Feineigle.com - Education and the Social Order

Home · Book Reports · 2019 · Education and the Social Order

Published: January 24, 2019



The book in...
One sentence:
An oligarchical perspective on education through the lens of global communism.

Five sentences:
Religion is decried as science is foisted upon the global as a replacement ideology that will somehow improve **everything**. This globalism will be enforced with international standards set about by supranational bodies like the League of Nations (United Nations). To bring this about we must reformat the way we educate our young so that they are immune, or at least less susceptible to propaganda. In actuality the new educational system itself is a more pervasive form of propaganda. Once the younger generation is sufficiently indoctrinated, we can convince them to destroy their families and give up their children to be raised by the state (of global communism).

designates my notes. / designates important.


Thoughts

This work is very adjacent to Russell’s other work from the year before: Scientific Outlook. There is also a lot that you can easily draw lines to A Brave New World, even if this was basically published at the same time. It bears repeating that Russell and Aldous Huxley were reasonably close friends and definitely ran in the same oligarchical circles.

Similar to Scientific Outlook and Propaganda, this book does not mince words and is more than jarring at times. For example, here are some very clear statements on transforming (read: destroying) families:

The family is a very deeply rooted institution, which men will not willingly see transformed. From this confusion there seems only one clear issue, which is that the place of the father should be taken by the State – a system which is easily possible under Communism, but not so easy to adapt to the institutions of private property and inheritance.

I have little doubt that the solution will be found in the greatly diminishing importance of the father and an increasing tendency for children to be supported by the State rather than by their fathers. I am not at all sure that this will be a good thing. The sentiment of paternity, and the feeling of sons towards their fathers, have been profoundly important elements in the history of civilisation, and I do not profess to know what civilisation will be like without these elements. But whether for good or evil, the importance of the State in relation to children seems bound to increase, while the importance of the father will correspondingly diminish.

The major premise of the book is that there are two types of education: one produces citizens while the other produces individuals. Citizens are seen as dogmatic while individuals are more like scientists. Russell is very clear that he feels states should be built on science and not promote a citizen type education but then contradicts himself by saying certain individuals should be given a ’license to think’. So, if we read between the lines, what I think, and further reading will reveal this is in fact the case, what Russell actually wants is citizen type education for most and individual/scientist education for a small ruling class that has his ’license to think’ (read: control).

He states, while give no reason, that civilization is in some kind of jeopardy and that is why we need a ruling class that can eventually build a world state.

As much criticism as I have for this book, there is a diamond in the rough here and there. Russell argues that compulsory education kills natural curiosity and that the same can be said about music, art, and literature. I agree that too much instruction kills the innate desire to learn, but I am not sure about music, art, and literature having the same effect unless he means that they are distractions.

He then falls right back into his totalitarian ways stating that education will need to remain mostly compulsory if we are to train next generation to fit in and do the required work. This I disagree with for the most part. If children were raised in a way that exposed them to the importance of the plethora of career paths, they would likely follow one without coercion. Russell keeps fear-mongering by saying compulsory education is the only thing staving off widespread starvation. Again, no actual reasons are given to support this position.

There is an exploration that argues that intelligence is inherited and how we could develop tests to figure out how to produce more intelligence children. This comes as no surprise since Russell was a eugenicist. Interestingly he seemingly out of nowhere mentions the superior Jewish IQ.

Moving on from intelligence, Russell argues that emotions are more effective at controlling people than rules and that children should be given the appropriate amounts of safety and freedom, while decreasing the former as the later increases. This runs completely counter to what we see today with the rise of safe spaces. Again, I agree safety should be given less importance (within reason) over freedom. That said, his argument is actually for the safe space world we see today. Russell is very good at double-talk. Consider the emotional outbursts we have seen over the last few years on universities around the country. This is clearly an example of controlling people through their emotions.

Further he argues that we should tolerate children calling adults fools and allow real argument between adults and children on taboo topics like sex, religion, or politics. I think religion and politics shouldn’t be taboo to civilized debate, when it comes to adults or children, but discussing sex with children is taboo and that conversation should come from the parents. Again, we see these exact kinds of debates with the current conflicts in teaching LGBT topics to ever younger children.

This leads perfectly into the next topic Russell tackles, is home or school more important? He dismisses without argument (I’m noticing a trend…) that homeschooling is no long sufficient and children should attend day School from age 6 until 13-14. He does make some claims that might be at least adjacent to his schooling claim. One is that children should not be kept cooped up in urban houses/apartments, that farms are OK if in the city, and that school offers a way for the children (and parents) to get away. Keep this idea of parents and children “getting away” from one another in mind.

Russell asks: what would happen if the state took and raised all children? He concludes that since men are often motivated to work by their families, without families they would stop working. Would man/woman relationships become more frivolous? Would men become more tame, thinking of the good of the world instead of the good of their child?

Perhaps, if it could be freed from the possessive taint which it must have while it is associated with actual physical parenthood, the world might lose some of its fierceness, and men might come to wish well to the generality of mankind.

We can easily see the modern answers to these questions. There is an increase in childlessness (in the west) and an increase in crime (possibly not per capita), regional war, and drug use. We also the rise in social/communism acceptance in the USA; a natural consequence of the erosion of families.

Russell then admits that communists need to remove private property for the same reason: men want to provide for their families.

An interesting claim is made that prep schools like Eton, with its spartan demeanor and all-boys population, breed contempt for women and this leads to the creation of homosexuals. While this isn’t explored more, it gives me pause when I look at the world today and the kinds of “leaders” that have brought it about.

School and society at large are compared to large and small herds. Within each herd there are pressures of bullying and teasing the purpose of which is to enforce social norms. These norms are much easier to imprint (obviously) in the younger herd. If the adults step in and use force to discipline the bigger boys, the bigger boys will use force on the smaller boys. They are merely mirroring what they see in the adults. If the adults do not step in, the bigger boys will still likely use force on the smaller boys. There needs to be a proper balance to teach them, through example, to be civilized. This is easier at the more ‘proper’ schools (though not a sure thing) as the boys are, by their home life, often more cultured to begin with.

Russell touches on what education should be and in his opinion it is wrong to teach that the mind and body are separate. He asks reasonable questions like, should university teach something useful (as in career/technical training) or should university focus on creating well-rounded and cultured gentlemen? I am not sure why it can’t be both, but I do see some large hurdles to overcome in the modern age. One non-trivial example would be, how can we expect to begin to culture a person at the age of 18? They are well past their formative years and it would be a tall order to completely turn around some of these feral, for lack of a better word, children.

He concludes that education should focus on what is useful and/or pragmatic. Remembering dates is almost useless, learning how to look them up is not so. I think this has much merit. Engineering students are often taught to never memorize what you can look up. This is seen in old adages like: give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

Russell contends that there is too much stress on individual tests (SAT, MCAT) for success. I again must agree. Even more so in the modern world where it seems children are taught to pass tests and not actually learn anything.

Lastly he believes, and once again I agree, that there is too much instruction and too long of lessons. Generally speaking it would be better to have shorter hours. This will lead to greater retention because the students are actually interested rather than forced. We can see this is the case today, and have know for quite some time. You are better off studying for 30 minutes every day (3.5 hours per week) than to cram once a week for 5 hours.

This is true for both intellectual pursuits as well as physical (learning an instrument for example). It is harder to burn out, easier to focus, and the interval training leads to more time to assimilate data between sessions. I, personally, can not speak any higher of this kind of training. You can test it yourself very easily. Read for 30-60 minutes each day until you finish a (educational) book. You will have a very good recall for what you read. Now sit down and read a similar length book in one sitting. Your recall will be abysmal.

Russell, as usual, minces no words when espousing his view on religion. Religion is bad and no intelligent men are religious.

Owing to the identification of religion with virtue, together with the fact that the most religious men are not the most intelligent, a religious education gives courage to the stupid to resist the authority of educated men, as has happened, for example, where the teaching of evolution has been made illegal.

He believes that intelligent children will not be allowed to question religion and thus they will be prevented from thinking. Subsequently they will give up thinking altogether.

Interestingly I do recall reading many times over that a great many scientists are in fact religious. This is clearly the case when we look at historical science figures. Even the much lauded Newton wrote extensively on religious topics. In my opinion, once you learn enough to know how little you actually know, the concept of religion and God become much more reasonable. The mind so sure of itself with its atheist position is not open.

There are a few straw man arguments where he claims that religious people only do what they do because of religion. A man (in a story) gave up Christianity and immediately raped his housemaid because there was now nothing to stop him. This seems far fetched to say the least. I see no reason to exclude religious teaching from pragmatic social morals in the same way I don’t think the teaching of evolution should be banned, but it should be taught with all its flaws.

The book then takes a rather extreme turn in chapter 9. It goes on about infantile sex and infantile masturbation. It makes references to Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Somoa which is a vile work that has been thoroughly discredited. Honestly anyone that uses Mead in their argument loses practically all my respect.

The goal, it seems, of this chapter is the transformation (read: destruction) of the family and the ushering in of the values laid out in The Communist Manifesto.

I will let it speak for itself.

Either men must become as virtuous as women, as the pioneers of feminism hoped, or women must be allowed to be as unvirtuous as men, as the feminists of our generation tend to urge.

On transforming families and communism:

The family is a very deeply rooted institution, which men will not willingly see transformed. From this confusion there seems only one clear issue, which is that the place of the father should be taken by the State – a system which is easily possible under Communism, but not so easy to adapt to the institutions of private property and inheritance.

I have little doubt that the solution will be found in the greatly diminishing importance of the father and an increasing tendency for children to be supported by the State rather than by their fathers. I am not at all sure that this will be a good thing. The sentiment of paternity, and the feeling of sons towards their fathers, have been profoundly important elements in the history of civilisation, and I do not profess to know what civilisation will be like without these elements. But whether for good or evil, the importance of the State in relation to children seems bound to increase, while the importance of the father will correspondingly diminish.

The next target is that nation state. In short: nationalism bad; globalism good. To spread the globalist ideal is simple; history books should be written by the League of Nations. This would almost be funny if we didn’t see functionally this happening now with supranational entities like the European Union, NATO, and the United Nations (the direct successor to the League of Nations).

There is one point that I do tend to agree with though, that patriotism shields citizens from understanding invasions. Most times this is framed (even to this day) as an us versus them mentality where both sides think they are the “us”. In reality it is almost always economic reasons (resources) that lead to conflict. I think that Thomas Jefferson has laid out the most reasonable way to prevent as much war as possible:

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.

It seems Russell would actually agree with this because he clearly values cooperation over competition.

The book ends interestingly by looking at education and propaganda. He mentions hot music, in the context of social groups like Churches, is propaganda that is meant to stir an emotional response. He doesn’t go as far as Plato (Republic in calling to ban music, but the sentiment feels similar to me. Honestly, I think Russell would rather harness the power of music than suppress it.

I agree with much of what is said, but, again, it has little to do with eduction aside from a few mention on how to use education to create resistance to propaganda.

To be critical of propaganda, to have what is called in America ‘sales resistance’, is highly desirable, and is not to be achieved by remoteness from propaganda, any more than immunity from measles is achieved by remoteness from measles. It is achieved by experiencing propaganda and discovering that it is often misleading.

Young people ought, at some stage in their education, to be taught political judgement, by listening to eloquence known in advance to be misleading, by reading partisan statements about past events and trying to infer what really happened, and so on. All this is the opposite of propaganda; it is the technique for rendering men immune to propaganda.

All the world’s problems, according to Russell, are because men are educated ‘incorrectly’. With a more scientific, a more international, education, everything would be better. To achieve this an international committee should govern education.

There have been times when competition in the form of war was advantageous to the victors. Those times are past. It is obvious now, to every thinking person, that every nation would be happier if all armed forces everywhere were dis- banded and all disputes between nations were settled by an international tribunal and all tariffs were abolished and all men could move freely from one country to another. Science has so altered our technique as to make the world one economic unit.

Clearly Russell’s curriculum is anti-propaganda, and not merely another side of propaganda. Right?


Further Reading


Exceptional Excepts

Both intelligence and sympathy, therefore, tend to be less repressed by an education hostile to the status quo than by one which is friendly to it.

This conflict between the scientific spirit and the governmental use of science is likely ultimately to bring scientific progress to a stand- still, since scientific technique will be increasingly used to instil orthodoxy and credulity. If this is not to happen, it will be necessary thatboys showing a certain degree of aptitude for science shall be exempted from the usual training in citizenship, and given a licence to think.

international cohesion, and a sense of the whole human race as one co-operative unit, is becoming increasingly necessary if our scientific civilisation is to survive. I think this survival will demand, as a minimum condition, the establishment of a world State and the subsequent institution of a world-wide system of education designed to produce loyalty to the world State. No doubt such a system of education will entail, at any rate for a century or two, certain crudities which will militate against the development of the individual. But if the alternative is chaos and the death of civilisation, the price will be worth paying.

Perhaps, if it could be freed from the possessive taint which it must have while it is associated with actual physical parenthood, the world might lose some of its fierceness, and men might come to wish well to the generality of mankind.

Owing to the identification of religion with virtue, together with the fact that the most religious men are not the most intelligent, a religious education gives courage to the stupid to resist the authority of educated men, as has happened, for example, where the teaching of evolution has been made illegal.

Most of them [schoolmasters] would think the psychology of infantile sex a nasty subject, concerning which it is well to be ignorant.

Either men must become as virtuous as women, as the pioneers of feminism hoped, or women must be allowed to be as unvirtuous as men, as the feminists of our generation tend to urge.

The family is a very deeply rooted institution, which men will not willingly see transformed. From this confusion there seems only one clear issue, which is that the place of the father should be taken by the State – a system which is easily possible under Communism, but not so easy to adapt to the institutions of private property and inheritance.

I have little doubt that the solution will be found in the greatly diminishing importance of the father and an increasing tendency for children to be supported by the State rather than by their fathers. I am not at all sure that this will be a good thing. The sentiment of paternity, and the feeling of sons towards their fathers, have been profoundly important elements in the history of civilisation, and I do not profess to know what civilisation will be like without these elements. But whether for good or evil, the importance of the State in relation to children seems bound to increase, while the importance of the father will correspondingly diminish.

History ought to be taught in exactly the same way in all countries of the world, and history text-books ought to be drawn up by the League of Nations, with an assistant from the United States, and another from Soviet Russia. History should be world history rather than national history, and should emphasise matters of cultural importance rather than wars.

Patriotism in its more militant forms is intimately bound up with money. The armed forces of the State can be, and are, employed for the enrichment of its citizens.

I think it was as Russians rather than as Marxists that the Thirty-Fifth All Russian Conference on Pre-School Education adopted the following resolution: ‘Music should penetrate completely the life of the child. There should be music during work, music during play, and music during holidays. The teacher should take into consideration the personal creativeness of the child and by organising an orchestra and collective singing should provide him with the necessary musical experiences.’

Progressive educators in the West have, I think, been inclined to gener- ate self-importance in the child, and to let him feel himself a little aristocrat whom adults must serve. This leads him to grow up an anarchist, impatient of the restraints of social life.

From the standpoint of politics (in the widest sense) I think our verdict must be different. Communism offers a solution of the difficult problem of the family and sex-equality – a solution which we may dislike, but which does, at any rate, provide a possible issue. It gives children an education from which the anti-social idea of competition has been almost entirely eliminated. It creates an economic system which appears to be the only practicable alternative to one of masters and slaves. It destroys that separation of the school from life which the school owes to its monkish origin, and owing to which the intellectual, in the West, is becoming an increasingly useless member of society. It offers to young men and women a hope which is not chimerical and an activity in the usefulness of which they feel no doubt. And if it conquers the world, as it may do, it will solve most of the major evils of our time. On these grounds, in spite of reservations,it deserves support.

Universal education has increased immeasurably the opportunities of propaganda. Not only is education itself everywhere propagandist, but the power of reading makes the whole population susceptible to the influence of the Press. This was the principal reason why the late war was more bitter than previous wars. People who had learnt to read, but had learnt nothing else, could be influenced by stories of atrocities, whereas in former times most people had either no education or a good deal, and were in either case comparatively immune.

Indirect propaganda consists in arousing emotions, in themselves unconnected with the object, in circumstances which establish an association with the object. This is the function of Church music, and of all music which is used in connection with some social group.

Young people ought, at some stage in their education, to be taught political judgement, by listening to eloquence known in advance to be misleading, by reading partisan statements about past events and trying to infer what really happened, and so on. All this is the opposite of propaganda; it is the technique for rendering men immune to propaganda.

The disharmony between nations is encouraged by education in the present day, and could be brought to an end by the introduction of internationalist propaganda in schools. This, however, is hardly possible without a previous victory of political internationalism. Education can consolidate political achievements, but is not likely to cause them so long as it is controlled by national States.

There have been times when competition in the form of war was advantageous to the victors. Those times are past. It is obvious now, to every thinking person, that every nation would be happier if all armed forces everywhere were dis- banded and all disputes between nations were settled by an international tribunal and all tariffs were abolished and all men could move freely from one country to another. Science has so altered our technique as to make the world one economic unit.


Table of Contents


· 01: THE INDIVIDUAL VERSUS THE CITIZEN

page 1:
page 4:
page 8:
page 9:

page 10:
page 11:

page 13:
page 14:

· 02: THE NEGATIVE THEORY OF EDUCATION

page 18:
page 23:

· 03: EDUCATION AND HEREDITY

· 04: EMOTION AND DISCIPLINE

page 36:
page 37:
page 40:

· 05: HOME VERSUS SCHOOL

page 45:
page 47:
page 48:
page 49:

· 06: ARISTOCRATS, DEMOCRATS, AND BUREAUCRATS

page 54:

· 07: THE HERD IN EDUCATION

page 59:
page 67:

· 08: RELIGION IN EDUCATION

page 79:

· 09: SEX IN EDUCATION

page 82:

page 83:
page 87:
page 88:

-Either men must become as virtuous as women, as the pioneers of feminism hoped, or women must be allowed to be as unvirtuous as men, as the feminists of our generation tend to urge.

page 89:

· 10: PATRIOTISM IN EDUCATION

page 92:
page 97:
page 98:

page 100:

· 11: CLASS-FEELING IN EDUCATION

· 12: COMPETITION IN EDUCATION

page 114:
page 115:
page 117:
page 118:
page 120:
page 125:

· 13: EDUCATION UNDER COMMUNISM

page 129:
page 130:
page 132:

page 133:
page 136:
page 137:

page 144:

· 14: EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS

· 15: PROPAGANDA IN EDUCATION

page 153:
page 154:

page 158:

page 161:
page 163:

· 16: THE RECONCILIATION OF INDIVIDUALITY AND CITIZENSHIP

page 168:
page 169:
page 173:
page 176:

page 177: