History of Education Society

Education and the Social Questions: The Universités Populaires in Late Nineteenth Century
France
Author(s): Sanford Elwitt
Source: History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), pp. 55-72
Published by: History of Education Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/367833 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 11:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

History of Education Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History of
Education Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Education and the Social
Questions: The Universites
Populaires in Late Nineteenth
Century France
Sanford Elwitt

"BETWEEN THE TIME of leaving school and entering the barracks, during
those dangerous years of adolescence when the passions are aroused, when the
temptations of the cabaret and the street beckon, the youth, left to his own
devices, runs the risk not only of forgetting what he has learned, but of losing
any sense of morality." That call to alarm, sounded in 1904 by Gabriel
Seailles, professor of philosophy in the Sorbonne, echoed throughout the
French business, political, and intellectual establishment at the turn of the
century. (1) Those Frenchmen self-appointed to defend the republican order
had good reason to be alarmed. In their view, young workingclass men, cut
loose from secure familial moorings and only partially integrated into the
world of industrial labor, were easy pickings for those socialists and
syndicalists who worked to subvert order. The "social question" domi-
nated French political life and, for many, popular education appeared to
offer the best chance of coming to grips with it. For Leon Bourgeois, "the
social problem" was, "in the final analysis, a problem of education." Seailles
drew attention to a relationship and to a choice in the subtitle of his pamphlet:
"Education and revolution." (2)
Certainly, neither in France nor elsewhere was the use of education for
social defense, moral improvement, and workingclass acculturation a new
phenomenon. The Marquis de Condorcet prescribed equality in education as
an antidote to inevitable disparities in wealth. Auguste Comte expected
education to reinforce hierarchies of domination and subordination. With the
coming of industrial revolution and the rise of the proletariat, educators took
the gloves off. William Templar, the principal of the Manchester (England)
Model Secular School in the mid-nineteenth century, preached the precepts of
"social economy" to his workingclass students. "Great care has been taken,"
the school's report explained in 1856, "to impart such knowledge . . . as will
satisfactorily account for the obvious unequal distribution of wealth."
Templar, we are told, "had an obsession with strikes." (3)

Mr. Elwitt is a mnemher of the History Department of the University of Rochester.

Spring 1982 55

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Toward the end of the century full-scale programs for workingclass
acculturation supplemented simple indoctrination. In the United States, for
example, progressive reformers focused substantial attention on popular
education. Charles Steinmetz of General Electric argued that education
"ought to prepare citizens for a modern industrial community."'(4) The Amer-
ican academic economist, James Lawrence Laughlin, urged the diffusion of
'"economic principles" within the "volatile working class" so that they might
"bear the 'iron law of wages' and the law of diminishing returns." (5) At the
same time in France, the political economist Emile Levasseur began his
survey of primary and popular education with the admonition that, in an age
of universal suffrage, civic education should be the highest priority on the
agenda of social reform: "It is necessary," he warned, "to enlighten the
sovereign." (6) The "sovereign," the ordinary working man, worked in
increasingly large units of production organized according to a rational
division of labor. Simultaneously thrown together with his fellows and
isolated in his individual task, the worker required a sense of collective moral
obligation in order to take his place in the national community. That was
what educational reformers set out to supply.
In France, the collective character of social life and production was reflected
in systems of educational reform inspired by "solidarity." The word itself
evokes union rather than division, cooperation rather than struggle.
Common among politicians in the 1870s concerned with forging a "popular"
republican coalition, solidarity took on a more specific social meaning by the
end of the century as the ideology most appropriate to a world of advanced
"machine production." (7) Behind a cloud of rhetorical incantations to
"social equity" and distributive justice, solidarity translated into the
association of labor and capital. It was promoted as a great revolution, not,
significantly, "in the streets but in the collective consciousness." (8)
Solidarity carried a heavy but necessary burden: "the voluntary submission
of the individual to the interests of the collective." (9) In theory this burden
was to be shared equally among all classes, but, in fact, fell disproportionally
on labor. Solidarist programs for association and cooperation, whatever
undoubted benefits they produced, left untouched the basic structure of
capitalist enterprise. Nor could it be otherwise. According to Leon Bourgeois,
"Capital is inevitable . . . What must be condemned are the abuses of capital,
not capital itself." (10) Thus, solidarist reform offered alternatives to
revolutionary socialism, on the one hand, and the murderous effects of the
irrational market, on the other. Socialism stood condemned for promoting
class struggle and for "levelling." Unrestrained competition promised a
Hobbesian war of all against all. Both threatened social stability and
capitalism itself, whereas solidarity promised "social peace," steady
production, and satisfactory profits. (11)
Everything hinged on education-the terrain on which the struggle for
social peace would be won or lost. Those who led the struggle adopted the
term "social education" to describe their efforts. The use of that term tells us

56 HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
several things: first, it assigns to education the task of legitimizing a world
formed by "social technology" (capitalist production) and explained by
"social economy" (the relations between labor and capital); second, it
highlights education's associationist and corporatist thrust and its place
within a system of social management; and, finally, it serves to set off late
nineteenth century popular education from earlier forms. (12)
Social education engaged the participation of a broad cross-section of the
French business and political classes. Traditional ideological and political
divisions dissolved in the presence of a general consensus on education's
social mission. Although the labor question remained the principal focus of
social education, as it had in earlier generations, crude indoctrination
appeared with less frequency. The message was, however, direct: "prepare the
individual for collective life, with all the benefits that it delivers and all the
duties that it demands in return." (13) In both its programmatic and
ideological aspects, social education bore the stamp of solidarity. Education's
primary aim, according to Leon Bourgeois, was to "elevate men" to the
performance of their "social duty." "Every social act," he went on, "every act
of mutuality and solidarity, is an act of superior morality." (14) Nowhere was
the task more urgently demanded than among the working classes. The
realities of social production required that those who labored learn "the hard
truths about the contemporary economic struggle." (15)
Social education included a multitude of projects throughout France, all of
which addressed, in diverse ways, problems issuing from class relations. They
included evening schools for adult workers, apprentice and technical training
courses connected to, and financed by, factory owners and, occasionally, by
municipal authorities, manual training exercises, lending libraries, public
lectures on the great issues of the day, and, our concern here, universites
populaires. (16)
Trniversites populaires had only a brief existence, spanning the last few
years of the nineteenth century and the first half-decade of the twentieth. (17)
They enjoyed a much less successful career than did the English
"workingmen's colleges" with which they had some elements in common.
(18) If this were all, then we should dismiss them without another word.
However, they provide a good example of how solidarist-corporatist ideology
helped to shape popular education and make of it a kind of laboratory for
experiments in class collaboration. (19) Moreover, universites populaires bore
some striking resemblances to other forms of association located at the point
of production.
The story begins in Nimes where that city's bourgeoisie was among the first
to recognize the value of what it called "mutualist education." The Societe
d'economie populaire, a businessmen's group founded in 1887, launched a
program of evening meetings to which its members recruited workers to
discuss current social and economic issues. These informal assemblages, from
which all discussion of "politics" was rigidly excluded, formed part of a larger
effort of the bourgeoisie nimoise to encourage class collaboration. (20) Out of

Spring 1982 57

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
these beginnings emerged the celebrated Ecole de Nimes, a model workers
cooperative.
The Ecole was the brainchild of Charles Gide, the solidarist political
economist who taught in the University of Montpellier until 1894 when he
moved to the Law Faculty in Paris. Gide conceived of social education and of
cooperation as twin engines to drive forward a "revolutionary" transfor-
mation of economic relations in which "solidarity and harmony" between
entrepreneurs and workers would replace competition and struggle. (21)
Despite Gide's insistence that cooperatives would reduce the share of capital
and increase that of labor, socialists considered the Ecole merely another
bourgeois diversion. They argued, with some justice, that cooperative
production remained embedded within a system of capitalist relations and
tended to weaken workingclass unity. (22) Without ascribing ulterior motives
to Gide or to anyone else, the fact remains that cooperation in education or in
production did operate to reinforce the class harmony so eagerly sought by the
proponents of social peace. That became apparent as the universities
populaires emerged briefly as a national movement in the late 1890s.
The scene shifts to Paris where a self-educated printer and sometime
anarchist named Georges Deherme set out to liberate his fellow workers from
alcoholism, prostitution, and other assorted vices. (23) Deherme had dabbled
briefly in insurrectionary politics, but had given that up for self-education
and the education of others. (24) In 1896, he started a journal, La Cooperation
des idees, which was to serve as a vehicle to liberate a "proletarian elite,
blinded and corrupted by a sentimental and gluttonous socialism." He
denounced those socialists who "forget that social evils do not stem exclusively
from economic sources. A reform of the laws .. . an alteration in the mode of
the distribution of wealth, whether accomplished through legislation or by a
revolution, would not eliminate evil." Instead, Deherme proposed to spread
the word of "sociological science," by which he meant the study of
"individuals grouped together socially" and the "collective social conscious-
ness." (25) Once workers were relieved of their worst material miseries,
education would free them of the "grip of socialist utopias and revolutionary
doctrines" and "deliver to the nation" individuals of "upright character and
good sense." Deherme also included the bourgeoisie in his plan for a "moral
revolution." He was quick to accuse it of cynicism and complacency. Hence
his summons to "the rich as well as to the poor" to join in the great project to
transform collective consciousness. (26)
Deherme labeled La Cooperation des idees a "sociological journal,"
signaling his conception of the universite populaire as an instrument of
socialization as well as liberation. Sociology had deep political meaning,
which logically extended from academic "social science." It encompassed
both the process of understanding the nature of the forces of social cohesion
and strengthening them. That constituted its political dimension. Deherme,
true to sociological principles, was concerned with establishing the reign of
"justice and solidarity" without which, he believed, "democracy remained a
dead letter." (27)

58 HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 In an essay on Comte marked by embarrassingly excessive veneration,
Deherme appropriated the spirit of corporate managerialism embedded in
Comte's work:

A. Comte views individual appropriation and the concentration of capital as the ideal mode of
conservation and production. But the capitalist is oinly a bureaucrat, an administrator of social
wealth. He has debts to pay. Wealth is entrusted to him only so that it may bear fruit under his
care. If he abuses it, if he uses it only for personal gain, then society will exercise its overriding
right of confiscation and expropriation. The spiritual power, supported by a powerful public
opinion, would then excommrunicate the squanderer of social capital. Corporations will boycott
himn.These sanctions constitute sufficient force to prevent the industrial and financial patriciate
from becoming a parasitic, corrupting, and tyrannical plutocracy. (28)

We should not be surprised that Deherme coupled his appreciation of Comte

with yet another blast at socialism. He dismissed the socialist "dogma of class
struggle as gross nonsense. Most of the time, socialism cannot maintain itself
on even that low level, as its pursuit of votes reduces to base demagogy. The
boulevardiers, the lawyers without clients, the physicians without patients,
and the starving journalists are as much socialists as they were, twenty years
ago, radicals." (29)
Like Comte, Deherme expected salvation to come from the working class-
properly instructed. He addressed his appeals to the "people" whose
integration into society promised a "real civilization that does not exclude the
majority, a civilization that does not operate for the profit of a few, but one to
which all are called and in which all participate." (30) Hence, Deherme's
plan to "organize systematically syndicalist, cooperative, political, and social
education. ..." (31) Hence, also, the estimate of Henri Hauser, historian
and champion of social education, of the universites populaires: "Should
we not speak of sociology and political economy to those workers concerned
with changing the organization of labor and of society itself?" (32)
Of course, the summons to the rich held the hope that they would appear
with generous purses. This did not happen immediately. Consequently,
Deherme joined with a cabinetmaker named Metreaux to organize a series of
soirees ouvrieres in Paris's eleventh arrondissement. The latter had been
involved in a project in Montreuil, on the city's eastern outskirts, where
workers engaged in a program of nonpolitical cultural and scientific self-
education. The inaugural soiree featured the socially-conscious Protestant
pastor, Charles Wagner. Wagner followed in the footsteps of the Association
protestante pour l'etude pratique des questions sociales, founded in 1887,
"which had raised the banner of social solidarity" in large workingclass cities
such as Roubaix, Lille, and Rouen. The Association sponsored "a vigorous
camipaign against alcoholism, gambling, animal combat and all sorts of
pornography." (33) The first subsidy arrived soon after Wagner's causerie: 100
francs from Maurice Barres. (34)
At first glance it may seem odd that the arch-nationalist Maurice Barres
should associate himself with an effort to elevate workingclass culture. But we
should remember that right-wingers at the end of the century, in their quest

Spring 1982 59

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
for the "soul" in France, routinely glorified the laboring classes and sought to
find ways to integrate them into the "national organism," while caring little
for their real interests. With their right hand they attacked socialism as a
marxist swindle and with their left they vilified liberalism as a vestige of
alleged bourgeois moral bankruptcy. (35) This attitude extended to the
universites populaires movement. Charles Guieysse, who became secretary-
general of the Societe des Universites populaires and had vague syndicalist
leanings, ridiculed bourgeois reformers for "constantly talking about the
fusion of classes while in the same breath denying the existence of classes."
But he also had nothing but contempt for socialists, those "doctors of
Revolution who mouth phrases like 'class struggle' and 'socialization of this
and that."' (36) Like Deherme, Guieysse looked forward to workingclass
emancipation and the abolition of the "proletarian condition" itself. These
ambitions, however, proved difficult to realize, given the conditions under
which the universites populaires took shape.
Revolutions in consciousness, sentiments, or ideals often harbor deep
conservative tendencies. Moreover, they may deflect attention away from
other, more substantive, revolutions. Charles Gide, despite the fact that he
placed great stock in the potential of cooperative production, appeared to
be at least equally comfortable on the level of moral revolution. Thus, he
approvingly characterized the mission of the universites populaires as that of
"realizing among all men the highest form of socialism, not the communism
of goods, but the community of ideas and sentiments." (37) It is, perhaps, not
too far-fetched to suggest that politics had no place in the effort to reach this
"highest form of socialism"-at least no politics that socialists would
recognize as their own.
When the Societe des Universites populaires was organized in 1899, Gabriel
Seailles became its president. He headed a Comite de Propagande that
included Gide, Andre Fontaine, director of the office of labor in the ministry
of commerce, Ferdinand Buisson, professor of education in the Sorbonne,
Auguste Keufer, secretary-general of the conservative trade union, the
Federation du Livre, Ernest Lavisse, the nationalist historian, Anatole Leroy-
Beaulieu, the political economist, Leon de Seilhac, of the big business-
financed Musee social, Edouard Petit, director-general of primary education
in the ministry of education, and Dick May (nee Jeanne Weill), secretary-
general of the College libre des sciences sociales. (38)
Seailles, a self-identified "radical solidarist," coupled a disdain for
conventional politics with a commitment to aggressive social action on behalf
of class collaboration and cooperation. He addressed himself to the
bourgeoisie, at whose threshold lay the disappointments of the past and the
hopes for the future. Cooperation, as in the universites populaires, provided,
he said, a potent antidote to the poisonous doctrines of social Darwinists and
"economic determinists" (read: socialists). For "the true law of society is not
struggle, but unity, for existence." While summoning the bourgeoisie to its
responsibilities, Seailles insisted that it act contrary to its character by

60 HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
scuttling the ideology of the marketplace for that of the corporate community.
In that sense he displayed a shrewd understanding of the direction toward
which the market was heading. "We are not interested in imposing dogmas, in
defending a tradition, in justifying a social hierarchy while masquerading as
philanthropists. We recognize neither masters, leaders, nor bosses; our
property is collective." (39)
Seailles, like Gide, offered a revolution of consciousness and ideas. He
engaged in what appeared to be a radical critique of society, denouncing
materialism and money-grubbing. But he ridiculed socialists and thereby
exposed the fundamental conservative thrust of his message. Socialists had no
answers. As for their revolutionary plans and programs, "nothing has
changed except a few words and several individuals." Seailles reversed
priorities: "change individuals in order to change the social environment."
Property "need not be considered sacred ... but the social whole adds up to
no more than the sum of individual virtues and energies." (40)
Universites populaires, according to Seailles, offered several advantages to
the French bourgeoisie. The "social and moral education of the people"
promised class unity and a "high level of harmony." More to the point, the
"privileged classes" should understand that "under the new conditions
created by our industrial and scientific civilization, social transformation will
inevitably occur and that the process promises to be a good deal less violent
and dangerous in the presence of enlightened men than among barbarians."
(41) Referring to the universites populaires as "cathedrals of democracy,"
Seailles expected them to form the foundation for "common labor" in
"collective tasks"-"an apprenticeship in true solidarity." (42) And when, in
early 1900, the government accorded to the Societe des Universites populaires
the status of "utilite publique," Seailles took that as a demonstration that
"the government of republican defense had remained faithful to its program."
(43)
The extent to which Seailles' rhetoric added up to more than just pious
hopes may be gauged in the brief career of Deherme's original foundation.
Deherme certainly projected a huge role for the universite populaire. This was
reflected in his plans for its physical facilities in the artisan neighborhood of
the Faubourg Saint-Antoine. In addition to lecture rooms and a library, the
building included baths, showers, a gymnasium, a fencing area, laboratories,
conversation areas, a pharmacy, space for "medical, legal, and economic
consultations," dormitories, furnished rooms, a labor exchange, a school to
train teachers in popular education, and an alcohol-free restaurant. (44) The
universite populaire projected educational program ranged far and wide:
physics, biology, astronomy, geography, anthropology, psychiatry, linguis-
tics, logic, aesthetics, demography, law, political economy, criminology, and,
of course, sociology. (45) Deherme had, in fact, framed a total leisure-time
environment for those who took advantage of the universite populaire's
facilities. He created the French equivalent of George Williams' YMCA-
which appeared at about the same time in Britain and in Canada, and which

Spring 1982 61

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
bore a similar design, complete with exercises in sobriety and in physical
training.
Deherme's ambitious plans never left the drawing-board, nor did his
program of courses and lectures attract the throngs of workers that he
expected. He claimed a total attendance of 7000 in 1900, including 4500
workers and day laborers, 1500 clerks and employees, and 1000 assorted
bourgeois and small tradesmen. (46) No corroborative evidence exists for these
numbers, so they must remain suspect. Edouard Petit, in his annual report on
popular education in 1902, did suggest that Deherme's clientele included a
larger number of bourgeois than the latter would have admitted. Petit also
vigorously denied that the foundation was in financial trouble, thus leaving
the impression that he protested too much. (47) Be that as it may, the
universite populaire in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine closed its doors in 1903.
But the story does not end there.
Several universites populaires sprang up in Paris at the same time. They
were all a good deal more modest than Deherme's original project and tended
to draw exclusively from their immediate neighborhood. Members of the
Societe des Universites populaires actively supported them with small
donations and with lectures in abundance. For instance, lecturers at the
"Solidarite" in the thirteenth arrondissement included the historian Charles
Seignobos, Henri Hauser, Ferdinand Buisson, and the ubiquitous Charles
Gide. Curiously, or perhaps not so curiously, the workingclass audience
found least attractive Gide's lectures on political economy and sociology.
They were far more interested in science and in philosophy. "Solidarite" spun
off a consumers cooperative which was frankly socialist-inspired. Because it
was socialist and not "scientific," it did not benefit from the largesse of the
Societe des Universites populaires. Seailles and his collaborators obviously
kept a tight rein. They made a virtue of political disengagement. As Dick May
reported, the universites populaires "carry no flag. They are not socialist.
They are not anti-socialist. They are neither clerical nor anti-clerical." But
they did contribute to the formation of citizens, which was another kind of
politics. (48)
Despite May's disclaimer, a survey of lectures offered during 1900 does
betray the influence of established anti-clerical bourgeois ideology. There
were lectures on the religious congregations (by Leon Blum), "clerical
fortresses," the "contradictions of religion," and "Luther and free thought."
But mostly, the courses focused on more practical matters: public health, the
family, the role of women in society, French colonies, the struggle against
alcoholism, commercial geography, the organization of labor, and the
practical applications of electricity. (49) However "value-free" these subjects
might appear, they reflected the aim of workingclass acculturation which
remained the primary mission of social education.
Among the many universites populaires that appeared at the end of the
century, the Fondation universitaire de Belleville stands out as an incarnation
of social education's spirit of class reconciliation. Established in 1899, the

62 HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fondation took its lead from the English "settlement schools," located mostly
in London's East End, where young bourgeois students tutored workers. This
arrangement supposedly encouraged solidarity. In Paris, several well-
connected (and well-heeled) young intellectuals, impatient with Deherme's
grandiose plans and meager results and less than enchanted with his bizarre
politics, struck out on their own to organize a school, library, and conference
center in Belleville-Paris's east end. There they planned to hold classes in
"science, morals, literature, the arts, and social and economic questions." (50)
Startup funds for the Fondation, totalling nearly 5000 francs, came from an
assortment of businessmen and philanthropists. One of the founders, a
student at the Ecole normale superieure, Joseph Aynard, drew on the
resources of his father. Edouard Aynard, a future regent of the Bank of France,
controlled substantial banking and industrial interests in Lyon. The elder
Aynard also interested himself in technical education designed to provide a
steady supply of competent workers for the Lyon silk industry. As a member of
the Chamber of Deputies he occupied himself with social questions: child
labor, the conditions of work in coal mines, female labor, and workers'
compensation. Thus, Edouard Aynard had a special interest and long
experience in matters of social reform. His support was reinforced by that of
the widows of the bankers, Isaac and Emile Pereire, the Bordeaux
businessman Robert Johnston, and Alphonse and Edmond de Rothschild. No
evidence exists to suggest that such people controlled the Fondation, for many
workers were involved from the beginning-indeed had the latter not been the
case the Fondation would have fallen flat from the start. But certainly, the
presence of big bourgeois, even on the fringes, set limits to the degree to which
the Fondation would act as an instrument of workingclass self-emancipation,
to say nothing of the content of courses and lectures. (51)
Most of our information on the Fondation universitaire comes from
Jacques Bardoux, who appears to have been its chief organizer. His case bears
comment, for it draws attention not only to the social consciousness of those
involved in setting up the Fondation, but to their social stations and to their
political orientation as well. In 1899, Bardoux had just completed his legal
studies. His father, Benjamin, an influential orleanist-turned-republican in
the 1870s, had capitalized on his political connections to gain a seat on the
board of the Paris-Orleans railroad. Benjamin Bardoux's firm position in
France's banking-transportation establishment paid off in, among other
things, an excellent match for his son. Jacques married the daughter of
Georges Picot, a director of the Paris-Lyon-Mediterranee railway, and best
known for his leadership in the Societe francaise des habitations a bon
marche-a group that promoted the construction of low-cost workingclass
housing. Thus, Jacques Bardoux had intimate ties to the worlds of high
finance and big bourgeois paternalism. His work at the Fondation may then
be viewed as an apprenticeship in social management. Bardoux went on to
carve out a brilliant career as a lawyer, journalist, chef de cabinet to Marshal
Foch in 1918, high-level technocrat, and senator. His special interests

Spring 1982 63

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
included colonial reform (but not divestment), foreign affairs, and education.
In that last capacity he sat on the board of the Ecole des Roches-an elite
school founded by the right-wing social scientist, Edmond Demolins, to mold
future servants of French business and the French state. During the Vichy
regime Bardoux served as a "national councillor" on a commission to reform
the constitution, a position entirely consistent with his long involvement in
the technical administration of social matters. He ended public life as a
member of the Chamber of Deputies of the Fourth Republic. In 1956 he did
not stand for reelection and turned over his seat to his grandson, Valery
Giscard d'Estaing. (52)
Bardoux displayed a keen appreciation of social education's role in
reinforcing collective consciousness in the face of an increasing division of
labor. In his report on the Fondation he quoted the social psychologist
Gabriel Tarde:
Personal, direct contact among young people is especially lacking in our modern society, and it is
by no means the least of the problems created by the growing urbanization of modern nations. To
struggle against that tendency, to reknit the social fabric torn by mass culture, and to render it
tighter and stronger . . . that is a noble aspiration. (53)

Unlike Deherme, Bardoux avoided the appearances of manipulation among

his workingclass collaborators. He recognized, as one contemporary
commentator on the Fondation noted, that "if one wants to work towards
pacification and social education, it is essential not to treat modest folk as
children. Confidence ennobles, and confidence unites." (54) To that end,
Bardoux, Aynard, the son of the political economist, Pierre Leroy-Beaulieu,
and others set themselves the task of "creating a spirit of camaraderie between
those commonly called manual laborers and intellectual laborers." (55)
Bardoux and his collaborators' "modest efforts" to make a contribution to
"social peace" bore fruit within a few months of the Fondation's installation
at 151, rue de Belleville, on the southern slope of the Buttes Chaumont. Active
membership at the end of 1899 stood at 112, of which 82 were students and 30
workers. (56) This was not, however, the sort of ratio that had been projected.
Aggressive recruiting must have followed, for the membership lists one year
later revealed a dramatic reversal of proportions: 353 workers and 134
students. The occupational distribution of the workers reflected the
predominance of skilled trades in that part of Paris. These were workers who
had a tradition of self-education and, not incidentally, of political activism.
Unskilled workers, demoralized by the "fatigues associated with monotonous
and unpleasant labor," did not appear. Thus, the effort to create a collective
consciousness concentrated precisely on those workers who, on the one hand,
labored outside the huge enterprises of advanced capitalism and, on the other,
traditionally had provided the working class with its leadership cadres. (57)
Formal courses and lectures played a secondary role at the Fondation
universitaire. The heaviest emphasis lay on informal get-togethers between
bourgeois students and workers, seminars in solidarity, as it were.

64 HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Conversations tended towards subjects of light amusement: music, poetry,
and popular tales. These small groups had several advantages. "Each
conversation that developed dissipated prejudices and reduced mutual
mistrust." Moreover, small groups "reduced the chances of disorder, enlarged
the opportunities for the expression of mutual goodwill and multiplied the
opportunities for personal contact." The relaxed atmosphere was reinforced
by spacious quarters, by rooms for card games, and by a billiard parlor. (58)
Despite appearances, the Fondation, like Deherme's universite populaire, was
a carefully controlled leisure-time environment. Unlike Deherme, the
organizers of the Fondation cared little for moral upliftment.
In their courses and in their public lectures, the Fondation's organizers
drew on France's leading political and intellectual figures. Charles Gide
played a keynote role. He defined the Fondation's mission in clearly political
terms: to abolish the distinction between "manual labor" and "intellectual
labor" and to provide a basis for the eventual obliteration of class distinctions.
Denying that labor created value, he insisted that entrepreneurs, individually
or collectively, calculated human needs and organized production to satisfy
them. Hence, exploitation was a myth and workers simply had to accom-
modate to that fact. The universites populaires existed to propagate the
lessons of political and social economy, to promote social peace, and to
combat the "marxist program of class struggle." (59)
Economic, social, scientific, and philosophical subjects formed the core of
lectures and courses. Joseph Chailley-Bert, a colonial publicist, spoke on the
situation in South Africa, while another colonialist, Felicien Michotte,
lectured on the benefits of French colonies. In the same spirit Andre Siegfried
spoke on economic and social conditions in China and in New Zealand.
Germain Martin, an economic historian, discussed the development of big
industry. Andre Lichtenberger, a historian of socialist movements, offered a
course on socialism in the eighteenth century. In addition, audiences had the
opportunity to hear about the "miracles of science," the "republican idea,"
and the "rights of property." These individual lectures were supplemented by
small classes in the fundamentals of mathematics, philosophy, and the
physical, biological, and social sciences. As Bardoux testified, these classes
were modeled on the lyc&e curriculum. (60) That, according to one post-
mortem on the universites populaires, was precisely the problem. "Why did
the universites populaires not provide the professional and technical
education that promises benefits to both workers and to capitalists? It seems
that university graduates who tried to transform themselves suddenly into
'educators of the people' simply could not manage the job." (61)
The foregoing judgment gives Bardoux and his associates more credit for
misplaced idealism than they deserve. For one thing, despite its big bourgeois
connections, the Fondation never forged solid links to the Paris business
community. As a result, the putative cooperation between labor and capital
had no practical expression beyond the artificial environment of the
Fondation itself. In addition, there was a more serious problem. The

Spring 1982 65

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fondation, which survived Deherme's establishment by only two years despite
its auspicious start, fell between two stools, or rather, could not make subject
and object agree. The frankly political purpose, to combat socialism by
joining together bourgeois and workers in good fellowship and serious study,
had no concrete underpinnings. Yet there was no way that the associationist
message could have been broadcast without exposing the Fondation's
political purpose. Only disguises remained, and the elements of high culture
and ideology turned out to be a poor mixture. Workers, who were initially
attracted by the Fondation's recreational amenities, displayed understandable
skepticism of the motives of these high-minded young men whose professed
altruism inadequately concealed their social and political concerns. Thus, in
this case at least, no one could take seriously Dick May's assertion that the
universite populaire "displayed no partisan banner." What, after all, was
more political than the "formation of the citizen"? (62)
More practical and modest efforts, those carried on in the provinces,
illustrate the character and goals of social education in a manner more
concrete than the elaborate schemes of the Universite populaire of the
Faubourg Saint-Antoine and the Fondation universitaire de Belleville. Before
turning to the provinces, however, one further item commands attention.
When Bardoux delivered a public accounting of the Fondation universi-
taire's first year of operation, he chose for his platform a meeting of the Societe
d'economie sociale. This body, originally founded by Frederic LePlay in the
1860s, served as the principal forum for the elaboration and discussion of
programs for social reform, including social education. (63) From its
inception the members of the Societe looked to education to defuse class
antagonisms and to counteract the "dangers" of independent workers'
organizations. (64) One of its early stalwarts, Armand Audiganne, a leading
commentator on industrial life in the 1860s, announced that "the
development of the peoples' intellectual faculties constitutes the strongest
defense of the social order." (65)
The Societe's ideological complexion had a distinct corporatist coloration
and the social reform projects in which its members were involved responded,
as did social education, to the collective character of social production. These
projects included the Societe franCaisedes habitations a bon marche, founded
by Georges Picot, president of the Societe d'economie sociale in 1892 and
Bardoux's father-in-law; the Alliance d'hygiene sociale, in which Gide and
Picot were leading figures along with Edouard Petit, director-general of
primary education and a booster of universites populaires; (66) and the Musee
social, organized by Andre Siegfried's father, Jules, with the assistance of,
among others, Edouard Aynard. (67) Thus, directly and indirectly, one
incarnation of social education took its place alongside other projects for the
management and well-being of labor. And Bardoux was in friendly company
when he announced, although prematurely, that the success of the Fondation
universitaire had confounded those skeptics who argued that workers were
"so completely taken up with the idea of class struggle peddled by marxists"
that they would refuse all collaboration. (68)
66 HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 In the provinces, the universites populaires fared better than those in Paris.
A solid base already existed since the early 1890s. A host of societies devoted
to the social education of workers had sprung up. Organized by businessmen,
lawyers, teachers, and doctors, these societes d'instruction populaire, as they
were most commonly known, numbered over 700 by the end of the century.
Significantly, the largest concentrations were in the industrial departments of
the Nord, the Pas-de-Calais, and the Rhone. All of them engaged in one form
or another, adult education, the organization of libraries, and the disemi-
nation of lectures. Many of these groups moved into the business of starting
universites populaires, which were a natural extension of their activities.
By 1902, 75 had been established. (69)
More than just numbers and organization, however, accounted for the
difference between the Parisian and the provincial experiences. Each drew
from the same ideological well, but in the latter case a clearer sense of
priorities appeared to prevail. In the provinces, as Edouard Petit noted, the
universites populaires linked '"the head and the hand" (la penseeet I'outil). (70)
Moreover, the practical businessmen who organized them understood that
"one does not approach workers coming off a hard day's work in the same
manner as one deals with young people obliged to attend school; one does not
lecture an audience of workers as one lectures a group of petits bourgeois
interested only in trivial and cheap amusements." (71) Finally, organized
labor and the bourgeois sponsors frequently collaborated closely in setting up
the universites populaires. In Angouleme, for example, the local committee
took great pains to complement and not compete with the educational
projects of the Bourse du Travail. (We must remember that many sections of
the Federation des Bourses du Travail stood apart from revolutionary
syndicalist politics without, however, necessarily being agencies of class
collaboration.) In Epernay, printers belonging to the conservative Federation
du Livre took the initiative in organizing a universite populaire. (72)
In Tours the universite populaire was the joint creation of a few bourgeois,
all Masons, and the officers of the local Bourse du Travail. Each had
something to offer the other. On the one hand, workers who had not
associated themnselves with the Bourse showed up for lectures and
entertainment. On the other, the leaders of the Bourse provided their
bourgeois collaborators with the opportunity to mix with workers and to
demonstrate their good will. This was no small advantage. According to the
MIasonicbrethren, workers in general "welcomed the project; however, there
remained a residue of distrust stemming from their fear of being 'flim-
flamrnmed'(rouIes), because they have been thoroughly worked over by the
clerical organizations of the city, whose bourgeoisie is largely reactionary."
Clericalism, in their view, demanded unceasing combat because of the social
danger it presented. The social order did not benefit from the tendency of
workers to identify a reactionary bourgeoisie with the Republic itself. Thus,
anti-clericalism, couched in terms of "republican defense" (remember that we
are in the midst of the Dreyfus affair), provided a meeting-ground for
bourgeois republicans and workers. Under these conditions, a discussion of
Spring 1982 67

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"social questions" could be carried on within the limits of "the solidarity of
citizens." (73)
Discussions of "social questions" rarely took on the aspect of free-wheeling
give and take. More commonly, lectures and seminars focused on social
institutions and the so-called "facts" of social life. In Bar-le-Duc the
organizers of the local universite populaire ran conferences on cooperation,
the relations between labor and capital, and definitions of property, all the
while insisting that politics had absolutely no place in their program. Even
newspapers were barred from the hall. Apparently they feared that partisan
political brawls would poison the atmosphere of friendly class collaboration.
Politics, after all, tended to derail the movement towards establishing
harmonious collective consciousness. (74)
Occasionally the bourgeois organizers of a universite populaire confronted
political questions head-on and made the most of them. In Montpellier they
conducted their conferences in the Bourse du Travail, which harbored some
alleged "revolutionaries, even libertines." Furthermore, they began their
courses at just the moment when a dockers strike in nearby Marseille had
"overheated passions." Rather than evade the issue, they discussed the
communalist movement of 1871 and encouraged the secretary of the Bourse to
discuss workers' associations. All of this made the local police commissariat
very nervous and a police officer was dispatched to maintain order. He
observed, reported that "everything was calm" and did not reappear. By their
own testimony, the bourgeoisie montpellerienne harvested immense amounts
of good will from the workers of that city. (75)
But the Montpellier experience stood as the exception that proved the rule.
In places like Firminy, in the Loire mining and metallurgical zone, and in the
northern mining town of Le Cateau, universites populaires for the most part
restricted their activities to entertainment: choral societies, Sunday outings,
poetry readings, and theatre. Active worker participation in these industrial
communities did not materialize, nor did the bourgeois sponsors seem to
encourage such participation. Workers, especially in Firminy, pursued their
interests through a series of strikes. Their revolution had nothing to do with
ideas and sentiments. (76)
It has become obvious that the universites populaires did not match
ambition with accomplishment. But their significance extends beyond the
efforts recorded here. In the realm of ideology, where we discover important
things about how ruling classes rule, the conception of the universite
populaire as an instrument of class collaboration echoed in other areas of
social reform and management in turn-of-the-century France. In education, as
in the relations between labor and capital at the point of production,
association, cooperation, solidarity, "revolutions in consciousness" all
expressed the general tendency to administer social relations in a manner
consistent with the collective character of social production. Thus, social
education should be viewed as one unit among forces mobilized to engineer
the integration of labor into the corporate community. Hence the easy

68 HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
movement of people like Gide and Guieysse among the worlds of education,
cooperatives, and industrial relations. (77)
The last word goes to Jacques Bardoux's father-in-law, Georges Picot.
Among the weapons in the arsenal of those who "struggle against
revolutionary socialism," Picot considered the ideology of property rights to
have special force. The worker, he said, must understand that his simple
hammer was as much a sacred possession as the capitalist's factory. Neither
could be violated. In a more sinister vein, Picot suggested that "neither
constitutional forms nor politics as usual"' had much effect on vital economic
questions. Only the State, through its administrative machinery (including
the police), possessed the proper equipment to enforce the harmony of capital
and labor. "The law should facilitate the creation of collective entities that
promise to bring classes together." (78) Picot considered himself a liberal who
defended all the appropriate values. Yet, he was prepared to scuttle those
values should the higher interests of the corporate order demand that he do so.

NOTES

1. G. Seailles, Les Affirmations de la conscience moderne (Paris, 1904), p. 81; G. Seailles,

Cooperation des idees: Universites populaires; Education et revolution (Paris, 1899), p. 1.
2. Premier congres d'education sociale (Paris, 1901), p. 91; Seailles, Cooperation des idees, title
page.
3. D. K. Jones, "Socialization and Social Science: Manchester Model Secular School 1854-1861,"
in P. McCann, ed., Popular Education and Socialization in the Nineteenth Century (London,
1977), pp. 126-131.
4. James Gilbert, Designing the Industrial State: The Intellectual Pursuit of Collectivism in
America, 1880-1940 (Chicago, 1972), pp. 194-197.
5. Robert L. Church, "Economists as Experts: The Rise of an Academic Profession in America,
1870-1917," in Lawrence Stone (ed.), The University in Society (Princeton, 1975), 2, 581.
6. E. Levasseur, Questions industrielles et ouvrieres (Paris, 1896), p. 299.
7. A. Fontaine, "La Solidarite dans les faits economiques," in France, Ministerede l'industrieet
du commerce, Congres international de l'education sociale, 1900: Proces-verbal sommaire
(Paris, 1902), p. 54.
8. Societe pour 'Ieducation sociale: Bulletin mensuelle (1901), 7-9; P. Crouzet, "Etat actuel de
lenseignement populaire social," in Le Premier congres de I'enseignement social (Paris,
1901), p. 249.
9. Premier congres d'education sociale, pp. 114-115.
10. L. Bourgeoiset A. Croiset, Essai d'une philosophie de la solidarite: Conferences et discussions
(Paris, 1902), p. 74.
I 1. C. Gide, "L'dee de solidarite en tant que programnmeeconomique," Revue internationale de
sociologie, 1 (1893): 393-99; A. Leaud et E. Glay, L'Ecole primaire en France (Paris, 1934),
p. 273.
12. (C-L Duprat, "Education sociale et solidaritei," Rev'ue internationale de sociologie, 11 (1903):
922.,
13. France, Ministere du commerce et de l'industrie, Exposition universelle internationale, 1900.
Rapports du jury. Group I: Enseignement et education (Paris, 1902), p. 506.
14, Bourgeois et Croiset, Essai d'une philosophie de la solidarite, p. 97.
15. P. Crouzet, "Etat actuel," pp. 251-255.

Spring 1982 69

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16. The information on these subjects is vast and awaits a comprehensive bibliography. Key
sources include the Bulletin de la Ligue frangaise de l'enseignement; the Bulletin de la Societe
Franklin; the bulletins of the Societe nationale des conferences populaires; France, Ministere
de 1'instruction publique et des Beaux-Arts, Recueildesmonographiesped&agogiquespubliees
ital'occasion de l'Exposition universelle de 1889(Paris, 1889);Edouard Petit, Rapportsur l'edu-
cation populaire (Paris, 1897-1903), a series of seven annual reports; and many others.
17. L. Dintzer, "Le Mouvementdes Universites populaires," Mouvement social, #35 (1962): 5-6.
18. For England, seeJ. F. C. Harrison, LearningandLiving, 1790-1960(London, 1961 )andBrian
Simon, Studies in the History of Education (London, 1960).
19. C. Gide, "Travail intellectuel et travail manuel," J. Bardoux, La Fondation universitaairede
Belleville (Paris, 1901), pp. iii-xviii.
20. C. Gide, Economie sociale (Paris, 1905), pp. 252-258.
21. C. Gide, "De la cooperation et des transformations qu'elle est appelee a realiser dans 1'ordre
economique,'"Revue d'economie politique, 3 (1889): 486.
22. C. Guieysse, "Les Universites populaires et le mouvement ouvrier," Cahiers de la quinzaine, 3
seir.,#2(1901): 21n.
23. J. Maitron, Histoire du mouvementanarchisteen France, 1880-1914(Paris, 1955),pp. 242-243,
333.
24. Seailles, Les Affirmations, pp. 83-89.
25. La Cooperation des idees, (1896), I; 2 (1897), 35-36; G. Deherme, Auguste Comte et son
oeuvre: Le Positivisme (Paris, 1909), p. 118.
26. La Cooperation des idees, 4 (1899), 20.
27. M. Turmann, Au sortir de l'ecole. Les Patronages (Paris, 1909), pp. 35-37.
28. Deherme, Auguste Comte, p. 68.
29. Ibid., p. 118.
30. Turmann, Au sortir de lecole, p. 35; on Comte's position, see J.Laffey, "Auguste Comte:
Prophet of Reconciliation and Reaction," Science and Society, 19 (1965): 44-65.
31. G. Deherme, Rapport sur I'enseignement social en France (Paris, 1900), p. 2.
32. H. Hauser, L'Enseignement des sciences sociales (Paris, 1903), pp. 372-373.
33. France, Ministere du commerce etde I'industrie, Exposition universelle internationale del 900:
Rapports du jury international (Paris, 1903), p. 194.
34. D. May, "Quelques reflexions sur les Universiteis populaires," Revue socialiste (Jan.-Fev.,
1901): 36-40,
35. The phrase, "national organism," comes from Z. Sternhell, La Droite revolutionnaire, 1885-
1914 (Paris, 1978), p. 316.
36. Guieysse, "Les Universites populaires," pp. 13-14, 34-35.
37. Ministere du commerce, Exposition universelle, V, 191.
38. Seailles, Cooperation des idees, p. 1.
39. Ibid., pp. 2, 7.
40. Ibid., pp. 8-12.
41. Seiailles, Les Affirmations, pp. 92-94.
42. Ibid., pp. 82, 96-108
43. Turmann, Au sortir de I'ecole, p. 357.
44. May, "Quelques reflexions," p. 42; Seiailles, Les Affirmations, pp. 90-91.
45. Deherme, Rapport, p. 5.
46. Ibid., p. 12.
47. Petit, Rapport (1902-1903), pp. 27-29.
48. May, "Quelques rieflexions," 169-183.
49. Turmann, Au sortir de l'ecole, pp. 361-366.

70 HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50. Ibid., part 3, ch. 9; May, "Quelques rieflexions," pp. 46-49; Bardoux, La Fondation universi-
taire, passim.
51. Bardoux, La Fondation universitaire, pp. 15, 19,29; J. Jolly, Dictionnaire desparlementaires
francais (Paris, 1960), 1, 428-429.
52. Levasseur, Questions, p. 328; E. Beau de Lomenie, Les Responsabilites des dynasties bour-
geoises (Paris, 1943-1963), 1, 282-283, 2, 26, 201, 4, 183, 192; Jolly, Dictionnaire, 2, 458-459.
Jolly discreetly neglects to mention Bardoux's services for the Vichy government.
53. Bardoux, La Fondation universitaire, p. 14.
54. Turmann, Au sortir de l'ecole, p. 134.
55. Cahiers de la quinzaine, 3 ser., #10 (1900-1901).
56. Turmann, Au sortir de l'ecole, p. 352.
57. Bardoux, La Fondation universitaire, pp. 67-68.
58. Turmann, Au sortir de I'ecole, pp. 347-349.
59. Gide, "Travail intellectuel," pp. x, xi, xviii.
60. Bardoux, La Fondation universitaire, pp. 49-55.
61. M. Duhamel, L'Education sociale du peuple et l'echec des Universites populaires (Paris,
1904), pp. 12-13.
62. May, "Quelques reflexions:" 181-183.
63. La Reforme sociale, #32 (1896): 867.
64. L'Economiste francais, 18 fevrier 1864. This journal, which did not survive the mid-1860s,
should not be confused with the better-known journal of the same name founded in 1872by the
political economist, Paul Leroy-Beaulieu.
65. A. Audiganne, Populations ouvrieres et les industries de la France (Paris, 1866), 2, 414.
66. R-H Guerrand, Les Origines du logement social en France (Paris, 1967), p. 284; Bulletin
d'Alliance d'hygiene sociale, 2 (1904), 1-4; Petit, Rapport (1902-1903), p. 27.
67. See my article, "Social Reform and Social Order in Late Nineteenth Century France: The
Musee Social and its Friends," French Historical Studies, 2, #3 (1980): 431-451.
68. Turmann, Au sortir de I'ecole, p. 353.
69. France, Ministere de l'instruction publique et des Beaux-Arts, Rapport sur l'organisation et
la situation de l'enseignement primaire public en France (Paris, 1900), book 3, ch. 1; Petit,
Rapport (1896-1897), pp. 47-49, (1901-1902), pp. 42-43.
70. Petit, Rapport (1902-1903), pp. 25-27.
71. Cahiers de la quinzaine, 3 ser., #20 (1901): 5-6.
72. Ibid., pp. 11, 35.
73. Ibid., pp. 77-78.
74. Ibid., pp. 18-19.
75. Ibid., pp. 56-57.
76. Ibid., pp. 38-41.
77. C. Guieysse, La Participation aux benefices, les retraites et l'assurance (Paris, 1890).
78. G. Picot, La Lutte contre le socialisme revolutionnaire (Paris, 1895), pp. 9-13, 47-57.

Spring 1982 71

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Rockefeller University has made 24 grants-in-aid to support projects
requiring substantial research in the holdings of the Rockefeller Archive
Center during 1982. The grant recipients are Finn Aaserud, Salma Ahmad,
Naomi Aronson, A. Gilbert Belles, Merriley Borell, Peter J. Brown, James H.
Capshew, Stephen J. Cross, Jean-Marie Desroches, Antonio Gaztambide,
Judith Goodstein, Alan R. Havig, James H. Jones, Michael Kammen,
Kenneth F. Kiple, Aurelie J. Knapik, James L. Leloudis II, Brigitte Mazon-
Bohm, Harvey G. Neufeldt, Joseph P. Owusu-Ansah, Penelope A. Peterson,
Randall Stross, Wariya Siwasariyanon, and Ka-che Yip.
Grants of not more than $1500 will be made to applicants of any discipline,
usually graduate students or post-doctoral scholars, for the year 1983.
Applications for grants during 1983 must be made before December 31, 1982.
The names of recipients will be announced on or before March 31, 1983.
Inquiries about the program and the collections at the Center should be
addressed to: Director, Rockefeller Archive Center, Pocantico Hills, North
Tarrytown, New York 10591-1598.

72 HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:02:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions