From Kidd to Dewey: the origin and meaning of ‘social efficiency’

Abstract

Contemporary historians of education associate the term ‘social efficiency’ with a group of US educators who, in the 1910s and 1920s, aimed at creating a technocratic school and a conservative society of social stability and harmony. However, an investigation of the origin of the term indicates that ‘social efficiency’ began its career in 1894 in the UK with the writing of Benjamin Kidd. From the outset, Kidd’s social Darwinist position was disputed by sociologists and philosophers who interpreted the term from a humanitarian point of view. It was the broad, liberal approach inspired by John Hobson, Lester Ward, and John Dewey—and not the narrow, utilitarian approach propagated by David Snedden—that educators took up when they employed the term ‘social efficiency’ to define the main aim of education.

Keywords:

• comparative education
• educational goals
• history of education
• philosophy of education
• sociology of education

Acknowledgements

The material for this paper was gathered in connection with a project on Georg Kerschensteiner and the Vocational Education Movement in the US, generously supported by a grant from the Swiss National Foundation, Bern. The staff of Special Collections of the University of Chicago and of the University of California, Los Angeles provided invaluable assistance with information not otherwise available, as in particular did David Ment and Bette Weneck of Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. Special thanks also go to an anonymous reviewer for his helpful comments and editorial suggestions, and to Craig Kridel for his ability to create at the University of South Carolina’s Museum of Education an atmosphere which stimulates friendship and thought.

Notes

1. See, e.g. Brennan (1975), Hays (1959), Kanigel (1997) and Schiesl (1977). The rhetoric of efficiency did not miss out anyone and, indeed, showed up in the ‘most unexpected’ quarters. Even poets and novelists like Henry James, Ezra Pound, and Dorothy Richardson proclaimed their belief in ‘precision and compression’ and identified themselves with the ‘elimination of waste’ and the ‘economy of words’. See Raitt (2006).

2. Two years later, O’Shea (1906) actually wrote a short paper on ‘Notes on education for social efficiency’, oddly enough, however, without ever trying to define or to delineate the term.

3. See, e.g. Bergen (1981), Beyer (1982), Luetkemeyer (1987), Spring (1986), and Stevens (1972).

4. See, e.g. Franklin (1986), Hogan (1986), and Wrigley (1982).

5. See, e.g. Kliebard (1999), Labaree (2005), Ravitch (2000), Tozer et al. (1998), and Wirth (1972). There are some historians who do not follow the conventional line of interpretation. See Veysey (1965), Johanningmeier (1980), Tanner and Tanner (1990), and, most recently, Null (2004).

6. Apart from Crook’s (1984) biography on Kidd, I recommend as introductory texts for social Darwinism and New Liberalism the studies of Hofstadter (1955), Bannister (1979), and Freeden (1978). As far as I know, only one educational historian (Connell 1980) has discussed the concept of social efficiency in the context of social Darwinism.

7. For a critical reading of Kidd’s concept of ‘equality of opportunity’, see, e.g. Sprague (1895).

8. Roosevelt employed the term ‘social efficiency’ on many occasions. See, e.g. Roosevelt (1902, 1909). In this context, see Spring (1968).

9. Ward had already commented on Kidd’s book in 1894; see Crook (1984: 85). Tanner and Tanner (1990) are probably the first and the only ones who have considered Ward in the context of social efficiency.

10. See, e.g. Parker (1894), Runkle (1878), and Woodward (1882).

11. For Hailmann, as for Clifford (1875) and Punnett (1881), the concept of efficiency was from the start intimately linked to social intercourse and social learning. ‘[T]he young human being’, Hailmann (1872: 144) explained, ‘is taught from the very beginning that all its surroundings are, similar to itself, both part and whole, and that it can increase its own efficiency for usefulness and happiness by uniting with others’. Speaking of ‘happiness’ and ‘usefulness’, Hailmann did not refer, however, to Spencer and Bentham but to Froebel and Pestalozzi. For another source of the concept of efficiency in education, see Cremin (1961: 192).

12. In a notable paper, Rodgers identifies ‘social efficiency’ as one of three languages of discontent during the era of progressivism—the rhetoric of ‘antimonopolism’ and of ‘social bonds’ the other two. As Rodgers (1982: 126) tries to explain its success,

 The language of social efficiency offered a way of putting the progressives’ common sense of social disorder into words and remedies free of the embarrassing pieties and philosophical conundrums that hovered around the competing language of social bonds. … clearly it was the merger of the prestige of science with the prestige of the well‐organized business firm and factory that gave the metaphor of system its tremendous twentieth‐century potency.

This interpretation sounds plausible but does not hit the point as far as the field of education is concerned. See also O’Neill (1975).

13. See Hall (1899) and Major (1899).

14. It may be mentioned that about 30 years later Rugg and Shumaker (1928: 62–63) described the dissimilarities of the old and the new education quite differently:

 The spirit of the old school was centred about social adjustment, adaptation to the existing order. The aim of conventional education was social efficiency. Growth was seen as increasing power to conform, to acquiesce to a schooled discipline; maturity was viewed from the standpoint of successful compliance with social demands. In the new school, however, it is the creative spirit from within that is encouraged, rather than conformity to a pattern imposed from without.

It could be that the educational historians of today are influenced by this interpretation; like Rugg and Shumaker, they ignore the empirical evidence and a variety of important historical facts.

15. See Bawden (1904), Coe (1903), DeGarmo (1901), Hall (1902), Horne (1904), and Thwing (1901).

16. See Knoll (1993).

17. See Null (2003).

18. See Cubberley (1909), DeGarmo (1908), Gilbert (1905), Gowen (1908), MacVannel (1912), Mann (1910), O’Shea (1906), and Small (1914).

19. See Bennett (1911), Maxwell (1905), and Suzallo (1909).

20. See Betts (1912), Litchfield (1908), and Patterson (1909).

21. See Bonser (1908), Butler (1906), Hanus (1913), Monroe (1913), and Noyes (1908).

22. This sentence is often quoted but, as I think, habitually misunderstood because it does not refer to Snedden’s narrow, utilitarian concept but to Bagley’s broad, liberal interpretation of social efficiency; see Kliebard (2002).

23. See, e.g. Kliebard (1986) and Spring (1972); Veysey (1965) is a notable exception.

24. See, e.g. Franklin (1986), and Kliebard (1986); Clifford (1984) is a notable exception.

25. See Davenport (1909) and Dean (1915).

26. Whereas Charters (1923: 5, 41) in his main work Curriculum Construction accepted ‘social efficiency’ as one of several educational ideals, Bobbitt (1918: 41) used the term in his landmark book The Curriculum only once, and then even without much sympathy.

27. See Null (2004).

28. Bagley (1914: 162) answered Snedden’s charge with these words: ‘Because “social efficiency”, for example, or “adaptability”, or “morality” are so broad as to make analysis difficult, it does not follow that they are unimportant or that we can replace them by narrower aims’. For a perceptive comparison of Bagley’s and Snedden’s concept of social efficiency, see Null (2003).

29. Horne (1932), Peterson (1987), Null (2004), and Hackman (2006) belong to the few educators and philosophers who pay attention to Dewey’s concept of social efficiency.

30. See Bonser (1920), Charters (1923), Coursault (1920), Cubberley (1933), Cummins (1920), Meriam (1920), Rugg and Shumaker (1928), Sears (1928), and Snedden (1922). Since the appearance of Krug’s (1964) book there has been an exhaustive debate about the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education’s (1918) report Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education and its chairman’s (Clarence D. Kingsley’s) affiliation to the social efficiency interest group. See, most recently, Herbst (1996), Wraga (1993, 2001), and Kliebard (2002). I want to point out that in his report Kingsley used the terms ‘efficiency’ and ‘vocational efficiency’ several times, but he did not once use the phrase ‘social efficiency’. This is the reason why I do not discuss the case here. It is my contention, however, that Kingsley was—despite his close personal relationship to Snedden—a proponent of the liberal and not of the utilitarian concept of education.

31. See Null (2004).

32. See, e.g. Franklin (1986), Kliebard (1986), and Ravitch (2000).

33. See, e.g. LeFeber and Vietorisz (2001), Slichter (1937: 437–439) and Haber (1964: ix–x).

34. Contrary to this quotation, Charles Eliot is often considered an adherent of Snedden’s utilitarian concept of social efficiency. See, e.g. Ravitch (2000) and Tozer et al. (1998).

35. See, e.g. Kliebard (1999), Reese (1986), and Wirth (1972).

36. See, e.g. Oelkers and Rhyn (2000).

37. See, e.g. Coriand and Winkler (1998).

38. See, e.g. Knoll (1993, 1997).