The Influence of Herbert Spencer’s Evolutonary Naturalistic Philosophy on American Education

298 44 10MB

English Pages 217

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

The Influence of Herbert Spencer’s Evolutonary Naturalistic Philosophy on American Education

Citation preview

FO R D H A M U N IV E R SIT Y G R A D U A T E SCHOOL

March...5., 1942.

This dissertation prepared under my direction by

John :JU...H a rt............................................................................ ........................

entitled Th P • 83 •

L

34

r

t

nature.

All life would develop progressively out of

matter.

Animal life would spring from vegetative life,

rational life would develop from brute life and all civilization must trace its beginning to a primitive natural state. society.

Nature would be tbe source of man and of

Naturalism, in general, denies to man an immaterial

soul and it is antithetical to supernatural religion, and frequently, antagonistic to Christianity in its traditional, historical meaning of revealed religion.^ Materialism and pantheism are the historical types of naturalism.

Positivism and evolutionism are the nineteenth

century varieties.

Deism, in some forms, also expresses

the naturalistic point of view. Modern naturalism would seem to begin with the thought of several Renaissance thinkers who borrowed from the naturalistic philosophers of ancient Greece.

The natural­

istic scholars of the Renaissance made a cult of the observation of nature.

When they could not explain some

aspect of nature they had recourse to the occult studies. By their excessive exaltation of nature, some of those men 2 came to deify it and thus they tended toward pantheism.

1. Cf. Geoffrey 0 fConnell, Naturalism in American Education. New York, Benziger Bros., 1938, p. 3. 2. Cardinal Mercier, A Manual of Scholastic Philosophy. London, Keagan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., Ltd., 1923, Vol.11, p. 402. L

_!

35

r

n

Among the prominent empirical naturalistic thinkers of the period were the Italians, Cardano and Telesio, who lived in the sixteenth century.

Cardinal Mercier thinks that to

Telesio should go the distinction of being called the founder of the naturalism of the Renaissance.^

However,

it is often said that the thought of the Italian, Giordano Bruno, a pantheistic naturalist, contained in germ most of 2 the important doctrines of modern philosophy. Francis Bacon and John Locke were influential in originating the naturalistic trend in modern thinking, in rz life, and in education. Bacon advised a separation of physics, which dealt with proximate causes, from metaphysics, which dealt with final causes.

He advocated that more consideration be

given to a study of nature for Mthe search of the physical causes had been neglected and passed over in silence."^ He emphasized the inductive method of reasoning as a means of acquiring useful knowledge.

To Bacon can be

Ibid.. p. 422. 2. Mary Whiton Calkins, The Persistent Problems of Philosophy. New York, Macmillan Co., 1936, p. 484. 3. Cf. Pierre J. Mari^ue, The Philosophy o f ‘Christian Education. New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1939, p. 45. 4. Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning;. William A. Wright, E,, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1926, p. 119.

L

J

36

r

i

attributed the beginnings of the shifting of interest from humanistic to scientific school subjects.^ John Locke is generally thought to be the successor of Bacon in philosophy.

Locke by arbitrarily blurring the

nature of the idea, included within its denotation sensory perception, and thereby, laid the foundation for sensism. Sensism makes thinking a form of sensation.

His Essays

opened the way for a more outspoken expression of natural­ ism in the ’enlightenment’ of the eighteenth century. The rationalists placed reason upon a pedestal and they attacked revealed religion, tradition, and the authority of the Church, the State, society and morals.

There was a

reaction to the rationalism of the first half of the eighteenth century.

Against the overemphasis placed upon

reason was put the claims of sentiment as a more valid expression of human nature.

The sentimentalists proffered

a ’natural religion’ to take the place of the supernatural elements in Christianity. The naturalists of the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries exercised their influence upon the educational

1. Marigue, The Philosophy of Christian Education, p. 45. 2. Cf. John Locke, An Essay Concerning: Human Understanding. London, George Routledge and Sons, Ltd*, 1689, p. 71.

L

37

r

-i

philosophies of those centuries just as the naturalists of this century are doing. The basic tenets of naturalistic education can be summed up in the expression, let human nature develop freely.

Little authority should be exercised over the

pupil by teacher or p a r e n t T o frustrate the child in his desires will mean an unhappy future life for him. Thus, naturalistic education would adopt, as a first principle, the motto: !*let the child alone,” Spencer, as a philosopher, was an agnostic and an evolutionary naturalist.

His agnosticism was expressed

with respect of ultimate reality.

Thinkers ask such

questions asst What is the ultimate nature and origin of the universe? man?

What is the ultimate nature and origin of

To these questions agnostics say there is no ansv^er.

Spencer said that the answers to such questions were unknown and unknowable.

His agnosticism is to be found in

the first section of his work First Principles.

Spencer

said that all one could have knowledge of was knowable reality; one could know only those things that could be perceived through the senses.

Of course, such a view

flows from his agnosticism, which is a form of skepticism.

1. Marique, The Christian Philosophy of Education, p. 48.

L

-I

38

r. ■ T His views on knowable reality, that is, his views on nature in the forms nature presented itself to the senses; through matter, through motion, through energy, are to be found in the second section of his First Principles,

This section

therefore, of his First Principles expresses his evolutionary naturalism. Spencer's evolutionary naturalism can be defined briefly and simply as the action and reaction of the forces of nature upon eaeh other, that is, the forces of matter and of energy.

Through this action and reaction

there slowly evolves from nature everything that is in the universe; plant, animal, man, morals, religion, society, the state, etc.

In short, nature' ‘is the source of all

that exists. Turning to Spencer's doctrine of the Unknowable1 or as it is popularly called, his agnosticism, one finds that he is concerned with showing that the usual explanations on the origin of the universe and on the nature of the universe are not adequate. With respect to the origin of the universe, Spencer declares that there are three intelligible suppositions that may be made; the universe may be viewed as selfexistent, it may be seif-created; or it may be created by an external agency.^

1. Cf. Herbert Spencer, First Principles, New York, D. •Appleton Co., 1862, pp. 25-35. L

-I

39

Analyzing the concept of self-existence, he asserts that, nIn the first place, it is clear that hy self­ existence we especially mean an existence independent of any other - not produced by any other: -the assertion of self-existence is an indirect denial of creation. Further, the term self-existence negates the need of an antecedent cause and hence, necessarily excludes the idea of a beginning.

If there were a beginning, this

'/.beginning would have to be determined or caused by something and this-would involve a contradiction in the t e r m s . H e continues and asserts that: Self-existence, -therefore, necessarily means existence without a beginning; and to form a conception of self-existence is to form a conception of existence without a beginning. Now, by no mental effort can we do this. To conceive existence through infinite past-time, implies the conception of infinite past-time, which is an impossibility. To this let us add that even were self-existence conceivable, it would not be an explanation of the Universe.2 The theory of self-existence, Spencer labels as the

Atheistic theory. He declares that it is not only

absolutely unthinkable but that

if it were thinkable

1. Ibid., p. £5. 2. Ibid.. pp. 25-26.

L

-I

40

r

l

it would not constitute a solution of the problem of the origin of the universe.^*

The assertion of the

self-existence of the universe, merely, provides a cognition of its present existence and hardly explains the mystery. The second supposition of self-creation, which Spencer says practically amounts to Pantheism, is likewise incapable of being represented in thought.

It is, according

to Spencer, inconceivable. The successive stages through which the visible universe passed in culminating in its present visible form may, perhaps, be comprehended as in a sense selfdetermined,

However, this comprehension gives one not a

real concept but a symbolic one.

The impossibility, of

obtaining a real concept of self-creation remains. To conceive of self-creation requires the concept of potential existence passing into actual existence by inherent necessity.

Spencer declares that this

transition cannot be made by the mind.^ We cannot form any idea of a potential existence of-the universe, as distinguished from its actual existence. If represented in thought at all, potential existence must be represented as something, that is, as an actual existence: to suppose that it can be represented as nothing

1. Ibid., p. 26. 2. Ibid., p. 26. 3. Ibid., p. 26. L

-I

41

r

n

involves two absurdities - that nothing is more than a negation, and can be positively represented in thought, and that one nothing is distinguished from all other nothings by its power to develop into something.^ Spencer continues the argument against the coneeivability of a self-created universe by averring that the expression fan inherent necessity by which potential existence becomes actual existence* has no state of 2 consciousness ans?rering to the expression. To make the terms of the proposition thinkable, the concept of existence must be thought of as being in potentia for an indefinite period of time.

Then, without any

outside impulse, changed into actual form.

But, he

declares, the change from the potential to the actual form of existence without a cause involves the concept of change without someone or something that does the changing.

This kind of change cannot be conceived.

He

contends, "Thus, the terms of this hypothesis do not stand for real thoughts, but merely suggest the vaguest symbols not admitting of any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . E v e n if it were possible to visualize mentally the changes from potential to actual existence and to realize the actual and potential existence in the mind as distinct

1. Ibid., p'. 26. 2. Ibid.. p. 27. 3. Ibid., p. 27. L

-1

42

entities, and tlien to conceive of the change as selfdetermined, the problem of the self-creation of the universe would still remain.^

For the ’why’ of the

potential universe would still require explaining.

In

Spencer’s own words: "The self-creation of a potential Universe would involve over again the difficulties first stated - would imply behin?d this potential universe a more remote potentiality, and so on in an infinite series, leaving us at last no forwarder than at first."2 The assigning of an external cause to account for the potential universe would be "to introduce the notion of a potential Universe for no purpose whatever.*3 The third alternative, namely, the theistic explanation of the creation of the universe by external agency, is treated in the following manner.

He declares

that in the rudest creeds and in the cosmogony of his day, it has been assumed that the Universe was made "somewhat after the manner in which a workman makes a piece of f u r n i t u r e . T h i s assumption, according to him, is the property of theologians and of most philosophers.

In Plato, and in the writings of not a

few living men of science, there is assumed an analogy,

1. 2# 3. 4. L

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

p. p. p. p.

27. 27. 27. 27. -J

43

r

n

says Spencer, between the process of creation and the process of manufacture.

Spencer would argue that the pro­

cess of creation was inconceivable, that is, that it *

could not be ’pictured1 or imagined.^

However, that one

could not, as Spencer says, imagine the creative process does not negate the certainty that man can conceive of God creating the universe*- -There is a vast difference between the term ’conceive* as used by Spencer and as used by men like Thomas Aquinas. remembered.

This fact must be

There is surely no difficulty for one to

conceive of the creation of the universe by God, if one is aided by Revelation.

Spencer, of course,

was not a believer in Revelation.

He-could not imagine

a self-existing Creator, Who could create out of nothing, 2 the materials of the universe. To him, the production of matter out of nothing was the real problem.

Wasmann gives

the Christian answer to that, he says: We cannot picture to ourselves by means of our fancy how anything, that previously did not exist, can come into existence and be produced out of nothing. It would be impossible unless an infinitely perfect Being existed, virtually containing beforehand the finite being in Himself.^

1. 2. 3. 4.

L

Ibid., p. 28. Ibid., p . 28. Ibid., p. 28. Erich Wasmann, S.I., The Problem of Evolution, St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., 1912, p. 28.

_i

44

Spencer-summed up his analysis of the only three possible hypothesis offered to explain the origin of the universe.

He declared that although to their respective

adherents these explanations seem rational, nevertheless, they "turn out, when critically examined, to be literally u n t h i n k a b l e . T h u s , does Spencer rule out the Christian concept of God in his philosophy.

The origin of the

universe, for him, is unknown and unknowable. With respect to the nature^ of the universe, Spencer declares his agnosticism; the nature of the universe for him was unknown and unknowable.

He would argue that if

one submitted "to the hypothesis of a First Cause"^ then it would be natural to ask "what is the nature of this First Cause.n4

He then contends that the question would

lead "by an inexorable logic to certain further

conclusions.

He summarizes his lengthy arguments on the nature of the universe by saying that: Certain conclusions respecting the nature of the Universe, thus seem unavoidable, in our search after causes, we discover no resting place until we arrive at a First Cause; and we have no alternative but to regard this First Cause as

1. 2* 3. 4. 5.

L

Spencer, on.cit.. p. 29 Tbid..pp. 30-32. Ibid., p. 31. Ibid., p. 31. Ibid., p. 31.

-1

"5

45

Infinite and Absolute. These are inferences forced on us by arguments from which there appears no escape.! By borrowing heavily from Henry Longueville Mansel,

P

Spencer alleges to show that the terms First Cause, Absolute, and Infinite are contradictory in meaning.® He concludes, therefore, that the nature of the universe could not be known for it is unknowable. Pagan and Christian philosophers have held that the human mind through the use of reason could come, from a knowledge of things, to ”a certain, though inadequate knowledge of God...”4

On the basis of the observation

of things around them, men have reasoned that the mental effects produced in them required their assent to the existence of "an intelligent and free self-existing being, a personal God, distinct from and superior to this material world and to mankind.”® This summary statement of the argument for an "unprodueed First Cause, endowed with intelligence and free will, in other words a personal God”® is one Spencer denied as being imaginable.

I* I®i^«> p« 32. 2. Cf. lames McCosh, Realistic Philosophy. New York, Scribner's Sons, 1890, Yol.ll, pp. 256-257. 3. Spencer, on.cit.. pp. 33-36. 4. Bernard Boedder, S.J., Natural Theology, London, Longmans Green Co., 1927, p. 10. 5. Ibid., p. 32. ® • Ikid., p. 32. L-

_1

46

This sums up briefly and simply Spencer's basic agnostic position.

It is his agnosticism with respect to

the origin and nature of the universe that logically forces him to explain everything 'knowable* in terms of his evolutionary naturalism. Turning now to consider Spencer's position with respect to the origin of man one finds that his view on the origin of human life is consistent with his view on the origin and the nature of the universe.1 He attacks the special creation theory as a valid explanation of the origin of man.

Spencer could not

accept the theory because "no one ever saw a special creation; no one ever found proof of an indirect kind, that special creation had taken place. With advancing knowledge he asserted, "we everywhere see fading away the anthropomorphic conception of the "Unknown Cause.""3

Spencer concludes his analysis of the

claims for the theory of special creation by declaring that it was worthless.^ As was to be expected he favors the hypothesis of

1. Cf. Herbert Spencer, The Principles of biology. Hew York, D. Appleton Co., 187S, Vol.l, pp. 331-345. 2. Ibid., p. 336. 3. Ibid., p. 335. 4. Ibid*, p. 345.

L

47

r

~i

organic evolution as an explanation for the origin of life.l If a single cell, under appropriate conditions, becomes a man in the'spaee of a few years; there can surely be no difficulty in understanding how, under appropriate conditions,, a cell may,, in the course of untold millions of years, give origin to the human race.2 Spencer predicted that the special creation theory would no longer be held as tenable.

He remarks that:

... and as, on the one hand, the hypothesis that each species-resulted from.a supernatural act, having lost nearly all its hypotheses, may be expected soon to become extinct.3 The plan for the Synthetic Philosophy included a pro­ vision for two volumes on Inorganic Evolution. never wrote this contemplated work.

Spencer

Evolution was alleged

by him to be a universal principle; his work, therefore, on inorganic evolution would have to be intimately con­ nected to his work on organic evolution as developed in the Principles of Biology.

In short, the very important link

between non-life and life is missing from his philosophical volumes.

He explains this significant omission in the

Preface to First Principles. In logical order should here come the applica­ tion of these first principles to Inorganic Mature.

1. Ibid.. pp. 346-347. 2. Ibid., pi"350. 3. Ibid., p. 347.

48

r

T

J But this great division it is proposed to pass over: partly because, even without it, the scheme is too extensive; and partly because the interpretation of Organic Mature after the proposed method, is of more immediate importance.^ An attentive reading of the section in First Principles on "Simple and Compound Evolution1* would give the impression that Spencer thought, that once the proper chemical and physical combinations obtained, organic matter would proceed from inorganic matter.2 John Fiske wrote his Outlines, that were largely illustrative of Spencer’s thought, while he was in England during the year 18*73. ■ With Spencer and Huxley he discussed very fully the various aspects of the doctrine of Evolution and its implications upon the future of philosophic thought.*5 Fiske’s chapter in the Outlines on "The Beginnings of Life” reflects Spencer’s thought.

In that place Fiske

asserts: That an evolution of organic existence must at some time have taken place, is rendered certain by the fact that there was once a time when no

1. Herbert Spencer, First Principles. (6th and Final Ed.), London, Williams and Margate, Ltd., 1928, Preface.,-.p. xii. 2. Herbert Spencer, First Principles. Mew York, D. Appleton Co., 1862, pp. 262-279. 3. lohn Spencer Clark, The Life and Letters of lohn Fiske. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1917, Vol.l, p. 361.

L

49

3

life existed upon the earth’s- surface.* Spencer refers to the missing volumes on the Inor­ ganic in his Principles of Biology.

He asserts in the

first volume of the Biology, that; Two volumes are missing. The closing chapter of the second, were it written, would deal with the evolution of organic matter - the step pre­ ceding the evolution of organic forms.2 In this statement there is implied that Spencer would show how organic matter evolved from inorganic matter. Ward is devastatingly critical of that implication.^

Ward

very caustically remarks that: During the thirty years in which Mr. Spencer has been engrossed with this interpretation, a whole generation of biologists has striven hard, but striven in vain, to bring the truth to light. For all but Mr. Spencer, at any rate, the origin of life has remained a mystery.^ It is not necessary to depend for Spencer’s position on the origin of life upon inference drawn from First Principles and from the implication in his Biology, nor is it necessary to depend either upon Fiske’s statement or upon Ward’s critique.

Spencer gives his unequivocal

1. John Fiske, Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy, Based on the Doctrine of Evolution, with Criticisms on the Positive Philosophy. New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1887, Vol.l, p. 426. 2. Spencer, The Principles.of Biology. Vol.l, p. 480. 5, James Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism. New York, Macmillan Co., 1915, Vol.l, pp. 262-266. 4. Ibid., pp. 262-263.

L

50

r

T

stand on the in 1886.

problem of human lifein an essay published

In the periodical Nineteenth Century! he asserted

among other things that: Biologists in general agree that in the present state of the world, no such thing happens as the rise of a living creature outof non living matter. They do not deny however thatat a remote period in the past, when the temperature of the earth1s surface was much higher than at present, and other physical conditions were unlike those we know, inorganic matter through successive compli­ cations gave origin to organic matter. So many substances once supposed to belong exclusively to living bodies, have now been formed artificially, that men of science scarcely question the con­ clusion that there are conditions under ?/hich, by yet another step of composition, quaternary compounds of lower types pass into those of higher types. That there once took place a gradual divergence of the organic from the in­ organic, is indeed, a necessary implication of the hypothesis of Evolution,...£ Turning from Spencer's Biology to his Brineinies of Psychology one finds a further manifestation of his evolution­ ary naturalism. Spencer alleged that nothing could! be known concerning the substance of the mind. -He contended that the symbols used to designate the substance were only symbols and should be recognized as such for "the substance-of mind cannot be

1. Spencer, "The Factors of Organic Evolution,” Nineteenth Century. May, 1886, pp. 749-770. 2. Ibid., pp. 768-770. Cf. John Gerard, S;J., The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer. London, Longmans Green Co., 1928, pp. 56-58. Criticism of Spencer* s yi-ews of life. Cf. Joseph Husslein, S.J., Evolution and Social Progress. New York, P!J. Kenedy and Sons, 1920, p. 60. Quotes Spencer on this article. L

_1

51

r

n known."I Like everything else in the universe, the mind of man conforms to the laws of general evolution.

The evolution

of mind is from a "confused sentieney" to an ever-increas­ ing integration of feelings with one another and with feelp ings of other kinds. The term feelings, as employed by Spencer, is comparable to sensations, percepts, ideas; in short, the products of the cognitive processes.^ In the evolution of mind, Spencer says, applying his evolutionary principle, that there goes on subjectively a change

"from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a

definite, coherent heterogeneity*"4

^

For Spencer, instinct is a product of the development from simple reflex actions.

The development of instinct,

memory, reason, and the feelings of pleasure and pain, is from the simple to the complex. Thus, memory and reason c; evolve from instinct. He says that: "The commonly as­ sumed hiatus between Reason and Instinct has no existence."® What scholastic philosophers demonstrate is the essen­

1. Spencer, The Principles- of Psychology. New York, D. Apple­ ton, 1876, Vol.l, p. 162. 2. Ibid.,p. 189. 3. Ibid..pp. 163-168. 4. Ibid.,p. 189. 5* Ibid.,p. 452. 6. Ibid.,p. 453.

L

J

52.

tial difference between man and the brute, namely, man’s rationality, is denied by Spencer.

He alleges that; ”...it

cannot consistently be asserted that there is. any essential difference between brute reason and human reason*”^ Speaking of the will Spencer claims that it does not have a separate existence*2

All human actions in Spencer’s

thought are determined by the psychical connections "which experience has generated** either in the life of the indi­ vidual, "or in that general antecedent life of which the accumulated results are organized in his constitution*’’3* He then asserts that if psychical changes ’’conform to law, there cannot be any such thing as free will.”4

It becomes

obvious that Spencer’s views on the freedom of the will are at variance with the current tenets. I will only further say that the freedom of the will, did it exist, would be at variance with the beneficent necessity displayed in the evolution of the correspondence between the organism and its environment.5 Spencer’s Principles of Ethics show the application of the "first principles’’ of his evolutionary naturalism to

1* Ibid., p. 462. 2. Ibid., pp. 500-503. Ibid., pp. 500-503. 4. Ibid., p. 503. 5. Ibid., p. 503.

L

53

r

.i

human; conduct. He defines life as "the continuous adjustment of in­ ternal relations to external relations."I

In other words

life is the adjustment of individuals to their environment. His chapter on the "Evolution of Conduct" presents his de­ finition of conduct as the making of numerous and better adjustments of acts to ends, having for their purpose the preservation of the life of the species.?

Spencer avers

that: tWe saw that evolution, tending ever towards self-preservation, reaches its limit when indi­ vidual life is the greatest, both in length and breadth; and now we see that, leaving other ends aside, we regard as good the conduct furthering self-preservation, and as bad the conduct tending to self-destruction.3 Both pessimists and optimists are agreed "that life is good or bad, according as it does, or does not, bring a surplus of agreeable feelings.”^ or

Pleasurable feelings

painful feelings are the sanctions for conduct.

It thus

happens that good conduct is good because it is accompanied by pleasurable feelings.

Bad conduct is bad because of

the painful feelings accompanying such conduct.^

1. Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Ethics. I\ievir York, D. Appleton Co., 1893, Vol.l, p. 19. 2. Ibid.. pp. 10-15. 3. Ibid., p. 25. 4- Ibid.. p. 27. 5* Ibid., pp. 44-46.

L

-I

54

i

r

So that no school can avoid taking for the ultimate moral aim a desirable state of feeling called by whatever name - gratification, enjoy­ ment, happiness. Pleasure somewhere, at some time, to some being or beings, is an inexpugnable element of the conception. It is as much a necessary form of moral intuition as space is a necessary form of intellectual intuition.! The natural consequences of one’s acts, says Spencer, are based upon ultimate causal connections, and hence are very strong motives for conduct.^

Therefore, sentient

existence, he asserts, can only evolve on condition that pleasure giving acts are life-sustaining acts.^ for Spencer the moral man is one whose functions 11are all discharged in degrees duly adjusted to the conditions of existence.”4

This reads like a justification for any

kind of act. Strange as the conclusion looks, it is never­ theless a conclusion to be drawn, that the per­ formance of every function is, in a sense, a moral obligation.5 Is it any wonder then that Spencer's naturalistic ethics created such a stir and furore in right thinking men's minds?

1. Ibid. . a. Ibid.. 3. Ibid., 4. Ibid.. 5. Ibid.,

L

A' 46 • P* pp. 47-49 PP. 79-83 P. 76. p. 76.

J

55

r

l

Spencer realized that some qualification should be placed upon the ethics which involved adjustment of acts to ends, since they ttare components of that struggle for ex­ istence carried on both between members of the same species and between members of different species;:"^* therefore, he advised that altruism should rectify the excesses of egoism.s However, since egoism precedes altruism in the order of imperativeness, its claims should, he declared, take preeedence over altruistic claims.

Nevertheless, there

should be effected a compromise between the claims of the two.4

He thought that this compromise could be made by

allowing individuals to pursue their own happiness and by so doing would help to contribute to the happiness of all. The happiness of individuals might also be accomplished, in part, by their efforts on behalf of the general happi­ ness of the group.

Through such means the end of ethical

development, the ideal man in the ideal state, might be achieved.§ Before proceeding to a consideration of Spencer*s educat­ ional thesis, it will be advisable, at this point, to sum up

!• Ifria* , P* 17. Ibid.. pp. 187-218. 3. Ibid., pp. 187-218. 4. Ibid., pp. 189-191. 5. Ibid., pp. 237-241. 6. Ibid.. pp. 238-239.

L

_i

56

r

*1

the main principles of Spencer’s agnosticism and his evolutionary naturalism which flows from his agnosticism. When Spencer denied the validity of the theistic hypothesis concerning the origin of the universe and when he denied the validity of a First Cause as the explanation of the nature of the universe, he denied, what all Christians believe in, namely, a benevolent God, Who is the Creator of the universe, and from Whom all things proceed.

The

denial of God’s existence as Creator and First Cause implies the denial of Revelation, from which, the main dogmas of Christianitystem.

Spencer would, by inference, therefore,

deny the Divinity of Christ, the supernatural law and the natural law that flows therefrom, original sin, heaven and hell, grace, the Divine establishment of the Church, the sacraments, and the supernatural sanctions for conduct. With respect of man, Spencer denied that man was created by God and asserted that man was a product of biological evolution.

It therefore follows and Spencer

explicitly states, that man is not essentially different from brute life.

Man, according to Spencer, has no one,

abidingj permanent, substantial, unifying principle of life, namely, the soul.

Further, he has no free will.

Man’s destiny, after this life, is to mingle with dust, for immortality is not for man.

Since man is merely an animal

that has evolved from nature and is the product of the L

_l

57

actions and-reactions of matter and energy, the mental powers of man are a consequence of biological evolution. Hence, memory, reason, the feelings all evolve from instinct and are not essentially different from it.

The

chief end of life in Spencer's system becomes selfpreservation and all is good that leads to this end; all conduct that frustrates this end is evil.

The sanctions

for conduct, according to Spencer, are pleasurable and painful feelings.

For him, good conduct is good because

it is accompanied by feelings of pleasure and bad conduct is bad because it is accompanied by painful feelings.

The

moral man is one who according to his circumstances per­ forms all his functions. measure of all things.

Man, the individual, is the Truth for man is relative and

never alsolute, and he is the judge of it.

It follows,

therefore, that in the struggle for existence, man must use means that he considers good and tf'ue in terms of his own welfare.

According to Spencer, it will be through the

moral evolution of man, that altruism will develop and then rectify the excesses of egoism, and then the end of ethical development, the ideal man in the ideal state will be achieved. Consider now, what such a philosophy would mean when applied to education.

L

All religious instruction would be

58

Vanished from the curriculum; the concepts of God, Christ, heaven, hell, redemption, soul, immortality, would have but a secular and historical interest.

Significant for education

is Spencer's implied denial of original sin, the consequences of which, according to Catholic thought, are a darkened intellect, a weakened will, and disorderly inclination to evil.

This denial of original sin and its consequences is

reflected in Spencer’s theory of discipline based upon natural consequences.

This Spencerian theory disregards the

true nature of the child with its inherent weakness of the will and its consequent tendency to evil. view the child as good by nature.

Then it would

Such a view is essentially

false since it would make the child a la? PP* 20-22. 3. Ibid., p. 14. L

_J

162

This report continues with the declaration that by such preliminary educational means the minds of the pupils are opened in two opposite directions.

These two were;

(a) the immediate mastery over the material world, for the purpose of obtaining food, clothing, and shelter, directly; (b} the initiation into the means of association with one’s fellow-men, the world of humanity.^ According to those educators the elementary school should dedicate itself to the practical end of providing the pupils with the means for securing the necessities of life in order that the pupils could be successful in life and contribute to the nation’s welfare. To say the least there is a striking resemblance between this authoritative definition of the purpose of elementary schooling and the general aim of education as proposed by Spencer.

There is recognition in the aim,

approved by the educators, of the necessity of training pupils for direct and indirect self-preservation and also for those activities the pupil needs in his social and political relations.

Preparation for life was the aim of

these educators and of Spencer. Whereas in 1860 the natural sciences had no place in the common school curriculum the educational statement of 1874

1* Ibid., pp. 14-15.

L

163

r

n indicates that, at least in the city school systems, the rudiments of natural science were taught.

Physiology,

hygiene, and biology, in general, had no place in the curriculum at that time. By 1890 the constants and variables of the elementary school curriculum were natural science, reading, writing, English grammar, arithmetic, geography, United States history, drawing, vocal music, and declamation.

By the

same year most of the important school systems had added spelling, physiology, and physical culture.-*-

These last

two subjects Spencer considered necessary in order to make good, healthy animals. In February, 1893, a committee was appointed by the department of superintendence of the National Educational Association to report on the training of teachers; on the correlation of studies in elementary education; and on the organization of the city school systems.

This committee

became known as the Committee of Fifteen.^ Among other things, the report of the subcommittee on the correlation of studies in elementary education made certain suggestions and proposals which are quite relevant

1. Of. William T. Harris, "Elementary Education”, Education in the United States. Nicholas Murray Butler, E. , New York, American Book Co., 1910, pp. 33-35. £• Cf. Report of the Commission of Education. 1895-1894. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1896, Vol. 1, pp. 469-470. L

-I

164

r

i

to this study.

-The subcommittee emphasized that it

eoneeived the end of any program of correlating subjects to be one that should give the child such studies that he would acquire "an insight into the world he lives in and a command over its resources such as is obtained by a helpful cooperation with one*s fellows.**1

The aim of

elementary education, as conceived by this committee, should be utilitarian. According to the Committee, "In an age whose proudest boast is the progress of science in all domains, there should be in the elementary school, from the first, a course in the elements of sciences.”2

Eliot, in about

the same language, had expressed the- idea some years previous.

The committee suggested the teaching of botany,

zoology, and physics in a manner appropriate for the child's understanding.

Lessons in physiology and hygiene were also

recommended as parts of the natural science program. Physical culture was also advocated.

Although it was rec­

ognized that the scientific method was inappropriate for the elementary level, yet, the value of it was acknowledged and the broad lines for future use should be started in the elementary school.3

I* Ibid., p. 490. 2. Ibid., p. 510. 3. Ibid., p. 518. L

165

1

r

Thus, by the end of the century the case made for the sciences by Spencer and his disciples, as well as by others, unquestionably influenced, at least indirectly, the aim and the content of the elementary school. The method employed in the elementary school in 1860, in 1874 and in 1900 was the text-book method.

In 1874 the

text-book was used by the pupil "for the purpose of obtaining information from the recorded experience of his f e l l o w - m e n . I n 1900 W.T. Harris admitted that about fifty percent of the teachers in the village and elementary schools used fmemoriterf methods in text-books teaching and, therefore, should be considered poor teachers.

However,

there were many good teachers who used the text-book so that "The pupil is taught to assume a critical attitude towards the statements of the book and to test and verify them, or else disprove them by appeal to other authorities, or to actual

e x p e r i m e n t s . "2

By the end of the century, therefore,

many elementary school teachers were applying scientific methods to their subject matter.

Spencer, along with others,

made his contributions in this respect.

1. A Statement of the Theory of Education in the United States, p. 17. S. Harris, op.cit.. p. 87.

L

166

r

-i

Did Spencer influence the aim and the curriculum of the public high school?

The Commissioner of Education's

report of 1870 indicated a demand that both the elementary and the high' school become more practical and that this manifested a close approximation to the Spencerian aim of education cannot be doubted.

Further, by 1874, the high

schools included some of the sciences within their curricula and their purpose was frankly utilitarian. The ease for the sciences as presented by Spencer, Eliot, Barnard, Youmans, and the like made a great impression, particularly, in the West.

The colleges and

high schools reflected in their curricula the impact of their arguments.

For example, the state universities in

their desire to unite the secondary schools with their institutions adopted the plan of admission by certificate. The modern subjects these institutions recognized as qual­ ifying for admission indicates the fact that by 1880 the rz

sciences were being taught in the high schools.

By that year

Michigan accepted six sciences; Illinois, three sciences; Iowa, eight sciences; Wisconsin, five sciences; Minnesota, six;

1. Of. A Statement of the Theory of Education in the United States, pp. 14-16. 2. Gf. Joseph Henderson, Admission to College by Certificate. New York, Teachers College, Columbia University Press, 1912, p. 92. 3. Ibid., p. 89.

L

-I

167

r

T ./

Ohio, four sciences*

In this connection, Henderson observes

that "The minutes of the faculties record that contests over the admission of new subjects occurred but that the more liberal views p r e v a i l e d * T h e most potent factor in admitting the modern subjects, languages and sciences, "was the desire to adjust the entrance requirements to high p

school conditions.”^

Not only did the state universities

help to promote the cause of science teaching but also did other agencies. The American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1879 appointed a committee to investigate the question of science teaching in the public school. was a leading member of this committee.

Edward L, Youmans The committee

condemned the method employed in the science teaching of the day.

The members advocated the scientific method of study

by the pupils.

The methods in use in teaching the sciences

were condemned because "they were not made the means of cultivating the observing powers, stimulating inquiry, exercising judgment in weighing evidence, nor of forming % original and independent habits of t h o u g h t . I n connection

1* Ibid., p. 90* E. Ibid., p. 90. 3. Gf. John P. Campbell, "Biological Teaching in the Colleges of the United States” , Bureau of Education, Circular of Information« No. 9. Washington, B.C., Government Printing Office, 1891, p. 119.

L

168

f"

-i

with this it might be pointed out that Youmansf champion­ ship of the sciences continued well into the 18801s. The American Society of Naturalists in pursuance of its general aim to build up the methods of science teaching appointed a-committee in 1887 to formulate a plan for teaching the natural sciences which could be suggested to the schools.

The appointed committee reported its results

in 1888 and advocated that natural science be begun in the primary schools and continued throughout all the grades of the educational system.

The materials should be presented

through object lessons.

Systematic instruction of a

better calibre n... ought to be given in the high schools. At least a fair acquaintance with one branch of natural science should be required for admission to college.”! Shortly after this, the same society circularized the colleges of the country asking them to take steps to make some scientific subject part of their entrance

requirement.2

The suggestions of these various committees were taken seriously by the members of the Committee of Fifteen and by the personnel of the .Committee of Ten.

It must be

remembered in this connection, that Youmans was on the committee appointed in 1879 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

1. Ibid.. p. 120. 2* Ibid,, p. 120. L

_l

169 r

-i

In 1889-1890, the Commissioner of Education reported 202,963 students in 2526 public secondary schools*1

There

were 7984 boys and 6915 girls who were registered in the p college classical course.* The total number was 14,899. The number preparing for the college scientific course totaled 14, 320 pupils; 6946 were boys and 7374 were girls*? Of this total 8116 were in high schools in the Northwest where the classical curriculum had not secured a firm foothold on the public high schools before 1860 and where the state universities," through certification, encouraged the teaching of modern languages and sciences in the schools. At least, it is certain that they assisted in developing them when they were once introduced.4 The confusion in the elementary schools and in the secondary schools in the early 1890fs helped to bring into existence the Committee of Fifteen and the Committee of Ten. In 1893 the Committee of Ten on secondary school subjects, appointed by the National Educational Association in July of 1892, made its report.5 The Committee agreed that physics and chemistry should be given in the secondary schools; and that under natural

1. Gf. U.S. Commissioner of Education Rerort, 1889-1890. Vol.11, p. 1392. 2. Ibid*, p. 1389. 3. Ibid*. p. 1389. 4. Henderson, on.cit.. p. 98. 5. Cf. XUS* Commissioner of Education Reuort. 1892-1893. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1895, Vol. L 11, pp. 1415-1446. -1

170

r

i

history should be placed descriptive astronomy, meteorology, botany, zoology, physiology, geology, and ethnology as proper subjects for the secondary school.^

It was contended

by the sub-committees that drew up their reports on the natural sciences that one-fourth of the time spent in secondary school should be devoted to the natural sciences. The main committee, however, advocated that one-fifth of the school time be given over to the study of natural science,*5 The intent of the Committee of Ten was to have programs of study so arranged that no decision be made by the pupil until the third year as to what course he was to pursue for the subsequent two y e a r s . L a b o r a t o r y work as the method to be pursued in the natural sciences was recommended by the Committee.*5 The Committee seemed to endorse the theory that for purposes of general education one subject was as good as another,6

All the members signed the Committee report, but

Charles W. Eliot, the chairman of the Committee, wrote the report.*^

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6• 7.

L

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.. Ibid.. Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

The implication in the report that all studies

p. 1435. P- 1437. P* 1438. p. 1440. PP . 1444--1445. P* 1439. P. 1446; pp. 1420-1421

_l

171

r

-]

were of equal rank in mental training was objected to by a member of the Committee, James H. Baker, President of the University of Colorado.

He held that 11 If I rightly

understood, the majority of the committee rejected the theory of equivalence of studies for general education. He pointed out, and rightly so, that studies vary in value for the different mental powers.

The emphasis in the

report upon the necessity for sense-training in things is indicated by the criticism of Baker, he asserts: The training of ”observation, memory, expression, and reasoning* (inductive) is a very important part of education, but is not all of education. The imagination, deductive reasoning, the rich pos­ sibilities of emotional life, the education of the will through ethical ideas and correct habits, all are to be considered in a scheme of learning.^ He adda significantly: "Ideals are to be added to scientific method. It is clear from reactions to the report that the proposal to give natural science so much time would be op­ posed by many-people.

Nicholas Murray Butler after

tabulating the amount of time to be given to language, history, mathematics, and natural science in the various programs over the four years, tried to soothe the fears of objectors.

He remarked:

1* ibid., p. 1447. 2. Ibid., p. 1447. 3. Ibid., p. 1447.

L

172

No scheme can he called radical that proposes to give 52.3 percent of all secondary education whatsoever to language study, or, adding history 62.8 percent to the humanities. The Committee of Ten make it very clear that the main function of the secondary schools was not conceived to be preparation of pupils for college but "to prepare for the duties of life."2 Eliot in order to bolster the principles underlying the report of the Committee of Ten read a paper called "The Unity of Educational Reform" before the American Institute of Instruction in 1894.

He urged an adoption of various prin­

ciples which he alleged were applicable in education from the kindergarten to the university.

After referring to the

relatively recent introduction into the schools of "object lessons in color and form, drawing and modeling, natural geology, and various kinds of manual training"4 he declared that the old methods of teaching by illustrated books and demonstrative lectures has been superseded from the kinder­ garten to the university "by the laboratory method, in which each pupil, no matter whether he be 3 years old or 23, works with his own- hands and is taught to use his own

1. Ibid.. ., 3. Ibid., 4.. Ibid.,

L

p. 1453; 1456. p. 1444. pp. 1465-1473. p. 1466.

_J

173

f

i

senses,"'*'

This method of individual instruction, the

laboratory method, for all education, from kindergarten to the university, according to Eliot "should be the steady 2 aim and the central principle of educational policy." Eis seGond main principle reiterated what he conceived the aim of all types of education to be.

He says: "An

education which does not produce in the pupil the power of applying theory or putting acquisitions into practice, and of personally using for productive ends his disciplined 3 faculties, is an education which has missed its main end," Anent this practical aim, he stated that education was no longer content with a variety of useful or ornamental types of information, or with cultivating aesthetic taste or the critical faculty in literature or art.

He practically takes

credit for the development of the practical aim in American education, when he says, and one must bear in mind that in 1894 he had been President of Harvard for twenty five years, "A considerable change in the methods of education has been determined during the past twenty five years by the general recognition of the principle that effective power in action

Ibid,. p, 1466. 2* Ibid.. p. 1467. 3. Ibid.. p. 1468.

L

-I

174

1

r

is: the true end of education, rather, than the storing up of information or the cultivation of the faculties which are mainly receptive, discriminating, or critical."^ Were not Eliot’s arguments for science, scientific method, and utility the main points in Spencer’s educational creed?

One is referred hack to the preceding chapter to

the remark made hy Henry James concerning Spencer*s influence upon Eliot.

There, it was pointed out that James asserted

that the influence of Spencer could he seen: When the student of Eliot’s record examines almost any piece of work that he undertook ...2 The Commissioner of Education in his report for 1903 stated that the standards recommended by the Committee of Ten had been, during the ten year period, gradually approached hy the high schools.

The.number of public high schools had

increased from 2,526 in 1890 to 6800'

in 1903.

The student

population for the same years increased from 202,963 to 592, 213.

Of the students 30,860 were enrolled in the classical

course preparing for college and.27,280 were preparing for the college scientific course.^

1* Ibid.. pp. 1467-1468. 2. Henry James, Charles ¥. Eliot, Vol.l, p. 351. 3. Cf. U.S. Commissioner of Education Heuort. 1905. Washington, B.C.* Government Printing Office, 1904, Vol.11, p. 1815. 4. Ibid., •x>. 1816.

L

-I

175

Only 5940 schools out of the total 6800 reported students in Latin.

Only 877 schools reported students in

Greek.^ It is clear from these figures that by the end of the century, Spencer*& work had been done well by his followers. The agitation for scientific study started by Spencer and continued by his followers here affected not only the public schools but also the private secondary schools.

All

the agencies mentioned in connection with the introduction of scientific instruction and scientific method into the elementary school and into the high school naturally made their impact upon the private secondary schools.

That this

must have been true is indicated by the report that 1,632 private secondary schools made to the Commissioner of Education for the year 1889-1890.

There was a total of

16,649 students preparing for the college classical course and 9,649 preparing for the college scientific course.^ By 1901-1902 the figures for 1835 schools indicate that courses preparing for the scientific curriculum in the colleges were increasing in popularity; 11,212 students were reported

Ihid., p. 1816.. 2. Cf. U.S. Commissioner of Education Benort. 1889-1890.Yol. 11, pp. 1486-1487.

L

_l

176

r

~i

in such courses whereas only 14,362 were reported in the college classical preparatory course.^*

The influence of

Eliot’s work in the report of the Committee of Ten is indicated in the 1901-1902 figures. The liberal arts college in 1360 prescribed a regular four years course of study.

The course consisted of Latin,

Creek, mathematics, and these were followed by the elements of mental and moral philosophy.

2

At the completion of the

course the degree of bachelor of arts was conferred upon the students.

Writing in 1867 Youmans argued that the

system of culture prevailing in the country’s higher insti­ tutions was really limited to the acquisition of mathematics and the ancient languages and literature.

To him and to

others, as it was shown in the preceding chapter, this type of training was inadequate for the conditions of the time. He wrote at that time that since the highest use of knowledge was for guidance "it is insisted that our Collegiate establishments shall give a leading place to those subjects of study which will afford a better preparation for the duties and work of the age in which we live."® The colleges by 1874 did make additions to its curricula

1. Cf. U.S. Commissioner of Education Report. 1902, Washington, B.C., Government Printing Office, 1903, Yol.il, p. 1667. 2. Cf. U.S. Commissioner of Education Report, 1889-1890. .Vol. 11, p. 756. 3. E.L.Youmans, The Culture Demanded by Modern Life. New York, D,Appleton Co., 1871, p. 2. L

177

r

n and usually for the purpose of making their offerings more

practical.

Besides offering Latin, Greek, mathematics, men­

tal and moral philosophy they began to give courses in French and German.

Courses were also offered in the "general

technics of the natural sciences and also of the social and political sciences, belles-lettres and universal history."^Pressures exercised by high school and academy men as well as strictures levelled against the colleges by Barnard, Eliot, and Youmans made possible the loosening of the entrance requirements to the A.B. course.

Michigan accepted

Modern History in 1869; physical geography was accepted by Michigan and Harvard in 1870; English composition was accepted by Princeton in 1870; physical science was approved by Harvard in 1872 as well as English literature and the modern languages in 1874 and 1875, respectively. Harvard1s example in accepting the physical sciences, English literature, and the modern languages was in F.A.P. Barnard’s mind one that all the colleges would have to follow.

Not only did Eliot loosen the entrance requirements

to Harvard but he advocated and practiced the principle of election of studies.

The elective principle was an expedient

means used by Eliot to introduce the natural sciences and the modern' subjects into the curriculum.

This action "of

1. A*Statement of the Theory of Education in the United States, p. 17. L

178

r

1

Harvard in offering electives to students was naturally followed by other institutions.”^ Shortly after Eliot introduced the elective system into Harvard, another Spencerian made his plea for the study of science. President Andrew D. Tftiite of Cornell University in an address before the Department of Superintendence of the National Educational Association in 1874^ spoke on scientific and industrial education and the true policy of the national and state governments in regard to it.

He complained about

the class distinction obtaining between college scientific students and the college student of the classics.

He

criticized President McCosh of Princeton for condemning the efforts made by Congress and the states to promote scientific and industrial education.

White stated that scientific

and industrial education was producing results that were better than those obtained by the old classical curriculum.^ He condemned text-book teaching of the natural sciences and advocated, among other things, the"laboratory method.4

The

1. U.S. Commissioner of Education Report. 1889-1890. Vol. 11, p. 759. £. Cf. U.S. Bureau of Education, Circular of Information., N o . 1, Proceedings of the Department of Superintendence of the N.E.A., ?fashington, D.U., Government Printing Office, 1874, pp. £7-41. 3. Ibid.. p. 36. 4 * Ibid.. p. 37.

L

1 7 9

last chapter indicated what White thought of Spencer’s influence on American education and need not he repeated here* A tabulation of one hundred-courses of study used in the colleges and universities of the country by 1888-1889 appears in the Commissioner of Education’s report for that year.^

The courses of study establish conclusively that

the natural sciences had been introduced in some form or other into these institutions*

Practically all of the

schools gave courses in physics and chemistry*

Ninety-one

courses of study indicated that biological science in some branch was being taught**' By 1890 it could be reported that the system of a prescribed inflexible course of instruction had been abolished by the greater part of all the institutions and that considerable latitude in the matter of choice of studies was allowed.

The reason assigned for the adoption

of the elective system was attributed to the demand for instruction in scientific studies as well as instruction in the old classical curriculum.u In the older portions of the country, namely, in the North and South Atlantic States the classical curriculum

1* Cf. U.S. Commissioner of Education Reuort. 1888-1889, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1891, Vol. 11, pp. 1224-1361. Gives one hundred courses of study in colleges and universities. 2. Ibid., pp. 1294-1361. L 3. Cf. U.S. Commissioner of Education Report, 1889-1890, ^ Vol. 11, p. 756.

180

r

i continued, desplt'e attacks upon it by the enthusiasts for science study, to exercise its hold upon college students while in the more recently settled regions "more attention is given to the sciences and courses of study in which the ancient classics seldom find a place."! That the case for science had been heard and accepted by college administrators and college students sometime before the end of the century can be ascertained from the following figures obtained by the Commissioner of Education from the various colleges for the year 1886-1887.2 In 1886-1887, 360 colleges had a total enrollment of 41,906 students; 60 percent were reported in regular degree courses.

They were distributed as follows: classical course,

60 percent; scientific course, 22 percent; classical and scientific, 8 percent; other degree courses, 8 percent.3 These figures not only show that the classical ’course **

had to make room for the sciences in the colleges but that the college curricula underwent considerable differentiation to make room for other modern subjects besides the natural sciences. It will be recalled that the assault on the classics, as

!• Ibid.. p. 772. 2. Ibid., p. 775. 3. Ibid.. p. 773.

L

-1

181

-[

r

the staple of collegiate training, made its first significant appearance in this country with the publication of Spencer’s work on Education.

Youmans followed this attack with his

The Culture Demanded by Modern Life and with his various articles on the scienee versus classics controversy in the Popular Science Monthly.

Eliot opened the door wide to the

science studies beginning in 1872. by other institutions.

His example was followed

The elective system and the certif­

icate system enabled the sciences to get a hearing in the colleges.

There can be no doubt of Spencerfs part in

influencing, at least indirectly, the aim and the curriculum of the American college.

Gharles F. Thwing, an authority on

the American college, observed the materialistic tendencies of the colleges in the country just at the turn of the century.'*’ That utility and scientific method helped to naturalize the colleges seems to be quite clear.

In this

Spencer also made his indirect contribution. According to Foerster the state universities "were primarily organs for the exploitation of a continent by a race of pioneers.“2

They gradually developed into a fairly

definite type of institution and Foerster declares that this type was best exemplified in the Middle West.

1* Cf. U.S. Commissioner of Education Report. 1905. Yol.l, pp. 293-312. 2. Herman Foerster, The American State University. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1932, p. 27. L

18 S

T

r

Did the state universities experience, the impact for the demand for more instruction in science?

That they did

is a fact which is clearly demonstrated by the required or accepted subjects for admission which developed over a period of thirty years, 1870-1900.

This is made manifest

in the records for eight state universities. With respect of the entrance requirements established by these state universities Henderson says that: Starting with Latin, Greek, Mathematics, a little English and a little History, admission subjects advanced to include the Modern Languages, the Sciences and finally, in some institutions, the vocational subjects ...1 A1though new subjects were added to the admission requirements there was some opposition raised in the faculties to this liberal policy.^

The controversy over

science and the classics was waged in the West as well as in the East. That there were members of the State university faculties who displayed a favorable attitude toward the ancient languages was observed by Henderson.

He declared that

about 1890, "There was some tendency, as noted in Missouri and Texas, to force ancient languages, especially Latin, upon the s c h o o l s . A t Michigan in 1887, "The question of

1 . Henderson, on.cit., p. .87. 2 . Ibid., p. 90. 3. Ibid., p. 68.

L

183

adding certain science subjects to the list to be accepted for entrance caused heated debates in the faculty* Turning to the specific requirements for admission in eight state universities in the West, namely, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin, it is possible to indicate the years in which these institutions accepted the natural sciences. For purposes of greater clarity the natural sciences will be treated under three heads; biological science, , physical science, and the earth sciences. The required or accepted studies in the biological sciences for admission to the various state universities were decided upon at the various dates between 1870-1900.^ Mich*

Minn.

Mo.

111.

Ind.

la*

0.

Biology

1891

----

1894

1899

----

----

----

Botany

1873

1876

1888

1873

1891

1870

1880

Physiology

1879

1876

1889

1873

1875

1876

1880

Zoology

1873

1897

1887

1893

1891

1879

----

Wis.

The required or accepted studies in the physical sciences for admission to the various state universities were decided upon at the various dates between 1870-1900.^

1. Ibid., p. 64. 2. Ibid., p. 85. 3. Ibid., p. 85.

L

J

184

Mich.

Minn.

Mo.

111.

Ind.

la.

0.

Physics

1873

1876

1880

1873

1891

1870

1880 1874

Chemistry

1879

1880

1888

1893

1891

1870

1896 ----

Wis.

The required or accepted studies in the earth sciences for admission to the various state universities were decided upon at the various dates between 1870-1900.^ Mich.

Minn.

Mo.

111.

Ind.

la.

0.

1873

1876

----

1899

1894

1879

1894 1871

Phys. Geog. 1891

1876

1889

1893

----

1877

1880 1870

Astronomy

1876

----

1893

----

1876

1894 1894

Geology

1891

fis.

It is clear what effect such admission requirements would have on the lower schools.

Through the certificate system the

state universities encouraged the modern languages and the sciences in the schools.

Of course, many men on the

administrative staffs and on the faculty had been trained in the East where the classical curriculum had flourished and they helped, a bit, to stem the tide toward the utilitarian subjects. However, it is certainly clear that Spencer made his indirect contribution to the introduction of science and to the establishment of the utilitarian aim in the state universities before the end of the century. After the Civil War many factors contributed to promote graduate work in this country,.

The establishment of land

1. Ibid., p. 85. 2. Foerster, op.cit.. p. 25.

L

_l

c

185

r

t

grant colleges and state universities and the supporting of > those already established was promoted by the Morrill Act of 186E.

There were scientific schools in existence before

the Civil War, as was observed and after the War they took on a new lease of life.

Harvard under Eliot, Cornell under

White, Johns Hopkins under D.C. Gilman, and then later, Clark University under Hall, all; played important parts in advancing graduate' school work with its emphasis upon research for the purpose of making practical use of its findings.^ In 1870-1871, there were only 44 students registered in American colleges for graduate work. had increased to £19.

In 187E-1873 the number

By 1899 the number had increased to

1343.2 To Johns Hopkins under Daniel C. Gilman goes a great deal of credit for developing the graduate work in the country which emphasized creative work and discovery.

Eliot

did much in the same direction and so did G. Stanley Hall in his planning of Clark University which was designed for « graduate students only. Hall, as was observed, taught at Hopkins shortly after that institution opened its doors.

1. Cf. W. Carson Ryan, Jr., Graduate Education**, The Advancement of Teaching. 8Q-82. 2. Cf. U.S. Commissioner of Vol.11, p. 819. L

"Notes on Some Pioneer Efforts in Carnegie Foundation for the 3£nd Annual Report, 1937. pp. Education Report, 1889-1890.

J

186

He was at that time an avowed Spencerian and believed that philosophy should create open-mindedness.

At Clark his

curriculum was top heavy with the sciences and there emanated from Clark much of the new evolutionary point of view in psychology.

It will be remembered that Hall thought

that prospective teachers, and he was training many, should have a good knowledge of Darwin, Spencer, and Haeckel. That graduate study from 1870 to 1900 concentrated upon science, scientific method, and the practical is the case* White, Barnard, Eliot, and Hall, all helped to promote directly this movement and Spencer helped indirectly to influence the movement, and according to A.E. Winship, editor of the Journal of Education, writing-in 1904, "Every flush of life and flash of light that reinvigorates the university of today is due to the rays that purpled the dawn when Herbert Speneer said:

"Let there be light

in every nook and corner of the educational world."1 Turning to the training and preparation for teachers it becomes evident that in the late 1860*3 there was agitation for improvement in the-quality and quantity of instruction by more strict examination and certification methods. Suggestions were made for a national certificate but this method did not prevail.

Complaints were' made about the

1. A.E. Winship, "Herbert Spencer as an Educational Force", N.E,A., Journal of Proceedings and Addresses. 1904, Chicago, N.E.A,, 1904, p. 231.

187

r

“i

elementary character of the instruction in the various institutions for the training of teachers down to 1895, Superintendent Draper of New York complained in 1888;! "both the Committees of Ten and Fifteen argued for better instruction in the fields that the elementary and secondary school teachers would be required to teach, Eliot, at that time, recommended that teachers specialize. During the period from 1895-1905 many efforts'were made to increase the length of the training period for teachers. During that time most of the normal schools were still admitting elementary school graduates but some required p graduation from high school. The Report of the Committee on Normal Schools of the N.E.A. in 1899 outlined what it considered was an ideal curriculum for training teachers for the elementary school. It also set the standard of high school graduation for admission.^

This suggested course for the normal schools

included many of the subjects recommended by Spencer.

The

natural sciences and the political and social sciences were emphasized.

Genetic psychology was one of the subjects

1. Cf. I. P. Gordy, nRise and Growth of the Normal School Idea in the United States”, U.S* Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, No.8, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1891. 2. Cf. Edward C. Class, Prescription and Election in Elementary School Teacher*s Training Curricula in State Teachers Colleges. New Yor£, Teachers College, Columbia University Press, 1931, p. 23. 3. ibid., p. 25. L

188

recommended and it was, of course, evolutionary psychology. That Spencer*s work on Education was known in the better class of normal schools by the end of the century seems quite probable.

That this would seem to be the case

is indicated by John W. Gook the President of Northern Illinois State Normal School of De Kalb, Illinois. to Spencer*s educational essays he says that they

Referring make

so noteworthy a contribution to pedagogical literature that to confess ignorance of them is to acknowledge unfamiliarity with what every fairly informed teacher is assumed to know.-1' Commenting on the emphasis Spencer placed upon scientific studies Cook observes that Spencer*s advice was most important for the times since the "age is essentially scientific.-- This is but another way of saying that educated mind has stripped itself of the last vestige of that supernaturalism which has made men cowards and kept them so through all the long cycles of e v o l u t i o n . T h i s language is clear enough;

Cook*s speech was delivered before the

National Educational Association*s department of super­ intendence in 1904.

W. Rose at the same meeting took part

in the symposium on Herbert Spencer and declared he thought

1. John W. Cook, "Herbert Spencerfs Four Famous Essays," N.E.A., Journal of Proceedings and Addresses. 1904, p. 224> lbid., p. 225.

L

189

it was proper to have the assembled body of educators honor Spencer not only for his educational essays but for the contribution that came "from his system of thought as a whole. Here again, it is the genetic method and the larger synthetic view that have been e f f e c t i v e . H e then goes on to attribute to Spencer’s influence the impulse one will see given to the neiir psychology in the early 1890 Ts under the leadership of G, Stanley Hall.

He says:

The abstract child of the older psychology, with its equipment of abstract faculties to be artificially developed, has, in response to the genetic method and the larger synthesis, given place to the concrete child frankly recognized as a living organism, with a past and a future, carrying on its life-proeesses, like the plant, as a member of a life-colony, and under conditions of environment ■ which set for it practical problems-to be.met and solved.2 There can be little doubt that Spencer’s evolutionary psychological views as well as his views on the sciences made their indirect impact upon the normal schools of the country from the last decade of the nineteenth century and they contributed to naturalize both the child and the educative process. Now to consider certain subjects in the schools before 1900.

These subjects of biology, sociology, and psychology,

1. Ibid., p. 234. 2* Ikid., pp. 234-235.

L

-I

190

toward the end of the century take on great significance for this study.

Biology teaching on the university and college

levels was fairly well organized by 1890.^*

The aim was

practical and the courses usually emphasized scientific methods.

The state university played a large part in this 2

as well as in getting biological sciences into the schools. That some of the colleges were teaching the biological sciences from the evolutionary point of view is evident from the texts used in 35 out of 91 courses of studies in the colleges-.®

Gray’s and Huxley’s texts were used and

these two men were, as is well known, evolutionists. The failure on the part of the Committee of Ten to recommended biology as a science subject was considered by Hall to be a great injustice to the students.

His

observation that the churches were responsible gives some idea of what biology meant in the 1890’s. Toward the end of the century many of the colleges were using the evolutionary principle as the unifier in the study of biology.4

Biological teaching in the colleges by

1. Campbell, op.cit., pp. 168-171. 2. Ibid.. p. 115. 5. Cf. U.S. Commissioner of Education Report. 1888-1889. Yol. 11, pp. 1294-1361. 4. Cf. George E. Nelson, The Introductory Biological Sciences in the Traditional Liberal Arts College. New York, Teachers College, Columbia University Press, 1931, p. 7.

L

-J

191

r

1

the turn of the century was definitely evolutionary in character and it must he considered as tending to naturalism. Most assuredly, Darwin played a part in influencing the method and the content of the biological sciences, but there is no doubt that Spencer made his contribution to biological courses of study, and particularly, to the practical character of such study.

For example, in 1903, W. Rose,

professor of education at the University of Tennessee, in a symposium on Spencer's influence, pointed out that though Spencer was not a botanist yet, "he formulated the law of evolution and illustrated its application to vegetable life. The genetic method has given us a new botany, and in the hand of the specialist is today giving us a continued revelation of the law of evolution in the plant kingdom. Not only in biology but also in sociology did Spencer exercise his influence, at least indirectly. Daniel Fuleomer of the University of Chicago in 1895 wrote to 422 colleges and universities from which he received 146 answers.

Defining the term sociology as the

study of society, he learned that 24 of the colleges gave such a course.^

In the one hundred courses of study

previously mentioned only six of the schools in the list

1. W. Rose, “Herbert Spencer as a Philosopher," N.E.A., •Journal of Proceedings and Addresses. 1904, p. 232. 2. U.S. Commissioner of Education Report. 1894-1895T Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1896, Yol, 11, p. 1211. L

J

192

r

1

> reported courses in sociology.**'

Yale, Cornell, Williams,

Trinity, Tulane, and Pennsylvania in 1889, Were teaching sociology.

The courses in sociology proper were hy 1895

expanding rapidly and their proper subject matter was v viewed by biddings as studying "the elements that make up society ... and the simplest forms in which they are combined or organized ...w^ This is the point of view to be found in Spencer,'sr.works . on sociology which were published in this country in the ' 1870*s and which were extolled by Ward and1Sumner in 1882 when Spencer visited .America.

Certainly, there is to be

given to Spencer credit for helping to bring sociology into the collegiate curriculum by the end of the century and aiso for giving its study a practical

turn.3

Closely connected to the emphasis placed upon biology and sociology in the last decade of the nineteenth century was the stress placed upon evolutionary psychology.

The

old psychology in some instances was giving place to the new psj^chology with its emphasis on the nervous system. On the growth of this^materialistic interpretation of mind The Committee of fifteen observed: Instead of the view of mind as made up of faculties like will, intellect, imagination, and emotion,

1. Ibid., p. 1212. 2. TbTd.. p. i-213. 3. Ibid., p. 1214. L

_]

193

r

T

conceived to be all necessary to the soul if developed in harmony with one another, the concept of nerves or brain tracts is used as the ultimate regulative principle to determine the selection and arrangement of studies.! This committee was simply expressing awareness of what was called in 1893-1894 fthe psychological revival . * The stimulus was given to this movement by Hall and his associates at Clark University. under the names

The new psychology went

experimental psychology or child study.

The movement expressed itself in a national sense under the name of the American Association for the Study of Children, "and Dr. 0, Stanley Hall, the pioneer of child study in this country, was elected P r e s i d e n t . S h o r t l y after this Hall was elected President of the department of child study 2 sponsored by the National Educational Association. One of the advocates of the new psychology, W.L. Bryan of the University of Indiana indicates the naturalistic basis of the new psychology when he asserts: We promise a science of conscious life. As other sciences have traced the development of the physical world, we promise to supplement this by giving the natural history of conscious life from its darkest beginnings to the highest achievement of man.4 It is clear where he got these views of mind.

Hall

1. U.S. Commissioner of Education Report. 1893-1894. ¥ol.l, pp. 490-491. It is to be noted the Committee used both psychologies in making suggestions for the elementary schools. £•.■ U.S. Commissioner of Education Report. 1892-1893, ¥ol.1, p. 357. 3. Ibid., p. 357. L4. Ibid.. p. 360.

194

was his master as Spencer was HallTs master. Hall was given credit for "having aroused teachers to a sense of the value of this subject as a part of their professional equipment,

and then it was suggested that "it

is natural that they should follow particularly the direc­ tions in which he had led. All students of the history of Aneriean education know the story of the rapid growth and development of the new psychology as applied to child study,

that the new

psychology really meant is expressed well by Professor Hugo Munsterberg when he said; "The modern psychologist is indeed too often proud of the fact that the chief thing which he has added to the old psychology is that he has no p h i l o s o p h y . T h e new psychology had no soul and it swept into the normal schools and teachersT colleges and Hall, directly, and Spencer, indirectly, were its chief sponsors. One must bear in mind that this movement started in 1893 just at the time the Committee of Ten was about to meet. That the normal schools were influenced by the new psychological movement in education is attested to by Robinson who asserts "At the close of the nineteenth century

1. U.S. Commissioner of Education Report, 1893-1894. l/ol.l, p. 425. 2. Ibid. p. 425. 3. Ibid., p . 540.

L

-I

195

came courses called Child Study, showing the influence of G. Stanley Hall and his associates. In' conclusion some few observations will be made on the general character of education from 1900-1918. In general, it can be said that the period from 1900 to 1918 was a period of consolidation in the various levels of the schools.

The various sciences were accepted as a

normal part of the school program and scientific method continued to be emphasized.

The utilitarian aim continued

to dominate as the aim of education on all levels.

Education

for power and service continued to be preached. The colleges promoted early specialization, superficial scholarship, low standards of admission and of graduation, and the deification of wealth. The secondary schools were slowly adopting vocational courses.

They tended to make preparation for making a living

all important as an aim.

By 1918 the Commission on the

Reorganization of Secondary Education established as educ­ ational objectives; health, command of the fundamental pro­ cesses, worthy use of leisure, citizenship, ethical character, worthy home membership and vocation.

Save

1. Clara L. Robinson, Psychology and the Preparation of the Teacher for the Elementary School. New York, Teachers College, Columbia University Press, 1930, p. ?.

L

_I

196

ethical character, the Commission's objectives corresponded to Spencer*s divisions of life*s most important activities and education, therefore, should prepare for these activities* The notable resemblance to Spencer’s objectives of education is remarked upon by Douglass.**-

The leisure time

activities were given more stress by the Commission than Spencer gave to them.

Douglass also tabulates the objectives

listed by prominent writers on secondary education, such as, Inglis, Bobbitt, Chapman and Counts, Koos and also the objectives of the North Central Association*

The influence

of Spencer on these various objectives seems to be quite clear.&

The elementary school was* of course, guided by

similar principles. Penetrating the entire school system, as well as, some ,-4

of the areas of the private schools, colleges, and universities were the various sociological, psychological, and scientific movements** These movements under leaders like E*L* Thorndike, Dewey, Kilpatrick, Rugg, and Counts tended to perpetuate a naturalistic education based on an evolutionary naturalistic interpretation of the nature of the child.

The work done by

Spencer, Youmans, Eliot, Hall, and Sumner, was bearing fruit before the end of the first World War.

1. Cf. Aubrey A* Douglass, Modern Secondary Education, New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1938, pp. 229-230. g. Ibid., p. BZ9,

197

r

n

CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION The main purpose of this study was to try to show the influence of Herbert SpencerTs evolutionary naturalistic philosophy on American education.

In the pages devoted to

the exposition of Spencerrs philosophical views it was clearly shown that Spencer was an agnostic and that his evolutionary naturalism flowed from his agnosticism. Further, it was clearly shown that Spencerrs denials concerning the validity of the theistic hypothesis and concerning the validity of a First Cause constituted a denial of God’s existence as the Creator and First Cause of the universe.

Spencer, therefore, denies the fact of

paramount significance in the Catholic philosophy of life, namely, that God is the Creator and First Cause of the universe and that all things proceed from God.

The con­

clusive proofs of Godts existence as the Creator and First Cause of the universe established during the centuries by reason and through Divine Revelation were brushed aside by Spencer.

Naturally and logically, therefore, Spencer, by

implication, would deny the validity of Divine Revelation and the Catholic dogmas that flow therefrom. The most significant of these Catholic dogmas that would be denied by Spencer are original sin and its consequences, namely, man’s darkened intellect, weakened L

_l

198

r '

i

will and disorderly inclinations to evil; in addition, Spencer would deny the existence of heaven and hell,

The

central fact in‘the Catholic concept of life, namely, the Divinity of Christ would have no validity for Spencer. Deriving from this denial would he the Spencerian denials of the Divine establishment of the Church, supernatural law and the natural law derived therefrom, supernatural Sanctions, grace, the sacraments, the moral law, conscience, the spirituality and immortality of the human soul, the freedom of the will, absolute truth, the principles and beliefs implicit in these Catholic truths. Three things stand out in Spencer's philosophy; his denial of God, his denial of the Divinity of Christ, and his assertion that man was a product of biological evol­ ution and, thus not essentially different from brute life. Consider the intimate relation of these Spencerian views? If the notion of God, as Spencer would imply, was myth, then the Divinity of Christ and the essential difference between man and the brute also would be myths.

The view

of man in the Spencerian philosophy necessarily degrades man.

Scholastic philosophers shov* quite conclusively

that this view of man is one-sided, inhuman, and fallacious for the reason that man’s origin, nature, and destiny cannot be adequately and validly explained merely in terms of nature.

These men prove that man has a spiritual and an

immortal soul. L

Further, they show that only in God can J

199

manJs origin and destiny be fully explained.

In short, the

Catholic philosophy of life contradicts the main tenets of Spencer ’s evolutionary naturalistic philosophy and proves that they are false. In the pages where Spencer’s philosophy was described it was clearly pointed out that the application of his philosophical views to education would be productive of an educational program that i^ould be one-sided and, therefore, harmful to the individual and to society. In the chapters dealing with the direct and indirect influence of Spencer’s evolutionary naturalistic philosophy on American education it was clearly demonstrated that spencer exercised both a positive and a negative influence on American education.

His positive influence was shown

by the influence he exerted over the educators and theorists studied and also by the influence he exerted over the aim and the curriculum of American education.

His .negative

influence was clearly suggested and oftentimes stated in reference to the naturalizing of the child and the secularization of the educational system.

It is very

probable that many of Spencer’s philosophical views were attractive to some of the modern experimentalists in education.

It is very probable also that Spencer’s

scientific•determinism and his opposition to traditional ideas were acceptable to some of the experimentalists.

soo

r

n

The thing that is certain is that Spencer’s evol­ utionary naturalistic philosophy did influence American education. It suited the temper of the times for it was an 'individualistic philosophy which fitted into the pattern of frontier democracy.

From 1860 to 1890 there were new

■ frontiers to conquer; frontiers of land, of commerce, of industry.

These frontiers were conquered and conquered

under the leadership of individuals.

Wealth and distinction

were the usual rewards and these acquisitions came to symbolize the successful American.

To be successful in

life meant that one had acquired material success.

Education

could help make one successful, or at least, help one particippte in material success. The type of education advocated by Spencer was particularistic; scientific education is always particular­ istic and it is so by the nature of its ends and content since it is concerned with individual things.

Things are

always limited in time and in place and in many other ways. It thus came to pass that American education became concerned with things, material things, under the aegis of Spencer and his disciples in this country.

The method of

understanding the nature of things and the method of

J

SOI

i

r

classifying them came to be important, for training in such method was useful.

No sane person can quarrel with

scientific method and with scientific achievement nor with the beneficial results oftentimes obtained from science. However, nothing seems to be clearer from today1s happenings, and the events of the past, than that some principle of restraint is necessary in order that science and its fruits be used in the best interests of mankind. American education in the last three decades of the nine­ teenth century, under the influence of Spencer and his American devotees, became scientific in content, method, ■3) and aim. It was an education concerned with mastery over things for material gains.

The restraining influence of

the traditional subjects in the curriculum was loosened by the ironical and, sometimes, sneering attacks made by the Spencerians upon it.

Religious instruction was banned

from the schools, thereby, helping to bring about a more than necessary regard for material things. ©

The traditional subjects of the curriculum, religion particularly, emphasized man as against nature. Religious ideas naturally gave precedence to man over nature.

Such

ideas related man to God, his Creator and Final End. Ideas that were of universal and eternal character, derived from the classics and from religion, could transcend the limitations and boundaries of things and could serve as a

B02

r

i

framework of reference for things* In any sound system of education instruction in such %

ideas is necessary and prominence should he given to the universal and the eternal as against the particular and the relative.

Man should be made superior to nature.

It was against the authority of universal and eternal ideas that Spencer and most of the American Spencerians were contending*

That seems to be clear.

They called

such education traditional and authoritative.

Naturally

and logically they saw that'the great source of authority was the Christian religion and the Christian philosophy, and they knew that once a respect for eternal and universal ideas was established, naturalism of any type, would not take root for eternal and universal ideas must logically make one a supernaturalist. It was just this contest between man and nature, ideas and things, that was implicit in the controversy between the classics and the sciences.

It was an aspect

of the religion versus science controversy of the nine­ teenth century in America.

Fortunately, for American,

education, the Catholic Church held close to her traditional curriculum during the nineteenth century and only gradually and judiciously made her curricula revisions.

The wisdom

of such action seems justified by the passage of events.

L

-1

203

Fortunately also, for American education, was the Churchs' insistence upon educational content that would include ideas and things.

Perhaps, in the current revision of education­

al aims and content, her educational theory and practice will he given its proper place. One thing seems necessary in American education today and that is that the naturalistic basis of American education, laid by Spencer and others, give way to the supernaturalistic tradition which is assuredly more in harmony with the developing democratic outlook and an awakened belief in God.

L

_1

B I B L I

L

O G B A P H Y

205

A.

BOOKS

Babbit, Irving, Literature and the American College, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1908 Baoon, Francis, The Advancement of Learning, William A. Wright, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926. Beard, Charles, and Mary Beard, The Rise of American Civilization. 2 vols.. New York: The Maemillan Company, 1935. Boedder, Bernard, Natural Theology. Green and Company, 1927.

London: Longmans

Butler, Nicholas Murray, Education in the United States. New York: American Book Company, 1910. Galkins, Mary, The Persistent Problems of Philosophy. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1936. Clark, John Spencer, The Life and Letters of Iohn Fiske. 2 vols,, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 19l7. Class, Edward C., Prescription and Election in Elementary School Teachers Curricula in State Teachers Colleges. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1931. Cubberly, Ellwood P., Public Education in the United States. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1934. Gurti, Merle, Social Ideas of American Educators. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1935. Dampier, Sir William, A History of Science. New York: The Maemillan Company, 1958. Douglass, Aubrey A., Modern Secondary Education. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1938. Eliot, Charles W., Spencer’s Essays on Education. New York: 5.P. Dutton Company, 1911. Fiske, John, A Century of Science and Other Essays. Boston: Broughton Mifflin Company, 1899. , Darwinism and Other Essays. Boston: Houghton Mi'fflin Company, 1886. L

206

_______ , Fdwar djLivingston Youmans, Interpreter of Science for the People# New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1894. _______ , Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1887.

2 vols., New York:

_____ , Studies in Religion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1902. . The Destiny of Man Yiewed in the Light of his Origin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1894. Foerster, Norman, The American State University. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1932. Franklin, Fabian, The Life of Daniel Coit Gilman. York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1910. Fulton, John, Memoirs of Frederick A.P. Barnard. York: The Macmillan Company, 1896.

New New

Gerard, John, The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1928. Giddings, Franklin H., Studies in the Theory of Human Society. New York: The MacmTllan Company, 19§6. Hall, G. Stanley, Life and Confessions of a Psychologist. New York: D. Appleton and Company, T923. Henderson, Joseph L., Admission to College by Certificate. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College* Columbia university, 1912. Hibben, Paxton, Henry Ward Beecher: An American Portrait. New York: G. H. Doran Company, 1937. Husslein, Joseph, Evolution and Social Progress. New York: P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1920. James, Henry, Charles W. Sliot, President of Harvard university , 1869-1909. 2 vols., New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930. Kane, W., An 3Sssay Towards a History of Education. Loyola University Press, 1935.

Chicago:

Locke, John An Bssay Concerning Human Understanding♦ George Routledge and Sons, 1689. L

London:

207

Marique, Pierre J., History of Christiah Education. 3 vols., New York: Fordham University Press, 1924-1952. _______ , The Philosophy of Christian Education. Mew York: P r entice -Ha 11, Ine.,*"X939. McCosh, James, Realistic Philosophy. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1890.

3 vols., Mew York:

Mercier, Cardinal, A Manual of Soho la stlc Philosophy. vols., London: Keagan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Company^ Limited, 1952-1933.

2

Mercier, Lopis J.A., The Challenge of Humanism. New York: Oxford university Press, 1953. Nelson, George II. ? The Introductory Biological Sciences in the Traditional Liberal Arts College. Mew York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1931. Neilson, William A., editor, Charles W. Eliot, The Man and His Beliefs. 2 vols., New York: Harper Bros., 1926. Nevins, Allan, The Emergence of Modern America. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1932. O ’Connell, Geoffrey, Naturalism in American Education. New York: Benziger Bros., 19387 t Parrington, Vernon Lewis, Main Currents in American Thought. 3 vols*, New York: Bareourt, Brace Company, 1927-1950. Perry, Ralph Barton, Philosophy of the Recent Past. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1926. Pruette, Lorine, G. Stanley Hall. A Biography of a Mind. New York: D. Jppleton and Company, 1926. Riley, Woodbridge, American Thought from Puritanism to Pragmatism. New Yoik: Henry Holt and Company, 19T5. Robinson, Clara, Psychology and the Preparation of the Teacher for the Elementary School. New York: Bureau of Publieations, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1930. Spencer, Herbert, An Autobiography. D. Appleton anT“Gompany, 1904.

2 vols.. New York:

_______ , Education: Intellictual. Moral and Physical. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1861. J

208

r

“i

_______, Assays» New York: D, Appleton and Gompany, 1873• _______ , First Principles, New York: B. Appleton and G ompany, 1862. , First Principles,



nsiteaTTgM:

. Social Statics, 1877.

London: William and Norgate. New York: D. Appleton and Gompany.

_____ The Principles of Biology, Appleton and Company, 1879,

3 vols., New York: D,

_______ , The Principles of ethics, Appleton and Gompany, 1893,

3 vols;, New York: D,

_______ , The Principles of Psychology, D, Appleton and Gompany, 1876, _______ , The Principles of Sociology, D . Appleton and Gompany, 1896,

8 vols,, New York: 2 vols,, New York:

*

Sumner, William Graham, and Albert Galloway Keller* The Science of Society, 4 vols,, New Haven: Yale,;UnTversity Press, 1927, Ward, James, Naturalism and Agnosticism, The Macmillan Gompany, 1915,

2 vols,, New York:

Wasmann, Jsrich, The Problem,of Evolution, St. Louis: B. Herder Book Gompany, 1918. White, Andrew Dickson, Autobiography of Andrew Dickson White, 2 vols,, New York: t). Appleton and Gompany, 1938. _______ . A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, New York: B, Appleton and Gompany, 1901, Youmans, Udward Livingston, editor, Herbert Spencer on the Americans and the Americans on Herbert Spencer. New York: D. Appleton and Gompany, 1883. _______, The Culture Demanded by Modern Life. New York: D, Appleton and Company, 1871,

L

J

209

“i

B. PUBLICATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES American Council of Learned Societies, Dictionary of American Biography, 80 vols., New Yorlc: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 19B8-1936. National Educational Association, Journal of Proceedings and Addresses. 1894-1907. Chicago: National Educational Association. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Thirty Second Annual Beport» Boston: The Merrymount Press, 1937• United States Bureau of Education, A Statement of the Theory of Education in the United States""of America as Approved By Many Leading Educators. Washington; Government Printing Office, 1874. _______ , Reports of the Commissioner of Education. 1867-1908. Washington: Government Printing Office, _______ , Circulars of Inf ormat ion, 1870-1898, ..Washington: Government Printing Office. C,

ARTICLES, PERIODICALS, AND PAMPHLETS

Bull, Reverend George,S.J,, "The Function of the Catholic Graduate School,” Thought. 13: 364-378, September, 1938. Spencer, Herbert, nThe Factors of Organic Evolution,” Nineteenth Century, 749-770. Youmans, Edward Livingston, and William Livingston, editors, Popular Science Monthly. 50 vols., New York: Popular Science Monthly, 1872-1897. Brosnahan, Reverend Timothy,S.J., President:Eliot and the Jesuit Golleges. Boston: Review pub11shing Company. 1900. Pius XI, The Christian Education of Youth. New Yoik: The America Press, 1936•

l_

VITA

Name

John Richard Hart

Date of Birth

December 17,. 1907

Elementary School Graduated

Wendell Phillips, Boston 1922

High School Graduated

High School of Commerce 1926

Baccalaureate Degree College Date

Ph.B* Boston College 1931

Other Degrees College Date

Ed.M Boston College Graduate School 1932