=Limitations of the Aim.=--This view evidently differs from others in
that it finds the justification for education, not primarily in the
needs or rights of a larger society of which the child is a member, but
rather in those of the single individual. Here, however, a difficulty
presents itself. If the developing of the child's capacities and
tendencies constitute the real purpose of public education, may not
education at times conflict with the good of the state itself? Now it is
evident that if a child has a tendency to lie, or steal, or inflict pain
on others, the development of such tendencies must result in harm to the
community at large. On the other hand, it is clear that in the case of
other proclivities which the child may possess, such as industry,
truthfulness, self-sacrifice, etc., the development of these cannot be
separated from the idea of the good of others. To apply a purely
individual aim to education, therefore, seems impossible; since we can
have no standard to distinguish between good and bad tendencies, unless
these are measured from a social standpoint or from a consideration of
the good of others, and not from the mere tendencies and capacities of
the individual. Moreover, to attempt the harmonious development of all
the child's tendencies and powers is not justifiable, even in the case
of those tendencies which might not conflict with the good of others. As
already noted, division of labour has now gone so far that the
individual may profitably be relieved from many forms of social
activity. This implies as a corollary, however, that the individual will
place greater stress upon other forms of activity.


THE SOCIAL, OR ECLECTIC, VIEW

Moreover, because, as already noted, the child is by his very nature a
social being, it follows that the good of the individual can never in