If there requires further evidence of the rude, undeveloped character of our education, we have it in the fact that the comparative worths of different kinds of knowledge have been as yet scarcely even discussed—much less discussed in a methodic way with definite results. Not only is it that no standard of relative values has yet been agreed upon; but the existence of any such standard has not been conceived in a clear manner. And not only is it that the existence of such a standard has not been clearly conceived; but the need for it seems to have been scarcely even felt. Men read books on this topic, and attend lectures on that; decide that their children shall be instructed in these branches of knowledge, and shall not be instructed in those; and all under the guidance of mere custom, or liking, or prejudice; without ever considering the enormous importance of determining in some rational way what things are really most worth learning. It is true that in all circles we hear occasional remarks on the importance of this or the other order of information...
There cannot fail to be a relationship between the successive systems of education, and the successive social states with which they have co-existed. Having a common origin in the national mind, the institutions of each epoch, whatever be their special functions, must have a family likeness. When men received their creed and its interpretations from an infallible authority deigning no explanations, it was natural that the teaching of children should be purely dogmatic. While "believe and ask no questions" was the maxim of the Church, it was fitly the maxim of the school. Conversely, now that Protestantism has gained for adults a right of private judgment and established the practice of appealing to reason, there is harmony in the change that has made juvenile instruction a process of exposition addressed to the understanding.
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), philosophe, économiste et sociologue anglais fut l’un des premiers théoriciens du libéralisme. Il est aujourd’hui presque oublié bien qu’il connût de son vivant une renommée internationale. Après la révolution russe et la Première Guerre mondiale, sa doctrine qualifiée à tort de «darwinisme social», très critiquée par les partisans de l’état-providence, tombe peu à peu dans l’indifférence générale. À la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, ses théories sont redécouvertes par le prix Nobel d’économie, le néolibéral Friedrich Hayek. Aujourd’hui Spencer est principalement connu pour ses essais politiques. Il est fréquemment cité par les penseurs libéraux comme Robert Nozick ou Milton Friedmann, et beaucoup de dirigeants politiques et économiques font référence à ses écrits pour légitimer les politiques de déréglementation ou de «réforme de l’État». Récupérée un peu rapidement par les tenants d’un libéralisme débridé, la pensée d’Herbert Spencer a été souvent caricaturée et mérite une lecture plus attentive.