Institutionalized vs. Individualized Education: “centralization of schools and health care that was part and parcel of the ideology of progress that drove industrial development…that disempowered and disinherited our children.” (OI, Cook, 158) From the time we are first told to line up single file, to that final trek up the graduation isle, our ability to step out of line, that is, our very individuality and deepest freedom, is stifled by the practical methods of institutionalized education. The fact is, we have fashioned an educational structure that herds our young in an age-grade progression that ignores practically everything that ancient wisdom would have us remember about good learning. And the truth that stays true is that the way we educate out young - for whatever good it might do those institutions into which your young learn to fit efficiently – these methods practically insure that most young minds will fail to actualize their unique potentials, unless they develop character enough to challenge the powers that be, while there’s still time to chart their own course. This can be done, as so many intellectual rebels have shown – but it can come at a very high price.
we have too long left the education of our young to institutions, when what they need most they can get best from us and other living human beings who will pass on what they’ve learned.
Free Market Education: Individuality vs. Individualism A good argument can be made that ‘A free man believes in his own responsibility for his own destiny.’ Who would argue with such a claim as this one, so often cited by classical liberals? Not most of us, including egalitarian liberals; perhaps not even anarchists. And yet, it could be argued that “freedom” means more than the free-market liberal is willing to allow, and deserves a more honest evaluation than its chief proponents are willing to give it. This is especially true where the life of the mind is concerned. As egalitarian liberals are critically aware, not all in our present day system of free-market capitalism are free enough that they alone are responsible for the conditions of their lives, for the destiny of too many is not in their own hands, but restricted by the injustices manifest when the free market runs amuck, and gives so much freedom to a few who then threaten the security of the many. As the golden mean would dictate, an excess of freedom is too much of a good thing. None of us should be so free as to be able to threaten the freedom of others. Thus, as attractive as this principle of freedom is from the view of those who can make the best of it, if one looks at it from the underside, from the point of view of those who end up needing protection from what has been called the ‘invisible elbow,’ we can see that there are limits to this assumed right. We also have a right to security, for freedom and security are complementarity. As John Stuart Mill puts it, “one person’s freedom ends where another’s begins.”
Classical liberalism was originally founded on a belief in the freedom and sovereign of individual self-determination, but has unfortunately grown into a system in which the freedom of some infringes on the freedom of others, violating the very principle upon which it was grounded, and the principle of justice as well. Likewise, the egalitarian liberal’s argument, which was founded on a belief in the equality of individuals, but has grown into a system in which equality is taken to mean sameness, rather than fairness. Rather, excellence with regard to these principles means equality of freedom itself, which is justice.
Thus, we need both conceptions of liberalism at work in our system of education, and justice is the principle that can do it. Either form, applied to education by and of itself, cannot help but promote only mediocrity. Whereas working together, classical and egalitarian liberalism create the possibility of education as freedom of thought, development of individuality, and thus, excellence of character. Such would function not so much to provide for one's economic security (although this will be a serendipitous effect) as to provide the kind of freedom one cannot ever have too much of -- the freedom to think, to learn, to understand. It is in the good use of mind and human creativity that the solutions to our environmental, economic and political problems lie.
Regarding the debate between whether free market or egalitarian principles should rule our schools, we can see, again, that both are necessary for justice to obtain. Arguably… the methods of our educational institution are a fundamental cause of the fact that human beings make narrow, rather than enlightened choices. …institutions actually encourage narrow self-interest when they assume it to be the nature of humans to begin with. (Batson, Manuscript, p. 441.) Educational methods that encourage individualism, rather than individuality, condition a sense of narrow self-interest and encourage us to see our fellows as opponents, rather than partners. Too much freedom without enough security compels defensive survival strategies that can easily amount to an over-concern with self, in the narrowest possible sense, i.e. self as opposed to others and environment. We are compelled to act selfishly, lest we lose even our rightful share.
Whereas…
Properly understood, the same education system could please both the classical and the equalitarian liberal, by holding justice as its operating principle, such that everyone has equal freedom. Not equality OR freedom, but both.
it may well be that there is room for lassiez faire principles in education, but at a different level parental choice of schools. Perhaps it is the child’s freedom of choice that we ought to be considering more fundamental. Here is where the “choice” really matters. A method which would hold the source of wisdom to be inside the child, perhaps beneath habits of acceptance and obedience, and would regard teachers and students alike as simply learners. In this conception, excellence would not find itself in competition with equality, contrary to contemporary practice. Rather, this form of excellence would seem to be at the very heart of any truly ideal conception of equality. I feel it is the ambiguity with which we use these terms that allows us to see them as opposed to one another, rather than complementary and necessary to one another. For instance, when we talk about excellence, and consider the classical liberal argument behind our conception of it, we can see that it is freedom about which we speak, the freedom to grow into our highest potentials. In this conception of freedom we cannot mean freedom to infringe upon the freedoms of others, for this would be violating the very principle we espouse. Likewise, when we talk about equality, we do not mean sameness, for sameness implies equal deserts which, in a species that makes conscious choices and thus has moral autonomy, and thus different moral deserts, would provide an unfair fallout. Rather, when we talk about equality we mean fairness, for people have to be free to suffer and enjoy the consequences of their choices, good and bad, lest they discontinue learning altogether. Thus, in a fair world, excellence means equality of freedom itself. These together form a kind of justice (an inside-looking-out kind) that might reasonably be called karma.
Thus, we might hold justice to be among the chief criteria for excellence in education. If treated with fair consideration, which again is not equal as in same, but equal as in fair amounts of freedom, there is no structural reason that every person cannot grow into his or her own best self -- which is not to say that every person will, only that every person can who so chooses. Choice, and its complement, responsibility, are the essence of karmic justice.
What does Suzuki mean when he says 'the way to transcending possessive individualism lies not in the immediate denial of self but rather at the end of a path that leads through the self – the inward way'?
we have too long left the education of our young to institutions, when what they need most they can get best from us and other living human beings who will pass on what they’ve learned.
Free Market Education: Individuality vs. Individualism A good argument can be made that ‘A free man believes in his own responsibility for his own destiny.’ Who would argue with such a claim as this one, so often cited by classical liberals? Not most of us, including egalitarian liberals; perhaps not even anarchists. And yet, it could be argued that “freedom” means more than the free-market liberal is willing to allow, and deserves a more honest evaluation than its chief proponents are willing to give it. This is especially true where the life of the mind is concerned. As egalitarian liberals are critically aware, not all in our present day system of free-market capitalism are free enough that they alone are responsible for the conditions of their lives, for the destiny of too many is not in their own hands, but restricted by the injustices manifest when the free market runs amuck, and gives so much freedom to a few who then threaten the security of the many. As the golden mean would dictate, an excess of freedom is too much of a good thing. None of us should be so free as to be able to threaten the freedom of others. Thus, as attractive as this principle of freedom is from the view of those who can make the best of it, if one looks at it from the underside, from the point of view of those who end up needing protection from what has been called the ‘invisible elbow,’ we can see that there are limits to this assumed right. We also have a right to security, for freedom and security are complementarity. As John Stuart Mill puts it, “one person’s freedom ends where another’s begins.”
Classical liberalism was originally founded on a belief in the freedom and sovereign of individual self-determination, but has unfortunately grown into a system in which the freedom of some infringes on the freedom of others, violating the very principle upon which it was grounded, and the principle of justice as well. Likewise, the egalitarian liberal’s argument, which was founded on a belief in the equality of individuals, but has grown into a system in which equality is taken to mean sameness, rather than fairness. Rather, excellence with regard to these principles means equality of freedom itself, which is justice.
Thus, we need both conceptions of liberalism at work in our system of education, and justice is the principle that can do it. Either form, applied to education by and of itself, cannot help but promote only mediocrity. Whereas working together, classical and egalitarian liberalism create the possibility of education as freedom of thought, development of individuality, and thus, excellence of character. Such would function not so much to provide for one's economic security (although this will be a serendipitous effect) as to provide the kind of freedom one cannot ever have too much of -- the freedom to think, to learn, to understand. It is in the good use of mind and human creativity that the solutions to our environmental, economic and political problems lie.
Regarding the debate between whether free market or egalitarian principles should rule our schools, we can see, again, that both are necessary for justice to obtain. Arguably… the methods of our educational institution are a fundamental cause of the fact that human beings make narrow, rather than enlightened choices. …institutions actually encourage narrow self-interest when they assume it to be the nature of humans to begin with. (Batson, Manuscript, p. 441.) Educational methods that encourage individualism, rather than individuality, condition a sense of narrow self-interest and encourage us to see our fellows as opponents, rather than partners. Too much freedom without enough security compels defensive survival strategies that can easily amount to an over-concern with self, in the narrowest possible sense, i.e. self as opposed to others and environment. We are compelled to act selfishly, lest we lose even our rightful share.
Whereas…
Properly understood, the same education system could please both the classical and the equalitarian liberal, by holding justice as its operating principle, such that everyone has equal freedom. Not equality OR freedom, but both.
it may well be that there is room for lassiez faire principles in education, but at a different level parental choice of schools. Perhaps it is the child’s freedom of choice that we ought to be considering more fundamental. Here is where the “choice” really matters. A method which would hold the source of wisdom to be inside the child, perhaps beneath habits of acceptance and obedience, and would regard teachers and students alike as simply learners. In this conception, excellence would not find itself in competition with equality, contrary to contemporary practice. Rather, this form of excellence would seem to be at the very heart of any truly ideal conception of equality. I feel it is the ambiguity with which we use these terms that allows us to see them as opposed to one another, rather than complementary and necessary to one another. For instance, when we talk about excellence, and consider the classical liberal argument behind our conception of it, we can see that it is freedom about which we speak, the freedom to grow into our highest potentials. In this conception of freedom we cannot mean freedom to infringe upon the freedoms of others, for this would be violating the very principle we espouse. Likewise, when we talk about equality, we do not mean sameness, for sameness implies equal deserts which, in a species that makes conscious choices and thus has moral autonomy, and thus different moral deserts, would provide an unfair fallout. Rather, when we talk about equality we mean fairness, for people have to be free to suffer and enjoy the consequences of their choices, good and bad, lest they discontinue learning altogether. Thus, in a fair world, excellence means equality of freedom itself. These together form a kind of justice (an inside-looking-out kind) that might reasonably be called karma.
Thus, we might hold justice to be among the chief criteria for excellence in education. If treated with fair consideration, which again is not equal as in same, but equal as in fair amounts of freedom, there is no structural reason that every person cannot grow into his or her own best self -- which is not to say that every person will, only that every person can who so chooses. Choice, and its complement, responsibility, are the essence of karmic justice.
What does Suzuki mean when he says 'the way to transcending possessive individualism lies not in the immediate denial of self but rather at the end of a path that leads through the self – the inward way'?