INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s}". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Zoeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 A Xerox Education Company BERG, Thomas Robert, 1943- THE MODERN RCMANTIC CRITICS OF EDUCATION. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1972 Education, history University Microfilms,A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. THE MODERN ROMANTIC CRITICS OF EDUCATION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Thomas Robert Berg* B.5., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1972 Approved by Adviser Department of Curriculum and Foundations of Education PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge the help and encouragement of Professor Paul Klohr, Professor Robert Jewett, and my adviser and friend, Professor Bernard Mehl. ii VITA July 17, 1943 «... Born— -Green Say, Wisconsin 1967-1968 .......... Teacher, Social Studies; Teaye Valley Public School System, Ashville, Ohio I960 ................ B.S. Education, The Ohio State University 196B-1969 .......... Teacher, Social Studies; Columbus Public 5chools, Columbus, Ohio 1969-1972 .......... Academic Adviser, University College; The Ohio State University 1970 ....... ..I*). A. Education, ThB Ohio State University 1972 ................ Instructor, Sociology; Urbana College, Urbana, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: History of Education. Professor Bernard fflehl Social Studies Education. Professor Robert Jewett Curriculum Theory. Professor Paul Klohr iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................. ii VITA ..........................................................iii INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1 Chapter I. ROUSSEAU AND ROMANTICISM ............................. 5 The Social and Political Views of Rousseau Rousseau and Education II. PAUL GOODMAN....................... 44 III. EDGAR Z. FRIEDENBERG .................................75 IV. JOHN HOLT AND JONATHAN KO Z O L ............................97 V. CONCLUSION............................................ 117 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................... 127 INTRODUCTION The American system of public education has been criticized intensely for the past two decades by a group of writers who have been called neo-romantic critics. Their writing has been continuous, yet somewhat isolated, in that though within the work of each critic there exist assumptions which link him with the others, as a group they seem to possess no sense of unity or common identity. The writing of these modern romantic critics has not been viewed as repre­ senting an ideological or historical movement, nor has it been dealt with critically as the outgrowth Of philosophical romanticism. The purpose of this dissertation 1b to locate these critics in history and to examine their views in the light of faithfulness to the roman­ tic tradition as well as to subject their Ideas to critical analysis. Romanticism is fundamentally a view of man. The romantic seeB man as naturally and essentially good. He accounts for evil by attributing it to the corrupting influence of eociBty and its institu­ tions. Thus man learns, or is taught, to deny or suppress his natural, good self in favor of an unnatural evil self that is the product of the imperfection of social forces. The romantic view implies belief that man can transcend evil through ethical choice and that he can create social arrangements In greater consonance with his natural goodness. Romanticism implies a belief in the educability of all men and in democratic accoao to the means by which education can be obtained. Education, however, must follow natural growth, and it cannot ignore the freedom and humanity of its subject in favor of intrinsic pedagogical methods or motives. Education, for the romantic, is an ethical enterprise because it gives direction to natural growth in preparation for social life. The ultimate morality of a society depends upon the education of its members; and a moral society must have moral education, that is, education which protects and enhances the natural goodnesB of man. The writing of Rousseau establishes a background against which the modern romantic movement can be considered. Rousseau ♦ developed the foundation of romantic philosophy upon which the modern critics have built. These critics seldom acknowledge their debt to Rousseau, nor do they aeem to reflect a sense of continuity of thought and experience that would include Rousseau. Yet his ideas are implicit in all of modern romantic criticism; in fact, much of what seems to us novel or radical in contemporary educational criticism is merely an updating of Rousseau's thought. OnB of the consequences of our modern disease of rootlessness and our belief that we are free of history and thus need not examine the past is that our vision is the same as the unsuspecting farmer who buys a bottle of tonic water thinking it will grow hair, remove warts, cure headaches and increase the life span. Because of his isolation in time and Bpace, he cannot be critical, he cannot avail himself of the experience of others who have bought the tonic before him. modern men differs in that tlhe information neces­ sary to avoid repeating the past is available to him, but he rejects it out of a belief that to takB history seriously is to come under its spell, to be bound by its imperatives, to become deterministic. Thus the modern romantic critics hsve often paraphrased Rousseau without knowing it. For that reason, the first chapter is an exam­ ination of Rousseau and the roots of romanticism. The short history of modern romantic criticism of American education reveals the development of several identifiable positions with respect to education and public schooling. The first of these is anarchism and is represented here by a consideration of the work of Paul Goodman. Other critics, such as Ivan Illich, take essentially the same position on education as does Goodman, but Goodman has been included as a kind of archtype who has written more extensively, more dBeply, and over a longer period of time. Hie ideology is fully developed and articulately stated and has for nearly twenty years influenced the tone and range of all romantic criticism. The second such attitude toward public schools is reflected by the writing of Edgar Z. Friedenberg and can beat be described as "elitist." Friedenberg's analysis of the effects of schooling, especially on adolescents, is particularly relevant to an understanding Df the ensuing critics. His criticism of compulsory education mirrors that of Goodman but bears separate consideration because the conclu­ sions he draws from his analysis and the recommendations that he makes for the reorganization of education are radically different from those of Goodman and the other critics. A third position with respect to education ie that educa­ tional problems ere methodological or technical in nature. This view, here represented by a consideration of John Holt, does not attack the right of the institution of schools to survive, nor does it deal with moral and political questions as such. Holt's position is that echools can be saved by a revolution of technique, that the evils of the system can be cured when proper teaching methods are employed. This transition to the realm of technique warrants serious examination in an increasingly technological society. The final ideology to be presented is that of the advocacy of free schools. Jonathan Kozol has been selected to represent this fc school of thought because