Page:Philosophical Review Volume 9.djvu/563

547

It is only since the rise of the evolutionary method of thought that we can be said to have come to know the child. Psychology has especially given its attention to this study, particularly in its relation to child-training. After the labors of Perez, Preyer, and Sully, the child-mind no longer is a terra incognita. With our knowledge of the forces of environment, and heredity, and self-activity, we are no longer content with the haphazard in child-training. The methods of home, kindergarten, and primary school have been revolutionized as the results of this study, which are briefly:—(a) Child study. To strengthen the self-activity of the child and make it superior to the forces of heredity and environment, each child must be studied as an individual. (b) Arouse the self-activity of the pupil. Self-activity is the principle which organizes mental evolution through imitation, (c) Teach by interest rather than by rule of authority, (d) Rely on the routine of school work for moral training. (e) Indirection or influence is the chief power in the religious training of the young. Every teacher should know what the new psychology says about attention, interest, fatigue, and habit. The new psychology has shown us that in the line of emphasis in child-training feeling comes first, volition next, and intellect last. Excessive zeal for the new compels the writer to sound a note of warning. The new psychology fails to recognize the complexity of the child-mind. This has led to confusion in pedagogy. Over-estimation and exaggeration are also possible, as Dr. Harris seems to show in his Psychological Foundations of Education. Secondly, justice is not done to the ethical nature of children. The moral and religious nature of children is wholly disregarded in all recent works. Our analysis of childhood does not go deep enough. To regard a child as merely intelligent, limits our insight and cripples the higher effect of our teaching. Finally, the new psychology is in danger of perverting the ethical aspect of child-training. At present the emphasis is almost wholly on mechanism, the theory being that moral habits are to be formed by conforming the mind of the child to a definitely chosen and wisely administered system of studies. Morals are not taught, and religion is as though it were unworthy of notice. Teaching is an ethical process to the core, and the greatest teachers have been those of the profoundest moral and religious feeling. If we wish a nation to be moral, as well as intelligent, we must see to it that school education provides for moral instruction. The new psychology and the new pedagogy cannot fail to recognize this fact, and the problem of the twentieth century will be the moral training of the young.