The Pursuit Of Knowing: Thoughts On American "Ignorance" (Part 2)

"Never make promises you have no intention of keeping."

I see the finger wagging in my face. I hear the sternness of the voice. I feel my self-esteem sinking to new lows.

I admit I've not kept my promise to complete in a timely fashion a discussion I began about knowledge and ignorance in the United States. This is more the result of time constraints than it is of neglect, or even avoidance. I've been busy. Not that I offer this as excuse. It's offered as fact. Plain, simple.

In haste, let me complete what I set out to do. In my last essay (see above link) I noted that in an admittedly simplistic study of the opinions of more than a dozen Americans chosen from a variety of intellectual and social classes, I found that the majority opinion was that scholastic achievement was worthwhile for its eventual financial benefit to each student. Learning was preparation for earning.

This, of course, is suggestive that money justifies one's academic achievement: higher pay suggests higher aptitude. Such an idea reduces learning to pragmatics, where one learns in order to practice the art of meriting a high (or higher) financial status.

The bitter pill in all of this, as shown perhaps most clearly in my former students' resistance to learning at all, is that money is the accreditation of a person's role: it is assumed that one's salary like one's diploma is proven by grades, even pay grades. "Low" role, low pay; "high" role, high pay. The bitterness, though, comes not with the realization that this is bunk. It comes when we see those folks deemed apparently intellectually inferior -- think my students' idolized rock stars -- achieve great fiscal prosperity.

(That we also suck the life out of learning for more inspired purposes is part of the double-edged sword here. Many believe their great learning is purely for attaining wealth; when they don't achieve it, they surely do not call themselves stupid. Blame is often cast elsewhere, giving the lie to the "learning equals earning" philosophy. And then those who do achieve great wealth without the suitable intellectual credentials are chided for not earning their wealth for more noble, even cerebral, purposes. They are deemed dumb or called cheaters; their work is dismissed as tawdry or even low-brow.)

Indeed, when "dumb" folks do achieve great financial success, we get commentary like the essay which began our discussion here at Contratimes. For surely that is why country star Kellie Pickler is picked on: She is apparently too stupid to have justifiably earned her great wealth and notoriety. That Ms. Pickler is singled out is curious, especially when "great wealth" is almost ALWAYS a reason the media (yes, even the New York Times) seek the political and cultural opinions and thoughts of various folks. Media do not turn to Madonna or Oprah or Tereza Heinz-Kerry or Donald Trump because they are intellectuals, or even bright. Media turn to them because they are rich, and are thus assumed to be bright.

Unfortunately for those like Ms. Pickler, some in the media miss out on at least some of the grace extended to Madonna. Surely Susan Jacoby and Patricia Cohen have not sought her opinion on the state of education in America or the Bush administration's policies in Israel. Her success is probably in the wrong sort of place to win an interview: she's too countrified for the urbane.

My broader point throughout this whole discussion is that those who condescend to even consider the "stupid Americans" ignore two things. First, that technology, the product of the brightest and best applications of the human mind, has created a paradox: human intelligence creates artificial intelligence, thus permitting humans to become dumber. Memory is now digital memory; computation is done not in the head, but in RAM. Our intelligence has made us stupider, in a sense.

Second, what is ignored is the compartmentalization or specialization of knowledge. Like St. Paul's analogy of the body of Christ, the corporate body of culture and state is made up of various and necessary parts, each doing their various functions. Any state that was all brain, just like a person that was all brain, would not function. A culture that was only arms, or only feet, would end in a quick death. Diversity of knowledge is necessary in the body, as is specificity: Lungs and hearts and pancreas all need to know what is essential for them to function, but they NEED NOT KNOW what the other organs must know.

That is why we all bring our cars to mechanics for repair, and not to Ms. Cohen. We bring our bodies to doctors who are specialists, and we don't care if they know the capital of Turkey. I do not need a lawyer who understands specific gravity; I do not need a hair stylist who can toss out Latin phrases. The man who empties my neighbor's septic tank (mine is always fine) is doing a very necessary job; his work is not one whit enhanced if he knows the difference between a libretto and an aria. In a functioning society, knowledge is distributed according to need.

And that is an interesting point, I think. One can hardly think of a culture surviving or thriving on the strength of the generalist, that person who knows a lot about a lot, but not enough of any one thing to be an expert. Such a well-rounded individual may indeed make a great conversationalist, but beyond that, one can't really find much essential value in the generalist. Imagine a bodily organ that can do a little of everything; imagine a body consisting of only a bunch of generalized organs. Common sense tells us that such a body generally would die quite quickly, and would be a mediocre body at its most vital best. A healthy body NEEDS a diversity and hierarchy of knowledge.

THREATS TO LEARNING

I made mention (here) of the irony that certain liberal thinkers bemoan the demise of academic and intellectual excellence. The irony, of course, is rooted in the liberalism touted by many of America's critics: liberals are devoted to radical egalitarianism and radical individualism. That these two are more often than not in opposition hardly matters. What matters, ultimately, is first that everyone in the classroom (particularly) defines for him or herself what constitutes "achievement," "value," and "purpose;" and second, that everyone ends up at the same level. "Over-achievement" should be a vapid redundancy, but it isn't: over-achievers are indeed often if not always seen as oddities and aberrations to liberal conformity. The goal of education in many liberal minds is the equality of outcomes: every kid on every team gets a trophy.

Learning, then, becomes less about individual greatness and more about bland and comfortable conformity -- where no one gets hurt, where no one stands out. And where no one gets paid too much. No wonder Americans are (allegedly) dumb. They don't want to be envied; and, furthermore, liberal thinkers don't want anyone to envy.

WHY LEARN?

I once talked to a colleague about the reason for learning, and he recalled a teacher of his who inspired his students to learn by appealing to hedonism: You can seduce more women, you can enjoy more of life's Epicurean delights, if you master literature (so you can recite poetry), music (so you may serenade), mathematics and economics (so you can excel in managing large and seductive portfolios), athletics (so you can be heroic and fit), science (so you look progressive), and so on; all for the purposes of securing and maximizing pleasure.

No doubt this appears a better philosophy of learning than mere fiscal ambition or foolish equalizing. But surely it is not the sort of thing one might want to share in public.

This writer, if pressed, would answer that his personal learning is motivated not only by a need for financial security (nor do I believe it off limits to learn in order to get the most out of life), learning is ultimately about overcoming error and deception. It's about seeing what REALLY IS. It's about avoiding the damnation of ignorance, or even revolt. I learn in order to be a more able bodied and able minded person; I learn to improve the lot of others; but I learn mostly because I do not want to fall prey to deception. I learn because I want to be free.

Not that I've achieved clairvoyance. I probably don't see what REALLY IS. But I am trying. At least, I am learning to try.

(I will leave it that this hardly amounts to a philosophy worth sharing.)

Peace to you,

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

The Pursuit Of Knowing: Thoughts On American "Ignorance" (Part 1)

[I imagine this series will have limited interest to most readers. My interest is to explore what strikes me as a condescending attitude about the causes of "American ignorance."]

A few weeks ago I commented, rather hastily, on the thoughts of Susan Jacoby regarding the state of "knowledge" in the United States. To properly understand what follows, readers should read my "Is Knowledge Midwife To Ignorance?"; they should also read Contratimes friend Randall Sherman's related commentary, "What Are You Going To Do With That? Teach?"

In the early 1990s, while I was pursuing an advanced degree in education (personal difficulties interrupted my studies), I conducted a series of sit-down interviews for a major project in a philosophy of education course. My intent was to divine in part why people believe a high school diploma is desirable; but I also wanted to know what people thought was the most important reason to learn anything at all.

My interest in the question of why we should bother to learn was born a few years earlier when I taught in an alternative education program for troubled high school freshmen. Beside run-ins with the law and various behavioral problems, these children were cursed with something seemingly psychological: they had no motivation to learn. In fact, they scoffed at the idea. Learning was, well, stupid.

When I would try to motivate my students, using every dangled carrot I could imagine, I discovered that their resistance was nearly always rooted in monetary facts. Some students would point to Eddie Van Halen or Slash, two hot guitar slingers, and simply state that they too were going to hit the big payday with their respective rock bands. Van Halen and Slash didn't need high school English or American History to succeed, or so I heard. They just needed an agent and a deal. In fact, there was not a student who did not appeal to some seemingly rebellious role model who had, apparently, stopped learning anything from promotion from sixth grade to induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (or success on an NBA basketball court).

Moreover, nearly every student reminded me that they could just do what their "old man" did. I heard how workers at the paper mill or welders in "where my old man works" made $35 to $40 per hour, plus benefits. One day I recall the entire class laughing at me because I was making under $10 an hour: "Ain't no way we're going to college so we can earn 10 bucks an hour teaching in some dopey high school. We ain't listenin' to no college boy. Ahhhaah!"

I have to say, my students had a point. They could (and would) let me babysit them until they were 16, the legal age for dropping out of high school; they could get jobs down at the paper mill or the steel fabrication plant for fairly big bucks per hour without a diploma. And Slash did make more in a month than I would probably make in a lifetime -- and he wasn't making cash by reading lots of books.

In short, when confronted by true resistance to learning, I discovered that I did not REALLY have an answer to that resistance. My students were savvy, savvy enough to know that I could not come up with a decent reason for learning when so much of the culture in which I lived was all too often rewarding -- rather handsomely -- those who did not apparently need to know what I knew in order to succeed. And if I did manage to find a reason, it was usually rooted in some ideal that transcended the secular values of the classroom: I probably would have to make an appeal that approached the religious. Even if I appealed to the pursuit of happiness, my students rendered happiness in terms of money; knowing, as they did, that the rich were not necessarily happy, these students would reply that a welding job would keep them in their Ford F-250s and Friday night beers indefinitely -- which was all they wanted.

MY INTERVIEWS

For my project, I interviewed 12 or 14 people. One was a master chess player who had written a successful spy novel before becoming a defense attorney (he was not an attorney at the time). One was a child of two world-renowned intellectuals who in her own right had become world-renowned, sitting as she did in a very well-endowed chair at a major university. Another was a lawyer who made a very viable run at the state governor's seat; another person had already succeeded as New Hampshire's governor. Two were ministers: one, an Episcopal priest with degrees from Yale and BU; the other, a successful pastor of the area's largest evangelical church. Another was a trained biologist who had chosen to manage a main street grocery. There was a cabinet-maker in the mix, and a stay-at-home mother, a medical doctor, a high school dropout, and a high school valedictorian (before graduation).

I asked each person two essential questions: What is the single most important reason to earn a high school diploma? and, What is the single most important reason to learn anything at all?

All but one answered that the reason a person should seek the highest level of education was to increase his or her earning potential. In other words, the vast majority of people I interviewed, all from various walks of life, connected learning with earning. Only one person, the high school valedictorian, said that the reason he was learning was so he could help ease the suffering of his fellowman (he was hoping to study bio-engineering so he could create better prostheses for amputees).

Even the two members of the clergy reduced learning to financial terms: Knowledge was simply utilitarian. A person learned in order to transform knowledge into cash.

Now, I did not inform my subjects beforehand what I was exploring; I did not want them to think too long about things. I did this to reflect what is quite common, namely, that the reasons for learning are really hardly ever discussed or reflected upon. If I were to ask readers now to explore why they believed learning was important, and then engaged each reader in debate, I guarantee that we would all discover that most of our thoughts are rife with presumptions, with things we never considered.

In the end, my project focused on the fact that American educators have ably formulated a philosophy of education -- a theory of pedagogy and a list of academic standards -- but have failed to even consider a philosophy of learning (why learn). Granted, most students unquestioningly accept the goals of education. But those who don't may indeed be our schools' most honest and astute pupils, refusing to learn for purposes of increasing their earning potential or for some other purely utilitarian end.

And if Americans just think about it for a moment, there are indeed dozens of very dopey people who yearly acquire incredible wealth, fame and status. "Learning" in any traditional sense, especially as it may be defined by Susan Jacoby, does not necessarily translate into success, happiness, power, or financial stability. Unfortunately, too many folks accept the economic, pragmatic idols of the American cult, rendering many of our most noble inspirations mute and unattractive.

Part 2 tomorrow.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.