Dewey, Russell, Whitehead: Philosophers as Educators

Foreword

Foreword George Kimball Plochmann THE NUMBER OF PHILOSOPHERS who closely consider education is far smaller than the number of men and women who could legitimately be called philosophers in a more general sense. Even so, the list is respectably large, and in certain cases, as with Rousseau and Herbalt, some of their principal writings -and major sources offame-have been devoted to education. Others have published or left behind sometimes lesser but still important works dealing almost entirely with educational matters: Augustine, Locke, Kant, Spencer, and two of the three men whom Professor Hendley treats in the present book, Bertrand Russell and Alfred NOith Whitehead. One has the feeling that in times to come the books and essays by Russell on education will be looked upon as interesting examples of a movement to liberalize the upbringing of the young, while his Principles ofMathematics, together with the even more forbidding work on which he collaborated with Whitehead and whose very Latinized title ehills the hearts of graduate students, will be read with admiration and indeed a feeling of awe. Whitehead's own eontribution to Principia Mathematica was equally impressive, though it may also be that his intricate, frequently tortuous but always rewarding Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology is the legacy for which he will be most honored, rather than his The Aims ofEducation and Other Essays. John Dewey, on the other hand, will always be remembered as a great thinker in the educational field 110t only because Democracy and Education , along with his other writings 011 the subjeet, can be appreciated and put into practice but also beeause of the internal dialectical structure of his entire philosophy. His educational theory is both a segment and the pervading summation of his system of metaphysics, logic, biologico-psychology, political science , and theory of mt as experience. The three men chosen for this study of the practical in relation to the theoretical were very nearly contemporaries, and they had many other points of xi xii George Kimball Plochmann resemblance as well, including the fact that they were natives of prosperous English-speaking countries in which freedom of speech fared appreciably better than elsewhere; and, although Russell was a titled man, they all lived what were essentially lives of a middle-class and highly educated sort. Two of the three men became nonagenarians, and Whitehead lived into his late eighties; all three were prolific, much-read, much-studied authors; all had exceptionally broad backgrounds extending from interests in the older classics of the humanities to the very latest in modern science; all three were to some extent what might be called freethinkers-not exactly radicals, certainly not cultists and flagwavers -in their time. It was to be supposed, therefore, when they chose to contribute seriously to the educational life of their epoch that they would be relatively unbound by crusty traditions and dust-covered formulas. On the other hand, if as philosophers they were not fools, they would avoid rushing into educational arenas without first examining and reexamining all their principles bearing upon the experiences they were likely to encounter as administrators and teachers. The principles involved in the transmission of knowledge would normally be drawn chiefly, I think, from five disciplines: logic, rhetoric, psychology, ethics, and politics, each adding essentials to the study of sound educational practices. The last page of Plato's Laws sets forth in simple terms but with his usual subtle overtones the question of transition from theoretical discourse to thoughtful action: It is time to establish the state that has been planned in such detail, says the Lacedemonian, and we need the continued advice of our unnamed Athenian companion, who has already given us such good counsel. The successful institution, Plato is hinting, will benefit greatly from advice given by the man having the best plans, though he may well not be the sole founder to do the actual building of the state as a living institution. In the administering of the Laboratory School and the Beacon Hill School, a dilemma was evident. Such an organization will have the advantage ofa highly gifted and far-seeing guide who has a grasp of general principles and many of the most ingenious ways they may be applied in the thousand contingencies likely to arise in the operations of a school. Yet a person of this sort, if dominating the leadership of the institution, will tend to obscure-I do not say consciously stifle-the suggestions of those less favored, and...