"G. Stewart" wrote:
(snip)
what is wrong with a "policy world" that cannot
hear the cry of a child until it is expressed in the
language of science? When did science become the gatekeeper
of policy rather than merely one viewpoint among a number
with respect to policy-making?
What: a mono-cultural, mono-linguistic society that defines
knowledge only in the context of the intellectual academy. The
most
extreme version of this is the scholar who only knows his subjects
as covered in that which has been written and catalogued in his
own library. This also causes a problem that limits all
knowledge to that which can be taught to groups in lecture halls
and
"productive" schools.
Most complicated skills cannot be taught by talking in large groups
or by reading in books. An example of this value given to this
societal myth is the acclaim given to the Phi Beta Kappa key while
a graduate from Juilliard School of Music is not eligible for this
award because music training is not "academic" and is considered
vocational training. The same is true of the teaching of
architecture of the workplace.
When: I believe that it happened with the rise of modern
economics. Truth becoming the "bottom line", society's values
being
defined not in terms of growth and quality of life, but instead,
by the ability to consume with impunity. Productivity was not
defined
by quality but by a reduction of quality into lower costs and
greater quantity. A productive teacher in the "for profit
schools" is not
the most competent but the one who can reduce costs and produce
volume (high test scores) a similar situation is felt in public
health and other public projects.
The same is true of anything that has to do with superior one of a
kind craft. It is "Bad Productivity" in the post Utilitarian
model.
Steinway pianos are no longer a symbol of the quality of family
life but are simply the property of the wealthy. But Steinway
needs
more volume so they reduce quality and sell more destroying the
name.
In the past Utility was that which could be defined as having
use. Or being "useful." But they did not have the science to
define
what truly was and was not useful. A point that extends to the
present. That is why science is now correcting old incomplete,
culturally prejudice science.
The question for me is why did they not admit that their science,
especially economic science, didn't work and destroyed childhood
education, the arts, religion and is currently destroying the
common sense about such things as the power industry in California?
Some would say apples and oranges but there are things that have to
do with distribution and retail of plentiful goods and that is
something the private market does well. On the other hand limited
necessities, quality of life issues through public goods and
environmental issues are horribly handled by the modern "science"
of economics. In fact they often seem about as closely related
to the real world as the "psychological science" of body types and
head sizes.
How: The issues of childhood education are still tied to the
"reductionist" thought of science methodology and the "scale"
thought of
economics within the context of the personal arrogance required to
acquire success. No one "buys" a doubter or a loser. When
you study the history of modern anthropology and psychology you can
see the raw expression of Western chauvinism expressed in
the study of other cultures. I recall how the psycho-analysts
defined the relationship of the Grandmother in Japanese society as
pathological because it wasn't consonant with Western concepts of
separation and individuation. A read through of the early
anthropologists and philologists like Malinowski and Schoolcraft
shows a treatment of cultural complexity in the 19th century that
was being echoed in the pride over the economic and military
success of the Industrial revolution.
Answer: The concept of complexity and chaos has made science more
inclusive. Especially when complexity is reduced through
competence rather than through external over simplified
engineering. Unfortunately, here in the US we have a
reactionary group
that venerates old science and 19th century economics with an
almost mystical fervor. Personally I have come to equate all
economics with the same attitude of the 19th century scientist
towards religious thought. Their destruction of the 20th
century
through their wars between various economic systems and their
demeaning of the jewels of western culture in favor of a crass
retail
ugliness that is cheap and easily reproduced ignores the fact that
once a culture has run its course the only thing that defines its
quality or relevance is the art that it leaves behind and the great
pedagogical processes that it bequeaths to the future.
Ray Evans Harrell,
PS sorry for any typos, etc. Life is very hectic these days but I
still want to be a part of the dialogue. Thanks for sticking with
it.
REH
