Arlo said to dmb:
This is a good point, but I think it reflects two purposes, which Paulo Freire
describes in Pedagogy of the Oppressed as "Education either functions as an
instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation
into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes
the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and
creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation
of their world." For Freire, "maintaining civilization" would be the
normalizing, conforming, assimilation of social-historical-cultural structures.
The second purpose, reflected by your use of "free" and "liberated" is more
concerned with enabling agency (overcoming oppression). I don't necessarily
think these two purposes are antagonistic, but I do think they are not
synonymous terms. We have an imbalance where are favoring the genetic
transmission of structure, but doing so uncritically and and uncreatively.
dmb says:
I like the way he puts it. And I think you're right to say the two purposes -
conformity and creativity - aren't necessarily enemies. There is a certain
tension and the need for some kind of balancing act but I suppose they're both
necessary. I mean, we can't effectively transform our world without first being
integrated into it. In Pirsig's language, the cart of civilization can only be
"pulled forward" by free people. It's sounds even better, I think, to say they
creatively participate in the transformation of their world but the meaning is
essentially the same.
Arlo said:
Right [..people think of higher education levels as the means to a higher
income.], and this reflects one of the most central crises in the education
discourse. "Why?".... The larger metaphor of "capital" has subsumed education,
we see it as an "investment", we demand that it "pays off". The "Church of
Reason" becomes a Church of Career. Philosophy, which should be the starting
point to all education, becomes a quaint elective often lost in a "jobs
curriculum". ....I think a strong argument could made that, along with
Pirsig's abolishing grades, we abolish tuition. If the goal is 'maintain
civilization' and critical, creative thinking, then this should an endeavor
supported by society as a whole; from 'public' all the way through
post-secondary doctoral work. At the same time, we need to (as a culture)
articulate exactly what we want formal, public schooling to provide; an
informed citizenry, a labor population, creative thinkers, and then work
backwards into curriculum, as
sessment and pedagogy. We have to know what it is we want to do, before we can
talk about good ways of doing it.
dmb says:
It's a frustrating situation because there is so much political resistance to
exceedingly reasonable goals like the ones you name. Education has become a
political football for the purposes religious indoctrination, free-market
reforms, union busting and the overall conservative view that children should
be molded, not educated. I mean, it's not that complicated. The progressive
agenda says education is about teaching people HOW to think and the
conservative agenda says education teaching us WHAT to think. (The Jesus people
sure do hate John Dewey. As they see it, he is a commie from hell.) In a
Democracy, ignorance and stupidity are national security issues. And I can't
help but think of Pirsig's descriptions of the clash between social and
intellectual values.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
