Search

Blessed with abundant faith, makers of the October Revolution proposed to make anew society and humankind. Visions of a utopian future collapsing into the present burned particularly brightly at the Commissariat of Enlightenment (Narkompros). Charged with overseeing the educational and cultural institutions of the infant Russian Republic, it sallied forth to transform the school and, through it, the child and society. Labor, the essence of all human and social activity, would make it all possible. In 1918, Narkompros's "Declaration of the United Labor School" asked: "How do you instill willpower, form character, and develop a spirit of solidarity?" The answer, it declared, "is in one magic word-labor."' Less than two decades later, in March 1937, Narkompros and the Party's Central Committee were to issue a directive in inelegant but clear language: "Abolish labor as an independent subject in all classes of the elementary and secondary school."2 At issue are two interrelated questions: 1) why the loss of faith in labor and the transformationist curriculum of which it was the most critical part; and 2) by what process had Soviet authorities concluded that the magic of 1918 should be superseded by the hocus-pocus of 1937. Only the loud but ineffective voice of N. K. Krupskaia, one of the architects of the new school of the 1920s, and a barely audible murmur from A. S. Bubnov, the commissar of enlightenment from 1929 to 1937, seemed to have marred the occasion.3

Any consideration of "German" culture is incomplete without the inclusion of information about the GDR. The GDR, one of the four major German-speaking areas, has become industrially one of the ten strongest industrialized countries in the world. This fact alone means that the GDR has joined the constellation of world powers and can no longer be ignored, as American policy attempted during the 1950's and 1960's. Many high school and college teachers are including work from the GDR in their courses on post-war German literature, but relatively few courses appear to be devoted entirely to GDR literature or GDR culture. Even fewer programs offer advanced degrees in GDR Studies. Many teachers who received their own education during the fifties and sixties, when information about the GDR was not commonly included in our German programs, may be interested in developing courses on the GDR, but are uncertain how to organize them. This article describes a course entitled "Politics and the Arts in the GDR," which was developed at the University of Kansas, where it is now possible to earn a Master of Arts degree with a specialty in GDR Studies (see Appendix B). The degree is offered through the interdisciplinary program of Soviet and East European Studies which is an NDEA Center for Area Studies. The M.A. program prepares students either to continue graduate studies in another department or to enter government or business. Because the program is in its first full year of operation, it is too early to assess its success or the candidates' employment opportunities. To date, the program has been received enthusiastically by the students who are also offered the opportunity to study in the GDR during summers. The program is also enhanced by a Writer-in-Residence program which enables students to enroll in a seminar taught by a GDR writer. The Writer-in-Residence series is financed jointly by an NDEA Grant and the Writers Union of the GDR. The course which is described here, "Politics and the Arts in the GDR," is offered on a regular basis as one of the central courses for those students interested in concentrating in GDR literature and the arts. It provides an overview of literary and political development in the GDR from the post-war transitional period (1945-49) through the Stalinist era and the Ulbricht years to the period of "liberalization" under Honecker. It intends to introduce students to the special problems of dealing with GDR culture and to provide a survey of developments in literature, architecture, the arts, and political thought in the GDR since 1945. As such, it is an ambitious undertaking which requires that the instructor have adequate knowledge of historical developments since

SOVIET EDUCATION of the 1920s has attracted much attention from both historians and educators. (1) Until 1931 Soviet educational authorities sponsored a flurry of measures many of which were initially advanced in the writings of such western educators as John Dewey, Helen Parkhurst, and Maria Montessori. Study of this "romantic and experimental period" (2) in the history of Soviet education is therefore un(lerstandlable. No complete and penetlrating examination, hlowever, of the communlnist party's attitude toward the reforms of the 1920s exists. (3) lToo frequently, authors have analyzedl Soviet educational policies apart from the context of political and economic necessity. This has led to an underestimation of the importance of political and economic considerations in the party's thinking on education and, consequently, to an exaggeration of the progressive or idealist aspects of Soviet educational reform. Several Americans, for example, who observed first-hand Soviet sclhools d(Iuring the 1920s came away thoroughly impressed by the apparent progressivislll of Soviet education and the party's attitude towalrd it. They even (lared hope for the creation ol a generation of youth sufficiently independent to challenge the dogmatic sectarianism of Soviet political idleology. (4) After a brief tour in 1928, John Dewey, greatly pleased with much of what he saw, ventured the opinion that the "experimental spirit" of Soviet education and its "awakening of initiative and independlent judgment would militate against a servile acceptance of dogma las dogma." (5) Unfortunately, Dewey's prediction proved overly optimistic. He like so many otlhers failed to understand the extent to which political and economic expe(liency permeate(l the party's thinking. The present study, based primarily on all analysis of party decrees and(l

C. E. HOLMES Department of Poultry Husbandry, University of Wisconsin Age has for many years been recognized as an important factor in the resistance of animals to the development and effects of their parasites. The work of Ransom (I92I) showed that young chickens were quite susceptible to infection with Syngamus trachea and were seriously affected by the infection whereas older chickens were refractory to infection. Herrick (1925) showed that the chicken became increasingly a more unsuitable host for the development of Ascaridia lineata as it increased in age. Johnson (I923) was of the opinion that age was an important factor in the resistance of chickens to coccidiosis and in his later work (I928) states, "Young fowls infected with a large number for the first infection regularly die with the disease. This is more especially true of growing stock. Older fowls may show considerable bleeding and recover. . .." Tyzzer (I932) infected chickens with E. tenella when 6, 33, 50, and 7I days old. The resultant mortality was respectively 50, 37.5, 5o, and 100 per cent. He explained the greater susceptibility of the older chickens on a mechanical rather than a humoral basis. Mayhew (I934) concludes from his work that age is not a factor in the development of resistance of chickens to coccidiosis. Stafseth (193I) pointed out that older chickens were infectable but were more resistant to the effects of the parasites than were younger chickens. Many references might be cited, but from these studies there is evidently a difference of opinion regarding the importance of age as a factor in the resistance of the chicken to coccidiosis. In order to obtain further evidence on this point chickens of various ages kept under carefully controlled conditions were infected and studied throughout the course of the infection.