Copyright by Levis Allen Bayle3 1958
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright by Levis Allen Bayle3 1958 FREEDOM AND POWER IN A MULTIGROUP SOCIETT AS RELATED TO THE CONTROL OF EDUCATION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By LEWIS ALLEN BATLES, A. B. The Ohio State University 1957 Anprfiyed^oy: ft Vwy Adviser * Denartment of Education To Rosemary and the children who may some day understand both her trials and contributions. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My appreciation goes to all those whose contributions made this study possible. Foremost among those directly concerned is Dr. H. Gordon Hullfish whose gentle guidance and technical assistance were unstintingly given and gratefully received. Dr. Robert E. Jewett, Dr, John F, Cuber and Dr. E. Allen Helms have read this document in various unfinished stages and have made helpful criticisms and, suggestions. Dr. Alan Griffin made many useful suggestions in the early stages of the study. The written contributions of many students of education and society, have been frequently used and are gratefully acknowledged. Special acknowledgment must go to the many friends and students who helped provide the context of controversy in which thought goes on. Finally the writer wishes to acknowledge his intellectual debt to his father, Dr. Ernest S. Bayles whose clear and forthright thinking regarding democracy and education provided the foundation upon which this study trys to build. TABIE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATIONAL CONTROL............. 1 Introduction. .. ...................... 1 The Problem of the Public . ......... 2 Changes in the Public................... 5 The Issue of Professional Control......... U Summary. .......................... 2? II CORPORATE PQV'ER AND DEMOCRACY . ........... 31 Introduction............... 31 Groups in Modern Democracy......... 32 Is There a Role for Groups. U3 The Desirability of Organization ...... h9 The Prcblom Restated. .... ....... 55 Summary................................ 60 III THE ATTEMPT TO TRANSCEND CONFLICT. ......... 61 Introduction ........ ....... 61 American "Feudalism'*. ................. ?6 Summary........ ................. 81 I? IMPORTANCE TO EDUCATION ........... 88 Introduction , ....... 88 Education and Social Unity............... 8? Democracy and the Control of Education . 98 Society, The State and Formal Education. ill Summary. ......... ....... 115 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. .................... 120 Conclusion ........... , ....... 129 APPENDIX. .......................................... .. Introduction ....... ....... 133 Early Medieval Thought . ........... 13 k The Idea of Sovereignty. , ....... i The Nature of Corporate Nationalism. .... l5l The Decline of Corporate Society...... 166 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ,>r,. _ t X PAGE The Rise of Modern Political Thought.. 1?8 Thomas Hobbes and The Social Contract .... 180 John Locke. .............. 189 The Significance of Locke .......... 198 Revolution, Rousseau of the Notion of Community........................ 203 Group Theories in European Politics ..... 208 Groups in America.................. 212 Conclusion. ................. 218 p iO 513 L3 0" RAPH Y etc. v CHAPTER I DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATIONAL CONTROL INTRODUCTION too shall control the education of the child is at present alive, if not an explicit issue, in American education. Even though we affirm the fact of public control there is wide disagreement regarding the proper weighting of the claims of the variety of groups which demand support from the operations of the schools. Along with this conflict there is a feeling that a knowledge of the nature of democracy should provide ssa© guidance within it. Each group, however, can base its claim upon some interpretation of the meaning of democracy. Each of these seems plausible initially but variation in interpretation results in conflicting claims. Yet a thorough study of the operation of democracy is America, in relation to the problem of the control of education, should result in some clarification of issues. Certainly the Americas experience has been hospitable to difference but this should not he taken to mean that it is equally hospitable to all differences or that it has not evolved institations adapted to the particular forms of difference it has expressed. The purpose of this dissertation is to analyse the problem of educations- control for the following purposes: (1 ) to discover its fundamental characteristics5 (2 ) to isolate those aspects of the 1 problem ■which result fro® recent fundamental changes in social structure5 (3 ) to examine the present state of knowledge in the social sciences in relation to these fundamental changesj and (h) to examine the modern issue of educational control in the light gained from this examination. This analysis will be carried forward by an examination of the literature in the relevant social sciences. The problem, so stated, is a vast one. The purpose of this study will have been achieved if toe field involved is opened for more effective specula tion upon, and exploration of, the major issues involved. The Problem of toe Public No one of course believes that teachers in public schools are laws unto themselves. Teachers are possibly the first to admit to controls outside themselves, though they may be in doubt regarding the advisability of a particular scheme of control. The most obvious source of this control is the authority which provides the physical surroundings and enforces the attendance of the students. It is almost a truism to state that the public should control public education. That there is in America a free, tax supported public school armed with the legal authority to enforce attendance is a fact. let this fact is too often allowed to obscure the equally hard fact that American society includes a multitude of "publics.” The "public" affected by what goes on In the school is illimitable. American society is made up of a multitude of publics with conflicting interests which are so interrelated that no school can help but assist or hinder the interests of a variety of publics far beyond its direct concerns. This “public® is so amorphous and diffuse, however, as to be inconsequential in the actual control of school affairs.1 Nearly everyone Is agreed that in a democracy “public opinion55 should have the ultimate authority over what should go on in public schools. If the opinion of any aggregation of persons is to be felt in public affairs, however, it must be organized. A sere aggregation has no expressed common opinion nor any means of carrying one out,. Public opinion becomes a directive force in public affairs only as a group of people can speak and act as one over some period of time. This requires organization, delegation of authority, and some degree of group discipline. Though the affected public may be amorphous, the effective public is that number of publics which are organized into decision-making bodies. To fail to recognise this distinction is to hold to that sentimental ideal of "public relations" that uses the mass media to effect a simulated popular ratification of decisions already made by some organized, active, and effective group. The fact that the term "public control" has not been carefully used in connection with public education should not obscure the fact that it has a specific meaning. This meaning is that legal authority ------ j ------------ Cf. Walter Iippsaa. The Phantom public. over the public school (and indirectly, private schools) is in the hands of the state governments. The people express their sovereignty through their legally elected representatives in established govern mental institutions by means of law. It must be recognized that the general term control designates several different kinds of phenomena. There are those most apparent, the legal controls, the terms of which are written in laws administered by government and the courts and enforced by the sanctions of the state. Most of the routine behavior of men is not regulated by formal law, however. The controls uppermost in the behavior of most men are those imposed by lesser groups, the church, family, occupa tional group, or neighborhood. These groups and those who dominate them wield vast powers which have no specific legal sanction and which may in fact controvert the legal distribution of power. Often the effects of these powers are so habitual and so encrusted with custom that they are accepted without question or even awareness.^ The legal structure then is comparable to the part of an iceburg that is visible above the surface of the water. Below it lies the much greater expanse of the power structure which, though unrecognized by the law, is a part of it, supporting and using its forms. It is clear that the ideal of public control of education allows for a multitude of interpretations and considerable confusion. The ideal — — g--------- Cf • John Dewey. The Public and Its Problems, arai the "sociological® school of 3Sisprudence of “who® Roscoe Pound is the best known. The concept mores is not unrelated. becomes meaningful only as all of the channels of expression of public control are specified. Emphasis upon the legal channels of expression seems appropriate and yet it ignores the fact that legal arrangements are not the most important determinants of human behavior.^ Changes in the Public Taking into account these extra-legal instruments of control we find that control by the local community seems particularly appropriate in a democracy. Despite the