Growing Virtue Through Education

 

a Review of Norms and Nobility by David V. Hicks

One of the lesser-known cries of the Protestant Reformers was, “Ad fontes,” which means “back to the sources.” They were calling upon people to return to the writings of the Church Fathers when studying theology. The fathers were guides for many who were leading the Reformation at the time. Recently I decided to go back to a source that, while not ancient, was instrumental in the rise of the modern classical education movement: Norms and Nobility (1981), by David Hicks.

Some books allow for a quick reading and yield their insights without much effort. Not so with Norms and Nobility. Although short, it packs enough wisdom to require multiple, slow readings. Mr. Hicks’ thesis is simple: education will produce some kind of person. Whereas modern education produces utilitarian, empty souls; classical, Christian education aids the formation of virtuous souls. He believes the latter should be the intention of education, as it was in classical Greece, Rome, and the early Christian era. But modern education has abdicated that role in exchange for the diminished role of job preparation. In doing so we have failed the rising generation.

The prologue is a concise summary of the entire book. It contrasts modern education and its fruit with the older, holistic model of classical Christian education. One key element is the introduction of the concept of the “ideal man,” one who should act as a normative figure after whom students can pattern themselves. This is not just one actual person – more on that later – but a compilation of several. This ideal man is planted through the myths and stories of western civilization. Modern public education, on the other hand, has eliminated the ideal man from consideration, seeing it as too old, too European, etc. Students are left to pattern themselves after another standard, one not so admirable.

The first half of the book (The Idea of Classical Education) centers on the philosophical critique of modern education and its better, humane alternative. The first chapter emphasizes the need for virtue in learning and how virtue should be cultivated. The second chapter, “The Word of Truth,” was especially meaningful as it told of the necessity of myths that explain the origins of a people. These may be true or not, but they give reasons for why people do and act certain ways. He explains why we must have both myths and systematic knowledge of the world. We usually see the need for systematic knowledge, but myths give purpose to the information in which we find ourselves awash. He calls myth the “skeleton of civilization,” a powerful metaphor that carried a lot of weight. Modern education wants to separate myth from our character, studying them like bacteria in a petri dish and keeping them at arms length. A classical education gives credence to these stories and uses them to inform and critique us.

Chapter three, “The Tyrannizing Image,” presents an in-depth perspective on the ideal man and why modern schools are in rebellion to such an idea. Because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or form them in our own image, schools today refuse to hold of a virtuous man or woman as one to follow. But what they don’t know is that they are actually upholding another ideal man, one who seeks his own ends over the needs of others, who is free from moral obligations, and whose only standards owe their allegiance to mammon. We need to be rescued from our modern imprisonment to pleasure: that rescue can only happen when we see that there is a better ideal, one which we fall short of but which is attainable.

The next two chapters helpfully deal with our perspective on science and the need for teaching absolutes in education, both of which a presented clearly and effectively. Chapter seven, “Ennobling the Masses,” is the chapter I disagreed with the most. The author presents classical education as the only hope for preserving democratic society. Hicks sees it as the virtue-building element that can raise the underclass and moderate the upper class. He is not alone in this. The Founding Fathers, notably John Adams, argued for the necessity of virtue in our republic. He raises the common argument about classical education being only for the few and not the many. He answers by saying the stereotype is an ignoble lie propagated by those who prefer man to be taught as a machine rather than as a human being.

He also embraces Aristotle’s believe that it is the state’s job to inculcate paideia (educational and cultural virtue) and this responsibility demands a government-sponsored classical education. He then goes on to say that students should be taught “as if their souls’ salvation and civilization’s rested upon their stewardship.” I appreciate the emphasis of paideia, but treating it like the soul’s salvation depends on it is a bit much. The only hope of the soul’s salvation is found in Christ, not any form of education, no matter how high, noble, and virtuous. Further, the responsibility of paideia is given specifically to parents in Scripture, not the state. While the state should nurture the good in society, to rest the responsibility virtuous enculturation to the state is not realistic.

The last chapter of this portion attempts to rectify the difficult statements from the chapter on ennobling the masses, speaking of person of Christ as the true “ideal man.” It alleviated many of my concerns about the lofty aims from the previous chapter, but it doesn’t eliminate a larger concern I’ve had over the years.

The second portion of the book emphasizes the practical elements of the classical school, such as scheduling, curriculum, and the importance of teachers cultivating a culture of learning in the midst of teaching. While these chapters are appreciated, much of the content has been further elaborated in later books. Hicks summarizes his message in the epilogue. He says the attempts at reform in public education only treat symptoms, not the cause of the problem. The cause of the problems is that public education exists to produce rational, technologically informed test-takers. Instead he says we need education that prioritizes the formation of virtuous men and women who will not be led astray by their temporary whims or passions. His point is best summarized in one of the last sentences. “True learning is normative: it measures what is against what ought to be.”

Despite some disagreements, this book is deeply thought provoking. There is much gold in both Mr. Hicks prescriptions and critiques. It reminded me of reading G.K. Chesterton; almost on every page contains sentences that demand I stop and ponder their meaning. They forced me to ask what I should change in light of what I read. It was impossible to engage with this book and remain the same. I am grateful that after all these years, the ideas presented remain fresh and stimulating today as they certainly did forty years ago.