Between 1880 and 1920, strict regulation of American society became a leadership imperative. Explanations for this phenomenon begin once again with the alarming effects of mass immigration on the morale or American leadership. It is not an extreme reading of evidence to say genuine panic existed -- fear that ancient ways of distributing wealth and authority might be in jeopardy.* He must be talking about approximately 1918.
A striking evidence of this panic is contained in accounts of academic behavior during the period. To cite only one case, President William Walker of MIT declared in speeches and writings that the large, close families of immigrants were provoking intolerable racial competition, leading to something he called "racial suicide" among the so-called Anglo-Saxon races. Between 1900 and 1910 the theme of racial suicide was a common topic in all leading popular magazines.This fear of racial suicide was provoked by an unusual "closeness" of immigrant families. Puritan leaders had always described family intimacy as sacrilegious, favoring family loyalty in its place (for the prosperity loyalty brought in its train). In the large affectionate broods of Irish and Italians, and in their relative indifference to material rewards when compared to the rewards of family life, a mortal threat was perceived.
August Comte's Positivist lessons dismissing family as an anachronism then mingled with a widespread hatred of the dangerous culture of immigration to produce a national agenda of state imposed conformity. The push to this end was motivated by more than just theoretical considerations; violent strikes against management in coal, steel, and railroads signaled that the danger from these people was more than long-range, it was very close at hand.
School books and other texts to sell myths of conformity followed hard on the heels of compulsory schooling. And toward the end of these second phase of mass immigration, another Communist revolution occurred, this time a successful one. At that exact historical moment, the compulsory education laws were given teeth.* Widely ignored after the initial flush of enthusiasm passed, the laws were now made unavoidable. The power of the state was placed at the disposal of school authorities, and the new mass government schooling institution began with a vengeance to separate children and families, assisted by the creation of many another astonishing new institution to assist in the deconstruction.
Of key interest to me here is the distinction he makes between family intimacy and family loyalty. On the one hand you have families which have adopted the program of conformity imposed on them by the partnership of the secular state and big business (families which are pursuing "personal peace and prosperity" as Francis Schaeffer would say) and on the other hand you have families which are imbued with their own diverse dreams and myths as apart from those of the state (including those families which are faithful to the Triune God).
I can think of some large homeschool families which fit this picture of the intimate family to which Gatto is alluding. Perhaps some small one's too. :) And why homeschool families per say as opposed to Christian school families? Well I'm not sure I can answer that question. However, my understanding of education is progressing right now. I've gone from completely regretting my homeschool education and wishing that I had gone to a school like Logos in Moscow to now wanting to create a high school that would combine the best of homeschooling (family, time for reading, contemplation) and schooling (community, competition, submission to authorities outside the home.)
