Yet There Is Method In It

Having read Anti-Citizen One’s views on Faith schools, and then his general theories on education, I felt I ought to make some sort of response. So here goes.

Distinguishing between types

I think the first point that needs to be made is the distinction between terminonology and meaning.  Which at times AC-1 has confused between the two.

1) To Teach (and to be taught) is a different form of activity from

2) To Educate (and to be educated).

3) To School (and to be schooled) is yet another form of activity that encompasses both ‘teaching’ and ‘education’.

4) Schooling/education can be an institutional activity, a social activity and a private activity.

To Teach/Be Taught

In this form of activity a subject matter is presented by the tutor to the student. The subject matter, irrespective of opinions and independent subjective criteria of truth, is presented as ‘the truth’ and as ‘fact’. The student in order to succeed in the endeavour of learning is expected to learn the subject matter as it has been presented.

In a more sophisticated description lets take the example of elementary arithmatic. A student is taught about the Cardinal numbers, is taught about the basic functions and arithmetic manipulation of these numbers. Is in essence taught the fundamental building blocks of Mathematics. The teaching of these building blocks is done by a universal method. The function of (+) addition is always the same, the value of (2) Two as a Cardinal Number is always the same. The methods and the principles that are taught are constants. And the evaluation that a student has properly learnt the subject matter, usually through examination (viva voce, aural or written) is dependent upon the student recalling and reusing those taught methods. In the ultimate analysis, this system of learning by rote, leaves no room for personal interpretation, critical analysis, or individual exploration.

This activity is generally practised institutionally (in a school), and/or socially (in the family/social group). It covers a variety of ‘word games’ from arithmetic to language, metaphysics, morals and aesthetics.

This activity is akin to the methods of brainwashing, indoctrination and induction.

To Educate/Be Educated

This form of activity is concerned less with the presentation of subject matter as fact nor with the idea of something being ‘true.’ Though by no means does it preclude notions of truth either. Rather this form of activity is best described by reference to the etymological roots of the word ‘education‘ itself, which come from the latin ‘educare’ and ‘educere’.

Education, as opposed to teaching, is in principle and ideal less about the dictatorial presentation of ‘facts’ and the examination of the students ability to recall and use those facts, and more about sowing the seeds of independent thinking.

‘Educare’ means to train and mould, although similar to the activity of ‘teaching’ it is still in principle tied up with the idea of ‘Educere’ which is to lead out. These two latin ideas which combine to give us the word educate entails a form of activity analagous to farming.

To educate is to prepare the fields of the mind for the challenges of life, to make the mind fertile places for ideas to be fostered and developed. It as an activity that if sucessfuly pursued leads to human flourishing.

It is interesting (for the purposes of the analogy) to note that the term ‘seminary’, which is a type of school (now reserved for specifically theological schools) and the earliest form of school in Christian Europe comes from the latin word seminarium, meaning a seed plot.

This gives us a neat interpretation of what it means to educate and to be educated. It means to ‘draw out’ to facilitate the means by which an individual can realise their self-potential and express their latent talents. The main protagonist here is not the tutor but the student.

To School/Be Schooled

This form of activity is of learning, and developing potential. It involves either/or being taught/educated.

Most importantly though to be schooled is an activity that takes place in many different spheres. It can be institutional, in schools, and governed systems of ‘normality’. It can be social and connected with ideas of familial, racial and ethnic identity. It can also be personal, indeed all living is a form of schooling, that there are things to be learnt, that there is a capacity to learn new things, is a constant throughout life.

In these last sections I want to deal briefly with the points raised by AC-1. My first point is that the ‘education system’, by which we mean the institutional form of schooling, encompasses methods and ideas that draw from both ‘teaching’ and ‘educating’ as I have defined them.

A Simple example of teaching is the passing on of the idea of cardinal numbers, and language. This infers (sometimes explicitly) the existence of an objective norm. That such-and-such for the purposes of this activity is always the case.

Likewise an example of educating is classes in english literature lets say, where a subjective interpretation of what an author is really saying are more readily acceptable.

The purpose of teaching is to facilitate the student with the right tools for the right job. The purpose of educating is to facilitate the student with the self-confidence to explore and evaluate different ideas and methods for looking at, judging and experiencing the world (some of which may be taught as  the true or correct method).

A teacher can teach, can lead a student to the ‘knowledge’ that in the arithmetic language game 2 + 2 = 4 which is another way of saying that 4 is 2 squared, that 2 = 3 – 1…. and so on.

An educator can encourage the student to acknowledge the varieties of language games that you may incur in the course of human life, and prepare them to respond in a variety of appropriate ways. Including the idea that ‘appropriate’ is dependent on many different viewpoints.

Responding to AC-1

1- The idea that the purpose of education should be to fulfil the pupils potential is described as vague. Potential for what AC-1 asks? Surely the response here is that potential is defined by the pupil themselves. That some idea may be valuable is entirely subjective to the ambitions, interests and tastes of the individual.

2- That a pupil should be made a valuable member of society, fills AC-1 with dread, but there are two points to be made. (i) This is not the purpose of education, in its proper sense this is teaching in its dictatorial sense. To make someone a valuable member of society involves a set number of assumptions. That one could and should change someone, or mould them in a particular fashion. That society wants, needs or can only function with model citizens. And that a certain model of what a citizen should be is valuable. – All of these assumptions are dependent upon what a collective group (in this case society) percieves as being its essence, its role and its aims and aspirations. There is almost certainly an evolutionary origin in this behaviour not to mention an inevitable burden of historical baggage (hence the inevitably christian character of so called post-christian societies). (ii) All teaching is indoctrination and propaganda, and depends on the common assent of its teachers and its students in order to suceed.

3- AC-1 objects to education as a means of preparing for work. Again this is a misuse of the idea of education, and an  example of teaching. An educator is interested only in encouraging the individual to flourish, and even then to understand such flourishment through the idea of self-fulfilment, perhaps even happiness and contentment. To teach a student certain tools for the purposes of productivity is not educating, but it is an important part of schooling, and can have repurcussions upon educating (particularly in a capitalist society where one needs to work in order to be a ‘breadwinner’, after all a hungry person is not necessarily self-fulfilled or happy).

4- The key element to a language game, is the basic building block of language, the idea. The communication of ideas as a social activity involves the development of rules, these rules define the way in which it is used, its use gives it meaning (in the sense of common understanding). Ideas though do not demand communication.

5- Knowledge/verbal information. I agree with AC-1 that this is not the purpose of education. But again this is the terminological difference. It is teaching that defines what constitutes knowledge, or more importantly what constitutes valuable knowledge. A neurosurgeon and a witchdoctor both possess knowledge, but not of the same thing, nor acquired by the same methods, and only occasionally applied to the similar problems. All methods of knowledge, all schools of knowledge are brainwashing, indoctrination, methodological propaganda. After all it has become accepted policy in western ‘health-care’ to entrust the treatment of brain disorders to neurosurgeons and not to witchdoctors. And to regard the person who seeks help from a witchdoctor as being somewhat odd.

6- In AC-1′s subjective value system all students should be encouraged to think for themselves. This is a noble gesture from one so seemingly wedded to the methodological policy of ‘rationalism’ for example. Indeed all students should think for themselves, and this is the very idea at the root of the word education (educare/educere).

Furthermore as AC-1 is afraid that tutors are authority figures whose agenda influences the minds of the young, then should he not like Anytus of old encourage the authorities to try and execute Socrates all over again for ‘corrupting the minds of our youth’.

Although as I have asserted one may teach and school oneself, to be educated is to be encouraged in ones endeavours, be that the pursuit of knowledge or happiness it matters not if the result is flourishing. So lets not poison all our tutors with hemlock as they once did in Athens.

7- ‘Values are not the primary purpose of education and should not drive policy’ again we are in agreement, but schooling is about more than just education. And schooling is indoctrination and indoctrination is the method used by a society to induct its members into accepting and practising its shared values. Only by isolating each human at birth and withdrawing them from all human interaction coudl oyu ever eradicate that element of teaching/learning.

Conclusion

Ac-1 makes some valid points concerning the indoctrinaire nature of teaching and schooling, which is often pursued through perfomance related exam targets (for example) to the detriment of genuine education and personal flourishing. And despite the differences in terminological use many of the principles of ‘free thinking’ are shared.

Yet I find the final conclusion, that Faith schools are bad, both unjustified and dangerous, incoherent and hypocritical. A faith school does not pressupose that all its teachers, nor all its students hold, practise, or assent to the same values. In this country particularly such a school could not exist. All schools must adhere to the curriculum, all schools must be subjected to rigourous inspection of methods and results.

The curriculum that these schools must adhere to transcends cultural and social values expressed by ethnic and religious groupings. It is in the true sense of the word education, a curriculum that attempts to promote a broad spectrum of knowledge, of methodological tools, and of encouragement of flourishing.

A mixture of students from different backgrounds, being taught by a mixture of teachers with different values, being taught a mixture of methods, will have no tangible effect upon that pupils ability to flourish, if that pupil is closed to flourishing, is infertile to new ideas and ways of thinking.

To parody AC-1′s final sentence:-

My argument is this: to avoid unnecessary indoctrination and to encourage independent thinking, students should be exposed to a mixture of value systems in the teaching staff and other students. Therefore …. (insert object of distrust/dislike)

a faith school, a school that teaches science, a school that encourages the arts, a school that only teaches two modern languages, a school that demands uniforms, a school that has rules, a school that has buildings, a school that has teachers, a school (full stop) …

is a bad thing.

It’s nonsense isn’t it? A ‘school’ is an expression of social values. It is the value that says education, the chance to flourish brightly in whatever pursuit the individual chooses is a good thing.

For some social groups that includes the ethos of a certain faith, the prestige of a certain institution (Oxbridge), the heritage of the family.

As long as a faith school/art school/technical or scientific academy seeks to educate and encourage flourishing, to teach in accordance with a broad curriculum then it is doing a fine job.

El Sordo (A free thinker for whom a faith school education did little harm and encouraged a lifelong journey of flourishing).

I have been thinking about faith schools and their role in broader society. To judge if faith schools are beneficial or harmful, I keep coming back to the question: “what is the purpose of education?” An answer to this would drive how the school operates and the selection procedure for admissions. In an even broader context, the purpose of education can be determined by the question “what is the meaning of life?” which obviously has no unanimous response. A better starting point might be “should we have universal education?” The Justification for our answer would inform us of the purpose of education.

The answer “education should fulfill pupils potential” is vague of course – they should fulfill their potential to do what exactly?

An obvious answer is “to make the pupil a valuable member of society“, which causes me to roll my eyes and sigh. Why should be suppose society as it stands should be the final goal of our lives? All we are doing is indoctrinating our children in our line of thinking.

Education “to prepare for work” should not be the final goal either. Not all interactions in our lives are commercial exchanges. We should have a broader view than serving the work place. I admit we might want this as a secondary objective of education – unless we want to abolish capitalism. But let us take things one step at a time!

I am thinking the purpose of education is to skill development of the student. There are various areas of development that I will consider separately, although I would admit there is some unavoidable overlap.

Skills (Motor and intellectual)

“necessary skills so that a particular function could be performed”. Of course learning how to perform a task requires some knowledge with which to practice the skill but the knowledge is not the goal, it is the means of learning a skill. The underlying skill in most academic subjects is critical thinking but this ironically seems to be absent in the population at large!

Of course an anti-realist probably would consider skills as just a type of knowledge! But talking and reading – is that within each language game or the foundation of the game? If it is a prerequisite for all language games, we have evidence that langauge is a skill.

Knowledge (Verbal information)

…which is traditionally called education. Or brainwashing. Verbal information is ripe to be understood by Wittgenstein’s theory as a socially constructed interpretations. Although knowledge is necessary to practice students skills, it should not be the goal. For example in English speaking countries, Shakespeare is regarded as required reading in schools. We would not consider someone who is unaware of Shakespeare as educated. But someone who is from a non-english speaking culture, this is obviously not a requirement for education. The same principle holds of the knowledge of history, social science, (theology!), scientific theories, etc – some knowledge should be taught but the knowledge is the “means” not the “end”. Endless exams that assess knowledge are therefore misguided.

After all, most verbal knowledge is in books. Just go to the library if you need it? Finding the book containing the knowledge you want is a skill anyway…

Attitudes, values and cognition

The only clear pattern in peoples values, all around the world, is the fact that they disagree. For example a conservative disagrees with a liberal on what is considered good and bad. In an extreme case, a cannibal disagrees with a vegetarian on what is a good diet. I admit there are some commonalities in value systems, but there are no universally agreed values at all. This immediately poises a choice: do we have different values taught in different schools or do we avoid talking about values all together? Should a school have a unified value system (e.g. faith schools) or a diverse system of values?

Since the purpose of schools is skill development, why do we need to involve values? Like knowledge, one particular value system is just brainwashing and indoctrination. Values are not the primary purpose of education and should not drive policy. If it was, we would have schools that transform into Sunday schools.

But most people imitate people in positions of authority. It is unavoidable that the values of the teachers will influence students. We must be aware how a school environment will unavoidably shape people. And in my subjective value system, students should be encouraged to think for themselves.

My argument is this: to avoid unnecessary indoctrination and to encourage independent thinking, students should be exposed to a mixture of value systems in the teaching staff and other students. Therefore faith schools are a bad thing.

Anti Citizen One (who happens to be an instructor in a certain extreme sport)

“They offer not a programme of indoctrination, but the possibility of developing a greater level of community cohesion through the understanding of how faith shapes common life.” Dr Rowan Williams

“Separating children on the basis of religion cannot possibly encourage social cohesion. Academic research confirms that the best time to break down racial and religious barriers is in primary school.” Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society

“Faith schools take very seriously their historic mission to reach out to support children from lower income or disadvantaged backgrounds” Schools Secretary Ed Balls

“We question whether faith schools, particularly those where staff and children are chosen on a faith basis, provide an environment for ‘interaction between different faiths and communities” Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers

Grey 17 is Missing

Carrying on my series on the depiction of religion in the TV series Babylon 5:

Garibaldi, an agnostic, stumbles upon a cult in an abandoned and forgotten area of the station. They refuse to let him leave and seem to try to convert him to their beliefs. They do not make any decernable progress as all Garibaldi wants to do is to leave.

They have adapted belief systems from the basic Mimbari beliefs and consider them spiritually advanced culture. These themes recur several times in the TV series.

“The universe is sentient, aware, alive.” “We are the universe, the universe made manifest.” “We try to understand it because in so doing, well, we will understand ourselves.” “One day the universe will truly understand itself. And at that moment, it will transcend itself.” “…next time it’ll be perfect.”

The cult also strives for their own self perfection to achieve a form of enlightenment. This is verging on suicidal since they look forward to “rejoining” the universe upon their deaths. Although not stated, the might move towards being a suicide cult – they have one charasmatic leader and many drone like followers – does that fit the profile?

“We’ve isolated ourselves in order to attain a purity of thought. Because purity of form and putity of intent, purity of execution, that is the on way. The only way the door will open.” “The door of the mind”

They seem to prefer their beliefs from a more existential mindset. “People like you suffer from the fact that you do not remember having been part of the universe.” “You know, driven mad by the silence, the terrible isolation.”

But their leader, Sebastian, is rather pretentious, claiming “I am as pure as I am ever going to be!”.

The episode is also notable for not being very good. “There are bits in that I like a lot. And some parts of it just fell down dreadfully. That’s simply the nature of the beast.” (JMS)

Let us never speak of that episode again…

Christianity Adapting to the Times

Brother Alwyn is a leader in a religious order (to some extent affiliated with Catholic church) in a post apocalyptic earth in about the year 3261. I guess religion had to move with the times in the last 1254 years! The order plans to re-industrialize Earth; all technology was blamed for a collapse in civilization 500 years earlier. This is an interesting reversal on todays outlook – the Church is usually warning agains new trends and generally fears change (consider Galileo, Darwin, etc). This futuristic order now leads the technological movement against the fear and opposition of the population. It is mentioned that “Rome” has again turned down recognition for the churches work – I guess some things don’t change!

Side Note

There is an interesting post on a catholic blog which reads like a condensed version of my series of posts, but written by a believer.

I read “Have A Nice Doomsday” by Nicholas Guyatt while on holiday. It sets about explaining the origins and implications of the 50 million Americans who believe the world is likely to end within their life time with the return of Jesus (or the Rapture) – this view is called Apocalyptic Christianity. The popularity of this view has been increased by the establishment of Israel in 1948.

Until recently, these believers have been distrustful of political involvement and particularly of the UN. The UN is viewed as a likely origin for the Anti-Christ. There seems to have been a shift towards unwavering Zionism because of its role in biblical prophesy. (Even though they also believe that the Jews will have to eventually convert to Christianity or be condemned by God). Their second objective is evangelicalism – save as many souls as possible from the Tribulation; this is meant to occur just before Jesus’s return.

The book is written from what I would call a neutral point of view but I realize neutrality is a myth in this case. The book slightly implies that they might be mistaken as it describes other historic movements that have set dates for the apocalypse and been disappointed. Why are they any more correct this time? And if you want to dive into the Bible: “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” (Mat 24:11)

Philosophically, I regard this attitude as world denying – they are unwilling to engage with the world as it actually is (and will be). This vaguely ties in to the discussion on anti-realism and on the point about predictive world views. Apocalyptic Christians appear to be “delayed anti-realists”.

Also I am strongly reminded of that X-Files quote about millennium apocalypse cults:

SCULLY: Mulder, those people, even when they were alive, mangled biblical prophecy to the extent that it’s unrecognizable. The year 2000 is just their artificial deadline and besides, 2001 is actually the start of the new millennium.

MULDER: Nobody likes a math geek, Scully.

I think I’ll not hold my breath while waiting for the apocalypse.

Anti Citizen One