The Protestant Personality and Higher Education: American Philanthropy Beyond the Progressive Era

Transcription

1 International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1998 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education: American Philanthropy Beyond the Progressive Era Soma Hewa Andrew Carnegie wrote, in his best known essay titled The Gospel of Wealth (1889), that The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship. He then instructed wealthy fellow Americans how to spend their wealth conscientiously: First to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer. 1 The concerns that Carnegie expressed in his essay reveal one of the fundamental challenges that most wealthy Americans had confronted at the turn of the century. He was not alone in reflecting upon these concerns during this period. John D. Rockefeller, a contemporary of Carnegie, appeared equally disturbed by the same questions. In Random Reminiscences, Rockefeller wrote: As I study wealthy men, I can see but one way in which they can secure a real equivalent for money spent, and that is to cultivate a taste for giving where the money may produce an effect which will be a lasting gratification... It would be the narrowest sort of view to take, and I think the meanest, to consider that good works consist chiefly in the outright giving of money. 2 These words summed up some of the most dominant values of American society. Long before Carnegie and Rockefeller, early social reformers such as Cotton Mather ( ) and Benjamin Franklin ( ), addressed these same issues in their well-attended sermons and numerous social commentaries.3 In 1698, in one of his famous sermons, Mather, a co-founder of Yale University, told the people of Boston: Instead of exhorting you to augment your charity, I will rather utter an exhortation...that you may not abuse your charity by misapplying it. 4 He 135 O 1998 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

2 136 Hewa was no less concerned about the question of proper administration of wealth than Carnegie or Rockefeller. Furthermore, Mather was troubled by the proclivity to glorify idleness by unwarranted brotherly love, and he warned against alms.5 Benjamin Franklin was perhaps the most vocal prominent opponent of charity in American history. For Franklin, the prevention of poverty and destitution was far more important than alleviating it. Therefore, he opposed poor laws, on the grounds that public welfare measures would have the greater tendency than even alms to pauperize the poor. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion about the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor is, not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. Franklin s broad-based vision of benevolence contributed to the creation of numerous civic projects, including libraries, hospitals, and the Pennsylvania Academy, which later became the University of Pennsylvania.6 This particular moral vision of society that appears to be the binding thread of all these men, who lived centuries apart, had its origin in the Puritan heritage of the United States. It continues to be the formative feature of mainstream American culture. However, recognizing some specific social and economic transformations that marked the turn of the century, in isolation from this long historical and cultural context, some scholars have suggested that the social conscience of Carnegie and Rockefeller was a reflection of the social changes of their own time. For example, as suggested by the titles of two authoritative volumes, The Rockefeller Century (1988) and The Rockefeller Conscience (1991), historians describe the turn of the century as the Progressive Era, 7 a period marked by the transformation of America from a collection of individual communities to a mass society. The forces of urbanization, industrialization, commercialism, and globalism that had all been gathering strength throughout the nineteenth century, reached during this generation a critical mass that changed not only the form but also the content of American culture and society. These characteristics, in my opinion, are best described as a culmination of a social and economic trend, rather than a distinct period of history. The notion of the Progressive Era implies that American history prior to this particular period was rather stagnant, or conservative. Furthermore, historians have identified institutional innovations such as philanthropic foundations as a unique feature of the Progressive Era. However, the fundamental moral vision of society that gave rise to these institutions is by no means unique to this particular period. Both Mather and Franklin had strongly opposed charitable endowments as a solution to social problems and recommended long-term policies that would attack the root cause of these problems. Therefore, the argument that the idea that huge sums of money could be set aside for unspecified future social needs emerged only in the

3 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education 137 early twentieth century, is a rather unqualified statement of American history. Although philanthropic foundations may be considered as an institutional innovation of the early twentieth century,9 the particular ideological basis of these institutions that inspired individual philanthropists during the Progressive Era goes as far back as the origin of the republic. According to Arthur Vidich and Stanford Lyman, the underlying ethical principles of American secular social thought had their origin in Christian religion, in particular Protestantism. These ethical values, they have suggested, had profound influence on the formation of civil society from the beginning of the nation.10 While different institutional innovations are found as solutions to fundamental problems in each historical period, these institutions themselves do not reveal the inherent dynamics of a given culture that give rise to these institutions. According to Peter Dobkin Hall, rich Americans have sought to build nonprofit educational and cultural institutions as a way of achieving public well-being through private wealth since the early eighteenth century.11 Therefore, to identify these institutional manifestations of a particular moral vision of society in a limited historical context is to ignore the enduring influence of cultural dynamics. In sociology, culture is understood as either a product of the economic system the infrastructure or an ideological entity of its own capable of engendering profound social and economic changes. In either case, culture is a powerful instrument in sociological theory that explicates social change. For sociological purposes, culture comprises all social products of humans acting according to valued ends, or if they already exist, such social products must continue to foster certain values attached to them. It is culture that makes unique historical phenomena meaningful to sociological inquiry. According to Heinrich Rickert, a renowned Kantian philosopher of the late nineteenth century, sociological inquiry attempts to ascertain the regularities of human social conduct by means of a comparative analysis, which [takes] the entire known history of mankind for its province. Regularity means that certain types of conduct, or certain beliefs concerning the legitimation of authority, or certain kinds of leadership, could be formulated in such a way as to encompass the entire range of possible forms of behavior. 14 Taking a sociological perspective, the development of philanthropic organizations in the United States at the turn of the century is defined here as an institutional manifestation of a historical process that was determined by a particular value system. These values were evident in the prevailing attitudes of that period, such as public spiritedness, and the growing confidence in science and scientific methods that gave rise to philanthropic organizations.15 Philanthropic organizations became a practical solution to the problem of bringing the public interest in line with private economic interest.16 They were endowed

4 138 Hewa with an enormous amount of private money with clear objectives to carry out specific medical research, broad educational reforms, and public health programs. For example, the General Education Board established in 1903 by John D. Rockefeller aimed at promoting a uniform educational system within the United States. Its purpose was to address the regional disparities in education by providing funds for colleges and universities that would adopt specific administrative and educational policies. So doing, it tried to improve educational standards across the country.17 What is fundamentally interesting about these philanthropic programs was the way they brought together individuals of different walks of life wealthy industrialists, public administrators, preachers, educators, scientists in an attempt to realize certain objectives deemed beneficial to society. How did they achieve this unity, and the balance between their subjective interests and the objective goals of the philanthropic organizations? James Cassedy sheds some light on this complex question when he suggests that the maintenance of such a balance may well have been a source of tension in given individuals; but Americans brought up within the traditions of the Puritan ethic had much practice in living with internal tensions. 18 It was this particular historical tradition that has been described by Max Weber as the process of rationalization, which has taken place in almost every aspect of modern society. Weber suggested that the new scientific understanding of benevolence, that is, philanthropy, was accompanied by certain fundamental changes in people s beliefs regarding their relationship to God and their role in the calling. These changes in a belief system that began in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries transformed the entire social system (that is, economic, political, and social institutions). This process of transformation or as Vidich and Lyman put it, the transmission of religious values into civil society which has been described by some historians as the Progressive Era in the United States continues to persist in Western society.19 According to Weber, social institutions are interdependent, and the basic values that give rise to one institutional system are fundamentally the same as those that give rise to another. The key questions that will be discussed in this article are (1) What are the modes of interplay between culture and social organizations? (2) Did the change in culture, that is, religious beliefs, rationalize the transition of benevolent action from charity to philanthropy? and (3) Was the transition of the mode of benevolence congruent with other changes in the social, political, and economic systems that were brought about by the process of rationalization? By addressing these questions I will suggest that the early philanthropists and their close advisors were inspired by the religious ideals that united them in a particular course of action deemed to be necessary for the good of the larger society. These theoretical arguments are substantiated by referring primarily to the historical records of Rockefeller philanthropy in the early twentieth century.

5 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education 139 THE PROTESTANT PERSONALITY IN HISTORY Max Weber, like most other German intellectuals in the last century, was influenced by the idealistic philosophy of Immanuel Kant. For Germans, the idealist philosophy was a kind of second nature..., and Kant remained the dominant formative influence on the German mind. In a critique of the methodological arguments of Wilhelm Roscher and Karl Knies of the historical school of economics, Weber rejected Knies assumption that the unpredictability of human conduct was the result of the freedom of will. In contrast, he argued that rational individual conduct, of which the end result is predictable, stems from the sense of freedom, a feeling of the absence of all emotional elements. Concrete human experiences, according to Weber, contain elements of both calculability and predictability peculiar to human conduct.21 Taking this Kantian view of rational and irrational reasons, Weber defined individual social conduct as a criterion or model for sociological interpretation of historical reality. However, he maintains that no scientific method can comprehend social reality in its entirety: reality is a manifold realm; the vast concreteness of its individuality is not subjected to systematic presentation by concepts or theories. The methodological concepts that Weber was interested in are therefore those of an empirical explanatory science that attempts a causal explanation for the consequences of social action. In the moral philosophy of Kant, Weber found a rationalized world view of Protestant Christianity. It was compatible with both his Calvinist upbringing and an educational background influenced by the idealistic philosophy.23 In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber s aim was to unveil the particular historical individual, whose personality was imbued by the moral imperatives of Protestant Christianity. Indeed, Weber s own life was a powerful testimony to the enormous moral imperatives forced upon the individual by Protestant teachings, which was his preoccupation in this seminal work.25 Weber argued that The new generation must again become accustomed to the idea that one cannot intentionally wish to be a personality and that there is only one way to become one: unqualified dedication to a cause, no matter what this cause and the demands of the day, proceeding from it may be like (original emphasis). The personality that Weber refers to here is the individual, whose life is dedicated to a particular cause. The ideal of the self-restraining person devoting him/herself to the glorification of God is the secularized version of the world renouncing asceticism of medieval Christianity. Weber writes, the valuation of the fulfillment of duty in worldly affairs as the highest form which the moral activity of the individual could assume. This it was which inevitably gave every-day worldly activity a religious significance, and which first

6 140 Hewa created the conception of a calling in this sense... The only way of living acceptable to God was not to surpass worldly morality in monastic asceticism, but solely through the fulfillment of the obligations imposed upon the individual by his position in the world. That was his calling. 27 By secularizing the Catholic notion of duty to God, the leaders of the Reformation revolutionized the whole idea of duty. The matter of salvation was no longer the concern solely of those in monasteries, but included all members of society. Furthermore, with the secularization of duty, the Reformers also removed the authority of the Church, which had a profound impact on an individual s life. In this context, the individual was now independent, but also deeply isolated in the world marked by the constant anxiety and tension concerning his/her own state of salvation. It was this inner tension, more than anything else, that became the driving force of the Protestant personality. The individual alone must find a destiny which had been decreed for him/her from eternity. No one could help. No priest, for the chosen one can understand the word of God only in his own heart. According to Weber, the emphasis on the individual s own responsibility to prove his/her state of grace through labor in a particular calling to the fullest ability also subordinated all emotional attachments to other individuals: Christians who took the proof of his state of grace seriously acted in the service of God s ends, and these could only be impersonal. Every purely emotional, that is not rationally motivated, personal relations of man to man easily fell in the Puritan, as in every ascetic ethic, under the suspicion of idolatry of the flesh. This particular emphasis that Reformed Christianity placed upon the conduct of individual believers drastically altered the medieval Christian view of brotherly love. For the rationally motivated individual, who is free of all emotional attachments to other individuals, the world exists as a place only for the glorification of God by fulfilling His commandments to the best of his/her ability. As such, the individual is detached from all emotional tasks that stem from interpersonal relations, which were regarded as idolatry of the flesh. The activities deemed to be God s commandments are only social activities: God requires social achievement of the Christian because He wills that social life shall be organized according to His commandments, in accordance with that purpose. The social activity of the Christian in the world is solely activity in majorem gloriam Dei. 30 This particular commandment became the dominant aspect of all vocations that serve the mundane life of the community. For Weber, the belief that the Christian must prove his/her state of grace by actions in majorem gloriam Dei had a definite impact on directing all personal energies physical and emotional away from inter-personal relations and self indulgence. In the process of concentrating

7 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education 141 all daily activities on the glory of God, a peculiar social utilitarian attitude took precedence, recognizing the importance of serving in the rational organization of society. Weber writes: For the wonderfully purposeful organization and arrangement of this cosmos is, according to both to the revelation of the Bible and to natural intuition, evidently designed by God to serve the utility of the human race. This makes labour in the service of impersonal social usefulness appear to promote the glory of God and hence to be willed by Him. 31 This social utilitarianism developed into a psychological imperative to be hardworking and to overcome any apathy that might arise out of the doctrine of predestination. The understanding that good works was necessary to reach the state of grace was paramount even for those Protestant sects that did not accept the notion of predestination. As Weber argued, the consequences were similar ethical maxims despite the different dogmatic foundations. In this way, Reformers responded to one of the most enduring questions faced by the followers of all religions what is the purpose of life? For the Protestant Christian, the answer was unequivocal: service to humanity. Richard Baxter ( ), who is considered to be the greatest of the Puritan divine and the most representative Puritan in history, 32 suggested that public service is God s greatest service. But he warned against what he called an irrational act of love : it is not fit for a rational creature to love any one farther than reason will allow us.... It very often taketh up men s mind so as to hinder their love of God. 33 On this point Weber asked what such an impersonality of brotherly love, resulting from the orientation of life solely to God s will, means? He replied: It served the glory of God precisely to the extent that all personal and human feelings were necessarily insulted by it. 34 As good works became the guiding principle for the conduct of the devout Protestant, it was reinforced by insisting on hard work: Be diligent in your callings, Baxter writes, and spend no time in idleness and perform your labours with holy minds, to the glory of God. 35 Such earnestness provided the necessary spiritual energy to motivate the individual for systematic and methodical labor in his/her calling, which was the criterion of the Protestant personality. While slothfulness was characterized as a lack of faith, one s constant labor in his/her calling was a sign of inexorable faith in God s commandment: it is God that calleth thee to labour. 36 This particular commandment strengthened the notion of social utilitarianism: The public welfare, or the good of the many, is to be valued above your own. Every man therefore is bound to do all the good he can to others, especially for the Church and common wealth. And this is not done by idleness, but by labour! 37

8 142 Hewa Weber s purpose in The Protestant Ethic was to delineate the practical implications of the Protestant personality according to the Kantian philosophical method. He began with the argument that the individual s free will is transcendental, and that actions determined by free will are both rational and predictable. Thus, for Weber, an individual s self-determination is a moral law that is realized only in the pursuit of unqualified dedication to a cause. In this sense, the individual who is pursuing his/her duty in a particular calling is a perfectly rational person, and thus a Protestant personality. As Weber put it: Puritan [asceticism] like every rational type of asceticism, tried to enable a man to maintain and act upon his constant motives, especially those which it taught itself, against the emotions. In this formal psychological sense of the term, it tried to make him into a personality. Contrary to many popular ideas, the end of this asceticism was to be able to lead an alert, intelligent life: the most urgent task the destruction of spontaneous, impulsive enjoyment, the most important means was to bring order into the conduct of its adherents. 38 The practical implications of the Protestant personality that Weber was concerned with in his inquiry related to the development of modern rational capitalism in the West. Hence, Weber s articulation of the spirit of capitalism developed quite naturally out of his systematic analysis of the ascetic Protestant personality. However, it should be emphasized that Weber invites others to explicate what he called the elective affinities between the ascetic rationalism of Protestantism and the myriad social organizations in modern society.39 For Weber, Benjamin Franklin represented an ideal type of the spirit of capitalism, which he conceptualizes40 exclusively on the basis of Franklin s writings. For this purpose, Weber writes, we turn to a document of that spirit which contains what we are looking for in almost classical purity, and at the same time has the advantage of being free from all direct relationship to religion, being thus, for our purpose, free of preconceptions. 41 In essence, the spirit of capitalism was the ascetic economic manifestation of the Protestant personality dedicated to a particular cause. Being more than simple economic expression, however, the spirit of capitalism was subjected to fundamental moral and ethical values of the Protestant personality. It was not the unscrupulous acquisition of material possessions to gain some end; rather, it was an economic act ethically enjoined by one s conscience. Weber contended that this was the peculiar tenet of modern Western capitalism. He observes that, Labour in the service of rational organization for the provision of humanity with material goods has without doubt always appeared to representatives of the capitalistic spirit as one of the most important purposes of their life-work. 42 For Weber, Franklin s life exemplified the Protestant personality without its religious nuance, which by Franklin s time had already begun to wither away.43

9 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education 143 As the Protestant work ethic provided a decisive rationale to work diligently in one s calling to maximize the acquisition of profit as the means of glorifying God, the outcome was an unprecedented growth of material wealth. However, it was maintained that ascetic Protestants must restrain themselves from self-indulgence in their material possessions. The personal use of wealth must be limited to essential requirements in life. We may recall here Carnegie s advice to fellow Americans concerning how to spend their wealth conscientiously, quoted at the outset of this essay. The Protestant personality must defy all temptations to pursue personal happiness. Self-centered motivations can never bring about the sublime character that, alone, warrants the respect of others. In the pursuit of duty, in short, it is the rational and most appropriate thing for a Protestant Christian to pursue the happiness of others and to subordinate his or her own. The actions that spring from personal desires or emotions are described by Kant as heteronomous. 44 The autonomous moral agent is capable of subordinating all heteronomous temptations, such as those of self-interest. Such an individual postulates himself, according to Kant, as a transcendental being. 45 Only such a person deserves our esteem, as the embodiment of rational choice. Kant s moral philosophy provides here a perfect mirror image of the ideal character of the Protestant personality. The moral imperatives to dispense wealth in an ethically responsible manner during life had an enormous impact on the self-made millionaires in modern American history.46 This was almost as difficult a task as the rational pursuit of acquisition itself. The Protestant Reformers were fully aware of the challenge of controlling the temptations of heteronomous faculties, and the recommended solution was to give as much as possible for the commonweal as a means of extolling God s grace.47 Because the individual is only a trustee of God s money and is accountable for every penny he spends, he must exercise utmost caution, rational judgement and organizational skills in dispensing his wealth. This conviction exerted a negative influence on the practice of charity, but contributed to a more positive attitude toward a rational, systematic approach to giving that might increase the commonweal through productive labor, and thereby eradicate poverty and other human miseries. Weber argued that care for the poor was oriented to the goal of discouraging the slothful... In any case, charity itself became a rationalized enterprise, and its religious significance was therefore eliminated or even transformed into the opposite significance. This was the situation consistent [with] ascetic and rationalized religions. 48

10 144 Hewa It was this rationalized view of brotherly love that gave rise to organized philanthropy. Philanthropic organizations emerged at a time when the question of dispensing accumulated wealth in an ethically responsible manner was a major concern for those Americans who had been immensely fortunate in becoming God s trustees. They found philanthropy to be a methodical and rational way to fulfil their duty to God without disgracing themselves and their children. Furthermore, the early philanthropists and their close advisors found that the underlying principles of organized philanthropy the structure and process were essentially the same as those modern business organizations with which they were intimately familiar. The philanthropic foundations were built on a combination of scientific principles and commercial practices, administered by paid executives with some expertise in specific fields law, medicine, public health, education, and, so on which became businesses in their own right. To understand how these specific values have shaped modern organized philanthropy, we will focus on Rockefeller philanthropy in the following section. ROCKEFELLER AS A PROTESTANT PERSONALITY In a memorandum entitled, The Secret of Mr. Rockefeller s Character and Success, Rockefeller s closest confidante, and the key organizer of his philanthropy, Frederick T. Gates, wrote: If I were asked what single quality of this remarkable man had most to do with ordering his daily life, with moulding his character and shaping his destiny, my answer would surprise the public which judged him in the light of publicity only. After extensive qualifications and deliberations, Gates answered: It was an almost superhuman passion for taking pains, and this equally in things little as well as things big. 49 Gates observations have been corroborated by others, who have written about Rockefeller s character and personality years later. John T. Flynn writes: The key to this man s life is that everything in it has been carried out in accordance with a carefully considered plan. His life has been as completely devoid of accident as that of any other human being who ever lived. He has lived a planned life in everything in his work and his play. 50 Rockefeller s methodical approach to life was a part of the same Puritan heritage that accounted for a good deal of his success. The most decisive childhood influence on Rockefeller was his mother, Eliza Davison, who was deeply religious. She was also very strict in all matters of ethics, writes Allan Nevins, Rockefeller s chief biographer. Her deep piety and strong will were accompanied by a remarkable serenity, which she handed on to her son. She was frugal, reticent, and the soul of order and discipline. 51 Rockefeller s father, William Avery Rockefeller, a

11 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education 145 travelling medicine man and a highly controversial figure in the community, spent very little or no time with his family and thus had almost no influence on the moral character of any of his children. In his Random Reminiscences, Rockefeller recalled how he learned important entrepreneurial skills from his mother: When I was seven or eight years old I engaged in my first business enterprise with the assistance of my mother. I owned some turkeys, and she presented me with the curds from the milk to feed them. I took care of the birds myself, and sold them all in businesslike fashion. My receipt were all profit, as I had nothing to do with the expense account, and my records were kept as carefully as I knew how. 52 As almost every biographer of Rockefeller has noted, there were two things that Eliza could transplant in the lives of her children: discipline and frugality. Both had deep puritan roots. Being close to his mother, Rockefeller began to acquire these attributes very early in his life. Through all the family trials, argued Flynn, John had held fast to his little blue bowl and its growing fortune. 53 It was this blue bowl that gave him the opportunity to learn the power of money. When Rockefeller was about ten years of age, a neighbor who needed a loan asked the young boy if he would lend him $50 at seven percent interest. Delighted by the suggestion, the boy immediately asked: What was it? What is seven per cent? How much is that on $50? Out of his blue bowl he counted fifty dollars and loaned it to the neighbor. At the end of the year, when the neighbor returned $53.50, the young boy learned one of the most important lessons in his life: This fifty dollars had been working for him all through the year, night and day. The ten year old Rockefeller s discovery reminds us what Benjamin Franklin had said in his advice to a young tradesman: Remember, that credit is money. 54 Rockefeller, for his part, would reminisce many years later: From that time onward I determined to make money work for me. 55 He never lost this determination, even when he was giving away millions of dollars for various philanthropic purposes. Frederick T. Gates observed that when he was the secretary of the American Baptist Education Society, Rockefeller had given $100,000 to the society in A few weeks later, Rockefeller asked Gates what had he done with the money. Gates replied: We put it in a bank. Rockefeller then immediately questioned what interest do you get? Gates replied Nothing. Astounded, Rockefeller asked Gates to loan that money to him at six percent interest. I cannot endure to see that money idle. 56 This example shows that the Puritan values that Rockefeller had become acquainted with during childhood did not dissipate with age; instead they became guiding principles in all aspects of his life. It was unacceptable for Rockefeller that the money given to philanthropy had been put aside without utilizing its productive capacity. Once again, a powerful indication of Rockefeller s strict adherence to Puritan values reiterated, again, by Franklin s advice: Remember, that money is of the prolific,

12 146 Hewa generating nature. Money can beget money, and its offspring can beget more. 57 It was this ruling passion making money as an end in itself which became Rockefeller s calling. Rockefeller s methodical approach to benevolence took shape at an early age. Every day, he carefully wrote down in a small book, Ledger A, every penny he spent; the practice, which began at the age of sixteen, stands as one of the most powerful testimonies to the Protestant values of Rockefeller s methodical life. As he described in his Random Reminiscences, this little volume is still preserved containing my receipts and expenditures as well as an account of the small sums that I was taught to give away regularly. One of the first entries in Ledger A is a ten cent gift to a Missionary Cause, followed by several other gifts to Sunday school, the Y.M.C.A., the poor of the parish, and a gift of ten cents to the minister. In five weeks, all the donations of Rockefeller added up to $1.82, yet he was still to receive any payment from his employer. For the first four months, Rockefeller earned $67.50, of which he gave away almost a tenth to numerous religious and charitable purposes. In the same period, he spent $9.09 for clothing. I could not secure the most fashionable cut of clothing... I bought mine then from a cheap clothier. Self-indulgence was certainly out of the question. Although it is rare for a boy to assume such a reverent attitude toward planned giving at the inception of his career, Rockefeller s life was systematic and deeply influenced by his religious beliefs. What we have witnessed in Ledger A is the incipient seed of that methodical life which continued to thrive with age. Rockefeller s benevolent giving evolved in several stages. During the early part of his business career, that is from the early 1850s to the early 1880s, his benevolent activity was for the most part oriented to local needs and was guided by the Baptist church. Kenneth W. Rose, who has examined Rockefeller s early charitable work, suggests that until the early 1880s, a large part of his philanthropic contributions went to the organizational and financial needs of the Baptist church, and to social needs as perceived by the leaders of that denomination. 60 During this period he was giving away to a wide range of causes, but in small amounts. In all these benefactions he regularly consulted Baptist ministers, who often encouraged him to give to church and church-sponsored social programs. As much as he was inclined to give, he also tried to keep up with his investigation of these appeals. However, at times he became restless with the increasing appeals for money that he received. In a letter to Rev. G. O. King of the Willson Avenue Baptist Church, he wrote that he had no time to investigate all these calls from different churches throughout the country, although he was not prepared to pass them by. 61 The problem that Rockefeller faced here reveals a typical dilemma of a devout Protestant, whose conscience compels to give, but forbids encouraging slothfulness. By the late 1880s,

13 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education 147 Rose has noticed, Rockefeller began to realize that he needed a organizational mechanism to channel his gifts more efficiently. Accordingly, he began to work with Henry L. Morehouse, the new corresponding secretary of the American Baptist Home Mission Society.62 With Morehouse s approval, Rockefeller made several financial contributions to the institutional-building program of the Mission Society. It supported a number of colleges for Blacks and Indians, and Baptist seminaries. As Rockefeller felt increasingly comfortable with Morehouse s advice and his opinions, he began to work with him more closely. In addition to seeking Morehouse s advice, Rockefeller came up with his own suggestions, such as to give $20,000 toward a proposed church project in New York City. Morehouse was a long-term advocate of Baptist education and had been concerned with the lack of initiative within the Baptist community to support its schools. This newly established goodwill relationship with one of the richest Baptists in the country encouraged Morehouse to renew his campaign for a national Baptist organization to support Baptist education. With the support of other national Baptist organizations in the country, Morehouse finally succeeded in establishing the American Baptist Education Society in This was an important historical event in both the development of Rockefeller philanthropy and the history of education in the United States. For the development of education, the importance of the new American Baptist Education Society was vividly described by its first secretary, Frederick T. Gates: It was really a popular victory for the moneyless and educationally destitute West and South, over the moneyed and educationally well-provided Eastern and New England states. 63 Perhaps the most important aspect of the establishment of this new organization was that it marked the beginning of Rockefeller philanthropy s long involvement in education. Further, the close relationship between Rockefeller and the Education Society that was present from its inception had a direct impact on systematizing the methods of Rockefeller philanthropy. Rockefeller s Protestant values played an important role in the successful development of his vocation from a bookkeeper to a leading industrialist. His skills in organizing the Standard Oil Company, which controlled more than ninety-five percent of the market at the turn of the century, were inseparably interwoven with Rockefeller s methodical approach to the calling. However, Rockefeller was by no means a visionary; he was a realist with a strong determination to accomplish things. Lacking a formal college education apart from his vocational training, Rockefeller s expectation of college education was that it provide some practical skills. Hence, there is no doubt that the leaders of the Baptist Education Society must have played a critical role in persuading Rockefeller to choose education as his main target for philanthropy. But one must observe caution here not to overemphasize the influence of Baptist education leaders, because such an argument implies that Rockefeller was

14 148 Hewa without his own particular world view, and that he was dependent upon the opinions of his advisors. In Random Reminiscences, Rockefeller argued that Every right-minded man has a philosophy of life, whether he knows it or not. Hidden away in his mind are certain governing principles.... Surely, his ideal ought to be to contribute all that he can, however little it may be, whether of money or service, to human progress. 64 Such remarks certainly invite us to go beyond the obvious and to make an inquiry into those governing principles of Rockefeller. Therefore, we must return to Protestant teachings and examine whether there were any incentives for educational development within those specific teachings. Robert K. Merton, in his now classic essay, entitled Science, Technobgy and Society in Seventeenth Century England, has given considerable attention to the question of whether Puritan teachings had a positive effect on the development of scientific education.65 In particular, he refers to the emphasis placed on education by Baxter, who argued that Education and converse have so great a power on the mind that they come next to grace, and are often the means of it. 66 Merton noticed still more specific emphasis on natural sciences such as mathematics and physics. The study of natural sciences was regarded as the study of God in His work. More importantly, according to Merton, this particular selection of scientific inquiry illustrates the correlated aspects of Puritan thought: mathematics representing the rationalistic aspect and physics the empirical. 67 It was certainly not the study of literature, arts, or philosophy that was considered to be important. These fields of inquiry were considered to be unprofitable studies, which were both time-wasting and self-indulgent. Puritans were encouraged to behold God in His natural appearance in nature as the great means of promoting love to God. 68 The best way to comply with this injunction was to study nature and its various manifestations around us, while giving full credit to its Creator. This particular recognition of the appearance of God, as the great author of nature provided a strong sanction to investigate how nature works, rather than to accept it as a mystical force, a powerful departure from medieval thinking. When this particular aspect of Puritan teaching became associated with its emphasis on social utilitarianism, Merton believes, the outcome was a strong drive to develop scientific knowledge that has wider implications for society. In this respect, it is not difficult to understand the Baptists interest to promote education, particularly medical education and research. At the turn of the century, given the negligible state of medical sciences in the United States, the decisive actions taken by early philanthropists such as Rockefeller to develop medical education must be seen as one of the strongest signs of their religious impulse. Educational leaders like Charles W. Eliot and Daniel C. Gilman were able to attract the material resources of these religiously motivated philanthropists to establish new institutional models for reform.69

15 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education 149 As the first elected Executive Secretary of the American Baptist Education Society, Frederick T. Gates responsibility was to raise money for a Baptist university. During his brief career as a Baptist minister in Minneapolis, Gates had already established an impressive record of himself as a successful fundraiser within the Baptist community by raising $60,000 for the feeble academy in Owatona, Minnesota.70 When Morehouse wrote Rockefeller on August 18, 1888 informing him of the appointment of Gates as the new Executive Secretary of the Baptist Education Society, he appropriately described Gates as someone who possesses special adaptation for the duties of this position. 71 However, Rockefeller showed his usual cautious approach to the proposed work of the new organization and made no pledge of gifts. I am not surprised, Morehouse wrote, that you hesitate to make a pledge toward the expenses of the new Education Society, partly because of a lack of sufficient information, and partly because of the adverse judgement of some with whom you have spoken on the subject... I am as confident as I live that the future work of the denomination in educational matters, especially in the west, must become greater and greater through some such organizations as this. 72 The idea of establishing a university in the West was not shared by all members of the Society, particularly Augustus H. Strong, who was one of Rockefeller s earliest mentors from Cleveland and preferred to have the university in New York. Those who favored Chicago as the site for the proposed new university included a group of more talented personalities of the organization: William Rainey Harper of Yale University, Thomas W. Goodspeed of the Morgan Park Theological Seminary and Frederick T. Gates. While both sides tried to convince Rockefeller of the merits of their own plan, Rockefeller himself remained noncommittal to the matter. However, Gates was more persuasive and persistent, and continued to present the issue to Rockefeller from different angles. Following a series of correspondences, Rockefeller finally agreed to meet with Gates in January Four months later, he pledged $600,000 toward the project under the condition that the Society must raise $400,000 of matching funds.73 Undoubtedly, Gates made a favorable impression on many people during the course of negotiations for the Chicago project, but the man he impressed most was Rockefeller. As Nevins has pointed out, after one or two meetings with Gates, Rockefeller felt that he could at least begin to discuss a great educational gift upon a practical and dependable basis. 74 Although Goodspeed and Harper had been trying without success for years to get Rockefeller to make a pledge for the proposed university, Gates believed that he could immediately convince Rockefeller and others both of the crying need for a strong university in the West, and the possibility of enlisting a broad popular support for it. 75 This event marked an important step in the evolution of Rockefeller philanthropy that began to develop as a systematic and organized program.

16 150 Hewa While negotiating for the Chicago project, Rockefeller had a revealing conversation with Gates about the state of his benevolent activity. In March of 1891, Gates wrote in his biography, during an interview with him on other subjects, he told me that the pressure of appeals for philanthropic causes on his time and strength had become too great to be borne; that he was so constituted as to be unable to give away money with satisfaction without inquiry as to the worthiness of the cause; that these inquiries were now consuming more of his time and energy than his business and indeed injuring his health, and that either he must shift the burden to other shoulders, or he must cease giving entirely. At the end of this conversation, Rockefeller invited Gates to come to New York and assist him in his benevolent work by taking the interviews and inquiries and reporting result for his action. The content of this meeting clearly shows that Rockefeller had been overwhelmed by the appeals for money and his investigations into the authenticity of these appeals. As his wealth began to accumulate, the amount of money that he was giving away for benevolent purposes also increased. He was no longer in a position to give without having doubts that his giving was causing more harm than good. Rockefeller was at a critical juncture where he needed an expert s aid to organize his giving in such way that it could satisfy his conscience. At this point, the transition from charity to organized philanthropy was a necessity in light of his Protestant values. The alternative to that stop giving altogether was no alternative at all because it meant a breach of God s commandment. Therefore, Rockefeller s invitation to Gates to help him organize his philanthropy shows a genuine interest in finding a rational solution to his dilemma. Gates accepted Rockefeller s invitation with considerable pleasure and assumed his work in September of the same year. What this former Baptist minister brought to Rockefeller philanthropy was not merely the energy of a young man but a highly articulated view of the Protestant personality devoted to the commonweal. Therefore, Gates introduced Rockefeller to a systematic and rational program of philanthropy that enabled him to have as much pleasure in the organization of his philanthropy as in his business.77 Gates, as the key organizer, introduced two fundamental principles to Rockefeller s benevolent activity that reflected both the Protestant ethic of giving and the general process of rationalization that was taking place in all aspects of modern society.78 These two principles wholesale giving and scientific philanthropy were described by Gates as the guiding principles of Rockefeller philanthropy. The principle of wholesale giving represented a systematic method of organizing benevolent activity philanthropic foundations analogous to those of modern business organizations, bearing out Weber s thesis regarding the pervasive trend toward the rationalization

17 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education 151 of modern society. The key aspect of wholesale giving was the plurality of the decision-making process, which helped to maintain both the objectivity and the legitimacy of all philanthropic activities. As a former preacher, preferring to use his familiar canonical language, Gates described this particular procedure as the ultimate safeguard against the sins of scatteration, 79 or the capricious activities of charities of the past. Scientific philanthropy, on the other hand, represented the objective of all benevolent activities of Rockefeller, which were defined by Gates as the work for all humanity, a work which penetrates everywhere. 80 Again, keeping with the Protestant perspective, Gates equates scientific philanthropy to the love of God. As these two principles were closely interrelated, he often referred to them interchangeably.81 These specific principles, developed in accordance with Gates s understanding of the Protestant personality, are evident in all Rockefeller philanthropic organizations established at the beginning of the century. I will examine here briefly the policies and programs of one such organization under Gates s leadership in the first two decades of the twentieth century. GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD, The General Education Board (GEB) was established in 1903 by an act of the Congress of the United States. It was the first Rockefeller philanthropic organization with broad educational objectives to be established along the lines of modern bureaucratic organizations. The original Charter of the Board declares as its objective to promote education within the United States of America, without distinction of race, sex, or creed. 82 The GEB had very modest beginnings, with a one-million dollar pledge from Rockefeller for a period of ten years. At the beginning, its main objective was to promote primary education in the South, where education had been generally neglected for a long time. The Board was composed of seventeen executive members, who came from diverse social and educational backgrounds, which later proved to be a drawback for reaching consensus on regional educational matters. Gates, who was the chairman of the Board, writes: We were without experience, and we attributed to others our own entire disinterestedness. Our organization was not so carefully guarded as experience would have dictated.... Our first error was in adopting the representative principle in the make up of the board. At the time it was perhaps necessary. We chose territorial representatives, institutional, ecclesiastical, sectional, racial representatives, with the naive expectation that they would hang their representative character with their hats, outside the boardroom, and enter only as disinterested citizens of our common country,

18 152 Hewa and patriots. Yet, to some extent Gates s reflections were belied by the Board s successes. For, although a diversity of interests was represented by the board of executives, it proved, according to Raymond Fosdick, to be one of Mr. Rockefeller s greatest benefactions. 84 Indeed, the GEB was able to achieve remarkable educational goals largely because all the members shared the view that education was the critical means of establishing public well-being in the long deprived South. Hence, they agreed on specific educational policies and implemented them to their fullest ability. In all these, Gates, as the key organizer of Rockefeller philanthropy, and chairman of the GEB, played a crucial role. In his biography, Gates wrote: Up to 1917, when I resigned as chairman, the policies of the Board had been formulated by me, its beneficiaries had been chosen, and the amount and the conditions of its gifts had been largely influenced by me. 85 As the first step, Gates presented a memorandum to the trustees suggesting that the Board must commission a survey of educational needs in the Southern States. Gates himself became the chief investigator, assisted by Wallace Buttrick, another Baptist clergyman from the South and a Secretary of the GEB. After careful investigations, Gates reported to the Board that the most fruitful work would be the multiplication of high schools throughout the states of the South. While this would require millions of dollars, for buildings, equipment and personnel, nearly all the funds, Gates contended, could be raised in the South itself. What the South needed, Gates argued, was only information, initiative, and leadership. The Board was prepared to provide that. Without question, Gates s plan was bold, and based upon the principles of scientific philanthropy that giving away money, no matter how critical the need, could do more harm than good. Hence, the South must pull together its own resources for the educational needs of the region. The plan proposed to create a chair of education in every state university. The fundamental responsibility of the chair was to ascertain by a careful survey, and as rapidly as possible, the name and location of every community in the state needing and capable of founding and supporting a high school. The proposal recommended that in these surveys the state university must represent itself as the authority, while the GEB would remain anonymous. The purpose of this plan was to generate interest for a high school in each community and to raise money for it in the community itself. The plan succeeded beyond anyone s expectations. Hundreds of new high schools were established at the local communities expense. A few years after he had retired from the GEB, Gates observed that This addition of over sixteen hundred schools has stimulated the entire educational system of the South beyond the power of imagination to compass.

19 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education 153 As its reform initiatives in the field of education began to expand beyond the needs of the South, Rockefeller s gifts to the GEB grew apace. On June 30, 1905, he pledged $10 million to the GEB, which substantially altered the original plan of the GEB, from providing high schools in the southern states to supporting colleges and universities across the country. Furthermore, the new program of educational reforms also included what was called, the Promotion of Practical Fanning in the Southern States, which lasted only a brief period. Rockefeller s letter that accompanied the gift recommended that the GEB adopt a much more comprehensive nation-wide plan of higher education. It stated that, beyond administrative expenses, the income was to be distributed to, or used for the benefit of, such institutions of learning, at such times, in such amounts, for such purposes, and under such conditions, or employed in such other ways, as the Board may deem best adapted to promote a comprehensive system of higher education in the United States. 88 Although the letter identified higher education to be the beneficiary of the gift in very broad terms, it left specific fields and programs open to be defined by the trustees themselves. This made it easier for more imaginative and active supporters of higher education, like Gates, to develop innovative educational schemes that would not only address the specific regional needs, but also lead to a standardized post-secondary educational system in the country. In a formal statement to the trustees, Gates carefully began by illustrating the challenges that Rockefeller s enormous gift presented to the GEB: the outlook before us would be trackless and confusing like a boundless ocean hiding in fog. We have a territory four thousand miles long and two thousand miles broad with some four hundred and fifty institutions of learning calling themselves colleges or universities. 89 Yet, naturally, Gates saw a vast array of opportunities within the field of higher education for organized philanthropy. He recognized that the existing post-secondary educational institutions were like seeds sown unevenly over the great landscape, desperately in need of long-term financial support. Shall we try to help [them] all? asked Gates. Happily our founder has explored the ground before us.... He says we are to select for our benefaction not all colleges and universities, but only such agencies of learning as may justly claim a place in a system of higher education, and we are to choose such ways of aiding these selected agencies as in our judgement will be best adapted to promote such system. There is a word in the letter about which every other word turns. It is the word system. That word is the pivot of the whole conception. It must be our sun by day and our pole star by night. 90

20 154 Hewa This was a critical juncture in the development of educational policies of the GEB that had far reaching implications for post-secondary education in the United States. As noted above, the man who had the most decisive impact on these policies was Gates. Although he pointedly argued that Rockefeller himself had stipulated some directions by emphasizing the key word system in the letter that accompanied his gift, it was Gates who interpreted the word to pertain to educational policies. At the invitation of the Board, Gates prepared a policy statement for the GEB in January 1906, in which he detailed a road map for the future of post-secondary education in the United States. How much this statement was a product of Gates s own knowledge and experiences is evident in these words in his biography: I did [it] in a long and carefully wrought paper..., embodying about all that seventeen years of study and experience had taught me as to the need of higher education and the most effective ways of meeting them. 91 A close examination of the paper reveals Gates s wealth of knowledge about the existing problems in higher education, and his steady determination to deal with them. He wanted to establish an educational system that was adequately endowed with financial resources to develop the best scientific standards and methods. As he vividly demonstrated all the different aspects of a national educational system, with regional representations, in a twenty-eight page paper, Gates had no difficulty in winning broad support for his plan. It is important to examine some of its key arguments. Gates s definition of the system implies that his immediate objective was to eliminate regional disparities in higher education. He recognized four fundamental attributes of a well-established and properly functioning educational system in a given state: 1) institutions must be distributed comprehensively and efficiently; 2) they must function in a complementary manner to each other; 3) they must be established within the major population centers as integrated units, and should not be scattered far apart; and 4) the system as a whole, and its parts, must be stable and permanent. Gates argued that these were the attributes that Rockefeller implied by a comprehensive system, and that if the GEB succeeded in allocating its funds in a manner that could lead to their development in the distribution of post-secondary educational institutions there shall gradually emerge a series of institutions of higher learning which shall be for the United States territorially comprehensive, harmoniously related, individually complete and so solidly founded that it will, as a whole and in all its parts, survive the vicissitudes of time. 92 While each state would have its own educational system consisting of certain uniform standards, collectively they would represent the national system of higher education in the United States. As Gates put it, Our national system will be simply the sum total of the state systems. This fact, while it may interfere slightly with symmetry, is as desirable as it is inevitable. 93

21 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education 155 Gates had an accumulated knowledge about the distribution of all the denominational colleges and universities, and of their endowments across the country. He had also investigated the financial status of many of the public colleges and universities in almost every state. Gates carried out a number of extensive surveys on this subject as the newly elected Secretary of the American Baptist Education Society. It was one of these surveys that he used as the basis for his recommendation to establish a Baptist University in Chicago (The University of Chicago). That particular survey, with its enormous persuasive power, succeeded in enlisting the support of even the most skeptical donors, like Rockefeller, for a great educational project. With such impressive results, Gates could hardly resist using the same line of argument to win the support for restructuring the existing educational system in the country. He argued that the existing post-secondary educational institutions, in particular, denominational institutions, had failed to attract students and endowments because they were not consistent, in terms of their location, with the distribution of the population. As a result, they had been competing with each other for survival. Of the 455 colleges and universities in the country, only 34 had endowments worth $500,000 or more. Of those 34 institutions, according to Gates, more than two-thirds had achieved that financial success because they [were] located in cities of more than ten thousand people. The more than 400 remaining colleges and universities had failed to achieve financial success because they had been located in rural communities. All are struggling for means and students not a few for life itself. 94 In order to correct this problem and to create a more systematic educational plan for the country, Gates suggested that while the current pattern of denominational support being sustained, it should be organized in a far more cohesive manner. For this purpose, he recommended that the GEB funds must only be used to create endowments for those colleges and universities which were located in major population centers of the country. He believed that such a plan would attract more local denominational support for those institutions. In this way, according to Gates, the institutions which were not located in major population centers would eventually be forced either to merge with those centrally-located, and thus financially strong institutions, or to disappear altogether. He strongly opposed using GEB funds to support the hundreds of struggling colleges and universities. Those institutions, Gates believed, were in that particular state of affairs because they were inferior to begin with, and were not worthy of preserving: Endow or die has been the universal imperative in higher education. Scattered over our western prairies, buried from the sight of the casual observer in the sands of time are scores of institutions which have perished in their infancy from lack of endowment. In the single year 1902, the last reported, nine more colleges died in the United States than were born. 95

22 156 Hewa Following Gates s ground-rules of establishing endowments for colleges and universities, the GEB systematically evaluated all post-secondary institutions that sought its financial assistance. These evaluations were carried out by using a detailed questionnaire prepared by Wallace Buttrick and Starr J. Murphy, Secretaries of the GEB. The questionnaire dealt with all aspects of the institution, ranging from management techniques and accounting methods to examination procedures, curricula, course work, and the academic credentials of its instructors. The Board required minute details regarding the financial status, student enrollments, existing endowments, and much more, to be prepared by qualified accountants recommended by the Board. Upon the receipt of this information, an officer of the Board, often either Buttrick or Murphy, visited the institution without prior notification for personal observation.96 Following such a visit the State of Iowa, Murphy wrote: My study of the colleges of Iowa leads me to the conclusion that there are four institutions in that State which are worthy of our consideration... the other colleges of the State should be ignored by our Board for many years to come. 97 Inevitably, the vigorous evaluation process disqualified many colleges and universities from receiving endowments from the GEB. If they qualified, as Gates expected, this particular procedure would lead to a uniform educational system for the country. Many of these procedures had already been tested in the past by the American Baptist Education Society with considerable success.98 While these evaluations were in progress, Rockefeller s generous gifts to higher education kept coming in.99 Between 1903 and 1917, Rockefeller had contributed about $54 million to the GEB to be used for the development of higher education in the United States. Of this amount, over $21 million was reserved to be designated by Rockefeller himself or by his son for educational institutions of their choice. One educational institution, which was very close to Rockefeller s heart and thus often benefitted from his generosity, was the University of Chicago. When Rockefeller made his final gift to the University of Chicago, and formally transferred the University to the people of that city in 1910, he had contributed a total of approximately $35 million,100 In all other instances, the Board employed a force of experts in continuous and systematic study of educational conditions before making endowments. They took careful effort to prevent what some officers of the Board described as the wasteful duplication in the system of higher education.101

23 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education 157 CONCLUSION Recent critics of philanthropy have tried to show that philanthropists and their advisors supported higher education in an attempt to promote a particular ideology favorable to the dominant class. Donald Fisher, for example, writes: philanthropic foundations have been key participants in both the reproduction and production of cultural hegemony. 102 Education, according to Fisher, is the key to promoting an ideology that supports consensus among social classes and rationalizes the status quo. This argument does not hold water, when we consider the range of options that Rockefeller and his associates had if they were really looking for opportunities to promote their own particular ideological interests. The philanthropic organizations devoted to the promotion of higher education were considered to be a rational solution to the problem of dispersing accumulated wealth by the self-made millionaires. They chose higher education for their benefaction as it appeared to them compatible with their beliefs. Speaking to the first graduating class of the University of Chicago, Rockefeller stated his genuine feeling toward higher education: It is the best investment I ever made.... I am profoundly thankful that I have had something to do with this great work. The good Lord gave me my money and how could I withhold it from the University of Chicago? 103 However, as evidence suggests, neither Rockefeller himself nor any of his advisors have ever interfered in matters of academic freedom. They never sought to dictate courses of study or the character of personnel. 104 The trustees and the executives of philanthropic organizations systematically evaluated the programs and the policies of those educational institutions to which they made substantial endowments. Endowments were made primarily on grounds that those institutions had the ability to serve the educational needs of the local communities, and would attract local support in the long-run. As much as they were eager to promote higher education in the United States and elsewhere in the world, they did not try to influence any political ideology through their support. Reflecting on the larger societal context in which ideologies that dominate modern education are merely symptomatic, Max Weber, in The Protestant Ethic, made scathing criticisms about the looming trends in modern Western society that capture the most conspicuous characteristics of the Protestant personality. In his view the worldly asceticism of the Protestant personality has become completely devoid of its religious basis. The rational conduct, devoted to a particular cause on the basis of the idea of one s calling, has itself become the duty for the modern individual. Hence, the means towards a particular end are chosen purely on the basis of rational calculation, which disregards all human personal values. Weber

24 158 Hewa writes, To-day the spirit of religious asceticism whether finally, who knows? has escaped from the cage. But victorious capitalism, since it rests on mechanical foundations, needs its support no longer. The rosy blush of its laughing heir, the Enlightenment, seems also to be irretrievably fading, and the idea of duty in one s calling prowls about in our lives like the ghost of dead religious beliefs. The very values, that gave rise to the process of rationalization, are now under attack by the purposive rational orientation in modern society. Rockefeller and his associates recognized the promotion of modern scientific education as the best means for serving humanity. They sincerely believed that scientific and technological achievements through improved education would enhance the overall quality of human life. There is no doubt that modern scientific and technological developments have improved, in many respects, the quality of life. Notwithstanding these achievements, scientific education, which came about largely as an outcome of ascetic rational capitalism, has done a good deal to undermine fundamental human social values in the name of empirical science. Furthermore, scientific education has become complementary to a burgeoning industrial capitalist economy that constantly demands an ever-increasing supply of technically superior experts. The value of scientific education today is, for the most part, measured on the basis of its ability to serve the technical needs of the global economy, which has become embroiled in the merciless pursuit of profit. In short, education is seen as an instrument, which enables individuals to be at the cutting edge of the market economy. Thus, the emphasis is on highly specialized technology-oriented learning, rather than the knowledge that serves human well-being in a broader social, cultural, and environmental context.106 The role of education as a means of serving humanity, that was anticipated by the early philanthropists like Rockefeller, has dissipated in modern society. Weber, indeed, predicted this trend, when he argued that For the last stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved. 107 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I express my sincere thanks to Elizabeth Hewa and Philo Hove for their valuable comments on the earlier draft of this paper. Also, I am grateful to Dr. Darwin H. Stapleton and Dr. Kenneth W. Rose of the Rockefeller Archive Center of the Rockefeller University in New York for their continuing support for this project. This is the third of a series of

25 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education 159 research papers that examine the relationship between American philanthropy and the underlying religious values. ENDNOTES 1. Andrew Carnegie, Wealth, North American Review, June, 1889, pp Carnegie s essay received wide attention in North America and Europe. It was reprinted in Britain in the Pall Mall Gazette under the title The Gospel of Wealth. 2. John D. Rockefeller, Random Reminiscences of Man and Events (New York, Sleepy Hollow Press and Rockefeller Archive Center), ([1908] 1984), pp Rockefeller praised Carnegie s benevolent activity: I rejoice, as everybody must, in Mr. Carnegie s enthusiasm for using his wealth for the benefit of his less fortunate fellows,... Ibid., p Benjamin Franklin wrote numerous short essays and letters to his brother James s newspaper under the pseudonym Silence Dogood. In these letters he used various characters, such as Bridget Saunders, Poor Richard, and Polly Baker, to express certain social commentaries that are loaded with Puritan moral advice. It is in these social commentaries that Max Weber found the spirit of capitalism. In an essay titled, The Way to Wealth (1757), Franklin writes: You may think, perhaps, that a little tea, or a little lunch now and then, diet a little more costly, clothes a little finer, and a little entertainment now and then, can be no great matter; but remember what Poor Richard says, Many a Little makes a Mickle; and farther, Beware of little Expenses; a small leak will sink a great ship. Again in the same essay, he writes, Wants of mankind thus become more numerous the natural; and as Poor Dick says, for one poor person, there are an hundred indigent. By these and other extravagances, the genteel are reduced to poverty, and forced to borrow of those whom they formerly despised, but who through industry and frugality have maintained their standing. Benjamin Franklin, The Autobiography and Other Writings (New York, Penguin Classics), 1986 pp Quoted by Robert Bremner, American Philanthropy (Chicago, The University Press of Chicago), 1988, p Ibid., p Ibid., p Both volumes are by two historians, John Ensor Harr and Peter J. Johnson, and have been published by Charles Scribner s Sons, New York. The definition of the Progressive Era quoted here is from Steven Wheatley s introduction (pp. vii-xix) to the new edition of Raymond B. Fosdick s The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation (New York, Transaction Publishers), 1989, p. ix. 8. Wheatley, op. cit., (1989), Introduction, p. xi. One author suggests that much of the political debates during the Progressive Era was about philanthropists themselves: In 1909, with the progressive movement at flood tide, John D. Rockefeller, himself the object of so much reformist wrath, announced the creation of a comparatively modest and short-lived organization to confront a disease few people had heard of. John Ettling, The Germ of Laziness: Rockefeller Philanthropy and Public Health in the South (Cambridge, Harvard University Press), 1981, p. VII, Preface. 9. James H. Cassedy, The Germ of Laziness in the South, : Charles Wardel Stiles and the Progressive Paradox, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 1971, Vol. 45, pp ; Steven C, Wheatley, op. cit., (1989), Introduction; John Ensor Harr and Peter J. Johnson, op. cit., (1988), pp ; Robert E. Kohler, A Policy for the Advancement of Science: The Rockefeller Foundation, , Minerva, 1978, Vol. XVI, pp Arthur J. Vidich and Stanford M. Lyman, American Sociology: Worldly Rejection of Religion and Their Directions (New Haven, Yale University Press), 1985, xi.

26 160 Hewa 11. Peter Dobkin Hall, The Organization of American Culture, : Private Institutions, Elites, and the Origins of American Nationality (New York, New York University Press), Anthony Giddens, The Nation-State and Violence, Volume Two of a Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism (Berkeley, University of California Press), 1987, p Heinrich Rickert, Science and History, Critique of Positivist Epistemology, Translated by George Reisman (Princeton, D. Van Nostrand Company), ([1926] 1962), pp Reinhard Bendix, Max Weber s Interpretation of Conduct and History, American Journal of Sociology, 1946, Vol. 51, pp Robert Kohler, Science and Philanthropy: Wickliffe Rose and the International Education Board, Minerva, 1985, Vol. XXIII, pp Ibid., p Rockefeller Archive Center (RA, hereafter) Frederick T. Gates, Memorandum Regarding Mr Rockefeller s Gift to be devoted to the improvement of Medical Education in the United States, RG. 2 (OMR), GEB, Box Cassedy, op. cit., p Vidich and Lyman, op. cit., p. xi, and p Hughes H. Stuart, Consciousness and Society (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul), 1958, p Max Weber, Roscher and Knies: The Logical Problems of Historical Economics, Translated by Guy Oakes (New York, Free Press), ([1906], 1975), pp Max Weber, Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Wissenschaftslehre, Hrsg. V. Johannes Winckelmann (Tubingen, J. C. B. Mohr), ([1922] 1951), pp Martin Albrow, Max Weber s Construction of Social Theory (London, MacMillan), 1990, pp Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Translated by Talcott Parsons (New York, Charles Scribner s Sons), ([1920] 1958). In large measure, Weber s complex methodological statements appeared as a part of the discussion in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Part of the reason was that while working on this essay, he was also engaged in his methodological interpretations of history. Hence, Talcott Parsons, the translator, suggests that In order to thoroughly understand the significance of this essay in its wider bearings on Weber s sociological work as a whole it is necessary to know what his methodological aims were. p Translator s Note. 25. Marianne Weber, Max Weber, A Biography, Translated by Harry Zohn (New Brunswick, Transaction Books), ([1926] 1988), p. 335; Arthur Mitzman, The Iron Cage, An Historical Interpretation of Weber (New York, Alfred A. Knopf), 1969; Lawrence A. Scaff, Fleeing the Iron Cage: Culture, Politics, and Modernity in the Thought of Max Weber (Berkeley, University of California Press), 1989; Albrow, op. cit., p Weber, op. cit., ([1926] 1988), p Weber, op. cit., ([1920] 1958), p Ibid., p Ibid., p Ibid., p Ibid., p John S. Flynn, The Influence of Puritanism on the Political and Religious Thought of the English (New York, Kennikat Press), 1920, p Also Weber, op. cit., ([1920) 1958), pp Richard Baxter, Christian Directory (London), 1825, Vol. I, p. 253; Weber, op. cit, ([1920) 1958), p. 224, note 30). Although fundamental theological differences among various Protestant sects emerged as early as the seventeenth century, there was a core of common values accepted by all. Many of these sectarian differences were largely confined to matters of church ceremonies and esoteric theology. They had very little, if any, impact on religious ethos. Anglicans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Quakers and Millenarians, all subscribed to a more or less similar religious and ethical system of beliefs. This common attitude of mind and mode of life, Merton writes, may be denominated by that word of many shades, Puritanism. See, Robert K. Merton, Science, Technology, and Society in Seventeenth Century England (New York, Harper Torchbooks), 1970, p. 57. However, according to Merton, the current usage of the term Puritanism does not convey by any means the original sense of the

27 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education 161 term as referring to the reform of the Church of England. Although the ideal type of Puritanism was for the most part determined by Calvinism, any of the actual theological differences among different sects were brought to convergence with fundamental social ethic. The only Protestant group the Lutherans that differed from the Puritan ethos was due to its emphasis on faith, which alone is sufficient to conquer this world. Weber makes a similar statement: When we use the expression [Puritan] it is always in the sense which it took on in the popular speech of the seventeenth century, to mean the ascetically inclined religious movements in Holland and England without distinction of Church organization or dogma, thus including independents, Congregationalists, Baptists, Mennonites, and Quakers. See Weber, op. cit., ([1920] 1958), pp. 96, Weber provides an interesting example to highlight the extent to which charitable works were used to display both the glory of God and to repudiate all human feelings: [T]o mention a remnant of that atmosphere, in the field of charity of the Reformed Church, which in certain respect is justly famous, the Amsterdam orphans, with (in the twentieth century!) their coats and trousers divided vertically into a black and a red, or a red and a green half, a sort of fool s costume, and brought in parade formation to church, formed, for the feelings of the past, a highly uplifting spectacle. Weber, op. cit., ([1920] 1958), p. 226, note Baxter, op. cit., Vol. II, pp Ibid., pp Ibid., p Weber, op. cit., ([1920) 1958), p The extent to which the Protestant beliefs have contributed to the development of rational capitalism was examined by Weber. However, he suggested that the development of capitalism was only one aspect of this complex and multifaceted process that resulted from the Reformation in modern Western society. Weber concludes his work with the following remarks: The next task would be to show the significance of ascetic rationalism... for the content of practical social ethics, thus for the types of organization and the functions of social groups from the conventicle to the state. Then its relations to humanistic rationalism, its ideals of life and cultural influence; further to the development of philosophical and scientific empiricism, to technical development and to spiritual ideals would have to be analyzed. With these remarks, Weber invites us to examine what he called the elective affinities between the ascetic rationalism of Protestantism and a host of social organizations in modern society. His invitation is a broad theoretical mandate for social scientists from a wide range of specialties interested in various aspects of modern culture. His open-ended theoretical propositions are amenable to further interpretations in the context of continuing developments in Western culture and society. Ibid., p In accordance with his Kantian position, Weber does not define spirit of capitalism in precise terms. Instead, he conceptualizes it by applying numerous synonyms to it throughout the essay. The most frequently adopted expressions are rationality, the devotion to labor in a calling, worldly asceticism, and a type of attitudes which sees and judges the world consciously in terms of the worldly interests of the individual ego. All these terms were applied by Weber with a particular emphasis that the orientation toward a methodical and systematic conduct in worldly activity. Ibid., pp Weber s only source of conceptualizing the spirit of capitalism was Franklin s essay entitle, Advice to a Young Tradesman (written 1748, Sparks edition, II, pp. 87ff). Weber, op. cit., ([1920] 1958), p. 48; also see note 2 in p Ibid., pp Ibid., pp Weber discussed in detail the question of public suspicion of the Puritan virtues, as they have become predominantly utilitarian even at the time of Franklin. Although Franklin himself attributed the origin of these utilitarian economic virtues to Calvinist teachings, these public criticisms persisted throughout modern time, as reflected in the tainted money controversy that embroiled Rockefeller in the early twentieth century. See RA, Gates Collection, Gates Letter to Rockefeller, Box 1, Folder 5. Reprinted from the Boston Herald of Monday Morning, April 17, 1905.

28 162 Hewa 44. Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (New York, The Liberal Arts Press), 1949, pp Roger Scruton, Kant (New York, Oxford), 1982, p Undoubtedly, it was this sense of burden that was described by Andrew Carnegie when he suggested that The man who dies rich dies disgraced..., The day is not far distant when the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was free for him to administer during life, will pass away unwept, unhonored and unsung. Carnegie, op. cit., (1889), p Gates made similar remarks when he wrote Rockefeller in 1905 urging him to create a series of philanthropic foundations endowed with large sums of money. See, RA, Gates Collection, Letter from Gates to Rockefeller, June 30, Box 2, Folder Weber, op. cit., ([1920] 1958), pp Max Weber, Sociology of Religion. Translated by Ephraim Fischoff (Boston, Beacon Press), ([1922] 1963), pp RA, Gates Collection, The Secret of Mr. Rockefeller s Character and Success. Box 2, Folder 47. pp John T. Flynn, God s Gold, The Story of Rockefeller and His Times (Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York), 1932, p Allan Nevins, John D. Rockefeller, The Heroic Age of American Enterprise (New York, Charles Scribner s Sons), 1940, p Rockefeller, op. cit., p Flynn, op. cit., p Weber, op. cit., ([1920] 1958), p Flynn, op. cit., p RA, Gates Collection, The Secret of Mr. Rockefeller s Character and Success. Box 2, Folder 47. p Weber, op. cit., ([1920] 1958), p Rockefeller, op. cit., p Flynn, op. cit., p Kenneth W. Rose, Why Chicago and Not Cleveland? The Religious Imperative Behind John D. Rockefeller s Early Philanthropy, , Unpublished Paper, 1995, p Quoted in Rose, op. cit., p Ibid., pp Gates, op. cit., p Rockefeller, op. cit., p Merton, op. cit., pp Baxter, op. cit., Vol. I, p Merton, op. cit., p Baxter, op. cit., Vol. I, p Steven C. Wheatley, The Politics of Philanthropy (Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press), 1988, p Soma Hewa, Toward the Well-Being of Mankind: Rockefeller Philanthropy and the Problem of Economic Research, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 1998, Vol. 18, No. 11/12, pp RA, Educational Interests, University of Chicago, Letter from H. L. Morehouse to John D. Rockefeller, Aug. 1st, Box RA, Educational Interests, University of Chicago, Letter from H. L. Morehouse to John D. Rockefeller, Aug. 9th, Box RA, Educational Interests, University of Chicago, Letter from John D. Rockefeller to Frederick T. Gates, May 15th, Box Nevins, op. cit., p Ibid., p Gates, op. cit., p Ibid., p Vidich and Lyman, op. cit., pp As Vidich and Lyman suggest, Gates s attempt to bureaucratize Rockefeller s haphazard giving was consistent with what had already taken place in capitalist economic institutions a few years earlier.

29 The Protestant Personality and Higher Education Gates, op. cit., p Ibid., pp Soma Hewa, The Protestant Ethic and Rockefeller Benevolence: The Religious Impulse in American Philanthropy, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 1997, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp RA, General Education Board, Purpose and Program, 2 (OMR), GEB, Box RA, General Education Board, Memorandum by Gates, Gates Collection, Box 2, pp Raymond Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, (Transaction Publications, New Brunswick), 1989, p. 9. Also, See Fosdick, Adventure in Giving: The Story of the General Education Board (New York, Harper and Brothers), Gates, op. cit., p Ibid., p, Ibid., pp RA, Letter of Pledge from F. T. Gates to Wallace Buttrick and Starr J. Murphy, Secretaries and Executive Officers of the General Education Board. June 30, 1905, 2 (OMR), Box 18. Also, see Some Reflections on Questions of Policy, prepared by Gates. 2 (OMR), GEB, Box 19, Folder Ibid., p Ibid., p Gates, op. cit., p Ibid., pp Ibid., p Ibid., p Ibid., p RA, Memorandum, by Starr J. Murphy and Wallace Buttrick to the General Education Board, October 10, (OMR), GEB, Box RA, Memorandum by Starr /. Murphy to the General Education Board, September 24, (OMR), GEB, Box RA, Letter from F. T. Gates to Wallace Buttrick, November 26, (OMR), GEB, Box RA, Letter from John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to the General Education Board, February 5, (OMR), GEB, Box RA, Mr. John D. Rockefeller s Gifts to the University of Chicago, p. 10 (no date). 2 (OMR), University of Chicago, Box RA, Memorandum Regarding the General Education Board, pp (OMR), GEB, Box Donald Fisher, The Role of Philanthropic Foundations in Reproduction and Production of Hegemony: Rockefeller Foundations and the Social Sciences, Sociology, 1983, Vol. 17, pp Flynn, op. cit., p Ibid., p Weber, op. cit., ([1920] 1958), pp Jurgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests (Boston, Beacon Press), 1971, p Weber, op. cit., ([1920] 1958), p. 182.