Genetic philosophy of education; an epitome of the published educational writings of President G. Stanley Hall

Front matter

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

AN OUTLINE OF INDIVIDUAL

STUDY

Preface

In this book I have tried to present, for students and all interested in education, the main teachings of the genetic school as these are formulated in the writings of its most enthusiastic and strongest representative, indeed we may say its creator,. President G. Stanley Hall, of Clark University. In a word, my book is an epitome of the published writings of President Hall, and is solely that. I have added nothing I have not found in his writings, and I have drawn from no other sources. 1 ) Though the influence of his work, which I think we may justly claim to be the most important contribution of all times to the philosophy of education, has now been felt in every department of the school system, and in all fields of activity, in which human welfare is an ideal, both at home and abroad, this philosophy as a whole seems still inaccessible to a great many who need to have it in a simple and comprehensive form. CAt the close of 1909 President Hall's collected works included two hundred and ninety-five titles of books and articles, almost all bearing upon the subject of education. 1 Aside from the quantity of this material, its style and the great variety of publications in which the articles

1 My review has included all that had been published at the close of 1911.

v vi PREFACE

are to be found interpose obstacles both to the interested reader who is not a specialist, and also to such a task as mine. I cannot hope to have included in a single small volume everything important to educational theory contained in these writings. I have tried merely to trace the main thread of the argument, and to show the applications of the genetic view of the problems of education in such a way that anyone willing to follow closely a condensed outline, without the help of much illustration and elucidation, can readily understand. I am quite conscious of failing to convey adequately the scope of the contributions of Dr. Hall to the great themes of feeling, morals, religion, and the motor life, to the educational aspects of which I believe he has brought greater light than any other man : and especially it would be a matter of regret if I have given the impression, either that here is a closed system of thought which we may now proceed to teach, or that the last word of the thinker whom I have tried to represent has been spoken. On many of the most important themes we may still expect new thoughts from him which cannot fail still further to broaden our conceptions of education. I regret, too, that the style and persuasiveness, and the richness of content and illustration that characterises all the writings of Dr. Hall have, of necessity, been almost lost in so brief a review. All I can hope is that nothing essential of the argument nor of the more general applications of the genetic principles has escaped me, and I think there has not. My work is an introduction rather than a summary. Many of the

PREFACE vii

articles should be read by every student, and no one can claim to be informed about education until he has read and studied at least the two larger works of President Hall: Adolescence and Educational Problems.

It is difficult to explain precisely how the materials have been treated, since no uniform method has been adhered to. Often I have merely condensed, sometimes I have quoted, but more often I have told in my own words the main point of a discussion. I have tried to bring to the topic in hand all that I could find, without regard to the order in which it appeared in the original. Such a method makes it difficult to refer each statement and paragraph to its sources, so I have merely indicated by references the main articles bearing upon the topic of each section. In Chapter VIII, more than elsewhere, I have felt the need of explaining in my own words the principles of the genetic education. Here I have departed most from the originals, and presumably have sacrificed most for the sake of brevity. The general arrangement is entirely a choice of my own, and is made both to facilitate the practical use of the genetic philosophy, by student and teacher, and also to try to suggest the cogency and order of it by throwing its main features into sharp relief in a systematic presentation. Several possible arrangements suggested themselves, each, including the one I adopted, having limitations. The plan chosen is to show the genetic theory at work, so to speak, within three groups of problems which all together make up the main or central themes of eduviii PREFACE

cation. The first part contains the philosophical, biological, and psychological bases of the educational theory: those general principles of the sciences of human nature upon which education must rest. The second part presents the principles of education, understood as the whole process of conscious evolution and the effect of environment generally — principles applicable, therefore, not only to the school, but to the home, and to all other institutions that control the child. The third part indicates the application of these principles to the departments and problems of the school. Part IV contains special chapters upon religious institutions, the education of women, and racial pedagogy. Such repetition as this arrangement involves seems to be advantageous, both in enforcing the main principles upon which education rests, and also in making a clear statement upon each topic.

All must admit that there is a lack at the present time, at least among the rank and file of teachers, and in the public mind generally, of any adequate philosophy of education, or even of a point of view from which the themes of school and home can be discussed broadly and intelligently. The older philosophies of Froebel, Hegel, and Herbart are certainly insufficient to meet present needs, and especially in the training of teachers is this painfully felt. They are not only obscure, and little inspiring, either of breadth of thought or intelligent practice, but they fail entirely to connect with the teacher's daily life, unless they be taught in a very shallow and formal way.

The question now arises whether, in the new genetic

PREFACE ix

theory of education, we have not already a much more suitable philosophy for the school and the home. No one would maintain that we have in it a completed system of thought, and indeed the fundamental principle of the theory itself denies such a possibility, but at least it can be claimed that the evolutionary philosophy has now made a first survey of all the main problems of education, and that a far better philosophy for the teacher has been produced than has ever before been offered to him. It has the great advantage of pertaining to the same world as that in which the practical worker lives and thinks ; it touches his experience and demands of him a kind of thought in which he is already at home. It asks him to consider childhood, his own childhood, in the light of the whole past and future of the race — a broad programme, to be sure, but one that is not out of the reach of the ordinary mind, even though it be quite incapable of rigid philosophic thinking. The genetic view is thus helpfully democratic. It stands for an interpretation of the common facts of everyday life. It gives an honourable place, in the search for truth, to feelings that all have and can understand, and to common sense. It is thus one aspect of the pragmatic wave which has lately inundated even the higher places of philosophy, and the study of education from the genetic point of view becomes one of the best introductions to the new humanism, and to all the more special branches of philosophy. Its central principle is indeed that very doctrine upon which all pragmatism is based — that it is in terms of man's practical interx PREFACE

ests that all theoretical problems are finally to be judged, and all human institutions appraised.

If the centre of the training of teachers were in the schoolroom, where it should be, ideal conditions would be obtained for the teaching of just such a philosophy of education as the genetic view contains. The student would soon see that, though common sense and instinct are the corner-stones of his art, they are not the whole structure. Questions would arise demanding answers that can be learned only by a broad study of childhood and interpretation of it in the light of science. From such a quest the student would return to his practical task with enlarged views of both the theory and the practice of it, only to find that there are still deeper problems. It is by such a natural dialectic that the thoughtful teacher broadens out until he comes at last into contact with, and can absorb and utilise, that outer circle of scientific knowledge and reason that we may justly call a philosophy of education — those principles which represent the deepest interpretation of life of which one is capable. That the genetic or evolutionary philosophy is precisely the science of life and philosophy which must be the farthest vision of the great number of practical workers in every department of life, can well be claimed. If this philosophy need examination and searching criticism in the light of more fundamental principles, it is certainly no part of the work of the practical educator to undertake it.

The genetic philosophy of education, moreover, is not for the teacher alone ; it is also an ideal philosophy

PREFACE xi

of parenthood and the home. School and home are here seen united in a common work, guided by common principles. The time is fast coming when no parent can be fully competent to train his child in the home unless he understand the thought that is directing the school. The genetic philosophy is becoming a common fund of knowledge for teacher and parent for it is the doctrine of the development of the whole individual under the influence and guidance of all the forces, inner and outer, which affect him, no one of which can be understood fully without reference to the others.

Though this book is intended especially for the student and amateur worker in educational theory, I should like to think that, as a result of it, some others — philosophers and experts — would feel disposed to bestow upon the evolutionary philosophy of education more searching criticism than they have hitherto given it. Here is at least the richest mine of practical principles which education has ever had the good fortune to fall heir to. Were they wrong throughout, they would still be justified by their effect in stimulating thought, as they do, upon every important topic in the whole field. Children, it seems, must be educated in any case, whether we have a philosophy or not. We have never yet come to the point, in education, where our fundamental principles can rest securely upon science or philosophy. Perhaps we never shall. But certainly science and philosophy are needed, and any philosophy that holds out hope even of practical asxii PREFACE

sistance for a time deserves a hearing, whether it be fundamental and logically coherent or not. But need we always remain without a foundation for education which shall satisfy, not only practical needs of the day, but all the demands of reason as well? Philosophers have held themselves aloof too much from the problems of the social life, business, and education, being willing to leave them to empiricists and practical people who do not demand consistency in their thought, and who are not afraid to proceed with faith rather than reason as their guide. But, at the present time, especially with the encouragement of the pragmatic and humanistic fashions in thought, should not philosophers, as well as scientists in special fields, attempt to bring the new education into line with their first principles, or perhaps broaden and readjust their principles to accommodate the new education? We have had much discussion of the limits and meaning of evolution from the standpoint of critical philosophy. Is not a wider field opened up by the genetic theory of education and the applications to practise which it seems to warrant? Are such principles as recapitulation, and the maxims that are drawn from it, ultimate? Do they stand alone, or do they come within the sphere of a more radical philosophy? Do we look rightly to philosophy to clarify such questions as specialisation, social service as opposed to the perfection of the individual, social force as antagonistic to nature, the conflict of reason and feeling, the place of aesthetic feelings in education? All these questions, so earnestly raised

PREFACE xiii

by the genetic theory, and perhaps solved, yet demand criticism from every point of view. Here, if anywhere, academic philosophy may show its usefulness for practical life, for to answer the questions we raise is merely to become clear upon the fundamental principles of conduct, knowledge, the aesthetic, society, and nature. We can maintain that no philosophy in the past has thrown much light upon education. Is this limitation inherent in philosophy, or is it due to the fact that education has never yet presented to philosophy either sufficiently earnest problems or a broad enough gathering of data, to stimulate its interest and afford scope for its method ? A more intimate relation, at the present time, between philosophy and education, however meagre the immediate results might be, could not fail, it would seem, to benefit both.

During the year or more this book has been in preparation I have incurred obligations that demand at the least a word of record. To my wife I owe so much that to mention merely many hours of assistance with troublesome questions of diction seems a singularly inadequate acknowledgment of her devotion to all my tasks. To President Hall I am deeply grateful for his hearty assurance of good-will when the work was first proposed and for prompt aid, on his busy days, when I needed help. To Dr. Louis N. Wilson, chief of that unequalled place of books, the Clark University Library, and to his staff, a word of thanks can hardly indicate, I am sure, my sense of debt for unwearied searching of files that my work might be easier. To xiv PREFACE

Mr. Robert K. Shaw of the Worcester Free Public Library, whose friendly interest and liberality made a perplexing part easy, I have again, as many times before, become a debtor. To other friends, especially to Mr. and Mrs. George Franklin Cole of Worcester, and Mrs. Walter Drew Loring of Boston, I owe much that cannot easily be expressed — most of all for the good-cheer that lands and seas did not bar. And last, to my little daughter, Miriam, whose willing feet have sped so many miles for me during months of my illness, my most loving gratitude is due.

G. E. Partridge.

Worcester,

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

Dr. George E. Partridge, the author of this work, was for some years my student and for many more has been my neighbour and friend. The proposition to epitomise my own views was his, but had I been moved to select someone for this purpose, I can think of no one I should have preferred to him. As I have read over these pages, I have had several pleasant surprises. One was to realise that the various partial views I have expressed at various times and places were capable of being mosaiced together into so respectable a whole as the author makes out of them in the first part of this book. Again, I have been surprised to see how well acquainted Dr. Partridge has made himself with even my smaller and more obscure articles and brought them into their place, and again, I have been pleased to recognise the wisdom of his judgment in sometimes retaining my own phraseology and often improving on it by briefer and simpler forms of expression. There seems under the circumstances that there is little else left for me to say in an introduction, except the above testimony to the general ability and fidelity of the representation and to this I very gladly bear witness.

G. Stanley Hall.

Clark University, Worcester, Mass.

Jan. 12, 1912.

xv

Contents

INTRODUCTION BY G. STANLEY HALL

Part I Philosophical, Biological, And Psychological Foundations

OF EDUCATION CHAPTER PAGE

I What is Education? 3

II The Philosophical Basis of Education . . 7

III Biological Psychology 14

IV The Fundamental Principles of Genetic Psy-

chology 20

V Instincts and Feelings 32

VI The Intellect 59

VII Developmental Stages 72.

PART II general principles of education

VIII General Principles of Education . ... 91

IX Physical and Industrial Education . . . 122

X Education of the Emotions 152

XI Moral Education 167

XII Religious Education 181

XIII The Training of the Intellect 192

XIV Educational Periods 205

CONTENTS PART III

THE SCHOOL SYSTEM CHAPTER PAGE

XV The School System 219

XVI The Vernacular 229

XVII Foreign Languages 246

XVIII Natural Sciences . . . 251

XIX Elementary Mathematics 260

XX History 266

XXI Music and Dancing 272

XXII Drawing and Art 287

XXIII Philosophy in the College 295

XXIV The Kindergarten 303

XXV The School Grades 310

XXVI The High School 314

XXVII The College 323

XXVIII The University 332

XXIX The Training of Teachers 337

PART IV

special problems

XXX Religious Institutions 349

XXXI The Education of Girls 359

XXXII Racial Pedagogy 376

PART I

PHILOSOPHICAL, BIOLOGICAL, AND PSY- CHOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATION

Chapter I What Is Education?

Education may be defined, in one sense, as the whole effect of environment. The individual is in some way affected by everything with which he comes into contact, from the first moment of life until the end. Teaching and all other conscious efforts to shape the course of development are parts of a larger whole, the nature and laws of which must be taken into account in any adequate study of education. The purpose of teaching, thus considered, becomes plain. It is a factor in evolution : like natural selection, sexual selection, adaptation, it is a means of carrying on the development of the individual, and the evolution of the race, to a higher level. Man is as yet incomplete ; it is likely that all his best experiences still lie before him. He may indeed be only at the beginning of a career, the end of which we cannot foresee. If this be true, the function of the present generation is to prepare for the next step. It must so live that it may become the best possible transmitter of heredity, and to the greatest degree of which it is capable, it must add to the equipment of the new generation. The efficiency with which these functions are performed is the test of the value of society, of education, and of all public institutions and private morality. All are best judged according to the service they perform in advancing the interests of mankind.

Immediately the old ethical problem of the conflict between self-interest and service comes to light. Is life devoted to the welfare of humanity entirely a life of self-sacrifice? What place is there in such an ideal for the private interests of the individual? We shall find that, on the evolutionary view, the welfare of the individual corresponds, in great measure, to that of the race, but that beyond this common good there is a sphere of self-interest, to live in which is to rob the future of its rights. It is the problem of education to develop the individual to precisely that stage of completeness at which he can most successfully live in the service of humanity, and at the same time enjoy a normal healthy life; and so to inspire the young with love for humanity, and so to educate their instincts and ideals that, when the rights of the individual and of the race come into conflict, the right of the race shall always be given precedence. Education of the young, thus understood, is plainly not only the most moral and vital work we do, but the most inclusive; for in a sense it involves all other practical activities. Nothing else requires so profound knowledge, nor so earnest thought, as the training of the child.

If this be a just valuation of the function of teaching, it is obvious. that a science of education cannot be derived from any single principle, nor philosophy, nor science, however broad these may be. All

WHAT IS EDUCATION? 5

sciences, as well as all practical activities, must contribute, directly or indirectly, to the education of the young; and if they do not, they fail, by the criterion of value just declared, to have deep worth for life in any way. To understand fully what education means, to take an intelligent part in it, demands, therefore, a knowledge of many fields of human thought and action, and the most serious purposes we can bring to any work.

Too often theorists have tried to derive the principles of education from systems of philosophy, applying one or a few barren formulas to all problems. Naturally the teaching that has followed such philosophy has been narrow, schematic, and formal. Educational theory is too comprehensive, it lies too near to all the concrete, practical interests of life to be thus abstractly treated. And yet, for that very reason — because of the breadth and depth of the interests involved in education — some ultimate philosophy must play a part in it. In every deep purpose in life we act, consciously or unconsciously, upon beliefs beyond which we cannot go: upon affirmations which constitute for us our philosophy. In the same way education must assume or discover principles which shall represent the deepest and fullest meaning of the world, and this must be the foundation of all its thought and effort. The philosophy of the past, we say, has been too abstract, too formal, too far removed from practical life to meet the needs of so vast and changing a demand as the education of the child. Its chief service has been to the sciences that analyse experience, that try to sum up the past of the world, rather than to those that aim to forecast and direct the future. It has not stood well the test of ability to inspire youth with zeal, nor of stimulating effective and wholesome methods of training them — functions which a true philosophy, if it aspire to become a philosophy of education, must certainly perform. Therefore we look to new and untried philosophies for our first principles of education.

References. — See page 13,

Chapter II The Philosophical Basis Of Education

A true philosophy, whatever else its purpose or merits, must bear the tests, both of inspiring youth with right attitudes toward life, and of inculcating correct views of education throughout society. It must be a body of principles capable of furnishing deep and wholesome motives and beliefs to teacher and parent, and it must be a creed suited to the needs of effective, practical living. In a word, a philosophy, to be true, must do more than merely hold together logically. It must have practical bearings. It must not merely dictate to conduct; it must also serve. In a very deep sense, it is quite as reasonable to say that philosophy is based upon education, as that education is based upon philosophy. Philosophy grows out of life, as its broadest and deepest meaning, formulated by the same powers of heart and mind that we apply to our other tasks. Only as such a sum of wisdom has it a right to dictate either to reason or to conduct.

The tests through which a philosophy must pass before it can be judged true are, therefore, many and severe. It must first of all be optimistic, pointing always toward the future rather than the past. It must grow out of, and be in harmony with, instincts and feelings. It must agree with common sense, with sight and touch, and with all the realities of life. It must find a place for the facts of the physical sciences, and also for the truths of the world of ideals and imagination. Above all, it must inspire the young to activity, and to a love of knowledge.

These tests require that philosophy shall present the world to the mind as real — as doubly real. It is so for life ; it must remain so in philosophy. We live in a world of physical facts, laws, and things. It is also a world of spiritual things, of things imagined rather than known, believed rather than proved. A true philosophy must stimulate the mind to live in both these worlds; to enjoy them, to believe in their reality. If philosophy merely substitutes for concrete experiences the intellectual effort completely to harmonise the world to the reason, it is wrong, for then it fails to make all of reality seem real. Thinking is not the only, nor the surest;, road to truth. The intellect is at best a superficial part of the mind. Excessive analysis, introspection, and criticism is morbid. It can give us but a narrow view of reality, and can not alone reach the eternal verities. Reasoned philosophies and theologies pass away, "but the deeper philosophy of poetry, folklore, belief — all that which comes from the heart — endures. All the great verities, religious and ethical, are formulations of the feelings — things believed rather than known or proved; truths that cannot be reached by argument nor demonstration.

Any philosophy that fails to make youth enthusiastic

' THE BASIS OF EDUCATION 9

in the right way; that fails to create interest in realities; that makes youth pessimistic or blase; that arouses intellect more than feeling; that breeds familiarity with the universe, destroying wholesome awe and wonder, is wrong. It is wrong because it will not pass the profoundest test we have — fitness to lead men to the fullest enjoyment of a normal life of activity and interest in the future. The intellect has no higher claims to judge truth than these immediate feelings — nor so high — for it represents the individual alone, while the feelings are racial, and reveal to us truths larger than the self. All thought must eventually be brought to this test. Everything that claims to be thought good, beautiful, or true, must pass the censorship of our practical judgments. Anything that offends our deepest instincts as teachers and parents, or that is seen to be unfit to teach to youth, cannot be called true in the deepest sense.

No philosophy can be said to be proved valid until it is seen what it can do, directly or indirectly, for the coming generation. It is in this sense that it has been said that philosophy is dependent upon education. All truth has work to do, and its function is to guide and direct experience. Truth is therefore, in its last analysis, a tool of evolution — a part of the whole device we call education. Thought and action are mutually dependent. No system of truth can be reasoned out, from which alone practical rules of conduct can be derived. And no practical activity can be wholly right unless it has broadened out its grasp to include the deepest meaning of life,

Judged by such standards as these much of the philosophy of the present day, taught in the colleges, is found wanting. Much of it is merely critical, and ends in negation rather than in belief or affirmation. It is too rational ; too analytic. It leads away from action, and not toward it. It is too likely to destroy the love of positive science, and to substitute for the natural tests of truth, artificial and shallow first principles and formulas. From it little can be derived that is helpful in education, and in no sense can we say that the rules of the art of teaching can be deduced from such truth.

Applying all these tests of truth to the facts of experience, and now understanding precisely in what sense a philosophy can be said to be a foundation for educational theory, what are the most general, most real, or most true realities and principles — the eternal verities beyond which the mind cannot go, but which it must accept as a basis, or point of departure, for all thought and action? It is not to be expected that these will be demonstrated, that they will be brought into a system completely harmonious from a logical standpoint, but rather they must satisfy moral needs, common sense, and instinct, and must square with the facts of science.

The most immediately and certainly known thing in the universe is space. It is the first element. It is infinite, a perfect continuum, that in which everything else exists — whether God, matter, or soul. Nothing can be more real nor more unanalysable. It needs no proof, and the belief in it cannot be uprooted by

THE BASIS OF EDUCATION n

any demonstration. The mind should rest on this belief, and all efforts to derive space, and to spin it out of consciousness, as is so often tried in philosophy, are perverted and wasted.

Wherever we look, we find that space is occupied. The world is full to the brim of something, which, by the help of modern physics, we know to be ether. Ether is everywhere, the basis of all that is real. The contemplation of it gives a sense of warmth and nearness, though our senses can grasp but an infinitesimal part of its reality. This substance existing in infinite space, and filling it with reality, is the basic material of the universe.