Live data from Hacker News

Deschooling Society (1970)

davidtinapple.com

81–90 of 205 posts

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is echoed by Wendell Berry's The Unsettling of America, published in 1977: "The disease of the modern character is specialization. Looked at from the standpoint of the social system, the aim of specialization may seem desirable enough. The aim is to see that the responsibilities of government, law, medicine, engineering, agriculture, education, etc., are given into the hands of the most skilled, best prepared pe…

But what is the real-life practical alternative? It is makes lovely and invigorating fiction to imagine men who have learned to competently conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, butcher a hog, set a bone, and program a 1973-era computer. But life is short and any art takes long to learn to sufficient depth that you can solve dynamic complex problems. How many more men would have died if Ei…

Your line of questioning goes against the intent of the critique. Which is: while perhaps (but not always) good for the institution and the societal whole, the gains from specialization are at the cost of individual wholeness.

Questioning how shifting the focus from society to the individual would harm the larger whole seems to skirt around the discussion.

Was the unidimensional valor given for Stagg’s meteorological accomplishments a worthy reward for a lifetime of hyper-specialization?

And to the, in my opinion more important, flipside: how does the psyche heal when, perhaps for reasons entirely outside of an individuals’ control, the specialized-man fails the one task they spent a lifetime training for. What happens when you define a man by one function and in the critical moment they fail?

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#82
My god, when I read stuff like this (and some comments here), I think -- only someone who grew up in a society which benefitted from all the supposed ills of education and useful institutions could even have the luxury to write or seriously believe something like this.

This is like saying that because of a small percentage of (yes, I agree) non-ideal outcomes, one should dismantle the entire system that has gotten us to the state we are in today -- which is, to remind many people, a stable, more materially prosperous, more-free-of-conflict time than any in our past. I hesitate to point out some parallels to our current social movements, for fear of being branded a counter-revolutionary.

More people are educated and out of poverty right now than any time previously in history. You would seek to destroy the system that has gotten you here, because some of its imperfections are showing by the very nature of the progress it has produced? Many people around the world would love to have the curse of educational systems that grind down your spirit by providing you textbooks, materials, teachers, computers, and corporate faceless healthcare systems that cruelly save you from life-threatening diseases.

How quickly we let the great become normal and disappointing.

We should fix things that are going wrong, and that expose and remedy the flaws in how the system was designed. It's true that in any system, unintended side effects and people seeking to gain from it start to emerge. And that should be fixed.

But, often the people who lack proper perspective on all that a system has produced (at hard toil and accomplishment of their predecessors) -- usually those who are young and those who have nothing to lose -- are too willing to destroy something that has given them the luxury of thinking it should be destroyed.

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger of confusing process with substance is definitely an interesting point. Everyone can probably think of an example where that's happened. But as someone who learned unix and some CS among other things in public schools in a way that would have been impossible out of anything provided at home I'm definitely reluctant to throw that institution entirely under the bus. And in general I'd think that a forum full…

I think a more fundamental and seldom-agreed-upon question is what constitutes substance in the first place. I would argue that it’s very rare to find an answer that is truly coherent in that it corresponds to reality, is internally consistent, and doesn’t devolve into absurdity (turtles all the way down, etc.). I only know of one, and it’s rooted in the Christian worldview.

Do you mind telling us what that non-recursive substance is?

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#84
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foucault's distinctly french and distinctly intellectual. The two are definitely touching the same elephant, and if you like Foucault you'll probably find something in Illich, but Illich appeals to a less intellectual and more American (religious?) audience that would turned off by -- or simply never get past the first page of -- Foucault. Religious fundamentalist homeschoolers will read Illich and get something out…

Totally, and French intellectuals don't usually go over well with the average reader of HN. But, if anyone finds the discussion in this comment section resonates strongly with them, just reading about Foucault's ideas would be a good place to start. Why limit ourselves to school. :) This is fertile ground for thought and I'm glad to see discussion here. > I wish Foucault had provided a more thorough treatment of scho…

> There's certainly more room to discuss the ways in which schooling has changed as we've shifted from the factory to service and knowledge economies

Exactly. You could literally write Discipline and Punish today, but with education. The body -> mind and everything.

Educate and Punish? ;)

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#85

My god, when I read stuff like this (and some comments here), I think -- only someone who grew up in a society which benefitted from all the supposed ills of education and useful institutions could even have the luxury to write or seriously believe something like this. This is like saying that because of a small percentage of (yes, I agree) non-ideal outcomes, one should dismantle the entire system that has gotten us…

A lot of it is that we focus on a single outcome from the education system and that is the workforce outcome.

The problem is that the workforce outcome is based on competition as only so many are needed, so the best are chosen and the rest... We only need so many doctors and you can have all the schools you want for it and pre-med, but the number of people getting sick is not increasing. Education does not increase demand for highly paid occupations.

We blame the education system for those who don't get into med school ending up in debt when that is just a mathematical reality. We aren't considering all the other benefits of just having a well educated populace.

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a more fundamental and seldom-agreed-upon question is what constitutes substance in the first place. I would argue that it’s very rare to find an answer that is truly coherent in that it corresponds to reality, is internally consistent, and doesn’t devolve into absurdity (turtles all the way down, etc.). I only know of one, and it’s rooted in the Christian worldview.

Do you mind telling us what that non-recursive substance is?

I'm not the one you're asking, but try "He Is There And He Is Not Silent", by Francis Schaeffer.

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#87

My god, when I read stuff like this (and some comments here), I think -- only someone who grew up in a society which benefitted from all the supposed ills of education and useful institutions could even have the luxury to write or seriously believe something like this. This is like saying that because of a small percentage of (yes, I agree) non-ideal outcomes, one should dismantle the entire system that has gotten us…

In this vein, I try to teach my kids how to appreciate how amazing a light switch and water faucet really are.

We have so many incredible things in our lives every day to be thankful for that we take for granted, because they are “normal”.

Perspective is one of the greatest things we can have.

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#88

My god, when I read stuff like this (and some comments here), I think -- only someone who grew up in a society which benefitted from all the supposed ills of education and useful institutions could even have the luxury to write or seriously believe something like this. This is like saying that because of a small percentage of (yes, I agree) non-ideal outcomes, one should dismantle the entire system that has gotten us…

In this vein, I try to teach my kids how to appreciate how amazing a light switch and water faucet really are. We have so many incredible things in our lives every day to be thankful for that we take for granted, because they are “normal”. Perspective is one of the greatest things we can have.

Yes. I found that drawing a basic structure of the way that the water cycle works, and then how the water gets to our house, and where it goes afterward made a big difference for my 7yo to understand. Especially if you start to attach ballpark numbers for how many people are involved in the process just to get you water.

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Families these days can still do it but they don’t because they are led to believe in paying for convenience and get into a cycle that turns everything in their life into something the market provides. The insidious thing is that once you get into debt it is very difficult to break this cycle.

It’s hard to do unless one parent is comfortable with, capable of, and willing to spend years facilitating homeschooling (property near good schools is expensive). Then it’s still incredibly expensive in lost wages (and greater income insecurity/risk, which is even worse in the US due to how healthcare and retirement works, plus it probably ties the other partner to secure corporate jobs for healthcare if nothing els…

One parent staying at home is not synonymous with homeschooling, and there are certainly parts of the country where affordable housing and reasonably average public schools coexist.

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#90

My god, when I read stuff like this (and some comments here), I think -- only someone who grew up in a society which benefitted from all the supposed ills of education and useful institutions could even have the luxury to write or seriously believe something like this. This is like saying that because of a small percentage of (yes, I agree) non-ideal outcomes, one should dismantle the entire system that has gotten us…

> small percentage of (yes, I agree) non-ideal outcomes

I think you are drastically underestimating the prevalence of non-ideal outcomes. I guess it depends on your definition of non-ideal, but if you think something like “reinforce class and racial boundaries” is non-ideal then surely you would agree the non-ideal outcomes are extremely prevalent?

Post reply on HN