there is one thing at least of which there is never so much as a whisper inside the popular schools; and that is the opinion of the people. the only persons who seem to have nothing to do with the education of the children are the parents. yet the english poor have very definite traditions in many ways. they are hidden under embarrassment and irony; and those psychologists who have disentangled them talk of them as very strange, barbaric and secretive things. but, as a matter of fact, the traditions of the poor are mostly simply the traditions of humanity, a thing which many of us have not seen for some time. for instance, workingmen have a tradition that if one is talking about a vile thing it is better to talk of it in coarse language; one is the less likely to be seduced into excusing it. but mankind had this tradition also, until the puritans and their children, the ibsenites, started the opposite idea, that it does not matter what you say so long as you say it with long words and a long face. or again, the educated classes have tabooed most jesting about personal appearance; but in doing this they taboo not only the humor of the slums, but more than half the healthy literature of the world; they put polite nose-bags on the noses of punch and bardolph, stiggins and cyrano de bergerac. again, the educated classes have adopted a hideous and heathen custom of considering death as too dreadful to talk about, and letting it remain a secret for each person, like some private malformation. the poor, on the contrary, make a great gossip and display about bereavement; and they are right. they have hold of a truth of psychology which is at the back of all the funeral customs of the children of men. the way to lessen sorrow is to make a lot of it. the way to endure a painful crisis is to insist very much that it is a crisis; to permit people who must feel sad at least to feel important. in this the poor are simply the priests of the universal civilization; and in their stuffy feasts and solemn chattering there is the smell of the baked meats of hamlet and the dust and echo of the funeral games of patroclus.
the things philanthropists barely excuse (or do not excuse) in the life of the laboring classes are simply the things we have to excuse in all the greatest monuments of man. it may be that the laborer is as gross as shakespeare or as garrulous as homer; that if he is religious he talks nearly as much about hell as dante; that if he is worldly he talks nearly as much about drink as dickens. nor is the poor man without historic support if he thinks less of that ceremonial washing which christ dismissed, and rather more of that ceremonial drinking which christ specially sanctified. the only difference between the poor man of to-day and the saints and heroes of history is that which in all classes separates the common man who can feel things from the great man who can express them. what he feels is merely the heritage of man. now nobody expects of course that the cabmen and coal-heavers can be complete instructors of their children any more than the squires and colonels and tea merchants are complete instructors of their children. there must be an educational specialist in loco parentis. but the master at harrow is in loco parentis; the master in hoxton is rather contra parentem. the vague politics of the squire, the vaguer virtues of the colonel, the soul and spiritual yearnings of a tea merchant, are, in veritable practice, conveyed to the children of these people at the english public schools. but i wish here to ask a very plain and emphatic question. can anyone alive even pretend to point out any way in which these special virtues and traditions of the poor are reproduced in the education of the poor? i do not wish the coster’s irony to appeal as coarsely in the school as it does in the tap room; but does it appear at all? is the child taught to sympathize at all with his father’s admirable cheerfulness and slang? i do not expect the pathetic, eager pietas of the mother, with her funeral clothes and funeral baked meats, to be exactly imitated in the educational system; but has it any influence at all on the educational system? does any elementary schoolmaster accord it even an instant’s consideration or respect? i do not expect the schoolmaster to hate hospitals and c.o.s. centers so much as the schoolboy’s father; but does he hate them at all? does he sympathize in the least with the poor man’s point of honor against official institutions? is it not quite certain that the ordinary elementary schoolmaster will think it not merely natural but simply conscientious to eradicate all these rugged legends of a laborious people, and on principle to preach soap and socialism against beer and liberty? in the lower classes the school master does not work for the parent, but against the parent. modern education means handing down the customs of the minority, and rooting out the customs of the majority. instead of their christlike charity, their shakespearean laughter and their high homeric reverence for the dead, the poor have imposed on them mere pedantic copies of the prejudices of the remote rich. they must think a bathroom a necessity because to the lucky it is a luxury; they must swing swedish clubs because their masters are afraid of english cudgels; and they must get over their prejudice against being fed by the parish, because aristocrats feel no shame about being fed by the nation.
