A	>>	B	>>	C	>>	D	>>	E
F	>>	G	>>	H	>>	I	>>	J
K	>>	L	>>	M	>>	N	>>	O
P	>>	R	>>	S	>>	T	>>	U
V	>>	W	>>			X	>>	Z

Victor LeFebure - "The Riddle of the Rhine:"

Chretien de Troyes - "A Romance"

John Dewey - "Democracy and Education"

Louisa May Alcott - "Little Women"

Democracy and Education

J >> John Dewey >> Democracy and Education




The school has the function also of coordinating within the
disposition of each individual the diverse influences of the
various social environments into which he enters. One code
prevails in the family; another, on the street; a third, in the
workshop or store; a fourth, in the religious association. As a
person passes from one of the environments to another, he is
subjected to antagonistic pulls, and is in danger of being split
into a being having different standards of judgment and emotion
for different occasions. This danger imposes upon the school a
steadying and integrating office.


Summary. The development within the young of the attitudes and
dispositions necessary to the continuous and progressive life of
a society cannot take place by direct conveyance of beliefs,
emotions, and knowledge. It takes place through the intermediary
of the environment. The environment consists of the sum total of
conditions which are concerned in the execution of the activity
characteristic of a living being. The social environment
consists of all the activities of fellow beings that are bound up
in the carrying on of the activities of any one of its members.
It is truly educative in its effect in the degree in which an
individual shares or participates in some conjoint activity. By
doing his share in the associated activity, the individual
appropriates the purpose which actuates it, becomes familiar with
its methods and subject matters, acquires needed skill, and is
saturated with its emotional spirit.

The deeper and more intimate educative formation of disposition
comes, without conscious intent, as the young gradually partake
of the activities of the various groups to which they may belong.
As a society becomes more complex, however, it is found necessary
to provide a special social environment which shall especially
look after nurturing the capacities of the immature. Three of
the more important functions of this special environment are:
simplifying and ordering the factors of the disposition it is
wished to develop; purifying and idealizing the existing social
customs; creating a wider and better balanced environment than
that by which the young would be likely, if left to themselves,
to be influenced.

Chapter Three: Education as Direction

1. The Environment as Directive.

We now pass to one of the special forms which the general
function of education assumes: namely, that of direction,
control, or guidance. Of these three words, direction, control,
and guidance, the last best conveys the idea of assisting through
cooperation the natural capacities of the individuals guided;
control conveys rather the notion of an energy brought to bear
from without and meeting some resistance from the one controlled;
direction is a more neutral term and suggests the fact that the
active tendencies of those directed are led in a certain
continuous course, instead of dispersing aimlessly. Direction
expresses the basic function, which tends at one extreme to
become a guiding assistance and at another, a regulation or
ruling. But in any case, we must carefully avoid a meaning
sometimes read into the term "control." It is sometimes assumed,
explicitly or unconsciously, that an individual's tendencies are
naturally purely individualistic or egoistic, and thus
antisocial. Control then denotes the process by which he is
brought to subordinate his natural impulses to public or common
ends. Since, by conception, his own nature is quite alien to
this process and opposes it rather than helps it, control has in
this view a flavor of coercion or compulsion about it. Systems
of government and theories of the state have been built upon this
notion, and it has seriously affected educational ideas and
practices. But there is no ground for any such view.
Individuals are certainly interested, at times, in having their
own way, and their own way may go contrary to the ways of others.
But they are also interested, and chiefly interested upon the
whole, in entering into the activities of others and taking part
in conjoint and cooperative doings. Otherwise, no such thing as
a community would be possible. And there would not even be any
one interested in furnishing the policeman to keep a semblance of
harmony unless he thought that thereby he could gain some
personal advantage. Control, in truth, means only an emphatic
form of direction of powers, and covers the regulation gained by
an individual through his own efforts quite as much as that
brought about when others take the lead.

In general, every stimulus directs activity. It does not simply
excite it or stir it up, but directs it toward an object. Put
the other way around, a response is not just a re-action, a
protest, as it were, against being disturbed; it is, as the word
indicates, an answer. It meets the stimulus, and corresponds
with it. There is an adaptation of the stimulus and response to
each other. A light is the stimulus to the eye to see something,
and the business of the eye is to see. If the eyes are open and
there is light, seeing occurs; the stimulus is but a condition of
the fulfillment of the proper function of the organ, not an
outside interruption. To some extent, then, all direction or
control is a guiding of activity to its own end; it is an
assistance in doing fully what some organ is already tending to
do.

This general statement needs, however, to be qualified in two
respects. In the first place, except in the case of a small
number of instincts, the stimuli to which an immature human being
is subject are not sufficiently definite to call out, in the
beginning, specific responses. There is always a great deal of
superfluous energy aroused. This energy may be wasted, going
aside from the point; it may also go against the successful
performance of an act. It does harm by getting in the way.
Compare the behavior of a beginner in riding a bicycle with that
of the expert. There is little axis of direction in the energies
put forth; they are largely dispersive and centrifugal.
Direction involves a focusing and fixating of action in order
that it may be truly a response, and this requires an elimination
of unnecessary and confusing movements. In the second place,
although no activity can be produced in which the person does not
cooperate to some extent, yet a response may be of a kind which
does not fit into the sequence and continuity of action. A
person boxing may dodge a particular blow successfully, but in
such a way as to expose himself the next instant to a still
harder blow. Adequate control means that the successive acts are
brought into a continuous order; each act not only meets its
immediate stimulus but helps the acts which follow.

In short, direction is both simultaneous and successive. At a
given time, it requires that, from all the tendencies that are
partially called out, those be selected which center energy upon
the point of need. Successively, it requires that each act be
balanced with those which precede and come after, so that order
of activity is achieved. Focusing and ordering are thus the two
aspects of direction, one spatial, the other temporal. The first
insures hitting the mark; the second keeps the balance required
for further action. Obviously, it is not possible to separate
them in practice as we have distinguished them in idea. Activity
must be centered at a given time in such a way as to prepare for
what comes next. The problem of the immediate response is
complicated by one's having to be on the lookout for future
occurrences.

Two conclusions emerge from these general statements. On the one
hand, purely external direction is impossible. The environment
can at most only supply stimuli to call out responses. These
responses proceed from tendencies already possessed by the
individual. Even when a person is frightened by threats into
doing something, the threats work only because the person has an
instinct of fear. If he has not, or if, though having it, it is
under his own control, the threat has no more influence upon him
than light has in causing a person to see who has no eyes. While
the customs and rules of adults furnish stimuli which direct as
well as evoke the activities of the young, the young, after all,
participate in the direction which their actions finally take.
In the strict sense, nothing can be forced upon them or into
them. To overlook this fact means to distort and pervert human
nature. To take into account the contribution made by the
existing instincts and habits of those directed is to direct them
economically and wisely. Speaking accurately, all direction is
but re-direction; it shifts the activities already going on into
another channel. Unless one is cognizant of the energies which
are already in operation, one's attempts at direction will almost
surely go amiss.

On the other hand, the control afforded by the customs and
regulations of others may be short-sighted. It may accomplish
its immediate effect, but at the expense of throwing the
subsequent action of the person out of balance. A threat may,
for example, prevent a person from doing something to which he is
naturally inclined by arousing fear of disagreeable consequences
if he persists. But he may be left in the position which exposes
him later on to influences which will lead him to do even worse
things. His instincts of cunning and slyness may be aroused, so
that things henceforth appeal to him on the side of evasion and
trickery more than would otherwise have been the case. Those
engaged in directing the actions of others are always in danger
of overlooking the importance of the sequential development of
those they direct.

2. Modes of Social Direction. Adults are naturally most
conscious of directing the conduct of others when they are
immediately aiming so to do. As a rule, they have such an aim
consciously when they find themselves resisted; when others are
doing things they do not wish them to do. But the more permanent
and influential modes of control are those which operate from
moment to moment continuously without such deliberate intention
on our part.

1. When others are not doing what we would like them to or are
threatening disobedience, we are most conscious of the need of
controlling them and of the influences by which they are
controlled. In such cases, our control becomes most direct, and
at this point we are most likely to make the mistakes just spoken
of. We are even likely to take the influence of superior force
for control, forgetting that while we may lead a horse to water
we cannot make him drink; and that while we can shut a man up in
a penitentiary we cannot make him penitent. In all such cases of
immediate action upon others, we need to discriminate between
physical results and moral results. A person may be in such a
condition that forcible feeding or enforced confinement is
necessary for his own good. A child may have to be snatched with
roughness away from a fire so that he shall not be burnt. But no
improvement of disposition, no educative effect, need follow. A
harsh and commanding tone may be effectual in keeping a child
away from the fire, and the same desirable physical effect will
follow as if he had been snatched away. But there may be no more
obedience of a moral sort in one case than in the other. A man
can be prevented from breaking into other persons' houses by
shutting him up, but shutting him up may not alter his
disposition to commit burglary. When we confuse a physical with
an educative result, we always lose the chance of enlisting the
person's own participating disposition in getting the result
desired, and thereby of developing within him an intrinsic and
persisting direction in the right way.

In general, the occasion for the more conscious acts of control
should be limited to acts which are so instinctive or impulsive
that the one performing them has no means of foreseeing their
outcome. If a person cannot foresee the consequences of his act,
and is not capable of understanding what he is told about its
outcome by those with more experience, it is impossible for him
to guide his act intelligently. In such a state, every act is
alike to him. Whatever moves him does move him, and that is all
there is to it. In some cases, it is well to permit him to
experiment, and to discover the consequences for himself in order
that he may act intelligently next time under similar
circumstances. But some courses of action are too discommoding
and obnoxious to others to allow of this course being pursued.
Direct disapproval is now resorted to. Shaming, ridicule,
disfavor, rebuke, and punishment are used. Or contrary
tendencies in the child are appealed to to divert him from his
troublesome line of behavior. His sensitiveness to approbation,
his hope of winning favor by an agreeable act, are made use of to
induce action in another direction.

2. These methods of control are so obvious (because so
intentionally employed) that it would hardly be worth while to
mention them if it were not that notice may now be taken, by way
of contrast, of the other more important and permanent mode of
control. This other method resides in the ways in which persons,
with whom the immature being is associated, use things; the
instrumentalities with which they accomplish their own ends. The
very existence of the social medium in which an individual lives,
moves, and has his being is the standing effective agency of
directing his activity.

This fact makes it necessary for us to examine in greater detail
what is meant by the social environment. We are given to
separating from each other the physical and social environments
in which we live. The separation is responsible on one hand for
an exaggeration of the moral importance of the more direct or
personal modes of control of which we have been speaking; and on
the other hand for an exaggeration, in current psychology and
philosophy, of the intellectual possibilities of contact with a
purely physical environment. There is not, in fact, any such
thing as the direct influence of one human being on another apart
from use of the physical environment as an intermediary. A
smile, a frown, a rebuke, a word of warning or encouragement, all
involve some physical change. Otherwise, the attitude of one
would not get over to alter the attitude of another.
Comparatively speaking, such modes of influence may be regarded
as personal. The physical medium is reduced to a mere means of
personal contact. In contrast with such direct modes of mutual
influence, stand associations in common pursuits involving the
use of things as means and as measures of results. Even if the
mother never told her daughter to help her, or never rebuked her
for not helping, the child would be subjected to direction in her
activities by the mere fact that she was engaged, along with the
parent, in the household life. Imitation, emulation, the need of
working together, enforce control.

If the mother hands the child something needed, the latter must
reach the thing in order to get it. Where there is giving there
must be taking. The way the child handles the thing after it is
got, the use to which it is put, is surely influenced by the fact
that the child has watched the mother. When the child sees the
parent looking for something, it is as natural for it also to
look for the object and to give it over when it finds it, as it
was, under other circumstances, to receive it. Multiply such an
instance by the thousand details of daily intercourse, and one
has a picture of the most permanent and enduring method of giving
direction to the activities of the young.

In saying this, we are only repeating what was said previously
about participating in a joint activity as the chief way of
forming disposition. We have explicitly added, however, the
recognition of the part played in the joint activity by the use
of things. The philosophy of learning has been unduly dominated
by a false psychology. It is frequently stated that a person
learns by merely having the qualities of things impressed upon
his mind through the gateway of the senses. Having received a
store of sensory impressions, association or some power of mental
synthesis is supposed to combine them into ideas--into things
with a meaning. An object, stone, orange, tree, chair, is
supposed to convey different impressions of color, shape, size,
hardness, smell, taste, etc., which aggregated together
constitute the characteristic meaning of each thing. But as
matter of fact, it is the characteristic use to which the thing
is put, because of its specific qualities, which supplies the
meaning with which it is identified. A chair is a thing which is
put to one use; a table, a thing which is employed for another
purpose; an orange is a thing which costs so much, which is grown
in warm climes, which is eaten, and when eaten has an agreeable
odor and refreshing taste, etc.

The difference between an adjustment to a physical stimulus and a
mental act is that the latter involves response to a thing in its
meaning; the former does not. A noise may make me jump without
my mind being implicated. When I hear a noise and run and get
water and put out a blaze, I respond intelligently; the sound
meant fire, and fire meant need of being extinguished. I bump
into a stone, and kick it to one side purely physically. I put
it to one side for fear some one will stumble upon it,
intelligently; I respond to a meaning which the thing has. I am
startled by a thunderclap whether I recognize it or not -- more
likely, if I do not recognize it. But if I say, either out loud
or to myself, that is thunder, I respond to the disturbance as a
meaning. My behavior has a mental quality. When things have a
meaning for us, we mean (intend, propose) what we do: when they
do not, we act blindly, unconsciously, unintelligently.

In both kinds of responsive adjustment, our activities are
directed or controlled. But in the merely blind response,
direction is also blind. There may be training, but there is no
education. Repeated responses to recurrent stimuli may fix a
habit of acting in a certain way. All of us have many habits of
whose import we are quite unaware, since they were formed without
our knowing what we were about. Consequently they possess us,
rather than we them. They move us; they control us. Unless we
become aware of what they accomplish, and pass judgment upon the
worth of the result, we do not control them. A child might be
made to bow every time he met a certain person by pressure on his
neck muscles, and bowing would finally become automatic. It
would not, however, be an act of recognition or deference on his
part, till he did it with a certain end in view -- as having a
certain meaning. And not till he knew what he was about and
performed the act for the sake of its meaning could he be said to
be "brought up" or educated to act in a certain way. To have an
idea of a thing is thus not just to get certain sensations from
it. It is to be able to respond to the thing in view of its
place in an inclusive scheme of action; it is to foresee the
drift and probable consequence of the action of the thing upon us
and of our action upon it. To have the same ideas about things
which others have, to be like-minded with them, and thus to be
really members of a social group, is therefore to attach the same
meanings to things and to acts which others attach. Otherwise,
there is no common understanding, and no community life. But in
a shared activity, each person refers what he is doing to what
the other is doing and vice-versa. That is, the activity of each
is placed in the same inclusive situation. To pull at a rope at
which others happen to be pulling is not a shared or conjoint
activity, unless the pulling is done with knowledge that others
are pulling and for the sake of either helping or hindering what
they are doing. A pin may pass in the course of its manufacture
through the hands of many persons. But each may do his part
without knowledge of what others do or without any reference to
what they do; each may operate simply for the sake of a separate
result--his own pay. There is, in this case, no common
consequence to which the several acts are referred, and hence no
genuine intercourse or association, in spite of juxtaposition,
and in spite of the fact that their respective doings contribute
to a single outcome. But if each views the consequences of his
own acts as having a bearing upon what others are doing and takes
into account the consequences of their behavior upon himself,
then there is a common mind; a common intent in behavior. There
is an understanding set up between the different contributors;
and this common understanding controls the action of each.
Suppose that conditions were so arranged that one person
automatically caught a ball and then threw it to another person
who caught and automatically returned it; and that each so acted
without knowing where the ball came from or went to. Clearly,
such action would be without point or meaning. It might be
physically controlled, but it would not be socially directed.
But suppose that each becomes aware of what the other is doing,
and becomes interested in the other's action and thereby
interested in what he is doing himself as connected with the
action of the other. The behavior of each would then be
intelligent; and socially intelligent and guided. Take one more
example of a less imaginary kind. An infant is hungry, and cries
while food is prepared in his presence. If he does not connect
his own state with what others are doing, nor what they are doing
with his own satisfaction, he simply reacts with increasing
impatience to his own increasing discomfort. He is physically
controlled by his own organic state. But when he makes a back
and forth reference, his whole attitude changes. He takes an
interest, as we say; he takes note and watches what others are
doing. He no longer reacts just to his own hunger, but behaves
in the light of what others are doing for its prospective
satisfaction. In that way, he also no longer just gives way to
hunger without knowing it, but he notes, or recognizes, or
identifies his own state. It becomes an object for him. His
attitude toward it becomes in some degree intelligent. And in
such noting of the meaning of the actions of others and of his
own state, he is socially directed.

It will be recalled that our main proposition had two sides. One
of them has now been dealt with: namely, that physical things do
not influence mind (or form ideas and beliefs) except as they are
implicated in action for prospective consequences. The other
point is persons modify one another's dispositions only through
the special use they make of physical conditions. Consider first
the case of so-called expressive movements to which others are
sensitive; blushing, smiling, frowning, clinching of fists,
natural gestures of all kinds. In themselves, these are not
expressive. They are organic parts of a person's attitude. One
does not blush to show modesty or embarrassment to others, but
because the capillary circulation alters in response to stimuli.
But others use the blush, or a slightly perceptible tightening of
the muscles of a person with whom they are associated, as a sign
of the state in which that person finds himself, and as an
indication of what course to pursue. The frown signifies an
imminent rebuke for which one must prepare, or an uncertainty and
hesitation which one must, if possible, remove by saying or doing
something to restore confidence. A man at some distance is
waving his arms wildly. One has only to preserve an attitude of
detached indifference, and the motions of the other person will
be on the level of any remote physical change which we happen to
note. If we have no concern or interest, the waving of the arms
is as meaningless to us as the gyrations of the arms of a
windmill. But if interest is aroused, we begin to participate.
We refer his action to something we are doing ourselves or that
we should do. We have to judge the meaning of his act in order
to decide what to do. Is he beckoning for help? Is he warning us
of an explosion to be set off, against which we should guard
ourselves? In one case, his action means to run toward him; in
the other case, to run away. In any case, it is the change he
effects in the physical environment which is a sign to us of how
we should conduct ourselves. Our action is socially controlled
because we endeavor to refer what we are to do to the same
situation in which he is acting.

Language is, as we have already seen (ante, p. 15) a case of this
joint reference of our own action and that of another to a common
situation. Hence its unrivaled significance as a means of social
direction. But language would not be this efficacious instrument
were it not that it takes place upon a background of coarser and
more tangible use of physical means to accomplish results. A
child sees persons with whom he lives using chairs, hats, tables,
spades, saws, plows, horses, money in certain ways. If he has
any share at all in what they are doing, he is led thereby to use
things in the same way, or to use other things in a way which
will fit in. If a chair is drawn up to a table, it is a sign
that he is to sit in it; if a person extends his right hand, he
is to extend his; and so on in a never ending stream of detail.
The prevailing habits of using the products of human art and the
raw materials of nature constitute by all odds the deepest and
most pervasive mode of social control. When children go to
school, they already have "minds" -- they have knowledge and
dispositions of judgment which may be appealed to through the use
of language. But these "minds" are the organized habits of
intelligent response which they have previously required by
putting things to use in connection with the way other persons
use things. The control is inescapable; it saturates
disposition. The net outcome of the discussion is that the
fundamental means of control is not personal but intellectual.
It is not "moral" in the sense that a person is moved by direct
personal appeal from others, important as is this method at
critical junctures. It consists in the habits of understanding,
which are set up in using objects in correspondence with others,
whether by way of cooperation and assistance or rivalry and
competition. Mind as a concrete thing is precisely the power to
understand things in terms of the use made of them; a socialized
mind is the power to understand them in terms of the use to which
they are turned in joint or shared situations. And mind in this
sense is the method of social control.

Copyright (c) 2007. fullstories.net. All rights reserved.