Education for Democracy.
I think we should first make certain what it is we are discussing. Do we know what we mean by Democracy, and supposing that we can settle that, what is implied by educating for it?
It is probable that most people will assume that democracy in this connection means the democracy of Britain. Now when we talk of this democracy, do we mean in a vague sense our way of life as it is organised socially and politically and the sentiments and principles, or do we mean the actual legislative and administrative structure. These two are not the same thing for a man can contribute substantially towards our democracy as a way of life without having anything to do with administration or legislation except to suffer their results.
If we are narrowly concerned with the structure, education for democracy will consist in a conscious preparation of the future citizen for his place as a voter and as a person who can directly influence affairs by close observation of council meetings through his membership of T.U. or political parties, and by the canvassing of other voters.
If we are concerned with the whole way of life, of which the political set up is but a partial expression then we are bound to consider very much wider issues such as the philosophy and practical problems of leadership, the existence of and relation between social classes, the relation between political movements and economic conditions, the emergence of elites etc, - in fact just about everything that affects a man’s behaviour and attitudes in social life.
In an autocracy or totalitarian system, a great numbers (sic) of issues are closed; they are not for discussion. But a democracy leaves nearly every issue wide open - at least our form of democracy claims to do so. If our democracy is not just a “mudding(sic) through” in a kindly manner, then it must be based on a faith. That faith is that there is a true way, or a[t] least a satisfactory way that can be discovered by argument and searching and cooperation, and that there is in everyone, some measure of willingness and reason however small, that will bring about the common consent necessary to effective action. This is in fact a religious faith – but it is not often recognised as such.
I propose to plunge straight into certain controversies that show what serious conflicts can lie below something – like democracy – that we have often taken for granted as being straightforward and understood. The critics of comprehensive school and some of their supporters say that – they are being established in response to the demand of a political philosophy – a philosophy of egalitarianism. The grammar school boy should be kept within the social and educational milieu of the masses. A critic such as Eric James vigorously opposes this development claiming on an avowedly Platonic basis that conscious leadership is of prime importance in a democracy. We demand as did Plato that the best brains should be separated from the mass and carefully nurtured for the tasks of leadership that will eventually be theirs.
G.H.Bantock in his recent book “Freedom and Authority in Education” quotes D H Lawrence with appr at length and with approval in the judgment that he makes upon the masses and the need for leadership attacks certain weaknesses in progressive education. Like Dr James, he deplores the fact that democracy in its Western and American form has placed so much emphasis on the rights of the individual, and the concept of equality that every man has come to regard his opinion as being as good as any one else’s and respect for the authority of truth and knowledge has been terribly weakened. This form of democracy has a fragmenting effect on society. Although he is not primarily concerned as is Dr James, with the problem of leadership in democracy he quotes D. H. Lawrence at great length and apparently with approval on this question of democracy and leadership.
Now all of us must address ourselves squarely to this question as it affects the future development of our democracy. Is conscious preparation for leadership our main task? Is it a task that we should think of at all? Might it individually bear evil results?
Every one of us probably thinks that he or she is making some special contribution through education to the conduct of our society. I am forced to recognise this belief in myself, for otherwise how should I justify the enormous expenditure of thought and energy in creating and maintaining an unusual sort of independent boarding school in face of the serious difficulties that such a venture has to meet? It is not a question that one can definitely settle. Every one of you willl be pleased if some pupil of yours becomes a leader in some aspect of the nation’s life and carries into his leadership some quality or belief that you had fostered. Our actions and hopes must not belie our stated faith, so we cannot wholly turn our back on leadership.
But I know and you know that the great majority of the pupils we deal with never emerge to accepted leadership. They will occupy relatively humble positions. If our chief aim is that of training leaders then much of our work is wasted. Other people without vision or understanding may be inclined to judge our work by the one or two star pupils we produce, but we should never do so.
I want to suggest that although it is a very tempting thought that we might produce one or two outstanding leaders who will transmit their vision to the masses, and lead them breast forward into the promised land, in fact things don’t happen that way. When we look at Russia we may be further tempted to that thought, but then we are committed to a method that will not allow a totalitarian regime even for a transition period. In our democracy I’m inclined to think that it is the different quality of the mass that determines the nature of our leaders. Plato and nearly every other thinker who has demanded an élite to take over leadership has failed to indicate to whom the selection of that leadership should be left so that it shall be trustworthy. D. H. Lawrence trails off into mysticism at that point. An admission of complete defeat.
Moreover the idea of a group of people that we could regard as an élite, working together in a common understanding for the good of the people providing a unified leadership, is I think a phantasy that is unlikely to become a reality in any measurable period of time. It seems to me that among those who have had an education such as would fit them for leadership there is serious and apparently inevitable conflict. Whatever lip service may be paid to culture and reason by them all, when they are put all together to cope with a practical problem they will be as little likely to agree as any group casually selected from the population.
I would say that in our democracy practical policies are never likely to emerge as a result of a group of enlightened people deciding what is good for us but rather they will be born out of the general stress and conflict of the whole community. It seems to me that those men and women whose capacity for leadership take the form of a clear group of spiritual principals and human values have rarely been willingly accepted into a governing elite but have rather formed themselves in conflict with it. They have shared the Cross not the Sceptre, and in carrying this burden they have identified themselves with the humblest of the community.
Only in India, a country very different from our own, has there been any real fusion of spiritual and political leadership. And we see that Ghandi was utterly identified with the humblest. In so far as he gathered round him people who wished to prepare themselves for service with him, he required of them that they should undertake the humblest of tasks in assocn. with the poorest of their brethren.
My view that Education for Democracy – taking a long view – involves the dev. of a deep sensitiveness to the members of the community. Lawrence had it but how could his “leaders” ever get it.
Archive reference PP/KCB 6/6/2 document 01