Pedagogical Anthropology - Maria Montessori (best free novels TXT) 📗

so many fundamental charts of the normal average child; and we may consider each successive type of stature, from the new-born infant to the adult man, in the same light as we do the average type of the mature mesatiscelous type. In the case of the latter, we found that both above and below the medium stature, there were a host of individual types departing more or less widely from it, and tending toward brachyscelia on the one hand and toward macroscelia on the other, thus constituting the oscillations of type in the individual varieties. Similarly, in the case of the medium type of each successive age we may find brachyscelous or macroscelous individuals whose complex personal characteristics may be compared to those already observed in the adult, and may be summed up as follows: that the macroscele is a weakling; and that the brachyscele may be, according to the degree of variation, either a robust individual or an individual that has been arrested in his morphological development, and retained the type of a younger age.

Pedagogic Considerations.—From the above conclusion, we may deduce certain principles that can be profitably applied to pedagogy, especially in regard to some of the methods suited to our guidance in the physical education of children. Let us begin with the happy comparison drawn by Manouvrier, who describes an imaginary duel with swords between a macroscelous and a brachyscelous type. The duel, according to social conventions, must take place under equal conditions: hence the seconds take rigorous care in measuring the ground, the length of the swords, and determine the number of paces permitted to the duelists. But since they have forgotten the anthropologic side, the conditions are not entirely equal: by having a longer arm, the macroscele is in the same position as though he had a longer sword; and because he has a greater development of the lower limbs, the established number of strides will take him over a greater space of ground than his adversary. Consequently, the conditions as a matter of fact are so favourable to the macroscele, that is, to the weaker individual, that the latter has a greater chance of victory. The brachyscele might, to be sure, offset this by a different manœuvre depending on his superior agility; but both he and the macroscele were trained in the same identical method, which takes into consideration only the external factor, the arms of defence, and the immutable laws of chivalry.

Well, something quite similar happens in the duel of life, which is waged in school and in the outside social environment. We ignore individual differences, and concern ourselves solely with the means of education, considering that they are just, so long as they are equal for all. The fencing-master, if he had been an anthropologist, might have counteracted the probability that the stronger pupil would be beaten by the weaker, by advising the brachyscele always to choose a pistol in place of a sword, or by teaching him some manoeuvre entirely different from that which affords the macroscele a favourable preparation for fencing. And in the same way, it is the duty of the school-teacher to select the arms best adapted to lead his pupil on to victory.

That is, the teacher ought to make the anthropological study of the pupil precede his education; he should prepare him for whatever he is best adapted for, and should indicate to him the paths that are best for him to follow, in the struggle for existence.

But, aside from general considerations, we may point out that something very similar to the above-mentioned duel takes place in school when, in the course of gymnastic exercises, we make the children march, arranging them according to their total height. We expect them to march evenly and walk, not run, yet we do not trouble to ask whether their legs are of equal length. When we wish to know which of our pupils is the swiftest runner, we start them all together, macrosceles and brachysceles alike, neglecting to measure their lower limbs, the weight of their bodies, the circumference of their chests. Then we say "bravo!" to the macroscele, that is, the pupil who is most agile but at the same time the weakest, and we encourage him in a pride based upon a physiological inferiority. When we practise exercises of endurance, we find that certain children weary sooner, suffer from shortness of breath, and frequently drop out of the contest, in which the victory is reserved for others. The latter are the brachysceles, who have big lungs and a robust heart at their disposal. In this case we say "bravo!" to the brachysceles. Then we try to arouse a noble rivalry between the two types, encouraging emulation, and holding up before the brachyscele the example of the macroscele's agility, and before the macroscele the example of the brachyscele's endurance—and perhaps we reward the two types with different medals. Such decisions by the teacher evidently have no such foundation in justice as he supposes; the diverse abilities of the two types of children are associated with the constitution of their organisms. A modern teacher ought instead to subject the brachyscelous child to exercises adapted to develop his length of limb, and the macroscelous to gymnastics that will increase the development of his chest; and he will abstain from all praise, reward, exhortation and emulation, that have for their sole basis the pupil's complete anthropological inefficiency.

"The judgment passed by the teacher in assigning rewards and punishments is often an unconscious diagnosis of the child's anthropological personality."

Similar unconscious judgments are exceedingly widespread. Manouvrier gives a brilliant exposition of them in the course of his general considerations regarding the macroscelous and brachyscelous types. A brachyscelous ballet-dancer, all grace and endurance in her dancing, thanks to the strength of her lungs, can never be imitated in her movements by a macroscelous, angular woman, with legs ungracefully long. The latter, on the contrary, wrapped in a mantle, may become the incarnation of a stately matron, extending her long arms in majestic gestures. Yet it often happens that the stately actress envies and seeks to imitate the grace of the dancer, while the latter envies and emulates the grave dignity of the actress.

In any private drawing-room the same thing occurs, in the shape of different advantages distributed among persons of different types. There are some gestures that are inimitable because they are associated with a certain anthropologic personality. Every one in the world ought to do the things for which he is specially adapted. It is the part of wisdom to recognise what each one of us is best fitted for, and it is the part of education to perfect and utilise such predispositions. Because education can direct and aid nature, but can never transform her.

Manouvrier is constantly observing how the macroscelous and brachyscelous types are adapted to different kinds of social labour; thus, for example, the macroscele will make an excellent reaper, because of the wide sweep of his arms, and he is well adapted to be a tiller of the soil; while the brachyscele, on the contrary, will succeed admirably in employment that requires continuous and energetic effort, such as lifting weights, hammering on an anvil, or tending the work of a machine.

In the social evolution now taking place, the services of the macrosceles are steadily becoming less necessary; intensive modern labour requires the short, robust arm of the brachyscele. Such considerations ought not to escape the notice of the teacher, who sees in the boy the future man. He has the high mission of preparing the duelists of life for victory, by now correcting and again aiding the nature of each. And the first point of departure is undoubtedly to learn to know, in each case le physique du role.

Abnormal Types of Stature and General Principles of Biological Ethics