# An Introduction to Ethics, for Training Colleges/Chapter 2

PART I.
THE GROUNDWORK OF CHARACTER.
CHAPTER II.
HEREDITY AND ENVIRONMENT.
§ 1. Character, Heredity, and Environment. If we examine the groundwork of character, we shall find that at any stage in the child's development his character is what it is in virtue of (1) the original inheritance which he has received from his ancestors, and (2) the modifications and alterations produced in his original nature by the influence of environment. In some children the sinews of character may be due to the former factor rather than the latter; in others, the environment may have exercised the dominant influence. But in every case the two factors are necessarily involved. Character cannot be produced by heredity alone. The child is not supplied at birth with a ready-made character, which environment can do nothing to alter or modify. On the other hand, the infant's mind is not simply a piece of blank paper on which the ​environment can make any marks it pleases. Environment alone does not produce character. All character arises from the interaction of both heredity and environment.
But this is not all there is to say about character. Even in its earliest years the child does not submit to be passively moulded by these two great influences. The child is not simply a mass of clay at the mercy of Heredity and Environment, the two hands of the Potter. The child himself takes a hand in the process of making his character. He reacts on the formative influences to which he is subjected, and as his system of purposes grows and his will-power develops, he definitely, though at first unconsciously, undertakes the task of fashioning his own character. Thus the three great factors in character-building are heredity, environment, and will. These are all represented in the saying, "Some men are born great, some achieve greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them." "Some men are born great"—this emphasises the importance of heredity; "some have greatness thrust upon them"—here is the factor of environment; "some achieve greatness"—this involves the activity of the man's will. But we must guard against supposing that any man's character is produced solely by heredity, or solely by environment, or solely by will. The relative importance of the three factors varies in different people, but in the formation of every character each element has had some rôle to play.
In this chapter we shall consider the significance of heredity and environment in their relation to character.
​§ 2. Physical Heredity. All character has a physical basis. Every child has a body, and without a body it could have no character. In studying the development of character, we must therefore first examine the meaning of physical heredity. Heredity has been defined as the genetic relation that binds one generation to another. The individual's inheritance includes all that he is, or has, to start with, in virtue of this genetic relation. The importance of heredity is recognised in phrases that have become household words. "A chip of the old block" suggests the essential continuity of one generation with those that preceded it; and "Blood will tell" illustrates the popular conviction that the past generation determines the development of the present.
What exactly is included in the inheritance? It has been represented pictorially by President D. S. Jordan as a "pack." In The Heredity of Richard Roe, President Jordan makes an analysis of the contents of the pack with which the typical individual Richard Roe starts life. First of all, the pack contains the general characteristics of his common humanity, the general qualities that belong to him in virtue of the fact that he is a human being, and not a bird or a fish. In addition, the pack comprises the features which belong to the race of which he has been born a member. If he be of Celtic parentage, his pack will contain the characteristics of the Celtic stock. He will be fiery, but ​not with the passion of the South Italian; he will be imaginative, but without the mental symbolism of the Oriental. But his pack includes also those more particular characteristics which he has inherited directly from his parents—peculiar features in which he resembles them, and which mark him off as their son. And lastly, the pack will contain some elements which it is impossible to assign to any determinate quarter. These characteristics will be found in his pack, and in his alone. They are the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies which belong to him alone, and which differentiate him from all other people, even from his parents and brothers.
The proportion of this comprehensive inheritance that is due to the various generations of the child's ancestors has been calculated; and may be stated most conveniently in the form in which it was formulated by Sir Francis Galton in his Law of Ancestral Inheritance. Galton showed that on the average in every inheritance the two parents together contribute one half, the grandparents between them one quarter, and so on in the regular series ½ + ¼ + ⅛ + … This law holds good on the whole, but it gives no guidance in dealing with particular cases.
Heredity involves two aspects. "The hereditary relation is such that like tends to beget like, white at the same time opportunity is afforded for the individual new departures which we call variations. Both the tendency to persist and the tendency to diverge are included in the hereditary relation, so that it is confusing to make an absolute antithesis between heredity and variation. Heredity, seen in ​its fullest sense, is the larger concept, and includes both inertia and divergence, both continuance and change. Whatever be the terms used, there are two complemental facts: that like tends to beget like, yet that every new creature has in some way an individuality of its own." Both these truths are illustrated by the fact of common experience that the child is like its parents in some respects, and differs from them in others.
§3. The Principle of Stability. The principle that like tends to beget like is responsible for the fundamental identity of humanity from one generation to another. The biologist explains why like tends to beget like by the theory of the "germ-plasm." The part that the germ-plasm plays in securing the similarity of one generation to the next has been well explained by Weismann. "In development," he says, "a part of the germ-plasm contained in the parent egg-cell is not used up for the construction of the body of the offspring, but is reserved unchanged for the formation of the germ-cells of the following generation." Certain germ-cells are specially set aside to perform the function of reproduction. These cells have not been exhausted in body-building, but have preserved intact the full inheritance which the individual has received, ready to be passed on to the succeeding generation. Thus, as Professor J. Arthur Thomson says, "The parent is rather the trustee of the germ-plasm than the producer of the child."
This undying germ-plasm supplies the principle of continuity from one generation to the next. It ​guarantees the persistence of the same characteristics. It secures the stability of the race. The steadying influence of heredity has been corroborated by an abundance of statistics. The conservative tendency of heredity always works in the interest of mediocrity. It is constantly operating to bring men and women back to an average type. This may be illustrated from evidence with regard to height. It was found that fathers 72 inches in height had sons whose average height was 70·8 inches; while fathers 66 inches tall had sons with a mean height of 68·3 inches. In each case the average height of the sons showed a tendency to return to the normal. The fact to which this evidence bears witness is true of all human powers and capacities. The dominant tendency in heredity is for men to revert to the normal and average. What then has prevented heredity from reducing all mankind to the same dead level? The answer is found in the fact of variation.
§ 4. The Principle of Change. Variation, as we have seen, is simply one aspect of heredity. It is the tendency to diverge, as contrasted with the tendency to persist. Both tendencies spring from the same germ-plasm. The changes in individuals are really expressions of the vitality of the germ-plasm, just as their persistent similarity is. To the fact of variation is due the diversity of the world of life. No two living creatures are precisely alike. Every fir differs from its neighbour, and no two oak-leaves are exactly similar. Much greater are the differences between human beings, even though they be of the same family. Variation is responsible ​for all progress and all degeneration. No advance would be possible, if offspring had always exactly resembled their ancestors.
Variations are usually divided into two main kinds. Between these there are important differences.
(1) Some variations are inborn. Environment has had no influence in their production. They are inherent in the constitution of the individual, and belong to it at birth. These variations appear abruptly in the child. They cannot be accounted for by the habits or surroundings of the parents of the child in whom they make their appearance. Biologists call these variations discontinuous variations or "sports." They have collected much evidence to show that these discontinuous variations occur on a large scale among plants and animals. In human beings also there are instances. The child who is born with great musical abilities may be the son of parents quite devoid of them. Nearly every genius is a "sport" or discontinuous variation. When once discontinuous variations have occurred, they may be transmitted to offspring, and thus become a permanent heritage of the species.
(2) Other variations are acquired. They are not born with the child: the child acquires them during its life by interaction with its environment. They are developed by the child under some external stimulus, such as climate or injury. Thus they show the direct influence of the environment. If the child be brought up in a tropical country, he may acquire a sallowness that will last for life. Through injury he may lose the use of a limb. ​The child may learn to speak French, may acquire a new nationality or religion, may take to drink, may learn to gamble and swear. All these new acquisitions are "acquired characters." Among biologists the question whether such acquired characters can be transmitted has aroused the keenest controversy. On the whole there is a balance of authority for the view that no convincing evidence of their transmission has yet been forthcoming. We shall assume, in what follows, that this biological view is correct, i.e. that acquired characters are not transmitted.
§5. The Physical Environment. The environment is in some way or other the cause, or at least the occasion, of all the acquired characters which the individual develops. But it is more than that. The living creature owes its continued existence to its environment. The physical environment includes air, earth, light, heat, water, food, climate, scenery, and so on. From this environment all living beings, including man, derive nourishment and warmth, and without it life and growth would be impossible.
The tremendous importance of the direct influence of the physical environment on living creatures is most clearly seen in the case of plants and animals. Two or three illustrative points may be mentioned. (a) In some cases the environment exercises a regularly recurrent influence, and the living creature simply falls into step with it. For example, some kinds of tropical acacia have been so influenced by the regular alternation of a twelve-hours day and night, that they uniformly respond to it by opening ​their leaves during the day and closing them during the night. Again, the brown stoat regularly becomes the white ermine during the winter months.
(b) Where the environment is not regular in its influence, the temporary alterations in the organism to which it leads may be simply adjustments of longer or shorter duration. "The warm-blooded bird or mammal can within limits adjust its heat-production and heat-loss so that the temperature of the body remains the same whether that of the environment rises or falls."
(c) In some cases the environment may make a permanent and indelible impression on the living creature. A change in the environment, be it sudden or gradual, may occasion modifications in the organism which will remain with it as permanent acquisitions. A storm may blow a tree permanently out of shape, and a few years in the tropics may tan a man for life. In such cases the environment has led to the development by the individual of "acquired characters."
(d) Yet the importance of the environment should not be unduly magnified. We should not think of it as an iron fate. In most cases it does not actually cause changes. It only elicits and restrains. All it does is to afford the occasion on which the creature itself changes. Even in instances of "protective mimicry," where the influence of the environment is most immediately apparent, the environment only supplies the stimulus in response to which the organism changes itself. "A green frog, if he is not among green leaves, but amid dull, colourless ​surroundings, ceases to be bright green, and becomes a sombre grey. Put him among foliage again, and his green soon returns. It cannot be said that the green foliage has caused his colour to change. It is more correct to say that he has the power of changing his colour to suit his environment. If the frog happens to be blind, no change of colour takes place; so that it is by the help of the eye and the nervous system that the change is effected." Thus, even the lower animals have some say in their development; they are not absolutely at the mercy of their environment.
(e) When we come to man, we find that his command over his environment is much more complete than that of the lower organisms. Plants have no power at all to change their environment. Animals can move from one environment to another, but they can do very little to alter their environment. In general they must simply adapt themselves to their surroundings. Man is superior to the lower animals in his capacity to adapt himself to his environment. He can live on the Equator or at the North Pole; he can exist at sea-level or at an altitude of many thousand feet; he can travel thousands of miles on land, on sea, in the air, and under the sea. And man is the only animal that is able on a large scale to adapt his environment to his own needs and uses. The Hollander makes his country by building dykes to shut out the sea. The Englishman makes the desert blossom like the rose by damming the Nile. Man makes his environment his slave.
​§6. Mental and Moral Inheritance. We have seen that physical qualities are inherited. Are mental and moral characteristics inherited in the Same way? Does the child inherit his father's mental and moral qualities as he does his eyes and hair?
Much evidence has been collected to show that mental ability is transmitted from parent to offspring. In particular, Prof. Karl Pearson has gathered a large amount of material with regard to the transmission of mental characteristics. School teachers in London were asked to report on such characteristics in their scholars as popularity, vivacity, ability, and handwriting. Information was collected with regard to the resemblance of the scholars to their parents in these respects; and as a result of the whole enquiry, Prof. Pearson maintained that "the degree of resemblance of the physical and mental characters of children is one and the same." Or, to put it otherwise, "We inherit our parents' temper, our parents' conscientiousness, shyness, and ability, as we inherit their stature, forearm, and span."
Similar investigations have been made with regard to the transmission of moral characteristics. One of the most interesting of these studies is Dugdale's account of the "Jukes." Dugdale traces the history of some 1200 "Jukes," all descendants of a ne'er-do-weel who flourished about 1750 on the Hudson River. His descendants showed nothing but ignorance, idleness, and crime, combined with extraordinary fertility. The great majority of ​them, traced through seven generations, were criminals and paupers. Of the total number of men, less than 20 were skilled workmen, and of these 10 learned their trades in the State prisons. But it is not only the pure black strain that persists in this way. A study of the descendants of Jonathan Edwards shows that of the 1400 of them with regard to whom information was available, not a single one was a criminal or pauper, while the family had adorned every department of learning and activity in the United States.
These and similar studies make perfectly clear the remarkable persistence of mental and moral characteristics from one generation to the next. There can be no doubt that they do persist. But the real question is, Are these characteristics really inherited? On the whole it seems probable that precise mental and moral qualities are not inherited like physical characteristics. Because certain mental and moral characteristics persist from one generation to another, it does not follow that they are inherited. They may simply be developed anew in each generation under the influence of the early environment. The "Jukes" all grew up in unfavourable environments, while the members of the Edwards family all enjoyed good surroundings in their early days. In most cases it is to the influence of the early home environment rather than to that of heredity that the persistence of precise mental and moral characteristics should be ascribed.
Yet it is certain that we can and do inherit tendencies and capacities in the mental and moral ​realm. We inherit, for instance, instincts, the forms of nervous mechanism which enable us to act usefully without having learned. We inherit temperaments and dispositions, which define our general emotional and practical attitude to the world. Most important of all, we inherit capacities, and our capacities include all that we are capable of becoming in intellect, in morality, in art, and in religion. What we inherit is not specific ability but general capacity. The son of a woman who is strong intellectually or morally may not be strong in exactly the same way as his mother, but he is likely to be strong in some way. The son of a great mathematician may not be a great mathematician, but his general mental capacities will probably be above the average. The child does not inherit the special ability or peculiar virtue of his parents, but he does inherit general capacities and general tendencies, which may express themselves in one way or another. The way in which they develop is determined by environment and training.
The capacities which we inherit form a limit beyond which we cannot advance. In the physical realm the limit of capacity is readily recognised; and our physical heredity sets up absolute barriers beyond which we cannot pass. It is equally true that the extent of our mental acquisitions is limited by our inherited intellectual capacities. The teacher cannot make a first-class mathematician out of a child whose inherited capacity is mediocre. But we are usually far too apt to suppose that we have reached the limit of our mental capacities long before we really have. Most people regularly live ​very much nearer the limits of their physical strength than they ever approach those of their mental powers.
In the moral realm we practically never reach the limit of our capacity for good and evil. Every child is born with unlimited potentialities either for good or for evil. But he inherits no fixed endowment of goodness, and he bears no burden of original sin. Capacities and tendencies are what he inherits. If his parents have been vicious, their sins will be transmitted to him, not as a complete second edition of their vice, but as a general weakness towards it. The virtues of his parents are transmitted to him, not as specific virtues, but as general health of mind and power of resistance to evil. His actual moral life, his thoughts and deeds, his convictions and habits, are of his own acquisition. All his morality is attained and achieved. Conduct is not inherited; it is self-consciously made. Capacity is an inheritance, character is not an inheritance but an acquisition.
§7. The Social Environment Character. is acquired by the child through interaction with his environment. Environment means more to the child than to any other creature. The child's relation to his environment is a growing relation. And the child is the only animal that has a social environment. Great as is the influence of the physical environment, that of the social is much more profound and extensive. The presence and significance of this environment of moral and intellectual forces is not yet fully recognised. For it is not an environment which we can see or touch. ​We can indeed point to some of its manifestations in ideas and ideals embodied in prose and verse, in music and painting, in Church and College, and, above all, in society itself. But we cannot measure it or tabulate it. Yet it means more to us than any other. From the child's earliest hours its influences have been playing upon him. It is present always, and counts because of its constant pressure. But because its relation to us is so intimate, and because it has so informed the very structure of our minds, we do not usually distinguish its influence upon us from the activities which we suppose we originate ourselves. In fact, we do not think about it at all, and if "environment" happens to be mentioned, our thoughts fly immediately to the physical world.
There is none of our experience which is not permeated by the social environment. From his environment the child derives the language he speaks. All his manners and customs are accepted from it without question and without reflection. His political opinions and religious beliefs have been largely supplied to him by it. His mental and moral life consists largely of opinions which he has accepted on the authority of the society in which he lives. He simply takes for granted the validity of his beliefs and customs. He takes them to be as fixed and certain as the rising and setting of the sun.
But there come times in the life of every individual when the traditions in which he has been brought up appear no longer adequate. The orthodox explanations of science and politics and religion no longer satisfy. Doubt has seized hold of his ​mind. He determines to prove all things for himself on the touchstone of his own sagacity. Sometimes a whole community begins to question the authority of its manners and customs, its laws and institutions. Some great national perplexity arises, and the old ways of life are proved insufficient. The gradual growth and the slow progress of moralisation begin to suggest that the old beliefs are inadequate and the old customs unworthy. But even when the individual criticises his environment most severely, he criticises it because he is its own child. The society really uses him to criticise itself. The great reformer is always a thorough child of his time. It is precisely because his environment has saturated him so completely that he turns upon it in criticism.
It follows that environment is potent to counteract or encourage the hereditary tendencies which every child possesses, and whose persistence has been already illustrated. We all know how influential the environment is in corrupting good tendencies. It is a hackneyed commonplace, yet an unhappy truth, that the environment of the slum slowly but surely weakens the mental and moral strength of nearly all who enter it. Perhaps our thoughts are apt to dwell too much on this drab aspect of the operation of environment. But on the other side of the shield we have a brighter picture, and one that is no less true. Environment can exert a mighty power in restraining and repressing evil proclivities, and eliciting and confirming tendencies to good. "The records of charitable societies show that about 85 per cent, of the children of ​paupers and criminals who are placed in good homes at an early age become good citizens."
Our attitude to our social environment is a double one. (a) On the one hand our attitude is receptive. There is little that we possess which we have not received from our environment. Our dependence on it is so complete, that apart from it we should be incapable of any rational or moral activity. The material of most of our mental and moral acquisitions is derived from it. (b) But we are not merely passive creatures, absolutely at the mercy of our environment. Our attitude to it is also re-creative. All the material which the environment supplies, whether that material be physical or spiritual, must be re-made, transmuted, and re-created before it can become a permanent possession of the soul. Just as the tree assimilates and transforms all the material which it receives from its environment, so the individual elaborates and re-creates all the endowments which his environment so lavishly bestows on him.
§ 8. Moral Responsibility. How far is our frank recognition of the importance of environment and heredity compatible with moral responsibility? Is it not the case, it may be said, that you have ascribed half of man's character to heredity and the other half to environment? If that be so, what right have you to hold that man is responsible for his character and conduct? Does not moral responsibility vanish?
​There is no reason why we should give up our belief in moral responsibility. We do recognise the tremendous importance of heredity and environment. But we should not think of them as if it were possible to portion out character between them. We should avoid thinking of environment and heredity as if each excluded the other. It is not true that the more we attribute to environment the less must we ascribe to heredity, and vice versa. Life and character imply their interaction. When the influence of the one increases, it does not follow that the influence of the other must decrease. On the contrary, the richer the inheritance with which the child starts, the greater the influence the environment may exert. The inheritance of the limpet or whelk is meagre. If a Bible be introduced into its environment, it will be able to make no use of it. But a Bible in the environment of a man may lead him to change the whole course of his life. Yet, however potent the influence of heredity and environment in their interaction, they do not absolutely determine the child's life and conduct. Character, as we shall see more fully in a subsequent chapter, is the product of will. The child gradually makes his own character. It is his own; he and he alone is responsible for it.
Environment will not absolve a man of responsibility for his actions. Environment may provide temptations and difficulties, or strengthening associations and friendships; but from the moral standpoint all that this means is that it is supplying the instruments with which the individual himself will carry out the process of character-building. The ​child's environment exists to be used, and as he grows up he more and more acquires the power of reacting upon it. Whether he makes a good or bad use of it depends ultimately on him alone. Parent or teacher or friend may point out how it should be used, what elements in it should be assimilated, and what avoided, but in the end the responsibility for choosing the right or the wrong rests with the individual himself. It is the privilege and prerogative of man to be, so far as his character is concerned, a creature of his own making.
But, it may be objected, if no acquired characters are transmitted, if all that we gain in toil and pain during our lives is doomed to perish with us, is not our responsibility a purely personal and private matter? Our mental and moral acquisitions, it may be argued, have no significance for the race, because they cannot be transmitted to our offspring. Does this not remove the chief incentive to responsibility? No, it does not; and that for three reasons.
(1) With the denial of the transmission of acquired characters our sense of our personal responsibility for our actions is increased. We cannot blame a previous generation for our shortcomings. In the physical realm, indeed, the results of vice may be perpetuated; but the child of the most dissolute parents may acquire moral strength. So far as morality goes, every child starts life with a clean, or almost clean, slate. Proclivities to good and evil it does indeed inherit; and it is one of the great privileges of the educator to be always on the look-out for proclivities to encourage, or to restrain. But these are merely tendencies. In ​some cases they may, indeed, be very strong, and may greatly further or retard the child's moral progress. But they do not absolutely determine the child's character. Heredity is no inscrutable fate to destroy the child's moral strength before he has begun to use it. We are masters of our own destiny; our deeds are really our own; and we alone are responsible for them.
(2) But our responsibility for our actions does not end with ourselves. Our actions do not terminate in themselves. They form part of our neighbour's social environment, and may exert a profound influence upon him. Hence the sphere of our responsibility is far wider than the immediate consequences of our deeds. Every individual's character and conduct constitute a portion of his neighbour's social environment. Example is better than precept, and there is no greater influence for good on the community than the upright man. Trite as this is, it is a peculiarly sobering reflection for all engaged in education, and especially in elementary education. For hours of every day the teacher's words and deeds and manners form a most important part of the child's environment. Every action of the teacher is viewed by the child under the microscope of the class-room. Throughout the most impressionable and receptive years of the child's life, the teacher's character is one of the chief formative influences to which it is exposed.
(3) Our responsibility also extends, at least to ​some extent, to posterity. For, though the next generation will not inherit specific virtues and special abilities, it certainly will inherit general capacities. Our mental and moral qualities may be inherited by the next generation as tendencies and proclivities. Now, as we have already seen, our characters are not absolutely determined by the tendencies we inherit, and of course it is also true that the tendencies inherited from us by our offspring will not inevitably and irrevocably fix their characters. But just as we were helped in the moral struggle by inherited tendencies to good and handicapped by inherited tendencies to evil, so the next generation will be assisted or retarded in the task of the making of character by the kind of tendencies they inherit from us. Thus, though we cannot transmit our acquired characters as such, we have a real responsibility towards posterity. The more diligent and conscientious the present generation is in developing special abilities and specific virtues, the higher is likely to be the general level of ability and uprightness in the next.
§ 9. Some Educational Aspects of Heredity and Environment. The influences of education form part of the social environment of the child. The power of the social environment in general has already been emphasised. In education this power is focussed and concentrated. The present age is little likely to under-estimate the value and effect of education. With immeasurably fuller knowledge of the meaning of heredity and environment than Locke had, it is able to echo his statement: "I think I may say that of all the men we meet with ​nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education. 'Tis that which makes the great difference in mankind."
But we must recognise that the influence of education is limited in two respects, (a) As we have seen, there is no convincing evidence that the individual transmits to his offspring the special qualities which he has himself acquired during his life. Therefore, from the standpoint of heredity, the influence of education is very largely confined to the individual. None of the special virtues or specific abilities which he acquires will be perpetuated in the race. On the other hand, it is an inspiration to the teacher to know that the child whom he has to train is never hopelessly corrupted by the acquired vices of his parents. (b) Again, the influence of education may be limited by the other forces which, along with it, constitute the social environment. The teacher may indeed manipulate the rest of the environment to some extent; but he can rarely secure that the environment as a whole will second his aims. The unfavourable environment of home and companions may counteract all his efforts.
Yet, in spite of these limitations, the dynamic influence of education can hardly be over-estimated. It is the teacher's duty and privilege to utilise all the help that heredity and environment can give.
(1) It will add to the fascination, as well as to the usefulness, of teaching to study the heredity ​of the individual child. To do this, it is necessary to know something of the child's parents. In the rural school this is quite possible, and the excellence of the results obtained by the old educational system of rural Scotland was largely due to the intimacy of the relation which usually existed between the village dominie and the parents of his pupils. In the city school it is rarely possible, except in isolated instances, for the teacher to meet his pupils' parents. In some kindergarten schools opportunities are provided for teachers and parents to meet. This experiment might usefully be extended to all elementary schools. Regular social evenings might be promoted by the school, to which parents would be invited, and thus have an opportunity of meeting their children's teachers. If one looks at the matter sanely, it is one of the most absurd things in the world that parents and teachers, the two groups which have the most profound influence on the development of the child's character, should work in entire ignorance of one another's aims and aspirations for the children.
But under present conditions the teacher must usually be content to study the child alone. He should certainly do this. As education becomes more and more systematised, there is great danger that an artificially mechanical scheme may ignore the individual differences between children. The teacher must seek to counteract one of the necessary ​evils of system by trying to understand the individual child, and by helping it to develop in accordance with its own individuality towards the fullest realisation of its capabilities. If he understands the child, he may be able to arouse dormant hereditary capacities, to repress tendencies to evil as they emerge, and to encourage and confirm the strong and well-balanced powers which promise most for the child's personal welfare and social influence.
(2) The teacher himself, as we have seen, forms a most important part of the child's social environment. He may use that environment, including himself, for the purposes of education in three ways.
(a) He can use the environment by way of exemplification. Nothing has so much influence over children, and especially young children, as an example to be followed. The example appeals to the child's primitive tendency to imitate. The teacher may utilise this tendency to imitation, by occasionally, e.g. during the History lesson or the Scripture lesson, drawing the attention of the children to examples that are worth imitating.
(6) The environment may be used to shape character by way of suggestion. This mode of influence is so quiet and pervasive that we rarely think about it, and perhaps for that very reason it is all the more potent in effecting its results. Nothing conduces more to the formation of good reading habits in a community than the institution of an attractive library, so arranged as to suggest in every detail the pleasures of reading. So, to influence the growth of the religious spirit, churches ​should breathe an atmosphere suggestive of the divine presence. Similarly, if the children are to make the most of their school-life, the subtle suggestion must be conveyed to them that it is pleasant. With a view to this, the teacher may seek to make the class-room as pleasant a place as possible, e.g. with flowers and pictures. For some reason the word "suggestive" has come to mean "suggestive of evil." Thus we speak of a "suggestive situation" or "suggestive action" or "suggestive novel" or "suggestive play." But we should remember that actions may be suggestive of good quite as directly and distinctly as they suggest evil.
(c) But suggestion will not do everything. Education must also utilise the environment by way of direct instruction. Instruction must always be the chief method of the educator, for it alone is definite and systematic. In giving moral instruction there are three things the teacher should bear constantly in mind. It is necessary to be positive. Negative precepts have much less power behind them than positive principles. The fundamental characteristic of the child is his activity. Hence the importance of telling him what to do rather than merely what to avoid. Again, the importance of the environment of Nature should be emphasised. The children should be encouraged to take every opportunity to understand the lessons of Nature, that they may assimilate her teaching, and become like her, constant, true, quiet, and strong. Lastly, the teacher should emphasise the value of associating with the best. Most children are naturally sociable; they ​do not require to be told to associate with one another; but they do need to be told to choose the best of their companions to be their friends. And in this connection reference may also be made to that companionship with the best minds and hearts of the world, which we may enjoy in reading.
In all these and in many other ways the teacher may seek to select the elements in the child's environment which will be most beneficial to his character, and, by a study of the child's hereditary tendencies, direct those influences into the channels where they will be most potent for good. But before ending this chapter, two words of warning must be dropped. Human nature, and especially child nature, is, like the Mary of the nursery rhyme, "quite contrary." The child is very apt to want to do things precisely because he is told not to, and to be disinclined to do them precisely because he is bidden to do them. This fact has always to be borne in mind when giving moral instruction. It is one reason why with some children the indirect influences of suggestion and example are more effective than direct moral instruction. This is where the teacher's study of the individual child will be invaluable. The second point is this. It is right that the teacher should magnify his office. But he should beware of thinking that he is "making" or "building" the child's character for it. That he cannot do. The teacher may in a multitude of ways give advice, warning, and encouragement, and thus may exert a quite incalculable influence on the development of the child's character; but in the last resort ​it is the child himself who makes his own character. And from the first the sense of responsibility should be laid upon the child.
For further reading: J. A. Thomson and P. Geddes: Evolution, ch. iv. and vi.; J. A. Thomson: Heredity, ch. i., iii., vii., xiv.; H. H. Horne: Idealism in Education, ch. ii. and iii.
* ↑ It must be remembered that this distinction between Richard Roe and his pack is largely figurative. At first, at least, Richard Roe and his pack are the same thing. The individual and his inheritance are, to begin with, one and the same.
* ↑ Thomson and Geddes: Evolution, p. 114.
* ↑ Thomson and Geddes: Evolution, p. 194.
* ↑ Headley: Problems of Evolution, p. 49.
* ↑ Huxley Lecture for 1903.
* ↑ Kirkpatrick: Fundamentals of Child Study, p. 299.
* ↑ This section owes much to the lectures and writings of Sir Henry Jones.
* ↑ "Our deeds are like children that are born to us: they live and act apart from our being " (George Eliot).
* ↑ Some Thoughts Concerning Education, par. 1.
* ↑ But cf. supra, p. 34.
* ↑ Many schools have "Parents' Days," on which the parents may come and see their children at work.
* ↑ This is already done in many schools. See Moral Instruction and Training in Schools, edited by M. E. Sadler, p. 121.