Two instructors respond to an article from a previous issue."Last May the Missouri Alumnus carried an article by Professor Roderick McGrew in which the charge was made that the majority of teachers and students today are guilty of conformity and anti-intellectualism. I am one of the many who feel that the charge was unjustly made and that the implications of McGrew's article should not go unchallenged."--Page 1

Bowyer, Carlton H.

Etheridge, Ned

University of Missouri: MOspace

On Conformity, Education, Anti-Intellectualism By Carlton H. Bowyer Last l\!Iay lhe JV[ issouri Alumnus carried an article by Professor Roderick McGrey11 in which the charge was made lha t the majority ol teachers and students today are guilty of conformity ancl anti-intellectualism. I am one of the many who feel that the charge was un-justly made and that the implications of M cGrew's article should not go unchall engetl. In the first place, J would take issue with McGrew's narrow definitions of intellectualism and conformit:v. McGrew seems to have conformity confused with blind imitation. He uses the word as though it repre-sented something one should avoid at all costs. How-ever, it is fairly obvious to most social scientists that t.n conform is a necessary part of living in a society. My experience the past several years as a teacher o[ phi-losophy at the Missouri Penitentiary has convinced me that non-conformity, rather than conformity, is the ogre! One realizes that progress does not arise out of imitation, but arises only from an unbound intel-lectual activity. It is obvious that such activity can, and must, go on in a framework of intelligent con-formity. McGrew restricts intellectualism to ideas as pre-sented in the great books program of Adler and Hutchins. His intellectualism appears only within the framework of the liberal arts curriculum of pre-Eliot Harvard. This seems borne out by his statement that true education means the individual seeking his own By Neel Etheridge It is popular to assert that tbe trouble with Educa-tion, American society, people, "the ,vorld," is that there is too much conformity. Further, it is said that conformity is anti-intellectual. These ideas are false. Taken by themselves, neither conformity nor non-conformity are virtues. The value of both procedures depends entirely upon the thing, or things, conformed with, or not conformed with. Obviously, it would be of great value were we to conform entirely to the truth, and to not conform with those things which are of no value. Obviously, it would be of great value were we to conform to the law, to moral and ethical standards. The mathematician must conform to fact in order to be successful. The historian must conform to fact in order to be accurate. The writer must conform to the language .to be understood. The painter must conform to "the language" to be under-stood. Today, however, despite the failure of many to suc-ceed in doing so, there is an effort on the part ol many of us to not conform: It is popular in Education truth, defining his own values and developing his own taste-but only along classical lines. There can be no quarrel with the definition so far as it goes, but surely our system is not to be comlemned for the at-tempt to go farther than the boundaries of a classical program. I can not over-emphasize the fact that as a member of the teaching profession I fully realize the impor-tance of a classical orientation, but at the same time I feel that it is equally important for eel nca tors to avoid McGrew's trap of requiring conformity Lo an intellectual standard of a pre-Deweyian era, ancl to steer clear of labeling any deviation from such a limited standard as non-intellectual. lt seems ob-vious that in spite of its merit the educational system of pre-Eliot Harvard is out of step with an advancing nation. I am perfectly willing to accept McGrew's statement that the educational system is not some-thing that has developed apart from the society, but I clo not think that this creates a "situation." It is a recognition of a necessary correlation between a so-ciety and its institutions, rather than as McGrew states, "evidence of a current revulsion against in-tellectual values ancl the spirit of conformity that goes with it." Contrary to McGrew's experience, I have been made acutely aware that persons who "popula te the great market place" have an intense interest in the vital problems that concern man-his search for to try to "individualize" the student-to enable and to encourage him to not conform. It is popular for students to have no regard for authority, save their own, in order that they might not conform. It is pop-ular to teach that "we should not make 'value jlHlg-ments' "-hence to not conform. It is popular to de-scribe Art as being "creative self-expression"-hence to not conform. Although it is popular that Archi-tecture be based upon the general tenet of functional-ism, nobody can say what the function should be, nor how it should be suited. Intellectualism is based upon understanding. Un-derstanding is based upon familiarity. A thing which is truly creative, new, can1;1ot be understood because no one can be familiar with it. Hence, it is the cre-ative, the non-conformist, which is anti-intellectual. You can teach the value of creating, but you cannot teach the act of creating. Furthermore, the only things we can "know" about are the things which we understand. The only things worth teaching are the things which we understand. In fact, the only things worth teaching are those things which are worth re-14 / MISSOURI ALUMNUS/ SEPTEMBER '59 truth, his search for ultimate values and his tlesire for rapport between man and man, nation and nation. These same persons are not likely to speak of the world tensions in terms of Plato's Republic or in terms of Aristotle's four causes, but: I tlo not think we can deny that their search is intellectual. ·when a discussion of religion brings forth Spinozistic over-tones from a garage n1cchanic: one is convince1l that in tellectual investigation is not a thing that went out of style with the dassics-pre-1 9th ccnl:llry, of comse. I am happy to say that my experience with both student and faculty at Missouri University has also been quite different from that of M cGrcw's. As I walk around the campus at Missouri aml see some of the 10,000 students currently enrollee!, I am reminded of the fact that in the days of Colonial America any sort of higher educalion was available to less than ten per cent of this number. Certainly American educa-tion is succeeding in its goal of supplying equal op-portunity for all studcn ts. This is not to imply that there is a special virtue in numbers alone, and we have certainly not sacrilicecl fprnlity for quantity. Teachers know that there are a 11 sorts of stuclents-guod, bad and indifferent. Good teachers must rec-ognize the fact that it is a mistake to expect or to demarnl the same degree of intellectual activity from all students. Our system allows a student to progress intellectually according to his abilities, and I find the high degree of original thinking and intellectual peating. There is no other excuse for Education, methodology notwithstanding·. You cannot teach a person how to deal with an entirely strange experi-ence. This is why there is such a great value in the classics, aml in tradition. Tradition teaches a way to react to the situations with which we are familiar. Study of the classics acquaints us with a knowledge of the furthest advance of human knowledge and achievement. Hence, the art of doing anything ·be-comes measurable in terms of the degree of excellence of the product, rather than upon the mere difference of the product. On the other hand, I would agree with those who argue that we need not be told how we should dress, within reason. It is understood that we might tol-erate each other's choice of religions and politics. In fact, one of the most fundamental truths about people is that they are not alike, and that they are not equal. One of the great stumbling blocks of re-ligion is that people simply cannot conform, no mat-ter how they try. It is this congenital difference in people which education seeks to minimize. It is, in-curiosity among our stuclenl.s at Missouri most en-couraging. I think that one ca n safely agree with McGrew that the faculty at Missouri University is fairly typical of college teachers over the nation, but my experience certainly has not led me to believe that: there is any trend of anti-intellectualism in I.he teaching profes-sion. To the contrary, I can not but feel humble in the face of the privilege of claily association with some of the great thinkers of our times who fohabit the Missomi University campus. Jnst as there are different sorts of students, there arc different sorts of teachers with wide and varied interests and different degrees of intellectual nchieve-ment. I feel that these clificrenccs ;ire highly desirable, and it is my belief that most professional educators (I clo not limit this term to professors of eclnca lion, but properly include all teachers) share this view and would agree with the statement made by Dean W. ' Francis English in his excellent article in the May issue of t:hc Missouri A lmnnus. Dean English stated that "we have not arrived, but we simply seem to be headed in what we feel is the right direction." Dr. 11owyer is assistant professor of cd11rn1.ion at Kansas State Teachers College, Emporia, Kan., where he teaches philosophy .and philosophy of education. He holcls three degrees from the University: A.H. '+1, A.M. 'r,2, and Ph .D. '58. deed, impossible to educate away from conformity. This is a matter of definition. Any weakness in our educational system, therefore, may be found in those areas in which there has been no teaching, no learn-ing, but only "creating"-non-conforming, non-learn-ing. As for social order, if we can ever, agree that that is what we want, I recommend that if we all had a good practicable religion to follow we might be able to make it last for another 2,000 years. Regarding the things that matter, there is little need for much change within the short span of the human life despite the fact that change seems unavoidable. Ned Etheridge, ll.J. '42, B.S. in Ed. '51, is instruct.or in art at Christian College. In a letter accompanying his article he wrote: "After having read 'Conformity and Anti-Intellectualism' in your May issue I wish to congr!ttulate you for having the interest to publish a statement on that most important topic. I don't agree with Mr. McGrew on many of the aspec1·s of the problem which he discusses, and I hope you will permit me to · take advantage of your interest in this subject to the extent. of reading my declarations in that regard ." ML Etheridge is pictured on page seven with his portrait of Professor Emeritus 0. R. Johnson. 15 / MISSOURI ALUMNUS/ SEPTEMBER '59 

On conformity, education, anti-intellectualism

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/10355/75921/1/MizzouAlumnus1959SeptP14-15.pdf

On conformity, education, anti-intellectualism

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Missouri: MOspace