Part 2 (1/2)
At the back of all Froebel has to say about ”The Education of the Human Being” lies his conception of what the human being is. And it is impossible fully to understand why Froebel laid so much stress on spontaneous play unless we go deeper than the province of the biologist without in the least minimising the importance of biological knowledge to educational theory. As the biologist defines play as ”the natural manifestation of the child's activities,” so Froedel says ”play at first is just natural life.” But to him the true inwardness of spontaneous play lies in the fact that it is spontaneous--so far as anything in the universe can be spontaneous. For spontaneous response to environment is self-expression, and out of self-expression comes selfhood, consciousness of self. If we are to understand Froebel at all, we must begin with the answer he found, or accepted, from Krause and others for his first question, What is that self?
Before reaching the question of how to educate, it seemed to him necessary to consider not only the purpose or aim of education, but the purpose or aim of human existence, the purpose of all and any existence, even whether there is any purpose in anything; and that brings us to what he calls ”the groundwork of all,” of which a summary is given in the following paragraphs.
In the universe we can perceive plan, purpose or law, and behind this there must be some great Mind, ”a living, all-pervading, energising, self-conscious and hence eternal Unity” whom we call G.o.d. Nature and all existing things are a revelation of G.o.d.
As Bergson speaks of the _elan vital_ which expresses itself from infinity to infinity, so Froebel says that behind everything there is force, and that we cannot conceive of force without matter on which it can exercise itself. Neither can we think of matter without any force to work upon it, so that ”force and matter mutually condition one another,”
we cannot think one without the other.
This force expresses itself in all ways, the whole universe is the expression of the Divine, but ”man is the highest and most perfect earthly being in whom the primordial force is spiritualised so that man feels, understands and knows his own power.” Conscious development of one's own power is the triumph of spirit over matter, therefore human development is spiritual development. So while man is the most perfect earthly being, yet, with regard to spiritual development he has returned to a first stage and ”must raise himself through ascending degrees of consciousness” to heights as yet unknown, ”for who has measured the limits of G.o.d-born mankind?”
Self-consciousness is the special characteristic of man. No other animal has the power to become conscious of himself because man alone has the chance of failure. The lower animals have definite instincts and cannot fail, _i.e._ cannot learn.[9] Man wants to do much, but his instincts are less definite and most actions have to be learned; it is by striving and failing that he learns to know not only his limitations but the power that is within him--his self.
[Footnote 9: This would nowadays be considered too sweeping an a.s.sertion.]
According to Froebel, ”the aim of education is the steady progressive development of mankind, there is and can be no other”; and, except as regards physiological knowledge inaccessible in his day, he is at one with the biologist as to how we are to find out the course of this development. First, by looking into our own past; secondly, by the observation of children as individuals as well as when a.s.sociated together, and by comparison of the results of observation; thirdly, by comparison of these with race history and race development.
Froebel makes much of observation of children. He writes to a cousin begging her to ”record in writing the most important facts about each separate child,” and adds that it seems to him ”most necessary for the comprehension of child-nature that such observations should be made public,... of the greatest importance that we should interchange the observations we make so that little by little we may come to know the grounds and conditions of what we observe, that we may formulate their laws.” He protests that even in his day ”the observation, development and guidance of children in the first years of life up to the proper age of school” is not up to the existing level of ”the stage of human knowledge or the advance of science and art”; and he states that it is ”an essential part” of his undertaking ”to call into life _an inst.i.tution for the preparation of teachers trained for the care of children through observation of their life_.”
In speaking of the stages of development of the individual, Froebel says that ”there is no order of importance in the stages of human development except the order of succession, in which the earlier is always the more important,” and from that point of view we ought ”to consider childhood as the most important stage, ... a stage in the development of the G.o.dlike in the earthly and human.” He also emphasises that ”the vigorous and complete development and cultivation of each successive stage depends on the vigorous, complete and characteristic development of each and all preceding stages.”
So the duty of the parent is to ”look as deeply as possible into the life of the child to see what he requires for his present stage of development,” and then to ”scrutinise the environment to see what it offers ... to utilise all possibilities of meeting normal needs,” to remove what is hurtful, or at least to ”admit its defects” if they cannot give the child what his nature requires. ”If parents offer what the child does not need,” he says, ”they will destroy the child's faith in their sympathetic understanding.” The educator is to ”bring the child into relations and surroundings in all respects adapted to him” but affording a minimum of opportunity of injury, ”guarding and protecting”
but not interfering, unless he is certain that healthy development has already been interrupted. It is somewhat remarkable that Froebel antic.i.p.ated even the conclusions of modern psycho-a.n.a.lysis in his views about childish faults. ”The sources of these,” he says, are ”neglect to develop certain sides of human life and, secondly, early distortion of originally good human powers by arbitrary interference with the orderly course of human development ... a suppressed or perverted good quality--a good tendency, only repressed, misunderstood or misguided--lies at the bottom of every shortcoming.” Hence the only remedy even for wickedness is to find and foster, build up and guide what has been repressed. It may be necessary to interfere and even to use severity, but only when the educator is sure of unhealthy growth.
The motto of the biologist on the subject of interference--”When in doubt, refrain”--exactly expresses Froebel's doctrine of ”pa.s.sive or following” education, following, that is, the nature of the child, and ”pa.s.sive” as opposed to arbitrary interference.
Free from this, the child will follow his natural impulses, which are to be trusted as much as those of any other young animal; in other words, he will play, he will manifest his natural activities. ”The young human being--still, as it were, in process of creation--would seek, though unconsciously yet decidedly and surely, as a product of nature that which is in itself best, and in a form adapted to his condition, his disposition, his powers and his means. Thus the duckling hastens to the pond and into the water, while the chicken scratches the ground and the young swallow catches its food upon the wing. We grant s.p.a.ce 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 would hinder 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.
O man, who roamest through garden and field, through meadow and grove, why dost thou close thy mind to the silent teaching of nature? Behold the weed; grown among hindrances and constraint, how it scarcely yields an indication of inner law; behold it in nature, in field or garden, how perfectly it conforms to law--a beautiful sun, a radiant star, it has burst from the earth! Thus, O parents, could your children, on whom you force in tender years forms and aims against their nature, and who, therefore, walk with you in morbid and unnatural deformity--thus could your children, too, unfold in beauty and develop in harmony.”
At first play is activity for the sake of activity, not for the sake of results, ”of which the child has as yet no idea.” Very soon, however, having man's special capacity of learning through experience, the child does gather ideas. By this time he has pa.s.sed through the stage of infancy, and now his play becomes to the philosopher the highest stage of human development at this stage, because now it is self-expression.
When Froebel wrote in 1826, there had been but little thought expended on the subject of play, and probably none on human instincts, which were supposed to be nonexistent. The hope he expressed that some philosopher would take up these subjects has now been fulfilled, and we ought now to turn to what has been said on a subject all-important to those who desire to help in the education of young children.
CHAPTER III
LEARNING BORN OF PLAY
Play, which is the business of their lives.
There may be nothing new under the sun, but it does seem to be a fair claim to make for Froebel that no one before or since his time has more fully realised the value to humanity of what in childhood goes by the name of play. Froebel had distinct theories about play, and he put his theories into actual practice, not only when he founded the Kindergarten, but in his original school for older children at Keilhau.
Before going into its full meaning, it may be well first to meet the most common misconception about play. It is not surprising that those who have given the subject no special consideration should regard play from the ordinary adult standpoint, and think of it as entirely opposed to work, as relaxation of effort. But the play of a child covers so much that it is startling to find a real psychologist writing that ”education through play” is ”a pernicious proposition.”[10] Statements of this kind spring from the mistaken idea, certainly not derived from observation, that play involves no effort, that it runs in the line of least resistance, and that education through play means therefore education without effort, without training in self-control, education without moral training. The case for the Kindergarten is the opposite of this.
Education through play is advocated just because of the effort it calls forth, just because of the way in which the child, and later the boy or girl, throws his whole energy into it. What Froebel admired, what he called ”the most beautiful expression of childlife,” was ”the child that plays thoroughly, with spontaneous determination, perseveringly, until physical fatigue forbids--a child wholly absorbed in his play--a child that has fallen asleep while so absorbed.” That child, he said, would be ”a thorough determined man, capable of self-sacrifice for the promotion of the welfare of himself and others.” It is because ”play is not trivial, but highly serious and of deep significance,” that he appeals to mothers to cultivate and foster it, and to fathers to protect and guard it.
[Footnote 10: _The Educative Process_, p. 255 (Bagley).]
The Kindergarten position can be summed up in a sentence from Dr.
Clouston's _Hygiene of Mind_: ”Play is the real work of children.”