but the important point here is only that you cannot anyhow get rid of authority in education; it is not so much (as poor conservatives say) that parental authority ought to be preserved, as that it cannot be destroyed. mr. bernard shaw once said that he hated the idea of forming a child’s mind. in that case mr. bernard shaw had better hang himself; for he hates something inseparable from human life. i only mentioned educere and the drawing out of the faculties in order to point out that even this mental trick does not avoid the inevitable idea of parental or scholastic authority. the educator drawing out is just as arbitrary and coercive as the instructor pouring in; for he draws out what he chooses. he decides what in the child shall be developed and what shall not be developed. he does not (i suppose) draw out the neglected faculty of forgery. he does not (so far at least) lead out, with timid steps, a shy talent for torture. the only result of all this pompous and precise distinction between the educator and the instructor is that the instructor pokes where he likes and the educator pulls where he likes. exactly the same intellectual violence is done to the creature who is poked and pulled. now we must all accept the responsibility of this intellectual violence. education is violent; because it is creative. it is creative because it is human. it is as reckless as playing on the fiddle; as dogmatic as drawing a picture; as brutal as building a house. in short, it is what all human action is; it is an interference with life and growth. after that it is a trifling and even a jocular question whether we say of this tremendous tormentor, the artist man, that he puts things into us like an apothecary, or draws things out of us, like a dentist.
the point is that man does what he likes. he claims the right to take his mother nature under his control; he claims the right to make his child the superman, in his image. once flinch from this creative authority of man, and the whole courageous raid which we call civilization wavers and falls to pieces. now most modern freedom is at root fear. it is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities. and mr. shaw and such people are especially shrinking from that awful and ancestral responsibility to which our fathers committed us when they took the wild step of becoming men. i mean the responsibility of affirming the truth of our human tradition and handing it on with a voice of authority, an unshaken voice. that is the one eternal education; to be sure enough that something is true that you dare to tell it to a child. from this high audacious duty the moderns are fleeing on every side; and the only excuse for them is, (of course,) that their modern philosophies are so half-baked and hypothetical that they cannot convince themselves enough to convince even a newborn babe. this, of course, is connected with the decay of democracy; and is somewhat of a separate subject. suffice it to say here that when i say that we should instruct our children, i mean that we should do it, not that mr. sully or professor earl barnes should do it. the trouble in too many of our modern schools is that the state, being controlled so specially by the few, allows cranks and experiments to go straight to the schoolroom when they have never passed through the parliament, the public house, the private house, the church, or the marketplace. obviously, it ought to be the oldest things that are taught to the youngest people; the assured and experienced truths that are put first to the baby. but in a school to-day the baby has to submit to a system that is younger than himself. the flopping infant of four actually has more experience, and has weathered the world longer, than the dogma to which he is made to submit. many a school boasts of having the last ideas in education, when it has not even the first idea; for the first idea is that even innocence, divine as it is, may learn something from experience. but this, as i say, is all due to the mere fact that we are managed by a little oligarchy; my system presupposes that men who govern themselves will govern their children. to-day we all use popular education as meaning education of the people. i wish i could use it as meaning education by the people.
the urgent point at present is that these expansive educators do not avoid the violence of authority an inch more than the old school masters. nay, it might be maintained that they avoid it less. the old village schoolmaster beat a boy for not learning grammar and sent him out into the playground to play anything he liked; or at nothing, if he liked that better. the modern scientific schoolmaster pursues him into the playground and makes him play at cricket, because exercise is so good for the health. the modern dr. busby is a doctor of medicine as well as a doctor of divinity. he may say that the good of exercise is self-evident; but he must say it, and say it with authority. it cannot really be self-evident or it never could have been compulsory. but this is in modern practice a very mild case. in modern practice the free educationists forbid far more things than the old-fashioned educationists. a person with a taste for paradox (if any such shameless creature could exist) might with some plausibility maintain concerning all our expansion since the failure of luther’s frank paganism and its replacement by calvin’s puritanism, that all this expansion has not been an expansion, but the closing in of a prison, so that less and less beautiful and humane things have been permitted. the puritans destroyed images; the rationalists forbade fairy tales. count tostoi practically issued one of his papal encyclicals against music; and i have heard of modern educationists who forbid children to play with tin soldiers. i remember a meek little madman who came up to me at some socialist soiree or other, and asked me to use my influence (have i any influence?) against adventure stories for boys. it seems they breed an appetite for blood. but never mind that; one must keep one’s temper in this madhouse. i need only insist here that these things, even if a just deprivation, are a deprivation. i do not deny that the old vetoes and punishments were often idiotic and cruel; though they are much more so in a country like england (where in practice only a rich man decrees the punishment and only a poor man receives it) than in countries with a clearer popular tradition—such as russia. in russia flogging is often inflicted by peasants on a peasant. in modern england flogging can only in practice be inflicted by a gentleman on a very poor man. thus only a few days ago as i write a small boy (a son of the poor, of course) was sentenced to flogging and imprisonment for five years for having picked up a small piece of coal which the experts value at 5d. i am entirely on the side of such liberals and humanitarians as have protested against this almost bestial ignorance about boys. but i do think it a little unfair that these humanitarians, who excuse boys for being robbers, should denounce them for playing at robbers. i do think that those who understand a guttersnipe playing with a piece of coal might, by a sudden spurt of imagination, understand him playing with a tin soldier. to sum it up in one sentence: i think my meek little madman might have understood that there is many a boy who would rather be flogged, and unjustly flogged, than have his adventure story taken away.
