Education for what, II

I agree so whole-heartedly with Anna’s thought that “social aspects are integral and necessary to the primary purpose of education” (not to mention appreciating her kind comment) that I am tempted to say “yes” and leave it at that.

But that would be a kind of cheating. So, of the dozens of observations and claims that might be appropriate here, I will narrow the field and stick closely to the question of the social dimension of educational purpose, from two angles. I'll try to be brief.

In the first place, we are inherently social creatures, and indeed much of the pleasure we can learn to take in uses of mind is to be found in our interactions with other persons, other minds, both those in the live give and take of the classroom and those we meet in books and paintings and buildings and songs and human products of all sorts. Furthermore—and also, I should like to say, right next door, no, in the very same room—the powers of mind I spoke of assuredly, centrally, include the power of mind to manifest itself in work that is moving to others, the power of mind to frame an argument that persuades another to think or act differently, and so forth. “Power,” in other words, is a quality of human interaction with the world; learning to use the mind with power, then, must include learning to use it in ways that enter into the consciousness and conduct of others.

The second line I want to take today on the social dimension of educational purpose corresponds to the last point, or both of the last points, then—and that is to say that a purpose of formal education is always, somehow, to fit the learner for the world in which she finds herself. I mean this descriptively, and believe it applies to the most odious as well as to the most ennobling, and the most banal, programs of formal education ever conceived—although, generalizations being error-prone as they are, I’m very likely over-looking something in this claim, possibly something important. I look forward to learning this. In any case, the power of the learner—that is, the potential for consequentiality in the learner’s thoughts and actions—is therefore always at issue in formal education. Normatively speaking, the social purpose of education that I subscribe to, specifically, a purpose of public education, is to help learners assume the rights and responsibilities of democracy. That’s a bland formulation, I accept, one that begs more than it discloses, though also useful I think. To liven it up, I’ll subject it to some interpretation. To start, I’d say that “assume” implies “understand,” “take on,” “practice,” and if possible, “welcome.” These I hope begin to give some definition and difficulty (if we take these as tasks for teaching) to the seemingly bland statement. I add: The foundational meaning of democracy is, the people rule. To affirm democracy, then—to assume it, civically, and pedagogically, let’s say—must mean, to claim that “the people,” all of them, are, at base, wise enough, imaginative enough, compassionate enough, just enough to be fit to rule. From this it seems to me a short step to say that a purpose of education in a democracy is to help each child begin to realize in himself, and begin to recognize in his peers, those qualities of wisdom, imagination, compassion, and justice that underwrite the democratic project.