There has much been said during the war to the effect that the great
struggle was essentially a conflict between the spirit of humanism and
some principle or other which was conceived to be the opposite of
humanism. Humanism is said to be opposed to rationalism, or to
nationalism, or specialization, or paganism, or Germanism as a whole,
humanism often being thought of as the spirit of Greek or Christian
thought and philosophy.
There is truth, we should say, in these views. Humanism in a broad
sense emerged from all the purposes of the war as the principle of the
greater part of the world, as opposed to the idea of Germanism. This
spirit of humanism, however, is no single motive or feeling. It is a
complex mood, so to speak, and it is not to be regarded as strange
that it has been felt and described in various ways, and that it is
not yet clearly understood. _Humanism appears to be most deeply felt
as the appreciation of the common and fundamental things in human
nature._ It inclines toward the employment of feeling, or at least to
subjective rather than to purely objective principles in the
determination of fundamental values in life. Humanism includes an
interest in personality, which is of course the most basic of the
common possessions of man, and it is therefore interested in justice
and in freedom. Humanism as thus an appreciation of fundamental values
in life by feeling rather than by principle, belongs to the deeper
currents of life, those that flow in the subconscious--
it is close to
instinct, to moods, and the religious and the aesthetic experiences.
The later German philosophy of life we might mention as a denial of
much that humanism asserts. Here we see a doctrine of force, an ideal
of life based upon the elevation of conscious will to its first
principle. If we seek concrete contrasts to this anti-humanism we
might mention our own national life, governed by an idea of free
living, which has made possible the assimilation of many stocks, in a
life in which common human nature is regarded as the supreme value.
Extreme specialization, rational principles, objective standards are
watchwords of the plan of life that is most opposed to humanism. In
this life instincts and values determined by feelings are brought out
into the clear light of consciousness and are there judged with
reference to their fitness to serve ends determined by reason. It is
all noon-day glare in this rational consciousness.
Collectivism is
based upon coercion and upon calculation of the value of order in
serving practical purposes, themselves determined by a theory of
society, instead of upon social feeling or upon a natural process of
assimilation of the different and the individual into a common life.
Specialization also, in this philosophy, is a result of calculation
rather than of a belief in the value of the individual, and is gained
by the sacrifice of those experiences which, if we hold to the
humanistic ideal, we regard as essential to the life of the individual
and to society. This calculus of values extends, of course, into the
field of international life. Here too conduct is based upon estimation
of effects, freedom is relative to and subordinate to economic values.
A theory of the state takes precedence over all subjective ethical
principles, and there must be a disavowal of all native sentiments and
judgments as regards justice which issue from an appreciation of the
worth of personality and other fundamental human values and
possessions; and all common human sentiments which would stand in the
way of carrying out the decisions of reason and state-theory or any
political policy must of course also be denied.
This contrast, however inadequate our analysis of the spirit of
humanism and its opposite may be, will at least show that the idea of
justice, which in the humanistic ideal grows directly out of the
appreciation of the value of personality is the central practical
principle of humanism, and it is exactly as an opponent of the idea of
justice on the ground of its alleged weakness, that the rationalistic
or the nationalistic philosophy is best conceived.
It is upon this question of justice that we must take our stand for or
against humanism. If we are humanists we believe in the rights of
individuals, whether men or nations, to their own life and
independence, which they are entitled to preserve through all forms of
social processes. Justice means recognition of the right of
individuals to perform all their functions as individuals, and
humanism is precisely an appreciation of the values of the individual
as such a functioning whole. If we are humanists we believe that this
principle of justice, and this feeling of justice ought to be
cultivated and made world-wide. This is the ideal of equal rights to
all human values. Hence it is the mortal enemy of all philosophies of
life which place any principle above that of justice and its moral
implications, Whether in the narrower or the wider social life. This
is humanism.
There are various ways of interpreting humanism as a practical
philosophy or principle of education. Burnet says, perhaps not very
completely expressing what he means, that the humanistic ideal of
education, as contrasted with the merely formal, is that the pupils
should above all be led to feel the meaning and worth of what they are
studying. We should say that the meaning of humanism in education is
that _the child should understand and appreciate the meaning and worth
of all human life_. This requires that education should so be
conducted that the child may learn to see--rather to feel and
appreciate--the inner rather than the merely external nature of all
life that is presented to him, and in which he participates. Not
language, but thought; not history, but experience, is his field.
Justice depends wholly upon an ability to come upon reality in the
realm of human nature. This implies not only intellectual penetration,
but a form of sympathy which consists of putting oneself as completely
as possible into the life of that which is studied.
All this means, it is plain, a power in the educational process, a
spirit and a mood in all education which we have not yet in any very
large measure attained. What is required is indeed that children
should live more intimately with reality, so to speak, and that we
should not be satisfied when they have merely learned about it. We
shall not be content, however, with an educational process which, in
fulfilling these requirements for more life, becomes merely _active_.
Life must also be dramatic and intense and abundant. All the mental
processes--the feelings, the intellectual functions and not the will
alone must participate in this active life.
We shall soon see, no doubt, and in fact we are beginning already to
see a renewed interest in all the arguments for and against a
humanistic as opposed to a scientific culture and curriculum for our
schools. It is the humanistic side from which, it is likely, we shall
now hear the most pleas, for the war has ended, they say, in victory
for humanity and for humanism--hence for the humanities.
It is the
Christian and the Græco-Roman civilization that has prevailed.
Victorious France, whose culture is founded upon that of the Greek and
the Roman, has vindicated the supreme value of that culture. On the
other hand we hear that our present age has become an age of science.
If science has been a factor in causing the war, science has also won
it. If industrialism involved the world in disaster, the world will be
saved by more and better work, more practical living, wider
organization for the production of goods and of wealth.
Therefore our
curriculum must become more practical. We must have more of business
and industry, more vocational training, more training that sharpens
the intelligence.
There is a truth which cannot be overlooked in the claim of the
humanists, but the acceptance of it as it stands as a philosophy of
education is not without its serious dangers. What we may well
apprehend is a reactionary philosophy of education, and of all
culture. We begin to hear very strong pleas, for example, for a school
in which language, literature, and perhaps history become the center.
West[1] asks for a wider recognition of the humanities after the war.
Moore[2] says that the war is a victory of the civilization finally
established by the Romans on the basis of law, over the barbaric ideas
of power. Seeing this he is led to plead for a closer union now
between Latin and modern studies, binding civilization of to-day with
the thought and feeling of old Rome. Butler[3] says that we are surely
coming back to the classical languages and literature.
Such conclusions as these raise many questions and perhaps doubts and
apprehension. The ideal they express of penetrating the heart of
civilization and experiencing in the educational process the inner
life rather than the outer form of life, must indeed appeal to all,
and we should all as humanists agree that this ideal expresses what
humanism means and is the center of a true philosophy of education--but whether this ideal can be realized by any school that
clings to the old classical learning, even in spirit, is quite another
matter. To-day, if ever, we need to go forward in education. Our
spirit must be that of the searcher for new truth, and for a better
life. The old will not satisfy us either as a model and ideal or as a
method. No already accumulated culture material will be adequate for
our new school.
_Our schools of to-morrow, we should conclude, must still be inspired
by the scientific spirit, but what we need is science humanised, and
science in the service of moral principles._ One may well ask whether
it is not now the most opportune time to leave our classical learning
behind, and try to find a more adequate culture in which to convey the
spirit of our new humanism. If we have won a victory for humanity, as
we think, and have kept alive the Christian spirit by means of a
meager culture, we need not still cling to that culture if we can find
something better. Even if modern Germany has misused science and
brought it to reproach, we need not be prejudiced against science. We
need more science but we need to bring science into closer relation to
the whole of human life. We need more of all the psychological
sciences as an aid to our appreciation of history as the story and a
revelation of the meaning of spirit in the world--and it is this way
rather than through _language_ that we must undertake to know and to
explain life. On the other hand, it is for the business of practical,
social living that the material sciences should have most significance
in education. There is no science, not even mathematics, that cannot
be taught as a phase of the adventure of spirit in the world, and none
that cannot in some way be made to aid spirit in finding and keeping
its true course in the future. Such use of all culture is what we mean
by humanism. The secret of the difference in the educational ideals of
those whom we may call the old humanists and the new is that to one
education means predominantly _learning_, and to the other it means
mainly _living_. Living, for the child, means growing into the life of
the world by participating in spirit and in body, according to the
child's needs and capacities, in the activities of the world. To gain
a consciousness of the meaning of those activities through a knowledge
of their history and by an appreciation of their purpose is indeed the
main purpose of learning.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: _Educational Review_, February, 1919.]
[Footnote 2: _Educational Review_, February, 1919.]
[Footnote 3: _Teachers College Record_, January, 1919.]