draft of 23 November, 2001)



Download 384.55 Kb.
Page4/10
Date conversion15.05.2016
Size384.55 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

1931
ÒMore and more our leaders must become world citizens and exalt those virtues and ideals that will tend to the preservation of our own best social and national traditions and to their projection helpfully to other peoples, while, with befitting modesty, gleaning from experience and distinctive cultures qualities that will make for our own enrichment in the best things of life.Ó(Dr. Rockwell D. Hunt, Dean of Graduate School of University of Southern California cited in Harley, 1931, p 19)
ÒThe phrase Òinternational educationÓ may mean several things. If it means education conducted by international institutions, I do not see how it is possible to substitute it for our present system of national institutions. We cannot go back to the Middle Ages, nor do I believe it would be an advantage to make an artificial attempt to do so.International education may mean the attempt to create in students what is sometimes called the Òinternational mindÓ by destroying patriotism and substituting for it a love of humanity. This implies that love of country is incompatible with love of humanity which is a false assumption.... It is no more necessary to supersede patriotism to maintain the love of humanity than it was to destroy the love of home in order to create patriotism. Thirdly, the phrase may mean trying to train sensible intellectual attitudes towards other nations and helping people to escape from foolish or wicked forms of national pride....Fourthly, the phrase may mean special instruction give in international law, the history of diplomacy, or other topics concerned directly with international relations...Ó(Dr. Paul Van Dyke cited in Harley 1931, p 15)
Brutal events have supplied evidence of a truth that had been slowly gaining ground, namely, the interdependence of nations and the need for establishing in the world an order and harmony hitherto lacking. It was not owing to some impulse of dreamy love for mankind in the abstract but rather for the sake of their own countries that the promoters of international education set to work. (Paul Mantoux, Paris - Director of the Political Section of the League of Nations Secretariat in Geneva, in Foreword to Harley 1931, x)
In the movement of promoting and fostering international education for peace, nowhere is offered a more fitting place than in this country. The popularity of the schools and the great number of institutions of higher learning afford fertile ground for the work. In some of these institutions of higher learning there can be found a great number of students who have come from various countries and different nationalities. They are responsible men and women who will some day become the leaders of their own peoples. To my mind, international education for peace can have its early nucleus right here, if only effective practical programs could be arranged conscientiously along this line. Its seems to me, however, if my observation within the five years in the United States as a student is correct, that conscientious effort toward such emphasis in education is strikingly wanting. Banquets and social gatherings, with speeches of glorification and vindication of oneÕs own people or country, do not, to my way of thinking, help along this movement. Friendship, familiarity, and understanding through association only can have effect. Much has been done, if I am not mistaken, through a kind of surface sympathy, pretentious generosity, and kindness, which to serious-minded students of the principle of equality of opportunity and of fair dealing deserve not a whit of consideration. (Chin Chi Kao, graduate student at University of Southern California, cited in Harley 1931, p 21)
Harold Rugg, writing in a 1931 issue of the journal Progressive Education, posed the central question of education for international understanding; ÒThe real issue is that of the orientation of our educational outlook upon life. Shall it continue to be a narrow materialism and an anarchistic nationalism, or shall it be an all-embracing awareness of life and a world-wide internationalism? Shall we conceive of education within modern nations in terms of self-aggrandizement, or of a fragile world society of mutually interdependent units?Ó (p 294) Rugg further made a critical analysis of the United States education system in relation to Ôinternational educationÕ; ÒEven the conduct of America in world education has been such as to prejudice the reception of AmericaÕs leadership in international education. [emphasis added] In the latter, as in political and economic leadership, we have tended to dominate and to dictate or to stand entirely aloof. We assume the position of instructor and creditor, rather than that of the humble cooperator and student of other cultures. It is not clear that the schools are indeed the chief contestants in the battle between humanitarian international cooperation and selfish nationalism? Does not the current situation demand of us herculean efforts to avert a world catastrophe?Ó (p. 299)
One of the most compelling images of the first decades of the 20th century relating to international education was first used by Butler (1912b) and echoed by Paul Monroe of Columbia University in the concluding chapter of essays on peace education edited by Helene Claparede-Spir (1931) in the following manner; ÒAmong all social customs resting on age long traditions, yet now being challenged by the intelligence and the conscience of mankind, none is more significant, none has been more destructive, none is so rooted in the nature and emotions of man than that of war.... the disarmament of the mind must precede any effective disarmament of nations. The amassing of evidence of disarmament of the mind, of the futility of war by those who have waged war, will constitute the most effective means for the propagation of that opinion. And upon that belief only can the future peace of the World be based.Ó (Claparede-Spir, pp 173-174)
Another example of the contribution of peace educators to the progress of international education was the handbook on international relations by McMullen (1931) in which the teaching of history was seen as central to a successful programme of international education; ÒHistory should be taught with an emphasis upon the contributions which all nations, including our own, have made to a common store of knowledge and ability which we call civilization.Ó (p. 36) McMullen summarizes the work of the handbook in the following manner; ÒThe whole purpose of the foregoing plan is to develop the international mind; and by that is meant no vague, general good will, but a definite and practical outlook upon life and the world. The time has come for a change a radical as that which followed the discoveries of the Renaissance... The ÒnationalÓ mind in any people is the ability to see and to feel their common interests in addition to, but not to the exclusion of, the local or sectional interests of groups among them. So the international mind is the ability to see and to feel common interests among all people, without in the least denying or underrating the differences between peoples...Ó (p 42)
1932
An address by the Secretary General of the World Federation of Education Associations at the Seventieth Annual Meeting of the National Educational Association in Atlantic City in 1932 could well be a current description of a ÔglobalizedÕ world. Augustus O. Thomas painted the contemporary scene as; ÒWe are no longer living unto ourselves alone. We are part of a new world community. Education up to recent times has been largely provincial. Each country has marked out its own program and follows its own course, but under the influences of the scientific revolution thru which we are passing, provincialism must be cast aside and a new cooperation accepted.... Ò (p 186) Later in the same address Thomas cited the undertaking by the World Federation of Education Associations to support research into a worldwide plan of education for understanding and cooperation among nations. The plan that emerged became the first broadly-based attempt to develop a curriculum framework in international education. The plan became know as the Herman-Jordan plan after the donor (Mr. Raphael Herman) and the prize-winning plan (by Dr. David Starr Jordan of Stanford University) which included the following principles as a guide to the building of such a world-based curriculum; Ò1... The training of teachers for the new international point of view. It will endeavor to avoid emotionalisms but will be based upon the psychology and the philosophy of understanding and the points of collective justice. 2... The great epochs of history and the movements which have carried the nations to higher grounds of social advancement. 3... The community aspect of great literature, art, music, and architecture. 4... The application of science and discovery to the advancement of the nations. 5... The organization of the social sciences with the international point of view, the development of the spirit of justice and broad-mindedness. 6... The story of national attempts to set up machinery for the solution of international problems and the efforts which have been made to substitute justice for force. 7... The appreciation of fine patriotism based upon a love of country rather than upon revenge and hatred of others.Ó (Thomas 1932, pp 189-190)
The Commission on Character Education of the Department of Superintendence of the National Education Association (USA) produced a remarkable policy document in 1932 on character education which had direct impact on the view of international education at the time. In a document which represents Ôthe judgement of the commissionÕ the integration of world society was portrayed; ÒThe processes of integration, moreover, refuse to halt before the boundaries of nations. The machine is binding the entire world together into an ever more intimate union and bringing all the races of men into a single great society.... The development of the great society with its close integration and extreme mobility must seriously affect both the content and the method of moral instruction. Emphasis on the large group as opposed to the small group consciousness has become imperative. Loyalty to the family must be merged into loyal to the community, loyalty to the community into loyalty to the nation, and loyalty to the nation into loyalty to mankind. The citizen of the future must be a citizen of the world. The sentiment of patriotism must be widened to embrace other races and peoples. To the white Races of the West, accustomed as they are to regard themselves as the natural rulers of the world, this will undoubtedly prove to be a very difficult lesson to learn. Yet it must be learned, if mankind is to escape disaster. The various sects, nations, and races of men must somehow learn to live together in peace.Ó (American Association of School Administrators 1932, pp 12-13)
Nicholas Hans, one of the most important researchers in comparative education, writing in 1933 commented on the relationship between citizenship and identity with oneÕs humanity in terms of educational policy: ÒNationality and humanity are not opposite to each other but complementary. Nationality without humanity is narrow and devoid of the highest moral ideals; humanity without nationality is abstract and unreal. The combination of both ideas alone ensures actual progress. Educational policy should recognize this fact and give to both their due.Ó (Hans 1933, p 243)
Issac Leon Kandel of Columbia University is considered a leading researcher in both Comparative Education and in International Education. His work during the first five decades of the 20th century is matched in importance by very few other academics in the West. His views on the importance of rooting international education in the national ethic were widely held in his writings. In the concluding remarks of his 1933 text on Comparative Education Kandel linked national and international elements in education: ÒBecause the study of foreign school systems remains unintelligible without a study of the foundations of national existence, it furnishes an opportunity for comparing the variant concepts of nationalism, for discovering the common elements which make for international understanding, and for understanding intelligently those forces which in the past have militated against and which, if made the bases of education, may again endanger the onward progress of humanity. Such an approach, far from being a menace to the proper inculcation of patriotism, helps to promote a richer appreciation of the strength of each nation and to develop a patriotism based on the realization of the positive contributions which nations can make to human progress rather than on an emphasis on those aspects which stress national differences and lead to suspicion and hatred.Ó (Kandel 1933, p 868)
1934
Paul GeheebÕs Ecole dÕHumanite is established in Switzerland (year estimated, see Brickman 1950) Lengyel (1951) indicates that his school in Germany, Oldenwaldschule, organized the students into Ôself-constituted families which treated nationality as incidental and not essential.Ó Lengyel further observes that ÒAn attempt was made to lay the basis of a new type of citizenship, Weltburgerschaft: citizenship of the worldÓ (p 603) Lengyel then traces the setting up of the new school in Switzerland. ÒWhen Hitler came, Geheeb decided to leave. He moved to Switzerland, where he founded lÕEcole de lÕHumanitŽ, the School of Humanity, on the outskirts of Geneva. From there he moved to the more rural settings of Morat and Schwarzsee, in the canton of Fribourg. His idea was to create a pilot plant of the school of the future, where teachers and pupils should work as members of the same family. All cultures should promote international good will. The apparent incompatibility of some cultures, he averred, was the vestige of the aristocratic way of life, which set up caste barriers. Only when these were disregarded would democracy become a living reality.Ó (p 603)
Gilbert Murray, the chair of the International Committee for Intellectual Cooperation, and the Indian Pulitzer Prize winning poet exchanged a compelling set of correspondence in 1934. Their letters focused on the mission of education in the context of a world culture and civilization and the future needs of education in a united world. Butler spoke of a Ôhigher taskÕ related to Ôhealing the discords of the political and material worldÕ through the inward and spiritual life. Tagore responded by immediately invoked a Ôcommon humanityÕ as the basis of their discussion and alluded to the Òinescapable moral links which hold together the fabric of human civilizationÓ (Scanlon, 1960, p 106) Tagore then characterized the work he had invested in the international school as an Òarduous responsibility of creating in our Educational Colony in Santiniketan a spirit of genuine international collaboration based on a definite pursuit of knowledge, a pursuit carried on in an atmosphere of friendly community life, harmonized with Nature, and offering freedom of individual self-expression. (Scanlon, 1960, p 106) Tagore then also outlined the philosophy which generated his interest in international education by stating: ÒThe fury of despotic tyranny, the denial of civic sanity and the violence with which the citadels of international federation are constantly assaulted, combine to betray an uncomfortable and increased consciousness in the mind of man of the inescapable responsibilities of humanity. It is this stirring of the human conscience to which we must look for a reassertion of man in religion, in political and economic affairs, in the spheres of education and social intercourse. It is apparent that innumerable individuals in every land are rising up vitalized by this faith, men and women who have suffered and sought the meaning of life and who are ready to stake their all for raising a new structure of human civilization on the foundation of international understanding and fellowship.Ó (Scanlon, 1960, p117)
1935
The Secretary General of the World Federation of Education Associations, Augustus Thomas, writing shortly before his death, detailed the history of the establishment of the WFEA out of the efforts in 1923 at the World Conference on Education in San Francisco. Thomas relates that the six hundred delegates from fifty countries at that conference had Òdeclared their belief in education as the common universal ground upon which the nations of the world could find agreement.Ó Thomas also outlined the details of the Herman-Jordan Plan which provided the establishment of a series of fact-finding committees that would work towards establishing the framework of a curriculum for education for international understanding. The major aspects of the Herman-Jordan Plan involved a study on the following topics: Ò1) international cooperation of agencies operating in the field of world understanding and peace; 2) teaching of history and the revision of textbooks containing passages prejudicial to mutual understanding between nations; 3) international relations of youth and especially the use of group forms of athletics as a means of creating friendly relations; 4) a study of arguments for and against war as a cosmic necessity; 5) a study of the various efforts which have been made and are now being made to settle international questions and a study of the Court of International Justice.Ó (p. 587)
1937
Paul Geheeb migrates to Switzerland and establishes the ƒcole dÕHumanitŽ (School of Humanity) near Geneva which was a continuation of his work at the Odenwaldschule which Meyer (1949) describes as having Ôa real international atmosphere about the placeÕ (p 586) Meyer noted that in GeheebÕs view Òall cultures and civilizations are to be represented not only in the student body but also in the teaching staff. All the cultures are to contribute to the furtherance of international goodwill and understanding.Ó (Meyer 1949, p 586)
Issac Leon Kandel (1937, ÒIntelligent Nationalism in the CurriculumÓ) provided a cogent and often-cited essay on the definition of international education, or what was understood in research circles of the time as Ôeducation for international understanding.Õ relating specifically the relationship between civic education for national purposes and the wider educational goal of education beyond the boundaries of national civic duty and affection; ÒIf the movements for better international understanding and better methods of international cooperation have failed in the last two decades, the reason to be found in the fact that the educational emphasis was placed upon internationalism before any attempt was made to eliminate the evils of the concepts of nationalism that had been built up during the nineteenth century. Internationalism, international understanding, international cooperation, and amicable international relations have been discussed as metaphysical concepts, as it were, existing outside of, and apart from, nations and their existence..... If the movements to develop international understanding have failed, the failure has been due either to an overemphasis on sentimentality that ignored realities or to a confusion between internationalism and cosmopolitanism; and from both points of view there seems to have been a failure to understand that internationalism and international understanding are things that exist between nations and that nations must continue to exist.... International understanding cannot be conceived of as a substitute for patriotism nor does it militate against loyalty to oneÕs own nation. It is understanding between nations, a recognition of their interdependence, and a realization of the contribution that our own nation and other nations can make to a common cause, the cause of humanity..... Such an approach to the concept of international understanding emphasizes two aspects of nationalism: -first, the right of each nation to realize its own peculiar characteristics, and, second, the membership of each nation in the common task of the world. International understanding is not a denial of nationalism; rather does it emphasize the part that nations have played and may play in the progress of the world.Ó (Kandel 1937, pp 36-37) Kandel also offered a criticism of activities that are often labelled as international education but, in fact, lay outside the domain of formal education: ÒElsewhere teachers are intensely interested in the development of a sound concept of nationalism and of international understanding. Too frequently, however, they do not realize that the one must be derived from the other, and they embark on programs for the development of international understanding that lie outside the regular curriculum. Such programs as peace demonstrations, model international assemblies, good-will days, or such activities as the exchange of dolls, books, portfolios - all of which have their place - are open to the criticism that they lie outside the regular work of the schools and as extras they tend to be regarded as something external to formal education.Ó (p. 38) Kandel then characterized the most appropriate locus for international education: Òthe thesis round which this Yearbook [Kandel and Whipple, 1937] has been organized is that the development of international understanding is the concern of every teacher of every subject in every grade of the school, and that international understanding can only grow out of a proper teaching of nationalism. In truth, nationalism, properly understood and taught, should stress not, as in the past, the differences between peoples but their similarities, their interdependence, and their common efforts as the normal trend of civilization.Ó (p 39) Kandel then encourages educators to adopt the Latin motto ÒNihil humanum a me alienum putoÓ [Nothing that is human should be considered alien(?)] since, in his words, Òthere is not a subject , activity, or experience that is not the product of humanity as a whole...... Literature may be the product of a nationÕs history, traditions, and ways of looking at life, but, because it is human, it soon becomes the property of the whole world.Ó (p 40) Kandel then placed the overall aim of international education as; ÒThe end to be achieved is an understanding of civilization and culture as a collective achievement - the common heritage and the joint responsibility of all nations - and patriotism will be no less as each pupil learns the part that his own nation has played in this achievement.Ó (p. 42)
1938
College CŽvŽnol, is founded in central France by Messieurs TrocmŽ and Theis as an international school which was founded upon a Òsense of idealism for world peaceÓ and Òstudent exchanges as a means of facilitating intercultural understanding.Ó (Hill, 2001, p 16)
Caroline Woodruff, the president of the National Education Assocation presided over a remarkable Seventy-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Association in New York City in June of 1938. The theme of the meeting was ÒThe Responsibility of Education in Promoting World CitizenshipÓ which was framed after a questionnaire was widely distributed before the convention with three questions related to the teaching of world citizenship. In her address to the assembled delegates Woodruff pointed out that ÒIn selecting the theme of this convention.... we recognize that it is the business of education to deal with those human attributes from which war springs. It is the province of the schools to temper those human emotions with intelligence, to inculcate a spirit of tolerance, to lay a basis for appreciation of the rights and of the achievements of all peoples. It is the mightiest privilege of the school to educate its children for peace thru an understanding of human relationships... World citizenship does not imply an impractical idealism or does it mean docile submissiveness; neither does it countenance for a moment indifference to the interests of oneÕs own country. On the other hand, a desire for permanent peace between nations is the soundest kind of patriotism. Freedom from was makes possible that cooperation necessary to achieve a more abundant life for oneÕs own people and for all other peoples of the world.Ó (Woodruff 1938, p 44) WoodruffÕs call was couched in deeply spiritual terms: ÒLet the schools create a sense of obligation for service of man to man - of nation to nation - yes, to mankind, which we have called world citizenship. Let them teach the drama of human life which began on the gigantic stage of the world ages ago, the conflicts of which are the struggles for food and warmth and shelter, for beauty, for health and spiritual perfection - the struggle to develop the latent capacities of man himself and the struggle of man to understand his God. Let them teach the children of the world to engage together in those struggles with that feeling of human brotherhood so beautifully expressed in the words of Quintus Aurelius Symmachus 1500 years ago. He said: Why should we not all live in peace and harmony? We look up at the same stars, we are fellow passengers on the same planet, and dwell beneath the same sky. What matters it along which road each individual endeavors to find the ultimate truth? The riddle of existence is too great that there should be only one road leading to an answer.Ó (p 46)
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page