Froebel as a pioneer in modern psychology

by E. R. Murray

In Mr. McDougall’s important contribution to the discussion of human instinct, he says that the view which is rapidly gaining ground is that the gradual evolution of intelligence “did not supplant and lead to the atrophy of the instincts, but controlled and modified their operation.” As Mr. McDougall goes on to state his belief “that the recognition of the full scope and function of the human instincts will appear to those that come after us as the most important advance made by psychology in our time,” it is important to the purpose of this book, to make clear to what extent Froebel’s views on the subject approach those of modern writers.

Mr. McDougall makes a very clear distinction between specific tendencies to which he limits the word instinct, and non-specific or general tendencies. Naturally Froebel did not reach this standpoint, but he does seem to have thought out his terminology. He felt strongly as to the use of words of foreign origin, and generally uses “Trieb,” “Lebenstrieb,” “Drang” or “Lebensdrang,” where we might use instinct. But he does occasionally use “instinct,” notably in a passage quoted below “whose impulses, powers and abilities, whose instincts as they are called” (dessen Lebenstriebe Kräfte und Anlagen, dessen Instincte wie man es nennt), where he seems to be feeling about for the right expression. Other words in constant use are “Neigung,” “Streben” and “Richtung,” probably best translated by “tendency.” It can be argued, however, that to the word Trieb Froebel does seem to have attached a more definite meaning, and his use of this word is certainly limited.

Professor James’ account of instinct begins with the statement that “Every instinct is an impulse,” a driving to action, but the use of the words “Trieb” and “Drang” makes such a pronouncement unnecessary to a German writer, and if this root idea is not implied by the noun, it generally, in Froebel’s writings, makes its appearance in the verb. Thus we frequently read of “a longing which drives the child to,” etc. (die Sehnsucht die das Kind treibt).

The merest glance through Froebel’s writings is enough to show his belief in the existence of instinct in the human being. His references to it are constant. It is an impulse (Trieb) “which the child did not give himself, which came without his will, in later life even against his will,” but which “urges to action” (drängt ihn dazu). It is a force so strong, that it “holds captive mind and body.” The child is described as “driven by impulse” (des von Lebensdrang getriebenen Kindes). The boy again is “held captive by harmless, even praiseworthy, impulses” (sogar lobenswerten Triebe), or “gives himself up entirely to the impulses of his inner life” (dem Treibenden innern Leben).

In his earlier work, “The Education of Man,” Froebel is first concerned with urging that the young human being, “a product of Nature,” has instincts quite as trustworthy as those of any other young animal, and the following eloquent passage is very well known:

“The undisturbed working of the Divine Unity is necessarily good, and this implies that the young human being, still as it were in the process of creation, would seek as a product of Nature, though still unconsciously, yet decidedly and surely that which is in itself best: and, moreover, in a form wholly adapted to his condition, disposition, powers and means. Thus the duckling hastens to the pond, while the young chicken scratches the ground, and the young swallow catches his food upon the wing and scarcely ever touches the ground. We grant space and time to young plants and animals because we know that in accordance with the laws that live in them they will develop properly and grow well. Arbitrary interference with their growth is avoided because it is known that this would disturb their development; but the young human being is looked upon as a piece of wax, a lump of clay, which man can mould into what he pleases.… Thus, O parents, could your children, on whom you force in tender years forms and aims against their nature, thus could your children too unfold in beauty and develop in harmony.”—E., p. 7.

It is true that to Froebel evolution is “the working of Divine Unity.” But there seems to be no special reason why this should invalidate what Froebel has to say, any more than Sir Oliver Lodge should be disqualified as a scientist, because he has produced a book in which he writes: “Development means unfolding latent possibilities … growth and development are in accordance with the law of the universe … the law of the universe and the will of God are here regarded as in some sort synonymous terms.”

This is exactly Froebel’s position; he writes that

“Nature and man have their origin in one and the same eternal Being, and their development takes place in accordance with the same laws, only at different stages.”—E., p. 161.

That Froebel not only recognized the presence of instinct in human beings, but that he also saw, as Professor Wundt puts it, that this is “determined in parts by intelligence and volition,” he states very plainly: