The Crucible of Consent: American Child Rearing and the Forging of Liberal Society by James E. Block (review)

The American Revolution supposedly was fought against tyrannical rule that was being exercised without the consent of those who were governed. But once freed from that tyranny and left to their own devices, how could the American people insure that consent to a common identity, so important to the establishment of a liberal democracy, would be best cultivated? James E. Block, associate professor of political science at DePaul University, argues that the vessel, the crucible, in which consent was forged was childhood, those members of society who represented the future. In families and schools, Block asserts, “socialization and education established the propensity in the young for voluntary engagement that was to be employed throughout liberal society” (x). This process of socialization and education included new forms of child rearing and schooling that were intended to create stability and order while at the same time protecting sovereignty through free will. The object was meaningful consent, not simple compliance and certainly not coercion.

This is not a book that bases proof in numbers; there are no tables or graphs. Nor are there gripping narrative stories peopled by lively characters. Rather, Crucible of Consent is an ambitious, deeply researched, densely argued intellectual history grounded on careful reading of primary and secondary sources. Block has mined the minds of the likes of Locke, Jefferson, and Madison and melded them with perspectives from historians such as Bernard Bailyn, Philip Greven, and Richard J. Storr to build his case that molding children into Americans encompassed the intentions of both Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians in creating a free society that cherishes life, liberty, and property. The methods and theories of child rearing that undergirded consent shifted over time, as did the methods and theories of education, but the goals remained the same.

Block admits that the process of creating consent was “highly contested” (6), but for the most part he refers to “American liberalism,” the driving force of that process, in terms that make it seem uncontested. Certainly a multitude of parenting styles did not conform to the agenda of liberal democracy. As corporate capitalism matured, many industrialists were more concerned with maintaining a compliant work force than with supporting efforts to legitimize and sustain liberal democracy. Those who endeavored to Americanize immigrants might have subscribed to the liberal creed, but there also existed an anti-Catholic, anti-radical component that wished mainly to exclude or suppress. And, children themselves exhibited consistent abilities to challenge and resist whatever parents and other adults tried to impose on them. Thus, the actual construction of consent contained variations that could easily have confounded the motives of the idea makers.

Still, James Block has written a rich, provocative, and valuable work. His analysis is especially relevant today, when people’s consent to the democratic prospect seems to be dissolving and belief in the public, as opposed to individual, welfare has weakened.