Irving Babbitt's New Humanism: An Outsider's Perspective on Curricular Debates at the Turn of the 20th Century

Abstract

This dissertation examines the educational ideas and beliefs of Irving Babbitt (1865-1933). As the co-founder of the New Humanism, Babbitt advocated throughout the beginning of the 20th century for an education that helped put a check on the naturally expansive tendencies of the individual. Babbitt believed in a dualism found in the inner life of each individual: a part of us that is capable of exercising control and a part of us that needs controlling. Babbitt bemoaned the gradual loss of this inner control within each individual, a loss that was precipitated by the new education. In this dissertation, Babbitt's place within the humanist faction of the curricular battles of the early 20th century is explored, along with the historical and philosophical basis for his New Humanism. In addition, Babbitt's criticism of humanitarianism, in opposition to his "genuine" humanism, is examined. His definitions and criticisms of sentimental and scientific humanitarians are applied to two of the curricular factions of the time: the child-study advocates and the social efficiency experts, respectively. Babbitt argued that these two stances, despite their profound differences, at least on the surface, actually shared the same philosophical foundations and reinforced each other within education. Additionally, Babbitt's philosophical qualms with Charles W. Eliot and John Dewey, the two figureheads of American education in Babbitt's lifetime, are explored. I conclude by contemplating Babbitt's theoretical response to the latest attempts to introduce a humanist curriculum back into American schools.