About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Monday, July 30, 2007

Teaching as a subversive activity

The more I read by cultural critic Neil Postman (who died in 2003), the more I'm fascinated and baffled by the guy. I thoroughly enjoyed his “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” about the hedonistic culture in United States, and was intrigued by “Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology.” I'm a bit less enthused, however, with “Teaching as a Subversive Activity” (the guy certainly had a thing for catchy titles). Don't get me wrong, I think teaching – when done well – really is a subversive activity, and I also agree with Postman that most of the time it is done in anything but a subversive manner. But our agreement pretty much stops there.

The book was actually written in 1969 (I was five at the time!), so it isn't surprising that some parts of it are dated. However, the substance of it is still debatable today in a fruitful manner, as education – unfortunately – is pretty much in the same sorry state of affairs that Postman decries, and pretty much for the same reasons.

The state of education is abysmal because teachers are not well trained, not well paid, and not well respected. Too often, teaching (especially at the so-called “lower” levels, when it is most crucial because of the impact on the young mind) is the last resort of people who can't manage to do anything better with their lives. Education departments in colleges throughout the country are the disgrace of modern academy, populated by insane theories about how one ought to teach regardless of the subject matter, while at the same time ignoring that teachers ought to know what they are teaching before they can teach it. The overarching reasons for this situation are also well diagnosed by Postman and his co-author, Charles Weingartner: it is simply not in the interest of government and big business to raise a generation of critical thinkers, which goes a long way toward explaining why – although education is usually near the top of the agenda in people's minds at every electoral cycle – nothing is actually done to reform it by whoever gets elected, on behalf of whichever of the two political parties.

All of the above notwithstanding, I think Postman's recipe would be a disaster, and I'm glad that in the intervening four decades nobody seems to have taken it seriously. A major point of “Teaching as a Subversive Activity” is that there are, in fact, no subject matters at all, that teachers really shouldn't be teaching, but rather concentrate their time in finding out what the students are interested in and let them develop such interests in a completely open fashion. This is, essentially, one version of the so-called Socratic method, the misguided one (I'll get to the good one in a minute).

You see, the fact of the matter is that teachers (when they are good) really do know more than their pupils. A lot more. Moreover, although one could reasonably argue that the world isn't naturally divided into philosophy, science, literature and other such “subjects,” it turns out that human beings simply cannot make sense of the world unless they are allowed to categorize it in one fashion or another. Some categories may in fact turn out to be not useful, or even positively pernicious, in which case by all means, let's revise them. But there are real important differences in the history, methods and outcomes of, say, logic and anthropology, which means that it makes perfect sense to teach them as (somewhat) separate “subjects.”

The Socratic method according to Postman originates from Socrates' own explanation (through the pen of Plato) of what he was doing. He likened the philosopher (and, by extension, any teacher) to a midwife, whose goal is not to create or implant knowledge, but rather the opposite, to get it out of where it already is, the mind of the pupil. Except that there is a better interpretation of the Socratic method, one that any astute reader of Plato's dialogues evinces by actually observing (so to speak) what Socrates does, rather than buying directly into what he says. Socrates clearly leads his pupils toward certain conclusions, by repeatedly showing them that what they think they know is, in fact, wrong. The teacher here plays the role of a subtle but always attentive guide, with a clear goal in mind. Postman is correct that simply telling people what to think won't work (“I taught them X, but they didn't get it” is a classic Postmanian joke), but he is wrong in assuming that the student ought therefore simply to be in charge.

There is a modern equivalent of the Socratic method, used in several schools (mostly private, but even some public ones) across the world, including the United States: it's the Montessori method, articulated by the Italian educator Maria Montessori. The idea is that education is a complex, individualistic process that cannot follow simplistic standards, and most certainly cannot be evaluated by standardized tests (so much for “no child left behind” kind of nonsense). Rather, Montessori thought that teachers should behave like an army of Socrates, engaging students in small groups (yes, class size does matter!), leading them to learn through a positive (as opposed to passive) approach, which will work through a different path for each student.

The Montessori method requires not only much smaller class sizes than any current politician in the US is willing to pay for (how? How about by cutting the military budget to about 1/10th of what it is now?). More importantly, it's based on the truly subversive idea that teachers ought to know what they are doing, being capable not only of mastering various subject matters and their interrelationships, but also having a flexible enough attitude that they can truly and comfortably treat every child as a different person with her own individual needs.

Despite my profound disagreement with Postman on teaching, however, I'm about to start another book by him, “How to watch TV news.” That ought to be entertaining, stay tuned for more!

22 comments:

  1. Massimo,
    I agree with most of what you write here. But I have to ask you how you know and justify the following assertion:

    "Often, teaching (especially at the so-called “lower” levels, when it is most crucial because of the impact on the young mind) is the last resort of people who can't manage to do anything better with their lives."

    They can't manage to do anything better with their lives? Talk about disrespecting teachers! It takes a particular talent and passion to teach at these levels, aside from knowledge of the basic content.

    It seems to me that their is a prevalent trend to blame teachers. And you seem to follow this trend in this statement.

    I think we should start to look at the broader social, political, and cultural environment, which you do touch upon.

    Knowledge and critical thinking is not valued. "Education" is thought of and promoted as a way to become up upwardly mobile. But knowledge and intellectual activity is not valued for its own sake.

    I probably have much more to say on this subject, but I will let others chime in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hmm, Sheldon seems to be reading my mind; that was exactly the passage which rubbed me wrong. Having said that, I find myself in general agreement with your post, M. However, the principal blame resides, in my opinion, with those parents who practice such habits as: video babysitting, not reading nightly with their children, not participating in athletics with them, not vetting the videos, videogames, songs, and other cultural influences on children, and most of all inculcating a fear of standing out, to the extent that kids are ill-equipped to resist the peer pressure to "be cool"; that learning is "for geeks" (or nerds, dorks, et. al.). Very rarely does a strong education overcome poor parenting; I'm of the opinion that strong parenting is a neccessary but not sufficient condition for raising the intellectual abilities of our children.

    ReplyDelete
  3. They can't manage to do anything better with their lives?

    Sheldon and Thumpalumpacus (???),

    Unfortunately, Massimo has at least something of a point there. I mean, all I myself have is anecdotal "evidence", and I'd like to see real data. But I can tell my anecdotes, about my graduating class in Biology, 1996, in Brazil. We were about 60. Almost everybody there wanted to do research, genetic engineering mostly (that was the buzzword at the time). A few, maybe some 5, seemed to be there to become teachers from the start, and the interesting thing is that they seemed to be the realistic ones -- they were poorer kids (public universities, i.e. the good ones, are mostly for the relatively well-to-do and up in my country). They knew they could not afford not to work and stay in labs (low pay, no benefits, no retirement stuff, etc.) and all that until they got, many years later, a PhD -- to then start looking for a very hard to find job. They knew they would have to start teaching even before graduating, and quite a few did.

    Now, what about the rest? Quite a few, maybe 15-20, did go to research, like me. But most ended up discovering, during internships and the like, that they really didn't like research; or didn't like the idea to have to beg the gov for money every couple years; or to have few job opportunities; write papers, proposals, etc. Whatever. So what can you do now, with a Biology degree there? Not much besides... teaching. I know of at least a couple of these friends who became great teachers, really passionate about it and dedicated, and I'm sure they're much more useful and happy there than they would ever be in a lab. The rest, I think they just trudge along, like in an office job nobody really cares too much about.

    J

    ReplyDelete
  4. The contentious point, I imagine, is the word "better", not "manage".

    The problem is viewing "anything" as "better" than teaching.

    That said, I expect Massimo is correct in believing that many teachers would rather be doing something else - though just why they would is probably a set of reasons rather than one.

    Tangentially, has anyone noticed this line on the "Dead Poets Society" dvd: In an age defined by crew cuts sports coats, and cheerless conformity, he not only broke the mold... he reinvented it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is rather difficult to learn from anyone if one does not accept a teacher as an authority on the matters that they teach on.

    What turns out to be profoundly "subversive" in terms of teaching, is that in the last 30-40 years higher educational institutions have sought to help us exchange the reasons that we accept information, knowledge and "facts" from anyone in favor of the individual being the authority not the teacher.

    Shocking to me that "educated" people even wonder why.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  6. J --

    Your point is well-taken. There are indeed hacks in every field, not just teaching. And Ridger's analysis is spot-on: what I object to is the thought of teaching as a less-than-decent profession. Be it noted, I am not a teacher. And I have indeed had my share of moronic teachers.

    But for every idiot with a piece of chalk, I've had one who lit a love of the topic at hand in me, and most importantly, made me understand that my formal education was the beginning and not the end of the process.

    Insofar as authority goes, Cal, only the rigid mind considers authority in the learning process. Those minds committed to learning understand that it may come from unusual sources. Indeed, my own experience tells me that teachers often learn as much as students -- from students. As in science, authority should have little caché in education IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  7. thump "Insofar as authority goes, Cal, only the rigid mind considers authority in the learning process. "

    And so out goes the phrase that Massimo, for instance, would be titled as 'an authority' on biology or evolution? I would say that he is, but you seem to be advocating the opposite.
    Even nature accepts and makes use of the fact that some (in a pack, for instance) are actually better suited to lead than others. Is nature likewise rigid?

    I hope so.

    Orderliness, authority and certainty matters. And yes, even and especially to education.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cal --

    You equate teaching with leadership. That is not the case.

    And given that nature isn't an entity at all, it is hardly appropriate to apply an adjective such as rigid to it. I would call the behavior of the packs animals to which (I presume) you're referring -- wolves, hyenas, etc -- I would call their behavior rigid,certainly.

    And though Massimo may be an authority on evolution, or I an authority on guitars, their playing and history, well, we can still be wrong, and the wise student questions everything. To accept anything on authority is to relinquish one's mind to the approbation of others. Of course, as a constant course of action, checking EVERYTHING said/written/etc by others is impractical, but it is certainly wise until the veracity and acccuracy of the source are gauged. And even then every source should be spot-checked, even one you know for years. A good course to follow is Sagan's Dictum: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

    ReplyDelete
  9. thump: "And though Massimo may be an authority on evolution, or I an authority on guitars, their playing and history, well, we can still be wrong, and the wise student questions everything."

    I agree with you essentially. We can learn from people that we would never follow, of course. But it would be ideal to able to learn from those whose lives are totally worth following, don't you agree?

    Attitudes about ANYTHING are completely learned things.

    Even secularism.

    Yourself and Massimo "learned" how to be secularists: walk this way, talk this way, be like this, not like that...etc. And who was it that taught you such things? Because no one certainly arrives at this level of complicated conclusions in a vacuum. Where does this person (s) live now? What will their eventual fate be? Is it a hopeful one? And most importantly, are they forever worthy of your respect?

    one would sincerely hope so. If not, you may once again get to confront the outcome of the things you "learned" far beyond your lifetime.
    c

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for the comments on the Montessori schools. I've long been interested in the educational methods used in those schools. I had an acquaintance who placed her young daughter in a Montessori school. The girl emerged with a wonderful confidence, excellent language skills and personal deportment than her [daughter]peers of the same age. I'm interested in studying more about this teaching method. I'd imagine that some of these methods would go a long way in the public arena, but probably not without some tension related to salaries. Yet, I remain unsure just how administrators might integrate more of these principles into general classroom instruction. Perhaps, some teachers have tried and have been successful, even with larger class sizes.

    You mentioned writing something on "How to Think About TV News." Yes, critical thinking skills are sorely missing in analyzing TV News and TV shows, in general. What's beneath the malaise and passive acceptance of news by the viewing public? Are people simply too over-stimulated and burned out on sitcoms and advertising that TV news seems an almost welcome respite, a false oasis in an ocean of silly programming, such that people are lulled into believing that everything they hear on the news is completely factual?

    Massimo, thanks for generating some good thoughts.

    D.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cal, I didn't LEARN secularism, I came to be a secualrist after examining the various political philosophies and methods of government on offer. Liberal secular democracy seemed like the best option, but the decision was my own.

    ReplyDelete
  12. what I object to is the thought of teaching as a less-than-decent profession

    Completely agree, here. I always say that teacher is the most important profession, actually. And if I had to risk a guess, I'd say Massimo also does not see teaching as a less-than-decent activity. I hope. After all, that's a significant portion of what he does, innit... :-)

    One other side of the issue I didn't mention because my previous post was already so long (as usual) was the reason why few people seem to be interested in being teachers to begin with. I frequently hear that, in the past, say some 50-60 years ago, teachers were highly respected by society and made good salaries. At least that was in Brazil at the time, when education was much less universal, and the people attending these public schools were richer (and were therefore in a better position to demand more of the system). So being a teacher brought status, and a reasonable standard of living.

    Nowadays, teachers are disrespected by students -- in the poor, public schools, many times it's a life threatening situation, literally; in the rich private schools, they are treated as servants. People hear you're a teacher, they internally pity you -- poor, suffering at the hands of the brats, etc. The salary is quite bad, except for a few elite private schools (if you can stand being treated like a servant, that is). I knew of a few of my teachers at private school (a small one, but still private) who worked morning, afternoon and even some nights a week to make ends meet. So if you can go and be an engineer, why would you follow your passion and go on to become a physics teacher instead? A few admirable abnegate individuals do choose that even if they could make more money, but I don't know how is their proportion in the population.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Yourself and Massimo "learned" how to be secularists: walk this way, talk this way, be like this, not like that...etc." -- Cal

    Had I been raised a secularist, I might concede the point. Unfortunately for your argument, I was raised a SoB, regularly attending church the first twelve years of my life, tearing up at the thought of the rapture. While I did learn some skeptical tools, such as the scientific method, my approach to skepticism --"question everything"-- arises from my innately curious nature. It was religion's inability to answer my questions which caused me to regard it as a failed hypothesis. And to be perfectly honest, if there is some deity who created me, I'm sure he or she understands my skepticism and the reasons therefore much better than I.

    ReplyDelete
  14. J said...

    A few admirable abnegate individuals do choose that even if they could make more money, b...

    Thanks J for pointing out to me what makes for good learning. You used a fairly uncommon word, "abnegate".

    So, what does a "good student" do? Someone with an open curious mind do?

    He/she/I look it up in the dictionary. It's fun learning new things, seeing the roots of the word in other languages.

    Is that something someone taught me?

    Does a teacher teach that? A parent? Peers? My genes?

    I think all of the above. Kids with parents who read to them see reading as natural, and then "intuitively" know that you can explore lots of things with it.

    Conversely, kids in schools where learning is an anathema, have tremendous social pressure to not study or value learning.

    Good teachers peak their students' curiosity, so they can learn on their own, but it takes interest in the subject, and the capacity to connect with the students.

    Aparently we as a society just don't value these traits, certainly not with our pocketbooks.

    Selling fast food and respect for authority, as in the Bible, seem to be valued more than curiosity and critical thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  15. thump,

    Of course we may likewise "learn" from what we perceive are negative examples.

    re: hypocrites

    My husband, who had for many years pointed to hypocrites in the church as a reason to stay away, told this story to form an analogy at church a few weeks ago. It was a true story about five miners trapped by a cave-in down in the bottom of of a mine.

    Analogous to the matter of spiritually misguided, less than "holy" leaders in the church and regarding the circumstance of the minors trapped down in the in the deep, dark mine, we would never likely ask the question of whether the generally qualified person who will conduct the rescuing has ALL his affairs in order (tho it would be ideal if he did) to carry out the rescue operation and pull the men up to safety. We simply are certain that these minors desperately need to be rescued from their terrible fate.

    He went on to say that at times the people that share God with other people are essentially fools, they totally make mistakes, they don't always choose the better route when it is placed in front of them. But being flawless is not what qualifies these people to be the teacher or preacher. If they were completely without fault, no doubt in my mind that this likely would cause people to follow that person instead of God.

    The Bible itself actually says that we can be lead to Christ by the foolishness of teaching and preaching. 1Cr 1:21 "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

    So sometimes tho it is quite humbling enough to have to be transparent about one's own shortcomings before God or others, it will tend to further stretch some of us who have a greater sense of entitlement to have to accept help from someone (spiritually) who we find even less than ideal in terms of their walk with Christ. The humbling part then seems to come at an even greater cost to us.
    And is that really a bad thing?

    I don't know what the SoB is. Southern Baptist?
    cal

    ReplyDelete
  16. "While I did learn some skeptical tools, such as the scientific method, my approach to skepticism --"question everything"-- arises from my innately curious nature. It was religion's inability to answer my questions which caused me to regard it as a failed hypothesis."

    I am kind of curious TO A FAULT also. But I think that tho I have tended to lean towards skepticism at times, you are completely right in your last comment, "..if there is some deity who created me, I'm sure he or she understands my skepticism and the reasons therefore much better than I."

    God does understand. If I described all the prayers that have been answered over the years, (totally amazing and crazy stuff)you would never believe unless the circumstances happened to you.

    Like my husband, for instance, teaching and leading in a church, you have no concept how ridiculous that really is. He TRULY did not like Christians at all and he was much meaner about it than any skeptic I have ever seen. Sometimes I really thought that I saw m-u-r-d-e-r in his eyes, heart and mind towards other people.

    His mom actually commented on that this morning. By right and by nature, it should have never happened. But 10 and some years ago I really gave him up to God. Had no choice, really.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cal --

    [From the better-late-than-never dept] You seem to be under the impression that I reject religion because of the believers who fall short. That is not the case. I reject religion for two reasons:

    1) God as defined by Christianity is a collection of contradictions which cannot stand up under their own weight; and

    2) there is no direct evidence of any god or gods (i.e. sightings, vocal recordings, detections of the copious energy emissions such a being would produce, etc.) Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but all the same, I have no faith inside me, and therefore I require evidence. This religion does not, indeed, cannot, provide. (Any religion attempting to provide evidence is prima facie showing a lack of faith, no?)

    ReplyDelete
  18. thump: "2) there is no direct evidence of any god or gods (i.e. sightings, vocal recordings, detections of the copious energy emissions such a being would produce, etc.) Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but all the same, I have no faith inside me, and therefore I require evidence. This religion does not, indeed, cannot, provide. (Any religion attempting to provide evidence is prima facie showing a lack of faith, no?)"

    No.

    Last night we had two couples over for dinner. Both are in ministries. In one couples case it was the wife who five years ago appeared to have inoperable stomach and intestinal cancer. They operated anyway, but then gave her 6 months to live. She is, as we speak, 2 years cancer free. I know they believe in prayer and by all means prayed for her. For the other couple it was the gentleman who had a metathesized cancer that had traveled from his jaw to one of his lungs. He was given no hope for survival. But here he sits at my dinner table 20 some years later cancer free.

    I mean what are the odds? But you see, both of these couples really believe that prayer works. And you know, after watching them, I believe it too. This is not to say that everyone who prays that something will work out for them will get exactly what they want. This is also not to say that anyone who proclaims and guarantees that they can proclaim a "healing" for someone else will get what they want.

    But I have seen extraordinary things like this far too many times to say that there is "no evidence".

    laters... :)
    cal

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ah, the old "what are the olds, it was a miracle" defense...

    But god hates amputees, in case you didn't know that simple fact of life.
    http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

    J

    ReplyDelete
  20. What are the olds? Oh, my... what are the odds indeed...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Completely agree with:
    "Often, teaching (especially at the so-called “lower” levels, when it is most crucial because of the impact on the young mind) is the last resort of people who can't manage to do anything better with their lives."

    Also, one has to wonder whether Cal is a troll on a never ending quest. Any regulars here should know that arguing or discussing anything with him is utterly useless.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am about to start student teaching (music education) and have often wondered if I will be seen as a "subversive teacher" if my students (or perhaps worse, their parents) find out about my atheistic beliefs. I live in Texas, btw. I don't have a problem performing sacred music, but I don't intend to say "under god" when reciting the Pledge. Just have to wait and see, I guess.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.