Nock On Education

by Wendy McElroy


The self-proclaimed 'philosophical anarchist' Albert Jay Nock thought he was so superfluous to the

society around him that his autobiography is entitled Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (1943). He felt

utterly out of step with the Twentieth Century. Born in the early 1870s, he witnessed the severe societal

changes resulting from world wars, revolutions in ideology and the spinning-out of political measures

that had often been passed decades before. He watched with particular concern as American schools

abandoned classical education in favor of the less disciplined liberal arts approach favored by John

Dewey and his followers. Nock charted what he saw as the disastrous consequences to American

society of democratizing education. In doing so, he opposed one of the most popular trends of the early

Twentieth century: mass education.


Michael Wreszin, author of "The Superfluous Anarchist: Albert Jay Nock," called popular education "the

watchword of the progressive era" because no other field of reform promised such grand possibilities..."

(27). The public school system was viewed as an invaluable means to reconstruct society through

molding the generations to come. In his watershed book Democracy and Education (1916), John

Dewey wrote that popular education should be used as a conscious tool to remove social evil and

promote social good. Slowly, the classical curriculums aimed at rigorous education -- e.g. a familiarity

with Latin, a stress on history -- were replaced by programs that created 'good citizens.'


In the optimistic years prior to World War I, Nock enthusiastically embraced the 'new education.' Upon

seeing its application, however, he became one of Dewey's earliest and staunchest critics. His later

admirers attempted to revive clas- sical education -- for example, Mortimer Adler, Stringfellow Barr and

Robert Maynard Hutchins, who translated their love of a classical curriculum into the Great Books

program. But it was not until the '50s, when the superiority of Russian scientific knowledge and training

became a national concern, that Americans seriously questioned whether public schools adequately

educated their children.


Nock's critiques of American educational experiment ring fresh today they offered fundamental

objections to the underlying theories of popular education, e.g. he rejected educational egalitarianism.

He saw no reason to believe that equal rights and treatment under the law implied that every one had

equal intellectual capacities any more than it implied everyone would grow to the same height.


Yet he was careful to praise the intentions of parents who sent their children to public school. In his

book Free Speech and Plain Language, Nock wrote: "The representative American, whatever his faults,

has been notably characterized by the wish that his children might do better by themselves than he

could do by himself.... [I]n its essence and intention our system [of education] may be fairly called no

less than an organization of this desire; and as such it can not be too much admired or too highly

praised" (p.171). Nevertheless, public schools were doomed to fail because "from beginning to end"

they were "gauged to the run-of-mind American rather than to the picked American." They were

designed to accommodate the lowest intellectual denominator, rather than the highest.


For his views on education, some commentators have called Nock an elitist. Be that as it may, the

probing questions he asked about American education and its impact on the American character

deserve to be explored and answered.


Nock: the Man


Albert Jay Nock was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania to a respectable but poor family, which relocated

a few years afterward to Brooklyn, New York. He learned to read without formal assistance by staring

at a news clipping posted on his wall until, at the age of three, he could spell out words. The first book

to catch his fancy was "Webster's Dictionary," which he read for the sheer joy of learning language. His

father was an Episcopal clergyman and thus no stranger to providing instruction, but he exercised only

unobtrusive guidance over his son's self-education, which included mastery of Greek and Latin.


Eventually, Nock went to a private preparatory school in order to pass the entrance examinations for

college. Of the private school, Nock stated that the students were never told not to put "beans up out

noses, or subjected to any sniveling talk about being on our honour, or keeping up the credit of the dear

old school, or any such odious balderdash. Nevertheless, we somehow managed to behave decently..."

(Crunden 8). In short, students were left alone to learn at their own pace, being given only the

instruction they requested or clearly required.


At college -- St. Stephen's, now Bard College -- the same spirit of academic independence reigned.

Nock wrote, "We were made to understand that the burden of education was on us and no one else,

least of all our instructors; they were not there to help us carry it or to praise our efforts, but to see that

we shouldered it in proper style and got on with it" (Crunden 9). Being given the opportunity to pursue

knowledge and, then, being left alone to do so remained Nock's ideal. Robert M. Crunden's biography,

The Mind and Art of Albert Jay Nock, contains the following anecdote:


Nock's friend, Edward Epstean, told him, "You've done a great deal for all those young

people [young people who worked at The Freeman]."


"I don't know that I've ever done anything for them except leave them alone," Nock said.


"Yes, I understand," answered Epstean. "But if someone else had been letting them

alone, it would have been a very different story." (16)


After some graduate work at Berkeley Divinity School in Connecticut (1895), Nock did not complete his

degree, deciding to be ordained as a minister of the Episcopal Church instead (1897). After 12 years,

he withdrew from preaching to join the staff of the American Magazine, where he stayed until 1914.


During this period, he developed a specific social philosophy. He became a single-taxer -- a follower of

the libertarian reformer Henry George -- because he believed that, as long as natural resources were

monopolized, labor and capital would be at war with each other. By abolishing all taxes save a single

one on land, the extremes of unearned wealth could be avoided. As a pacifist, he opposed the

American entry into both world wars. As a radical individualist, he spoke out against collectivism and

the policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Nock was deeply influenced by Franz Oppenheimer's masterpiece

The State -- published in German in 1908, with an English translation in 1915. Oppenheimer argued

that people achieved their goals, including the goal of basic survival, in one of two manners: by the

economic means (work), or by the political means (theft). Nock immediately adopted this distinction

and used it as a touchstone in his social analysis.


Although Nock was often called a liberal, he rejected the label, preferring to call himself a 'radical.' To

him, a liberal used the political means to improve and expand the State as a social institution. He

proposed to eliminate the State from society. His unswerving suspicion of the State -- the political

means -- would be key to his approach to public education.


In 1920, Nock founded the individualist periodical The Freeman along with Francis Neilson, a British

classical liberal. By the time The Freeman closed in 1924, Nock had gained wide respect as an editor.

While teaching briefly at Bard College, Nock delivered what are known as the Page-Barbour lectures at

the University of Virginia. There, he roundly defended classical education against the theories of

Dewey. The lectures were pub- lished in book form as The Theory of Education in the United States

(1932). Then, in 1936, Nock wrote a series of essays for the American Mercury which became

collectively titled as "The State of the Union." This series won him renown as a writer.


Nock used his reputation as an editor and writer to continue speaking out for classical education.


Nock's Laws of Social Order


Before discussing the specifics of Nock's theories on education, it is useful to examine the more

fundamental principles, or laws, with which he approached any social issue. Nock believed three laws

defined social life: Epstean's law; Gresham's law; and, the law of diminishing return. He wanted to

reorganize society so that it respected these 'natural laws.'


In his book Free Speech and Plain Language, Nock explained, "With regard to...all...aspects of our

equalitarian social theory, my only aim is the humble one of suggesting that we bear in mind the

disregard that nature has for unintelligent good intentions, and the vixenish severity with which she

treats them" (318-319). Elsewhere, in Snoring as a Fine Art, he argued against the Marxist social

formula, 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' Nock said that it never

seemed to occur to Marx to ask whether anything within human nature operated along that principle. In

his theories, Nock did not intend to make the same mistake as Marx.


Nock's first law of social/human order was named after his friend Edward E. Epstean from whom he first

heard the principle stated. As rephrased in "Free Speech and Plain Language"," the law is, "Man tends

to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion. Not, it must be understood, that he

always does so satisfy them, for other considerations -- principle, convention, fear, superstition or what

not -- may supervene; but he always tends to satisfy them with the least possible exertion, and, in the

absence of a stronger motive, will always do so." Nock applied this law to the political means. He

believed that as long as the State could "confer an economic advantage at the mere touch of a button,"

people would maneuver to "get at the button, because law-made property is acquired with less exertion

than labour-made property" (319).


Nock's second law of social order was adapted from Gresham's law on the nature of currency. Simply

stated: bad money drives out good. The worst form of currency in circulation will set the value for the

others, causing them to disappear. Nock explained, "In Germany, for example, shortly after the war,

the flood of paper money sent all metallic money out of circulation in a hurry, because it was worth

more as old metal than as currency" (306-307).


Nock extended Gresham's law to cover culture. He asked the reader to imagine a concert being played

for an audience of 300 randomly chosen people. He argued that the program would not include the best

music produced through the centuries, but the most popular music of the moment. So, too, with

education: bad education would drive out good. Mass-education did nothing more than reduce the

quality of education to what Nock called "the dreadful average."


Nock's third principle of social order was based on Newton's law of diminishing returns. He wrote, "The

law of diminishing returns is fundamental to industry. It formulates the fact, which strikes one as

curiously unnatural that, when a business has reached a certain point of development, returns begin to

decrease, and they keep on decreasing as further development proceeds."(305-306) Consider the

everyday experience of vacationing at a location that has not yet been 'discovered' by floods of tourists.

When tourists begin to flock to the location, the return to everyone abruptly decreases. Both the many

and the few no longer receive real benefit. In accommodating popular demands, the vacation site (and

all other experiences in life) fall prey to the law of diminishing returns.


The third law contradicted one of the great myths of American education. It was: "if a few qualified

persons get this [educational] benefit, anybody, qualified or unqualified, may get it." But the "margin of

diminishing returns" mandates that "the larger the proportion of unqualified persons" who attempt to

receive the benefit, the swifter the benefits to all will vanish (311). In short, education was a victim of

Newton's law: the more unqualified students, the lower the standards.


Nock's Theory of Education v. Training


In his book The Theory of Education in the United States, Nock claimed that American public schools

were "based upon the assumption, popularly regarded as implicit in the doctrine of equality, that

everybody is educable. This has been taken without question from the start..." (44). Nock questioned it.

He did not believe that equal rights and equal treatment under the law held any implication for equal

intellectual ability.


Nock made a crucial distinction between being 'educable' and being 'trainable.' An educated person

was one who had profited from absorbing 'formative' knowledge. As a result, he had developed "the

power of disinterested reflection." That is, he could reason toward truth, unencumbered by emotional

reactions or prejudice. Rather than aiming at a vocational goal, education aimed at the joy of ideas and

produced men to whom learning was pleasure. A knowledge of Greek and Latin was particularly

important because it allowed us to view the record of inquiring human minds for over 2500 years.


Nock explained that education produced 'intelligenz' [sic] -- "the power invariably, in Plato's phrase, to

see things as they are, to survey them and one's own relations to them with objective

disinterestedness, and to apply one's consciousness to them simply and directly, letting it take its own

way over them uncharted by prepossession, unchannelled by prejudice, and above all uncontrolled by

routine and formula" (On Doing the Right Thing And Other Essays, 9). The educated man was capable

of independent thought. Unfortunately, Nock believed few people were educable.


By contrast, most people could be trained. The trainable person profited from instrumental knowledge.

In his essay "The Nature of Education," Nock explained, "When you want chemists, mechanics,

engineers, bond-salesmen, lawyers, bankers and so on, you train them; training, in short, is for a

vocational purpose. Education contemplates another kind of product..." (The Book of Journeyman, 45).

Nock's did not mean to denigrate those who should be trained, rather than educated. He wrote,

"Education, property applied to suitable material, produces something in a way of an Emerson; while

training, properly applied to suitable material, produces something in the way of an Edison" (Memoirs,

270). Thus, to Nock, science was a matter of training and many of the world's most eminent men were

not educated, but trained. He wrote, "Training is excellent, and it can not be too well done, and

opportunity for it can not be too cheap and abundant... (Free Speech and Plain Language, 211).


The main problem with the American educational system was that, in attempting to educate everyone

equally, it encountered Gresham's law and ended up educating no one adequately. Instead, it provided

only training, even to those who were educable. Under the current system, he believed that "the study

of history, like other formative studies, does not even rise to the dignity of being a waste of time. What

with the political, economic and theological capital that has to be made of is a positive detriment

to mind and spirit" (The Book of Journeyman, 47). Indeed, "Following the strange American dogma that

all persons are educable, and following the equally fantastic popular esti- mate place upon mere

numbers, our whole educational system has watered down its requirements to something precious near

the moron standard. The American curriculum in 'the liberal arts' is a combination of bargain-counter,

grab-bag and Christmas-tree" (19).


The solution? The two categories of people should attend separate learning centers. As a blueprint,

Nock praised Thomas Jefferson's scheme for public education. In his book Free Speech and Plain

Language Nock wrote, "when Mr. Jefferson was revising the Virginia Statutes in 1797, he drew up a

comprehensive plan for public education. Each ward should have a primary school for the R's, open to

all. Each year the best pupil in each school should be sent to the grade-school, of which there were to

be twenty, conveniently situated in various parts of the state. They should be kept there one year or two

years, according to results shown, and then all dismissed but one, who should be continued six

years... At the end of six years, the best ten out of the twenty were to be sent to college, and the rest

turned adrift."


Such sentiments leave Nock vulnerable to charges of elitism, especially when considered in

conjunction with his theory of "the Remnant" -- the select few of mankind upon whom falls the burden of

maintaining and progressing civilization. But his questions and insights cannot be dismissed lightly.

For example, he believed that training, rather than education, served a political purpose.


Sensitive to the difference between 'an individual' and 'a citizen of a State,' Nock believed that public

schools were more interested in turning out good citizens than good individuals. For one thing,

educated people were likely to question the political system. He wrote, "Education... leads a person on

to ask a great deal more from life... and it begets dissatisfaction with the rewards that life holds out.

Training tends to satisfy him with very moderate and simple returns. A good income, a home and

family, the usual run of comforts and conveniences, diversions addressed only to the competitive or

sporting spirit or else to raw sensation -- training not only makes directly for getting these, but also for

an inert and comfortable contentment with them. Well, these are all that our present society has to

offer, so it is undeniably the best thing all round to keep people satisfied with them, which training

does, and not to inject a subversive influence, like education, into this easy complacency. Politicians

understand this..." When you educate a man, you send him "out to shift for himself with a champagne

appetite amidst a gin-guzzling society" (216).


The State preferred to train citizens rather than to educate individuals who might dissent.




In the introduction to the book Snoring As A Fine Art, Suzanne La Follette paid tribute to her friend and

colleague in terms that would have surely delighted him. She spoke of his unique talent to recognize

and encourage ability in anyone he met. And she cautioned that his benevolence to those of ability was

not "a conscious service to society or his country or even to the beneficiary. It was, I suppose, the

teacher's instinct in him; the instinct to serve truth. But he never tried to impose his truth on his pupil.

Rather, he was concerned to put the pupil in the way to find truth for himself -- as if he had revised the

Biblical saying, 'Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," to read, "Yet shall be free

in order that yet may know the truth" (ix).


Nock's alleged elitism may have been nothing more than his ability to recognize intellectual merit and

the ensuing respect he paid to it. In a society that recognizes and applauds widely different abilities in

fields such as athletics and music, it is odd to encounter an enduring resistance to the idea of widely

different abilities to simply learn.




Works Cited



Crunden, Robert M. The Mind and Art of Albert Jay Nock. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1964.


Nock, Albert Jay. The Book of Journeyman. Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1969.

----. Free Speech and Plain Language. Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1968.

----. Memoirs of a Superfluous Man. N.Y.: Harper & Brothers, 1943.

----. On Doing the Right Thing And Other Essays. 1956.

----. Snoring as A Fine Art and Twelve Other Essays. Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1971.

----. The Theory of Education in the United States. Washington: Regenery.


Wreszin, Michael. The Superfluous Anarchist: Albert Jay Nock. Providence: Brown University Press,