Nelson, Adam R. (2001). Education and Democracy: The Meaning of Alexander Meiklejohn 1872-1964. Reviewed by Jinting Wu, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Nelson, Adam R. (2001). Education and Democracy: The Meaning of Alexander Meiklejohn 1872-1964. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Pp. xix + 416 $34.95   ISBN 0-299-17140-X Reviewed by Jinting Wu University of Wisconsin, Madison August 6, 2006 An important book that rediscovered a rare figure in the history of American higher education, Adam Nelson’s Education and Democracy: the Meaning of Alexander Meiklejohn 1872-1964 spans almost a century to delineate the contours of the life of a man, a real champion of freedom, a philosopher but not a pragmatist, who set out to discover the meaning of democracy, who weathered defeats yet never compromised his aspiration, who took faith in the inestimable virtues of human spirit, who traveled a difficult path with unshakable optimism, and who strived for, above anything else, the rejuvenation of a liberal education and democratic unity. Books on democratic ideals are many. This one stands out from the rest because firstly it is a biography of a man who had so much to contribute to the pursuit of democratic education yet whose idealism had been unduly dimmed by the boisterous quest for pragmatism and empiricism. Secondly, unlike many works on democracy authored by political or social scientists, this book was written by a historian who is well versed in philosophy and intellectual history and who is acting fundamentally democratically through documenting the life of a neglected figure and bringing diversity to an era of profound intellectual conversation. What is especially compelling about this book is its eloquence and grace in illuminating intricacies of philosophical debates. Precisely because of the intellectual nature of this biography, this book review will focus its analysis through an intellectual lens. Following chronologically the four most significant places in Meiklejohn’s life—Providence, Amherst, Madison, and Berkeley—Nelson illustrates the evolution of Meiklejohn’s intellectual philosophy through his identities as Dean of Brown University, President of Amherst College, Director of the Experimental College at UW-Madison, founder of the San Francisco School of Social Studies for adult education, and not the least, absolutist interpreter of the First Amendment. Nelson’s vivid narration and descriptive language renders a dynamic portrait of Meiklejohn’s career as well as the visceral experience of his democratic endeavors. Growing up in a working-class family that actively engaged in the practice of social and economic cooperation, Meiklejohn developed early in life an enthusiastic interest in democracy. College life at Brown solidified his philosophical foundation in Kantianism that upheld unity of mind and matter and supremacy of intellectual reasoning. In an age deeply entrenched in empiricism that downplayed human nature, the belief in the intrinsic divinity of human mind set Meiklejohn apart from the mainstream intellectuals and presaged his deep disagreements with Deweyanism in his later life. Meiklejohn’s academic prominence as well as personal charisma earned him the much-coveted position of dean at his alma mater. No sooner had he embarked on this new career than Meiklejohn set out to foster a democratic community, his first experiment in the practice of democratic education. He tested his faith in student self-government and outlined his theory of democratic education. Despite the mounting criticism among his colleagues towards campus athletic controversies and students’ disciplinary problems, Meiklejohn remained firm in his belief that the institution of democratic education should teach youth how to abide by moral principles and strive for a common cause by allowing them to run their own affairs autonomously. Departing Brown, Meiklejohn assumed the presidency of Amherst College to start a new phase of his democratic experiment. He called for intellectual reconstruction of the stagnating college, berated its elective system, introduced the idea of student council to help with college governance, and upheld the critical intellectual purpose of a liberal education. He set his heart on curriculum reform and faculty change and ushered in the use of classic texts to achieve intellectual unity and moral integrity. Yet his endeavor was severely undermined by the imminence of World War I. Staunchly opposed to students being enlisted for war, Meiklejohn invited bitter criticism and found himself in profound difficulty to keep his liberal college intact. And yet, he remained true to his ideals that a liberal college must be set apart from its culture, detached from worldly affairs in order to be critical and unbiased, and dedicated to the highest truth, virtue, and democratic ideals. However, Meiklejohn’s drastic reform and vision of a liberal democratic college did not appeal to his tradition-bound dogmatic faculty, and the deep animosity between them caused a turmoil in his professional life and ended in his dismissal. Nonetheless, Meiklejohn remained unscathed by the defeat and pushed forward to spearhead a new experiment at UW-Madison. The Experimental College, a college within a university, stimulated intellectual enthusiasm and self-government, created a residential hall to host students and advisors alike in a tight-knit community, and used the Great Books curriculum to teach students how to teach themselves. However, The Experimental College’s structural isolation from the rest of the university and emotional schism from the ethos of contemporary society foretold its early ending. Situating the Experimental College in its historical context—an age of economic disintegration, cultural decadence, and spiritual depletion—Nelson painted an enthralling picture of Meikejohn’s failing battle to keep moral degradation and anomie at bay. Assured of the rectitude of his democratic ideals, Meiklejohn moved westward and founded an Adult Education School in San Francisco. Using Socratic teaching and the Great Books, this community-based democratic education model trained adult workers in the critical deliberation of common social problems as well as practical methods of labor organizing. Central to Meiklejohn’s democratic ideal was the art of thinking independently yet collectively. In deliberation of controversial issues, Meiklejohn asserted, teachers could not, and should not, take neutral positions because they were in their own ways forming conclusions about these controversies. If Nelson had taken Meiklejohn’s argument a step further, he probably would also agree that by pretending political neutrality teachers commit a moral crime of insincerity and betray the very principle of democratic teaching. The termination of his San Francisco School coupled with the rise of Fascism in Europe and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor spurred Meiklejohn to explore the role of state authority in democratic education. Fascinated by the duality of personal autonomy and state authority, individual freedom and collective order, Meiklejohn saw state as the primary embodiment and safeguard of individual rights. Setting himself apart from the Renaissance rhetoric that human beings were created equal with inalienable rights, Meiklejohn asserted, rather, these rights were formless, embryonic and did not exist until the inception of an authoritative body—the state. The belief that the state rather than God is the creator of humanity and civilization encapsulates Meiklejohn’s political and educational philosophy. His state-centered philosophy invited outrage and assaults especially from Dewey's followers. However authoritarian and oppressive his ideology might have seemed, Meiklejohn did not depart fundamentally from Dewey, for his state had none of the character of a dictatorship, but rather it was a collective body of both ethical principles and effective governance, that is, a moral teacher that synthesizes different perspectives into solidarity and advances collective decisions to safeguard individual freedom. It was the reconciliation of individual freedom and state governance, however contradictory the two seemed seemed, that Meiklejohn worked keenly to achieve. Throughout his professional career, Meiklejohn remained steadfast in his tireless battle for free speech, which was epitomized in his absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment. To Meiklejohn, subscription to political parties, even those with allegedly subversive purposes such as Communism, should not be denied individuals, for a climate of suppression would only jeopardize the integrity of democratic living. Precisely by allowing free expression of conflicting advocacies and ideologies would Americans acquire the capacity to think, decide, and govern themselves cooperatively. As the name of the book suggests, Nelson intended a comparison between Meiklejohn and his much more widely known contemporary, John Dewey, whose work is epitomized in the book Democracy and Education. While both embraced freedom and a liberal democratic education, Meiklejohn and Dewey as intellectual rivals were deeply divided in their philosophies and embarked on vastly different journeys to achieve democracy. Firstly, they defined public differently. To Dewey, the public was generated from numerous personal interests, and therefore, was utilitarian. Meiklejohn’s public, however, was the outgrowth of collective reasoning, and therefore, was deeply ethical. Secondly, while Dewey upheld empiricism and emphasized experiential learning, Meiklejohn was essentially idealistic and stressed the Great Books curriculum and the study of classic texts. While Dewey advocated learning by doing, Meiklejohn saw great value in meaningful deliberation to achieve moral integrity. As Deweyan pragmatists relentlessly sought scientific interpretation of human behaviors, so did Meiklejohn in his indefatigable striving for the unity between empirical facts and moral values. Well versed in Kant’s epistemological idealism, Meiklejohn embraced wholeheartedly the complementarity of mind and matter and the transcendental power of pure reasoning in fostering empathetic brotherhood. The debates between Meiklejohn and Dewey were indeed nuanced and intricate. With elegance and clarity, Nelson renders the presentation of their philosophical discourse both penetrating and illuminating. Bringing education and democracy into sharp focus, Nelson has wisely called our attention to a symbolic yet controversy-laden man, who tried tenaciously to settle a dispute concerning the meaning of democracy, and whose vigor and quality of mind had so much to teach us in our own search for a democratic and just society. Meiklejohn dreamed of a world governed by moral principles, unfettered by prejudice and dogmatism, and above all, a world of intellectual unity whose members deliberate independently together. A fervent Kantian believer in the power of transcendental reasoning, Meiklejohn turned to philosophy for resilience and elegance at times of trials and tribulations. In his quest for spirituality, philosophy had done for him what religion had done for many others: it helped him to achieve genuine connections between the present and the transcendental, the trivial and the grand, the physical and the spiritual, and the individual and the universal. Indeed, the journey Meiklejohn had chosen was a difficult one; even to this day, the dilemmas that confronted him continue to plague those who ardently strive for the rejuvenation of American democracy and liberal education. A book of meaningful purpose, carefully researched and cogently argued, eloquently written, light-heartedly philosophical and passionate, Adam Nelson’s Education and Democracy: the Meaning of Alexander Meiklejohn 1872-1964 brings history alive. Readable and vivid, even for readers outside the academic sphere, this book defies the abstruseness and aloofness of too much academic writing and has the power of mounting enthusiasm after the first few glances. On the other hand, the book sometimes dives, unnecessarily, too deep into the intellectual debates and contradictions and may perplex readers who are unacquainted with the convoluted metaphysical discourse. For instance, Meiklejohn at one point stated that freedom was prepolitical, for only freedom of speech and deliberation could bring about collective aspiration and unity, the very essence of democracy; at another occasion he asserted that freedom could not exist without the formation of a state which granted and safeguarded such a right, and therefore was postpolitical. The reader might have a legitimate interest in Meiklejohn’s personal life, yet Nelson’s rendering of his professional life falls short of satisfying such a query. To do so will entail an oral history of sorts and require yet another research project. As Nelson stated at the outset, his goal, rather than offering a complete chronicle of Meiklejohn’s life, is to allow Meikeljohn to speak for himself. In so doing, as well as for putting Meiklejohn into meaningful conversations with his most prominent protagonist, John Dewey, Nelson has done well. About the Reviewer Jinting Wu Department of Educational Policy Studies University of Wisconsin-Madison 1000 Bascom Mall 500 Lincoln Drive Madison, WI 53706 Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.