Deschooling Society (1970) • Hacker News Board

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#131

Post by 082349872349872 » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

GuiA wrote: post #37

minerjoe wrote: post #2

"Many students, especially those who are poor, intuitively know what the schools do for them. They school them to confuse process and substance. Once these become blurred, a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the better are the results; or, escalation leads to success. The pupil is thereby "schooled" to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fl…

It always pains me greatly to read writers from times past about social issues whose voice rings distinctly true today still. Because it means that understanding the problem is completely uncorrelated to being able to do anything about it.

Under the creakingly ancient system the conservative holds to, man is a wolf to other men. Under the shiny new system the progressive touts, it's exactly the opposite.

(I hope you are either a masochist or don't read many social writers from times past. The Code of Hammurabi indicates social issues 3'700 years ago are similar to those of our day.)

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#132

Post by marnett » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

throwaw4y-plate wrote: post #106

kweinber wrote: post #91

This is an instance of having very compelling writing that describes a problem eloquently.... and then proposes solutions that are disastrous and make things even worse. Educating humanity is difficult. Every solution has its flaws. Giving up on it is worse than every flawed solution, however.

That's basically Marx in a nutshell. Great diagnosis, impractical cure.

Is there a particular “cure” that was recommended by Marx/Engels for addressing their observations on the relationship between capital and labor in mid-19th century industrialist England that you found specifically impractical for the time?

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#133

Post by danans » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

marnett wrote: post #114

throwawaygh wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Illich wasn't against school per-se. There's a recording of a teacher asking how to infuse lessons from deschooling into her classroom and his response is basically "you can't". He's actually a bit rude about it tbh. Illich was opposed to schooling. He would have said he was in favor of "education". Nailing down what that would mean on the scale of a society, aside from learning webs, is a bit elusive. I think Illi…

Most critical theory doesn’t come with a proposed set of workable solutions or policy suggestions. It is important to separate the expectation and allow critique to be just that. Anyhow, the first step to a solving a problem is identifying it; they need not be atomic operations.

That would be fine if the quote didn't include this bit:

"...and their improvement is made to depend on allocating more resources to the management of hospitals, schools, and other agencies in question."

That's where he veers into making a policy recommendation (defunding social institutions), and where he is no longer engaging in critical theory but in pushing a particular policy agenda, therefore opening his critique (some of which I'd even agree with) to practical criticism from people with more skin in the game.

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#134

Post by Aperocky » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

minerjoe wrote: post #2

"Many students, especially those who are poor, intuitively know what the schools do for them. They school them to confuse process and substance. Once these become blurred, a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the better are the results; or, escalation leads to success. The pupil is thereby "schooled" to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fl…

But this is just human. With or without school it's the same.

We shouldn't blame the innate response of natural human emotions on schooling, or anything else.

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#135

Post by AmericanChopper » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

marnett wrote: post #81

afarrell wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This seems like a majorly contrived line of reasoning to me.

A person does not spend their entire lives training to succeed at one particular task on one particular day. The career of a specialist will comprise decades worth of accomplishments and failures, both big and small.

Such a career will also be only one portion of a persons life. If a person were to derive their entire reason for existing from their career, then they’re going to have a shallow and unfulfilling life. No matter whether they specialize or not, or whether they’re successful or not.

The critique that specialists lack the broader contextual knowledge/skills required to apply their speciality also seems invalid to me. Such people are simply skilled ICs, who are instructed on how to apply their skills by others. A highly skilled programmer may not know what programs to write, or what problems they should try and solve. But that’s fine if they work with a skilled product manager who can tell them what to do. Why would it be necessary for all of the roles required to solve a problem to be performed by a single person?

A world without specialists would simply be a world where nothing that requires specialist skills/knowledge can be accomplished. Aside from the obvious problems that would cause, I don’t see how that would actually solve any of the problems that are purportedly being attributed to specialization.

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#136

Post by Aperocky » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:05 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #24

minerjoe wrote: post #2

"Many students, especially those who are poor, intuitively know what the schools do for them. They school them to confuse process and substance. Once these become blurred, a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the better are the results; or, escalation leads to success. The pupil is thereby "schooled" to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fl…

That whole argument is a massive straw-man in service of a libertarian attack on the funding of social institutions like hospitals and schools. I would hope that for consistency, Illich on principle refused to take treatment from Germany's health care system, populated by medical professionals who are the product of the education system he so detested. There is a lot to be critiqued with the way that medicine and edu…

Yep, while the general shortcoming of the population described is true, it's not schools fault.

Humans are not infinitely malleable, in fact, most are not malleable by much. To blame the shortcoming of biological human on institution that tries to correct them (but largely fails to achieve the high bar he's aiming for) is idiotic.

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#137

Post by Schiendelman » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

jessmartin wrote: post #35

minerjoe wrote: post #2

"Many students, especially those who are poor, intuitively know what the schools do for them. They school them to confuse process and substance. Once these become blurred, a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the better are the results; or, escalation leads to success. The pupil is thereby "schooled" to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fl…

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…

Much of that came from Lewis Mumford's works on Technics from the 1930s! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technics_and_Civilization

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#138

Post by marnett » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #127

marnett wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most critical theory doesn’t come with a proposed set of workable solutions or policy suggestions. It is important to separate the expectation and allow critique to be just that. Anyhow, the first step to a solving a problem is identifying it; they need not be atomic operations.

Critique is not helpful if you don't know anything about the feasibility of alternative approaches. "I want a pony!" is not a worthwhile critique of anything, it's merely a fallacy.

While I’ve added the critique to my reading list, I have yet to finish. I cannot speak to your claim the Illich’s critique is based on what he so desires (“I want a pony”), as opposed to describing a phenomenon of individual emptiness as a side-effect of Western institutions.

I agree if his long-form critique takes the structure you claim, it is of poor quality because claiming desires in not critical of anything.

However, I do disagree with your claim the critique alone is not helpful. A harsh, well formed critique is typically the very first pillar in driving change. Expecting identification and resolution in the same piece is asking too much.

I would argue to say that a critique being invalidated because it somehow must include both framing and describing a phenomenon as well as suggesting changes, each weighted by their feasibility in remedying the systemic woes, is much more fallacious.

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#139

Post by vharuck » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

tmaly wrote: post #66

the_other wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My gut feeling is that this falls apart if you try to work in the current Western work culture and rent or pay a mortgage in the current land ownership culture (especially in a major city). The kind, pace and quality of work you would do whilst simultaneously homeschooling doesn’t mesh with the current work culture. I’m fairly sure that if you could successfully homeschool whilst working, you’d have to work/produce m…

I think if we had enough effort put into it like we mobilized with the Manhattan project, we could create some amazing supplemental online material. We have incredible technology and a good understanding of psychology. Why could we not apply some Hollywood approach to creating amazing lessons that are engaging and fun to watch?

I hate to be that guy, but who would pay for it? The barebones and dull textbooks we have now came about because their publishers chase government money.

I'm even less hopeful there's a profit from selling to individuals or homeschool groups.

Re: Deschooling Society (1970)

#140

Post by rcxdude » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

chongli wrote: post #121

bigtechdataeng wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanted to call out that this would probably require most of us to never have existed. Specialization is more efficient at the macro level; this efficiency is why there are 7b humans instead of many fewer.

Yes and this gets into some very difficult questions of population ethics. What is the right amount of people for the world? Is it 7 billion or 70 billion or 700 billion? Or is it 700 million or just 70 million? Increases in economic output, agricultural and industrial, make it possible for more people to survive. If further and further specialization lead to more and more efficiency with ever growing population, is…

Apart from there being a 'right answer', there does appear to be an answer for how many people we will be: the world population is expected to level off at 11 billion or so as global birthrates drop off (mainly as most countries catch up to a transition a few have already gone through). Without substantial changes to our society it seems it will stay there or slowly decline.