quarter 4 unit: public education, then and now stay home... · 2020. 4. 1. · public education,...

Public Education, Then and Now Grade 12 Quarter 4 English

Quarter 4 Unit: Public Education, Then and Now

In this packet, you will find:

1) Links to informational videos

2) Links to TedTalks and their viewing guides/questions

3) Reading materials and their guided reading questions

4) Information on completing final assignment

Please reach out to your English Teacher via email if you have questions about the work at

[email protected].

This unit covers excerpts from Charles Dickens’ Hard Times (what education was like then),

excerpts from Hind Swaraji by Gahndi (what an education is form his viewpoint), and Ted

Talks that cover what education looks like for us today.

All readings and viewings have questions to guide your reading and understanding of the

texts. Complete the questions and email your answers to Ms. Hanson ([email protected]).

At the end of this unit, you will create a project on an education-related topic or you have

the option to complete an argumentative essay.

For your information:

Background on Charles Dickens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9dB9BZWDBU

Information on Utilitarianism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI

Satire Review https://prezi.com/enz_f-jnzyqk/satire-lesson/ (Hard Times is Satire)

mailto:[email protected]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9dB9BZWDBU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI

https://prezi.com/enz_f-jnzyqk/satire-lesson/


Read the following excerpt from Hard Times by Charles Dickens

(copied from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/786/786-h/786-h.htm)

CHAPTER I THE ONE THING NEEDFUL

‘NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts

alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can

only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any

service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is

the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!’

The scene was a plain, bare, monotonous vault of a school-room, and the speaker’s

square forefinger emphasized his observations by underscoring every sentence with a

line on the schoolmaster’s sleeve. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s square

wall of a forehead, which had his eyebrows for its base, while his eyes found

commodious cellarage in two dark caves, overshadowed by the wall. The emphasis

was helped by the speaker’s mouth, which was wide, thin, and hard set. The emphasis

was helped by the speaker’s voice, which was inflexible, dry, and dictatorial. The

emphasis was helped by the speaker’s hair, which bristled on the skirts of his bald

head, a plantation of firs to keep the wind from its shining surface, all covered with

knobs, like the crust of a plum pie, as if the head had scarcely warehouse-room for the

hard facts stored inside. The speaker’s obstinate carriage, square coat, square legs,

square shoulders,—nay, his very neckcloth, trained to take him by the throat with an

unaccommodating grasp, like a stubborn fact, as it was,—all helped the emphasis.

p. 4‘In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir; nothing but Facts!’

The speaker, and the schoolmaster, and the third grown person present, all backed a

little, and swept with their eyes the inclined plane of little vessels then and there

arranged in order, ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they

were full to the brim.

CHAPTER II MURDERING THE INNOCENTS

THOMAS GRADGRIND, sir. A man of realities. A man of facts and calculations. A

man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and

who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over. Thomas Gradgrind, sir—

peremptorily Thomas—Thomas Gradgrind. With a rule and a pair of scales, and the

multiplication table always in his pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel

of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/786/786-h/786-h.htm


figures, a case of simple arithmetic. You might hope to get some other nonsensical

belief into the head of George Gradgrind, or Augustus Gradgrind, or John Gradgrind,

or Joseph Gradgrind (all supposititious, non-existent persons), but into the head of

Thomas Gradgrind—no, sir!

In such terms Mr. Gradgrind always mentally introduced himself, whether to his

private circle of acquaintance, or to the public in general. In such terms, no doubt,

substituting the words ‘boys and girls,’ for ‘sir,’ Thomas Gradgrind now presented

Thomas Gradgrind to the little pitchers before him, who were to be filled so full of

facts.

Indeed, as he eagerly sparkled at them from the cellarage before mentioned, he

seemed a kind of cannon loaded to the muzzle with facts, and prepared to blow them

clean out of the regions of childhood at one discharge. He seemed a galvanizing

apparatus, too, charged with a grim mechanical substitute for the tender young

imaginations that were to be stormed away.

‘Girl number twenty,’ said Mr. Gradgrind, squarely pointing with his square

forefinger, ‘I don’t know that girl. Who is that girl?’

‘Sissy Jupe, sir,’ explained number twenty, blushing, standing up, and curtseying.

‘Sissy is not a name,’ said Mr. Gradgrind. ‘Don’t call yourself Sissy. Call yourself

Cecilia.’

‘It’s father as calls me Sissy, sir,’ returned the young girl in a trembling voice, and

with another curtsey.

‘Then he has no business to do it,’ said Mr. Gradgrind. ‘Tell him he mustn’t. Cecilia

Jupe. Let me see. What is your father?’

‘He belongs to the horse-riding, if you please, sir.’

Mr. Gradgrind frowned, and waved off the objectionable calling with his hand.

‘We don’t want to know anything about that, here. You mustn’t tell us about that,

here. Your father breaks horses, don’t he?’

‘If you please, sir, when they can get any to break, they do break horses in the ring,

sir.’

‘You mustn’t tell us about the ring, here. Very well, then. Describe your father as a

horsebreaker. He doctors sick horses, I dare say?’

‘Oh yes, sir.’


‘Very well, then. He is a veterinary surgeon, a farrier, and horsebreaker. Give me

your definition of a horse.’

(Sissy Jupe thrown into the greatest alarm by this demand.)

‘Girl number twenty unable to define a horse!’ said Mr. Gradgrind, for the general

behoof of all the little pitchers. ‘Girl number twenty possessed of no facts, in

reference to one of the commonest of animals! Some boy’s definition of a

horse. Bitzer, yours.’

The square finger, moving here and there, lighted suddenly on Bitzer, perhaps because

he chanced to sit in the same ray of sunlight which, darting in at one of the bare

windows of the intensely white-washed room, irradiated Sissy. For, the boys and girls

sat on the face of the inclined plane in two compact bodies, divided up the centre by a

narrow interval; and Sissy, being at the corner of a row on the sunny side, came in for

the beginning of a sunbeam, of which Bitzer, being at the corner of a row on the other

side, a few rows in advance, caught the end. But, whereas the girl was so dark-eyed

and dark-haired, that she seemed to receive a deeper and more lustrous colour from

the sun, when it shone upon her, the boy was so light-eyed and light-haired that the

self-same rays appeared to draw out of him what little colour he ever possessed. His

cold eyes would hardly have been eyes, but for the short ends of lashes which, by

bringing them into immediate contrast with something paler than themselves,

expressed their form. His short-cropped hair might have been a mere continuation of

the sandy freckles on his forehead and face. His skin was so unwholesomely deficient

in the natural tinge, that he looked as though, if he were cut, he would bleed white.

‘Bitzer,’ said Thomas Gradgrind. ‘Your definition of a horse.’

‘Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty-four grinders, four eye-

teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy countries, sheds hoofs,

too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shod with iron. Age known by marks in

mouth.’ Thus (and much more) Bitzer.

‘Now girl number twenty,’ said Mr. Gradgrind. ‘You know what a horse is.’

She curtseyed again, and would have blushed deeper, if she could have blushed

deeper than she had blushed all this time. Bitzer, after rapidly blinking at Thomas

Gradgrind with both eyes at once, and so catching the light upon his quivering ends of

lashes that they looked like the antennæ of busy insects, put his knuckles to his

freckled forehead, and sat down again.

The third gentleman now stepped forth. A mighty man at cutting and drying, he was;

a government officer; in his way (and in most other people’s too), a professed pugilist;

always in training, always with a system to force down the general throat like a bolus,

always to be heard of at the bar of his little Public-office, ready to fight all


England. To continue in fistic phraseology, he had a genius for coming up to the

scratch, wherever and whatever it was, and proving himself an ugly customer. He

would go in and damage any subject whatever with his right, follow up with his left,

stop, exchange, counter, bore his opponent (he always fought All England) to the

ropes, and fall upon him neatly. He was certain to knock the wind out of common

sense, and render that unlucky adversary deaf to the call of time. And he had it in

charge from high authority to bring about the great public-office Millennium, when

Commissioners should reign upon earth.

‘Very well,’ said this gentleman, briskly smiling, and folding his arms. ‘That’s a

horse. Now, let me ask you girls and boys, Would you paper a room with

representations of horses?’

After a pause, one half of the children cried in chorus, ‘Yes, sir!’ Upon which the

other half, seeing in the gentleman’s face that Yes was wrong, cried out in chorus,

‘No, sir!’—as the custom is, in these examinations.

‘Of course, No. Why wouldn’t you?’

A pause. One corpulent slow boy, with a wheezy manner of breathing, ventured the

answer, Because he wouldn’t paper a room at all, but would paint it.

‘You must paper it,’ said the gentleman, rather warmly.

‘You must paper it,’ said Thomas Gradgrind, ‘whether you like it or not. Don’t

tell us you wouldn’t paper it. What do you mean, boy?’

‘I’ll explain to you, then,’ said the gentleman, after another and a dismal pause, ‘why

you wouldn’t paper a room with representations of horses. Do you ever see horses

walking up and down the sides of rooms in reality—in fact? Do you?’

‘Yes, sir!’ from one half. ‘No, sir!’ from the other.

‘Of course no,’ said the gentleman, with an indignant look at the wrong half. ‘Why,

then, you are not to see anywhere, what you don’t see in fact; you are not to have

anywhere, what you don’t have in fact. What is called Taste, is only another name for

Fact.’ Thomas Gradgrind nodded his approbation.

‘This is a new principle, a discovery, a great discovery,’ said the gentleman. ‘Now,

I’ll try you again. Suppose you were going to carpet a room. Would you use a carpet

having a representation of flowers upon it?’

There being a general conviction by this time that ‘No, sir!’ was always the right

answer to this gentleman, the chorus of NO was very strong. Only a few feeble

stragglers said Yes: among them Sissy Jupe.


‘Girl number twenty,’ said the gentleman, smiling in the calm strength of knowledge.

Sissy blushed, and stood up.

‘So you would carpet your room—or your husband’s room, if you were a grown

woman, and had a husband—with representations of flowers, would you?’ said the

gentleman. ‘Why would you?’

‘If you please, sir, I am very fond of flowers,’ returned the girl.

‘And is that why you would put tables and chairs upon them, and have people walking

over them with heavy boots?’

‘It wouldn’t hurt them, sir. They wouldn’t crush and wither, if you please, sir. They

would be the pictures of what was very pretty and pleasant, and I would fancy—’

‘Ay, ay, ay! But you mustn’t fancy,’ cried the gentleman, quite elated by coming so

happily to his point. ‘That’s it! You are never to fancy.’

‘You are not, Cecilia Jupe,’ Thomas Gradgrind solemnly repeated, ‘to do anything of

that kind.’

‘Fact, fact, fact!’ said the gentleman. And ‘Fact, fact, fact!’ repeated Thomas

Gradgrind.

‘You are to be in all things regulated and governed,’ said the gentleman, ‘by fact. We

hope to have, before long, a board of fact, composed of commissioners of fact, who

will force the people to be a people of fact, and of nothing but fact. You must discard

the word Fancy altogether. You have nothing to do with it. You are not to have, in

any object of use or ornament, what would be a contradiction in fact. You don’t walk

upon flowers in fact; you cannot be allowed to walk upon flowers in carpets. You

don’t find that foreign birds and butterflies come and perch upon your crockery; you

cannot be permitted to paint foreign birds and butterflies upon your crockery. You

never meet with quadrupeds going up and down walls; you must not have quadrupeds

represented upon walls. You must use,’ said the gentleman, ‘for all these purposes,

combinations and modifications (in primary colours) of mathematical figures which

are susceptible of proof and demonstration. This is the new discovery. This is

fact. This is taste.’

The girl curtseyed, and sat down. She was very young, and she p. 8looked as if she

were frightened by the matter-of-fact prospect the world afforded.

‘Now, if Mr. M’Choakumchild,’ said the gentleman, ‘will proceed to give his first

lesson here, Mr. Gradgrind, I shall be happy, at your request, to observe his mode of

procedure.’


Mr. Gradgrind was much obliged. ‘Mr. M’Choakumchild, we only wait for you.’

So, Mr. M’Choakumchild began in his best manner. He and some one hundred and

forty other schoolmasters, had been lately turned at the same time, in the same

factory, on the same principles, like so many pianoforte legs. He had been put

through an immense variety of paces, and had answered volumes of head-breaking

questions. Orthography, etymology, syntax, and prosody, biography, astronomy,

geography, and general cosmography, the sciences of compound proportion, algebra,

land-surveying and levelling, vocal music, and drawing from models, were all at the

ends of his ten chilled fingers. He had worked his stony way into Her Majesty’s most

Honourable Privy Council’s Schedule B, and had taken the bloom off the higher

branches of mathematics and physical science, French, German, Latin, and Greek. He

knew all about all the Water Sheds of all the world (whatever they are), and all the

histories of all the peoples, and all the names of all the rivers and mountains, and all

the productions, manners, and customs of all the countries, and all their boundaries

and bearings on the two and thirty points of the compass. Ah, rather overdone,

M’Choakumchild. If he had only learnt a little less, how infinitely better he might

have taught much more!

He went to work in this preparatory lesson, not unlike Morgiana in the Forty Thieves:

looking into all the vessels ranged before him, one after another, to see what they

contained. Say, good M’Choakumchild. When from thy boiling store, thou shalt fill

each jar brim full by-and-by, dost thou think that thou wilt always kill outright the

robber Fancy lurking within—or sometimes only maim him and distort him!


Answer the following questions – when finished, email your answers to Ms. Hanson: [email protected]

Hard Times Text Dependent Questions

a. What outlook is Dickens criticizing through Gradgrind’s identification of Sissy Jupe by a

number?

b. Why does Gradgrind push Sissy Jupe to the conclusion that her father is a veterinary surgeon

as opposed to belonging “to the horse-riding”? What does this say about Gradgrind’s

character?

c. What does the word “deficient” suggest in the sentence: “His skin was so unwholesomely

deficient in the natural tinge, that he looked as though, if he were cut, he would bleed white.”

d. What type of answer to his question does Gradgrind accept? How does this further his

mission to impart facts to the children?

e. What does the reaction of the class hint about Dickens’s purpose in this scene?

f. What point about imagination does Dickens make through the teacher’s literal-minded

understanding?

g. What is the irony of the name of Mr. M’Coakumchild?

h. Compare and contrast Sissy’s and Bitzer’s performances in the classroom.

i. With whom does Dickens expect the reader to sympathize in this excerpt? Why?



Read the following excerpt:

Utilitarianism and Charles Dickens' Hard Times Charles

Dickens' novel, Hard Times, was originally provided in a serialized format where one chapter

appeared each week in a newspaper (Dickens’ co-owned) called Household Words. Hard Times

is a satiric rejection of the philosophies of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mills that focus on

Utilitarianism. Most dictionaries will explain that Utilitarianism is the idea that the value of a

noun (person, place, thing, or idea) is in direct relation to its utility (how useful it is), and that

which provides the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people should be valued

regardless of the means in which it is accomplished. Dickens illustrates, through the medium of

Hard Times, what he sees would be the result of living in a society structured around the ideals

of Utilitarianism. Thomas Gradgrind, one of the principle characters in the novel raises his

children without the luxury of "fancy." Louisa and Tom are not allowed to go to the circus, read

fiction, pretend, imagine, or engage in any activity that is not based in fact. Louisa grows up and

falls into a loveless marriage, while Tom has no morals and ethics to keep him from robbing the

bank he works for and pinning the blame on a factory worker named Stephen Blackpool. Using

the literary device of synecdoche, the workers in Coketown (where they live) are referred to as

"hands," which is to Gradgrind and Bounderby (Louisa's husband) their only useful parts.

Overall, through the course of the story we see that the philosophy of fact destroys the lives of

Louisa, Tom, Stephen, and countless others; leading to Gradgrind’s reassessment of the

philosophy at the end. The novel brings into focus what happens when people deny their spiritual

selves and their basic emotions and creativity. It also, illustrates the ills of modern

industrialization where people are treated as machines (as numbers in a ledger) rather than

human beings with basic needs and desires. It is an account which in many ways supports what

Gandhi identifies is wrong with modern, industrial civilization.

Utilitarianism and Education

In Hard Times, the opening scene establishes the way in which students are taught based on

the philosophy of Utilitarianism. From the very first sentence, Thomas Gradgrind, espouses

the very views Dickens is criticizing. Gradgrind states, “’Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach

these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and

root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts:

nothing else will ever be of any service to them’” (1). As you can see, there is no room for

myth, spirituality, creativity, or anything that can’t be scientifically substantiated. Throughout

the first chapter of HT, we see how ridiculous this form of education is and come to

understand that facts alone in cultivating the minds of our youth. At the end of the story, it is

Sissy (a girl taken in by the Gradgrind family) who is the most content and well adjusted.

Sissy spent a portion of her childhood in a circus and was so used to living in a world of

imagination that she was never able to fully grasp/fit into the Gradgrind’s world of strict facts.

With the character of Sissy, 3Dickens is illustrating that we all need a balance between fact

and fancy, between our two essential natures.


Gandhi’s Thoughts on Education

Gandhi also struggles with education and what service it should provide the youth of a peaceful

society. Gandhi reflects, "In its place it can be of use, and it has its place when we have brought

our senses under subjection, and put our ethics on a firm foundation. And then, if we feel

inclined to receive that education, we may make good use of it. As an ornament it is likely to sit

well on us. It now follows that it is not necessary to make this education compulsory. Our

ancient school system is enough. Character-building has the first place in it, and that is primary

education. A building erected on that foundation will last" (100). Gandhi makes the point that

education in and of itself is not a bad thing, but without the proper foundation (ethics, morals,

what he calls "Character-building") we end up with individuals who lack the ability to

"makegood use of it." For Gandhi, swaraj(self rule)starts with the individual and their ability to

attain self-realization, to be self-sufficient, and be an active member of their community.

Education must either be a means to those ends, or may further the knowledge of an individual

once he has that base.

Gandhi's Idea of a True Civilization

Gandhi first points out that while other great western civilizations have come and gone, India

still remains as it was thousands of years ago. This historical continuity must speak to a solid

foundation from which India can build purna swaraj or total self rule. Unlike the civilization

brought by the British, Indians must value civilization as, "that mode of conduct which points

out to man the path of duty" (65). Duty is morality. Each person will work towards self

realization, and the wellbeing and self-sufficiency of their community. Instead of engaging in

the, "system of life-corroding competition," people will find happiness and health through the,

"proper use of our hands and feet" (66-67). I mention happiness because in ages past, Indian

ancestors understood that, "A man is not necessarily happy because he is rich, or unhappy

because he's poor." After all, happiness is: "largely a mental condition" (66)

The Pyramid vs. Oceanic Circles

Gandhi saw European civilization as a pyramid; the wealthy and the leaders representing the

few at the top being supported (in every sense of the word) by the poor masses at the bottom

.Gandhi's ideal society had no such sense of castes or distinctions of importance; instead he

viewed society as a series of circles in the ocean. The flat nature of the ocean surface is a

metaphor for the equality that all people enjoy, while the circles represent individuals and

individual villages that are self sufficient and yet interconnected/interdependent to the whole

of the nation (or some might argue humanity). Gandhi writes, "Independence must begin at the

bottom. Thus, every village will be a republic[...]having full powers.[...]that every village has

to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself

against the whole world. It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself

against any onslaught from without" (181-182). Such self-sufficiency prevents the villages

from being dependent on an outside source, and succumbing to colonization again by those

who do not value equality. Decentralization is key to Gandhi just as equality is essential to his

vision. Also, religion itself has a "full and equal place" in this society; Gandhi views religion

(while plural and equal among all faiths) as essential to his oceanic view because the many

faiths of India represent the "roots" that make up a long and rich Indian heritage. Finally,


Gandhi laid out the role of machines in such a society; that while machines can serve

individuals, "there is no room for machines that would displace human labour and that would

concentrate power in a few hands" (183).For Gandhi, each man and women in society must

have a job that gives them the opportunity to work for the betterment of themselves and the

community. Work that provides for one’s needs, health, and (Gandhi would argue) happiness

must not be usurped by industrial mechanizations.

Conclusion

By exposing students to Gandhi’s criticisms of modern, industrial civilization and his vision

for swaraj, they are able to further complicate their understandings of Dickens’ satire and

challenge their assumptions regarding modern society and education. Dickens sees education

as a balance of both fact and creativity, while Gandhi sees education creating a strong moral

base and then providing the tools for each person to better themselves and their community.

Also, Dickens and Gandhi both worry about mechanization in there modern societies. For

Dickens, it is the mechanization of human beings to the extent that emotion and creativity are

shunned and workers are viewed only in terms of their useful parts (“hands” for example).

Gandhi, who is equally against certain types of mechanization, views it in terms of taking

traditional jobs away from people in favor of foreign made goods and causing people (like the

“hands” in Dickens novel) to toil in subhuman conditions. Both views can make students and

adults alike view the world we live in more critical terms; hopefully choosing to use their

education as a tool to think and act for the betterment of our society


Guiding Questions:

1.What are Gandhi’s arguments against modern, industrial civilization?

2.What alternatives does Gandhi present to modern, industrial civilization?

3.What are Gandhi and Dickens’ views on what education should and should not look like?



Read the following excerpt:

Ghandi

Chapter-6: Civilization

Reader : Now you will have to explain what you mean by civilization.

Editor : It is not a question of what I mean. Several English writers refuse to call that civilization

which passes under that name. Many books have been written upon that subject. Societies

have been formed to cure the nation of the evils of civilization. A great English writer has

written a work called Civilization: Its Cause and Cure. Therein he has called it a disease.

Reader : Why do we not know this generally ?

Editor : The answer is very simple. We rarely find people arguing against themselves. Those

who are intoxicated by modern civilization are not likely to write against it. Their care will be to

find out facts and arguments in support of it, and this they do unconsciously, believing it to to

be true. A man whilst he is dreaming, believes in his dream; he is undeceived only when he is

awakened from his sleep. A man labouring under the bane of civilization is like a dreaming man.

What we usually read are the works of defenders of modern civilization, which undoubtedly

claims among its votaries very brilliant and even some very good men. Their writings hypnotize

us. And so, one by one, we are drawn into the vortex.

Reader : This seems to be very plausible. Now will you tell me something of what you have read

and thought of this civilization?

Editor : Let us first consider what state of things is described by the word "civilization". Its true

test lies in the fact that people living in it make bodily welfare the object of life. We will take

some examples. The people of Europe today live in better-built houses than they did a hundred

years ago. This is considered an emblem of civilization, and this is also a matter to promote

bodily happiness. Formerly, they wore skins, and used spears as their weapons. Now, they wear

long trousers, and, for embellishing their bodies, they wear a variety of clothing, and, instead of

spears, they carry with them revolvers containing five or more chambers. If people of a certain

country, who have hitherto not been in the habit of wearing much clothing, boots, etc., adopt

European clothing, they are supposed to have become civilized out of savagery. Formerly, in

Europe, people ploughed their lands mainly by manual labour. Now, one man can plough a vast

tract by means of steam engines and can thus amass great wealth. This is called a sign of

civilization. Formerly, only a few men wrote valuable books. Now, anybody writes and prints

anything he likes and poisons people's minds. Formerly, men travelled in waggons. Now, they

fly through the air in trains at the rate of four hundred and more miles per day. This is


considered the height of civilization. It has been stated that, as men progress, they shall be able

to travel in airship and reach any part of the world in a few hours. Men will not need the use of

their hands and feet. They will press a button, and they will have their clothing by their side.

They will press another button, and they will have their newspaper. A third, and a motor-car

will be in waiting for them. They will have a variety of delicately dished up food. Everything will

be done by machinery. Formerly, when people wanted to fight with one another, they

measured between them their bodily strength; now it is possible to take away thousands of

lives by one man working behind a gun from a hill. This is civilization. Formerly, men worked in

the open air only as much as they liked. Now thousands of workmen meet together and for the

sake of maintenance work in factories or mines. Their condition is worse than that of beasts.

They are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for the sake

of millionaires. Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion. Now they are

enslaved by temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy. There are now

diseases of which people never dreamt before, and an army of doctors is engaged in finding out

their cures, and so hospitals have increased. This is a test of civilization. Formerly, special

messengers were required and much expense was incurred in order to send letters; today,

anyone can abuse his fellow by means of a letter for one penny True, at the same cost, one can

send one's thanks also.

Formerly, people had two or three meals consisting of home-made bread and vegetables; now,

they require something to eat every two hours so that they have hardly leisure for anything

else. What more need I say? All this you can ascertain from several authoritative books. These

are all true tests of civilization. And if anyone speaks to the contrary, know that he is ignorant.

This civilization takes note neither of morality nor of religion. Its votaries calmly state that their

business is not to teach religion. Some even consider it to be a superstitious growth. Others put

on the cloak of religion, and prate about morality. But, after twenty years' experience, I have

come to the conclusion that immorality is often taught in the name of morality. Even a child can

understand that in all I have described above there can be no inducement to morality.

Civilization seeks to increase bodily comforts, and it fails miserably even in doing so.

This civilization is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the people in Europe that those

who are in it appear to be half mad. They lack real physical strength or courage. They keep up

their energy by intoxication. They can hardly be happy in solitude. Women, who should be the

queens of households, wander in the streets or they slave away in factories. For the sake of a

pittance, half a million women in England alone are labouring under trying circumstances in

factories or similar institutions. This awful fact is one of the causes of the daily growing

suffragette movement.

This civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destroyed. According to

the teaching of Mahomed this would be considered a Satanic Civilization. Hinduism calls it the

Black Age. I cannot give you an adequate conception of it. It is eating into the vitals of the


English nation. It must be shunned.

Parliaments are really emblems of slavery. If you will sufficiently think over this, you will

entertain the same opinion and cease to blame the English. They rather deserve our sympathy.

They are a shrewd nation and I therefore believe that they will cast off the evil. They are

enterprising and industrious, and their mode of thought is not inherently immoral. Neither are

they bad at heart. I therefore respect them. Civilization is not an incurable disease, but it should

never be forgotten that the English people are at present afflicted by it.

Chapter-13: What is True Civilization?

Reader :You have denounced railways, lawyers and doctors. I can see that you will discard all

machinery. What, then, is civilization?

Editor :The answer to, that question is not difficult. I believe that the civilization India has

evolved is not to be beaten in the world. Nothing can equal the seeds sown by our ancestors.

Rome went, Greece shared the same fate; the might of the Pharaohs was broken; Japan has

become Westernized; of China nothing can be said; but India is still, somehow or other, sound

at the foundation. The people of Europe learn their lessons from the writings of the men of

Greece or Rome, which exist no longer in their former glory. In trying to learn from them, the

Europeans imagine that they will avoid the mistakes of Greece and Rome. Such is their pitiable

condition. In the midst of all this India remains immovable and that is her glory. It is a charge

against India that her people are so uncivilized, ignorant and stolid, that it is not possible to

induce them to adopt any changes. It is a charge really against our merit. What we have tested

and found true on the anvil of experience, we dare not change. Many thrust their advice upon

India, and she remains steady. This is her beauty: it is the sheet-anchor of our hope.

Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of duty. Performance of

duty and observance of morality are convertible terms. To observe morality is to attain mastery

over our mind and our passions. So doing, we know ourselves. The Gujarati equivalent for

civilization means "good conduct".

If this definition be correct, then India, as so many writers have shown, has nothing to learn

from anybody else, and this is as it should be. We notice that the mind is a restless bird; the

more it gets the more it wants, and still remains unsatisfied. The more we indulge our passions

the more unbridled they become. Our ancestors, therefore, set a limit to our indulgences. They

saw that happiness was largely a mental condition. A man is not necessarily happy because he

is rich, or unhappy because he is poor. The rich are often seen to be unhappy, the poor to be

happy. Millions will always remain poor. Observing all this, our ancestors dissuaded us from

luxuries and pleasures. We have managed with the same kind of plough as existed thousands of

years ago. We have retained the same kind of cottages that we had in former times and our


indigenous education remains the same as before. We have had no system of life-corroding

competition. Each followed his own occupation or trade and charged a regulation wage. It was

not that we did not know how to invent machinery, but our forefathers knew that, if we set our

hearts after such things, we would become slaves and lose our moral fibre. They, therefore,

after due deliberation decided that we should only do what we could with our hands and feet.

They saw that our real happiness and health consisted in a proper use of our hands and feet.

They further reasoned that large cities were a snare and a useless encumbrance and that

people would not be happy in them, that there would be gangs of thieves and robbers,

prostitution and vice flourishing in them and that poor men would be robbed by rich men. They

were, therefore, satisfied with small villages. They saw that kings and their swords were inferior

to the sword of ethics, and they, therefore, held the sovereigns of the earth to be inferior to the

Rishis and the Fakirs. A nation with a constitution like this is fitter to teach others than to learn

from others. This nation had courts, lawyers and doctors, but they were all within bounds.

Everybody knew that these professions were not particularly superior; moreover, these vakils

and vaids did not rob people; they were considered people's dependants, not their masters.

Justice was tolerably fair. The ordinary rule was to avoid courts. There were no touts to lure

people into them. This evil, too, was noticeable only in and around capitals. The common

people lived independently and followed their agricultural occupation. They enjoyed true Home

Rule.

And where this cursed modern civilization has not reached, India remains as it was before. The

inhabitants of that part of India will very properly laugh at your newfangled notions. The English

do not rule over them, nor will you ever rule over them. Those in whose name we speak we do

not know, nor do they know us. I would certainly advise you and those like you who love the

motherland to go into the interior that has yet been not polluted by the railways and to live

there for six months; you might then be patriotic and speak of Home Rule.

Now you see what I consider to be real civilization. Those who want to change conditions such

as I have described are enemies of the country and are sinners.

Reader :It would be all right if India were exactly as you have described it, but it is also India

where there are hundreds of child widows, where two year old babies are married, where

twelve year old girls are mothers and housewives, where women practise polyandry, where the

practice of Niyoga obtains, where, in the name of religion, girls dedicate themselves to

prostitution, and in the name of religion sheep and goats are killed. Do you consider these also

symbols of the civilization that you have described?

Editor :You make a mistake. The defects that you have shown are defects. Nobody mistakes

them for ancient civilization. They remain in spite of it. Attempts have always been made and

will be made to remove them. We may utilize the new spirit that is born in us for purging

ourselves of these evils. But what I have described to you as emblems of modern civilization are

accepted as such by its votaries. The Indian civilization, as described by me, has been so


described by its votaries. In no part of the world, and under no civilization, have all men

attained perfection. The tendency of the Indian civilization is to elevate the moral being, that of

the Western civilization is to propagate immorality. The latter is godless, the former is based on

a belief in God. So understanding and so believing, it behoves every lover of India to cling to the

old Indian civilization even as a child clings to the mother's breast.

Chapter-18: Education

Reader :In the whole of our discussion, you have not demonstrated the necessity for education;

we always complain of its absence among us. We notice a movement for compulsory education

in our country. The Maharaja Gaekwar has introduced it in his territories. Every eye is directed

towards them. We bless the Maharaja for it. Is all this effort then of no use?

Editor :If we consider our civilization to be the highest, I have regretfully to say that much of

the effort you have described is of no use. The motive of the Maharaja and other great leaders

who have been working in this direction is perfectly pure. They, therefore, undoubtedly deserve

great praise. But we cannot conceal from ourselves the result that likely to flow from their

effort.

What is the meaning of education? It simply means a knowledge of letters. It is merely an

instrument, and an instrument may be well used or abused. The same instrument that may be

used to cure a patient may be used to take his life, and so may a knowledge of letters. We daily

observe that many men abuse it and very few make good use of it; and if this is a correct

statement, we have proved that more harm has been done by it than good.

The ordinary meaning of education is a knowledge of letters. To teach boys reading, writing and

arithmetic is called primary education. A peasant earns his bread honestly. He has ordinary

knowledge of the world. He knows fairly well how he should behave towards his parents, his

wife, his children and his fellow villagers. He understands and observes the rules of morality But

he cannot write his own name. What do you propose to do by giving him a knowledge of letters

? Will you add an inch to his happiness? Do you wish to make him discontented with his cottage

or his lot? And even if you want to do that, he will not need such an education. Carried away by

the flood of western thought we came to the conclusion, without weighing pros and cons, that

we should give this kind of education to the people.

Now let us take higher education. I have learned Geography, Astronomy, Algebra, Geometry,

etc. What of that ? In what way have. I benefited myself or those around me? Why have I

learned these things ? Professor Huxley has thus defined education: "That man I think has had a

liberal education who has been so trained in youth that his body is the ready servant of his will

and does with ease and pleasure all the work that as a mechanism it is capable of; whose

intellect is a clear, cold, logic engine with all its parts of equal strength and in smooth working

order... whose mind is stored with a knowledge of the fundamental truths of nature... whose


passions are trained to come to heel by a vigorous will, the servant of a tender conscience...

who has learnt to hate all vileness and to respect others as himself. Such a one and no other, I

conceive, has had a liberal education, for he is in harmony with nature. He will make the best of

her and she of him."

If this is true education, I must emphatically say that the sciences I have enumerated above I

have never been able to use for controlling my senses. Therefore, whether you take elementary

education or higher education, it is not required for the main thing. It does not make men of us.

It does not enable us to do our duty.

Reader :If that is so, I shall have to ask you - another question. What enables you to tell all

these things to me? If you had not received higher education, how would you have been able to

explain to me the things that you have?

Editor :You have spoken well. But my answer is simple: I do not for one moment believe that

my life would have been wasted, had I not received higher or lower education. Nor do I

consider that I necessarily serve because I speak. But I do desire to serve and in endeavouring

to fulfill that desire, I make use of the education I have received. And, if I am making good use

of it, even then it is not for the millions, but I can use it only for such as you, and this supports

my contention. Both you and I have come under the bane of what is mainly false education. I

claim to have become free from its ill effect, and I am trying to give you the benefit of my

experience and in doing so, I am demonstrating the rottenness of this education.

Moreover, I have not run down a knowledge of letters in all circumstances. All I have now

shown is that we must not make of it a fetish. It is not our Kamadhuk. In its place it can be of

use and it has its place when we have brought our senses under subjection and put our ethics

on a firm foundation. And then, if we feel inclined to receive that education, we may make

good use of it. As an ornament it is likely to sit well on us. It now follows that it is not necessary

to make this education compulsory. Our ancient school system is enough. Character-building

has the first place in it and that is primary education. A building erected on that foundation will

last.

Reader :Do I then understand that you do not consider English education necessary for

obtaining Home Rule?

Editor: My answer is yes and no. To give millions a knowledge of English is to enslave them. The

foundation that Macaulay laid of education has enslaved us. I do not suggest that he has any

such intention, but that has been the result. Is it not a sad commentary that we should have to

speak of Home Rule in a foreign tongue?

And it is worthy of note that the systems which the Europeans have discarded are the systems

in vogue among us. Their learned men continually make changes. We ignorantly adhere to their

cast-off systems. They are trying each division to improve its own status. Wales is a small

portion of England. Great efforts are being made to revive a knowledge of Welsh among

Welshmen. The English Chancellor, Mr. Llyod George is taking a leading part in the movement


to make Welsh children speak Welsh. And what is our condition? We write to each other in

faulty English, and from this even our M.A.s are not free; our best thoughts are expressed in

English; the proceedings of our Congress are conducted in English; our best newspapers are

printed in English. If this state of things continues for a long time, posterity will- it is my firm

opinion - condemn and curse us.

It is worth noting that, by receiving English education, we have enslaved the nation. Hypocrisy,

tryanny, etc., have increased; English-knowing Indians have not hesitated to cheat and strike

terror into the people. Now, if we are doing anything for the people at all, we are paying only a

portion of the debt due to them.

Is it not a painful thing that, if I want to go to a court of justice, I must employ the English

language as a medium, that when I become a barrister, I may not speak my mother tongue and

that someone else should have to translate to me from my own language? Is not this absolutely

absurd? Is it not a sign of slavery? Am I to blame the English for it or myself? It is we, the

English-knowing Indians, that have enslaved India. The curse of the nation will rest not upon

the English but upon us.

I have told you that my answer to your last question is both yes and no. I have explained to you

why it is yes. I shall now explain why it is no.

We are so much beset by the disease of civilization, that we cannot altogether do without

English-education. Those who have already received it may make good use of it wherever

necessary. In our dealings with the English people, in our dealings with our own people, when

we can only correspond with them through that language, and for the purpose of knowing how

disgusted they (the English) have themselves become with their civilization we may use or learn

English, as the case may be. Those who have studied English will have to teach morality to their

progeny through their mother tongue and to teach them another Indian language; but when

they have grown up, they may learn English, the ultimate aim being that we should not need it.

The object of making money thereby should be eschewed. Even in learning English to such a

limited extent we shall have to consider what we should learn through it and what we should

not. It will be necessary to know what sciences we should learn. A little thought should show

you that immediately we cease to care for English degrees, the rulers will prick up their ears.

Reader :Then what education shall we give?

Editor :This has been somewhat considered above, but we will consider it a little more. I think

that we have to improve all our languages. What subjects we should learn through them need

not be elaborated here. Those English books which are valuable, we should translate into the

various Indian languages. We should abandon the pretension of learning many sciences.

Religious, that is ethical, education will occupy the first place. Every cultured Indian will know in

addition to his own provincial language, if a Hindu, Sanskrit; if a Mahomedan, Arabic; if a

Parsee, Persian; and all, Hindi. Some Hindus should know Arabic and Persian; some

Mahomedans and Parsees, Sanskrit. Several Northerners and Westerners should learn Tamil. A


universal language for India should be Hindi, with the option of writing it in Persian or Nagari

characters. In order that the Hindus and the Mahomedans may have closer relations, it is

necessary to know both the characters. And, if we can do this, we can drive the English

language out of the field in a short time. All this is necessary for us, slaves. Through our slavery

the nation has been enslaved, and it will be free with our freedom.

Reader :The question of religious education is very difficult.

Editor :Yet we cannot do without it. India will never be godless. Rank atheism cannot flourish in

this land. The task is indeed difficult. My head begins to turn as I think of religious education.

Our religious teachers are hypocritical and selfish; they will have to be approached. The Mullas,

the Dasturs and the Brahmins hold the key in their hands, but if they will not have the good

sense, the energy that we have derived from English education will have to be devoted to

religious education. This is not very difficult. Only the fringe of the ocean has been polluted and

it is those who are within the fringe who alone need cleansing. We who come under this

category can even cleanse ourselves because my remarks do not apply to the millions. In order

to restore India to its pristine condition, we have to return to it. In our own civilization there

will naturally be progress, retrogression, reforms, and reactions; but one effort is required, and

that is to drive out Western civilization. All else will follow.


Reading Questions:

1. What are Gandhi’s arguments against modern, industrial civilization?

2. What alternatives does Gandhi present to modern, industrial civilization?

3. What are Gandhi and Dickens’ views on what education should and should not look like?

4. What is the function of education in a Utilitarian society?

5. How do you think Dickens would structure education?

6. What is the function of education in “Education” by Gandhi?

7. In a well-written thoughtful essay, compare and contrast Charles Dickens’s view of civilization

(Utilitarianism in particular) with that of Ghandhi. Pay close attention to how each deals with

education, the problems faced by people in their respective societies, and the solutions each

offer to their reader.



View each of the Ted Talks listed below, then answer the questions that follow – when finished, email your answers to Ms. Hanson: [email protected]

Ted Talks and Questions

1. What if Schools Taught Us How to Learn? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtQzuwnyW6E

1. What if schools taught us how to learn? 2. How do the ideas of education presented in the video compare to ideals presented by

Dickens and Gandhi? 3. How do the central ideas compare from TED Talk to TED Talk? 4. Which speakers have similar points of view? 5. Which speakers would disagree with each other’s central idea?

2. The Surprising Truth About Learning in Schools https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxyKNMrhEvY

1. What do you believe about how kids learn best 2. How do the ideas of education presented in the video compare to ideals presented by


3. What Standardized Tests Don’t Measure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woVtj8GH678

What does Nikki Adeli believe is the value and purpose of schools?

1. What do you believe about how kids learn best 2. How do the ideas of education presented in the video compare to ideals presented by


4. High School Training Ground

https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_london_high_school_training_ground

1. How do the ideas of education presented in the video compare to ideals presented by Dickens and Gandhi?

2. How do the central ideas compare from TED Talk to TED Talk? 3. Which speakers have similar points of view? 4. Which speakers would disagree with each other’s central idea?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtQzuwnyW6E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxyKNMrhEvY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woVtj8GH678

https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_london_high_school_training_ground


Final Assessment Options:

Complete one of the two choices and email your work to Ms. Hanson at [email protected].

Choice #1

Education Projects The Format options:

1. A Prezi with at least 10 slides on your topic. 2. A Powtoons with at least 10 slides on your topic. 3. An Animoto video on your topic. 4. A Piktochart on your topic. 5. A newspaper with comics, editorials, advertisements, and lead stories (at least 4 pages). 6. A game that can be played with the class that teaches us about the educational topic

you chose. 7. A children’s book about your topic. 8. A Ted Talk by you about your topic. 9. A debate that has been recorded (must follow Robert’s Rules of Order).

The Topics:

1. Compare Japan’s educational system to ours. 2. The effects standardized testing on education. 3. Where Americans rank in world education. 4. Vo-tech in high school: Good or bad? 5. Why some schools perform higher than others. 6. What makes a person “educated”? 7. How has education changed in the last 50 years? Is it better or worse? 8. What to do about disciple in the classroom? Offer solutions. 9. Why students don’t want to read? What can/should be done? 10. Sports in schools: Good or bad? 11. Music in education: Good or bad? 12. Utilitarianism in our modern educational school system. 13. The cost of higher education – is it worth it? (Hanson’s students may NOT pick this!) 14. The cost of not being educated? 15. The keys to a successful college experience. 16. Electronics / technology in the classroom: friend or foe? 17. The ideal classroom – what should learning look like? 18. One class that should be offered in high school that is not.



Choice # 2

Based on information shared in TED Talks, is modern U.S. education reform aimed at the same outcomes argued for by Dickens and Gandhi many years ago?

Write an argumentative essay defending your conclusion by incorporating a connection between quotes from the antique texts and examples or non-examples of what exists today (as presented by the speakers in the TED Talks).

5 page minimum Proper MLA format

quarter 4 unit: public education, then and now stay home... · 2020. 4. 1. · public education,...

Documents