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
School Education
Volume 3 of
Charlotte Mason's Original Homeschool Series
Table of Contents
Preface
Ch 1 Submission And Authority In The Home And In The
School . . . pg. 1
Ch 2 Docility And Authority In The Home And The
School Pt II How Authority Behaves . . . pg. 13
Ch 3 'Masterly Inactivity' . . . pg. 25
Ch 4 Some Of The Rights Of Children As Persons . . .
pg. 36
Ch 5 Psychology as it Relates to Current Thinking .
. . pg. 44
Ch 6 Examining Some Educational Theories . . . pg. 56
Ch 7 An Adequate Educational Theory . . . pg. 68
Ch 8 Certain Relationships that are Proper for
Children . . . pg. 79
Ch 9 A Review of A Great Educationalist . . . pg. 91
Ch 10 Some Aspects of Physical Training That We
Don't Usually Consider . . . pg. 101
Ch 11 Some Aspects of Intellectual Training That We
Don't Usually Consider . . . pg. 113
Ch 12 Some Aspects of Moral Training That We Don't
Usually Consider . . . pg. 126
Ch 13 Some Aspects of Religious Training That We
Don't Usually Consider . . . pg. 137
Ch 14 A Master-Thought . . . pg. 148
Ch 15 School Books and How They Bring About
Education . . . pg. 164
Ch 16 How To Use School-Books . . . pg. 174
Ch 17 Education as the Science of Relationships: We
are Educated by Our Intimacies as Illustrated by Wordworth's Prelude
and Ruskin's Praeterita . . . pg. 182
Ch 18 We Are Educated By Our Intimacies: Part II -
More Affinities . . . pg. 194
Ch 19 We Are Educated By Our Intimacies: We Are
Educated By Our Intimacies: Pt III - Vocation . . . pg. 204
An Educational Manifesto . . . pg. 214
Ch 20 Suggestions Regarding Curriculum (For children
under 14) Pt I . . . pg. 215
Ch 21 Suggestions Regarding Curriculum: Pt II -
School-Books . . . pg. 228
Ch 22 Suggestions Regarding Curriculum: Pt III The
Love of Knowledge . . . pg. 240
Appendix (Study Questions) . . . pg 248
Appendix . . . . pg. 271 (student narrations; what a child should know
by age twelve; sample exams; examples of oral lessons for teachers) (in
progress)
Preface
to the 'Home Education' Series
The future of education both in England and overseas is vague and
depressing. We hear various urgent pleas--science should be the focus
of education, we need to reform the way we teach foreign language or
math, we should incorporate more crafts and nature study to train the
eye and hand, students need to learn how to write English and must
therefore be familiar with history and literature. And on the other
hand, we're being pressured to make education more vocational and
utilitarian. But there's no coherent principle, no real aim. There's no
philosophy of education. A stream can't rise any higher than the lake
it flows from. In the same way, no educational work can rise above the
thought and purpose behind it. Maybe this is the reason for all the
failures and disappointments of our educational system.
Those of us who have spent many years researching the gentle, elusive
vision of education have come to understand that various approaches
have a law behind them, but we haven't yet discovered what it is. We
can make out a dim outline of it, but that's it. We know that it's
all-encompassing. There's no part of a child's home life or school work
that isn't affected by that law. It's illuminating. It shows the value
(or worthlessness) of all the thousands of various educational systems
and programs. It isn't just a light, it's also a measure. It sets the
standard by which to measure all educational work, whether small or
great. That law is impartial and gracious. It will embrace
anything that's true, honest, and respected. It sets no limits or
obstacles, except where too much would be harmful. And the educational
path that the law reveals is continuous and always advancing forward.
There is no magical transition stage, progress is steady from birth to
old age, except that, whatever habits are learned in youth will
determine what choices are made even in adulthood. When we finally see
the law for what it is, we'll find that certain German thinkers--Kant,
Herbart, Lotze, Froebel--were right when they said that it's
necessary to believe in God, so the most important thing to learn is
knowledge of God. That should be the priority of education. There's one
more way that we'll be able to recognize this perfect law that gives
educational freedom when we see it. It's been said that, 'The best
thing about absolute truth is that it works under every condition we
can think of.' And that will be true of this law. No matter what
experimental test or logical investigation we give it, it will pass.
We still haven't seen an outline or summary of this law. So, until we
have something definite, we'll have to fall back on Froebel or Herbart,
or, if we adhere to a different school of thought, Locke or Spencer.
But we aren't content. We feel dissatisfied. Is it a divine discontent?
If we found a workable, effective philosophy of education, we'd welcome
it as deliverance from our perplexity. Before we find this great
deliverance, there will probably be lots of tentative attempts. They'll
all have the characters of a philosophy, more or less. Specifically,
they'll have a central idea, a basic concept with various details
working in harmony with it. This workable, effective theory of
education could be called a system of psychology. It would have to work
well with the accepted ideas of the time. It wouldn't think of
education as an isolated, shut-off compartment, but as a natural part
of life, like birth, growing, marriage, or work. It would create a bond
between the student and the great wide world, connected at many
different points where interest was sparked. I know that some
educational experts want to create that connection in many subjects,
but their attempts are too random. They give a saying here, an idea
there, but there's no common foundation to unify and support education
as a complete unit.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I don't want to seem
presumptuous. I hope that there will be lots of ideas submitted towards
a working philosophy of education, and that each one will bring us one
step closer to discovering the best possible education. In that spirit,
I offer my idea. The central foundational thought of my idea will sound
rather obvious: the child is a whole, complete person with all the possibilities
and capabilities already included in his personality. Some of the
implications of this idea have been exploited by educational experts,
and fragments of this idea are already pretty commonly accepted by
common sense. For instance, take the aspect that education is the science of making
relationships. That concept seems to solve the curriculum
question. It shows that the main purpose of education is putting the
child in living touch with as much of nature and thoughts as possible.
If you add a couple of skills that help the child self-educate, then
the student will go into the world after graduation with some ability
to manage and control himself, a few hobbies to enrich his leisure
time, and an interest in lots of things. I have two reasons for even
attempting to offer my educational idea, even if my idea is tentative
and will probably be replaced by an even better idea. For the last
30-40 years, I've worked unceasingly to come up with a philosophical
educational theory that works practically. Also, each of the following
educational principles is something that came about by inductive
processes, and has been proved with long and varied experiments. I
hesitate
to share my findings because I know that, in the field of education,
there are many workers more capable and more knowledgeable than I am.
Even they aren't bold enough to offer answers because the footing is so
precarious! They are like the 'angels who fear to tread.'
But, if only to encourage their effort, I offer an amended version of a
synopsis I included in the other volumes of my 'Home Education Series.'
My approach isn't methodic. It's more incidental--here a little, there
a little. That seemed like the best way to make it practical for
parents and teachers. I should add that the various essays in this book
were originally written for the Parents National Educational Union
(PNEU) to provide the society with a unified theory.
'As soon as the soul spots truth, the soul recognizes it as her first
and oldest friend.'
'The repercussions of truth are great. Therefore we must not neglect to
correctly judge what's true, and what's not.'
--Benjamin Whichcote
Whichcote said that the end result of truth is so great that we must be
careful to make sure that what we live by is, indeed, the truth.
1. Children are born persons - they are not blank slates or embryonic
oysters who have the potential of becoming persons. They already are
persons.
2. Although children are born with a sin nature, they are neither all
bad, nor all good. Children from all walks of life and backgrounds may
make choices for good or evil.
3. The concepts of authority and obedience are true for all people
whether they accept it or not. Submission to authority is necessary for
any society or group or family to run smoothly.
4. Authority is not a license to abuse children, or to play upon their
emotions or other desires, and adults are not free to limit a child's
education or use fear, love, power of suggestion, or their own
influence over a child to make a child learn.
5. The only three means a teacher may use to educate children are the
child's natural environment, the training of good habits and exposure
to living ideas and concepts. This is what CM's motto "Education is an
atmosphere, a discipline, a life" means.
6. "Education is an atmosphere" doesn't mean that we should create an
artificial environment for children, but that we use the opportunities
in the environment he already lives in to educate him. Children learn
from real things in the real world.
7. "Education is a discipline" means that we train a child to have good
habits and self-control, both in actions and in thought.
8. "Education is a life" means that education should apply to body,
soul and spirit. The mind needs ideas of all kinds, so the child's
curriculum should be varied and generous with many subjects included.
9. The child's mind is not a bucket to be filled with facts that bunch
up into thought-groups, as Herbart said.
10. The child's mind is also not a bag for holding knowledge. It is a
living thing and needs knowledge to grow. As the stomach was designed
to digest food, the mind is designed to digest knowledge and needs no
special training or exercises to make it ready to learn.
11. This is not just splitting hairs; Herbart's philosophy that the
mind is like an empty stage waiting for bits of information to be
inserted puts too much responsibility on the teacher to prepare
detailed lessons. Students taught this way have lots of knowledge
taught at them, without getting much out of it.
12. Instead, we believe that children's minds are capable of digesting
real knowledge, so we provide a rich, generous curriculum that exposes
children to many interesting, living ideas and concepts. From this
principle, we can deduce that--
13. "Education is the science of relations," which means that children
have minds capable of making their own connections with knowledge and
experiences, so we make sure the child learns about nature, science and
art, knows how to make things, reads many living books and that they
are physically fit. Our job isn't to teach everything about everything,
but to inspire interests that will help children make connections with
the world around him.
14. Children have two guides to help them in their moral and
intellectual growth--"the way of the will," and "the way of reason."
15. Children must learn the difference between "I want" and "I will."
They must learn to distract their thoughts when tempted to do what they
may want but know is not right, and think of something else, or do
something else, interesting enough to occupy their mind. After a short
diversion, their mind will be refreshed and able to will with renewed
strength.
16. Children must learn not to lean too heavily on their own reasoning.
Reasoning is good for logically demonstrating mathematical truth, but
unreliable when judging ideas because our reasoning will justify all
kinds of erroneous ideas if we really want to believe them.
17. Knowing that reason is not to be trusted as the final authority in
forming opinions, children must learn that their greatest
responsibility is choosing which ideas to accept or reject. Good habits
of behavior and lots of knowledge will provide the discipline and
experience to help them do this.
Principles 15, 16 and 17 should save children from the sort of careless
thinking that causes people to exist at a lower level of life than they
need to.
18. We teach children that all truths are God's truths, and that
secular subjects are just as divine as religious ones. Children don't
go back and forth between two worlds when they focus on God and then
their school subjects; there is unity among both because both are of
God and, whatever children study or do, God is always with them.
These books are called the 'Home
Education Series' based on the title of the first volume, not because
they deal wholly or in principle with 'home' as opposed to 'school'
education.
Preface
The purpose of Volume 3 is to give some curriculum suggestions for
students under the age of twelve. But a curriculum doesn't exist in
isolation. It is related to so many other things that affect it, and
that are influenced by it. The kind of curriculum I have in mind is the
result of a specific educational theory. I believe that, if this theory
were used, education would rest on more solid ground.
The primary principles of authority and submission are discussed first
because they're so foundational. But, since they are so foundational, they should be
present, but they shouldn't be noticable, in the same way that
the foundation of a house is there providing structure but isn't
visible. And submission to authority should be instilled by respecting
the children's personalities. In order to give children the space to
develop freely in the way that's right for them, parents and teachers
need to adopt an attitude of 'masterly inactivity.'
After discussing the relationship between teachers and students, the
next chapters discuss the relationship between education and current
educational philosophy. Education should be flowing and constantly
evolving and changing, not sealed and static. Of the current popular
ideas about education, there are some that can help us as we strive to
find the ideal kind of education. These include reverence for
children's personalities, a sense of the brotherhood of man, and an
awareness of how things evolve and progress.
As I wrote about training children in the areas of physical, mental,
moral and religious aspects, I assumed that it wouldn't be necessary to
explain what's already commonly accepted knowledge. Instead, I focused
on aspects of education that are likely to be overlooked in each
category. For instance, where I discuss the phrase, 'Education is a
life,' I tried to show how necessary it is to feed the mind's
intellectual life with ideas--therefore, school books should be used as
a way to get ideas, not as compilations of dry facts. In the chapter
'Education is the science of relations,' I showed how that relates to
the natural desire that normal children have for knowledge, and their
right to be exposed to suitable knowledge of all kinds.
These factors help us understand how to choose a curriculum.
The kind of curriculum I have in mind should give children an education
about Things and Books. Current educational theory
already understands the importance of teaching about Things, and already has some good
methods for doing that, so I didn't think I needed to go into that. The
failures we have seem to stem from the failure of schools to form the
habit of reading worthwhile books in children while they're under
twelve years old. With free use of books, spelling and easy, flowing
composition will take care of themselves--without any direct lessons in
those things.
I think that the Appendices prove that using books this way works as
well in practice as in theory, and it saves time and work for both
teachers and students, especially the tedious, boring time spent by
both of them to correct work.
Diluted, over-condensed lectures are replaced with carefully selected,
well-planned, consecutive books--living
books where facts are presented in the context of living ideas.
Children educated this way are distinguished by the fact that they love
to
learn. They do well on any exam they need to prepare for and, more
importantly, they're ready to experience their full share of all the
intellectual and practical interests that life has to offer.
AMBLESIDE, November 1904
Note - When appropriate, please
substitute 'teachers' for 'parents.'
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.
pg 13
Chapter 2 - Submission and Authority in the
Home and in the School
Part
II. How Authority Behaves
Mistakes
made on Principle
Mr. Augustus Hare has what some would call a bad memory--he
remembers every single insult and offense that's ever been done to him
since his birth! That's why his book, The
Story of My Life, isn't pleasant reading, even though it's full
of interesting details. But that's just more evidence we need to
consider about childhood. Hare has provided us with a very valuable
lesson about childhood--although his instruction tells us more about
what not to do! His adoptive
mother's fine character and beautiful nature might never have been
known to the world if he hadn't published her book, Memorials of a Quiet Life. She
dearly loved the son she adopted, but she misinterpreted her role as
mother. Yet the mistakes aren't the errors of an unworthy or even an
ordinary woman. Mrs. Hare always acted on principle. When she erred, it
was because the principle was faulty. She mixed up the two
pg 14
principles of authority and absolute rule. She thought there was some
intrinsic value in the arbitrary actions of a parent, and the better a
child is at doing what he's told, the better a person he is. The more
outrageous the command, the better the child for obeying it. Here's an
example [from Augustus's memoirs]
of what even a loving mother can do under such confusion: 'In the past,
I had never been allowed to have anything but roast mutton and rice
pudding for dinner. But now everything was different. The most
delicious puddings were talked about, described in tempting,
mouth-watering detail, until I became, not so much greedy, but curious
in wonder about them. Finally, the grand moment arrived. The wonderful
puddings were set on the table right in front of me. But then, just as
I was about to take my first bite, they were snatched away and I was
ordered to get up and take them to a poor family who lived in the
village. I remember that, although I didn't care a bit about the
deprivation of the delicacies, I did care about Lea the cook's outrage
at the fate of her beautiful puddings. But, after all, it wasn't my
fault.' And here's another example of an arbitrary ruling: 'Even the
pleasures of being home on Sundays were spoiled in the summer because
my mother gave in to Aunt Esther's suggestion that I should be locked
in the church vestry [a
room where clergy store robes and/or hold meetings]
between services with a sandwich for dinner. The three hours I had to
spend there every week were miserable. Although I didn't expect to see
ghosts, the total isolation of Hurstmonceaux church, which was in the
middle of nowhere, made me feel eerie during my imprisonment. Sometimes
I would climb over the tomb of the two Lords Dacre. It rises like a
screen up one side of the room. I'd be overtaken with a vague horror by
the two statues lying down on top of it
pg 15
silently and unearthly still, making even a rat scampering across the
floor seem as loud as a whirlwind. . . . It was sort of a comfort to me
during the church service to forcefully repeat all the curses in
Psalms, the ones where David showed his most shocking hatred, and apply
them to Aunt Esther and people like her. I supposed that, since all the
Psalms were considered beautiful and used by the Church of England for
edification, their sentiments must have been acceptable.'
And yet, when his mother trusted her own instinct instead of unsound
principles, she was actually very wise: 'I find that, when giving an
order to a child, it's always better not to check up on him to see if
he obeys, but to take it for granted that he'll do it. If a parent
seems to doubt that the child will obey, then there's room for the
child to hesitate, 'Should I do it, yes or no?' If you don't even
appear to question the possibility that he might not comply, he'll feel
that a trust has been committed to him, and he'll keep it. It's best to
never repeat a command, or to answer questions about why it should be
done.'
The
Difference Between Authority and Absolute Rule
Like many other rulers, Mrs. Hare seems to have erred, not because of
laziness or harshness, but because she never defined for herself the
nature of the authority she had to exercise. Absolute Rule is
independent or self-derived power. Authority, on the other hand, is
neither independent nor self-derived. In Matthew 8:9, the centurion
says, 'I'm also a man placed under authority, and in charge of
soldiers. I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; to another I say, 'Come,'
and he comes, and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it.'
pg 16
This shows us the powers and limits of authority. The centurion is
placed under authority, or, we might say, authorized. That's why he's able to
say to one soldier, 'go,' and to another, 'come,' and to a third, 'do
this,' with the calm assurance that it will all be done just the way he
said. He holds his very position for that purpose--to make sure that
specific things get done. He is himself a servant with specific tasks,
although his are the tasks of authority. Even Jesus Himself assumed
this position. He said, 'I didn't come to do my own will, but the will
of Him who sent me.' That was His appointment, and the permanent rule
of His life. That's why He was able to speak as someone who had
authority. He Himself knew that he had been given that commission and
was backed up by a higher authority.
How
Absolute Rule Acts
True authority isn't unpredictable--demanding one minute, harsh the
next, and then suddenly indulgent. That's how absolute rule acts. Since
it's self-derived, it has to stay in power by its own force. That's why
it has to be impatient, resentful, always on guard for the slightest
transgression, and quickly offended. Absolute Rule has a stiff code of
penalties, whether it's in a kingdom, a school, or a family. It has a
long list of commands and rules to provide a stern barrier, protecting
the terrible majesty of the tyrant. We all have a natural tendency to
assume self-derived power, even the meekest ones of us. That's why we
need to be on guard. This tendency is exhibited just as much in letting
duties slide and granting special privileges as in inflicting
punishments. It's flattering when a child approaches us in that
charming, pleading way that any monkey can mimic, and begs, 'Pleeease let me stay home with you
this morning, just this once!' If we give in, the next stage becomes,
'I don't want to go!' and
finally, 'I
pg 17
won't!' At that point, the
parent or teacher who's been relying on the power of his own autocracy
will learn that children can be dictators, too--they can be alarmingly
stubborn and belligerent.
How
Authority Acts
Authority isn't harsh or
indulgent. She is gentle, and easy to reason with about nonessential
matters--because she's uncompromising when it comes to matters of real
importance. For those matters, there's always an established principle.
For example, parents and teachers have no right to trifle with issues
that affect the health or duty of their children. They don't have
authority to allow excessive indulgences--like too much candy--or
habits that compromise health. They also can't allow children to shirk
any clear-cut duty regarding obedience, courtesy, respect or work.
Authority is always alert. She always knows what's going on and where
the tendencies towards weakness are. She fulfills the command that 'he
who rules should do so with conscientiousness.' [Romans
12:8] But she's also strong enough to fulfill the other part of
that command: 'Let the person who shows mercy do so cheerfully.'
Leniency at the right time, giving in when it's needed, is the secret
of a strong government. Sometimes it's children, and not their parents,
who are right about an issue. They register a complaint or resist a
mandate, and now it's the children against the parent or teacher. It's
best for the parent or teacher to be in the habit of quickly reviewing
the situation without being obvious. Then, if the children are right,
it will be possible for the adult to gather his wits in time to yield
the point graciously, and send the children away warmed with love and
loyalty.
The
Qualities a Ruler Should Have
Nobody understood this better than Queen Elizabeth. She managed
pg 18
to compartmentalize her personality in such a way that she could be a
model ruler, and, at the same time, a woman who had all the
distinguishing delicacies and vulnerabilities of her femininity. It was
said that she knew when and how to give in. Her skill at dealing with
dangerous crises was highly praised by historians. But it's possible
that it wasn't so much skill as it was tact that comes from having the
qualities that people in authority should have. Those qualities include
the humble reserve of one who's been given an appointed duty, the
willingness to think through an issue and listen to advice and consider
suggestions, the realization that she wasn't the be-all and end-all
because she was a queen, but that she existed to serve her people, and
the quick, compassionate, open-minded sympathy that made her able to
see other sides of an issue besides her own, or, often, in preference
to her own. These qualities are just as appropriate for the 'ruler' of
a family or classroom as they are for the ruler of a kingdom. If a
parent has these qualities, he'll be able to manage and control a
lively young brood full of energy and high spirits as well as Elizabeth
was able to manage her kingdom at a time when men's minds were
grappling with new
ways of thinking and life was intoxicating with the delights of new
possibilities.
Mechanical
Obedience and Reasonable Obedience
It's not easy to distinguish the line between mechanical and reasonable
obedience. I heard a very successful mother say, 'I teach my children
obedience by the time they're a year old,' and that does seem to me the
age when children should begin to have the habit of obeying lawful
authority that will make their lives easier and more comfortable. Mr.
Huxley told a story of a man who had been a private but had left the
army. He had bought his Sunday dinner from the deli and was carrying it
home. A sergeant
pg 19
recognized by the way he walked that he was a retired soldier and
decided to play a practical joke on him. He called out, 'Atten-TION!'
and the man snapped to attention while his meat and potatoes rolled
into the gutter. This kind of response is a matter of nerves and
muscles, an automatic habit that has nothing to do with deliberate
moral consciousness. It's fashionable these days to write off anything
except reasonable obedience, as if we were creatures made of nothing
but mind and spirit, or as if our bodies responded to a bidding of the
spirit as immediately as a ship responds to the turn of the helm. But,
unfortunately, we're weak. Our bodies only respond to spiritual
biddings if we've trained them to respond in automatic mechanical
obedience. We all know children who are wholeheartedly willing to do
the right thing mentally, but their bodily inertia is strong enough to
resist torrents of good intentions and noble resolutions. If we want
our children to be able to keep their bodies under control when they
grow up, we need to do it for
them now, while they're still young.
Submission's
Response to Authority is a Natural Function
The daily routine of obedience in small things helps children to
fulfill a
natural function--submission's response to authority. Some might say
that a child who has acquired the habit of involuntary, mechanical
response has lost that much power as a free moral agent. But the
actions that are usually trained in this way are physical efforts:
'Hurry back,' 'Sit up straight,' 'Tie your shoes quickly.' They're part
of the same training that it takes to master the body so that it's a
machine that's able
to do many different things.
pg 20
To be able to manipulate a machine like a computer keyboard or a
bicycle, the most important element is practice. It takes being able to
do it automatically, without having to think about it. Giving a child
this kind of power over his own human machine, in the beginning because
someone else is making him, but later because he's making him do it
himself, helps to make a man of him.
The
Habit of Prompt Obedience
We hear all the time that people don't fail in life because they lack
good intentions. Usually it's that their physical bodies have never
acquired the habit of prompt, involuntary obedience. The man who has
the power to make himself do what his mind wills can achieve anything.
It's up to parents to give their children this kind of power by making
it a matter of habit. Someone may ask, isn't it better and superior to
train children to always respond to spiritual direction as it speaks
through their conscience? The answer is that we can do both. Most
conscientious parents are going to involve their child's conscience in
the course of their upbringing. And life itself will provide enough
opportunities in the lives of both children and grown ups when
decisions will need to made based on spiritual reasons, times when it
will be up to us to consciously and voluntarily choose good and refuse
evil because we know that's God's will for us.
The
Effort of Decision
One famous preacher was right when he said that the effort of decision
is the greatest effort in life. We know it's true from our own
experience:
should we take this action or that? Should we buy cut pile or loop pile
carpet? Should we send our son to this school, or that one? We all know
how difficult such decisions can be, and the stress
pg 21
and wear on the nerves caused by a heavy decision is apparent by the
nervous headache we sometimes get afterwards. That's why it's a
blessing that we're created so that many of our decisions are already
made for us. Ninety nine out of a hundred things we do are done, for
better or worse, by habit. Our brain tissues have a wonderful ability
to record repeated actions and, with the right stimulus, reproduce
them. That helps to ease the burden of life, making it easier for us to
be light and happy like children, which is what God intended. Yet, even
with this provision for building habits, it's an appalling shock to
find that there are lots of thoughtful parents whose children spend
their lives in day-long struggles over decisions that their parents
should have settled for them. Megan is nervous, high-strung, her mind
can't keep still, she's obsessively organized, looks pale, and is
developing compulsive mannerisms. She's taken to the doctor. He doesn't
know much about her home life and decides that she's exhibiting
symptoms of over-pressure. He suggests that Megan not do school lessons
for six months, be taken to a different location for a change of air,
and be put on a bland diet. Somehow none of that helps. She doesn't
improve, and the parents fail to see that it wasn't the routine of her
school lessons causing the exhaustion, but the fact that poor Megan is
having to go through the labor of decision-making twenty times a day.
Added to that is the stress of daily battles of will to get her own
way. Every trivial matter in the course of a day becomes an issue of
debate, nothing is ever just a matter of course. The child always wants
to do it some other way, or to do something else altogether, and
usually does. No wonder she's so worn out!
pg 22
Authority
Tries Not To Offend
On the other hand, children are, if nothing else, reasonable beings. To
some acute, intelligent children, an arbitrary command that appears
unreasonable is severely unnerving. It's not a good idea to indulge
children with detailed explanations every time they want to know why a
command is given, but wise parents will find a balance. They're careful
to develop habits in their children that will make the routine of day
to day life run smoothly. In the unusual event that requires a new
regulation, they might casually comment on the reason for doing so, but
if that's not convenient or possible, they don't mind resorting to the
most important reason for obedience: 'because it's the right thing to
do.' To put it plainly, authority tries its best not to give reason for
offense.
Authority
is Alert
Another illustration of the appropriate use of authority is the way a
well-run government works. The role of prevention is fully recognized. The
police, army and navy are mostly preventive forces. And the family
authority is wise to follow their example and have its own Advance
Notification System. It's good to give some warning before potential
scenes of conflict: 'We'll have just enough time to finish this chapter
before the
clock strikes seven,' or, 'We'll be able to play one more time around
before bedtime.' Wise mothers know well how important it is to
give children time to collect themselves for a decisive moment. This
time should be spent finishing something enjoyable. Every moment of
indecisiveness at this critical time helps to set up the inertia that
works against obedience, and that inertia is difficult to overcome
because the child's own willpower is in a state of suspended animation.
A little forethought and planning helps to arrange things so that games
and projects come to an end at the right moment and bedtime doesn't
pg 23
arrive right in the middle of a chapter, or at the most exciting part
of a game. If that happens, Authority, from its perspective of seeing
past and future, might
graciously afford to give a five minutes grace period, but wouldn't
allow that to extend to dawdling indefinitely while saying good-night.
Who
Gave You This Authority?
We hardly need to add that authority is just and faithful when it comes
to keeping promises. It's also considerate, which is why a good mother
makes the best Ruler in a home--she's in touch with her children, knows
their unspoken ambitions and understands their half-formed dreams. If
she can't give in, she tries to divert and redirect. She never rules by
crushing with a sledge-hammer--a tool of power that children somehow
never sympathize with.
Diversion, or changing children's thoughts, is such an important tool
when it comes to forming habits. Let's not 'despise the day of small
things' or 'grow weary in doing good.' If we train our children from
the youngest ages to prompt mechanical obedience, we'll reap our
reward. But if we haven't done that, we'll just have to work towards it
little by little with ever-vigilant efforts. We'll have to use
authority that never procrastinates and never gets aggressive. Our
children will gain 'the joy of self-control,' and the delight of
obedience that's like proud chivalry and considers a command an
opportunity to serve. It's a happy irony that 'difficult' children who
resist direct commands the most stubbornly are often the quickest to
respond to the novelty of a new idea. The skill of knowing how to
present an inspiring idea is a delicate art that I've discussed
elsewhere.
This is no one-sided arrangement, with all the authority on the
parent's side, and the child having no part but submission.
pg 24
After all, there never was a child who didn't wield some kind of
authority, even if only over dolls or plastic soldiers. And we adults
who are in the role of authority in our families and classrooms are
submissive to anyone who will bother to tell us we need to do this or
that. We don't need to worry that our authority will stifle the
independence of children. It won't.
Authority is more than a gift, it's a grace.
'In the same way that every shade of the rainbow is light,
So every one of the graces is a different shade of love.'
Authority is just one part of the love that parents give to their
children. Parents know that it's love because, to them, it means
continual self-denial, self-repression and self-sacrifice. Children
recognize it as love because, to them, it means quiet peace and joy in
their hearts. Perhaps the best help for those in authority over their
families is to ask themselves every day the same question that was
asked presumptuously of Jesus: 'Who gave you this authority?'
pg 25
Chapter 3 - Masterly Inactivity
Increased
Sense of Responsibility
It would be interesting if an expert in literature could trace how the
word 'responsibility' symbolized ethical thought throughout the last
few decades. In the 1850's and 60's, people were very responsible, even
children. But their responsibility was for their own character, action
and manners. We don't seem to be as responsible these days. We tend to
accept that we're the way we are, and to make allowances for our own
little peculiarities and idiosyncrasies. We sometimes lack the gift of
humor that should give us the ability,
'To see ourselves the way others see us.'
A
Sign of Moral Progress
We may take ourselves lightly, but we tend to be harder on ourselves
when it comes to our obligations to others. We still have a weight of
responsibility that feels as 'heavy as frost,' but we've shifted it
from one shoulder to the other. Those of us who are more serious by
nature can become downright burdened with our sense of obligation about
what we owe to people near and far away. Men can be less troubled by
the weight than women because most of them
pg 26
have jobs where each day has its own work that needs to be done, and
that keeps them busy. But women have more time to think about their
relationships and the duties related to them. It's an interesting
commentary on our times that the modern scholars who translated Matt
6:25 phrased it as, 'Don't be anxious for your life,' instead of the
old translation. ['take no thought
for your life']. Women may feel the daily constant wear of
responsibility for others more unceasingly than men, but if a man hears
about some urgent crisis, such as the conditions in the slums of East
London, or Home Rule, or the recent massacres in Armenia, he'll feel it
more intensely and passionately. This sharpened sensitivity isn't a
weakness of our modern era, it's just a sign of the times.
Those of us who feel like life itself is an education because we never
stop learning are encouraged to see this general sense of
responsibility for others. It seems to show that we really are
receiving some direction from God, and that we're making progress.
Parental
Responsibility
It's good if we feel empathy for people who are distressed, suffering,
sick, mentally ill, handicapped, uneducated, or spiritually lost. If
only we all felt the burden of the lost more! Yet thinking people feel
one particular responsibility with even more acute awareness--and
that's the heavy responsibility for their own offspring. Parental
responsibility is the big issue in educational discussions these days.
People believe that it's possible to bring up their children to be even
better people than they are themselves, and, knowing this, they feel
that they have an obligation and a duty to do that. In fact, the
success of the PNEU is the result of parents who feel a keen sense of
their responsibility to their children.
Anxiety
Marks Every Transitional Stage
Every step of progress, whether it's mechanical or spiritual, takes a
time of adjustment before it can be fully used. In the arena of
science, there's always a long period of time between
Pg 27
the moment when a new discovery is made, such as the X-Ray and the
time when the world can enjoy its practical application with all of its
benefits and without it displacing other things that are just as
necessary. For instance, we should be suspicious of any claim that
x-ray technology can do everything that a stethoscope, thermometer and
any other equipment can do. It's the same way in the moral sphere. The
weight of responsibility we feel comes from our newly aroused feelings
of high-minded charity. It makes us able to feel more love for more
people. We have more of the Holy Spirit's agape love in us, even if we
don't realize that our greater love comes from God. But knowing that we
need to do much more, and knowing what to do and how to do it,
are two different things. Rather than adding to our fullness and joy in
life, it frustrates us. We become worried, anxious and restless. [This sounds typical of new
homeschoolers who feel compelled to homeschool, but don't know how to
do it!] There's a transition time between the learning
curve where the how's and why's are acquired and fine-tuned, and the
time when the process is actually working and we're happier and more
useful.
A
Fussy and Restless Habit
I want to address this gap of time during the transition by presenting
the concept of 'masterly inactivity' to parents and teachers. There are
so many things that we should do for our children, and so much that's
possible to provide for them, that we can start to think that
everything rests with us. We begin to feel like we can't let up even
for a minute in our conscious thinking about our efforts in training up
our children's young minds and hearts. As a result, our efforts become
over-controlling and micro-managed. We're with our children every
minute of the day, always on their backs. Even when we can't get them
to comply, we try to dominate them too much. We don't realize that wise
pg 28
deliberate letting
alone is the best part of education. The defect that makes us
take too much on ourselves isn't serious. We just need to make a few
adjustments, and that's what I'm going to discuss.
'Masterly
Inactivity'
[Apparently, 'masterly inactivity'
was a term used in CM's time to describe a 'wait and see' attitude by
legislators in response to political incidents, or, as one
British letter puts it, 'trusting
to the helping influences of time.']
It's a blessing that our minds are made so that, once we receive an
idea, it will work itself out in our mind and actions without too much
after-effort from us. If we allow the concept of 'masterly inactivity'
as an aspect of education, we'll find ourselves relating with children
from this standpoint without even consciously thinking about it. But we
need to have an accurate idea of what we mean when we say 'masterly
inactivity.' The phrase used by Carlyle has nothing to do with the
attitude of, 'who cares?' or 'why bother?' and it has even less to do
with the sheer neglect that just lets things happen because it's too
much trouble to take any action to influence the outcome. 'Masterly
inactivity' indicates an exquisitely capable moral attitude, and it's
worth our time to analyze it. The concept is perhaps most accurately
phrased in Wordsworth's words: 'wise passiveness.' It suggests the
ability and authority to take action, a concern for the outcome, with
the insight and restraint that keeps a person from interfering. But,
for our purposes, the phrase conveys one more idea. It isn't just that
we're restraining ourselves from direct involvement, there's also a
sense of our authority that our children need to be aware of whether
we're giving them a command or not. The sense of authority is the
foundation of the parental relationship. If our children don't respect
our authority, then I doubt that either our direct involvement or our
inactivity will do much good. This element of strength
pg 29
is the backbone on which our position as parents rests. 'We couldn't
even if we wanted to,' and the children know it. They're free under
authority, which is liberty. To be free without any authority is
license.
Good-Naturedness
The next element of masterly inactivity is a sense of
agreeability--candid, friendly, natural, good-natured ease. This is
very different from lack of concern or a general giving in to childen's
every whim. One comes from a foundation of strength; the other from
weakness. Children are good at spotting the difference! 'Please, Mom,
can't we pick blackberries this afternoon instead of doing school?' A
masterly 'yes,' and a defeated 'yes' are two different things. The
first makes the break doubly enjoyable, but the second creates a
restless desire to see what else can be gotten away with.
Self-Confidence
The next element is confidence. Parents should have more faith in
themselves. It doesn't take a whirlwind of restless activity to get
things accomplished. The mere presence of a proper parental
relationship, with the rightful authority that goes along with it, is
to the children what sunshine and water are to seeds in fertile soil.
But a parent who's picky, anxious, constantly explaining, demanding,
making excuses, over-restraining, too interfering, or who is simply
with the children too much, destroys the dignity and simplicity of the
parent/child relationship. Like all of the best and most delicate
things in life, that relationship suffers if it has to be asserted or
defended.
The
Casual, Easy Attitude of Fathers
Fathers are often more comfortable than mothers assuming that casual,
easy attitude with their children that comes
pg 30
with their relationship. But that's just because fathers tend to be
preoccupied with so many outside things, while the mother is often
wrapped up in her children. It shames all of us to see a careless,
selfish mother whose children are her personal slaves and are happy
rushing around to serve her whims. The point isn't that mothers
shouldn't be careless and selfish, but that they should provide their
children with the space and freedom that come from letting them alone.
Young people shouldn't be oppressed with the concerns and worries of
their parents. A ten-year-old who wants to know if she's performing as
well as average ten-year-olds, or who discusses his bad habits with you
and asks for suggestions to get rid of them is a cause for concern. We
instinctively feel that such a child is worried about things that
should be the parent's concern. The burden of a child's training is the
parent's responsibility, but the parent should bear it with an easy
grace and erect posture, like a Spanish peasant carrying a water-jug.
Confidence
in Their Children
The next element is that parents should have confidence, not only in
themselves, but in their children. This should be a goal for them to
try to live up to. If the parent trusts in the relationship between
them and the child, the child will believe in it, too, and rise to the
occasion to fulfill his part. This will happen if the children aren't
worried [flustered and over-burdened
with too many
demands].
The
All-Knowing Wisdom of Parents and Teachers
Parents and teachers must, of course, be omniscient. Their children
expect them to be. A mother or father who can be fooled is a person
who's easy to be taken in, even in the mind of the best child. Children
are always playing a game of half chance, half
pg 31
skill, to see how far they can go, how much control they can get of
their own lives, and how much they have to leave in the hands of the
stronger authority. A mother who isn't wise to her children is at their
mercy, and shouldn't expect them to go easy on her. But her omniscience
must be the kind that sees without watching, knows without telling, is
always on the alert without being obvious about it. Her attitude must
be open-eyed, but calm like a sphinx. The children should know that
they've been left alone, whether it's to do their assigned duty, or to
amuse themselves. The constraining power of authority must be
ever-present, but passive so that the child doesn't feel like he's
confined against his will. The pattern and role model is man's free
will. For ages and ages, having a free will has been good exercise for
faithful souls who would have preferred the easy way out by being
coerced into obedience and righteousness. A child who behaves because
he isn't given any other choice will lose more in his ability to
have initiative than he'll ever gain with the appearance of good
behavior. Every time that a child feels like he's behaving because he
made a free choice of his own accord, his initiative is strengthened.
Parents must not control children with bearing reins [or, with a short leash]. When it
occurs to
a child to reflect on his own actions and behavior, he should have
enough of a sense of freedom that his good behavior feels like
something that was his own choice and preference.
'Fate'
and 'Freewill'
This is the kind of freedom that a child has when his parents trust him
as far as his comings and goings and his childhood activities, all the
time within the bounds of parental authority. Such a child is getting
the training that a person needs as a being whose life is conditioned
by 'fate' and 'freewill.' His liberty has a sense of 'must'
behind it. That relieves him of the kind of anxiety that
pg 32
comes from the constant stress of having to make decisions. He's free
to do what he should, but in his deepest heart, he knows very well that
he's not free to do what he shouldn't. But the child who grows up with
no strong sense of authority behind what he does, who hears over and
over again to 'be good,' is aware that he can choose good or evil, he
can decide to obey or not, he can tell the truth or he can lie. Even
when he chooses to do the right thing, the decision-making process
itself causes him some stress. His parents have removed the support of
their authority, which is supposed to sustain him in the difficult
choice to do
right, so he's left all alone in the most difficult effort of all--the
effort of decision. Is it too subtle a distinction, the difference
between freedom to choose the right thing by one's own choice, but not
being free to choose to do wrong? Is that difference too elusive to
grasp? Maybe, but it's the very distinction that we ourselves are aware
of in our own lives when we consciously keep ourselves under God's
Kingship. We're free to walk in the ways of righteous living, and we
have the delightful sense of liberty to choose--yet we know that the
way of the transgressor is hard. We're aware of a restraining hand in
the here and now, and we know that there's sure, certain punishment in
the
future. This is precisely the subtle distinction that we need to aim
for with our own child. He needs to be treated with full confidence,
and he must feel like choosing the right thing is his own free choice
that his parents trust him to make. But he must also be aware of a
deterring force in the background that's always alert and ready to
hinder him
when he wants to makes the wrong choice.
The
Component Parts of Masterly Inactivity
We've listed authority, cheerfulness, self-confidence,
pg 33
confidence in our children, as some of the elements of masterly
inactivity. But there are other components that have to be there, too.
A healthy, sound mind and body is necessary. If a sound body is
impossible, then get the mind sound. A nervous, anxious, worried mother
can't have an easy, happy relationship with her child. She might be the
best mother in the world in all other respects, but all her children
will pick up from her when she's like that is a touch of her nerves,
which is the most contagious of bad habits. She'll perceive her
children as grouchy, rebellious, and unmanageable, but she won't
realize that it's her own fault--not the fault of her actions, but the
fault of her mood.
The
Serenity of a Madonna
There's a reason why the old painters, no matter how different their
ideas about other matters might have been, all had the same idea about
the proper role model for a Mother. The Madonna, no matter whose
painting you look at, is always serene. This is a great truth. If
seeing this lesson with the eyes would have a calming influence on the
heart, then it would be worthwhile to hang our walls with Madonnas from
all the early Master painters! Does this seem unattainable for mothers
in these anxious, stressful days? It may seem hard, but it's not
impossible. If mothers would learn to do for themselves what they do
for their children when they're over-stimulated, households would all
be happier. Let the mother go out to play! She should have the courage
to let everything go when life becomes too stressful, and just take a
day, or even a half day, alone, to go out into the fields, or enjoy a
favorite book, or go to the art gallery and gaze long and intensely at
just two or three pictures, or relax in bed, without the children. Life would go
on more smoothly
pg 34
for both parents and children. The mother would be more able to have
the attitude of 'wise passiveness,' and she wouldn't frustrate her
children with her continual interference, even if her involvement is
only with her hand or eye. Instead, she'd just let them be.
Leisure
Another necessary element is leisure. Sometimes we're in a hurry
because of events. But, we have to admit, sometimes we're hurried
simply because we enjoy the excitement of a bit of a rush. The children
like it, too, at first--Dad's birthday is coming and Nicole must recite
a poem for him, but the little performance was only thought of a week
in advance, so Nicole is summoned at all sorts of random moments to
have some lines of the poem crammed into her. At first, she's pleased
to have so much attention, and enjoys the task of memorizing. But
gradually, it starts to become a nuisance. She starts to resist and
gets sulky about it. She's reprimanded for not loving her father,
tearfully learns her verses, and although she finally delivers the
performance charmingly enough, Nicole has suffered physically and
morally. Yet if the project had been thought of a month earlier, the
whole process could have been healthy and fun. It's even worse for
children after their mother or teacher has had a busy day. Company is
coming for dinner, or the family's summer clothes need to be taken care
of, or drawers and cabinets need to be cleaned out, or there's a test
coming. It's one of those busy, fussy days that women tend to love. We
try to do more than we can really handle ourselves, our nerves are on
end, we're tired, and, with all the stress, everyone in the school or
house feels uncomfortable because of the pressure. The children seem to
take advantage of this stress to act up. The truth is, their mother's
mood has affected them and made them whiny and annoying. The result of
the mother's bottled nervous stress will probably be tantrums in the
children's room.
pg 35
Idle time to relax, and a sense of calm leisure in the adults around
them is as necessary to children as the strong, kind parental attitude
I'm talking about.
Faith
There are more ingredients in the recipe of 'masterly inactivity,' but
I only have space to list one more. The highest form of confidence is
what we know as faith. There can't be full rest and peace of mind and
behavior without it. We need to recognize and remember that God doesn't
leave the training totally up to their parents. He Himself works in
ways that it's not our place to hinder. He helps the training of every
child. When we understand this, then we'll learn passiveness, humility
and wisdom. We'll feel better about giving children space to develop
their own character in their own individual way, and we'll know the
best way to intervene effectively to prevent the bad tendencies that
their particular character is prone to.
Next, we'll consider some of the different phases of children's lives
that need some 'masterly inactivity' from their parents and teachers.
pg 36
Chapter 4 - Some of the Rights of Children
as Persons
Children
Should Be Free in Their Play
We've just finished discussing how right and wise it is to include
'wise passiveness' or 'masterly inactivity' in our plan of bringing up
our children. Now we need to look at the different areas of a child's
life where we should use 'masterly inactivity.' The first area is in
the child's play. In these days when there's so much emphasis on
education, we risk crowding out time to play, or, just as bad, managing
and arranging it until children have no more choice in the way
they play than they do in their work. We have nothing against the
educational value of games. We know that there's a lot to be learned
from sports. The qualities we think of when we think of an English
gentleman are mostly learned from such games. There's a move to bring
these games with their benefits to girls, so that they too can grow up
with a concept of abiding by rules, moral stamina, and resourcefulness
that usually result from playing organized sports.
Organized
Sports are Not Play
Although there are benefits to organized
pg 37
sports, they are not the same as playing in the sense we're talking
about. Children need time to make up episodes, carry on pretend
adventures, live heroic lives, lay sieges and defend forts, even if the
fort is only an old armchair. Adults must not interfere or tell the
children what to play. They need to accept the fact that this is
something they don't understand, and, even more, their very presence
carries the cold breath of reality that makes the pretend illusion
dissipate and fade away. Think what it must be like for a commanding
general leading his soldiers when some intruder into his play-world
tells him to tie his shoes! There's an idea going around that children
need to be taught how to play--and that we need to teach them to
pretend how to be little fishies and lambs and butterflies [Froebel's novel idea called 'kindergarten!']
Children undoubtedly enjoy these games that are made up for them, but
they carry a risk. A child who gets used to crutches may never learn to
walk on his own. Children who spend a lot of time playing with
grown-ups won't learn to create their own games and make believe, so
they miss the education that comes from being allowed to go their own
way and live
'As if his whole job
Was continual imitation.'
Personal
Initiative in Work
Even in children's work, adults tend to interfere too much. We all know
how much personal initiative is valued and how much children love doing
anything that they're allowed to do their own way. They love doing
anything that gives room for building skills, using their imagination,
or developing their thinking ability. Our current philosophies of
education don't leave much room for children to have any personal
initiative. There's so much busy work to be finished, so many things
that need to be learned about (but not really learned), that it's only
pg 38
rarely that a child gets an opportunity to create anything himself. We
should use opportunities as they come up. At the School Field at
Hackney (1884–1905), Edmund
Beale Sargent tried an interesting and eye-opening experiment.
He got eighty children together much like any other elementary
school except that he personally paid for his school instead of
it being funded by educational taxes or private tuition. The results
were wonderful. The students learned to draw very well. That's probably
because, as soon as they could outline the flower and leaves of a
specific plant, they were encouraged to create designs using those
shapes. After just a short period of art training, these children were
able to create truly beautiful floral designs that might surprise other
parents whose children have had years of art training but still can't
draw. These students at School Field produced much of their own school
magazine, too. They wrote stories, poems and essays--not because it was
assigned as school work, but because they wanted to. Their minds had
been stimulated to think so that they felt like they had something to
say about topics like a doll's ball, or Peter, the school cat. They
experienced the feeling of thinking and creating for themselves. Our
failure in education is largely due to the fact that we carry our
children through their school work instead of letting them expend their
own effort and concentration.
Children
Need To Succeed or Fail by Their Own Efforts
There's another way that we don't leave children alone enough to do
their work, and this is even more in our control. We prod them
constantly and don't let
pg 39
them stand or fall as a result of their own efforts. One of the
characteristics (and disastrous features) of modern society is that
we've become lazy and dependent on being prodded. We've encouraged a
whole system of various prods to get us to do anything. We have to be
prodded to do our social duties. If we help support a charitable
institution, we expect to be reminded when it's time to pay. If we go
to an event, do we go on our own because we've decided we want to, or
do we go because someone else asked us to and reminded us of the day
and time a half dozen times? Maybe the odd division of labor is a
result of our hurried lives--our society seems to be divided into those
who prod, and those who are prodded [prodders and proddees?] I don't
mean that some people do nothing but pressure everyone else about
everything, and some people just suffer under the pressure. What's more
accurate is that all of us prod in some situations, and all of us are
prodded in others. An occasional prick to remind us can be healthy and
stimulating, but the sluggishness of human nature makes us more willing
to lean against a wall that has spikes than to stand unsupported in our
strength! When we train children, we need to be careful that they don't
get into the habit of needing to be reminded to do every one of their
duties, and prodded to make any kind of effort. Our entire educational
structure is mostly a system of prods. A system of prods is likely to
obscure a child's sense of 'must' and 'ought' if he gets used to
mentally and morally resisting prods.
Children
are Generally Dutiful
It would be better for children to suffer the consequences of not doing
their work from time to time, rather than to always do their work
because they were so urged and prodded from all sides that they were
never given a choice in the matter. The more
pg 40
we're prodded, the lazier we get and the less we're able to expend the
effort of our will, which is supposed to get us started on our tasks
and help us follow through and complete them. Children are, for the
most part, good enough to want to do what they should. If we expect a
chore to be done at a certain time without urging, pleading, rewarding
or punishing, nine times out of ten, it will be done. The mistake that
many of us make is in relying on our own wisdom and our own efforts
instead of trusting the dutiful impulse within our children that will
carry them through the work that's expected of them.
Children
Should Choose Their Own Friends
When it comes to choosing friends and people to hang out with, we
should train children so that we'll feel we can trust them with a
generous confidence. If we give them that kind of confidence, we'll
find that they will be worthy of it. If Franklin has started spending
time with Haskell Jones and Haskell isn't a very nice boy, Franklin
will figure that out as quickly as his mother if he's left alone. He'll
probably come and ask for advice and suggestions for getting out of a
friendship that he doesn't feel comfortable with. But if the parents
ban Haskell and forbid Franklin from doing things with him, or put
different boundaries on what they can do together, then Franklin, if
he's a kind-hearted child, will feel bound in honor to side with his
friend. As a result, a friendship that might have been easily discarded
becomes cemented. Emily won't understand why she, as the daughter of an
upper middle class family, shouldn't make friends with Melissa, who
sits next to her at school and is from a lower-class neighborhood. But
these are minor issues and should be left to chance. A mother who
questions her children's choice of friends on the basis of outward
things like social class or appearance
pg 41
is clouding the consideration of the more important issue of character,
which is the most common cause of ruined lives. In this matter, just
like other matters, the parent's inactivity must be masterly. In other
words, the child should be able to tell whether his parents would
approve or disapprove, and he should be able to base that on general
principles of character and conduct, even though his parents never say
anything or even give disapproving looks about this week's new buddy.
Children
Should Be Free To Spend Their Own Pocket Money
Spending pocket money is one more opportunity to give children
initiative and give parents practice in restraining themselves. The
father who distributes the weekly pocket money has probably never given
his children any principles about handling money--namely, that no
matter how small an income is, it can be divided into a portion to give
away, a portion to keep, and some to save so that after a few weeks or
months, there's enough to buy something that's really worth having. As
far as wasting money on treats, that should be a rare indulgence, and
only if we're going to be sharing it. As far as thinking carefully
before making a purchase, the lesson of Rosamund and the Purple Jar
will be useful. If a father hasn't taught his children these things,
then he shouldn't be surprised when his children think of money merely
as a way to indulge themselves. Lessons like these shouldn't have any
bearing on the week's pocket money. That should be theirs to spend
however they want, after they've had some instruction about handling
money. Little by little, weekly allowance should include the cost of
belts and scarves until, finally, when a girl is
pg 42
in her late teens, she can be trusted with her own allowance for
clothing and personal expenses. If a parent can't trust their older
child with money after training them, then they haven't properly
prepared their child to survive in a world where wise, fair and
generous handling of money is a mark of character.
Children
Should Form Their Own Opinions
We only have room to mention one more area where we should practice
'masterly inactivity.' There are compelling issues being discussed
these days, controversial opinions burning in people's minds--issues of
religion, politics, science, literature, art, every kind of social
project, and we all tend to have strong opinions. A person who hasn't
kept abreast of the latest evolution of thought in the world about
these matters should be ashamed of himself. It's our responsibility to
form opinions carefully, and to hold them loyally unless facts persuade
us to change our mind. But we have no right to pass these opinions on
to our children. It's so easy to make strong partisan followers of our
children, at least children who appear to be loyal. But with every
action comes an equal and opposite reaction, and the swinging of the
pendulum will probably carry our children to the totally opposite
opinion of ours. The mother of the Newmans [probably Huegenot Jemima Fourdrinier,
mother of Cardinal John Henry Newman and atheist Charles Robert Newman]
was a devoted evangelical. When they were children, she passed her
ready-made opinions over to her sons. Maybe she thought that the ideas
they received from her on the matter was their own reasoned opinion.
But when they were out from under her domineering influence, one allied
himself with the Catholic Church in Rome,
pg 43
and another refused to have any restriction on his freedom to think and
do what he wanted, so he chose to create his own creed, which was a
rejection of God altogether. Perhaps this religious mother would have
saved herself some grief if she had given her children the living
principles of Christianity, which aren't matters of opinion. Then she
could have let them accept her particular denomination as children
without requiring that they believe that her evangelical opinion was
the only real way of salvation.
In politics, too, children should be allowed to proud of their country
and taught what their duties are. But it's best to keep them away from
the partisan conflict of elections. Children are more likely to adopt
their parent's opinions when they reach the age where they're ripe for
forming opinions if their parent's opinions haven't been forced on them
all their lives, when they were too inexperienced and lacked knowledge
to form opinions for themselves. It's only by 'masterly
inactivity,' or 'wise passiveness,' or capable 'letting alone' that a
child can be trained
'To respect his conscience enough to let it rule him.'
Spontaneity
Being naturally good, as if spontaneously, is something we all admire.
But, even in children, this grace isn't something inborn, like a native
wild-flower. It's the result of training. It's the product of years of
pleasant chats about the general principles of how we should act, and
years of self-restraint from parents who were practicing 'masterly
inactivity' to let their children work out those guidelines in their
own lives as they saw fit. Parents have the ability to guide the
direction that the next generation takes. Since they have such a big
responsibility, they need to be even more careful [not to make their children mirror-images
of themselves, but allow them to choose their own paths, live their own
lives, decide what's best for themselves. The old ways of the parents
must give way to the new ways of the next generation.]
'The old ways change and are replaced by new ones
And God fulfills Himself in many ways
So that one good custom doesn't corrupt the world.'
[from Tennyson, The Passing of Arthur]
[One preacher noted
about the Tennyson quote, 'It is ordained, the new generation must have
their chance to test their ideas and skills.']
pg 44
Chapter
5 - Psychology as it Relates to Current Thinking
Educational
Thought in the 1700's
The end of the eighteen century and the end of the nineteenth century
have one thing in common. They both view education as one of the chief
ends of mankind. The people in the 1700's had it the best. They had
clear revelations from their philosophers Locke and Rousseau. They knew
exactly what they wanted to do, and their enthusiasm in doing it was
charming. That period of time is full of memoirs, and it's fun to read
about the children of more thoughtful families being brought up
consistently and with philosophical goals in mind. They had
convictions, and they had enough faith in them to put them into
practice. We aren't so fortunate. Just a few decades ago we too were
all excited and impassioned about education. All over England and
around the world, educational 'movement' schools, colleges, lectures,
higher education for women, public day schools for girls, and exams for
reassurance about each point were booming. It was a progressive
movement, and it brought us immeasurable benefits. But one other thing
it brought us is our current
pg 45
dissatisfaction and depression. We tend to wonder if we're on the wrong
track. If the best kind of educational work hadn't been going on for
the last 20 or 30 years, we wouldn't have arrived at this discontent,
which I believe is from God. It's pretty obvious that it's time to
change our tactics. First we hear that elementary schools are a
failure, then we hear that girls' high schools are a failure, then
public boarding schools and colleges. They accomplish a lot, they say,
but is what they're accomplishing worth doing? Is it even education?
The bolder critics focus their attacks on our two oldest universities,
but those universities will probably weather the criticism pretty well
because of the very inertness, or 'masterly inactivity' that their
opponents disdain. The universities are good at 'leaving alone.'
General
Dissatisfaction with Education
Our general discontent with the education is a healthy sign. It
probably means that a wiser theory and better practices are just around
the corner. One thing is more clear than ever--a stream can't rise any
higher than its source. In the same way, successful work can't succeed
without sound theory as its source. We begin to wonder if we were too
hasty at adopting educational schemes and methods without considering
the theory behind them first. Now we realize that we can't get good
results
from bad theories. These days, psychologists advise us, where 20 or 30
years ago, it was the schoolmaster [teacher].
Psychologies
are a Dime a Dozen
But, unfortunately, psychologies abound, and educational schools of
theory bitterly fight each other. We need to find some kind of a test
to discern whether a working psychology
pg 46
will be effective in our age. Psychology, like every other science, is
progressive [evolves with the times
and new information]. What worked fifty years ago won't work
today. What suits our needs now won't be effective fifty years from
now. There's no such thing as a final word on education. It evolves as
man's needs change. The fact that there are at least six systems being
used, and none of them seem entirely perfect, even to the people using
it, should indicate that those of us working in the field of education
need to try to find out what's needed in a well-constructed system of
psychology.
Conditions
of an Adequate System
Any system that's going to be of any use to practical people in
providing educational purpose, unity and progressive sequence must
satisfy certain requirements. It must be thorough enough to include the
whole nature of man and his relationships with everything outside of
himself. It must be the only one that's necessary, it must be more
adequate than any other psychology that's out there. It must relate to
the living
thought of our age and not be a complicated topic that's only discussed
by a few specialists. Any intelligent common person should feel like
its movement is in step with two or three of the great ideas that are
helping to educate the world.
Sacredness
of the Person
Of all the ideas that vague popular thought is using to raise us to a
higher level, I think the most important one is the sacredness of the
individual. Every person seems interesting to us these days. An
interviewer does more than satisfy our common curiosity about people.
What he draws out of those he interviews is interesting to us, whether
he interviews a London street sweeper, a grocer, the librarian, a
common
middle-aged couple on an outing, an ambassador, an
pg 47
author, an artist or a member of the royal family. Every detail that
helps us to understand the personality of someone else is welcome. It's
the same with Kailyard
literature [regional over-sentimental
stories, usually Scottish]. It's popular for a good reason. It
may
or may not have literary quality, but it tells us what we want to know.
It gives everyday details about the people of any country or region.
Slang dictionaries, collections of legends, long biographies that give
trivial details like how a man eats and what he has for breakfast,
where he walks and how he sleeps--all of these give us mental food to
think about. We greatly value people, and our interest is only
increasing. Any system of psychology that's going to appeal to us will
have to put great priority on the individual person. People can be
influenced by one thing or another or marred by one sin or another. But
we recognize that the indefinable person is present even while the
person is still a baby, and will have to make his own way in life and
shape for himself all of the experiences, environment and education
that will influence who he becomes. A system of psychology that accepts
man in this kind of relationship to his education is one we should
adopt. This is the kind of psychology that every mother, teacher or
manager already knows about.
The
Evolution of the Individual
The next requirement of education is that it should help the individual
evolve and progress. Not only should it make persons its priority, but
its goal should be making the most of the person intellectually,
morally and physically. What we don't want is to amass mere dead facts
of knowledge, or the external ornament of mere accomplishment. We want
an education
pg 48
that will be assimilated so that it becomes a part of who the person
is. A psychology that can show us how to educate our children this way
will satisfy our requirements. The doctrine of scientific evolution has
brought about more philosophical overthrow than we realize, and we
shall soon find that a real education must mean the evolution and
growth of the human being in every way. Merely acquiring knowledge
isn't necessarily education at all.
The
Solidarity of the Race
One other idea that seems to be helping to raise mankind is the concept
of the solidarity of the race. The American poet Walt Whitman expresses
one aspect of this concept when he writes that he experiences victory
with every triumphant general, bleeds with every wounded soldier,
shares the spring morning and the wind and the open road with every
traveler. In fact, he writes that he lives in all other lives that
touch him in any way, even in the imagination. This is something more
than the brotherhood of man, which is limited to the present time. Our
sense of oneness with humanity crosses the barrier of time and space,
giving us reverence for every antique relic of our own people or
any other people. It gives a joyous hope in every advance of science
that seems to be the promise of generations that will live hundreds of
years after us. Shouldn't we expect psychology to acknowledge this
great educational force as well as the other two I mentioned? These
aren't the only ideas of our current age, but I think they're the ones
we're all the most aware of. Any system of psychology
pg 49
that doesn't take one or all of these into account can't be the basis
of the educational theory and practice that we're looking for.
The
Best Thought is Common Thought
Now let's consider three or four of the most widely influential
psychologies of today. I don't mean this to be a criticism, but as
inheritors of the thoughts of other men, we should stop and take stock
of what we have and how we can best use it. After all, the best thought
of any age is common thought. The men who write it down in books are
merely expressing what's in everyone else's minds. But we have to
remember that truth often works like a country gate that's allowed to
swing back and forth until it finally closes. First it swings a long
way in one direction, then in the other, and the swings get shorter and
shorter until the gate stops and the latch catches. A reformer or
investigator latches onto one aspect of truth and it seems to be the
whole truth to him. He works to advance that part of the truth to the
exclusion of other aspects of truth. The next reformer seems to be
reacting in opposition, but what he's really doing is bringing up a
different aspect of the truth. We common people of average minds have
our work cut out for us. We have to consider each side, find a balance
in what's been written, and figure out where the truth is. It might be
in the middle, or even as a side issue that the original thinkers on
both sides missed. But we value the contributions that have been made.
They serve as a bridge to carry us along.
Locke's
'States of Consciousness'
We don't need to go any further back than Locke. He represents the more
traditional ideas about education of upper middle class parents. People
who claim to raise their children with good old 'common sense' the way
they were raised and their own parents were raised may not realize that
pg 50
their child-rearing ideas come from a great-great grandfather who read
Locke. Locke didn't concern himself with the mind or soul of man. He
focused on 'states of consciousness.' He believed that ideas and images
could only come through the five senses. A person couldn't know
anything unless he experienced it with his own senses and comprehended
it with his own understanding. As far as which ideas and images should
be experienced in order to educate, Locke's recommendation was to
expose students to 'what's proper for a gentleman to know.' The mind
(which implies the soul or inner man) doesn't seem to have much spirit
or character of its own. It only has specific abilities and actions to
put to use whatever ideas come into it. To explain these abilities and
actions, Locke came up with the notion that has probably done more
damage in the area of education than any other--the fallacy of
'faculties of the mind.'
This
Doesn't Explain Personal Growth in Individuals
Let's measure Locke's psychology against the standards we set up.
Remember that his psychology is obliged, as much as any other
psychology, to raise a higher standard. An education that stops at
'what's proper for a gentleman to know' and what a gentleman's
accomplishments should be doesn't have the unity of an inspiring idea.
It lacks natural progress, continuity and a noble goal. The important
inner person hardly appears at all in Locke's psychology. The person is
reduced to the semi-mechanical actions of his 'faculties.' You might as
well say that he's no more than the combined collection of the images
and experiences gathered through his senses. There's no recognition for
the personal growth, evolution, or expansion of the individual in his
own unique direction. According to Locke, each person is isolated in
his own skin, but is taught to behave himself so that he appears to be
what's expected of him. But what about the intellectual exchange of
ideas?
pg 51
Men who have long since died are still able to communicate their living
thoughts through the works they've left behind, and these ideas are
like the links of an endless chain that connect all people to one
another, and allow people to influence each other across the boundaries
of time and space. But ideas have no place in a philosophy where people
can only know what's assimilated by their own mind after coming through
their own senses. If we want to realize all of the goals and hopes
we've set for ourselves in our own day, we'll need to reject Locke's
philosophy, although we still have gratitude and even affection for him.
Modern
Physiological Psychology
The modern school that thinks of psychology as strictly a 'natural
science' is working mostly with Locke's ideas, and adding the
illumination of some knowledge of biology. This school of thought
agrees with Locke that the mind amounts to nothing more than 'states of
consciousness.' A person can only get knowledge through his senses.
That knowledge reaches the brain in the form of ideas or images. To
represent this 'rational psychology,' I'll use some quotes from
Professor [William?] James of
Harvard University. Even people who disagree with him have to respect
him and admit that he explains the subject with wisdom and balance. He
begins with a limiting definition of psychology: 'the description and
explanation of states of consciousness.' He treats psychology as if it
was natural science [i.e., purely
chemical/physical, disregarding the soul/spirit of man]. He
states facts that are already familiar to most of us, showing the
intimate connection between acts of thought and the physical brain.
Then he says, 'Considering all of these facts, the simple and radical
idea dawns on us: mental action must be uniformly and absolutely a
function of brain action. It varies according to the individual brain,
and is to the brain action what effect is to cause. This concept is the
pg 52
foundation of all current physiological psychology.' This isn't very
different from the Frenchman who announced that the brain secretes
thoughts in the same way that the liver secretes bile. Both processes
are totally physical and mechanical. According to this logic, the only
thing needed for the most profound kind of thinking is a healthy,
well-nourished brain.
Unjustifiable
Materialism
No wonder Mr. James has to admit that, to some of his readers, 'this
kind of conclusion will seem like the most unjustifiable kind of
materialism.' He admits that this might make discussion of the inner
self very difficult, but that difficulty is easily dealt with. 'The
logical conclusion is that all psychology needs to do its work is
states of consciousness. Metaphysics or theology might prove the
existence of the soul, but in the field of psychology, the theory of
this kind of principle of unity is unnecessary.' In other words, the
important inner part of myself that I call me is nothing more than continually
changing states of consciousness that the brain causes. The
identifiable character of the person, which might seem to be the one
solid anchor in a shifting, changing sea, ends up being nothing more
than the brain being conscious of the same objects today that it was
conscious of years ago.
Psychology
is a Phase of Uncertainty
In his thick book Outlines of
Psychology, Professor James proves with great clearness and
power that all of the phenomena of intelligent life may have their sole
source in the physical brain. Yet he concludes that 'when we say that
psychology is a natural science, that doesn't necessarily mean that
it's the kind of psychology that
pg 53
finally has its roots in solid ground. In fact, it means just the
opposite. It means that it's an especially fragile psychology, and the
waters of metaphysical criticism leak in at every seam. All of its
foundational assumptions and evidences need to be thought of as they
relate to other areas, and translated into other terms. In other words,
the phrase is meant in hesitation, not arrogance. It's surprising to
hear people talk exultantly about the 'new psychology' and writing
'histories of psychology' when the first glimpses of clear insight into
the elements and forces of psychology still don't exist. All we have is
a string of raw facts, a little gossip, some debatable opinions, a few
classifications and generalizations about basic descriptions--but not
one single law, or one single premise that can be used to draw any
causal deductions.' This is reassuring, and we close Professor James's
book with satisfaction. But, unfortunately, not all 'new' psychologists
are quite so modest. In fact, if I may dare to say so, some are
downright arrogant. Even worse, students who read this psychology
text-book are likely to assume that it's a proven fact that psychology
is a natural science and--like poet Peter Bell's primrose--'nothing
more.' Reading that disclaimer on the last page isn't going to motivate
a student to re-evaluate his opinion.
We
Become Devitalized
It's depressing to learn that a person might not be anybody after all,
just a passing state of consciousness. It kind of drains the hope out
of life, since it doesn't leave anything pleasant to look forward to.
After all, even if something really good should happen next year,
there's no 'me' to enjoy it. There's only a 'state of consciousness' at
some point in the future. There can't be any such thing as faith if
pg 54
everything that happens just is,
and other people and even we ourselves are nothing more than additional
circumstances that add experiential data to the moment. If there are no
real persons, then the divine idea that we call enthusiasm can't exist.
There can be no recognition of a higher plane that we define by saying,
'This is what I believe,' and no recognition of the divine Being that
we know by faith. So we lose heart. Life no longer has any meaning. We
throw ourselves into whatever task is at hand with desperate but dreary
energy, just to get through the day. We are glad to be amused, but even
more grateful to keep busy with a feverish pace of work. Yet even the
work we do is as meaningless and lifeless as we are. It has no living
idea and no higher purpose. Our manner becomes apathetic, our
expression dreary and uncaring. This change has already come over too
many intelligent teachers. Those same teachers might have been inspired
by high ideals and noble passions if they hadn't been filled with an
educational attitude that responds to all hopes with the question,
'who's going to benefit from it?' We give what we have. We can't give
what we don't have. What do teachers like that have to pass on to the
students under their care?
The
System is Inadequate, Unnecessary and Out of Harmony
But we don't need to settle and accept this ruinous philosophy. Even
their best prophets, like Mr. James, admit that it's inadequate. There
is more to man than this philosophy has ever even dreamed of. This
philosophy isn't
necessary. There are other philosophical explanations that do a better,
though not perfect job, of accounting for the aspects of the human
psyche. It isn't even in harmony with the times. It denies the
individual personality that our age
pg 55
tends to revere and magnify, and to take humanitarian interest in, even
when the person has been degraded. It loses the popular feeling of
solidarity, and loosens the bond of social ties and family devotion.
After
all, what kind of binding ties can there be between us if we're nothing
more than states of consciousness?
Personal
Growth is Impeded
The evolution and personal growth of the individual stops where
mechanical perfection begins. Mechanical perfection might turn out good
mathematicians and analytical scientists, but it leaves no place for
the higher planes of the human experience like hope, reflection and
devotion. We need to keep as close a watch at the psychology that
undergirds our educational ideals and methods as we would watch a place
where water is let loose to gush out. There's a satisfying certainty in
a science like anthropometrics that uses body measurements to compare
and classify. It's easy to draw specific conclusions about a child by
the physical way he stretches out his arm. And, in fact, there's much
good being done in the field of science these days. In the area of
disease, for example, scientific tests can reveal hidden symptoms or
dispositions and then prescribe medical treatment. But there's a danger
that we might go too far, taking a part as if it was whole by letting
this new science of psychology usurp the entire field of education.
pg 56
Chapter
6 - Examining Some Educational Theories
The
Theories of Pestalozzi and Froebel: The Advent of Kindergarten
It's refreshing to turn our minds to the school of German thought that
gave us two great apostles, Pestalozzi and Froebel. From them we've
gained an appreciation for childhood's enthusiasm, teachers who are
loving and pleasant, and cheerful school days for children. It's
unworthy to look
a gift horse in the mouth, so it might seem ungrateful to criticize any
weakness in a psychology that's brought so much good to education. But
no stream can rise higher than its source, and I imagine that the
concept that children are like cherished plants in a cultured garden
has some kind of weakness. Maybe the children are tended a little too
carefully. Maybe Nature is helped along too eagerly. Maybe the
environment is too artificially perfect. It's possible that the
rough-and-tumble routine of normal family life provides a better
environment for acquiring the dignity and growth of personal character
than the delightful contrived child garden [kindergarten literally means 'child's
garden']. I think we've all noticed
that children show keener intelligence and more independent thinking
when they're playing at home and
pg 57
talking with family members than the angelic little creatures we
see in kindergartens. In Fra Angelico's painting of 'The Last
Judgment,' one of the scenes is of a circle of monks dancing around
hand in hand with the angels on their way to Paradise. It's as if
they've become as little children. They're obviously happy and very
good--but, somehow, something seems to be missing. They seem to have
lost the force of individual personality. They look incapable of making
any kind of decision for themselves. And this may be a danger of
kindergarten.
Lacking
the Element of Personality
It's very true that 'if you make children happy, they'll be good.' But
does that help them develop the kind of steadfast character that's the
first condition of virtue? The other side