Music as a human need: A plea for free national instruction in music

In Short

This 1914 doctoral thesis argues that music functions as a "rhythm" that physically calms the human nervous system, acting as an essential remedy for the stresses of modern industrial life. The author, a scholar of political science, examines the historical and economic "stimuli" of various nations to prove that music is a human need, not a luxury. By comparing international government support for musical education, she issues a fervent call for the United States to abandon its reliance on private charity and establish state-funded musical instruction for the masses.

The Story

The argument begins with the foundational claim that music is a biological requirement, as integral to human health as it is to tribal development. The author posits that every human being possesses an internal pulse, and when mental or social pressures disturb this physical rhythm, music acts as a powerful restorative. She explores the early evolution of humanity, tracing how rhythm and sound evolved from prehistoric survival mechanisms into the sophisticated structures of modern song. She suggests that as society becomes more complex and "intellectual," the human nervous system remains imperfectly evolved, leaving modern people vulnerable to the chaotic stimuli of urban life.

To support this, she transitions from theory to history, observing how different nations have used music as an "emotional valve." She walks the reader through the nineteenth-century history of Italy, England, France, Germany, and the United States, analyzing how specific economic and political upheavals dictated the "emotional" content of each country's music. In Italy, she finds music that reflects a lighter, more superficial social pressure; in England, a steady, colonial-minded stability under the Victorian era; and in Germany, a revolutionary intensity peaking with the operas of Richard Wagner, which she sees as a direct reflection of German unification.

Moving from history to experimental evidence, the author describes her own field observations. She recounts using musical performances—ranging from operatic arias to national anthems—to pacify agitated crowds, soothe panicked passengers on a storm-tossed ship, and provide relief to working-class women. She demonstrates that music can transform irritation into tranquility, effectively "resetting" the human pulse.

The arc of the argument concludes with a sharp critique of the American approach to the arts. While other nations provide state-subsidized conservatories and education for their citizens, the United States relies on private "munificence," which she argues is insufficient. She presents correspondence from officials and statistics from abroad to highlight the disparity in support. The book ends on a prescriptive note, urging the American government to invest in musical education to preserve the health and sanity of its people, arguing that a nation that neglects the musical needs of its citizens is failing a fundamental duty of modern governance.

How It Unfolds

The biological thesis The author establishes that music is a "wonder worker" that acts directly upon the human psychoplasm. She introduces the concept of "Toneurology," proposing that musical rhythm can impose order upon the discordant motions of the nervous system.

Evolutionary origins She examines how humanity’s early need for communication and tribal cohesion led to the development of rhythmic sound. She posits that as humans moved from savagery to civilization, music evolved in complexity to mirror the increasing stresses of human progress.

Historical analysis The text systematically reviews the nineteenth-century musical landscapes of various European nations. She correlates the emergence of different musical styles—from French piano virtuosity to German Wagnerian opera—with the specific economic pressures and political upheavals of those regions.

Experimental evidence The author provides data from her own observations in churches, theaters, and at sea. These anecdotal "tests" serve to confirm that music consistently stabilizes the emotional and physical states of audiences, regardless of their social class.

The call for reform She presents statistical evidence showing that other nations view musical instruction as a public necessity. She contrasts this with the American status quo, where, as stated by a correspondence with William Howard Taft, such matters are left entirely to private donors.

The final plea The book concludes with a vision for the future of the United States. She argues that federal support for music is a requirement for a healthy republic, essential for managing the volatile stresses of a modern, industrializing nation.

The People

The book is driven by the author’s own convictions and the voices of the figures she surveys. The author herself emerges as a rigorous, passionate researcher, determined to elevate music from the realm of "pleasure" to the realm of "national necessity." She is a scientist-advocate, wielding data and history to challenge the status quo. Richard Wagner appears as the quintessential example of an artist whose work perfectly captured the "revolutionary" social pressure of his time, proving that great art is a byproduct of national economic struggle. William Howard Taft, though appearing only in a short letter, serves as the embodiment of the American political resistance—the voice of a system that views musical education as a private luxury rather than a public, state-funded right. The "working girls" and "revolutionary audiences" mentioned in her experiments serve as the collective, anonymous protagonists of the study, representing the common citizens who suffer under industrial stress and who, in her view, are the most desperate for the soothing, stabilizing force of subsidized musical instruction.

In Its Own Voice

"Music has been generally regarded as the language of the emotions, but it has never been determined why these emotions, having art, poetry, the dance, and many other means of partial expression, so insistently require sound for complete self-realization."

This question sits at the center of the author’s inquiry into the biological necessity of music.

"The beat of the pulse and the measure in Music are similar rhythmic expressions, but the close relation of one to the other has heretofore been ignored."

The author proposes this observation as the foundation for her theory of music as a corrective to physical disturbance.

What It's Really About

At its core, this book is an argument for the sociological and physiological value of art. It explores the deep, often invisible, relationship between the state and the inner life of its citizens. The author grapples with the question of whether a government has a responsibility to maintain the mental and physical health of its people through cultural infrastructure. By framing music as a physical "stimulus" that regulates the human pulse, she shifts the conversation away from aesthetics and toward public health and social order. The book is an early twentieth-century inquiry into the costs of rapid industrialization and the role of the state in providing a "remedy" for the overstimulated, modern nervous system.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of ideas, sociology, or the intersection of science and the arts will find this book fascinating. It captures the turn-of-the-century ambition to apply the "scientific method" to every aspect of human life, including the elusive power of a melody. It feels earnest and slightly idiosyncratic, written by someone who is convinced she has discovered a universal law of human behavior.

The prose is academic yet remarkably urgent, filled with the confidence of the pre-World War I era. Modern readers may find the author’s reliance on "rhythm" as a totalizing explanation for human behavior to be a product of its time, and her frequent references to "savagery" and "higher/lower" races reflect the period attitudes of 1914. However, the book’s central argument—that the state has an obligation to provide accessible arts education to the public—remains a highly relevant topic in today’s cultural policy debates. It is a rewarding read for those who enjoy seeing a well-researched, if unconventional, theory built from the ground up, providing a unique lens through which to view the cultural and political history of the early twentieth century.