As everyone knows, it was Rousseau who accomplished this revolution in our conception of education, which has rightly been compared to that of Copernicus, and which consists in regarding the child as the centre around which educational procedures and programmes should gravitate. (Édouard Claparède, 1912a, p. 10)

The so-called new education movements redoubled in vigour at the end of the Great War, endowing future generations with a redemptive mission: the Institut Rousseau was one of the leaders of this movement. Through an education that makes young people aware of the evils of nationalistic prejudices, introduces them to self-government and trains them in global solidarity, this reformist educational impulse was to give young people the responsibility for building a reconciled world. Education would be the primary tool for this peace-building internationalism. This chapter examines how the IBE of the 1920s conveyed this spirit, while at the same time being imbued with the Wilsonian pacifism embodied by Geneva once it was designated as the headquarters of the League of Nations. It also examines how the Bureau’s leaders succeeded or failed in reconciling these resolutely committed collective ideals with the strict objectivity and self-proclaimed neutrality of the IBE, and the adjustments that such precarious balancing acts required.

A “Copernican Revolution” Endorsed by Psychopedagogy

From the 1920s onwards, the Institut Rousseau aspired not only to universalise the principles of the new education and its pacifist dimensions but also to make itself their world emblem. This is why, as we have seen, it joined Ferrière’s Bureau international des écoles nouvelles (BIEN) in 1923, and then founded the IBE in 1925. The Bureau’s logo is intended to attest to its ambition: “Ut per juvenes ascendat mundus” [May the world rise through youth]. It is a vignette drawn by “children who are messengers of love and goodwill among men” from the Bakulé School in Prague (Bovet, 1927, p. 4; see Image 1.1), which now appeared on a number of IBE publications, particularly on its quarterly Bulletins.

It was on the basis of such positions that the first international surveys of the IBE were conceived and carried out between 1926 and 1929, extending those of the Institut Rousseau. All of them intertwined new education and international solidarity: the teaching of Esperanto, the psychological bases of education for peace, self-educational school materials, self-government and teamwork. As for the investigation of patriotism, it would help to identify underlying mechanisms that restrict ability to understand the world.Footnote 1 Inter-school correspondence functioned as a pedagogical expression of world solidarity; it was enriched from the outset by the postulates of a school open to life, giving pride of place to creative expression, which was in vogue in the reformist movements. The IBE director, Pierre Bovet, concluded in 1928: “The principles of the active school are proving to be successfully applied in education for peace” (p. 25). This was generalised by the deputy director Adolphe Ferrière in 1930: “The active school is not just another peacemaking factor. It is the necessary condition for the birth and domination of the spirit of peace, inseparable from that of reason and justice” (p. 63).

In these “crazy years of pedagogy”, the scientific investigations of the main collaborators of the Institut Rousseau, and consequently of the IBE, led by their mentors Claparède, Bovet, Ferrière and Descœudres, and then Piaget and Dottrens, demonstrated the added value of the principles and methods of the new education. They also substantiated their positions with the support of the new psychopedagogical science. In fact, they passed on the pedological flame that lit up the first decades of the twentieth century and crossed continents.Footnote 2 Many scholars, in Geneva as well, aspired to find in the child the origin of humanity, in order to know the future of this same humanity—and thereby to master it (Ottavi, 2001; Depaepe, 1993).

Here there was an unprecedented pedological excitement, giving rise to the conviction that the science of the child constituted the “queen of sciences”: pedology, imbued with the hope of elucidating the original mystery, was also projected into the future, which it imagined could be made better (Schuyten, 1912, pp. 18–22). All the existing sciences were recruited to this celebration of childhood: medicine, anatomy, neurology, psychiatry, hygiene, criminology, sociology, demography, history, anthropology and philosophy; pedagogy, of course, but far behind the primary reference points and models of biology and psychology. “A single figure”, it was claimed, “had more real and permanent value than a precious library full of hypotheses” (Ioteyko, 1912, II, p. 50). This triumphalism was based on the conviction that a resolutely scientific and rational approach to the child would guarantee the development of the potential naturally contained in each individual, and thereby counter any bellicose tendency.

For the followers of pedology and of the new education, educational progressivism and its internationalist and pacifist aims were in no way biased ideologically or pedagogically. The relevance and added value of these choices were demonstrated experimentally in many places other than Geneva, as the founders of the Institut Rousseau and the IBE pointed out in their numerous literature reviews.Footnote 3 In their eyes, there is no doubt that the principles of the new education were based on scientific evidence and irrefutable universal laws: the achievements of the new science of the child—“pedology”, “psychopedagogy” and “educational sciences”, as they were termed in Geneva—would therefore constitute the foundations of a universalisable educational revolution.

It should be remembered that it was the director of the Institut Rousseau, the ardent pacifist Pierre Bovet, who was entrusted with the initial management of the Bureau (1926–1929); and it was the two co-directors of the French- and German-speaking branches of the New Education Fellowship (NEF) who shared the deputy management of the Bureau: Adolphe Ferrière (1926–1932) and Elisabeth Rotten (1926–1928). Ferrière summarised the results of the 3rd NEF Congress in Locarno, co-organised with the IBE, in these words:

From 3 to 15 August 1927, twelve hundred people gathered to participate in the Cult of Childhood, and to serve the Humanity of tomorrow […]. They came from all over the world. They were infused with the warmth of a common enthusiasm. They shared a community of tone, and they condemned the same abuses inherent in traditional schooling; the same joy animated them about the recent achievements in theory and practice, leading to a vision of a world made better by a healthier, more balanced childhood […].

No association in the world brings together, as we do, scientific researchers in child psychology; scrupulous analysts of experimental science and mystical synthesists of spiritualism, theorists familiar with philosophical thought and practitioners in new (private) and renovated (public) schools. (Ferrière, 1927, p. 262)

For the deputy director of the IBE, it was indeed a question of “sharing in the Cult of Childhood”, thus confirming the reconciling vision of a redemptive education for humanity and the certainty that “science and common sense”, which he made his motto, guarantee both the scientific and the ethical validity of the new education (Image 8.1).

Image 8.1
A poster with a photo. The photo is of a port with ships on water. It has text in a foreign language.

Announcement of the first general assembly of the LoN in Geneva, November 1920. Forty-one countries participated, including dominions of Great Britain. The picture symbolises what later was called the “spirit of Geneva”: international collaboration for peace. (© AIJJR)

Full size image

A Positioning Intended to Embody the “spirit of Geneva”

An analysis of the profile and positioning of the individuals who joined the IBE and worked in it up until the turn of the 1930s shows the close links with movements in civil society that campaigned for peace, solidarity, freedom, justice and law. From the outset, the members of the IBE’s secretariat, board of directors, constituent assembly and patronage committee also identified with this spirit, which was in full swing in the 1920s, not only in the West but also in Latin America, Asia and the USSR.Footnote 4 The proof of this is that of the 75 collective members affiliated to the IBE in 1929, two-thirds identified with reformist principles, and half of them were officially active in the new education networks (Boss et al., 2022a, p. 394). A good 20 or so were involved in pacifist and internationalist organisations, while most adhered to the values driving them. We can observe the “multi-positioning” (Topalov, 1999) of many delegates from feminist, youth and teachers’ associations, at the interface of several of these networks and identifying with a common liberating education, contributing to peace, justice, law, progress and freedom.

Geneva in the 1920s embodied this hope, and the IBE was in step with the dozens of militant associations that set up their headquarters in this “new capital of peace”.Footnote 5 The values of tolerance and solidarity, which were part of the reformist spirit, were held to be universal, even more so at a time when what Robert de Traz conceptualised as the “spirit of Geneva” was being created and disseminated in 1929. We can clearly perceive a convergence between certain features of this “spirit” and that of the IBE, which was identified by contemporaries who sought to define its contours.Footnote 6 The “International Bureau of Education [constitutes] a kind of site for pedagogical experiments motivated by the desire to propagate the idea of peace in schools”, writes the essayist de Traz; he went on to say that the IBE, like a number of other structures established thanks to civil society, “prevented the spirit of Geneva from only taking on an official form; they kept it in touch with its origins, that is to say with private initiative”, with the “vitality of individual zeal” (1929, pp. 120–121).

At the same time, the IBE nurtured and legitimised itself with the pacifist internationalism embodied in the intergovernmental agencies of the LoN as well as in the constellation of bodies and associations that surrounded them and relayed their spirit. At least, this was the conviction of Ferrière, whose writings were published extensively in the local and national press:

There is a close link between popular culture – in the best sense of the term – and its economic and social value. To feel this link, to want this reform of public education that is so urgent, to create a movement of opinion that pushes governments and the LoN to support the IBE, is a duty that falls to each of us, however humble. […] the childhood of today is the humanity of tomorrow. No sacrifice will be too great when it contributes to a better education, more in line with science and common sense.Footnote 7

The close social networks between the founders of the IBE and certain leading figures of the LoN’s agencies also bore witness to this. As we have already mentioned, official representatives of the LoN and the ILO even agreed to sit on the IBE’s governing bodies: in particular Fernand Maurette, Inazō Nitobé, Lucie Schmidt, Arthur Sweetser, Duncan Christie Tait and Albert Thomas. The same applied to influential Genevan notables and intellectuals whose voices carried far beyond the small city: Albert Malche, Edmond Privat, William Rappard and Georges Thélin. All of them also took part in the summer courses and public conferences of the IBE, along with many other personalities, including the leading figures of the Organisation for Intellectual Cooperation (OIC), Gustave Kullman, Gonzague de Reynold and Alfred Zimmern, who also offered to act as advisors.

A Unifying and Reconciling Neutrality?

According to the IBE’s spokespersons, these links between educational causes, liberal progressivism and Wilsonian pacifism were not incompatible with the principles of “absolute neutrality from the national, political, philosophical and religious points of view”.

How should this self-proclaimed neutrality be interpreted? In the specific context of the period, its political dimension echoed that of Switzerland: it took for granted the principle of neutrality recognised by other nations, giving it the right and duty not to interfere nor to take part in international conflicts, except as a mediator; as we know, the logic of consensus that results from this is not immune to the dangers of accommodation, which can tip over into possible compromises, especially in times of crisis.Footnote 8

In Switzerland, this principle of neutrality is also manifested in the relationship between the Confederation and the cantons; it would attest to the possibilities of dealing with educational issues in a way that respects different traditions and cultures, since the cantons benefit from most of the educational prerogatives. The Swiss example of federation, presented as a “miracle”, would define the conditions of possibility regarding the recognition of the diversity of points of view, and was even likely to reconcile alternatives and opposites (philosophical, denominational, ideological, cultural etc.), opposites that are neither reified nor exclusive, but considered as legitimate points of view for building a common work: we shall return to the fact that “unity in diversity” was one of the primary mottos of the IBE.

Since the IBE was presented as a technical agency, respecting strict scientific objectivity, pedagogical neutrality should flow from it: as we have just stressed, the relevance of the new education and active methods would have been demonstrated by psychopedagogical surveys, which would constitute a scientific basis. This would make it possible to adhere to it without being supposed to articulate any ideology or pedagogical doctrine. It was thus as spokespersons for a neutrality likely to reconcile all peace-loving friends of childhood that the builders of the IBE claimed to position themselves and believed they could rally a diversity of members, with highly contrasting positions and profiles.

Convinced of the mobilising power of civil society, as we have seen,Footnote 9 the first IBE (1925–1929) constituted itself as a corporate association: its autonomy, its objectivity and its neutrality would be the base of both its originality and its rallying force. It was in this spirit that the IBE Secretariat multiplied exchanges with teaching and educational associations throughout the world; above all, it never ceased to deal with the main international leagues and federations. “Cooperation” was everyone’s watchword. If the many educational associations and leagues worked in isolation, they would squander their resources and compete with each other. The challenge was therefore to coordinate them in order to increase their potential for action: this is the mandate that the IBE gave itself, taking advantage of its particular legitimacy in view of it being based in neutral Switzerland, in international Geneva, recently elected “city of peace”, and in the Institut Rousseau, emblem of the pedological science that fostered educational renewal.

The problem, however, was that this coordinating function of the Bureau would presuppose that it alone federated the international associations dedicated to education and childhood. This claim to supremacy was far from being recognised, especially by the most powerful associations of the time, which were also vying for this pre-eminence.

Table 8.1 presents a list of the most important international associations and bodies with which the IBE established close correspondence; it is far from exhaustive, but it bears witness to the scope of the causes and regions under the sway of “educational internationalism”, in particular at the turn of the 1920s and 1930s.Footnote 10

Table 8.1 Educational and other associations corresponding with the IBE
Full size table

This web of correspondence attests to the intense exchanges and mutual solidarity that resulted in numerous joint productions. They also allow us to penetrate backstage and to perceive the tones of the less hushed discussions of these international enterprises. Although they were committed to the mission of strengthening brotherhood on earth, they competed to increase their legitimacy and the dominance of each of their leaders. The archives attest to long negotiations between the IBE and each of them to define their relations, the conditions of reciprocal affiliation, the modalities of their members’ exchanges and consequently of their contributions, the reciprocity of their services, and the outlines of their specific and possibly shared projects. Many critical voices did not hesitate to question, suspect or even denounce the credibility and ideological background of one another. When the IBE was not simply neglected, given its smallness and “weakness”,Footnote 11 it was subject to suspicions about its positioning, suspicions in which pedagogical, ideological and sociopolitical issues were interwoven.

For its detractors, the IBE’s unifying ambition and its proximity to the LoN contradicted both its reconciliatory aims and its principles of objectivity and neutrality. The result was a number of ambiguities that needed to be clarified and overcome in order to establish its credibility.

Insert 8.1 Peace Education: A Construction from the Perspective of Internationalist Issues (1929–1932)

The IBE gave a prominent place to Peace Education (PE) in its Bulletins during its early intergovernmental years until the advent of the Second World War. In a dedicated section, it compiled information gathered from around the world or transmitted by their informants, regarding the activities carried out by governments or individuals in the field of PE. In the following paragraphs, we analyse the Bulletins from 1929 to 1932.

The Bulletins presented PE in a holistic manner, combining various fields of intervention at the legal, structural and pedagogical levels. Some activities were permanent (reforms of school programmes), and several were repeated annually (holiday camps); sometimes they were intermittent (competitions, events). In addition, they targeted different audiences, such as young people, children and even teachers. Events, student exchanges, trips and holiday camps are the most frequently cited. Therefore, PE seemed confined to initiatives whose duration was limited, meaning that it has a fleeting nature and that few resources were allocated to it: PE depended on the initiative and the efforts of a community of peaceful individuals. Moreover, the vocabulary used underlines the nobility of such a cause, and sometimes conferred a divine and devout dimension, calling for effort and sacrifice. Thus, PE was framed as a vocation that required continuous work through which individuals could find their own salvation and also, according to the discourse, that of humanity.

International collaboration was an essential dimension of PE in the Bulletins. Indeed, the discourse found in this section tended to promote activities that underlined a relationship, if not a form of cooperation, between states. This approach therefore promoted a series of more or less entrepreneurial countries in the field of PE. In other words, it was a certain image of the nation that was then reinforced, more particularly for Germany, the USA and England.Footnote 12

Network analyses conducted on the PE sections of the Bulletins position Germany as a “prestigious actor” (Wassermann & Faust, 1994; see Fig. 8.1). The activities mentioned demonstrate active and reciprocal collaborations, and were repeated annually. They were mainly established with active pedagogical circles in PE in England and France—in other words, with its former First World War enemies. While Germany sought a place for itself on the international scene by participating in the League of Nations since 1926, it was struggling to detach itself from its status as a belligerent state (Batel, 2007, p. 28). Thus, its image disseminated in the Bulletins, reflected an attitude that aimed to restore its national image, giving it the reputation of a state knowing how to apply the techniques of international collaboration in the context of peace.

Fig. 8.1
A node network between Germany and other states in the section on peace education of the Bulletins from 1929 to 1932. U S A is linked to Greece, Holland, India, Iceland, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Panama, Wales, Sweden, and other countries.

Networks between Germany and other states in the section on peace education of the Bulletins from 1929 to 1932 (Note: in this presentation, we do not differentiate the contents of the links)

Full size image

The German educational world is represented in the Bulletins as a model, as an actor of reconciliation inclined to peaceful international cooperation. A desire that was also expressed through Germanyouth, active in the promotion of an international democratic order (Prat, 2010) to break out of its isolation from its neighbours. It should also be noted—here we refer to the period after 1932—that the German initiatives mentioned under the banner of “Education for peace” persisted, despite the establishment of the Nazi regime. In keeping with its position vis-à-vis authoritarian regimes,Footnote 13 the IBE (or at least the editors of the Bulletin) did not seem to adopt a particular position with regard to this political context, even if in 1936 it meant publishing a German response glorifying Hitler to the Children of Wales in a message of peace:

To us, German boys and girls a leader has arisen who has given us back confidence and the belief in the fulfillment of the message of Goodwill, who has fortified our senses for everything pure and true, and who thus is strengthening us to live and to fight for peace. (IBE’s Bulletin 1936, 4th quarter, p. 183)

As for the USA, true to its reputation as a global superpower, it occupies a prominent place in the discourse (see Fig. 8.2). The country is positioned as a key player in internationalism collaborating with a multitude of countries in different regions.

Fig. 8.2
A node network of U S A and other states in the section on peace education of the Bulletins from 1929 to 1932. Germany is linked to Spain, Egypt, Belgium, Poland, Switzerland, France, Hungary, Italy, Romania, and a few other countries.

Networks between the USA and other states in the section on peace education of the Bulletins from 1929 to 1932 (Note: in this presentation, we do not differentiate the contents of the links)

Full size image

The USA already held a decisive place within the League of Nations, even if they did not join it and “refused any political commitment” (Portes, 2007, p. 252). The inter-war period was a prolific period for this country which “assert[ed] itself as a financial power and propagator of democratic ideas” (p. 252), also in the field of PE. This role of the USA is mentioned almost systematically until 1940, when the said section of the Bulletin disappeared.

Concerning England, it is mentioned 113 times out of the 149 initiatives reported during 1930–1932, which signifies a certain degree of popularity (Wassermann & Faust, 1994) and reinforced itsimage as a world power. England is presented as a state collaborating with Germany, thus demonstrating an anti-belligerent approach, with the USA, thereby associated with a world superpower, with France, which in that context imposed itself as a colonial and cultural power, and also with Switzerland, which was now the embodiment of internationalism. Thus, England was centrally positioned in this network of collaboration, not without upsetting certain state hierarchies: in short, it was a power that cooperated with other powers, thus giving itself not only an international dimension but also a central place on the diplomatic scene.

The Bulletin therefore serves as a showcase that helped to strengthen the image of nations, or at least, of their educational environments working in PE. These collaborative networks nevertheless underlined internationalist issues, reflecting a certain organization of the world which eventually impacted the definition of PE that the IBE appropriated and globally disseminated through the Bulletins in the 1930s.

The countries mentioned were mostly involved in the First World War and, during the years of our study, they were not members of the IBE: it seems that there was a desire for the Bureau to show an anti-war approach rather than promoting the activities led by its member states. This echoes the negative peace approach, which, according to Galtung and Fischer (2013), means the absence of direct and physical violence. Nevertheless, positive peace education activities, although timid, were mentioned more and more over the years. These mentions were mainly about educating for (establishing) peace, although it is possible to observe the emergence of complementary practices such as educating about (such as teaching about the League of Nations, the history of peace and even international understanding), and, little by little, the advent of education through peace, which implies the use of progressive pedagogical and child-centred practices.

Émeline Brylinski