by Christopher Perrin, PhD | Mar 29, 2010 | Book Reviews
Thomas More’s Utopia (first published in 1516) has been calling out to me from my bookshelf for a few years now, and I finally heeded the call, took it off the shelf and read it. We keep hearing of Utopian visions of culture and society, and I have been itching to go to the sources the word and the concept. More’s book was also a nice complement to the Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984. So I read it last week.
More begins by comparing his Utopia (through his fictional character Raphael) with that of Plato’s (from The Republic). Raphael, who has visited Utopia, remarks that the Plato’s ideal was never realized, whereas the Utopians actually implemented their ideal, and with great success. Utopia is an island nation (convenient for implementing ideas without interference and influence) somewhere in the “New World” of the time. There is much to say in summary of More’s ideal society, but let me offer this abbreviation: in Utopia property is held in common, everyone must work or not eat (no one is idle), there is no money nor need for money (gold is common and relatively despised–slave are shackled in gold chains), virtually everyone works on farms. More’s book has been the inspiration for a range of movements from Christian Anabaptism to secular communism.
He does have some Utopian insights for education as well. Not everyone can become a scholar or intellectual. He writes, “Admittedly, no one’s allowed to become a full-time student, except for the very few in town who appear as children to possess unusual gifts, outstanding intelligence, and a special appetite or academic research. But every child receives a primary education, and most men and women go educating themselves all their lives during those free periods I told you about.” (Book Two)
We find in More, another example of a highly-educated elite, and a generally-educated working class. He also finds friendly company with some progressive educational theorists who advocated mental testing in order to separate students into appropriate curriculum determined by student aptitude with a goal of serving “social efficiency.” This clashes with the thinking of Mortimer Adler, who argued that the best education for some, was the best education for all. Adler wanted to democratize classical education, More was content with restricting it to the best and brightest–as did Plato in The Republic.
So should we stand with More or Adler? Or must we choose between them?
by Christopher Perrin, PhD | Mar 13, 2010 | Education for Fun, Schools & Other Organizations
You heard it here first…On Monday Classical Academic Press will officially launch a substantial new website called Headventureland where students can creatively practice their Latin, Spanish, Greek and other subjects by means of vocabulary games (FlashDash), videos and bilingual readers. This site has been over six months in the making and is growing week by week. I encourage you to check out the site and and pass it on to others you think would enjoy it. And BTW the site is completely free.
by Christopher Perrin, PhD | Feb 17, 2010 | Schools & Other Organizations
A superb new classical school is opening in Naperville, Illinois–Covenant Classical School. I think that I can safely call it superb because of the quality of people involved. The school’s website is the best I have seen for a start-up school. Link: www.covenantclassicalschool.org
by Christopher Perrin, PhD | Jan 20, 2010 | Articles
Objection: Classical Education was Discredited and Dismissed by the Educational Establishment Nearly 100 Years Ago
Indeed this is largely, if not completely true. And we must admit that American classical educators in the late 1800s and early 1900s had become calcified, provincial and ornery in the face of the rising criticisms coming from the emerging discipline of psychology. While we disagree with many of the assessments of these early 20th century critics, we admit that classical educators at that time made several wrong turns and that some of the criticism was just. Mortimer Adler aptly describes the reaction to the stuffy classicism at the end of the 20th century:
Classicism names the arid and empty formalism which dominated education at the end of the last century. It emphasized the study of the classics for historical or philological reasons. It was interested in the past for the past’s sake. It mistook drill for discipline. Against such classicism, the reaction [progressivism] which took place was genuinely motivated and sound in principle. Unhappily, as always the reaction went too far. (Adler, RE, 67)
Many classical educators at the time, from a position of strength and dominance, scoffed at their critics when they suggested that education should be differentiated to meet the needs of a diverse population, most of which would not have a practical use for the study of Latin, classical literature and history. Studies showed that less than 5% of the population would become teachers, lawyers, doctors and architects—why should the other 95% of the population be made to take these classical subjects? Why should college students be made to study one curriculum? Why not let them choose a course of study (a “major”) from among a collection of growing options? Many of the first psychologists began to suggest that education could be scientifically understood and modified as we learned more about how the mind actually worked. At this same time these new educational leaders suggested a differentiated curriculum for various kind of students, classified according to ability (via mental testing) in order to foster an efficient social order in America. Vocational education was urged as the right curriculum for many American students. A battle for changing the traditional classical curriculum began, and slowly the nascent progressive educators grew in strength and influence, emboldened by the work being done in psychology, mental testing, sociology and statistics. Education was becoming a science more than an art, and the classical educators found themselves isolated, defensive and increasingly out-of-date.
Perhaps the greatest blow against the classical educators was the claim of the progressives that research had shown that the study of classical languages like Latin and Greek had no value except for learning Latin and Greek—there was no “mental training” or “mental discipline” gained from language study that could transfer to other studies and academic work. The mind, they said, was not trained by studying Latin. This was a great blow, since this is precisely what defenders of Latin study had argued for years. Who could argue with what the latest research from the latest new science proved? As it turned, out the latest research turned out to be anything but certain and determinative, and is still contested today. While progressive educators did eventually emerge to be the leading force in American education , the traditional classical approach to education never really did die out—it retreated in some cases to smaller numbers of private schools that maintained the classical approach but also continued in limited ways in uneasy alliances with many public schools. For example Latin continued to be a popular subject well into the 1960s and after a dip of several decades is increasing in popularity once again.
Latin, of course, is not the full measure of classical education, but is one important indicator. Latin and the classical curriculum were severely criticized by a rising educational elite. The classical curriculum was dismissed by many but continued on with diminished strength, now growing. In the eyes of many it was discredited even if not destroyed. Classical education did not die, but slumbered, and now appears to be waking once again. The new versions of classical education that are emerging are not the reactionary, defensive and grumpy version of the classical educators who saw their dominance eroding in the early 20th century. The new version is young and energetic, flush with the thrill of discovery.
by Christopher Perrin, PhD | Dec 14, 2009 | Articles
Objection: Studying classical subjects like Latin are waste of time in this cultural moment.
The amount of important information we should know and that would be valuable to know has expanded enormously in the last 100 years. Science and technology have advanced remarkably giving us tremendous tools to improve our lives and work. Many jobs require significant technological skill and specialized training. How will Latin help?
We don’t deny that students should study science, math and technology. Science and math, are after all, liberal arts. And a technology like the computer (with its associated technologies) is an indispensable tool for studying the liberal arts and thousand other things. Latin is its own particular case. There are many compelling reasons for studying Latin today and we recommend it. However, one can receive a classical education without studying Latin. The liberal arts require the studying of the verbal arts (grammar, logic and rhetoric) but do not require the study of one particular language. Five hundred years ago virtually every subject was taught in Latin and every book published in Latin. Now we teach in English and study other tongues along side. Studying a language along side your mother tongue is necessary to understand grammar with expertise, and Latin is a logical choice for grammatical training for nations that have emerged from the west.
The arts, as arts, don’t require Latin. They require language. In the United States, however, we can make a compelling case for why students should study Latin or Greek along with English. Latin is the grandmother to English our mother and greatly enhances our vocabulary and our insight into how English works. Latin gave birth to the most languages of our western heritage (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian). Latin gives us clear eyes to see and comprehend the literature, art and history of our heritage. The reasons for studying Latin are numerous and compelling and far exceed any real or perceived benefits for “training the mind.” Still, we should say it again: one not need study Latin to study grammar, logic and rhetoric. American classical educators will likely push for Latin as one means of enabling the mastery of verbal arts. But they could push for Greek, French, Spanish or Italian. I hope some do. If studying Latin (or another foreign tongue) helps enable a student to become a master of the verbal arts—it is not waste of time. Scientists and technologists with a mastery of the written and spoken word, both logical and eloquent, are virtually unknown. If they won’t study Latin, let them study Greek, French, Spanish or Italian—but give them the liberal arts.
We really ought not to think that studying Latin will impede a student’s progress to becoming a competent scientist or “knowledge worker.” The study of Latin will actually lead people to become scientists and engender a love for science, especially if they study Latin well before college. Latin opens up a vast vocabulary of science (scientia: knowledge), as every creature (creare: to create) and plant has a Latin name and virtually every scientific discipline is steeped in vocabulary derived from Latin. If students learn to enjoy the puzzle-solving inherent in Latin translation, they may find that the puzzle-solving that is the scientific method is a natural and enjoyable extension. Once Dr. Charles Zubrod, one of the founders of chemotherapy, was asked what led him into a life of cancer research. He replied, “The study of Latin and Greek as a child.” Could there be link between Latin and chemotherapy?
