ToAlyssaandClaire

Contents

CoverTitlePageCopyrightDedicationPreface

PARTI1.TheNecessityofGods2.SomeGodsThatFail3.SomeNewGodsThatFail4.GodsThatMayServe

PARTII5.TheSpaceshipEarth6.TheFallenAngel7.TheAmericanExperiment8.TheLawofDiversity9.TheWordWeavers/TheWorldMakers

Epilogue

NotesAbouttheAuthorOtherBooksbyThisAuthor

T

Preface

helastbookIwroteentirelyonthesubjectofeducationwaspublishedin1979.Ireturntothesubjectnow,notbecausethe

educationworldhassufferedfrommyabsence,butbecauseIhave.Ibeganmycareerasanelementaryschoolteacherandhavenotforasinglemomentabandonedtheideathatmanyofourmostvexingandpainfulsocialproblemscouldbeamelioratedifweknewhowtoschoolouryoung.YoumayconcludefromthisthatIamaromantic,butnot,Ithink,afool.Iknowthateducationisnotthesamethingasschooling,andthat,infact,notmuchofoureducationtakesplaceinschool.Schoolingmaybeasubversiveoraconservingactivity,butitiscertainlyacircumscribedone.Ithasalatebeginningandanearlyendandinbetweenitpausesforsummervacationsandholidays,andgenerouslyexcusesuswhenweareill.Totheyoung,schoolingseemsrelentless,butweknowitisnot.Whatisrelentlessisoureducation,which,forgoodorill,givesusnorest.Thatiswhypovertyisagreateducator.Havingnoboundariesandrefusingtobeignored,itmostlyteacheshopelessness.Butnotalways.Politicsisalsoagreateducator.Mostlyitteaches,Iamafraid,cynicism.Butnotalways.Televisionisagreateducatoraswell.Mostlyitteachesconsumerism.Butnotalways.Itisthe“notalways”thatkeepstheromanticspiritaliveinthose

whowriteaboutschooling.Thefaithisthatdespitesomeofthemoredebilitatingteachingsofcultureitself,somethingcanbedoneinschoolthatwillalterthelensesthroughwhichoneseestheworld;whichistosay,thatnon-trivialschoolingcanprovideapointofviewfromwhichwhatiscanbeseenclearly,whatwasasalivingpresent,andwhatwillbeasfilledwithpossibility.Whatthismeansisthatatitsbest,schoolingcanbeabouthowto

makealife,whichisquitedifferentfromhowtomakealiving.Suchanenterpriseisnoteasytopursue,sinceourpoliticiansrarelyspeakofit,

ourtechnologyisindifferenttoit,andourcommercedespisesit.Nonetheless,itistheweightiestandmostimportantthingtowriteabout.Noteveryoneagrees,ofcourse.Intrackingwhatpeoplehavetosay

aboutschooling,Inoticethatmostoftheconversationisaboutmeans,rarelyaboutends.Shouldweprivatizeourschools?Shouldwehavenationalstandardsofassessment?Howshouldweusecomputers?Whatusecanwemakeoftelevision?Howshallweteachreading?Andsoon.Someofthesequestionsareinterestingandsomearenot.Butwhattheyhaveincommonisthattheyevadetheissueofwhatschoolsarefor.Itisasifweareanationoftechnicians,consumedbyourexpertiseinhowsomethingshouldbedone,afraidorincapableofthinkingaboutwhy.Iwritethisbookinthehopeofaltering,alittlebit,thedefinitionof

the“schoolproblem”—frommeanstoends.“End,”ofcourse,hasatleasttwoimportantmeanings:“purpose”and“finish.”Eithermeaningmayapplytothefutureofschools,dependingonwhetherornotthereensuesaseriousdialogueaboutpurpose.Bygivingthebookitsambiguoustitle,Imeantosuggestthatwithoutatranscendentandhonorablepurposeschoolingmustreachitsfinish,andthesoonerwearedonewithit,thebetter.Withsuchapurpose,schoolingbecomesthecentralinstitutionthroughwhichtheyoungmayfindreasonsforcontinuingtoeducatethemselves.

PARTI

I

1•TheNecessityofGods

nconsideringhowtoconducttheschoolingofouryoung,adultshavetwoproblemstosolve.Oneisanengineeringproblem;

theother,ametaphysicalone.Theengineeringproblem,asallsuchproblemsare,isessentiallytechnical.Itistheproblemofthemeansbywhichtheyoungwillbecomelearned.Itaddressestheissuesofwhereandwhenthingswillbedone,and,ofcourse,howlearningissupposedtooccur.Theproblemisnotasimpleone,andanyself-respectingbookonschoolingmustoffersomesolutionstoit.Butitisimportanttokeepinmindthattheengineeringoflearningis

veryoftenpuffedup,assignedanimportanceitdoesnotdeserve.Asanoldsayinggoes,Thereareoneandtwentywaystosingtriballays,andallofthemarecorrect.Soitiswithlearning.Thereisnoonewhocansaythatthisorthatisthebestwaytoknowthings,tofeelthings,toseethings,torememberthings,toapplythings,toconnectthingsandthatnootherwilldoaswell.Infact,tomakesuchaclaimistotrivializelearning,toreduceittoamechanicalskill.Ofcourse,therearemanylearningsthatarelittleelsebuta

mechanicalskill,andinsuchcases,therewellmaybeabestway.Buttobecomeadifferentpersonbecauseofsomethingyouhavelearned—toappropriateaninsight,aconcept,avision,sothatyourworldisaltered—thatisadifferentmatter.Forthattohappen,youneedareason.AndthisisthemetaphysicalproblemIspeakof.Areason,asIusethewordhere,isdifferentfromamotivation.

Withinthecontextofschooling,motivationreferstoatemporarypsychiceventinwhichcuriosityisarousedandattentionisfocused.Idonotmeantodisparageit.Butitmustnotbeconfusedwithareasonforbeinginaclassroom,forlisteningtoateacher,fortakinganexamination,fordoinghomework,forputtingupwithschoolevenifyouarenotmotivated.

Thiskindofreasonissomewhatabstract,notalwayspresentinone’sconsciousness,notatalleasytodescribe.Andyetforallthat,withoutitschoolingdoesnotwork.Forschooltomakesense,theyoung,theirparents,andtheirteachersmusthaveagodtoserve,or,evenbetter,severalgods.Iftheyhavenone,schoolispointless.Nietzsche’sfamousaphorismisrelevanthere:“Hewhohasawhytolivecanbearwithalmostanyhow.”Thisappliesasmuchtolearningastoliving.Toputitsimply,thereisnosurerwaytobringanendtoschooling

thanforittohavenoend.Byagodtoserve,IdonotnecessarilymeantheGod,whoissupposed

tohavecreatedtheworldandwhosemoralinjunctionsaspresentedinsacredtextshavegivencountlesspeopleareasonforlivingand,moretothepoint,areasonforlearning.IntheWesternworld,beginninginthethirteenthcenturyandforfivehundredyearsafterward,thatGodwassufficientjustificationforthefoundingofinstitutionsoflearning,fromgrammarschools,wherechildrenweretaughttoreadtheBible,togreatuniversities,wheremenweretrainedtobeministersofGod.Eventoday,therearesomeschoolsintheWest,andmostintheIslamicworld,whosecentralpurposeistoserveandcelebratethegloryofGod.Whereverthisisthecase,thereisnoschoolproblem,andcertainlynoschoolcrisis.Theremaybesomedisputesoverwhatsubjectsbestpromotepiety,obedience,andfaith;theremaybestudentswhoareskeptical,eventeacherswhoarenonbelievers.Butatthecoreofsuchschools,thereisatranscendent,spiritualideathatgivespurposeandclaritytolearning.Eventheskepticsandnonbelieversknowwhytheyarethere,whattheyaresupposedtobelearning,andwhytheyareresistanttoit.Somealsoknowwhytheyshouldleave.Afewyearsago,Ihadasadconversationwithabrilliantandpopular

philosophyprofessoratPrincipiaCollege,inElsah,Illinois.Principiawasand,asfarasIknow,stillis,theonlyinstitutionofhigherlearningoftheChristianScienceChurch.HetoldmethathisyearsatPrincipiahadbeenthehappiesthehadknown,butthathehadtakenajobatasecularuniversitybecausehenolongerbelievedinthetenetsofChristianScience.Thecourseshetaught,Ishouldsay,didnotincludediscussionsof,letaloneinstructionin,thosetenets.Nooneotherthanhimselfneedeverhaveknownofhisdisaffection.Buthenolongerbelievedinthepurposeoftheinstitution,andeverycourse,irrespectiveofitscontent,

wasinfusedwiththespiritofanarrativehecouldnotaccept.Soheleft.Ihavealwayshopedthatthisforlornprofessoreventuallyfoundanothergodtoserve,anothernarrativetogivemeaningtohisteaching.Withsomereservationsbutmostlywithconviction,Iusetheword

narrativeasasynonymforgod,withasmallg.Iknowitisriskytodoso,notonlybecausethewordgod,havinganauraofsacredness,isnottobeusedlightly,butalsobecauseitcallstomindafixedfigureorimage.Butitisthepurposeofsuchfiguresorimagestodirectone’smindtoanideaand,moretomypoint,toastory—notanykindofstory,butonethattellsoforiginsandenvisionsafuture,astorythatconstructsideals,prescribesrulesofconduct,providesasourceofauthority,and,aboveall,givesasenseofcontinuityandpurpose.Agod,inthesenseIamusingtheword,isthenameofagreatnarrative,onethathassufficientcredibility,complexity,andsymbolicpowertoenableonetoorganizeone’slifearoundit.Iusethewordinthesamesense,forexample,asdidArthurKoestlerincallinghisbookaboutcommunism’sdeceptionsanddisappointmentsTheGodThatFailed.Hisintentionwastoshowthatcommunismwasnotmerelyanexperimentingovernmentorsociallife,andstilllessaneconomictheory,butacomprehensivenarrativeaboutwhattheworldislike,howthingsgottobethewaytheyare,andwhatliesahead.Healsowishedtoshowthatforallofcommunism’scontemptforthe“irrational”narrativesoftraditionalreligions,itreliednonethelessonfaithanddogma.Itcertainlyhaditsownconceptionofblasphemyandheresy,andpracticedagrotesqueandbrutalmethodofexcommunication.Bygivingthisexample,Idonotmeantosuggestthatgodsmustfail—

farfromit,although,ofcourse,therearemanythatdo.Myownlifehasbeencontemporaneouswiththeemergenceofthreecatastrophicnarratives:thegodsofcommunism,fascism,andNazism,eachofwhichheldoutthepromiseofheavenbutledonlytohell.Asyouwillseeifyouproceedtosucceedingchapters,thereareseveralothergodsthathavecapturedtheheartsandmindsofpeoplebutthat,Ibelieve,areinadequatetoprovideaprofoundreasoneitherforlivingorforlearning.Andifyouproceedevenfurther,youwillseethatIbelievetherearelife-andlearning-enhancingnarrativesthatareavailableifonlywewouldgivethemsufficientattention:Thesearegodsthatserve,aswellasgodstoserve.

Nonetheless,myintentionhereisneithertoburynortopraiseanygods,buttoclaimthatwecannotdowithoutthem,thatwhateverelsewemaycallourselves,wearethegod-makingspecies.Ourgeniusliesinourcapacitytomakemeaningthroughthecreationofnarrativesthatgivepointtoourlabors,exaltourhistory,elucidatethepresent,andgivedirectiontoourfuture.Todotheirwork,suchnarrativesdonothavetobe“true”inascientificsense.Therearemanyenduringnarrativeswhosedetailsincludethingsthatarefalsetoobservablefact.Thepurposeofanarrativeistogivemeaningtotheworld,nottodescribeitscientifically.Themeasureofanarrative’s“truth”or“falsity”isinitsconsequences:Doesitprovidepeoplewithasenseofpersonalidentity,asenseofacommunitylife,abasisformoralconduct,explanationsofthatwhichcannotbeknown?Youwillrecognizethatthiskindofstorytellinggoesbymany

differentnames.JosephCampbellandRolloMayrefertoitas“myth.”Freud,whounderstoodbetterthananyonethecreativesourceandpsychicneedofsuchtales,nonethelesscalledthem“illusions.”Onemayevensay,withoutmuchofastretch,thatMarxhadsomethingofthisinmindinusingthewordideology.Butitisnotmypointtodifferentiatewithscholarlynuancethesubtlevariationsamongtheseterms.Thepointisthat,callthemwhatyouwill,weareunceasingincreatinghistoriesandfuturesforourselvesthroughthemediumofnarrative.Withoutanarrative,lifehasnomeaning.Withoutmeaning,learninghasnopurpose.Withoutapurpose,schoolsarehousesofdetention,notattention.Thisiswhatmybookisabout.Themostcomprehensivenarrativesare,ofcourse,foundinsuchtexts

astheOldTestament,theNewTestament,theKoran,theBhagavadGita.Butbeginninginthesixteenthcentury,atleastintheWest,therebegantoemergenarrativesofadifferentsort,althoughwithpowerenoughtoserveasalternategods.Amongthemostenduringisthegreatnarrativeknownas“inductivescience.”Itisworthnotingofthisgodthatitsfirststorytellers—Descartes,Bacon,Galileo,Kepler,andNewton,forexample—didnotthinkoftheirstoryasareplacementforthegreatJudeo-Christiannarrative,butasanextensionofit.Infact,thepointhasbeenmademorethanoncethatthegreatageofsciencewasbasedonabeliefinaGodwhowashimselfascientistandtechnician,andwhowouldthereforeapproveofacivilizationcommittedtosuchanenterprise.“For

allweknow,”EricHofferwrote,“oneofthereasonsthatothercivilizations,withalltheiringenuityandskill,didnotdevelopamachineageisthattheylackedaGodwhomtheycouldreadilyturnintoanall-powerfulengineer.ForhasnotthemightyJehovahperformedfromthebeginningoftimethefeatsthatourmachineageisevennowaspiringtoachieve?”1Galileo,Kepler,andNewtonwouldlargelyagree,conceivingofGod,astheydid,asagreatclock-makerandmathematician.Inanycase,thereisnodoubtthatfromthebeginningoftheageofscience,itscreatorsbelievedinthegreatnarrativeofJehovah.TheirdiscoveriesweremadeintheserviceoftheJudeo-ChristianGod.AndcouldtheyknowofStephenHawking’sremarkthattheresearchpermittedbythe(nowabandoned)supercolliderwouldgiveinsightintothemindofGod,theywouldbepleased.ThedifferencebetweenthemandHawkingisthatHawking,asanavowedatheist,doesnotbelievewhathesaid.Tohim,thestoryofJehovah’swondersisonlyadeadmetaphor,perhapsataletoldbyanidiot.Apparently,thegreatstoryofscience,allbyitself,isenoughforHawking,asithasbeenformanyothers.Itisastorythatexaltshumanreason,placescriticismoverfaith,disdainsrevelationasasourceofknowledge,and,toputaspiritualcastuponit,postulates(asJacobBronowskihasdone)thatourpurposeonEarthistodiscoverreliableknowledge.Ofcourse,thegreatnarrativeofscienceshareswiththegreatreligiousnarrativestheideathatthereisordertotheuniverse,whichisafundamentalassumptionofallimportantnarratives.Infact,scienceevenhasaversion(ofsorts)oftheconceptofthe

“mindofGod.”AsBertrandRussellonceputit,ifthereisaGod,itisadifferentialequation.Kepler,inparticular,wouldprobablyhavelikedthatwayofthinkingaboutthematter;andperhapsthat,afterall,iswhatStephenHawkingmeant.Inanycase,thegreatstrengthofthescience-godis,ofcourse,thatitworks—farbetterthansupplication,farbetterthanevenFrancisBaconcouldhaveimagined.Itstheoriesaredemonstrableandcumulative;itserrors,correctable;itsresults,practical.Thescience-godsendspeopletothemoon,inoculatespeopleagainstdisease,transportsimagesthroughvastspacessothattheycanbeseeninourlivingrooms.Itisamightygodand,likemoreancientones,givespeopleameasureofcontrolovertheirlives,whichisoneofthereasonswhygodsareinventedinthefirstplace.Somesaythe

science-godgivesmorecontrolandmorepowerthananyothergodbeforeit.Nonetheless,likeallgods,itisimperfect.Itsstoryofouroriginsand

ofourendis,tosaytheleast,unsatisfactory.Tothequestion,Howdiditallbegin?,scienceanswers,Probablybyanaccident.Tothequestion,Howwillitallend?,scienceanswers,Probablybyanaccident.Andtomanypeople,theaccidentallifeisnotworthliving.Moreover,regardingthequestion,Whatmoralinstructiondoyougiveus?,thescience-godmaintainsatight-lippedsilence.Itplacesitselfattheserviceofboththebeneficentandthecruel,anditsgrandmoralimpartiality,ifnotindifference,hasmadeitwelcometheworldover.Moreprecisely,itisitsoffspringthatissowelcomed.Forlikeanothergod,theGodwhoproducedaSonandaHolyGhost,thescience-godhasspawnedanother—thegreatnarrativeoftechnology.Thisisawondrousandenergeticstory,which,withgreaterclaritythanitsfather,offersusavisionofparadise.Whereasthescience-godspeakstousofbothunderstandingandpower,thetechnology-godspeaksonlyofpower.ItdemolishestheassertionoftheChristianGodthatheavenisonlyaposthumousreward.Itoffersconvenience,efficiency,andprosperityhereandnow;anditoffersitsbenefitstoall,therichaswellasthepoor,asdoestheChristianGod.Butitgoesmuchfurther.Foritdoesnotmerelygivecomforttothepoor;itpromisesthatthroughdevotiontoitthepoorwillbecomerich.Itsrecordofachievement—therecanbenodoubt—hasbeenformidable,inpartbecauseitisademandinggod,andisstrictlymonotheistic.Itsfirstcommandmentisafamiliarone:“Thoushalthavenoothergodsbeforeme.”Thismeansthatthosewhofollowitspathmustshapetheirneedsandaspirationstothepossibilitiesoftechnology.Noothergodcanbepermittedtoimpede,slowdown,frustrate,or,leastofall,opposethesovereigntyoftechnology.Whythisisnecessaryisexplainedwithfierceclarityinthesecondandthirdcommandments.“WearetheTechnologicalSpecies,”saysthesecond,“andthereinliesourgenius.”“Ourdestiny,”saysthethird,“istoreplaceourselveswithmachines,whichmeansthattechnologicalingenuityandhumanprogressareoneandthesame.”Thosewhoareskepticalaboutthesepropositions,whoareinclinedto

takethenameofthetechnology-godinvain,arecondemnedasreactionaryrenegades,especiallywhentheyspeakofgodsofadifferent

kind.AmongthosewhohaveriskedheresywasMaxFrisch,whoremarked,“Technologyistheknackofsoarrangingtheworldthatwedonotexperienceit.”2Butheandothersuchhereticshavebeencastasideandmadetobearthedamningmarkof“Luddite”alloftheirdays.Therearealsothose,likeAldousHuxley,whobelievedthatthegreatgodofTechnologymightbesufficientlytamedsothatitsclaimsweremoremodest.HeoncesaidthatifhehadrewrittenBraveNewWorld,“…hewouldhaveincludedasanealternative,asocietyinwhich‘scienceandtechnologywouldbeusedasthough,liketheSabbath,theyhadbeenmadeforman,not(asatpresentandstillmoresointheBraveNewWorld)asthoughmanweretobeadaptedandenslavedtothem.’”3AlthoughbothmywordsandtonewillsuggestIbelievewithFrisch

andHuxleythatthetechnology-godisafalseone(Ido,ofcourse),Iwillholdthatpointuntillater.Here,Iwishtostressthatallgodsareimperfect,evendangerous.Abelieftoostronglyheld,onethatexcludesthepossibilityofatoleranceforothergods,mayresultinapsychopathicfanaticism.ThatiswhatJesusmeant(andHuxleyinreferringtoit)whenhesaid,“Thesabbathwasmadeforman,andnotmanforthesabbath.”WemayrecallherearemarkmadebyNielsBohrthatbearsonthispoint.Hesaid:“Theoppositeofacorrectstatementisanincorrectstatement,buttheoppositeofaprofoundtruthisanotherprofoundtruth.”4Hemeanttoteachus,ashaveotherwisepeople,thatitisbettertohaveaccesstomorethanoneprofoundtruth.Tobeabletoholdcomfortablyinone’smindthevalidityandusefulnessoftwocontradictorytruthsisthesourceoftolerance,openness,and,mostimportant,asenseofhumor,whichisthegreatestenemyoffanaticism.Nonetheless,itisundoubtedlybettertohaveoneprofoundtruth,onegod,onenarrative,thantohavenone.Whathappenstopeoplewhentheyhavenogodstoserve?Some

commitsuicide.ThereismoreofthisintheUnitedStates,particularlyamongouryoung,thaninmostotherplacesintheworld.Someenvelopthemselvesindrugs,includingalcohol.Sometakewhateverpleasureistobefoundinrandomviolence.Someencasethemselvesinanimpenetrableegoism.Many,apparently,findamomentaryandpitifulreleasefromdreadincommercialre-creationsofonce-powerfulnarrativesofthepast.Ihavebeforemeanaccountoftheproliferationof“themeparks”in

boththeUnitedStatesandEurope.AsIwrite,oneofthemisabouttoariseinPoland,where,accordingtoTravelandLeisuremagazine,itsstaffwilldressinreplicauniformsoftheLuftwaffeandWehrmachttoinspirenightlydancesat“Hitler’sBunkerDisco.”Another,anamusementparknearBerlin,willtakeasitstheme“EastGermanyunderCommunism.”Itsservicepeoplewillpretendtobeagentsofthesecretpolice,andwillputthosemakingcriticalremarksaboutthegovernmentintoafakejail.Acrosstheocean,nearAtlanta,Georgia,anamusementparkisbeingdevelopedaroundthetheme“GoneWiththeWindCountry.”Nottobeoutdone,theWaltDisneyCompany,whoseprosperityisentirelybasedonthetimelyandromanticre-creationofnarratives,hasdrawnupplansforstillanotheramusementparknearManassas,Virginia,withthetheme“TheCivilWarExperience.”Apparently,theexhibitsaretoincludeadramatizationoftheexperienceofslavery—whetherforitoragainstisnotyetclear(norindeed,asIwrite,isthefutureofthisproject).5Isallofthisamererehearsalforthemassconsumptionof“virtual

reality,”asJoyGouldBoyumsuspects?Arewebeingreadiedforatimewhenwewillnotrequireexpensivethemeparkstore-createthenightmareorfantasyofourchoice,butcanmaterializeeitherwiththepressofabutton?Whetherweareornot,whatiscertainlyhappeninghereis,touseRolloMay’sphrase,a“cryformyth.”Nightmareorfantasy,theseparksallowonetoinhabitaworldwheresomepowerfulnarrativeonceheldsway,anarrativethatgavepeopleareasonforliving,andinwhoseabsenceakindofpsychictraumaensues.Evenifanarrativeplacesoneinhell,itisbettertobetherethantobenowhere.Tobenowheremeanstoliveinabarrenculture,onethatoffersnovisionofthepastorfuture,noclearvoiceofauthority,noorganizingprinciples.Insuchaculture,whatareschoolsfor?Whatcantheybefor?TherewasatimewhenAmericancultureknewwhatschoolswerefor

becauseitofferedfullyfunctioningmultiplenarrativesforitspeopletoembrace.Therewas,forexample,thegreatstoryofdemocracy,whichtheAmericanartistBenShahnonceproclaimed“themostappealingideathattheworldhasyetknown.”AlexisdeTocquevillecalledit“theprincipleofcivicparticipation.”GunnarMyrdalencapsulatedtheideainthephrase“TheAmericanCreed,”whichhejudgedtobethemostexplicitlyarticulatedsystemofgeneralidealsofanycountryintheWest.

Thefirstchapterofthestoryopenswith“Inthebeginning,therewasarevolution.”Asthestoryunfolds,therearisesacredwordssuchas“governmentofthepeople,bythepeopleandforthepeople.”Becausehehelpedtowritethestory,ThomasJefferson,theMosesofthegreatdemocracy-god,knewwhatschoolswerefor—toensurethatcitizenswouldknowwhenandhowtoprotecttheirliberty.Thisisamanwhoproducedanessaythatcouldhavecosthimhislife,andthatincludedthewords:“Weholdthesetruthstobeself-evident;thatallmenarecreatedequal;thattheyareendowedbytheircreatorwithcertainunalienablerights;thatamongthesearelife,liberty,andthepursuitofhappiness.”Itwouldnothavecomeeasilytothemindofsuchaman,asitdoestopoliticalleaderstoday,thattheyoungshouldbetaughttoreadexclusivelyforthepurposeofincreasingtheireconomicproductivity.Jeffersonhadamoreprofoundgodtoserve.AsdidEmmaLazarus,whosepoemcelebratesanotheronce-powerful

Americannarrative.“Givemeyourtired,yourpoor,yourhuddledmassesyearningtobreathefree,”shewrote.Whereelse,savethegreatnarrativeofJesus,canonefindastorythatsoennoblesthehuddledmasses?Here,Americaisportrayedasthegreatmeltingpot.Suchastoryanswersmanyprofoundquestions,including,Whatareschoolsfor?SchoolsaretofashionAmericansoutofthewretchedrefuseofteemingshores.SchoolsaretoprovidethelostandlonelywithacommonattachmenttoAmerica’shistoryandfuture,toAmerica’ssacredsymbols,toitspromiseoffreedom.Theschoolsare,inaword,theaffirmativeanswertothequestion,Canacoherent,stable,unifiedculturebecreatedoutofpeopleofdiversetraditions,languages,andreligions?Therehavebeen,ofcourse,othernarrativesthathaveservedtogive

guidanceandinspirationtopeople,and,especially,thathavehelpedtogivepurposetoschooling.AmongthemisonethatgoesbythenameoftheProtestantethic.Inthistale,itisclaimedthathardworkandadisciplinedcapacitytodelaygratificationarethesurestpathtowardearningGod’sfavor.IdlehandsdotheDevil’swork,asdolustfuland,often,merelypleasurablethoughts.Althoughthisgodofself-controlisalegacyoftheCalvinistPuritanswhofoundedAmerica,itspowerextendedtomanyofthehuddledmasseswhocamefromquitedifferenttraditions.They,ofcourse,broughtwiththemtheirownnarratives,whichinthecontextofAmericaserved—wemightsay—as“localgods,”

butgodswithsufficientpowertogivepointtoschooling.HereIcanoffermyownschoolingasanexample.Igrewuplearning

tolovetheAmericanCreedwhileatthesametimebeinginspiredbyamore“tribal”story,towhichIhad(andstillhave)considerableattachment.AsthechildofJewishparents,Iwasrequiredtogototwoschools:theAmericanpublicschool,inwhichthenamesofWashington,Jefferson,Madison,TomPaine,andLincolnwereicons,anda“Jewish”school,inwhichthenamesofAbraham,Sarah,Isaac,Rebecca,Jacob,Rachel,Leah,andMoseswereequallysacred.(Itshouldbenotedthatthedemocracy-storyhasalmostnosignificantwomen;thechosen-people-storyhasplenty.)Aspresentedtome,thedemocracy-storydidnotconflictwiththechosen-people-story;neitherdidthegreatmelting-pot-story,nor,astonishinglyenough,didtheProtestant-ethic-story(perhapsbecauseitisnotmuchdifferentfrom“Jewishguilt,”whichproceedsfromtheassumptionthatwhateverhappens,itisyourfault).Thepointis(puttingguiltaside)thatthegreatAmericannarratives

sharewithmytribalonecertainnear-universalthemesandprinciples—forexample,familyhonor,restraint,socialresponsibility,humility,andempathyfortheoutcast.Integratingthesenarrativeswasnotdifficultformeorformypublicschoolclassmates,whowere,amongothers,Irish,Greek,Italian,andGerman,andwhohadtheirowntribaltalestoenrichandmeshwiththegreatnarrativesbeingtaughtinschool.Imightaddthatitdidnotoccurtomanyofusthattheschoolwas

obligedtopraiseourtribalstoriesoreventodiscussthem.Foronething,wedidnotbelieveourteacherswerequalifiedtodoso.Foranother,theteachersgavenohintthattheythoughtitwithintheirprovince.Forstillanother,ourclasseswerefartoomulticulturaltomakeitapracticalgoal.Theschools,itseemedtous,hadnobusinesstoconductwith“ethnicity.”(Thetermitself,incidentally,wasunknowntousatthetime,sinceitwasfirstusedin1940byW.LloydWarneranddidnotentercommonusageuntilmuchlater.)Thepromotionofethnicity,webelieved,wastheresponsibilityofthehome,where,amongotherthings,a“tribal”languagecouldbespokenfreely(inmycase,Yiddish)andwherereligioustraditionsandholidayswerehonoredand“non-American”foodwasconsumed.Thetaskwasalsotakenupbyone’schurchorsynagogue,byfraternalorganizations,andeventosomeextentbylocalpoliticalassociations.Someofourethnicstorieswere

alsotoldinthepopulararts—inmovies,forexample.Inthisrespect,theIrishdidextraordinarilywell,beingdepictedinmanyfilmsashardworking,family-oriented,fun-lovingpeoplewhosepriestssangliltinglyandwhosenunswerebeautiful.TheJewsandItaliansdidn’tfareaswell,theGreekswereignored,theblackswerehumiliated,and,ofcourse,theGermansweresavaged.Nonetheless,wedidnotexpecttheschoolstomakecompensation.OnlytomakeAmericans.Iamaware,ofcourse,thatthesituationIhavejustdescribedwasnot

entirelyuniformor,Ishouldsay,satisfactory.Asearlyas1915,grievanceswereexpressedagainstthemelting-potmetaphorandmoreparticularlyagainstitssupposedreality.6WhileitwasconcededthattheAmericanCreedwasbasedpredominantlyonanAnglo-Saxontradition,theargumentwasmadethatitsprincipleswerebeingenactedlargelybyimmigrants,whoenricheditbytheirowntraditionsandwho,inanycase,wouldnotabandontheirtribalidentities.Thus,theideaofculturalpluralismenteredtheschools,mostlybeginninginthe1930s.Thismeantthatinmanypublicschools(notmine),thehistory,literature,andtraditionsofdifferentimmigrantgroupswereincludedaspartofthegreattaleoftheAmericanCreed.Idonotknowiftheself-esteemandethnicprideofthechildrenofthehuddledmasseswereelevatedbyculturalpluralism.Probablyyesinsomecases;maybeno,withaccompanyingembarrassment,inafew.Althoughmyownschoolswereconsiderablylateinadoptingculturalpluralism,Idorememberanoccasionwhenateacher,inararegestureofaccommodationtoethnicdiversity,madeapointofemphasizingthecontributionoftheJewHaimSalomontothefinancingoftheRevolutionaryWar.Thefinancing?IwouldhavemuchpreferredifSalomonhadbeenPaulRevere’sbackup.Whateverthegainsorlossesmayhavebeenintheself-esteemofthe

students,culturalpluralismmadethreepositivecontributionstowardmaintainingthevitalityandusefulnessofthenarrativesunderlyingthepublicschoolexperience.First,itprovidedafullerandmoreaccuratepictureofAmericancultureand,especially,itshistory—whichistosay,itrevealedthedynamicnatureofthegreatAmericannarratives.Meltingpotornot,Americawasshowntobeacompositeculturefromwhich,inprinciple,nonewereexcluded.Second,atnopointwastheinclusionoftheimmigrantnarrativespresentedasarefutationoftheAmericanCreed.Eventhehorrendousstoriesofthemassacreof“native”

Americans,slavery,andtheexploitationof“coolie”laborcouldbetoldwithoutcondemningtheidealsofdemocracy,themeltingpot,ortheProtestantethic.Indeed,suchstoriesoftenservedasaninspirationtopurifytheAmericanCreed,toovercomeprejudice,toredeemourselvesfromtheblightedpartsofourhistory.Third,theinclusionofanyimmigrantnarrativewasnotintendedtopromotedivisivenessamongdifferentgroups.Theideawastoshowthatthereweresubstanceandrichnessineachtribaltale,andthatwewerebetterforknowingthegodsofotherpeople.Itwouldseemthatcertainversionsofwhatisnowcalled

“multiculturalism”rejectallthreeoftheseideas,andthisrejection,Iwillsoonargue,seriouslythreatensthefutureofpublic,asopposedtoprivate,schools.Here,Iwillsayonlythattheideaofpubliceducationdependsabsolutelyontheexistenceofsharednarrativesandtheexclusionofnarrativesthatleadtoalienationanddivisiveness.Whatmakespublicschoolspublicisnotsomuchthattheschoolshavecommongoalsbutthatthestudentshavecommongods.Thereasonforthisisthatpubliceducationdoesnotserveapublic.Itcreatesapublic.Andincreatingtherightkindofpublic,theschoolscontributetowardstrengtheningthespiritualbasisoftheAmericanCreed.ThatishowJeffersonunderstoodit,howHoraceMannunderstoodit,howJohnDeweyunderstoodit.And,infact,thereisnootherwaytounderstandit.Thequestionisnot,Doesordoesn’tpublicschoolingcreateapublic?Thequestionis,Whatkindofpublicdoesitcreate?Aconglomerateofself-indulgentconsumers?Angry,soulless,directionlessmasses?Indifferent,confusedcitizens?Orapublicimbuedwithconfidence,asenseofpurpose,arespectforlearning,andtolerance?Theanswertothisquestionhasnothingwhatevertodowithcomputers,withtesting,withteacheraccountability,withclasssize,andwiththeotherdetailsofmanagingschools.Therightanswerdependsontwothings,andtwothingsalone:theexistenceofsharednarrativesandthecapacityofsuchnarrativestoprovideaninspiredreasonforschooling.

I

2•SomeGodsThatFail

thasnotbeenagoodcenturyforgods,orevenagoodcenturyandahalf.CharlesDarwin,wemightsay,beganthegreatassault

byrevealingthatwewerenotthechildrenofGodbutofmonkeys.Hisrevelationtookitstollonhim;hesufferedfromunrelievedstomachandbowelpainsforwhichmedicalhistorianshavefailedtouncoveraphysicalcause.Nonetheless,Darwinwasunrepentantandhopedthatmanypeoplewouldfindinspiration,solace,andcontinuityinthegreatnarrativeofevolution.Butnotmanyhave,andthepsychictraumaheinducedcontinuesbarelyconcealedtoourownday.KarlMarx,whoinvitedDarwintowriteanintroductiontoDasKapital(Darwindeclined),toretoshredsthegodofNationalism,showing,withtheoryandcountlessexamples,howtheworkingclassesaredeludedintoidentifyingwiththeircapitalisttormentors.SigmundFreud,workingquietlyinhisconsultingroomatBergasse19inVienna,bidfairtobecometheworld’smostferociousgod-buster.HeshowedthatthegreatgodofReason,whoseauthorityhadbeencertifiedbytheAgeofEnlightenment,wasagreatimposter,thatitservedmostlytobothrationalizeandconcealthecommandsofourmostprimitiveurgings.Thecortex,asitwere,ismerelytheservantofGenitalia.Anoriginalbutsoul-searingidea,itmayevenbetrue.Allofthisnotbeingenough,Freuddestroyedthestoryofchildhoodinnocenceand,forgoodmeasure,triedtoprovethatMoseswasnotaJew(forwhichheapologizedbutdidnotrecant)andarguedthatourbeliefindeitieswasachildishandneuroticillusion.EventhegentleAlbertEinstein,thoughnothimselfanEinsteinian,contributedtothegeneraldisillusionment,wreakinghavoconIsaacNewton’sscience-god—aFreudianinstance,ifevertherewasone,ofthesonslayingthefather.Einstein’srevolutionarypapersledtotheideathatwedonotseethingsastheyarebutasweare.Theoldestaxiomofsurvival—seeingisbelieving—wasbroughttoheel.Itsopposite

—believingisseeing—turnedouttobeatleastastrue.Moreover,Einstein’sfollowershaveconcluded,andbelievetheyhaveproved,thatcompleteknowledgeisunattainable.Tryaswewill,wecanneverknowcertainthings—notbecausewelackintelligence,notevenbecauseweareenclosedinaprisonofprotoplasm,butbecausetheuniverseis,well,malicious.Theoddthingisthatthoughtheydifferedintemperament,eachof

thesemenintendedtoprovideuswithafirmerandmorehumanebasisforourbeliefs.Andsomedaythatmayyethappen.Meanwhile,humanityreelsfromwhathasbeenlost.Godisdead,Nietzschesaidbeforehewentinsane.Hemayhavemeantgodsaredead.Ifhedid,hewaswrong.Inthiscentury,newgodshaverushedintoreplacetheold,butmosthavehadnostayingpower(whichis,perhaps,whatNietzschewasprophesying).Ihavealreadyalludedtothreeofthem:thegodsofcommunism,Nazism,andfascism.Thefirstclaimedtorepresentthestoryofhistoryitself,andsocouldbesupposedtoserveasaninspirationuntilthefinaltriumphoftheproletariat.Itendedrathersuddenly,shockingly,andwithoutremorse,inarubbleofstoneontheoutskirtsofWestBerlin,leavingtheproletariattowonderifhistory,liketheuniverse,isalsomalicious.Hitler’sgreattalehadanevenshorterrun.HeprophesiedthattheThirdReichwouldlastathousandyears,perhapslongerthanhistoryitself.Hisstorybeganwithahugebonfirewhoseflamesweremeanttoconsume,onceandforall,thenarrativesofallothergods.Itendedtwelveyearslater,alsoinfireandalsoinBerlin,thebodyofitsgodheadmutilatedbeyondrecognition.Offascismwemaysayithasnotyethaditsfinalhour.Itlingershere

andthere,thoughhardlyasastoryworthtelling.Whereitstillexists,peopledonotbelieveinit,theyendureit.Andso,FrancisFukuyamatellsusinTheEndofHistory,thegreatnarrativeofliberaldemocracyhastriumphedatlastandbringsanendtohistory’sdialectic.WhichiswhysomanypeoplelooktoAmericawithanxiouseyestoseeifitsgodsmayservethemaswell.Sofar,America’sanswerhaslargelybeen,Believeinamarket

economy,whichisnotmuchofastory,notmuchofananswer.TheproblemisthatAmerica’sbettergodshavebeenbadlywounded.AsAmericahasmovedtowardthestatusofanempire(knowntoday,withmoralambiguity,maybeevenirony,astheworld’sonly“superpower”),

itsgreatstoryofliberaldemocracyhaslostmuchofitsluster.OfTocqueville’s“civicparticipation,”thereislessinAmericathaninanyotherindustrializednation.HalfofAmerica’seligiblevotersdonottakethetroubletogotothepollsinpresidentialelections,andmanywhodoformtheiropinionsbywatching,leaden-eyed,televisioncampaigncommercials.ItwouldbefrighteningtocontemplatehowfewknowthenamesoftheirrepresentativesinCongress,orwhoisthesecretaryofstate,orhowmanyevenknowthatthereissuchacabinetpost.SomeofthiscivicindifferenceisdoubtlessconnectedtothecynicismgeneratedbythecrudefabricationsofrecentAmericanleaders,especiallyLyndonJohnsonandRichardNixon,thelatterofwhommadethetermcover-upcommonplaceinpoliticaldiscourse.Moreover,theideathatAmerica,throughanenlightenedforeignpolicy,mayserveasamorallightuntonationswasdimmed,tosaytheleast,inthejunglesofVietnam,andthenmaderidiculousinGranada,Panama,andKuwait.CouldMarxhavehadsomethinglikethisinmindwhenhesaidthathistoryrepeatsitself,firstastragedyandthenasfarce?IdonotsaytheideaofAmericaasamoralmetaphorisdead.Wereit

dead,thestudentsinTienanmenSquarewouldnothaveusedtheStatueofLibertyastheirsymbol;thestudentsinPraguewouldnothavesurgedthroughthestreetsreadingaloudfromtheworksofThomasJefferson;andarmiesofimmigrantswouldnotbelandingeachdayatJohnF.KennedyAirportyearningtobreathefree.Throughalltheturmoil,itiswelltokeepinmindthatawoundedgodisdifferentfromadeadone.Wemayyethaveneedofthisone.Meanwhile,thenarrativeofthegreatmelting-pothasalsosufferedas

manyinsultsasanimperfectgodcanbear.Forsome,forexample,Koreans,Chinese,andRussians,ithasworkedtolerablywell,buttoomanyothershavebeenblockedfromsharinginthefullnessoftheAmericanpromisebecauseoftheirraceornativelanguage.ThecaseofAfrican-Americansinparticularisagrotesquecontradictionoftheromanceofablendedsociety,allthemoresobecausetheyarenotimmigrantsatall,butasnativeasmostAmericansget.Althoughtherehasbeenanastonishinggrowthofablackmiddleclass,whichissupposedtobethetestofagroup’sacceptanceintothemainstream,formillionsofblackstheAmericandreamisanightmareofpoverty,familydisintegration,violence,andjoblessness.Thesemattersweresupposedto

havebeenaddressedbyaforty-yearcommitmenttosocialequality,whichincludedsuchamendmentstothemelting-pot-storyasschoolintegration,theCivilRightsAct,openadmissionpolicies,andaffirmativeaction.Andyetforallofthat,blacksremain,asRalphEllisonwouldsayit,invisiblepeople.OnthedayIamwritingthis,forexample,AmericanshavebeencheeredbysomenewsissuedbytheBureauofLaborStatistics:Unemploymentisdown,indicatingtheeconomyisontheriseandbettertimesareahead.Barelycommenteduponandofalmostnointerestisthefactthatblackunemploymenthasincreased,ashas(otherfiguresshow)blackhomelessness,especiallyamongchildren.ItisasifAmericawishestoproceedwithitsbusinesswithouttheinclusionofblacks.Andyet,itisoneofthetrulyremarkable(andlargelyignored)factsofAmericanculturethatmillionsofblackscontinuetobelieveinAmerica’spromisesandinitsgreatnarratives,perhapsmoredeeplythandoanyothers.Thereare,ofcourse,othergroups—Latinos,forexample—whoseem

unabletofindawelcomingplaceforthemselvesinthemeltingpotandwhothereforefindsomethinglessthaninspirationinthepromiseembeddedinitsstory.AsfortherigoroustaleoftheblessednessofHardWork,toomanyAmericansnolongerbelieveinit.ThegreatschooloftheHigherLearning,television,teachesthemthatadreamdeferredisadreamforeverdenied—whichistosay,nodreamatall;thattheyare,infact,entitledtothefruitsoftechnology’slargesse;andthatthegodofConsumershipconfersitsgraciousnessmorefreelythancananygodofLabor.IwillcometothepromiseofthegodofConsumershipinafew

pages.HereitneedsonlytobesaidthatinAmerica,aselsewhere,thereexistswhatVaclavHavelcalls“acrisisinnarrative.”Oldgodshavefallen,eitherwoundedordead.Newoneshavebeenaborted.“Wearelooking,”hesaid,“fornewscientificrecipes,newideologies,newcontrolsystems,newinstitutions.…”Inotherwords,weseeknewgodswhocanprovideuswith“anelementarysenseofjustice,theabilitytoseethingsasothersdo,asenseoftranscendentalresponsibility,archetypalwisdom,goodtaste,courage,compassion,andfaith.”1Haveldoesnotunderestimatethedifficultiesinthis.Heknowsthat

skepticism,disillusionment,alienation—andalltheotherwordsweusetodescribealossofmeaning—havecometocharacterizeourage,

affectingeverysocialinstitution,notleasttheschools.HavingoncebeenpresidentofCzechoslovakia,andhavinglosttheSlovakstotheirowngods,Havelknows,betterthananyone,thatthealmostworldwidereturnto“tribalism”signifiesasearchtorecoverasourceoftranscendentidentityandvalues.Healsoknows,asmanyothersdo,howdangeroussuchsearchescanbe,whichiswhynooneneedbesurprisedbytheriseintheWestofskinheads,whohaverevivedthesymbolsandprogramsofNazism,or,asIwrite,theemergingpopularityinRussiaofVladimirZhirinovsky,the“RussianHitler,”whopromisesthemassesafuturemorefullyarticulatedthanaconversiontoamarketeconomy.Zhirinovskytakeshisstoryfromhell,butwemustgranthimthis:HeknowsaswellasHavelthatpeopleneedgodsasmuchasfood.Neithershouldwebesurprisedthattherehasarisen,especially

thoughnotexclusivelyinAmericanacademiccircles,akindofmetaphysicsofmeaninglessness,knownpopularlyasthephilosophyof“deconstruction.”Invented,sotosay,byareformedNazisympathizer,PauldeMan,deconstructionpostulatesthatthemeaningsofwordsarealwaysindeterminate,thatwordsarelessaboutrealitythanaboutotherwords,andthatthesearchfordefinitemeaninginwordsoranyplaceelseispointless,sincethereisnothingtofind.Howhecametothisconclusionisnotentirelyclear—perhapshewishedustobelieve,bywayofself-justification,thatitispossibletoreadMeinKampfasapaeanofpraisetotheJewishrace.Inanycase,nophilosophyofdeconstructioncanconcealthecrisisin

narrative,thedeclineofonce-sturdygods.Thecarnageispainfullyvisible,forexample,inthetrivialusestowhichsacredsymbolsarenowput,especiallyintheUnitedStates.Therecan,ofcourse,benofunctioningsenseofagreatnarrativewithoutameasureofrespectforitssymbols.Howaresuchsymbolsnowused?TakealmostanyofAmerica’soncegreatnarrativesandwecansee.Thereis,forexample,thestoryofourorigins,summarizedsoeloquentlyinAbrahamLincoln’sGettysburgAddress.Ittellsofanation“broughtforth”throughrevolution,destinedtoserveasanexampletotherestoftheworld.ThisisthesameAbrahamLincolnwhosefaceisusedtoannouncelinensalesinFebruary.EmmaLazarus’spoemcelebratinganimmigrantcultureislodgedatthebaseoftheStatueofLiberty.ThisisthesameStatueofLibertyusedbyanairlinetopersuadepotentialcustomerstoflyto

Miami.ThereisthestoryofaGod-fearingnationseekingguidanceandstrengthfromthelessonsoftheOldTestamentandthecommandmentsbroughtbyMoses.ThisisthesameMoseswhoisdepictedinapostersellingkosherchickens.OfChristmasandtheusesmadeofitssignificantsymbols,thelesssaidthebetter.ButitprobablyshouldbenotedthatHebrewNationalusesbothUncleSamandGod(withacapitalG)tosellfrankfurters,MartinLutherKing,Jr.’sbirthdayislargelyusedasanoccasionforfurnituresales,andtheinfantJesusandMaryhavebeeninvokedtopromoteVH-1,arock-musictelevisionstation.Itisdifficulttosayifthiserosionofsymbols,thisobliterationofthe

differencebetweenthesacredandtheprofane,istheeffectorthecauseofacrisisinnarrative.Mostly,Iwouldsay,theeffect(althougheffectsquicklybecomecausesinthesematters).Whicheverthecase,weareledtoconcludethatitisnotagoodtimeforgodsandtheirsymbols,andisthereforeabadtimeforsocialinstitutionsthatdrawtheirpowerfrommetaphysicalsources.Thisleadsusatlasttothequestion,Whatdoesallthismeanfortheenterpriseofschooling?Theanswerthatcomesmostreadilyandnastilytomindisthatthe

majorityofeducatorshaveignoredthequestionaltogether.Manyhavefocusedtheirattentionontheengineeringoflearning,theirjournalsbeingfilledwithaccountsofresearchthatshowthiswayorthattobebetterforteachingreading,mathematics,orsocialstudies.Theevidenceforthesuperiorityofonemethodoveranotherisusuallygiveninthelanguageofstatistics,which,inspiteofitsabstractnature,isstrangelyreferredtoas“hardevidence.”Thisgivestheprofessionasenseofmakingprogress,andsometimesdelusionsofgrandeur.IrecentlyreadanarticleinTheAmericanEducatorinwhichtheauthorclaimsthatteachingmethodsbasedonresearchincognitivescienceare“theeducationalequivalentsofpoliovaccineandpenicillin.”2Fromwhatdiseasescognitivesciencewillprotectourstudentsisnot

entirelyclear.Butinfact,itdoesnotmatter.Theeducationallandscapeisfloodedwithsimilarclaimsofthemiraclesthatwillflowfromcomputerscience,schoolchoice,teacheraccountability,nationalstandardsofstudentassessment,andwhole-languagelearning.Whynotcognitivescience,aswell?Therewasatimewheneducatorsbecamefamousforproviding

reasonsforlearning;nowtheybecomefamousforinventingamethod.

Thereare,ofcourse,manythingswrongwithallofthis,notleastthatitdivertsattentionfromimportantmatters—forexample,thefundamentalsimplicityofteachingandlearningwhenbothteacherandstudentshareareasonfortheenterprise.AsTheodoreRoszakhaswritten:“Toomuchapparatus,liketoomuchbureaucracy,onlyinhibitsthenaturalflow[ofteachingandlearning].Freehumandialogue,wanderingwherevertheagilityofthemindallows,liesattheheartofeducation.Ifteachersdonothavethetime,theincentive,orthewittoprovidethat;ifstudentsaretoodemoralized,boredordistractedtomustertheattentiontheirteachersneedofthem,thenthatistheeducationalproblemwhichhastobesolved—andsolvedfrominsidetheexperienceoftheteachersandthestudents.”3Thatproblem,asIhavebeensaying,ismetaphysicalinnature,not

technical.Anditissadthatsomanyofourbestmindsineducationdonotacknowledgethis.But,ofcourse,somedo,anditisneitherfairnoraccuratetosaythateducatorshavebeenentirelyindifferenttothemetaphysicsofschooling.Thetruthisthatschoolcannotexistwithoutsomereasonforitsbeing,andinfactthereareseveralgodsourstudentsarepresentlyaskedtoserve.Itwilltaketherestofthischapterandallofthenextformetodescribethemandtoshowwhyeachisincapableofsustaining,withrichness,seriousness,anddurability,theideaofapublicschool.Asithappens,thefirstnarrativeconsistsofsuchanuninspiringsetof

assumptionsthatitishardlynoticedasanarrativeatall.Butwemaycountitasone,largelybecausesomanybelieveittobethepreeminentreasonforschooling.ItmayproperlygobythenameofthegodofEconomicUtility.Asitsnamesuggests,itisapassionlessgod,coldandsevere.Butitmakesapromise,andnotatrivialone.Addressingtheyoung,itoffersacovenantofsortswiththem:Ifyouwillpayattentioninschool,anddoyourhomework,andscorewellontests,andbehaveyourself,youwillberewardedwithawell-payingjobwhenyouaredone.Itsdrivingideaisthatthepurposeofschoolingistopreparechildrenforcompetententryintotheeconomiclifeofacommunity.Itfollowsfromthisthatanyschoolactivitynotdesignedtofurtherthisendisseenasafrilloranornament—whichistosay,awasteofvaluabletime.Theoriginsofthisworldviewaretraceabletoseveraltraditions,

beginning,obviously,withthenever-endingstruggletoprovideourselveswithmaterialsustenance.Peopleneedtoeat.Nothingcouldbeplainerthanthat.Whatareschoolsfor—whatisanythingfor—ifnottoprovideuswiththemeanstoearnourbread?Butthereismoretoitthanthis.ThegodofEconomicUtilityisnotentirelywithoutaspiritualglow,dimasthatmightbe.Itdoes,infact,tellastoryofsorts,partsofwhichcanbefoundinAdamSmith’sTheWealthofNations,inthetaleoftheProtestantethic,andeveninthewritingsofKarlMarx.Thestorytellsusthatwearefirstandforemosteconomiccreatures,andthatoursenseofworthandpurposeistobefoundinourcapacitytosecurematerialbenefits.Thisisonereasonwhytheschoolingofwomen,untilrecently,wasnotconsideredofhighvalue.Accordingtothisgod,youarewhatyoudoforaliving—aratherproblematicconceptionofhumannatureevenifonecouldbeassuredofastimulatingandbountifuljob.Nonetheless,thatassuranceisgiventhroughacleardelineationofgoodandevil.Goodnessinheresinproductivity,efficiency,andorganization;evilininefficiencyandsloth.Likeanyself-respectinggod,thisonewithholdsitsfavorfromthosewhoareevilandbestowsitabundantlyonthosewhoaregood.ThestorygoesontopreachthatAmericaisnotsomuchacultureas

itisaneconomy,andthatthevitalityofanynation’seconomyrestsonhighstandardsofachievementandrigorousdisciplineinschools.Thereislittleevidence(thatistosay,none)thattheproductivityofanation’seconomyisrelatedtothequalityofitsschooling.4Buteverygodhasunsubstantiatedaxioms,andmostpeoplearecontenttoletthisonegounexamined.ThosewhobelieveinitareinclinedtocomparetheachievementsofAmericanschoolchildrenwiththoseofchildrenfromothercountries.TheideaistoshowthattheAmericansdonotdoaswellincertainkeysubjects,thusaccountingforfailuresinAmericanproductivity.Thereareseveralproblemswiththislogic,amongthemthedifficultiesincomparinggroupsthatdiffergreatlyintheirtraditions,language,values,andgeneralorientationtotheworld.AnotheristhatevenifitcanbeshownthatAmericanstudentsareinferiorinsomerespects—letussayinmathematicsandreading—tostudentsincertainothercountries,thosecountriesdonotuniformlyhavehigherstandardsofeconomicproductivitythanAmerica.Since1970,theU.S.economyhasgenerated41millionnewjobs.Bycontrast,theentireEuropean

Union,whosepopulationisclosetoone-thirdlargerthanthatoftheUnitedStates,hascreatedonly8millionnewjobs.AndallthishasoccurredduringaperiodwhenAmericanstudentshaveperformedlesswellthanEuropeanstudents.5Moreover,itcanberathereasilyshownfromanhistoricalperspectivethatduringperiodsofhigheconomicproductivityinAmerica,levelsofeducationalachievementwerenotespeciallyhigh.Thewholebusinessis,tosaytheleast,problematic,andmost

industrialnationsgivenocredencetoit.Thatiswhy,forexample,theGermansandJapaneseareopeninghugeautomobileplantsinAmerica,andinstatesnotfamousfortheexcellenceoftheireducationalsystems.EvenifonearguedthatsuchinvestmentsaremadebecauselaborischeaperinAmerica,companieslikeMercedes-Benz,BMW,andHondawouldsurelynotproceedwithbillion-dollarinvestmentsiftheybelievedtheinferioreducationofAmericanspreventedthemfromproducingautomobilesofcompetitivequality.OneneedhardlyaddthatthestoryofthegodofEconomicUtilityis

rarelybelievedbystudentsandcertainlyhasalmostnopowertoinspirethem.Generally,youngpeoplehavetoomuchcuriosityabouttheworldandfartoomuchvitalitytobeattractedtoanideathatreducesthemtoasingledimension.Ididknowayoungsteronce—hewasinthesecondgrade—who,uponbeingaskedwhathewantedtobewhenhegrewup,answeredwithouthesitation,“Anorthodontist.”Itishardtoimagineamoredepressinganswer.Itisunnaturalforchildrentoregardthemselvesaseconomicunitsexceptunderextremecircumstances,andprobablynoteventhen.Nonetheless,sincehisparentshadclearlyputthatideaintohishead,Iassumetheywouldhaveapproved.Manyparents,infact,areapttoliketheideaofschoolasaprimarytraininggroundforfutureemployment,asdomanycorporateexecutives.ThisiswhythestoryofEconomicUtilityistoldandretoldintelevisioncommercialsandpoliticalspeechesasthereasonwhychildrenshouldgotoschool,andstayinschool,andwhyschoolsshouldreceivepublicsupport.Butforallitswidespreadpopularity,thegodofEconomicUtilityis

impotenttocreatesatisfactoryreasonsforschooling.Puttingasideitsassumptionthateducationandproductivitygohandinhand,itspromiseofprovidinginterestingemploymentis,liketherestofit,overdrawn.

Thereisnostrongevidenceforbelievingthatwell-paying,stimulatingjobswillbeavailabletomoststudentsupongraduation.Since1980,inAmericaatleast,thelargestincreaseinjobshasbeenforthosewithrelativelylowskills—forexample,waiters,porters,salespeople,taxidrivers.Imeannodisrespecttothosewhodothesejobscompetently,buttheirskillsarehardlysocomplexthattheschoolsmustbepreoccupiedwithteachingthem.Infact,almostanythingtheschoolsmightteachwouldbesuitableforpreparingtheyoungforsuchwork.Ofcourse,well-paying,highlycompetitivejobswillbeavailable,asalways,tothosewithahighdegreeofcompetenceintheusesoflanguage.Butnoseriousargumentcanbemade,notevenbyorthodontists,thatthesolereasonwhylanguagecompetenceisusefulistoensureentryintoaprivilegedprofession.Evenifsuchapropositionwereputforward,wewouldnotknowwhichprofessionsourstudentsmightaspireto,andthereforewewouldnotknowwhatspecializedcompetencetheywouldrequire.Ifweknew,forexample,thatallourstudentswishedtobecorporateexecutives,wouldwetrainthemtobegoodreadersofmemos,quarterlyreports,andstockquotations,andnotbothertheirheadswithpoetry,science,history?Ithinknot.Everyonewhothinks,thinksnot.Specializedcompetencecancomeonlythroughamoregeneralizedcompetence,whichistosaythateconomicutilityisaby-productofagoodeducation.Anyeducationthatismainlyabouteconomicutilityisfartoolimitedtobeuseful,and,inanycase,sodiminishestheworldthatitmocksone’shumanity.Attheveryleast,itdiminishestheideaofwhatagoodlearneris.Sadtosay,someofAmerica’smostimportantpoliticalleaders

believethatonewholearnshowtobeusefuleconomicallywillhavelearnedhowtobeaneducatedperson.Aheadline,earlyin1994,announced:CLINTONTELLSEDUCATORSYOUTHSARENOTGETTINGPRACTICALSKILLSFORJOBS.6ThestoryquotesthePresidentassaying,“Inthenineteenthcentury,atmost,youngAmericansneededahighschooleducationtomaketheirway.…Itwasgoodenoughiftheycouldreadwellandunderstandbasicnumbers.Inthetwenty-firstcentury,ourpeoplewillhavetokeeplearningalltheirlives.”Ofcourse,inthenineteenthcenturyitwasalsodesirableforpeopletocontinuelearningalltheirlives.Infact,therewasfarmoretechnologicalchangeinthenineteenth

centurythanislikelytooccurinthetwenty-first.Thenineteenthcenturygaveustelegraphy,photography,therotarypress,thetelephone,thetypewriter,thephonograph,thetransatlanticcable,theelectriclight,movies,thelocomotive,rockets,thesteamboat,theXray,therevolver,thecomputer,andthestethoscope,nottomentioncannedfood,thepennypress,themodernmagazine,theadvertisingagency,themodernbureaucracy,and,forGod’ssake,eventhesafetypin.ButletussupposethePresidentdidnotlearnaboutthisinArkansasschoolsandwasadvancingthestandard-brandargumentthatwithcontinuing,rapidtechnologicalchangethejobmarketwillrequirepeoplewhoareadaptabletochange,whocanlearnnewconceptseasily,andwhocandiscardunusableassumptionswithouttrauma.Thisisaverydifficulttaskfortheschools,andonethatJohnDeweyheldtobeoftheutmostimportance.ThePresident’ssolutionistoprovidetheyoungwithmorepracticalvocationalskills,whichappearstobe,notsurprisingly,thesamesolutionofferedtoCaliforniaeducatorsbyLaborSecretaryRobertReichandEducationSecretaryRichardRiley.7Ofcourse,thisisexactlythewrongsolution,sincethemakingofadaptable,curious,open,questioningpeoplehasnothingtodowithvocationaltrainingandeverythingtodowithhumanisticandscientificstudies.ThePresident’sspeechandtheadviceofhiscolleaguesdemonstratethattheythemselveshavedifficultydiscardingoutmodedassumptions,includingtheirbeliefthatifsomethingisnotworking—forexample,trainingpeopleforjobs—thenwhatisneededismoreofit.YetitmustbeadmittedthatthePresidentandallhismenwere

cheered,andcheeredbyeducators,forplacingthegodofEconomicUtilitybeforeallothers.Onemaywellwonder,then,whythisgodhassomuchstrength,whythepreparationformakingaliving,whichiswellservedbyanydecenteducation,shouldbeassignedametaphysicalpositionofsuchhighstation.IbelievethereasonisthatthegodofEconomicUtilityiscoupledwithanothergod,onewithasmilingfaceandonethatprovidesananswertothequestion,IfIgetagoodjob,thenwhat?IreferheretothegodofConsumership,whosebasicmoralaxiomis

expressedintheslogan“Whoeverdieswiththemosttoys,wins”—thatistosay,goodnessinheresinthosewhobuythings;evilinthosewhodonot.ThesimilaritybetweenthisgodandthegodofEconomicUtilityis

obvious,butwiththisdifference:Thelatterpostulatesthatyouarewhatyoudoforaliving;theformerthatyouarewhatyouaccumulate.DevotiontothegodofConsumershipserveseasilyasthe

metaphysicalbasisofschoolingbecauseitisurgedontheyoungearlyintheirlives,longbeforetheygettoschool—infact,assoonastheyareexposedtothepowerfulteachingsoftheadvertisingindustry.InAmerica,forexample,thepreeminentadvertisingmediumistelevision,andtelevisionviewingusuallybeginsatageeighteenmonths,gettingseriousbyagethree.Thisistheageatwhichchildrenbegintoaskforproductstheyseeadvertisedontelevisionandsingthejinglesaccompanyingthem.Betweentheagesofthreeandeighteen,theaverageAmericanyoungsterwillseeabout500,000televisioncommercials,whichmeansthatthetelevisioncommercialisthesinglemostsubstantialsourceofvaluestowhichtheyoungareexposed.Onthefaceofit,thepropositionthatlifeismadeworthwhilebybuyingthingswouldnotseemtobeanespeciallyengrossingmessage,buttwothingsmakeitotherwise.ThefirstisthatthegodofConsumershipisintimatelyconnectedwithstillanothergreatnarrative,thegodofTechnology.Thesecondisthatthetelevisionmessagessentaboutconsumershipandtechnologycomelargelyintheformofreligiousparables.Thissecondpointisnotdiscussedasmuchasitoughttobe,andIpauseheretospeakofittoemphasizethefactthatthegodofConsumershiphasatheologythatcannotbetakenlightly.Ofcourse,noteverycommercialhasreligiouscontent.Justasin

churchthepastorwillsometimescallthecongregation’sattentiontononecclesiasticalmatters,sotherearetelevisioncommercialsthatareentirelysecular.Someonehassomethingtosell;youaretoldwhatitis,whereitcanbeobtained,andwhatitcosts.Thoughtheseadsmaybeshrillandoffensive,nodoctrineisadvancedandnotheologyinvoked.Butthemajorityofimportanttelevisioncommercialstaketheformofreligiousparablesorganizedaroundacoherenttheology.Likeallreligiousparables,thesecommercialsputforwardaconceptofsin,intimationsofthewaytoredemption,andavisionofHeaven.ThiswillbeobvioustothosewhohavetakentohearttheParableofthePersonwithRottenBreath,theParableoftheStupidInvestor,theParableoftheLostTraveler’sChecks,theParableoftheManWhoRunsThroughAirports,ormostofthehundredsofothersthatarepartofouryouth’s

religiouseducation.Intheseparables,therootcauseofevilistechnologicalinnocence,afailuretoknowtheparticularsofthebeneficentaccomplishmentsofindustrialprogress.Thisistheprimarysourceofunhappiness,humiliation,anddiscordinlife.Technologicalinnocencerefersnotonlytoignoranceofdetergents,drugs,sanitarynapkins,cars,salves,andfoodstuffsbutalsotoignoranceoftechnicalmechanismssuchasbanksandtransportationsystems.Inatypicalparable,you(thatis,thesurrogate“you”)maycomeuponyourneighborswhileonvacation(alwaysasignofdangerintelevisioncommercials)anddiscoverthattheyhaveinvestedtheirmoneyinacertainbankofwhosespecialhighinterestratesyouhavebeenunaware.Thisis,ofcourse,amoraldisaster,asbecomesclearwhenyoulearnthatyourneighbors’vacationwilllastforthreeweeks;yoursmustlastonlyone.Thepathtoredemptionrequiresthatonebelievetheadvicegivenin

thecommercialandthenactuponit.Thosewhodoboth,asshownintheparable,willhavefoundtheirwaytoHeaven,moreorlessinastateofecstasy.ItisprobablyunnecessarytosaythatalltraditionalreligionsrejectthegodofConsumership,claimingthatdevotiontoitisafalsespirituality,ifnotoutrightblasphemy.Onewouldthinkthatourschoolswouldalsobeinexplicitoppositiontosuchagod,sinceeducationissupposedtofreetheyoungfromthebondageofcrudematerialism.But,infact,manyofourschools,especiallyinrecenttimes,havealliedthemselveswiththisgodinamostemphaticway.Irefer,forexample,tothefactthatapproximatelytenthousandschoolshaveacceptedtheoffermadebyChristopherWhittletoinclude,daily,twominutesofcommercialmessagesinthecurriculum—thefirsttime,tomyknowledge,thatanadvertiserhasemployedthepowerofthestatetoforceanyonetowatchcommercials.Inexchangeforthisopportunity,Whittleoffershisownten-minuteversionofthenewsofthedayandfree,expensivetelevisionequipment,includingasatellitedish.Thatschoolswouldacceptsuchanarrangementrevealstwothings

simultaneously.Thefirst,ofcourse,isthatthereiswidespreadsupportforthegodofConsumership.Thatistosay,theschoolsseenocontradictionbetweenanythingtheymightwishthestudentstolearnandwhatcommercialswishthemtolearn.ThesecondisthatthereisequallywidesupportforthegodofTechnology,towhichIwillturnin

thefollowingchapter.Here,itisnecessarytosaythatnoreasonableargumentcanbemadeagainsteducatingtheyoungtobeconsumersortothinkaboutthekindsofemploymentthatmightinterestthem.Butwhentheseareelevatedtothestatusofametaphysicalimperative,wearebeingtoldthatwehavereachedtheendofourwits—evenworse,thelimitofourwisdom.

I

3•SomeNewGodsThatFail

fonehasatrustingrelationshipwithone’sstudents(letussaygraduatestudents)andthesubjectunderdiscussionisthesameas

thesubjectofthisbook,itisnotaltogethergauchetoaskthemiftheybelieveinGod(withacapitalG).Ihavedonethisthreeorfourtimes,andmoststudentssaytheydo.Theiranswerispreliminarytothenextquestion:IfsomeoneyouloveweredesperatelyillandyouhadtochoosebetweenprayingtoGodforhisorherrecoveryoradministeringanantibiotic(asprescribedbyacompetentphysician),whichwouldyouchoose?Mostsaythequestionissilly,sincethealternativesarenotmutually

exclusive.Ofcourse.Butsupposetheywere;whichwouldyouchoose?Godhelpsthosewhohelpthemselves,somesayinchoosingtheantibiotic,andtherebygettingthebestoftwopossiblebeliefsystems.Butifpushedtothewall(forexample,Goddoesnotalwayshelpthosewhohelpthemselves;Godhelpsthosewhoprayandwhobelieve),mostsaytheantibiotic,afternotingthatthequestionisasinineandprovesnothing.Ofcourse,thequestionwasnotasked,inthefirstplace,toproveanything,buttobeginadiscussionofthenatureofbelief.AndIdonotfailtoinformthestudents,bytheway,thattherehasrecentlyemergedatleastsome(thoughnotconclusive)evidenceofascientificnaturethatwhensickpeopleareprayedfor,theydobetterthanthosewhoaren’t.1Asthediscussionproceeds,importantdistinctionsaremadeamong

thedifferentmeaningsof“belief,”butatsomepointitbecomesfarfromasininetospeakofthegodofTechnology—inthesensethatpeoplebelievetechnologyworks,thattheyrelyonit,thatitmakespromises,thattheyarebereftwhendeniedaccesstoit,thattheyaredelightedwhentheyareinitspresence,thatformostpeopleitworksinmysteriousways,thattheycondemnpeoplewhospeakagainstit,that

theystandinaweofit,andthat,intheborn-againmode,theywillaltertheirlifestyles,theirschedules,theirhabits,andtheirrelationshipstoaccommodateit.Ifthisbenotaformofreligiousbelief,whatis?InallstrandsofAmericanculturallife,onecanfindsomany

examplesoftechnologicaladorationthatitispossibletowriteabookaboutit.AndIwouldifithadnotalreadybeendonesowell.ButnowheredoyoufindmoreenthusiasmforthegodofTechnologythanamongeducators.Infact,therearethose,likeLewisPerelman,whoargue(forexample,inhisbookSchool’sOut)thatmoderninformationtechnologieshaverenderedschoolsentirelyirrelevant,sincethereisnowmuchmoreinformationavailableoutsidetheclassroomthaninside.Thisisbynomeansconsideredanoutlandishidea.Dr.DianeRavitch,formerAssistantU.S.SecretaryofEducation,envisions,withconsiderablerelish,thechallengethattechnologypresentstothetraditionthat“children(andadults)shouldbeeducatedinaspecificplace,foracertainnumberofhours,andacertainnumberofdaysduringtheweekandyear.”Inotherwords,thatchildrenshouldbeeducatedinschool.Imaginingthepossibilitiesofaninformationsuperhighwayofferingperhapsathousandchannels,Dr.Ravitchassuresusthat:

Inthisnewworldofpedagogicalplenty,childrenandadultswillbeabletodialupaprogramontheirhometelevisiontolearnwhatevertheywanttoknow,attheirownconvenience.IfLittleEvacannotsleep,shecanlearnalgebrainstead.Atherhome-learningstation,shewilltuneintoaseriesofinterestingproblemsthatarepresentedinaninteractivemedium,muchlikevideogames.…YoungJohnmaydecidethathewantstolearnthehistoryofmodernJapan,whichhecandobydialingupthegreatestauthoritiesandteachersonthesubject,whowillnotonlyusedazzlinggraphsandillustrations,butwillnarrateahistoricalvideothatexciteshiscuriosityandimagination.2Inthisvision,thereis,itseemstome,aconfidentandtypicalsense

ofunreality.LittleEvacan’tsleep,soshedecidestolearnalittlealgebra?WheredidLittleEvacomefrom,Mars?Ifnot,itismorelikelyshewilltuneintoagoodmovie.YoungJohndecidesthathewantstolearnthehistoryofmodernJapan?HowdidyoungJohncometothispoint?Howisitthathenevervisitedalibraryuptonow?Orisitthat

he,too,couldn’tsleepanddecidedalittlemodernJapanesehistorywasjustwhatheneeded?WhatRavitchistalkingabouthereisnotanewtechnologybutanew

speciesofchild,onethat,inanycase,hasn’tbeenseenverymuchuptonow.Ofcourse,newtechnologiesdomakenewkindsofpeople,whichleadstoasecondobjectiontoRavitch’sconceptionofthefuture.Thereisakindofforthrightdeterminismabouttheimaginedworlddescribedinit.Thetechnologyishereorwillbe;wemustuseitbecauseitisthere;wewillbecomethekindofpeoplethetechnologyrequiresustobe;and,whetherwelikeitornot,wewillremakeourinstitutionstoaccommodatethetechnology.Allofthismusthappenbecauseitisgoodforus,butinanycase,wehavenochoice.Thispointofviewispresentinverynearlyeverystatementaboutthe

futurerelationoflearningtotechnology.And,asinRavitch’sscenario,thereisalwaysacheery,gee-whiztonetotheprophecies.HereisoneproducedbytheNationalAcademyofSciences,writtenbyHughMcIntosh.

SchoolforchildrenoftheInformationAgewillbevastlydifferentthanitwasforMomandDad.Interestedinbiology?Designyourownlifeformswithcomputer

simulation.Havingtroublewithascienceproject?Teleconferenceaboutit

witharesearchscientist.Boredwiththerealworld?Gointoavirtualphysicslaband

rewritethelawsofgravity.Thesearethekindsofhands-onlearningexperiencesschools

couldbeprovidingrightnow.Thetechnologiesthatmakethempossiblearealreadyhere,andtoday’syoungsters,regardlessofeconomicstatus,knowhowtousethem.Theyspendhourswiththemeveryweek—notintheclassroom,butintheirownhomesandinvideogamecentersateveryshoppingmall.3Itisalwaysinterestingtoattendtotheexamplesoflearning,andthe

motivationsthatignitethem,inthesongsoflovethattechnophilesperformforus.Itis,forexample,noteasytoimagineresearchscientistsallovertheworldteleconferencingwiththousandsofstudentswhoarehavingdifficultywiththeirscienceprojects.Ican’thelpthinkingthatmostresearchscientistswouldputastoptothisratherquickly.ButI

finditespeciallyrevealingthatintheprecedingscenario,wehaveanexampleofatechnologicalsolutiontoapsychologicalproblemthatwouldseemtobeexceedinglyserious.Wearepresentedwithastudentwhois“boredwiththerealworld.”Whatdoesitmeantosaysomeoneisboredwiththerealworld,especiallyonesoyoung?Canajourneyintovirtualrealitycuresuchaproblem?Andifitcan,willourtroubledyoungsterwanttoreturntotherealworld?Confrontedwithastudentwhoisboredwiththerealworld,Idon’tthinkwecangetawaysoeasilybymakingavailableavirtual-realityphysicslab.Therolethatnewtechnologyshouldplayinschoolsoranywhereelse

issomethingthatneedstobediscussedwithoutthehyperactivefantasiesofcheerleaders.Inparticular,thecomputeranditsassociatedtechnologiesareawesomeadditionstoaculture,andtheyarequitecapableofalteringthepsychic,letalonethesleeping,habitsofouryoung.Butlikeallimportanttechnologiesofthepast,theyareFaustianbargains,givingandtakingaway,sometimesinequalmeasure,sometimesmoreinonewaythantheother.Itisstrange—indeed,shocking—thatwiththetwenty-firstcenturysocloseonourheels,wecanstilltalkofnewtechnologiesasiftheywereunmixedblessings,gifts,asitwere,fromthegods.Don’tweallknowwhatthecombustionenginehasdoneforusandagainstus?Whattelevisionisdoingforusandagainstus?Attheveryleast,whatweneedtodiscussaboutLittleEva,YoungJohn,andMcIntosh’strioiswhattheywilllose,andwhatwewilllose,iftheyenteraworldinwhichcomputertechnologyistheirchiefsourceofmotivation,authority,and,apparently,psychologicalsustenance.Willtheybecome,asJosephWeizenbaumwarns,moreimpressedbycalculationthanhumanjudgment?Willspeedofresponsebecome,morethanever,adefiningqualityofintelligence?If,indeed,theideaofaschoolwillbedramaticallyaltered,whatkindsoflearningwillbeneglected,perhapsmadeimpossible?Isvirtualrealityanewformoftherapy?Ifitis,whatareitsdangers?Theseareseriousmatters,andtheyneedtobediscussedbythose

whoactuallyknowsomethingaboutchildrenfromtheplanetEarth,andwhosevisionofchildren’sneeds,andtheneedsofasociety,gobeyondthinkingofschoolmainlyasaplacefortheconvenientdistributionofinformation.Schoolsarenotnowandhaveneverbeenchieflyaboutgettinginformationtochildren.Thathasbeenontheschools’agenda,of

course,butithasalwaysbeenwaydownonthelist.Inamoment,Iwillmentionafewschoolfunctionsthatarehigher,buthereitneedssayingthatfortechnologicalUtopians,thecomputervaultsinformationaccesstothetop.Thisreshufflingofprioritiescomes,onemightsay,atamostinopportunetime.Theproblemofgivingpeoplegreateraccesstomoreinformation,faster,moreconveniently,andinmorediverseformswasthemaintechnologicalthrustofthenineteenthcentury.Somefolkshaven’tnoticedit,butthatproblemwaslargelysolved,sothatforalmostonehundredyears,therehasbeenmoreinformationavailabletotheyoungoutsidetheschoolthaninside.Thatfactdidnotmaketheschoolsobsolete,anditdoesnotmakethemobsoletenow.Yes,itistruethatLittleEva,theinsomniacfromMars,couldturnonanalgebralesson,thankstothecomputer,intheweehoursofthemorning.Shecouldalso,ifshewished,readabookormagazine,watchtelevision,popavideointotheVCR,turnontheradio,orlistentomusic.Allofthisshecouldhavedonebeforethecomputer.Thecomputerdoesnotsolveanyproblemshehasbutexacerbatesone.ForLittleEva’sproblemisnothowtogetaccesstoawell-structuredalgebralesson,butwhattodowithalltheinformationavailabletoherduringtheday,aswellasduringsleeplessnights.Perhapsthisiswhyshecouldn’tsleepinthefirstplace.LittleEva,liketherestofus,isoverwhelmedbyinformation.Shelivesinaculturewhichhas260,000billboards,17,000newspapers,12,000periodicals,27,000videooutletsforrentingtapes,400milliontelevisionsets,andwellover500millionradios,notincludingthoseinautomobiles.Thereare40,000newbooktitlespublishedeveryyear,andeachday41millionphotographsaretaken.And,thankstothecomputer,over60billionpiecesofadvertisingjunkmailarriveinourmailboxeseveryyear.EverythingfromtelegraphyandphotographyinthenineteenthcenturytothesiliconchipinthetwentiethhasamplifiedthedinofinformationintrudingonLittleEva’sconsciousness.Frommillionsofsourcesallovertheglobe,througheverypossiblechannelandmedium—lightwaves,airwaves,tickertapes,computerbanks,telephonewires,televisioncables,satellites,andprintingpresses—informationpoursin.Behinditineveryimaginableformofstorage—onpaper,onvideo,onaudiotape,ondiscs,film,andsiliconchips—isanevengreatervolumeofinformationwaitingtoberetrieved.Inthefaceofthis,wemightask,WhatcanschoolsdoforLittleEvabesidesmaking

stillmoreinformationavailable?Ifthereisnothing,thennewtechnologieswillindeedmakeschoolsobsolete.Butinfact,thereisplenty.Onethingthatcomestomind,ofwhichsomethingwillbesaidlater

inthebook,istoprovideherwithaseriousformoftechnologyeducation,somethingquitedifferentfrominstructioninusingcomputerstoprocessinformation,which,itstrikesme,isatrivialthingtodo,fortworeasons.Inthefirstplace,approximately35millionpeoplehavealreadylearnedhowtousecomputerswithoutthebenefitofschoolinstruction.Iftheschoolsdonothing,mostofthepopulationwillknowhowtousecomputersinthenexttenyears,justasmostofthepopulationlearnedhowtodrivecarswithoutschoolinstruction.Inthesecondplace,whatweneededtoknowaboutcars—asweneedtoknowaboutcomputers,television,andotherimportanttechnologies—isnothowtousethembuthowtheyuseus.Inthecaseofcars,whatweneededtothinkaboutintheearlytwentiethcenturywasnothowtodrivethembutwhattheywoulddotoourair,ourlandscape,oursocialrelations,ourfamilylife,andourcities.Supposethatin1946,wehadstartedtoaddresssimilarquestionsabouttelevision:Whatwouldbeitseffectsonourpoliticalinstitutions,ourpsychichabits,ourchildren,ourreligiousconceptions,oureconomy?Wouldn’twebebetterpositionedtodaytocontroltelevision’smassiveassaultonAmericanculture?Iamtalkinghereaboutmakingtechnologyitselfanobjectofinquiry,

sothatLittleEvaandYoungJohninusingtechnologieswillnotbeusedorabusedbythem,sothatLittleEvaandYoungJohnbecomemoreinterestedinaskingquestionsaboutthecomputerthaningettinganswersfromit.Iamnotarguingagainstusingcomputersinschool.Iamarguing

againstoursleepwalkingattitudestowardit,againstallowingittodistractusfrommoreimportantthings,againstmakingagodofit.ThisiswhatTheodoreRoszakwarnedagainstinTheCultofInformation:“Likeallcults,”hewrote,“thisonehastheintentionofenlistingmindlessallegianceandacquiescence.Peoplewhohavenoclearideaofwhattheymeanbyinformation,orwhytheyshouldwantsomuchofit,arenonethelesspreparedtobelievethatweliveinanInformationAge,whichmakeseverycomputerarounduswhattherelicsoftheTrueCrosswereintheAgeofFaith:emblemsofsalvation.”4Tothis,Iwouldadd

thesageobservationofAlanKayofAppleComputer.Kayiswidelyassociatedwiththeinventionofthepersonalcomputer,andcertainlyhasaninterestintheuseofcomputersinschools.Nonetheless,hehasrepeatedlysaidthatanyproblemstheschoolscannotsolvewithoutcomputers,theycannotsolvewiththem.Whataresomeofthoseproblems?Thereis,forexample,thetraditionaltaskofteachingchildrenhowtobehaveingroups.Youcannothaveademocratic—indeed,civilized—communitylifeunlesspeoplehavelearnedhowtoparticipateinadisciplinedwayaspartofagroup.Onemightevensaythatschoolshaveneverbeenessentiallyaboutindividualizedlearning.Itistrue,ofcourse,thatgroupsdonotlearn;individualsdo.Buttheideaofaschoolisthatindividualsmustlearninasettinginwhichindividualneedsaresubordinatedtogroupinterests.Unlikeothermediaofmasscommunication,whichcelebrateindividualresponseandareexperiencedinprivate,theclassroomisintendedtotametheego,toconnecttheindividualwithothers,todemonstratethevalueandnecessityofgroupcohesion.Atpresent,mostscenariosdescribingtheusesofcomputershavechildrensolvingproblemsalone.LittleEva,YoungJohn,andtheothersaredoingjustthat,and,infact,theydonotneedthepresenceofotherchildren.Thepresenceofothersmay,indeed,beanannoyance.(Notallcomputervisionaries,Imustsay,takelightlytheimportanceofachild’slearningtosubordinatetheself.SeymourPapert’sTheChildren’sMachineisanimaginativeexampleofhowcomputershavebeenusedtopromotesocialcohesion,although,asIhavehadoccasiontosaytohim,thesameeffectscanbeachievedwithoutcomputers.Naturally,hedisagrees.)Nonetheless,liketheprintingpressbeforeit,thecomputerhasa

powerfulbiastowardamplifyingpersonalautonomyandindividualproblem-solving.Thatiswhy,Paperttothecontrary,mostoftheexampleswearegivenpicturechildrenworkingalone.Thatisalsowhyeducatorsmustguardagainstcomputertechnology’sunderminingsomeoftheimportantreasonsforhavingtheyoungassembleinschool,wheresocialcohesionandresponsibilityareofpreeminentimportance.AlthoughRavitchisnotexactlyagainstwhatshecalls“staterun

schools,”sheimaginesthemassomethingofarelicofapre-technologicalage.Shebelievesthatthenewtechnologieswillofferallchildrenequalaccesstoinformation.ConjuringupahypotheticalLittle

MarywhoispresumablyfromapoorerhomethanLittleEva,RavitchimaginesthatMarywillhavethesameopportunitiesasEva“tolearnanysubject,andtolearnitfromthesamemasterteachersaschildrenintherichestneighborhood.”5Forallitsliberalizingspirit,thisscenariocontainssomeomissionsthatneedtobekeptinmind.Oneisthatthoughnewtechnologiesmaybeasolutiontothelearningof“subjects,”theyworkagainstthelearningofwhatarecalled“socialvalues,”includinganunderstandingofdemocraticprocesses.IfonereadsthefirstchapterofRobertFulghum’sAllIEverReallyNeededtoKnowILearnedinKindergarten,onewillfindanelegantsummaryofafewthingsRavitch’sscenariohasleftout.Theyincludelearningthefollowinglessons:shareeverything,playfair,don’thitpeople,putthingsbackwhereyoufoundthem,cleanupyourownmess,washyourhandsbeforeyoueat,and,ofcourse,flush.6TheonlythingwrongwithFulghum’sideaisthatnooneactuallyhaslearnedallthesethingsatkindergarten’send.Wehaveampleevidencethatittakesmanyyearsofteachingthesevaluesinschoolbeforetheyareacceptedandinternalized.Thatiswhyitwon’tdoforchildrentolearninisolation.Thepointistoplacetheminasettingthatemphasizescollaboration,aswellassensitivitytoandresponsibilityforothers.Thatisalsowhyschoolsrequirechildrentobeinacertainplaceatacertaintimeandtofollowcertainrules,suchasraisingtheirhandswhentheywishtospeak,nottalkingwhenothersaretalking,notchewinggum,notleavinguntilthebellrings,andexhibitingpatiencetowardslowerlearners.Thisprocessiscalledmakingcivilizedpeople.ThegodofTechnologydoesnotappearinterestedinthisfunctionofschools.Atleast,itdoesnotcomeupmuchwhentechnology’svirtuesareenumerated.ThegodofTechnologymayalsohaveatrickortwoupitssleeve

aboutsomethingelse.Itisoftenassertedthatnewtechnologieswillequalizelearningopportunitiesfortherichandpoor.Itisdevoutlytobewished,butIdoubtit.Inthefirstplace,itisgenerallyunderstoodbythosewhohavestudiedthehistoryoftechnologythattechnologicalchangealwaysproduceswinnersandlosers—whichistosay,thebenefitsofnewtechnologiesarenotdistributedequallyamongthepopulation.Therearemanyreasonsforthis,amongthemeconomicdifferences.Eveninthecaseoftheautomobile,whichisacommoditymostpeoplecanbuy(thoughnotall),therearewidedifferences

betweenrichandpoorinthequalityofwhatisavailabletothem.Itwouldbequiteastonishingifcomputertechnologyequalizedalllearningopportunities,irrespectiveofeconomicdifferences.OnemaybedelightedthatLittleEva’sparentscouldaffordthetechnologyandsoftwaretomakeitpossibleforhertolearnalgebraatmidnight.ButLittleMary’sparentsmaynotbeableto,maynotevenknowsuchthingsareavailable.AndifwesaythattheschoolcouldmakethetechnologyavailabletoLittleMary(atleastduringtheday),theremaybesomethingelseLittleMaryislacking—twoparents,forinstance.Ihavebeforemeanaccountofa1994CarnegieCorporationReport,producedbytheNationalCenterforChildreninPoverty.Itstatesthatin1960,only5percentofourchildrenwereborntounmarriedmothers.In1990,thefigurewas28percent.In1960,7percentofourchildrenunderthreelivedwithoneparent.In1990,27percent.In1960,lessthan1percentofourchildrenundereighteenexperiencedthedivorceoftheirparents.In1990,thefigurewasalmost50percent.7ItturnsoutthatLittleMarymaybehavingsleeplessnightsasoften

asLittleEva,butnotbecauseshewantstogetaleguponalgebralessons.Maybeitisbecauseshedoesn’tknowwhoherfatheris,or,ifshedoes,whereheis.MaybewenowcanunderstandwhyMcIntosh’sladisboredwiththerealworld.Orisheconfusedaboutit?Orterrified?Arethereeducatorswhoseriouslybelievethattheseproblemscanbeaddressedbynewtechnologies?Idonotsay,ofcourse,thatschoolscansolvetheproblemsof

poverty,alienation,andfamilydisintegration.Butschoolscanrespondtothem.Andtheycandothisbecausetherearepeopleinthem,becausethesepeopleareconcernedwithmorethanalgebralessonsormodernJapanesehistory,andbecausethesepeoplecanidentifynotonlyone’slevelofcompetenceinalgebrabutone’slevelofrageandconfusionanddepression.Iamtalkinghereaboutchildrenastheyreallycometous,notchildrenwhoareinventedtoshowushowcomputersmayenrichtheirlives.Ofcourse,Isupposeitispossiblethattherearechildrenwho,wakingatnight,wanttostudyalgebraorwhoaresointerestedintheirworldthattheyyearntoknowaboutJapan.Iftherebesuchchildren,andonehopesthereare,theydonotrequireexpensivecomputerstosatisfytheirhungerforlearning.Theyareontheirway,withorwithoutcomputers—unless,ofcourse,theydonotcareaboutothers,orhaveno

friends,orlittlerespectfordemocracy,orarefilledwithsuspicionaboutthosewhoarenotlikethem.Whenwehavemachinesthatknowhowtodosomethingabouttheseproblems,thatisthetimetoridourselvesoftheexpensiveburdenofschoolsortoreducethefunctionofteachersto“coaches”intheusesofmachines(asRavitchenvisions).Untilthen,wemustbemoremodestaboutthisgodofTechnologyandcertainlynotpinourhopesonit.Wemustalso,Isuppose,beempathetictowardthosewhosearch

withgoodintentionsfortechnologicalpanaceas.Iamateachermyselfandknowhowharditistocontributetowardthemakingofacivilizedperson.Canweblamethosewhowanttofindaneasyway,throughtheagencyoftechnology?Perhapsnot.Afterall,itisanoldquest.Asearlyas1918,H.L.Mencken(althoughcompletelydevoidofempathy)wrote,“…thereisnosure-curesoidioticthatsomesuperintendentofschoolswillnotswallowit.Theaimseemstobetoreducethewholeteachingprocesstoasortofautomaticreaction,todiscoversomemasterformulathatwillnotonlytaketheplaceofcompetenceandresourcefulnessintheteacherbutthatwillalsocreateanartificialreceptivityinthechild.”8Menckenwasnotnecessarilyspeakingoftechnologicalpanaceas,but

hemaywellhavebeen.Intheearly1920s,ateacherwrotethefollowingpoem:

Mr.EdisonsaysThattheradiowillsupplanttheteacher.AlreadyonemaylearnlanguagesbymeansofVictrola

records.ThemovingpicturewillvisualizeWhattheradiofailstogetacross.Teacherswillberelegatedtothebackwoods.Withfire-horses,Andlong-hairedwomen;Or,perhapsshowninmuseums.EducationwillbecomeamatterOfpressingthebutton.PerhapsIcangetapositionattheswitchboard.9

IdonotgoasfarbackastheintroductionoftheradioandtheVictrola,butIamoldenoughtorememberwhen16-millimeterfilmwas

tobethesurecure,thenclosed-circuittelevision,then8-millimeterfilm,thenteacherprooftextbooks.Nowcomputers.IknowafalsegodwhenIseeone.Thereisstillanotherfalsegodthathassurfacedrecently,andwe

mustnotneglectit.LikethegodsofEconomicUtility,Consumership,andTechnology,itleadsustoadeadend.Butunlikethem,itdoesnotmerelydistortortrivializetheideaofpubliceducation.Itdirectsustoitsend.Thisgodhasseveralnames:thegodofTribalismorSeparatism;most

often,initsmostferventlyarticulatedform,thegodofMulticulturalism.Beforesayinganythingaboutit,Ishouldspecifythatitmustnotbeconfusedwithwhathasbeencalled“culturalpluralism.”Culturalpluralismisaseventy-year-oldideawhosepurposeistoenlargeandenrichtheAmericanCreed—specifically,toshowtheyounghowtheirtribalidentitiesandnarrativesfitintoamoreinclusiveandcomprehensiveAmericanstory.Thetermmulticulturalismissometimesusedasasynonymforculturalpluralism,andinsuchcases,wehaveasemanticproblemthatcanbeclarifiedwithrelativeease.Butmoreoftenthannot,thetermisusedtodenoteaquitedifferentstory.Initsextremeform,whichisthegodIwillconfronthere,Iwouldjudgeittobeapsychopathicversionofculturalpluralism,and,ofcourse,extremelydangerous.Inwhatfollows,Iwillputquotationmarksaroundthetermmulticulturalismtoindicatethatnoargumentisbeingmadeagainsttheacknowledgmentofculturaldifferencesamongstudents.Iamusingthetermtodenoteanarrativethatmakesculturaldiversityanexclusivepreoccupation.AlthoughthisgodisbynomeansaswidelyacceptedastheothersI

havediscussed,thereareseveralstates(forexample,NewYorkandOregon)thathavebeendeeplyinfluencedbyitandseriousabouturgingthatschoolingbeorganizedaroundit.Becauseofanexpandinginterestin“multiculturalism,”aswellasthepassionofitsadherents,ithasbeendeemeddangerousenoughtohaveprovokedthedistinguishedhistorianArthurSchlesinger,Jr.,towritearefutationofit,TheDisunitingofAmerica:ReflectionsonaMulticulturalSociety.AlthoughSchlesinger’sbookwill,Ibelieve,standasthedefinitivecritiqueof“multiculturalism,”thereisatleastonepointhedoesnotstressenough,andwhichshouldbethebeginningofanydiscussionofthisreversionto

undilutedtribalism.Irefertothefactthatthosewhoadvocatea“multicultural”curriculum,especiallythosewhospeakforanAfrocentricbias,understandbetterthanmost(certainlybetterthan,say,theU.S.SecretaryofEducation)theneedforagodtoserve;theyunderstandthatthereasonwhystudentsaredemoralized,bored,anddistractedisnotthatteacherslackinterestingmethodsandmachinerybutthatbothstudentsandteacherslackanarrativetoprovideprofoundmeaningtotheirlessons.Itdoesnotgotoofartosaythatthe“multiculturalists”arethemostactiveanddedicatededucationphilosopherswehaveatthemoment.Theyarenotespeciallyinterestedinmethodsormachineryand,generally,arenotcompetenttospeakonsuchmatters.Buttheyhaveastorytotell,andtheybelievetheirstorycanserveasafoundationtoschooling.Thetroubleisthatitisaterriblestory,atleastforpublicschools.Likemanyimportantnarratives,thisoneincludesconceptsofgood

andevil.Initsmostfrighteningversion,evilinheresinwhitepeople,especiallythoseofEuropeanoriginandlearning.Goodnessinheresinnonwhites,especiallythosewhohavebeenvictimsof“whitehegemony.”Atleastone“multiculturalist,”ProfessorLeonardJeffries,ofCityCollegeofNewYork,hasabiologicalexplanationforthesecharacteristics.Hebelievesthatthequalitiesofgoodandevilaredeterminedbytherespectivequantitiesofmelanininthebloodstreamsofdifferentraces:themoremelanin,themoregood;thelessmelanin,themoreevil.OnemightsaythatthisistheequivalentoftheconceptofOriginalSinintheChristianstory,withthisdifference:TheChristianstoryprovidesameansbywhichOriginalSincanbeovercome.Jeffries’saccountofthesourceofevilleavesnoopportunityforredemption.Ofcourse,manyadherentsof“multiculturalism”donotagreewith

Jeffriesand,inanycase,donotrequireabiologicalbasisforbelievinginwhite,Europeanevil.History,theyargue,providesabundantreasons,mostparticularlyinthefactofwhiteoppressionofnonwhitepeople.To“multiculturalists,”suchoppressionisthekeytounderstandingwhitehistory,literature,art,andmosteverythingelseofEuropeanorigin.Itfollowsfromthisthatallthenarrativesofthewhite,Europeanracesaretobeseenaspropagandisticmeansofconcealingtheirevil,or,evenworse,makingtheirevilappearvirtuous.Thereisnopossibilityofproceedinginafair-mindedway,the“multiculturalists”believe,unless

thenarrativesofwhiteEuropeansareoverthrown.AparticularlyvigorousexpressionofthisviewisprovidedbyfourauthorsfromtheRochester,NewYork,schooldistrict:“[The]legitimationofdominance,naturalizationofinequality,andfiltrationofknowledgearebeingchallengedinthecurrentdebateoverwhatis‘standard’schoolknowledge.Atissueinthisdebateisthestruggleoveraccuracyversusmisrepresentation,emancipatoryversushegemonicscholarship,andtheconstructedsupremacyofWesternculturalknowledgetransmittedinschoolsversustheinherentprimacyofthemultipleandcollectiveoriginsofknowledge.”10Ifweleaveasidethevagueness,ifnotincomprehensibility,ofsuch

phrasesas“emancipatoryscholarship”and“inherentprimacy,”itisclearenoughthattheauthorsbelievetheschoolsarethebattlegroundwherethestruggleforanewnarrativemustbefought.TheyconcludethisparagraphbysayingthatEurocentricknowledgemustbereplaced,since“[such]asingular,monovocalcurriculumisoneofthelastinstitutionalterrainsofwhite,patriarchal,ruling-classhegemony.”Thisisclearlynotthelanguageof“culturalpluralism,”whichwould

haveamongitsaimscelebratingthestrugglesandachievementsofnonwhitepeopleaspartofthestoryofhumankind.Infact,theauthorsexplicitlydenounceanyeffortsto“heroize”(theirword)suchfiguresasFrederickDouglass,HarrietTubman,CrispusAttucks,andMartinLutherKing,Jr.Theybelievethatthe“heroizing”approachconcealsthe“holocaustalatrocities,economicbenefits,anddehumanizationof[slavery’s]perpetrators.”Obviously,what“multiculturalism”aimsatisnotreconciliationwithEurocentrichistoryandlearning,butathoroughrejectionofitsothatanewbeginningmaybemade,anewnarrativeconstructed.Inordertoaccomplishthis,the“multiculturalists”mustdotwo

things.First,theymustrevealandhighlightthoseuglypartsofhistorythatareusuallyexcludedfromthevariousEurocentricnarratives.Second,theymustshowthatthemorehumanepartsofthosenarrativeshavetheirorigininnonwhitecultures.Thefirsttaskisrelativelyeasy,sinceallnarrativesconcealorsanitize

unsavoryifnotindefensiblechapters.Narrativesarenotexactlyhistoriesatall,butaspecialgenreofstorytellingthatuseshistorytogiveformtoideals.“Thepurposeofmyth,”ClaudeLévi-Straussremindsus,“isto

provideamodelcapableofovercomingacontradiction.”11ThatiswhynoseriousharmisdonetothegreatstoryofChristianitybyrevealingthataparticularPopewasanambitious,unscrupulousschemer.NeitherisitlethaltospeakoftheInquisition.TherealityisthattherehasneverbeenaChristian—notevenSt.FrancisorMotherTeresa—whohaslivedineveryparticularaChristianlife.ThestoryofChristianityisonlyinpartahistoryofChristians.Itislargelythestoryofthepoignantstruggleofpeopletogivelifetoasetoftranscendentideals.Thattheyhavestumbledonthewayisembarrassingandsometimesshameful,butitdoesnotdiscreditthepurposeofthestory,whichinfactisaboutthediscrepancybetweenrealityandtheideal.ThesameistrueoftheAmericanstoryofdemocracy.Topointout

thattheConstitution,whenwritten,permittedtheexclusionofwomenandnonpropertyownersfromvoting,anddidnotregardslavesasfullyhuman,isnottomakeamockeryofthestory.ThecreationoftheConstitution,includingthelimitationsofthemenwhowroteit,isonlyanearlychapterofatwo-hundred-year-oldnarrativewhosethemeisthegradualandoftenpainfulexpansionoftheconceptsoffreedomandhumanity.HowdifficultthatstrugglehasbeenwasexpressedbyAbrahamLincolnin1856inaresponsehemadetothepresidentialcampaignoftheKnow-Nothingparty.“Ourprogressindegeneracy,”heobservedsardonically,“appearstomeprettyrapid.Asanation,webeganbydeclaringthat‘Allmenarecreatedequal.’Wenowpracticallyreadit‘Allmenarecreatedequal,exceptNegroes.’WhentheKnow-Nothingsgetcontrol,itwillread‘Allmenarecreatedequal,exceptNegroes,andforeigners,andCatholics.’”12TheKnow-Nothingsdidnotgetcontrol,butweknownonetheless

howthatreversiontodegeneracywasstayed,atwhatcost,andhowwehavecontinuedthejourneythatJeffersoncharted.Thatwearefarfromreachingthegoalismadeabundantlyclearbytherobustcomplaintsofthosewhoarenotyetadequatelyrepresented,includingthe“multiculturalists.”Butthepointisthatitispossible,byignoringitstranscendentideals,totellAmerica’sstoryasahistoryofracism,inequity,andviolence.IsthisthestorywewishtobethefoundationofAmericanpublicschooling?Iftheansweris,Yes,becauseitcontainstruth,thenwemustturntothesecondtaskofthe“multiculturalists”toseeiftheyaremainlyconcernedwithtruth-telling.Thattaskistoshow

thatthehumanepartsoftheEurocentricnarrativehavetheiroriginsinnonwhitecultures.Schlesinger’sbookdocumentsthefailureof“multiculturalists”tocomeevenclosetothetruth.Heshowsthataccordingtorespectedhistorians,includingblackhistorians,mostoftheclaimsmadeby“multiculturalists”arepropagandisticfantasies.TheseincludetheclaimsthatblackAfricaiswherescience,philosophy,religion,medicine,technology,andothergreathumanisticachievementsoriginated;thatancientEgyptianswereblack;thatPythagorasandAristotlestoletheirmathematicsandphilosophiesfromblackscholarsinEgypt;thatmostAmericanblacksoriginatedinEgypt;andthattheenlightenedpartsoftheU.S.Constitutionwerebased,insomemeasure,onpoliticalprinciplesborrowedfromtheIroquois.Schlesingerissodiscouragedbytheabuseofhistoryreflectedintheseclaimsthatheconcludes:“IfsomeKleagleoftheKuKluxKlanwantedtodeviseaneducationalcurriculumforthespecificpurposeofhandicappinganddisablingblackAmericans,hewouldnotbelikelytocomeupwithanythingmorediabolicallyeffectivethanAfrocentrism.”13OnemightreplytoSchlesingerthatneitherhistoricalbalancenor

truthistheissuehere.Whatisbeingattemptedisthecreationofanewnarrative,similarinpointandmethodtotheprocessbywhich,forexample,AmericancolonistsconstructedamythologyofthePilgrimsasdemocraticnation-builders.Inthatinstance,historywasused,invented,orforgottentosuittheneedsofthestory.Thestory,asweknow,hasbeenhugelysuccessful.AmericansknowaboutMilesStandishbutnotaboutSquantoandWituwamet.Americanscelebrate,evenrevere,Thanksgiving,buttheydonotknow(or,iftheydo,giveitlittleweight)thatsomeIndianscallThanksgivingtheNationalDayofMourning.Ofcourse,itisnotirrelevanttoaskhowmuchtruthorfalsehoodis

containedinanynarrative.Anarrativeconstructedmostlyoutoffalsehoodsusuallyfails,leavingitsadherentsbitterand,asSchlesingerremindsus,ignorant.Butevenifwemakeamostgenerousassessmentofthefactsthatformthecoreofthe“multicultural”story,weareleftwiththequestion,Canitwork?Ibelieveitcannot,forseveralreasons.Thefirstisofapractical

nature.Whyshouldthepublic,whichislargelyofEuropeanorigin,supportaschoolprogramthattakesasitsthemetheirownevil?Wouldnonwhitessupportapublicschoolwhosecurriculumproceedsfromthe

assumptionthatnonwhitesareinferior?Andifthe“multiculturalists”reply,Thatisexactlywhathappensinmostschools,thentheremedyistorevisethestorysothatitallowschildrenofallracestofindadignifiedplaceforthemselvesinit.Itistrueenoughthatwhiteshaveoppressedblacks,butblackshaveoppressedotherblacks,andevenwhites;andwhiteshaveoppressedotherwhites;andIndianshaveslaughteredwhites,andwhites,Indians;andEuropeanshaveoppressedAsians,andAsians,Europeans.Howfarshallwegowiththis?IfImayamendNielsBohr’sremark,citedearlier,theoppositeofa

profoundstoryisanotherprofoundstory,bywhichImeanthatthestoryofeverygroupmaybetoldinspiringly,withoutexcludingitsblemishesbutwithanemphasisonthevariousstrugglestoachievehumanity,or,toborrowfromLincolnagain,thestrugglestorevealthebetterangelsofournature.Thisiswhatoncewasmeantbyculturalpluralism.Theargumentissometimesmadethata“multicultural”curriculumis

justifiedwhereanentirestudentpopulationisAfrican-American(orMexicanorPuertoRican),asisoftenthecaseinourlargecities.ThismightmakesenseifitwerethetaskofthepublicschoolstocreateapublicofhyphenatedAmericans.ButourstudentsalreadycometoschoolashyphenatedAmericans.Thetaskofthepublicschools,properlyconceived,istoerasethehyphensortomakethemlessdistinct.Theideaofapublicschoolisnottomakeblacksblack,orKoreansKorean,orItaliansItalian,buttomakeAmericans.Thealternativeleads,quiteobviously,tothe“Balkanization”ofpublicschools—whichistosay,theirend.AnAfrocentriccurriculumforAfro-Americans?ThenwhynotaSinocentriccurriculumfortheChinese?AnItalocentriccurriculumforItalians?AJudeocentriccurriculumforJews?ATeutocentricforGermans?AGraecocentricforGreeks?Thispathnotonlyleadstotheprivatizingofschoolingbuttoa

privatizingofthemind,anditmakesthecreationofapublicmindquiteimpossible.Thethemeofschoolingwouldthenbedivisiveness,notsameness,andwouldinevitablyengenderhate.InDecember1993,MinisterLouisFarrakhangaveatalkinMadisonSquareGarden,duringwhichhemadereferencetoayoungAfrican-Americanmanwhohad,onlyafewdaysbefore,beenarrestedforgunningdownpassengersontheLongIslandRailroad.Mostofthevictimswerewhite;afewwereAsians.AlthoughthereisnoevidencethatFarrakhanencouragedtheir

response,membersoftheaudiencecheeredeithertheyoungmanorhisdeed.Itisnotclearwhich.OnemayexplainthisresponsebyreferencetoasenseofgeneralizedrageonthepartofAfrican-AmericansagainstEuropeanculture.Ifthatisthecase,thensurelytheroleofthepublicschoolisnottointensifyit,buttohelpcreateasanealternativetoit.

W

4•GodsThatMayServe

howritesthesongsthatyounggirlssing?Orthetalesthatoldmentell?Whocreatesthemythsthatbindanationand

givepurposeandmeaningtotheideaofapubliceducation?InAmerica,itistheadvertisersand,ofcourse,thepopularmusiciansandfilmmakers;maybeeventhehollowmengatheredaroundswimmingpoolsinBeverlyHills,inventingstorieswecalltelevisionsitcoms.Thisdoesnotexhaustthelist,butteachersarenotonit.Itmustbe

clearatthebeginningthatschoolshavenotandhaveneverbeenorganizedtocreateforceful,inspiringnarratives.Theycollectthem,amplifythem,distributethem,ennoblethem.Theysometimesrefutethem,mockthem,orneglectthem.Buttheycreatenothing,andthisis,Isuppose,asitshouldbe.Asthosewhowouldprivatizeschoolingcorrectlypointout,ourpublicschoolsarestate-runagenciesandhavenolicensetoreconstructsocietyontheirownauthority;theyaregivenneitherpermissionnorencouragementtopromoteaworldviewthathasnoresonanceinthesocietyatlarge.Schools,wemightsay,aremirrorsofsocialbelief,givingbackwhatcitizensputinfrontofthem.Buttheyarenotfixedinoneposition.Theycanbemovedupanddownandsideways,sothatatdifferenttimesandindifferentvenues,theywillreflectonethingandnotanother.Butalwaystheyshowsomethingthatisthere,notoftheschools’invention,butofthesocietythatpaysfortheschoolsandusesthemforvariouspurposes.ThisiswhythegodsofEconomicUtility,Consumership,Technology,andSeparatismaretobefoundinourschoolsnow,exertingtheirforceandcommandingallegiance.Theyaregodsthatcomefromoutsidethewallsoftheclassroom.Allofthismustbequiteobvious,andareadermaywellask,When

didthecoauthorofabookcalledTeachingasaSubversiveActivitygraspthepoint?AsJosephHellermightsayit,Ineverdidn’tgraspthepoint.I

understood,in1969,asnow,thatatanygiventimeinthesymbolicuniverseofacommunity,theredwellmultiplenarratives—someshiningattheforefront,vividandunmistakable;someinthebackground,indistinctandhalf-forgotten;somesleeping,somerecentlyawakened,andmanyinuneasycontradictiontoothers.Ifanauthorwishestodefineteachingasasubversiveactivity,heisinventingnogod,butmerelycallingupononetotakeprecedenceoveranother.Forinthiscase,ourcitizensbelieveintwocontradictoryreasonsforschooling.Oneisthatschoolsmustteachtheyoungtoaccepttheworldasitis,withalloftheirculture’srules,requirements,constraints,andevenprejudices.Theotheristhattheyoungshouldbetaughttobecriticalthinkers,sothattheybecomemenandwomenofindependentmind,distancedfromtheconventionalwisdomoftheirowntimeandwithstrengthandskillenoughtochangewhatiswrong.Eachofthesebeliefsispartofauniquenarrativethattellsofwhatit

meanstobehuman,whatitmeanstobeacitizen,whatitmeanstobeintelligent.AndeachofthesenarrativescanbefoundinAmericantradition.Anauthormaythinkitnecessarytosubordinateonetotheother—orviceversa—dependingonwhatseemsneededataparticulartime.Thatiswhy,havingcoauthoredTeachingasaSubversiveActivity,hemightlateronwriteTeachingasaConservingActivity.Theproblem,asalways,is:Whatisneedednow?Myargument,

beginningwiththetitleofthisbook,isthatthenarrativesthatunderlieourpresentconceptionofschooldonotserveuswellandmayleadtotheendofpublicschooling—“end”meaningitsconversiontoprivatizedschooling(asHenryPerkinsonpredictsinhisupdatedversionofTheImperfectPanacea)oritssubordinationtoindividuallycontrolledtechnology(asLewisPerelmanpredictsinSchool’sOut).Itisalsopossiblethatschoolingwillbetakenoverbycorporations(as,forexample,inthewayChrisWhittleproposes)andoperatedentirelyonprinciplesassociatedwithamarketeconomy.Anyorallofthesearepossibilities.Butthisbooktakesnogreat

interestinanyoftheseplans,includingtheoptionofpublicschoolchoiceasadvocatedbySeymourFliegel(inhisbookMiracleinEastHarlem).Theseareessentiallyengineeringmatters.Theyareaboutthepractical,efficientwaytodeliverschoolservices.Theyareimportantbutbarelytouchthequestion,Whatareschoolsfor?Yes,itmattersif

parentshaveachoiceofschools,ifschoolsaresmaller,ifclasssizeisreduced,ifmoneyisavailabletohiremoreteachers,ifsomestudentsreceivepublicfundstoattendprivateschools.Butarewenotstillleftwiththequestion,Why?Whatisallthesoundandfuryandexpenseabout?Ifametaphormaybepermitted,wecanmakethetrainsrunontime,butiftheydonotgowherewewantthemtogo,whybother?Myintentionhereistoofferananswerintheformoffivenarratives

that,singlyandinconcert,containsufficientresonanceandpowertobetakenseriouslyasreasonsforschooling.Theyoffer,Ibelieve,moralguidance,asenseofcontinuity,explanationsofthepast,claritytothepresent,hopeforthefuture.TheycomeasclosetoasenseoftranscendenceasIcanimaginewithinthecontextofpublicschooling.Iam,ofcourse,awarethatwhatIshallpropose,toputthemildest

faceonit,ispresumptuous.ForImustnotonlyputforwardideasthatinspiremebutideascalculatedtoinspiretheyoung,theirteachers,andtheirparents.Myownheartandmind,Iknowwellenough.CanIclaimthesameknowledgeoftheheartsandmindsofmycountrymenand-women?Icannotbesure.Whocan?ButIdonotproceedinastateofwildsurmise.Ihave,forexample,testedtheseideasinscoresofplaceswithparentsandteachersfromOregontoConnecticut,withstudentsfromgrammarschoolthroughtheuniversitylevel.I’velistenedtowhattheyhavesaidand,justascarefully,towhattheyhavenotsaid.WhenIhavepreviouslywrittenaboutanyoftheseideas,Ihavelearned,fromwhatreadershaveinturnwrittenme,theargumentsforthemandagainstthem.IhavespentthirtyyearsasanaffectionatecriticofAmericanprejudices,tastes,andneurosesandhavebeenastonishedandpleasedtodiscoverIsharemostofthem.Bythis,IdonotmeanIcanspeakforAmericans,onlyaboutthem.IhavealsogainedsomeconfidenceinthesejudgmentsfrommanylecturesinEurope,discovering,withoutsurprise,thatAlexisdeTocquevillewasright:Americansaredifferent—insomewaysbetter,insomeworse—butdifferent.Andwhenoneisinaforeignland,thedifferencesemergewithuncommonclarity.Imentionallofthisnotasawarrantyofthesoundnessofmy

proposalsbutasassurancethattheyaregroundedinafocusedconceptionofthoseforwhomtheyareintended.IthinkIknowwhatgodsarepossibleinAmericaandwhatgodsarenot.Otherwise,there

wouldbenopointinproceeding.Ifyoujudgewhatfollowstobeunrealistic,superficial,orotherwise

unsound,PartIIofthisbookwill,indeed,bepointless.Butifyouagreethattheseideasmoveusintherightdirection,PartIIwillprovidespecificexamplesofhowonemightbringtheseideastolife,andtheimplicationsofdoingso.ThedetailIwillprovideinPartIIleadsmetobeasbriefaspossibleindescribingthenarrativesthatfollow.Thereis,inanycase,nothingastonishingaboutthem.Eachispartofoursymboliclandscape.Wetalkaboutthem.Wewonderaboutthem.Wesometimesforgetaboutthem.Buttheyarethere,andthequestionis,Canweusethemtoprovideanend—thatis,apurpose—toschooling?

TheSpaceshipEarth

Notlongago,IfoundmyselfinanextendedconversationwithMarvinMinsky,thedistinguishedscientistwhoisfamous(somesaynotorious)forhispassionateadvocacyof“artificialintelligence.”1Inprovidingacontextforhisfertileimagination,Minskyreferredtotheinfluenceonhisthinkingofseveralscience-fictionwriters,remarkingthatscience-fictionwritersareourtruephilosophers.Itissignificant,Ithought,thathefailedtoincludeamongaratherextensivelistMaryShelley(Frankenstein),AldousHuxley(BraveNewWorld),GeorgeOrwell(1984),andRayBradbury(Fahrenheit451).Iwillcometothesegloomyphilosopherslateron,butsurelyMinskyhasapoint,andIwishtopursueitbyfocusingonthemostpopularofallourscience-fictionphilosophers,StevenSpielberg.Spielbergissometimesnear-Homericinhiscapacitytogiveformtomythsthatresonatedeeply,especiallywithouryouth.Iputaside,forthemoment,JurassicPark(whichconnectshimwiththetraditionofFrankenstein)andSchindler’sList(inwhichheforgoestheprophetictraditionaltogether)andrefertoCloseEncountersoftheThirdKindandE.T.,eachofwhichasksustobelievethatwearenotaloneintheuniverse.Perhapsweare,perhapsnot;mostlikely,wewillneverknow.ButwhathisstoriesmakeclearisthatfrombothametaphoricalandaliteralpointofviewtheEarthisaspaceshipandweareitscrewmembers.Thisisbynomeansanoriginalidea,but,unlike,forexample,H.G.

WellsorJulesVerne,whoalsowroteonthissubject,Spielbergputstheideainaformthatisessentiallyreligious,oratleastspiritual;thatistosay,hedoesnotmerelyexciteourimaginationsaboutourSpaceshipEarth.Heinsistsonourmoralobligationtoit.Anyonewhohastalkedtoyoungpeopleabouteitherofthesefilmswillknowhowclearlytheygraspthesenseofresponsibilityurgedonthem,aswellashowdeeplyrunstheiremotionalresponsetotheideathatwecannolongertakeforgrantedthewell-beingoftheplanet.Wehavehere,then,anarrativeofextraordinarypotential:thestory

ofhumanbeingsasstewardsoftheEarth,caretakersofavulnerablespacecapsule.Itisarelativelynewnarrative,notfullydevelopedandfraughtwithuncertaintiesandevencontradictions.(Forexample,IhesitatetoinvoketheimageofthestarshipEnterprisefromStarTrek,becauseforallitsdramaticappeal,CaptainKirkisessentiallyabenevolenttyrant,democracybeingrejectedasanappropriateformofsocialorganizationforpenetratingthe“finalfrontier.”)Nonetheless,thestoryofSpaceshipEarthhasthepowertobindpeople.Itmakestheideaofracismbothirrelevantandridiculous,anditmakescleartheinterdependenceofhumanbeingsandtheirneedforsolidarity.Ifanypartofthespaceshipispoisoned,thenallsuffer—whichistosaythattheextinctionoftherainforestisnotaBrazilianproblem;thepollutionoftheoceansisnotaMiamiproblem;thedepletionoftheozonelayerisnotanAustralianproblem.Itfollowsfromthis,ofcourse,thatgenocideisnotaBosnianproblem,hungernotaSomalianproblem,politicaloppressionnotaChineseproblem.“Neversendtoknowforwhomthebelltolls,”wroteJohnDonne.“Ittollsforthee.”Ifevertherewasanarrativetoanimatethatidea,theEarthasouroneandonlyspaceshipisit.Moreover,Ineedhardlypointoutthatthisformofglobal

consciousnessdoesnotsignificantlyconflictwithanytraditionalreligiousbeliefs.IamnotawareofanydeitywhowouldtakesatisfactioninthedestructionoftheEarth,or,forthatmatter,thedisintegrationofcities,orhostilityamongpeopleholdingdifferentpointsofview.OnecanbeaChristian,aMuslim,aTaoist,aJew,oraBuddhistandyetbeimbuedwithacommitmenttothepreservationoftheplanet.Inlikefashion,thestoryoftheEarthasaspaceshipdoesnotconflictwithnationalortribaltales;itdoesnotrequirethatonerejector

evenbeindifferenttoone’snational,regional,ortriballoyalties.OnecanbeanAmerican,oraNorwegian,oraFrenchman,or,forthatmatter,aLappand,withoutsacrificingone’sidentity,canbeenlargedbyadoptingtheroleofEarth’scaretaker.Onecan,thatis,unlessdrivenbyacompetingnarrativewhichinsists

thatone’sownnationisallthatcountsinHeavenandEarth.AsIwrite,atleastoneschoolsysteminthestateofFloridahasadoptedastoryrequiringteachersandstudentstobelievethattheUnitedStatesissuperiortoallothernations—oneassumes,inallrespects.AsimilarstoryhasbeenproposedinNewYorkCity(but,forthemoment,rejected).ThisisanideathatcallstomindthedesperateeffortsoftheQueeninSnowWhiteandtheSevenDwarfstoreassureherselfofherpreeminentandunfailingbeauty.“Mirror,mirroronthewall,”shedailyasks,“whoisthefairestoneofall?”Butinthatcase,themirrortellsthetruth,thusputtingpoorSnowWhiteinharm’sway.Itisaterribleburdentoplaceonchildrentorequirethemtoaskthisquestionaboutnationhoodandofamirrorthatisprogrammedinadvancealwaystoreply,“America,America.”InadditiontoitsbeingaperversionoftheAmericanCreed,suchastoryisasignofadesperatequestforameaningfulnarrative,andone’ssympathiesmustbeextendedtothosewhoconceivedofthis.Itis,nonetheless,doubtfulthatitsdisorientedauthorscanfindtheEarthasspaceshipanacceptablenarrative.But,Ibelieve,manywill,forthisisanideawhosetimehascome.Itisastoryofinterdependenceandglobalcooperation,ofwhatisatthecoreofhumanness;astorythatdepictswasteandindifferenceasevil,thatrequiresavisionofthefutureandacommitmenttothepresent.Inthisstory,ifthestudentsask,“Mirror,mirroronthewall,whichisthefairestofusall?,”themirrorreplies,“Thisisaprettystupidquestion.Haveyounotnoticedthatyouareallonthesameship?Thatyoumustrelyoneachothertosurvive,andthatyouhavenottakensufficientcareofyourhome?”

TheFallenAngel

IuseareligiousmetaphorheretoemphasizethepointthatwhatIshalldescribeisnotmerelyamethodoranepistemologybutanarrative,

andoneofalmostuniversalacceptance.Thestoryasitistoldinvariousplacesandformsisessentiallyareligiousidea,andItrustthatthisfact,byitself,willturnnooneaway.Mostseriousnarrativesarerootedinaspiritualormetaphysicalidea,eventhosenarratives—inductivescience,forexample—thataresuspiciousofmetaphysics.Infact,asIshallhaveoccasiontosayinamoment,scienceismorecommittedtothestoryofthefallenangelthananyothersystemofbelief.Thisisthestory:Ifperfectionistobefoundanyplaceintheuniverse,

itisassumedtoexistinGodorgods.Theremayhavebeenatimewhenhumanbeingswereperfect,butatsomepoint,forvariousreasons,theirpowerswerediminished,sothattheymustliveforeverinastateofimperfectunderstanding.Indeed,forustobelievethatwearegodlike,orperfect,isamongthemostserioussinsofwhichwearecapable.TheGreekscalledthesin“hubris.”TheChristianscallit“pride.”Scientistscallit“dogmatism.”Themajorthemeofthestoryisthathumanbeingsmakemistakes.

Allthetime.Itisournaturetomakemistakes.Wecanscarcelyletanhourgobywithoutmakingone.“Ibeseechyou,inthebowelsofChrist,”OliverCromwellpleaded,“thinkitpossiblethatyoumaybemistaken.”Thatwemaybemistaken,andprobablyare,isthemeaningofthe“fall”inthefallenangel.Themeaningof“angel”isthatwearecapableofcorrectingourmistakes,providedweproceedwithouthubris,pride,ordogmatism;providedthatweacceptourcosmicstatusastheerror-pronespecies.Thereinliesthepossibilityofourredemption:Knowingthatwedonotknowandcannotknowthewholetruth,wemaymovetowarditinchbyinchbydiscardingwhatweknowtobefalse.Andthenwatchthetruthmovefurtherandfurtheraway.Itisasadstory,tobesure;itsmelancholypoignancyiscapturedinthemythofSisyphus,thestoryofJob,andscoresofothertalestheworldover.Itisanoblestory,aswell,andafunnyone,itshumorexpressedinthewiseYiddishsaying,MantrachtunGotlacht(“ManthinksandGodlaughs”).Thesayingtellsusexactlywherewestand,asdothefamouslinesofOmarinTheRubáiyát:“TheMovingFingerwrites;andhavingwrit/Moveson:norallyourpietynorwit/ShalllureitbacktocancelhalfaLine/NorallyourTearswashoutaWordofit.”Andyetthestrugglegoeson,doesitnot?Themostexplicitandsophisticatedexampleofhowthisnarrative

improvesthehumanconditionis,ofcourse,science.Thiswouldhardly

beworthnotingexceptforthefactthatinthepopularmind,andcertainlyinschool,scienceisthoughttobesomethingotherthanamethodforcorrectingourmistakes—namely,asourceofultimatetruth.Suchabeliefis,initself,aninstanceofthesinofpride,andnoself-respectingscientistwilladmittoholdingit.“Thescientificmethod,”ThomasHenryHuxleyoncewrote,“isnothingbutthenormalworkingofthehumanmind.”Thatistosay,whenthemindisworking;thatistosayfurther,whenitisengagedincorrectingitsmistakes.Takingthispointofview,wemayconcludethatscienceisnot

physics,biology,orchemistry—isnotevena“subject”—butamoralimperativedrawnfromalargernarrativewhosepurposeistogiveperspective,balance,andhumilitytolearning.Itisstrange,then,thattherearescientistswho,puttingasidetheir

acceptanceofuncertaintyintheir“subject,”aretrueandunshakablebelieversinsomesocialorpoliticaldoctrine;strangerstillthattherearedevoutindividualswho,knowingfullyoftheirfall,believenonethelessthattheirunderstandinghaspenetratedthewilloftheirgod.Wehavehereamysterythatgoestotheheartofeducation.Howcanweexplainthequestforcertainty,whichissoeasilyconvertedtoanunseemly,unjustified,andoftenlethaldogmatism?ThisisthequestionJohnDeweystruggledwith,aswellasBertrandRussellandscoresofothermoderneducationphilosophers,includingthosewhoanswer,“Teachcriticalthinking,”withouthavingthefaintestideaofhowthatmightbedoneorgivinganythoughttothepsychologicalsourcesoftheoppositiontoit.ItisthequestionJacobBronowskiaddressedinhismonumentalproject,bothatelevisionseriesandabook,calledTheAscentofMan.Althoughdeeplyreligious,Bronowskiforgoes,atthestart,useofareligiousmetaphorandturnstoWernerHeisenberg’sPrincipleofUncertaintyasanarrativetogivemeaningtotheideathatallhumanknowledgeislimited.Theprinciplestatesthattheactofdiscoveringthevelocityofanelectronchangesitsposition,andviceversa,sothatwecanneverknowboththepositionandvelocityatthesametime.Althoughreferringtosubatomicevents,theprincipleisoftenusedasametaphorforthefundamentaluncertaintyofallhumanknowledge.ButBronowskiprefersthephraseThePrincipleofTolerance,because,hesays,thoughtheremaybeknowledgeofwhichwecanbesure,suchknowledgeisalwaysconfinedwithinacertaintolerance—meaning,

withinsomelimitedsphere.Yes,weknowthings,butmuchofitiswrong,andwhatreplacesthatmaybewrongaswell.Andeventhatwhichisright,andseemstoneednoamendment,islimitedinitsscopeanditsapplicability.Inthelastprogramofhistelevisionseries,Bronowskiisseen

standinginapondonthegroundsoftheoldAuschwitzconcentrationcamp.Near-overwroughtbywhatAuschwitzsymbolizes,heresorts,assomanyhavedonebeforehim,toareligiousmetaphor.“Intothispond,”hesays,“wereflushedtheashesofsomefourmillionpeople.Andthatwasnotdonebygas.Itwasdonebyarrogance.Itwasdonebydogma.…Whenpeoplebelievethattheyhaveabsoluteknowledge…thisishowtheybehave.Thisiswhatmendowhentheyaspiretotheknowledgeofgods.”2Attheend,andafterhavingreviewedtheentirehistoryof

humanity’sstruggletodiscoverknowledge,Bronowskioffersasinglelesson:Wemustcureourselvesoftheitchforabsoluteknowledge.Howtodothis,isthequestion.Acoursein“criticalthinking”issurelynotananswer.Anincreaseinthenumberofsciencecoursesisevenlessofananswer.TheGermansoncehadthemostrigorousscienceprogramintheworld,andproducedtrue-believingNazis.TheRussians,later,werealmostamatch,andproducedtrue-believingCommunists.Thequestforcertainty,forabsoluteauthority,cannotbestayedbycoursesorcurriculumafterthoughts.Butsupposethepurposeofschoolwastocuretheitchforabsoluteknowledge.Supposewetookseriouslytheideathatwearedangeroustoourselvesandotherswhenweaspiretotheknowledgeofthegods.Whatthen?

TheAmericanExperiment

Allchildrenenterschoolasquestionmarksandleaveasperiods.Itisanoldsaying,butstillusefulinthinkingabouthowschoolingisnormallyconducted.Itisalsoapplicable,invariousforms,toothersituationsandinstitutions.Forexample,wemightsayallnationsbeginasquestionmarksandendasexclamationpoints.ThismusthavebeenthewaysomeFloridapatriotswerethinkingwhentheymadeitobligatoryforschoolstoteachthatAmericaissuperiortoallother

countries.SomeoneobviouslyfeelsthattheAmericanCreedisanexclamationpoint,afinishedproduct,asettledissue.ButthisversionofthemeaningofAmerica,assuminganyonecouldactuallybelieveit,leadsdirectlytothekindofblindnessthatBronowskiwarnsagainst.Evenworse,itgivesdogmatismabadname.Everyschool,savethoserippedasunderbyseparatistideology,tries

totellastoryaboutAmericathatwillenablestudentstofeelasenseofnationalpride.Studentsdeservethat,andtheirparentsexpectit.Thequestionishowtodothisandyetavoidindifference,ontheonehand,andapsychopathicnationalism,ontheother.Asithappens,thereissuchastoryavailabletous.Ithasthevirtues

ofbeinglargelytrue,ofexplainingourpast,includingourmistakes,ofinvitingparticipationinthepresent,ofofferinghopeforthefuture.ItisastorythatdoesnotrequirethebeliefthatAmericaissuperiortoallothercountries,onlythatitisunique,youthful,admirable,andopenedwidetounfulfilledhumanepossibilities.Nostudentcanaskmoreofhisorhercountry.Noschoolcanoffermore.Ipropose,then,thestoryofAmericaasanexperiment,aperpetual

andfascinatingquestionmark.ThestoryincludestheexperienceofthosewholivedherebeforetheEuropeaninvasion,andofthoseEuropeanswhoprovidedtheinvaderswithboththeirtroublesandtheirideas.Afterall,everystoryhasaprologue.Butthestoryproperlybegins,asAbrahamLincolnsawit,withaseriesofstunninganddangerousquestions.Isitpossibletohaveagovernmentofthepeople,bythepeople,andforthepeople?Andwhoarethepeople,anyway?Andhowshalltheyproceedingoverningthemselves?Andhowshallweprotectindividualsfromthepowerofthepeople?Andwhyshouldwedoallthisinthefirstplace?Anyreaderofthisbookwillknowofthesequestions,andmany

more.Itisnotmyintentiontogiveahistorylesson.Myintentionistomakethepointthatthesequestionsarestillunansweredandwillalwaysremainso.TheAmericanConstitutionisnotacatechism,butahypothesis.Itislessthelawofthelandthananexpressionofthelayofthelandasithasbeenunderstoodbyvariouspeopleatdifferenttimes.StephenCarter,alawprofessoratYaleUniversity,inhisbookTheCultureofDisbelief,argueswithonewidespreadviewofwhatismeantbythestatement“Congressshallmakenolawrespectinganestablishment

ofreligionorprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof.”Heclaimsthatthepurposeofthisprovisionistoprotectreligionfromthestate,notthestatefromreligion,assomanyseemtothink.OnJune29,1994,theNewYorkTimescarriedonitsfirstpageanaccountofaSupremeCourtdecisiononthisverymatter,inwhich,ineffect,sixjudgesdisagreedwithCarterandthreeagreed.Maybenexttimethescorewillbedifferent.Scoresareimportant,butnotasimportantastheprocessthatproducesthem,apointofviewthatshouldsurprisenoone,sinceAmericawasthefirstnationtobearguedintoexistence.TheDeclarationofIndependenceisanargument,andwascomposedassuch.TomPaine’sTheRightsofManisanargument,and,infact,onewithseriousflaws(notnearlyascogentanargument,I’vealwaysthought,astheargument—byEdmundBurke—itwasintendedtorefute).AllSupremeCourtdecisionsarearguments,includingsomedeeplyembarrassingones—forexample,theDredScottdecision,whichcallstomindtheLincoln-Douglasdebates,ourbest-knownandpossiblyourmostskillfullycraftedarguments.Ofcourse,IdonotmeantosuggestthatallourargumentshavebeenmadebypeopleofthequalityofJefferson,Paine,andLincoln.Theidea,fromthebeginning,wastoalloweveryonetoparticipateinthearguments,providedtheywerenotslaves,women,orexcessivelypoor(althoughitishardtoimaginehowanyonecouldhavebeenpoorerthanTomPaine).Throughargument(ormoreprecisely,thecessationofargument)theslaveswerefreedandadmittedtoparticipation,andtheirprogenyarenowamongourmostvigorousarguers;thenwomen;thenthepoor;andmorerecently,studentsandhomosexualsandeven,Godhelpus,radiotalk-showhosts.Ourhistoryallowsustoclaimthatthebasicquestionposedbythe

Americanexperimentis:Cananationbeformed,maintained,andpreservedontheprincipleofcontinuousargumentation?Theemphasisisasmuchon“continuous”ason“argumentation.”Weknowwhathappenswhenargumentceases—bloodhappens,asinourCivilWar,whenwestoppedarguingwithoneanother;orinseveralotherwars,whenwestoppedarguingwithotherpeople;orinawarortwowhen,perhaps,noargumentwaspossible.Ofcourse,alltheargumentshaveathemethatismademanifestina

seriesofquestions:Whatisfreedom?Whatareitslimits?Whatisahumanbeing?Whataretheobligationsofcitizenship?Whatismeantby

democracy?Andsoon.Happily,Americansareneithertheonlynorthefirstpeopletoarguethesequestions,whichmeanswehavefoundanswers,andmaycontinuetofindthem,intheanalectsofConfucius,thecommandmentsofMoses,thedialoguesofPlato,theaphorismsofJesus,theinstructionsoftheKoran,thespeechesofMilton,theplaysofShakespeare,theessaysofVoltaire,thepropheciesofHegel,themanifestosofMarx,thesermonsofMartinLutherKing,Jr.,andanyothersourcewheresuchquestionshavebeenseriouslyaddressed.Butwhichonesaretherightanswers?Wedon’tknow.There’stherub,andthebeautyandthevalueofthestory.Soweargueandexperimentandcomplain,andgrieve,andrejoice,andarguesomemore,withoutend.Whichmeansthatinthisstoryweneedconcealnothingfromourselves;noshameneedendureforever;noaccomplishmentmeritsexcessivepride.Allisfluidandsubjecttochange,tobetterarguments,totheresultsoffutureexperiments.This,itseemstome,isafineandnoblestorytoofferasareasonfor

schooling:toprovideouryouthwiththeknowledgeandwilltoparticipateinthegreatexperiment;toteachthemhowtoargue,andtohelpthemdiscoverwhatquestionsarewortharguingabout;and,ofcourse,tomakesuretheyknowwhathappenswhenargumentscease.Nooneisexcludedfromthestory.Everygrouphasmadegoodarguments,andbadones.Allpointsofviewareadmissible.Theonlythingwehavetofearisthatsomeonewillinsistonputtinginanexclamationpointwhenwearenotyetfinished.LikeinFlorida.

TheLawofDiversity

Americahasalwaysbeenanationofnations,ourschoolsalwaysmulticultural.Buteducatorshavenotalwaysbeenconcernedtoemphasizethisfact,inpartbecauseofthebeliefthatthroughschoolingacommonculturecouldbecreated;inpartbecauseimmigrantcultureswerethoughttobeinferiortoAnglo-Saxoncultures.Thesecondideaisinjustifiabledisgrace.Thefirstisstillfunctional,asreflected,forexample,inthepopularityoftheideaof“culturalliteracy,”asdevelopedbyE.D.Hirsch,Jr.Hearguesthattheroleofschoolingistocreateacommonculturebutthatwecannothaveoneunlessourcitizenssharea

commoncoreofknowledge—thatis,facts,abouthistory,literature,science,philosophy,wars,cities,populararts.Afterconsultingwithappropriateexpertsinavarietyoffields,Hirschtookthetroubletolistthousandsofnames,places,andeventsthatcomprisethestoreoffactsofa“culturallyliterate”person.Heinsiststhatmostofthesebegivenattentioninthecourseofourchildren’sschooling.Ihave,inanotherplace,criticizedHirsch’sprojectonseveralgrounds,amongthemhisindifferencetoprovidingmeaningtoschooling,andtheclearimpossibilityinan“informationage”ofmakingsuchalistwithoutbeingmaddeninglyarbitrary.ForalmosteveryitemonHirsch’slist,thereareatleasttenothersthatarenotonitandwhoseimportancecanbearguedwithequaljustification.Inotherwords,Hirsch’slistisnotasolutiontotheproblemofhowtocreateacommonculture,butanunintentionalexpressionoftheproblemitself.Thatiswhyinthisbook,whichisalsoconcernedwithhowtoformacommonculture,Ihaveplacedlittleemphasisonwhatfactscanbeknown,muchonwhatnarrativescanbebelieved.(Inprovidingourchildrenwithasenseofmeaning,wewoulddomuchbettertotakeasaguideSchindler’slistthanHirsch’slist.)ButonethingmaybesaidclearlyinHirsch’sdefense.Hislistisno

argumentagainstdiversity.Itis,infact,acelebrationofdiversity.Evenacasualperusalofthelistwillrevealthatitincludesnames,places,events,andideasfromallovertheworld,andimpliessignificantartistic,intellectual,andsocialcontributionsfromdiverseethnicgroups.TotheextentthatHirsch’slistisintendedforAmericanstudents,itsdiversitywasinevitable.Theideaofdiversityisarichnarrativearoundwhichtoorganizethe

schoolingoftheyoung.Buttherearerightreasonstodothis,andwrongones.Theworstpossiblereason,asIhavealreadydiscussed,istousethefactofethnicdiversitytoinspireacurriculumofrevenge;thatis,foragroupthathasbeenoppressedtotrytoeventhescorewiththerestofAmericabysinglingitselfoutforexcessivepraiseandattention.Althoughtheimpulsetorevengeisinitselfunderstandable,suchaviewwillleadtoweirdfalsifications,divisiveness,andisolation.ThereisajokeaboutthisthatJewstelltoeachotheraboutthemselves:Oneday,inasmalltowninRussia,circa1900,aJewnoticesmanypeopleinpanic,runningthiswayandthat,shoutingforhelp.Hestopsanother

Jewandaskswhatishappening.Heistoldthatthereisacircusintownandthelionshaveescapedfromtheircages.“IsthisgoodorbadfortheJews?”heasks.Thejokeisintendedtomockaself-absorbedattitudethatallowsfor

nolargeridentificationthanwithone’sowngroup.Onemayaswellask,IsShakespearegoodfortheJews?AreNewton’slawsgoodfortheJews?Thereare,tobesure,certainJewishsectswhoseanswertothesequestionsis,infact,“badfortheJews,”becausesecularlearningofanysortisconsideredadistractionfromTalmudicstudies,andathreattopiety.Butthatisexactlythepoint.Suchsectshavetheirownschoolsandtheirownnarratives,andwishtokeeptheiryoungawayfrompubliceducation.Anyeducationthatpromotesanear-exclusiveconcernwithone’sowngroupmayhavevalue,butishostiletotheideaofapubliceducationandtothegrowthofacommonculture.Certainly,theremaybeoccasionswhenitisnaturalandappropriatetoask,forexample,Wasthisgoodorbadforblacks,orLatinos,orKoreans?Butthepointofthejokeisthatifeverythingisseenthroughthelensofethnicity,thenisolation,parochialness,andhostility,nottomentionabsurdity,aretheinevitableresult.Thereis,inaddition,anotherreasonforemphasizingdiversity,oneof

whichwemaybeskeptical.Irefertothepsychologicalargumentthatclaimstheself-esteemofsomestudentsmayberaisedbyfocusingtheirattentionontheaccomplishmentsofthoseoftheirownkind,especiallyiftheteachersareoftheirownkind.Icannotsayifthisissoornot,butitneedstobepointedoutthatwhileadiminishedself-esteemisnosmallmatter,oneofthemainpurposesofpubliceducation—itisatthecoreofacommonculture—istheideathatstudentsmustesteemsomethingotherthanself.ThisisapointCornelWesthasstressedinaddressingbothwhitesandblacks.Forexample,afterreviewingtheperniciouseffectsofraceconsciousness,whichincludepovertyandparanoia,heendshisbookRaceMattersbysaying,“Wesimplycannotenterthetwenty-firstcenturyateachother’sthroats.…Weareatacrucialcrossroadsinthehistoryofthisnation—andweeitherhangtogetherbycombatingtheseforcesthatdivideanddegradeusorwehangseparately.”3Itakethistobeaheartfeltpleaforthenecessityofprovidingourselvesandespeciallyouryoungwithacomprehensivenarrativethatmakesaconstructiveandunifyinguseofdiversity.

Fortunately,thereissuchanarrative.Ithasbothatheoreticalandapracticalcomponent,whichgivesitspecialforce.Thetheoreticalcomponentcomestousfromscience,expressedratherabstractlyintheSecondLawofThermodynamics.Thelawtellsusthatalthoughmattercanbeneithercreatednordestroyed(theFirstLaw),ittendstowardbecominguseless.Thenamegiventothistendencyisentropy,whichmeansthateverythingintheuniversemovesinexorablytowardsameness,andwhenmatterreachesastateinwhichthereisnodifferentiation,thereisnoemployableenergy.Thiswouldbearatherrelentlesslydepressingnotionifnotforthefactthatthereare“negentropic”forcesintheuniverse,energiesthatretardsamenessandkeepthingsmoving,organized,and(fromahumanpointofview)useful.Everytimewecleanourhomes,orourstreets,oruseinformationtosolveaproblem,ormakeaschedule,wearecombatingentropy,usingintelligenceandenergytoovercome(thatis,postpone)theinevitabledecayoforganization.Thephysicistsdescribeallofthisinmathematicalcodesanddonot

alwaysappreciatethewaysinwhichtherestofusemploytheirideasofentropyandnegentropy.Still,theuniverseisasmuchourbusinessasitistheirs,andiftherearelessonstobelearnedfromtheuniverse,attentionmustbepaid.Thelessonhereisthatsamenessistheenemyofvitalityandcreativity.Fromapracticalpointofview,wecanseethisineveryfieldofhumanactivity.Stagnationoccurswhennothingnewanddifferentcomesfromoutsidethesystem.TheEnglishlanguageisasuperbexampleofthispoint;soisLatin.Englishisarelativelyyounglanguage,notmuchmorethansixhundredyearsold(assumingChaucertobeourfirstmajorEnglishauthor).ItbeganitsjourneyasaTeutonictongue,changeditselfbyadmittingtheFrenchlanguage,thenItalian,andthenwelcomednewwordsandformsfromwhereveritsspeakersmovedaroundtheglobe.T.S.EliotonceremarkedthatEnglishisthebestlanguageforapoettouse,sinceitcontains,forthepoet’schoice,therhythmsofmanylanguages.Thisisanarguablepoint,perhaps.ButitisnotarguablethatEnglishisrapidlybecomingthegloballanguage,hasmorewordsinit,byfar,thananyotherlanguage,andexertsitsinfluenceeverywhere(muchtothechagrinoftheFrench,who,failingtograsptheimportanceofdiversity,areusingtheirenergiestopreventchangesintheirlanguage).English,inaword,isthemostdiverse

languageonearth,andbecauseofthat,itsvitalityandcreativityareassured.Latin,ontheotherhand,isdead.Itisdeadbecauseitisnolongeropentochange,especiallychangefromoutsideitself.Thosewhospeakandwriteit,speakandwriteitashasbeendoneforcenturies.OtherlanguagesdrewuponLatinforstrength,pickedonitsfleshandbones,createdthemselvesfromitsnourishment.ButLatinwasnotnourishedinreturn,whichiswhyitsusefulnessissolimited.Wheneveralanguageoranartformbecomesfixedintimeand

impermeable,drawingonlyonitsownresources,itispunishedbyentropy.Wheneverdifferenceisallowed,theresultisgrowthandstrength.Thereisnoartformflourishingtoday,orthathasflourishedinthepast,thathasnotdonesoonthewingsofdiversity—AmericanmusiciansborrowingfromAfricanrhythms,SouthAmericanarchitectsemployingScandinavianideas,GermanpaintersfindinginspirationinEgyptianart,FrenchfilmmakersinfluencedbyJapanesetechniques.Weevenfindthelawofdiversityoperatinginthegenetic

informationwepassonwhenprocreating.Incaseswheremarriageisconfinedtothoseofthesamefamily—wherepeople,asitwere,clonethemselves—entropicdefectsaremorelikelytooccurthanwhendifferencesareadmitted.Wemaygosofarastosaythatsamenessistheenemynotonlyofvitalitybutofexcellence,forwheretherearefewornodifferences—ingeneticstructure,inlanguage,inart—itisnotpossibletodeveloprobuststandardsofexcellence.Iamawarethattherearethosewhohavecometotheoppositeconclusion.Theyarguethatdiversityinhumanaffairsmakesitimpossibletohaveastandardofanythingbecausetherearetoomanypointsofview,toomanydifferenttraditions,toomanypurposes;thus,diversity,theyconclude,makesrelativistsofusall.Atatheoreticallevel,wemayhaveaninterestingargumenthere.But

fromapracticalpointofview,wecanseehowdiversityworkstoprovideanenrichedsenseofexcellence.DuringtheweeksofthelatestWorldCuptournament,nationsfromeverypartoftheworldwereparticipating—Nigeria,SaudiArabia,Morocco,Cameroon,Argentina,Brazil,Germany,Italy,andmanyothers.Eachteambroughtaspecialtraditionandauniquestyletothegames.TheGermansweremethodicalandefficient,theBraziliansflamboyant,theItaliansemotional.Theywereallgoodbutdifferent,andtheyallknewwhat“good”means.The

Americansdidn’thavemuchofastyleandevenlessofatradition,andthoughtheyplayedbravely,theywereeliminatedfairlyearly.Iamnotawareoftheircomplainingthattheylostbecausetheyhaveadifferentstandardof“good.”(Forexample,theteamthatscoresthefewestgoalswins.)Indeed,suchaclaimwouldbedemeaningtothem,asitwouldbedemeaningtoJapaneseorPeruvianartiststosaythattheirworksaresodifferentfromthoseofothertraditionsthatnojudgmentscanbemadeofthem.Theirworks,ofcourse,aredifferentfromothers,butwhatthatmeansisnotthatexcellencebecomesmeaninglessbutthattherestoftheworldexpandsandenrichesitsideasof“good.”Atthesametime,becauseweareallhuman,ourexpandedideasof“good”areapttobecomprehensibleandrecognizable.Inpainting,welookfordelicacy,simplicity,feeling,craftsmanship,originality,symmetry,allofwhichareaspirationsofpaintersallovertheworld,ascharacter,insight,believability,andemotionareaspirationsofplaywrights.NoonefaultsArthurMillerforfailingtouseiambicpentameterinwritingDeathofaSalesman.Butwhatmakeshisplay“good”isnotsodifferentfromwhatmakesMacbeth“good.”Diversitydoesnotmeanthedisintegrationofstandards,isnotanargumentagainststandards,doesnotleadtoachaotic,irresponsiblerelativism.Itisanargumentforthegrowthandmalleabilityofstandards,agrowththattakesplaceacrosstimeandspaceandthatisgivenformbydifferencesofgender,religion,andalltheothercategoriesofhumanity.Thus,thestoryofhowlanguage,art,politics,science,andmost

expressionsofhumanactivityhavegrown,beenvitalizedandenrichedthroughtheinterminglingofdifferentideasisonewaytoorganizelearningandtoprovidetheyoungwithasenseofprideinbeinghuman.Inthisstory,wedonotreadGabrielGarcíaMárqueztomakeHispanicstudentshappy,butbecauseoftheexcellenceofhisnovels.ThatEmilyDickinsonandEdnaSt.VincentMillaywerewomenisnotirrelevant,butweaskstudentstoknowtheirworkbecausetheirpoemsaregood,nottostrikeablowforfeminism.WereadWhitmanandLangstonHughesforthesamereason,notbecausetheformerwasahomosexualandthelatterAfrican-American.DowelearnaboutEinsteinbecausehewasJewish?MarieCuriebecauseshewasPolish?AristotlebecausehewasGreek?ConfuciusbecausehewasChinese?Cervantesbecausehewashandicapped?DowelistentothemusicofGriegbecausehewasashort

Norwegian,orBeethovenbecausehewasadeafGerman?Inthestoryofdiversity,wedonotlearnofthesepeopletoadvanceapoliticalagendaortoraisethelevelofstudents’self-esteem.Welearnaboutthesepeoplefortworeasons:becausetheydemonstratehowthevitalityandcreativityofhumanitydependondiversity,andbecausetheyhavesetthestandardstowhichcivilizedpeopleadhere.Thelawofdiversitythusmakesintelligenthumansofusall.

TheWordWeavers/TheWorldMakers

IoncehadthegoodfortunetoattendalecturebyElizabethEisenstein,authorofamonumentaltwo-volumestudyoftheprintingpressasanagentofculturalchange.Duringthequestionperiod,shewasaskedhowshehadcomebyherinterestinthesubject.Sheappearedtowelcomethequestion.Shetoldtheaudiencethatwhenshewasasixth-gradestudent,herteacherremarkedthattheinventionoftheprintingpresswithmovabletyperepresentedoneofthegreatadvancesofhumancivilization,almosttheequaloftheinventionofspeechitself.YoungElizabethtookthisremarktoheart.Butthenastrangethinghappened—inaword,nothing.Thesubjectwasnevermentionedagain.Itdidnotcomeupinjuniorhighschool,seniorhighschool,orcollege.Fortunately,itremainedinhermindduringallthattime,andtheresultwasthatsheeventuallydevotedherselftoadetailedexplicationofwhathersixth-gradeteachermusthavemeant.Thatsuchathingcouldhappenisatoncestartlingandyet

unsurprising.Schoolisnotoriousforneglectingtomention,letalonestudy,someofthemoreimportanteventsinhumanhistory.Infact,somethingquitesimilartowhathappenedtoElizabethEisensteinhappenedtomewhenIwasinMrs.Soybel’sfifth-gradeclass.Inthatclass,considerableattentionwaspaidtopublicspeaking,especiallypronunciation,sincetheschoolwasinBrooklyn,NewYork,anditwasgenerallybelieved(andstillis)thatpeoplefromBrooklyndonotpronouncetheirwordscorrectly.Oneofmyclassmates,GeraldMelnikoff,waswhisperingandmumblinghisweeklyoralpresentationandtherebyarousedMrs.Soybel’spedagogicalwrath.ShetoldGeraldthathewasspeakingasifhehadmarblesinhismouth;then,addressing

therestoftheclass,shetoldusthatlanguagewasGod’sgreatestgifttohumanity.Ourabilitytospeak,shesaid,waswhatmadeushuman,andthiswemustneverforget.Itooktheremarkseriously.(IrecallthatforsomereasonIwasevenfrightenedbyit.)ButaswithElizabethEisensteinandtheprintingpress,thematterwasnevermentionedagain,certainlynotbyMrs.Soybel.Shegaveusexcellentlessonsinspelling,grammar,andwritingandtaughtustoremovethemarblesfromourmouthswhenwespoke.Buttheroleoflanguageinmakingushumandisappeared.Ididn’tholdthisagainsther—afterall,shedidmentiontheidea—butIwaitedforthesubjecttocomeupagaininjuniorhigh,seniorhigh,andcollege.Iwaitedinvain.Wheneverlanguagewasdiscussed,itwasdonesowithinthecontextofitsbeingausefultool—definitelynotasagiftfromGod,andnotevenasatoolthatmakesushuman.Ofcourse,onedoesnotneedtocallonGod,eitherliterallyor

metaphorically,totellthestoryoflanguageandhumanness,ofhumanbeingsasthewordweaversoftheplanet.Thisdoesnotmeanthestoryiswithoutmystery.Nooneknows,forexample,whenwebegantospeak.Wasit50,000yearsago,or100,000years,orlonger?Nooneevenknowswhywebegantospeak.Theusualansweristhatspeecharoseexclusivelyasafunctionalmechanism;thatis,withoutspeech,thespeciescouldnothavesurvived.Someoneabsolutelyhadtolearntosay,“Thetigerishidingbehindthetree!”ButSusanneLangerthoughtotherwise.4Somethinghappenedtoourbrains,shebelieved,thatcreatedinusaneedtotransformtheworldthroughsymbols.Perhapstogiveussomethinginterestingtodoinoursparetime,orforthesheeraestheticjoyofit.Webecamesymbolmakers,nottospareusfromtheteethofthetigerbutforsomeotherreason,whichremainsmysterious.Ofcourse,weeventuallydiscoveredhowspeechcouldassistusinsurvival,butthatwasnotthereasonwebegantospeaktoourselvesandtoothers.Iplacespeakingtoourselvesfirstbecausewesurelyspendmoretime,usemorewords,areaffectedmoredeeplyintalkingtoourselvesthantoothers.Eachofusis,toborrowaphrasefromWendellJohnson,“ourownmostenchantedlistener.”PerhapsLangerwasright.Whydowetalktoourselves?Doesitenhanceoursurvival?Whatissoimportantthatweareimpelledtotalktoourselvessoincessantly—indeed,notonlywhenawakebutwhensleepingaswell?Oneanswerthatcanprovideschoolingwithaprofoundorganizing

principleisthatweuselanguagetocreatetheworld—whichistosay,languageisnotonlyavehicleofthought;itis,asWittgensteinsaid,alsothedriver.Wegowhereitleads.Weseetheworldasitpermitsustoseeit.Thereis,tobesure,aworldof“not-words.”But,unlikealltheothercreaturesontheplanet,wehaveaccesstoitonlythroughtheworldofwords,whichweourselveshavecreatedandcontinuetocreate.Languageallowsustonamethings,but,morethanthat,italsosuggestswhatfeelingsweareobligedtoassociatewiththethingswename.Evenmore,languagecontrolswhatthingsshallbenamed,whatthingsweoughttopayattentionto.Languageeventellsuswhatthingsarethings.InEnglish,“lightning”isathing,andsoisa“wave,”andan“explosion.”Evenideasaremadetoappearasthings.Englishmakesusbelieve,forexample,that“time”ismovinginastraightlinefrom“yesterday”to“today”to“tomorrow.”Ifweaskourselves,Wheredidyesterdaygo?Whereistomorrowwaiting?,wemaygetasenseofhowmuchthesewordsareideasmorethanthingsandofhowmuchtheworldasweimagineitisaproductofhowwedescribeit.Thereisnoescapingthefactthatwhenweformasentence,wearecreatingaworld.Weareorganizingit,makingitpliable,understandable,useful.Inthebeginning,therewastheword,andintheend,aswell.Isanyoneinourschoolstakingthisseriously?PerhapsMrs.Soybeldid,butthoughtweweretooyoungtograspthe

idea.Ifso,shewasmistaken.Therearemanywaystoteachtheyoungtheconnectionsbetweenlanguageandworld-making.Butshemadestillanothermistake,onecommonenough,bygivingherstudentstheimpressionthattheimportantthingaboutlanguageistoknowthedifferencebetween“hedon’t”and“hedoesn’t,”tospell“recommendation”correctly,andnevertopronouncethenameofourcity,“NooYawk.”Somemightsaythatifshetaughtthoselessonswell,shedidenough.Butwhat,then,ofthejuniorhighteachers,thehighschoolteachers,thecollegeteachers?Byfailingtorevealthestoryofhumanbeingsasworld-makersthroughlanguage,theymissseveralprofoundopportunities.Theyfail,forexample,toconveytheideathatthereisaninescapablemoraldimensiontohowweuselanguage.WeareinstructedintheBiblenevertotakethenameoftheLordinvain.Whatothernamesmustwenevertakeinvain?Andwhy?Afairansweristhatlanguagedistinguishesbetweenthesacredandtheprofane,andthereby

providesorganizationtoourmoralsense.Theprofligateuseoflanguageisnotmerelyasocialoffensebutathreattothewaysinwhichwehaveconstructedournotionsofgoodandbad,permissibleandimpermissible.Touselanguagetodefendtheindefensible(asGeorgeOrwellclaimedsomeofushabituallydo),touselanguagetotransformcertainhumanbeingsintononpersons,touselanguagetolieandtoblurdistinctions,tosaymorethanyouknoworcanknow,totakethenameofthetruthinvain—theseareoffensesagainstamoralorder,andtheycan,incidentally,becommittedwithexcellentpronunciationorwithimpeccablegrammarandspelling.Ourengagementwithlanguagealmostalwayshasamoraldimension,apointthathasbeenemphasizedbyeverygreatphilosopherfromConfuciusandSocratestoBertrandRussellandJohnDewey.Howisitpossiblethatateacher,atanylevel,couldmissit?Ofcourse,languagealsohasasocialdimension.Mrs.Soybel

understoodthiswellenough,butonlypartofit.Herideawasthatbyabandoninghomegrowndialects,hergaggleofBrooklynragamuffinscouldbecomelinguisticallyindistinguishablefromOxforddons,oratleastAmericancorporateexecutives.Whatshemayhavemissedisthatinchangingourspeech,wewouldbechangingourpolitics,ourtaste,ourpassions,oursenseofbeauty,evenourloyalties.Perhapsshedidknowthis,butthematterwasneverexplainedordiscussed,andnochoicewasoffered.Wouldsuchchangesalienateusfromourparents,relatives,andfriends?Istheresomethingwrongwithbeingfromthe“workingclass”?Whatnewprejudiceswillbecomecomfortableandwhatoldonesdespicable?Inseeingtheworldthroughtheprismofnewwaysofspeaking,wouldwebebetterorworse?Thesearequestionsoflargeimport,andtheyneedtoberaisedthesedaysinthecontextoftheefforttohaveusspeakin“politicallycorrect”ways.Bychangingournamesforthings,howdowebecomedifferent?Whatnewsocialattitudesdoweembrace?Howpowerfulareourhabitualwaysofnaming?Thesearemattersthatoughttobeattheheartofeducation.Theyare

notmerelyabouthowwesoundtoothersbutabouthowwearesoundingouttheworld.Ofcourse,theyarenomoreimportantthanhowlanguagecontrolstheusesofourintellect—thatistosay,howourideasofideasaregovernedbylanguage.Aristotlebelievedhehaduncovered

universallawsofthought,when,infact,allhehaddonewastoexplainthelogicalrulesofGreeksyntax.PerhapsiftheGreekshadbeeninterestedinotherlanguages,hewouldhavecometodifferentconclusions.Themedievalchurchmenthoughtthatiftheirlanguagecontainedaword,theremustnecessarilybesomethingintheworldtowhichitcorresponded,whichsentthemonafruitlessintellectualjourneytodiscoverhowmanyangelscoulddanceontheheadofapin.Thewell-knownGermanphilosopherMartinHeideggerbelievedthatonlytheGermanlanguagecouldexpressthesubtlestandmostprofoundphilosophicalnotions.Perhapshemeantincomprehensiblenotions.Inanycase,hisclaimisweakenedbythefactthathewasanardentsupporterofAdolfHitlerandamemberoftheNaziparty.Apparently,hewassomewhatunclearaboutwhatconstitutessubtletyandprofundity.Buttotheextenttowhichanyofusisclearaboutanything,itwillbethroughanawarenessofhowweuselanguage,howlanguageusesus,andwhatmeasuresareavailabletoclarifyourknowledgeoftheworldwemake.Allofthisispartofthegreatstoryofhowhumansuselanguageto

transformtheworldandthen,inturn,aretransformedbytheirowninvention.Thestory,ofcourse,didnotendwiththeinventionofspeech.Infact,itbeginsthere,whichiswhatMrs.Soybelmayhavemeantinsayingspeechmadeushuman.Thestorycontinuedtounfoldwithfantastictwistsashumanbeingsinventedsurrogatelanguagestowidentheirscope:ideographs,phoneticwriting,thenprinting,thentelegraphy,photography,radio,movies,television,andcomputers,eachofwhichtransformedtheworld—slicedit,framedit,enlargedit,diminishedit.Tosayofallthisthatwearemerelytoolmakersistomissthepointofthestory.Wearetheworldmakers,andthewordweavers.Thatiswhatmakesussmart,anddumb;moralandimmoral;tolerantandbigoted.Thatiswhatmakesushuman.Isitpossibletotellthisstorytoouryounginschool,tohavetheminvestigatehowweadvanceourhumanitybycontrollingthecodeswithwhichweaddresstheworld,tohavethemlearnwhathappenswhenwelosecontrolofourowninventions?Thismaybethegreateststoryuntold.Inschool.

W

PARTII

hatyouhavejustreadinPartI,toparaphraseafamoussage,isthedoctrine;whatfollowsinPartIIisthecommentary.ButIhastentosaythatImakenoclaimthatthefivenarrativesIhavedescribedexhaustthepossibilities.Theymerelyexhaustmyimagination.Thattherearestillmoreideasthatcanproviderespectable,humane,andsubstantivereasonsforschooling,Ihavenodoubt.Thepurposeofthisbookisnotonlytoputforwardreasonsthatmakesensebuttoplayaroleinpromotingaseriousconversationaboutreasons.Notaboutpolicies,management,assessment,andotherengineeringmatters.Theseareimportant,buttheyoughtrightfullytobeaddressedafterdecisionsaremadeaboutwhatschoolsarefor.Meaningonlyslightdisrespecttosomeofmycolleagues,Ihavetheimpressionthatofallthosewhohavebusinesstoconductwithschools—schooladministrators,classroomteachers,students,parents,politicians,publishers,andprofessorsofeducation—itisthelastwhoseemleastinterestedintalkingaboutreasons,withthefirstnotfarbehind.PerhapsIamwrongaboutthis,but,inanycase,wecannotfailtoimprovethelivesofouryoungifallpartiescouldentertheconversationwithenthusiasmandresolve.PartIIintendstomakeitscontributionbyprovidinglevelsof

specificitytothenarrativesdescribedinPartI.Withoutsuchspecificity,thenarrativesmayappearabstract,airy,andpossiblyimpractical.Inwhatfollows,Iwishtoshowthattheyarenothingofthesort.

H

5•TheSpaceshipEarth

avingjustremarkedthatthenarrativesdescribedinthelastchaptermayappearabstractandthatIintendheretobring

themdowntoearth,Itakeariskinbeginningwithafable.Whatcouldbemoreabstractthanthat?Thereadermayhelptoeasemymindbyremembering,first,thatthisisafableandnotacurriculumand,second,thatyouneednotburdenitoryourselfwithdoubtsaboutitspracticality.Therewillbetimeforthatinaddressingthemoralofthefable.

AFable

OnceuponatimeinthecityofNewYork,civilizedlifeverynearlycametoanend.Thestreetswerecoveredwithdirt,andtherewasnoonetotidythem.Theairandriverswerepolluted,andnoonecouldcleansethem.Theschoolswererundown,andnoonebelievedinthem.Eachdaybroughtanewstrike,andeachstrikebroughtnewhardships.Crimeandstrifeanddisorderandrudenessweretobefoundeverywhere.Theyoungfoughttheold.Theworkersfoughtthestudents.Thepoorfoughttherich.Thecitywasbankrupt.Whenthingscametotheirmostdesperatemoment,thecityfathers

mettoconsidertheproblem.Buttheycouldsuggestnocures,fortheirmoralewasverylowandtheirimaginationsdulledbyhatredandconfusion.Therewasnothingforthemayortodobuttodeclareastateofemergency.Hehaddonethisbeforeduringsnowstormsandpowerfailures,butnowhefeltevenmorejustified.“Ourcity,”hesaid,“isundersiege,liketheancientcitiesofJericho

andTroy.Butourenemiesareslothandpovertyandindifferenceandhatred.”

Asyoucansee,hewasaverywisemayor,butnotsowiseastosayexactlyhowtheseenemiescouldbedispersed.Thus,thoughastateofemergencyofficiallyexisted,neitherthemayornoranyoneelsecouldthinkofanythingtodothatwouldmakethesituationbetterratherthanworse.Andthenanextraordinarythinghappened.Oneofthemayor’saides,knowingfullwellwhatthefutureheldfor

thecity,haddecidedtofleewithhisfamilytothecountry.Inordertopreparehimselfforhisexodustoastrangeenvironment,hebegantoreadHenryDavidThoreau’sWalden,whichhehadbeentoldwasausefulhandbookonhowtosurviveinthecountry.Whilereadingthebook,hecameuponthefollowingpassage:“Studentsshouldnotplaylife,orstudyitmerely,whilethecommunitysupportsthematthisexpensivegame,butearnestlyliveitfrombeginningtoend.Howcouldyouthsbetterlearntolivethanbyatoncetryingtheexperimentofliving?”Theaidesensedimmediatelythathewasinthepresenceofan

exceedinglygoodidea.Andhesoughtanaudiencewiththemayor.Heshowedthepassagetothemayor,whowasextremelydepressedandinnomoodtoreadfrombooks,sincehehadalreadyscouredbooksofloreandwisdominsearchofhelpbuthadfoundnothing.“Whatdoesitmean?”askedthemayorangrily.“Nothingless,”repliedtheaide,“thanawaytooursalvation.”Hethenexplainedtothemayorthatthestudentsinthepublic

schoolshadheretoforebeenpartofthegeneralproblem,whereas,withsomeimaginationandachangeofperspective,theymighteasilybecomepartofthegeneralsolution.Hepointedoutthatfromjuniorhighschoolthroughseniorhighschool,therewereapproximately400,000able-bodied,energeticyoungmenandwomenwhocouldbeusedasaresourcetomakethecitylivableagain.“Buthowcanweusethem?”askedthemayor.“Andwhatwould

happentotheireducationifwedid?”Tothis,theaidereplied,“Theywillfindtheireducationinthe

processofsavingtheircity.Andasfortheirlessonsinschool,wehaveampleevidencethattheyoungdonotexactlyappreciatethemandareevennowturningagainsttheirteachersandtheirschools.”Theaide,whohadcomearmedwithstatistics(asaidesarewonttodo),pointedoutthatthecitywasspending$1millionayearmerelyreplacingbroken

schoolwindowsandthatalmostone-thirdofallthestudentsenrolledintheschoolsdidnotshowuponanygivenday.“Yes,Iknow,”saidthemayorsadly.“Woeuntous.”“Wrong,”saidtheaidebrashly.“Theboredomanddestructiveness

andpent-upenergythatareanafflictiontouscanbeturnedtoouradvantage.”Themayorwasnotquiteconvinced,buthavingnobetterideaofhis

own,heappointedhisaidechairmanoftheEmergencyEducationCommittee,andtheaideatoncemadeplanstoremovealmost400,000studentsfromtheirdrearyclassroomsandtheirevendrearierlessons,sothattheirenergyandtalentsmightbeusedtorepairthedesecratedenvironment.Whentheseplansbecameknown,therewasagreathueandcry

againstthem,forpeopleindistresswillsometimespreferaproblemthatisfamiliartoasolutionthatisnot.Forinstance,theteacherscomplainedthattheircontractcontainednoprovisionforsuchunusualprocedures.Tothis,theaiderepliedthatthespiritoftheircontractcompelledthemtohelpeducateouryouth,andthateducationcantakemanyformsandbeconductedinmanyplaces.“Itisnotwritteninanyholybook,”heobserved,“thataneducationmustoccurinasmallroomwithchairsinit.”Someparentscomplainedthattheplanwasun-Americanandthatits

compulsorynaturewashatefultothem.Tothis,theaiderepliedthattheplanwasbasedonthepracticesofearlierAmericanswhorequiredtheyoungtoassistincontrollingtheenvironmentinordertoensurethesurvivalofthegroup.“Ourschools,”headded,“haveneverhesitatedtocompel.Thequestionisnot,norhasiteverbeen,tocompelornottocompelbut,rather,whichthingsoughttobecompelled.”Andevensomechildrencomplained,althoughnotmany.Theysaid

thattheirGod-givenrighttospendtwelveyearsoftheirlives,atpublicexpense,sittinginaclassroomwasbeingtrampled.Tothiscomplaint,theaiderepliedthattheywereconfusingaluxurywitharightandthat,inanycase,thecommunitycouldnolongeraffordeither.“Besides,”headded,“ofalltheGod-givenrightsmanhasidentified,nonetakesprecedenceoverhisrighttosurvive.”Andso,thecurriculumofthepublicschoolsofNewYorkCity

becameknownasOperationSurvival,andallthechildrenfromseventh

gradethroughtwelfthgradebecamepartofit.Herearesomeofthethingstheywereobligedtodo:OnMondaymorningofeveryweek,400,000childrenhadtohelp

cleanuptheirownneighborhoods.Theysweptthestreets,cannedthegarbage,removedthelitterfromemptylots,andhosedthedustandgraffitifromthepavementsandwalls.Wednesdaymorningswerereservedforbeautifyingthecity.Studentsplantedtreesandflowers,tendedthegrassandshrubs,paintedsubwaysandothereyesores,andevenrepairedbroken-downpublicbuildings,startingwiththeirownschools.Eachday,fivethousandstudents(mostlyjuniorsandseniorsinhigh

school)weregivenresponsibilitytodirecttrafficoncitystreets,sothatallthepolicemenwhopreviouslyhaddonethiswerefreedtokeepasharpeyeoutforcriminals.Eachday,fivethousandstudentswereaskedtohelpdeliverthemail,sothatitsoonbecamepossibletohavemaildeliveredtwiceaday—asithadbeendoneindaysofyore.Severalthousandstudentswerealsousedtoestablishandmaintain

day-carecenters,sothatyoungmothers,manyonwelfare,werefreetofindgainfulemployment.EachstudentwasalsoassignedtomeetwithtwoelementaryschoolstudentsonTuesdayandThursdayafternoonstoteachthemtoread,towrite,andtodoarithmetic.Twentythousandstudentswereaskedtosubstitute,ononeafternoonaweek,forcertainadultswhosejobsthestudentscouldperformwithoutinjuryorlossofefficiency.Theseadultswerethenfreetoattendschoolor,iftheypreferred,toassistthestudentsintheireffortstosavetheircity.Thestudentswerealsoassignedtopublishanewspaperinevery

neighborhoodofthecity,andinit,theywereabletoincludemuchinformationthatgoodcitizensneedtohave.Studentsorganizedsciencefairs,blockparties,androckfestivals,andtheyformed,ineveryneighborhood,bothanorchestraandatheatercompany.Somestudentsassistedinhospitals,helpedtoregistervoters,andproducedradioandtelevisionprogramsthatwereairedoncitystations.Therewasstilltimetoholdayear-roundCityOlympics,inwhicheverychildcompetedinsomesportorother.Itcametopass,asyoumightexpect,thatthecollegestudentsinthe

cityyearnedtoparticipateinthegeneralplan,andthusanother100,000youngpeoplebecameavailabletoservethecommunity.Thecollege

studentsranajitneyservicefromtheresidentialboroughstoManhattanandback.Usingtheirowncarsandpartlysubsidizedbythecity,thestudentsquicklyestablishedakindofauxiliary,semipublictransportationsystem,whichreducedthenumberofcarscomingintoManhattan,tooksomeoftheloadoffthesubways,anddiminishedairpollution—inonestroke.Collegestudentswereempoweredtogiveparkingandlittering

tickets,thusfreeingpolicemenmorethaneverforrealdetectivework.Theywerepermittedtoorganizeseminars,filmfestivals,andlecturesforjuniorandseniorhighschoolstudents;andonaUHFtelevisionchannel,setasideforthepurpose,theygaveadvancedcoursesinavarietyofsubjectseverydayfrom3:00p.m.to10:00p.m.Theyalsohelpedtoorganizeandrundrug-addictionrehabilitationcenters,andtheylaunchedcampaignstoinformpeopleoftheirlegalrights,nutritionalneeds,andavailablemedicalfacilities.Becausethisisafableandnotafairytale,itcannotbesaidthatall

theproblemsofthecityweresolved.Butseveralextraordinarythingsdidhappen.Thecitybegantocomealive,anditscitizensfoundnewreasontohopethattheycouldsavethemselves.Youngpeoplewhohadbeenalienatedfromtheirenvironmentassumedaproprietaryinterestinit.Olderpeoplewhohadregardedtheyoungasunrulyandparasiticcametorespectthem.Therefollowedfromthisarevivalofcourtesyandadiminutionofcrime,fortherewaslessreasonthanbeforetobeangryatone’sneighborsandwishtoassaultthem.Amazingly,mostofthestudentsfoundthatwhiletheydidnot

“receive”aneducation,theywereabletocreateaquiteadequateone.Theylived,eachday,theirsocialstudiesandgeographyandcommunicationandbiologylessonsandmanyotherthingsthatdecentandproperpeopleknowabout,includingthebeliefthateveryonemustshareequallyincreatingalivablecity,nomatterwhatheorshebecomeslateron.Itevencametopassthattheolderpeople,beingguidedbytheexampleoftheyoung,tookarenewedinterestinrestoringtheirenvironmentandattheveryleastrefusedtoparticipateinitsdestruction.Now,itwouldbefoolishtodenythattherewerenotcertain

problemsattendingthiswholeadventure.Forinstance,thousandsofchildrenwhowouldotherwisehaveknowntheprincipalriversof

Uruguayhadtoliveouttheirlivesinignoranceofthesefacts.Hundredsofteachersfeltthattheirtraininghadbeenwasted,becausetheycouldnoteducatechildrenunlessitweredoneinaclassroom.Asyoucanimagine,itwasalsoexceedinglydifficulttogradestudentsontheiractivities,andafterawhile,almostalltestsceased.Thismademanypeopleunhappy,formanyreasons,butmostofallbecausenoonecouldtellthedumbchildrenfromthesmartchildrenanymore.Butthemayor,whowas,afterall,averyshrewdpolitician,promised

thatassoonastheemergencywasover,everythingwouldberestoredtonormal.Meanwhile,everybodylivedhappilyeverafter—inastateofemergency,butquiteabletocopewithit.

...Thosewhohavereadorheardthisfable(ithasappearedtwiceinthe

NewYorkTimesMagazine),andwerethenaskedtostateitsmoral,havecomeupwithatleastsixdifferentones.Whetherthismakesitagoodfableornot,Idonotknow.ButthemoralIpreferisthatasenseofresponsibilityfortheplanetisbornfromasenseofresponsibilityforone’sownneighborhood.Itishardtoimaginethatanyonewhofoulshisorherownnestcouldcareverymuchaboutthetreeinwhichitislodged.Thus,thefablesuggeststhatwemustbeginthestoryoftheEarthasourspaceshipbyinventingwaystoengagestudentsinthecareoftheirownschools,neighborhoods,andtowns.Thosewhoclaimtobeinclosetouchwithwhattheycall“reality”pointoutthataproposalsuchasthisoneposesinsurmountableproblemsinsupervisionandwouldrequireplanningofsuchcarethatmostschoolsorschoolsystemswouldbedefeatedrightatthestart.Theyalsoobservethatproposalsofthiskindhavepoliticalandlegalimplicationsthatgofarbeyondanythingtheschoolshaveeverhadtocopewith.Ireluctantlybutemphaticallyagree.Whenoneconsidersthatmostschoolshavedifficultyinsimplyprovidingstudentswithnutritiouslunches,thespecificactivitiesdescribedinthefablewouldseemtobeaprescriptionforchaos.Butthereisanideaherethatoughtnottobeeasilydismissed.Yes,itisunrealistictoexpectstudentstodirecttrafficordeliverthemail.Butisitunrealistictohavethemcleanandpainttheirownschool,planttreesandflowers,produceacommunitynewspaper,createacommunitytheater?Isitunrealisticforolderstudentstoteachyoungerones?Infact,thereareseveralschoolsthatalreadyallow,iftheydonot

require,studentstodosuchthings,andtodothemfortherightreasons.Iwouldstressthephrase“fortherightreasons.”Thereare,forexample,manyschoolsthathaveenthusiasticallydevelopedwhatarecalled“workstudy”or“apprenticeship”programswithaviewtowardfamiliarizingtheyoungwiththeworldofwork.Itisnotcleartomewhytheschoolsaresointerestedinsuchanobjective.1Studentswillhavemostoftheirlivestofamiliarizethemselveswiththeworldofwork—workissomethingtheywillhavetodo.Caringfortheirenvironmentisnotsomethingtheywillhavetodo,and,onefears,mostdon’t.Thepurposeoftheactivitiessuggestedbythefableistointroducetheyoungtotheirresponsibilitiesfortheplanet,beginningwiththebuildingsandstreetsthataretheirportionoftheplanet.Theideaistoshowthattheenvironmentisnotsomethingoneisgiven,takeitorleaveit.Thefactisthatwecannotleaveit,andneithershouldwetakeit.Rather,wemustmakeit.Andtomakeitrequiresaconsciousnessofourinterdependence,aswellasanencouragementandlegitimizationoftheeffort.Ishouldaddthatamongthe“new”ideasnowcurrentinseveral

placesistheorganizationofschoolingaroundthemes.Thisisaprogressiveidea,pointingasitdoestotheneedforprovidingmeaningineducation.Italsoexplicitlyrejectsthecommonassumptionthatthesubjectsofacurriculumhavenothingtodowithoneanother.Buttherearetrivialthemes,andidioticthemes,andthemesthataretrendybut,intheend,explainnothingandleadnowhere.ThespaceshipEarthisnot,Ibelieve,amongthese.Wemaythinkofitasthe“negentropic”theme,whichincludestheideathatthetestofacivilization,asEricHofferhasremindedus,isinitscapacityformaintenance.Tobuildahouseisafineandnoblething,buttokeepitfromcrumblingistheessentialtaskofacivilization.Thattheyoungarenotexemptfromthistaskisthemessageofthistheme.Butthatmessageimpliesstillanother—thatwecannotaffordto

wastetheenergyandpotentialidealismoftheyoung.Thereisnoquestionthatlistlessness,ennui,andevenviolenceinschoolarerelatedtothefactthatstudentshavenousefulroletoplayinsociety.Thestrictapplicationofnurturingandprotectiveattitudestowardchildrenhascreatedaparadoxicalsituationinwhichprotectionhascometomeanexcludingtheyoungfrommeaningfulinvolvementintheirowncommunities.ItishardlyUtopiantotrytoinventformsofyouthful

participationinsocialreconstructionasanalternativeorsupplementtotheschoolingprocess.Moreover,asthingsstandnowinmanyplaces,theenergyoftheyoungworksinoppositiontolearning;thatis,itisanobstaclethatschoolingmustovercome.WhatIamproposingintendstouseyouthfulenergyasanassettostudents’academicexperience.Thisistheprincipleof“Judo,”inwhichoneusesthestrengthofone’sopponentasanadditiontoone’sownstrength.Inthiscase,wedonotsuppresstheenergyofstudents;rather,weexploititforbenign,constructive,andhumanepurposes.Forthoserealistswhothinkthefableanditsimplicationsare

impractical,Inowproposeanotherideathatwouldappeartobemoreconventionalbutisprobablymore“impractical.”Inthisone,thestudentsstayinschool,takeacademicsubjects,andcanevenbetestedor,asrealistsliketosay,havetheirlearningassessed.Iproposethatwerealignthestructureofwhatarecalled“majorsubjects”sothat(ifyouwillforgiveanunplannedalliteration)archaeology,anthropology,andastronomyaregiventhehighestpriority.Whatmakesthis“impractical”isthefactthatsubjectsare,asmuchasanythingelse,bureaucraticandinstitutionalentities.Teachersarelicensedbythestatetoteachasubject;publishersproducetextbooksinsubjects;nationalorganizationsareformedaroundsubjects.Toturna“major”subjectintoa“minor”one,ortoeliminateasubjectaltogether,ortointroduceanewoneisasignificantlegalandpoliticalmatterandisboundtoarouseopposition.Nonetheless,thematterisworthseriousconsideration,allthemoresobecausethereis,afterall,ameasureofarbitrarinesstotheweightgiventoonesubjectoranother.WhenIattendedpublicschool(inNewYorkCity),bothmusicandartwereconsidered“minor”subjects—forwhatreason,Ihavenoidea.TherewasthenaHighSchoolofMusicandArt(andstillis),sothatsomeonemusthavethoughtthesesubjectswereofsufficientimporttoorganizelearningaroundthem.Butnotinmyschools.Evenfurther,geographywastreatedasaseparatesubject,and,ifmymemoryservesaccurately,sowaspublicspeaking.Neithermakesthegradeinmostschoolsnow.Ofcourse,thesedays,computerscienceandmediastudiesareregardedassubjects(inNewMexico,mediastudiesisrequiredinhighschool),andIknowofmorethanonehighschoolthatgivescoursesinsuchsubjectsassportswriting.Inotherwords,foralltheseemingsolidityofthesubjectsinacurriculum,

changesdotakeplace,andusuallyforreasonsthatmaybesaidtobe“educational.”Inthiscontext,itwouldbehelpfulifthetrainingofteachersand

administratorsincludedattentiontothehistoryof“subjects”sothattheremightbesomeunderstandingofhow,when,andwhysubjectswereformed.Thiswouldassistinshieldingschoolpeoplefromthedangersofhardeningofthecategories.“English,”forexample,wasnotasubjectinAmericanschoolsuntilthe1920s.TheancientGreekshadacurriculumformedaroundthestudyof“harmonics,”andsolumpedtogether(asmajorsubjects)arithmetic,astronomy,music,andgeometry.TheSophiststaughtgrammar,logic,andrhetoric,thelasttwoofwhichhavelittleimportanceinAmericanschools.Iwonderwhy.(Platothoughtlogicshouldn’tbestudieduntilonereachedtheageofthirty-five.ButIdon’tthinkthatisthereasonwemostlyignoreit.)TheGreeks,bytheway,hadnointerestinorrespectforanylanguagebuttheirownandwouldhavethoughtcoursesin“foreignlanguages”anabsurdity.MyfavoritesubjectofalltimeisfoundinthecurriculumdevelopedbyConfucius,whichrequiredstudentstostudyandpracticearchery—not,incidentally,becausetheywerebeingtrainedaswarriors,butbecausethesubjecttaughtthemdiscipline,precision,andconcentration.Confuciusalsoinsistedonstudents’studyingwhatwewouldcall“goodmanners.”Canyouimagineaschooltodayrequiringasamajorsubjectthestudyandpracticeofgoodmanners?Surely,noonecansayitisnotanimportantsubject.PerhapsitisnotinthecurriculumbecausetheEducationalTestingServicewouldbehard-pressedtofigureouthowtoassessit.Whythenarchaeology?Theargumentisstrong,althoughIshould

sayatonceIdonothaveinmindthestudyofhowarchaeologistsdotheirwork.Thereareinterestingpossibilitiesinallowingtheyoungtolearnsomethingaboutthemethodsofarchaeologists,butIamcontenttoletthatpartofthesubjectresideingraduateschool.Iamreferringheretotheknowledgethatarchaeologistshaveproducedaboutwhatissometimescalled“prehistory.”IfweareinterestedinincreasingawarenessofthepreciousnessoftheEarth,ofitsplaceasourhome,bothinthepastandthefuture,thennosubjectwillserveaswellasarchaeology.Therewasatimewhenstudentsweregiven,onceoverlightly,someknowledgeofthegreatachievementsofancientEgyptian

civilization.Inthosedays,“TigrisandEuphrates”wastheanswertoatleastonetestquestion,andthephrase“thecradleofcivilization”wasnotentirelyunknowntosixthgraders.Butthematterwasneverpursuedwithmuchconviction,andisrarelydonesotoday.Thiswas,andis,aseriousmistake,especiallyinlightoftheknowledgeacquiredinthiscenturyabouthumanity’s“recent”past.Weknow,forexample,thattheSumerianswerewritingonclaytabletsatleastathousandyearsbeforeAbrahamdepartedfromthelandofUr,andepicpoetrywasbeingwrittenbytheBabyloniansathousandyearsbeforeMosesissupposedtohavetakentheTenCommandmentsdownfromMountSinai.WeknowthattheBible,commonlyregardedasthebookonwhichWesternmoralityandsocialorganizationarefounded,tookmanyofitsthemesfromthegreatBabylonianepic,Gilgamesh.ThefirstgreatChinesedictionary,containingfortythousandcharacters,wascompiled3,500yearsago(thefirstgreatEnglishdictionary,200yearsago).TheSumerianswerewritingincuneiformfifteenhundredyearsbeforethealphabetwasinvented,andthreethousandyearsago,theChineseusedamathtextbookthatincludedrootmultiplications,geometry,andequationswithmorethanoneunknownquantity.TheSumerians,Imightadd,provideduswiththefirstdocumented—

thatis,written—recordofschools,ofproverbsandsayings,oflovesongs,oflibrarycatalogues,ofresurrectiontales,oflegalprecedent,andoftaxreduction.Thatistosay,instudyingtheancients,whetherSumerian,Babylonian,Egyptian,orChinese,wearenotonlystudyingcivilizationsbutpeople.TheylivedonEarth,complained,grieved,rejoiced,cheatedoneanother,scoldedtheirchildren,fellinbattle,wrotepoetry,anddidmanyotherthingsthatpeoplefromKansasCitydothisveryday.Itdoesthemnodiscreditthattheycouldnotimagineusinge-mailorwatchingtelevision.NeitheraretheytobetakenlightlybecausetheydidnotknowabouttheuniverseortheMilkyWayoreventhesolarsystem.ButtheyknewsomethingabouttheEarthandhowtotakecareofit,andwhathappenswhenitscareisamatterofindifference.Archaeology,then,isamongthebestsubjectswehaveforhelpingto

cultivateintheyoungasenseofearthlyperspective.CrewmembersofthespaceshipEarthneedtohavenontrivialknowledgeofcrewmembersofthepast.Afterall,theywillbetheSumeriansthreethousandyearsfromnow,andtheiraccomplishmentsandignoranceswillbethesubject

ofreviewbycrewmembersofthefuture.Somesenseofthecontinuityofhumanity’ssojournonEarthwouldseemanecessity.Therearetwomorepointsthatneedtobemadehereabout

archaeology,whichisnormallyregardedasanarcanesubject.First,instructioninitoughttobeginatanearlyage,andcontinueinspiralinglevelsofcomplexityandsophisticationthroughcollege.IdonotsayIknowexactlyhowthismightbedonewith,say,fifthgraders,neverhavinghadachancetotryit.Ibeganmycareerasafifth-gradeteacher,andwastold(thiswasmanyyearsago)thattherewasnotimeforsuchasubject,especiallybecauseitwasnot“basic.”Ihavenoobjectiontoschools’confiningtheirinstructiontowhatisbasic.Thequestion,ofcourse,isexactlythat:Whatisbasic?Or,toputitbetter,Whatarethesubjectsthataresuitedtoprovidestudentswithmeaning?Prehistory,itseemstome,isonesuchsubject,andIhavenodoubtthatgoodelementaryteacherscanfigureouthowtointroduceandpursuethesubject.Second,inpursuingthesubject,teachersmustnotonlyhave

substantiveknowledgebutarerequiredtoexerciseextremetact.Therearemanystudentswhocometoschoolboundtocosmologicalnarrativesthatcontradictarchaeologicalscholarship.Forexample,notlongagoIhadtwostudents(undergraduates)whobelievedthattheEarthwascreatedat9:00A.M.onOctober23,4004B.C.Theirstoryhadnoplaceinitforclaimsthattookhumanlifefurtherbackthanthat.Oneapproach—which,Ifear,didnotwork—wasformetoexplainthatsignificantlearningoftenproducesconfusionandevensadness,sinceknowledgedoesnotalwaysgivesupporttocherishedbeliefs.IevenquotedfromEcclesiastes(1:18)toprovidesomecomfort:“Forinmuchwisdomismuchgrief;andhethatincreasethknowledgeincreasethsorrow.”TheywerenotasimpressedasIamwiththeinsightsofthePreacher.Analternativeapproachistopresentarchaeologyasanarrative

(whichitis)andnotasadefinitive,ultimatetruthrenderingallcompetingnarrativesnullandvoid.Educatorsmaybringuponthemselvesunnecessarytravailbytakingatactlessandunjustifiablepositionabouttherelationbetweenscientificandreligiousnarratives.Weseethis,ofcourse,intheconflictconcerningcreationscience.Someeducatorsrepresenting,astheythink,theconscienceofscienceactmuchlikethoselegislatorswhoin1925prohibitedbylawtheteachingof

evolutioninTennessee.Inthatcase,anti-evolutionistswerefearfulthatascientificideawouldunderminereligiousbelief.Today,pro-evolutionistsarefearfulthatareligiousideawillunderminescientificbelief.Theformerhadinsufficientconfidenceinreligion;thelatterinsufficientconfidenceinscience.Thepointisthatprofoundbutcontradictoryideasmayexistsidebyside,iftheyareconstructedfromdifferentmaterialsandmethodsandhavedifferentpurposes.Eachtellsussomethingimportantaboutwherewestandintheuniverse,anditisfoolishtoinsistthattheymustdespiseeachother.Therearetworelevantquotationsthatmakethispoint,eachfromamanwhohadmorethanapassinginterestinthematter.ThefirstisfromnoneotherthanGalileo,whoinurgingthatadistinctionbemadebetweenreligiousandscientificnarrativesremarkedthat“theintentionoftheHolySpiritistoteachhowonegoestoheaven,nothowheavengoes.”Thesecond,coming375yearslater,isfromPopeJohnPaulII:“Sciencecanpurifyreligionfromerrorandsuperstition.Religioncanpurifysciencefromidolatryandfalseabsolutes.”2Itisherethatthesubjectofanthropologycomesin,since,unlike

archaeology,itpresentstouslivingculturesthatdifferwidelyintheirworldviewsandthereforehelpstheyoungtodefendthemselvesagainstidolatryandfalseabsolutes.Withsomereservationspreviouslynoted,IcallupontheEnterprise(fromStarTrek)asausefulmetaphorofwhatananthropologicaloutlookmayteach.Likeourplanetitself,theEnterpriseishometoavarietyofgroups,notallofthemEarthpeople.Spock,forexample,ishalfVulcan,andfromtimetotimeRomulansandeventhefearsomeKlingonswillsharespacewiththeEarthpeople.Ofcourse,theyhavetheirownspaceships,butifwecanimagine(forreasonsGeneRoddenberrymighthavethoughtof)thatallofthemhadtoliveontheEnterprise,wewouldhaveafairlyaccuratepictureofwhatoursituationis:acommunityofdifferentlanguages,differenttraditions,differentphysiques(andthereforedifferentstandardsofbeauty),anddifferentcosmologicalnarratives.Thefollowingquestionswouldarise:Whatdoeseachgrouphavetoknowabouttheothers?Whatknowledgewouldleadtoharmony?Whatknowledgemightleadtoconflict?Onwhatbasiswouldanygroupclaimsuperiorityovertheothers?Woulditbepossibletocreateanarrative,includingasetofsymbols,thatwouldattracttheallegianceofallgroups?

QuestionslikethesearerelevanttoaconsiderationofwhatstudentsneedtoknownotonlyaboutEskimo,Hopi,andBrazilianrain-forestpeoplebutaboutIranians,Vietnamese,Finns,Canadians,andalltheotherswithwhomtheysharethespaceship.Thereis,ofcourse,aclearideologicalbiastoanthropology,asthereistothethemeofthespaceshipEarth—thatignorance,distrust,andintoleranceofdifferencearedangerstothespaceshipandthatanythingthatmightbedonetoreducethemhelpstoensureeveryone’ssurvival.ButImustaddatoncethatsuchanoutlookdoesnotnecessarilyleadtoanuncriticalrelativism.TheVulcans,asweknow,takearatherbemusedattitudetowardtheEarthlings’excessiveemotionalism.TheEarthlings,fortheirpart,arequitesurethattheVulcansplacetoomuchvalueonlogicandcalculation.Eachlearnssomethingfromtheother,whichallowsameasureofharmony,evenaffection,toexistbetweenthem.Buteachretainsthebeliefintheessentialcorrectnessofitsworldview.Onedoesnothavetobeaculturalrelativistinordertobetolerantofotherviews,atleastnotwhensurvivalisatstake.TheKlingonswouldpresentaspecialproblem,sincetheircultureisorganizedaroundadistrustfulbelligerence.HowtheEarthlings,theVulcans,andotherswouldcopewiththeKlingonsis,ofcourse,anexactanalogytoaproblemwehaveonourownspaceship.ThesolutiondoesnotrequirethatothersacceptthevaluesoftheKlingons,orthattheyregardthatvalueasbeingasgoodasanyother.Thesolutionrequires,first,thatwerecognizeitsexistence;second,thatweexamineourselvestoseehowmuchwearelikeKlingons;andthird,thatwetrytofindinKlingoncultureelementsofwhichwewholeheartedlyapprove.OneprobablyshouldresisttakingtheEnterpriseasmetaphortoofar,butitisworthnotingthatinStarTrek:TheNextGeneration,theKlingonsandtheEarthlingshavebecomefriendsandseemtoworryabouthowtocivilizetheRomulans.DoesthisremindusofhowAmericaand“theevilEmpire”havenowjoinedtheirdestiniesandaretryingtofindrecognizableandadmirablevaluesineachother’sculture?Anthropologyisclearlyasubjectofglobaldimensions,anditsearly

introductiontoouryounganditscontinuedstudythroughoutschoolingwouldhelptogivethemanaweinspiringsenseofhumanity’srangeofdifference,aswellasasenseofourcommonpoints.Inlearningaboutdifference,webecomelessafraidandthereforemorecourageous.In

learningaboutcommonalities,webecomemorehopeful.Isthereanythingthatourspaceshipneedsmorethanthatitscrewbecourageousandhopeful?Butforasenseofawe,thereisnothingtomatchastronomy.Happily,

unlikearchaeologyandanthropology,astronomyisnostrangertoschoolcurriculums.Irememberbeingtaught(aspartofgeneralscience—noneofitgeneralandsomeofitnotscience)abouttheplanets,stars,andcomets.IevenrecalllookingatVincentDinato’spaperduringatestbecauseIcouldnotrememberNeptuneforthequestionrequiringustonamealltheplanets.Thiswasafruitlesseffortatcheating,sinceVincentonlyhadMars,Venus,andEarthashisanswer,anditendedwithVincentlookingatmypaper.IfonlyIhadbeensittingnexttoMildredWaldman,bothIandVincentwouldhavehadperfectanswers.Butinstudyingastronomyfiftyyearsago,eventhebeststudentscouldnotlearnmuchmorethanGalileo,TychoBrahe,andKeplerknew.TherewasavaguereferencetoaBigBangtheorybutnoevidenceofit.Nooneknewanythingaboutblackholes.Noonehadbeentothemoon,andnosatellitehadvisitedMars.NoonehadeverseenwhattheEarthlookslikefromapointoutsidetheEarth.Andweevenbelievedthatthesolarsystem,havingoncebeenformed,wouldmoreorlessalwaysbeexactlythesame.Iamwritingintheyearwhentwenty-onepiecesoftheShoemaker-Levy9comet,travelingatunimaginablespeeds,crashedintoJupiter,enablingustoseeforourselvesthatthesolarsystemisnotafixedthing,butanongoingprocess.Itchanged,asitwere,beforeourveryeyes.Naturally,andhumanly,ourastonishmentwasaccompaniedbyworryaboutwhatmighthappentoourownspaceshipifitwereassaultedbyacomet.Everyoneagreedthatwereacomettovisitus,thedifferencesbetweenIraniansandGermans,CanadiansandFinns,wouldmeltawayasquicklyanddecisivelyaswouldportionsoftheplanet.Astronomyis,ofcourse,thesubjectthatmostexplicitlydepictsour

planetasaspaceship,anditsstudyinevitablyraisesfundamentalquestionsaboutourselvesandourmission.Arewe,forexample,aloneintheuniverse?Insurveyingthemultitudeofgalaxies,ThomasCarlyleaddressedthequestionwithasullencomment.“Asadspectacle,”heremarked.“Iftheybeinhabited,whatascopeformiseryandfolly.Iftheynotbeinhabited,whatawasteofspace.”Butmostyoungpeopleareinspiredratherthandepressedbythevastnessoftheuniverseand

thepossibilityoflifeonotherspaceships.Thefascinationwithspacetakesdifferentforms,ofcourse.Theyoungonesmayfindexcitementinimaginingthroughartwhatthecrewsofotherspaceshipswouldlooklike.Olderstudents,iftheyhavesomerudimentaryphysics,mayenjoyspeculatingonhowEarthlingsmightcommunicatewiththecrewsinotherpartsofourgalaxy.Theremayevenbestudentswhowillfindspiritualmeaninginthefactthatourshipandallthatisonitappeartobeatonewiththeuniverse.Asfaraswecantell,everythingintheuniverseismadeofthesamestuffandfollowsthesamerules.Thus,astronomyoffersconfirmationofanintuitiveideaexpressedovercenturiesbypeopleofdifferentcultures.Heraclituswrotethatallthingsareone.Lao-tzusaidallthingsareruledbyasingleprinciple.TheSuquamishIndianchiefSeattledeclaredthatallthingsareconnected.Soitwouldseem.EventhosewhoarebelieversincreationtheorymayfinditencouragingthattheBigBangtheoryofmodernastronomersisnotsofarfromthestoryoftheBeginningasfoundinGenesis.Thethoughtthatagroupofcamel-ridingBedouinshuddlingaroundafireinthedesertnightfourthousandyearsagomightponderthequestionofhowtheuniversebeganandcomeupwithanarrativethatissimilartooneacceptedbyMITprofessorsinthelatetwentiethcenturyspeaksofacontinuityofhumanimaginationthatcannotfailtoinspire.Thatisnottosaythatinteachingastronomy,onemustdistortwhatisknowninordertoaccommodateothernarratives(althoughonemighthelpCreationiststoaccommodatetheirstorytoastronomy).Weknow,forexample,somethingabouthowourspaceshipwascreated.Weknowwhenourspaceshipwascreated—about5billionyearsago.Weknowwhereweareintheuniverse—onaplanetorbitingastarthatissituatedattheedgeofaspiralgalaxy,whichisneartheoutskirtsofasuperclusterofgalaxies.Ofcourse,wedonotknowwhatweareherefor,whichisaquestionastronomyprovokesbutdeclinestoaddress.Indeed,mostastronomersarelikelytoagreethataskingthequestiondoesn’tmakeanysense.Theywillreferustoothernarrativesifwewishtodiscussit.Butastronomerswillagreethatsincewearehere,andknowthatwearehere,wehaveimportantresponsibilitiestoourplanet,suchasnotdestroyingouratmosphereordepletingtheavailableoxygenorpollutingtheoceans.Theywillagreethathumangreed,ignorance,andindifferenceareagreaterthreattotheplanetthancomets.

Astronomy,then,isakeysubjectifwewishtocultivateinouryoungasenseofawe,interdependence,andglobalresponsibility.Butheresomethingmustbesaidabouthowthesubjectoughttobetaught—inaword,historically.Everysubjecthasahistory,andasIwilltrytoshowinthenextchapter,thereisnobetterwaytorevealhowhumanshaveovercometheirmistakesthanbytrackingthehistoryofsubjects.Butastronomyisespeciallywellsuitedtoanhistoricaltreatmentbecausetherecordofitsmistakesandcorrectionsissowelldocumented.WeknowwhatAristotlebelieved,whatPtolemybelieved,whatCopernicusbelieved,andwhatGalileobelieved.Weevenknowthepricesomeofthempaidfortheirbeliefs.GiordanoBrunosaidthatGod“isglorifiednotinonebutincountlesssuns;notinasingleearthbutinathousand,Isay,inaninfinityofworlds.”Forthisbelief,which,unlikeGalileo,hedidnotrecant,hewasburnedaliveonFebruary19,1600,eventhoughfifteenhundredyearsbeforethat,Lucretiusexpressedthesameidea,andfivehundredyearsbeforethat,Metrodorussaidthesame.Thepointisthatastronomyisahumanstory,filledwiththesame

emotions,drama,triumphs,andtragediesonefindsinShakespeare’splays.Thereisambition,greed,deceit,superstition,nobility,wonder,and,alwaysandaboveallelse,curiosity.Onemayproperlycallastronomyscience,butwhentaughtasastruggletodiscoverwhereourspaceshipisandhowitcomestobethere,wemayalsosaythesubjectisoneofthehumanities.WemaytakeasaguidehereremarksmadebyWilliamJamesonwhatconstitutesahumanisticsubject.Hesaid:“Youcangivehumanisticvaluetoalmostanythingbyteachingithistorically.Geology,economics,mechanics,arehumanitieswhentaughtwithreferencetothesuccessiveachievementsofthegeniusestowhichthesesciencesowetheirbeing.Nottaughtthus,literatureremainsgrammar,artacatalogue,historyalistofdates,andnaturalscienceasheetofformulasandweightsandmeasures.”3TowhichImightadd,nottaughtthus,astronomybecomesnamesofobjects,whichprovokesnervousstudentstocheatonexaminations.Inbringingthischaptertoaclose,Imustalsosaythattheteaching

offoreignlanguages(sothatstudentscanactuallyspeakone)andthestudyofcomparativereligionareindispensablemeansofenhancingthestoryofthespaceshipEarth.ButsinceIwilldiscusstheseindetailinchapterstofollow,Iamcontentheremerelytonotetheirimportance.

I

6•TheFallenAngel

amnotsurewhosaidit(possiblyNorthropFrye),butithasbeenremarkedthattherearethreecharactersfromliteraturewho

areknownallovertheworld:Hamlet,Alice,andSherlockHolmes.Idon’tknowhowShakespeareandLewisCarrollfeltabouttheircreations,butitisknownthatArthurConanDoylebelievedHolmestobesomethingofanuisanceandthoughtthathisstoriesaboutHolmesdidnotrepresenthisbestwork.Theirony,ofcourse,isthatnoonereadswhatDoyleregardedashisbestwork,buteverybodyreadsaboutHolmes.Somethinglikethiswillhappen,onoccasion,tolesser—muchlesser

—authors—forexample,me.AmongthemanypagesIhavewrittenabouteducationovertheyears,Ihaveincludedafewideasthatseemedtometoriseabovetheothers,andcouldbeexpectedtobegivenspecialconsiderationbyreaders.Buttheideashavebeenlargelyignored,mostlyonthegroundsthatreadersbelievedtheywereincludedasanattemptathumor.Thisisdepressingfortworeasons:first,thatreadersbelievedmysenseofhumorwassouninspired;second,thattheirsenseofpossibilitieswassolimited.Youmayjudgeforyourself.Hereisoneoftheideas.Wecouldimprovethequalityofteachingovernight,asitwere,ifmathteacherswereassignedtoteachart,artteachersscience,scienceteachersEnglish.Myreasoningisasfollows:Mostteachers,especiallyhighschoolandcollegeteachers,teachsubjectstheyweregoodatinschool.Theyfoundthesubjectbotheasyandpleasurable.Asaresult,theyarenotlikelytounderstandhowthesubjectappearstothosewhoarenotgoodatit,ordon’tcareaboutit,orboth.If,letussay,forasemester,eachteacherwereassignedasubjectwhichheorshehatedoralwayshadtroublewith,theteacherwouldbeforcedtoseethesituationasmoststudentsdo,wouldseethingsmoreasanewlearnerthanasanoldteacher.Perhapsheorshewoulddiscoverhowboringthe

textbooksare,wouldlearnhownerve-rackingthefearofmakingmistakesis,mightdiscoverthataquestionthathasunsuspectinglyarousedhisorherinterestmustbeignoredbecauseitisnotcoveredbythesyllabus,mightevendiscoverthattherearestudentswhoknowthesubjectbetterthanheorshecouldeverhopeto.Thenwhat?Allinall,Ibelievetheexperiencewouldbechasteningandeveneye-

opening.Whenteachersreturnedtotheirspecialties,itispossibletheywouldbringwiththemrefreshingideasabouthowtocommunicateabouttheirsubject,andwithanincreasedempathyfortheirstudents.Hereisanotheridea,notmeanttobefunny:Wecanimprovethe

qualityofteachingandlearningovernightbygettingridofalltextbooks.Mosttextbooksarebadlywrittenand,therefore,givetheimpressionthatthesubjectisboring.Mosttextbooksarealsoimpersonallywritten.Theyhaveno“voice,”revealnohumanpersonality.Theirrelationshiptothereaderisnotunlikethetelephonemessagethatsays,“Ifyouwantfurtherassistance,presstwonow.”IhavefoundtherecipesonthebacksofcerealboxestobewrittenwithmorestyleandconvictionthanmosttextbookdescriptionsofthecausesoftheCivilWar.Ofthelanguageofgrammartexts,Iwillnotevenspeak.ToborrowfromShakespeare,itisunfitforaChristianeartoendure.Butworsethanthis,textbooksareconcernedwithpresentingthefactsofthecase(whateverthecasemaybe)asiftherecanbenodisputingthem,asiftheyarefixedandimmutable.Andstillworse,thereisusuallynocluegivenastowhoclaimedthesearethefactsofthecase,orhow“it”discoveredthesefacts(therebeingnoheorshe,orIorwe).Thereisnosenseofthefrailtyorambiguityofhumanjudgment,nohintofthepossibilitiesoferror.Knowledgeispresentedasacommoditytobeacquired,neverasahumanstruggletounderstand,toovercomefalsity,tostumbletowardthetruth.Textbooks,itseemstome,areenemiesofeducation,instrumentsfor

promotingdogmatismandtriviallearning.Theymaysavetheteachersometrouble,butthetroubletheyinflictonthemindsofstudentsisablightandacurse.OnoneoccasionwhenImadethisargumentbeforeagroupof

teachers,oneofthemasked,“Butifweeliminatedtextbooks,whatwouldreplacethem?”Myanswer—again,notmeanthumorously—wasasfollows:“WhenJonasSalk’svaccineeliminatedpolio,didanyoneask,

Butwhatwillreplaceit?”YoumightthinkIwasbeingawiseguy,andsoIwas.Theteacherdeservedabetteranswer,andIwillcometoone.Butfirst,Iwillofferoneotherideathathasbeenwidelyandconsistentlyignored.Thisone,Iconfess,wasoriginatedinadvertentlybyReedIrvine,whoheadsaright-winggroupcalledAccuracyinMedia(AIM).Thegroup’spurposeistomonitornewspapers,radio,andtelevisioninasearchforleft-wingbias,which,whenfound,istobeexposedandcondemned.Afewyearsago,Mr.IrvinebegantoextendhissurveillancesbyformingagroupknownasAccuracyinAcademia(AIA),whosepurposeistoexposeleft-wingbiasintheclassroom.Theideaistohavestudentssecretlyandcarefullymonitorthelecturesandremarksoftheirteacherssothatthelatter’sinaccuracies,clichés,andunjustifiedopinionsmaybebroughttolight.Itisprobablynotentirelyirrelevanttonotethatthoseofa“liberal”bentreactedwithdisdain,chagrin,andrighteousnesstothethoughtofstudentspiesevaluatingeverythingtheirteacherssay.Perhapsitwasthesecrecyofitallthatdisturbedthem.Ihopeso,becauseputtingthesecrecyaside,AccuracyinAcademiaisaboutthebestideayetinventedforachievingwhateveryteacherlongsfor:first,togetstudentstopaycarefulattention;second,togetthemtothinkcritically.Ofcourse,theflawinIrvine’sideaisthathewishesstudentstothinkcriticallyinonlyonedirection.Butthisiseasilycorrected.Allthatisnecessaryisthatatthebeginningofeachcourse,theteacheraddressstudentsinthefollowingway:Duringthisterm,Iwillbedoingagreatdealoftalking.Iwillbe

givinglectures,answeringquestions,andconductingdiscussions.SinceIamanimperfectscholarand,evenmorecertainly,afalliblehumanbeing,Iwillinevitablybemakingfactualerrors,drawingsomeunjustifiableconclusions,andperhapspassingalongmyopinionsasfacts.Ishouldbeveryunhappyifyouwereunawareofthesemistakes.Tominimizethatpossibility,IamgoingtomakeyouallhonorarymembersofAccuracyinAcademia.Yourtaskistomakesurethatnoneofmyerrorsgoesbyunnoticed.Atthebeginningofeachclass,Iwill,infact,askyoutorevealwhatevererrorsImadeintheprevioussession.Youmust,ofcourse,saywhytheseareerrors,indicatethesourceofyourauthority,and,ifpossible,suggestatruerormoreusefulorlessbiasedwayofformulatingwhatIsaid.Yourgradeinthiscoursewillbebasedtosomeextentontherigorwithwhichyoupursuemymistakes.Andto

ensurethatyoudonotfallintothetorporthatissocommonamongstudents,Iwill,fromtimetotime,deliberatelyincludesomepatentlyuntruestatementsandsomeoutrageousopinions.Thereisnoneedforyoutodothisalone.Youshouldconsultwith

yourclassmates,perhapsevenformastudygroupthatcancollectivelyreviewthethingsIhavesaid.Nothingwouldpleasememorethanforoneorseveralofyoutoaskforclasstimeinwhichtopresentacorrectedoralternativeversionofoneofmylectures.Iambankingonreaders’agreeingthatthesethreeideasareneither

humorousnorimpractical.NeitherdoIseethemasgimmicks.Totrytorenewateacher’ssenseofthedifferencebetweenteachingandlearning,toeliminatepackagedtruthsfromtheclassroom,andtofocusstudentattentiononerrorarepartofanuncommonbut,Ibelieve,profoundnarrativecapableofgeneratinginterestandinspirationinschool.Itis,infact,arefutationofastorythatinfusessomuchofschoolingasweknowitandhaveknownitforsolong.Iamreferringtothestorythatsaysthefollowinginahundredwaystostudents:Youcometoschooltolearnimportantfactsandenduringtruths.Yourteacherknowsmanyofthese,yourtextbooksstillothers.Itisnotyourbusinesstoknowwheretheycamefromorhow.Itwould,inanycase,beawasteofvaluabletimetoburdenyouwiththemistakesofthosewhothoughttheyhaddiscoveredimportantfactsandenduringtruths.Schoolisnotaplacefordocumentingerror,butforrevealingthetruestateofaffairs.DoIexaggerate?Idon’tthinkso.Thesentencesabove,withsome

variationsandafewaddenda,expresstheattitudeofmostschoolstowardknowledge(especially,bytheway,mostcolleges)andexplainwhyacourseortwoin“criticalthinking”isquiteirrelevant.Theyalsoexplaintheeasyappealofthepreviouslymentioned“culturalliteracy”projectdevelopedbyE.D.Hirsch,Jr.Theideathereisforstudentstobecomeacquaintedwithathousandfactswithoutpausingtoknowwhosefactstheyare,howwecometoknowthem,whytheyaredeemedimportantandbywhom.Thisleadsquitedirectlytothestateofmindsometimescalled“justificationism.”Asused,forexample,byHenryPerkinsoninThePossibilitiesofError,thewordreferstothetendencyofmostpeopletoengageinarigorousand“natural”defenseoftheirownbeliefs,notsomuchtoexplaintheirbeliefsastojustifythem.Althoughweareallaccustomedtosuchperformances,istherenotsomething

strangeaboutthis—thisideaofeducationinwhicheveryoneisencouragedtojustify,fightfor,anddefendwhattheybelieve,asifwedidnotknowthatourbeliefsareflawed,imperfect,badlyinneedofimprovement?ItwouldtakeasatiristofSwiftiantalenttoshow,first,howunseemlyitisandthenhowdeeplyitoffendsthewaypeoplelearn.IriskcontradictingJohnDewey’smostfamousaphorismbysayingthatthoughwemaylearnbydoing,welearnfarmorebyfailing—bytrialanderror,bymakingmistakes,correctingthem,makingmoremistakes,correctingthem,andsoon.Weareallinneedofremedialwork,allthetime.Andthisincludesteachers,students,andtextbooks.Canyouimagineaschoolorganizedaroundthisprinciple—thatwhateverideaswehave,weareinsomesensewrong?Wemayhaveinsufficientfactstosupportanidea;orsomeofthefactswehavemaybeincorrect,perhapsgeneratedbyafesteringemotion;ortheconclusionswehavedrawnmaynotbeentirelylogical;orsomedefinitionweareemployingmaynotbeapplicable;orwemaybemerelyrepeatinganideawehaveheardexpressedbysomeauthorityandhavenotexamineditsimplicationscarefully.Canyouimagineschoolswhoseepistemologicalstorydoesnotaimatproducingaflotillaoffanatics,but,rather,peoplewhoproceedtolearnwithfullconsciousnessoftheirownfallibility,aswellasthefallibilityofothers?Howcouldsuchschoolsbecreated?Anyplanwould,ofnecessity,

haveitsorigininanewwayofeducatingteachers,becauseitwouldrequirearefocusingofthepurposeofteaching.Asthingsstandnow,teachersareapttothinkofthemselvesastruthtellerswhohopetoextendtheintelligenceofstudentsbyrevealingtothem,orhavingthemdiscover,incontrovertibletruthsandenduringideas.Iwouldsuggestadifferentmetaphor:teachersaserrordetectorswhohopetoextendtheintelligenceofstudentsbyhelpingthemreducethemistakesintheirknowledgeandskills.Inthisway,ifImayputitcrudely,teachersbecomelessinterestedinmakingstudentssmart,moreinterestedinmakingstudentslessdumb.Thisisnotaquestionofsemantics.Or,ifitis,itisnot“mere”semantics.Itis,infact,thepointofviewtakenbythosewhopracticemedicineandlaw.Physiciansdo,ofcourse,haveaconceptionofwhatisgoodhealth,buttheirexpertiseresidesintheirabilitytoidentifyillhealthandtoprovideremediesforit.Thatiswhy,uponbeingconsulted,theirfirstandmostimportantquestionis,What’s

wrong?Thesamemaybesaidoflawyers,whoseexpertiseresidesintheir

abilitytoidentifyinjusticeandtopursuemethodstoeliminateit.Infact,toberealisticaboutthematter,formostphysicians,goodhealthisdefinedastheabsenceofillness;formostlawyers,justiceisdefinedastheabsenceofinjustice.Physiciansandlawyers,wemightsay,functionaspainkillers.Thegoodonesknowhowtorelieveusofillnessandinjustice.Iamsuggestingtheroleofpainkillerforteacherswhosepurposewouldbetorelievestudentsoftheburdensoferror—intheirfacts,theirinferences,theiropinions,theirskills,theirprejudices.Itwouldnotbeeasytoeducateteacherstoapproachmattersinthis

way.Unlikethestudyofsicknessandinjustice,thestudyoferrorhasrarelybeenpursuedinasystematicway.Butthisdoesnotmeanthatthesubjecthasnohistory.Therearemanyhonorablebooksthattakehumanerrorasatheme.TheearlydialoguesofPlatoarelittleelsebutmeditationsonerror.Acknowledgingthathedidnotknowwhattruthis,Socratesspenthistimeexposingthefalsebeliefsofthosewhothoughttheydid.Erasmus’sInPraiseofFollyalsocomestomind,asdoesJonathanSwift’sGulliver’sTravels.Inamoremodernvein,onethinksofJacquesEllul’sACritiqueoftheNewCommonplaces,StephenJayGould’sTheMismeasureofMan,I.A.Richards’sPracticalCriticism,MinaShaughnessy’sErrorsandExpectations,andS.I.Hayakawa’sLanguageinThoughtandAction.Suchbooksarenotnormallyincludedaspartoftheeducationof

teachers.Weretheytobeused,teacherswouldbelikelytocometothreepowerfulconclusions.Thefirstisthateveryonemakeserrors,includingthosewhowriteabouterror.Noneofusiseverfreeofit,andwearemostseriouslyendangeredwhenwethinkweare.Thatthereisanalmostinfinitesupplyoferror,includingourown,shouldprovideteacherswithasenseofhumilityand,incidentally,assurancethattheywillneverbecomeobsolete.Thesecondconclusionisthaterrorisreducible.Atpresent,teachers

consumevaluabletimeinpointlessdebatesoverwhetherornotintelligenceisfixed,whetheritismostlygeneticorenvironmental,whatkindsofintelligencesexist,andevenhowmuchintelligenceoneoranotherdifferentracehas.Suchdebatesabouterrorareentirelyunnecessary.Errorisaformofbehavior.Itisnotsomethingwehave;it

issomethingwedo.Unlikeintelligence,itisneitherametaphornorahypotheticalconstructwhosepresenceisinferredbyascoreonatest.Wecanseeerror,readit,hearit.Anditispossibletoreduceitspresence.Thethirdconclusionisthaterrorismostlycommittedwiththe

larynx,tongue,lips,andteeth—whichistosay,errorischieflyembodiedintalk.Itistrueenoughthatourwaysoftalkingarecontrolledbythewayswemanageourminds,andnooneisquitesurewhat“mind”is.Butwearesurethatthemainexpressionofmindissentences.Whenwearethinking,wearemostlyarrangingsentencesinourheads.Whenwearemakingerrors,wearearrangingerroneoussentences.Evenwhenwemakeanonverbalerror,wehaveprecededtheactionbytalkingtoourselvesinsuchawayastomakeusthinktheactiscorrect.Theword,inaword,bringsforththeact.Thisfactprovidesteacherswithaspecificsubjectmatterinwhichtheymaybecome“experts”:Theirexpertisewouldresideintheirknowledgeofthosewaysoftalkingthatleadtounnecessarymischief,failure,misunderstanding,andevenpain.IbelieveBertrandRussellhadsomethinglikethisinmindwhenhe

saidthatthepurposeofeducationistohelpstudentsdefendthemselvesagainst“theseductionsofeloquence,”theirown“eloquence”aswellasthatofothers.AsIhavepreviouslymentioned,theancientGreeks—thatis,theSophists—believedthatthestudyofgrammar,logic,andrhetoricwouldprovideanadequatedefense.Theseartsoflanguagewereassumedtobewhatmaybecalled“meta-subjects,”subjectsaboutsubjects.Theirrules,guidelines,principles,andinsightswerethoughttobeusefulinthinkingaboutanything.Inpokingfunatthosewhosawnopurposeinlearningabout

language,Erasmus(inhisInPraiseofFolly)wrotewithsharpirony:“…whatuseofgrammar,whereeverymanspokethesamelanguageandhadnofurtherdesignthantounderstandoneanother?Whatuseoflogic,wheretherewasnobickeringaboutthedouble-meaningwords?Whatneedofrhetoric,wheretherewerenolawsuits?”Hemeanttosaythatashumanswewillalwayshavedifficulty

understandingoneanother,willalwaysbickeraboutthemeaningofwords,alwaysclaimwehavebeeninjuredbyanother.Thereisnothingthathappensamonghumansthatisnotinstigated,negotiated,clarified,

ormystifiedbylanguage,includingourattemptstoacquireknowledge.TheGreeks,and,indeed,themedievalSchoolmen,understoodwellsomethingweseemtohaveforgotten—namely,thatallsubjectsareformsofdiscourseandthatthereforealmostalleducationisaformoflanguageeducation.Knowledgeofasubjectmostlymeansknowledgeofthelanguageofthatsubject.Biology,afterall,isnotplantsandanimals;itisaspeciallanguageemployedtospeakaboutplantsandanimals.Historyisnoteventsthatonceoccurred;itislanguagedescribingandinterpretingevents,accordingtorulesestablishedbyhistorians.Astronomyisnotplanetsandstarsbutaspecialwayoftalkingaboutplanetsandstars,quitedifferentfromthelanguagepoetsusetotalkaboutthem.Andsoastudentmustknowthelanguageofasubject,butthatis

onlythebeginning.Foritisnotsufficienttoknowthedefinitionofanoun,oragene,oramolecule.Onemustalsoknowwhatadefinitionis.Itisnotsufficienttoknowtherightanswers.Onemustalsoknowthequestionsthatproducedthem.Indeed,onemustalsoknowwhataquestionis,fornoteverysentencethatendswitharisingintonationorbeginswithaninterrogativeisnecessarilyaquestion.Therearesentencesthatlooklikequestionsbutcannotgenerateanymeaningfulanswers,and,asFrancisBaconsaid,iftheylingerinourminds,theybecomeobstructionstoclearthinking.Onemustalsoknowwhatametaphoris,andwhatistherelationshipbetweenwordsandthethingstheydescribe.Inshort,onemusthavesomeknowledgeofametalanguage—alanguageaboutlanguage—torecognizeerror,todefendoneselfagainsttheseductionsofeloquence.Inalaterchapter,Iwillofferamoredetaileddescriptionofwhat

suchametalanguagemightconsistofformodernstudents.Here,Ishouldliketosuggestsomeothermeansofeducatingstudentstobeerrordetectors—forexample,thatallsubjectsbetaughtfromanhistoricalperspective.Icanthinkofnobetterwaytodemonstratethatknowledgeisnotafixedthingbutacontinuousstruggletoovercomeprejudice,authoritarianism,andeven“commonsense.”Everysubject,ofcourse,hasahistory,includingphysics,mathematics,biology,andhistoryitself.IhavepreviouslyquotedWilliamJamestotheeffectthatanysubjectbecomes“humanistic”whentaughthistorically.Hispointalmostcertainlywasthatthereisnothingmorehumanthanthestories

ofourerrorsandhowwehavemanagedtoovercomethem,andthenfallenintoerroragain,andcontinuedoureffortstomakecorrections—storieswithoutend.RobertMaynardHutchinsreferredtothesestoriesastheGreatConversation,adynamicandaccuratemetaphor,sinceitsuggestsnotonlythatknowledgeispasseddownfromonethinkertoanotherbutmodified,refined,andcorrectedasthe“conversation”goeson.ToteachabouttheatomwithoutincludingDemocritusinthe

conversation,electricitywithoutFaraday,politicalsciencewithoutAristotleorMachiavelli,astronomywithoutPtolemy,istodenyourstudentsaccesstotheGreatConversation.“Toremainignorantofthingsthathappenedbeforeyouwerebornistoremainachild,”Cicerosaid.Hethenadded,“Whatisahumanlifeworthunlessitisincorporatedintothelivesofone’sancestorsandsetinanhistoricalcontext?”Whenweincorporatethelivesofourancestorsinoureducation,wediscoverthatsomeofthemweregreaterror-makers,somegreaterror-correctors,someboth.Andindiscoveringthis,weaccomplishthreethings.First,wehelpstudentstoseethatknowledgeisastageinhumandevelopment,withapastandafuture.Second(thiswouldsurelypleaseProfessorE.D.Hirsch,Jr.),weacquaintstudentswiththepeopleandideasthatcomprise“culturalliteracy”—thatistosay,givethemsomeunderstandingofwheretheirideascomefromandhowwecamebythem.Andthird,weshowthemthaterrorisnodisgrace,thatitistheagencythroughwhichweincreaseunderstanding.Ofcourse,toensurethatthelastoftheselessonsbebelieved,we

wouldhavetomakechangesinwhatiscalled“theclassroomenvironment.”Atpresent,thereisverylittletoleranceforerrorintheclassroom.Thatisoneofthereasonsstudentscheat.Itisoneofthereasonsstudentsarenervous.Itisoneofthereasonsmanystudentsarereluctanttospeak.Itiscertainlythereasonwhystudents(andtherestofus)fightsohardtojustifywhattheythinktheyknow.Invaryingdegrees,beingwrongisadisgrace;onepaysaheavypriceforit.Butsupposestudentsfoundthemselvesinaplacewherethiswasnotthecase?InhisbookMindstorms,SeymourPapertcontendsthatoneofthebestreasonsforusingcomputersintheclassroomisthatcomputersforcetheenvironmenttobemoretolerantoferror.Studentsmovetowardtherightanswer(atleastinmathematics)bymakingmistakesandthen

correctingthem.Thecomputerdoesnothumiliatestudentsforbeingwrong,anditencouragesthemtotryagain.IfPapertisright,thenwedo,indeed,haveagoodreasonforhavingstudentsusecomputers.Ofcourse,ifheisright,itisalsoaninsulttoteachers.Isitonlythroughtheintroductionofamachinethattheclassroomcanbecomeaplacewheretrialanderrorisanacceptablemodeoflearning,wherebeingwrongisnotapunishableoffense?Supposeteachersmadeitclearthatallthematerialsintroducedin

classwerenottoberegardedasauthoritativeandfinalbut,infact,asproblematic—textbooks,forexample.(Andhereismymoreseriousanswertotheteacherwhowonderedwhatwewoulddowithoutthem.)Itisbest,ofcourse,toeliminatethemaltogether,replacingthemwithdocumentsandothermaterialscarefullyselectedbytheindividualteacher(whatelseistheXeroxmachinefor?).Butifeliminationistootraumatic,thenwewouldnothavetodowithoutthem,onlywithouttheircustomarypurpose.Wewouldstartwiththepremisethatatextbookisaparticularperson’sattempttoexplainsomethingtous,andtherebytellusthetruthofsomematter.Butwewouldknowthatthispersoncouldnotbetellingusthewholetruth.Becausenoonecan.Wewouldknowthatthispersonhascertainprejudicesandbiases.Becauseeveryonehas.Wewouldknowthatthispersonmusthaveincludedsomedisputablefacts,shakyopinions,andfaultyconclusions.Thus,wehavegoodreasontousethisperson’stextbookasanobjectofinquiry.Whatmighthavebeenleftout?Whataretheprejudices?Whatarethedisputablefacts,opinions,andconclusions?Howwouldweproceedtomakesuchaninquiry?Wherewouldwegotocheckfacts?Whatisa“fact,”anyway?Howwouldweproceedinuncoveringprejudice?Onwhatbasiswouldwejudgeaconclusionunjustifiable?ProfessorHirschworriesaboutsuchanapproach,indeed,condemns

it,becausehebelievesthatbylearningaboutlearning,studentsaredeflectedfromgettingthefactsthat“educated”peoplemusthave.Buttoproceedinthiswaypermitsstudentstolearn“facts”and“truths”inthetextasonehopestheywill,anditalsopermitsthemtolearnhowtodefendthemselvesagainst“facts”and“truths.”Dowewantourstudentstoknowwhatanounis?Thetextwilltellthem,butthatisthebeginningoflearning,nottheend.Isthedefinitionclear?Doesitcoverallcases?Whomadeitup?Hasanyonecomeupwithadifferent

definition?Dowewantstudentstoknowwhatamoleculeis?Thetextwilltell

them.Butthenthequestionsbegin.Hasanyoneeverseenamolecule?Didtheancientsbelieveinthem?Wasamoleculediscoveredorinvented?Whodidit?Supposesomeonedisbelievedinmolecules,whatthen?DowewantstudentstoknowaboutthecausesoftheRevolutionary

War?Atextwillgivesome.Butfromwhosepointofview?Andwhatsortofevidenceisprovided?Whatdoesobjectivitymeaninhistory?Istherenowaytofindoutthe“real”truth?Ifstudentswereoccupiedwithsuchinquiries,theywouldinevitably

discovertheextenttowhichfactsandtruthhavechanged,dependinguponthecircumstancesinwhichthefactsweredescribedandthetruthsformulated.Theywilldiscoverhowoftenhumanswerewrong,howdogmaticallytheydefendedtheirerrors,howdifficultitwasandistomakecorrections.Dowebelievethatourbloodcirculatesthroughthebody?Instudyingthehistoryofbiology,studentswilldiscoverthat150yearsafterHarveyprovedblooddoescirculate,someofthebestphysiciansstilldidn’tbelieveit.WhatwillstudentsmakeofthefactthatGalileo,underthreatoftorture,wasforcedtodenythattheEarthmoves?WhatwillstudentsthinkiftheyacquaintthemselveswiththeargumentsforslaveryintheUnitedStates?Willourstudentsbecomecynical?Ithinknot—atleastnotiftheir

educationtellsthefollowingstory:Becauseweareimperfectsouls,ourknowledgeisimperfect.Thehistoryoflearningisanadventureinovercomingourerrors.Thereisnosininbeingwrong.Thesinisinourunwillingnesstoexamineourownbeliefs,andinbelievingthatourauthoritiescannotbewrong.Farfromcreatingcynics,suchastoryislikelytofosterahealthyand

creativeskepticism,whichissomethingquitedifferentfromcynicism.Itrefutesthestoryofthestudentlearnerasthedummyinaventriloquismact.ItholdsoutthehopeforstudentstodiscoverasenseofexcitementandpurposeinbeingpartoftheGreatConversation.SinceIbeganthischapterwiththreeideasthatwerenottakenas

seriouslyastheywereintended,Iwillenditwithanotheronethatislikelytohavethesamefate.Isuggestthefollowingtestbegivenineachsubjectinthecurriculum.Wemightthinkofitasthe“final”exam:

Describefiveofthemostsignificanterrorsscholarshavemadein(biology,physics,history,etc.).Indicatewhytheyareerrors,whomadethem,andwhatpersonsaremainlyresponsibleforcorrectingthem.Youmayreceiveextracreditifyoucandescribeanerrorthatwasmadebytheerrorcorrector.Youwillreceiveextraextracreditifyoucansuggestapossibleerrorinourcurrentthinkingabout(biology,physics,history,etc.).Andyouwillreceiveextraextraextracreditifyoucanindicateapossibleerrorinsomestronglyheldbeliefthatcurrentlyresidesinyourmind.CanyouimaginethisquestionbeinggivenontheSATs?

I

7•TheAmericanExperiment

havebeforemetheReportoftheNewYorkStateCurriculumandAssessmentCouncil(datedApril1994).Itsnamewilltellyou,

straightoff,thatreadingitislikelytobeapainfulexperience,sincereportsproducedbycouncilsarenotknownforeasycomprehensibility,letaloneliterarystyle.Nonetheless,Ihavereadit,andfindinitthestandard-brandstuff,meaningthatitisfilledwithclichés,andthoroughlyexhaustedonesatthat.Thereportisintendedtobringtolife(soitsays)therecommendations“pursuanttoANewCompactforLearningwhichwasadoptedbytheBoardofRegentsin1991.”Amongthe“keyprinciples”ofthisNewCompactisthedoctrinethat“allchildrencanlearn,”whichleadsonetosupposethattheOldCompactassumedthatonlysomechildrencanlearn,ormaybeevenonlyafew.Anotherofitskeyprinciplesisthateducationshould“aimatmastery,”anideathatprobablyhasneveroccurredtoteachersbefore,andexplainswhythirtydistinguishededucatorswereneededtocontributetheircollectiveoriginalitytothecouncil.Athirdprinciple(thereareonlysix)isthateducationshouldrewardsuccessandremedyfailure,whichisactuallyafairlyinterestingprincipleifoneisallowedtodiscussit.Forexample,anargumentcanbemade(didn’tIcomeclosetomakingitinthelastchapter?)thatwewoulddomuchbetterifwerewardedfailureandremediedsuccess.Icouldgooninthispetulantway,butitisnotmyintentionto

analyzethisreport.Therecan’tbemanypeopleintheworld,intheUnitedStates,maybeevenNewYorkState,whocouldcareverymuchaboutwhatideastheNewYorkBoardofRegentsexpertshavecomeupwith.Butthereisoneideathattheydidn’tcomeupwiththatisworththenoticeofmanypeople.Asanappendixtothereport,thereisincludedalistofforty-onegoalsdirectedtoward“whatchildrenshouldbe,know,andbeabletodo.”Thegoalsarestatedinaformthat

specifieswhatstudentsinelementary,middle,andsecondaryschoolmustunderstand,acquire,develop,apply,respect,andpractice.Asyoucanimagine,thereisplentytobedonehere,includingafewthingsthatprobablyaren’tanyoftheschool’sbusiness.Butputtingthatlastphraseaside,studentsareexpected,forexample,todevelopself-esteem,understandpeopleofdifferentculturalheritages,anddevelopknowledgeandappreciationofthearts.Therearemanyothergoalsalongtheselineswithwhichnoonecoulddisagree.Butthereisonethatis,aswesay,conspicuousbyitsabsence,atleasttome.Irefertothegoalof“acquiringand/ordeepeningaloveofone’scountry.”Onewouldhavethoughtthatamongforty-onegoalsdesignedforstudentsgoingtoschoolinAmerica,andgoingtoschoolfreeofcharge,andprettyclosetoaslongastheywish,atleastoneofthemwouldconcernpromotinganaffection,evenifamutedone,fortheircountry.Thereis,Imustacknowledge,agoalthatsaysstudentsshouldacquireknowledgeofthe“political,economic,andsocialprocessesandpoliciesintheUnitedStatesatthenational,state,andlocallevels.”Thisstrikesmeasrathercoldanddistantlanguage,especiallywhenitisfollowedbyasuggestionthatstudentslearnthesamesortofthingaboutothercountries.Thereis,also,somethingaboutstudents’learningtorespectcivicvaluesandacquiringattitudesnecessarytoparticipateindemocraticself-government.IassumetheauthorsofthisgoalwouldacceptAmericaasanexampleofdemocraticself-government,althoughtheydonotexplicitlysayso.Andasfortheattitudesnecessarytoparticipateindemocraticself-government,theydonotincluderespect,letaloneaffection,forAmerica’straditionsandcontributionstoworldcivilization.Theydoincludealistof“values”studentsshouldaccept,suchasjustice,honesty,self-discipline,dueprocess,equality,andmajorityrulewithrespectforminorityrights,eachofwhichisnotsomucha“value”asitisafocalpointofagreatandcontinuousAmericanargumentaboutthemeaningsofsuchabstractterms.ThatstudentsmaynothaveanopportunitytolearnabouttheseargumentsissuggestedbythefactthatnowhereincludedinthelistofgoalsisthatofacquiringknowledgeofthehistoryofAmerica.IhavebegunthiswaynotbecausetheeducationexpertsinNewYork

Stateareunusual,butbecausetheyaretypical.Intheirreluctancetoincludepatriotismasa“value,”theyreflectatendencythroughoutthe

country,acertainuneasinessaboutwherepatriotismmightlead.Thereiscertainlymoreemphasis,thesedays,onlovingone’sselfthanonlovingone’scountry,whichmeans,Isuppose,thatPhilipRieffwaspropheticwhenhewroteabout“thetriumphofthetherapeutic.”Inanycase,thisuneasinessaboutpatriotismisatleastunderstandable,sincetheideaofloveofcountryistooeasilytransmogrifiedintoamindless,xenophobicnationalism,asintheinstanceofthepatriotsinFloridawhoinsistonstudents’learningthatAmericaissuperiortoallothercountries.Isuspectthatstillanotherreasonforsteeringclearofpatriotismistherecentprominenceof“revisionist”history,whichhasledtoincreasedawarenessoftheuglieraspectsofAmericanhistoryandculture.Teachersarelikelytothinkthatself-loveor,indeed,loveforculturesotherthanAmericaisasaferandmorewholesomeroutetotake.Butinsteeringclearofpatriotism,educatorsmissanopportunitytoprovideschoolingwithaprofoundandtranscendentnarrativethatcaneducateandinspirestudentsofallages.Irefer,ofcourse,tothestoryofAmericaasagreatexperimentandasacenterofcontinuousargument.Therearemanywaystounveilthisstory,andgoodteachers,atevery

level,canthinkofseveraliftheybelievethestoryisworthwhile.Theideasbelowshouldberegardedaspossibilities,butIwouldexpectthatwhateverapproachmightbetaken,everyteacherwouldhavereadthefollowingdocumentsandbooks:ThomasPaine’sTheRightsofMan,theDeclarationofIndependence,theConstitution,AlexisdeTocqueville’sDemocracyinAmerica,theGettysburgAddress,theEmancipationProclamation,TheAdventuresofHuckleberryFinn,TheScarletLetter,JohnDewey’sDemocracyandEducation,JohnF.Kennedy’sinauguraladdress,andMartinLutherKing,Jr.’s“IHaveaDream”speech.Ifateacherhasnotreadthismaterial,Iwouldbereluctanttohave

himorherinclosecontactwithAmericanchildren.Butassumingateacherknowswhattheseworkssignify,heorshemightproceedbyintroducingsomeofthegreatexperimentsthatcharacterizeAmericanculture,andwhichtherestoftheworldhaslookeduponwithwonder.IshouldsaytherearefourthatwillcovermostoftheimportantargumentsAmericanshavehad.Likeallexperiments,eachbeginswithaquestion.Thefirstis,of

course,Isitpossibletohaveacoherent,stableculturethatallowsthe

greatestpossiblefreedomofreligiousandpoliticalthoughtandexpression?TheoriginsofthisquestionpredatethefoundingoftheUnitedStates,andhowfarbackoneshouldgoinconsideringthequestionwoulddependontheageandexperienceofthestudents.Ishouldthinkthatfifth-gradestudentsought,atleast,tolearnaboutJohnPeterZengerandtheargumenthisPhiladelphialawyer,AndrewHamilton,madeonthisquestion.(ItmightevenhelptopiquestudentinterestiftheyknewthatthemanwhowantedZengerputinjailforwhatheprintedwasnamedWilliam—i.e.,“Bill”—Cosby.)Ishouldthinkfifth-,sixth-,andcertainlyseventh-gradestudentsarecapableofunderstandingsomeoftheargumentsmadeintheeighteenthcenturyoverthemeaningsofsuchwordsandtermsasfreedom,equality,dueprocess,andthedivinerightofkings.Asstudentsadvanceinyears,theymaybeintroducedtolesswellknownbutsignificantargumentsaboutthemeaningsofkeyconcepts.DeTocqueville’sdistinctionbetweenegotismandindividuality,bothofwhichhethoughtdangerous,isasomewhatcomplexargument,butoneworthhavingtenthoreleventhgradersconsider.Ifitis“mastery”weareshootingfor,Iwouldhopenostudentwould

beallowedoutoftheeighthgradeunlessheorsheknewbyhearttheFirstAmendment,whichis,afterall,thebindinglegalanswertothequestionconcerningthepermissibleextentoffreedomofexpression(orperhapsnotsomuchananswerasanhypothesisthatisstillbeingtested).Iamawarethatmoderneducatorsdisapproveofstudents’beingaskedtomemorizeanything,classifyingsuchataskunderthedreadedrubricof“rote”learning.Istandwiththosewhoareagainststudents’playingthe“guesswhatanswerIhaveinmyhead”gamewithteachers,butIdonotthinkthatsuchastandrulesoutaskingstudentstoknowbyheartcertainfundamentalexpressionsofAmericanideals.Thereare,inanycase,onlyforty-fivewordsintheFirstAmendment,andIcan’timaginethatthebrainsofourstudentswouldbedamagedbylearningthem,andintheorderinwhichtheyarewritten.(TheGettysburgAddresshasfewerthan300words,andIamtoldbyteachersthatmemorizingthemisquitebeyondthecapacityofmanystudents,althoughifitwereputtomusic,maybetheycouldmanageit.)Iamneitherqualifiedtogive,nordesirousofgiving,ahistorylesson,

andstilllessacurriculum.Iwishonlytomakethreefurtherpoints:

First,andobviously,asstudentsprogressfromelementaryschooltohighschooltocollege,thestudyoftheAmericanexperimentinfreedomofexpressionmustdeepen,theargumentsconsideredmustincreaseincomplexity,andthedocumentscontainingthemmustbemorevarious.Second,itshouldatalltimesbemadeclearthattheargumentsarenotfinished;thattodaytheyarepursuedwiththesamepassiontheyoncewere,especiallythoseargumentsthatpresentadistinctlymodernproblem.IspornographyprotectedbytheFirstAmendment?Does“freedomofthepress”includetelevision?Isprayerinthepublicschoolsaviolationofthe“establishmentofreligion”clause?Thesearearguablequestionsthat,Ishouldthink,ourstudentsmustknowsomethingaboutiftheyaretoparticipateintheGreatAmericanConversation.Infact,ifanexaminationisrequiredforstudentstoshow“mastery,”thenIsuggestthefollowing(letussay,toqualifyforgraduationfromhighschool):TakingoneofthecurrentargumentsaboutthemeaningoftheFirstAmendment,writeanopiniononitasThomasPaine(orThomasJefferson,orJamesMadison)mighthavearguedthequestion.Youmust,ofcourse,makereferencetowordstheywroteandyoumaybringtoclasswhateverdocumentsyouthinkyouwillrequire.Ifthisexaminationisjudgedtoodifficult,hereisanalternative:

RewritetheFirstAmendmenttoincludeprotectionsyouthinkarenecessaryintoday’sworld.Eliminatethoseyouthinkarenolongernecessary.Youmaywishneithertoaddnorsubtractprovisions,buttoclarifywordsandphrasesthatare,atpresent,partoftheFirstAmendment.Explainthereasonsforthechangesyoumake;or,ifyoumakenone,explainwhynoneareneeded.Ifthisoneistoodifficult,wemightconsiderrequiringthestudentsto

gobackafewsquares—thatis,todothetwelfthgradeonemoretime.Itwouldbetoodangeroustoletthemlooseinacountrythatclaimstobeinfavorofdemocraticself-government.Thethirdpointthatneedstobemadeis,ofcourse,thatthereare

ninemoreamendmentscomprisingtheBillofRights,mostofwhich—especiallythesecond,fourth,fifth,andsixth—havebeenthefocusofintenseargumentfromthebeginningrightuptothepresent.Therearethose,forexample,whoreadtheSecondAmendmenttomeanthatthegovernmentcannotprohibitcitizensfromowningweapons.Thereareotherswhothinkitmeansnothingofthesort.InJuly1994,inacase

receivingworldwidepublicity(theO.J.Simpsondouble-murdertrial),ajudgewasrequiredtoruleonaFourthAmendmentissue—whetherornotcertainevidencewasillegallyseizedbydetectives.Therearelaw-enforcementofficialswhobelieve,aSupremeCourtrulingtothecontrary,thattheFifthAmendmentisnotviolatedifuponmakinganarresttheydonotreadMirandarightstothesuspect.Theargumentsgoon,andeveryoneisentitledtoparticipate.IsittoomuchtosaythattheargumentsaretheenergyandthegloryoftheAmericanexperiment?Isittoomuchtohopethatouryoungmightlearntohonorthetraditionandtobeinspiredbyit?ThesecondgreatAmericanexperimentbeganaboutthemiddleof

thenineteenthcentury,andraisedthefollowingquestion:Isitpossibletohaveacoherent,stableculturemadeupofpeopleofdifferentlanguages,religions,traditions,andraces?HenryAdamsthoughttheanswerwasno.HenryJamesagreedwithhim,andT.S.EliotwassofrightenedatthethoughthemovedtoEnglandandstayedthere.Ontheotherhand,H.L.Mencken,ofGermanheritage,believedthatthosewhoclaimedtobewhiteAnglo-SaxonProtestantsnotonlyweren’tauthenticWASPsbutwerethoroughlyincompetentandnomatchintellectuallyforthe“ethnics”whocameinsuchnumberstoAmerica.Buttheydidnotcomeinequalnumbers,inpartbecauseimmigrationlawsassigneddifferentvaluestodifferentgroups.Andsofromthebeginning,therewerearguments,andtheycontinuetothisday.ShouldAmericaleteveryonein?Aresomegroupsbetterthanothers?Ifdistinctionsaremade,onwhatbasisshouldwemakethem?(SomeoftheearlyIQtestsshowedJewstobementallydeficient,givingsupporttoanargumentthatrestrictionsbeplacedonthenumbersofthemallowedin.)ShouldEnglishbetheofficiallanguageofAmerica?And,ofcourse,always,thatmosttroublesomeofallquestions:Whatdowedotoremedythepersistenteffectsofthelegacyofslaveryanddiscriminationfromwhichanimportantsegmentofourpopulationstillsuffers?Aretheytobecompensatedforwhatwasinflictedonthem?Idonotsaythattheargumentsoverthesequestionsare(orwere)

alwaysrational.Behindmanyofthem,therelurksfearorignoranceor(worse)misinformation.Butaslongasthereisargument,thereisthepossibilityofreducingfear,overcomingignorance,correctingmisinformation.Cananyonedoubtthatourstudentsshouldknowabout

thehistoryofthesearguments?WhatwasitthatmadeHenryAdamssounhappy?(IfourstudentscannotreadTheEducationofHenryAdams,agoodteachercansummarizehisargument.)WhatterrifiedT.S.Eliot?Ifstudentsaregoingtobeaskedtoreadhim,IwouldsuggestthatChristianityandCulturetakeprecedenceoverhispoetry.Andifitispoetrywewant,woulditbetoodemandingtohaveEmmaLazarus’spoem“TheNewColossus”committedtomemory?(Thepoemhasbeenmadeintoasong,whichmightmakeitaseasytolearnasBruceSpringsteen’s“BornintheUSA.”)Thepoemis,afterall,anargumentofsortsaboutwhatAmericashouldbe.Inanycase,IhavenodoubtthatteacherscanfindsuitablematerialthatconveystheideathatAmericaasmeltingpotwas,andstillis,avastsocialexperimentaboutwhichtherehavebeen,andstillare,disputesoveritsadvantagesanddisadvantages.IshouldbeastonishedifAmericanstudentsdonothaveopinionsonthismatterwhichmaybeusedtotakethembackintothepastandforwardintothefuture.Thethirdgreatexperimentbegantowardtheendofthenineteenth

century,madeallthemorechallengingbytherealityofthesecondexperiment,whichresultedinamulticulturalpopulation.Irefertothequestion,Isitpossibletoprovideafreepubliceducationforallcitizens?Americanshavenotalwaysagreeduponthedesirabilityofdoingthis,althoughithasbeennearlyacenturysinceanyonehasmadearespectableargumentagainstit.Recently,therehaveemergedargumentsinfavorofprivatelyrunpublicschools(thatis,free,oralmostfree,forstudents;profit-makingforentrepreneurs).ItsmostvigorousexponentisChristopherWhittle,whoseEdisonProject,atthiswriting,claimstohavecontractstomanagethreeschoolsinMassachusetts,andhopestohavemanymore.Hearguesthatafree-marketapproachtoschoolingwillprovidebettereducationfortheyoung.HeispassionatelyopposedbytheNationalEducationAssociation,whosecurrentpresident,KeithGeiger,saysthatAmericanswant“community-based,notcorporate-imposed,educationfortheirchildren.”1Itisaninterestingargument,andonewhoseoutcomewillhave

significantsocialandpoliticalimplications.Buttheargumentisnotnearlyasinteresting,Ithink,asthatwhichcentersonwhatismeant,inthefirstplace,by“education.”IbelieveIamrightinsayingthat

teachershavebeenreluctanttointroducethisquestiontostudents,althoughitiswellwithintheintellectualrangeofhighschoolstudentstoconsider.Infact,educationasasubjectofstudyisrarelytakenseriouslyevenincollege,forreasonsIfindtoopainfultodiscuss.Itissufficienttosaythatmanyoftheworld’smostesteemedphilosophershavewrittenextensivelyoneducation.ConfuciusandPlatowerewhatwewouldcalltoday“curriculumspecialists.”Cicero,Quintilian,Erasmus,Locke,Rousseau,andThomasJeffersonwroteonthesubject,andthegreatEnglishpoetJohnMiltonwassomovedbytheprospectofwritinganessayoneducationthathecalledthereformingofeducation“oneofthegreatestandnoblestdesignstobethoughton.”Inmoderntimes,suchformidableintellectsasWilliamJames,BertrandRussell,AlfredNorthWhitehead,and,ofcourse,JohnDeweyconcernedthemselveswitheducation.BothLudwigWittgensteinandKarlPopperwereelementaryschoolteachers,andwouldofnecessityhavethoughtdeeplyaboutthesubject.Thepointisthatthereisamassofmaterialaboutwhateducation

meansandhowitshouldbeconducted.AndAmericanshaveproducedagooddealofit,sinceitwastheywhoinventedtheideaofmasseducation,andtheyhavebeenespeciallypassionateinarguingabouthowtheiryoungcitizensoughttobetreatedinschool.Wehavehere,then,arichandinspiringsetofargumentswithwhichourstudentsshouldbeacquainted.Experiencedteacherswillknowhowandwhentodothis,butthefollowingideasoughttobekeptattheforefront:first,thatsincetheseargumentsconcernthem(thatis,thestudents)—whattheyarecapableofunderstanding,whatintereststhem,howtheywillchange—theyareentitledtobeheardonthematter.Second,whileitispossibletospeakwiselyabouteducation,noonecanspeakdefinitively.Third,thereisnointellectualactivitymoreAmericanthanquarrelingaboutwhateducationmeans,especiallywithinthecontextofschool.Americansrelyontheirschools,evenmorethanontheircourts,toexpresstheirvisionofwhotheyare,whichiswhytheyareusuallyarguingoverwhathappensinschool.Aswithtwooftheothergreatexperiments,thefourthonebeganin

thenineteenthcenturybuthastakenonfuriousforceinthetwentieth.Itraisesthefollowingquestion:IsitpossibletopreservethebestofAmericantraditionsandsocialinstitutionswhileallowinguncontrolled

technologicaldevelopment?SomereaderswillknowthatIhaveaddressedthisquestioninpreviouswritingsandhavealliedmyselfwith,amongothers,LewisMumfordandJacquesEllulinansweringno.ButIamawarethattherearemanyseriousandbrilliantsocialcriticswhosayyes.Morethanthat,mostAmericansseemtosayyes,although,ifIamnotmistaken,thereisacreepinguneasinessamongthemthattheymayhaveansweredtoohastily.Inanycase,thereisanexperimentgoingoninAmericaanditisbeingmonitoredcarefullybypeoplearoundtheworld.Sincemostindustrializednationsarebeginningtoconfrontthequestioninthecontextoftheirowninstitutionsandtraditions,theylooktowhatishappeninginAmericaasasourceofguidance.Sometimestheyfindtheexperimentchilling,sometimesglorious.ThatthequestiongeneratedbytheexperimentshouldbeintroducedtoAmericanstudentsisratherobvious.Theanswerstothequestionwillhaveapowerfulimpactontheirlives;yetmanyofouryoungarenotevenawarethatthereisaquestionhere,thatthereisanythingtoargueabout.Onemay,then,havetostartfromthebeginning.Letussay,withsciencefiction.MaryShelley,AldousHuxley,GeorgeOrwell,andRayBradburyarerelevantauthorswhosoundwarningsaboutthedangersofanobsessionwithtechnology.EdwardBellamy(LookingBackward),B.F.Skinner(WaldenII),andArthurClarke(2001)presentamorehopefuloutlook.ItrustIhavenotloadedthecaseagainsttechnologicaloptimism.IfIhave,addtothelistofhopefulsalmostanyofAlvinToffler’sbooks,includinghisclassic,FutureShock,whichisnotintendedassciencefiction,althoughitreadsasifitis.Ofcourse,inonesense,wehavehereanoldargument;peoplehave

alwaysworriedaboutwhethertechnologydemeansorenrichesourhumanity.Inthenineteenthcentury,WilliamBlake,forexample,wroteaboutthe“darkSatanicmills”thatstrippedmenoftheirsouls.MatthewArnoldwarnedthat“faithinmachinery”washumanity’sgreatestmenace.Carlyle,Ruskin,andWilliamMorrisrailedagainstthespiritualdegradationbroughtbyindustrialprogress.Ontheotherhand,MarkTwainthoughtindustrialprogresswaswonderful,andheoncecongratulatedWaltWhitmanonhavinglivedintheagethatgavetheworldthebeneficialproductsofcoaltar.Morerecently,C.P.Snowmadewhatheregardedasadefinitiveanswertotechnologicalpessimists.Heremarkedthattheindustrialrevolution,madepossibleby

advancedtechnology,wastheonlyhopeforthepoor.Theirliveswererescuedfromcenturies-olddegradationbytechnology.Cananyonedenyit?Inourowntime,theargumenthasshiftedfromtheeffectsof

machinerytotheeffectsofelectronicimpulses.Becausetheargumentisrelativelynew,someofthequestionsarenotyetwellformulated.Andinonenotablecase,aquestionwasaskedthatwasfalselyassumedbymanytobeananswer.IrefertothequestionMarshallMcLuhanposed:Howdoesthestructureofamediumalterthewaysinwhichpeople“sense”theworld?McLuhanhimselfofferedmanyspeculativeanswers,someofthemwildandcrazy,andthusledmanytoquarreloverhisanswersratherthantoconsiderhisquestion.ButanyonewhohascarefullyreadhisUnderstandingMediawillknowthatthisisabookofqueries,intendedtogenerateaninterestintheformsofhumancommunication;willalsoknowthatMcLuhanbelieved,asIdo,thatouryoungarewellsuitedtoaddresssuchqueries.Theyarenot(touseoneofMcLuhan’spuns,borrowed,Ibelieve,fromJamesJoyce)as“ABCED-minded”astheirteachersareapttobe,andthereforetheycanseetheeffects,especiallyofnonprintmedia,moreclearlythanbookishfolks.Iamassumingherethatteachersarebookish.IfIamwrongaboutthis,Iprefernottothinkaboutitsimplications.Inanycase,questionsraisedabouttheeffectsofmediaandthe

diverseformsinwhichinformationisnowpackagedhaverelevancetoalltheotherargumentsnowunderwayinAmerica.Dotelevisionandcomputertechnologylimitorexpandopportunitiesforauthenticandsubstantivefreedomofexpression?Donewmediacreateaglobalvillage,orforcepeopletoreverttotribalidentities?Donewmediamakeschoolsobsolete,andcreatenewconceptionsofeducation?Iacknowledgethatquestionslikethesehavegenerallybeenbarred

fromhighschoolclassroomsandstudentshavehadtowaituntilcollegeorevengraduateschoolbeforeconfrontingthem.Thisisamistake,fortworeasons.First,because,asIhavesaid,teenageyouthareknowledgeableaboutthevarietiesofmediaavailableinAmericancultureandarelikelytohaverefreshinginsightsintotheireffects.Second,asIhavealsosaid,theyareapttobeunawareofthefactthatthereareseriousargumentsbeingmadeabouttheadvantagesanddisadvantagesoftheirmedia-madeworld,andtheyareentitledtobe

informedaboutandheardonthematter.Andthereisoneotherpointtobemade:TheapproachIhave

outlinedhere—thestudyoftheargumentsaboutfreedomofexpression,aboutamelting-potculture,aboutthemeaningofeducationforanentirepopulation,andabouttheeffectsoftechnology—isnotsimplyathemearoundwhichtoorganizeaschoolcurriculum.ImeantosaythatthisisapowerfulstorythatisatthecoreofwhatAmericaisabout.ThestorysaysthatexperimentingandarguingiswhatAmericansdo.Itdoesnotmatterifyouareunhappyaboutthewaythingsare.Everybodyisunhappyaboutthewaythingsare.Weexperimenttomakethingsbetter,andweargueaboutwhatexperimentsareworthwhileandwhetherornotthosewetryareanygood.Andwhenweexperiment,wemakemistakes,andrevealourignorance,andourtimidity,andournaïveté.Butwegoonbecausewehavefaithinthefuture—thatwecanmakebetterexperimentsandbetterarguments.This,itseemstome,isafineandnoblestory,andIshouldnotbesurprisedifstudentsaretouchedbyitandfindinitareasonforlearning.

I

8•TheLawofDiversity

nhisvaststudyofdemocracyinAmerica,AlexisdeTocquevilleconcludedthatallourpoliticalproblemsendupinthecourts.Had

thereexistedapublicschoolsystemwhenhewrote,hemighthaveaddedthatallAmerica’ssocialproblemsendupinschool.Arestudentsinsufficientlymotivatedtolearn?Aretheyconfusedaboutorignorantofthemoralaspectsofsex?Dotheydrivecarsbadly?Dotheyneedpsychologicalcounseling?Aretheyuninformedaboutthedangersofdrugs,alcohol,smoking,AIDS?InAmerica,itbecomestheschool’sbusinesstodosomethingabout

thesethings.Ofcourse,wehaveampleevidencethattheschoolsdonotdothemverywell,andtherearethosewhobelievethatbyassigningtheschoolsthetaskofsolvingintractablesocialproblems,weturnthemintowell-fundedgarbagedumps.Thisisarathergrosswaytostatetheobjection,frequentlymadebypeopleofillwill.Butthereis,nonetheless,areasonedcomplaintagainsttheschools’tryingtodowhatothersocialinstitutionsaresupposedtodobutdon’t.Theprincipalargumentisthatteachersarenotcompetenttoserveaspriests,psychologists,therapists,politicalreformers,socialworkers,sexadvisers,orparents.Thatsometeachersmightwishtodosoisunderstandable,sinceinthiswaytheymayelevatetheirprestige.Thatsomewouldfeelitnecessarytodosoisalsounderstandable,sincemanysocialinstitutions,includingthefamilyandchurch,havedeterioratedintheirinfluence.Butunpreparedteachersarenotanimprovementonineffectivesocialinstitutions;theplainfactisthatthereisnothinginthebackgroundoreducationofteachersthatqualifiesthemtodowhatotherinstitutionsaresupposedtodo.Itshouldbeclear,bytheway,thatinthisargumentthephrase“unpreparedteachers”doesnotmeanthatteacherscannotdotheirwork.Itmeanstheycannotdoeveryone’swork.Havingnotedthis,IhastentosaythatitisnotlikelythatAmericans

willchangetheirviewsofschoolresponsibilities,especiallyatatimewhenthepotencyofotherinstitutionsisproblematic.Amongthemorecontroversialeffortsalongtheselinesistheattemptbysomeschoolstoensurethatstudentscultivateadeepsenseofethnicpride,ataskonceundertakenmostlybythefamily.Ihave,earlier,revealedthatIthinkthistobeabadidea—totheextentthatitsubordinatesorignorestheessentialtaskofpublicschools,whichistofindandpromotelarge,inclusivenarrativesforallstudentstobelievein.Theprincipleofdiversityissuchanarrativeanditissometimes,strangely,confusedwiththeideaofethnicpride.Topromotetheunderstandingofdiversityis,infact,theoppositeofpromotingethnicpride.Whereasethnicpridewantsonetoturninward,towardthetalentsandaccomplishmentsofone’sowngroup,diversitywantsonetoturnoutward,towardthetalentsandaccomplishmentsofallgroups.Diversityisthestorythattellsofhowourinteractionswithmanykindsofpeoplemakeusintowhatweare.Itisastorystronglysupportedbythefactsofhumancultures.Itdoesnotusurpthefunctionorauthorityofothersocialinstitutions.Itdoesnotundermineethnicpride,butplacesone’sethnicityinthecontextofourcommonculture.Ithelpstoexplainthepast,giveclaritytothepresent,andprovideguidanceforthefuture.Itis,inshort,apowerfulandinspiringnarrativeavailableforuseinourpublicschools.Amongthemanyexpressionsofculturaldiversity,therearefourthat

standoutasofparticularimportance:language,religion,custom,andartandartifacts.Eachofthesemaybethoughtofasamajorsubjectorthemecapableofrevealinghowdifferencecontributestoincreasedvitalityandexcellence,and,ultimately,toasenseofunity.

Language

TogiveprominencetothestudyofthehistoryoftheEnglishlanguagecannotfailtoofferstudentsaclearviewofthesignificanceofdiversity,anditisawondertomethatthosewhospeakpassionatelyabouttheimportanceofdiversityhavenotthoughtofthis.AsIhavepreviouslynoted,EnglishisthemostmulticulturallanguageonEarth,andanyonewhospeaksitisindebtedtopeopleallovertheworld.Ithasbeensaid,forexample,thatEnglishismerelytheFrenchlanguage

pronouncedbadly.Awildexaggeration,ofcourse,probablyutteredbyanembitteredFrenchman.But,infact,theEnglishlanguagehastakenthousandsofwordsfromtheFrench,beginninginthetwelfthcentury.Totakeonesmallexample:AlmostallthewordsweuseinlawcomefromFrench—bail,bailiff,jury,larceny,embezzle,perjury.Ontheotherhand,itmightalsobesaidthatEnglishismerelytheGermanlanguagepronouncedbadly,starting,asitdid,asaTeutonictongue.OrwemaysaythatEnglishcomesfromtheDanishlanguage.AlmostallmodernEnglishwordswithansksound,suchasskill,skim,scare,andskyareofScandinavianorigin,anditismorethanlikelythatourwordsman,wife,house,life,winter,andmanyverbs—tosee,tohear,toride,tosit,andtostand—arealsoofScandinavianorigin.HowthesewordscametobepartofEnglishisaresultofmultiple

invasionsandconquests.Diversitysometimescomesataheavyprice.TheAngles,Saxons,andJutes(fromnorthernGermany)invadedBritain,whichwasaprovinceoftheRomanEmpire,droveouttheCelts,andspokethelanguagewecallAnglo-Saxon.Intheeighthcentury,theDanescame,saw,andconquered.Intheeleventhcentury,theNormansarrived.OttoJespersen,oneofthepreeminentscholarsofthehistoryofEnglish,andhimselfaDane,wonderedwhymostEnglishwordsformeatbeforeitiscookedareofSaxonorigin—forexample,cow,swine,sheep,andcalf—whilemostofourwordsformeatafteritiscookedareofNormanorigin—beef,pork,mutton,andveal.Hisexplanation:SincetheNormansconqueredtheSaxons,theSaxonsbecametheirservants.Inthekitchen,theyusedtheirownwords;inthediningroom,theywererequiredtouseNormanwords.(Thisstillleavesonemystery:OurwordbreakfastisofSaxonorigin;dinnerandsupperareofNormanorigin.PerhapstheNormansdidn’teatuntilnoon?)TostudythehistoryoftheEnglishlanguageis,therefore,tostudy

thehistoryofEnglish-speakingpeoples,orviceversa,whichisthewayIthinkitmightbedoneifwewishtostresstheimportanceofculturalinteractions.IcannotsayatwhatagestudentsoughttobeginthestudyofthehistoryofEnglishinwaysthatstressitsmulticulturaldimensions.Iknowitcanbedoneintheseventhgrade,sinceIhavedoneit.Keepinganoldteacher’stendencytowardnostalgiaundertight

control,Icanremember,nonetheless,theenthusiasmandevenwonderofseventhgradersdiscovering,first,theoriginsoftheirownnamesand

thenthevarioussourcesofthenamesofcommonfoods.Thelatterassignmentaskedthestudentstoimaginethatfourofthemwenttoalocaldinerforlunchandgavethefollowingorders:Thefirstwantedsoup,acheeseburgerwithsquash,andcoleslawontheside,thensometeawithcherrypie.Thesecondwantedawaffle,abananasplit(thiswasyearsago,wheneveryoneknewwhatabananasplitwas),andcoffee.Thethirdwantedchiliwithplentyofpepper,andacookie.Thefourthorderedaturkeysandwichwithgravyandsoysauce,andaCoke.Thetaskwastodiscoverthelanguagesfromwhicheachofthesefoodnamesoriginated.SoupderivesfromFrench;cheesecomesfromLatin;burgerfromGerman;squash,AmericanIndian;coleslaw,Dutch;tea,Chinese;cherry,German;pie,Irish;waffle,Dutch;banana,African;coffee,Arabic;chili,Spanish;pepper,Indian;cookie,Dutch;turkey,Arabic;gravy,French;soy,Japanese;Coke,American.(Ididn’tincludepizzabecauseIthoughtitwastooobvious.)Theimaginedlunchesmaynothavebeennutritiousforthebody,but

wereforthemind.TheassignmentledusintoareasonablysophisticatedstudyofthegrowthofEnglishanditsdebttolanguagesallovertheglobe.Thestudymaybecalled“etymology,”or“historicallinguistics,”or,simply,“origins.”Perhaps“origins”inelementaryschoolbecauseitislessfrightening;“etymology”inhighschool;“historicallinguistics”incollege.Thenameisnotimportant;theinquiryis.Itispossiblethatthesubjectcanbeintroducedevenearlierthanthe

seventhgrade,sincemostchildrenareinterestedinwherewordscomefrom.ItisalsowelltokeepinmindJeromeBruner’sfamousdictum(fromhisTheProcessofEducation)thatanysubjectcanbetaughtinanintellectuallyrespectablewaytochildrenofalmostanyage.AmericanEnglishisespeciallywellsuitedtoacelebrationofthe

virtueofdiversity,sincethemulticulturalinfluencesonithavebeencontinuousandpowerful.ThereisnogroupthatevercametoAmerica,orwasherebeforeanyonecame,thathasnotcontributedwords,andthereforeideas,tothelanguage.IrecalltheastonishmentofanAfrican-AmericanstudentuponherdiscoverythatthewordhominyisaNorthAmericanIndianword.ThisfactsparkedherinterestintrackingwordsofAfrican-Americanorigin(hereindeedwasethnicpride,butwithinthecontextofdiversity).Therearemanysuchwordsandshemay,tothisday,stillbetryingtopindowntheoriginofjuke(asinjukebox),which

seemstohavecomefromblackmusiciansinNewOrleans,butnobodyissure.WaltWhitmanwrotethat“thenewtimes,thenewpeople,thenew

vistasneedanewtongue,”andadded,“yes,andwhatismore,theywillhavesuchanewtongue.”Hewasright.Butwediditbyborrowingfromeverylanguagethatmadeitselfavailable,includinghundredsofnamesofrivers,mountains,towns,andregionstakenfromAmericanIndians.Wealsodiditthroughtheagencyofslang.Slangisaformofcolloquialspeechthathasabadreputation,largelyperpetuatedbyschoolteachers.Theyhaveapoint,sinceslangisalmostalwayscreatedinaspiritofdefiance,whichiswhyitsmostconsistentcreatorsarethosefromdisaffectedgroups,peoplewithgrievances.PerhapsthemostcreativesourcesofAmerican-EnglishslanginourowntimeareAfrican-Americans,whoareparticularlyadeptatreversingtraditionalmeanings—badbecomesgood,asdoesfunkyandfat.Awomanwhoislookingespeciallygoodmaybesaidtobe“fatplusbiscuitsandgravy,”andsomethingmaybeso“cool,”itis“hot.”Aggrievedwomen,oppressedhomosexuals,confusedimmigrants,and,ofcourse,radicalstudentshaverichlyendowedthelanguagewithnewwordsandnewmeaningsforoldones.Thewordsmob,chum,crony,andsnobcometousfromuniversitystudentsearlyinthiscentury.Andnewtermskeepcoining.Linguisticdiversity,inotherwords,comesnotonlyfromotherlanguagesbutfromthevarietyofsocialandregionaldialectswithinourownlanguage.ItdoesnottakeverylongwhenstudyingtheoriginsofEnglishwordsbeforeonerealizeshowmuchisowedtotheprincipleofdiversity.ButIdonotthinkitissufficientforourstudentstoknowonlythe

Englishlanguage.Ifweareseriousaboutmakingdiversityacentralnarrativeintheschoolingoftheyoung,itisnecessaryforourstudentstolearntospeakatleastonelanguageotherthanEnglishfluently.Thissortofthinghasbeensaidmanytimesbefore,andforalongtime,but,Ifear,hasnotbeenaccomplished,orindeedeventried.Ourfailureissomethingofaworldwideembarrassment.Thestandardjokeinothercountries:Whatdowecallsomeonewhospeaksthreelanguages?Trilingual.Twolanguages?Bilingual.Onelanguage?AnAmerican.Thereareseveralreasonswhywehavefailedtoaccomplishthetaskofteachingotherlanguages,includingstartingtoolate(inhighschool),badforeign-languageteaching,andthenearlycompletesufficiencyof

Englishforthousandsofmilesineverydirection.ThereisevenapoliticalmovementtodiscouragetheuseofforeignlanguagesamongourcitizensbymakingEnglishthe“official”languageofAmerica.ThisisanotheroneofthoseideasborrowedfromtheFrench,whoareobsessedwithprotectingtheirlanguageandwhoevenhaveanofficialacademytohelpkeepitpure.ButtheEnglishlanguageneedsnohelpinthisway.EnglishisnotonlytheunchallengedlanguageofAmericabutisrapidlybecomingthesecondlanguageoftherestoftheworld.Nonetheless,thisideaofan“official”languagehaspossibilities—iftheintentionistoensurethateveryonewilllearntospeakit.Supposewemade,letussay,Frenchour“official”languageforfifteenyears,thenJapaneseforthenextfifteen.TheEnglishlanguagewouldstillbespokenbynearlyeveryone,butinthirtyyears,wewouldallbetrilingual.Putthatideaaside(youhavealreadydoneso),althoughitmaytakeanalmostequallydesperateideatogetustopursueinaseriouswayforeign-languagelearning.Thereasonsforseriousforeign-languagelearningaremanyand

various.Firstamongthemisthataforeignlanguageprovidesonewithentryintoaworldviewdifferentfromone’sown.EvenalanguageassimilartoEnglishinstructureandvocabularyasSpanishwillgivedifferentconnotationstoideasandthings,andthereforewillsuggestthattheworldisnotexactlyastheEnglishlanguagedepictsit.Ofcourse,languagessuchasJapanese,Chinese,andRussianwillrevealthisfactmuchmoreprecisely.Ifitisimportantthatouryoungvaluediversityofpointofview,thereisnobetterwaytoachieveitthantohavethemlearnaforeignlanguageand,itshouldgowithoutsaying,tobegintolearnitasearlyaspossible—inthefirstgrade,forexample.Onemightalsoaddthatinpreparingouryoungforthetwenty-first

century,bilingualism(atleast)wouldseemtobeanecessity.Forsomereasonwhichisunknowntome,educationalvisionariesdonotstressthispoint.Theyinsistthatcompetenceinusingcomputersisessentialinaglobaleconomy,apparentlybelievingthatspeakingaforeignlanguageisnot;atleastonedoesnotheartheimportanceofforeign-languagelearningspokenofverymuch.AsIhavealreadysaid,almosteveryoneisintheprocessoflearningtousecomputers,irrespectiveofhowmuchattentionisgiventothetaskinschool.Butifourschoolspaylittleattentiontoforeign-languages,about80percentofourpopulationwill

remainmonolingual(atpresentabout32millionAmericansspeakaforeigntongue,leavingmorethan200millionwhodonot).Isupposethatifonemustbemonolingual,Englishisquitesatisfactory,sinceitembodiestheworldviewsofsomanydifferentlanguages.Butthepointisthatouryoungoughtnottobemonolingual,andiftheschoolspaidlessattentiontodrivereducationandothersuchmarginaltasks,ourstudentswouldn’tbe.

Religion

Iamaware(whoisn’t?)thatthewordsreligionandpublicschoolsdonotgotogether.NotinAmerica.Theyarelikemagnetsthat,upongettingtooclose,repeleachother.Therearegoodreasonsforthis,amongthemtheFirstAmendment,which,evenbeforeitmentionsfreedomofspeech,prohibitsCongressfromestablishinganationalreligion.Thishasbeenwiselyinterpretedtomeanthatpublicinstitutionsmaynotshowanypreferenceforonereligionoveranother.Ithasalsobeentakentomean,notsowisely,thatpublicinstitutionsshouldshownointerestinreligionatall.Oneconsequenceofthislattermeaningisthatpublicschoolsarebarelyabletorefertoreligioninalmostanycontext.Itwasnotalwaysso.IvividlyrecallsingingChristmascarolsin

assemblywhenIwasinpublicelementaryschool.About60percentofthestudentswereJewish,butthisdidnotpreventthemfromsingingenthusiastically,andintune.Idonotrememberanyone’sprotesting,althoughHaroldPosnerandItookpleasureinamendingsomeofthewords(“Deckthehallswithrowsofchallah”).Weweretryingtobecute,notdefiant.Ibelievewethought“SilentNight,”“Hark!TheHeraldAngelsSing”(naturally,wesang,“Hark!AllHarold’sAngelsSing”),and“JoytotheWorld”weremerelyAmericansongswithoutreligioussignificance.AndIevensuspectthatmostoftheCatholicstudentsthoughtthesame.IdonotspeakofProtestants,sinceinmyneighborhoodtheyweretoofewinnumbertodrawconclusionsabout,althoughIdorememberthatHenriettaGutmann,aLutheran,alwayshadamysterious,farawaylookinhereyeswhenwesang“SilentNight.”Thisworriedmealittle,asithintedthattheremightbesomethingthere

thatIwasmissing.Thesituationappearstobedifferentthesedays.Jews,Muslims,

Hindus,Buddhists,andatheistsdonotwantChristianrituals,includingsongs,tobeimposedonthem—thatis,tobegivenpreferenceovertheirownrituals.IfeelquitesureThomasPaineandThomasJeffersonwouldagreewiththemonthispoint,andsodoI.Butitdoesnotfollowfromthisthatthepublicschoolsshouldignorereligionaltogether.Thereareseveralreasonsforthis,allofthemobvious.Oneisthatso

muchofourpainting,music,architecture,literature,andscienceareintertwinedwithreligion.Itis,therefore,quiteimpossible(impossiblebydefinition)foranyonetoclaimtobeeducatedwhohasnoknowledgeoftheroleplayedbyreligionintheformationofculture.Anotherreasonisthatthegreatreligionsare,afterall,thestoriesofhowdifferentpeopleofdifferenttimesandplaceshavetriedtoachieveasenseoftranscendence.Althoughmanyreligiousnarrativesprovideanswerstothequestionsofhowandwhenwecametobe,theyarealllargelyconcernedtoanswerthequestion,Why?Isitpossibletobeaneducatedpersonwithouthavingconsideredquestionsofwhywearehereandwhatisexpectedofus?Andisitpossibletoconsiderthesequestionsbyignoringtheanswersprovidedbyreligion?Ithinknot,sincereligionmaybedefinedasourattempttogiveatotal,integratedresponsetoquestionsaboutthemeaningofexistence.Athirdreason,relatedtothesecondandespeciallyrelevantto

understandingtheprincipleofdiversity,isthatbystudyingreligion,ourstudentscanbecomeacquaintedwith,first,thevarietyofwayspeoplehaveofferedtoexplainthemselvesand,second,theastonishingunityoftheirexplanations.Ithereforeproposethatbeginningsometimeinlateelementaryschoolandproceedingwithfocuseddetailinhighschoolandbeyond,weprovideouryoungwithopportunitiestostudycomparativereligion.Suchstudieswouldpromotenoparticularreligionbutwouldaimatilluminatingthemetaphors,literature,art,andritualofreligiousexpressionitself.Cansuchathingbedone?Only,Iimagine,verydelicately.Wewould

certainlyneedtobemoretactfulthanteachersareinclinedtobetoward“Greekmythology.”Ifyouwillallowstillonemorereferencetomyownschooldays,Irecallbeingaware,intheeighthgrade,thatsomethingwasnotquiterightaboutourteacher’sattitudetowardthegodsofthe

ancientGreeks,whowereabletodomiraculousthings,includingracingacrosstheskyinachariot.IknewthatJewsbelievedtheirGodhadpartedtheRedSea,andChristiansbelievedtheirSaviordiedandcamebacktolife.IwaspuzzledaboutwhyourteachercalledthestoryofGreekgods“myth”but,Ifeltsure,wouldnotsodesignateourownstories.IaskedaGreekclassmatenamedNicholas(I’veforgottenhisfamilyname)aboutthis.Heshrugged,toldmehisfamilywasGreekOrthodox,andledmetobelievehedidn’tcareonewayortheother.ButthoseinchargeoftheeducationofouryouthcannotbeascavalierasNicholas.Ofcourse,inproceeding,wewoulddoawaywiththewordsmythandmythology.PerhapsincollegethewordscanberestoredinthesensethatJosephCampbellandRolloMayusethem.Buttheyaretooladenwithconnotationsofsomethingthatisfalseormeresuperstitiontousewithyoungerstudents.Whatwemustaimforistoprovideeverygroup’snarrativewithdignity;withasensethatitisacreativemeansofexpressingmysteriesoflife;thatits“truths”aredifferentfromthoseofscienceandjournalism;indeed,thatitaddressesquestionsscienceandjournalismarenotequippedtoanswer.Tosaythatsomethingmustbedonedelicatelydoesnotmeanit

cannotbedone.Ofcourseitcan,ifwedoitwithmaturepreparation.Wemustproceed,forexample,withtheknowledgethatmanystudentsandtheirparentsbelievetheirstoryistheliteraltruth.Thereisnoneedtodisputethem.Nothingcouldbefurtherfrommymindthanthatcomparativereligionstudiesshouldaimat“narrativebusting”oreven,forthatmatter,asuperficialcynicism.Theideaistoshowthatdifferentpeoplehavetolddifferentstories;thattheyhave,atvarioustimes,borrowedelementsfromoneanother’snarratives;thatitisappropriatetotreatthenarrativesofotherswithrespect;andthat,ultimately,allsuchnarrativeshaveasimilarpurpose.IsitinsultingtorevealthattheJewsborrowedfromtheEgyptians?TheChristiansfromtheJews?TheMuslimsfromtheChristiansandtheJews?IsthereanycynicisminrevealingthatAmericanIndiandeitieshaveaspecialrelationshiptotheearthandsky,notfoundinWesternreligionsbutsimilarinmanywaystoancientGreekdeities?IsthereanythingthreateninginlearningaboutthereligionsofAfricantribes?DoweendangeranyonebyshowingthatGandhi’sreligiousbeliefswereinfluencedbythoseofThoreau,andthatMartinLutherKing,Jr.’sideaswereinfluencedbyGandhi?

Iftheanswertothesequestionsisacontinuousyes,thenIamdisarmedandmustdropthesubject.ButIthinkmanywillanswerno,andagreethatthereisanobligationforustotaketheworldintoaccountonsuchimportantmatters,andthattherearefewbetterwaystoinculcateasenseoftoleranceandevenaffectionfordifferencethantoteachaboutthevarietiesofreligiousexperience.MyproposalhereshouldnotbetakentomeanthatIfailto

appreciatethedifficultiesconfrontingteacherswhowishstudentstolearnsomethingaboutthediversityofreligion.Forexample,therewillbestudentswhobelievenotonlythattheirnarrativeis“true,”butthatallothersarefalse.Howdoesonecopewiththat?Iamnotsure,butonemightproceed,first,bymakingstudentsawareofthosereligionsthatdonotinsistonanexclusivetruth—forexample,Bahai,whichtakestheviewthattheprophetsofallreligionsspokethetruth,althoughindifferentwords,withmeaningssuitabletothetimesinwhichtheyspoke.Onemayalsoavoidcertaindifficultiesbytakinganhistoricalapproach,whichinevitablyrevealsthedynamicnatureofreligiousbelief.EvenacursoryreviewofRomanCatholicismwillshowthatitsideashavechanged—forexample,oncelibacy,onabortion,ondietaryrules,evenontheInquisitionandonthetreatmentofpoorGalileo.NeitherisitdifficulttoshowhowProtestantsectshavechangedtheirviewsandhowtheydifferfromoneanother.Orthat,becauseofirreconcilabledifferencesaboutthepropermannerofreligiousobservance,Jewshavedividedthemselvesintomanygroups—Orthodox,ModernOrthodox,VeryOrthodox,AlmostOrthodox,Conservative,VeryConservative,NearlyConservative,Reform,NotQuiteReform.(Oneispermitted,Ibelieve,tomakefunofone’sowngroup.)Thepointisthatthereisnothingdisrespectful,andeverythinghonest,inshowingstudentsthatevenwithinreligionsthatinsistonanexclusive“truth,”truthschange.But,ofcourse,thisdoesnotadequatelyaddressthefactthatcertainfundamentaltruthsofeachparticularreligiondonotchange.TheChristiansbelievetheMessiahcame.TheJewsbelievetheMessiahisyettocome.TheBuddhistsdon’tbelieveinaMessiahatall.TheHindusbelieveinreincarnation.TheMuslimsdonot.Whatthen?Theanswertoanystudentwhobelievesthatotherreligionsaresimplywrong(or,astheChristianapologistC.S.Lewisputit,aremoreprimitive)isthatheorshemayberight.But,astheFirstAmendment

implies,wecannotbesure,and,therefore,whileeveryoneispermittedtobesureinhisorherownmind,nooneispermittedtopreventanyonefromdisagreeing.Inthisconnection,itmaybevaluableforstudentstoknow,certainly

upperhighschoolstudents,thatmanyoftheFoundingFathersweredeists—forexample,JeffersonandPaine,bothofwhombelieveddeeplyinan“AlmightyGod”butwhowereskepticalabout(inPaine’scase,vigorouslyopposedto)organizedreligion,especiallytheChristian,Jewish,and,asitwascalledintheirday,Turkish(Muslim).JeffersonwroteaversionoftheFourGospelsinwhichheremovedallofthe“fanciful”and“superstitious”elements,retainingonlytheethicalcomponents.ItissaidthatwhenhewaselectedPresident,someChristianshidtheirBibles,fearingthatgovernmentpolicywouldbedirectedagainst“God-fearingChristians.”TheyknewlittleaboutJefferson,andevenlessabouttheFirstAmendment.ThomasPainewasvilifiedforhisTheAgeofReason,inwhichhetriedtoshowthatmanythingsintheBiblecouldnotpossiblybetrue,andthatthedifferencesamongreligioussystemsshowthattheymustallbewrong.Hisviewsonthepurposesofreligioussystemswere,itseemstome,shallow,andyetTheAgeofReasonisoneofthemostreligiousbooksIhaveeverread.Thepointhereisthattoleranceisirrelevantwhenthereisuniversal

agreement.Whenthereisdiversityofopinion,tolerancebecomes,ifyouwill,agodtoserve.Butthereareseveralmeaningstotheword.Idonothaveinmindthesortoftolerancecharacterizedbyasilentsuperiority.ThatissurelybetterthanaPatBuchanan-likevocalandaggressivesuperiority.Butintheeducationofouryoung,weareobligedtodomuchbetter.Imeantohelppromoteavarietyoftolerancethatsays,“IfIhadbeenraisedasyouhave,ifIhadbeeninyoursituation,ifIhadbeenledtorespectthesymbolsyoudo,thenitisverylikelyIwouldbelieveasyoudo.”Thiskindoftolerancedoesnotrequirestudentstoabandontheirbeliefs,oreventothinktheyarewrong.Itrequiresonlythattheyunderstandthattherearemorethingsaboutheaventhanaredreamtofintheirreligion.Werewetomakethesubjectofcomparativereligionpartofthe

educationofouryouth,therewouldarisemanyquestionsanddifficultiestowhichIhavenoanswers,and,Ifeelsure,towhichotherteachershavenoanswerseither.Butourignorancedoesnotrulethe

subjectout.Isaidearlierwemustproceedwithmaturepreparation.Thisimpliesthatthereneedtobenational,regional,andlocalteacherconferencesandinstitutesdevotedtothewaysinwhichcomparativereligionmightbetaught,sothatteacherscanlearnfromoneanotherwhatthedifficultiesmightbeandhowtoovercomethem.Doesthisseemtoomuchtoask?Whyisitthatnothingiseasiertoorganize,ismorewellfunded,andmorewellattendedthanaconferenceonhowtoteachcomputers,orevenoneonmedialiteracy?Isitcertainthatteacherinterestcanbearousedonlyabouttechnicalortechnologicalmatters?Arewetoostupidorfearfultodiscusstheopportunitiesofferedbyreligiousdiversity?Idon’tthinkso.

Custom

Toteachaboutthediversityofreligionwouldseemladenwithdifficulties,especiallybecausewehavesolittleexperienceindoingit.Bycomparison,toteachaboutthediversityofnationalorethniccustomsseemseasyandfamiliar.ThereisprobablynoelementaryschoolintheUnitedStates,andfewhighschools,thathavenothadsomecelebrationofdiversecustoms,oftenadayinwhichnativedress,food,andmusicaredisplayed,eaten,andheard.Noonecancomplainaboutthis—atleastnotmuch.Sucheffortsdosuggesttoourstudentscertainkindsofdifferencesamongpeoplesoftheworld;and,always,thereisthevagueimplicationthatsuchdifferencesareworthyofrespect.Butthereisalsothesmellofquaintnessabouttheseevents,evena

senseofsuperiority,asifwhileacknowledgingdifference,weshouldkeepinmindthattheseclothes,thisfood,andthismusicarenotquitereal,merelyexamplesofexotica.IhopeIamwrongaboutthis.ButIdonotthinkIamwrongabout

thesuperficialityofsuchapproaches.Theyrarely,ifever,penetratetothemorerobustexpressionsofculturaldifference.Itisonethingtorevealthatnotallteenagersaroundtheworldthinkitadorabletowearbaseballcapsbackward;itisanotherthingtorevealdifferencesinbeliefsaboutkinship,aboutthelegitimatesourcesofauthority,aboutgenderroles,aboutthemeaningofpolitics,ofhistory,ofthefuture.

Togetseriouslyintothesubjectofthediversityofcustomis,therefore,toforgothepleasuresofsuperficialcharmandtostudyaspectsofculturethat,intruth,arelikelytomakestudentsuncomfortable.Yet,Iwouldurgeitonthegroundsofnecessity.Doeducatorscommandourattentionbytheirwarningsthatthetwenty-firstcenturyishardonourheels,thatourtechnologyhascreatednotonlyaglobaleconomybutaglobalvillage?Thenitisessential,Iwouldthink,thatouryouthlearnsomethingofthewaysofotherswhooccupythevillage.Earlier,Ihavediscussedintroducing,asamajorsubject,

anthropology,ofwhichthestudyofcustomsisapart.Butitisalsoapartofsociology.IoncehadaconversationwithMargaretMeadaboutthedifferencebetweenthetwosubjects.Shesaidthatsociologygrewoutofanthropology,mostlybecausetherewereanthropologistswhowantedtoavoidthepersonaldiscomfortofstudying“primitive”peoplesintheirfarawaynativehabitats.Theypreferredtostudythecustomsofpeoplein,say,Omaha,Nebraska,ratherthanintheTrobriandIslands.Theresultwasanewsubject:sociology.Idon’tknowifthereisanytruthinthis.(SinceIknewMargaretMeadasasoberscholar,Iruledoutthepossibilitythatshewaspullingmyleg.)Butthereislittledoubtthatthetwosubjectsmakesimilarinquiries:Howdothepeopleofaparticularculturecommunicatewithoneanother?Howdotheydefinelaw,truth,intelligence?Howdotheyeducatetheiryoung?Whatrolesdotheyassigntothesexes?Howdotheyorganizekinship?Whatauthoritydotheyrespect?Whatroledoestheirhistoryplay?Imentiontheconnectionbetweenanthropologyandsociology

becausethestudyofdiversecustomsneednotconfineitselftopeopleoffarawayplaces.InmostAmericanclassrooms,thestudentpopulationwillembodyseveraldifferenttraditions,anditislikelythatthereiswidespreadignoranceaboutsomeofthem.Ateacherwhohas,letussay,Latinos,Koreans,African-Americans,Greeks,andItaliansinclasshasenoughmaterialtolastseveralsemesters.Heorshehasavailablewhattheanthropologistscall“nativeinformants,”whocanspeakwithsomedegreeofauthorityaboutthebeliefsandattitudesoftheirrespectivecultures.Ofcourse,likeallnativeinformants,theywilloftentrytoconcealcertainaspectsoftheircultureandcannotbeexpectedtobeentirelyobjective.Itistheroleoftheteachertoprovideobjectivity,

whichmeanstoguidetheinquirywithasmuchopen-mindednessaspossible.Thisisespeciallyimportanttodo,andquitedifficult,whenthestudyconcernspeoplewhohavenotbeen“Americanized”orwhohavenothingtodowithAmerica—forexample,iftheinquiryhasshiftedawayfromthestudentpopulationtothepeopleofSingaporeorIraqorChina.Until1994,mostAmericansknewverylittleaboutSingapore.Andthen,anAmericanteenager,convictedinSingaporeofwhatmostAmericanswouldregardasaminorcrime,wascruellypunishedbycaning.Thiseventprovides(thatis,wouldhaveprovided)avaluableopportunitytostudyculturaldifferences.HowdothepeopleofSingaporeviewcrime,teenagers,democracy?HowaretheirviewsdifferentfromthoseofAmericans?Isitpossibleforateacher,nottomentionstudents,tobeobjectiveaboutsuchdifferences?Ithinkitis,inthefollowingsense:Throughanactofscholarly

imagination,onetriestounderstandthemeaningsSingaporeansgivetotherelevantconcepts,tograsphowsuchmeaningsholdtheculturetogether,tofindinthesemeanings,ifnotvirtue,asenseofnecessity.IthelpsgreatlyifonecomparesSingaporeanmeaningstoAmericanmeaningsofthesameconcepts.Oneusuallyfindsameasureofarbitrarinessincustomarywaysofthinking.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthereisnobasisforjudgingonesetofmeaningstobebetterthananother.Itmeansthataculture’shistory,geography,economy,andreligionshapewhatcomestobethoughtseemly,natural,eveninevitable.Beforerushingtojudgment,onemustmakeanhonestattempttounderstand,andtoteachtheyounghowtounderstand.Itiseasiersaidthandone.Imaginehowdifficultitwouldbeforan

Americanteachertostayopen-mindedaboutIraqicustomsregardingwomen,orabouttheChinesepractice(bynomeansjustrecent)ofabortingorkillingfemaleinfantsinthebeliefthatfemalesarelessvaluablethanmales.Primitive,barbaric,evil?ButthenwhatoftheAmericancustomofkillingthoseconvictedofcertaincrimes,notoutofeconomicnecessity,butforrevenge?Primitive,barbaric,evil,aChinesesociologistmightsay.Notthesamething,wemightreply.Ifwecouldexplaintoyouoursituation,ifyouknewhowwethinkaboutthesethings,ifyoucouldsimplyunderstandthephrase“aneyeforaneye,atoothforatooth,”youwouldseethatthismakesquitegoodsense.Itis,infact,anaffirmationofthevalueoflife,andanindispensable

collectivecatharsis.Well,maybe.Iamnotarguingherefororagainstthecustomknownascapital

punishment.Iamtalkingaboutwhatitmeanstobeopen-mindedandaboutthewaysinwhichvariousculturesmightexplaintheircustoms.Thereisalwaystimetodecideifaculture’scustomsarewasteful,ignorant,inhuman.Suchdecisionsshouldawaitastudyofwhytheyexist.Inthecourseofsuchstudies,studentsmaydiscoverthattherearestrikingsimilaritiesinhowdifferentculturesjustifywhatatfirstseemtobeunjustifiablecustoms.Butthesearedarkmatters,andalthoughtheymustbepartofthe

studyofcustoms,theyarebynomeansallofit.Weoughttobeexamining,forexample,marriageceremonies,educationsystems,manners,andparent-childrelations.Studentsusuallyfindthelasttwoofspecialinterest.Irecallthebemusement—borderingonwonder—ofsomeAmericantenthgradersuponlearningthatinThailand,childrenofanyagewillnotdisagreewiththeirparents,andthatitisalmostasbadtodisagreewiththeirteachers.Itriedtoconvincethemthatthiswasanaltogethersplendididea.IntheirattemptstoconvincemethatthesecustomswereinappropriateinAmerica,theylearnedmuchaboutAmerica,Thailand,themselves,andtherichnessofdiversity.SodidI.

ArtandArtifacts

Idonotwishtogivetheimpressionthatartistobetaughtsolelyorevenmostlytosupporttheprincipleofdiversity.Butinstudyingthecreativearts,oneinevitablylearnsthevalueofdiversity—letussayitisaninescapablesideeffect.ImagineaconcertthatfeaturesLucianoPavarotti,PlacidoDomingo,andJoséCarreras.ZubinMehtaconducts;Yo-YoMaandItzhakPerlmanaresoloists.Imaginethat,aftertheintermission,LeontynePricesingsWagner,whileJamesLevineconducts,afterwhichVanCliburnplaysChopinandTchaikovsky.Besidesthefactthatitwouldbenearlyimpossibletogetticketsforsuchaconcert,itwouldalsobeimpossibleforthosewhogotinnottonoticethecontributionsofpeoplefromallovertheworld.(Includingthecomposers,Icountmusiciansfromninedifferentcountries.)Buttheaudiencehasnotcomeforalessonindiversityoreven,ifyou

prefer,theuniversalityofWesternmusic.Neitherdopeoplegotomuseumsandplaysandreadnovelsandpoetrytolearnaboutthecosmopolitannatureofartisticcreation.Theydothesethingstonourishtheirsouls.Art,ithasbeensaid,isthelanguageoftheheart,andifweteachaboutmusic,painting,architecture,andliteratureinschools,weoughttobedoingittohelpouryouthunderstandthatlanguagesothatitmaypenetratetotheirhearts.Thatisaverydifficultthingtodo,andIwillmakenoattempttodisguisethefactthat,saveforliterature,Ihavelittleexperience(thatis,none)inteachingtheartsforthispurpose.Iwill,therefore,confinemyremarkstocertainadditionalreasonsfortakingtheartsandaculture’sartifactsmoreseriouslythanweareaccustomedtodoing.Allofthesereasonshavetodowithdiversityinonewayoranother.Wemaygiveprominencetotheartsbecausetheirsubjectmatter

offersthebestevidencewehaveoftheunityandcontinuityofhumanexperience.Painting,forexample,ismorethanthreetimesasoldaswriting,andcontainsinitschangingstylesandthemesafifteen-thousand-year-oldrecordoftheascentofhumanity.Andinshowingthis,itrevealshowdifferentpeoplesatdifferenttimeshavechosentosaywhatisintheirhearts—theirfears,theirexaltations,theirquestions.Irealizethatinsuggestingthatweincludethestudyofthehistoryofartforms,Iamcomingclosetosubsumingartundertheheadingofarchaeology,butIseenoprobleminthisaslongaswekeepinmindthemultiplepurposesofarteducation.Indeed,Iwouldsuggestwemightgoevenfurther.Irecommendasubjectthat,sofarasIknow,hasneverbeentaughtinAmericanpublicschools.Iamreferringtothestudyofmuseums—notonlyartmuseumsbutmuseumsofallkinds;thatistosay,wewouldbroadenourviewofarttoincludeartifactsofvariousformsandmeanings.Whysuchasubject?Becauseamuseumisananswertoafundamentalquestion:Whatdoesitmeantobeahumanbeing?NomuseumIknowof,noteventheBritishMuseum,givesa

completeanswertothisquestion,andnonecanbeexpectedto.Everymuseumgivesonlyapartialanswer.Eachonemakesanassertionaboutthenatureofhumanity—sometimessupportingandenrichingoneanother’sclaimsbutjustasoftencontradictingoneanother.ThereisagreatmuseuminMunichthatisfilledwithold

automobiles,trains,andairplanes,allofwhicharemeanttosignifythathumanbeingsarepreeminentlytoolmakersandareattheirbestwhensolvingpracticalproblems.TheGuggenheimMuseuminNewYorkCityrejectsthatclaim;thereisnothingdisplayedintheGuggenheimthatis,oreverwas,ofanypracticalvalue.Themuseumseemstoarguethatwhatmakesushumanisourneedtoexpressourfeelingsinsymbolicforms.Wearehumanpreciselybecausesomanyofourcreationsareimpractical.Tothis,theImperialWarMuseuminLondonsays,“Nonsense.Youarebothwrong.Weareatourmosthumanwhendevisingwaystokilloneanother.”TowhichYadVasheminJerusalemaddswithinconsolablesadness,“Thatistrue.Butwearenotmerelykillerslikesharksandtigers;wearecruel,pointless,andsystematickillers.Rememberthisaboveall.”Gotoanymuseumintheworld,evenonethatservesonlyasan

archive,andask,“Whatisthismuseum’sdefinitionofhumanity?”Youwillberewardedwithsomekindofananswer.Insomecases,theanswerwillbetimidandevenconfused;inothers,boldandunmistakable.Ofcourse,itisfollytosaywhichmuseumsconveytherightanswers.Allofthemarecorrect:Wearetoolmakersandsymbolmakersandwarmakers.Wearesublimeandridiculous,beautifulandugly,profoundandtrivial,spiritualandpractical.Soitisnotpossibletohavetoomanymuseums,becausethemorewehave,themoredetailedandcomprehensivewillbetheportraitofhumanity.Butinsayingthateverymuseumgivesuspartofthepicture,Iam

notsayingthateverymuseumisequallyuseful.ToparaphraseGeorgeOrwell,allmuseumstellthetruth,butsometellmoreimportanttruthsthanothers.Andhowimportantatruthisdependsonthetimeandplaceofitstelling.Foratdifferenttimes,culturesneedtoknow,remember,contemplate,andreveredifferentideasintheinterestofsurvivalandsanity.Amuseumthatwasusefulfiftyyearsagomightbequitepointlesstoday.ButIwouldneverwishthatsuchamuseumbeclosed,forsomeday,inchangedcircumstances,itsusefulnessmayberestored(andinanycase,thedialecticofmuseumsrequiresthatallthevoicesbecounted).Nonetheless,foraspecifictimeandplace,thetruthsconveyedbyaparticularmuseumcanbeirrelevantandevenharmful.Scoresofmuseums—someofthemnew—celebrateideasthatarenotneeded.Tohelpclarifymypoint,imaginethattheyearis1933,thatyou

havebeengivenunlimitedfundstocreateamuseuminBerlin,andthatithasnotoccurredtoyouthatyoumightbeshotorotherwisepunishedforanythingyouwilldo.Whatkindofmuseumwouldyoucreate?Whatideaswouldyousanctify?Whatpartofthehumanpast,present,orimaginedfuturewouldyouwishtoemphasize,andwhatpartwouldyouwishtoignore?Inbrief,whatwouldyouwantyourGermanvisitorstothemuseumtocontemplate?Inaskingthesequestions,Imeantosuggestthatamuseumis,ina

fundamentalsense,apoliticalinstitution.Foritsanswerstothequestion,“Whatdoesitmeantobeahumanbeing?”mustbegivenwithinthecontextofaspecificmomentinhistoryandmustinevitablybeaddressedtolivingpeoplewho,asalways,arestrugglingwiththeproblemsofmoral,psychological,andsocialsurvival.Iamnoturgingthatmuseumsbeusedasinstrumentsofcheapandblatantpropaganda;Iamsayingthatamuseumisaninstrumentofsurvivalandsanity.Amuseum,afterall,tellsastory.Andliketheoralandwrittenliteratureofanyculture,itsstorymayservetoawakenthebetterangelsofournatureortostimulatewhatisfiendish.Amuseumcanservetoclarifyoursituationorobfuscateit,totelluswhatweneedtoknoworwhatisuseless.InhisTheQuintessenceofIbsenism,GeorgeBernardShawtellsus

preciselywhymuseumsarenecessary.Headdressedthequestion,Whydoweneedtheater?Buthisanswerappliesjustaswelltomuseums.Hesaid,“Itisanelucidatorofsocialconsciousness,ahistorianofthefuture,anarmoryagainstdarknessanddespair,andatempleintheascentofman.”Canyouimagine“museums”asaspecificsubjectinhighschoolor

college?Canyouimagineahighschoolorcollegewithoutsuchasubject?Iamperhapsexpectingtoomuch.ButincaseIamnot,mayIproposeaprojectthatasksstudentstowriteaprospectusforanewmuseumintheircommunity.Theywouldberequiredtoindicatewhatthemuseumwouldtrytosay,aswellaswhatobjectsofart,custom,andtechnologywouldbestsayit.Suchaprojectmightbethefinalexamofayear-longcoursedevotedtoananalysisofwhatevermuseumsareaccessibleinthecommunity.Thecoursewouldprobablyrequiretwoorthreeteachersworkingtogether,foritwouldcertainlybe,toparaphraseanotoriousIraqileader,themotherofallinterdisciplinarycourses.ButIbelieveitisnotbeyondtherangeofhighschoolfaculties,certainlynot

ofcollegefaculties,andIcanthinkoffewbetterapproachesfordemonstratingthegreatstoryofhumandiversity.Thestudyofmuseumsislikelytoleadstudentsinmanydifferent

directions,perhapsasmuchawayfromartisticcreationsastowardthem.Artifactsarenotnecessarilyart,anditisimportanttokeepinmindthatthestudyoftheformerisnosubstituteforthestudyofthelatter.Ireferredearliertoartasthelanguageoftheheart.Butnotallheartsareequallyopentothevarietyoflanguagesinwhichartspeaks.Thereare,asweknow,differentlevelsofsensibility.Inthecaseofmusic,forexample,mostAmericanstudentsarewelltunedtorespondwithfeeling,criticalintelligence,andconsiderableattentiontoformsofpopularmusic,butarenotpreparedtofeeloreventoexperiencethemusicofHaydn,Bach,orMozart;thatistosay,theirheartsareclosed,orpartiallyclosed,tothecanonofWesternmusic.Iamnotabouttolaunchintoascreedagainstrock,metal,rap,andotherformsofteenagemusic.Infact,readersshouldknowthatRogerWaters,oncetheleadsingerofPinkFloyd,wassufficientlyinspiredbyabookofminetoproduceaCDcalledAmusedtoDeath.ThisfactsoelevatedmyprestigeamongundergraduatesthatIamhardlyinapositiontorepudiatehimorhiskindofmusic.NordoIhavetheinclinationforanyotherreason.Nonetheless,thelevelofsensibilityrequiredtoappreciatethemusicofRogerWatersisbothdifferentandlowerthanwhatisrequiredtoappreciate,letussay,aChopinétude.Andwehaveasomewhatsimilarsituationinrespecttootherartforms.Thereis,inshort,somethingmissingintheaestheticexperienceofouryoung.Theproblemmaybestatedinthefollowingway:Becauseofthe

natureofthecommunicationsindustry,ourstudentshavecontinuousaccesstothepopularartsoftheirowntime—itsmusic,rhetoric,design,literature,architecture.Asaconsequence,theirreceptivitytopopularformsiswelldevelopedandappropriate.Buttheircapacitytorespondwitheducatedimaginationstotraditionalorclassicalformsofartisseverelylimited.Whatistobedone?Intheinterestsofcultivatingresourcefulnessand

diversityinlevelsofsensibility,IwouldsaythereisnoexcuseforschoolstosponsorrockconcertswhenstudentshavenotheardthemusicofMozart,Beethoven,Bach,orChopin,orforstudentstohavegraduatedfromhighschoolwithouthavingread,forexample,

Shakespeare,Milton,Keats,Dickens,Whitman,Twain,Melville,orPoe,orforstudentsnottohaveseenatleastaphotographofpaintingsbyGoya,ElGreco,David.Itisnottothepointthatmanyofthesecomposers,writers,andpainterswereintheirowntimespopularartists.Whatistothepointisthattheyspoke,whentheydid,inalanguageandfromapointofviewdifferentfromourown.Itisalsotothepointthatthepopularartstendtomutethevoicesoftheseartistsandrendertheirstandardsofexcellenceinvisible.Iam—toreiterate—notspeakingagainstpopularartforms.Iam

speakingagainstourallowingthemtomonopolizethesoulsofourstudents.Sofarasarteducationisconcerned,ourschoolsoughttoserveasa“counterenvironment,”asiftosay,“Theequipmentyounowhavetorespondtotheartsisincomplete.Yourcapacityfornourishingyourfeelinglifewillbeexpandedand,yes,elevated.”Thisbringsmetothreehighlychargedargumentsaboutthearts(and

aboutculture):first,whetherornottherearehigherandlowerlevelsofsensibility;second,whetherornotthecanonsofliteratureandotherartformshavelegitimacy;andthird,whetherornotschoolscanjustifytransmitting,indeedcelebrating,Eurocentricculture,especiallyasitisdominatedbydeadwhitemales.Icanbebrief,sinceIthinkthatforallthesoundandfury,thereis

notmuchtoargueabout.Ihave,forexample,alreadygivenmyanswertothefirstquestion,andIwouldonlyaddthatiftherearenothigherandlowerlevelsofsensibilityinresponsestoart,language,andotherformsofhumancommunication,thenthereisnoneedforeducation.Thisappliestointelligenceaswell.Evenifthereare,asHowardGardnerhaspostulated,variouskindsofintelligences,wemustassumethattherearehigherandlowerexpressionsofeachone.Thetaskofaschoolistoincreasestudents’capacities.Thatmeanstohavethemmovefromlowertohighermodalitiesofthoughtandfeeling.Astothelegitimacyofcanons,thewordsimplyreferstoagreed-upon

examplesofexcellenceinvariousgenresofcreativity.Anycanoncanbeaddedto,modified,orevendiscardedifitnolongerserves,inpartorwhole,asamodelofexcellence.Thismeansthatanycanonisaliving,dynamicinstrument,anditiscertainlynotlimitedtothoseartistswhoaredead,andlongdead.Thelongdeaddominatefortheobviousreasonthattheirworkshavegivenpleasureandinstructiontodiversepeople

overlongperiodsoftime.Theyhaveearned,sotospeak,theirplace.Totheextentthatteachersbelieveintheimportanceofconveyingasenseofcontinuityinartisticcreation,theymustgiverespectfulattentiontothelongdead.But,ofcourse,teachersmustnotbereluctanttoincludemodelsofexcellenceproducedbylivingartists.IfteachersknowofbetterexamplesofWesterndramaticartthanhavebeenprovidedbyShakespeare,Molière,Ibsen,Shaw,Williams,andO’Neill,thentheymustletusknowaboutitandexplainwhytheythinkitso.IftherearebetterexamplesofsymphonicmusicthanthoseproducedbyBeethoven,Brahms,Mozart,andTchaikovsky,thenweshouldhearthem,alongwithexplanationsastowhytheyshouldbepreferred.Aproblemdoesarise,however,whensomeoneinjectsaconfusing,

irrelevantpointintotheargument.Irefer,forexample,toSaulBellow’srhetoricalquestionconcerningtheabsenceofSwahilinovels(orwasitNavajonovels?)thataretheequalorsuperiortothenovelsofProust.IthinkhemeanttojustifyProust’splaceinthecanonandtoridiculethelargelypoliticalmotiveofincludingThirdWorldwritersonthelist.Ofcourse,ifwearetalkingaboutthecanonofthegenreknownasnovels,thenBellowhasapoint.TherearenoSwahiliorNavajonovelistswhowillthreatenProust’splaceinthecanon(althoughtheremaybeChineseorJapanesenovelistswhodo).ButthespeakersofSwahiliorNavajoandscoresofotherlanguagesdonotnormallywritethekindofliteraturewecallnovels.Theyexpressthemselvesinothergenres,oftenassociatedwiththeoraltradition.Thereis,Iamsure,acanon(thatis,examplesofexcellence)ineveryformofliteraturefromNavajopoetrytoJapaneseNohdramas.Intheinterestofdiversity,ourstudentsoughttoexperiencesomeoftheseforms,andteachersmayintroducethemasadditionstotheconceptionsofexcellencedevelopedinourownculture.Ishouldaddthattheremarksabovearenotintendedtosuggestthat

artandespeciallyliteratureteachersshouldconfinethemselves,andtheirstudents,tomodelsofexcellence.Therearemanyreasonstoaskstudentstoreadaparticularbook,andonlyoneofthemisthatthebookisanexemplaryexampleofliteraryart.Teachersmaychooseevenbadlywrittenbooksifsuchbooksareofsociologicalorpoliticalinterest.Atthesametime,therearebooksthathaveearnedaplaceinthecanonbutarenotsuitableforstudentsataparticularstageintheirdevelopment.(Proustinhighschool?Notagoodidea.)Themainpoint,however,is

thatteachersoughttohaveaconceptionofmodelsofexcellence;indeed,theyareobligedto.Last,thereisthenonproblemofthedeadwhitemales.Ibelieveit

wasCamillePagliawhoremarkedthatifnotforthedeadwhitemales,wewouldallbelivingingrasshuts.AmorerefinedbutequallydefinitivecommentwasmadebyJamesEarlJones(wheninterviewedbyCharlieRose).Henotedthat,forgoodorill,ourculturewasformedfromthereligion,politics,literature,science,technology,philosophy,andartofmostlydeadwhitemaleswholivedinEuropeandAsiaMinor.Thereis,hesaid,nousepretendingotherwise.Whatthedeadwhitemalesgaveusisnowbeingenacted,criticized,andre-createdbylivingblackmales,bylivingwhitefemales,andbyseveralotherinterestingcombinations,includingquiteanumberoflivingwhitemales.IshouldnotbetakentomeanthattheculturesofdeadChineseordeadAfricansoughttobeignored.Anyonewhohasurgedthatanthropologyandarchaeologybemajorsubjectsinschoolmustbeexemptfromthechargeofculturalchauvinism.Iwouldaddthatintheinterestofarobustdiversity,studiesofAsian,African,andothersignificantcultureswouldbehighlydesirable,providedtheywereavailabletoallstudents.Iamkeepinginmindthatthepurposeofpubliceducationistohelptheyoungtranscendindividualidentitybyfindinginspirationinastoryofhumanity.Meanwhile,itiswelltorememberthat(bymycountandmycanons)

thedeadwhitemaleswhogaveusourreligious,scientific,andartistictraditionscamefromatleastthirty-sevendifferentcultures.Theywereasdiverseagroupasonecouldimagine.CouldtherebeanytwopeoplemoredifferentthanJesusandMartinLuther?ThanKeplerandEinstein?ThanMiltonandCervantes?ThanDostoyevskyandEmerson?Nonetheless,itwastheywhosomehowtaughtusthatdiversityisagreatandnobleprinciple.Ifanyonehasarguedpersuasivelytothecontrary,Ihaven’theardofit.

I

9•TheWordWeavers/TheWorldMakers

nanefforttoclearupconfusion(orignorance)aboutthemeaningofaword,doesanyoneask,Whatisadefinitionofthis

word?Justaboutalways,thewayofputtingthequestionis,Whatisthedefinitionofthisword?Thedifferencebetweenaandtheinthiscontextisvast,andIhavenochoicebuttoblametheschoolsforthemischiefcreatedbyaninadequateunderstandingofwhatadefinitionis.Fromtheearliestgradesthroughgraduateschool,studentsaregivendefinitionsand,withfewexceptions,arenottoldwhosedefinitionstheyare,forwhatpurposestheywereinvented,andwhatalternativedefinitionsmightserveequallyaswell.Theresultisthatstudentscometobelievethatdefinitionsarenotinvented;thattheyarenotevenhumancreations;that,infact,theyare—howshallIsayit?—partofthenaturalworld,likeclouds,trees,andstars.Inathousandexaminationsonscoresofsubjects,studentsareasked

togivedefinitionsofhundredsofthings,words,concepts,procedures.Itistobedoubtedthattherearemorethanafewclassroomsinwhichtherehasbeenanydiscussionofwhatadefinitionis.Howisthatpossible?Letustaketheequallystrangecaseofquestions.Therewillbeno

disagreement,Ithink,tomysayingthatalltheanswersgiventostudentsaretheendproductsofquestions.Everythingweknowhasitsorigininquestions.Questions,wemightsay,aretheprincipalintellectualinstrumentsavailabletohumanbeings.Thenhowisitpossiblethatnomorethanoneinonehundredstudentshaseverbeenexposedtoanextendedandsystematicstudyoftheartandscienceofquestion-asking?HowcomeAlanBloomdidn’tmentionthis,orE.D.Hirsch,Jr.,orsomanyotherswhohavewrittenbooksonhowtoimproveourschools?Didtheysimplyfailtonoticethattheprincipalintellectualinstrumentavailabletohumanbeingsisnotexaminedinschool?

Wearebeginningtoborderonabsurdityhere.Andwecrossthelinewhenweconsiderwhathappensinmostschoolsonthesubjectofmetaphor.Metaphordoes,infact,comeupinschool,usuallyintroducedbyanEnglishteacherwantingtoshowhowitisemployedbypoets.Theresultisthatmoststudentscometobelievemetaphorhasadecorativefunctionandonlyadecorativefunction.Itgivescolorandtexturetopoetry,asjewelrydoestoclothing.Thepoetwantsustosee,smell,hear,orfeelsomethingconcretely,andsoresortstometaphor.Irememberadiscussion,whenIwasincollege,ofRobertBurns’slines:“O,myloveislikeared,redrose/That’snewlysprunginJune./Omyloveislikethemelodie/That’ssweetlyplay’dintune.”Thefirstquestionsonthetestwere:“IsBurnsusingmetaphorsor

similes?Defineeachterm.WhydidBurnschoosetousemetaphorsinsteadofsimiles,orsimilesinsteadofmetaphors?”Ididn’tobjecttothesequestionsatthetimeexceptforthelastone,

towhichIgaveadefiantbuthonestanswer:HowthehellshouldIknow?Ihavethesameanswertoday.Buttoday,Ihavesomeotherthingstosayonthematter.Yes,poetsusemetaphorstohelpusseeandfeel.Butsodobiologists,physicists,historians,linguists,andeveryoneelsewhoistryingtosaysomethingabouttheworld.Ametaphorisnotanornament.Itisanorganofperception.Throughmetaphors,weseetheworldasonethingoranother.Islightawaveoraparticle?Aremoleculeslikebilliardballsorforcefields?Ishistoryunfoldingaccordingtosomeinstructionsofnatureoradivineplan?Areourgeneslikeinformationcodes?Isaliteraryworklikeanarchitect’sblueprintoramysterytobesolved?Questionslikethesepreoccupyscholarsineveryfield.DoI

exaggerateinsayingthatastudentcannotunderstandwhatasubjectisaboutwithoutsomeunderstandingofthemetaphorsthatareitsfoundation?Idon’tthinkso.Infact,ithasalwaysastonishedmethatthosewhowriteaboutthesubjectofeducationdonotpaysufficientattentiontotheroleofmetaphoringivingformtothesubject.Infailingtodoso,theydeprivethosestudyingthesubjectoftheopportunitytoconfrontitsbasicassumptions.Isthehumanmind,forexample,likeadarkcavern(needingillumination)?Amuscle(needingexercise)?Avessel(needingfilling)?Alumpofclay(needingshaping)?Agarden(needingcultivation)?Or,assomanysaytoday,isitlikeacomputer

thatprocessesdata?Andwhatofstudents?Aretheypatientstobecaredfor?Troopstobedisciplined?Sonsanddaughterstobenurtured?Personneltobetrained?Resourcestobedeveloped?Therewasatimewhenthosewhowroteonthesubjectofeducation,

suchasPlato,Comenius,Locke,andRousseau,madetheirmetaphorsexplicitandindoingsorevealedhowtheirmetaphorscontrolledtheirthinking.1“Plantsareimprovedbycultivation,”RousseauwroteinEmile,“andmanbyeducation.”Andhisentirephilosophyrestsuponthiscomparisonofplantsandchildren.EveninsuchancienttextsastheMishnah,wefindthattherearefourkindsofstudents:thesponge,thefunnel,thestrainer,andthesieve.Itwillsurpriseyoutoknowwhichoneispreferred.Thesponge,wearetold,absorbsall;thefunnelreceivesatoneendandspillsoutattheother;thestrainerletsthewinedrainthroughitandretainsthedregs;butthesieve—thatisthebest,foritletsouttheflourdustandretainsthefineflour.ThedifferenceineducationalphilosophybetweenRousseauandthecompilersoftheMishnahispreciselyreflectedinthedifferencebetweenawildplantandasieve.Definitions,questions,metaphors—thesearethreeofthemostpotent

elementswithwhichhumanlanguageconstructsaworldview.Andinurging,asIdo,thatthestudyoftheseelementsbegiventhehighestpriorityinschool,Iamsuggestingthatworldmakingthroughlanguageisanarrativeofpower,durability,andinspiration.Itisthestoryofhowwemaketheworldknowntoourselves,andhowwemakeourselvesknowntotheworld.Itisdifferentfromothernarrativesbecauseitisaboutnounsandverbs,aboutgrammarandinferences,aboutmetaphorsanddefinitions,butitisastoryofcreation,nonetheless.Evenfurther,itisastorythatplaysaroleinallothernarratives.Forwhateverwebelievein,ordon’tbelievein,istoaconsiderableextentafunctionofhowourlanguageaddressestheworld.Hereisasmallexample:Letussupposeyouhavejustfinishedbeingexaminedbyadoctor.In

pronouncinghisverdict,hesayssomewhataccusingly,“Well,you’vedoneaverynicecaseofarthritishere.”Youwouldundoubtedlythinkthisisastrangediagnosis,ormorelikely,astrangedoctor.Peopledonot“do”arthritis.They“have”it,or“get”it,anditisalittleinsultingforthedoctortoimplythatyouhaveproducedormanufacturedanillnessofthiskind,especiallysincearthritiswillreleaseyoufromcertain

obligationsand,atthesametime,elicitsympathyfromotherpeople.Itisalsopainful.Sotheideathatyouhavedonearthritistoyourselfsuggestsakindofself-servingmasochism.Now,letussupposeajudgeisabouttopasssentenceonaman

convictedofrobbingthreebanks.Thejudgeadviseshimtogotoahospitalfortreatment,sayingwithanairofresignation,“Youcertainlyhaveabadcaseofcriminality.”Onthefaceofit,thisisanotherstrangeremark.Peopledonot“have”criminality.They“do”crimes,andweareusuallyoutraged,notsaddened,bytheirdoings.Atleastthatisthewayweareaccustomedtothinkingaboutthematter.ThepointIamtryingtomakeisthatsuchsimpleverbsasisordoes

are,infact,powerfulmetaphorsthatexpresssomeofourmostfundamentalconceptionsofthewaythingsare.Webelievetherearecertainthingspeople“have,”certainthingspeople“do,”evencertainthingspeople“are.”Thesebeliefsdonotnecessarilyreflectthestructureofreality.Theysimplyreflectanhabitualwayoftalkingaboutreality.InhisbookErewhon,SamuelButlerdepictedasocietythatlivesaccordingtothemetaphorsofmystrangedoctorandstrangejudge.There,illnessissomethingpeople“do”andthereforehavemoralresponsibilityfor;criminalityissomethingyou“have”andthereforeisquitebeyondyourcontrol.Everylegalsystemandeverymoralcodeisbasedonasetofassumptionsaboutwhatpeopleare,have,ordo.And,Imightadd,anysignificantchangesinlawormoralityareprecededbyareorderingofhowsuchmetaphorsareemployed.Iamnot,incidentally,recommendingthecultureofthepeopleof

Erewhon.Iamtryingtohighlightthefactthatourlanguagehabitsareatthecoreofhowweimaginetheworld.Andtothedegreethatweareunawareofhowourwaysoftalkingputsuchideasinourheads,wearenotinfullcontrolofoursituation.Itneedshardlytobesaidthatoneofthepurposesofaneducationistogiveusgreatercontrolofoursituation.Schooldoesnotalwayshelp.Inschools,forinstance,wefindthat

testsaregiventodeterminehowsmartsomeoneisor,moreprecisely,howmuchsmartnesssomeonehas.If,onanIQtest,onechildscoresa138andanothera106,thefirstisthoughttohavemoresmartnessthantheother.Butthisseemstomeastrangeconception—everybitasstrangeas“doing”arthritisor“having”criminality.Idonotknow

anyonewhohassmartness.ThepeopleIknowsometimesdosmartthings(asfarasIcanjudge)andsometimesdodumbthings—dependingonwhatcircumstancestheyarein,howmuchtheyknowaboutasituation,andhowinterestedtheyare.Smartness,soitseemstome,isaspecificperformance,doneinaparticularsetofcircumstances.Itisnotsomethingyouareorhaveinmeasurablequantities.Infact,theassumptionthatsmartnessissomethingyouhavehasledtosuchnonsensicaltermsasover-andunderachievers.AsIunderstandit,anover-achieverissomeonewhodoesn’thavemuchsmartnessbutdoesalotofsmartthings.Anunderachieverissomeonewhohasalotofsmartnessbutdoesalotofdumbthings.Thewaysinwhichlanguagecreatesaworldviewarenotusuallypart

oftheschoolingofouryoung.Thereareseveralreasonsforthis.Chiefamongthemisthatintheeducationofteachers,thesubjectisnotusuallybroughtup,andifitis,itisintroducedinacavalierandfragmentaryfashion.Anotherreasonisthatitisgenerallybelievedthatthesubjectistoocomplexforschoolchildrentounderstand,withtheunfortunateresultthatlanguageeducationismostlyconfinedtothestudyofrulesgoverninggrammar,punctuation,andusage.Athirdreasonisthatthestudyoflanguageas“world-maker”is,inescapably,ofaninterdisciplinarynature,sothatteachersarenotclearaboutwhichsubjectoughttoundertakeit.Astothefirstreason,Ihavenogoodideawhyprospectiveteachers

aredeniedknowledgeofthismatter.(Actually,Ihavesomeideas,butafewofthemaresnottyandallareunkind.)Butifitwereuptome,thestudyofthesubjectwouldbeatthecenterofteachers’professionaleducationandwouldremainthereuntiltheyweredone—thatis,untiltheyretire.ThiswouldrequirethattheybecomewellacquaintedwiththewritingsofAristotleandPlato(amongtheancients),LockeandKant(amongrecent“ancients”),and(amongthemoderns)I.A.Richards,BenjaminLeeWhorf,and,especially,AlfredKorzybski.AfewparagraphsaboutKorzybskiareinorderhere,sincehiswork

offersthemostsystematicmeansofintroducingthesubject,deepeningit,andstayingwithit.AnotherreasonisthatacademicsattheuniversityleveleitherdonotknowaboutKorzybski’sworkor,iftheydo,donotunderstandit(whichdoesnotmean,bytheway,thatfifthgraderscannot).Iftheydounderstandit,theyhateit.Theresultisthatan

exceedinglyvaluablemeansofexploringtherelationshipbetweenlanguageandrealitygoesunused.KorzybskiwasborninPolandin1879.Heclaimedtobeofroyal

ancestry,referringtohimselfasCountAlfredKorzybski—anotherreasonwhyacademicshavekepthimatarm’slength.Hewastrainedinmathematicsandengineering,andservedasanartilleryofficerinWorldWarI.Thecarnageandhorrorhewitnessedlefthimhauntedbyaquestionofsingularimportance.Hewonderedwhyscientistscouldhavesuchastonishingsuccessesindiscoveringthemysteriesofnaturewhile,atthesametime,thenonscientificcommunityexperiencedappallingfailureinitseffortstosolvepsychological,social,andpoliticalproblems.Scientistssignifytheirtriumphsbyalmostdailyannouncementsofnewtheories,newdiscoveries,newpathwaystoknowledge.Therestofusannounceourfailuresbywarringagainstourselvesandothers.Korzybskibegantopublishhisanswertothisenigmain1921inhisbookManhoodofHumanity:TheScienceandArtofHumanEngineering.Thiswasfollowedin1926byTime-Binding:TheGeneralTheory,andfinallybyhismagnumopus,ScienceandSanity,in1933.Informulatinghisanswer,Korzybskiwasatalltimesconcernedthat

hisideasshouldhavepracticalapplications.Heconceivedofhimselfasaneducatorwhowouldoffertohumanitybothatheoryandamethodbywhichitmightfindsomereleasefromthepoignantyetcatastrophicignorancewhoseconsequencesweretobewitnessedinallthehistoricformsofhumandegradation.This,too,washeldagainsthimbymanyacademics,whoaccusedhimofgrandiosityandhubris.PerhapsifKorzybskihadthoughtsmaller,hisnamewouldnowappearmorefrequentlyinuniversitycatalogues.Korzybskibeganhisquesttodiscovertherootsofhuman

achievementandfailurebyidentifyingacriticalfunctionaldifferencebetweenhumansandotherformsoflife.Weare,tousehisphrase,“time-binders,”whileplantsare“chemistry-binders,”andanimalsare“space-binders.”Chemistry-bindingisthecapacitytotransformsunlightintoorganicchemicalenergy;spacebinding,thecapacitytomoveaboutandcontrolaphysicalenvironment.Humanshavethesecapacities,too,butareuniqueintheirabilitytotransporttheirexperiencethroughtime.Astime-binders,wecanaccumulateknowledgefromthepastandcommunicatewhatweknowtothefuture.Science-fictionwritersneed

notstraininventionintheirsearchforinterestingtime-transportingmachinery:Wearetheuniverse’stimemachines.Ourprincipalmeansofaccomplishingthebindingoftimeisthe

symbol.Butourcapacitytosymbolizeisdependentuponandintegraltoanotherprocess,whichKorzybskicalled“abstracting.”Abstractingisthecontinuousactivityofselecting,omitting,andorganizingthedetailsofrealitysothatweexperiencetheworldaspatternedandcoherent.KorzybskisharedwithHeraclitustheassumptionthattheworldisundergoingcontinuouschangeandthatnotwoeventsareidentical.Wegivestabilitytoourworldonlythroughourcapacitytore-createitbyignoringdifferencesandattendingtosimilarities.Althoughweknowthatwecannotstepintothe“same”rivertwice,abstractingallowsustoactasifwecan.Weabstractattheneurologicallevel,atthephysiologicallevel,attheperceptuallevel,attheverballevel;allofoursystemsofinteractionwiththeworldareengagedinselectingdatafromtheworld,organizingdata,generalizingdata.Anabstraction,toputitsimply,isakindofsummaryofwhattheworldislike,ageneralizationaboutitsstructure.Korzybskimightexplaintheprocessinthefollowingway:Letus

supposeweareconfrontedbythephenomenonwecalla“cup.”Wemustunderstand,firstofall,thatacupisnotathing,butanevent;modernphysicstellsusthatacupismadeofbillionsofelectronsinconstantmovement,undergoingcontinuouschange.Althoughnoneofthisactivityisperceptibletous,itisimportanttoacknowledgeit,becausebysodoing,wemaygrasptheideathattheworldisnotthewayweseeit.Whatweseeisasummary—anabstraction,ifyouwill—ofelectronicactivity.Butevenwhatwecanseeisnotwhatwedosee.Noonehaseverseenacupinitsentirety,allatonceinspace-time.Weseeonlypartsofwholes.Butusuallyweseeenoughtoallowustoreconstructthewholeandtoactasifweknowwhatwearedealingwith.Sometimes,suchareconstructionbetraysus,aswhenweliftacuptosipourcoffeeandfindthatthecoffeehassettledinourlapratherthanonourpalate.Butmostofthetime,ourassumptionsaboutacupwillwork,andwecarrythoseassumptionsforwardinausefulwaybytheactofnaming.Thusweareassistedimmeasurablyinourevaluationsoftheworldbyourlanguage,whichprovidesuswithnamesfortheeventsthatconfrontusand,byournamingthem,tellsuswhattoexpectandhowtoprepare

ourselvesforaction.Thenamingofthings,ofcourse,isanabstractionofaveryhigh

orderandofcrucialimportance.Bynaminganeventandcategorizingitasa“thing,”wecreateavividandmoreorlesspermanentmapofwhattheworldislike.Butitisacuriousmapindeed.Thewordcup,forexample,doesnotinfactdenoteanythingthatactuallyexistsintheworld.Itisaconcept,asummaryofmillionsofparticularthingsthathaveasimilarlookandfunction.Thewordtablewareisatastillhigherlevelofabstraction,sinceitincludesnotonlyallthethingswenormallycallcupsbutalsomillionsofthingsthatlooknothinglikecupsbuthaveavaguelysimilarfunction.Thecriticalpointaboutourmappingoftheworldthroughlanguage

isthatthesymbolsweuse,whetherpatriotismandloveorcupsandspoons,arealwaysataconsiderableremovefromtherealityoftheworlditself.Althoughthesesymbolsbecomepartofourselves—Korzybskibelievedtheybecomeimbeddedinourneurologicalandperceptualsystems—wemustnevertakethemcompletelyforgranted.AsKorzybskionceremarked,“Whateverwesaysomethingis,itisnot.”Thus,wemayconcludethathumansliveintwoworlds—theworldof

eventsandthings,andtheworldofwordsabouteventsandthings.Inconsideringtherelationshipbetweenthesetwoworlds,wemustkeepinmindthatlanguagedoesmuchmorethanconstructconceptsabouttheeventsandthingsintheworld;ittellsuswhatsortsofconceptsweoughttoconstruct.Forwedonothaveanameforeverythingthatoccursintheworld.Languagesdiffernotonlyintheirnamesforthingsbutinwhatthingstheychoosetoname.Eachlanguage,asEdwardSapirobserved,constructsrealitydifferentlyfromalltheothers.This,then,iswhatKorzybskimeantbywhathecalledgeneral

semantics:thestudyoftherelationshipbetweentheworldofwordsandtheworldof“notwords,”thestudyoftheterritorywecallrealityandhow,throughabstractingandsymbolizing,wemaptheterritory.Infocusingonthisprocess,Korzybskibelievedhehaddiscoveredwhyscientistsaremoreeffectivethantherestofusinsolvingproblems.Scientiststendtobemoreconsciousoftheabstractingprocess;moreawareofthedistortionsintheirverbalmaps;moreflexibleinalteringtheirsymbolicmapstofittheworld.Hismaineducationalobjectivewastofostertheideathatbymakingourordinaryusesoflanguagemorelike

thescientificusesoflanguage,wemayavoidmisunderstanding,superstition,prejudice,andjustplainnonsense.Someofhisfollowers,S.I.Hayakawa,IrvingLee,andWendellJohnson,wrotereadabletextsforuseinschools,buttheirmaterialisnotmuchinfashionthesedays.Iwrotesometextsalongtheselinesmyself,mostlytofindoutiftheseideasaresuitableforyoungerstudents,anddiscoveredthattheyare.(IrememberwithdelighttheeasysuccesswehadwiththeminArlington,Virginia,attheFortMyerElementarySchool.)But,ofcourse,notalloftheideasareuseful,andnotallofthemaregood.Generalsemantics,likeanyothersystem,hastobeappliedwithaconsiderabledegreeofselectivity.Assumingteachersknowsomethingaboutthesubject,theywilldiscoverwhatworksandwhatdoesn’t.Itis,inanycase,amistaketoassumethatprofoundideasaboutlanguage,fromgeneralsemanticsoranyotherplace,cannotbeintroduceduntilgraduateschool.Ofcourse,thereareplentyof“otherplaces”fromwhichprofound

ideasaboutlanguagemaycome.TheworkofI.A.Richards(generally)andwhathesays,specifically,ondefinitionandmetaphoraregoodintroductionstolanguageasworld-maker.Ondefinition(fromhisInterpretationinTeaching):

Ihavesaidsomethingatseveralplaces…aboutthepeculiarparalysiswhichthementionofdefinitionsand,stillmore,thediscussionoftheminduces.Itcanbeprevented,Ibelieve,bystressingthepurposiveaspectofdefinitions.Wewanttodosomethingandadefinitionisameansofdoingit.Ifwewantcertainresults,thenwemustusecertainmeanings(ordefinitions).Butnodefinitionhasanyauthorityapartfromapurpose,ortobarusfromotherpurposes.Andyettheyendlesslydoso.Whocandoubtthatweareoftendeprivedofveryusefulthoughtsmerelybecausethewordswhichmightexpressthemarebeingtemporarilypreemptedbyothermeanings?Orthatadevelopmentisoftenfrustratedmerelybecausewearestickingtoaformerdefinitionofnoservicetothenewpurpose?2WhatRichardsistalkingabouthereishowtofreeourmindsfrom

thetyrannyofdefinitions,andIcanthinkofnobetterwayofdoingthisthantoprovidestudents,asamatterofcourse,withalternativedefinitionsoftheimportantconceptswithwhichtheymustdealinasubject.Whetheritbemolecule,fact,law,art,wealth,genes,or

whatever,itisessentialthatstudentsunderstandthatdefinitionsareinstrumentsdesignedtoachievecertainpurposes,thatthefundamentalquestiontoaskofthemisnot,Isthistherealdefinition?orIsthisthecorrectdefinition?butWhatpurposedoesthedefinitionserve?Thatis,Whomadeitupandwhy?Ihavehadsomegreatfun,andsohavestudents,consideringthe

questionofdefinitioninacuriousfederallaw.Irefertowhatyoumaynotsaywhenbeingfriskedorotherwiseexaminedbeforeboardinganairplane.Youmaynot,ofcourse,givefalseormisleadinginformationaboutyourself.Butbeyondthat,youarealsoexpresslyforbiddentojokeaboutanyoftheproceduresbeingused.ThisistheonlycaseIknowofwhereajokeisprohibitedbylaw(althoughtherearemanysituationsinwhichitisprohibitedbycustom).Whyjokingisillegalwhenyouarebeingsearchedisnotentirely

cleartome,butthatisonlyoneofseveralmysteriessurroundingthislaw.Doesthelawdistinguish,forexample,betweengoodjokesandbadjokes?(Sixmonthsforagoodone,twoyearsforabadone?)Idon’tknow.Butevenmoreimportant,howwouldoneknowwhensomethingisajokeatall?Istherealegaldefinitionofajoke?Suppose,whilebeingsearched,ImentionthatmymiddlenameisMilton(whichitis)andthatIcomefromFlushing(whichIdo).Icantellyoufromexperiencethatpeopleofquestionableintelligencesometimesfindthosenamesextremelyfunny,anditisnotimpossiblethatafewofthemareairportemployees.Ifthatwerethecase,whatwouldbemylegalstatus?Ihavesaidsomethingthathasinducedlaughterinanother.HaveI,therefore,toldajoke?Orlookatitfromtheoppositeview:Supposethat,uponbeingsearched,IlaunchintoastoryaboutafunnythingthathappenedtomewhileboardingaplaneinChicago,concludingbysaying,“Andthenthepilotsaid,‘Thatwasnostewardess.Thatwasmywife.’”Beingofquestionableintelligencemyself,Ithinkitisahilariousstory,buttheguarddoesnot.Ifhedoesnotlaugh,haveItoldajoke?Canajokebeastorythatdoesnotmakepeoplelaugh?Itcan,ofcourse,ifsomeoneofauthoritysaysso.Forthepointisthat

ineverysituation,includingthisone,someone(orsomegroup)hasadecisivepowerofdefinition.Infact,tohavepowermeanstobeabletodefineandtomakeitstick.Asbetweentheguardattheairportandme,hewillhavethepower,notme,todefinewhatajokeis.Ifhisdefinition

placesmeinjeopardy,Ican,ofcourse,arguemycaseatatrial,atwhicheitherajudgeorajurywillthenhavethedecisiveauthoritytodefinewhetherornotmywordsqualifiedasajoke.ButitisalsoworthnotingthatevenifIconfinemyjoke-tellingtodinnerparties,Idonotescapetheauthorityofdefinition.Foratparties,popularopinionwilldecidewhetherornotmyjokesaregoodones,orevenjokesatall.Ifopinionrunsagainstme,thepenaltyisthatIamnotinvitedtomanyparties.Thereis,inshort,noescapingthejurisdictionofdefinitions.Socialorderrequiresthattherebeauthoritativedefinitions,andthoughyoumaysearchfromnowtodoomsday,youwillfindnosystemwithoutofficialdefinitionsandauthoritativesourcestoenforcethem.Andsowemustaddtothequestionsweaskofdefinition,Whatisthesourceofpowerthatenforcesthedefinition?Andwemayaddfurtherthequestionofwhathappenswhenthosewiththepowertoenforcedefinitionsgomad.HereisanexamplethatcamefromthePraguegovernmentseveralyearsago.Ihavenotmadethisupandproduceitwithoutfurthercomment:

BecauseChristmasEvefallsonaThursday,thedayhasbeendesignatedaSaturdayforworkpurposes.Factorieswillcloseallday,withstoresopenahalfdayonly.Friday,December25,hasbeendesignatedaSunday,withbothfactoriesandstoresopenallday.Monday,December28,willbeaWednesdayforworkpurposes.Wednesday,December30,willbeabusinessFriday.Saturday,January2,willbeaSunday,andSunday,January3,willbeaMonday.Asformetaphor,IpassalongasmallassignmentwhichI.A.Richards

usedonanoccasionwhenIattendedaseminarheconducted.(Itisbutoneofahundredwaystointroducethesubject.)Richardsdividedtheclassintothreegroups.Eachgroupwasaskedtowriteaparagraphdescribinglanguage.However,Richardsprovidedeachgroupwithitsfirstsentence.GroupAhadtobeginwith“Languageislikeatree”;GroupBwith“Languageislikeariver”;GroupCwith“Languageislikeabuilding.”Youcanimagine,I’msure,whathappened.Theparagraphswerestrikinglydifferent,withonegroupwritingofrootsandbranchesandorganicgrowth;anotheroftributaries,streams,andevenfloods;anotheroffoundations,rooms,andsturdystructures.Inthesubsequentdiscussion,wedidnotbotherwiththequestion,Whichisthe“correct”description?Ourdiscussioncenteredonhowmetaphorscontrolwhatwe

say,andtowhatextentwhatwesaycontrolswhatwesee.AsIhavesaid,therearehundredsofwaystostudytherelationship

betweenlanguageandreality,andIcouldgoonatinterminablelengthwithideasonhowtogetintoit.Instead,Iwillconfinemyselftothreefurthersuggestions.Thefirstis,simply,thatthebestbookIknowforarousinginterestinthesubjectisHelenKeller’sTheStoryofMyLife.Itiscertainlythebestaccountwehave—fromtheinside,asitwere—ofhowsymbolsandtheabstractingprocessworktocreateaworld.Second,Iwouldproposethatineverysubject—fromhistoryto

biologytomathematics—studentsbetaught,explicitlyandsystematically,theuniverseofdiscoursethatcomprisesthesubject.Eachteacherwoulddealwiththestructureofquestions,theprocessofdefinition,andtheroleofmetaphorasthesemattersarerelevanttohisorherparticularsubject.HereImean,ofcourse,notmerelywhatarethequestions,definitions,andmetaphorsofasubjectbutalsohowtheseareformedandhowtheyhavebeenformedinthepast.Ofspecialimportancearethewaysinwhichtheformsofquestions

havechangedovertimeandhowtheseformsvaryfromsubjecttosubject.Theideaisforstudentstolearnthattheterminologyofaquestiondeterminestheterminologyofitsanswer;thataquestioncannotbeansweredunlessthereareproceduresbywhichreliableanswerscanbeobtained;andthatthevalueofaquestionisdeterminednotonlybythespecificityandrichnessoftheanswersitproducesbutalsobythequantityandqualityofthenewquestionsitraises.Oncethistopicisopened,itfollowsthatsomeattentionmustbe

giventohowsuchtermsasright,wrong,truth,andfalsehoodareusedinasubject,aswellaswhatassumptionstheyarebasedupon.Thisisparticularlyimportant,sincewordsofthistypecausefarmoretroubleinstudents’attemptstounderstandafieldofknowledgethandohighlytechnicalwords.Itispeculiar,Ithink,thatofalltheexaminationsIhaveeverseen,Ihavenevercomeacrossoneinwhichstudentswereaskedtosaywhatisthebasisof“correctness”or“falsehood”inaparticularsubject.Perhapsthisisbecauseteachersbelievetheissueistooobviousfordiscussionortesting.Ifso,theyarewrong.Ihavefoundthatstudentsatalllevelsrarelyhavethoughtaboutthemeaningofsuchtermsinrelationtoasubjecttheyarestudying.Theysimplydonotknowinwhatsenseanhistoricalfactisdifferentfromabiologicalfact,ora

mathematical“truth”isdifferentfromthe“truth”ofaliterarywork.Equallyastonishingisthatstudents,particularlythoseinelementaryandsecondaryschools,rarelycanexpressanintelligiblesentenceontheusesofthewordtheory.Sincemostsubjectsstudiedinschoolconsistlargelyoftheories,itisdifficulttoimagineexactlywhatstudentsareinfactstudyingwhentheydotheirhistory,biology,economics,physics,orwhatever.Itisobvious,then,thatlanguageeducationmustincludenotonlytheseriousstudyofwhattruthandfalsehoodmeaninthecontextofasubjectbutalsowhatismeantbyatheory,afact,aninference,anassumption,ajudgment,ageneralization.Inaddition,someattentionmustobviouslybegiventothestyleand

toneofthelanguageinagivensubject.Eachsubjectisamannerofspeakingandwriting.Thereisarhetoricofknowledge,acharacteristicwayinwhicharguments,proofs,speculations,experiments,polemics,evenhumor,areexpressed.Onemightevensaythatspeakingorwritingasubjectisaperformingart,andeachsubjectrequiresasomewhatdifferentkindofperformancefromeveryother.Historians,forexample,donotspeakorwritethewaybiologistsdo.Thedifferenceshavemuchtodowiththekindofmaterialtheyaredealingwith,thedegreeofprecisiontheirgeneralizationspermit,thetypeoffactstheymarshal,thetraditionsoftheirsubject,thetypeoftrainingtheyreceive,andthepurposesforwhichtheyaremakingtheirinquiries.Therhetoricofknowledgeisnotaneasymattertogointo,butitisworthrememberingthatsomescholars—onethinksofVebleninsociology,Freudinpsychology,Galbraithineconomics—haveexertedinfluenceasmuchthroughtheirmannerastheirmatter.Thepointisthatknowledgeisaformofliterature,andthevariousstylesofknowledgeoughttobestudiedanddiscussed.Whatweareafterhereistotellthestoryoflanguageasanactof

creation.ThisiswhatSocratesmeantwhenhesaid,“Whenthemindisthinking,itistalkingtoitself.”Twenty-fivehundredyearslater,thegreatGermanphilologistMaxMüllersaidthesame:“…thoughtcannotexistwithoutsigns,andourmostimportantsignsarewords.”Inbetween,Hobbes,Locke,andKantsaidthesamething.SodidBertrandRussell,WernerHeisenberg,BenjaminLeeWhorf,I.A.Richards,AlfredKorzybski,andeveryoneelsewhohasthoughtaboutthematter,includingMarshallMcLuhan.

McLuhancomesupherebecauseheisassociatedwiththephrase“theextensionsofman.”Andmythirdandfinalsuggestionhastodowithinquiriesintothewaysinwhichhumanshaveextendedtheircapacitiesto“bind”timeandcontrolspace.Iamreferringtowhatmaybecalled“technologyeducation.”Itissomewhatembarrassingthatthisneedstobeproposedasaninnovationinschools,sinceAmericansnevertireoftellingthemselvesthattheyhavecreatedatechnologicalsociety.Theyevenseemtobedelightedaboutthisandmanyofthembelievethatthepathwaytoafulfillinglifeisthroughcontinuoustechnologicalchange.OnewouldexpectthenthattechnologyeducationwouldbeafamiliarsubjectinAmericanschools.Butitisnot.Technologymayhaveenteredtheschoolsbutnottechnologyeducation.Thosewhodoubtmycontentionmightaskthemselvesthefollowingquestions:Doestheaveragehighschoolorcollegegraduateknowwherethealphabetcomesfrom,somethingofitsdevelopment,andanythingaboutitspsychicandsocialeffects?Doesheorsheknowanythingaboutilluminatedmanuscripts,abouttheoriginoftheprintingpressanditsroleinreshapingWesternculture,abouttheoriginsofnewspapersandmagazines?Doourstudentsknowwhereclocks,telescopes,microscopes,Xrays,andcomputerscomefrom?Dotheyhaveanyideaabouthowsuchtechnologieshavechangedtheeconomic,social,andpoliticallifeofWesternculture?CouldtheysaywhoMorse,Daguerre,Bell,Edison,Marconi,DeForest,Zworykin,Pulitzer,Hearst,Eisenstein,andVonNeumannwere?Afterall,wemightsaythesemeninventedthetechnologicalsociety.Isittoomuchtoexpectthatthosewholiveinsuchasocietywillknowaboutthemandwhattheythoughttheywerecreating?IrealizeIambeginningtosoundlikeE.D.Hirsch,Jr.,butIfindit

trulyastonishingthatthegreatstoryofhumanity’sperilousandexcitingromancewithtechnologyisnottoldinourschools.Thereiscertainlynoshortageofwritersonthesubject.McLuhan,whileanimportantcontributor,wasneitherthefirstnornecessarilythebestwhohasaddressedtheissueofhowwebecomewhatwemake.Onethinks,forexample,ofMartinHeidegger,LewisMumford,JacquesEllul,PaulGoodman,WalterOng,WalterBenjamin,ElizabethEisenstein,AlvinToffler,TheodoreRoszak,NorbertWiener,SherryTurkle,JosephWeizenbaum,SeymourPapert,andHerbertSchiller.Onemayalsofind

ideasaboutthesubjectinthe“sciencefiction”writersIhavepreviouslyalludedto—Huxley,Orwell,andBradbury,forexample.Itwouldseemthateverywhereoneturnsthesedays,therearebooks,articles,films,andtelevisionshowsonthesubjectofhowourtechnologyhasremadetheworld,andcontinuestoremakeit.Itisamongtheleadingtopicsofeverydayconversation,especiallyamongacademics.Thereis,forexample,hardlyaschoolsuperintendentanywhere,oracollegedean,whocannotgiveusaready-madesermononhowwenowliveinan“informationage.”Thenwhydowenothaveasubjectinwhichstudentsaddresssuchquestionsasthese:Howdoesinformationdifferinsymbolicform?Howareideographsdifferentfromletters?Howareimagesdifferentfromwords?Paintingsfromphotographs?Speechfromwriting?Televisionfrombooks?Radiofromtelevision?Informationcomesinmanyforms,andatdifferentvelocitiesandindifferentquantities.Dothedifferencesmatter?Dothedifferenceshavevaryingpsychicandsocialeffects?Thequestionsarealmostendless.Thisisaserioussubject.Idonotknowthereasonswhythereisnosuchsubjectinmost

schools,althoughIhaveonesuspectundersurveillance.Itisthateducatorsconfusetheteachingofhowtousetechnologywithtechnologyeducation.Noobjectioncanberaisedagainststudents’learninghowtousetelevisionandmoviecameras,Xeroxmachines,andcomputers.(Imostcertainlybelievestudentsoughttobetaughthowtousethealphabet.)IhavenointentionofquarrellingwithSeymourPapert,BillGross,orAlanKayaboutthepossibilitythattheintelligentuseofcomputertechnologycanincreasestudents’competenceinmathematicsorstimulatetheirinterestinothersubjects.AndIendorsethoseattempts(forexample,inNewMexico)tohavestudentsmaketheirowntelevisionprogramssothattheywillgaininsightsintothetechnicalproblemsinvolved.Thesearenottrivialmatters,buttheyareonlyasmallpartofthewayinwhichIdefinetechnologyeducation.AsIseeit,thesubjectismainlyabouthowtelevisionandmoviecameras,Xeroxmachines,andcomputersreorderourpsychichabits,oursocialrelations,ourpoliticalideas,andourmoralsensibilities.Itisabouthowthemeaningsofinformationandeducationchangeasnewtechnologiesintrudeuponaculture,howthemeaningsoftruth,law,andintelligencedifferamongoralcultures,writingcultures,printingcultures,electronic

cultures.Technologyeducationisnotatechnicalsubject.Itisabranchofthehumanities.Technicalknowledgecanbeuseful,butonedoesnotneedtoknowthephysicsoftelevisiontostudythesocialandpoliticaleffectsoftelevision.Onemaynotownanautomobile,orevenknowhowtodriveone,butthisisnoobstacletoobservingwhattheautomobilehasdonetoAmericanculture.Itshouldalsobesaidthattechnologyeducationdoesnotimplya

negativeattitudetowardtechnology.Itdoesimplyacriticalattitude.Tobe“againsttechnology”makesnomoresensethantobe“againstfood.”Wecan’tlivewithouteither.Buttoobservethatitisdangeroustoeattoomuchfood,ortoeatfoodthathasnonutritionalvalue,isnottobe“antifood.”Itistosuggestwhatmaybethebestusesoffood.Technologyeducationaimsatstudents’learningaboutwhattechnologyhelpsustodoandwhatithindersusfromdoing;itisabouthowtechnologyusesus,forgoodorill,andabouthowithasusedpeopleinthepast,forgoodorill.Itisabouthowtechnologycreatesnewworlds,forgoodorill.Butletusassumethatwemayovercomeanyobstaclestomakingthe

storyoftechnologyacoresubjectinschools.Whatisitwewouldwantstudentstoknow?Well,foronething,wewouldwantthemtoknowtheanswerstoallthequestionsIhavecited.Butinaddition,Iwouldincludethefollowingtenprinciples.

1. AlltechnologicalchangeisaFaustianbargain.Foreveryadvantageanewtechnologyoffers,thereisalwaysacorrespondingdisadvantage.

2. Theadvantagesanddisadvantagesofnewtechnologiesareneverdistributedevenlyamongthepopulation.Thismeansthateverynewtechnologybenefitssomeandharmsothers.

3. Embeddedineverytechnologythereisapowerfulidea,sometimestwoorthreepowerfulideas.Likelanguageitself,atechnologypredisposesustofavorandvaluecertainperspectivesandaccomplishmentsandtosubordinateothers.Everytechnologyhasaphilosophy,whichisgivenexpressioninhowthetechnologymakespeopleusetheirminds,inwhatitmakesusdowithourbodies,inhowitcodifiestheworld,inwhichofoursensesitamplifies,inwhichofouremotionalandintellectual

tendenciesitdisregards.4. Anewtechnologyusuallymakeswaragainstanoldtechnology.Itcompeteswithitfortime,attention,money,prestige,anda“worldview.”

5. Technologicalchangeisnotadditive;itisecological.Anewtechnologydoesnotmerelyaddsomething;itchangeseverything.

6. Becauseofthesymbolicformsinwhichinformationisencoded,differenttechnologieshavedifferentintellectualandemotionalbiases.

7. Becauseoftheaccessibilityandspeedoftheirinformation,differenttechnologieshavedifferentpoliticalbiases.

8. Becauseoftheirphysicalform,differenttechnologieshavedifferentsensorybiases.

9. Becauseoftheconditionsinwhichweattendtothem,differenttechnologieshavedifferentsocialbiases.

10. Becauseoftheirtechnicalandeconomicstructure,differenttechnologieshavedifferentcontentbiases.

Alloftheseprinciplesbeingdeeply,continuously,andhistoricallyinvestigatedbystudents,Iwouldthenproposethefollowingfinalexamination,whichisintwoparts.PartI:Chooseonepre-twentiethcenturytechnology—forexample,

thealphabet,theprintingpress,thetelegraph,thefactory—andindicatewhatwerethemainintellectual,social,political,andeconomicadvantagesofthetechnology,andwhy.Thenindicatewhatwerethemainintellectual,social,political,andeconomicdisadvantagesofthetechnology,andwhy.PartII:Indicate,first,whatyoubelieveareorwillbethemain

advantagesofcomputertechnology,andwhy;second,indicatewhatareorwillbethemaindisadvantagesofcomputertechnology,andwhy.Anystudentwhocanpassthisexaminationwill,Ibelieve,know

somethingworthwhile.Heorshewillalsohaveasenseofhowtheworldwasmadeandhowitisbeingremade,andmayevenhavesomeideasonhowitshouldberemade.

T

Epilogue

hetitleofmybookwascarefullychosenwithaviewtowarditsbeinganambiguousprophecy.AsIindicatedatthestart,The

EndofEducationcouldbetakentoexpressaseverepessimismaboutthefuture.Butifyouhavecomethisfar,youwillknowthatthebookitselfrefusestoacceptsuchafuture.Ihavetriedmybesttolocate,explain,andelaboratenarrativesthatmaygivenontrivialpurposestoschooling,thatwouldcontributeaspiritualandseriousintellectualdimensiontolearning.ButImustacknowledge—hereinmyfinalpages—thatIamnotterriblyconfidentthatanyofthesewillwork.Letmebeclearonthispoint.Iwouldnothavetroubledanyone—

leastofall,writtenabook—ifIdidnotthinktheseideashavestrengthandusefulness.ButtheideasrestonseveralassumptionswhichAmericancultureisnowbeginningtoquestion.Forexample,everythinginthebookassumesthattheideaof“school”itselfwillendure.Italsoassumesthattheideaofa“publicschool”isagoodthing.Andevenfurther,itassumesthattheideaof“childhood”stillexists.Astothefirstpoint,thereismoretalkthaneveraboutschools’being

nineteenth-centuryinventionsthathaveoutlivedtheirusefulness.Schoolsareexpensive;theydon’tdowhatweexpectofthem;theirfunctionscanbeservedbytwenty-first-centurytechnology.Anyonewhowantstogiveaspeechonthissubjectwilldrawanaudience,andanattentiveone.Anevenbiggeraudiencecanbefoundforatalkonthesecondpoint:thattheideaofa“publicschool”isirrelevantintheabsenceoftheideaofapublic;thatis,Americansarenowsodifferentfromeachother,havesomanydiversepointsofview,andsuchspecialgroupgrievancesthattherecanbenocommonvisionorunifyingprinciples.Onthelastpoint,whilewritingthisbook,IhavesteadfastlyrefusedtorereadorevenrefertooneofmyearlierbooksinwhichIclaimedthatchildhoodisdisappearing.Iproceededasifthiswerenot

so.ButIcouldnotpreventmyselffrombeingexposedtoothergloomynews,mostlythehandwritingonthewall.Canitbetrue,asIreadinTheNewYorkTimes,thateveryday130,000childrenbringdeadlyweaponstoschool,andnotonlyinNewYork,Chicago,andDetroitbutinmanyvenuesthoughttoprovideouryoungwithamoresettledandhumaneenvironmentinwhichtogrow?Canitbetrue,assomesociologistsclaim,thatbythestartofthetwenty-firstcentury,closeto60percentofourchildrenwillberaisedinsingle-parenthomes?Canitbetruethatsexualactivity(andsexualdiseases)amongtheyounghasincreasedby300percentinthelasttwentyyears?Itisprobablynotnecessaryformetogoonwiththe“canitbetrue’s?.”EveryoneagreesandallsignspointtothefactthatAmericancultureisnotpresentlyorganizedtopromotetheideaofchildhood;andwithoutthatideaschoolinglosesmuchofitspoint.Thesearerealisticworriesandmustraiseseriousdoubtsforanyone

whowishestosaysomethingaboutschooling.Nonetheless,Iofferthisbookingoodfaith,ifnotasmuchconfidenceasonewouldwish.Myfaithisthatschoolwillenduresincenoonehasinventedabetterwaytointroducetheyoungtotheworldoflearning;thatthepublicschoolwillenduresincenoonehasinventedabetterwaytocreateapublic;andthatchildhoodwillsurvivebecausewithoutitwemustloseoursenseofwhatitmeanstobeanadult.

Notes

Chapter1TheNecessityofGods

1.EricHoffer,TheOrdealofChange(NewYork:Harper&Row),62.2.QuotedinRolloMay,TheCryforMyth(NewYork:Norton),57.3.Quotedin“TheWest’sDeepeningCultureCrisis,”TheFuturist,November-December

1993,12.4.QuotedinShlainLeonard,Art&Physics:ParallelVisionsinSpace,TimeandLight.(New

York:WilliamMorrow),430.5.GaryKrist,“Tragedyland,”NewYorkTimes,November27,1993,19.6.SeetheFebruary18and25,1915,issuesofTheNation.Thearticleswerewrittenby

HoraceKallen.

Chapter2SomeGodsThatFail

1.QuotedinPrognosis16,no.3(August6,1993):4.2.JohnT.Bruer,“TheMind’sJourneyfromNovicetoExpert,”AmericanEducator,Summer

1993,6–7.3.TheodoreRoszak,TheCultofInformation:TheFolkloreofComputersandtheTrueArtof

Thinking(NewYork:Pantheon),62–63.4.Forafullanalysisofthispoint,seetheworkofHenryLevinofStanfordUniversity.5.SeeRobertJ.Samuelson,“TheUseless‘JobsSummit,’”Newsweek,March14,1994,50.6.NewYorkTimes,February23,1994,B7.7.“TyingEducationtotheEconomy.”NewYorkTimes,February20,1994,21.

Chapter3SomeNewGodsThatFail

1.AlthoughIfindmyselfreluctanttoacceptsuchstudies,therearethreeorfourthatclaimthatwhenhospitalizedpatientsareprayedfor(withouttheirknowledgeortheknowledgeoftheirphysicians),theytendtoimproveatagreaterratethanthosewhoarenotprayedfor.SeeHealingWordsbyLarryDossey,M.D.(HarperCollins,1993).2.DianeRavitch,“WhenSchoolComestoYou,”TheEconomist,September11,1993,45–46.3.HughMcIntosh,NationalResearchCouncilNewsReport,Summer1993,2.4.TheodoreRoszak,TheCultofInformation:TheFolkloreofComputersandtheTrueArtof

Thinking(NewYork:Pantheon),x.5.Ravitch,TheEconomist,46.6.SeeRobertFulghum,AllIEverReallyNeededtoKnowILearnedinKindergarten(New

York:Villard).7.NewYorkTimes,April12,1994,A13.8.H.L.Mencken,AMenckenChrestomathy(Philadelphia:TheFranklinLibrary),334.9.QuotedinLarryCuban,TeachersandMachines:TheClassroomUseofTechnologySince

1920(NewYork:TeachersCollegePress),5.10.WarrenCrichlowetal.,“MulticulturalWaysofKnowing:ImplicationsforPractice,”

JournalofEducation,172,no.2(1990):102.11.Lévi-Strauss,Claude,“TheStructureofMyth,”inTheStructuralAnthropology(Chicago:

UniversityofChicagoPress),119.12.ArthurSchlesinger,Jr.,TheDisunitingofAmerica(NewYork:Norton),29–30.13.Ibid.,94.

Chapter4GodsThatMayServe

1.MuchofthisconversationhasbeenprintedinGermaninÜberMorgen:DasMagazinFürReiseinDieZukunft,Summer1994,12–14.2.JacobBronowski,TheAscentofMan(Boston:Little,Brown),374.3.CornelWest,RaceMatters(NewYork:Vintage),159.4.SeeSusanneLangerinFeelingandForm(NewYork:Scribner’s).

Chapter5TheSpaceshipEarth

1.SeeHarveyKantor,“ManagingtheTransitionfromSchooltoWork:TheFalsePromiseofYouthApprenticeship,”TeachersCollegeRecord,95,no.1(Summer1994):442–461.2.BothquotesarefoundinJamesReston,Jr.,Galileo:ALife(NewYork:HarperCollins),

136,142.3.QuotedinJacquesBarzun,TheCultureofDesire(Middletown,Connecticut:Wesleyan

UniversityPress),110.

Chapter7TheAmericanExperiment

1.WashingtonPost,July29,1994,B3,col.1.

Chapter9TheWordWeavers/TheWorldMakers

1.SeeEvaBerger,“Metaphor,Mind&Machine:AnAssessmentoftheSourcesofMetaphorsofMindintheWorksofSelectedEducationTheorists”(Ph.D.dissertation,NewYorkUniversity,1991).2.I.A.Richards,InterpretationinTeaching(NewYork:HarcourtBrace),384.

NeilPostman

TheEndofEducation

NeilPostmanwasUniversityProfessorandChairoftheDepartmentofCultureandCommunicationatNewYorkUniversity.Amonghistwentybooksarestudiesofchildhood(TheDisappearanceofChildhood),publicdiscourse(AmusingOurselvestoDeath),education(TeachingasaSubversiveActivity),andtheimpactoftechnology(Technopoly).Hediedin2003.

AlsobyNeilPostman

BuildingaBridgetothe18thCenturyTechnopoly

ConscientiousObjectionsTeachingasaSubversiveActivity(withCharlesWeingartner)CrazyTalk,StupidTalk

TeachingasaConservingActivityTheDisappearanceofChildhoodAmusingOurselvestoDeath

BOOKSBYNEILPOSTMAN

“NocontemporaryessayistwritingaboutAmericanpopcultureismorefuntoreadandmoreontarget.”—LosAngelesTimes

CONSCIENTIOUSOBJECTIONSStirringUpTroubleAboutLanguage,Technology,andEducation

Inthisseriesoffeistyandultimatelyhopefulessays,readerswillfindthemselvesrethinkingmanyoftheirbedrockassumptions:Shouldeducationtransmitcultureordefendusagainstit?IstechnologicalinnovationprogressorapeculiarlyAmericanaddiction?

CurrentAffairs/Science/Education/0-679-73421-X

THEDISAPPEARANCEOFCHILDHOODFromthevoguefornubilemodelstotheexplosioninthejuvenile

crimerate,thismodernclassicofsocialhistoryandmediatracestheprecipitousdeclineofchildhoodinAmericatoday—andthecorrespondingthreattothenotionofadulthood.

Media/CurrentAffairs/0-679-75166-1

THEENDOFEDUCATIONRedefiningtheValueofSchool

Inthisprovocativeanalysis,NeilPostmansuggeststhatthecurrentcrisisinAmerica’seducationalsystemderivesfromitsfailuretosupplystudentswithaunifying“narrative”likethosethatinspiredearliergenerations.Instead,today’sschoolspromotethefalse“gods”ofconsumerism,technology,andethnicseparatism.

Education/0-679-75031-2

TECHNOPOLYTheSurrenderofCulturetoTechnology

Postmanlaunchesatrenchantwarningagainstthetyrannyofmachinesovermaninthelatetwentiethcentury.Technopolychroniclesourtransformationfromasocietythatusestechnologytoonethatisshapedbyit,asitalsotracesitseffectsuponwhatwemeanbypolitics,religion,intellect,history—evenprivacyandtruth.

CurrentAffairs/Sociology/0-679-74540-8

Availableatyourlocalbookstore,orcalltoll-freetoorder:1-800-793-2665(creditcardsonly).