THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN A NECESSITY.
The Difference between Ancient and Modern Systems of Education. --
Plato Blinded by Half-truths. -- No place in the present order of
things for Dogmatisms. -- Education commences at Birth. -- The
Influence of Woman extends from the Cradle to the Grave. -- The Crime
of Crimes. -- Neglect to educate Woman. -- The Superiority of Women
over Men as Teachers. -- Froebel discovered it. -- Nature designed
Woman to Teach; hence the Importance of Fitting her for her Highest
Destiny.
This, from the lips of Plato, was the theory of the ancients: “The earth
is the common mother of the human race, but it has pleased the gods to
mix gold in the composition of some, silver in that of others, iron and
copper in that of others.”[5] On this divinely established principle of
caste all the ancient educational systems were founded. They were
limited to the development of the few in whose composition gold was
supposed to be mixed.
[5] “The Republic of Plato,” p. 114. London: Macmillan & Co., 1881.
The idea of a universal education is modern, and all other differences
between the ancients and moderns combined are as nothing to this one
fundamental difference between the two civilizations. Plato’s ideal
republic was based upon the assumption that the “guardians” might be
made just and wise by educating them; but that the other classes might
also be made just and wise by education, and the State be so rendered
absolutely secure, did not occur to the great philosopher.
Plato was blinded by half-truths, as Rousseau was two thousand years
later, when he said, “The poor stand in no need of education; that of
their station is confined, and they cannot obtain any other.”[6] That
men are created unequal intellectually is only a half-truth in an
educational view; the whole truth is that every child is susceptible of
the developing influence of education, and hence the obligation of the
State to educate relates to all children. Plato’s simile of the gold,
the silver, and the iron shows how autocratically even the greatest mind
is controlled by its environment, and limited by the facts which
constitute the basis of its generalizations. Were Plato teaching here,
now, he would transpose the order of statement in his simile, since
iron, not gold, is the king of metals. Each generation increases the
world’s stock of facts; hence there is no place in the modern order of
things for the dogmatist--the dogmatisms of yesterday become apt themes
for the satires of to-day, subjecting their authors to ridicule. This
fact should impress upon professional teachers, and upon all persons
engaged in seeking to promote the cause of education, the importance of
a reverently studious habit of mind touching the progress of events. The
tyranny of tradition is an ever-present, potent influence, and only the
growing mind can resist it.
[6] “Emilius and Sophia,” Vol. I, p. 40. London: 1767.
But there are certain principles upon which not only ancient and modern
educators agree, but about which there is no dispute between existing
rival schools, as, for example, this proposition of Plato--
“The beginning is the most important part, especially in dealing with
anything young and tender, for that is the time when any impression
which one may desire to communicate is most readily stamped and
taken.”[7]
[7] “The Republic of Plato,” p. 65. London: Macmillan & Co., 1881.
And this proposition of Rousseau--
“The education of a man commences at his birth; before he can speak,
before he can understand, he is already instructed.... Trace the
progress of the most ignorant of mortals from his birth to the present
hour and you will be astonished at the knowledge he has acquired.”[8]
[8] “Emilius and Sophia,” Vol. I., p. 54. London: 1767.
And this further proposition, also of Rousseau--
“The common profession of all men is humanity; and whoever is well
educated to discharge the duties of a man cannot be badly prepared to
fill up any of those offices that have a relation to him.”[9]
[9] Ibid., Vol. I., p 13.
The truth of these propositions being admitted, some conception may be
formed of the tremendous influence exerted by woman upon the destinies
of the human race. It extends literally from the cradle to the grave.
All other influences combined are less potent, less comprehensive than
this single, persistent force that creates the very atmosphere in which
the infant mind develops, holding the ground alone and undisturbed until
the child’s plastic character has been formed, receiving ineradicable
impressions. What a crime, then, was the neglect of the people of past
ages to educate woman! It is in vain that the education of man is
attempted if that of woman is neglected. It was Rousseau who in despair
exclaimed:
“How can a child be properly educated by one who has not been properly
educated himself?”
Since, therefore, the education of the man begins while he lies helpless
in his mother’s arms, and since the first steps in this direction are
the most important, and since some sort of education proceeds with
almost inconceivable rapidity through all the early years of life, it
follows that the kindergarten fills a place in the educational field
entirely unoccupied until the time of Froebel. He first applied the
ideas of Rousseau to school life. But when the kindergarten receives the
child, three or four of the most precious educational years have already
passed away, and at the still tender age of seven the child is
surrendered to a very different system of training. The kindergarten is
therefore only a brief episode in the educational period of the child’s
life. But if it be the true education, it is susceptible of universal
application. Throughout all nature the order of development is constant
and harmonious, and the child-nature cannot in reason constitute an
exception to this rule. Froebel said, “The end and aim of all our work
should be the harmonious growth of the whole being.” If his principle is
the true one, his method is susceptible of such modification and
expansion as to render it applicable to the whole educational period.
All mothers should therefore be trained in the principles and methods of
the new education--the kindergarten system should prevail in all
schools, and the kindergarten curriculum should be extended and adapted
to all ages and grades of pupils.
Several great minds, separated by considerable intervals of time, have
united in condemning the old systems of education--Bacon, Comenius,
Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel. Bacon, himself a university man,
said, “They learn nothing at the universities but to believe;” and he
proposed that a college be appropriated to the discovery of new truth,
“to mix like a living spring with the stagnant waters.” Three of these
great men--Comenius, Pestalozzi, and Froebel--were professional
teachers. Theoretically they were in accord with and followers of Bacon,
and in practice they were substantially agreed. Comenius said, “Let
things that have to be done be learned by doing them.” Pestalozzi said,
“Education is the generation of power,” and Froebel said, “The end and
aim of all our work should be the harmonious growth of the whole being.”
These are very high authorities, and they are buttressed by seemingly
impregnable educational propositions. The record of Froebel’s life is
worthy of great weight in support of his theory. His devotion to the
cause of education was absolute. He never knew a selfish aim. He
struggled for the race, not for self. He was the victim of many
misfortunes, but none disturbed the serenity of this great soul devoted
to the greatest of great causes--the cause of education. And education
to his apprehension was the thorough training of every faculty of the
mind and every power of the body for the duties of actual practical
life. His love embraced the world in its entirety and in all its parts.
Dying, he said, “I love flowers, men, children, God! I love everything!”
It was his profoundly philosophic conception of the innate lovableness
of every natural object that made him shudder at the cruel distortion
wrought in the natures of little children by false methods of education.
Hence his intense devotion to the subject of infant training, and hence
the excellence of the system which bears his name.
Froebel’s most subtile discovery was the fact of the superiority of
women over men, as teachers. Only an honest, brave soul could have made
this discovery, for tradition stood like a lion in the way, and
prejudice discouraged investigation. But Froebel sought truth for
truth’s sake, fearlessly defying tradition and ignoring prejudice; and
years of experiment convinced him that the greatest measure of success
in infant training was surely attainable through women. That this
discovery, so simple, yet so big with grand possibilities, was not made
earlier is due to the fact that there is so little really independent
thought, so little investigation free from the trammels of prejudice.
Now that a great mind has pointed the way it is obvious that Nature,
having designed that the years of early childhood should be spent with
the mother, must have also designed that women should be the chief
educators of children. And it follows, of course, that the education of
women is more important than that of men, since it is from them that
children receive their first impressions, and since first impressions
are indelibly stamped upon the infant mind, giving it form, color, and
substance.
In confiding to women this great trust, Froebel imposed upon them an
incalculable weight of responsibility. It comprehends the destiny of the
human race, involving the problem of its progress or retrogression.
A common first conception of the kindergarten is--a convenient asylum
for the children of mothers who desire to be relieved of their care. A
more thoughtful study reveals its poetry and sentiment, the innocent joy
of the assembly of pupils, the harmony of song, and the grace of motion
in the games and dances. A final, large view discloses the true
educational principle. The kindergarten is more clearly comprehended
after studying the manual training school--moving from the effect to
the cause; for as the child is father of the man, so the kindergarten is
father of the manual training school. The kindergarten comes first in
the order of development, and leads logically to the manual training
school. The same principle underlies both. In both it is sought to
generate power by dealing with actualities. The corner-stone of both is
object-teaching--teaching through things instead of through signs of
things. This principle, common to both, is the concrete as opposed to
the abstract. The theory of both is that, in teaching, ideas should
never be isolated from the objects they represent.[E3] The kindergarten
and the manual training school, being one in principle, should have
common methods of instruction, varied sufficiently to adapt them to the
whole range of school life.
[E3] “This method of object teaching is perhaps the greatest service
which the naturalistic school has rendered to the cause of education.
Hinted at by Rabelais and Locke, still more largely developed by
Rousseau, it has received, in the last century, a more accurate and
scientific form, and is probably destined to become the source of a
new curriculum in which literature will only hold a secondary
place.”--“Educational Theories,” p. 109. By Oscar Browning, M.A. New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1885.