14 NOVEMBER 1846, Page 13

RECOGNITION OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN EDUCATION.

Wm are to be educated under a system of national education ?- Not the nation, but the individuals composing the nation. It is from not seeing this distinction, that so few form clear and com- prehensive notions on the subject. A vast mass of human beings called the people floats mistily before the mind. This mass is to receive a certain benefit. But the apportionment of the benefit to the units forming the mass is never taken into consideration.

It is evident, however, that the difference of character and ca- pacity in men is boundless. It is evident no less, that the value of every man must be determined, not by the ideal standard of his destiny and duty which others erect for him, or by the degree in which he approaches this, but by the energy he displays in un- folding his distinctive attributes as an individual according to his conception of the same. Now, any system of national education which sets this fact at defiance, though it may not fail as in- struction, will deplorably fail as culture. Instruction, and that of a very inferior kind, has hitherto been the substitute for culture ; whereas it ought to be merely the instrument thereof. However large in quantity, however perfect in quality, instruction is only valuable to the extent that it enables the individual to grow ; and it can enable him to grow simply in so far as it is appropriate, that is, specially adapted to his faculties as an individual. Dis- cipline is the means ; the object sought is development. To establish, therefore, in a system of government education, an uniformity of intellectual discipline, would be the surest way to produce an unnatural monotony of intellectual development, fatal to the very purpose for which the system existed. The unity of the system is indispensable ; but that is altogether a different thing, and supposes a few great principles rigidly adhered to, a few great rules strictly obeyed, a pervading harmony in the mechanism, a sustained energy in the working, a grandeur of grasp, a liberality of spirit, and a breadth of view, responding alike to the primordial truths of human nature and to the highest aims and accomplishments of national progress. But this unity, instead of excluding, requires infinite variety in the application of the system. Indeed, it may be taken as a maxim which admits of no exceptions, that the more intense and com- plete the unity of anything, the more numerous will be its modes of manifestation. And in this resides the philosophy of legisla- tive interference in national education. A government cannot enter on any task more chimerical than that of educating all its subjects precisely in the same way. Better almost the wildest ignorance than any such monstrous endeavour. The legislature may commit worse crimes, but it cannot perpetrate more enor- mous folly, than to degenerate into a pedant. National unity is a chief element in national happiness ; and a chief element in na- tional unity is national education. Jut it is not by a despotic, capricious, finical interference with the subordinate details of edu- cation, that a government can evolve national unity from na- tional culture ; but by giving an extended basis, a generous aid, a vigorous, majestic, symmetrical organization, the whole sys- tem. A distinction entirely lost sight of in philosophical writings, and therefore not likely to be attended to in matters of a more practical kind, is that between system and method. System is the relation of all kindred things to a central point ; method is the relation of kindred things to each other. The Germans have eminently the genius of system, with small aptitude for method : the French have eminently the genius of method, with small apti- tude for system, though they are always mistaking their methods for systems. Hence their barrenness in many departments of thought : for although one system may admit of a thousand methods, a method can generate nothing ; it begins and ends with itself. Much that passes for original thinking among the French is merely ingenious method. Now, national education as a system belongs solely to the government ; as a method or methods, it belongs solely to the educator. Whether the system is bad or good, is not an affair for the educator, as educator, to meddle with, though as citizen he may lend his best aid to im- prove it. Whether also it is the best system or the worst, it is his duty to choose the best method for giving it shape, force, and effect. It will be necessary, therefore, in a system of govern- ment education, to estimate the educator not by the method he employs, but by the results of his teaching. If these are satis- factory, there IS reason to believe that the method pursued is ju- dicious. We do not fear that the educator will misuse the lati- tude thus allowed him. Bestow on him the thorough and liberal preparation for his professional career that we have formerly pic- tured and pleaded for, and he will have a feeling of responsi- bility, a pride and a delight in his duties, an ideal of his voca- tion, all guarantees sufficient against any misapplication of his important trust. Besides, we should possess additional and not less potent ocruarantees in the board of education, and in that gradation of ranks among educators which we regard as indis- pensable to their right position and due activity. The board of education would secure superintendence effective without being inquisitorial : the gradation of ranks would accomplish the same object in a still more direct manner while stimulating likewise the desire to excel. Apart from this control, the aim of which is to prevent flagrant abuses, the educator should be left perfectly free. One consequence of this freedom would be, that he would enter on his labour with definite plans, and not with cumbrous prejudices—with the fertile pith of his individual na- ture, and not with exhausted traditions. Eccentricity is the in- sanity of innovation ; and to this, when exhibited by the edu- cator, the government should show no mercy. But the man that innovates most may be the best educator ; and therefore, innova- tion should never be discouraged on its own account. The most radical innovation of all will be that for which we now plead, —namely, that in the intellectual culture of every child, the educator should never fail to combine a psychological analysis of the child with the communication of knowledge. Each child has his own peculiar mind and character, different in many re- spects from those of his fellows. The educator, therefore, is not to furnish to the child instruction and discipline according to a preconceived theory of his owe, but according to those salient qualities of the child which constitute his individuality. This, so far from imposing on the educator any hard task, will be the most beautiful and interesting of studies. How preposterous, that the imaginative child, the sensitive child, the profoundly re- flective but timid child, the inconsiderate but daring and energetic child, the various children that bear jn them the germs of the poet, the philosopher, the soldier, of themartyr that is to die for a divine idea, or of the moral reformer that is to work a social revolu- tion, should all receive precisely the same intellectual culture! There must of necessity be certain rudiments of education common to them all. The future metaphysician cannot learn writing and arithmetic very differently from the future banker. But, apart from those rudiments, the individuality of the child is, or ought to be, the grand law of his education. For instance, take the child in whom fancy is the predominant element : in the pre- sent most defective methods of education, what is fancy felt to be, both at school and at college, but a curse to its possessor and a nuisance to his educators? No pains are taken to cultivate in harmony with the other faculties this noblest among the gifts of God to man. Uncongenial studies are rendered still more un- congenial by pedantic tyranny-. Congenial studies are altogether withheld. The genius that is in a few years to rouse the heart of nations is misunderstood, despised, or thwarted. The faculty which in itself is the most healthy—which cherishes the deepest affection for the fresh and radiant aspects of the universe—be- comes the most morbid. The faculty which is most the spontane- ous ally of the most exalted spiritualism, grows into the minister of the foulest sensuality ; and then, all good prosaic folks think it their duty to overflow in wonder at the sufferings of a Cowper or at the irregularities and vices of a Byron and a Burns. It is cause sufficient for the recognition of the individual in education, that only thus can he be educated recording to the intentions of Nature : for Nature gives nothing in vain, and she bestows no faculty on the individual to be suppressed or mutilated at the caprice of others. Moreover, the individual can be happy only in the degree that he is himself,—that is, with none of his powers dwarfed or dead, with none prevented from unfolding it- self by the artificial customs of the world. Society here has also its claim : for it is only beings educated according to the laws of their individual nature that can regenerate society ; and besides, it is vain to suppose that we can regenerate society as a whole without first proceeding to regenerate the individuals who com- pose it. And to enforce these considerations, it is worth observing, that no small amount of social misery arises from the wrong choice of a profession : a circumstance which would almost never occur if the educator, by studying the child's character and mind, and by giving him an intellectual culture suited thereto, enabled the parent to see what was his child's true and fitting vocation.