The Dang'an
In the first decades of the twentieth century, a small group of soon-to-be-famous academics, symbolically led by John Dewey and Edward Thorndike of Columbia Teachers College, Ellwood P. Cubberley of Stanford, G. Stanley Hall of Clark, and an ambitious handful of others, energized and financed by major corporate and financial allies like Morgan, Astor, Whitney, Carnegie, and Rockefeller, decided to bend government schooling to the service of business and the political state—as it had been done a century before in Prussia.
Cubberley delicately voiced what was happening this way: "the nature of the national need must determine the character of the education provided."[p.421] National need, of course, depends upon point of view. The NEA in 1930 sharpened our understanding by specifying in a resolution of its Department of Superintendence that what school served was an "effective use of capital" through which our "unprecedented wealth-producing power has been gained." When you look beyond the rhetoric of Left and Right, pronouncements like this mark the degree to which the organs of schooling had been transplanted into the corporate body of the new economy.
It’s important to keep in mind that no harm was meant by any designers or managers of this great project. It was only the law of nature as they perceived it, working progressively as capitalism itself did for the ultimate good of all. The real force behind school effort came from true believers of many persuasions, linked together mainly by their belief that family and church were retrograde institutions standing in the way of progress. Far beyond the myriad practical details and economic considerations there existed a kind of grail-quest, an idea capable of catching the imagination of dreamers and firing the blood of zealots.
The entire academic community here and abroad had been Darwinized and Galtonized by this time and to this contingent school seemed an instrument for managing evolutionary destiny. In Thorndike’s memorable words, conditions for controlled selective breeding had to be set up before the new American industrial proletariat "took things into their own hands."1
America was a frustrating petri dish in which to cultivate a managerial revolution, however, because of its historic freedom traditions. But thanks to the patronage of important men and institutions, a group of academics were enabled to visit mainland China to launch a modernization project known as the "New Thought Tide." Dewey himself lived in China for two years where pedagogical theories were inculcated in the Young Turk elements, then tested on a bewildered population which had recently been stripped of its ancient form of governance.2 A similar process was embedded in the new Russian state during the 1920s.3
While American public opinion was unaware of this undertaking, some big-city school superintendents were wise to the fact that they were part of a global experiment. Listen to H.B. Wilson, superintendent of the Topeka schools:
The introduction of the American school into the Orient has broken up forty centuries of conservatism. It has given us a new China, a new Japan, and is working marked progress in Turkey and the Philippines. The schools [...] are in position to determine the lines of progress.[p.20 →]
Thoughts like this don’t spring full-blown from the heads of men like Dr. Wilson of Topeka. They have to be planted there.
The Western-inspired and Western-financed Chinese revolution, following hard on the heels of the last desperate attempt by China to prevent the British government traffic in narcotic drugs there, placed that ancient province in a favorable state of anarchy for laboratory tests of mind-alteration technology. Out of this period rose a Chinese universal tracking procedure called "The Dang'an," a continuous lifelong personnel file exposing every student’s intimate life history from birth through school and onwards. The Dang'an constituted the ultimate overthrow of privacy. Today, nobody works in China without a Dang'an.
By the mid-1960s preliminary work on an American Dang'an was underway as information reservoirs attached to the school institution began to store personal information. A new class of expert like Ralph Tyler of the Carnegie Endowments quietly began to urge collection of personal data from students and its unification in computer code to enhance cross-referencing. Surreptitious data gathering was justified by Tyler as "the moral right of institutions."4
- [Hazard]
Thorndike's essay Eugenics: With Special Reference to Intellect and Character is good illustration of what was fairly standard for many academics of the day.↩
- [Hazard]
While Dewey made a huge impact on the intellectuals and cultural leaders in China, it seems like the country was in too much chaos for much of that impact to translate into systematic changes in education. The Dewey Experiment in China goes more in depth into this.↩
- [Hazard]
This case is quite hilarious to me. Across the 20's the Soviet leadership pushed progressive education methodology quite forcefully, with teachers, parents, and children largely responding with "what is this bullshit?" Some excerpts:
Teachers were, for the most part, completely bewildered. The primary-school teachers knew how to teach reading, writing and arithmetic, but they had never heard of Dewey, never read Marx, and had absolutely no idea of what the GUS methodologists were talking about. Narkompros had provided them with three headings (Nature, Labour, Society), and a number of suggested themes (‘Man’, “The Steamboat as a Form of Transportation’, “Sheep’, ‘Successes of Agriculture’, ‘Day of the Female Worker’, ‘First of May’, etc.) which were extremely difficult to fit into any logical sequence. The teachers had also been told that the school should abandon academic for activity methods, but they did not really know what these were — not surprisingly, since it was a question hotly debated in Narkompros itself.[p.34 →]
And some others:
Schoolchildren and their parents were also unhappy with the progressive school. Peasants complained that the school was not carrying out its basic function of teaching children to read, write and count: growing vegetables and breeding rabbits, the peasants reasoned, was something they could teach their children themselves and was not the business of the school. A letter in the teachers’ newspaper noted that ‘children, under the influence of their elders, are demanding that we do more work with them on arithmetic, writing, reading and so on. They work willingly on these subjects, and grumble when we work with them through any of the GUS themes. We are boring the pupil with monotonous material.’[p.48 →]
This spread through all tiers of education, and eventually the realities of not teaching academic materials started to catch up with them:
industry remained relatively satisfied with its VTUZy until after the summer of 1931, when the first large batch of First Five-Year Plan engineering students (including the first of the Thousanders) graduated. This satisfaction was quickly dispelled in the following months, as a stream of complaints came in about the quality of the new engineers. One type of complaint — coming from the young engineers themselves, and strongly supported by the former professors — was that they lacked basic theoretical grounding in such subjects as mechanics, physics and mathematics. The other type, coming from the enterprises, was that the graduates lacked ‘production skills’. This came as a particular shock, considering the 1:1 ratio established in the VTUZy between theoretical and practical work.[p.231 →]
By 1932 the Soviets were rolling back the changes they'd made, keeping some of the miscellaneous indoctrination methodologies present in progressive education, but dropping the part where you try to stop teaching people anything of substance.↩
- [Hazard]
I believe Gatto is working with a threat model of schools and bureaucracies that treats them as "lawful evil", where I think that they are actually chaotic evil masquerading as lawful evil, an idea I've written about here.↩