The Scheme of Things

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 138, 13 June 1931, Page 9

The Scheme of Things

By M.H.C.

The question arises sometimes in the I it md of man—or rather of woman—as to the w>sdom of the sweeping criticisms of classes of people, or, indeed, the wisdom of placing human beings in classes kit all. In the past it was done often for the sako of convenience, and many deadly errors wero the result. It is a common thing to hear tho unthinking say: "Oh, women are this or that," and pthors place men in the same sort 01 general category as to their characteristics, achievements, standards, and so on. But continual instances are arising in the experience of most which snow that their pre-conceived ideas of the conduct of members of either sex maybe completely mistaken.' "When it is observed that a man is bitter in his condemnation of tho generality of women, when he finds all kinds of petty faults in them, tho only way to do justice to the women he condemns is to find out what kind are the ones closest to him, and with, whom he generally associates? ■• If they are narrow, gossipy, censorious, untruthful, or spitoful, .the man will probably place "all those unamiable qualities on women generally, and get a pleasant surprise now and then when he gets to know some woman or women who have none of those faults! He will not credit that he has just been unfortunate in his surrounding influences. The same applies to women who find —according to their general declarations —that men are selfish, "one-idead," with poor moral standardsj.they, equally, condemn those they know best, or with whom they are most associated. It is a very dangerous thing to generalise about people. Not so very long ago it was common, enough for people to talk about the "selfishness of tho world," and many instances could, certainly bo given of special selfishness. Yet, in a general view of life, it must be acknowledged that the world is largely a kind world. The cause of the poor, tho hungry, the sick, the oppressed, the helpless, looms largely in the eyes of the people of the present day. The associations of people ■who take untold time and trouble to relieve the sorrows and disabilities of others are so numerous that accusations are often made of "over-lapping," and those who do not, or wish not to help, are ready to find fault accordingly.

. The subject is quite an interesting one. It may be further considered on the lines of those who feel that these efforts on the part of kindly people are "pauperising," and those who are very ready to say that "a. great deal too much is done to help people nowadays —there is no spirit of independence left." The old-fashioned reply, "There is a great deal in what you say," might be given to that sentiment, but it is the unusual person who can see a family with practically no food in the house, insufficient clothing, and absolutely no resources, and stand coldly by and do nothing. The person who makes stringent inquiry as to the why and wherefore of the conditions of such people may quite likely find that there has been improvidence on the part of parents, extravagance on the part of the adult or adolescent members of the family, or the old, sad story of drink being the cause of all the troubles. Still, when the fireplace is cold, the cupboard empty, and the bodies not

I half-clothed; it seems hardly the time to question.the past; tho weakness, sclrtshnoss, and want of self-restraint that have brought about such conditions are matters to bo fought later on, and in other ways and places—not on the doorstep of misery and want. . The recent statement of a well-known headmaster that "character-buildingis tho most important part of education" is a cheering saying—if it is taken seriously and acted up to in practical everyday teaching in the schools. An interested person, not very long ago, interviewed some educational authorities, and asked about that particular matter. "Is there any definite plan within the school curriculum, and in general use, of the teaching of morality and the important part of citizenship— the treatment,of one human being by another on right lines?" A sort of Parliamentary answer was given. "The reply is in the affirmative," but closer questioning brought forth the reality, which" seems to be that certain teachers have a high ideal of their duties, and. realise to the full tho importance of charaeterrbuilding in the young. These do a great and fine work. But there is no settled plan, and those who are not interested in that direction have nothing to oblige them to give such teaching. Tlfey may not be capable of it. Such subjects are "not for examination," nor do they count in tho "passes" which are so important in the teacher's averages of success. Therefore, this kind of teaching may not be found time for, specially if a teacher is not a very good manager of time, or feels inadequate to undertake instruction or lectures on social subjects, such as are Within the very centre of the foundation of the people in every country. These subjects appear to bo the ones that are ignored in the schools. An old and valued teacher, who had retired, remarked, when asked if she had ever taught her pupils on morality and good citizenship lines: "There was no time for such subjects, nor did I feel competent to undertake them." It would be interesting to know now, when leading men in the teaching world stress the importance "of homely teaching of morality and decent conduct, if there is any training given to' the younger and oncoming teachers which will fit them to teach conduct adequately to the "young idea." The accusations made some time ago against State school children, as well as against other schools, looked as if such teaching was needed (even if the story told was a most exaggerated one —as many people believe), and show that it would bo a fino thing for the country and a wonderful benefit to the young citizens if they could have something taught at school which would fit them for real citizenship, not merely wage-earners, more or less successful, as the individual eases might be. "What is wanted is a general standard of morality to bo inculcated along with other lessons, given according to the age and understanding of pupils, just exactly as the "three R-'s," etc., are graduated and taught for the benefit of the young people. It is to be hoped that the declarations of well-known educationists will-have some weight, and a "new| vision" will develop in this important matter.