| CM SERIES HOME | CONCISE SUMMARIES | PARAPHRASED IN MODERN ENGLISH |
Charlotte Mason in Modern English
Charlotte Mason's ideas are too important not to be understood and implemented in the 21st century, but her Victorian style of writing sometimes prevents parents from attempting to read her books. This is an imperfect attempt to make Charlotte's words accessible to modern parents. You may read these, print them out, share them freely--but they are copyrighted to me, so please don't post or publish them without asking.
~L. N. Laurio
pg 44
Chapter
5 - Psychology as it Relates to Current Thinking
Educational
Thought in the 1700's
The end of the eighteen century and the end of the nineteenth century
have one thing in common. They both view education as one of the chief
ends of mankind. The people in the 1700's had it the best. They had
clear revelations from their philosophers Locke and Rousseau. They knew
exactly what they wanted to do, and their enthusiasm in doing it was
charming. That period of time is full of memoirs, and it's fun to read
about the children of more thoughtful families being brought up
consistently and with philosophical goals in mind. They had
convictions, and they had enough faith in them to put them into
practice. We aren't so fortunate. Just a few decades ago we too were
all excited and impassioned about education. All over England and
around the world, educational 'movement' schools, colleges, lectures,
higher education for women, public day schools for girls, and exams for
reassurance about each point were booming. It was a progressive
movement, and it brought us immeasurable benefits. But one other thing
it brought us is our current
pg 45
dissatisfaction and depression. We tend to wonder if we're on the wrong
track. If the best kind of educational work hadn't been going on for
the last 20 or 30 years, we wouldn't have arrived at this discontent,
which I believe is from God. It's pretty obvious that it's time to
change our tactics. First we hear that elementary schools are a
failure, then we hear that girls' high schools are a failure, then
public boarding schools and colleges. They accomplish a lot, they say,
but is what they're accomplishing worth doing? Is it even education?
The bolder critics focus their attacks on our two oldest universities,
but those universities will probably weather the criticism pretty well
because of the very inertness, or 'masterly inactivity' that their
opponents disdain. The universities are good at 'leaving alone.'
General
Dissatisfaction with Education
Our general discontent with the education is a healthy sign. It
probably means that a wiser theory and better practices are just around
the corner. One thing is more clear than ever--a stream can't rise any
higher than its source. In the same way, successful work can't succeed
without sound theory as its source. We begin to wonder if we were too
hasty at adopting educational schemes and methods without considering
the theory behind them first. Now we realize that we can't get good
results
from bad theories. These days, psychologists advise us, where 20 or 30
years ago, it was the schoolmaster [teacher].
Psychologies
are a Dime a Dozen
But, unfortunately, psychologies abound, and educational schools of
theory bitterly fight each other. We need to find some kind of a test
to discern whether a working psychology
pg 46
will be effective in our age. Psychology, like every other science, is
progressive [evolves with the times
and new information]. What worked fifty years ago won't work
today. What suits our needs now won't be effective fifty years from
now. There's no such thing as a final word on education. It evolves as
man's needs change. The fact that there are at least six systems being
used, and none of them seem entirely perfect, even to the people using
it, should indicate that those of us working in the field of education
need to try to find out what's needed in a well-constructed system of
psychology.
Conditions
of an Adequate System
Any system that's going to be of any use to practical people in
providing educational purpose, unity and progressive sequence must
satisfy certain requirements. It must be thorough enough to include the
whole nature of man and his relationships with everything outside of
himself. It must be the only one that's necessary, it must be more
adequate than any other psychology that's out there. It must relate to
the living
thought of our age and not be a complicated topic that's only discussed
by a few specialists. Any intelligent common person should feel like
its movement is in step with two or three of the great ideas that are
helping to educate the world.
Sacredness
of the Person
Of all the ideas that vague popular thought is using to raise us to a
higher level, I think the most important one is the sacredness of the
individual. Every person seems interesting to us these days. An
interviewer does more than satisfy our common curiosity about people.
What he draws out of those he interviews is interesting to us, whether
he interviews a London street sweeper, a grocer, the librarian, a
common
middle-aged couple on an outing, an ambassador, an
pg 47
author, an artist or a member of the royal family. Every detail that
helps us to understand the personality of someone else is welcome. It's
the same with Kailyard
literature [regional over-sentimental
stories, usually Scottish]. It's popular for a good reason. It
may
or may not have literary quality, but it tells us what we want to know.
It gives everyday details about the people of any country or region.
Slang dictionaries, collections of legends, long biographies that give
trivial details like how a man eats and what he has for breakfast,
where he walks and how he sleeps--all of these give us mental food to
think about. We greatly value people, and our interest is only
increasing. Any system of psychology that's going to appeal to us will
have to put great priority on the individual person. People can be
influenced by one thing or another or marred by one sin or another. But
we recognize that the indefinable person is present even while the
person is still a baby, and will have to make his own way in life and
shape for himself all of the experiences, environment and education
that will influence who he becomes. A system of psychology that accepts
man in this kind of relationship to his education is one we should
adopt. This is the kind of psychology that every mother, teacher or
manager already knows about.
The
Evolution of the Individual
The next requirement of education is that it should help the individual
evolve and progress. Not only should it make persons its priority, but
its goal should be making the most of the person intellectually,
morally and physically. What we don't want is to amass mere dead facts
of knowledge, or the external ornament of mere accomplishment. We want
an education
pg 48
that will be assimilated so that it becomes a part of who the person
is. A psychology that can show us how to educate our children this way
will satisfy our requirements. The doctrine of scientific evolution has
brought about more philosophical overthrow than we realize, and we
shall soon find that a real education must mean the evolution and
growth of the human being in every way. Merely acquiring knowledge
isn't necessarily education at all.
The
Solidarity of the Race
One other idea that seems to be helping to raise mankind is the concept
of the solidarity of the race. The American poet Walt Whitman expresses
one aspect of this concept when he writes that he experiences victory
with every triumphant general, bleeds with every wounded soldier,
shares the spring morning and the wind and the open road with every
traveler. In fact, he writes that he lives in all other lives that
touch him in any way, even in the imagination. This is something more
than the brotherhood of man, which is limited to the present time. Our
sense of oneness with humanity crosses the barrier of time and space,
giving us reverence for every antique relic of our own people or
any other people. It gives a joyous hope in every advance of science
that seems to be the promise of generations that will live hundreds of
years after us. Shouldn't we expect psychology to acknowledge this
great educational force as well as the other two I mentioned? These
aren't the only ideas of our current age, but I think they're the ones
we're all the most aware of. Any system of psychology
pg 49
that doesn't take one or all of these into account can't be the basis
of the educational theory and practice that we're looking for.
The
Best Thought is Common Thought
Now let's consider three or four of the most widely influential
psychologies of today. I don't mean this to be a criticism, but as
inheritors of the thoughts of other men, we should stop and take stock
of what we have and how we can best use it. After all, the best thought
of any age is common thought. The men who write it down in books are
merely expressing what's in everyone else's minds. But we have to
remember that truth often works like a country gate that's allowed to
swing back and forth until it finally closes. First it swings a long
way in one direction, then in the other, and the swings get shorter and
shorter until the gate stops and the latch catches. A reformer or
investigator latches onto one aspect of truth and it seems to be the
whole truth to him. He works to advance that part of the truth to the
exclusion of other aspects of truth. The next reformer seems to be
reacting in opposition, but what he's really doing is bringing up a
different aspect of the truth. We common people of average minds have
our work cut out for us. We have to consider each side, find a balance
in what's been written, and figure out where the truth is. It might be
in the middle, or even as a side issue that the original thinkers on
both sides missed. But we value the contributions that have been made.
They serve as a bridge to carry us along.
Locke's
'States of Consciousness'
We don't need to go any further back than Locke. He represents the more
traditional ideas about education of upper middle class parents. People
who claim to raise their children with good old 'common sense' the way
they were raised and their own parents were raised may not realize that
pg 50
their child-rearing ideas come from a great-great grandfather who read
Locke. Locke didn't concern himself with the mind or soul of man. He
focused on 'states of consciousness.' He believed that ideas and images
could only come through the five senses. A person couldn't know
anything unless he experienced it with his own senses and comprehended
it with his own understanding. As far as which ideas and images should
be experienced in order to educate, Locke's recommendation was to
expose students to 'what's proper for a gentleman to know.' The mind
(which implies the soul or inner man) doesn't seem to have much spirit
or character of its own. It only has specific abilities and actions to
put to use whatever ideas come into it. To explain these abilities and
actions, Locke came up with the notion that has probably done more
damage in the area of education than any other--the fallacy of
'faculties of the mind.'
This
Doesn't Explain Personal Growth in Individuals
Let's measure Locke's psychology against the standards we set up.
Remember that his psychology is obliged, as much as any other
psychology, to raise a higher standard. An education that stops at
'what's proper for a gentleman to know' and what a gentleman's
accomplishments should be doesn't have the unity of an inspiring idea.
It lacks natural progress, continuity and a noble goal. The important
inner person hardly appears at all in Locke's psychology. The person is
reduced to the semi-mechanical actions of his 'faculties.' You might as
well say that he's no more than the combined collection of the images
and experiences gathered through his senses. There's no recognition for
the personal growth, evolution, or expansion of the individual in his
own unique direction. According to Locke, each person is isolated in
his own skin, but is taught to behave himself so that he appears to be
what's expected of him. But what about the intellectual exchange of
ideas?
pg 51
Men who have long since died are still able to communicate their living
thoughts through the works they've left behind, and these ideas are
like the links of an endless chain that connect all people to one
another, and allow people to influence each other across the boundaries
of time and space. But ideas have no place in a philosophy where people
can only know what's assimilated by their own mind after coming through
their own senses. If we want to realize all of the goals and hopes
we've set for ourselves in our own day, we'll need to reject Locke's
philosophy, although we still have gratitude and even affection for him.
Modern
Physiological Psychology
The modern school that thinks of psychology as strictly a 'natural
science' is working mostly with Locke's ideas, and adding the
illumination of some knowledge of biology. This school of thought
agrees with Locke that the mind amounts to nothing more than 'states of
consciousness.' A person can only get knowledge through his senses.
That knowledge reaches the brain in the form of ideas or images. To
represent this 'rational psychology,' I'll use some quotes from
Professor [William?] James of
Harvard University. Even people who disagree with him have to respect
him and admit that he explains the subject with wisdom and balance. He
begins with a limiting definition of psychology: 'the description and
explanation of states of consciousness.' He treats psychology as if it
was natural science [i.e., purely
chemical/physical, disregarding the soul/spirit of man]. He
states facts that are already familiar to most of us, showing the
intimate connection between acts of thought and the physical brain.
Then he says, 'Considering all of these facts, the simple and radical
idea dawns on us: mental action must be uniformly and absolutely a
function of brain action. It varies according to the individual brain,
and is to the brain action what effect is to cause. This concept is the
pg 52
foundation of all current physiological psychology.' This isn't very
different from the Frenchman who announced that the brain secretes
thoughts in the same way that the liver secretes bile. Both processes
are totally physical and mechanical. According to this logic, the only
thing needed for the most profound kind of thinking is a healthy,
well-nourished brain.
Unjustifiable
Materialism
No wonder Mr. James has to admit that, to some of his readers, 'this
kind of conclusion will seem like the most unjustifiable kind of
materialism.' He admits that this might make discussion of the inner
self very difficult, but that difficulty is easily dealt with. 'The
logical conclusion is that all psychology needs to do its work is
states of consciousness. Metaphysics or theology might prove the
existence of the soul, but in the field of psychology, the theory of
this kind of principle of unity is unnecessary.' In other words, the
important inner part of myself that I call me is nothing more than continually
changing states of consciousness that the brain causes. The
identifiable character of the person, which might seem to be the one
solid anchor in a shifting, changing sea, ends up being nothing more
than the brain being conscious of the same objects today that it was
conscious of years ago.
Psychology
is a Phase of Uncertainty
In his thick book Outlines of
Psychology, Professor James proves with great clearness and
power that all of the phenomena of intelligent life may have their sole
source in the physical brain. Yet he concludes that 'when we say that
psychology is a natural science, that doesn't necessarily mean that
it's the kind of psychology that
pg 53
finally has its roots in solid ground. In fact, it means just the
opposite. It means that it's an especially fragile psychology, and the
waters of metaphysical criticism leak in at every seam. All of its
foundational assumptions and evidences need to be thought of as they
relate to other areas, and translated into other terms. In other words,
the phrase is meant in hesitation, not arrogance. It's surprising to
hear people talk exultantly about the 'new psychology' and writing
'histories of psychology' when the first glimpses of clear insight into
the elements and forces of psychology still don't exist. All we have is
a string of raw facts, a little gossip, some debatable opinions, a few
classifications and generalizations about basic descriptions--but not
one single law, or one single premise that can be used to draw any
causal deductions.' This is reassuring, and we close Professor James's
book with satisfaction. But, unfortunately, not all 'new' psychologists
are quite so modest. In fact, if I may dare to say so, some are
downright arrogant. Even worse, students who read this psychology
text-book are likely to assume that it's a proven fact that psychology
is a natural science and--like poet Peter Bell's primrose--'nothing
more.' Reading that disclaimer on the last page isn't going to motivate
a student to re-evaluate his opinion.
We
Become Devitalized
It's depressing to learn that a person might not be anybody after all,
just a passing state of consciousness. It kind of drains the hope out
of life, since it doesn't leave anything pleasant to look forward to.
After all, even if something really good should happen next year,
there's no 'me' to enjoy it. There's only a 'state of consciousness' at
some point in the future. There can't be any such thing as faith if
pg 54
everything that happens just is,
and other people and even we ourselves are nothing more than additional
circumstances that add experiential data to the moment. If there are no
real persons, then the divine idea that we call enthusiasm can't exist.
There can be no recognition of a higher plane that we define by saying,
'This is what I believe,' and no recognition of the divine Being that
we know by faith. So we lose heart. Life no longer has any meaning. We
throw ourselves into whatever task is at hand with desperate but dreary
energy, just to get through the day. We are glad to be amused, but even
more grateful to keep busy with a feverish pace of work. Yet even the
work we do is as meaningless and lifeless as we are. It has no living
idea and no higher purpose. Our manner becomes apathetic, our
expression dreary and uncaring. This change has already come over too
many intelligent teachers. Those same teachers might have been inspired
by high ideals and noble passions if they hadn't been filled with an
educational attitude that responds to all hopes with the question,
'who's going to benefit from it?' We give what we have. We can't give
what we don't have. What do teachers like that have to pass on to the
students under their care?
The
System is Inadequate, Unnecessary and Out of Harmony
But we don't need to settle and accept this ruinous philosophy. Even
their best prophets, like Mr. James, admit that it's inadequate. There
is more to man than this philosophy has ever even dreamed of. This
philosophy isn't
necessary. There are other philosophical explanations that do a better,
though not perfect job, of accounting for the aspects of the human
psyche. It isn't even in harmony with the times. It denies the
individual personality that our age
pg 55
tends to revere and magnify, and to take humanitarian interest in, even
when the person has been degraded. It loses the popular feeling of
solidarity, and loosens the bond of social ties and family devotion.
After
all, what kind of binding ties can there be between us if we're nothing
more than states of consciousness?
Personal
Growth is Impeded
The evolution and personal growth of the individual stops where
mechanical perfection begins. Mechanical perfection might turn out good
mathematicians and analytical scientists, but it leaves no place for
the higher planes of the human experience like hope, reflection and
devotion. We need to keep as close a watch at the psychology that
undergirds our educational ideals and methods as we would watch a place
where water is let loose to gush out. There's a satisfying certainty in
a science like anthropometrics that uses body measurements to compare
and classify. It's easy to draw specific conclusions about a child by
the physical way he stretches out his arm. And, in fact, there's much
good being done in the field of science these days. In the area of
disease, for example, scientific tests can reveal hidden symptoms or
dispositions and then prescribe medical treatment. But there's a danger
that we might go too far, taking a part as if it was whole by letting
this new science of psychology usurp the entire field of education.
Paraphrased by L. N. Laurio
Please direct any comments or questions to me by emailing me at cmseries-owner at yahoogroups dot com.
|
CM SERIES HOME | CONCISE SUMMARIES
| PARAPHRASED IN MODERN
ENGLISH |