A Brief History of Liberal Arts, Part II

Renaissance ideals spread throughout Western Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries, and did much to expand education beyond rote memorization into the realm of critical thinking. Italy led the charge, with England, Spain, Germany, and France lagging behind under the weight of a common obstacle: religious strife.

The Reformation instigated educational debates throughout the region, most notably Philip Melanchthon's push for universal literacy in Germany (helped along by the invention of movable type and the printing press), Puritan individualism in England (which served to disassemble not only papal infallibility, but also the authority of clergy and educators), and Samuel Hartlib's radical suggestion of education for all (built on the notions of John Amos Comenius). While these innovators were by no means entirely successful, their ideas served to prod the stubborn, slow-moving heifer of education forward.

The Counter-Reformation wasn't without its contributions as well, especially those of the Jesuits. In 1534, Ignatius Loyola founded the Society of Jesus. Spurred on by the Council of Trent (which encouraged educational activities in order that clergy might "react convincingly against the doctrinal innovations from the Lutherans, Calvinists, and others"), Loyola and the Jesuits established their first college in Sicily in 1548 (79). By 1615 there were 372 Jesuit colleges throughout Europe; by the mid 18th century there were over 700. The Jesuit schools were revered for their efficiency, effectiveness, and academic rigor. The Jesuit program was 13 years long, separated into 3 stages, but the final stage was really reserved for aspiring clergymen. The 1st stage concentrated on grammar, rhetoric, and religious studies, the 2nd stage on philosophy, and the final stage was a 4 year submersion in theology. While the Jesuit's curriculum may not have much in common with modern education, their teaching methods are certainly familiar. They were the first to widely use examinations and grading, urging students to compete, and "marks, badges, and prizes" were often awarded to successful students (81). In addition to being a forerunner of the competition/reward system of modern Western education, the Jesuits were also the first to achieve a level of standardization throughout their schools based on the principles of the Ratio Studiorum (an instruction/guidance manual for teachers and institutions).

As individualism, scientific advances, and new political philosophies percolated throughout the West, they culminated in what is commonly referred to as the illumination, or the Age of Enlightenment. The Enlightenment covers a lot of ground, but Lawton and Gordon try to summarize the general features as such: "belief in the power of scientific reasoning; faith in progress; human rights; freedom of thought and enquiry; and finally, the desire to promote education as a means of furthering the 'Enlightenment project'" (89). Now we're not to believe these tenets were ever penned by someone who participated in the Enlightenment; we're to understand that they're a retrospective assessment of historical data. Scientific, philosophical, and technical developments during this period made schools and universities hotbeds of intellectual debate, theoretical arguments, and controversial ideas. In addition, the sheer volume of new information coupled with the waning power of the Church caused a disintegration of common teaching methods and practices, virtually ensuring that each new school/university would have a new curriculum and a new way of teaching it. "Above all, the Enlightenment...destroyed forever the idea that education was primarily concerned with memorising sacred texts, or indeed any other books. The Age of Reason demanded that education should be concerned with developing the powers of the mind to criticise the status quo and think rationally" (99-100).

Until this time advanced education was still a private affair; it still cost a great sum of money and/or was reserved for aspiring clergy. However, the oncoming industrial revolution would see the rise of a middle class and lower middle class that could sometimes amass enough wealth to buy their way into the system.

During the early 19th century, many theories about education arose out of the nascent field of sociology (or the social sciences), pioneered by Auguste Comte. The later 19th century, however, saw logistical changes as well as theoretical shifts. Labor reformers in England, America, and elsewhere were calling for the mitigation or elimination of child labor. The industrial explosion had created an insatiable employment market, unfortunately to the detriment of more than one generation of young children. When these reformers succeeded, young children could no longer work, so public schooling was devised to fill their idle time. There is more than a hint here of the nationalism that was the impetus for Roman public schools: if the children cannot work in the service of capitalism, they will spend that time learning why it is right to work in the service of capitalism, and this will unify the country. This is not to say that there was some conspiracy in the development of modern public education; I'm sure important figures in education reform/implementation had the children's best interest in mind, but we should keep in mind that their "best interest" did include becoming a dutiful, productive citizen.

Regardless of the loss of child labor, the 19th and 20th centuries were times of great prosperity for Western European nations and America. Families continued to amass wealth, and when children finished their public or private schooling, some families had enough money to send them to colleges and universities. A degree was a status symbol, and ironically, those who could afford a degree rarely needed to worry about whether or not it would benefit them financially. You see, if you look closely back through the history of "liberal education," you'll find that employability was never a concern. The classical Greek economy was based primarily on slavery, and where slaves were trained to do manual labor, citizens were free to pursue philosophy and the arts. In Rome, private education was an exclusive (and expensive) privilege used to sustain wealth and power, and when it was made public, it was only a propagandistic tool to unify the empire. For some time after that, the Church used exclusive education to maintain its stranglehold on Europe - but clergymen were always going to be fed - they weren't earning their degrees "in order to get a job." All throughout the Renaissance, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and Enlightenment, higher education remained the province of the well-to-do: courtiers, noblemen, aristocrats, and as always, clergy. Even in the 19th century in the public schools in England, a liberal education was for sons of "gentlemen" "who would become leaders of society at home or administrators of the Empire" (195). For over 2000 years, there has been a deep dichotomy between liberal education and vocational training/technical instruction. Only in the last 100 years has the problem arisen of putting a liberal education to work - of somehow reconciling encyclopedic, broad based knowledge with specific vocational requirements. In terms of the history of education, it's a relatively new problem, brought on by the expansion of the middle and lower middle class, the availability of student loans, the decline of high-paying low skill jobs, the overabundance of degrees, and the inability to recognize the difference between liberal education and vocational training/technical instruction. Often in a university, these two sit side by side. Learning how to become an electrical engineer, technically, would be vocational training/technical instruction. Learning how to interpret poetry, on the other hand, would be a liberal education. But we can get both "degrees" at the same place. Both result in very different outcomes. You can see how some confusion might arise - how the myth of the college degree as golden goose might begin: students equate all degrees received from an institution, although some are part of a liberal education and others are vocational training. At one time, it may have even been possible to make the mistake of equating a college degree with economic advantage because all those who received a degree already had an economic advantage.

For more on the American history of education after World War II, see my previous entries Shame on You, Shame on Me and We Are Not the First.

Either way, it's been an enlightening trip through the history of Western education and liberal arts and it's encouraging to see that we're wrestling with a relatively new problem (even if it is still embedded in a terribly old system).