A few more thoughts Moral Education...
In this "pro and con" exercise given me early in the semester, the exercise begins, "You, now," and then asks the question, " Moral education should...?" On the other side of the page is the note, "You, in ten years," and the response, "Baptist schools do provide moral education ..." The implication, to begin with, is that my view is something I could grow out of into, say, the view of a fundamentalist religion. My immediate response to this is that, while I am a subject as anyone to change, it is my experience that change is directional, that is, toward growth, to use one analogy, or toward light, to use another. This being true, it is therefore, highly unlikely that I will simply change back, that is, depending on which image you like best, simply decay, or close my eyes . The next response supposed I would say "But my way is a more fundamental point of view ...," to which the con would respond, "But religion is the most fundamental point of view..."
This is an interesting enough debate, and I think it will help shed light on something I've hoped to communicate this semester, so I will offer my view of it here. But note that the dissonance between these perspectives can only go so far, for at some point, one side has simply been refuted. Itis important that a paper benefit from the tension between opposing points of view -- but it need not get bogged down in an irresolvable argument.
I think that religion does begin as fundamentally moral in vision, but the problem is, as it
has always been when moral law becomes codified, the incongruence between vision and practice. The vision inside of most religions, whether originating in Jesus, Mohammed, Gandhi, or whomever, is moral, in the deepest sense. But so easily slips into the shallow practice of most relations, which provoke us, rightly or wrongly, to merely behave morally, whether we understand why or not. The difference in this form of moral education-- which, in Socratic terms, seeks to persuade or condition certain thought patterns and behaviors, "if-then beliefs," -- and the form of moral education I'm talking about is that in this form the child-person is not nearly persuaded to behave, but convinced by the development of his or her own reasoning, not simply to believe, but to know the answers to those hardest of questions. In the end we cannot truly know unless we understood from within. The issue is not then, What do we believe is true and good? but, What is true and good? Different in that, without leaders, priests, and saviors to follow, we have only to look to our own and one anther's hearts for the answers. This is what prevents this kind of moral education from degenerating into a system of rules for behavior from which the spirit can be divorced. This is what this kind of moral education deeply spiritual, not merely religious.
This is why it is critical that the Ieamer be guided by his or her own internal navigators, and not directed by external forces to take on certain more or less comfortable views. In this, the vision of such a form of education must hold to the practice, for it disallows interference in the process of moral growth. Which is not to say it disallows interaction; it simply does not designate who is leading who. One could argue that ideas are objectively real, and therefore there for the taking, so need not be passed from one mind to another. ..and you'd be right. But you'd also have to admit that they often are passed from one mind to another in affirmation by words, and thus, while they aren't always taught by interactive learning, they sometimes are, and this is why we must allow education to function as if human beings have all the potential we can imagine, for the sake of those who do. Allowing only interactive intervention means a give and take of learning, whereby we must trust one another enough to guide one another through the complexities that present themselves on the way to understanding anything worth knowing. And in this, it puts its faith in honest communication.
The reason it is called moral education is because it aims at developing the moral reasoning of the learners, not at teaching moral rules, such as fundamentalist religious schools do. In fact, such a form of education is fundamentally opposed to any rules but those imposed by self government, which can be organized by the way, just not by anyone other than the governed, in this case, the students. It stands to reason that rules held for the sake of safety and reasonable order would be upheld by clear thinking students; it is when rules are imposed as structured expectations passed down by authority that they become objectionable to any self-respecting person, who claims the right to do right for the right reason. Likewise, when rules are for the sake of something than the interests of the governed they are going to provoke the resistance of the student body, and rightly so. It is only fair... as well as a good sign that these students are thinking...our stated goal, after all. Rules become truly objectionable when they are implemented for the sake of order at the expense of individual well-being; mainly because order itself is justified as being in the interest of individual well-being, and it is ludicrous to sacrifice the end to accomplish the means. Preserving the status quo, as long as it involves the assumed right of some to unfairly exercise power over others, is not a justified end.
My proposal for interactive moral education is a wish that, just once, for one generation, we would give the preservation of innocence a chance, stop presuming that children need civilizing by process of deindividualization built into the rule-oriented education of most current methods, including the fundamentalist religions. I think, if "moral" be deeply understood, it turns out to be more fundamental because it is actually more moral, in that it respects and listens to the significance of the individual learner as an end in themselves. It is more fundamentally moral because it promotes intelligent autonomy, not unreflective following. By such following, as our current methods promote, rules can as easily lead to evil as to good. Note, Hitler and his Germany. It has been acting without proper regard for the deep and broad consequences of our actions that has gotten us into this environmental dilemma. Our actions from here on should not be based on anything less than deep and impeccable reason. Every action has (in principle) an articulate reason behind it.
Of course, policy matters critically, but in a democratic society, not before the reason underlying the policy has been internalized. I would hope that every person who comes to self evaluation through this method would know by learning its personal significance what this all means in terms of treating students differently. Then we can talk about changes in rules and policies, when we're all talking about something we hold in our hearts, not merely about changing our behavior. I trust that this method of reflection and empathic dialogue is a necessary prerequisite to effective teaching.
We are, as we have frequently been reminded in this class, political decision makers, and thus, powerful in a very profound sense. And this is exactly why I won't proscribe a specific policy, but to say what I have, for I want to allow people to stop acting on reflex and rules, and to question the assumptions underlying these very habits. The thing is, any system or method or way is doomed to failure that is not true to the vision the sparked it. This is why it is critical that such a school not, with good intentions, violate the very principles it espouses. To get at deep education, we need to think in terms of deep-education, we need to think in terms of deep psychology, which is to say, the inside-looking-out point of view of the life-process. Thus, the kind of education which follows from deep psychological principles is founded by empathy on empathy. In other words, on the power of the mind to understand ever more of the multi verse of what there is to know. Such education is highly individualized, and trusts a certain intrinsic drive to learn in the student. The challenge with already indoctrinated students is that they will already be poisoned to some extent by the extrinsic motivators used in the schools of their early education, and will have to unlearn their defenses to learning in the first place. If extrinsic pressures have already pulled the child's of control off center, such that there is a loss of appreciation for knowledge for its own sake, and at worst, what appears to be a resistance to learning in general. I suggest that this is a resistance to "being taught," rather than to learning itself. Self-governed education will thus go through a period of adjustment, which will be longer and harder the more we stray from the vision. Still, I am convinced that such methods, applied to education, could be a key variable toward a more just society.
As far as writing goes, I certainly recognize the need to motivate readers to do something, but I would argue that my method of encouraging the reader to think this through carefully is motivating them to do something. It is, at least for me, the proper use of critical reason. I would violate my own principles of noninterference by extrinsic motivation to write a paper arguing that we should, say, give potential teachers tests to measure empathy and interpersonal listening ability in order to see that children get a getter deal in school, for such a policy change would only manage to provoke people to try to be better listeners for the sake of the job, rather than for its own sake.
It is in keeping with the polity I'm advocating to trust that such institutional changes will follow, if they should, from individual changes in moral psychology, i.e. the reasons behind our choices, i.e. values. I want to work on my own and perhaps others values, not on their behavior.
An example of why it is hard to answer a question such as, What should we do? is that one cannot insulate an ideal school from the world as if it functions independent of other social changes. In reforming education, one might begin at the very beginning with the idea of buildings and time schedules, a fundamental assumption in our system as it is. For instance, home schools with interactive, integrative computer centers and part time, self-directed attendance might be something desirable. However, at this point in time, one certainly wouldn't start here, but could only aim in this direction. Such changes require the simultaneous and synchronized development of the proper technology, as well as the reformation of the work world such that families have the option to stay home with their young. That such things cannot be managed deliberately on a mass scale is not reason to expect that they won't happen in the proper course of time on their own.
This is one reason i can't simply make my writing fit the assignment better: the reason that I'm writing does not call for what the assignment is asking for. Additionally, the form that it would have my argument take is simply not my voice. Believe me, I understand the value of balancing conflicting points of view; how would we have understood Plato if he hadn't used it. But, like Plato, I think of these contrasts as complementary. I certainly am troubled by all the same contradictions between points of view and the groups of people who adopt them as anyone. And I know how compelling and instructive it is when a good writer can take two apparently exclusive perspectives and constructively debate them toward a worthy conclusion. And believe me, if that is the best form for a paper to take, I will use it. I simply reserve the right to make that decision for myself. I cannot simply force what I have to say to fit any form assigned, nor can I simply change what I have to say to do an assignment as ordered, at least not to do an assignment that has critical reason and expression as its end. if I want to provoke people to be critical, I want them to be critical of their own assumptions and reasons for acting, not of each other. That has its place, but it also has its prerequisite in empathic understanding.
Such a method as this interactive kind could, I think sound reasoning proves, bring understanding and resolution to the misunderstanding and conflict that runs rampant in the world. There is misunderstanding that stands in the way whenever any two points of view come into conflict with one anther. That misunderstanding has potential for resolution into complementarity by empathy.
It does not mean to say that "I" have the answers; only that the answers exist in each of us, and if I can find them, anyone can. Some might see it as arrogant, but it is anything but, for humility and equality are its fundamental premises, and communication is it's simple goal.
I realize this assumes an extremely optimistic view of human beings, but I believe this view proves itself to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Hold high expectations for people, and they will live up to them. Of course, human beings need affirmation from one anther to grow, to be inspired to reach for their best, so if we do not offer this positive support, we are unlikely to see its effect.
For instance, I have found that, in this ILS class, I cannot do my best work, in part because I have never received the blessings of those who have the power to give or deny them; I have to be a rebel to simply follow my own instincts. Who knows how it would have gone this semester had I been free to follow and fine tune my own inclinations about these things. I think it would have significantly sharpened my critical ability to be able to do so. Rather, I have been stuck in the task of winning the approval of my TA, who regards my method as wrong and rejects my voice as empty, apparently without even bothering to understand what it is that I'm doing or saying. I say this because condemnation and defensiveness, not questions to help me clarify my thinking and the meaning of my writing, is what my work has provoked. There has been no dialogue that begins from where I stand and goes toward understanding one another, as teacher student dialogues can when they are interactive.
I feel as though I have been treated as though I am nothing but a stereotype throughout this course; as if there are a hundred others like me running around spouting green philosophy, invalidating what I have to say. For whatever reason, the person I've been trying to communicate with has an attitude that such a point of view is ungrounded, and feels the need to argue it down...without ever making an actual case against it.
That this led to some interesting arguments might have reconciled our points of view, but instead has seemed only to make matters worse. For some reason, what I have to say seems to make this person defensive, as if hearing it feels like losing to him, as if understanding would be like giving in somehow. Some people have come to believe that the world is the way it is, and that the degree of alienation in it compels one to keep one's guard up. Then I come along and ask them to let their guard down, and I'm asking too much, it seems. Why trust me? The reason we treat one another at stereotypes is that an attitude which developed usually with regard to an individual becomes generalized toward all members of that group. To the extent that they are threatened by that image, they are too defensive to hear with an open mind. The attitude I face is one of distrust, as if to say that I may be able to fool some less discriminating readers, but I can't fool him ... Time and perhaps some other individual will reach those who see green philosophy this way. There are better things to do with my energy than to fight with those who don't care to be convinced. How much time and energy can one waste on those who don't want to understand what is being said? Especially when there are so many others who do? I have said all I can say. Perhaps he will hear echoes of my words in the voices of other students. For my part, as my advising professor says, I have discovered a class of people who will react defensively to my work, and I shouldn't be surprised -- it proves I have a strong voice. Worse things could happen.
3z8