Meiklejohn and Maritain: Two Views on the End of Progressive Education

Abstract

This article examines the critiques of Alexander Meiklejohn and Jacques Maritain, written in 1942 and 1943, on the inadequacies of Dewey's pragmatism and, in particular, its failure as a philosophy of education. Meiklejohn's and Maritain's arguments are compared with those made by Randolph Bourne in 1917 and Harold Rugg in 1932 and then their arguments are explored from the point of view of how each understands curriculum: what it is and why it is taught. The distinction between curriculum as function and curriculum as object is made. Contemporary high school curriculum is briefly observed from these two perspectives. Dewey's pedagogical theory is discussed and a union between Maritain's concept of the curriculum and Dewey's pedagogy is considered as a theoretical model current curriculum reformers should consider to both enliven and enrich the curriculum that students and teachers experience in the classroom.