Progressives place a high priority on public education, but is that priority extended to the content of public education? Notoriously the Far Right has paid close and demanding attention to the content of public education because it sees it as an ideal venue for foisting its agenda upon the young. I suggest progressives, perhaps out of a desire to distance themselves from the tactics of the Far Right, express little concern for the content of public education. I think this is a fundamental and grievous mistake.
These thoughts occurred to me as I was recently reading a textbook on English literature my mother used when, I believe, she was about 12 years old. It was written in 1897 and is worn and frayed and has penciled comments by her. It is, of course, all in black and white. The illustrations are small black and white etchings or photos. The authors treated range from Cotton Mather to Tom Paine, Emerson, Thoreau, William Dean Howells and Samuel Clemens. I noticed a list of words, apparently to be understood, such as hyperbole, which my mother had written on a blank page.
It seemed to me that the use of language was of a more disciplined, indeed appreciative, vein than one would now find being offered to children of a similar age.
I was reminded of a study done in 1990 by a writing professor at the University of Delaware, Marcia Peoples Halio, comparing the quality of student writing produced on a Macintosh to that written using a PC. As you may recall the Macintosh was the first popular computer to use the graphical user interface (GUI). The professor found that the papers written on a PC were uniformly superior to those written on the Macintosh. Aside from the observing that the language was less precise, often verging on slang and the sentences were shorter and lass descriptive, she also noticed that the Macintosh users placed a good deal of emphasis on the appearance of their papers, using a variety of fonts and illustrations. She surmised that the Macintosh users became so involved in the formatting and appearance of their papers that they did less thinking about the subject of the paper than they did about its appearance.
The above instances, I believe, are indicative of a passage from a print-oriented to an image-oriented society. So far as I have been able to observe, progressives have not asked what happens to their values as this shift takes place. In particular, is the public education they so avidly support producing the kinds of citizens that can or will continue to vigorously support the values of free speech, social equality and intellectual honesty? What does free speech mean in a world of images? The last time Western civilization, or a part thereof, was so concerned with the appearance of its writing was in the illustrated manuscripts produced by monks concerned with praising their deity or impressing the aristocracy, but certainly not to express the values of a democratic society. What can intellectual honesty mean in such an environment? If, as Marshall McLuhan proclaimed, the medium is the message, we appear to be tending to the trivial and the irrelevant.
Robert Newhard
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Thursday, December 14, 2006
On Technology and a Progressive Vision
For the modern world there was no more seminal event than the Italian Renaissance. With the recovery of Greek and Roman thought, humans in their natural world became the focus of thought. Perhaps the most important element in the spread of the Renaissance was the invention and implementation of printing. Had the Renaissance occurred in an era of manuscripts its spread, if any, would have been most probably limited to the scholars of the period. With printing the discoveries of antiquity, the latest thoughts concerning those discoveries and their application to existing institutions and practices were accomplished much faster than ever before and for a much wider audience. While Charlemagne, living in a feudal world, could not read. The princes and public of the Renaissance read a continual and voluminous flow of thought and discovery. I suggest that one reason for the cultural explosion of the Renaissance was that printing released a thousand years of pent up human thirst for understanding in a very brief period of time. Additionally, it was found that this knowledge could be built upon thus eventuating in science thereby enabling the volume of learning and discovery to continue increasing.
Another seminal invention that represents as paradigmatic a breakthrough as printing has been the use of the computer and the voluminous capacity to communicate it has provided. However, when we look at the impact of this technology we do not see a burst of culture and understanding. To the contrary almost every one of these associated inventions has eventuated in the trivial, the mundane and the entertaining. In short, cultural banality. Nor is this outcome trivial in itself. Hannah Arendt famously declared the “banality of evil” in her report on the Eichmann trial. I suggest that this is a two way street, i.e. the evil of banality. Banality is evidence that the human mind has not come to grips with the complexity of the real world and, in consequence, we get the results that the religious right, corporate greed and G. W. Bush are having on the people of this planet. “Blinded by banality” might function as a description of our time.
I suggest that this failure to realize the potential of computer-based technology is due in part to there being no long term socially repressed knowledge to be released. Print had done its job well. Thus while we can communicate at lightening speed and while we can elaborately simulate human activities we have, in effect, nothing to say of culture-shaking importance. Progressives, if they would meaningfully lead in the future, must find, if it exists, what it is in human nature that will foster growth in human potential and seek ways to release it. In this regard I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s belief that education is the foundation of democracy and that those who refused to avail themselves of a free education should be disenfranchised. The question is, of course, whether every human being wants to expend the effort to realize her/his potential. Human history would indicate they do not. Do we have the genius to find ways to make this self realization a social function of fundamental importance to people, and to their democracy, which can be no better than they are?
Bob Newhard
Another seminal invention that represents as paradigmatic a breakthrough as printing has been the use of the computer and the voluminous capacity to communicate it has provided. However, when we look at the impact of this technology we do not see a burst of culture and understanding. To the contrary almost every one of these associated inventions has eventuated in the trivial, the mundane and the entertaining. In short, cultural banality. Nor is this outcome trivial in itself. Hannah Arendt famously declared the “banality of evil” in her report on the Eichmann trial. I suggest that this is a two way street, i.e. the evil of banality. Banality is evidence that the human mind has not come to grips with the complexity of the real world and, in consequence, we get the results that the religious right, corporate greed and G. W. Bush are having on the people of this planet. “Blinded by banality” might function as a description of our time.
I suggest that this failure to realize the potential of computer-based technology is due in part to there being no long term socially repressed knowledge to be released. Print had done its job well. Thus while we can communicate at lightening speed and while we can elaborately simulate human activities we have, in effect, nothing to say of culture-shaking importance. Progressives, if they would meaningfully lead in the future, must find, if it exists, what it is in human nature that will foster growth in human potential and seek ways to release it. In this regard I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s belief that education is the foundation of democracy and that those who refused to avail themselves of a free education should be disenfranchised. The question is, of course, whether every human being wants to expend the effort to realize her/his potential. Human history would indicate they do not. Do we have the genius to find ways to make this self realization a social function of fundamental importance to people, and to their democracy, which can be no better than they are?
Bob Newhard
Saturday, December 2, 2006
Democracy, Truth and Reality
Sometimes progressives and other well-motivated people would have us think that democracy is the end-all and be-all of human organization. At root democracy is an agreement arrived at by the majority with due concern not to infringe the rights of the minority. There is however, a third element in this decision-making process, and one becoming of profound importance. It is reality. No matter what a group of humans agree upon, it is of no consequence for reality. For instance the Kyoto Protocol agreed to by the majority of the planet’s nations, is not a solution to global warming. It is, as the saying goes, a first step, but unless the remaining steps are taken within the time that reality requires, global warming, regardless of any human agreement, will produce the terrible consequences scientists have predicted.
In every group decision we reach there are at least two opposing sides plus reality. Notoriously, humans can reach agreements totally disregardful of reality. The agreement achieved may simply reflect an emotion-driven compromise in which cultural or other concerns are the focus of negotiations not reality. This is why democracy, while probably better than an ego-driven dictatorship, cannot be trusted to arrive at truth. With the power of humans to destroy themselves and much of the planet’s other life forms as great as it is and growing rapidly, the damage we can inflict requires an increasing focus on and concern for reality. Mistakes, often caused by focusing on the other party rather than reality can have momentous consequences. Every negotiation should begin with and retain reality as its focus.
But, it is said, reality is in the eye of the beholder. This is much less so than the cliché would have us believe. Depending upon the degree of precision required, testable or rigorously confirmed evidence is frequently available that constitute good indicators of reality. Even in the gross, complex, and deception-ridden world of foreign policy the experience of the Vietnam war was very telling evidence that the invasion of Iraq was not only immoral, but doomed to failure. The leadership of this country and the majority of Americans chose to disregard it. Reality was replaced by hubris in reaching the decision to invade Iraq. In any negotiation what reality may be replaced by, e.g. religious, moral or cultural beliefs, varies greatly depending upon the concerns of the negotiators.
At bottom reality cannot be negotiated. This is why scientific endeavors cannot be democratic. Those endeavors are focused on reality and must accept the evidence adduced. This is why we must be ever vigilant that our democracy does not pretend to deal with reality. The failure to do so lets groups like Christian conservatives promote creationism and indeed get laws passed requiring its teaching in public schools. They convince legislators that more people believe in creationism or intelligent design than believe in evolution and thereby these spurious beliefs, not only lacking, but incapable of any evidence, are permitted to be taught.
Progressivism, if it is to be effective in the 21st century, must have a fundamental motivating concern to discover the truth and to do that well before it begins developing proposals and pushing agendas. The truth is not to be found in one’s opponents nor in oneself nor in an amalgam of the two. It is to be found in a rigorous examination of facts and the evidence that intellectual honesty can adduce from them.
A note to readers:
I am simultaneously posting my blogs to the following address - http://thetemeculavalleyreflectiveliberal.blogspot.com/
I am in the process of copying all my posts to this blog to the new blog address. They are readable, but contain some formatting from the DFA web site. I hope you will visit the new blog and I look forward to your comments.
Bob Newhard
In every group decision we reach there are at least two opposing sides plus reality. Notoriously, humans can reach agreements totally disregardful of reality. The agreement achieved may simply reflect an emotion-driven compromise in which cultural or other concerns are the focus of negotiations not reality. This is why democracy, while probably better than an ego-driven dictatorship, cannot be trusted to arrive at truth. With the power of humans to destroy themselves and much of the planet’s other life forms as great as it is and growing rapidly, the damage we can inflict requires an increasing focus on and concern for reality. Mistakes, often caused by focusing on the other party rather than reality can have momentous consequences. Every negotiation should begin with and retain reality as its focus.
But, it is said, reality is in the eye of the beholder. This is much less so than the cliché would have us believe. Depending upon the degree of precision required, testable or rigorously confirmed evidence is frequently available that constitute good indicators of reality. Even in the gross, complex, and deception-ridden world of foreign policy the experience of the Vietnam war was very telling evidence that the invasion of Iraq was not only immoral, but doomed to failure. The leadership of this country and the majority of Americans chose to disregard it. Reality was replaced by hubris in reaching the decision to invade Iraq. In any negotiation what reality may be replaced by, e.g. religious, moral or cultural beliefs, varies greatly depending upon the concerns of the negotiators.
At bottom reality cannot be negotiated. This is why scientific endeavors cannot be democratic. Those endeavors are focused on reality and must accept the evidence adduced. This is why we must be ever vigilant that our democracy does not pretend to deal with reality. The failure to do so lets groups like Christian conservatives promote creationism and indeed get laws passed requiring its teaching in public schools. They convince legislators that more people believe in creationism or intelligent design than believe in evolution and thereby these spurious beliefs, not only lacking, but incapable of any evidence, are permitted to be taught.
Progressivism, if it is to be effective in the 21st century, must have a fundamental motivating concern to discover the truth and to do that well before it begins developing proposals and pushing agendas. The truth is not to be found in one’s opponents nor in oneself nor in an amalgam of the two. It is to be found in a rigorous examination of facts and the evidence that intellectual honesty can adduce from them.
A note to readers:
I am simultaneously posting my blogs to the following address - http://thetemeculavalleyreflectiveliberal.blogspot.com/
I am in the process of copying all my posts to this blog to the new blog address. They are readable, but contain some formatting from the DFA web site. I hope you will visit the new blog and I look forward to your comments.
Bob Newhard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)