CHAPTER VIII 

 THE FUNCTION OF METHOD 



The problem before us is to show that theory and practice are 

 not two separate entities brought into relation in the course of 

 experience, but are essentially phases of a single and unitary 

 activity — differentiated aspects in every phase of individual and 

 social activity. Theory and practice are complementary phases 

 of the larger concept of method or of the function of intelligence 

 in experience. 



It is natural that, in the genetic process of historical develop- 

 ment, these two phases, which are in quality so different, should 

 be regarded as separate and self-existent in a very dualistic man- 

 ner. The knowledge of how a thing should be done was regarded 

 as something very different from the ability to produce the result 

 in question, and this divorce between head and hand was all the 

 more emphasised when one class of persons planned and directed 

 work which another class of men carried out in a more or less 

 blind and unconscious, though technically skillful manner. To 

 know what was to be done was quite a different kind of knowl- 

 edge from the knowledge that comes from the power of being 

 able to do. 



In education, even, where this dualistic basis of work is more 

 uncritically accepted than in other branches of activity because it 

 is less apparent, there is often to be found ample illustration of 

 this mechancal conception of the relation of theory and practice. 

 Courses in " theory " in normal schools and colleges are often 

 complete in themselves, neither growing out of the student's ex- 

 perience nor leading to a reconstruction of it ; while on the other 

 hand their " practical " work, dealing with the actual problems 

 of class-room experience and with their own very vital relations 

 to their pupils, seems to have a warmth and vitality and a near- 

 80 



