The End of Education?

"Public education does not serve a public. It creates a public. And in creating the right kind of public, the schools contribute toward strengthening the spiritual basis of the American Creed. That is how Jefferson understood it, how Horace Mann understood it, how John Dewey understood it, and in fact, there is no other way to understand it. The question is not, Does or doesn't public schooling create a public? The question is, What kind of public does it create? A conglomerate of self-indulgent consumers? Angry, soulless, directionless masses? Indifferent, confused citizens? Or a public imbued with confidence, a sense of purpose, a respect for learning, and tolerance? The answer to this question has nothing whatever to do with computers, with testing, with teacher accountability, with class size, and with the other details of managing schools. The right answer depends on two things, and two things alone: the existence of shared narratives and the capacity of such narratives to provide an inspired reason for schooling" (Postman, The End of Education).

What kind of public do schools in the twenty-first century create? Keeping in mind that you are private school students (though some of you have attended public school), make your own observation about the type of citizenry our modern schools aim to create...and actually do create. 

You might think about issues such as current events and social activism, as well as the ways school may have changed since 1995 when Postman wrote this book. 

Minimum word count: 300 words and include text support from Postman (you may include text evidence from other sources in addition if you wish). 
Post at least one reply to a class member (by Thursday 10/1). 

*Update: this did not post during my lunch period when I tried to post it, so the first post is not due until Wednesday, 9/30.

British Empiricism and Jane Austen!

(Scroll down for the prompt-post, but I thought a sample response might be helpful too!) 

        Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite books (and I know for a fact the majority of this class has read it…or at least watched the BBC miniseries), so I’ll select that book. I’ll approach the work and Austen’s work in general with an empirical mindset, and focus on David Hume.

         Hume, as you now know from your study of Sophie’s World, was a British empiricist who lived in the early eighteenth century, making him both a compatriot of Jane Austen, and a thinker whose writing would have been available in her time, as Austen lived in the late eighteenth century.

         Gaarder points out that Hume wanted to “clean up all the wooly thought concepts and thought constructions” and focus on daily experiences  and everyday life” (Gaarder 268).  Austen’s critics often note that her work is too focused on the minutia of daily life. None of her six novels take us far from the small corner of England in which she lived. None, Pride and Prejudice included, deal with abstract ideals or the types of lofty questions that philosophers often ask. The only time the outside world even intrudes on the hermetic, day-to-day life of her landed gentry characters it’s for brief mentions of the conflict with Napoleon—and even then these notes are only to explain why characters connected to the military are or are not present.

        

         Hume’s ideas about the unalterable ego remind me of the protagonist of P&P, Elizabeth Bennet. Her most defining characteristic is her refusal to fall in line with her society’s rules. If she had done so, she would have married Mr. Collins. Instead, Elizabeth turns down not only Collins but also the incredibly rich Mr. Darcy, all because she wants to marry for love.

         This lack of attention to the practical may seem on the surface to be in contravention to Hume’s ideals. But if one considers Hume’s ideas about the importance of experience and preconceived opinions, it’s clear that Elizabeth would have approved of Hume’s worldview. Gaarder states that Hume’s ideas lead us to one of the most distinguishing virtues of the philosopher: “The child perceives the world as it is, without putting more into things than he experiences” (276) Elizabeth, like an uncorrupted child, bases her firm and repeated refusal of the oily Mr. Collins on her own experience. She does not think highly of him in any regard. She does not consider the societal expectations or pressures which would have compelled her to say yes and marry him.

         It is this quiet rebellion which makes the work so beloved to (some) modern readers. Had Elizabeth not acted in accord with her own understanding of a Hume-ian “natural law,” she would be repugnant to today’s readers. On a larger scale these little domestic stories of Austen’s, did they not contain such iconoclastic characters and their small revolutions, would lack universality or at least staying power.

         In contrast to Elizabeth in the novel stands her foil, Charlotte Lucas, who makes the opposite choice, and acts (in securing Mr. Collins’s sweaty hand in marriage) in complete accordance with her ingrained, adult, view of the world. She has been corrupted and she makes a fully mercenary choice. Charlotte does not obey her own “natural law” which must surely include some degree of revulsion at the thought of marrying this man. Like Hume stated, because we act based on what we see and experience (and what people tell us to do) we “can easily come to the wrong conclusions” (Gaarder 277).

Work Cited

Gaarder, Jostein. Sophie's World. New York: Berkely Books, 1994. Print. 

The wrong conclusion

Cogito ergo sum

“The most subversive people are those who ask questions.”

-Jostein Gaarder, Sophie's World


  

For our reaction paper (post!) on Sophie’s World, we’ll be operating at the very top of the pyramid of learning—synthesis. We’ll be making connections between this book and the ideas therein and some of the other texts we’ve been studying.

First, select a philosopher. Or, select a text you wish to write about and then select a philosopher whose ideas you believe would be interesting as applied to a critical examination of that work (the latter selection method is likely easier and faster!)

Once you’ve selected your philosopher and your work, I would suggest you frame at least three questions that your philosopher might ask regarding the work. Wrestle with these questions in your reaction paper, keeping in mind as always that we want to follow a claim with support in the form of text evidence. If generating questions is not working for you, simply read the chapter on your chosen philosopher and look for connections to your chosen novel!

You are welcome to write about any book you have been assigned to read at LMP (should you find the few books we’ve read so far in Lang too constrictive a list).

Tech specs: Minimum of 250 words and at least one quote from a text. As always, include in-text citation and a reference list at the end.

No need to bring in a hard copy this time (please disregard that part of the notice on the week’s lesson plans).

Happy philosophizing!

Words from Two Septembers: 9/11 and Rhetoric

In his speech to Congress and the nation on September 20, 2001, President Bush stated, “These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.” He goes on to make specific demands of the Taliban and to promise that America will take action should these demands not be met.

Ten years later, MIT Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky observed in his essay, “Was There an Alternative” that, “On May 1st, the presumed mastermind of the crime, Osama bin Laden, was assassinated in Pakistan by a team of elite US commandos, Navy SEALs, after he was captured, unarmed and undefended, in Operation Geronimo.” Chomsky goes on to discuss the fact that bin Laden was not afforded a trial or burial.

Consider President Bush’s use of rhetoric shortly after the time of the attacks, as well as the ways in which his words constituted a promise to the American people which was essentially fulfilled by Operation Geronimo. Defend, challenge, or qualify Chomsky’s core premise that these actions by the United States constitute “American exceptionalism” from the very ideals we claim to uphold. Write an essay in which you use appropriate evidence from each selection, as well as your own experience and observations, to support your argument. 

Chomsky Essay

Bush's Speech 9/20/01