Texts:Rom-E-68b-E-Pur-1

<div class

Purposes
Eight Reflective Essays

1—Towards the Separation of School and State

We are pleased to present a new monthly department, "Purposes" Robert Oliver is a scholar in the history of ideas and will present an essay on some aspect of culture and education in each issue of THE RECORD throughout 1968-69.

1:¶1

The school, the university, and the media of communication are universal institutions whose officials enjoy direct relations with the people of the world. The aesthetic, intellectual, and moral principles that inform the relations between teachers and students are universal principles that do not vary according to the whims of political, religious, or economic orthodoxy. It does not, therefore, seem impossible that should the school manage to separate itself from the state, the cultural institutions will then become the basis of a world community. Here, perhaps, is the seed of our future.

1:¶2

At times the future is best foreseen by projecting present trends and expecting their opposite, for great changes become imminent when they seem least likely. Thus, the separation of church and state began after their merger had reached its zenith. Men had learned to exploit for mundane, human purposes what had seemed to be part of a transcendent order. Only then could men consciously separate what had previously appeared naturally joined. The logic of principles always prepares surprises for those who represent established patterns of power. Hence, the principle that the religion of the prince will be the religion of the people, which was thought to ensure the concordance of church and state, opened the way for shrewd rulers to decree toleration as a means for maximizing the reach of their rule. Therefore we should not be awed by the apparent dominance of the school by the state. The seeds of a new system have been sown. Seemingly doomed to stasis, we actually face changes as profound as those that ushered in the medieval or the modern era.

1:¶3

Jacob Burckhardt once contended that the driving forces of history were three—religion, culture, and the state. In different epochs these forces were harnessed in different ways with primacy given to one of the three. Since the renaissance, history records how leadership by religion has been eclipsed by that of the state. In the recent past, the state has been the dynamic, productive power; and as it developed economically and politically, it separated itself from the church, which had lost its internal cohesion and historic sway. But the saga of the state has ended. Future history will record how the leadership of the state was eclipsed by that of culture as it is embodied in the school, the university, and the media of communication. Throughout the industrialized world the state has nearly fulfilled its function, rationalizing the political, economic, and social environment of its citizens. Now, innumerable persons perceive that culture, conservation, and education are the dynamic side of life, and they look to intellectual institutions for solutions to the palpable problems that they experience. Great changes are therefore underway.

1:¶4

In the Crito Socrates explained the inner workings of such shifts in expectation and commitment. Recall that the issue was whether Socrates should desert his city in order to save his life or submit to the Athenians' death sentence in order to uphold his chosen way of living. In deciding for the latter alternative, Socrates made a commitment exemplifying man's responsibility towards his laws. Socrates found that the laws could justly demand the ultimate sacrifice from a man because they had been his educators. A man who, in good times, had let his innermost character be molded by the established ways of the city, had no right to reject those ways in the face of deadly demands. Note, however: the whole force of this argument depends on the recognition by each person that certain principles have been his educators, that by means of these he has defined the very essence of his being. The Socratic argument does not justify slavish acquiescence to the powers that be, no questions asked; previously Socrates had risked his life in refusing to execute a command by the thirty tyrants that he considered illegal. The Socratic argument is more profound; it explains why at certain times certain principles merit unswerving allegiance and why at other times other principles deserve the deepest scorn. One can be a Platonist and still believe in the right to rebel, namely to rebel against those principles that fail to educate. Herein lies the growing debility of the state.

1:¶5

In various epochs, either religion, culture, or the state have been the dominant historical force because men perceived one of the three as their true educator and became willing to make the supreme sacrifice for it and it alone. Men were willing to die for religion when they saw in it their reason for being and expected salvation to come by the grace of God. Men would sacrifice themselves for the sake of the state when they saw that it was essential to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The state was sovereign insofar as men were convinced that it could mold a better man. For Hegel and many others the state was perfection personified, and men educated themselves by seeking to be virtuous citizens.

1:¶6

Ineluctably, the face of the future will be different because a revolution of declining expectations is emasculating the industrialized nation-states. More and more youths simply are not finding economic wellbeing, political stability, and social security to be significant goals for personal aspiration. They do not find the principles that promise to provide for these objectives to be educative; without more ado they are transferring their drive to other matters; and hence the scions of the established order find that this turn towards allegiance to other principles is a manifestation of mere anarchy. In truth, it is something far more significant. Youths are moved by intimate problems; they are concerned with the quality of their human relationships, with the difficulty of reconciling their deeds with their beliefs. Candide symbolizes the outlook of many; they have seen the folly of man's efforts to reform the world; and, as each seeks out "his thing," they echo Voltaire's conviction that a man had best cultivate his own garden.

1:¶7

In a post-industrial world, men will find that the political, economic, and social principles of the state have less and less to do with their personal education and that the cultural principles of the school are increasingly crucial to their pursuit of a good life. In the face of this situation, there is a silly complacency in high places. The restlessness of youth, which is present throughout the West, is not a passing fad; and it will not be placated by citing the material boons that industrialism offered previous generations, it will not be suppressed by the police, and it will not be superseded by a less "nihilistic," more "respectable" movement. Even the restless young are not really yet aware of how great an historic cause they represent.

1:¶8

Everywhere the restlessness centers significantly on the university. In Italy, France, Germany, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Spain, Latin America, Canada, and the United States diverse movements of students and intellectuals share one common conviction: educational and cultural policy should cease to be made to suit the political and economic priorities of the state. Increasingly, people believe that culture, not politics, commands their allegiance, and that intellectual institutions possess an independent sovereignty that has priority over the state. University presidents and trustees, chosen for their economic and political achievements, do not understand or even perceive the cultural premises shared by students and teachers. On the campuses throughout the world the politicians who elicit the most fervent responses are those who propose to hold the nation-state in check, to forego foreign adventures, and to restrict the state to carrying through its traditional mission of advancing civil and economic equality within its borders. The first step in separating the school from the state will be to establish the fact that, in the name of higher principles, there is a moral rein on raison d'état.

1:¶9

One can foresee the future only in its broadest outlines. The way that the cultural institutions will win their independence from the state is still tomorrow's secret. But the fact that such independence will be won seems unavoidable, barring catastrophe, for the problems that men face are ones that will prompt them to look more and more to the school, not the state, for assistance. And brief reflection shows that on achieving independence, the school will easily encompass and master the state.

1:¶10

Sovereignty, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. For many, the nation-state has become a provincial, dowdy trull; it is sanguine to say she is sovereign. The young and the not-so-young live in a supra-national culture, and the nation-state has been unable to stay in style. The inherent impossiblity of a significant internationalism signifies that the state cannot adapt to a cosmopolitan world. Despite many efforts, the state has not been able to transcend the nation. Internationalism is the unavoidable source of this incapacity, for internationalism will never lead to a supranational state, one that coincides in scope with the contemporary cultural community. Like any institution, the state derives its authority and power from the direct relations between its officials and the people. International institutions will never generate such authority and power, for as long as they are inter-national, there will always be a separate authority interposed between their officials and the people. This situation is as it should be; national diversity at once precludes a world-state and enlarges human potentiality. Nevertheless, some kind of world system of order seems desirable, perhaps necessary in view of nuclear proliferation and the increasingly violent efforts "to win the peace," as the warriors say.

1:¶11

In light of this desirability, certain features of the school after it has separated from the state should be noted. The school, the university, and the media of communication are universal institutions whose officials enjoy direct relations with the people of the world. The aesthetic, intellectual, and moral principles that inform the relations between teachers and students are universal principles that do not vary according to the whims of political, religious, or economic orthodoxy. It does not, therefore, seem impossible that should the school manage to separate itself from the state, the cultural institutions will then become the basis of a world community. Here, perhaps, is the seed of our future.

Robert Oliver
Teachers College Record (vol. 70, no. 1, October 1968)