INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS SOCIALISM IN AMERICAN EDUCATION: REREADING MORTIMER ADLER AND THE PAIDEIA PROPOSAL Burton Weltman Department of Secondary and Middle School Education William Paterson University ‘REDEFINING THE EDUCATIONAL DEBATE The 1980s were a decade of intense educational debatein the United States. With the conservative Ronald Reagan as President, the federal government issued a seminal report in 1983, A Nation at Risk, claiming that American schools had become too lax and liberal, and proposing more rigorous and exacting educational standards.’ Liberal educators responded with reports claiming that American schools were too rigid and traditional, and proposing their liberalization.’ The ensuing debate rehashed many of the arguments that conservative and liberal educators had been making repeatedly during the twentieth century. Educational positions first sketched in the early 1900s, and battle lines drawn in the 1920s, continued almost unchanged as the century came to a close On curriculum issues, perennialists continued to mourn the death of the classics, while essentialists complained about the demise of the academic disci- plines, and progressives fretted that their interdisciplinary problem-solving approach hadneverbeen given a fair chance.*In pedagogy, traditionalists continued to promote rote teaching methods as a means of transmitting the dominant culture from one generation to the next, while modernists emphasized the mastery of basic skills for academic success, and progressives promoted critical thinking skills for making social change At the same time, liberals and conservatives continued to spar over access to education. Although secondary education had become virtually universal by the LDP. Gardner, ed, A Nation at Risk (Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Excellence, 1983) 2. Emest Boyer, High School New York: Harper and Row, 1983}, John Goodlad, Place Called School(New York: MeGraw Hill, 1984), and Theodore Sizer, orace's Compromise (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984), 3. R.L. Church and M.W. Sedlak, Education in the United States (New York: Free Press, 1976), Herbert Klicbard, The Struggle for the American Curriculum (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986), and Daniel, Tanner and Laurel Tanner, Curriculum Development (New York: Macmillan, 1980). 4. William J. Bennett, To Reclaim a Legacy (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Humanities, 1984}, William J. Bennett, The War Over Culture (Washington, D.C: Heritage Foundation, 1991), Diane Ravitch, The Schools We Deserve [New York: Basic Books, 1985), and Larry Cuban, “History of Teaching in Social Seudies," in Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning, e. James Shaver (New York: Macmillan, 1991). 5. ED. Hirsch, Cultural Literacy |New York: Random House, 1987), M.C. Hunter, “What's Wrong With Madeline Hunter?" Educational Leadership 42 (February 1985]: 57-60, MC. Hunter, "Beyond Rereading Dewey,” Educational Leadership 44 [february 1987}: 51-53, and Shirley Engle and Anna Ochoa, Education for Democratic Citizenship (New York: Teachers College Press, 1988} EDUCATIONAL THEORY / Winter 2002 / Volume 52 | Number 1 ‘© 2002 Board of Trustees / University of Illinois 6162 EDUCATIONAL THEORY Wavrer 2002 / Vouume 52./ Nuwar 1 1950s, conservative educators were still questioning it in the 1980s.° Many conser- vatives were also concerned that college attendance was on the way to becoming universal. They complained that educational standards had been compromised by mass secondary and college education, and that the value of a high school diploma and college degree had been denigrated. They called for raising educational standards and developing high stakes standardized tests, proposals that both proponents and opponents saw as an attempt to cut back on the number and percentage of students ‘who graduated from high school and attended college.” In the midst of these recurrent disputes, Mortimer Adler attempted to break ‘what he saw as intellectual gridlock by redefining the terms of the educational debate, While acknowledging the importance of curricular and methodological issues, Adler tried to refocus the debate on the goals of a democratic education and to convince the debaters that socialism should be their overriding educational goal. Arguing that democracy and socialism are “Siamese twins,” and that you cannot fully develop one without the other, Adler broadly defined socialism in terms essentially similar to John Dewey's description of democracy as “a mode of associ- ated living.”* Like Dewey and many early twentieth century reformers, for whom democracy and socialism were “the antonym of competitive individualism,” demo- ctatic socialism was for Adler not merely a social and economic system but a moral imperative.’ And, like Dewey, Adler hoped to help build a cooperative society in which the American ideal of e pluribus unum would become a functioning reality. ‘Adler was convinced that socialism had become “the common sense of politics” in the late twentieth century, and believed that socialism could provide a unifying ideology for reformers secking to resolve the social and educational conundrums of modern society."" Socialism should appeal to both cultural conservatives concerned with what they saw as the breakdown of cohesion in American society, and political liberals concerned with social and economic justice. Socialism should also appeal to both conservatives concerned with maintaining a common, core educational sys- tem, and liberals concerned with equalizing educational opportunities and results. 6 Neil Fenske, A History of American Public High Schools, 1890-1990 Lewiston, N.¥.: Edwin Mellon Pross, 1997], 180-81 7. Ann Bastian ef. al, Choosing Equality (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986) and Ravitch, The Schools We Deserve, 33, 71 8. MJ. Adler, Haves Without Have-Nots: Essays forthe Twenty first Century on Democracy and Socialism [New York: Macmillan, 1991}, x. This book will be cited as HWH in the text for all subsequent references. John Dewey, Democracy and Education (1916; reprint, Boston: Free Press, 1944}, 86. 9. Daniel Rogers, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998}, 100, 10. MJ. Adlet, The Common Sense of Politics (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971) and MJ. ‘Adler, Desites Right and Wrong (New York: Macmillan, 1991), 122. These books will be cited as CSP and DRW, respectively, in the text for all subsequent references, BURTON WELTMAN is Assistant Professor in the Department of Secondary and Middle School Education at William Paterson University, 300 Pompton Road, Wayne, NJ07470. His primary areas of scholarship are intellectual history of education and educational reform, and educational theory.Werrwan Adler and The Paideia Proposal 63 Opining that “In the next century, it is to be hoped that democracy and socialism together will reign triumphant,” Adler sought to build a coalition of educational ideas and reformers around the theme of socialism versus individualism in education (DRW, 85). Toward this end, Adler brought together a group of prominent educators representing a spectrum of educational views. The group included devotees of the classics such as Jacques Barzun and Charles Van Doren, proponents of the academic disciplines such as Dennis Gray, and erstwhile progressives such as Theodore Sizer and Ernest Boyer. The product of their deliberations was The Paideia Proposal, a manifesto in favor of replacing the individualistic bias in American education with a socialist perspective.’ The Paideia Proposal differed from most educational proposals of the day in that it focused on the social implications of the curriculum, the social effects of different methodologies, and the social value of educational achievement, rather than on individual instruction and success. Promoting the seminar as his educational model, Adler's pedagogical proposals emphasized cooperative learning in which the intel- lectual development of each student depends on the development of the others, and the quality of the individual's learning depends on the quality of the whole group discussion. Instead of defining academic success in terms of one student's competi- tive advantage over the others (an educational model that he complained was being institutionalized through standardized testing], Adlerredefined educational achieve- ment in terms of how students relate to each other and their world, or what has been called “democratic egalitarianism.” And, instead of dealing solely with schools, Adler stressed the need for greater economic equality, social security, and moral authority, which he insisted are necessary prerequisites for a democratic educational system. The book summarizes in eighty-five pages an elegantly simple plan for reforming public education in America that is both visionary and specific, and that was intended as a challenge to educators to abandon their individualistic ideologies for a thoroughgoing socialism. The Paideia Proposal was an instant sensation, reviewed by over forty major newspapers and journals within months of its publication, and the subject of a major symposium in the Harvard Educational Review." Adler became a media celebrity, frequently appearing on national and local television and radio to explain his ideas." His was pethaps the most widely discussed proposal of the decade but also possibly the most widely misunderstood, for, much to Adler's chagrin, his socialist intentions went generally unnoticed, and his call to redefine the educational debate unheeded. ‘The book is still frequently used in teacher education courses and the Paideia Group, 11. MJ. Adler, The Paideia Proposal (New You text for all subsequent references. 12. Francis Schrag, “From Here to Equality,” Educational Theory $1, no. 1 (Winter 2001); 63-73. 13. Harvard Educational Review 53, 54 (1983): 377-411. 14, MJ.Adler, A Second Look in the Rearview Mirror (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 194.98, This book will, be cited as ASL in the text for all subsequent references. ‘Macmillan, 1982), This book will be eited as TPP in the64 EDUCATIONAL THEORY Waster 2002 / Vorune 52./ Numer 1 Inc., anonprofit organization, continues to promote some of the teaching techniques in the proposal, In addition, some schools have tried implementing bits and pieces of the proposal with varying amounts of success."* But the initial public enthusiasm for The Paideia Proposal never coalesced into a significant educational movement. ‘What was intended as a latter day version of George Counts's Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order! had seemingly become just another footnote from a decade full of reports, while the educational debate continued on its same course.”” This article is an attempt to revive interest in The Paideia Proposal and the debate Adler proposed in the book. Toward that end, I will examine the intellectual road that led Adler to socialism and reexamine ‘The Paideia Proposal in light of ‘Adler's socialist views. Adler's intellectual biography poses a challenge to intellec- tuals. In turn, The Paideia Proposal remains a challenge to educators that has not yet been met, and an opportunity that may perhaps still be taken. ReperINING MorTiMER ADLER ‘Mortimer Adler, who died during the summer of 2001 at the age of ninety-eight, was America’s oldest, wealthiest, most famous, and most prolific philosopher." Born in 1902 to immigrant Jewish parents in New York City, he was best known as an advocate of Aristotelian philosophy and “The Great Books.” During the first half of the twentieth century, Adler was a political reactionary and educational perennialist, virulently opposing pragmatism in philosophy, progressivism in education, andJohn Dewey in all things. A champion of medieval culture and feudal society during the 1930s, he condemned progressivism as worse than fascism and Dewey as more dangerous than Hitler.” To the present day, Adler is generally characterized in political and educational terms derived from his early days as an archconservative.® But this characterization is not accurate, Adler changed significantly in the half century after World War II. During the 1950s, Adler first transformed himself from feudal reactionary into pro-capitalist liberal. Then, in the 1970s, he became a democratic socialist, making his peace with Dewey in the process. From that time, ‘Adler was an erstwhile radical, ardently working toward “a future in which the ideals of democracy and socialism will be more fully realized” (ASL, 261-62) 15, Genevieve Amold, Alice Hart, and Karen Campbell, “Introducing the Wednesday Revolution," Educational Leadership 45 (April 1988): 48, C.M. Gettys and Anne Wheelock, “Launching Paideia in Chattanooga,” Educational Leadership 52 (September 1994]: 12-15. 16... Pulliam and JJ. Van Patten, History of Education in America (Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Merrill, 1999), 248. 17, George Counts, Daze the Schools Build a New Social Ordert (Carbondale: Souther Illinois University Press, 1932}, 190. 18, William Grimes, “Mortimer Adler, 98, Dies,” The New York Times, CL, 51,799, 29 June 2001; Michael ‘Novak, “Review of the Book Haves Without Have-Nots,” The Christian Century 109 (Apr 1992):435; and Ralph Melnemy, "Adler on Freedom," in Adler, A Second Look in the Rearview Mirror, 255, 19. MJ. Adler, Philosopher at Large [New York: Macmillan, 1977), 175. This book will be cited as PAL in the text for all subsequent references. Sidney Hook, Out of Step (New York: Harper and Row, 1987], 336. 20. Christopher Lucas, American Higher Education, A History (New York: St. Martins Press, 1994), 296and Pullman and Van Patten, History of Education in America, 235.Wursan Adler and The Paideta Proposal 65 ‘Moving from feudalism to capitalism to socialism, Adler’s career was tumultu- ous and full of abrupt changes. His ultimate conversion to socialism was, nonethe- less, in many ways consistent with his intellectual roots, which Adler said lay in the works of John Stuart Mill, John Erskine, Robert Hutchins, and Jacques Maritain (PAL, 293, ASL, 240, 288}. These four mentors are best known as proponents of the classics, especially Aristotle — views Adler drew upon during the first half of his career. His four mentors are less well known for their commitments to democratic socialism, themes that Adler drew upon during the second half of his life and that inform The Paideia Proposal. Mill was a nineteenth-century political philosopher best known for his defense of individual liberty." He is also known for elitist proposals to weight citizens’ votes according to their educational attainments and his belief that “the moral and intellectual ascendancy once exercised by priests must in time pass into the hands of philosophers.” But Mill eventually changed his views and became a staunch advocate of democratic socialism Adler's career has essentially replicated Mill’s intellectual journey from classicism to capitalism to socialism, and from elitism to popular democracy (HWH, 110}. Erskine, a poet and literature professor, was Adler's mentor at Columbia during the 1920s when Adler was an undergraduate student, graduate student, and lecturer. Erskine is widely known as the inventor of the Great Books course (ASL, 63). He is usually portrayed as a beleaguered classicist who developed the Great Books course as an antidote to the elective system that was undermining classical studies in American universities (PAL, 31). Erskine, however, told a different story. He described himself as a liberal activist appalled at the worshipful attitude toward the classics and the conservative political opinions that were taught through the classics in most college courses. Erskine envisioned his Great Books course as an antidote to the traditional classical curriculum, attempting to demystify the Great Books and encourage students to question established authority: “I wanted the boys to read great books, the best sellers of ancient times, as spontaneously and humanly as they would read current best sellers, and having read the books, I wanted them to form their opinions at once in a free-for-all discussion.’ Erskine hoped that his course would promote a liberal and multicultural perspective on American society of the sort that Adler eventually promoted in his socialist phase.”* Hutchins, who was President of the University of Chicago when Adler worked there during the 1930s, is best known among educators for his vigorous defense of the perennialist curriculum. In a virulent debate with both essentialists led by Harry 21. JS. Mill, Essay on Liberty (1859; reprint, New York: Macmillan, 19471, 56. 22. JS. Mill, Considerations of Representative Government (1861; reprint, New York: Macmillan, 1947), 217 and}.S, Mill, Autobiography |1873; reprint, New York: Bobbs Merrill, 1957}, 136. 23.].S. Mill, Socialism (New York: Humboldt, 1891) 24, See also MJ. Adler and Walter Farrell, “The Theory of Democracy," The Thonnist 3 (1941) 435, 25, John Erskine, The Memory of Certain Persons (New York: Lippincott, 1947), 342-43. 26. John Erskine, American Character and Other Essays (New York: Chautauqua Press, 19271, 10.66 EDUCATIONAL THEORY ‘Worer 2002 / Vowume 52 / Nuvaen 1 Gideonese and progressives led by John Dewey, each side accused the other two of elitism and authoritarianism.”” Hutchins was also a lifelong campaigner for liberties, international peace, and social democracy, causes that Adler later championed.* Jacques Maritain is best known as a leader of the revival of the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas during the 1930s.” He was a brilliant Catholic theologian who attempted to make Scholasticism modern and to democratize Catholic philoso- phy during the 1940s.” Promoting Aristotle's humanism as a social democratic alternative to the totalitarianism of fascism and Communism, Maritain advocated cooperative methods of organizing society and solving problems, positions that Adler adopted in the 1970s." In sum, there was continuity as well as change in Adler’s intellectual life. His, career was characterized by a persistent rejection of institutional authority, on the one hand, and intellectual anarchy, on the other. Adler showed little respect for titles, offices, positions, and bureaucratic hierarchies. There was an anarchic streak in his personality and social thought, which is one reason he had trouble staying a conservative. At the same time, Adler had no tolerance for error and although he gradually became willing to admit that there may be more than one right answer to some questions, he was appalled by what he saw as the modern idea that anybody's answer has to be respected. Initially believing that pragmatic relativism was the equivalent of nihilism, he condemned liberals as nihilists and became a conserva- tive. He tured to socialism when he came to believe that political and cultural relativism may actually promote social and moral cohesion. ‘Throughout his many changes, Adler promoted concepts of moral authority and orderly intellectual growth. He believed that there is Good, or at least Better, and he passionately believed that peace and justice on earth are possible. He initially thought that he had found the ideal moral authority in conservative dogmas but later found a better version in socialist cooperation. Adler consistently held that know!- edge is a social structure that people build together, and he rejected Great Man theories of knowledge and history, Adler’s intellectual models were the syllogism, which epitomized orderly intellectual development, and the seminar, which repre- sented people cooperating to develop common answers to common questions, rather 237 Robert Hutchins, The Higher Learning in America|New Haven: Yale University ress, 1996), 19; Robert Hutchins, "Grammar, Rhetoric, and Mr. Dewey,” The Social Frontier 3, no. 23 {1937}. 137-39; Harry Gideonese, The Higher Learning in a Democracy (New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1937}, 1, 30;John Dewey, “Rationality in Education” The Social Frontier 3, no. 21 {1936}: 71-73; John Dewey, “The Higher Learning in America,” The Social Frontier 3, no.24 19371: 167-69, and john Dewey, “Education and Social Change,” ‘The Social Frontier 3, no. 26 (1937): 235-36. 28, M.A. Dzuback, “Hutchins, Adler, and the University of Chicago,” American Journal of Education [November 1990); 57-73, Edward Shils, “Robert Maynard Hutchins,” American Scholar 59, no. 21990}: 211-238, 29, Julian Marias, History of Philosophy (New York: Dover, 1967}, 174. 30. Hook, Out of Step, 335. 31. Jacques Maritain, Scholasticism and Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1940), 21-22; Jacques Maritain, ‘The Twilight of Civillzation (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1943), 5, and Jacques Maritain, Christianity and Democracy (London: Centenary Press, 1945)Wevtwan, Adler and The Paideia Proposal 67 than individuals coming up with their own truths on theirown. The Paideia Proposal is a reflection of these models and the culmination of his intellectual career, FINDING A Fir FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL Miserr Adler spent much of his early life fighting educational institutions and institu- tional authorities, and these experiences influenced his later educational proposals, ‘Adler's childhood was a struggle and, despite having a mother who was a school- teacher, he was a poor student. Unable to tolerate the regimentation of schooling, he dropped out of high school at the age of fourteen and took a menial office job. Lacking much in the way of social and economic resources, this could have been the end of ‘Adler's academic career. But about a year later, someone gave him a copy of John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography. Casually perusing the book, Adler was awestruck that Mill had been reading Greek classics at the age of three. Mill’s example fired Adler's intellectual ambition. He decided he wanted to be a philosopher, took evening courses at Columbia University, and was eventually accepted as a full-time student (PAL, 1-2). As a young man, Adler took good fortune as his due, an arrogance that was reflected in his academic career. At Columbia, Adler was recognized as a brilliant student of philosophy but a difficult person, almost perverse in his opposition to institutional norms. Initially interested in pragmatism, the predominant philosophy at Columbia, Adler developed an antagonism to pragmatism and to Dewey, the predominant philosopher at Columbia, that was as much personal as philosophical. Dewey's preeminence seemed to gall Adler, almost as an obstacle to Adler's own ego. ‘Adler began publicly and personally attacking Dewey to the point that the mild- mannered philosopher eventually asked Adler to stop speaking out in class because, as Adler later admitted and regretted, Adler was so hostile as to be disruptive (PAL, 21, 24, 28, 38, 48). ‘Adler's arrogance similarly led him to refuse to take a required physical education course that he deemed useless and, as a result, he never received a bachelor’s degree. Undaunted, Adler applied to the graduate program in philosophy at Columbia, but was rejected. He was accepted in the psychology program and eventually earned a Ph.D. in social psychology. Scornful of the program, Adler based his doctoral thesis on an experimental methodology that, he later confessed, he copied from someone else and on empirical data that he hired someone else to compile. Typical of Adler's attitude during this period, although the evidence in his dissertation did not support his hypotheses, Adler blithely concluded that his hypotheses were correct despite the evidence (PAL, 123; ASL, 13). Adler's institutional problems continued into his working career. Despite persistent efforts, he was never able to get a full-time job teaching philosophy at a 32.MJ. Adler, The Four Dimensions of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1993}, ix This book willbe cited 25 FDP in the text forall subsequent references, 33. MJ. Adler, Music Appreciation [New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co., 1929], 46, 54, 76, 8168 EDUCATIONAL THEORY Wovrex 2002 / Vorums 52./ Nunasr 1 university and was never afforded much respect by academic philosophers (ASL, 238- 39), He taught for several years as a part-time instructor in the philosophy depart- ment at Columbia, but was rejected for a full-time position. He was similarly denied a position in the philosophy department of the University of Chicago and taught in the Law School instead {PAL, 73]. At Chicago, Adler joined Robert Hutchins in an assault on the positivist philosophy that formed the institutional ethos of the University, and in an effort to convert the undergraduate college to a Great Books curriculum. They failed in their intended efforts, and succeeded only in alienating almost the entire faculty and precipitating a decade of turmoil in the institution (PAL, 147) Leaving the University of Chicago in the late 1940s, Adler took advantage of business connections he had made at the University and began teaching seminars on the classics for wealthy business executives and their wives in the Chicago suburbs. One of his students, General Robert Wood, the Chairman of Sears, Roebuck and Company and owner of The Encyclopedia Britannica, was taken with Adler. Adler subsequently achieved fame and fortune during the 1950s and 1960sas the editor first of The Great Books published by the Encyclopedia Britannica Company, then of the Encyclopedia Britannica itself, and finally as an entrepreneur of Great Books discussion groups (PAL, 196, 230-40, 249, 260). Rejected by academia, Adler rejected academics. He developed, instead, a public philosophy and an audience for philoso- phy among the public. DEFINING A PHTLosoPHY FoR THE Common MAN ‘Adler's philosophy is above all else a moral philosophy and a search for moral authority. His basic concern was in defining what is human and how humans should live. Despite all of Adler's ideological changes, four key overlapping themes run through his philosophy. The first is the superiority of thought over experience. While thought is triggered by experience, truth for Adler was based on thought alone, not on experience.** The second theme is the superiority of intellectual pursuits over all others. While reflection is triggered by action, reflection is the goal of action. For Adler, the unexamined life has been only half-lived and the better half has been missed (WMM, 107; DRW, 22, 83). The third theme is the superiority of philosophy over all other intellectual pursuits. Humans, Adler said, are seemingly the only creatures who engage in philosophy and it is doing so that makes one truly human (WMM, 130, 139|2° And the fourth theme is the self-evident nature of philosophical truth. “The essential logic of philosophical thought is circular,” Adler claimed.” Unlike the relativistic social and physical sciences, which deal with hypotheses that 434. Dauback, “Hutchins, Adler, and the University of Chicago,” 65 and Shils, ‘Robert Maynard Hutchins,” aa. 35, MJ. Adler, What Man Has Made Of Man (New York: Frederick Unger, 1937) 42, 193. This book will be cited as WMM in the text for all subsequent references. MJ. Adler, St. Thomas and the Gentiles (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1938), 48, 36. MJ. Adler, Aristotle for Everybody (New York: Macmillan, 1978}, 4, 160. 37. Adler, St. Thomas and the Gentiles, 49Werrman ‘Adler and The Paideia Proposal 69 are constantly subject to revision and refutation as new evidence is discovered, philosophy deals with “tautologies” that are internally and externally consistent. For this reason, Adler concluded, philosophy is the most certain knowledge (in his younger days, he would have said absolutely certain) and the philosopher's life is certainly the best.2* While most modem philosophy has an empirical base, Adler's writings are for the most part a series of circular propositions in which the answers are contained in the questions, and truth is ostensibly found by defining terms and making deductions from the definitions. Critics have assailed this method as arbitrary and capricious.” Adler responded that his philosophy is based on the solid foundation of humankind’s common inheritance, the common faculties with which we all approach the world “Common experience,” Adler claimed, is “the experience all human beings have in their waking hours, experience that does not occur in answer to specific questions but only as the result of being conscious” {FDP, 9]. Empirical evidence is irrelevant because philosophical truth is based on what people already know given their common experience and common sense (WMM, 10; PAL, 180). Adler's concept of human commonality is the basis of his commitment to the Great Books and his claim for the primacy of ancient philosophers over the moderns. Adler claimed there are only a limited number of important philosophical issues common to humankind, and the classical thinkers dealt with virtually all of these issues first. As such, almost any discussion should start with the classics or at least include them. For Adler, the Great Books may not be the last word on any given subject but they are usually the first (FDP, 229). Adler's concept of commonality is also the key to his moral philosophy. The history of Western moral philosophy has been characterized as a debate between fundamentalists who emphasize absolute moral rules and pragmatists who focus on the process of moral decisions, in effect a debate over the relative merits of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Ancient Biblical authorities such as Moses, and Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, were concerned with promulgat- ing formal sets of commandments so that the semiliterate masses would know what they could and could not do. Later religious authorities, such as Rabbi Hillel and Jesus, and Stoic philosophers such as Epictetus, proffered more flexible maxims, such as the Golden Rule, that depend for their application on the specific circumstances and personal characteristics of the people involved." In practice, most people combine elements of both approaches in their moral thinking, but almost everyone places greater emphasis on one or the other principle. While most moder philoso- phers promote some sort of moral pragmatism, Adler promoted moral absolutism and typically misread the Golden Rule. 38. Ibid, 39. Pranz Alexander, “Introduction,” in Adler, What Man Has Made Of Man, xiand Hook, Out of Step, 342. 40. MJ. Adler, How to Read a Book (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1940), 321, 328) Adler, Aristotle for Everybody, vii; and MJ. Adler, Ten Philosophical Mistakes (New York: Macmillan, 1985}, xix, 41. Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy|1945, reprint, New York: Simon andSchuster, 1972), 108-19, 252-70, 308-34.70 EDUCATIONAL THEORY Wave 2002 / Vous 52./ Numssn 1 Reading the Golden Rule pragmatically, the “you” in the maxim “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” requires one to ask how it would feel to be in the position of the other person. It is a relativistic, but not nihilistic, principle that requires one to make moral decisions based on the nature of the circumstances and persons at hand." Adler read the Golden Rule mechanically and interpreted it from an absolutist perspective. In this vein, he described the “you” in the maxim as a reflection of how one thinks now, not how one would think in the other person's place. Given this reading, he claimed that the Golden Rule requires people to treat others as though they were exactly like themselves. This renders the maxim “devoid of any ethical content” and a prescription for ego-centered and ethnocentric selfish- ness, that is, for moral anarchy [DRW, 90-95, HWH, 61). ‘Adler's tautological method and moral absolutism have led many progressives, most of whom are philosophical pragmatists, to reject Adler’s philosophy as arrogant andlitist. And initially it was. During the first half of his career, Adler believed that only an elite group of philosophers could gain an understanding of the common sense of humanity, a belief that influenced his hierarchical views of society and education. But in the later stages of his career, Adler came to believe that common sense was common to everyone. While some people may think more clearly than others, noone is the best and everyone can think well enough to participate fully and equally in society. The difference between Adler's earlier and later social and educational ideas is reflected in the changing ways he used the word “common.” Initially “common” ‘was an ideal that only a few could grasp. Later, “common” was reality in which all could participate. “Philosophy is everybody's business,” Adler proclaimed in his later years, and he worked hard to make his philosophical works less ethereal and more accessible, In turn, Adler became more popular and populist, and moved from. hierarchical conceptions of society and education to democratic and socialist views.“ ON THE Roap To SocrALIsM ‘Adler's road to socialism was tortuous, running through Orthodox Judaism, positivist philosophy, Catholic theology, and capitalist ideology, but always toward the same end: social cohesion and intellectual security. He waged a lifelong battle against the nihilism that he saw resulting from the competitive individualism that underlay American society, Born and raised in the tumult of New York City at the tum of the twentieth century, Adler was concerned throughout his career with what hecondemnedas the chaos of modern intellectual and social life. During the first part of his career, Adler sought a philosophy that would explain everything once and for all, and a social system that would once and for all resolve every problem, bringing ‘everything together and reconciling the conflict between the one and the many. This 3. John Dewey, Human and Human Conduct [New York: Henry Holt, 1922},246-47 andJohn Dewey, The (Quest for Certainty (New York: Minton, Balch, 1929), 270, 43, Six Great Ideas |New York: MacMillan, 1981], 24, 136. 44, Adler, Six Great Ideas, 3; Adler, Aristotle for Everybody, ix, 4, and Adler, Ten Philosophical Mistakes, 62, 85, 99, 103.‘Wevrwane ‘Adler and The Paideia Proposal 71 yearning after absolutes, however, reproduced the very problem Adler sought to avoid, as his vain efforts to fit a recalcitrant reality into rigid theories led him repeatedly to change from one set of ideas to another. ‘Asa young man during the 1920s, Adler hoped that a combination of moral logic and positivist science would bring order to an unruly world. Holding to a theory of logical positivism that was beholden in large part to Bertrand Russell, Adler condemned Dewey's pragmatic theories as intellectually shallow and morally weak, an invitation to the nihilism and selfish individualism that Dewey ostensibly opposed (ASE, 248). While Dewey argued that scientific thinking was merely the logic of everyday problem-solving writ large, Adler claimed that scientific thinking was a higher form of specialized thought and that since some people are innately more capable of scientific thinking than others, those elite few should rule over society. Chided for his elitism by Russell, with whom he thereafter engaged in bitter disputation, Adler tumed during the 1930s toward the Scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas.” Adler now claimed that positivists were as morally bankrupt as pragma- tists because the empirical methods they both employed produced different answers for different people depending on their assumptions. Their methods thereby violated common sense, left the common man without anything solid in which to believe, and contributed to the nihilism and solipsism of modern life. Metaphysics was the only certainty, Adler concluded, and in any contest between empirical evidence and metaphysical arguments, metaphysics should prevail (WMM, 42, 133].** Adler gained renown during this period as an expert on Scholasticism and became the only Jew ever to receive the Aquinas Medal from the American Catholic Philosophical Association (ASL, 238}. In turn, the University of Chicago became facetiously known as a school in which “Jewish professors teach Roman Catholicism to Protestant students.’"? Suffering from what he later lamented as “an addiction to elitism,” Adler contended that some people were born to rule, others to be ruled, and claimed that the masses of people were unfit for democracy (PAL, 175; WMM, 66). Arguing that 45, Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, 811 et sea. 46.]. Dewey, How We Think (New York: D.C. Heath, 1933}; MJ. Adler, Dialectic (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1927), 88; Adler, Music Appreciation, 81, MJ. Adler, “What is Basic about English,” in Geraldine Van Doren, ed. Reforming Education 1941, reprint, New York: Macmnillan, 1988), 184; Jerome Michael and MJ. Adler, The Nature of fudicial Proof {New York: Columbia University Law School, 1931), 60, 169-70, 172, Jerome Michael and MJ. Adler, Crime: Law and Social Science (1933, reprint, Montclair, NJ.: Paterson ‘Smith, 1971] 47. Adler, How to Read a Book, 97. 48. Adler, St. Thomas and the Gentiles, 48, MJ. Adler, "Liberalism and Liberal Education,” in Van Doren, Reforming Education; and Shils, “Robert Maynard Hutchins,” 217. 49. G. Geiss, “Introduction,” Michael and Adler, Crime: Law and Social Seience, xiv. 50. Shils, “Robert Maynard Hutchins,” 220. 51. Adler, Problems for Thomists (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1940), 258, 260, 266, 271, MJ. Adler, A Dialectic of Morals {Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 194i}, and Adler and Farrell, "The Theory of Democracy,” 398,72 EDUCATIONALTHEORY __Wivren 2002 / Vouune 52. / Numer 1 for ordinary people “to know how to be ruled is the primary qualification for democratic citizenship,” Adler concluded that this should also be the primary goal of public education." These views eventually brought a rebuke from Maritain, Adler's liberal Thomist mentor. Faced with Maritain’s criticism and the horrors of Nazism, Adler underwent during the 1940s what he later called a “conversion to democracy” |PAL, 106-7).* Doing something that he had rarely done before, Adler let empirical facts change his, theories. Conceding “the inadequacy of ancient principles” for modem circum- stances, Adler abjured the elitism of the ancients and adopted a more pragmatic view of the classics and truth (FDP, 5, 235). ‘Adler's conversion to democracy precipitated a split within the community of classicists and perennialists. He began a bitter philosophical and political dispute with Leo Strauss, a former colleague at the University of Chicago and guru to the post-World War II conservative movement in America, and Strauss’s followers, including Allan Bloom and William Bennett. Strauss, a self-styled Platonist, es- poused a philosophy based on the distinction hetween esoteric and exoteric ideas in Plato’s Republic. Esoteric ideas are the truths that philosophers and political leaders can comprehend and share among themselves. Exoteric ideas are the “noble lies” that they must tell to the masses. Education, according to Strauss, should be authoritative and authoritarian, providing esoteric learning to the elite but only exoteric teaching to the masses.** In his newfound democratic guise, Adler rejected Strauss’s elitism, distinguish- ing his own “dialectical” approach to the classics from the “doctrinal” approach of Strauss, Bloom, and Bennett, Theirs was a Platonic vision of absolute Truth that must be transmitted to students. His was an Aristotelian search for truths through common sense and common experience, Whereas Strauss idolized the classies.as the End of Western Civilization, Adler saw them as only the beginning, While Strauss claimed the classics had all the answers, Adler extolled them mainly for the questions they raised.” Adler eventually broke with Thomism during the 1950's. Reflecting his newly found wealth as editor of The Great Books and The Encyclopedia Britannica, Adler 52, Adler, How to Read a Book, 369; Adler, “Liberalism and Liberal Education,” 46, MJ Adler, “Tradition ‘and Progress in Education,” in Van Doren, Reforming Education, 78;MJ. Adler, “The Prewar Generation,” in Van Doren, Reforming Education, 5; MJ. Adler, "Two Essays on Docility,” in Van Doren, Reforming Faucation, 192-93, and Adler, A Dialectic of Morals, 107. 558. Jacques Maritain, “Forward,” in Adler, Problems for Thomists, ix. 54, MJ. Adler, How to Think About War and Peace (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944] and Hook, Out of Step, 336-37. 55, Adler and Farrell, “The Theory of Democracy,” 405, 56. Leo Strauss, The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989], 63-69, also Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987], 280, 57. MJ. Adler, Reforming Education (New York: Macmillan, 1988}, xxvii; MJ. Adler, Art, The Arts, and ‘The Great Ideas |New York: Simon and Schuster, 19941, 70-72, and George Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 19d5 (New York: Basic Books, 1979), 62, 225, 235.Wertman ‘Adler and The Paideia Proposal 73 abandoned the Thomist view that virtue was its own reward fora more worldly view that the good life combines the pursuit ofboth truth and sound investments, Moving from the cloister of the university to the hubbub of business life, Adler became a proponent of universal capitalism. He now portrayed Aristotle as a precursor of Adam Smith, and looked forward to a society in which everyone is a capitalist with the leisure time to become a philosopher. Economic individualism would provide the foundation for cultural cohesion.** This was a utopian vision on which he soon soured. Once again willing to let the facts alter his theories, Adler conceded by the early 1970s that universal capitalism had never existed and never could exist. It was a plausible theory without any possible practice. Acknowledging the success of social. welfare programs in Europe, and fascinated by Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs in the United States, Adler opined that welfare state liberalism had been successfully tested and should henceforth be extended into democratic socialism. In amove that continued long afterward to confound conservatives who had previously depended on his intellectual support, Adler concluded that given the current facts of American life, socialism had become "the common sense of politics” (CSP, 62, 111, 129, 154, 203).5° Adler's socialism was eclectic, combining ideas from Aristotle, Mill, and Marx (himself a classicist). It can be summarized in two classic socialist formulas." The first formula defines socialist culture as a cooperative venture in which the develop- ment of each person is the basis for the development of every other, and the development of the whole society is a precondition for the development of each individual. Adler contrasted socialist culture with the cult of individualism, alie that he claimed has been swallowed by most Americans, liberals as well as conservatives. Adler complained that most educational proposals, both liberal and conservative, focus narrowly on the self-development of the individual student, usually through competition against other students, and posit the student's individual success, getting ahead of others, as their goal. Socialism, in Adler's view, neither deifies the individual at the expense of the community nor subordinates the individual to the community. In a socialist culture, the individual defines and develops him/herself through a democratic community of the sort that Dewey defined as “a mode of associated living” (HWH, 22, 253).s! The second formula defines socialist economics as a cooperative venture operating on the principle that each person should contribute to society according to 58. Louis Kelso and MJ. Adler, The Capitalist Manifesto (New York: Random House, 1958], 91, 121, 246- 248; Louis Kelso and MJ. Adler, The New Capitalists (New York: Random House, 1961), §8, 67, also M.. ‘Adler, “Labor, Leisure, and Liberal Education," in Van Doren, Reforming Education, 105; MJ. Adler, ‘“Education Beyond Schooling, "in Van Doren, Reforming Education, 217,andMJ, Adlerand Milton Mayer, The Revolution in Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958}, 15, 85, 88, 96, 101. 59. Novak, “Review of the Book Haves Without Have-Nots.” 60, Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto |1848, reprint, Garden City, N-Y.: Doubleday Anchor, 1959) and Mill, Socialisen. 61. Dewey, Democracy and Education, 86.74 EDUCATIONAL THEORY Wovrer 2002 / Vouime 52./ Numpen 1 his/her abilities and society should give to each person according to his/her needs. Neither completely egalitarian nor centrally controlled, socialism operates on the presumption that the government should own, operate, or regulate business activi- ties unless and to the extent it can be shown that the activities would be better left in the hands of private individuals. This presumption is the opposite of a capitalist economy, which presumes that things should be left in private hands unless government interference is clearly necessary. Adler contended that socialism would produce sustainable and stable economic growth, ensuring that everyone will have enough of the goods and services of the world to participate fully in the nation's cultural life (DRW, 10, 21, 58) ‘Adler claimed that political democracy will not last long or survive well without socialism since “political haves who are not also economic haves cannot discharge their duties as citizens” (HWH, xi). Liberty requires the equality that socialism affords, just as equality requires the liberty that democracy protects. As a practical matter, the Federal Constitution, Adler contended, includes provisions that make the transition from capitalism to socialism feasible without violent upheaval. In particular, the Ninth Amendment, which retains in the people any rights not specifically restrained by the Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which authorizes Congress to do everything necessary to guarantee liberty and equality for all, provide sufficient authority for legislating socialism in America. Toward that end, Adler advocated short-term goals such as federal legislation guaranteeing agood job for every adult, free public education for every person from preschool through college, and a guaranteed middle-class income for everyone. As long-range goals, Adler called for federal ownership or controls over businesses to ensure equitable economic development (HWH, xi, 8, 18, 127, 202, 225) In sum, as Adler entered his most prolific period as a philosopher — publishing more books during the 1980s when he was in his eighties than in any other period of his life — he was reading the classics through a socialist lens, calling for a socialist economy and culture, and advocating an educational system that supports both. REREADING THe ParDEIA PRorosaL The Paideia Proposal was Adler's attempt to apply his democratic socialist ideas toeducation, Although he never used the word “socialism,” the book is infused with the two formulas that describe Adler's socialist theories: the self-development of each through all, and the expectation that each will perform according to his or her abilities and receive what he or she needs. First and foremost, The Paideia Proposal defines the goals of education in terms of social participation rather than individual success. Adler stressed that the main aims of education — worthwhile work, good citizenship, and life-long learning — can only be realized through contributing to society, not through personal wealth, power, or distinction (TPP, 16-17]. ‘The curricular proposals in the book have a strongly pro-social basis. Adler's curriculum focuses on general education and common learnings, aone-track system that affords the same consideration to all students, engages them in a common conversation, and provides them with the means to participate fully in a democraticWertman Adler and The Paideia Proposal 75 society. Although he wanted every student in a given school to participate in the same curriculum, Adler expected different school systems to adopt curricula that fit their students’ different problems and interests. He opposed any sort of national standards or standardized testing and insisted that curricula be determined locally and cooperatively (TPP, xii, 18-20, 34}. The book proposes cooperative teaching methods that combine “telling,” or the acquisition of organized knowledge through didactic instruction, with “coaching,” or the development of intellectual skills through supervised practice, and “discuss- ing,” or the critical understanding of ideas through participatory debate. The Paideia Proposal culminates in cooperative learning seminars in which students and teach- ers examine the subjects they have been studying in light of current social issues of interest to them (TPP, 22-30). Finally, the book insists that the key to the success of any democratic educa- tional proposal is a guarantee of economic security and cultural liberty to all students. Claiming that the two main obstacles to fulfilling the promises of American democracy and education are “the uncertain economic status” of most people and the “one-sided emphasis” that our society places on individual success, particularly economic success, Adler essentially argued the case for a socialist reorganization of American society. Writing on behalf of the Paideia group, which included people form across the political spectrum, Adler did not use the term “socialism” to describe his proposals. The gist of his argument is, nonetheless, that educational reform depends on economic reform and both depend on a reevaluation of American values away from individualism and toward socialism {TPP, 74). The Paideia Proposal is a flexible plan. Rather than detailing fixed and manda- tory goals that people must achieve, Adler proposed guidelines for people to use. He offered a roadmap to educational improvement that allows different schools to take different routes and even end up in different places, but enables educators to know where they are going and how they can best get there. Concerned that most discussions of educational reform get bogged down in arguments about whose is the one best proposal that everyone must follow, Adler tried to avoid that sort of gridlock by proposing diversity in curricula and methods. The Paideia Proposal is also a deliberately eclectic document, incorporating something from almost every political and educational camp. In proposing, for ‘example, that school districts each develop their own curricula, and opposing age and ability grouping of students, Adler opted for the sort of diverse and heterogeneous classes advocated by progressives. By including didactic telling and basic skills coaching in his methodological mix, he essentially co-opted the essentialist pro- gram. And by making Socratic seminars the capstone of his course of study, Adler included the methodological comerstone of the perennialist curriculum. Likewise, in his concern for economic equality and cultural freedom, Adler incorporated the liberal political agenda into his educational program. At the same time, in focusing on responsible adulthood as the goal of education and calling for adults in general, and teachers in particular, to act as authority figures for children,76 EDUCATIONAL THEORY Wovres 2002 / Vorume 52 / Nuss 1 he addressed the desire of conservatives to maintain intergenerational respect and continuity. Most significant, by making pro-social values the core of his proposal, Adler tried to redefine the educational debate into a discussion of individualism versus socialism. The Paideia Proposal is eclectic but coherent. Adler's curriculum proposals, which reflect a pragmatic relativism and concern forrelevance, follow from his moral philosophy. Just as Adler’s moral philosophy turns on the question of what people have in common — their common sense, common experience, and common concerns — so too his curriculum theory turns on the same idea. People share some things with everyone because of their common humanity, but other things only with members of groups and subgroups to which they belong. A school’s curriculum should, in turn, contain a variety of subjects reflecting the things that students have in common with each other, both as members of humanity and as members of groups and subgroups: E pluribus unum. Adler's proposed teaching methods follow from this emphasis on people’s commonalities, and culminate in a seminar model of cooperative learning in which students share knowledge with each other and strive to elevate themselves by elevating the discussion level of the whole group. Adler would evaluate the level of the group's work and the contribution of each student to the group as his means of assessing the achievements of students and teachers. In the same vein, the book promotes a theory of school organization based on a bottom-up model of participa- tory democracy in which students, parents, teachers, and administrators cooperate in the running of the school. With socialist values at its core, Adler seemed to regard the eclecticism of his educational proposal in the same light as the eclecticism of his philosophical theories. In Adler's philosophy, the classics constitute a broad framework filled with a variety of theories for people starting a search for knowledge, a coalition of philosophical ideas connected by the common theme of finding knowledge through reason. Similarly, Adler promoted The Paideia Proposal as a coalition of educational ideas connected by the theme of socialism. Piecing together ideas from different theories in order to make a workable educational program and a workable coalition of educators who might get that program implemented, Adler did not claim to be inventing a wholly new pedagogy. He was merely recycling old ideas in what he hoped was an effective new synthesis. The Paideia Proposal was widely praised in the news media and widely discussed amongacademics and at educational conferences, leading many people to believe the country was on the verge of a dramatic change in the public discussion of educational issues.” Most academic reviews of the book were, however, unfavorable, thereby undermining the book’s influence (ASL, 194-98). As previously with his philosophi- cal works, Adler seemed to find himself once again at odds with the academy. 62. John Goodlad, "Improving Schooling in the 1980s," Educational Leadership 40, no. 7 {1982} 46 63. MJ. Adler, Paideia Problems and Possibilities |New York: Macmillan, 1983), 83-85,Weurman, Adler and The Paideia Proposal Academic educators seemed to respond to the book on the basis of Adler’s reputation asareactionary, rather than on the actual content of the book. Although Adlerclearly stated that, “Our program is not a return to the classics,” most critics read the book asarestatement of the perennialist position, Approaching the book with prejudices based on who Adler had been rather than what he had become, these critics ignored or backhanded the proposals he was actually making while criticizing him for proposals he had not made. Liberal critics, in particular, took ideological shots at Adler’s proposals and ad ‘hominem potshots at Adler himself. While conceding that The Paideia Proposal was not explicitly antidemocratic, they worried that the proposal was a Trojan Horse for the sort of perennialist elitism Adler had previously advocated. One critic, for example, claimed that in using the ancient Greek term “paideia” as the title for his proposal, Adler had revealed his underlying intention to promote a Great Books curriculum, And, despite Adler's call for social and economic equality, this critic concluded that the book “provides a gilt edged leather cover for the blatant economic and military agendas” of the conservative administration of President Reagan. In a similar vein, another critic claimed that Adler’s plea for equality was really a devious attempt to justify the opposite. According to this critic, Adler, in making educational equity depend on economic equality, was in effect providing a justifica- tion for educational inequality since it was unlikely that the economy would become more equitable anytime soon.* Adler was bitterly disappointed by these criticisms and his initial reaction was to dismiss his critics scornfully as he had done in similar situations earlier in his career.® But, consistent with his newfound role as a coalition builder, he eventually responded, To those who denounced him as a perennialist, Adler repeated his proposal that vocational training be one of the three goals of education, including six to eight years of manual training and one to two years of “general introduction into the world of work.’ To those who condemned him as an elitist, he reiterated his calls for an end to age grouping, ability grouping, standardized testing, invidious 64, MJ, Adler, “Reconstituting the Schools,” in Van Doren, Reforming Education, 280. 65. Marshall Gregory, "A Response to Mortitier Adler's Paideia Proposal,” Journal of General Education 36,n0.2{1984}:77,Sanmuel Lipman, “Schoolingfor AU,” Commentary 751983}: 76-80; Christopher Lucas, ‘"Gducational Policy Studies," Educational Studies 14 {Fall 1983|:282-85, V. Smith, “A Bold and Challeng. ing Statement” Phi Delta Kappan 64 (January 1983}: 376.77; and Karen Spear, “The Paideia Proposal,” Journal of General Education 36, no. 2 {1984}: 79-86 66. Roger Aubrey, “Reform in Schooling,” journal of Counseling and Development 63 {December 1984) 204-13; Martin Camoy, “Education, Democracy, and Social Conflict” Harvard Educational Review'S3, n0. ‘4 (1983: 398-405, Tony Johnson, “Classicists versus Experimentalists,” [GE 36, no. 4(1985):270-79) and Daniel Tanner, “The American High School at the Crossroads” Educational Leadership 41 (March 1984) 413; 67, Madeleine Grumet, “The Paideia Proposal: A Thankless Child Replies,” Curriculum Inquiry 16, no. 3 (1986): 339-40. 68, Ronald Gwiazda, “The Peter Pan Proposal,” Harvard Educational Review 53, no. 4(1983}: 384-92 and Johnson, "Classicists versus Experimentalists.” 69. MJ. Adler, “The Paideia Response," Harvard Educational Review 53, no. 4 {1983}: 407-11 70. Adler, Paideia Problems and Possibilities, 7-8, 20. 778 EDUCATIONAL THEORY Wuvrer 2002 / Vouune 52./ Nummer 1 grading, and the failing of students (TPP, 179).7' And, he repeatedly pled for the economic equity that would make educational equality fully possible, insisting that movement toward democratic socialism was a necessary precondition for genuine educational reform (DRW, 110; ASL, 85}. Adler followed The Paideia Proposal with Paideia Problems and Possibilities in 1983 and The Paideia Program in 1984, vainly trying to counter his critics, clarify his proposals, and generate support for the program.” SoctALisM AND EDUCATION Adler's career spanned almost the whole of the twentieth century and most of the philosophical and political positions of his time. Always an irascible personality, he seemed to need to be continually twitting some powerful opponent. During the 1920s, he taunted the pragmatists who predominated at Columbia University. During the 1930s, he goaded the positivists who dominated the social science and philosophy departments at the University of Chicago. During the liberal 1960s, he mocked liberalism and, finally, during the conservative 1980s and 1990s, he became a radical and started calling himself a socialist. Ithas been said that the primary role of a radical is to move the debate on social issues to the Left.”* Based on this maxim, when liberals are in power, radicals should attack them in an effort to push their regime to the Left. When conservatives are in power, radicals should attack them while lending critical support to liberals in an effort to bring the liberals to power. During the last quarter of the twentieth century, during which conservatives were for the most part in the ascendancy in the United States, Adler played this latter role. Bucking the conservative trend, he moved himself to the Left and, through The Paideia Proposal, brought together an assort- ment of erstwhile radicals, liberals, and conservatives in an effort to move the political and educational debate out of its long-time orbit and into a new realm farther to the Left. Calling for a socialist society and calling himself a socialist, Adler deliberately flouted the sensibilities of the times and many of his longtime supporters. “Socialist” was a term commonly used by a variety of liberals, progressives, and radicals to describe themselves during Adler's youth in the early twentieth century. It connoted amoral as well as a social and economic position that was widely held to be a logical. extension of the Judeo-Christian ethic and the necessary next step in the develop- ment of American democracy.” By the latter part of the twentieth century, “social- ist” had widely become a disparaging term. Many people with social and economic positions indistinguishable from those held by Adler and self-styled socialists of 71 Bid, 14 72, Clifford Hardy, “Third Volume in Paideia Series is a Distinct Disappointment,” Phi Delta Kappan 66 (june 1985]: 734-35. 73. Theodore Brameld, Toward a Reconstructed Philasophy of Education |New York: Dryden Press, 1956}, 128, 74, James Weinstein, The Decline of Socialism in America, 1912-1925 |New York: Vintage Books, 1965), 27-84,Weeran Adler and The Paideia Proposal earlieryears eschewed the term, describing themselves merely as liberals, progressives, or pro-social democrats. Pugnacious and punctilious to the end, Adler insisted on using the term and radically challenging the bugaboos of his times. However, it was not Adler's socialist ideas that led him to the social and educational conclusions contained in The Paideia Proposal. To the contrary, Adler began calling himself a socialist because he had come to hold the social and educational views that are articulated in The Paideia Proposal. In turn, the question of individualism versus socialism, on which Adler focused in The Paideia Proposal, ‘was not for him primarily an ideological issue but an eminently practical problem. Social critics have long argued that the cult of individual success is a source of many social problems in America and an obstacle to the solution of others — especially in education.” In any competition, only a few can win, while all the others lose. When a society focuses on individual success, on becoming above all else a winner, almost everyone ends up a loser. When schools become screening mechanisms to sift and ‘winnow the winners from the losers, most kids get left behind, This was the issue that troubled Adler, and it was one on which he thought it possible to get people from different educational camps to agree. In The Paideia Proposal, Adler tried to raise the issue of socialism versus individualism as a means of rallying a coalition of educational reformers who might be able to move the educational debate out of what he saw as a vicious circle of academic bickering. It is not necessary to accept Adler's classicism, syllogisms, and moral absolutism in order to appreciate what he attempted to do in The Paideia Proposal, It is not even necessary to use the word “socialism.” The Paideia Proposal promoted an alternative educational policy and a new set of issues to debate. While there has been and continues tobe discussion of some of the issues raised in the book, the 1980s and 1990s may not have been propitious for the kind of debate that Adler was calling for. But that debate would still be worthwhile and the times may now be right. 75. Forexample, see john Dewey, Individualism Old and New|1929, reprint, New York: Capricorn Books, 1962}, Barbara Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed (New York: Henry Holt, 2001}; William Kilpatrick, Foundations of Method (New York: Macmillan, 1925], and Alfie Kobn, “Only for my Kid,” Phi Delta Kappan 79, no. 8 (April 1998}: 568-77, 76. For example, see Deborah Meier, The Power of their Ideas (Boston: Reacon Press, 1995} (Cooperative Learning (Washington, D.C.: NEA Professional Publishing, 1987) nd R. Slavin, 79