Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

sented, the contract, the organic, and the psychological. The theory of contract makes all social organization an outcome of selfconscious relations between individuals, relations based upon the mutual consent of the parties thereto. While views are still expressed, even today, on social problems, such as marriage and the family, which are strongly colored by the contract theory, this conception was long ago supplanted by the organic theory, a reaction from it. The organic theory was a product of nineteenth century biology. Society was seen in the likeness of an animal organism. Later this theory was interpreted in more acceptable ways by philosophical writers, but the analogy remains misleading. That Ellwood finds the truth to be in the psychological theory has been shown from the beginning of this article. A final summary of the view-point will clarify it. "Wherein, then, is the psychological theory of society distinctive, and what is its peculiar value? The reply is, that the psychological conception presents the social life as an adaptive process in which the psychic processes within the individual function as the active elements. It is the theory that the social life is a process, but a process made up essentially of psychic elements; that is, of forms of interstimulation and response between individuals, such as communication, suggestion, imitation, sympathy, conflict, and of psychic processes within individuals, such as instinct, habit, feeling and intelligence. It is the theory that the explanation of human social life, as we have said, is to be sought in the underlying traits and dispositions of men, in the influences of the environment which act upon their plastic natures, and in the resultant aims and standards which they develop. The social process, according to this theory, is not purely subjective, but is psychic only in the sense that its significant elements are psychic. . . . Human culture is essentially a psychic matter, and the human societies that we know are creations of cultural evolution."

There is an inspiring optimism to the educator in the researches of social psychology. His work takes on a deeper significance. He finds that education persistently and scientifically applied will

1 Introduction to Social Psychology, p. 322.

achieve great results in the advance of the human race, and that it is the only thing that will. "The easiest approach to the modification of human society, therefore, is through the manipulation of the intellectual elements, ideas, standards and values, especially in the young. Their rational direction and control in the way of social advantage can certainly be counted upon to change the whole mass of habits, social attitudes, customs and institutions of society. The limits of the possibilities of such change, moreover, cannot be set. Civilization is just beginning, and when the civilizing process is rationally directed with an understanding of the principles of human psychology and sociology, social progress will be beyond anything which the world now dreams to be practicable."

[ocr errors]

Perhaps no writer makes education and sociology more closely allied than does Ellwood. According to him the human social process itself is essentially an educative process. It is a process of learning and of achievement by groups, and its results are transmitted only as they are taught a younger generation by an elder. This was true even in primitive times, as is shown by the growth of any tradition, say that of tool-making; but it is even more true of modern democratic societies, where the whole process of social adjustment is mediated by a process of mutual education, such as communication, discussion, and the formation of group opinions and standards. It follows that the educative process in the schools is only a formalized, simplified, and controlled social process, which can be understood only as a control over the whole social process of the community, and that the development and enrichment of educative processes in a community is the normal method of human progress. Education is thus the very method of cultural evolution.

In conclusion, we have space for a brief reference to educational practice. The problem of training in citizenship is stated in this way. "We have built a gigantic material civilization that resembles nothing so much as a mighty machine which requires almost infinite intelligence and good-will to run it in such a way

2 Ibid., p. 325.

that it will not bring disaster upon us. Yet the intelligence and good-will necessary to run this social machine must in a democracy reside in the people themselves. Here then is our problem. How are we to secure the intelligence and good-will needed in the mass of our citizens to meet the increasingly complex problems of an ever increasingly complex civilization." The real sovereignty in a democracy is public opinion. To secure public opinion of the kind needed to solve the baffling social and political problems which confront us requires a high degree of social and political intelligence among the masses. This means much more than an impulse to patriotism or a mere sentiment of good-will. It means dynamic opinion in respect to specific problems like capital and labor, taxation, production, sanitation, schools, relations to other nations and races, and many others. How shall we develop adequate intelligence along these lines? Ellwood suggests by making social studies fundamental in the curricula of the schools, from the kindergarten to the college. By social studies is meant history, community civics, domestic science, public hygiene, economics, politics, ethics, anthropology, and specialized applications of these. Unless social problems are made central in the scheme of education, there is little hope of attaining an efficient democracy. Fortunately an increasing number of educators are agreeing with the sociologists that social studies should be central in the school.

The schools should aim more directly at moral training. "That the ideals of justice, brotherhood and the service of mankind cannot be taught in our public schools as easily as the ideals of business efficiency, vocational excellence or commercial success, is absurd." The mistake has been made of thinking that moral and social standards, and even patriotism, can be taught as abstractions. These things are the flowering of the training in social service. They are values which may be expected to emerge through the study of concrete social situations and problems. It is the latter with which we must begin. The school should teach the

1 Education for Citizenship in a Democracy. Am. Jour, of Soc., July, '20. 2 Educational Theory of Social Progress. Sci. Mo., Nov., '17.

ideal of service at all times. The self-interest ideal has been found to be a failure, a fact proved by experience and also by the study of human relationships. The service ideal is the substitute. Would it not be possible to provide such an environment for the child in school that social service would be seen and felt as the ruling idea there, as the psychic dominant, all the way from the first grade to the university?

Like the sociologists already studied, Ellwood urges a quickened faith in the power of education. It has usually been assumed that the American people were devoted to education as an ideal. Our social and economic ignorance, high percentage of illiteracy, and poorly paid teachers indicate the contrary. "We need a deeper faith in education as a savior and regenerator of democracy. We need to realize that education is the conscious method of social evolution and so, in the last analysis, the only rational means of social progress. We need to see the vital relation between democracy and education, that both must rise or sink together. But we need especially a practical faith in education, such as will lead us to match every dollar spent for army or navy or military training by at least another dollar spent for our schools. Then, perhaps, we shall be able to safeguard our own democracy, and thus do our bit in making a world safe for democracy."1

1 Education for Citizenship in a Democracy. Am. Jour. of Soc., July, '20.

Should English Teachers Teach?

EDWIN M. HOPKINS, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, THE UNIVERSITY

[ocr errors]

OF KANSAS, LAWRENCE, KANSAS.

R, for that matter, should any teacher teach? Put either way the point is a simple one; but, according to the evidence, it has a special application to teachers of English. Everybody has known for a long time that a considerable proportion of those who are said to teach English, are not English teachers, but it may not be so well understood that a considerable proportion of those who really are English teachers are hindered in the attempt to discharge their own proper duty with its limitless responsibility and almost invariable overload of large classes and of "outside work," by the imposition of wholly unrelated and sometimes trivial and unnecessary tasks; and that in certain established instances, which may or may not indicate a general practice, they are singled out for this sort of thing when other teachers are partly or wholly exempted.

If we have all seen a copy of Professor Osgood's Report on the Conditions of the Teaching of English in the Secondary Schools of New Jersey, we cannot fail to appreciate the reputed attitude toward it of the head of one of those schools, in substance, that he personally had always gotten along without considering or consulting the facts of the best teaching experience and the expert opinion of scholars, that he guessed he always would, and finally, that the report, as presumably all other reports based on teachers' statements regarding the conditions of teaching, is all a (deleted adjective) lie anyhow. If we have not all seen the report, possibly the rumor of such an authoratative condemnation of it may lead some of the rest of us to do so; and in that case we may be surprised to find that it seems so modest and conservative in pre

« AnteriorContinuar »