The Princeton conference in American civilization : A description and an appraisal

The Princeton Conference
in American Civilization

A Description
and an Appraisal

BY DAVID F. BOWERS

1944

Program of Study in American Civilization
Princeton University

This report on the first student Conference in American
Civilization, held at Princeton in 1942-43, was originally
submitted as a memorandum by Professor David F. Bowers,
the first Director of the Conference, for the information of
the Faculty Committee in charge of the Conference. Since
then all of its recommendations have been adopted in prin-
ciple, and it is now published in the hope that its frank
appraisal of both the achievements and short-comings of the
first Conference will prove of value to others pursuing
American studies. The handbook, lectures, and bibliogra-
phies which were prepared for the use of the first Con-
ference and to which reference is made throughout this
report have been edited by Professor Bowers and are issued
separately under the title. Foreign Influences in American
Life.

WiLLARD Thorp, Chairman
Princeton Program of Study in
American Civilization

Ui S. THE PRINCETON CONFERENCE
IN AMERICAN CIVILIZATION

By DAVID F. BOWERS

/. The 'Princeton University Program of Study
in American QiviVvz,ation

The Princeton Program of Study in American Civilization together
with its Conference is the result of discussions initiated in 1940. At
that time, the President of the University, persuaded of the growing
importance of American studies and of the need for a clearer recogni-
tion of this importance in the university curriculum, appointed a com-
mittee to consider the problem in detail, with power both to review
current instruction in the field and to make recommendations relative
to its improvement at Princeton. In accordance with these instructions,
the committee met weekly for the period of a year, and in December,
1 94 1, recommended to the President the creation of a new inter-
departmental program of study having as its specific objective the
study of American civilization. This recommendation was approved,
and in February, 1942, the Program of Study in American Civiliza-
tion was formally instituted as a regular part of the undergraduate
curriculum.

The stated purpose of the program is to give Princeton students an
understanding of their own civilization. It sets before them the ideal
of a factual grasp of American history in all of its aspects, and en-
courages them to seek underlying patterns, or focal points of view,
in terms of which the facts and events of that history may be intelligibly
interrelated. At the same time it also encourages them to appraise the
American achievement: to decide for themselves its value or distinc-
tion in contrast with other civilizations.

In pursuit of this object, the program prescribes a plan of study
concentrated in the upper-class years. This plan, which is administered
jointly by representatives of the Departments of Art and Archaeology,
Economics, Enghsh, History, Philosophy, and Politics, may be sum-
marized as follows:

( I ) Admission to the program is conditional upon the student's
general academic standing at the end of sophomore year, and upon

C 3 3

his having acquired by then a certain proficiency in the study of
European backgrounds. Proficiency in European backgrounds is de-
manded not only as an introduction to the study of American origins
but as a basis for comparing the development of American civilization
vifith the development of civilizations elsewhere. The student is at lib-
erty to acquire this knowledge through course work or private study
but he must demonstrate its adequacy to the supervising committee.

(2) As part of his work in the program, the student must become
thoroughly grounded in some one academic discipline and must
broaden and amplify his knowledge of the American field. He must
enroll in one of the cooperating departments mentioned above, ful-
filling all of its normal requirements for graduation, but he must lay
special emphasis throughout upon American subjects. This emphasis
varies in accordance with the regulations of different departments,
but in all cases it involves writing a senior thesis on a topic relating to
American civilization.

In addition to the work in his department, the student must also
complete at least four one-term courses dealing specifically with the
American field. These courses may be taken in any year prior or sub-
sequent to enrollment in the program and may lie in any department,
but one must represent the historical approach to the subject, one the
institutional, one the philosophical, and one the literary or artistic.

(3) During his senior year, the student must participate in a special
conference, organized and directed under the supervision of the
committee. This conference is always concerned with some general
phase of American civilization and is designed to integrate the student's
work in the program. It runs for two consecutive terms each year,
taking the place of one elective course each term.

(4) Upon satisfactory completion of the above requirements, the
student is eligible for the regular Bachelor of Arts degree, which is
recommended by his department, and for a Certificate of Proficiency

<. in American Studies, which is recommended by the program.

//. The Conference

As just indicated, the work in the program culminates with par-
ticipation in the conference. To the conference the student brings
such specialized or general knowledge of American civilization as he
may have already acquired, and, by means of it, in theory, he should

C 4 3

be able to integrate this diverse material within a single, inclusive point
of view. Upon the conference, therefore, depends the unity and co-
herence of the program as a whole.

Other devices might have been adopted to serve this same end and
it is desirable, accordingly, to indicate why the conference method
specifically was chosen for this task.

The importance of integration was apparent from the beginning.
It is implied, indeed, in the very purpose of the program. Civilizations
are by nature dynamic complexes. They are highly individual, social,
and historical configurations in which all sorts of facts and events
stand related in intricate and peculiar ways. To understand a civiliza-
tion, accordingly, is to discover this configuration, to view its institu-
tions, mores, and ideals, not as isolated facts but as parts of a larger
context, in which each confers, and has conferred upon it, a signifi-
cance that would otherwise be lacking. To see less than this is to see
nothing at all.

Of the many methods available for achieving this type of integra-
tion, the conference method seemed the most promising. It had al-
ready been employed with great success by another interdepartmental
program at Princeton, the School of Public and International Affairs,
and embodied many of the values which the committee wished to em-
phasize. Consisting of cooperative student research under faculty super-
vision, it places full responsibility for integration upon the student
himself, yet protects him at the same time against confusion and dis-
organization. It furnishes expert guidance on such matters as bibliog-
raphy and the formulation of problems, and provides the type of as-
sistance which may be derived from group discussion'; and, skillfully
used, it is able to do this without dictating or even suggesting the
particular conclusions to be reached. It has the further merit of allow-
ing for frequent variations in subject matter and approach.

For these reasons the conference method was eventually adopted,
and has since become the central feature of the program.

///. 'Procedure of the Conference

As employed in the program, the conference is governed by a specific
procedure in the selection of conference topics and in the organization
of conference activity. This procedure has been designed in accordance
with the general objectives of the program and with the express pur-

C 5 3

pose of exploiting as fully as possible the educational advantages im-
plicit in the conference method.

SELECTION OF TOPICS

The subject for each conference is selected in advance by the super-
vising committee and is always chosen with reference to three guid-
ing principles. First, the topic must allow for as comprehensive and as
significant a study of American civilization as the length of the con-
ference permits. By a "comprehensive and significant" study is here
meant one which involves the investigation of American civilization
from the point of view of more than one discipline, and one whose
study will result in a sense of the character and value of that civilization
as a whole. Second, the topic must also, if possible, be one relating
itself naturally to the interests and capacities of the students. And
finally, third, it must provide material for study roughly equivalent to
the work of two one-term courses.

It should be noted that the first principle does not exclude topics
concerned with restricted phases of American civilization : for example,
those dealing mainly with particular regions or particular periods. It
merely requires that the topic studied shall permit fruitful examination
from different points of view and shall lead to conclusions which
can be construed as representative of American life and history in
general. The requirement that the topic shall be germane to the stu-
dents' interests and capacities is to allow the work in the conference
to build upon the students' previous training.

ORGANIZATION OF THE CONFERENCE

Once a conference subject has been agreed upon, it is then divided
by the committee into a limited number of subtopics, each of which
deals with a major aspect of the general subject and each of which
constitutes a topic of study for one conference session. Thus, in the
first conference,"^ which dealt generally with the problem of foreign
influences on America since 1800, the first two conference sessions
were concerned with these influences as historical and sociological
phenomena, the next two with their specific effects upon American
economics and politics, and the last two with their effects upon Amer-
ican art, literature, religion, and philosophy.

^ All other illustrations throughout the report are drawn from this same source.

n 6 3

The work of each session is under the general direction of the
director of the conference acting with the special assistance of the
supervising committee. Each session follows roughly the same plan
and is always divided into three parts: ( I ) one in which the subject for
the session is canvassed as a whole; (2) one in which particular aspects
of it are studied in more detail; and (3) one in which an attempt is
made to fuse these more general and more particular aspects into a
single pattern.

(i) The subject is canvassed as a whole through group discussion
and the assignment of special reading. At the beginning of each ses-
sion the director meets with the students to describe the problem for
the session and to discuss the location and character of the materials
available for its study. Although no effort is made at this time to
arrive at definite conclusions or even at a definite formulation of the
problem itself, the subject is nevertheless discussed in a preliminary
fashion with a view to familiarizing the students with its nature and
scope.

Crystallization of conference opinion begins only with the next
meeting of the session which is held approximately a week later. This
time, however, the discussion proceeds on the basis of assigned read-
ings, with the director now acting merely as a moderator or pre-
ceptor who is present to answer questions. The latter is in accord with
Princeton's preceptorial system and with the conference principle that
all conclusions reached should be the product of discussion initiated
and controlled by the students themselves.

Since the purpose of this discussion still remains that of understand-
ing the subject "in the large" rather than in detail, the reading chosen
for this meeting is usually designed to survey the subject as a whole.
For example, the reading assigned in this connection for the confer-
ence session on "The Pattern of Assimilation" included: Charles S.
Johnson's The Negro in American Civilization and William C.
Smith's Americans in the Making. In some cases, of course, this pro-
cedure is not possible. Either the subject itself will be too complex or
too comprehensive or suitable reading material is not available. When
this occurs the committee then substitutes reading covering only one
or two aspects of the subject, postponing consideration of other aspects
until later in the session. This happened, for example, in the conference
session concerned with foreign influences on American art and litera-

n 7 3

ture. Here, no general texts being available, the students were as-
signed material on the more restricted problem of American literary
and artistic nationalism.

(2) Once the topic in general has been canvassed, the students then
go on to study particular phases of it in detail. This is accomplished by
a division of labor. A set of individual projects is formulated and each
student assigned one of these projects for independent study and re-
search. For example, in the session dealing with "The Pattern of
Assimilation," special reports were assigned on "the marginal man,"
the second-generation immigrant, and the ghetto.

To complete this project, the student must do additional reading
and summarize his findings in a written report. In preparing this re-
port, he is assisted in two ways: (a) On being assigned the report he
is given a mimeographed sheet describing the scope of his project, its
relation to the other projects, and the principal bibliographical sources
on which he may rely, (b) During the course of his investigation he
is at liberty to consult the director or any member of the supervising
committee.

After the completed reports have been placed on file with the direc-
tor, they are read by the students themselves and each student in-
dividually is required to prepare a set of critical notes on all reports
other than his own. On the afternoon of the last day of the session the
students meet as a group to present and discuss these criticisms. This
has the dual advantage of extending each student's grasp of the sub-
ject in detail and of forcing him to submit his own findings to objection
and supplementation.

(3) The session ends with a meeting on the evening of the same
day. The first part of this meeting is given over to an address by a
guest lecturer. This address deals with the subject of the particular
session and attempts either to synthesize the work of the session as a
whole or to explore more fully some particular phase of it. After the
address the meeting is converted into a round-table discussion in which
students and speaker take part. The purpose of this concluding meeting
is to give the student a final opportunity to defend his own interpreta-
tions of the problem, this time against the interpretation of a recog-
nized expert.

C 8 3

THE GENERAL ESSAY

At the end of the year, after all sessions have been completed, each
student must submit a general essay of about 1 0,000 words summariz-
ing and interpreting the work of the entire conference. To prevent this
summary from assuming a routine and mechanical form, the subject
proposed for the essay covers the material of the conference from a
slightly different point of view from that employed in the conference
itself. For this reason some additional reading may be required in the
preparation of this essay.

IV. ^ffraisal of the Conference

In the opinion of the director, the conference has already fully
demonstrated its soundness as an educational device and its particular
usefulness in the study of American civilization. Although director and
student alike were, to begin with, inexperienced in the conference
method of instruction, once the first conference was well under way
the work proceeded smoothly according to plan : student performance
consistently improved and, in the end, most major objectives were
reached.

On particular occasions, however, certain difficulties were encoun-
tered, and I propose now to describe these difficulties and to indicate
the steps I believe should be taken to correct them. In particular, I
shall be concerned with certain problems which arose in connection
with (a) approach and method, (b) source material, and (c) student
response.

APPROACH AND METHOD

If the conference is to succeed in its avowed purpose of conveying
a sense of American civilization, and if it is to do this, moreover,
through the integrated use of the materials and techniques of different
fields of study, it is obvious that its approach to any given conference
subject must be devised with great care. In particular, this approach
must always be such that it will permit the fullest possible exploitation
of what the various fields have to offer in the way of peculiar insights,
and yet also be such that these insights shall never become ends in
themselves but will remain subordinate to the larger purpose of under-
standing American civilization as a whole.

An approach of this sort is extraordinarily difficult to achieve. Aside

n 9 3

from whatever theoretical problem may be involved, there is the prac-
tical obstacle that the demand for a fusion of method — any fusion —
runs counter to the strong tendency in modern scholarship toward
specialization. It is not that specialization itself precludes the coordina-
tion of methods. What is at fault is the psychology which specialization
is apt to breed : the constriction of interest and aptitude which follows
in its wake. In requiring that we know one thing well, it makes us
desire to know other things less; and in adjusting us to smaller
issues, it destroys our capacity for dealing with larger ones. There is
implicit, in other words, in the very training of the modern student a
disposition toward intellectual provincialism : a failure to appreciate the
potentialities of all fields of study equally and an incapacity to bring
them together in the pursuit of a common end.

The committee was aware of this problem from the beginning and
sought constantly to ward off its dangers. This is why, for example,
the committee itself was originally constituted to include representation
from all cooperating departments, and why all students enrolled in the
program are required to have training in more than one approach to
the American field. In imposing these conditions it was hoped that
the equal representation of many disciplines would guard against the
tyranny of one.

Yet in spite of such safeguards, the director now believes the
approach and method of the first conference might have been im-
proved. This became apparent in reviewing the work of the confer-
ences as a whole and after reflecting upon the manner in which the
conference topic had been divided and apportioned among the various
sessions.

As already mentioned, the problem of the conference was to trace
the general effect of foreign influences in America from 1800 on, and
the principle followed in organizing it for study was that of conform-
ing strictly to departmental and divisional cleavages. Thus, the first
session developed the historical point of view, the second, the socio-
logical, the third, the economic, and so on. This procedure had recom-
mended itself to the committee in the beginning for the very reason
that it seemed to embody the ideal conference approach ; it promised
to emphasize no particular discipline at the expense of others and to
exploit all equally well in the pursuit of a more inclusive end. Actually,

I 10 3

it failed in some degree of both these purposes. In practice, it achieved
neither complete equality of emphasis nor complete unity of purpose.

Unevenness of emphasis crept in, indirectly, as the result of certain
modifications in administrative procedure which the above division of
the topic seemed to make natural and desirable. This came about as
follows: The original conception of the conference called for a com-
plete separation of the function of planning and the function of ad-
ministering. All planning was to have been the special responsibility of
the committee acting together, and all administrative work the re-
sponsibility of the director. Thus the committee, rather than the direc-
tor, was to determine the objectives, topics, and reading in connection
with each session, while the director, rather than the committee, was
to see to it that this program was put into effect.

But once it had been decided to organize the conference along de-
partmental lines, this division of function was quickly lost to view. Since
each session was to be devoted to a single departmental approach, it
seemed natural at the time to relieve the committee of the responsibility
for planning, and to delegate that responsibility to a subcommittee
which would change for each session, and which in each case would
be composed of the director and that member of the committee whose
departmental field happened to be involved. And this soon became the
practice. In the end, therefore, the conference was really planned by a
succession of committees rather than by a single committee, and the
influence of the director, as the one link binding the several subcom-
mittees together, was thereby enhanced beyond all intention. This
meant, in turn, that a proper balance between the different depart-
mental approaches was no longer possible. Since one point of view —
that of the director — was accorded a magnitude of representation
denied all other points of view, it acquired a power and influence dis-
proportionate to its true importance. No matter what precautions were
taken, it tended to dominate all committee discussion.

Of greater moment was the fact that the departmental approach
also tended to distort the true interconnections of the material being
studied and to preclude that unity of insight which the conference
exists to encourage. Thus, as the work of the year progressed, it soon
became evident that the structure of facts did not always parallel the
pattern of the university curriculum, and that to investigate a subject
merely in terms of its different meanings for different academic disci-

plines — as we were there trying to do — might impede rather than
promote clear understanding. For example, by following this method,
the conference was led to neglect such important questions as the effect
of foreign influence on the growth and distribution of population, on
geographical and industrial expansion, and on the development of local
customs. Questions such as these were either not touched upon at all
or thrown out of perspective in having to conform to an arbitrary and
stereotyped treatment. In short, although the committee had been cor-
rect in supposing that the various departmental methods should never
be lost sight of, it tended to forget that they should be used in a regula-
tive manner only, and never to determine the pattern of investigation
in advance.

But if it is easy to point out the defects of this particular approach
and of the need for one more suited to the study of a civilization, it is
not as easy to propose a satisfactory solution. In one sense, indeed, no
solution is possible, or at least none which will be universally effective.
Since conference topics will vary from year to year and since the prob-
lems raised by any topic will often tend to be peculiar to itself alone,
it is unsafe to assume that any specific procedure or approach will be
adequate in all cases. On this score, each conference must be considered
an individual and unique project and the approach to it selected only
after careful scrutiny of the facts with which it has to deal.

But even aside from this particular limitation — which is a charac-
teristic limitation of all method — the problem still remains a difficult
one. What is required, obviously, is a general framework and method
explicitly directed to the study of American civilization as such: one
which through fusing, modifying, or superseding existing scholarly
procedures can encompass all the complex phenomena of American
life and relate them in a single pattern or configuration. What is
equally obvious is that no method of this sort is at present available. The
study of American civilization is too recent in origin and its objectives
as yet too vague to have attained anything approximating an adequate
methodology. In the last analysis, therefore, the scholar or teacher must
rely principally on his own experience and be prepared to proceed in
a purely pragmatic way.

Yet, the latter should not prove insuperably difficult. The compara-
tive study of civilization has already advanced beyond the fanciful and
a priori beginnings of Hegel and Spengler ; and in the writings of such

a scholar as Toynbee the subject has even begun to assume the shape
of an empirical science. Nor has suggestive experimentation been lack-
ing in the way of concrete studies of American group life. The vs^ork
of the Lynds in "Middletown," and of Warner at "Yankee City"
represent important extensions of the sociological technique from which
much may be learned. This is even more true of Ruth Benedict's pro-
posed generalization of the method of cultural anthropology, since
this method was designed specifically to cope with the problem of
understanding cultural complexes as such. In other words, in his search
for an adequate method the student of American civihzation will at
least have the advantage of certain models and precedents, and these
together with his own investigations should ultimately prove sufficient
in enabling him to reach the desired goal.

SOURCE MATERIAL

The selection of source material suitable for conference study equals
in importance the selection of a suitable topic and a suitable approach.
Unless the proper documents can be made available, no plan of study,
however excellent in itself, can be effectively instrumented. For this
reason, it may be of some value to consider the problems encountered
on this score in the first conference and the steps taken to resolve them.

The first problem to be confronted concerned the degree to which
emphasis was to be placed upon the study of primary, as distinct from
secondary, sources. Although the director recognized the desirability
of always acquainting the student with material as close to original
sources as possible, he also recognized the difficulties of attempting to
impose this requirement too rigidly upon an undergraduate curriculum.
Since such sources are frequently fragmentary in character and their
study involves a power of synthesis and interpretation often exceeding
the undergraduate capacity, it was clear that the work in the con-
ference must to some extent be based upon the use of general texts.
The director accordingly adopted the principle of introducing
primary materials wherever possible, but never in any case where ( I )
this would impose an undue burden upon the student's time or (2)
cause him to lose sight of the problem as a whole, or where (3) the
material available was too scanty. In this way although primary sources
were often used — especially in the study of certain ideological in-

C 13 3

fluences — their use was supplemented throughout by extensive read-
ings in secondary texts.

The secondary sources themselves, however, were far from satis-
factory. In the first place, there exists no general summary or inter-
pretation of the problem of foreign influence in America in its entirety.
Probably the most satisfactory and comprehensive treatments of this
type are those found in John R. Commons' Races and Immigrants in
the United States, in Marcus Hansen's The A tlantic Migration and
The Immigrant in American History, and in Carl Wittke's We Who
Built America. But not even these were sufficiently comprehensive for
the purposes of the conference. Commons' book emphasizes the po-
litico-economic aspect almost exclusively ; Hansen's treatment is lim-
ited largely to the earlier periods; and all three authors, as may be seen
from the titles of their works, are concerned only with the influence
of the immigrant. Neither they nor anyone else have studied that
larger complex of foreign influences of which the immigrant consti-
tutes only a single component, and which includes ideological, artistic,
technological, and other types of influence as well.

In the second place, even the more restricted types of study — those
concerned with a particular kind of foreign influence — are often
equally unsatisfactory. For example, there appears to be no good sum-
mary of the intellectual influence, important as this influence has been.
About all that is available on this topic is an occasional monograph
dealing only with the influences upon specific periods or persons and
disclaiming any pretense in the way of larger generahzation. Even the
treatments of the immigrant influence — the most able and numerous
of all — are frequently no better. This is especially true of works deal-
ing with immigrant "contributions" since all too often these have been
written in frank defense of a favored immigrant group.

A third and final problem was encountered in the lack of adequate
texts dealing with American civilization as such or, in a genuinely in-
clusive manner, with United States history in general. There are many
works which profess this to be their aim but the director found that
most of these are either frankly impressionistic or seek to interpret
American civilization from one point of view only, usually the political
or the economic. Similarly, the director was able to discover little
that is satisfactory in the way of social history and almost nothing at all
in the way of histories of intellectual studies. Thus, there are no recent

general treatments of American philosophy or American theology that
are both inclusive and competent, and no general history of American
economic theory at all.

Confronted with such difficulties, the director was often forced to
improvise — to assign reading lists and bibliographies whose items varied
widely in quality and relationship. The confusion, however, to which
this might easily have led was largely offset in three ways.

In the first place, the director prepared and placed at the disposal
of the students a handbook or pamphlet dealing with the problem of
foreign influences in a theoretical manner. This handbook was not in-
tended as an historical summary but as a social analysis of the problem.
Thus, it suggested working definitions for certain key concepts, ana-
lyzed some of the factors normally involved in the transmission of an
ahen impact, and offered various criteria for evaluating the importance
of such impacts. It was designed, in other words, to provide the stu-
dents with a common set of methodological principles and to give to
the conference enterprise as a whole some degree of methodological
unity.

In the second place, the director also prepared and distributed
bibliographical essays in connection with each session, containing in-
structions on how to set about studying the assignment for that session.
Each such essay described the principal issues involved in the assign-
ment, indicated questions which the student should be prepared to
answer, and suggested a select bibliography from which material
relevant to these questions could be drawn.

Finally, whenever a subject to be studied seemed unusually difficult,
the director adopted the practice of introducing special lectures to
deal with it.

All these procedures were indispensable in finally solving the prob-
lem of inadequate reading material. The handbook was of aid in focus-
ing student attention upon the scope and complexity of the conference
subject and in indicating the general type of analysis a subject of this
sort requires. The supplementary lectures were also of value in that
they gave the student the benefit of expert exposition and interpretation
where these were most needed. But it was the bibliographical essay
which turned out to be the most useful of all and upon which, accord-
ingly, the director came principally to rely.

The great virtue of the bibliographical essay consisted in the fact

n 15 1

that it could be employed independently in connection with each sepa-
rate session and thus enabled the director to confront and to resolve
each particular reading problem as it arose. It was also valuable in
that it was peculiarly adjustable to a wide variety of such problems.
With its help, for example, it was possible to set students to work on
projects far afield from their usual interests and training, to ask them
to relate in various ways materials having no obvious connection with
each other, and to assign these tasks with reasonable confidence that
they would be carried through successfully. It was also possible with
its help to expect individual students working on cooperative projects
to organize diverse sources in such a manner that their own findings
would always relate in the end to the findings of others.

There can be no doubt, therefore, of the general value of the biblio-
graphical essay as a means of overcoming the obstacles of inadequate
texts or of the wisdom of incorporating it in the conference as a
regular part of the conference technique. Until more of the present
gaps in the field of American studies have been properly bridged,
some such device will be necessary if only to help students find their
way about in the maze of undeveloped material confronting them and
to help them, under such circumstances, keep relevant issues in view.

STUDENT RESPONSE

The success or failure of any educational program is determined,
in the last analysis, not by the character of its subject matter or by the
nature of its methods, but by its effect on the student — by its capacity,
that is, to engage his interest, to elicit his cooperation, and to guide
him toward the realization of certain ends. And it is this final criterion
which we must now apply to the conference.

On the whole, student interest and cooperation were excellent.
Most of the students seem to have enrolled in the conference out of a
genuine enthusiasm for American studies, and this enthusiasm con-
tinued unabated throughout. What had been merely a general interest
in American civilization at the outset was quickly transformed into a
specific interest in the topic of the conference. There also soon devel-
oped a strong sense of group responsibihty. It was only rarely in the
pursuit of his own particular interests that a student would lose sight
of the corporate character of the conference enterprise and fail to
subordinate that interest to the purposes of the project as a whole.

C i6 3

Unfortunately, however, the actual achievement of the group did
not always measure up to the high level of its morale. Judged by
absolute standards, its attempts at analysis, integration, and evaluation
were not always successful. Significant interrelationships were often
overlooked or improperly understood; evaluations were sometimes
made without a strict regard for fact; and, above all, individual stu-
dents would frequently fail to attain that very synoptic view which
the program had set out to achieve. This is not to imply a complete
failure. When due allowance has been made for the novelty of the
venture, the caliber of work achieved was probably as good as could
be expected. But there can be no doubt that it could have been im-
proved and it is to this point, accordingly, that it becomes desirable
to speak.

Aside from the adverse influences generally at work in the opera-
tion of a new program, two factors in particular seemed to mihtate
against successful student integration. One of these, already mentioned
earlier, consisted in the committee's failure to provide an over-all plan
of study genuinely adapted to the character of the topic. Once an un-
suitable pattern has been imposed upon an inquiry, it will usually end
by interposing itself between the inquirer and his subject and instead of
acting as an instrument to clearer insiglit will serve only to impede that
insight. This happened in the first conference. Faced frequently with
two disparate and often divergent sets of implications — those of the
subject and those of the method — it was inevitable that the student
should often confuse the two and that he should, on occasion, become
incapable of distinguishing relevant from irrelevant issues.

The second factor obstructing successful integration consisted in a
lack of the right type of previous training. The committee had assumed
in the beginning that because each student had been required to take
four courses in the American field, each representing a different "ap-
proach," the conference could always take such training for granted.
It assumed, in particular, (i) a familiarity with the basic problems,
methods, and points of view of the various approaches designated, and
(2) an approach to the American field both comprehensive and un-
biased.

Neither assumption, however, turned out to be correct. This was
because the committee in its original conception of "the historical
approach," "the institutional approach," "the philosophical approach,"

C 17 1

etc., had tended to define each approach in terms of its subject-matter
alone without reference to its method and thus also — since the different
departments of university instruction often overlap in subject-matter —
to minimize the importance of spreading the student's courses over
as many departments as possible. And the latter had tended to impair
the student's training in two ways.

In the first place, it was found that a number of the students had
received adequate training in the methodology of one field only — viz.,
that of their own department — and that as regards all other fields
they were in various degrees ignorant. Thus, an English major would
know something of the methods of art and of history but nothing at
all of the methods of economics and philosophy. Similarly, an econom-
ics major would know a great deal about the methods of history and
of politics but very little about the methods of art and literature. In
certain instances this was unimportant, since the deficiency could be
circumvented or overcome on the spot. But where the ignorance lay
in fields of a highly technical nature- — e.g., art, philosophy, and eco-
nomics — short cuts were usually impossible and the student's work
suflfered correspondingly.

In the second place and as a corollary to the above, similar limita-
tions were to be observed in the student's approach to the American
field. Too often his training had been confined to courses taken in his
own department or cognate departments, and thus he would bring to
the conference an unconscious disposition to interpret the American
scene from one point of view only. He would be generally ignorant
of all facts falling outside his own field of specialization, and if he noted
their existence at all he would often dismiss them as unimportant. In
some students, indeed, the habit had become so ingrown that it con-
tinued to operate long after they had been specifically warned of its
danger.

Of these two general obstacles to successful integration, the first
presents the greater problem. As indicated earlier, errors in the organi-
zation of conference subjects can be minimized only by the most care-
ful planning in advance and can be eliminated, if at all, only through
a clearer conception than is now had of the methods appropriate to the
study of a civilization. The second problem — that of guarding against
deficiencies in training — should, however, be far easier to solve.

The correct solution to this problem, indeed, seems to involve

nothing more radical than a greater control over the student's prepara-
tory courses in the American field than was originally called for by
the program at Princeton, and to consist, principally, in the introduc-
tion of three new measures: First, in order that such courses may con-
tribute more fully to the work of the conference, the student should be
required to complete them in advance of the conference and not merely
by the end of the senior year. Second, in order that the student shall
become genuinely acquainted with a variety of approaches to the
American field, he should be compelled to spread these courses over
as great and as varied a number of departments as possible, and not
concentrate, as has hitherto been possible at Princeton, in merely one
or two departments. Finally, in selecting these courses for the student's
program, preference should be given, so far as possible, to courses
which have been especially designed to provide practical training in the
methods and fundamental problems of the department in which they
fall. This provision is necessary if the student is to be expected to use
as well as to know about the different approaches to American civiliza-
tion and if his course work in the American field is to function in the
conference as anything more than an inert background of undigested
fact.

V. Co'^'cl^sion

It is clear from the above that the conference did not function per-
fectly during its first year. It is also clear, however, that most of its
faults were minor and for the most part easily correctible. This, if
nothing else, testifies to the soundness of the conference as an educa-
tional procedure, and provides ample reason for continuing to assign
the conference the central role in the work of the program.

It is desirable, however, that the committee's attitude toward the
conference should still remain open. It should assume that many of
the potentialities of the conference as an educational device are still
to be explored and should be prepared itself to explore and exploit these
potentialities. It should regard the conference, in other words, not as
a static form but as a developing experiment, one which will grow
in value, rather than decrease or remain stationary, with continued use.

J ,