The scholarship of the history of education has devoted much attention to exploring the ways that “progressive” education succeeded –and failed—to transform society along the lines of its oft-stated values of freedom, self-development and social amelioration (e.g. Kliebard, 2004; Zilversmit, 1993). But what of those instances when the project of these progressive educators intersected with the larger geopolitical interests of the U.S. imperium? Given that many American progressive educators were themselves intimately involved with the project of expanding U.S. power overseas, how would such educational discourses change as the nation came to wield direct or indirect hegemony over many parts of the world, particularly in the Pacific?

The panel seeks to examine the differing ways that “progressive” education was deployed to reform societies around the Pacific Rim, and in so doing justify the United State’s imperial role within it. Specifically, presenters will explore three examples of U.S.-imposed education reform during the late 19^th through mid-20^th century. In the case of formal empire in the Philippines, U.S. ideas of race and animality informed the policies of English language instruction. In China, Deweyan pedagogies of problem-solving and activity discouraged radical reform and legitimized claims of American frontier exceptionalism and settler colonialism. Finally, with the U.S.-led Supreme Commander of Allied Powers (SCAP) in Japan, contemporary emphases of “adjusting” citizens’ behaviors intersected powerfully with assumptions of Japanese’s inherent “feudal” mentality and the need to reform the nation along “democratic,” pro-American lines.

The panel will also explore how progressive paradigms were, in turn, remade within the local context as different historical actors came to adopt, repackage or even resist these emerging discourses of Empire. Under the guidance of colonial officials such as zoologist and Philippine Commissioner, Dean C. Worcester, for example, colonial English-language instruction further articulated speciesist constructions of rational and reasoned colonizer versus “wild” and “untamed” colonized. In China, the ideas of John Dewey and other progressive educators were taken up by a wide range of liberal and radical thinkers in the early twentieth century but their appeal declined as political conflicts in China deepened. Similarly within Japan, the reforms of the U.S. occupation were increasingly contested and resisted by indigenous educators who came to see the “life adjustment” education of their occupiers as eerily reminiscent of prewar, state-led campaigns of social management.

Lastly, this panel is noteworthy for the diverse perspectives of its panelists. The three presentations focus on different countries and eras, thereby tracing both the evolving emphases of progressive education per se, and the priorities and imperatives of the U.S. imperium. On a more practical level, the panelists combine scholars from a diverse range of academic specialties, be it history, ethnic studies, pedagogy, and international relations. One panelist is affiliated with an international university. The panel discussion promises to be an engaging dialogue incorporating diverse viewpoints and themes.

Kliebard, Herbert (2004). The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893-1958 (3^rd Edition). New York: Routledge.

Zilversmit, Arthur (1993). Changing Schools: Progressive Education Theory and Practice, 1930-1960. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago.