a; s1
hgfixg

 

mm: 21‘1““

"MA ~

New

      

$1.9.
z. . .a ~
«v1..~m..:....n H

w.—

 

, ‘1

1....“

212-: vs?-

5‘

84.!
.r,w?.a1.; .
:1.

  

W

   

mu;

 

Or

"altionif

   

‘ . wgu-m.~—_..

 

CUR

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

, :3

..: 1 Z.

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A THEORY MODEL: AN ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION
OF THE FACTORS AND FORCES INFLUENCING
CURRICULAR DECISIONS

presented by

Paul Robert Coleman

has been accepted towards fulfilhnent
of the requirements for

__ab._u_._degree in SewndaLy—Educat ion 5

Curriculum

,~ A."
/ f ‘ .
”WV L4)’I/‘ [If‘ i'r/L/W d I
C/ Major professor

Date 9 August I971}

0-7639

 

{firmw—

 

 

ABSTRACT
A THEORY MODEL: AN ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION

OF THE FACTORS AND FORCES INFLUENCING
CURRICULAR DECISIONS

By

Paul Robert Coleman

Over the years there have been many curriculum models pre-

 

sented. These models have generally taken one of the major bases for
curriculum decision making and used this base as the primary source
from which curricular decisions flow. This emphasis of one over the
other possible bases for curriculum theory has resulted in some posi-
tions that have been preoccupied with goals and objectives, others
have been overly concerned with method as the important parameter while
others have taken content as the major concern. The present thesis is
an attempt to give more suitable emphases to each of the generally
agreed upon bases for curriculum decisions and to specify and discuss
the force elements that must be considered in dealing with each of
these factors.

The model presented in this thesis attends first to the matter
of the derivation and specification of goals; then deals with con-
tent as the vehicle to the achievement of goals; and lastly presents
the aspects of the child that must be given attention in selecting and

organizing experiences so that specific children may attain the goals.

I

 

.iiHX Paul Robert Coleman
5’1}... ‘

{§?€9§? The new model places the child at the center of-any curricular
decision. His internal organization, complexity, and feelings must be
considered as decisions are made concerning the selection from the
wide variety of academic and social content available, that which is
appropriate for any individual expected to utilize the information.
This sensitive attention to each child will also indicate the proper
method to utilize in making the information available. Lastly the
new model indicates the need for keeping long range goals in mind in
making curricular decisions so that the learning of the child is

relevant both now and in the future.

 

A THEORY MODEL: AN ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION
OF THE FACTORS AND FORCES INFLUENCING
CURRICULAR DECISIONS

By

Paul Robert Coleman

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum

College of Education

I974

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to express his gratitude to Professor
Troy Stearns, who has shown infinite patience and a sensitive under-
standing of the problems involved in attempting to develop a largely
creative study. To Dr. Dale Alam, Dr. George Myers, and Dr. Bertram
Karan an expression of gratitude for their advice and counsel.

I am also deeply indebted to my wife Dorothy and our four
children Julia, Holly, Cheri, and Vaughn who have never known a time

when "dad" wasn't in school.

Paul Robert Coleman

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES ......................... v

INTRODUCTION ........................... l
Chapter

I. THE NEED FOR A NEW DECISION MODEL ............ 2

Sputnik and the Demand for School Reform ....... 2

The Critic's Plea for Academic Quality ........ 5

New Trouble in the School ............ . . 8

The New Critics ................... 16

The Need for a New Design .............. 17

A Procedure for Establishing a New Model ....... 18

II. MAN AND HIS CULTURES ........ .. .......... 21

The Anthropological Model of Man ........... 21

The Devine Creation Model . . . .~ .......... 29

Existential Man “,0 . . . - ............ . . 35

III. THE CULTURE OF AMERICA .................. 6T

A Problem of Identity ................ 61

The Value Paradox ................ . . 63

The American Ideal .................. 66

The Way It Is .................... 73

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Chapter Page
IV. THE SCHOOL .................. - ...... 92
Purposes ....... . ...... . . . .-. . . .-. 92

The American Ideal ............... ,. . . 95

The American School--How It Is ............ 98

V. THE CHILD: MOTIVATIONAL PERSPECTIVES .......... 109
Introduction .......... - ........ -. . . 109

Deve10pment of Emphasis on SelfeActualization . . . . 110

Characteristics of Self-Actualized People . .-. . . .-112

The Propitious Environment .............. 116

VI. A MODEL FOR DECISION MAKING IN CURRICULUM CHANGE ..... 118
Introduction ................. ,0 . . . 118

Setting the Goals . . . . . . . . . ......... 123

Factors in Achieving Goals ........ - ...... 148

SUMMARY . . .- .......................... 159
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... 162

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure-
l. Pictorial Representation of the Factors and Forces
that Need to be Considered in Curriculum
Decision Making ....... . ............ 119
2. The Institutional Structures that Most Immediately
Affect the School ................... 120
3. The Content Matrix of the School ...... ~ ....... 121
4. The Structures of the Child ............... 122

 

I

INTRODUCTION

In a period of turmoil there is the tendency to look for ‘
immediate solutions to those events at hand that are tension pro-
ducing. Thus, the symptoms may be responded to, rather than the
more important causative factors that are more remote and more dif-
ficult to change. This tendency to respond to the "at hand" events
has often resulted in practices that, while blunting the current
attack, did not lead to lasting solutions, nor to solutions that
were satisfactory to all these that were effected. The present
- thesis is presented as an attempt to formulate an orderly presen-
tation of the major factors to be considered in resolving a curric-
ulum dilemma, and to indicate the interactions of these factors so
that one can be aware of the sources of power that motivate these
often antagonistic groups. Once a comprehensive understanding of
the major factors which influence curriculum decisions is obtained
and the source of their power is understood, the curriculum spe-
cialist is in a position to better utilize the resources available
in organizing the proceduresand materials at hand so that the

individual child is permitted the optimum learning experience.
1

CHAPTER I

THE NEED FOR A NEW DECISION MODEL

Sputnik and.the Demand for School Reform

One of the most explosive subjects in this country today is
schools. Perhaps education became pubiic issue number one about the
time of the first Sputnik in 1957, when the feelings of millions of
parents went from concern, to obsession, to near hysteria. Such
feelings are still apparent today.

The government, perceiving in Sputnik a serious threat to
the nation, established programs to find and develop the supposedly
numerous intellectually competent, but unfound and untrained,
children lost in the morass of public education. As part of its
program to counteract this threat the federal government began its
first large infusion of federal money into the educational estab-
lishment. Among the first large infusions of federal monies into
the educational establishment was the National Defense Education Act

of 1958. The primary purpose of this act was to find and educate

those children who promised to be of some use in the defense of the
nation.

Sec. 101 The Congress hereby finds and declares that

the security of the Nation requires the fullest develop-

ment of the mental.resources and technical skills of its

young men and.women. -The‘present emergency demands that

additional and more.adequate educational Opportunities

be made available. The defense'of this Nation depends

upon the mastery of modern techniques.. . . . Ne muSt

increase our efforts to identify and educate more of

the talent of our Nation.I
This “using“ of American youth; a most severe perversion of demo-
cratic values, went largely ignored at the time. ArthUr King Jr.,
speaking to the point of honoring'American democratic commitments
[values] in curriculum decisions, said:

To permit education to be aimed at molding or shaping

man as an instrument for a group, nation, or ideology,

that is, for ends other than his own fulfillment, is

a denial of the commitment to persons.
This problem of the inappropriate use of American youth, will have
to be resolved more effectively than it has to this time if the
United States is to compete, with our individual free choice ori-

ented form of social relations, against those admittedly more

 

1National Defense Education Act, Superintendent of Documents,
United States Printing Office, Washington, D.C., p. 11.

2Arthur R. King, Jr., and John A. Brownell, The Curriculum
and the Disciplines of Knowledge (New York: John Wiley and Sons
Inc., 1966), p. 61.

 

 

efficient totalitarian forms of government. The fact that a pro-
cedure had been used which had long been pointed to as one of the
unacceptable actions in the adversaries' culture, was not, under
the fears of the moment, deemed important. Nor was the tacit ad-
mission in the document, that equal educational opportunities had
not been offered to all, thought to be important. As the years
pass and the political pressures continue unabated, it became an
accepted position in this country that the schools should play a
conscious role in the allocation of human resources to service
opportunities. Children, unfortunately, have always been used to
some extent as a means to someone else's purposes, but never before,
in this nation, with the conscious support of the government appa-
ratus.

As an instrumentality to this concept, a massive program of
standardized testing was established. The combination of the test-
ing program, the fear of the government and the people of an ill
defined "threat to the nation," and the reaction from the members of
the educational establishment (principally teachers), caused the

pressures to begin to mount on the children of America.

The Critics' Plea for Academic Quality

Somewhat earlier, and now with more force than ever, a
group of vocal critics have complained that the effectiveness of
the public schools in teaching the academics was inadequate.

Among these critics were men from the military such as Admiral
Hyman Rickover, who wanted a national group established to review
standards in the schools. He found the academic standards of the
nation lower than those of either Russia or England.3 From the
liberal arts establishment men like James D. Koerner felt that
teachers themselves were simply not adequately prepared in the dis-
ciplines they were to teach.4 Others, such as Arthur Bestor, were
critical of both the content and the methods the schools were using.5

Out of this massive attack some good did accrue. Substan-
tial progress was achieved in the content areas as representatives
from the respective disciplines met with their counterparts from

the schools and devised new programs, which were more representative

 

3Hyman Rickover, American Education--A National Failure (New
York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1963), 502 pages.

4James D. Koerner, The Miseducation of American Teachers
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1963), 360 pages.

 

5Arthur E. Bestor, Educational Nastelands (Urbana: Univer-
sity of Illinois Press, 1953), 226 pages.

 

of the current state of the disciplines of knowledge. .But it is of
some interest to note that in spite of its having "been done,"
there was actually no agreement as to what constitutes a discipline.
According to Arthur King and John Brownell:

The domain (section is titled "A Discipline is a

Domain") is that which the members of the community

claim it to be. No plenary body stipulates boundary

lines; no discipline files deeds in academic court

houses; no intellectual tribunal tries claim

jumpers.
George Tagliacozzo said:

a discipline is often in fact a mosaic of variously

old, often radically different strains of thought,

which have little in common beyond a supposedly

analogous subject matter and a name.
In spite of the lack of agreement as to the meaning of the word,

the different disciplinary groups organized the knowledge more

 

6King, Jr. and Brownell, op. cit., p. 74.

7Giorgio Tagliacozzo, "The Tree of Knowledge," The American
Behavioral Scientist, 4 October 1960, p. 6.

 

 

 

effectively and produced materials-and techniques for implementing
the new content designs.8’9’lo’n
While the content base of the schools was improved through
these procedures, the new programs brought on a periOd of extreme
attention to the cognitive aspects of the school program. This
attention to the cognitive aspects was, of course, at the expense of
the affective, humane, democratic concerns of the school. These
new cognitive aspects favored the academically able while all but
making school an unbearable*place‘for those less able to compete.
Able children found learning exciting, challenging, the new methods
and materials pleasing, and school became more enjoyable. 0n the
other hand the less able found.school rather than just embarrassing,

a sort of meaningless hell that they and their children would try

to avoid as long as they lived.

 

8Frank B. Allen, School Mathematics Study Group (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1961), 85 pages.

 

9Richard F. Merrill, The CHEM Study Story (San Francisco:
W. H° Freeman, 1969), 162 pages.

10Schaim Uri Haber, Physical Science Study_Committee
(Lexington: Heath, 1971), 674 pages.

1]Institute of Biological Sciences, Biological Science
Curriculum Study (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963), 374 pages.

New Trouble in the Schools

 

Perhaps this element of competition, in all its aspects,

was the single most destructive element to come out of the content
emphasis. It convinced a great number of people that competition
and democracy were inseparable entities, rather than the antithetical
elements they are in fact° The corresponding loss of emphasis on
the "real“ goals of AmericanEducation'waspredictable° The-age of
the meritocracy was born. There is some reason to believe that this
was the crucial point at which the cult of efficiency, programmed
learning, and behavioral objectives, became prominent in school
practice. Ronald 0011, writing about what school pressure does to
children, stated:

Pressure on children and youth have sharply separated

the high achievers from the low achievers . . . . Thus,

two distinct social groups now exist in many schools,

with the members of each failing to communicate mean-

ingfully with the members of the other. The gulf that

is fixed between these two groups could have serious

consequences for the future of our nation. What can

happen, one wonders, when a failure riddin, frustrated

society grggs up beside a successful, privileged
one: . . .

 

12Ronald c. 0011 and Robert s. Fleming, Children Under
Pressure (Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Books Inc., 1966), p. 5.

 

 

In the late 1950‘s and the early 1960's, a number of cur-
riculum theory models were created.” While some of theSe appeared
to probe deeper meaning, in actual fact, they were only redistri-
bution devices for the subject matter as the basis of the curric—

ulum.]3’14’15

The critics of the weak academic programs got what
they wanted. I

They also got some things they did not want. There was
strong support in psychology for the idea that frustration is the
precursor of aggression.16 It was not long in coming. The end
of the sixties and the early seventies has seen the rise of more

resistance to schools and school procedures by their student bodies

than at any time in their'history.17 A recent and extensive study

 

13Philip H. Phenix, Realms of Meaning (New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1964), 391 pages.

14Harry S. Broudy, B. 0thanel Smith, and Joe R. Burnett,
Democracy and Excellence.in American Secondary Education (Chicago:
Rand McNally and Company, 1964), 302 pages.

15G. W- Ford and Lawrence Pugno, The Structure of Knowledge,
and the Curriculum (Chicagozx Rand McNally and Company, 1964),
105 pages.

16John Dollard, Frustration and Aggression (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1939), 209 pages.

17James House and William Miller, "Responding to Student
Unrest: A Guide for Administrators and Teachers," Oregon ASCD
Curriculum Bulletin, XXVII, No. 315, Oregon Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, Salem, 1973, p. 10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

of urban high schools conducted by Syracuse University revealed that
eighty-five percent of the schools in urban areas had eXperienced
disruption.18 Unrest is not’restricted to the senior high schools.
More than fifty percent of all junior high schools, in another study
by the National Association of Secondary School Principals, reported
protests.1

While many young people focus their unhappiness on the school
and its operatives, even more take their frustrations out on them-
selves. It is known that many illnesses, physiological and mental,
are internal responses to external forces. One study was made of
a group of children described by~a school physician as having psycho-
somatic illness. Their difficulties included frequent upset stomach,
headache, allergy, asthma, kidney difficulties, and a variety of
forms of nervousness including stuttering. These children were
significantly improved by teachers giving attention to love and Affec-

tion, belOnging, and freedom from fear. The children improved in

 

18Stephen K. Bailey, Disruption in Urban Secondary Schools
(Washington, D.C.: National Association of Secondary School Prin-
cipals, Nov. 1970), po 8.

19Lloyd L. Trump and Jane Hunt, ”The Nature and Extent of
Student Activism," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary
School Principals, No. 337 (Washington, D.C., May, 1969), p. 151.

 

11

health, scholastic work, and participation in school activities.20

The extensive work of Louis Raths in attending to children's needs
in school settings lent further sopport to this positibn.21 To
assess just how widespread these pressure induced maladjustments are,

some data from Dr. Richard Gordon‘s document, The Blight on the Iyy,

 

presents evidence to demonstrate the increasing number of adolescents
among private psychiatric patients during a ten-year period°

Taken as a sampling of what has been happening in
similar.areas.throughout.the”country,zthis.studynof
1,317 patients clearly shows that the percentage of
psychiatric patients who are adolescents has.been
increasing dramatically, especially since 1958.22

An increase in ulcers of the stomach and duodenum since 1958 is
also reported. But is it because of their educational experiences?

We must see if we can find answers to these new
questions. The records of 174 private psychiatric
outpatients in New Jersey were studied in an effort
to learn whether the patients' difficulties were
related to educational strains. Below are the
percentages of a group of young male patients for
whom, it was reported, the stresses of getting an

 

20Robert S. Fleming, "Psychosomatic Illness and Emotional
Needs," Educational Leadership, IX, November, 1951, p. 36.

2ILouis E. Raths, An Application to Education of the Needs
Theory (Bronxville: Modern Education Service, 1949), 25 pages.

22Richard Gordon and Katherine Gordon, The Blight on the
Iyy_(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1963),‘pp° 8-9.

 

 

12

education.were the.primary reasons for seeking psy-
chiatric help:

1953-55 l956-57"1958-59 1960-61
Aged 13-24 34% 54% "‘56% 74%
Stress related to education drove nearly.three-fourths
-of the youthful patients to psychiatrists offices in
the 19605 as compared to.on1y oneethird in the early
19505 . . . the.majority of teenagers and young adults
who soughtpsychiatric help blame their troubles on
the strain of getting an education.2
Perhaps even more significant:
The trend is there. Indeed, so many more teen-
agers are committing suicide that self-destruction
is now second only to accidents as the major cause
of deaths among college'students.24
Why are so many young men and‘woman rebelling in what would
seem, from this perspective, to be such a futile cause? Why are
they punishing themselves psychologically? Obviously, as in any
behavior, the causes are many and interrelated. Indeed the entire
American culture is in a time of great turmoil. Conceivably the
youth show it most because they are the least able to effectively
change their status through reasonable means. Certainly the black-

white conflict is a part of the total problem. Whether this is

a result or cause is problematic. If schools had effectively

 

23Ibid.,'pp.l 8-9.

24James Jan-Lausch, Suicides of Children (Trenton: New
Jersey State Department of Education, 1963), pO 6.

13

instilled respect and concern for every individual, as their ygppgl:
jz§g_democratiC'values professed, then racism should not be a problem
in the American culture. Or if the myth of the "melting pot" had
instead been a truth, these problems would not be. ‘However, race

is not the crux of the problem. Activism is not restricted either

to blacks, whites, or confrontations between these entities. Nor

is it wholly social class.‘ Many of the disruptive students come

from upper socio-economic strata, and many are of high ability.25
The major problem still seems to center on the school. A high
percent of all students feel that massive change is needed in their
schools. They want more opportunity to understand and discover them-
selves. They are less willing to accept adult values. They see as
important issues, problems of distribution of wealth and justice

in the courts for the poor.26 They want a more relevant Curriculum.
The school is seen as a very narrow, middle class operation, dedi—

cated to eliminating differences. This in spite of the obvious

immutable differences that inhere in a student population. Many

 

25Warren 0. Hagstrom and Leslie L. H. Gardner, Character-
istics of Disruptive High School Students, Technical Report No. 96,
Center for Cognitive Learning, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
1969, p. 9.

260. E. Thompson, "Student Values in Transition," California
Journal of Educational Research, Volume 19, March, 1968, p. 7.

14

students perceive the school as a huge machine trying to homogenize
them all into a standard American, rather than enhancing the dif-
ferences which allow them to identify themselves. The students will
not give up that much self. 'The "college bound" mentality of the
school operatives offends them. Over half of the secondary school
graduates still do not go to college, but there is little available
in the school for those who do not plan to attend. Vocational
offerings are meager and usually so out of date that they serve no
useful function.27 A point of some concern was voiced in the

Detroit Free Press of Sunday, June 29, 1969, concerning this point.

 

The writer of the article, Helen Fogel, found that five percent
of the graduates had been placed in college, jobs, or job training.
Yet more than fifty percent of the classes"dropouts had found em-
ployment.28

Many students are dissatisfied with the unreasonableness
of school rules and regulations. It seems unfair to most students,

who also think of themselves as citizens of a democracy, that they

should have to live with rules they had no part in establishing

 

28Helen Fogel, "Don't Be a Fool--Stay in School—-Then What?,"
Detroit Free Press, Sunday, June 29, 1969.

15

and that often are so out-dated they bear little resemblance to

present problems and concerns.29

Students would be the last to say that all rules
and regulations should be eliminated. .However,
they strongly reject those regulations.that are
designed to degrade them and suggest that they
are not trusted. It is increasingly evident that
today's young people are not willing to accept
authority without question. _They want to know
the reasons for‘rulesand‘regulations.30

All these concerns are direct outgrowths of curriculum decisions
that should have been more'reasonably‘formulated° Perhaps Louis
Harris puts it most succinctly when he said:

The key to what is going on among high school
students today is that a majority clearly want
to participate more in deciding their future.
They are willing to be taught, but not to be
told. They are willing to abide by rules, but
they will not abide by rules which put them
down. They are aware of the need for authority,
but not impressed by it for its own sake. They
are excited by the prospect of living in a fast
changing modern society and they want their
high school education to help prepare them for
it . . . not for some.society of the past.31

 

29Thompson,‘op. cit., p. 13

3oHouses‘op."c1t., p. 14.

3ILouis Harris and Associates, Inc., "What People Think
About Their High Schools," Life, Vol° 66, No. 19, May 16, 1969,
p. 40.

16

The New Critics

 

In concert with the growing disenchantment of the pupils
with the academic school, the critics are back. This time they are
mostly from within the establishment.‘ Some are concerned because
the academic school simply does not meet the needs of the inner city

32’33” Others are concerned because of

34.35

and rural poor populations.
the dehumanizing effects of the new procedures on all children.

Many schools areresponding*with'rampant innovating, some
appropriate and well designed; many simply to show the parents that
they are "with it." But will the new procedures be any better than
those they replace? Since there is little to guide administrators
in making these decisions it is unlikely that conditions, on the

whole, will be improved.

 

 

32Jonathan Kozol, Death at An Early Age (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1967), 240 pages.

33James Herndon, The Way It Spozed To Be (New York: Simon
& Schuster, 1965), 188 pages.

34John Holt, The Underachieving School (Pitman Publishing
Corporation, 1969), 209 pages.

35A1vin Hertzberg and Edward F. Stone, Schools Are For
Children (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 232 pages.

 

 

17

The Need for a New Design

 

0n the one side are the behaviorists with their array of
weaponry: behavior modification, behavioral objectives, performance
contracting, tests, academic rigor, etc.; on the other side the
humanists with their list of "goods": 'openness, ungradedness, sen-
sitivity, subjective evaluation, personalized curricula, etc.; in

the middle the youth of the nation. 'Surel -there is some rational

 

method for rapprochement of these-confflicting ideologies that will
both protect the youth and eventuate in meaningful learning expe- ~
riences. The theory bases presently available will not save the
schools. Some, while conceptually adequate, are so esoteric in
concept, and so ponderous of language that their utility is apparent
only to the most sophisticated.36 Sophisticates are not, as a gen-
eral rule, the practitioners who must use these models: A design
that retains much of the depth of the present positions but with
more explicit treatment of the concepts in more straightforward
language is needed. Other available models emphasize one basis of

the curriculum at the expense of other rightful bases.37‘ Needed is

 

'36Hollis L. Caswell, "Sources of Confusion in Curriculum
Theory," Toward Improved Curriculum Theory (Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1950), p. 110.

37Ibid., p. 112.

18

a design that treats all bases of the curriculum with equal respect.
There are no models available that integrate the general and special
studies into one coherent design.38 An adequate theory for the

present age must point up the essential similarities and differences

of these two areas of endeavor and show the way to combine them.

A Procedure for Establishing A New Model

 

 

The mission of the remainder'of this thesis will be to design
and explicate a model that incorporates all of these points into
itself, so that more adequate curriculum decisions regarding the edu-
cative experiences of American youth are made and that these deci-
sions can be made by those who make them most often, the teachers who
work everyday with the future citizens of our nation°

The primary method of establishing the guidelines of the new
model will be to specify and describe the relevant factors that must
be considered in the making of curriculum decisions, and to discuss
the interactive forces that must be dealt with in considering these

factors.

 

19

The problem of goals has been the most persistent difficulty
in curriculum models. In chapter II this matter will be considered
through an investigation of the basic nature of man and how this
influences the form of his cultures. This seemingly extreme approach
is seen as necessary because it is exactly these basic character-
istics that lead to the form of the culture in which man lives and
thus the goals that must be actualized'if the schools are to succeed

in their role of passing on the values of the culture to the young.

 

Chapter III will continue the concern with goals by analysis
of American culture specifically, and how it came to be as it is.
Through this analysis of American culture it should be possible to
explicate reasonable goals for the schools of this culture as they
carry out their mission as the culture's training ground for
citizenship.

Chapter IV will turn from the matter of selection of goals
to concern with the means of attainment of these goals. Assuming
that throughout chapters II and III a consonant flow can be main-
tained in showing that human and cultural goals are related at each
level, and that the goals of American culture are particularly
realistic when man's basic nature is taken into consideration, then

it must still be demonstrated that the means used by the school are

20

appropriate to the desired and state. Given the goals as adequate,
the major concerns will then be the factors of content and method as
they are used in actualizing the goals of the American school.
Chapter V will define the child as the most important factor
to be considered in any educative decision because he is the one
variable that must be accepted as he is.
The unification of all these factors will take place in

Chapter VI where the model itself will be presented and explained.

 

CHAPTER II

MAN AND HIS CULTURES

The Anthropolggical Model of Man

Over a century ago, in 1858, Darwin and Wallace showed that
the world of life did not suddenly spring into existence in the state
in which it is observed today. Instead, life is the result of per—
haps more than two billion years of evolutionary development.
Anthropology, the science of man, indicates that some form of human
life has existed for over a million years. However, actual recorded
history of man goes back only six thousand years.1

What does physical anthropology have to tell about man?
First, there is an "all pervading similitude of structure,” to use
Sir Richard Owen's phrase, between man and the anthropoid apes, the
highest Primates. While man is a specific instance in and of himself,

still he is anatomically bound to the gorilla and the orangutan. As

Darwin stated at the close of The Descent of Man:

 

1Ashley Montagu, Man: His First Million Years (Cleveland:
'The World Publishing Company, 1957), p. 3.

21

22

We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me,
that man, with all his noble qualities, with sym-
pathy which feels for the most debaSed, with bene-
volence which extends not only to other men, but
to the humblest living creature, with his God-
like intellect, which has penetrated into the
movements and constitution of the solar system-—
with all these exalted powers--man still bears

in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his
lowly origin.2

What, indeed, is the evidence that supported this conclusion

that man bears the “indelible stamp of his lowly origin”? First:

 

In similitude of bodily structure, man and the anthropoid apes are
virtually identical.

The close anatomical resemblance that subsists
between man and the higher apes--every bone,
muscle, nerve, vessel, etc., in the enormously
complex structure of the one coinciding, each
to each, with the no less enormously complex
structure of the other--speaks so voluminously
in favour of an uninterrupted continuity of
descent, that no one who is at all entitled to
speak upon the subject has ventured to diSpute
this continuity so far as the corporeal Struc—
ture is concerned. All the few naturalists who
still withold their assent from the theory of
evolution in its reference to man, expressly
base their opinion on grounds of psychology.

Second: Man is a veritable museum of relics, vestigial remains of

early history. The tiny third eyelid at the inner corner of the

 

2Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (London:“ 1871), p. 276.

3G. J. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Man (London: 1888),

p. 452.

23

eye, the non-functional (except in some individuals who use them to
entertain friends) muscles to move the ear trumpet, "Darwin's
point" on the in-rolled rim of the ear, indeed there are more than
fifty such relics. Some (such as the appendix) simply drawing sus-
tenance for services rendered in an earlier age, but now with little
or no function left to serve. It is an unfortunate fact that these
non-functional residues tend to be more vulnerable to disease and
other complications than those organs which actively function in
some purposeful ways. Third: the developmental characteristics
of the human embryo is very similar to that of the ape. Fourth:
the bodily life of man and ape are strikingly similar. They suffer
many of the same physical maladies, and, perhaps more importantly,
in blood serum tests they show complete compatibility of blood.4
Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding in this whole process
is the layman's interpretation that man descended directly from
known apes and/or monkeys. Some wit once remarked that man is
descended from the ape and has been descending ever since. Both
statements are untrue. The common belief that man descended from

"the monkeys,“ meaning the kind of monkeys living today, has never

 

 

4G. Schwalbe, Darwin and Modern Science (New York: Grossman
Publishers, 1968), p. 43.

24

been held by any competent scientist.5 To comprehend this point
one needs to understand the sifting-out process of suCcessive diver-
gences. What has to be dealt with are collateral lineages like the
branches of a candelabra arising at different levels. Monkeys do
not lead on to apes but simply to a proliferation of monkeys.
There was, however, a generalized ancestral stem which split into
the monkey-line and the anthropoid ape-line° By the same token,
apes do not lead on to man. There was a generalized anthropoid
line which split into the modern apes and the Hominidae. The main
stem itself grew on as a humanoid stem; it is from this generalized
life stem that one assumes man evolved as man, not frgm anything
else. "The scientific teaching is that man is a scion of a stock
common to him and the higher apes, the divergence of humanoid and
anthropoid occurring, perhaps, between one and two million years
ago."6
Since this is not an anthr0pological paper per_§e, it will
discuss only briefly the more immediate ancestors of man. These

men, from australopithecines to cro-magnon, are a diverse lot.

This tends to substantiate the position that human evolution, rather

 

5Montagu, op. cit., po 30.

6J. Arthur Thompson, What is Man (New York: G. P. Putnam's
Sons, 1924), p. 11.

 

25

than being a straight line evolutionary process, is more of a net-
work, in which all sorts of criss-crossing groups (lines) go in all
sorts of directions, with interconnections established between the
different cords of the network.7

Derivatively, man was a biological creature before he
was a cultural creature, an animal before a human.
Indeed, man became human, with his human.nature, pre-
cisely because he was first an animal with a biological
nature towards a more effective adaptability that led
to his acquisition of a cultural nature.

The evolutionary process then is more appropriately seen
as a complex of interacting factors that collectively produce change
in the organism. These factors are:

1. Natural selection. '0n the fifth page of his epoch-
making book, The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin defined natural
selection in these words:

As many more individuals of each species are born
than Can possibly survive; and as, consequently,
there is a frequently recurring struggle for exis-
tence, it follows that any being, if it vary how-
ever slightly in any manner profitable to itself,
under the complex and sometimes varying conditions

of life, will have a better chance of surviving,
and thus be naturally selected. From the strong

 

7Montagu, op. cit. p. 83.

8Ronald K. Wetherington, The Nature of Man (Dubuque: wm. C.
Brown Company Publishers, 1967), p. 14.

26

principle of inheritance, any selected variety
will tend to propagate its new and modified form.

9 .

2. Mutation. A mutation is a transmissible change in the
structure of a hereditary particle or gene. They are assumed to be
always random. Mutations having adaptive value would rapidly become
established in the small populations which were characteristic of
early man. It is just this point, of random mutation, that many
dispute today. Since there is no plan of evaluation p§r_§e, one
must assume that mutation has, for the most part, been in the direc—
tion of enhancing the operative qualities of the organism. Those
who take exception insist that some superior intellect had to inter-
vene, at least at critical points, to insure the orderly process of
evolution. They believe that some "spiritual influx” had to be pre-
sent to explain the emergence of consciousness. Later this study
will discuss a similar problem (how order can arise out of disorder)
which has been present in the formulations of most psychological
theory, particularly that of Freud. It is somewhat mitigated in the
formulations of Piaget, who assumed order from the beginning. The

naturalists would insist that,

Man evolved from the dusty mammals, but he also
received a breath of divine life which nature could

 

9Charles Darwin, The Origin of.$pecies (Garden City: Double-
day, l859), p. 5.~-

27

not give, which nature cannot take away . . . .

There is.a piece of divinity in us; something

that was before the elements, and owes no homage

unto the sun.10
This position can not, of course, be argued on scientific grounds.
There are, however, logical flaws in the position. It suggests
that the power of God is not an ever-present force, but only inter-
venes at those points in time when it is necessary to help the natu-
ral processes over rough transitions. These “rough transitions”
would infer a certain imperfection in the creative activity itself.
This is, on the other hand, not so severe a problem if one takes
cognizance of the position taken on the duality of body and spirit
by those who take the divine creationist view. There is no inherent
reason why they should be inextricably linked. The idea of a Divine
inbreathing is not in itself repugnant. However, the idea that this
inbreathing made a mammal a man, or in St. Paul's phrase, a spiritual
body, forces one to accept the notion that there are two worlds, one
spiritual, and one empirical. Other factors influencing the evolu-
tionary process include:

3. Isolation. Isolation is used here in the sense that the

separation of a group from all other groups of the same species

 

10Thompson, op. cit., p. 32.

28

will insure that breeding will take place completely within the

isolated group. This would effectively limit the variability of
the available gene pool and soon produce a group clearly distin-
guishable from the larger group of which it is a part.

4. Genetic Drift. This concept is inextricably intertwined
with isolation. Within restricted gene pools the probability of
regressive, or at least neutral, mutations are more likely to occur.

5. Hybridization. Hybridization is essentially the reverse
of isolation and genetic drift. In either cross individual or cross
group mating, one effectively increases the available gene pool and
at the same time reduces the probability of recessive gene matching.

6. Sexual Selection. It is not certain what part, if any,
this factor has played in the evolution of man. Sexual selection
means simply the selection by the most powerfully endowed males
of the most preferred females. ”Powerfully endowedll may mean any-
thing from musculature to social prestige to kindliness.

7. Social Selection. This factor probably is becoming less
important all the time as the peoples of the earth are coming closer
together and many minority group barriers are being weakened. Orig-
inally, social class was one of the primary forces in this selection

factor (i.e. mobility, wealth).

29

Given that these are the primary factors considered in
evolutionary designs, the crucial point is whether consciousness
(a psychic phenomena) can be achieved through mutation (a physical
phenomena). The logical evidence says no. This leaves the initial
quandry unresolved. For all of its seeming sophistication, the
anthropological design must confine itself principally to morpho-
logical considerations and the one major question goes begging for
an answer. If, indeed, one had a legitimate sample of every man-
like creature, or man, that ever lived, he would still be unable
to designate with any precision that single point at which this

biological phenomenon became man.

The Divine Creation Model

 

An alternative explanation of man's origins is that afforded
by those who would depend on the dynamic interference of some tran-
scendent force in his creation. This could have occurred either
through an immediate, miraculous occurrence, or through a process
involving the influence of a superior force on an already present
action. If the first point is taken as the framework to be con-
sidered, then at some specific point in time a transcendent being,

for reasons not explained, decided that he would create, first,

30

an environment, and then the whole gamut of animal life to animate
this environment. This animal life apparently was to, in some
manner, derive from the environment itself.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form and empty. And dark-
ness was on-the face of the deep. And the spirit of
God moved on the face of the waters . . . .

And God said, let the waters bring forth abun-
dantly the moving creature that has life, and fowls
that fly over the earth in the open expanse of the
heavens. And.God.created great sea-animals, and
every living creature that moves, which the waters
brought forth abundantly, after their kind-rand
every winged fowl after its kind. . . .

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the
living creature after its kind--cattle, and creeping
things, and each animal of the earth after its kind—-
and it was so.

On the surface there would not appear to be any disagreement
here with the anthropologist's view of the origin of life. The
possible dissonance is not with the method or product, but with the
problem of a transcendent intelligence. This calls to attention the
problem of whether essence can logically precede existence. How can
one hold a secondary premise in the absence of the first? How can
the fundamental properties of a thing be known before the thing has

properties from which to.deduce? There is no logic system available

 

1]Holy Bible, Modern King James Version, 1962, Copyright

by Jay P. Green, Genesis, chapter l, verses l,2; verses 20,2l;
verse 24.

31

that can adequately cope with such a concept. Indeed, the problem
becomes even more acute if one considers that if essence can precede
existence, then one cannot postuiate any freedom in the creation or
behavior of the created object since the limits of its identity are

already established by its essence. An explanation is possible if

one turns to the device put forth by Nietzsche, that "God is dead."12

In this case God would be seen as an original force that, having
created, withdrew from his own creation leaving the created object
free to become, or not to become, that which was initially iden-
tified as its essence. This position finds further support in the
sacred writings themselves:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness. And let tpgm_[italics mine] have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over
every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So
God created man in His own image, in the image of God
He created him. He created them male and female . . .
And God saw everything that He had made, and behold!
it was very good . . .

. . And the Lord God formed man of the dust of
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life-~and man became a living soul.13

 

12Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be (New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press, New Haven, l952), p. 30.

13Holy Bible, op. ci ., Genesis, chapter 1, verses 26, 27, 28;
chapter 2, verse 7. ‘

 

32

Later one finds the following:
. . And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, you

may freely eat of every tree in the garden, but you

shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and

evil--for in the.day that you eat of it you shall

surely die.14
Why such a pairing of temptation and availability is a matter to
ponder. Why also, if God is a transcendent being, all powerful, all

knowing, everywhere present, did He not know of the conditions pre-

vailing that would lead man to violate the prohibition. 'The pro-

 

hibition is broken. In the eyes of God (authority) this is a sin.
From the standpoint of man, however, this is the beginning of human
freedom. Without this act man would not be. There would be no
church to condemn the very act that created it. In the creationist's
design this "sin“ is the first human act. Whether one takes the
anthropological or the creationist position it is obvious that man

is the architect of his own being.

God did not, however, withdraw entirely from his creation
at this point. Indeed, apparently, God was so perturbed with the
actions of his creation, which also faults the essence to existence
paradigm, that He decided to destroy it, save one of each which

still found favor in his eyes.

 

14Ibid., Genesis, chapter 2, verses l6, l7.

———-—-

33

And it grieved the Lord that He had made man on the
earth, and made.Him sorrowful at heart. And the
Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created,
from the face of the earth--both man and beast,
and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air--
for it grieves Me that I have made them.
. . But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
. . But I will.establish My covenant with you.
And you shall come into the.ark--you and your sans
and your wife.and your sons' wives with you. And
you shall bring.into.the ark two of every kind, of
every living thing of all'flesh--to keep them alive
with you. They shall be male and female . . 15
Again the dissonance derives from the problem of determinism.
The determination by an outside influence of when events shall
occur, as opposed to the random series of events postulated by
the evolutionists, removes man“5'freedom and would return him to
instinctual control. Further support for Nietzsche's contention
that "God is dead" is found in the sacred writings themselves:

And the Lord said, my spirit ghall not always strive
with man, Since he is flesh.1

While there is no clear point at which God did terminate his direct
influence on man, the direct references become less and finally come
to an end altogether after the indirect intervention in the form of

Jesus.

 

15Ibid.,,Genesis, chapter 6, verses 5, 6, 7, 8, l8, l9.

 

16Ibid., Exodus, chapter 33, verse 23.

34

The essence of the divine creation theory, in terms of
motivational factors, is precisely this alienation between the
creative force and the created object, along with the always
present wish for reunion.

The creationists are primarily concerned with the spiritual
(psychological) nature of man.‘ They show no concern for the mor-
phology so essential to the anthropologist point of view. A fur-
ther problem for the creationist position is its reliance on dogma
and the unwillingness even to attempt a rapproachment between the
forces of reason and the forces of absolute knowledge. The crea-
tionists' position tends to be one of demeaning man as man, and an
explicit assumption of impotency, evil, or at least perverseness
in his behavior (original sin).‘ This stems from the basic crea-
tionists' position of dominance--submission in man's relations with
his creator and also from the initial rejection by God of his crea-
tion because of what the creationists see as a sinful act, as opposed
to seeing this act as a first truly human act, without which man

would not be.

 

35

Existential Man

 

A common ground between these opposing views seems at hand
in the concepts of existentialism. Existentialism, whether it is
a philosophy or a psychology is not clear, declines to address the
matter of man's origin, but chooses to address itself to the more
useful question, that, given man as an existential being onia
priori grounds, how can man be understood as a living being?
Morphological and/or first cause problems are ignored in the active
effort to understand, not explain man in relation to the existential
dilemmas encountered because of man's living in the world. Whether
he gained this awareness eating an apple in the Garden of Eden or
had it arise from a random mutation, is of little significance. He
no longer is circumscribed by nature but still cannot get free of
nature. He is an animal that has lost its instinctual home.
. . This new event happens when in the evolutionary
process, action ceases to be essentially determined by
instinct; when adaptation of nature loses its coercive
character; when action is no longer fixed by heredi-
tarily given mechanisms. When the animal transcends
nature, when it transcends the purely passive role of
the creature, when it becomes, biologically speaking,

the most helpless animal, man is born . . . life
became aware of itself.17

 

17Erich Fromm, The Sane Society (Greenwich: Fawcett Publi-
cations, Inc., 1955), p. 30.

 

 

36

This awareness is a threatening experience, for it requires man to
cope for the first time with the problem of freedom. In this case
freedom "from," in that he is free from the coercive forces of his
instincts, but now is "free to," indeed, mpst, cope with the inevi-
table responsibility that inheres in freedom. To think of being
free after being tied to nature for unknown millions of years must
be seen as a terrifying experience. Even today, after generation
after generation of facing freedom, many are eager to give it up.
Men seek to lose themselves in all sorts of causes, nation, church,
ethnic group, any large body that provides the protection within
which man can relinquish the role forced on him of being totally
responsible for his every action. Some reason that it is simply
too much of a burden to bear and suggest that the only thing man
can do is destroy himself. Others feel that man's life and sanity
depend on his ability to deal creatively with his life dilemmas.

It has been said that man invents himself, he designs his own
essence. This means he must discover what ought to be from
introspection and by carefully observed and analyzed pragmatic out-
comes. The primary life force then is not physical, but mental.
This striving has been variously described as a seeking for return

to unity as put forth by Tillich:

 

37

One can rightly say that man is the being who is
able to ask questions. Let us think for a moment
what it means to ask a question. It implies,
first, that we do not have that for which we ask.
If we had it, we would not ask for it. But, in
order to be able to ask for something, we must
have it partially; otherwise it could not be the
object of a question. He who asks has and has
not at the same time. If man is that being who
asks the question of being, he has and has not
the being for which he asks. He is separated
from it while belonging to it. Certainly we
belong to being-—its power is in us--otherwise
we would not be. But we are also separated from
it; we do not possess it fully. Our power of
being is limited. We are a mixture of being and
nonbeing. This is precisely what is meant when
we say that we are finite. It is man in his
finitude who asks the question of being. He

who is infinite does not ask the question of
being. He is identical with it; he is God.

And a being which does not realize that it is
finite (and in our actual experience that is
every being except man) cannot ask, because it
cannot go beyond itself and its limits. But

man can and must ask; he cannot avoid asking,
because he belongs to the power of being from
which he is separated, and he knows both that

he belongs to it and that he is separated from it.

 

Others think of it in terms of the opportunity to build anew.
It is the "will to power" of Nietzsche:

"What is good?" ye ask. To be brave is good,
. not to be interested in long life, not

 

18Paui Tillich, Biblical Religion and the Search for Ultimate
Reality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), p. 11.

38

to want to be spared, and all this just.because
of the love.for.1ife. _The death of the warrior
and of the mature man shall not be a reproach
to the earth.1

He is saying here that one may, indeed, lose his life because he
must affirm that very life. Life is not negated because of a
physical negation which is an inherent part of its being. Again
he says:

Have ye courage, O my brethern? . . . Not the
courage.before witnesses, but anchorite and
eagle courage, which not even a God any longer
beholdeth? . . . He hath heart who knowesth
fear but vanquisheth it; who seeth the abyss,
but with pride. He who seeth the abyss but
with eagle's eyes,--he who with eagle's talons
graspeth the abyss; he has courage.20

 

For Nietzsche, then, the real purpose of life is revealed in the
willingness to look into the abyss of non-being, and still be. To
be able to endure that world of aloneness in which "God is dead,"
and man stands alone to make himself that which he truly is.

From this basic position of man's biological weakness and
at the same time his awareness of himself, specific conditions arise
and demand resolution. These conditions are called basic needs.

They are basic because they are essential to life and/or sanity,

 

19Oscar Levy, ed., The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche
(London: T. N. Foulis, 1911), p. 58.

20113111., p. 60.

39

and apply to all men. They are needs in that their resolution main-
tains health, lack of satiation breeds iliness, the restoration of
a satisfier restores health.21
Because all men live in essentially the same physical world,
the needs themselves are the same for all men. The means available
to their resolution is of course an aspect of the cultural milieu
in which any particular man lives. "We can define the concept of
basic needs as the environmental and biological conditions which
must be fulfilled for the survival of the individual and the
group."22 Culture is, in fact, the sum total of the means any
group finds satisfactory in meeting their individual needs.
Malinowski stated:
. that cultural phenomena are not the conse-
quence of capricious inventiveness or simple bor-
rowing, but were determined by basic needs and
the possibilities of satisfying them.23

This relationship is reciprocal.

. it is clear that the satisfaction of the
organic or basic needs of man and of the race

 

21Abraham H. Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being (Princeton:
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962), p. 20.

22Bronislaw Malinowski, A Scientific Theory of Culture and
Other Essays (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press,
1944), p. 109.

23Ib'id., p. 111.

40
is a minimum set of conditions imposed on each
culture.
All cultures are simply patterned conditions in which certain need
resolutions are more strongly reinforced than others.

What, then, are the need conditions for which satiation
opportunities must be available?

First, man must be able to establish some means of relating
to other men and the world in which they live and move.25 This need
to find a means of relating may well be rooted in man's breaking
away from nature (independent of the causal origins whether they be
evolutionary or creationistic). Man is aware of his aloneness and
separateness. He could not face this condition at all if he did not
have some means of finding opportunities for establishing new ties
with his fellow man to replace those lost through his freeing him-
self from the original instinctual oneness. There are, of course,
several means by which this union can be sought and achieved. Man
can attempt to regain the feeling of oneness by analogy. That is,
he can find some other force to which he can submit and be con-

trolled. By so submitting he avoids his feelings of aloneness. The

 

241bid., p. 112.

25Erich Fromm, op. cit., p. 35.

41

object of his submission may be another person, nation, ethnic
group, or even God. A second alternative open to him is to

become the dominant one of this relationship. If one gains power
over another then one also overcomes the feelings of aloneness.

The element that destroys either of these alternatives as productive
outcomes is their symbiotic nature. Both have become trapped by the
other. Each must give up his integrity. Each must have the other

or lose his reference point.‘ Since these must, by their very nature,

 

be object specific, they also create a self-defeating dynamism.
Each must ever attempt to enlarge his dominion over the other,

resulting inevitably in death or insanity for one member of the
symbiotic tie.

The alternative to such self-defeating ways of relating must
be found in a form whereby one can unite himself with others while
maintaining his individuality. It must be obtained in a condition
where the means apply equally across all others without the con~
tingent characteristic of submission-domination. This means can
be found when one relates to others in such a way that the other is
respected as an individual while at the same time respect for self
is maintained equally. The major characteristic of such a rela-
tionship is its horizontalness as opposed to the hierarchical char-

acteristics of the alternative. Relating in this manner also

42

demands concern for others. One must always decide what effect any
action will have on others, and thus there is a constant monitoring
of action against action, a continual judgment of action, and con-
sequent change in the relation. This demands that the relationship
be dynamic as opposed to the static condition of the symbiotic
dependency. For this condition to be possible one must have and con-

tinue to seek knowledge, both of self and other, so that the concern

and respect can be apprgpriately'shown.' The natural consequence of

 

 

the foregoing is that given these characteristics, one in doing them
becomes a living member in the union thus formed and thereby must
accept responsibility for the other.

A second, but closely allied need, is the need for a sense
of personal identity.26 Having emerged from nature and having
awareness of self--but self only in terms of "not part of nature"--
what then is this new animal? Man needs to find some basis by
which he can give definition to this thing that is man. One means
is for man to observe his environment, realize that he is living in
an orderly universe—-a place of regularity and sameness: then find
the mean value by which one defines things by their "normal” char-

acteristics. By this method one can seem to be very comfortable

 

26Erich Fromm, op. cit., p. 62.

43

for he is always "as you desire me." To gain this comfort, however,
the price is very high; it demands that man renounce his true indi-
viduality. In order to conform he must alienate himself from his
own powers. He must experience himself, not as the subject of his
own experience, but as the object of his experiences as validated
through the reactions of others.' As shall be discussed in more
detail later, this is one of the major problems of competitive eco-
nomic systems. In order to meet this need for identity more pro—
ductively, man must be free to, and have available the resources
to, experience his own powers. He must define himself in an active
interaction with the people and objects of the world around him.
Only in this manner can he try the limits of his capacities and
feelings. To do less is to condemn all of the artificial life where
goals are only consensual agreements, relevant only at a point in
time. In the completely relativistic society all are adrift in a
boat over which none has control and none knows its destination.
This point is so beautifully made by Loren Eisley:
I had come into the smoking compartment of a

train at midnight, out of the tumult of a New York

weekend. As I settled into a corner I noticed a

man with.a paper sack a few seats beyond me. He

was meager of flesh and his cheeks had already

taken on the molding of the skull beneath them.

His threadbare clothing suggested that his

remaining possessions were contained in the
sack poised on his knees. His eyes were closed,

 

44

his head flung back. He either drowsed from exhaustion
or liquor, or both.. In that city at midnight there
were many like him.

By degrees the train filled and took its way into
the dark. After a time the door opened and the con-
ductor shouldered his way in, demanding tickets. I
had one sleepy eye fastened on the dead—faced derelict.
It is thus one hears from the gods.

"Tickets." bawled the conductor.

I suppose.every0ne in the car was watching for
the usual thing to occur. What happened was much
more terrible...

Slowly the man opened his eyes, a dead man's eyes.
Equally slowly .a .sticklike arm reached-down .and' fumbled
in his pocket,.producing a roll of bills. "Give me,"
he said then, and his voice held the croak of a raven
in a churchyard, "give me‘a ticket to wherever it is.‘l

The conductor groped, stunned, over the bills.

The dead eyes closed° The trainman's hastily produced
list of stations had no effect. Obviously disliking

this role of Charon he selected the price to Phila-
delphia, thrust the remaining bills into.the derelict's
indifferent hand and departed. I looked around. People
had returned to their papers, or were they only feigning?

In a single sentence that cadaverous individual had
epitomized modern time as opposed to Christian time and
in the same breath had pronounced the destination of the
modern world. One of the most articulate philosophers
of the twentieth century, Henri Bergson, has dwelt upon
life's indeterminacy, the fact that it siezes upon the
immobile, animates, organizes, and hurls it forward into
time. In a single poignant expression this shabby crea-
ture on a midnight express train had personalized the
terror of an open—ended.universe. I know that all the
way to Philadelphia I fumbled over my seat check and
restudied it doubtfully. It no longer seemed to mean
what it indicated. As I left the train I passed the
bearer of the message. He slept on, the small brown
sack held tightly in his lap. Somewhere down the line
the scene would be endlessly repeated. Was he waiting
for some final conductor to say ”this is the place"
at a dark station? Or was there money in the paper

 

45

sack and had he been traveling for a hundred years

in these.shabby coaches.as a.stellar.object might

similarly.wander for ages on the highroads of the

night?27
Man, the victim of his own powers, can never find the identity he
must have, but man, the subject of his own powers can find suf-
ficient direction that, even in the absence of absolutes, he can
feel secure in his position as the designer of his own destiny.

The idea of man's inherent evilness is no longer defensible
in the light of current knowledge. Its corollary, man's inherent
goodness, seems equally in doubt. The only tenable direction in
this age is for man ppt_to rely on some force external to himself
that allows him to disown responsibility for his acts, whether that
force is good or evil, nor can he refuse to participate in his own
destiny; he must begin a scientific study of himself as a freely
functioning organism so that he can become aware of the totality
of his capacities and exercise conscious control over himself.

Thus he may create a culture which allows the truest expression of

his unique self, and that in turn is the expression of the humanness

of man.

 

 

27Loren Eisley, "Man, Time, and Prophecy," in The New Idea
in Education, J. A. Battle and Robert L. Shannon, eds. (New York:
Harper and Row Publishers, 1968), pp. 46, 47.

 

46

All of man's needs, as presented here, are really attempts
to segment, for the purpose of explanation, a unitary force that
probably should not be seen as separate entities, but more appro—
priately as different emphases on the total.

The third need to be discussed is that of a necessity for
a frame of orientation and'devotion.28 Being endowed with reason,
which makes him aware of the accidentalness of his birth, and per-
haps even more so of the inevitableness of his death, man seeks an
answer to the most puzzling question of all. Why? Surely there is
some purpose to this whole complex thing beyond simply being an
unusual animal on an insignificant heavenly body in an indifferent
universe of such size that it seems infinite. Because of the mag-
nitude of this problem many men seek refuge in some form of irra-
tional behavior. Some seek solace in the acceptance of dogmatic
positions which have little or no evidential support. Many of
these positions promise a recovery from the death which man knows
is the inevitable result of living. These attempts to overcome
his finitude have not served man well, they tend to demean him by
making him dependent on some external force for his ultimate ex—

pression. He is incapable of any significant part in his own

 

28Erich Fromm, op. cit., p. 64.

47

purposing. Also these positions, as any absolute must, lose
believability with time, and in an attempt to maintain themselves,
the institutions which support them must enforce some form of cen-
sorship in order to keep the “believers" in line. This anti-
intellectual, anti-science thinking prevents man from gaining the
very information he needs in order to survive on his earthly home.
The alternative to this position is for man to use the capacity of
reason which is his in the attempt to find purpose, and, if not
purpose, at least understanding of his human condition. Indeed,
he may arrive at the same knowledge that was his under the irra-
tionality of outside authority, but it will now be his and thus
worthy of commitment. This searching for meaning is developed by
some as the principle force in man's being:
. this striving to find a meaning in one's life
is the primary motivational force in man . . . .
Man's search for meaning is a primary force in

his life and not a "secondary rationalization“ of

instinctual drives. This meaning is unique and

specific in that it must and can be fulfilled by

him alone; only then does it achieve a significance

which will satisfy his own will to meaning.29

A last need to be considered is that of man's necessity to

find a new home to replace the one he lost when he ceased to be a

 

 

29Viktor Frankl, Man's Search For Meaning (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1959), p. 99.

48

part of nature.30 This condition would seem to be a more general
case of the need to relate to others and things in his environment.
Short of returning to his original oneness with nature, which he
knows to be impossible, man must find a unity with which he can
achieve a feeling of solidarity. This need is most typically met
by forming alliances with other men. The group then defines the
entity in which man is rooted. Whether this be nation, church,
clan, or vocation, it establishes exclusive parameters which
exclude others from membership. These excluding characteristics
become points of contention, particularly in terms of what group
membership means in terms of privilege and power. It is inevitable
under such conditions that resources for meeting other needs become
scarce for some, abundant for others. This leads to conditions
which cause a differential in the level at which needs are met and
also determines that, since needs mp§t_be met in some way, alter-
native means will become accepted. This in turn causes discernible
differences in the behavioral patterns of the groups, and the larger
group is thus fragmented. The more desirable means for meeting

this need would be for all men to attain a feeling of unity with

 

30Erich Fromm, op. cit., p. 42.

 

49

each other. This would provide man with the closest possible

return to his original state of oneness with nature.

Given these four basic need structures and their resolutions

in productive and non-productive directions, what kind of culture

would most productively serve man in meeting his needs and what

kinds of cultures have been produced as man seeks to satisfy his

needs? First a summary of the needs and their resolutions.

Non-productive
Resolution

 

Submission-
domination

Conformity-
alienation

Irrationality

Excluding and
exclusive ties

The Basic Needs

 

The need to re-
late to others

The need for
personal identity

The need for a
frame of orienta-
tion

The need for
rootedness

Productive
Resolution

 

Care-concern
knowledge respon-
sibility

Experiences own
power

Reason

Ties to all
mankind

It would be most desirable if man could create a culture which

would not only make it possible but would encourage one to resolve

his need conditions in productive ways.

This would provide the

conditions through which his unique human characteristics would

 

50

achieve expression and be clarified while at the same time setting
the stage for positive evolutionary shifts.

"Culture represents man's response to his basic needs.
Culture is man's way of making himself comfortable in the world."31
Culture then is the behavioral expression of basic needs. The
problem then is, can man gain control of his culture so that he can
enhance the productive meeting of these needs, rather than being a
victim of his culture as it is produced through themresolution of
need conditions in an uncontrolled‘system?hilt is generally agreed
that the responses growing out of the satisfaction of the basic
needs and of the new needs derived from the ways in which they are
satisfied--in turn give rise to all or almost all of those cultural
responses which are known. Cultural behavior is socially rather
than biologically determined; it is acquired, not innate; habitual,
rather than instinctive. Biological heredity underlies culture.
It gives man the unorganized responses which are then organized
under the pressures of the social process.32 These organized

habit complexes which build up around the need satisfying behaviors

become clusters of similar and reciprocal responses of a large

 

 

3lMontagu, op. cit., p. 117.

32George Peter Murdock, Culture and Society'(Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press, 1965), p. 27.

 

 

51

number of individuals. They differ from individual habits in that
they are shared and possessed in common by a large number of the
individuals in a culture and thus acquire a certain independence
and at least a measure of immortality. Thus "institutions" are
established by the individuals in a culture, rather than being
entities capable in themselves of acting on and controlling indi-
viduals. All cultures share the major institutions in some form.
Generally these are matters of language, morals, religion, marriage,
governance, economic provisions, and education.33 These “cultural
universals" are never identities in habit, but in similarities in
classification systems for these behaviors that are essential for
the perpetuation of the culture or for control of those behaviors
that threaten to disrupt the culture. Cultures that do not provide
for the orderly change of these institutions must die out. Indeed,
culture rather than being a thing is an ideational flow in which
there are always at least two levels: what ought to be and what
is. As Durkheim pointed out in Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life:

Therefore when some oppose the ideal society to the
real society, like two antagonists which would lead

 

33Albert Muntsch, Cultural Anthropology (The Bruce Publishing
Company, 1936), p. 286.

 

52

us in opposite directions, they materialize and
oppose.abstractions...The.idealisociety.is.ppt_
outside the society; 'it isgpart_of it. Far
from being divided between them as two poles
which mutually repel each other, we cannot hold
to the one without holding to the other. For
society is not made up merely of the mass of
individuals who compose it, the ground which
they occupy, the things which“they.use, and the
movements they.perform; butlabove.all is the
idea which it forms of itseif: “[italics mine]

Every culture seems to have some ideational base concerning man and
his nature, and from this, often intuitive base, the cultural
behaviors flow. All cultures provide for a patterned system in
which certain solutions predominate. They are all attempts to give
an answer to man's existential problems.

The finest, as well as the most barbaric cultures

have the same function. The difference is only

whether the answer given is better or worse. The

deviate from the cultural pattern is just as much ‘

in search of an answer as his more well-adjusted‘

brother. His answer may be better or worse than

the one given by his culture--it is always another

answer to the same fundamental question raised by

human eXistence.35 '

As one surveys human history, he sees a gradual shifting

from authoritarian models to increasingly personal, self-directed

 

34Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,
trans. by J. W. Swain (New York: Collier, 1961), p. 74.

K .

35Erich Fromm, op. cit., p. 35.

53

models. This can be seen if one starts with the instinct dominated
forms before man freed himself from nature, then moves through the
Clan, the tribe, the various systems of aristocratic forms to the
present position of basically humanistic, individualistic cultures.
Actually, the dominate cultures today are very similar, the dif-
ference being primarily matters of means for achieving the ends,
which are the same in all of them.

In the earlier period of aristocracy it was actually
easier to meet many of the needs than it is today. But in non-
productive ways. In the aristocratic model man's need to relate
was pre-determined by the system. Because of the inherent hier-
archical structure of an aristocracy, the dominant mode for meeting
this need was dominance submission. The relative social positions
of the sharply divided society are set and relatively permanent.
The alternatives for relating are severely limited and the pattern
established at the top tends to perpetuate itself even in those
social realms where it is not particularly appropriate.36 This is
most evident in the guild method of production and the training of

apprentices. The apprentice is not just working under the master

 

36Gianfranco Poggi, Images of Society (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1972), p. 68.

54

but is clearly subservient to him. This system does offer a sense
of identity, if one is willing to be that which one is by birth or
by placement by an arbitrary system.' Since movement from social
class to social class is impossible, one can work diligently at
his trade with little evident pressure. The system itself tends
to rest on some principle of divine gift of the rights and privi-
leges of the ruling class. This is shown most eloquently in the
moral structures concerning marriage and procreation among the
nobility. Marriages are arranged on the basis of blood lines and
property rather than love or affection. For this reason it is not
assumed the marriage among the aristocracy is a happy state; it is
simply a device to secure and maintain the line. For this reason
indiscretions by the males are looked on with amusement and are
broadly condoned. However, infidelity of the female would be
disastrous as it would taint the lineage, thus, must be severely
guarded against.

The need for a frame of orientation is readily met within
the mandatory structures of the quasi religious set of absolutes by
which the nobility claim their rights and privileges. Were it not
for the "will to power" of Nietzsche, the "search for meaning" of
Frankl, or the "virtue" of Spinoga, such a system would be a

satisfactory resolution to the problem of man's existence. But

55

_ these forces make it impossible for man to survive indefinitely in
such a system.

Yet, in spite of all this evidence [of man's
malleability]. the history of man shows that we
have omitted one fact, despots and ruling cliques
can succeed in dominating and exploiting their
fellow man, but they cannot prevent reactions to
this inhuman treatment. Their subjects become
frightened, suspicious, lonely and, if not due
to external reasons, their systems collapse at
some point because fears, suspicions, and lone-
liness eventually incapacitate the majority to
function effectively‘and inteliigently. ,Whole
nations, or social groups within them,_can be
subjugated and.exploited for a long time, but
they react., They react with apathy or such
impairment of intelligence, initiative and
skills that they gradually fail to perfOrm the
functions which should serve their rulers. Or
they react by the accumulation of such hate and
destructiveness.as to bring about an end to.
themselves, their rulers and their system.

Again their reaction may create such indepen-
dence and longing for freedom that a better
society is built upon their creative impulses.
Which reaction occurs, depends on many factors;
on economic and political ones, and on the
spiritual climate in which people live. Bpt_
whatever the reactions are, the statement that
~man can live under almost any condition is only
half true; it must be suppiemented by the other
statement,_that if he lives under conditions
which are contrary to his nature and to the
basic requirements for human growth and sanity,
he cannot help reacting; he must either deter-
iorate andgperish, or-bring'aboutconditions.7
which are more in accordance with his needs.°

37Erich Fromm, op. cit., pp. 26, 27.

56

In democratic orders, in general, the possibilities for
man meeting his needs productively are greatly expanded, but the
problem of freedom and responsibility loom much larger. Citizen—
ship is bestowed equally on all men, also the responsibilities
which equal power imposes on each man. No one person should look
to another for decision-making but should have access to information.
A democratic society is one where the government rests upon the
freely given consent of the governed.38 In this definition "the
governed" means all those participating members of the community
whose lives are affected by what the government does or leaves
undone. "The government" here is intended to mean the law and
policy making agencies, legislative, executive, and judicial, whose
activities influence the life of the community. These laws and
Policies are derived from the sentiment of the mass of the people
and are therefore nothing more or less than the codification of‘
the will of the governed. In no way should government be understood
as something apart from, or coercive on the people it governs, as
15 the case in all authority centered designs. Democracy is more a

form of social relations than a system of governance per se.

\

 

38Sidney Hook, Reason, Social Myths, and Democragy (New
YoY‘k: The John Day Company, 1940), p. 285.

 

57

Another definition of democracy is: "a cultural system deviSed so
as to allow the fullest opportunities to the individual and to the
group to determine its purposes, to organize and implement them,
and to carry out the activities upon which they are intent."39

This definition would appear to include both social and economic
relations since a cultural system implies the interactive dynamics
of all the existing institutional roles and behaviors. Democracy,
then, gives primacy to the individual. Every citizen is of equal
worth and is deserving of all the opportunities, rewards, and
sanctions that the system has at its disposal. At the same time
this freedom demands from each citizen responsibility; not only

for himself, but for the protection and enhancement of the unit
itself. This interaction of freedom and responsibility is facil-
itated if certain positive conditions are present. First, the
active participation of those governed in the process of government
is essential.40 This is not to say that every citizen should do the
work of governance, but that free discussion and consultation on

public policies is possible. For this to be a reality each citizen

must not only have the right to independent action but also access

 

39Bronislaw Malinowski, Freedom and Civilization (New York:
Roy Publishers, 1944), p. 231.

40Hook,0p.'cit., p. 287.

 

58

to any and all information that is relevant to the matter under
consideration and the education demanded to process this infor-
mation. Where the governed feel that they have no stake in the
government, indifference results. A second requirement for the
effective working of democracy is the presence of mechanisms which
permit action, through delegated authority, in crucial situations.4]
There is nothing incompatible with democracy in delegating specific
functions, provided that at fixed intervals an accounting is made

to those governed. Those governed, alone, have the prerogative of
renewing or abrogating the grant of authority. Taking note of the
psychological effect of holding power, and weighing the historical
evidence that indicates that many democratic organizations, sooner
or later, become instruments of a minority group, which, identifying
its own special interests with the interests of the organization

as a whole, keeps power by fraud, myth, or force, every citizen
must accept a share in the eternal vigilance necessary to keeping
his government democratic. The third and most sensitive factor
essential to democratic government, is that the economic system

that operates parallel to the social system must be such that it

contributes to the more general goals of the system, or at least

 

4'Ihid., p. gas.

59

not be antithetical to them. Such "economic democracy,“ demands
that the governed, organized as producers and consumers, have an
active part also in the laws and policies of the economic system.
Whether this demands some form of social ownership is a point of
much dispute.
Democracy then is a cultural design where the major focus
is on a horizontal system of relationships where each provides a
service. Ascribed positions are held to a minimum and every man
should have free access to whatever level of function his capa-
bilities allow. It is a dynamic system and as such must be for-
ever rehewing its institutions, norms, mores, etc. While culture
rests on those traits that are biologically based, the form these
traits take in terms of actual behavior is determined in the
every day give and take of social living. The essence of the cul-
tural process is selectivity; men may often make a choice. Clyde
Kluckholn said:
In the years to come it is possible that this

discovery of the human origin and development of

culture will be recognized as the greatest of all

discoveries, since heretofore man has been helpless

before these cultural and social formulations which

generation after generation have perpetuated the

same frustration and defeat of human values and

aspirations. So long as he believed this was
necessary and inevitable, he could not but

accept this lot with resignation. Now man is
beginning to realize that this culture and social

60

organization are not unchanged cosmic processes,
but are human creations which may be altered. For
those who cherish the democratic faith this dis-
covery means that they can, and must, undertake

a continuing assay of our culture and our society
in terms of its consequences for human life and
human values. This is the historic origin and
purpose of human culture, to create a human way
of life. To our age falls the responsibility

of utilizing the amazing new resources of science
to meet these cultural tasks, to continue the
great human tradition of man taking charge of

his own destiny.

The most propitious environment for meeting basic needs would seem

to be one where there is a minimum of coercive force and a maximum

of realistic challenge. The American democratic culture would seem
to be such an environment. How well has the democratic culture of

America met this challenge? As man meets his basic needs the cul-

tural environment is thereby changed and in turn provides different
avenues to more productively meet the basic needs. Thus the need-

culture interaction produces an increasingly propitious environ-

ment.

 

42Clyde Kluckholn, "Culture as a Force: Mirroring Modern
Man," Democratic Legacy in Transition (New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, 1971), p. 109.

CHAPTER III

THE CULTURE OF AMERICA

A Problem of Identity

The American Nation, a collective of over 200 million people
inhabiting a vast territory; what is it that defines them? The
nation is thought of and treated as if it were an integral unit:
in its name wars are fought, treaties concluded, agreements made;
and as its citizens travel in other lands the label “American" means
something to the people of these other lands. Yet it is a hetero-
geneous collection of people having diverse internal and external
identities: racial, vocational, ethnic, and religious. There are
marked differences in behavior in regional and local collectives.

Yet for a social system to exist, for the word nation to have mean-
ing, the behaviors of this diverse population must have certain
regularities, certain commonalities of belief. In the American

case the study of its culture is even more confounded by the

dynamic nature of its institutions. It is not a system of absolutes,

61

62

but a system of broad general principles (values) upon which actions
are taken with the full acceptance of their tentativeness.

In order to understand the American culture better, it is
necessary to take a cursory look at a few of the givens within which
it took root and grew. First, one must consider the enormity of the
land mass, particularly in comparison to the small rather heavily
populated areas of Europe from which most of the early settlers
came. A land of this size, protected on each side by vast oceans
and connected to sparsely settled land masses above and below, gaVe
an impetus to the free spirit which has characterized the American
personality. It was very difficult for one group to gain control
of any other because they could always move away from these would-
be controllers. The American Indian, the only people here initially
to subjugate, simply would not be enslaved. Further, the relative
isolation of the land allowed an essentially nonmilitary governmental
structure. "The expanse of ocean and the expanse of land . . . have
been two of the greatest geographical factors in molding the thought
as well as the character of the American."1

Second, the resources of the land were staggering. Coal,

iron, and petroleum were readily accessible and near each other.

 

1James Truslow Adams, The American (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1943), p. 227.

 

63

Add to this the available energy sources, particularly water power,
and the potential for industrial expansion is obvious.

A third factor contributing to the American character is the
heterogeneity of the population. Three great waves of immigration
produced a group of people of varied ethnic and racial backgrounds
such as had never before been assembled.2 Add to this the diverse
religious backgrounds of these peoples, and it is readily seen why

America is said to be a land of minorities.

The Value Paradox

 

Given these conditions which influenced the development of
the American culture, one must define the resultant set of values
which have been produced if one is to understand these people.

While one would not claim that these are necessarily exclusive to, or
even peculiar to, America, nor do all Americans share them, still
there are value complexes which form the basis for those behaviors
which are accepted and acceptable in the American society. .A value

is, for the purposes of this thesis, any aspect of a situation,

 

2Robin M. Williams Jr., American Society (New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1951), p. 15.

 

64

event, or object that is invested with a preferential interest as
being "good," "bad," "desirable," and the like.3 Values, then, are
modes of organizing conduct. The more a value is the expreSsion of
a central institutional structure, the more rigidly it is held, the
more violent the internal reactions when a violation occurs, and
the more severe the external censure will probably be for a trans-
gression. The value continuum would fade off to those matters which
evoke little or no reaction or censure. For example, aesthetic
standards or simple norms of expediency or technical efficiency.
What then are the central value themes of American culture?
There is, of course, always the juxtaposition of the ideal, as ver-
balized by the majority, and the real, as experienced by the minority
through the behavior of the majority. This problem, as pointed out
in the previous chapter, should not be seen as destructive, for it
is this differential that gives the society direction. Becoming, as
a process of growth, is as much a concept relevant to the growth of
a society as it is to personal growth. The conflicting nature of
these value complexes has been well presented by Robert Lynd.
Individualism, l'the survival of the fittest,"
is the law of nature and the secret of America's

greatness; and restrictions on individual freedom
are un-American and kill initiative.

 

3Ibid.. p. 374.

 

65

BUT: No man should live for himself alone;
for people ought to be loyal and stand together
and work for common purposes.

Democracy, as discovered and.perfected by
the American people, is the ultimate form of
living together. All men are created free and
equal, and the United States has made this fact
a living reality. '

BUT: You would never get anywhere, of
course, if you constantly left things to popular
- vote. No business could be run that way, and no
businessman would tolerate.it.

The family is our basic institution and the
sacred core.of our national life. .

BUT: .Business.is¢our most important insti—
tution, and since nationai welfare depends upon
it, other institutions must conform to.its needs.

Religion and "the finer things of life" are
our ultimate values and the things all of us are
really working for.

1BUT: A man owes it to himself and his
family to make as much money as he can.

Honesty is the best.policy..

BUT: Business is business, and a business-
man would be a fool if he didn't cover his hand.

Education is a fine thing.

BUT: It is the practical men who get things
done. .

Children are a blessing.

BUT: You should not have more children
than you can afford.

Patriotism and public service are fine things.

BUT: Of course, a man has to look out for
himself.

The American judicial system insures justice
to every man, rich or poor.

BUT: A man is a fool not to hire the best
lawyer he.can afford.

While these conflicts are real and do serve
to cause uncertainty about human action, they
do not represent fundamental weaknesses in our
society. While it is important forppeople to

 

66

clarity their values and for our society to
eliminate conflicts, it is true that thepgrowing
edge of a culture may reveal conflicts at a
given time. If an entire culture agrees upon a
value, the result is monolithic with very little
chance of growth.4

 

While it is possible to delineate the differences from this
form of presentation, it is perhaps more clear cut if the ideal and

the real are presented separately.

The American Ideal

 

The ideal can be postulated in two ways: 1) by assessing
the verbalizations of a wide selection of people concerning what
is desired, or 2) by taking the fundamental premises from which the
system springs and, through the use of logic, develop a set of
values which seem most efficacious if those ends are to be met.
This is essentially the method presented in Chapter II using the
basic needs as the absolutes and their positive resolutions as the
means. Attention will be given the first method.

There have been many efforts to set forth the basic values

inherent in American culture. In the presentation of the Seven

 

4Robert S. Lynd, Knowledge for What? The Place of Social
Science in American Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1939), pp. 60-62.

67

Cardinal Principles by the N.E.A. Commission on the Reorganization
of Secondary Education, there was an excellent discussion of the
nature of democracy.5 There have also been statements of goals
(values) consistent with democracy by those from sectors of the
society other than education. President Roosevelt, during World
War II, defined the goals of democracy in terms of the four free-
doms: freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of speech, and
freedom of religion. In a more general presentation the United
Nations on December 10, 1948, proclaimed the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.6 While this list is not specifically democratic,
still it indicates the wide area of agreement among the nations of
the world as to what they are trying to do.

At the close of World War II a venture called the "Citizen-
ship Education Project" was set up by Teachers College, Columbia

University. Among other things, this project developed a statement

 

5N.E.A., Commission of the Reorganization of Secondary
Education, Cardinal Principles of Education (Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1918).

6"Your Human Rights": The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights Proclaimed by the United Nations, December 10, 1948, New
York, Ellner, p. 71. -

68

of the "Premises of American Liberty." The following is taken

from that list of such premises.7

THE FREE INDIVIDUAL

BASIC SOCIAL BELIEFS

" Every person is of importance as.an individual;
his well-being is vital in itself.

All persons should have maximum freedom, con-
sistent with the general welfare, to develop as they
desire.

All persons should be considered as individuals
and judged on their merit; their differences should
be respected, their rights safeguarded.

All persons should possess equal rights and
liberties.

The rights of any person should not be exer-
cised so as to interfere with the rights of others.

The action of any individual or group must not
endanger the welfare of the people or threaten the
security of the nation.

Both competition and cooperation among indi-
viduals and groups are indispensable to the pro-
cess of democracy.

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Develop personal integrity and act with moral
courage.

Develop his talents and his skills in the fields
of his interest.
_ Restrain the exercise of his rights so as not
to harm the general welfare or violate the lawful
rights of others.

In time of national emergency, accept the
restriction or even the suspension of some of
his rights and privileges in the interest of
public security.

 

7When Men Are Free: Premises of American Liberty, Citizen-
ship Education Project of Columbia University, New York, Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1955, pp. 68-73.

69

Give direct, unselfish service to his family,

his community, and his nation.

If need be, take up arms in defense of his

country.

THE FRE GOVERNVENT
BASIC POLITICAL BELIEFS

Men have the ability to govern themselves.
All power_belongs to and comes from the people.
Public officials are responsible to the people.
The people have the right to reform, alter, or

totally change their government by lawful means
when they so.desire.

Government has a responsibility to promote the

general welfare.

Government should be by law duly adopted, and

not by the whim of any man.
The church and the state should be separate.

POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITIES

The people have the responsibility to keep
informed about public problems and the action
taken on them by those in public office.

Vote in elections.

Accept public office when public interest
requires it.

Voice opinions and demands directly to
representatives_in government.

In time of public emergency, serve as the
government may direct.

Use democratic methods to achieve group
agreement--conference, debate, compromise--and
abide by the will of the majority; the majority
should respect the rights and opinions of the
minority.

Consider the common good before group and
class loyalties.

Obey the law and use only lawful means to
correct injustices.

70

THE FREE ECONOVIY

BASIC ECONOMIC GOALS

An increasing national productivity, made
possible by technological development, that will
lower the cost of goods and raise the standard
of living-

The elimination of deep and prolonged depression.

The.freest.possible economic competition con—
sistent with the general welfare. .,

Opportunity for full.development. _

Full employment under safe and healthful
working conditions.

Fair pay.

Sufficient food, clothing, housing, and medical
care.

Social securit,—+protection against the basic
hazards of existence such as old age, sickness,
accident, and unemployment.

The opportunity to enjoy life--no one should
be so hard- -pressed to earn the necessities of
life that he cannot take part in "the pursuit of
happiness."

THE PRIVILEGES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ECONOMIC
ORGANIZATIONS-‘CORPORATE ENTERPRISE AND ORGANIZED
LABOR

Both may organize--business in association and
in corporations under state charters, labor in
free and uncoerced unions.

Both may acquire financial power-—corporations
through profits and the .sale of securities, unions
by assessing members.

Unions, as the representatives of all or a
specified group of workers in an industry or
plant, may bargain with management.

Union members may strike and picket peacefully.

Neither business nor labor may use its organized
power in restraint of trade.

Neither business nor labor may imperil the health
or safety of the nation.

71

This value to behavior design indicates what one group thinks
America "ought" to be.

A more restrictive, but perhaps more understandable, list
of values was presented by the National Education Association.
They are as follows:8

1. Human Personality--The Basic Value

Among the values here proposed, the first.is
fundamental to all that follow. The basic moral
and spiritual value in American life is the supreme
importance of the individual personality.

2. Moral Responsibility .

If the individual personality is supreme,
each person should feel responsible for the
consequences of his own conduct.

3. Institutions as the Servants of Men.

If the individual personality is supreme,
institutional arrangements are the servants
of'mankind.

4. Common Consent

If the individual personality is supreme,
mutual consent is better than violence.

5. Devotion to Truth

If the individual personality is supreme,
the human mind should be liberated by access
to information and opinion.

6. Respect for Excellence

If the individual personality is supreme,
excellence in mind, character, and creative
ability should be fostered.

7. Moral Equality

If the individual personality is supreme,
all persons should be judged by the same moral
standards.

 

8Moral and Spiritual Values in the Public Schools, Educa-
tional Policies Commission, National Education Association,
Washington, D.C., 1951, pp. 18-30.

 

72

8. Brotherhood
If the individual personality is supreme,
the concept of’brotherhood should take precedence

over selfish interests.
9. The Pursuit of Happiness

If the individual personality is supreme,
each person should have the greatest possible
opportunity for the pursuit of’happiness,
provided only that such activities do not
substantially interfere with the similar
opportunities of others.
10. Spiritual Enrichment
If the individual personality is supreme,
each person should be offered the emotional
and spiritual experiences which transcend the
materialistic aspects of life.
This list unfortunately ignores the economic value aspect and the
attendant problems of the integration of the social and economic
spheres.

The common value threads that tie each of these positions
together are: l) respect for the individual as an individual (even
a minority of one), 2) the responsibility of each individual as.
he acts within the group, both in terms of the individuals com-
prising the group and the group itself, 3) the development of the
talents and abilities of each individual to their highest level so
that they can function effectively in the social, the political,
and the economic sectors of the culture, 4) and lastly the idea that

institutions are the servants of man and since man.is the source

of power behind all institutional arrangements. including government,

73

he can change them when it is desirable in order to improve the

quality of life in America.

The Way It Is

 

It is much easier to deal with the abstractions of the
democratic ideal, in intellectual terms, than to specify what is
actually going on in the American culture. -For.onetthing'there is
a great deal of agreement concerning what fought"‘to be, but there
is much less agreement as to what is. iWhat is,i somehow, appears
grossly different when viewed from the various minority positions.
There are, however, broad areas of concern that have been specified
as the "bed rock" of the American value core and deviations from
these positions can be ascertained. These have been delineated
largely by perusal of the literature of America and by observation
of the choices Americans make.

One of the hallmarks of being an American is to be practical
and efficient.9 Indeed, the Germans have coined the term "Fordismus"

to refer to the standardization, mass production, and "streamlined"

 

9Robin M. Williams, American Society: A Sociological
Interpretation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951), p. 401.

 

74

efficiency of American industry. Inefficient, is perhaps the worst
thing that can be said of an American. One waits anxiously to be
called up-to-date, efficient, practical, or able to "get things
done."

The elevation of technique into something closely approach-
ing a value in its own right involves the tendency to turn means
values into end values through the gradual withdrawal of attention'
and affect from the original ends. It is understandable how a
culture that is largely unhistorical and utilitarian, deriving from
geographical and resource considerations, will be overconcerned
with technical mastery for its own sake. iPracticali orientations,
however, tend to be short range adjustments to immediate situations.
The practical man concentrates on goals that are obtainable in a
given time-space framework and that are the solutions to an immediate
concern. The American culture is a solution culture. The amaiing
proliferation of "programs" to solve various dilemmas in America
today give evidence of this orientation. The approach seems to be
to appoint a committee, study the immediate symptoms, plan a program,
institute the program, then try to figure out why the problem still
exists, then modify the program. Problems of a social nature have
been particularly resistant to this approach. Medical concerns

and delivery of medical services have been somewhat less, but still

75

resistant, to this approach. Indeed, the only problems that have
truly been amenable to this system have been business and production
concerns. The fact that one problem resolution upsets another value
complex is seldom considered.
. . there is nothing practical, in the American
meaning, in a dominant concern with purely aesthetic
or intellectual interests, nor in veneration of the
past; . . . such tendencies have been confined to
depressed or oppressed cultural enclaves, to small
sectarian movements, or to individuals alienated
from the main currents of national life.10
This explains, in part, the lamentable lack of American art,
music, and philosophy. It may also explain the ascendency of the
read-recite form of the present academic program of the American
school. That one might also "think," seems to be considered an
inefficient use of valuable time. Action is the hallmark of America.
The idea that it is the practice of critical analysis that makes
democracy work seems to have been lost. It is this same focus that
turns the American so strongly toward the concept of occupation
as life, rather than life first, occupation second.
Thus, the theme of practicality points to activistic,

rational, and secular emphases while at the same time bringing

about tendencies toward the dissipation of the content of "ultimate"

 

IOIbid., p. 403.

76

values in favor of immediate adaptability to immediate interests
and satisfactions. It may well be that it is precisely this
American characteristic that causes so much difficulty in evaluating
programs both in the general society and thus also in the school.
Measurement is done well--evaluation is done poorly for Americans
often do not remember the criterion.
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys,

which distract our attention from serious things.

They are but improved means to an unimproved end,

an end which was already but too easy to arrive

at. We are in great haste to construct a mag-

netic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine

and Texas, it may be, have nothing important

to communicate.1

The theme of equality has been and is one of the most con-

troversial in America. It has two main thrusts: social and eco-
nomic equality. The concept has its roots in the independent con-
geries of societies that epitimized early America.12 These separate
entities were composed essentially of middle and lower-class immi-
grants who had rejected the hierarchical social structures that

still characterized Britain and Europe. Other factors influencing

this “drive for equality" were the lax political control by

 

lIColeridgei_Thoreau and the Media, from The Indiana
Committee for the Humanities, Indianapolis, April, 1974, p. 4.

12

 

Williams, op. cit., p. 409.

77

England, mass accessibility to abundant resources, and the then
popular philosophical and political ideas of John Locke and the
French rationalists. As will be pointed out in the next section,
,equality and freedom posed a contradiction that has not been fully
'resolved. The inherent inequality of men in any specific ability
or capacity is widely accepted today. However, the equality of
Opportunity, rather than equality of condition, in both social and
economic matters is the problem that must be resolved.

If equality is a basic value in American society, it must
meet two operational tests: 1) the individual must feel guilt,
shame, or ego deflation when he acts in inequalitarian ways; and
2) there must be sanctions supported by the community for conform-
ity or non-conformity.13 Taken as a whole, America presents a
highly confused situation in which conflicts and compromises are
accompanied by myths, legends, and conventional fictions until the
main value parameters become difficult to trace. It may help if the
distinction is made between intrinsic and extrinsic value positions.
Intrinsic valuation is that which has to do with the immediately per-

sonal qualities of the individual apart from any categorical social

 

13Ihic1., p. 411.

78

attributes. The prototype would be the concept of the equality

of all souls before God. This is a widely held and actively
pursued form of equality. Unfortunately, extrinsic valuation,
those notions of equality that depend on generalized social cate-
gories and external symbols, such as sex, age, occupation, race,
etc., are far less widely held and even less widely acted upon.
Americans then tend to be mental equalitarians but elitists in
overt action. In educational, political, and economic organization
there is substantial hierarchical ordering where horizontalness
should be the hallmark. ‘The great levelers of the early days (space,
resources, independence) are lost in the vertical organization of
the corporation, the factory, and the government.

A second type of equality consists of specific formal
rights and obligations. Progress has been sporadic, but the civil
rights movement itself gives evidence of the concern of at least a
majority of the people for this kind of legal equality. III“

The concept of equality as a value in America is widely
held at the academic level. It is unfortunate that equality as an
overt response system has not achieved the same status.

The idea of freedom is so much a part of the American

thought process and vocabulary that one seldom thinks of it in terms

79

of a value. Still it is one of the strongly held beliefs that most
think makes the American culture what it is. Doing “your own
thing“ has become as American as apple pie.
American conceptions of freedom mainly stem from-

an orientation that characterized European thought

for several centuries: 'freedom is compatible with

causality and determinism; it does not mean uncaused

behavior, but rather behavior that is not subject

to restraigts that are in some sense external and

arbitrary. 4
All life in society involves the limitations of behavior not only
by the physical world, including the limitations of the human body
and mind, but also by reciprocal rights and obligations among per—
sons. Every social group must cope with problems of authority and
power. The American colonies themselves were evidence of a push
for freedom: perhaps a struggle against quit-rents, at another place
a struggle against mercantilistic restraints, at another, revolt
against an established religious hierarchy. Always the demand was
for freedom from some existing restraint. That the major American
freedoms were in this sense negative does not mean, of course,
that they were not also positive: they were rights to g9, by the

same token that they were rights to be protected from restraint.15

 

14Ibi-d., p. 417.

15Ibid., p. 418.

80

Nevertheless, the historical process left its mark in a culturally
standardized way of thought and evaluation-~a tendency to think”

of rights rather than duties, a suspicion of established authority,
and a distrust of central government. Such a view of government
reflected a society in which the politically effective elements

of the community wanted above all to have'iroomi‘to make their‘

own decisions, to develop their own spheres of social power, and

to escape from the surveillance of ikingsi and "ministers" of state.
This particular sort of freedom was premised on a sweeping faith:
the confidence of the individual in his own competence and
mastery.16 The underlying psychological mechanism produced has
been a posture of self-confidence and expansiveness in the American
mental structure. This has become coupled with a tendency to reject
pl__absolute claims to personal authority. This syndrome seems to
have permeated the family, the school, the government, and now even
the economic structures of the culture. The central dislocation,

at this time in American culture, is the problems of dealing with
the "contrbl by objects" that affluence brings, and the "welfare

state” actions in which freedom is no longer tied to a social sys—

tem of private property and inactive government. There is the

 

16Ibid., p. 420.

 

81

ever present danger that the term "freedom" will increasingly take
on meanings closer to the Russian ideas of freedom as security in
a framework of minimum need meeting allowed by a limited and
limiting system.
So long as American society safeguards the right of

the individual to a wide range of moral autonomy in

decision making, so long as the representative char-

acter structure of the culture retains a conscience

that is more than simple group conformitye-so long will

freedom be a major value. 7
Institutional forms are not unimportant, but their significance
must be found in critical analysis, not uncritical prejudgment.
The concept of the balance between freedom and responsibility is
one of the crucial issues in America today. While, in keeping
with the traditions of American democracy, the issue cannot be
resolved, per se, still some rapproachment must be made between
the claims of diverse minorities on the limits of acceptable free-
dom or anarchy will reign.

A counter current to the value placed on freedom in this

culture is the value placed on external conformity. As early as

the 1830's DeTocqueville commented on the necessity of safeguards

against a possible "tyranny of the majority" in America. Much

 

17 bid., p. 422.

82

of the literature of the 1920's and 1930's, particularly by foreign
writers, seemed to be preoccupied with the idea that standardized
goods produced for a mass market must produce a standardized cul-
ture. It should be no surprise that a democracy, confronted With
the kind of heteronomy that this nation had, would move quickly
to define the limits of toleration of individual non-conformity.
In the field of personal morals, it should also be no surprise
that a culture dominated by a rather limited theology would move
quickly to legislate conformity. This is expressed in such things
as the "Blue Laws," prohibition, and the Hays Office. American”
individualism has found its principle expression in rejection of
the state, and its impatience with.restraints on economic activity.
It is of some interest to note that these factors are the very ones
that would prevent the active growth of economic democracy. The
basic requirements of group life and the nature of the sociali-
zation process demand some degree of conformity. In all cultures
men tend to conform to the elements which define the groups with
which they identify most strongly. But this conformity element

18

differs both in degree and kind in different cultures. In

short, conformity can be treated as a general value only insofar

181bid.. p. 424.

83

as sheer adherence to group patterns is actually divorced from

the content and implications of those patterns. This point is

 

strongly made by Fromm in both Man For Himself,19 and The Sane
Society.20 It seems only proper that an emphasis on external con-

formity would derive from a culture that is built on a premise of
human equality. If all are equal, then all have an equal right
to judge the acceptability of the behavior of their fellows, and
to regulate their conduct accordingly. This idea has eventuated
in the political extremism of the Symbioneze Liberation Army,
the Black Panthers, the Ku Klux Klan, and other such organizations.
The economic also contributes to the conformity theme.
First, the high degree of specialization of economic roles means
that much social interaction is functionally specific, transitory,
and laden with immediate economic interest. Secondly, individual
economic dependency is such that stringent conformity demands are
21

possible because of the hierarchical nature of such relations.

These dynamics initially produced high conformity in the culture,

 

19Erich Fromm, Man For Himself (New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, 1947), pp. 50-112.

 

20Erich Fromm, The Sane Society (Greenwich: Fawcett,
1955), pp. 103-163.

 

21Williams, op. cit., p. 426.

84

but because of the extreme pressures thus produced in a society
that also stressed independence, a period of upheaval and diver-
gent self interest groups have been created and are finding it
crifficult to achieve any rapproachment to each other.

To be a person is to be independent, responsible,

and self-respecting, and thereby to be worthy of

concern and respect in one's own right. To be a

person, in this sense, is to be an autonomous

and responsible agent, not merely a reflection

of external pressures, and to have an internal

center of gravity, a set of standards and a

conviction of personal worth.

Thus is another value theme, that of the individual per-
scniality, brought to attention. Given the time and place factors
aliceady discussed, it is apparent that individuality would indeed
become a central value of American life. The personality that is
true object of high value in this particular tradition is something
ifliat is of intrinsic worth, not valued simply as a member of a
grunup nor as a means to some ulterior end. The crucial problem
ruere is that other persons are always potential tools or threats
in relation to the attainment of any one individual's separate

interests; control over others is always a potentially efficient

Ineans to securing one's individual desires. The use of slaves,

‘

22Ibid., p. 435.

85

the fate of the laboring population during the Industrial Revolu-
tion illustrate this point effectively. The present politiCal dif-
ficulties perhaps demonstrate this dynamic even more. Similarly,
an overwhelming stress upon profit making in organized economic
enterprises tend toward an impatience with individual scruples,

needs, and peculiarities, and toward a calculating, impersonal

use of others solely as a means toward the dominant end.23

Because of the awareness of these forces there has been established

a large number of important legal provisions that
appear to have as part of their function the pro-
tection_of personal freedom or the physical or
social integrity of the person; to mention a fewse
illegality of slavery and peonage.(note that a
person cannot even voluntarily sell himself as a
slave); illegality of imprisonment for debt, and
provision for bankruptcy proceedings (in this
context, also a limitation on economic rights in
the interests of personal freedom); prohibitions
against personal defamation (libel and slander);
prohibition of "improper search and seizure";
prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment";
right of habeas corpus and so on. Perhaps the
most striking instance of the lengths to which
the law has gone in the attempt to preserve the
person from attack is found in the definition

of suicide as a crime. The free individual in
our society is not free to take his own life

 

23Ibid.. p. 435.

86
because of the axiomatic value which h§4is not
presumed to have the right to destroy.

The value of the individual is so strong, at the intel-
lectual level, that to raise the question of whether there is
actually such an entity as "the individual," "self," or even "ego"
is unheard of and if raised is greeted with shock or surprise.

Of course individuals exist, of course they have separate individual

needs and rights. As Dorothy Lee says:
The value of individualism is axiomatically
assumed . . . . A newborn infant must become
individuated, must be taught physical and emo-
tional self—dependence;‘we‘assume,'in‘fact, that
he has a separate identity which he must be
helped to recognize . . . . The need for privacy
is an imperative one in our society, recognized
by official bodies such as state welfare groups
and the Department of Labor. And it is part of
a system which stems from and expresses our basic
values.

These five value positions, as defined by what is, rather
than what “ought" to be, are among the most important of such
inferred value positions. Others represented in the literature

but not detailed here include: material comfort, achievement and

success, activity and work, moral orientation, humanitarian mores,

 

24Ibid.. pp. 436-437.

25DorothyLee, "Are Basic Needs Ultimate?," Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. XLIII, No. 3 (July 1948),
pp. 393-394.

 

87

progress, science and secular rationality, nationalism-patriotism,
democracy, racism and related minority biases. 'Many of these other
value expressions have been subsumed under the categories discussed.
It must be kept in mind that these value themes and systems of‘
belief do not operate as single and separate units but are in
continually shifting and recombining configurations. Values are
essentially rules of the game. They define, at the intellectual
level, what behavior ought to take place. They are defined at

the concrete level, by what behavior is actually transpiring.‘ Not
only are these two games, the ideal and the real, being played
simultaneously, but games of different kinds are also being played;
the family game, the business game, the church game, and many
others. Often a rule held to be important in one igame" is contra-
dicted in another. The result is confusion and uncertainty, as

expressed by Karen Horney:

When we remember that in every neurosis there are
contradictory tendencies which the neurotic is unable
to reconcile, the question arises as to whether there
are not likewise certain definite contradictions in
our culture, which underlie the typical neurotic
conflicts . . . .

The first contradiction to be mentioned is that
between competition and success on the one hand, and
brotherly love and humility on the other. On the
one hand everything is done to spur us toward success,
which means that we must be not only assertive but
aggressive, able to push others out of the way. On

 

 

88

the other hand, we are deeply imbued with Christian
ideals, which declare that it is selfish to want
anything for ourselves, that we should be humble,
turn the other cheek, be yielding. For this con-
tradiction there are only two solutions within

the normal range: to take one of these strivings
seriously and discard the other; to take both
seriously with the result that the individual

is seriously inhibited in both directions.'

The second contrgdiction is that between the
stimulation.of’ourzneed§_andiour‘factualfrustra-
tions in gatisfying;them. For economic reasons,
needs are constantly being stimulated in our cul-
ture by.such means asadvertisements,"conspic—
uous consumption,"the ideal of "keeping upwith
the Joneses." For the great majbrity, however,

’the actual fulfillment of these needs is closely
restricted. The psychic consequence for the
individual is a constant discrepancy=between his
desires and their fulfillment. .gz .

Another.contradiction exists between thealleged.
freedom of the individual and all his factual limi-'
tations. The individual is told by a society that
he is free, independent, can decide his life accord—
ing to his own free will; "the great game of life"
is open to him, and he can get what he wants if
he is efficient and energetic. In actual fact,
for the majority of people, all these possibilities
are limited. What has been said facetiously of the
impossibility of choosing one's parents can well be
extended to life in genera1--choosing and succeeding
in an occupation, choosing ways of recreation,
choosing a mate° The result for the individual is a
wavering between a feeling of boundless power in
determining his own fate and a feeling of entire
helplessness.

These contradictions embedded in our culture
are precisely the conflicts which the neurotic
struggles to reconcile . . . 25

 

 

 

26Karen Horney, The Neurotic Personality of Our Time
(New York: W. W. Norton, 1937), PP° 287-289.

89

America is going through a period of value readjustment,
not in the sense of redefinition, but in the sense of calling
attention to the discrepancy between the ideals of the American
Creed and the actions of the "average" American. Some have called
this the result of long standing hypocrisy, but as Gunnar Myrdal

has said:

This explanation is too superficial. To begin
with, the true hypocrite sins in secret; he conceals
his faults. The American, on the contrary, is
strongly and sincerely "against sin," even, and not
least, his own sins. He investigates his faults,
puts them on record, and shouts them from the
housetops, adding the most severe recriminations
against himself, including the accusation of
hypocrisy. If all the world is well informed about
the political corruption, organized crime, and fal-
tering system of justice in America, it is primarily
not due to its malice but to American publicity
about its own imperfections.‘ America's handling
of the Negro problem has been criticized most_em-
phatically by white Americans since long before
the Revolution, and the criticism has steadily
gone on and will not stop until America has com-
pletely reformed itself.

. As.a matter of fact, this young nation
is the least gynical of all nations. tIt is not
hypocritical in the usual sense of the word, but
labors persistently with its moral problems. It
is taking its Creed very seriously indeed, and this
is the reason why the ideals are not only contin—
uously discussed but also represent a social force——
why they receive more than “lip service" in the
collective life of the nation. The cultural unity

90

of the nation is this common sharing in both the
consciousness of sins and the devotion to high ideals.

27

The crises in American values is not so much a crises of
definition as it is a crisis of method. The institutions of
American life need not be destroyed, but do indeed need to be
rebuilt, refurbished, so that they can more adequately give direc-
tion to behavior in a nation moving from essentially a laissez faire
to an increasingly interdependent society. No longer‘ can one tolerate
many of the actions of self interest that used to be called frugged
individualism." The schools must play an important role in this
needed study and reconstruction.

The values of the American culture, as expressed at the
level of ideals, would lead to the most productive milieu yet de-
vised for man to meet his basic needs. Unfortunately, these ideals
are not regularly expressed in the every day give and take of living
in America. While the ideal and the real are not antithetical,
they are far from being identical in American culture. This prob-
lem of reshaping American culture so that the ideal is more nearly

fulfilled would seem to be, at least in part, a problem which the

the school should be utilized in overcoming. Has, in fact, the

 

27Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma (New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1944), pp. 21-22.

91

school served to ameliorate the problem at all, or has it been a

force in maintaining the status quo and thus become a part of the

 

problem rather than a part of the solution? In coping with this
dichotomy of the real and the actual in American values the school
has had a difficult task in determining what its obligations should
be and who it is to obey. The resolutions of this problem that have
been tried and the results of these attempts is to be treated in

the next chapter.

CHAPTER IV

THE SCHOOL

Purposes

In general it can be said that schools are conventions for
perpetuating a culture. The school is an institution evolved out of
the educational function of the tribe, the family, the religious belief
systems of primitive peoples.1 Because the school grows out of the
society, it reflects the prevailing value systems of the society.

For this reason it more often than not is a conservative force in the
society. Persons attending the school learn the methods of their
culture by living in a milieu that reflects the values, both ideal
and real, of that society. Many times the unintended lessons learned
from the social structure of the school are more important in the

development and efficiency of the individual than the formal course

 

1Ralph L. Pounds and James R. Bryner, The School in American
Society (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1959), p. 47.

92

93

content. In most preliterate cultures there was no separate insti-
tutional provisions for the inculcation of the group's values in the
young; this function was primarily carried out by the community at
large. However, the content was highly specific, often being the
passing of particular skills from the father to the son.2- The primary
method of these early peoples was learning by doing. When written
language became a reality, it was necessary to establish a separate
institution for the purpose of training the young in the use of this
complex skill. Only those who were to be the "guardians of the cul-
ture" were so trained. In most cases these "educational institutions"
were adjunct institutions to the already present religious structures.
The understanding and interpretation of the sacred literature was the
primary role of these schools.3 In this sense they were vocatibnal
in nature. The idea of education as a broadening or intellectually
stimulating experience would have been foreign to these rather restric-
tive cultures.

The development of education as the development of the mental
abilities was first expressed in the time of Plato. Plato, a student

of Socrates, a pragmatist, believed in isolation from the real world

 

94

as the best environment for thinking. Thus, he moved his school from
the market place where Socrates had held forth, to the Grove of
Academias so as not to be distracted by "practical" things. Plato
held to the idea that truth could be found ultimately through reason

alone.4

The Roman culture was largely a culture l'borrowed" from the
Greeks. However, while continuing the mental process design of the
schools of Plato's Greece, they included the physical culture aspects
of the Spartan society and also infused a large amount of education
for citizenship. Citizenship, as the Romans understood it, meant
loyalty to the prevailing order. In the later days of the Roman
Empire the schools degenerated, laying emphasis upon grammatical struc-
ture and form rather than upon thinking and spirit.5

After a period of "capture" of the schools by religion,
during which time the method became memorization and adherence to
dogma, they again became largely governmental and were used for
nationalistic purposes.6 The concept of the free ”educated citizen"

is, for the most part, an American idea.

 

95

While the history of American education is an interesting
study in its own right, it is beyond the scope of this presentation.

However, a few particularly important trends will be pointed out.

The American Ideal

One must always keep in mind that there is always present
in cultural dynamics, the juxtaposition of the ideal and the real.
This is also true of the institution of the American school. American
education has held, at the level of the ideal, the position expressed
during the Renaissance period that the educated man is primarily one
who is broadly knowledgeable in the liberal arts, from politics to
the making of love. This attitude has been expressed many times over
the years by groups attempting to define the goals of education in
America.

In 1918 the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary
Education postulated seven basic goals of education:
Good health
Command of fundamental processes
Worthy home membership

Vocational efficiency
Civic efficiency

m-th-J

96

6. Worthy use of leisure
7. Ethical character7

In 1933 a committee of the National Education Association
formulated social-economic goals to be realized through education:

Hereditary strength

Physical security

3. Participation in a growing civilization
Development of skills and techniques
Development of values, standards, and meaningful
philosophies

4. A dynamic, flexible personality

a Personal initiative

b. Discriminating viewpoints and choice
c

d

N—J

0'9!

Flexibility of thought and conduct
Individual differences
e. Need for cooperation

5. Suitable occupation

6. Economic security

7. -Mental security

8. Equality of opportunity
9. Freedom

10. Fair play.

The Educational Policies Commission in 1938 issued a report
on The Purposes of Education in American Democracy. This report
centers upon four major areas of concern:

(1) Self-realization, including the inquiring mind;

command of fundamental processes, including speech,
reading, writing, arithmetic, sight and hearing,

 

7Commission on Reorganization of Secondary Education,
Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, 1918, 32 pp.

8Committee on Social-Economic Goals, Implications of SoCial
Economic Goals for Education, N.E.A., Washington, D.C., 1937, p. 126.

 

 

97

health knowledge and habits, interest in public
health, recreation, intellectual and esthetic
interests, and the formation of character.

(2) Human relationships . . . especially respect
for humanity, friendship, cooperation, courtesy,
appreciation of the home, conservation of the
home, homemaking, and democracy in the home.
(3) Economic efficiency, . . . particularly

the importance of good workmanship, occupa-
tional information, occupational choice, occu-
pational efficiency, occupational adjustment,
occupational appreciation, personal economics,
consumer judgment, efficiency in buying, and
consumer protection. (4) The importance of
civic responsibility, . . . social justice,
social activity, and social understanding.

Also critical judgment, tolerance, social
applications of science, world citizenship,

law observance, economic literacy, political
citizenship, understanding of the principles

of conservation as related to the national re-
sources, and devotion to democracy.

There seems to be no disagreement among these various pre-
sentations, nor are these gross discrepancies with the ideals of
American Democracy as presented in Chapter III of this paper.

American schools do reflect the ideals of American culture, as they
should, at least at the cognitive level. There is apparent consensus
that the individual is supreme; it is vital that acceptable procedures

for operating in groups be known and utilized, and additionally that

 

9Educational Policies Commission, The Purposes of Education
in American Democracy, National Education Association, Washington,
D.C., 1938, p. 157.

 

 

 

98

the educated person have some vocational skills that are appropriate
and Useful in the prevailing economic system. These concepts fit
handily under three broad structures that will be utilized through-
out the remaining portions of this paper. They are: social man,
which involves the concerns of the individual; political man, the
group and its governance; and the economic man, the participatory
skills and attitudes that are allied with the utilization and dis—
tribution of available resources and the means of production; These
are not "organizing centers," but rather are the content, the what,
that is organized around the only legitimate center in democratic

thought, the individual human being.

The American School--How It Is

 

In order to assess how well the school in American culture
has achieved its ideals, one must look at its record. This is the
only way to appraise what it has actually done.

One of the difficulties in assessing what has happened in
American schools is that even though there is a substantial similarity
among the schools, there has been no central control. Even with the

control that has been a part of the recent federal program, variations

 

99

among the several states has been substantial. Within states, re-
gional differences have produced differential performance. Still
there are clear cut trends, particularly in the stating of objectives
and the selection and learning activities.

These changes have been in part because of changing con-
ceptions in the field of psychology. In 1900 educational psychology
was based on the theory of formal discipline and expressed in terms

10 Under this theory the brain was viewed

of "faculty psychology."
as a muscle and the mind had certain faculties, such as memory and
reason, which could be developed through proper exercise. Educa-
tional objectives during this period were stated in terms of these
hypothesized faculties, and the program of studies was designed to
give proper exercise to these factors. The content considered par-
ticularly productive was that which demanded much memory and reason—
ing. Languages, particularly Latin and Greek, and exercises in rea-
soning, partiCularly sylogysms, were utilized.11

The period from 1918 to 1925 saw a turning away from faculty

psychology and the rise of behaviorism. Behaviorism views learning

 

10Marvin D. Alcorn and James M. Linley, Issues in Curriculum

 

Development (Yonkers on Hudson: World Book Company, 1959), p. 178.
11

 

Ibid., p. 178.

100

as the acquisition of patterns of behavior which the student did not
formerly have.12 Under this system an objective is a statement of

a kind of behavior pattern which the school seeks to have the student
develop. Objectives during this period were stated in highly Specific
terms, such as the ability to add 2 plus 3, ability to use the indef-

inite article "an, and many more. Since every number combination
was viewed as a different stimulus configuration to which the student
was to learn an appropriate response, in the field of mathematics
alone, there were listed over three thousand specific objectives.
Nearly two thousand additional objectives were listed for English.
A student had attained the goals of the curriculum when he was able
to make the appropriate response to all of these thousands of spe-
cific objectives.13

By 1925 this system of objectives had fallen largely of its
own weight. The increasing heterogeneity of school populations caused
additional problems as the teacher attempted to deal with the multi-

tude of objectives spread over a seemingly endless array of differing

students. On the side of the student it denied the development of

 

12Ralph W. Tyler, The Curriculum--Then and Now (Princeton:
Educational Testing Service, 1956), p. 6.

13Ibid., p. 7.

101

the more general behavior patterns demanded by an even more complex
society.

The period from 1925 to 1933 was one of similar design but
a broadening of categories so that more complex factors could be
taken into account. Phrases like: to understand, the acquisition
of, to interpret, became the standard stem design. These objectives
were a1moSt as confusing as the former since they utilized words
which were not easily defined. The period from 1933 to the present
has been one of attempting to give more specification to these gen-
eral objectives without falling again into the trap of overwhelming
minutia.

A second method of looking at the objectives of the American
school is by tracing their sources. In the early period, from 1900—
1918, the judgments of subject specialists and the prevailing con-
ceptions of psychology were the sources of objectives. No studies
were made either of the needs of society or the needs of youth to
help in formulating objectives.14

From 1918 to 1933, largely as a result of the success of
job analysis in building vocational curricula during World War I,

the process of formulating objectives leaned heavily on job analysis,

 

14Alcorn and Lindley, op. cit., p. 180.

102

activity analysis, word counts, and other techniques for identifying
the demand conditions of the society. It was during this period that
less and less attention was given to concepts of social and educa-
tional philosophy.15 The "good“ man, the llgood"'society, were for-
gotten in attempting to c0pe with the immediate, the expedient.

The period from 1933—1945 saw a change to studies of chil-
dren and youth as the source of suggestions for objectives.

Since World War II the shift has been back toward the subject
specialists. Very little attention has been given the learner or
broad social concerns until the very recent surge in interest in the
concepts of Piaget and the developmentalists, who appear to be an
amalgamation of the humanists and the behaviorists. One has to
assume that this is, at least in part, an outcome of current societal
problems. The American school may now be ready to give attention to
a wider range of sources for their objectives now that at least the
futility of the various narrow approaches has been demonstrated.

Another method of assessing the American school's succeSS
in achieving its lofty goals is to examine the vocabulary used as

writers in the field describe the school experiences offered children.

 

15Tyler, op. cit., p. 9.

 

103

At the beginning of this century the term "learning exper-
iences" was unknown. Instead the words found being used to describe
the learning tasks were: exercises, assignments, problems. The
term uniformly used for what the child did in class was "recite."16
No mention was made of what the mental process or reaction of the
student was to be. The focus of the planning was entirely on the
teacher.

With the advent of John Dewey's writings, the emphasis began
to shift to the position that learning was the proper matter of con-
cern and learning could only be interpreted in terms of what the
learner was doing. "It was his (the learner) reactions that he
1earned--not the teacher's. The teacher's role was to stimulate,
guide, and reward the learner as he carried on the behavior which the

"17 In this frame of reference the

school sought to teach him.
activity of the learner became the central factor in attaining edu-
cational goals. By 1925 the term "learning activities" was the com-

mon coin when referring to the basic elements of the teaching-

1earning situation. Courses of study now listed such things as:

 

Ibid., p. 12.

 

17Alcorn and Lindley, op. cit., p. 183.

 

104

listening activities, reading activities, study activities, and
laboratory activities.

By 1935 curriculum writers were calling attention to a
heretofore unseen problem in this activity conceptualization of edu-
cative experiences. The problem seemed to stem from the prior exper—
iences of the child himself. Two children reading the same material
had a different outcome experience because of the memories and feel-
ings already present within them. This kind of analysis led to the
adoption of the term "learning experience."18 Dewey's book on ggp;_

cation and Experience clarified this concept further by emphasizing

 

the notion that “experience" involves the interaction of the indi-
vidual with the Situation. Further, this interaction modifies both
the person and the situation as they continue to interact, thus,
any interaction is a dynamic relationship and by its very nature
demands goal points of differing kinds, short and long range, and
willingness to shift purposes during the activity. Today, almost
all curriculum writers use the term "learning experience" and.seek
to have this imply qualities to the interaction that consider what

the learner brings to the situation, what it will mean to him, and

 

18Ibid., p. 183.

105

how he is likely to respond to it mentally, emotionally, and in terms
of the active outcome component.

In the overall organizational characteristics of the cur-
riculum there has been virtually no change for the last fifty
years.19 By organization is meant the three basic unifying prin-
ciples that have been common in the literature for many years. These
principles are: l) continuity, which refers to the reiteration of
the desired learning outcomes throughout the learning experiences
utilized; 2) sequence, which refers to the gradation of experiences
such that each successively builds on the preceding one and goes
beyond it in order that higher skill levels are attained, and 3) inte-
gration, which, for some unknown reason, is usually put last even
though it is probably most important, which is the relating of what
the student is learning in one field to his learning in another such
that the result is an integrated and equilibrated whole. Except for
very rare occurrences, the only one of these (that has been pursued
has been the matter of sequence. Even here, one of the best known of
these attempts, the school math study group, did not achieve sequence

among, but only within, content areas.

 

19Tyler, op. cit., p. 12.

106

This brief review of changes in the curricular emphases of
the American school can be better understood if one looks for eXplan-
atory factors influencing these changes.

The major dynamic factor causing change prior to World War
I was the steadily increasing inclusion in the schools of a greater
percent of the children of America.20' The critical task during this
period was to teach the three R's to children of immigrant parents
and those children of working—class parents just finding their way
into the public schools.

World War I ushered in a fifteen-year period of rapid eco-
nomic development and increased demand for workers.21 It is little
wonder that a major emphasis during this time was to study the
demands of the burgeoning economy and to train effective workers
for the expanding factory system.

I From 1930 until World War II, the great depression
increased rather than decreased the number of youth
in school because of the limited opportunities for
employment. But the same limitations in jobs made
the analysis of social demands a less relevant

source for educational objectives than a study of
youth themselves to find needs and potentialities

 

2IAlcorn and Lindley, op. cit., p. 191.

107
that might justify educational effort when no great
social demand was apparent.22
During this period the schools were greatly troubled by the indif-
ference of youth toward an education that did not seem to have any
immediately relevant application.

Since World War II the society has again experienced a
period of rapid economic and technological advancement which has
turned the schools back to subject matter as the important focus
for learning experiences. In recent years America has been made
acutely aware of the shortcomings of such a narrow approach, and at
the same time the desperate need for more learnings in the areas of
social responsibility and effective use of leisure time.

The lofty aims of American schools have been only partially
attained. The major problem has been the inability to get free of
crisis conditions long enough to really establish procedures for
attaining the long range goals. The schools, as the culture itself,
has allowed immediate problem conditions to define it rather than
being an petiye_force in the interactive dynamics such that mepp§_

do not overshadow ends as the basic material of educational objectives.

 

22Ihid., p. 191.

108

It is an unfortunate situation that has caused the schools to become
more and more efficient at performing questionable activities.

The American school has not served its democratic ideals
well. As an institution that evolves out of other institutions, it
has not been able to define its mission clearly and thus has been a
tool of whatever social or economic force has been pre eminent at any
given time. In serving the societal role prescribed for it, the
school has failed in its major democratic objective, the serving of
each individual so that every American citizen is able to develop
to the maximum of his potential and take that position in the cul-
ture for which he could qualify. To specify what this serving every
individual would entail, it will be necessary to point out what will

be needed to know about each individual in order to serve him.

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER V

THE CHILD: MOTIVATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Introduction

 

The self is a personality construct rooted in Gestalt and
phenomenological psychology and defined as Fthe individual's dynamic
organization of concepts, values, goals, and ideals which determine
the ways in which he should behave."1 It is the way in which the
individual consistently thinks of himself in terms of the "I" or
"me" of the self theorists.

The concept of the actualization of this ”self? is one of
psychological growth and development. Growth is progressive and
cumulative; it moves by steps and through stages. It is both inte-
grative and disintegratiVei that is, it is a building and fitting

together process which demands at the same time a tearing down and

 

1Lawrence M. Brammer and Everett L. Shostrum, Therepeutic
Psychology (New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 1960). p. 37.

109

110

reordering process as well. Psychological growth depends on contact
with other people and can be facilitated in a human relationship char-
acterized by warmth and acceptance wherein the individual can develop
his capacity to love.

The theorists who emphasize self—actualization seem to be
primarily concerned with integrating philosophy and psychology by
looking at the whole of human life rather than at specific aspects
of it. They are dedicated to establishing, through scientific
analysis, the necessary conditions for living a satisfactory life.
This is a different, although logical, goal for science from those

that are usually stressed.2

Development of Emphasis on Self—Actualization

Those who emphasize self-actualization believe in the unique-
ness of the individual and stress that people respond to environmental
situations as organized wholes. A basic tenant of this wholistic,.
phenomenological point of view is that the individual must accept and
actively experience both his "self" and the world as they really

are rather than as external influences would make them appear. That

 

2C. M. Cofer and M. H. Appley, Motivation: Theory and
Research (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967), p. 51.

111

is,he must be open to direct experience without sophisticated analysis
or description of that experience. In such undistorted processes
man becomes aware of and realizes his potential. The dilemma of the
phenomenologist is that though
. originally united in the view that experience

must be described in its purity as it occurs . . .

without behavioristic, physical, or psychological

reduction, it has led on the one hand to an enriched

empiricism, and on the other to an often idealistic

pursuit of essence.

Self—actualization theorists generally are optimistic about
human nature, preferring the Rousseauian opinion concerning man's
innate goodness.

The older theorists, Adler, Jung, Rank stressed the impor-
tance of future time as the important motivating factor. Current

theorists lean more toward the position that man is basically trust-

worthy, rational, and free and can become himself in the here and
4
now.
Another influence leading to the emphasis on self-

actualization has come from cultural anthropology and sociology.

 

3Yervant H. Kukorian and Abraham Edel, Contemporary_Philo-
sophic Problems (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1959), pp. 4-5.

4Carl R. Rogers, 0n Becoming A Person (Massachusetts:
The Riverside Press, 1961), p. 194.

112

These fields have shown that man's behavior is not primarily bio-
logically determined, but that social and cultural factors determine
his values, morals, and goals. This puts man in charge of his own

life but also forces him to be responsible for it.

Characteristics of Self-Actualized People

The self-actualized person is not a finished product, a
thing, but is one who is open to experience and change. The very
experience of self-actualization contains the seeds of its own
destruction. It is not a fixed state but a way of living. The
major theorists are generally in agreement as to what constitutes
such a person.

Fromm describes the self-actualized person as being pro-
ductively oriented; growth and the development of all his potential-
ities are the aims to which all other activities are subordinated.
A11 normally functioning people are capable of being productive,
however, societies generally exert crippling restrictions on them.
Fromm feels that though probably no society will truly be adequate

for man's full development, still, that which he calls "humanistic

 

113

communitarian socialism" would be the optimal social environment for
man to fulfill his potentia1.5

Maslow, studied what he felt to be mentally healthy people
and presented a list of characteristics which he believes deScribes
the self—actualized person. Included are spontaneity, autonomy,
mystic experiences, and humor. He has deduced these characteristics
from his studies of healthy people.6 Hs also attributes many human
failings to these people, whom he freely admits are not perfect.
They are sometimes silly, wasteful, thoughtless, stubborn, vain,
proud, and given to temper tantrums. Their strengths make them
capable of being ruthless, alienative, etc. and allow .them to be
independent of the opinions of other people. Their intense absorption
in an activity which interests them may cause them to appear to be
humorless and absent-minded. They have feelings of guilt, anxiety,
and conflict just as all people do, but in them these feelings derive

. 7
from non-neurot1c sources.

 

5Erich Fromm, The Sane Society (Greenwich: Fawcett Publica-
tions, Inc., 1955), pp. 237-306.

 

6Abraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality (New York:
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1954), pp. 199-228.

71bid.. pp. 228-230.

114

Maslow describes a healthy love relationship as one in which
there is no need to be guarded, to conceal, to feel tense, or to
impress another. The self-actualized person does not "need" love,
because his love needs have been gratified. The distinction must be
made between B-love, or love for the other persons being, and D-love,
or deficiency love which is selfish and neurotic.8

Carl Rogers described three major characteristics of move-
ment in the self-actualized person, whom he terms "The Fully Func—
tioning Person.“ He described the self-actualized life as a process
rather than a state of being; as a direction rather than a destina-
tion. The direction of movement would be that selected by the total
organism when there is psychological freedom to move in any direction.

The first movement would be toward an increasing openness
to experience, which is the polar opposite of defensiveness. The
person becomes able to experience what is going on in himself and
the world without the need for distortion or for denying the exper-
ience. to awareness.

The second movement is toward increasingly existential
living, which is the tendency to live fully in each moment. _Since

the complex combination of stimuli is always changing, the

 

 

8Abraham Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being(New Jersey:
0. Van Nostrand Co., 1962), pp. 39-41.

 

115

self-actualized person would experience each moment as being new.‘
He could observe and participate in the process of organismic exper-
ience without twisting or translating the experience to fit a per—
sonal preconception. He could permit a fluid, changing organization
of self so that his actions grow out of the moment and are not pre-
dictable to himself or others. He could experience and resp0nd to
that which is going on now without need to control it.

The third movement is toward an increasing truSt in his
organism in order to arrive at the most successful behavior in each
existential situation. His openness to experience would make avail-
able all the complex data in the situation so that he could permit
his total organism to choose the most successful course of action.
While the organism would not be infallible, it would still serve
as a trustworthy guide to satisfactory behavior. The person would
be fully open to the consequences of his behavior so that he could
take the action necessary to correct his behaviors if they arev

unsatisfactory.9

 

9Rogers, op. cit., pp. 187-191.

116

The Propitious Environment

 

It is not aggression, not conflict, not even competition
that constitute the optimum environment for growth, but co-operation
and harmony among differences that constitute these necessities.

Optimal growth occurs in an environment where there is a
minimum of press or domination. This is in line with the concept that
growth is spontaneous, that it cannot be forced or coerced. It
follows that as environmental press, or domination, decreases Spon-
taneity increases. In this situation of low threat one can be him-
self and communication is at a maximum. With maximal communication
between person and environment perception is more accurate. Being
accepted as he is, the person has no cause for attacking, dominating,
or coercing another and individual growth is encouraged.10

The child is thus seen as an organism that responds to
external stimulation as an organized whole. This includes both the
realms of the intellectual and that of the feelings and emotions.

The child must respond, not only because of those forces that are
essentially socially derived that are called basic needs, but also

because growth itself is an active process which includes continued

 

10Harold H. Anderson, An Introduction to Projective Tech-
nigues (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1951), pp. 11-12.

117

differentiation and integration. Growth cannot be stopped, but it
can be distorted by a hostile environment. One does not blame the
cotton seed because it does not grow well in Minnesota, it is pre—
sumed that the climate is inappropriate for it to reach its full
potential. Nothing we do will force it to grow under those condi-
tions. The child is no different, what he can become he will become,
if only the environment is appropriate. The motivating forces are
inherent in him and need only nourishment to reach fulfillment.‘

The school must provide this propitious climate for children.
In doing so the long range goals must always be kept in mind and the
means must be appropriate, in terms of the long range goals, even
if it often is not the most efficient way to meet an immediate goal.

The factors that comprise the propitious environment and
the forces that give form and power to these factors will be

treated in the next chapter.

CHAPTER VI

A MODEL FOR DECISION MAKING IN CURRICULUM CHANGE

Introduction

 

A model is a representation of the real thing. All of the
external characteristics should be present, but the actual working
parts are not complete. What these parts must be and how all of
the parts are related must be indicated by the model. The actual
parts, in any real situation, would be somewhat different in every
specific application. The function of a model is to allow the
decision process to be simulated in order to be aware of any fal-
lacies before it is actually carried out. This simulation allows
a more complete appraisal of the cost, the possible problem areas,
and the reassessment of the process to assure that no significant
variables have been overlooked.

The present model will first be presented in pictorial form
(Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4), after which a more detailed discussion of

the model will be undertaken.

118

119

 

Fig. 1.--Pictorial Representation of the Factors and Forces that
Need to be Considered in Curriculum Decision Making.

II

III

III-A

 

 

 

 

The nature of man

A The basic needs

The concept of culture

B Cultural distance
(International)

' b Cultural distance

(Intranational)

American culture
3-1 sub-culture
3-2 sub-culture
Institutional structures

relevant to the school
Cultural forces affecting
institutional structures

IV

 

 

Institution of the school

0 Cultural forces
affecting the school

4-1 Content base of the
school

d Forces within the
school affecting.
content

The child

E Forces affecting the

child-school rela-
tionship

120

Fig. 2.--The Institutional Structures that Most Immediately Affect
the School.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3-3 The roles and expectations that define the economic institu-
tions.

3:4“ The roles and expectations that define the social institutions.

3-5 The roles and expectations that define the political institu-
tions.

C The cultural forces that bring change in institutional struc-
tures.

c The interinstitutional frictions that bring change between
institutional structures.

121

Fig. 3.--The Content Matrix of the School.

The productive citizen fully functioning in the
social, academic, and political realms.

 

The unsophisticated child

4-2 The behavioral content derived from the social relationship
interactions prescribed by the social communities of the
culture.

4-3 The academic content derived from the scientific and tech-
nological communities of the cultures.

4-4 The integration of the economic and social content so that
knowledge is used ethically in social relationships as pre-
scribed by the political communities of the culture.

 

122

Fig. 4.--The Structures of the Child.

'9
1'

 

 

 

A

 

 

 

 

/\
\l

The matching of the trait complexes the child brings with him
to the demand complexes the school presents.

The child's feelings and emotions.
The child's knowledges and skills.

The continuing processes of differentiation and integration
that form the bases of the intrinsic motivating forces.

The content structures built through the functions of assimila-

.tion and accomodation that reflect the organization and extent

of environmental experiences.

 

123

Setting the Goals

 

It is a most unfortunate fact that the one factor most
often omitted from consideration in curricular decisions is also the
most vital, is the basic value structure from which all other deci-
sions flow. This lack of attention to the value structures has led
curriculum builders to become even more efficient at achieving erro-
neous, or at leaSt superfluous, goals. The result has been a prolif-
eration of designs, that on deeper analysis reveal themselves to be
simply a reorganization of the academic subject content of the schools.
This has led to curriculum designs with ever changing emphasis which
have confused parents, children, and even educators themselves.

While it may seem as though it is going to extreme measures
to treat the concept of man as an entity (labelled 1, Fig. 1, p. 119),
it is not so absurd when one looks at school practice and observes
that often the children are treated as if they were exemplars of
other animal categories used in the laboratories of the comparative
psychologist. Man is indeed an animal and as such is capable of being
trained; man is also something more than an animal and therefore
should be educated. The outer circle on Fig. 1, p. 119, is repre-
sentative of this separation of man as something distinct from the

rest of the animal kingdom. This ”setting apart" also infers that

124

man is part of a more extensive system of which he is a dynamic
part.

Some of the most heated debates of all man's history have
centered on the question of man's origination as man. These argu-
mentations seem to be useless encounters. Whether man evolved from
the great apes, came from the sea, or was created by some supernatu-
ral being seems far less important than what man presently is and
where he is going.

Of all the animals man is the only one that questions his
own existence. What this means has been stated by Paul Tillich:

One can rightly say that man is the being
who is able to ask questions. Let us think for
a moment what it means to ask a question. It
implies, first, that we do not have that for
which we ask. If we had it, we would not ask
for it. But, in order to be able to ask for
something, we must have it partially; other-
wise it could not be the object of a question.
He who asks has and has not at the same time.

If man is that being who asks the question of
being, he has and has not the being for which

he asks. He is separated from it while belonging
to it. Certainly we belong to being--its power
is in us-—otherwise we would not be. But we are
also separated from it; we do not possess it
fully. Our power of being is limited. We are

a mixture of being and non-being. This is pre-
cisely what is meant when we say that we are
finite. It is man in his finitude who asks the
question of being. He who is infinite does not
ask the question of being, for, as infinite, he
has the complete power of being. He is identical
with it; he is God. And a being which does not

 

125

realize that it is finite (and in our actual

experience that is every being except man)

cannot ask, because it cannot go beyond

itself and its limits. But man can and must

ask; he cannot avoid asking, because he

belongs to the power of being from which he

is separated, and he knows both that he belongs

to it and that he is separated from it.1

This "existential separation" is considered by many to be

the crucial motivating force in man's life. Because he has awareness
of his own existence, and because he must cope with a relatively
stable environment, all men share in the same life dilemmas, and, to
some extent, share the same limitations on the range of possible
alternatives. The complex of dynamic forces generated by this pri-
mary estrangement, constitutes the force known as basic needs.
According to Maslow a need is basic if:

1. absence of satisfaction breeds illness.

2. the preSence of adequate satiations prevents illness.

3. the restoration of satisfiers cures illness.

4. under free choice situations satisfiers of the basic

needs will be preferred by the deprived person over
other conditions, and

 

1Paul Tillich, Biblical Religion and the Search for Ultimate
Reality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), p. 11.

126
5. the basic needs will be at a low ebb in the healthy

person.2

Fromm, on the other hand, simply states that a need is basic
if it is a condition, the resolution of which determines continued
life or sanity. It should be noted that this statement leaves open
the question of the qualitative dimension of these need satiations.

Given the basic need as a force (labeled A in Fig. 1, p. 119),
similar to the quantum now used in physics, man can be seen as an
animal, but an animal having an internal system of forces unique to
him.

Specification of the content of these forces has been diffi-
cult. Some, such as Victor Frankl, postulate only one basic dilemma.
In the case of Frankl, he places "Man's Search for Meaning," as the
most important dynamic in the creation of a satisfying life.3

Others have attempted to further clarify the forces deriving
from the primary existential estrangement.

Fromm postulates five basic needs. These five more specific
forces have their roots in the same existential dichotomy that Frankl

posits. The five basic needs, as put forth by Fromm, have been treated

 

2Abraham Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being_(New Jersey:
0. Van Nostrand, 1962), p. 20.

3Victor Frankl, Man's Search for Meanipg_(New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1962), 137 pages.

 

127

in Chapter II of this paper and will be only briefly reviewed here.
Man has a need to relate. He must find some means of relating to
other men, and to the "things" which structure his phenomenal world.
Man also has a need to find a personal identity in life. He seeks to
ascertain the outer limits of the internal forces of this entity that
defines him. Another basic structure is the need for a system of
orientation or devotion. This need for understanding appears to be
the same as Frankl's search for "meaning." Fromm feels that man also
has a need for a feeling of rootedness. This is a seeking for reunion
with the primary force from which the original estrangement occurred,
but is reformulated into a rootedness at the level of the phenomenal
world. The last need presented here is that of man's need to tran-
scend himself. This need seems to be a force for man's participation
in the ontological powers that created him.4

While Fromm assumes equality to all needs at all times, Maslow

posits a need system built on a hierarchical arrangement based on

potency under differential conditions. In Maslow's system those needs

based on physiological necessity are most basic and if unsatiated will:,

continue to press for resolution, to the detriment of any need higher

in the scale. The most basic needs are the physiological needs which

 

4Erich Fromm, The Sane Society_(Greenwich: Fawcett Publica-
tions, Inc., 1955), pp. 33-67.

 

128

are conditions such as hunger and thirst. Next in the hierarchy are
the safety needs.. These safety needs, which include such things as
security and routine, become prepotent only if the physiological needs
are adequately satiated. Lower needs may become sufficiently satiated
that they no longer appear as a dominant impetus in an individual's
behavior except under unusually adverse conditions. If, however, ad—
verse conditions do come about, lower needs will again assert them-
selves. At the next level are found the belongingness and love needs.
When these needs are prepotent the person will seek friends, a sweet—
heart, or a wife. At the next level one finds the esteem needs. These
esteem needs represent the desire for self respect and the attention of
others. The highest level of need attainment is represented by the
emergence of the self actualization needs.5

Murray, in Expiorations in Personality, gives a list of some

 

twenty needs that seek resolution. The patterns of behavior by which
these needs are satiated become, in Murray's design, the personality.
Personality, if it is the desired rather than the deviant one, is an
exemplar of the cultures I'good" citizen.

None of these motivational approaches based on systems of needs

are in any way antithetical; they are more appropriately seen as

 

5Abraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper
and Row Publishers, 1954), pp. 80-92.

 

129

extensions of one another. In the model, the dynamic action brought
about by the urgings of the needs is specified by the letter A, and
indicates the differential resolutions of the same basic needs even-
tuating in differing cultural patterns. These cultural patterns, in-
cluding the relatively stable systems of roles and actions which are
called institutions, are determined by the historical perspective of
the group, the resources available, the geographical and climatic con-
ditions obtaining, and certain random factors that evolve out of the
thought processes of the cultural participants. Cultures differ only
in form not intent. The purpose of all cultures is to present an
environment in which the basic needs can be most positively met.

As groups of people live together under the prevailing local
conditions, some forms of need resolution take precedence over others
as the accepted standard. A group living in an area of abundant food
and pleasant climate will adopt behavior patterns consonant with these
conditions, while another group living in an area of sparse food supply
and an inhospitable climate will develop behaviors very much different
from the first group, even though both are resolving the same life
dilemmas.

All cultures have more similarities than they have differences.
The physical world is essentially the same for all cultures. In this

sense the factual content of the knowledge of each culture is basically

130

the same, only the selection of what is considered important is dif;
ferent. The dynamic relationship indicated by the letter B in the
model is intended to be a measure of this similitude-difference dimen-
sion. Cultures differ only in the degree to which certain resolutions
to the basic need situations are excepted or rejected. If these dif-
ferential resolutions are taken into account, a concept of cultural
distance can be defined. Cultural distance would thus be the sum of
the forces at work in prescribing what shall, and what shall not, be
allowed in the behavior of individuals as they attempt to satiate
their needs within the framework established by the group. Applying
the notions put forth by Kurt Levin in his presentations concerning
field theory, it can be seen that as cultures are more similar in their
general dimensions, they are more likely to interact with one another,
but at the same time their differences will be magnified by the nearness
dimension of such interactions. By the same line of reasoning cul-
tures that are grossly different in their prescribed patterns are not
likely to come into conflict because they will have few interactions.
The factors labeled 3-1 and 3-2 are cases in point of this
dynamic relationship (labeled b) at a "local" level (Fig. l, p. 119).
Most cultures have within themselves sub-sets of their members that do

not fully concur with the dominant prescriptions. In some cases, such as

3-1, the differences are of such a magnitude that the sub-group exists

 

131

lpartially in one culture and partially in another. The Jewish people
are an example of this condition; they share a common and rather
complex cultural heritage that transcends the immediate nationalistic
imperatives of the host culture in which they currently live. This
has on occasion caused them to be ostracized and in some cases se—
verely punished for their l'deviance."

Others, such as 3-2 (Fig. l, p. 119), are sub-cultures that are

not multi-national in character, but are sufficiently different that

 

they are not fully integrated into the host culture. This means that
often membership in such a sub-culture demands skills and knowledges
that are not readily available from the host culture. Whatever the
prevailing institution of education in the host culture is, it will
not be fully adequate for these minorities and some system of further
education must be established in these sub-cultures in order to insure
their continued survival.

To the degree that a culture provides for all its members to
meet their basic needs within the existing framework, sub-groups have
no reason to form and the culture is more monolithic in structure. If,
on the other hand, a culture has many diverse groups which compose it,
then many systems by which basic needs are met coexist. This diver-
sity results in a culture of many stresses and strains as each group

attempts to gain advantage for its members. The American culture (the

132

factor labeled III, Fig. l, p. 119) is just such a dynamic system.
While there are fundamental beliefs that unite the group, there are
also a multitude of groups vying for advantage in pursuit of the cul-

turally labeled "goods."

The American culture has been called a culture of minorities;
-this is not only true in terms of objective elements such as race or
ethnic background, but also in terms of ideas and ideals. The early
settlers of the land were small collectives of peoples of diverse back—
grounds and each came to the "new world" with idiosyncratic ideas of
what they wished to establish. The lands they left had long historical
traditions and firmly established orders. Most of these early settlers
came to America in order to put behind them the systems from which they
came. A few were second sons of royal families and, rather than reject
the past, these Second sons wished to re-establish the old order but
with themselves as leader. As has been previously stated, the land,
the resources, and the feelings and dreams of their contemporaries made
this re-esthblishment of a royal order impossible. Rather than the
relatively stable systems of social class and governance they had pre-
viously known, the Americans had to learn to live in a dynamic, ever-
changing cultural system. Since it is known that man cannot live in a
state of anomie, some regularities had to be established. In the

American case these regulating principles were very broad

 

 

133

generalizations and even then were always susceptible to change. From
the beginning the American culture has been an essentially leaderless
culture, in that these new Americans were not willing to give up very
much of their newfound freedom to some arbitrary, authoritarian source
of power. Each man wished to retain for himself the power of decision
concerning his own fate. Still, some way had to be found to preserve
and protect the loosely knit and vulnerable culture. To a great extent

this protection was afforded not by the new Americans themselves, but

 

by the physical inaccessibility of the land and the squabbles and con—
cerns of those who might, at another time, have been a threat to the
new nation.

Using the five basic needs as put forth by Erich Fromm as a
framework, it may be of interest to assess how these internal forces
were satiated and how effective, in terms of history and theory, these
resolutions have been for the American culture.

In the early period of the development of the American culture
the opportunities for relating to others in a concerned, respectful,
knowledgeable, and responsible manner was at a maximum. The ability
of one man to dominate another was limited by the.factors of space and
resources available in the environment. However, even those few
places where this would have been possible, indentured servitude,

debtors prison, and primogeniture procedures were quickly forbidden

134

by the establishment of laws agsinst such actions.. Superior-inferior
relationships were limited to specific groups. Though immigrant
minorities were sometimes treated as groups of less than adequate
people, they generally were able to escape their inferior status be-
cause of the abundant resources available that fueled a constantly
expanding industrial complex. Only two primary groups were unable to
escape this stigmatizing condition, the American Indian and the Black
American. These two sub-cultural groups continue to this day attempt—
ing to free themselves from this arbitrarily assigned status. In re-
cent years women and children, in the expanding consciousness of the
evils of subjugation, have become more aware of the very real, though
unintentioned, demeaning of their status. While American culture has
provided effective means for meeting the need to relate at the level
of general social interaction, such has not been the case in the realm
of economic and political relations. The "economic man" has found it
very difficult to relate meaningfully to the roles and statuses of the
economic institution because of the increasing impersonalness that
makes the corporation effective, and the increasing fragmentation of
function that is demanded by the burgeoning technology. While Ameri-
cans have been able to avoid subjugation by specific "others," they
have been less successful at coping with the forces generated by the

anonymous authority of their own creation. The conditions for the

 

135

positive meeting of the need to relate are admirably created in the
democratic social design, however, as democracy has turned slowly into
a technocracy this need is more and more difficult to meet productively.
In the early period of the American culture the necessity of
finding one's identity was confronted every day and virtually forced
to positive resolution or disaster. Identity was virtually synonymous
with physical survival. One found the outer limits of himself by an
active participation in the continuing struggle for survival. When
this struggle is with concrete objects in the real world the evaluative
criteria and the assessment of where one stands in relation to these
criteria is obvious. But as the technical world takes on more and more
importance and the demands are less and less specific, it becomes in-
creasingly difficult to ascertain whether an action is a victory or a
defeat. As the demands are more obscure and the qualities needed to
cope with these demands aremore abstract, it becomes difficult to de-
termine if it is the problem that is simply overwhelming, or the skills
that are insufficient, or if, indeed, someone has misinformed one of
the true meaning of the outcome. It is this very obscurity that
Skinner is pointing out in his recent work peyond Freedom and Dig-
pity, It is not that man ppp_be controlled and made to be what
another wishes him to be, but that man i§_controlled and thereby must

have infbrmation as to what areas are being controlled, and to what

 

136

degree, so that he can defend himself against depersonalization. The
countercurrents of the democratic values of dignity and worth, and the
capitalistic values of efficiency and profit seem to be at odds in
this identity struggle.

The dilemma of conflicting value structures, alluded to in the
preceding section, is further intensified as one looks to the need of
finding some system of orientation and/or devotion in life. Again,
in the early period of the American culture one could confront the real
world of one's existence and find resolution through reason. In some
quarters the dogmatic theOlogy prevalent during this early period
exerted a counterforce to reaSon, but there was relative freedom out-
side the domain of the church from deliberate attempts to control the
thought process. Modern day tactics of thought control flowing from
the economic and political realms have negated much of this freedom,
particularly as these methods have become a part of the accepted polit-
ical procedure. Reason demands accurate data on which to exert mental
effort if the outcome is to be a reasonable decision. In the complex
of diverse and antagonistic forces fighting for men's minds today, it
is becoming increasingly difficult to keep an unhampered flow of in-
formation. This is all the more frightening because of the nearly
unbelievable efficiency of modern media in making information avail—

able. The problem today is not the lack of information, nor are the

137

fetters of dogma so restricting anymore, but the ability of a group
intent on its own purposes to control the content of the information
available is now an ever—present danger. The inability of the average
person to cope with the sheer amount of knowledge available to make a
reasoned decision plus the demands in terms of the skills needed for
critical thinking and integration of ideas is becoming more of a
problem every day.

The same availability of information that causes man such a

 

problem in finding a resolution to the need for a system of orientation
and/or devotion, gives him a stronger basis than ever before for the
resolution of his need for a sense of rootedness. Where in the past
a lack of knowledge of what other men in other places were like, led
to provincialism, fear, and hostility; today there is virtually no
group of men anywhere that the average man does not know something
about. The mystery, and thus the fear, of others has been to a great
extent dissipated. With this “world knowledge" so readily available,
other problems have been created as men begin to realize the differ-
ential in the distribution and use of the world's available resources.
In summary, there are three major forces in the American cul-
ture which determine the ease or difficulty with which the basic needs

can be resolved in a positive manner.

138

One of these forces is the concept of democracy itself (labeled
3-4 in the model) which has as its major tenants equality, brotherhood,
and unity. Democracy is a system of social relations and is largely
independent of governmental procedures. This conceptual structure, if
it could be maintained independent of other competing structures, would
seem to be the ideal environment for meeting basic needs productively.
One could relate to others in the loving relationship described by

Fromm in The Art of Loving; one could find his true identity as he

 

encountered others in a relationship of trust, mutual need, and mutual
assistance; one would not have to seek for rootedness for he would have
it in the joy of complete brotherhood; his need for a system of orien-
tation could be met through the mutual seeking of this end with his
brothers without fear of others' attempts to convert or control him.
But democracy, a social system, is not an adequate conceptual
framework on which to build a complete culture. There must be some
institution (labeled 3-5, Fig. 2, p. 120) by which the group controls
its members and carries on relationships with other cultures. In the
American culture these functions are carried out by the application
of republican precepts. The major value constructs of the republican
form of governance are control (power), the will of the majority, and
organizational efficiency. One must separate the concepts of the

government, which is the particular group of persons that at any given

139

time man the apparatus of the state; and the governance, or state it-
self, which is the structure by which the power holding groups activity
is defined and regulated.

The basic political problem arises from the fact that in any
aggregate of human beings seeking to meet the demands of the forces
created by the basic needs thereis always the possibility of conflict.
In economic terms, people want scarce value exemplars, and their efforts
to acquire them may not leave "enough and as good“ for others.

If men are enough alike to have approximately equal

capacities for desiring scarce values and if no bonds

except the pursuit of immediate interests unit indi-

viduals, society becomes a normless jungle in which

every man's hand is against his neighbors.6
Government steps in to formalize and regulate the relations between
individuals and groups as they seek after their own desires. In es-
sence governance is the codification of the peoples' norms. In this
way political structures are, in terms of the individual, antithetical
to the resolution of the need to relate. Basically, government estab-
lishes, within the power alloted them by the majority, a system of
priorities in terms of accessibility of valued ends, to individuals

and groups. While this may seem like a needless interference when

viewed from the perspective of democratic values, one must remember

 

6Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action (Glencoe,
111.: 1949). p. 89.

140

that governmental structures are created by the people because demo—
cratic values are neither strdngly enough held nor sufficiently broadly
held by individuals to eliminate the need for control. Inherent in the
association of human beings in society is the problem of regulating the
power of some individuals or groups over others.

I In establishing self identity through the active experience of
one's own powers, it would seem that political democracy should be an
excellent means to this end. For the essence of political democracy,
one of its few dogmas, is that the policies of the government are con-
tinually subject to criticism and revision; the rulers are accountable
to the electorate. This function is somewhat blunted in American
political democracy because of the political party system which tends
to separate the citizen from direct participation in the operation of
his government,.and the power that unions and other powerful vocational
and economic entities wield in the power struggle.

The problem of rootedness has always been a problem to American
culture. This lack of feelings of rootedness has its roots in the
heterogeneity of the people of America. A primary task of the govern-
ment is the regulation of the conflicting and divergent loyalties and
interests that this heterogeneity produces. The sharp internal dif-
ferentiation of occupations and economic positions gives each special

economic group and economic "class” its own social perspective and its

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

141

own specific economic interests, both of which are often in deep oppo—
sition to those of other groups. The fact that the American political
structure is federal rather than unitary in form is also somewhat di-
visive in terms of rootedness but it is essential that it remain in
this form to prevent the centralization of power.

Many facets of the political system of American culture inhibit
man's ability to meet his basic needs productively. However, without
such an institutional structure it is doubtful that the culture could
exist at all. The problem then is to maintain control over the polit-
ical system by those governed so that it can be changed in the dinettion
of pure democracy as the growth of democratic values in the population
allows.

Fundamentally there are two broad ways in which some men control
others. In the realm of the political it is usually done through manip-
ulation of infbrmation, that is through persuasion or propaganda so
that conditions are perceived differently and thus behavior changes.

The second method of control is the manipulation of the outcomes of
man's endeavors, the control of advantage or the threat of disadvantage.
This latter method is the method of economics. The effect of the eco-
nomic system (labeled 3-3, Fig. 2, p. 120) Oh man's ability to meet his
basic needs productively is extensive. American economic institutions

are the most conspicuous feature of the culture. America is a

 

 

 

 

142

"business culture." In most cultures the social and the economic
realms are essentially the same. But in American culture the economic
system has acquired such independence from other areas of life that it
gives the appearance of being an autonomous, self-generating and self-
perpetuating entity. The economic system even has its own set of
values and these values are so pervasive that for much of the nation
they have become tpe_American value system.

‘ Some values, such as those of religious devotion, group pride,

 

and community recreation, are inherently nondistributive; they are
participated in rather than divided up. One person's enjoyment does
not diminish another's participation in the same value complex—-indeed,
the value may require that others share it. But economic values are
distributive: they are divisable, and what one person appropriates
diminishes what otherwiSe would be available to others. The confusion
of needs with wants, which would he a problem in the social realm and
somewhat in the political, is not a problem here as, economically,
needs and wants are the same thing. The basic economic problem is the
allocation of scarce means to alternative ends, thus the very essence
of capitalistic economics is competition and acquisition. These ele—
ments are present in all economic systems but are particularly forceful
in the capitalistic mode. In the early period of American culture the

basic tenants of the economic realm were: that the greatest economic

143

good of the society would be achieved through the unrestrained play of
individual self-interest; belief in the sanctity of "private property";
and the belief that the economic order is best when there is a minimum
of state regulation.7 This situation has changed markedly in present

day American economics. Today there is in America an economy of mass

production, division of labor dominated by fragmentation and speciali-
zation of function, highly standardized (depersonalized) products, and

corporate ownership of the means of production. Because of these

 

factors governmental control has increased markedly in American eco-
nomics. This forced marriage of the economic and political areas has
further eroded the force exerted by the purely social democratic values.
In terms of the needs perceived as essential in this study, it
appears that the economic structures are not presently functional as a
means to positive need resolution. The need to relate is most appro-
priately met under these conditions by retreat into anonymous groups of
great power. The individualism of enterprise disappears into the cor-
poration. In so doing the needs for rootedness and identity, are sat-
iated in a non-productive manner. Likewise the individualism of work
disappears into the discipline of the factory and the union with the

same result as the former case.

 

7Robin Williams, American Society_(New York: Fred A. Knopf,
1951). p. 143.

 

144

More and more, industrial relations concern masses,

organizations, groups and the differentiated statuses

within these group entities--not the relations of a

homogenious aggregate of separate and equal indi-

viduals.

The economic forces have become the most powerful and most

pervasive of the three major value areas. It becomes more obvious
with every passing day that these forces are distorting and tearing

asunder the fabric of the nation's political and social values.

Rather than a democratic or even a politically democratic culture

 

America has become an economic culture. Many still claim it to be a
capitalistic culture, but this is a questionable description when one
observes the governmental-business alliances that support one another.
The interactions (labeled c on the model) between these three
powerful cultural units will have to be considered in terms of their
potential for the enhancement of the mental health of the nation and
possibly some alternative patterns established. The study of these
interactions and the teaching of new patterns, if found desirable, is
a part of the function of the school. This would be far too dangerous
to allow such power to one institution if the school were not the
institution closest to, and most easily influenced by the total

population.

 

8Ibid., p. 195.

145

Four major variables concerning the American culture seem
appropriate in pointing out what factors must receive attention in
making curriculum decisions in the American school.

First, the American culture is a dynamic culture. It has no
inherent form or structure thus it must cope with ever-changing condi-
tions and values. These changes come about very slowly making it
possible to make the mistake of assuming a value to be permanent and
defending it after its usefulness has been outlived.

Second, given this "becoming“ nature of American culture,
there are certain value complexes, particularly those that have to do
with the form of social relations in a democracy, that have been stable
over most of the culture's history and while they conceivably could
change, there seems no reason at this time to discard them. These
values, in fact, while losing some of their power have become even more
important to the preservation of the American culture than ever before.
The importance of the individual, his right to fully utilize any and
all talents he may have, and the need for all members of the culture to
act responsibly toward the total group, are even more important now
that certain other institutional value complexes, primarily political
and economic, are being given more emphasis than they reasonably should
receive. Particularly the economic value structures, which if allowed

free reign in their present direction, would return the nation's people

 

146

to the conditions of serfdom, but with anonymous corporations and

other Similar units as the controllers.

Third, the interactions between and among competing value
structures need continual study so that man may control his institu-
tions and thereby his culture so that long range goals may be utilized
in cultural planning. To fail to do this will result in the repetition
of the present crisis oriented procedures wherein one typically must

resolve the same problem time after time, because man under this con-

 

dition is a victim of his culture rather than in charge of it.

Fourth, the predominant value structures that seem appropriate
for the school to consider in making curricular decisions are the
complexes dealing with social man, political man, and economic man.

Every culture has some means of passing on those values and
behaviors that define the culture as a whole. The school (designated
by IV in the design) is one of the educative elements a culture util-
izes in this endeavor. The school is not the only educative structure
in any culture; the family, the church, the neighborhood, and other
entities fulfill part of the educative function. Sometimes these
diverse units work in direct contradiction to one another. The school
is, however, the major means of passing on the heritage of any advanced
culture. In static cultures the problem of what to teach in the school

is easily resolved, for one simply reiterates the verities on which the

147

culture is based. The only problem these schools encounter is to "keep
hp" with and explain away the technological advances of their science

and technology. The American culture is a dynamic culture and as such
presents a very real problem to those in the school responsible for
deciding what to teach. The interaction (identified by D, Fig. 1, p. 119)
between the culture and the school must be kept at a high level so that
the school constantly receives information concerning chahges in the

cultural imperatives. The school usually reflects the society in which

 

it exists. In a dynamic society this means that it generally reflects
changes that occurred in the culture in the past, thus it fails in its
primary task of bringing the young “barbarians" into the main stream of
the culture. The young are typically prepared for yesterday. If the
interaction "d" is continuous and the exchange of information rela-
tively free, then the school can at least prepare its students for par—
ticipation in the present culture. A school in a dynamic culture
should study the interaction of all of the elements of the society for
which it is teaching so that it can be an active force in the recon—
struction of the culture as that reconstruction is taking place.

There are a nearly infinite number of value complexes at work
in the culture at any given time. As stated earlier, value complexes
are simply rules by which certain cultural activities are carried out.

The school must select from among this large number of possible content

 

 

148

areas, the value complexes that are most essential to the continued
functioning of the culture and also those with which the school can
reasonably be expected to cope. Certainly the school cannot do all
things equally well. As has been pointed out in the preceding section
the most pervasive and powerful complexes seem to be those dealing with
the social relations among people, the establishment and control of
power, and the active participation in the economic activities of the

culture. The content of the school should be those matters dealing

 

with these three primary concerns (labeled 4-1, Fig. l, p. 119).

Factors in Achieving Goals

 

The goals of the school must be similar to those of the more
general culture and as has been indicated, the cultural values derive
from man's resolution of his basic needs. As these basic need resolu-
tions are accepted by the group the cultural values are formed. The
school's objectives must be derived from these values but are not
synonymous with them. Value structures are broad generalizations and
are not definitive in themselves. School objectives must be more
specific than value structures, but must resist the danger of becoming

so specific that they lose the continuity established with their

 

149

antecedents and become values in their own right. Keeping in mind that
the overarching purpose of the school is to induct the young into the

value complexes of the culture, it is readily seen that the interaction
of the school and the culture (labeled 0, Fig. l, p. 119) is ESSential.
It is this very dynamic that makes it essential to have broad represen-
tation of diverse points of view on committees that deal with curri-

culum policy making. The division of pplipy_making and decision making

has been a source of irritation for both the representatives of the

 

culture and those of the school. The broad policies concerning what
the general content and direction of the program should be are estab-
lished by such groups, but the choice of the Specific activities that
comprise the program must remain with school personnel. These policy
committees should include representatives from the major institutional
complexes that it is felt are appropriate for the school to be involved
with in maintaining or reconstructing the cultural values. Too often
in the past they have been dominated by vested interests that had per-
sonal rather than cultural biases. This has been most recently demon-
strated in the takeover of the curriculum by the subject matter spe-
cialists that has all but destroyed the humanist tradition in the
school. Balance must be maintained as content is selected. These
committees serve as the bridge between the total accumulated knowledge

of the culture and that part of this knowledge selected as the content

150

to be utilized by the school as it seeks to induct the young into the
ongoing cultural activities. The school must not only be within the
culture, but must also be an active force in the culture.

Based on these policy statements, school personnel then
derives a system by which the generalizations can be implemented in
such a way that each set of factors receives the attention deserved
and that all factors are integrated into a dynamically functioning
whole. This structure is designated 4-1, Fig. 1, p. 119), and its
explanation will use data deemed appropriate at this time, but which
should not be presumed to be absolute.

The first of these value complexes (labeled 4-2, Fig. 3,

p. 121) concerns those behaviors that represent allegiance to those
values that are consonant with democratic ideas about the nature of
man and his relations with other men. While many of these behaviors
can be specified and appropriate academic materials prepared for teach-
ing about these behaviors, the mpgt important factor here is living in
a milieu where these behaviors can be effectively practiced. In the
method-data relationship, method (process) would become the dominant
aspect in this experience complex at the earlier stages and become less
so as the child moves through his school experiences. A second dynamic
relationship involved here is the distinction between general education

and specific educational experiences. General education is usually

 

151

defined as those aspects of the program that are necessary for minimal
participation in the culture. Specific education, on the other hand,
is that which has specific application in terms of a specific voca-
tional or social role in the culture. This distinction is meaningless
unless the decision is applied to some real child in a real situation.
What is necessary differs from social group to social group and from
economic group to economic group. General and specific education have

a reciprocal relationship and either factor will vary in importance

 

from time to time and content to content in terms of individuals.
Indeed, first grade music may be vocational to some children. In the
same manner senior grammar may be "general education" for some,
depending on its eventual use.

One of the primary points to be made in this presentation in
regard to "social man," is that values must be consistent in and out
of the school structure. The present autocratic governance in the
school must be removed or the culture must agree that autocracy should
replace democracy in our culture. The child does indeed "learn what
he lives," and so the social climate in the school must be that which
is desired in the culture at large.

The factor labeled 4-3 in Fig. 3, p. 121, represents

"economic man," and is virtually the entire program of most schools

 

today. The content is the factual data and the method of science and

 

152

technology. The major outcome of these studies should be the develop-
ment of a person who has the skills and attitudes of a capitalist; at
least in as much as the culture as a whole wishes to utilize capital-
istic procedures in its economic relations. This area which seemed so
secure a few years ago is now an area of much tension and disagreement.
The school will have to keep its interactions with the larger culture
current if it is to not produce anachronisms. Just where the capitalism
to socialism trend will eventually lead is still an open question in

the American culture.

The same dynamics concerning general and specific education
are also relevant in this subject matter.

The area labeled 4-4 in Fig. 3, p. 121, is the integration of
these two separate content areas plus some facts and procedures of its
own and is intended to represent the "political man" as he exercises his
technical skills within the structures of the allowed social interac-
tions. This area is the central focus of all school experiences; its
product should be the effectively functioning democrat in economic,
political, and social areas. It is an area in which the responsible
citizen participating in his culture, is able to make those moral
decisions which determine the direction of his culture.

The content utilized in the school is in no way to be thought
of as an organizing center for the experiences children have there.

‘The content is the smorgasboard of activities from which some are

 

 

153

selected because they seem appropriate as material to be organized
around the experiences of the child. How one is to determine what to
organize about the individual child is the only real problem to be
considered. The child himself (labeled V in Fig. l, p. 119) is the
nuclear center of the school experience. The child is an organized
'whole of varying complexity and equilibrium.

At the moment of conception the process of differentiation and

integration is set in motion and does not stop until death. As the fer-

 

tilized egg begins to divide, and then divide again, some cells become
bone, others skin, still others nerve tissue (5-3 in Fig. 4, p. 122).
AS these many discrete entities are created they are also organized so
that they function as an interdependent whole. If all goes as it
should, each system develops only sufficient complexity to serve its
individual function so that a harmonious balance is maintained.

Growth will occur, but its form will depend on the environ-
ment. .A propitious environment is one in which there is a minimum of
environmental press or domination. Growth cannot be forced but is,
in fact, a phenomenon that takes place from the inside out. Each
child builds his own reality as he experiences the objects and con-
ditions of the real world.9 These internal factors are the forces

that allow enculturation to occur.

 

. 9Jean Piaget, The Construction of Reality in the Child (New
York:- Basic Books, Inc., 1954), p. 4.

 

154

At first this involves biological adaptation only. Form
follows function, as environmental demands are met through the orga-
nisms responding to them, structures are built within the child which
allow more efficient organism-environment interactions to occur.

The first forms of this adaptation are physical, but there are soon
mental operations that are similar and somewhat parallel to these
physiological phenomena. Through this interaction such basic concepts
as the permanency of objects, time, and space are structured.]0’]1’ 12
It is also postulated that values, attitudes, and other "content" of
the affective domain are developed in essentially the same organism—
environment interaction mode.13 Piaget uses the term schema to define
these structures that are the mental counterparts of the biological

means of adapting.14 Schemata can be simplistically thought of as an

index file of experiences and the meanings or feelings that accompany

 

 

1OHerbert Ginsberg and Sylvia Opper, Piaget's Theory of Intel-
lectual Development (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1969), p. 24.

11J. H. Flavell, The Developmental Psyehology of Jean Piaget
(Princeton: 0. VanNostrand Company, 1963), p. 36.

12Jean Piaget, The Origins of Intelligence in Children (New
York: W. W. Norton, 1952), pp. 2-3.

13Flavell, op. cit., p. 16.

14Barry J. Wadsworth, Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Developmept
(New York: David McKay Company, 1969), p. 10.

155

each of them. It is only through experience with the real world that
these schemata can be built. The building takes place through two
complimentary dynamics, assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation
is the taking in of experience in some form that the organism can
utilize. A biological example would be the ingestion of food. Assim—
ilation is somewhat analogous to the Ah-hah phenomenon of the Gestalt-
ists. Through the process of assimilation content structures (file
cards) are built. If, however, there was not the second dynamic force
of accommodation, the child would develop enormous amounts of disor-
ganized information. Accommodation is the changing of the structures
already present in order to correctly classify the new input or to
create a new category for the input. The dynamic actions of assimi-
lation and accommodation create the structures that account for growth
in the child. If assimilation takes precedence over accommodation,
large quantities of unorganized information is created. If, on the
other hand, accommodation takes precedence over assimilation, then
organization would be present with very little information to utilize.
Both these factors have organizational properties within themselves
but what is needed is an equilibration between these forces. The
"delicate balance" that keeps each within reasonable limits for the

most effective growth to occur.

 

 

 

156

Three additional concepts are essential if one is to be able
to apply these ideas to the creation of educative experiences. Context
refers to the observable behaviors that reflect developmental activity.
Content appears to be essentially the same as the habit family hier-
archies of-fihe behaviorist. Content is constantly changing through
experience. Structure refers to the inferred organizational prop-
erties (schemata) that explain the occurrence of the behaviors that
constitute the content of development. Structure, then, is similar
to the motivational aspects of behavioral phenomena. Structure is the
most basic of these two and Should be the factor the educator utilizes
in determining appropriate educative experiences. That which is deter-
mined by virtually all educational test procedures is content. This
is essentially an aspect of assimilation and is of little practical use
in most real world occurrences. It is the dynamic property that is
important because it is this dynamic property that makes the learning
useful and used in the life experiences of the child and the adult.
Function is a process that is stable and continuous throughout devel-
opment and refers to the necessity of the organisms adapting to his
environment and organizing these adaptations into useful wholes.

A first major point to be taken from this position is that the

child must act on the environment if development is to proceed. The

 

157

development of coping structures is ensured.only if the child assimi-
lates and accommodates stimuli in the environment.

The second is that development proceeds by orderly, sequential
steps and assimilation and accommodation must be equilibrated between
themselves and also equilibration must be reached between environmental
demands and organism response capability. In Piagetian terms the
proper ailment (educative experience) must be present at the proper
time. In the model the elements numbered 5-2 (Fig. 4, p. 122) are
indicative of the structures that result from assimilation and accom-
modation. The content of these structures is dependent on the heredi-
tary characteristics brought to the situation and the amount and order-
liness of the objects and interactions encountered. The major impor-
tance of this point is that thought derives from the activity of the
child himself. What Fromm believed to be true in terms of values was
also found to be true in thought and feelings.

It is the depth and extensiveness of these structures that
determine what the child can and should do and learn. The only de-
fensible procedure then is to start with the sensitive assessment of
the child and build personalized programs around each individual.
Because of the similarities inherent in any cultural milieu, this
should not result in the overwhelming diversification that some believe

would happen, but it would allow the school to get away from the

 

 

158

normative procedures so often used today. These procedures result in
forcing children to be more alike rather than allowing them to develop
their differences which are the true identity elements of each. It is

this very individuality that is the basic democratic value.

 

SUMMARY

One of the major sources of data utilized in curricular
decisions is the field of sociolOgy. It is the position of the
present thesis that adequate goals for American schools must derive
from the sociological study of man and his culture. The study of
the American culture must center on those institutions that are cen-
tral to the culture and about which there is substantial consenSual
agreement. It is these “general" institutional strUctures which
provide the cultural elements that the school utilizes as it fulfills
its role of perpetuating the culture. The sociological perspective
supplies the goals the school is to implement. Curriculum workers
must have sociological knowledges and skills if they are to be able
to cooperate with other institutional representatives in the inevit-
able compromises between the ideal and the possible in meeting other
institutional demands.

The economic institutions, which include the technological
and scientific communities, provides the culture with an overwhelming
array of academic material. 'From this total cultural knowledge the

curriculum worker, cooperating with representatives from the

159

 

 

160

disciplines of knowledge, must decide what is both necessary and pos-
sible for the school to use in preparing the young to cope with the
technological demands of their culture. Again it is the school
representative, the curriculum worker, that must arbitrate between
the demands of those seeking social reconstruction outcomes and those
seeking technological and academic outcomes.

In the present thesis a new dimension is posited as an area

of school concern, and that is the set of institutional structures

 

dealing with power and decision in the culture. This is particularly
significant in American culture where the power resides in the people
themselves. Every man must be a decision maker. This new realm of
the political is the amalgamation of the social and the academic so
that knowledge is used in ethical ways so that no man becomes enslaved
by the knowledge of another. Nor does any man become enslaved by
knowledge itself.

All of these content and goal concerns are seen as vehicles
to man's search for a more rewarding life. The central concern is
man himself. In the past the child has been studied as a means of
deriving content. The concerns and behaviors of the child were thus
held to be legitimate sources of content for the school to use. This
however only results in continuing child like behaviors. The

curriculum worker must be able to study the child as a complex,

161

organized, functioning whole. The purpose of the curriculum workers
study is to determine appropriate content and method such that each
child can individually build himself so that he is personally and
culturally effective. To do this the curriculum worker must be
knowledgeable in psychology.

This new curriculum worker must have the group dynamic Skills

of the present curriculum worker, but must also have the academic

 

skills of the master teacher and the developmental psychology skills
that some counselors possess. This new person would be a clinical
educator, one who can make a sensitive assessment of the child and
thereby select appropriate educational experiences for each child

so that the child becomes a fully functioning member of his culture.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Adams, James Truslow.' The American. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1960.

 

Alcorn, Marvin D. and James M. Linley. Issues in Curriculum Develop-
ment. Yonkers on Hudson: World Book Company, 1959.

 

Allen, Frank B. School Mathematics Study Group, New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1961.

 

American Institute of Biological Sciences. Biological Sciences
Curriculum Study. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.

 

 

Anderson, Harold H. An Introduction to Projective Techniqges.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951.

 

Bestor, Arthur E. Educational Wastelands. Urbana: UniVersity of
Illinois Press, 1953.

Brammer, Lawrence M. and Everett L. Shostrum. Therapeutic Psychology.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960.

 

Broudy, Harry S., B. Othanel Smith, and Joe R. Burnett. Democracy
and Excellence in American Secondary Education. Chicago:
Rand McNally & Company, 1964.

 

Caswell, Hollis L. "Sources of Confusion in Curriculum Theory."
Toward Improved Curriculum Theory. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1950.

 

Cofer, C. M. and M. H. Appley. Motivation: Theory and Research.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967.

 

162

163

Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. New York: D. Appleton, 1871.

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. Garden City: Doubleday,
1859.

0011, Ronald C. and Robert S. Fleming. Children Under Pressure.
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books Inc., 1966.

 

Dollard, John. Frustration and Aggression. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1939.

Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated
by J. W. Swain. New York: Collier, 1961.

Eiseley, Loren. "Man, Time, and Prophecy." In The New Idea in
Education. J. A. Battle and Robert L. Shannon, Eds. New
York: Harper Row and Company, Publishers, 1968.

Flavell, J. H. The Developmental Psychology of Jean Piaget.
Princeton: 0. VanNostrand Company, 1963.

Frankl, Victor. Man's Search for Meaning. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1962.

 

 

Fromm, Erich. Man for Himself. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
1947. -

Fromm, Erich. The Sane Society. Greenwich: Fawcett, 1955.

 

Ginsberg, Herbert and Sylvia Opper. Piaget's Theory of Intellectual
Development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1969.

 

Gordon, Richard and Katherine Gordon. The Blight on the Ivy.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

Haber-Schaim, Uri. Physical Science Study Committee. Lexington,
Mass.: Heath, 1971.

Herndon, James. The Way It §pozed to Be. New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1965.

 

Hertzberg, Alvin and Edward F. Stone. Schools are for Children.
New York: Schocken Books, 1971.

 

 

164

Holy Bible. Modern King James Version, Copyright by Jay P. Green,
1962.

 

Hook, Sidney. Reason, Social Myths, and Democracy. New York: The
John Day Company, 1970.

Horney, Karen. The Neurotic Personality of Our Time. New York:
W. W. Norton, 1937.

 

Jan-Laush, James. Suicides of Children. Trenton, N.J.: New Jersey
State Department of Education, 1963.

King, Arthur R., Jr., and John A. Brownell. The Curriculum and the
Disciplines of Knowledge. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1966.

 

 

 

Kluckholn, Clyde. "Culture as a Force: Mirroring Modern Man.”
Democratic Legacy in Transition. New York: 0. VanNostrand
Reinhold Company, 1971.

 

Koerner, James D. The Miseducation of American Teachers. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1963.

 

Kozol, Jonathan. Death At An Early Age. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1967.

 

Kukorian, Yervant H. and Abraham Edel. Contemporary Philosophic
Problems. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1959.

 

Levy, Oscar, ed. The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche. London:
T. N. Foulis, 1911.

Lynd, Robert S. Knowledge for What? The Place of Social Science in
American Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1939.

 

Malinowski, Bronislaw. A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other
Essays. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina
Press, 1944.

 

Malinowski; Bronislaw. Freedom and Civilization. New York: Roy
Publishers, 1944.

 

165

Maslow, Abraham. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and
Row, 1954.

Maslow, Abraham H. Toward a Psychology of Being. Princeton:
0. VanNostrand Company, Inc., 1962.

Merrill, Richard J. The CHEM Study Story. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman, 1969.

Montagu, Ashley. Man: His First Million Years. Cleveland: The
World Publishing Company, 1957.

Muntsch, Albert. ‘Cultural Anthropology. The Bruce Publishing Company,
1936.

 

Murdock, George Peter. Culture and Society. Pittsburgh: University
of Pittsburgh Press, 1965.

Myrdal, Gunnar. An American Dilemma. New York: Harper and Brothers,
1944.

 

Parsons, Talcott. The Structure of Social Action. Glencoe, 111.:
Fawcett Publications, 1949.

Phenix, Philip H. Realms of Meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1964.

Piaget, Jean. The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 1954.

Piaget, Jean. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York:
W. W. Norton, 1952.

Poggi, Gianfranco. Images of Society. Stanford: Stanford Univer-
sity Press, 1972.

Pounds, Ralph L. and James R. Bryner. The School in American
Society. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1959.

Rickover, Hyman. American Education--A National Failure. New York:
E. P. Dutton and Company, 1963.

166.
-Rogers, Carl R. On BeComing a Person. Massachusetts: The'River? . *
side Press, 1961.

Romanes, G. J. Mental Evolution in Man. New York, London:
0. Appleton, 1888 (p. 452).

Schwalbe, G. Darwin and Modern Science. New York:. Grossman
Publishers, 1968. '

 

Thompson, J. Arthur. What is Man. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons,
1924. ‘

Tillich, Paul. Biblical Religion and the Search for Ultimate
Reality. Chicago:. University Of Chicago Press, 1955.

Tillich, Paul. The Courage to Be. .New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1952. '

Wadsworth, Barry J. Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development. New
York: David McKay Company, 1969.

Wetherington, Ronald K. The Nature of Man. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown
Company, Publishers, 1967.

 

 

Williams, Robin M., Jr. American Society. New York: Alfred A.
' Knopf, 1951. ' ‘

Pamphlets "

Bailey, Stephen K. Disruption in Urban Secondary Schools. Washington,
D.C. National Association of Secondary School Principals,
. Nov. 1970.

Citizenship Education Project of Columbia University. .When Men Are
Free: PremiSes of American Liberty. New York: Houghton
'Mifflin Company, 1942.

 

 

 

 

167

Educational Policies COmmission. Moral and §piritual Values in the
Public Schools. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, 1951. -

Hagstrom, Warren 0. and Leslie L. H. Gardner. Characteristics of
Disruptive High School Students. Technical Report No. 96.
Madison: Center for Cognitive Learning, University of
Wisconsin, 1969.

House, James and William Miller. Oregon ASCD Curriculum Bulletin,
Oregon Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
ment. Salem, Oregon, Vol. XXVII, No. 315, January 1973.

Indiana Committee for the Humanities. Coleridge, Thoreau and the
Media. Indianapolis, 1974.

National Defense Education Act--Signed into law Sept. 2, 1958,
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.

National Education Association, Commission of the Reorganization of
Secondary Education. Cardinal PrincipJes of Education.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1918.

National Education Association, Committee on Social-Economic Goals.
Implications of Social-Economic Goals for Education.
Washington, D.C., 1937.

National Education Association, Educational Policies Commission.
The Purposes of Education in American Democracy.
Washington, D.C., 1938.

Raths, Louis E. An Application to Education of the Needs Theory.
Bronxville, New York: Modern Education Service, 1949.

Tagliacozzo, Giorgio. ’"The Rue of Knowledge." The American Behav-
ioral Scientist, October 4, 1960.

 

Thompson, 0. E. "Student Values in Transition." California Journal
of Educational Research, Vol. 19, March 1968.

 

 

168

Trump, Lloyd L. and Jane Hunt. "The Nature and Extentof Student-
' Activism." Bulletin of the National Association oerecondary
School Principals, No. 337, Washington, D.C., May 1969.

Tyler, Ralph W. The Curriculum--Then and Now. Princeton: Educa-
tional Testing Services, 1956.

United Nations. '"Your Human Rights." The Universal Declaration of

‘ Human Rights Proclaimed by the United Nations, New York,
Ellner, December 10, 1948. '

Periodicals

 

Fleming, Robert S. "Psychosomatic Illness and Emotional Needs."'
Educational Leadership, IX, November 1951.

Fogel, Helen. "Don't Be A Fool--Stay in School--Then What?" 113;
Detroit Free Press, Sunday, June 29, 1969.

Harris, Louis and Associates Inc. "What People Think About Their
High Schools." Life, Volume 66, No. 19, May 16, 1969.

Lee, Dorothy. "Are Basic Needs Ultimate?" Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, Vol. XLIII, No. 3, July 1948.‘

 

 

 

1 MICHIGAN STATE UNI‘V I
1|1111111111111111111WHIIHHWINIWI
31 2931 @050

H

L
Ill

5

   

   
  

AR
1

iii»...
1111111
6 1

1H
3

     
  

     

IES