One-Sixteenth

« For Jo | Main | Unitarians Revisited »

July 31, 2005

The Theory of Education in the United States - Part 1

Here is the beginning of my summary of Albert Nock's "The Theory of Education in the United States." This text comes from a series of lectures Mr. Nock delivered at the University of Virginia in 1931. Some things have changed since then, of course; but on the whole, his insights on our educational system of the early 1900s are still very much relevant today. Some things have changed, but most things have not changed.

Mr. Nock begins his lectures by establishing the fact that we, as a nation, are dissatisfied with our educational system. To see why that should be so, he begins by examining the theories on which our system is founded. These theories are, in a nutshell: equality, democracy, and the idea that "the one great assurance of good public order and honest government lay in a literate citizenry."

These are good theories. None of us would disagree.

The problem, he asserts, is not that the theories are not good. The problem is that our actual application of them is flawed. He begins with our application of equality:

So, when we set about the examination of this doctrine in relation to our educational system, we must first and above all ascertain which doctrine of equality it is that we find at the basis of our system; is it the philosophical doctrine recommended by Menander and espoused by Mr. Jefferson, or is it a popular doctrine which neither of them could or would recognize?

There is no possible doubt about the answer. Our system is based upon the assumption popularly regarded as implicit in the doctrine of equality, that everybody is educable. This has been taken without question from the beginning; it is taken without question now. The whole structure of our system, the entire arrangement of its mechanics, testifies to this. Even our truant laws testify to it, for they are constructed with exclusive reference to school-age, not to school-ability. When we attempt to run this assumption back to the philosophical doctrine of equality, we cannot do it; it is not there, nothing like it is there. The philosophical doctrine of equality gives no more ground for the assumption that all men are educable than it does for the assumption that all men are six feet tall. We see at once, then, that it is not the philosophical doctrine of equality, but an utterly untenable popular perversion of it, that we find at the basis of our educational system.

Equality is a good and noble idea, but in this context the application of equality to mean "everyone is educable to the same degree" is ridiculous. He's right, of course. All it takes is a brief look at any group of people to show that he is right. And why should it be any other way? We all look different from one another. We have different tastes in food and music. Some people can cook and some can't. Much research has been done on the idea that each person's brain operates in a unique manner. It's logical and reasonable that people are educable to different degrees. There is a natural limit to the educability of each person, just as there is a natural limit to the ability to sing operatically.

Next he approaches our application of democracy: "Here we find something more than a popular perversion of a philosophically sound doctrine, which is what we found in our examination of the idea of equality. Here we find something even stranger and more interesting, a perversion upon a perversion." The first problem is that we have made synonymous the terms "democracy" and "republic." What we have, of course, is a republic. But republicanism of itself, he argues, does not even imply democracy.

The antithesis of democracy is absolutism; and absolutism may, and notoriously does, prevail under a republican regime as freely as under any other. Thus democracy is not a matter of an extension of the franchise, not a matter of the individual citizen's right of self-expression in politics, as the political philosophy of the eighteenth century regarded it. It is a matter of the diffusion of ownership; a true doctrine of democracy is a doctrine of public property.

Now, I am not much of a political thinker, and this is where the load of bricks dropped on my head. I've forwarded these ideas to my political adviser, and we'll have a nice discussion later. At any rate, Mr. Nock's point is that we claim to be founding our theory of education on our principle of democracy, when in reality we don't have a democracy.

(I cannot wait to read "Our Enemy, The State.)

On top of this error, he says, we have "accepted as democratic whatever was merely indiscriminate." The result is that the popular idea of democracy is one in which we resent the idea of superiority, the idea of an elite, the idea that there is a practical limit to intellectual achievement, the idea that there are any experiences and achievements that are only open to some and not to all. "... so the popular idea of democracy postulates that there shall be nothing worth enjoying for anybody to enjoy that everybody may not enjoy; and a contrary view is at once exposed to all the evils of a dogged, unintelligent, invincibly suspicious resentment."

We have now founded our system of edcuation on the theories that 1) everyone is educable, and 2) no one should be able to obtain that which we all cannot obtain. What kind of a school system can we form on top of these ideas?

Exactly the one we have, of course.

There will be more to come, in later installments. Tell me what you think so far.

Posted by lynx at July 31, 2005 3:51 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/364

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Theory of Education in the United States - Part 1:

» A True Doctrine of Democracy from Caerdroia
Steph asked for my thoughts on a passage on governance from Nock's The Theory of Education in the United States. I'll quote the precursor and successor material as well, because it's necessary to understanding what Nock meant:[O]ur system is professedl... [Read More]

Tracked on August 9, 2005 4:53 PM

Comments

Posted by: Dy at August 2, 2005 1:38 AM

Posted by: Shawna in Texas at August 4, 2005 1:55 AM

Posted by: Lynne at August 5, 2005 10:04 PM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)