I.. P ft

I

25 centsHE JOHN DAY PAMPHLETS-N, 11(This special pamphlet contains 64 pager),

DARE THE SCHOOL - qBUILD A NEW

SOCIAL ORDER ?I by

GEORGE S. COUNTS

As the possibilities in our societV begindawn upon us, we, are all, I think, grow -

inik increasingly weary of the brutalities,the stupidities, the hypocrisies, and, . thegross inanities of contemporary life ._

`We have a haunting feeling that weere born for better things anal that thetion itself is L falling far short of itsveers. The fact, that other groups refusedeal boldly and realistically, with the

resent situation does not justify theachers of the country in their customarylicy of hesitation and equivocation .`The times are 'literally crying for a

ew vision of American destiny. The teach-profession, or at' -at least its progressive

ements, should eagerly grasp the oppor -ity which the fates have placed in their

`'--GEORGE S. CouxTs

See back flap for a list of,THE JOHN, DAY PAMPHLETS.

THE JOHN DAY COMPANY, Inc.386 Fourth Avenue, New York

i\

7S

DARETHE SCHOOLBUILD A NEWSOCIAL ORDER?

By

GEORGE S. COUNTSlu:!,or of The Amr-== Road to C .'ti

The Soviet Challenge to America, etc .

New York

THE JOHN DAY COMPANY

I 10tqq

-POT-1

FOREWORD

This pamphlet is based upon three papersread at the national educational meetings inFebruary of this year . One was read beforethe Progressive Education Association in Bal-timore, a second before a division of the De-partment of Superintendence in Washington,and a third before the National Council ofEducation, also in Washington . The titles ofthese papers were respectively : Dare Progres-sive Education Be Progressive, EducationThrough Indoctrination, and Freedom, Cul-ture, Social Planning, and Leadership. Be-cause of the many requests for the paperswhich have come in from the most diversequarters and through the courtesy of the JohnDay Company they are now combined andissued in pamphlet form .

GEORGE S. COUNTS.April 15, 1932 .

II

I

IBE all simple and unsophisticatedpeoples we Americans have a sublime faith ineducation. Faced with any difficult problemof life we set our minds at rest sooner or laterby the appeal to the school. We are convincedthat education is the one unfailing remedy forevery ill to which man is subject, whether itbe vice, crime, war, poverty, riches, injustice,racketeering, political corruption, race hatred,class conflict . or just plain original sin . Weeven speak glibly and often about the generalreconstruction of society through the school .

e cling to this ai nspite of the fact thatthe very period in which our troubles have mul-tiplied so rapidly has witnessed an unprece-dented expansion of organized education . Thiswould seem to suggest that our schools, in-stead of directing the course of change, arethemselves driven by the very forces that aretransforming the rest of the social order .

The bare fact, however, that simple and un-sophisticated peoples have unbounded faith ineducation does not mean that the faith is un-tenable. History shows that the intuitions of

3

such folk may be nearer the truth than theweighty and carefully reasoned judgments ofthe learned and the wise . Under certain con-ditions education may be as beneficent and aspowerful as we are wont to think . But if it isto be so, teachers must abandon much of theireasy optimism, subject the concept of educa-tion to the most rigorous scrutiny, and be pre-pared to deal much more fundamentally, real-istically, and positively with the American so-cial situation than has been their habit in thepast. Any individual or group that would as-pire to lead society must be ready to pay thecosts of leadership : to accept responsibility, tosuffer calumny, to surrender security, to riskboth reputation and fortune. If this price, orsome important part of it, is not being paid,then the chances are that the claim to leader-ship is fraudulent . Society is never redeemedwithout effort, struggle, and sacrifice . Au-thentic leaders are never found breathing thatrarefied atmosphere lying above the dust andsmoke of battle. With regard to the past wealways recognize the truth of this principle,but when we think of our own times we pro-fess the belief that the ancient roles have beenreversed and that now prophets of a new agereceive their rewards among the living.

That the existing school is leading the way4

to a better social order is a thesis which fewinformed persons would care to defend . Ex-cept as it is forced to fight for its own lifeduring times of depression, its course is tooserene and untroubled . Only in the rarest ofinstances does it wage war on behalf of prin-ciple or ideal. Almost everywhere it is in the

of conservative forces and is serving thecause of perpetuating ideas and institutionssuited to an age that is gone . But there is onemovement above the educational horizonwhich would seem to show promise of genuine 0and creative leadership. I refer to the Pro-gressive Education movement. Surely in thisunion of two of the great faiths of the Ar.2er-ican people, the faith in progress and the faithin education, we have reason to hope for lightand guidance . ere is a movement whichwould seem t~_o-Mpletel evoe 'to thepromotion of social welfare through educa-

Even a casual examination of the program

'and philosophy of the Progressive schools,however, raises many doubts in the mind . Tobe sure, these schools have a number of largeachievements to their credit . They have fo-cused attention squarely upon the child ; they .~have recognized the fundamental importanceof the interest of the learner ; they have de- o

5

fended the thesis that activity lies at the rootof all true education ; they have conceivedlearning in terms of life situations and growthof character ; they have championed the rightsof the child as a free personality . Most of thisis excellent, but in my judgment it is notenough. It constitutes too narrow a concep-tion of the meaning of education ; it bringsinto the picture but one-half of the landscape .

If an educational movement, or any othermovement, calls itself progressive, it musthave orientation; it must possess direction. Theword itself implies moving forward, and mov-ing forward can have little meaning in the ab-sence of clearly defined purposes . W e cannot,like Stephen Leacock's horseman, dash off inall directions at once. Nor should we, like ourpresidential candidates, evade every disturb-ing issue and be all things to all men . Also wemust beware lest we become so devoted to mo-tion that we neglect the question of directionand be entirely satisfied with movement incircles. Here, I think, we find the fundamentalweakness, not only of Progressive Education,but also of American education generally. Likea baby shaking a rattle, we seem to be utterlycontent with action, provided it is sufficientlyvigorous and noisy. In the last analysis a verylarge part of American educational thought,

inquiry, and experimentation is much adoabout nothing. And, if we are permitted topush the analogy of the rattle a bit further,our consecration to motion is encouraged andsupported in order to keep us out of mischief.At least we know that so long as we thus busyourselves we shall not incur the serious dis-pleasure of our social elders .The weakness of Progressive Education

thus lies in the fact that it has elaborated notheory of social welfare, unless it be that ofanarchy or extreme individualism . In this, ofcourse, it is but reflecting the viewpoint of themembers of the liberal-minded upper middleclass who send their children to the Progres-sive schools-persons who are fairly well-off,who have abandoned the faiths of their fathers,who assume an agnostic attitude towards allimportant questions, who pride themselves ontheir open-mindedness and tolerance, who fa-vor in a mild sort of way fairly liberal pro-grams of social reconstruction, who are full ofgood will and humane sentiment, who havevague aspirations for world peace and humanbrotherhood, who can be counted upon to re-spond moderately to any appeal made in thename of charity, who are genuinely distressedat the sight of unwonted forms of cruelty, mis-ery, and suffering, and who perhaps serve to

7

I

I

soften somewhat the bitter clashes of thosereal forces that govern the world ; but who, inspite of all their good qualities, have no deepand abiding loyalties, possess no convictionsfor which they would sacrifice over-much,would find it hard to live without their cus-tomary material comforts, are rather insensi-tive to the accepted forms of social injustice,are content to play the role of interested spec-tator in the drama of human history, refuse tosee reality in its harsher and more disagree-able forms, rarely move outside the pleasantcircles of the class to which they belong, andin the day of severe trial will follow the leadof the most powerful and respectable forcesin society and at the same time find good rea-sons for so doing. These people have shownthemselves entirely incapable of dealing withany of the great crises of our time-war, pros-perity, or depression. At bottom they are ro-mantic sentimentalists, but with a sharp eyeon the main chance . That they can be trustedto write our educational theories and shape oureducational programs is highly improbable .

Among the members of this class the num-ber of children is small, the income relativelyhigh, and the economic functions of the homegreatly reduced . For these reasons an inordi-nate emphasis on the child and child interests

8

is entirely welcome to them . They wish toguard their offspring from too strenuous en-deavor and from coming into too intimate con-tact with the grimmer aspects of industrialsociety. They wish their sons and daughters tosucceed according to the standards of theirclass and to be a credit to their parents . Atheart feeling themselves members of a superiorhuman strain, they do not want their childrento mix too freely with the children of the pooror of the less fortunate races . Nor do they wantthem to accept radical social doctrines, espouseunpopular causes, or lose themselves in questof any Holy Grail . According to their viewseducation should deal with life, but with lifeat a distance or in a highly diluted form. Theywould generally maintain that life should bekept at arm's length, if it should not be han-dled with a poker.

If Progressive Education . is to be genuinelyprogressive, it must emancipate itself_ from theinfluence of this class, face_ squarely and cop-rageously every socialism~e,.come to grips_wt_thlife in -all-6t its stark reality, establish an or-ganicrelation with the community, develop arealistic and _comprehensive theory of welfare,fashion, a compelling ancfchallenging vision ofhuman destiny, and become less frightenedthan it is today at the bogies of imposition and

9

I

indoctrination. In a word, Progressive Educa-tion cannot place its trust in a child-centeredschool.

This brings us to the most crucial issue ineducation-the question of the nature and ex-tent of the influence which the school shouldexercise over the development of the child .The advocates of extreme freedom have beenso successful in championing what they callthe rights of the child that even the most skill-ful practitioners of the art of converting othersto their opinions disclaim all intention ofmolding the learner. And when the word in-doctrination is coupled with education thereis scarcely one among us possessing the hardi-hood to refuse to be horrified . This feeling isso widespread that even Mr. Lunacharsky,Commissar of Education in the Russian Re-public until 1929, assured me on one occasionthat the Soviet educational leaders do not be-lieve in the indoctrination of children in theideas and principles of communism. When Iasked him whether their children become goodcommunists while attending the schools, hereplied that the great majority do . On seekingfrom him an explanation of this remarkablephenomenon he said that Soviet teachers

f f merely tell their children the truth about hu-man history. As a consequence, so he asserted,

10

practically all of the more intelligent boys andgirls adopt the philosophy of communism. Irecall also that the Methodist sect in which Iwas reared always confined its teachings tothe truth

The issue is no doubt badly confused by his-torical causes. The champions of freedom areobviously the product of an age that has brokenvery fundamentally with the past and isequally uncertain about the future. In manycases they feel themselves victims of narroworthodoxies which were imposed upon themduring childhood and which have severelycramped their lives. At any suggestion thatthe child should be influenced by his elders theytherefore envisage the establishment of a statechurch, the formulation of a body of sacreddoctrine, and the teaching of this doctrine asfixed and final. If we are forced to choose be-tween such an unenlightened form of peda-gogical influence and a condition of completefreedom for the child, most of us would in allprobability choose the latter as the lesser oftwo evils . But this is to create a wholly artificialsituation : the choice should not be limited tothese two extremes. Indeed today neither ex-treme is possible.

I believe firmly that a critical factor mustplay an important role in any adequate edu-

11

I

I

I

cational program, at least in any such pro-gram fashioned for the modern world. Aneducation that does not strive to promote thefullest and most thorough understanding of

i the world is not worthy of the name. Also theremust be no deliberate distortion or suppressionof facts to support any theory or point of view .On the other hand, I am prepared to defendthe thesis that all education contains a largeelement of imposition, that in the very natureof the case this inevitable, that the existenceand evolution of society depend upon it, thatit is consequently* eminently desirable, andthat the frank acceptance of this fact by theeducator is a major professional obligation. Ieven contend that failure to do this involvesthe clothing of one's own deepest prejudicesin the garb of universal truth and the intro-duction into the theory and practice of educa-tion of an element of obscurantism . In thedevelopment of this thesis I shall examine anumber of widespread fallacies which seem tome to underlie the theoretical opposition to allforms of imposition . Although certain of thesefallacies are very closely related and to someextent even cover the same territory, their

* Some persons would no doubt regard this as a non sequitur,but the great majority of the members of the human racewould, I think, accept the argument.

12

separate treatment will help to illuminate theproblem .

II

1 . There is the fallacy that man is born free .As a matter of fact, he is born helpless . Heachieves freedom, as a race and as an indi-vidual, through the medium of culture. Themost crucial of all circumstances conditioninghuman life is birth into a particular culture .By birth one becomes a Chinese, an English-man, a Hottentot, a Sioux Indian, a Turk, ora one-hundred-percent American . Such arange of possibilities may appear too shockingto contemplate, but it is the price that onemust pay in order to be born . Nevertheless,even if a given soul should happen by chanceto choose a Hottentot for a mother, it shouldthank its lucky star that it was born into theHottentot culture rather than entirely free .By being nurtured on a body of culture, how-ever backward and limited it may be compar-atively, the individual is at once imposed uponand liberated . The child is terribly imposedupon by being compelled through the acci-dents of birth to learn one language ratherthan another, but without some language manwould never become man. Any language, even

13

A-4

the most poverty-stricken, is infinitely betterthan none at all. In the life cycle of the indi-vidual many choices must of necessity be made,and the most fundamental and decisive of thesechoices will always be made by the group . Thisis so obvious that it should require no elabora-tion. Yet this very obvious fact, with its im-plications, is commonly disregarded by thosewho are fearful of molding the child .

One of the most important elements of anyculture is a tradition of achievement along aparticular line-a tradition which the groupimposes upon the young and through whichthe powers of the young are focused, dis-ciplined, and developed. One people will havea fine hunting tradition, another a maritimetradition, another a musical tradition, anothera military tradition, another a scientific tra-dition, another a baseball tradition, another abusiness tradition, and another even a tradi-tion of moral and religious prophecy. A par-ticular society of the modern type commonlyhas a vast number of different traditions all ofwhich may be bound together and integratedmore or less by some broad and inclusive tra-dition. One might argue that the imposing ofthese traditions upon children involves a se-vere restriction upon their freedom . My thesisis that such imposition, provided the tradition

14

is vital and suited to the times, releases theenergies of the young, sets up standards of ex-cellence, and makes possible really greatachievement. The individual who fails to comeunder the influence of such a tradition mayenjoy a certain kind of freedom, but it isscarcely a kind of freedom that anyone wouldcovet for either himself or his children . It isthe freedom of mediocrity, incompetence, andaimlessness .

2. There is the fallacy that the child is goodby nature. The evidence from anthropology, aswell as from common observation, shows thaton entering the world the individual is neithergood nor bad ; he is merely a bundle of po-tentialities which may be developed in mani-fold directions. Guidance is, therefore, not tobe found in child nature, but rather in the cul-ture of the group and the purposes of living .There can be no good individual apart fromsome conception of the character of the goodsociety ; and the good society is not somethingthat is given by nature : it must be fashionedby the hand and brain of man . This process ofbuilding a good society is to a very large de-gree an educational process . The nature of thechild must of course be taken into account inthe organization of any educational program,but it cannot furnish the materials and the

15

guiding principles of that program. Squirmand wriggle as we may, we must admit thatthe bringing of materials and guiding princi-ples from the outside involves the molding ofthe child .

3. There is the fallacy that the child livesin a separate world of his own . The advocatesof freedom often speak of the adult as an alieninfluence in the life of the child . For an adultto intrude himself or his values into the do-main of boys and girls is made to take on theappearance of an invasion by a foreign power.Such a dualism is almost wholly artificial .Whatever may be the view of the adult, thechild knows but one society ; and that is a so-ciety including persons of all ages . This doesnot mean that conflicts of interest may notoccur or that on occasion adults may not abuseand exploit children. It does mean that in aproper kind of society the relationship is oneof mutual benefit and regard in which theyoung repay in trust and emulation the pro-tection and guidance provided by their elders .The child's conception of his position in so-ciety is well expressed in the words of Plenty-'coups, the famous Crow chieftain, who spokethus of his boyhood : "We followed the buffaloherds over our beautiful plains, fighting a bat-tle one day and sending out a war-party

16

against the enemy the next. My heart wasafire. I wished so to help my people, to dis-tinguish myself, so that I might wear an eagle'sfeather in my hair. How I worked to make myarms strong as a grizzly's, and how I practicedwith my bow! A boy never wished to be a manmore than I ." Here is an emphatic and un-equivocal answer to those who would raise abarrier between youth and age . Place the childin a world of his own and you take from himthe most powerful incentives to growth andachievement. Perhaps one of the greatesttragedies of contemporary society lies in thefact that the child is becoming increasinglyisolated from the serious activities of adults .Some would say that such isolation is an in-evitable corollary of the growing complexityof the social order . In my opinion it is ratherthe product of a society that is moved by nogreat commanding ideals and is consequentlyvictimized by the most terrible form of humanmadness-the struggle for private gain. Asprimitive peoples wisely protect their childrenfrom the dangers of actual warfare, so weguard ours from the acerbities of economicstrife. Until school and society are bound to-gether by common purposes the program ofeducation will lack both meaning and vitality .

4. There is the fallacy that education is some17

pure and mystical essence that remains un-changed from everlasting to everlasting . Ac-cording to this view, genuine education mustbe completely divorced from politics, live apartfrom the play of social forces, and pursue endspeculiar to itself . It thus becomes a methodexisting independently of the cultural milieuand equally beneficent at all times and in allplaces. This is one of the most dangerous offallacies and is responsible for many sins com-mitted in different countries by Americaneducators traveling abroad . They have carriedthe same brand of education to backward andadvanced races, to peoples living under rela-tively static conditions and to peoples passingthrough periods of rapid and fundamentaltransition. They have called it Education witha capital E, whereas in fact it has been Amer-ican education with a capital A and a small e .Any defensible educational program must beadjusted to a particular time and place, andthe degree and nature of the imposition mustvary with the social situation . Under ordinaryconditions the process of living suffices in it-self to hold society together, but when theforces of disintegration become sufficientlypowerful it may well be that a fairly largemeasure of deliberate control is desirable andeven essential to social survival .

18

5. There is the fallacy that the school shouldbe impartial in its emphases, that no bias shouldbe given instruction. We have already ob-served how the individual is inevitably moldedby the culture into which he is born . In thecase of the school a similar process operatesand presumably is subject to a degree of con-scious direction. My thesis is that completeimpartiality is utterly impossible, that theschool must shape attitudes, develop tastes,and even impose ideas. It is obvious that thewhole of creation cannot be brought into theschool. This means that some selection mustbe made of teachers, curricula, architecture,methods of teaching. And in the making ofthe selection the dice must always be weightedin favor of this or that. Here is a fundamentaltruth that cannot be brushed aside as irrelevantor unimportant ; it constitutes the very es-sence of the matter under discussion. Nor canthe reality be concealed beneath agreeablephrases. Professor Dewey states in his De-mocracy and Education that the school shouldprovide a purified environment for the child .With this view I would certainly agree ; prob-ably no person reared in our society wouldfavor the study of pornography in the schools .I am sure, however, that this means stackingthe cards in favor of the particular systems of

19

value which we may happen to possess . It isone of the truisms of the anthropologist thatthere are no maxims of purity on which allpeoples would agree . Other vigorous oppo-nents of imposition unblushingly advocate the"cultivation of democratic sentiments" in chil-dren or the promotion of child growth in thedirection of "a better and richer life ." The firstrepresents definite acquiescence in imposition ;the second, if it does not mean the same thing,means nothing. I believe firmly that demo-cratic sentiments should be cultivated and thata better and richer life should be the outcomeof education, but in neither case would I placeresponsibility on either God or the order ofnature. I would merely contend that as edu-cators we must make many choices involvingthe development of attitudes in boys and girlsand that we should not be afraid to acknowl-edge the faith that is in us or mayhap the forcesthat compel us .

6. There is the fallacy that the great objectof education is to produce the college pro-fessor, that is, the individual who adopts anagnostic attitude towards every important so-cial issue, who can balance the pros againstthe cons with the skill of a juggler, who seesall sides of every question and never commitshimself to any, who delays action until all the

20

facts are in, who knows that all the facts willnever come in, who consequently holds hisjudgment in a state of indefinite suspension,and who before the approach of middle agesees his powers of action atrophy and his so-cial sympathies decay. With Peer Gynt he canexclaim :

Ay, think o f it wish it done-will it to boot,-But do it-! No, that's past my understanding!

This type of mind also talks about waitinguntil the solutions of social problems arefound, when as a matter of fact there are nosolutions in any definite and final sense. Forany complex social problem worthy of thename there are probably tens and even scores,if not hundreds, of "solutions," dependingupon the premises from which one works . Themeeting of a social situation involves themaking of decisions and the working out of ad-justments. Also it involves the selection and re-jection of values. If we wait for a solution toappear like the bursting of the sun through theclouds or the resolving of the elements in analgebraic equation, we shall wait in vain. Al-though college professors, if not too numerous,perform a valuable social function, society re-quires great numbers of persons who, while

21

capable of gathering and digesting facts, areat the same time able to think in terms of life,make decisions, and act. From such personswill come our real social leaders .

7. There is the closely related fallacy thateducation is primarily intellectualistic in itsprocesses and goals. Quite as important is thatideal factor in culture which gives meaning,direction, and significance to life . I refer tothe element of faith or purpose which liftsman out of himself and above the level of hismore narrow personal interests . Here, in myjudgment, is one of the great lacks in ourschools and in our intellectual class today . Weare able to contemplate the universe and findthat all is vanity. Nothing really stirs us, un-less it be that the bath water is cold, the toastburnt, or the elevator not running ; or that per-chance we miss the first section of a revolvingdoor. Possibly this is the fundamental reasonwhy we are so fearful of molding the child .We are moved by no great faiths ; we aretouched by no great passions . We can view aworld order rushing rapidly towards collapsewith no more concern than the outcome of ahorse race ; we can see injustice, crime andmisery in their most terrible forms all about usand, if we are not directly affected, registerthe emotions of a scientist studying white rats

22

in a laboratory. And in the name of freedom,objectivity, and the open mind, we wouldtransmit this general attitude of futility to ourchildren. In my opinion this is a confession ofcomplete moral and spiritual bankruptcy. Wecannot, by talk about the interests of childrenand the sacredness of personality, evade theresponsibility of bringing to the younger gen-eration a vision which will call forth their ac-tive loyalties and challenge them to creativeand arduous labors. A generation withoutsuch a vision is destined, like ours, to a life ofabsorption in self, inferiority complexes, andfrustration . The genuinely free man is not theperson who spends the day contemplating hisown navel, but rather the one who loses him-self in a great cause or glorious adventure .

8. There is the fallacy that the school is anall-powerful educational agency. Every pro-fessional group tends to exaggerate its ownimportance in the scheme of things . To thisgeneral rule the teachers offer no exception .The leaders of Progressive Education in par-ticular seem to have an over-weening faith inthe power of the school . On the one hand, theyspeak continually about reconstructing societythrough education ; and on the other, they ap-parently live in a state of perpetual fear lestthe school impose some one point of view upon

23

10

all children and mold them all to a singlepattern. A moment's reflection is sufficient toshow that life in the modern world is far toocomplex to permit this : the school is but oneformative agency among many, and certainlynot the strongest at that. Our major concernconsequently should be, not to keep the schoolfrom influencing the child in a positive direc-tion, but rather to make certain that everyProgressive school will use whatever, power itmay possess in opposing and checking the

voices of social conservatism andreaction. Weknow full well that, if the school should en-deavor vigorously and consistently to win itspupils to the support of a given social pro-gram, unless it were supported by other agen-cies, it could act only as a mild counterpoiseto restrain and challenge the might of less en-lightened and more selfish purposes .

9. There is the fallacy that ignorance ratherthan knowledge is the way of wisdom . Manywho would agree that imposition of some kindis inevitable seem to feel that there is some-thing essentially profane in any effort to un-derstand, plan, and control the process. Theywill admit that the child is molded by his en-vironment, and then presumably contend thatin the fashioning of this environment weshould close our eyes to the consequences of

24

i

our acts, or at least should not endeavor tocontrol our acts in the light of definite knowl-edge of their consequences . To do the latterwould involve an effort to influence deliber-ately the growth of the child in a particulardirection-to cause him to form this habitrather than that, to develop one taste ratherthan another, to be sensitive to a given idealrather than its rival . But this would be aviolation of the "rights of the child," andtherefore evil . Apparently his rights can beprotected only if our influence upon him isthoroughly concealed under a heavy veil ofignorance. If the school can do no better thanthis, it has no reason for existence. If it is tobe merely an arena for the blind play of psy-chological forces, it might better close itsdoors. Here is the doctrine of laissez faire,driven from the field of social and politicaltheory, seeking refuge in the domain of peda-gogy. Progressive Education wishes to builda new world but refuses to be held account-able f or the kind of world it builds . In myjudgment, the school should know what it isdoing, in so far as this is humanly possible,and accept full responsibility for its acts .

10. Finally, there is the fallacy that in adynamic society like ours the major respon-sibility of education is to prepare the individ-

25

ual to adjust himself to social change . Theargument in support of this view is fairlycogent. The world is changing with greatrapidity; the rate of change is being acceler-ated constantly ; the future is full of uncer-tainty. Consequently the individual who is tolive and thrive in this world must possess anagile mind, be bound by no deep loyalties,hold all conclusions and values tentatively,and be ready on a moment's notice to makeeven fundamental shifts in outlook and phi-losophy. Like a lumberjack riding a raft oflogs through the rapids, he must be able withlightning speed to jump from one insecurefoundation to another, if he is not to be over-whelmed by the onward surge of the culturalstream. In a word, he must be as willing toadopt new ideas and values as to install themost up-to-the-minute labor - saving devices inhis dwelling or to introduce the latest inven-tions into his factory . Under such a concep-tion of life and society, education can onlybow down before the gods of chance and re-flect the drift of the social order . This con-ception is essentially anarchic in character,.exalts the irrational above the rational forcesof society, makes of security an individualrather than a social goal, drives every one ofus into an insane competition with his neigh-

26

bors, and assumes that man is incapable ofcontrolling in the common interest the crea-tures of his brain. Here . we have impositionwith a vengeance, but not the imposition of theteacher or the school. Nor is it an enlightenedform of imposition . Rather is it the impositionof the chaos and cruelty and ugliness pro-duced by the brutish struggle for existenceand advantage. Far more terrifying thanany indoctrination in which the school mightindulge is the prospect of our becoming com-pletely victimized and molded by the me-chanics of industrialism . The control of themachine requires a society which is dominatedless by the ideal of individual advancementand more by certain far-reaching purposesand plans for social construction. In such asociety, instead of the nimble mind respon-sive to every eddy in the social current, afirmer and more steadfast mentality would bepreferable.

III

If we may now assume that the child willbe imposed upon in some fashion by the vari-ous elements in his environment, the real ques-tion is not whether imposition will take place,but rather from what source it will come. If

27

we were to answer this question in terms ofthe past, there could, I think, be but one an-

Iswer: on all genuinely crucial matters theschool follows the wishes of the groups orclasses that actually rule society ; on minormatters the school is sometimes allowed a cer-tain measure of freedom. But the future maybe unlike the past . Or perhaps I should saythat teachers, if they could increase sufficientlytheir stock of courage, intelligence, and vision,might become asocial force of some magni-

- tnde:About this eventuality I am not oversanguine, but a society lacking leadership asours does, might even accept the guidance ofteachers. Through powerful organizationsthey might at least reach the public conscienceand come to exercise a larger measure of con-trol over the schools than hitherto. Theywould then have to assume some responsibilityfor the more fundamental forms of impositionwhich, according to my argument, cannot beavoided .That

on

the teachers should deliberately reachfor power and then iiia-ke the most of their

gjuest is my firm conviction . Totie extentr that they -are permitted to fashion the cur-riculum and the procedures of the school they

f will definitely and positively influence the so-cial attitudes, ideals, and behavior of the com-

ing generation. In doing this they shouldresort to no subterfuge or false modesty . Theyshould say neither that they are merely teach-ing the truth nor that they are unwilling towield power in their own right. The first posi-tion is false and the second is a confession ofincompetence. It is my observation that themen and women who have affected the courseof human events are those who have not hesi-tated to use the power that has come to them .Representing as they do, not the interests ofthe moment or of any special class, but ratherthe common and abiding interests of the peo-ple, teachers are under heavy social obligationto protect and further those interests . In thisthey occupy a relatively unique position insociety. Also since the profession should em-brace scientists and scholars of the highestrank, as well as teachers working at all levelsof the educational system, it has at its disposal,as no other group, the knowledge and wisdomof the ages. It is scarcely thinkable that thesemen and women would ever act as selfishly orbungle as badly as have the so-called "prac-tical" men of our generation-the politicians,the financiers, the industrialists. If all of thesefacts are taken into account, instead of shun-ning power, the profession should rather seekpower and then strive to use that power fully

29

-I

and wisely and in the interests of the greatmasses of the people .

The point should be emphasized that teach-ers possess no magic secret to power . Whiletheir work should give them a certain moraladvantage, they must expect to encounter theusual obstacles blocking the road to leader-ship. They should not be deceived by the pioushumbug with which public men commonlyflatter the members of the profession . To ex-pect ruling groups or classes to give preced-ence to teachers on important matters, becauseof age or sex or sentiment, is to refuse to facerealities. It was one of the proverbs of theagrarian order that a spring never rises higherthan its source. So the power that teachersexercise in the schools can be no greater thanthe power they wield in society. Moreover,while organization is necessary, teachersshould not think of their problem primarilyin terms of organizing and presenting a unitedfront to the world, the flesh, and the devil . Inorder to be effective they must throw off com-pletely the slave psychology that has domi-nated the mind of the pedagogue more or lesssince the days of ancient Greece .. They mustbe prepared to stand on their own feet andwin for their ideas the support of the massesof the people . Education as a force for social

30

regeneration must march hand in hand withthe living and creative forces of the socialorder. In their own lives teachers must bridgethe gap between school and society and playsome part in the fashioning of those greatcommon purposes which should bind the twotogether.

This brings us to the question of the kindof imposition in which teachers should engage,if they had the power . Our obligations, Ithink, grow out of the social situation . We livein troublous times ; we live in an age of pro-found change ; we live in an age of revolution.Indeed it is highly doubtful whether man everlived in a more .eventful period than the pres-ent. In order to match our epoch we wouldprobably have to go back to the fall of the an-cient empires or even to that unrecorded agewhen men first abandoned the natural arts ofhunting and fishing and trapping and began toexperiment with agriculture and the settledlife. Today we are witnessing the rise of acivilization quite without precedent in humanhistory-a civilization founded on science,technology, and machinery, possessing themost extraordinary power, and rapidly mak-ing of the entire world a single great society .Because of forces already released, whetherin the field of economics, politics, morals, re-

31

J

ligion, or art, the old molds are being broken .And the peoples of the earth are everywhereseething with strange ideas and passions. Iflife were peaceful and quiet and undisturbedby great issues, we might with some show ofwisdom center our attention on the nature ofthe child. But with the world as it is, we can-not afford for a single instant to remove oureyes from the social scene or shift our atten-tion from the peculiar needs of the age .

In this new world that is forming, thereisone set of issues which is peculiarly funda-mental -an d .which is certain_ to be the center ofbitter and prolonged stru Ie. I refer to those~'gissues which_ may be_ styled economic. `Presi-dent Butler has well stated iecase : "For ageneration and more past," he says, "the cen-ter of human interest has been moving fromthe point which it occupied for some four hun-dred years to a new point which it bids fair tooccupy for a time equally long . The shift inthe position of the center of gravity in humaninterest has been from politics to economics ;from considerations that had to do with formsof government, with the establishment andprotection of individual liberty, to considera-tions that have to do with the production, dis-tribution, and consumption of wealth ."

Consider the present condition of the na-32

tion. Who among us, if be had not been rearedamid our institutions, could believe his eyesas he surveys the economic situation, or hisears as he listens to solemn disquisitions byour financial and political leaders on the causeand cure of the depression) Here is a societythat manifests the most extraordinary contra-dictions : a mastery over the forces of nature,surpassing the wildest dreams of antiq-uity, is accompanied by extreme material in-security ; dire poverty walks hand in handwith the most extravagant living the worldhas ever known ; an abundance of goods ofall kinds is coupled with privation, misery,and even starvation ; an excess of productionis seriously -offered as the underlying cause ofsevere physical suffering ; breakfastless chil-dren march to school past bankrupt shopsladen with rich foods gathered from the endsof the earth ; strong men by the million walkthe streets in a futile search for employmentand with the exhaustion of hope enter theranks of the damned ; great captains of indus-try close factories without warning and dis-miss the workmen by whose labors they haveamassed huge fortunes through the years ;automatic machinery increasingly displacesmen and threatens society with a growing con-tingent of the permanently unemployed ;

33

racketeers and gangsters with the connivanceof public officials fasten themselves on thechannels of trade and exact toll at the end ofthe machine gun ; economic parasitism, eitherwithin or without the law, is so prevalent thatthe tradition of honest labor is showing signsof decay ; the wages paid to the workers aretoo meager to enable them to buy back thegoods they produce ; consumption is subordi-nated to production and a philosophy of delib-erate waste is widely proclaimed as the highesteconomic wisdom ; the science of psychologyis employed to fan the flames of desire so thatmen may be enslaved by their wants andbound to the wheel of production ; a govern-ment board advises the cotton-growers to plowunder every third row of cotton in order tobolster up the market; both ethical and Ees-thetic considerations are commonly over-rid-den by "hard-beaded business men" bent onmaterial gain ; federal aid to the unemployedis opposed on the ground that it would pau-perize the masses when the favored membersof society have always lived on a dole ; evenresponsible leaders resort to the practices ofthe witch doctor and vie with one another inpredicting the return of prosperity ; an idealof rugged individualism, evolved in a simplepioneering and agrarian order at a time when

84

free land existed in abundance, is used to jus-tify a system which exploits pitilessly andwithout thought of the morrow the naturaland human resources of the nation . and of theworld. One can only imagine what Jeremiahwould say if he could step out of the pages ofthe Old Testament and cast his eyes over thisvast spectacle so full of tragedy and ofmenace .

The point should be emphasized, however,that the present situation is also freighted withhope and promise. The age is pregnant withpossibilities. There lies within our grasp themost humane, the most beautiful, the mostmajestic civilization ever fashioned by anypeople. This much at least we know today .We shall probably know more tomorrow . Atlast men have achieved such a mastery overthe forces of nature that wage slavery canfollow chattel slavery and take its placeamong the relics of the past . No longer arethere grounds for the contention that the finerfruits of human culture must be nurturedupon the toil and watered by the tears of themasses. The limits to achievement set by na-ture have been so extended that we are todaybound merely by our ideals, by our power ofself-discipline, by our ability to devise socialarrangements suited to an industrial age. If

35

J

we are to place any credence whatsoever inthe word of our engineers, the full utilizationof modern technology at its present level ofdevelopment should enable us to produce sev-eral times as much goods as were ever pro-duced at the very peak of prosperity, and withthe working day, the working year, and theworking life reduced by half. We hold withinour hands the power to usher in an age ofplenty, to make secure the lives of all, and tobanish poverty forever from the land . Theonly cause for doubt or pessimism lies in thequestion of our ability to rise to the stature ofthe times in which we live .

Our generation has the, good or the ill for-tune to live in an age when great decisionsmust be made. The American people, likemost of the other peoples of the earth, havecome to the parting of the ways ; they can nolonger trust entirely the inspiration whichcame to them when the Republic was young ;they must decide afresh what they are to dowith their talents . Favored above all other na-tions with the resources of nature and the ma-terial instrumentalities of civilization, theystand confused and irresolute before the fu-ture. They seem to lack the moral qualitynecessary to quicken, discipline, and give di-rection to their matchless energies. In a recent

36

paper Professor Dewey has, in my judgment,correctly diagnosed our troubles : "the schools,like the nation," he says, "are in need of a cen-tral purpose which will create new enthusiasmand devotion, and which will unify and guideall intellectual plans."

This suggests, as we have already observed,that the educational problem is not whollyintellectual in nature . Our Progressive schoolstherefore cannot rest content with giving chil-dren an opportunity to study contemporarysociety in all of its aspects. This of coursemust be done, but I am convinced that theyshould go much farther. If the schools are tobe really effective, they must become centersfor the building, and not merely for the con-templation, of our civilization . This does notmean that we should endeavor to promote par-ticular reforms through the educational sys-tem. We should, however, give to our childrena vision of the possibilities which lie ahead andendeavor to enlist their loyalties and enthu-siasms in the realization of the vision . Also oursocial institutions and practices, all of them,should be critically examined in the light ofsuch a vision .

37

IV

In The Epic of America James TruslowAdams contends that our chief contributionto the heritage of the race lies not in the fieldof science, or religion, or literature, or art butrather in the creation of what he calls the"American Dream"--a vision of a society inwhich the lot of the common man will be madeeasier and his life enriched and ennobled . Ifthis vision has been a moving force in our his-tory, as I believe it has, why should we not setourselves the task of revitalizing and reconsti-tuting it? This would seem to be the greatneed of our age, both in the realm of educa-tion and in the sphere of public life, becausemen must have something for which to live .Agnosticism, skepticism, or even experimen-talism, unless the last is made flesh throughthe formulation of some positive social pro-gram, constitutes an extremely meager spirit-ual diet for any people . A small band ofintellectuals, a queer breed of men at best,may be satisfied with such a spare ration, par-ticularly if they lead the sheltered life com-mon to their class ; but the masses, I am sure,will always demand something more solid andsubstantial. Ordinary men and women crave atangible purpose towards which to strive and

38

which lends richness and dignity and meaningto life. I would consequently like to see ourprofession come to grips with the problem ofcreating a tradition that has roots in Americansoil, is in harmony with the spirit of the age,recognizes the facts of industrialism, appealsto the most profound impulses of our people,and takes into account the emergence of aworld society .*

The ideal foundations on which we mustbuild are easily discernible . Until recently thevery word America has been synonymousthroughout the world with democracy andsymbolic to the oppressed classes of all landsof hope and opportunity. Child of the revolu-tionary ideas and impulses of the eighteenthcentury, the American nation became the em-bodiment of bold social experimentation anda champion of the power of environment todevelop the capacities and redeem the souls ofcommon men and women. And as her staturegrew, her lengthening shadow reached to thefour corners of the earth and everywhere im-pelled the human will to rebel against ancient

* In the remainder of the argument I confine attention en-tirely to the domestic situation . I do this, not because I regardthe question of international relations unimportant, but ratherbecause of limitations of space. All I can say here is that anyproper conception of the world society must accept the prin-ciple of the moral equality of races and nations .

39

wrongs. Here undoubtedly is the finest jewelin our heritage and the thing that is mostworthy of preservation . If America shouldlose her honest devotion to democracy, or if sheshould lose her revolutionary temper, she willno longer be America. In that day, if it hasnot already arrived, her spirit will have fledand she will be known merely as the richestand most powerful of the nations. If Americais not to be false to the promise of heryouth, she must do more than simply per-petuate the democratic ideal of human rela-tionships : she must make an intelligent anddetermined effort to fulfill it. The democracyof the past was the chance fruit of a strangeconjunction of forces on the new continent ;the democracy of the future can only be theintended offspring of the union of human rea-son, purpose, and will . The conscious and de-liberate achievement of democracy under novelcircumstances is the task of our generation .Democracy of course should not be identi-

fied with political forms and functions-withthe federal constitution, the popular electionof officials, or the practice of universal suf-frage. To think in such terms is to confusethe entire issue, as it has been confused in theminds of the masses for generations . The mostgenuine expression of democracy in the

40

United States has little to do with our politi-cal institutions : it is a sentiment with respectto the moral equality of men : it is an aspirationtowards a society in which this sentiment willfind complete fulfillment. A society fashionedin harmony with the American democratictradition would combat'all forces-tending toproduce social distinctions and classes ; repressevery form of privilege and economic parasit-ism; manifest a tender regard for the weak,the ignorant, and the unfortunate ;` place theheavier and more onerous social burdens onthe backs of the strong ; glory in every tri-umph of man in his timeless urge_ to_ expresshimself and to make the world more__ habit-able ; exalt human labor of hand an'd brainas the creator of all wealth and culture ; pro-vide adequate material and spiritual rewardsfor every kind of socially useful work ; strivefor genuine equality of opportunity among allraces, sects, and occupations ; regard as para-mount the abiding interests of the great massesof the people ; direct the powers of govern-ment to the elevation and the refinement of thelife of the common man ; transform or destroyall conventions, institutions, and specialgroups inimical to -the underlying principlesof democracy; and finally be prepared as alast resort, in either the defense or the realiza-

41

tion of this purpose, to follow the method ofrevolution . Although these ideals have neverbeen realized or perhaps even fully acceptedanywhere in the United States and have al-ways had to struggle for existence with con-trary forces, they nevertheless have authenticroots in the past. They are the values for whichAmerica has stood before the world duringmost of her history and with which the Amer-ican people have loved best to associate theircountry. Their power and authority areclearly revealed in the fact that selfish inter-ests, when grasping for some special privilege,commonly wheedle and sway the masses by re-peating the words and kneeling before theemblems of the democratic heritage .

It is becoming increasingly clear, however,that this tradition, if its spirit is to survive,will have to be reconstituted in the light ofthe great social trends of the age in which welive. Our democratic heritage was largely aproduct of the frontier, free land, and a simpleagrarian order. Today a new and strange andclosely integrated industrial economy is rap-idly sweeping over the world . Although someof us in our more sentimental moments talkwistfully of retiring into the more tranquil so-ciety of the past, we could scarcely inducemany of our fellow citizens to accompany us .

42

Even the most hostile critics of industrialismwould like to take with them in their retire-ment a few such fruits of the machine as elec-tricity, telephones, automobiles, modernplumbing, and various labor-saving devices, orat least be assured of an abundant supply ofslaves or docile and inexpensive servants . Butall such talk is the most idle chatter. For bet-ter or for worse we must take industrial civi-lization as an enduring fact : already we havebecome parasitic on its institutions andproducts. The hands of the clock cannot beturned back.

If we accept industrialism, as we must, weare then compelled to face without equivoca-tion the most profound issue which this neworder of society has raised and settle that issuein terms of the genius of our people-the issueof the control of the ma chine. In whose inter-ests and for what purposes are the vast ma-terial riches, the unrivaled industrial equip-ment, and the science and technology of thenation to be used? In the light of our demo-cratic tradition there can be but one answerto the question : all of these resources must bededicated to the promotion of the welfare ofthe great masses of the people . Even theclasses in our society that perpetually violatethis principle are compelled by the force of

43

l

44

public opinion to pay lip-service to it and todefend their actions in its terms . No body ofmen, however powerful, would dare openly toflout it. Since the opening of the century thegreat corporations have even found it neces-sary to establish publicity departments or toemploy extremely able men as public relationscounselors in order to persuade the populacethat regardless of appearances they are loversof democracy and devoted servants of the peo-ple. In this they have been remarkably suc-cessful, at least until the coming of the greatdepression. For during the past generationthere have been few things in America thatcould not be bought at a price .

If the benefits of industrialism are to ac-crue fully to the people, this deception mustbe exposed. If the machine is to serve all, andserve all equally, it cannot be the property ofthe few. To ask these few to have regard forthe common weal, particularly when under thecompetitive system they are forced always tothink first of themselves or perish, is to put toogreat a strain on human nature . With the

,present concentration of economic power mthe hands of a small class, a condition that -is

likely to get worse before it gets better, thesurvival or development of a society that couldin any sense be called democratic is unthink-

able. The hypocrisy which is so characteristiof our public life today is due primarilyour failure to acknowledge the fairly obviousfact that America is the scene of an irrecon-cilable conflict between two opposing forces .On the one side is the democratic traditioninherited from the past ; on the other_is a sys-tem of economic_ arrangements which increas-ingly partakes of the nature of industrialfeudalism. Both of these forces cannot sig-vive : one or the other must give way. Unlessthe democratic tradition is able to , organize,and coniucTasuccessful attack on the eco-nomic system, its__ complete destruction_ 4_M- .evitable.

>'e.If democrac is to survive, it must seek a

neweconomic foundation. Our traditionaldemocracy rested upon small-scale productionin both agriculture and industry and a rathergeneral diffusion of the rights of property incapital and natural resources . The drivingforce at the root of this condition, as we haveseen, was the frontier and free land . With theclosing of the frontier, the exhaustion of freeland, the growth of population, and the com-ing of large scale production, the basis ofownership was transformed . If property rightsare to be diffused in industrial society, naturalresources and all important forms of capital

will have to be o' ectively owned . Obviouslyevery citizen cannot hold title to a mine, a fac-iy', a railroacT, a leparCiierif-store~ or even a

-thoroughly mecbarnzte "farm, This clearlymeans that, if' democracy-is to survive in, theUnited, States it must abandon its individ-ualistic affiliations in the sphere of, economics .What precise form a democratic society willtake in the age of science and the machine,we cannot know with any assurance today.We must, however, insist on two things : first,that technology be released from the fettersand the domination of every type of specialprivilege; and, second, that the resulting sys-tem of production and distribution be madeto serve directly the masses of the people .Within these limits, as I see it, our jjg=atictradition must ,of_nece$sity .evolve-40 grad-ually assume an essentially collectivistic pat-tern. The only conceivable alternative is theabandonment of the last vestige of democracyand the frank adoption of some modern formof feudalism .

V

The important point is that fundamentalchanges in the economic system are imperative. Whatever services historic ca ita ism

46

may have rendered in the ast, and the haveits days are numbered. Withh its -

e ca ion of t iIpr nci e oo selfishness, itsexaltation of the ro t motive, its relianceupon the forces of competition, and its lae-in` gofproperty above human rig ts, it willeither 'have to be - displaced altogether orchanged -so radically in form and spirit that itsidentity will be completely- lost. In view of thefact that the urge for private -gainntten s todebase everything that it touches, whetherbusiness, recreation, religion, art, or friend-ship,, the r indictment against capitalism hascommonly been made on moral grounds . Buttoday the indictment can be drawn m other

Capitalism is proving itself weak at theverypoint where its champions have thoughtit impregnable . It is failing to meet the prag 1matic test; it no onger works ; it is unableeven to organize and maintain production . Inits present form capitalism is not only - crueland inhuman ; it is aTso'wasteful' and inefli-cient. It has exploited our natural' resourceswit out t e sh~ght s egard . for e futureneeds of our society ; it as force technologyo' serve the interests of the few rather thanthe many ; it has chained the engineer to thevagaries and inequities of the price system ;

47

u

J

it has plunged the great nations of the earthinto a succession of wars ever more devastat-ing and catastrophic in character; and only re-cently it has brought on a world crisis of suchdimensions that the entire economic order isparalyzed and millions of men in all the greatindustrial countries are deprived of the meansof livelihood . The growth of science and tech-nology has carried us into a new age whereignorance must be replaced by knowledge,competition by cooperation, trust in provi-dence by careful planning, and private capi-talism by some form of socialized' economy .

Already the individualism of the pioneerand the farmer, produced by free land, greatdistances, economic independence, and alargely self-sustaining family economy, iswithout solid foundation in either agricultureor industry. Free land has long since dis-appeared. Great distances have been short-ened immeasurably by invention.' Economicindependence survives only in the traditions'of our people . Self-sustaining family econ-bmy has been swallowed up in a vast societywhich even refuses to halt before the bounda-ries of nations . Already we live in ~In economywhich in its functions is fundamentally co-operative. There remains the task of recon-structing our economic institutions and of

48

'I of srivate capitalism . . . must

ized economy . . . our demo- .. 1~e_ity evolve and gradually. assume

l. I -UL+ rl U.. %AUUl r,C J. l.0be replaced by some focrate tradition must

' j an essentially Collectivistic pattern .4reformulating our social id, als so that theymay be in harmony with the underlying factsof life. The man who would live unto himselfalone must retire from the modern world. Theday of individualism in the production and"distribution of goods is gone. The fact cannotbe overemphasized that choice is no longer be-tween individualism and collectivism. It israther between two forms of collectivism : theone essentially democratic, the other feudal inspirit ; the one devoted to the interests of the ,people, the other to the interests of a privileged iclass.The objection is of course raised at once

t! L,a_ _plaz ued, coordinated, and socializedeconomy, managed-in the -inTeresTsof -the peo=

lp ,would involve severe restrictions on per-sonal freedom. Undoubtedly in suQh an econ-omy the individual would not be permittedto do many things that he has customarily`done in the past . $e would not be permittedto carve a fortune out of the natural resourcesof the nation to organize a business purely forthe purpose of_making money, to build a newfactory or railroad whenever and whereverhe lease-&,-to the economic system outof gear for the protection of

is own privateinterests, to amass or to attempt to amassgreat riches by the corruption of the political

49

F

J

life, the control of the organs of opinion, themanipulation of the financial machinery, thepurchase of brains and knowledge, or the ex-ploitation of ignorance, -frailty, and misfor-tune. In exchange for such privileges as these,which only the few could ever enjoy, we wouldsecure the complete and uninterrupted func-tioning of the productive system and thus laythe foundations for a measure of freedom forthe many that mankind has never known inthe past. Freedom without a secure economicfoundation is only a word: in our society itmay be freedom to beg, steal, or starve . Theright to vote, if it cannot be made to insurethe right to work, is but an empty bauble . In-deed it may be less than a bauble : it may serveto drug and dull the senses of the masses . To-day only the members of the plutocracy arereally free, and even in their case freedom israther precarious. If all of us could be assuredof material security and abundance, we wouldbe released from economic worries and ourenergies liberated to grapple with the centralproblems of cultural advance .

Under existing conditions, however, nochampion of the democratic way of life canview the future with equanimity . If d noc-racy is to be achieved in the industria age,po w- erul classes must be persuadecT -f i s -

render their privileges, arid, institutions deeplyrooted in popular preju`lc ice will have to beradically modified or abolished . And accord-ing to , e historical record, this . proe h_lcommonly been_attendedby bitter struggleand even bloodshed. Ruling classes_never sur-rend_ertIeir privile s voluntarily . Rather dothey cling to what they have been accustomedto regard as their rights, even though theheavens fall. Men customarily defend theirproperty, however it may have been acquired,as tenaciously as the proverbial mother de-fends her young. There is little evidence fromthe pages of American history to support us `in tliehope that we may adjust our dlfeultiesthrough the ine[Eodof sweetnes s and l-ight_

the settlement of ~ftt_el rst colonists alongthe Atlantic seaboard we have practiced andbecome inured to violence . This is peculiarlytrue wherever and whenever property rights,actual or potential, have been involved. Con-sider the pitiless extermination of the Indiantribes and the internecine strife over the issueof human slavery. Consider the long reign ofviolence in industry, from the days of theMolly Maguires in the seventies down to thestrikes in the mining regions of Kentucky to-day. Also let those, whose memories reachback a dozen years, recall the ruthlessness with

51

iwhich the privileged classes put down everyexpression of economic or political dissentduring the period immediately following theWorld War. When property is threatened,constitutional guarantees are but scraps ofpaper and even the courts and the churches,with occasional exceptions, rush to the sup-port of privilege and vested interest .

This is a dark picture . If we look at the fu-ture through the eyes of the past, we find littlereason for optimism. If there is to be no breakin our tradition of violence, if a bold and real-istic program of education is not forthcoming,we can only anticipate a struggle of increasingbitterness terminating in revolution and dis-aster. And yet, as regards the question ofproperty, the present situation has no histori-cal parallel . In earlier paragraphs I havepointed to the possibility of completely dispos-ing of the economic problem . For the first timein history we are able to produce all the goodsand services that our people can consume . Thejustification, or at least the rational basis, ofthe age-long struggle for property has beenremoved. This situation gives to teachers anopportunity and a responsibility unique in theannals of education .

In an economy of scarcity, where the popu-lation always tends to outstrip the food sup-

52

ply, any attempt to change radically the rulesof the game must inevitably lead to trial bythe sword. But in an economy of plenty, whichthe growth of technology has made entirelypossible, the conditions are fundamentally al-tered. It is natural and understandable formen to fight when there is scarcity, whether itbe over air, water, food, or women. For themto fight over the material goods of life inAmerica -today is sheer insanity. Through thecourageous and intelligent reconstruction oftheir economic institutions they could all ob-tain, not only physical security, but also theluxuries of life and as much leisure as mencould ever learn to enjoy . For those who takedelight in combat, ample provision for strifecould of course be made ; but the more cruelaspects of the human struggle would be con-siderably softened. As the possibilities in oursociety begin to dawn upon us, we are all, Ithink, growing increasingly weary of the bru-talities, the stupidities, the hypocrisies, andthe gross inanities of contemporary life . Wehave a haunting feeling that we were born forbetter things and that the nation itself is fall-ing far short of its powers . The fact that othergroups refuse to deal boldly and realisticallywith the present situation does not justify theteachers of the country in their customary

53

J

policy of hesitation and equivocation. Thetimes are literally crying for a new vision ofAmerican destiny. The teaching profession,or at least its progressive elements, shouldeagerly grasp the opportunity which the fateshave placed in their hands .Such a vision of what America might be-

come in the industrial age I_ would introduceinto our hools as tle supreme imposition, butone to w is our c i ren are entitle -apriceless legacy which_ it _ should_ be the firsteoncern..of our profession to fashion and be-7gueath. The o sec ion will of course be raisedthat this is asking teachers to assume unpre-cedented social responsibilities. But we live indifficult and dangerous. , tunes-tunes when

fRieeedents lose their significance . I we arecontent- to remain where allis safe and quiet_and- serene, we shall dedicate ourselves, asteachers have commonly done in the past, toa role_ of futility, i not of positive socia reac-tion. Neutrality with respect_ _to_ the--greatissues that agitate_ society, while perhaps theo-retically possible is practically tantamount towing support to the forces of conservatism -

As Justice Holmes has candidly said in hisessay on Natural Law, "we all, whether weknow it or not, are fighting to make the kindof world that we should like ." If neutrality is

54

impossible even in the dispensation of justice,whose emblem is the blindfolded goddess, howis it to be achieved in education? To ask thequestion is to answer it .

To refuse to face the task of creating avision of a future America immeasurablymore just and noble and beautiful than theAmerica of today is to evade the most crucial,difficult, and important educational task . Un-til we have assumed this responsibility we arescarcely justified in opposing and mockingthe efforts of so-called patriotic societies tointroduce into the schools a tradition which,though narrow and unenlightened, neverthe-less represents an honest attempt to meet aprofound social and educational need. Onlywhen we have fashioned a finer and more au-thentic vision than they will we be fully justi-fied in our opposition to their efforts . Onlythen will we have discharged the age-long ob-ligation which the older generation owes tothe younger and which no amount of sophistrycan obscure. Only through such a legacy ofspiritual values will our children be enabledto find their place in the world, be lifted outof the present morass of moral indifference,be liberated from the senseless struggle formaterial success, and be challenged to high en-deavor and achievement. And only thus will

55

we as a people put ourselves on the road tothe expression of our peculiar genius and tothe making of our special contribution to thecultural heritage of the race .

56

f4

0

9

I T16

not' o f

s a

root of; th ma

utait' i's roada 1e`"George'Bernord Shaw

`"Becayse' I

leve i comes nearest to getting at the truth,;concerniu~cat~s ;of

sere e't: din re ion and,,because }t` is,b

4nt)y ;writtenep, : '

r

a

1 NTRODUC

TEx ~JOWAUD ;SCOTT ,a;d others

THE-: ECQNOMIC, CONSE

MONEY P:QWER ;AND

LIFEy k?$ r ; RE_IaTD,E4 S91

i

at ho"!

1

0

P

E

HNOL

r

94

hk

i

t A e

f

CI

me }

0

I

N ,

oc 1` hin

7

r: Rugg argues tliatheither'Teehno ra s nor,$n~nexe,

hcan lift,us Qu

of depression, : that we ,must integrate economics and .engineering withsocial psychology. -,'

r

page 1page 2page 3page 4page 5page 6page 7page 8page 9page 10page 11page 12page 13page 14page 15page 16page 17page 18page 19page 20page 21page 22page 23page 24page 25page 26page 27page 28page 29page 30page 31