322 



ISCIENCK 



[N. S. Vol. XI. No. 270. 



sphere — the place of psychology among the 

 social sciences. Because I anticipate such 

 an outcome, and because I shall make a 

 survey of the broad field from the special 

 standpoint taken, I make no apology for 

 presenting this discussion to an Associa" 

 tion of Psychologists rather than to a gath- 

 ering of educators. 



In dealing with this particular questiou, 

 it is impossible not to have in mind the 

 brilliant and efi"ective discourses recently 

 published by my predecessor in this chair. 

 I shall accordingly make free to refer to 

 points, and at times to words, in his treat- 

 ment of the matter. Yet, as perhaps I 

 hardly need say, it is a problem of the most 

 fundamental importance for both psychology 

 and social theory that I wish to discuss, not 

 any particular book or article. Indeed with 

 much of what Dr. Miinsterberg says about 

 the uselessness and the danger for the teacher 

 of miscellaneous scraps of child studj', of 

 unorganized information regarding the nerv- 

 ous system, and of crude and uninterpreted 

 results of laboratory experiment, I am in 

 full agreement. It is doubtless necessary 

 to protest against a hasty and violent bolt- 

 ing of psychological facts and principles 

 which, of necessity, destroys their scientific 

 form. It is necessary to point out the need 

 of a preliminary working over of psycho- 

 logical material adapting it to the needs 

 of education. But these are minor points. 

 The main point is whether the standpoint 

 of psychological science, as a study of 

 mechanism, is indifierent and opposed to 

 the demands of education with its free in- 

 terplay of personalities in their vital atti- 

 tudes and aims. 



I. 



The school practice of to-daj' has a defi- 

 nite psychological basis. Teachers are al- 

 ready possessed by specific psychological 

 assumptions which control their theory and 

 their practice. The greatest obstacle to the 

 introduction of certain educational reforms 



is precisely the permeating persistence of 

 the underlying psychological creed. Traced 

 back to its psychological ultimates, there 

 are two controlling bases of existing methods 

 of instruction. One is the assumption of a 

 fundamental distinction between child psy- 

 chology and the adult ps3'chology where, in 

 reality, identity reigns ; viz.: in the region 

 of the motives and conditions which make 

 for mental power. The other is the assump- 

 tion of likeness where marked difference is 

 the feature most significant for educational 

 purposes ; I mean the specialization of aims 

 and habits in the adult, compared with the 

 absence of specialization in the child, and 

 the connection of undifferentiated status 

 with the full and free growth of the child. 

 The adult is primarily a person with a 

 certain calling and position in life. These 

 devolve upon him certain specific responsi- 

 bilities which he has to meet, and call into 

 play certain formed habits. The child is 

 primarily one whose calling is growth. He 

 is concerned with arriving at specific ends 

 and purposes — instead of having a general 

 framework already developed. He is en- 

 gaged in forming habits rather than in defi- 

 nitely utilizing those already formed. Con- 

 sequently he is absorbed in getting that all 

 around contact with persons and things, 

 that range of acquaintance with the physical 

 and ideal factors of life, which shall afford 

 the background and material for the spec- 

 ialized aims and pursuits of later life. He 

 is, or should be, busy in the formation of a 

 flexible variety of habits whose sole im- 

 mediate criterion is their relation to full 

 growth, rather than in acquiring certain 

 skills whose value is measured by their 

 reference to specialized technical accom- 

 plishments. This is the radical psycho- 

 logical and biological distinction, I take 

 it, between the child and the adult. It is 

 because of this distinction that children 

 are neither physiologically nor mentally de- 

 scribable as 'little men and women.' 



