![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Quakers and Jews
Oct. 5th, 2004 01:51 amSo after finding the chapter in that dissertation that's basically the perfect secondary source for what I was looking for about Swarthmore's history, and reading through it, it's looking like I finally have some good ideas for how to synthesize the two topics for my history research paper. ( Rambling about the paper itself, before I get to the interesting content stuff... )
OK, now that I think about it, a lot of this isn't based on the details of what was in there, since I actually haven't taken notes on it yet. But it is based on seeing that in general, the Board of Managers really, really liked the idea of having a scientific program because of Quaker emphasis on practical learning. Actually, they were so interested in having a scientific course that when Parrish, who was actually a pharmacist by trade, as well as Swarthmore's first professor of chemistry and a strong supporter of science education in general, insisted that they wait until the students and the institution could support true, rigorous science education, the Board of Managers refused to listen to him. Instead, they decided to start a scientific course anyway. That was actually one of the two decisions of the board that made Parrish feel like the board was taking away his Presidential power (the other was that they gave Magill disciplinary power), which precipitated his resignation. (The root cause, at least based on Babbidge's description, was the discipline issue, but after they were already inclined to disagree with him, this was one place where they did.) Ironically, Magill was a classicist himself, and didn't necessarily feel all that strong of an affinity for science education...but unlike Parrish, who didn't want to do things only for appearances, Magill was enough of an opportunist that he went along with the Board on it. And, since he didn't have Parrish's background in science, he didn't mind having a fairly weak science program at first. (On the other hand, Swarthmore's science program did become strong within a few years, so Magill didn't hamper that either.) But this and some other evidence says that the Board was very eager to encourage the study of science at Swarthmore from the very beginning, which was somewhat unusual among colleges at that time in general, and came out from Quaker tradition.
So, the points of comparison...
On general intellectual orientation, Quaker tradition seems to favor simplicity, and simple knowledge of the world and inspriation from nature as a way of knowing God. Then, practical knowledge that helps you understand the world is a lot more important than esoteric knowledge (ie. the Classical curriculum that made up most colleges until the late 19th centure). Jewish tradition, on the other hand, considers study of Torah, and consideration of all of its minute details and interpretations, to be the way to know God. (Well, if there is one way to know God in Jewish tradition, which there probably isn't, but I digress...)
But yet both Quakers (in the 19th century) and Jews (in the 20th century) have generally considered practical knowledge important. But the reasons, I would speculate, are really different. For Quakers, it's based in that religious tradition that favored practical knowledge. For Jews, at least for the first and second generation of immigrants...it was based on the fact that Jews always had sort of a tenuous place in society. So, they were forced to do whatever was necessary to survive, and in America, the values that that engendered meant that they were eager to learn practical knowledge. (That's often been at the expense of Torah, although Yeshiva University at least is an attempt to teach practical knowledge while not forgetting about traditional Jewish knowledge.)
So, yeah. I still have more reading to do to get a better grasp on things, but it's looking like there will be some really interesting places to go with this topic, which is definitely good...
OK, now that I think about it, a lot of this isn't based on the details of what was in there, since I actually haven't taken notes on it yet. But it is based on seeing that in general, the Board of Managers really, really liked the idea of having a scientific program because of Quaker emphasis on practical learning. Actually, they were so interested in having a scientific course that when Parrish, who was actually a pharmacist by trade, as well as Swarthmore's first professor of chemistry and a strong supporter of science education in general, insisted that they wait until the students and the institution could support true, rigorous science education, the Board of Managers refused to listen to him. Instead, they decided to start a scientific course anyway. That was actually one of the two decisions of the board that made Parrish feel like the board was taking away his Presidential power (the other was that they gave Magill disciplinary power), which precipitated his resignation. (The root cause, at least based on Babbidge's description, was the discipline issue, but after they were already inclined to disagree with him, this was one place where they did.) Ironically, Magill was a classicist himself, and didn't necessarily feel all that strong of an affinity for science education...but unlike Parrish, who didn't want to do things only for appearances, Magill was enough of an opportunist that he went along with the Board on it. And, since he didn't have Parrish's background in science, he didn't mind having a fairly weak science program at first. (On the other hand, Swarthmore's science program did become strong within a few years, so Magill didn't hamper that either.) But this and some other evidence says that the Board was very eager to encourage the study of science at Swarthmore from the very beginning, which was somewhat unusual among colleges at that time in general, and came out from Quaker tradition.
So, the points of comparison...
On general intellectual orientation, Quaker tradition seems to favor simplicity, and simple knowledge of the world and inspriation from nature as a way of knowing God. Then, practical knowledge that helps you understand the world is a lot more important than esoteric knowledge (ie. the Classical curriculum that made up most colleges until the late 19th centure). Jewish tradition, on the other hand, considers study of Torah, and consideration of all of its minute details and interpretations, to be the way to know God. (Well, if there is one way to know God in Jewish tradition, which there probably isn't, but I digress...)
But yet both Quakers (in the 19th century) and Jews (in the 20th century) have generally considered practical knowledge important. But the reasons, I would speculate, are really different. For Quakers, it's based in that religious tradition that favored practical knowledge. For Jews, at least for the first and second generation of immigrants...it was based on the fact that Jews always had sort of a tenuous place in society. So, they were forced to do whatever was necessary to survive, and in America, the values that that engendered meant that they were eager to learn practical knowledge. (That's often been at the expense of Torah, although Yeshiva University at least is an attempt to teach practical knowledge while not forgetting about traditional Jewish knowledge.)
So, yeah. I still have more reading to do to get a better grasp on things, but it's looking like there will be some really interesting places to go with this topic, which is definitely good...
