Modern Universities, Absent Citizenship? Historical Perspectives
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Modern Universities, Absent Citizenship? Historical Perspectives William Talcott Visiting Scholar, University of Maryland [email protected] CIRCLE WORKING PAPER 39 SEPTEMBER 2005 CIRCLE Working Paper 39: September 2005 Modern Universities, Absent Citizenship? Historical Perspectives CIRCLE Working Paper 39: September 2005 Modern Universities, Absent Citizenship? Historical Perspectives The historical study of university campuses and character-building might be described, as they can tell us much about the changing character were by a Berkeley student in 1892, as “elective and presuppositions of citizenship. Likewise, the studies.”3 study of citizenship can shed considerable light on Several developments stand out in the the nature of universities. Throughout American formation of the university model. Following Johns history, various elite institutions can be seen Hopkins’ lead, institutions emphasizing research struggling to establish a semblance of order and and science came increasingly to dominate higher control in political society—most clearly in the late education in the post Civil War U.S. Charles 19th century with large numbers of immigrants Elliot’s elective system instituted at Harvard freed changing the urban landscape, and with populist undergraduates to pursue their own interests rather movements threatening elite cultural and political than following a course set by the institution. Land dominance, but equally in the face of early 20th grant universities emphasized practical training century phenomena of mass society, propaganda, for farmers, mechanics, miners, engineers, as well and global interdependence.1 I find it helpful to as primary and secondary school teachers. New, think of modern universities, emerging in the more private and scientific notions of citizenship late 19th century, as right there in the struggle, were gradually eclipsing the collegiate emphasis as new institutional arenas of public practice to on moral character. Ostensibly handing the task shape new kinds of citizens. From this perspective, of character development to secondary and lower universities and modern citizenship are intertwined schools, the university became more concerned in ways mutually complicating and obscuring. With with technical expertise, scientific research and the aim of untangling some of these connections, professional development. this review covers a sample of formative texts on One persisting result of this transformation the broad topic of citizenship and the historical in higher education has been to make discussions development of modern universities in the United of citizenship with reference to the university States. sound dated, restrictive, or peripheral. The My focus is primarily on major research concept pairs easily with 19th century collegiate universities, with the rationale that these have had traditions, but not with modern universities. For disproportionate cultural and institutional influence some, the idea of citizenship carries connotations over the development of higher education as a of moralizing authority, of being disciplined to fit whole. The university model of higher education in a good citizen mold, of sitting quietly and raising the U.S. is often distinguished as having stemmed one’s hand before speaking, and so on. President from German traditions emphasizing specialization Robert Hutchins at the University of Chicago, for and research, as opposed to the 19th century example, in 1933 asserted in no uncertain terms collegiate model deriving from British traditions of that “‘education for citizenship’ has no place in training the whole person. This distinction between the university.” (Ironically, the same Hutchins who colleges and universities greatly oversimplifies their later defined liberal education as most simply “the institutional histories, but points to the general education that every citizen ought to have.”)4 direction of change in the latter 1800s toward Note, however, the symbolic contrasts research, graduate study, and specialization. between community and society, integration and Nineteenth century colleges clearly saw education fragmentation, embedded in the simplified history for moral character, “mental and moral discipline,” of transformation above. Either pole in these as one of their main objects. A student’s training, contrasts can hold a positive or negative valence for example, was typically capped by a yearlong depending upon one’s framework for understanding mandatory seminar in ethics taught by the college political society, and one’s assessment of the president—who was, most likely, an ordained current state of society. The college/community/ minister.2 But modern research universities were integration link, for example, might connote anti- a different sort of institution, one in which religion democratic, stifling conformity, as easily as it might www.civicyouth.org 2 www.civicyouth.org 3 CIRCLE Working Paper 39: September 2005 Modern Universities, Absent Citizenship? Historical Perspectives CIRCLE Working Paper 39: September 2005 Modern Universities, Absent Citizenship? Historical Perspectives suggest an antidote to a dysfunctional, fragmented practice as one of its central themes, the report society. These valences come up frequently in was important in setting the terms of discussion historical and sociological writing on universities, of American higher education through the 1960s.7 and, more to the point, play an important ongoing The committee clearly articulated a model of public role in directing and legitimating choices within practice that framed good citizenship as a matter of the institution. For example, Hutchins’ 1933 free individuals making informed, rational choices, argument that the true aim of the university was individuals voluntarily forming a “free society” “the advancement of knowledge,” was situated in a through mutual obligation. Universities were one particular reading of the state of American political of the vehicles, and one of the expressions, of this society which emphasized a need for intelligent model of practice—chiefly, though not exclusively, direction, not conformity or unity.5 through the universities’ scientific leanings. In contrast to their collegiate predecessors, Science, with its characteristic practice of forming the modern universities’ relationship to citizenship “objective, disinterested judgments based upon was (is) less evident, more puzzling, and perhaps exact evidence,” was singled out by the authors for more contentious. I say perhaps because the its “particular value in the formation of citizens for character of appropriate instruction was often a a free society.”8 heated issue in colleges, as well, with contention The Harvard committee’s aim to develop a typically centering on religious matters.6 However, model of democratic citizenship, and the manner my research on the development of modern higher in which it addressed the topic, can in part be education in the U.S. has led me to the view that attributed to the historical moment in which it citizenship was and is just as important to the was written: in 1945, global concepts such as that university as it was to the older college model. The of a “common fate” for humanity, and the threat important difference is that citizenship here took on of totalitarianism, were immediate and tangible. new meanings and adopted new practices. However, the cultural parameters of the “red The question of education for citizenship book” (as the book became known for the color has recently seen revived interest, with several of its cover) were already being circulated and volumes and many more articles dedicated to the enacted early in the emergence of the American topic. This literature rarely refers to citizenship university. In a sense, the Harvard committee’s as a cultural influence already embedded in, report symbolizes the culmination of political and actively shaping, higher education. This is and educational reform movements dating to the a problem because models of the public sphere late 19th century. The result of these movements and citizenship have long shaped universities embracing science as a model of democratic polity and colleges. In effect, the institution “thinks” was the eventual dominance—especially in research of its mission(s) in terms of received patterns of universities—of a modernist model of citizenship. citizenship. Proposals for change are more likely One of the ironies of modernist citizenship to be effective if they acknowledge and respond to is that it tends to inhibit discussion of substantive these models. moral aspects of public life. As a model The single most influential model of the emphasizing rational choice and non-coercive university/citizenship relationship in the 20th discussion among equals, citizenship is cast century, what I call the modernist model, emerged primarily as a matter of procedure or method. A in the late 19th century and eventually culminated modernist institution can thus speak volubly about in the influential 1945 publication,General promoting independent, critical inquiry, and is Education in a Free Society. Written by a Harvard amply stocked with critical skills to detect any committee of twelve, General Education surveyed suggestion of interference with independent inquiry, the cultural and educational elements necessary free speech, or any distortions in communication. for a modern democratic society. With the The notion of citizenship itself, however, becomes relationship between higher education