The importance of this suggestion can hardly be overestimated. It is a case of the permanent inhibition of a host of possible evil tendencies by substitution. The youth who can turn with pleasure to his violin at every spare moment, never seriously misses the companionship of his mates. He has, moreover, a never failing source of enjoyment when there is nothing to interfere with his happiness, and an equally inexhaustible source of consolation when the waves of life are rough.
[180.] Projects springing from passionate impulses, and betraying their existence by their interference with order, diligence, and the distribution of time, must be resolutely thwarted. This step is rendered all the more urgent when several share in the same plan, above all when ostentation, party spirit, and rivalry enter as impelling factors. Such things must not be allowed to gain ground; they very quickly vitiate the soil which education has been at such pains to prepare for tillage.
[181.] The passions being kept at a distance, the successful grounding of the pupil in morality depends in general on the manner in which instruction coöperates with his occupations. The branch of instruction primarily most important in this respect is religious instruction. The most immediate source, however, of the development of disposition is found in the pupil’s social environment, and it becomes the business of training to cultivate a right spirit or disposition. Let us, therefore, take up the practical ideas one by one.
England and Germany are a unit in insisting upon the necessity of religious instruction in the schools. Half the elementary schools of the former country are in charge of the Church of England, five per cent are controlled by Roman Catholics, three per cent by Wesleyans, and some forty-two per cent by public boards of education. All of these schools are subsidized by the state, yet all, with few exceptions, give religious instruction. In Germany there are but two strong religious organizations—the Roman Catholic Church, mostly at the south, and the Lutheran, mostly at the north. The state establishes all schools, furnishing most of the funds for sustaining them and controlling their administration in large measure; yet the morning hour of the day is devoted to instruction in religion. Not so in the United States. Here, religious teaching is, to all appearances, permanently excluded from the public schools. In this condition of affairs there is but one resource: we must the more diligently insist upon those things that reflect the content of religion. That is, we must teach children to live in close coöperative union with their fellows. The subjective side of this training is portrayed in the sections that follow, where the transformation of ethical insights into ethical habits is discussed.
[182.] To speak of strife first, which cannot easily be wholly prevented among children, and which is present to their minds, at least as a possibility, self-help against unexpected bodily assaults cannot be forbidden. A determined self-defence is rather to be recommended, but self-defence paired with a merciful treatment of one’s assailant. On the other hand, it is necessary to prohibit absolutely any arbitrary appropriation of objects, even though these objects should consist of ownerless or discarded trifles. No one must imagine that his mere pleasure is a law unto others. On the contrary, children ought to get used to limitations on ownership. That which has been given them for a certain purpose is to be used for that purpose alone, and must be taken care of with that purpose in view. Promises among children should not lightly be declared void, however foolish and impossible of fulfilment. The boy who, by a hasty promise, puts himself in an embarrassing position must be made conscious of the fact. Let his perplexity serve as a warning for the future. But over-hasty promises are to be accepted as little as they are to be made; and here is where we have to begin in untying the knots in which children occasionally entangle themselves.
It is not undesirable that pupils by their own acts furnish themselves with a few keenly-felt instances of complicated questions of rights. But pleasure in wrangling must be discountenanced; the pupils should learn to prevent and to avoid contention. They may gain enough familiarity with it to realize that it gives displeasure.
[183.] At this point two paths open to our reflection. In the first place, contention pleases children because it implies strength; in seeking it they are, as a rule, merely giving vent to excess of animal spirits. The outlet in this direction we must block, but we must furnish another elsewhere. Gymnastic exercises, too, are exhibitions of strength; emulation, which is not contention, is a welcome feature of sport and play. Mental activity likewise affords suitable opportunities for excelling; it also provides proper occasions for making comparisons; but relative excellence, children must understand distinctly, is not to be advanced by them as a basis for claims. Where the question is one of degree of attainment,—therefore one of perfice te,—the pupil is supplied with a practically useful standard by his own progress and retrogression. To hold up one pupil as a model for another to follow awakens envy; it will be much better, instead, to make allowances where a weak pupil cannot do more than he is actually doing.
In all the ages of the past men have been the teachers of boys. Being men, they have naturally taken the man’s attitude toward youthful conduct. When one boy is gratuitously assaulted by another, they have upheld a sturdy self-defence as belonging to self-respect. In their eyes an unsuccessful defence is better than a cowardly retreat. With the advent of women as the teachers of boys it is natural that the doctrine of passive non-resistance should be emphasized. When women were only the physical mothers of the race, there was no danger of the decay of virility, but now that they have become the intellectual mothers as well, there may be such a danger. It is generally conceded that the English boys’ schools, like Eton, Harrow, and Rugby, have been the best English conservers of independent manhood, for there every boy stood on his own merits, having to fight his own battles, being responsible for his own conduct, and at the same time living under a high code of boyish honor. In our own public schools, where no such esprit de corps is possible, and where the doctrine of peace at any price is likely to be insisted upon, it is possible that there may be a distinct decline of virility in the boys. Such a result would be deplorable; it would work to the detriment of public education, and would decrease in public estimation the value of woman’s services in the schoolroom. While discouraging strife, a teacher may, by a word of approval or excuse, justify an exercise of primitive defence of the person against unwarranted assault. Manly social games, like foot-ball, basket-ball, base-ball, are our best resources in developing those phases of character that are closely associated with motor efficiency. Here under proper guidance, self-control, sense of power and efficiency, courage, and almost every characteristic of virility may be happily developed. That forethought and supervision are needed is most true, else unlovely traits of character may easily get the upper hand.
[184.] The second of the two ways alluded to takes us from the idea of rights to that of equity. Strife is displeasing, but revenge still more, notwithstanding the truth of the saying: what is fair for one is fair for another. Children may indeed exercise their ethical acumen by trying to determine how much one deserves to suffer or to receive at the hands of others for the liberties he has taken or the self-restraint he has practised, but they are not to arrogate to themselves the function of inflicting punishments or of bestowing rewards. Without surrendering their own insight, they must in this respect submit willingly to the authority of their superiors.
A similar course is to be pursued with reference to the distribution of presents, enjoyments, and marks of approval. To avoid giving the appearance of favoritism, the teacher should not, except for very good reasons, depart from the principle of equal division; but, on the other hand, he should refuse to accord to the pupils a right to these free gifts. While permitting them to have an opinion on the appropriateness of a greater or smaller share, he will properly deny them any right to demand by virtue of this opinion.