Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 86.djvu/480

476 early years has reference to immediate ends: as appreciation of the claims of other persons intensifies in adolescence, all pursuits can be interrogated from the standpoint of their consequences. The individual and his group can be recognized to be players in a complicated drama.

Without venturing dogmatic judgments, a few considerations to be taken into account may be outlined. If we adhere to the principles underlying American democracy, it may be asserted that in a progressive society every institution must demonstrate its right to continue by its fruits; that, on the whole, the claims of the community within which a group exists is superior to the corporate demands of the smaller group. The fraternity is one outlet of natural desires for companionship; it expresses the tendency of the like-minded to unite for forwarding their purposes: but whether the fraternity is a help or a drag is to be determined according to the same standards which decide the right to persist of any other group—family, school or political party. The queries to put-to it are: Is the group open to others who are fit? Is the basis for selecting members a worthy one? Does this purpose conduce to petty rivalry or to catholicity? Is there a rule of custom which can not be reconciled with the function and public opinion of the whole school? After long experience with the workings of fraternities and sororities in secondary schools, Dr. Owen writes:

It is idle to object to them that they are selfish and inadequate, when we remember that they are creations of young and inexperienced children. It is equally idle to declaim against them unless we can provide some other system that will do for all what they do for some. I am strongly opposed to the fraternity system in our schools, but I hope I am not bigoted on the question. My fundamental and single objection to them is the fact that they organize the school on a social basis that is narrow and selfish. I can conceive, however, of a social organization of the school in which they might possibly be of but little significance. But as long as the life of the school is what it now is, they serve but to emphasize our neglect. I can appreciate the theoretical defense made in their behalf by a culture-epoch theory of history. The simple fact is that they stand in the way of a social organization of the school that shall provide for all free expressions to social instinct, controlled development of social power, and a happy enjoyment of the society of one's fellows. The best way to deal with the school fraternity is to beat it at its own game.

The specific means of attaining the "controlled development of social power" comprise all those reorganizations of outlook, method, curriculum and "uses of the school plant" which have engaged the attention of educators in recent years. In spite of considerable consensus of judgment regarding the relation of school to society, much remains to be accomplished. After years of discussion it is still pertinent to state that the work of making the secondary school a genuine