate authority and every person is
free to do whatever seems right in his own eyes. Locke qualified
himself by stipulating that
reason is infallible only if the reason is fully trained and the mind
has the information that pertains to each particular case in question.
But that qualification was overlooked, and only the general concept
remained. The old Puritan-style of faith and traditions of the elders
related to bringing up children, as well as Locke's own religious
sentiments and instincts to duty were too strong to allow the doctrine
of infallible reason to take root in England. But France was ripe for
such an idea, and John Locke was eagerly read there because his
opinions corresponded to the popular thought of the time. His
principles were put into practice in France and his conclusions were
worked out to the bitter
pg 6
end. Intelligent writers have suggested that Locke, in spite of being a
religious, cultivated English gentleman, can't be excused from guilt
for his role in the atrocities of the French Revolution.
The
Concept of Infallible Reason Leads to the Dethroning of Authority
In the twentieth century, we've lost some of the safeguards that kept
seventeenth century society in check. We have our own philosopher who
is perhaps even greater than Locke. He carries Locke's concepts to the
inevitable conclusions that even Locke himself didn't broach. That
philosopher is
Herbert Spencer. He proclaims, as they did in France, the exaltation of
Reason. Just like France, he sees that the principle of infallible
reason is opposed to the concept of authority. And he traces this
concept to its logical conclusion and final source. As long as people
acknowledge God, they have to acknowledge the concept of authority,
whether it's supreme authority, or delegated. But Spencer says that
every man can find his own final authority in his own reason. He is
passionate about his convictions. He realizes, as they did in France,
that exalting Reason means dethroning God. By the process of exhaustive
reasoning, he concludes that,
'We're on our own burial ground with no owner,
And we have no idea where we came from or who we belong to.'
Once God Almighty is dethroned, all human authority follows--kings,
those given roles of authority in nations, even parents in authority
over their own families. This teaching says that every act of authority
is an infringement of the rights of man or child [could this be where the concept of
non-coercive parenting comes from?] Children are to be brought
up right from the start deciding for themselves, doing what seems right
in their own
pg 7
eyes. They're governed by their own reason, which supposedly learns to
choose the right thing from its own mistakes by experiencing right and
wrong choices. Life has natural consequences for those who violate the
law of reason. Children should be allowed to learn those laws by
experiencing the penalties of those consequences. 'You must' and 'you
mustn't' are to be eliminated from a parent's vocabulary. Spencer's
scheme for the emancipation of children is so complete and thorough
that he even objects to studying languages in school because, as he
says, the rules of grammar violate the concept of liberty!
Authority is not Automatic or Inborn, but
Appointed
Spencer's contributions to educational thought are so valuable that
many parents read his work and embrace all of it without realizing that
his educational ideas are a small part of his whole philosophy--and
they might not agree with rest of his ideas. They accept his teaching
when it says to bring up children without any authority so that they'll
have room for self-development without realizing that Spencer's life
work as a social Darwinist is to eradicate the concept of authority
from the universe. He renounces the authority of parents as one link in
the chain binding the universe to God. And he's correct that none of us
has any right to exercise authority in anything, great or small, unless
we acknowledge and accept our authority roles as positions appointed by
the one supreme and ultimate Authority. When we peruse his book about
education, [Essays on
Education? The
Rights of Children?]
although it's small and easy to read, we need to remember that, by
reading it, we're putting ourselves under the leading of a philosopher
who doesn't overlook or leave out anything. He regards the most trivial
pg 8
things from the far-sighted perspective of their final result. He
doesn't want children obediently doing as they're told because he's
afraid that they'll grow up and learn to obey another authority outside
their own reason--that authority which we believe is ordained by God [or perhaps even God Himself].
'Quick
as Thought'
Spencer's rationalistic thought isn't limited to those who read his
books, or to those who read his ideas about education. 'Quick as
thought' is a common expression, but I wonder how quick thought really
is? It would be interesting to measure the rate of intensity,
vitality and speed of an idea as it progresses through the world.
How soon is it before an idea conceived at a man's reading desk is a
household word? By the time the common man on the street thinks of it
as his own possession, its original source is often long forgotten. We
have no way of measuring the speed of an idea. But there's hardly a
home, even in the lowest socio-economic neighborhood, where Spencer's
educational concept hasn't been consciously adopted or rejected, even
though the people considering the concept may never have heard of
Spencer. Once an idea takes off, it's 'out there' in the world. It's
similar to the Holy Spirit--we don't know where it comes from, or where
it goes.
The
Finality of Human Reason is an Intolerable Concept
For the very reason that philosophical thought is so subtle and such a
permeating influence, we need to be careful to scrutinize every
principle
that comes our way. Once we're able to be aware and safeguard
ourselves, we'll be able to benefit from the bit of good in works
that are largely full of errors. It's possible that the early years of
this century [1900's] may see
the rise of the greatest philosopher England has ever seen--a
philosopher who won't be confined by the limitations
pg 9
of rationalistic or materialistic thought. Men have become bored and
tired of themselves. The concept that human reason is final has itself
become an intolerable limitation. Nothing less than the Infinite will
satisfy man's spirit. Once again, we recognize that we're made for God
and we'll have no rest or peace until we find Him. Current philosophic
thought both in England and around the world has left man's search for
answers to the spiritual yearnings of his heart unsatisfied, so people
are finding answers elsewhere.
Authority
and Submission are Fundamental Principles
One of the answers is reconstructing a whole new philosophy. This new
philosophy is like a new temple for our spirits, like a house not built
by human hands. Part of its foundation is restoring the concept of
Authority to its traditional place, accepting it as a fact. It can't be
accounted for any more than the law of gravity can. The concept of
Authority is as binding and universal in the moral sense as gravity is
in the physical sense. And fitting together with the concept of
Authority like a ball fits into a socket is Submission. The concept of
Submission is also universal and fundamental. Authority and Submission
work together like two halves of a pair of scissors. All possibilities
of law and order, government and progress hang on the joint concept of
Authority and Submission. Benjamin Kidd's book Social Evolution helped draw
attention to these two fundamental concepts. He asked questions such
as, Why should a football team obey its captain? Why should an army
obey its commanding officer? Why should a crowd on the street be
controlled by two or three policemen? Why should anybody bother to
respect property when so many want what so few have? To be more direct,
why should there be rule and order in the world instead of anarchy?
Benjamin Kidd turns to Reason to answer these questions--but she has no
answer to give. The best she can offer is the appeal to
pg 10
self-interest: individually and as a group, we tend to do whatever is
shown to be in our best interest. But how does that account for the
sailors who stood at attention when commanded and drowned as their ship
'The Royal George' sank? Or the six hundred who rode 'into the valley
of death' because it was,
'Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die'?
Deep reflection can find only one possible motivation for that
kind of sacrificial obedience: the single simple motive of authority
acting on submission. These men were told to do something, so they did
it. It's as simple as that. And our hearts confirm that they did the
right thing. We consider such things heroic, but we should note that
these wonderful examples of human nature at its best can be boiled down
to willingly obeying authority. Abuse of authority causes slavery and
tyranny, but even they couldn't exist if they weren't founded on
fundamental principles of human nature. All of us have it in us to
serve or to lead, depending on the need of situation. To dream of
complete freedom with every man his own sole governor is as pointless
as dreaming of a world where apples don't always drop to the ground
from the tree, but fly off in all different directions.
The
Work of Rationalistic Philosophers is Inevitable
What is Authority? The fact that we're even asking the question shows
how inevitable the work of
rationalistic philosophers has been in the evolution of thinking. We
owe them our deliverance from tyrants in both governments and families.
pg 11
Rationalistic philosophers have provided a service by asserting and
proving that every soul is born free with an inalienable right to
liberty, and that offending the liberty of another human is a serious
crime. They're right. Children are so submissive and weak that it's
tempting for teachers and parents to become like dictators and say, 'Do
this because I said so.' Therefore, it's teachers and parents, more
than anyone else, who are indebted to rationalistic philosophers for
reminding them about freedom, especially children's right to freedom
within the family. This seems to be the way God educates the world. It
isn't just one good custom that can 'corrupt a world,' but one
infallible principle can corrupt, too. When a true principle comes to
light in the mind of a philosopher, he sees its truth. It possesses him
until that's all he sees and he forgets that it's not the whole
truth. So he proclaims it as if it's the only truth there is until he
becomes ridiculous. Then, in reaction, the totally opposite point is
illuminated and glorified in the same way by the next school of
thought. Finally, it's discerned that neither principle is the complete
truth, but that men need the balance of both to live by.
Authority
is Vested in the Office
It's this point and counterpoint of minds that has helped us to correct
our concept of authority. It wasn't long ago, in fact, within our
lifetimes, that we were on dangerous ground. We acted like authority
was vested in certain people,
and
that arbitrary actions were appropriate for them, and that it was good
for others to slavishly obey them. We got that notion of government
from religion. We believed in the 'divine right' of kings and parents
because we thought it was God's arbitrary will for it to be that way.
But now we know
pg 12
better. Now we know that authority rests in the office and not the person. The
moment the person in the authoritative role acts like dictating is his
personal attribute, he forfeits his authority. A person in authority is
a person who has been authorized.
And he's been authorized by someone that he's under authority to himself. A
person under authority is holding and fulfilling a trust. Every time he
asserts his own self, or
commands
on the whim of his own will, he stops being authorized and
authoritative, and becomes arbitrary and domineering. Arbitrary
domineering tyrants require punishments for minor infractions to stay
in control. That's where the confusion about the relationship between
authority and punishment comes from. A tyrant rules by terror. He
punishes right and left to maintain his power. But a person who's
vested with authority doesn't need punishment to back him up because a
higher authority is behind him, and the corresponding principle of
submission is in front of him.
Paraphrased by L. N. Laurio
Please direct
any comments or questions to me by emailing me at cmseries-owner at yahoogroups dot com.