Education in a World of Fear [Reprint 2014 ed.] 9780674423695

Citation preview

INGLIS IN TRENDS

LECTURES

SECONDARY IN

AMERICAN

EDUCATION SECONDARY

EDUCA-

TION. B y Leonard V . Koos. 1925. $1.00. OPPORTUNITY SECONDARY

AND ACCOMPLISHMENT EDUCATION. By Paul

IN H.

Hanus. 1926. $1.00. D o AMERICANS R E A L L Y V A L U E EDUCATION?

B y Abraham Flexner. 1927. $1.00. THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION. B y C h a r l e s H .

Judd. 1928. $1.00. SECONDARY EDUCATION AND INDUSTRIALISM.

B y George S. Counts. 1929. $1.00. THE

GREAT

INVESTMENT.

By

Thomas

H.

Briggs. 1930. $1.50. T H E W A Y O U T OF EDUCATIONAL C O N F U S I O N .

B y John Dewey. 1931. $1.00. R E A L I S M IN AMERICAN EDUCATION. B y

liam Setchel Learned.

Wil-

1932. Out of print.

T H E EVOLVING C O M M O N S C H O O L . B y

Henry

C. Morrison. 1933. $1.00. THE

DILEMMA

OF D E M O C R A C Y .

By

I.

L.

Samuel

S.

Kandel. 1934. $1.00. THE

CARE OF THE

PUPIL.

By

Drury. 1935. $1.00. THE

M O U N T I N G W A S T E OF THE

AMERICAN

SECONDARY SCHOOL. B y John L . Tildsley. 1936. $1.50. T H E T E A C H I N G OF CONTROVERSIAL S U B J E C T S .

B y Edward L . Thorndike. 1937. $1.00. SCHOLARS, W O R K E R S , AND G E N T L E M E N .

By

Malcolm S. MacLean. 1938. $1.00. SECONDARY

EDUCATION

Charles Allen Prosser.

AND

LIFE.

W O R K , W A G E S , AND EDUCATION. B y

Williams.

Aubrey

1940. $1.00.

EDUCATION IN A WORLD OF FEAR. B y

A . May.

By

1939. $1.00.

1941. $1.00.

Mark

EDUCATION IN A WORLD OF FEAR

LONDON : H U M P H R E Y MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

W b z 3fnsltö Hectare, E D U C A T I O N O F

I N

Α

1941 W O R L D

F E A R BY

MARK A. MAY Professor of Educational Psychology and Director, Institute of Human Relations Yale University

CAMBRIDGE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1941

COPYRIGHT,

I94I

BY T B E PRESIDENT AND PELLOWS O? HARVARD COLLEGE

PRINTED AT THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, U.S.A.

THE INGLIS LECTURESHIP T o

HONOR T H E MEMORY OF A L E X A N D E R

INGLIS, 1 8 7 9 - 1 9 2 4 , HIS FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES GAVE TO T H E GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, HARVARD U N I V E R S I T Y , A F U N D FOR T H E M A I N T E N A N C E OF A L E C TURESHIP I N SECONDARY EDUCATION.

TO

T H E STUDY OF PROBLEMS IN THIS FIELD PROFESSOR INGLIS DEVOTED HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER, LEAVING AS A PRECIOUS HERITAGE TO HIS CO-WORKERS T H E

EX-

AMPLE OF HIS INDUSTRY, INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY, H U M A N CIAL VISION.

S Y M P A T H Y , AND SO-

I T IS T H E PURPOSE OF T H E

L E C T U R E S H I P TO PERPETUATE T H E SPIRIT OF HIS LABORS AND CONTRIBUTE TO T H E SOLUTION OF PROBLEMS I N THE FIELD OF HIS INTEREST.

T H E LECTURES ON THIS

FOUNDATION ARE PUBLISHED B Y T H E SCHOOL.

ANNUALLY

EDUCATION IN A WORLD OF FEAR I emotion of the world today is fear. Never in history has the behavior of as great a proportion of the inhabitants of this earth been so extremely motivated by a common anxiety. Only those primitive people who live in deserts or jungles and who have neither radios nor newspapers are spared the fears of war which hang like a cloud over the rest of the earth. Psychologically the whole civilized world is now at war. Those nations that are technically neutral and which have not as yet heard the noise of battle are nevertheless involved in the "war of nerves." N o country has escaped the veiled or open threats of the dictators. Since the war began fifteen nations of Europe have lost their independence and three

T

HE DOMINATING

2

EDUCATION IN A

others had previously disappeared from the map. The threat of world domination by force and fear, backed up by actual performance in fifteen countries, is quite enough to arouse in all remaining nations an emotional state of grave apprehension, deep concern, and even intense anxiety. It would be futile to deny that the people of the United States do not share the fears of other nations. Our preparedness program, our aid to England, our emphasis on the production of war materials and on the training of an army bear eloquent and convincing testimony to our deep concern over the consequences of this war. To us the world situation appears threatening and dangerous. Whatever the outcome may be we are certain to be adversely influenced by it. We do not know what turn events in Europe and in Asia will take in the next few months nor do we

WORLD OF FEAR

3

know exactly how we will be affected by them. We do not know when we may become more actively involved in the war. We are more confident than we were six months ago that England will eventually win, but the betting odds are not too favorable. If Germany should win, we do not know what attitude she would take toward us. There are, on the other hand, a few things that we do know. We know that we are openly hostile to Germany and have long since stopped pretending to be neutral. One of the Nazi leaders has already boasted that Germany has an old score to settle with us. It seems fairly certain that a victorious Germany will wage an economic war against us even if she does not attempt a military invasion of our hemisphere. She will probably do all in her power to disturb our foreign trade and to impair our prestige with other nations.

4

EDUCATION IN A

But this is not all. The totalitarian powers will continue to do everything they can to stir up internal dissension and strife, and to foster within our borders a fascist movement. Even though Germany loses this war, our future will still be dark for we will undoubtedly be called upon to bear the financial burden of the reconstruction of Europe. Our defense program is a generalized response to these threatening possibilities. It is justified on the ground that while none of them may be regarded as certainties, the probabilities seem reasonably high. But even if the probabilities were low, the defense program would still go forward largely on the ground of the necessity of reducing our war anxieties. We are convinced that in the future we will experience less national frustration and less fear of disruption of national life if we have ready at hand a war machine which is

WORLD OF FEAR

5

large enough and strong enough "to cope with any situation." In brief, we are taking no chances even though the danger to our national life may seem remote and at the moment improbable. Our major anxiety stems from the fact that during the past two years events have happened with lightning rapidity in Europe, the very speed of which is overwhelming in comparison with the time it takes to build a defense which would be adequate to safeguard us not only against attack but against being pushed around economically by other nations. There are two major components in our national war anxiety: first, the fear of an Axis victory, and second, the fear of the consequences of war itself. These two fears are often in conflict with each other. We want to keep out of war, but at the same time we do not want Germany and Italy to win. We

6

EDUCATION IN A

stand, as it were, between the devil (Hitler), on the one hand, and the deep blue sea (war), on the other. Our defense program is intended to protect us against the consequences of an Axis victory and therefore reduces our fears of what Hitler may do, but in so doing we increase our anxieties over going to war because the stronger our military machine becomes, the greater will be our temptation to use it to help England win. At the present moment it appears that the people of the United States are divided in respect to their war anxieties. Some are more fearful of an Axis victory than of going to war, while others are more concerned over avoiding war. Professor Hadley Cantril of Princeton University working with Dr. Gallup has polled the nation several times on its war attitudes. They have asked such questions as: Which side do you

WORLD OF FEAR

7

think will win? D o you think that the United States will go into the war? D o you think you would be personally affected b y an Axis victory? D o you favor more aid to England? Are you willing to pay higher taxes for a defense program? On the basis of answers to these questions Professor Cantril has identified three major patterns of war attitudes which he calls the "isolationist," "interventionist," and "sympathetic." 1 T h e isolationists are those whose anxiety over war itself is greater than their anxiety over an Axis victory. If it came to a choice between entering the war as an active belligerent and remaining neutral even at the risk of an Axis victory, the isolationist would choose the latter as the lesser of two evils. T h e attitude of the 1 Hadley Cantril, "America Faces the W a r : A Study in Public Opinion," The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. IV, 1940, pp. 395-405.

8

EDUCATION IN A

interventionist is just the reverse. His anxieties over an Axis victory are considerably greater than those over the consequences of war. He would therefore choose war as the lesser of the two evils. The sympathetic individual is the one who attempts to solve this conflict by increased aid to England in the hope that England will win the war and thereby enable us to have our cake and eat it too. He would both avoid the necessity of going to war and escape the consequences of an Axis victory. The studies of Professor Cantril supported by investigations at the Institute of Human Relations at Yale, which as yet have not been published, seem to indicate that the particular pattern of war attitudes of any individual or group of individuals is determined by such factors as age, sex, income, occupation, class position, institutional affiliation, racial background, place of

WORLD OF FEAR

9

residence, on the one hand; and bybackground of education and experience, on the other. The isolationists are, in general, individuals who have most to lose by going to war and whose background of experience leads them to expect that the national consequences of war are more inevitable and more severe than the consequences of an Axis victory. The interventionists, on the other hand, are in general those who think they would have more to lose as the result of an Axis victory than they would by war itself and who think that the disastrous consequences of an Axis victory to the nation are more inevitable than the possible consequences of war itself. The ballot which was taken in September 1940 indicated that at that time about one-eighth of the respondents were isolationists, one-half interventionists, one-quarter sympathetic,

10

EDUCATION IN A

and about one-eighth unclassified. A comparison of these figures with earlier ballots indicates that the interventionists are on the increase and the isolationists and sympathetics are decreasing. It appears that as a nation we fear an Axis victory more than we fear going to war. In this connection a word may be thrown in concerning the psychology of anxiety. From laboratory and clinical studies we learn that the degree of anxiety that an individual experiences when in a danger situation depends primarily on three factors: first, the nearer the danger appears in time and in space, the greater the anxiety; second, the more severe the anticipated loss or punishment to the individual, the greater the anxiety; third, the fewer the avenues of escape, the greater the anxiety. The first two principles may be illustrated by the difference

WORLD OF FEAR

n

between the attitudes of people in California and in New York. People in California are more fearful of war with Japan than they are of war with Germany, first, because Japan is actually geographically nearer to California than to New York, and second, because Californians have had more experience with Japanese immigrants than have New Yorkers. The third principle may be illustrated by the difference between interventionists and isolationists. The interventionists think they see more possibilities of escaping the evil consequences of war than escaping the consequences of an Axis victory. The isolationists, on the other hand, figure that they would rather take their chances on getting around the consequences of an Axis victory because the disastrous results of the active participation of the United States in the war seem so utterly inescapable.

12

EDUCATION IN A

II At the present time I know of no statistical information concerning the pattern of war attitudes of educators. By "educators" I mean leaders in education — college presidents and professors, school administrators (local, state, and national), officials in educational organizations and associations, educational councils and commissions, headmasters and school principals, and the leaders among the secondary- and elementary-school teachers. No one, to my knowledge, has polled this group on the question of its hopes and fears for education. Individuals from the group have expressed their attitudes in speeches, articles, books, and official reprints of institutions. Some organizations such as the Progressive Education Association, the Educational Policies Commission of the National

WORLD OF FEAR

13

Education Association, and the American Council on Education have published documents containing official or semi-official expressions of opinion. I have examined a fair sample of these publications and in addition have solicited the opinions of a few of my friends asking them to tell me frankly their deepest concerns for education today and their hopes and fears for the future. Three interesting impressions have emerged. First, educators view the present war situation with deep concern and many are quite alarmed. Evidence for the existence of aroused anxieties is found not only in their utterances but also in their activities. The schools and colleges of the nation have responded almost unanimously and enthusiastically to the call from the National Defense Council. But many have gone beyond this and are engaged in a wide variety

14

EDUCATION IN A

of activities which are not officially a part of the defense program, but which are believed by educators to be relevant to it. One gets the impression that much of this activity is random and feverish. It betrays anxiety because in a tense situation one feels that any action is better than no action. The second general impression is that educators are inclined to believe that American education stands to lose more by an Axis victory than by war itself. This does not mean that they favor our entry into the war as an active belligerent power. They are fully aware of the horrors of war and what it means to schools and colleges; but at the same time it appears that the American educational system has a better chance to survive another war than it has to survive an Axis victory. College students, on the other hand, and perhaps some high-school students too,

WORLD OF FEAR

15

are more inclined toward the isolationist's position. From where they stand the picture is different because their camera angle is different. They see the war situation not so much in terms of its possible influence on schools and colleges as in terms of how it will affect their careers, the lives of their families and friends, and the institutions with which they are looking forward to being identified. The third impression is that the war situation has not generated many new anxieties but has amplified old ones. This is a special case of a more general principle that any tense situation operates to increase some but decrease other former fears. For example, the war situation reduces the employment fears of the laboring man because he can look forward to a steady, well-paying job during the emergency. In forming the draft law, anxieties caused by loss

16

EDUCATION IN A

of job were forestalled by requiring that all men now employed be returned to their old jobs after the emergency. The peacetime concerns of the student over getting through school and getting started in life are greatly increased by the draft and the prospect of long interruption by war. One could go on and show how war anxieties of other groups operate to amplify some peacetime fears and to reduce others. In the case of educators, it appears that far more of their old fears have been increased than have been decreased. Among those that have been amplified I shall mention only five, describing four briefly and the fifth in some detail: ( i ) fear of the loss or curtailment of financial support; (2) fear of loss of local control by school boards and educators; (3) fear of loss of academic and scholastic freedom through restrictions placed on the content of the cur-

WORLD OF FEAR

17

riculum and on methods of teaching; (4) fear of loss of perspective on account of emphasis on the immediate emergency at the expense of the longrange view of activities of schools; and ( 5 ) fear of fascism and communism in the schools of the nation. Every one of these five fears has been greatly accentuated by the war situation. Let us examine them from this viewpoint. First and foremost is the fear of curtailment of financial support. The recent depression is fresh in the memories of every school superintendent, college president, and schoolteacher of the land. Each has very vivid recollections of the deprivations and hardships that he experienced during the 1930's. He knows what it is like to reduce salaries, dismiss teachers, curtail important services, use old textbooks, increase the size of classes, require teachers to teach subjects for which they are not

18

EDUCATION IN A

prepared, to eliminate the kindergarten, the evening classes, and to go without the services of the school nurse and the school physician. The danger signals of the present situation arouse this imagery in their minds. The educators with whom I have corresponded have placed great emphasis on the possible reduction of financial support. One of them wrote as follows: "Now let me tell you my own deepest fear and why I have relied on long-term planning as the basis of our educational program. We have been through ten years of depression with considerable expenditure. We are now in a defense training program with millions being spent. When the bottom drops out of the present situation and more particularly when new income taxes begin to help pay for our efforts we will face, in my judgment, one of the most critical financial situations ever confronting the

WORLD OF FEAR

19

country. The American people will have to make choices. Will we provide an adequate education for the citizens of tomorrow or will we continue to spend our money for overlapping governmental services? Are we willing to give youth its chance for jobs and for education?" 2 This particular anxiety is almost certain to mount higher in the future because the ways of escape from the danger are so few. Higher taxes, fewer fortunes for endowments, more competition among agencies for tax funds, the threat of inflation, all bring the danger nearer and make the losses look still more severe. One escape might be found in more Federal support for both public and private schools, justifiable on the grounds of the excellent work ' Quoted by permission from private correspondence with the Commissioner of Education of the State of Connecticut.

20

EDUCATION IN A

that the schools are now doing for the government in connection with its defense program. But this way of escape might turn out to be "from the frying pan into the fire" because immediately there would be aroused the second major anxiety — that of increased Federal control. One of the most deep-seated and persistent traditions in American education is that it must be controlled as far as possible by local boards. As time has passed, however, local boards have been forced to surrender to state boards certain of their prerogatives in the interest of uniformity in such matters as teacher certification, the granting of degrees, length of school year, and the administration of other educational laws. Many state boards, in turn, have had to surrender some of their prerogatives in exchange for financial support from the Federal Government. It

WORLD OF FEAR

21

seems to be a basic principle of administration that the source of control matches the source of funds. But state and Federal controls are feared mainly on the ground that the control will be disproportionate to financial support. Moreover, in states where schools are supported largely by state grants, it has been found that one unfavorable governor or one political group can by a single act of the legislature greatly cripple the work of the schools. Too much central control is feared on other grounds. It might upset the tenure system; it might tend to level off and make uniform educational practices, inhibit local initiative, discourage community experimentation and, on the whole, operate to slow down educational progress in order to secure equality and uniformity. These fears which may indeed be quite irrational are nevertheless

22 aroused

EDUCATION IN A whenever

any movement

is

m a d e looking t o w a r d the use of the public schools for g o v e r n m e n t a l purposes. 3 I n examining m e m o r a n d a submitted b y the various committees and groups of educators w h o are co-operating w i t h the g o v e r n m e n t , I find statements such as the f o l l o w i n g : That no agencies be developed through federal funds which will parallel or duplicate existing educational facilities. There is danger that temporary agencies, created for the emergency, which establish educational facilities, may become permanent through creating vested interests both in personnel and in physical plant and equipment. 4 8 C. R. Reed, " I s Washington to Be in Control?" Nation's Schools, X X V I , 5 (November 1940), p. 26. And G. P. Schmidt, "Shall Washington Control Our Schools?" Social Education, III, ι (January 1939), pp. 19-24· 1 Quoted from a memorandum prepared for a subcommittee of the Committee on Education and the National Defense regarding industrial training.

W O R L D OF F E A R

23

Another item sounds the following note: That the costs for personnel, equipment, and supplies which are directly attributable to the emergency be paid from federal funds and on such a basis as will stimulate rather than discourage state and local responsibility both through tax funds and contributions of industries. 5

Educators have experienced the tendency of W.P.A. educational programs to remain permanent after the emergency has passed. Will the present industrial training program acquire vested interests in personnel and facilities which, when the emergency is over, will persist under Federal control? With one foot inside the door the Federal Government could quite easily move in and take complete control of the vocational education of the nation. This leaves educators in a conflict 6

ibid.

24

EDUCATION IN A

situation. On the one hand, they desire to co-operate to the fullest possible extent with the government in its emergency program, but, on the other hand, if they do so they run the risks of increased Federal control. Thus in all of the memoranda setting forth the relation between education and the government, great emphasis is given to the point that the work be co-ordinated and that the control remain always in the hands of the state and local officials. It is primarily for this reason that the school boards, particularly the state boards, are opposed to military training in the high schools. If such training is to be anything more than military drill and parade, it must be supervised by military authorities or at least by leaders who have had extensive military training. To be of value to the army it must be co-ordinated with Federal selection and training of army personnel.

WORLD OF FEAR

25

Sooner or later this would involve Federal control. But the fear of Federal control is not the only reason why military training for high-school boys is generally disapproved by educators. If it were introduced even on a voluntary basis, there would undoubtedly be a certain amount of pressure put upon all youth to enroll, so that in the end it would not be voluntary at all. Almost inevitably there would follow a demand for uniforms and insignia which are regarded as symbols of totalitarian tendencies. This fear seems well founded on psychological grounds. If the highschool youth of the nation were dressed in uniforms which they were permitted to wear on any occasion, there could easily develop a feeling of unity and the combined strength could be readily exploited by some popular leader. In response to a request for the in-

26

EDUCATION IN A

troduction of voluntary military training in the high schools of Connecticut the State Board of Education took the position that the most effective defense work of the schools would be co-operation with the government in its industrial training program, more adequate vocational training for all youth of the state regardless of the national emergency, improved programs of health and physical education, and co-operation with the Citizens Military Training Camp Reserve in its summer work which is carried on entirely apart from the work of the schools. The Board expressed the belief that there are a great many high-school boys who, during the summer months, are unable to find useful employment and could therefore very profitably spend their summer in such camps. Already patriotic pressure groups have gone into high gear. The relation

WORLD OF FEAR

27

of pressure groups to schools is an old topic and would not be reconsidered here were it not for the fact that it is almost certain to occupy a rather prominent place in the minds of educators during the present crisis. Educators dislike pressure groups not on the ground that the causes for which they press are unworthy and unimportant, but because the control of the work of the school, the content of the curriculum, and the methods of teaching must be kept within the boundaries of legal channels. In brief, schools cannot recognize too many bosses. T h e y do recognize that in a democracy they are subject to the will of the people, but this will must be expressed through duly constituted channels. Moreover, if the schools acceded to, and recognized the demands of, all pressure groups, chaos most certainly would follow.

28

EDUCATION IN A

There is another angle to the situation, however, which arouses even greater anxiety among educators. It is the unscrupulous and arbitrary methods which some pressure groups adopt. Schools do not like to be told that they must do this or that or take the consequences. They prefer the democratic procedure of discussion and debate and are willing to give due consideration to proposals advanced by any community group. But high-pressure methods, especially those that use bribery or threats of punishment, are bound to create extreme anxiety. In this connection the following quotation is illuminating. The methods of indirect propaganda may be those of attempting to establish a point of view through friendly relations, or they may include much more sinister types such as indirect bribery through the promising of favors in securing better jobs for super-

WORLD OF FEAR

29

intendents and principals; direct bribery of political bosses, community leaders, and members of the board of education; destroying public confidence in leaders through labeling them as "radical," "unpatriotic," "non-cooperative," "knocker," and "immoral"; threatening loss of position and blacklisting with other boards of education; carrying on whispering campaigns with respect to the leader's sex life, home relations, and financial probity, and offering social favors to ambitious wives. . . . M a n y a board member and superintendent accede to certain pressures because their wives are directly ambitious for social recognition or are too sensitive to withstand snubs from social leaders. Human relations are delicate and complicated areas that furnish fertile ground for the smart propagandist. 6

The thing to be feared, therefore, from pressure groups is not so much "Arthur B. Moehlman, Social Interpretation (D. Appleton-Century, 1938), pp. 70-71, 75.

30

EDUCATION IN A

the causes that they advocate as it is the rewarding and punishing power which they attempt to secure. In wartime they are more likely to get public and legislative support for their various and sundry activities by taking advantage of what they know to be the state of anxiety of the nation. A good illustration of this may be found in a document which has recently come to my desk from an organization that calls itself "Guardians of American Education." This particular organization specializes in tracking down treasonable utterances in high-school textbooks especially in the social studies. I have no doubt that its supporters have genuine anxiety concerning the spread of fascism and communism in the schools. The war situation makes it easier to communicate these anxieties to others. If it can be shown that the blacklisting of certain textbooks

WORLD OF FEAR

31

from the high schools will reduce these anxieties, then, on the basis of good psychological principles, one would predict that the movement would gain a certain amount of public support. The blacklisting technique is indeed a common one and apparently does succeed in reducing the anxieties of superpatriotic groups even though the danger that may exist is unaffected in reality. Already the official organs of two patriotic pressure groups have blacklisted not only certain textbooks, but magazines as unfit for circulation among the schools. This is not the time or the place to discuss the merits and demerits of the activities of pressure groups. Our concern for the moment is only with the psychology of the situation. I wish I knew more about the patterns of war anxieties that activate their behavior. My guess is that these individuals have

32

EDUCATION IN A

a far greater than average amount of anxiety over any kind of social change for the reason that new ventures are always dangerous. But in their honest efforts to reduce their own anxieties they indulge in behavior which increases the anxieties of many educators. A moment ago I mentioned the chaos that would result in the schools if an effort were made to take on all of the causes, movements, and activities of special interest groups. This brings us to a fourth fear which educators have for the future of the schools and that is the disruption and distortion, by the war emergency, of the necessary ongoing and long-term activities. But even before the emergency literally hundreds of organizations were knocking at the doors of the schools. The situation is bad enough in peacetime, but in wartime it is infinitely worse.

WORLD OF FEAR

33

During the first world war, the academic years 1 9 1 6 - 1 7 and 1 9 1 7 - 1 8 were practically lost as far as longterm functions of education were concerned. Colleges were turned into officers training camps, high-school programs were disrupted with preparedness parades, Red Cross drives, Liberty Loan activities and "one hundred per cent" campaigns of all sorts. Enrollments were decreased, especially in colleges, and some institutions folded up completely. Public-school teachers were drafted and those who were not felt the pressure to give their major time and attention to war work. It is not surprising, therefore, to find educators urging that the present emergency program not be permitted to crowd out the long-term and ongoing necessary activities of the school. Practically every document that I have examined on the relation between edu-

34

EDUCATION IN A

cation and the government stresses this point. Here are one or two typical quotations. No emergency program short of that required for an actual war should be developed which will jeopardize the existing program of vocational training or its needed expansion. The vocational training aspects of the defense program should be viewed both from their immediate and long-range effects upon education. . . . That continued consideration be given to the need of preparing now for the period which will follow the present emergency.7 Another document submitted by educators to the government urges that we should avoid the introduction of emergency programs which would interfere unduly with the 'Quoted from a memorandum prepared for a subcommittee of the Committee on Education and the National Defense regarding industrial training.

WORLD OF FEAR

35

regular work of the schools and higher institutions.8 I n another place the same document says that because of the serious effect of interrupting the educational program, departments or agencies of the government should have access to the classroom, the school system, or the institutions of higher learning only with the approval of the duly constituted educational authorities.9 These documents go further and propose concrete ways b y means of which these anticipated disruptions and distortions m a y be avoided. T h e fact that there are many avenues of escape and the fact that the government has indicated that it has no desire to interfere with the work of the schools tends to "American Council on Education, Education and the National Defense (The Council, 1940), p. 10. 'Ibid., p. 11.

36

EDUCATION IN A

reduce this particular anxiety to a fairly low level. We come now to the fifth and final fear of educators. It is loss of democracy. Here all the hopes and fears of American education are centered. If we lose democracy, we lose all. With it would go local control, academic freedom, the right to experiment, the right to have a voice and a vote in our own affairs, the privilege of debate and discussion, the privilege of choosing our own textbooks and determining our own methods of teaching; budgets would be reduced, teachers dismissed, and the schools would pass into the hands of political henchmen. Education would be a cog in a vast machine of propaganda and schools would be reduced to a travesty. In Germany, for example, where the great universities at one time were regarded as world leaders in science, philosophy, the hu-

WORLD OF FEAR

37

manities, art, and music, and where the public school system was regarded as a model or pattern for other nations, we have seen the complete degradation of this leadership and we have observed its disastrous consequences both to institutions of higher learning and to the system of public education. When we contemplate such a state of affairs our anxieties shoot sky high. We are prompted to inquire immediately into how near this danger is and what are the possibilities of escaping it. Ill I said a while ago that the intensity of anxiety depends primarily on three things — the severity of loss or punishment that is anticipated; the nearness of the danger; and the possibilities of avoiding it. On the first of these we are clear — the loss of democracy would be disastrous; on the second and third

38

EDUCATION IN A

we are uncertain. Much depends on the nature of the danger signals. Let us pass them in brief review. American democracy is threatened both from without and from within. The dictators of Europe, notably Hitler, Mussolini, and their stooges, have openly challenged our republican form of government and many of our democratic institutions. It is not necessary to review here the utterances of these men although an impressive array of quotations could be marshaled. Their boasts and threats would not concern us, however, were it not for the fact that they have backed them up by action. The totalitarian technique for destroying a democracy is now well known. It consists in first stirring up dissension and dissatisfaction within, then giving a generous invitation to bow to the inevitable or perish, and finally attacking by force from with-

WORLD OF FEAR

39

out. We have already experienced this threat in the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Treaty. The threat of physical coercion from without is met by our defense program. It is a program of active and almost aggressive defense quite unlike the passive protection once afforded by the Great Wall of China. That type of defense merely placed the people out of reach of the enemy. But in the modern world such defense is inadequate and we feel compelled to counter force with force. Our military defense program is a way of saying to the world that anyone who dares attack us is sure to receive more serious punishment than he can inflict. This program is receiving the fullest and most enthusiastic support from practically all groups and social institutions including education. There is hardly a college, university, or public

40

EDUCATION IN A

school system which has not already voluntarily and freely pledged its support to the government. The contributions that educational institutions are making to the program are substantial and creditable. The public secondary schools, especially the vocational and trade schools, have launched a program of training industrial workers for the manufacturing of war materials. This program is supported by a Congressional appropriation of $65,000,000 which is administered through the United States Office of Education. A recent bulletin sent out from that office announced that practically every state and territorial division is co-operating and that in the five-months' period from J u l y 1 to December 1 , 1 9 4 0 , more than 200,000 persons had been trained or were in training in 600 cities of the nation. In the State of Connecticut alone 18 training centers are turning

WORLD OF FEAR

41

out approximately 1,000 workers each month. This program is carried on under local and state supervision and by the use of regular instructors supplemented by additional ones required for the emergency program. The colleges and universities of the country are co-operating with the defense program in the training of engineers, technicians, health officers, in the organization of hospital units, in the increased emphasis on the reserve officer training units, and in a wide variety of research activities. Colleges and universities are also co-operating with the Civil Aeronautics Authority in the training of a large number of civilian aviators. In addition to these activities that are carried on directly in co-operation with the defense program of the government, the schools of the nation are engaged in various and sundry activities all of which are designed to be

42

EDUCATION IN A

of some value either for military or psychological defense. The defense program against the threats to democracy from within is not as well organized. It is far more difficult to deal with internal than with external dangers. For one thing, many of the activities must be secret. Few of us know in any detailed way, for example, what the F.B.I, is doing to counteract so-called fifth-column activities ; to prevent sabotage, plots, and conspiracies of all kinds. But many of the threats to democracy from within are quite open and the danger signals can be viewed by anyone who cares to look at them. The list of such signals is a long and impressive one and there is considerable uncertainty as to what they mean. A few of them will be mentioned here as illustrations of the type of stimuli that arouse anxieties concerning the possible loss of democracy.

WORLD OF FEAR

43

First, there are various minority groups such as the German Bund, the Communist Party, the Christian Front, the League for Social Justice whose activities are viewed as a menace and a threat to democracy. Even though the total membership of all such groups added together would amount to only a fraction of a per cent of the population of the nation, yet their very existence and their outspoken intentions are viewed with great alarm. Psychologically, they are genuine danger signals because they furnish flesh and blood examples of the types of persons who are known to be enemies of democracy. A second danger signal noted in many quarters is the trend toward intolerance and coercion. There is a strong impulse to deport, throw out, place in concentration camps or otherwise exterminate all individuals who by word or deed express opposition to

44

EDUCATION IN A

democratic institutions and practices. These impulses are clearly born of anxiety, but if allowed full expression will arouse even greater anxieties in others who believe that a democracy dare not use such tactics in dealing with its internal enemies. This situation is interesting from the psychological angle because it so neatly illustrates a principle that has been learned from clinical experience, namely, that of fear aroused by internal aggressive impulses. It has been repeatedly pointed out that we have much to fear from our strong desires to cram democracy down the throats of people whether they like it or not. Fear of our own impulses as contrasted with fears of danger signals from outside of the organism is precisely the distinction that Freud has made between neurotic and normal anxiety. A third internal danger signal to

WORLD OF FEAR

45

democracy is the unequal distribution of educational and economic opportunities in America. According to the democratic ideal every individual is entitled to an education that is commensurate with his talents and to a job that befits his education. Democracy is opposed to class legislation and to class restrictions of all sorts. Indeed, democracy refuses to admit the existence of a hierarchical economic and social class structure. It insists that the Ship of State is a one-class boat. But everyone knows that educational possibilities are not distributed according to the democratic ideal, but according to geographic location, racial, social, and economic class position. The danger of this situation to democracy arises from the fact that underprivileged groups can hardly be expected to give enthusiastic support to a political and economic system in which the good things

46

EDUCATION IN A

of life, including education, are so unevenly distributed. The financial and moral support which the American educational system has so generously received from the great masses of the rent-paying and tax-paying public is motivated, I think, primarily by the fact that public education is the greatest and surest avenue of social mobility. A democracy can tolerate a class system only so long as the boundaries between the classes are not fixed and impermeable. Individuals should be free to move from one class level to another on the basis of talent and capacity for service. The internal threat to democracy is not the existence of a class system but the closing of the doors to social mobility through education. As these doors seem to be closing one by one, our fears for the future of democracy increase. A fourth internal danger signal to

WORLD OF FEAR

47

democracy is the youth problem. It is said that large numbers of American youth are apathetic toward war and indifferent toward the preservation of democracy. It is asserted that they lack the burning fire of enthusiasm that characterizes the youth of totalitarian states. Furthermore, there is said to exist a widespread attitude of defeatism based on the belief that world events, including wars and changes in government, are caused by great invincible forces that sweep men to their destinies; that it is futile and foolhardy to oppose these world forces for there is little that anyone can do about it either as individuals or in groups; that in the face of them one is as helpless as old King Canute who found that he could not defy the tides or change the stars in their courses. This alleged attitude of defeatism and indifference is regarded as a danger

48

EDUCATION IN A

signal. The danger lies in the fact that this attitude is precisely the one that dictators attempt to foster. Time and time again Germany has used against her weaker neighbors the argument that it is futile to resist the tremendous tide that is sweeping Europe toward a new order under German domination. It has been said that the schools and colleges are primarily responsible for the widespread pacifism of American youth and their indifference and apathy toward war. The schools are accused of having slighted, if not indeed debunked, our glorious military traditions, of having reduced the halos of our great military heroes and of having dampened the thrill that surges through our hearts when the flag goes by. Colleges and universities, and to some extent secondary schools also, are charged with teaching subversive doctrine and poisoning the minds of youth with ideas

WORLD OF FEAR

49

that are unAmerican and dangerous. The anxieties of these critics are even more aroused by the outspoken interest of many educators in the Russian experiment and especially by the utterances of those who have been talking about the building of a new social order. The phrase "a new social order" is a very potent danger signal to the conservative because to his ear it sounds like the battle cry of revolution. But educators have been quick to point out that the frustration of American youth is due primarily to the failure of our economic system to make good its promises of jobs and opportunities. How can we expect our youth to be enthusiastic about a political and economic system which so utterly fails to fulfill its promises? What satisfactions can young people derive from living in a democracy where the prospects of economic independence and

50

EDUCATION IN A

the

freedom

poor?

that

it carries

are

so

C a n w e go on making promises

to our y o u t h which we know w e cannot fulfill?

Surely

the spectacle

three to five million y o u t h

of

between

the ages of 16 and 25 w h o are out of school, unmarried, and unemployed constitutes a m a j o r threat to A m e r i c a n democracy. A fifth and perhaps the most serious danger signal to our democracy is the reluctance to look squarely a t danger signals and to face them courageously and realistically. I n one of his speeches before the Congress President Roosevelt referred to the fear of fear as our greatest national danger. this mean psychologically?

W h a t does I t means

that w e are afraid of seeing something that will make us more afraid. I t is a situation that is well known in clinical psychology and belongs to the category of neurotic anxiety.

Persons suffering

WORLD OF FEAR

5*

from agoraphobias are afraid of open spaces. This fear is believed to be the result of a process of generalization from dangers which have actually been encountered in the open. If the patient is afraid of horses, automobiles, thunderstorms, streets, and sidewalks, he may easily work himself into a frame of mind such that he will be afraid to go out of doors for fear that he will see a motor car or a horse or some other dangerous object. He refuses to face the stimuli which he knows will arouse his anxieties. The moral for democracy is that if we are afraid to look at danger signals on the ground that we fear that they will arouse some fear, how can we ever expect to cope with them? An illustration is found in our reluctance to admit or talk about class distinctions in our society. We know that they exist but we are afraid to admit it and afraid to look at the evidence that

52

EDUCATION IN A

proves it precisely because this evidence arouses even greater anxiety. IV We come now to the question of the most appropriate plan of action that will enable us to escape or avoid the losses which these danger signals threaten. Our plan of action is by no means clear-cut and agreed upon. We feel fairly certain that the salvation of democracy lies in more democracy. Our defense must be active, intelligent, and systematic. At the moment we seem to be engaged in a great deal of feverish random activity much of which is verbal, but a great deal of which is motor. Hundreds of books and perhaps thousands of articles and speeches have been published on the general theme of the defense of democracy through education. It is the central topic of discussion at most educational

WORLD OF FEAR

S3

conventions. It is difficult to find an educational meeting at which some reference to the problem is not made. It would seem that various educational groups are competing to see which can say the best things for democracy. Important educational committees and commissions have also been hard at work on the problem. It is the central theme of the Educational Policies Commission which has perhaps more than any other one group prepared and circulated an enormous amount of literature and has sponsored a large number of conferences and discussions. This response of educators to the challenge to democracy is not entirely verbal. Many organizations as well as individual schools and institutions have gone into action. The most recent publication of the Educational Policies Commission — Learning the Ways of Democracy — reports information

54

EDUCATION IN A

gathered from visits to 90 high schools in 27 states. The purpose of these visits was to find out in some detail precisely what these schools are doing for the training of democratic citizens. The results are illuminating and significant. They indicate a widespread and intense interest in improving educational procedures not only by curriculum revision but also in terms of organization, administration of school systems, and especially in the management of extracurricular activities and student affairs. They discovered in addition a great deal of confusion as to what constitutes an adequate educational program for citizenship training and how such a program could be effectively administered. But they failed to find a single school that did not claim that education for democratic citizenship was its central objective. In addition to these school activities

WORLD OF FEAR

55

there are a large number of civic organizations, leagues, societies, and clubs that are sponsoring programs for the defense of democracy. I am reliably informed that at present there are no less than 800 such organizations. Some of these are pressure groups, others are seminar clubs, some sponsor radio programs and the production of motion pictures, most of them put out literature, and all collect dues. But one gets the impression that this vast army of defense is not organized and lacks unity of purpose and quality of leadership. But behind it all there is a common emotion — that of anxiety lest democracy be lost. W e hear it said that in a crisis democracies will not work and must give way to dictatorial methods until the emergency is over. There is considerable anxiety abroad in the land, and especially among educators, lest we

56

EDUCATION IN A

voluntarily and perhaps unnecessarily surrender an increasing number of our democratic prerogatives to the government; turn over to the President too many powers of arbitrary decision; and lest we surrender too many of our civil liberties in exchange for a feeling of security at a risk of not getting them back when the crisis is over. In short, the fear has been expressed time and again that in our efforts to save democracy we may lose it. This fear is based partly on the belief that totalitarian powers cannot be defeated by democratic processes; that force must be met with force; regimentation with regimentation; "conscripted labor with conscripted labor"; and barter with barter. It is based also on the observation that in a crisis people are highly suggestible and therefore susceptible to propaganda and quick to follow the advice and example of almost any

WORLD OF FEAR

57

leader who has gifts of oratory and persuasion and who gives the impression of knowing precisely what to do and how to do it. It is true that a crisis emphasizes the role and importance of leadership. This has been evident in the changes in the cabinets of the democratic countries in Europe during this and the former war. When in a situation that is both dangerous and confused, when there is great uncertainty about what to do, there is an increased tendency to seek leaders whose behavior will be imitated and whose commands will be obeyed. There are good psychological reasons why this should be so. In the first place, many of us have learned to distrust our own interpretation of the danger signals. This is illustrated by the present popularity of the radio commentators, news analysts, and columnists. All of us have our favorites

58

EDUCATION IN A

to whom we listen with devoted regularity. Our motives are undoubtedlymixed, but include a desire for more selective treatment of the news and varied interpretations, confirmation of our own point of view, but most of all for aid in figuring out how events mayaffect us personally. We are all anxious lest something that might affect us will be overlooked and lest we give the wrong interpretation to the significance of the news. These commentators and analysts, however, are not leaders in the sense that they suggest plans of action, but only in the sense that they lead our thoughts and ideas and influence the formation of our attitudes. But the second and most important reason why we have an increased tendency to follow leaders in critical times is that the situation is so confused that the best way of avoiding or escaping the danger is not apparent. We are heavily

WORLD OF FEAR

59

motivated to find a way out and are therefore strongly tempted to follow a leader who can convince us that his way is the best. Moreover, an emergency calls for speedy and unanimous action. Often there is not time for the democratic process of deliberation, debate, and voting, but even if there were, this process usually results in dissenting voices, minority reports, and lack of unanimity of opinion. It has been found by experience that the best technique for securing action that is unanimous and uniform is to agree in advance to follow the advice of a leader. It is a mistake to conclude, however, from these considerations that the democratic process cannot survive a crisis. It could be argued, on the other hand, that democracies are more likely to survive a crisis than are dictatorships. Whether a dictatorship survives

6o

EDUCATION IN A

depends upon the success of the enterprise. Democracy, on the other hand, is more likely to survive a failure. Strong leadership in a crisis is not necessarily inconsistent with democracy; if the leaders are chosen by the people, and if they are followed voluntarily and not too enthusiastically, and if they can be dismissed at any time by the will of the people, and if different leaders are followed for different purposes, I see no great danger to the democratic process. On the contrary, I fail to see how democracy can operate without the benefit of leaders even in times of peace. The problem is to educate people how to select leaders, and to educate leaders who are worth following. Consider first the education of leaders in a democracy. They are for the most part specialists trained for a particular profession. The professions of

WORLD OF FEAR

61

medicine, law, divinity, education, economics, politics, and engineering are each centered around some persistent and identifiable group of human needs, such as health, religion, and subsistence. In each of these there are ever recurring anxieties and fears which all of us experience and for the alleviation of which we turn to a trained expert whose advice we seek and whose suggestions we follow. In matters of health we see our physician; for problems of litigation we see our lawyer; or if we have concern over religious matters we see our minister or priest. In each case the leader is an expert not only in interpreting danger signals, but in suggesting plans of action. The process is best illustrated by the medical leaders. There is no greater fear than that of physical suffering and death. So universal is this fear that all societies, both primitive and civilized,

62

EDUCATION IN A

have selected and trained specialists who are expert both in the cure and prevention of diseases that threaten illness, suffering, and death. In primitive societies they are known as medicine men, shamans, conjurers, and magicians; in civilized societies they are physicians and health officers. Their advice is followed and their orders are obeyed mainly because they have demonstrated their abilities to alleviate suffering, extend life, and most of all to reduce human anxieties. They are trained to be expert readers of danger signals both to the health of individuals and to whole communities; to have expert knowledge on how to prevent illness (i.e., how to make the most adaptive avoidance responses) and to cure disease (i.e., how to make the most adaptive escape responses). Moreover, they are trained not to make promises they cannot fulfill, not to lead

WORLD OF FEAR

63

patients to expect too much or too little; and most important of all, not to communicate their own anxieties to their patients except in cases where it is clearly for their own good. Finally, they are trained not to permit patients to rely on them for expert advice and aid in matters outside the field of health. But in matters of health the physician is the one person whose leadership we can all accept with confidence. Professional leaders in other fields do not always command the degree of confidence that we have in our physicians. It has been repeatedly pointed out that our political leaders are not well trained professionally. They are not too good at reading danger signals or at suggesting the best plans of action. Moreover, they have an unfortunate habit of making promises that they know they cannot fulfill. Also,

64

EDUCATION IN A

they do not hesitate to betray their own anxieties even to the extent of being alarmists. Indeed, one of their standard practices is to work up anxiety by viewing everything with alarm. The result is that we have little confidence in them, and regret the fact that we have not as yet been able to select and train them with anything like the rigor that is used in the selection and training of our physicians. Surely this is a great weakness in our democracy and a challenge to education which is magnified by the national emergency. The problem of educating the masses to select the best available leaders is difficult and has scarcely been touched by the schools. Political leaders are not as a rule professionally trained and placed at the disposal of communities as are physicians, but they work their way up by distinguishing themselves in a crisis. By busting rackets, prose-

WORLD OF FEAR

65

cuting criminals, reducing taxes, or otherwise alleviating anxiety they appear in the public eye in the role of a protector or parent substitute. It is easy for the public to attribute to them powers greater than performance would justify. But it is precisely this human tendency to over-generalize that keeps incompetent leaders in high places. It is best illustrated by the case of the physician who saves your life or that of a loved one and hence reduces your anxiety. You are so grateful for this and so reinforced by it that you are tempted to over-generalize his anxietyreducing powers and consult him about problems of a non-medical nature. If he is a wise physician, he will not permit you to overrate his abilities, especially outside of his field, lest you be led to expect more than he can deliver, in which case you might over-generalize in the reverse direction and lose confi-

66

EDUCATION IN A

dence in him completely. He would prefer that you discriminate between the problems which he is trained to solve and those that lie outside his profession. It is probably true that educated people are better able to discriminate between physicians and quacks or between scientifically compounded drugs and patent nostrums, between specialists and general practitioners, than the great masses of less educated people. But it does not follow that any kind of general education will increase power to discriminate leaders. Evidently special training is required. Here is an opportunity for the social studies. How can high-school pupils be taught to differentiate leaders with ability from leaders with only powers of persuasion? For one thing the psychological principles of leadership can be explained.10 10

See Harold D. Lasswell, World Politics and

WORLD OF FEAR

67

One has already been stated. It is that in a crisis there is heightened suggestibility and an increased tendency to follow a leader who exhibits courage and inspires confidence. Another is that people want to be led to rewards and away from punishments and dangers; still another, that a few reinforcing successes will balance many failures, hence a leader may stay in power long after he has been discredited. This is especially true in a crisis. It is well known that people are reluctant to change leaders in an emergency. A skillful teacher could do a great deal in a short time to improve the powers of discrimination of pupils in respect to the choice of leaders. A t least, it can be made clear that in a democracy the power of leadership, like the power of Personal Insecurity (McGraw-Hill, 1935). Also, John Dollard and Neal Miller, " A Learning Theory of Imitation" (a forthcoming volume).

68

EDUCATION IN A

government, should not be too concentrated in one person, but should be spread around among many persons in many places. It is only in this way that society can institutionalize leadership in a way to secure its full benefits for the control of the internal fears and hostilities that threaten to destroy it. Leadership, however, is only one method of finding security when threatened with losses, deprivations, and great suffering. It is not always the best method, but a favorite one because it finds support in the childhood experiences of all. It harks back to the blissful days when we as children were afraid of nothing because we could invoke the protection of our parents or big brothers or Uncle Henry. It is difficult for most of us to outgrow the notion that we are constantly watched over by someone who is bigger, stronger, and wiser than ourselves.

WORLD OF FEAR

69

When no such person is ready at hand in the flesh, we either try to find one or adopt one in spirit in the form of a guardian angel or patron saint. It is no accident that in totalitarian states the dictator plays the role of protector and guardian of his people and often ascribes to himself many of the attributes of a god. Education for a crisis should endeavor to train youth how to control their anxieties by utilizing all the safety devices that society has provided including wise leaders, religion, the police force, the military machine, membership in organizations, and insurance policies of all sorts. Good education, however, will not stop here, but will go much further and endeavor to provide each individual with a maximum of self-confidence, self-reliance, and selfassurance by giving him the knowledge that is power, the skills that are useful,

70

EDUCATION IN A

a character that can face danger and take punishment, and intellectual ability to make the most adaptive responses in any critical situation. A democracy operating through its institutionalized agencies such as banks, insurance companies, the police force, and the army, protects the lives and fortunes of its citizens up to a certain point beyond which it is every man for himself. Each individual in a democracy must sooner or later rely on his own health, strength, talents, and abilities as his best line of defense. Educators today are, therefore, stressing vocational education that is broader than industrial training; health education that includes more than athletics and sports; and character education that goes beyond citizenship training. For man's security is ultimately within himself. All of the institutionalized, incorporated, and formalized

WORLD OF FEAR

7*

machinery for protection, including the police, the army, banks, insurance companies, and even the government itself, are no better or stronger than the men who operate them. He who feels secure because he has money in the bank, an insurance policy in his pocket, and a good job is, if he only knew it, putting his faith in the integrity, intelligence, and education of other men. Education is surely our best national insurance, our best defense against threats from without and dangers from within. In a time when democratic institutions are threatened, when the economic welfare of the nation is at stake, when we hear that thousands of men and women in Europe and Asia are cold, hungry, and in slavery, it is natural that we should carefully scrutinize our insurance policy. We have been paying heavy premiums on this policy for a good many years, but the divi-

72

EDUCATION IN A

dends that it has returned to us even in peacetime have proved that it is our best national investment. It is a policy of wide coverage. It insures us against slavery and exploitation; it protects us against political revolution; it guarantees the optimum utilization of our resources, both natural and human; it safeguards our health; it gives us an army of technicians and inventors who devise machines that save our backs and protect us against storms, floods, earthquakes, and invasion; and, above all, in times of crisis it binds us together in a common cause as a nation of men who understand each other and who will stand by each other for the good and safety of all. I close with a word of caution. Both anxiety and its opposite, security, are states of mind. Being subjective in nature, they may or may not correspond to the realities of the situation.

WORLD OF FEAR

73

If the danger is near and immediate, the tendency is to err on the side of too much anixety; but if the danger seems distant in time and space, or if the defenses seem adequate and secure, the tendency is in the other direction. Moreover, there is a tendency always to avoid anxiety because it is essentially unpleasant, and to seek security which is much more comfortable. It has been said that if France had not felt quite so secure behind the Maginot line, things might have been different. Also, we are told that prior to the battle of Flanders the anxieties of the English were far below the realities of the danger they faced. Normal anxiety is a psychological symptom of external danger. Unfortunately, it is not always proportional to the real danger because it is based on past experience and is aroused by danger signals which may or may not match the danger it-

74

EDUCATION IN A

self. In critical times we must steer a middle course between the alarmists whose anxieties are unduly high, on the one hand, and those who would lull us to sleep in a sense of false security, on the other. The task of education is to teach people how to manage their anxieties and hold them proportional to the realities of the danger.