Herein, I will attempt to offer support for a growing movement in education, one that I believe to be urgent and important. Nothing is intended as an indictment, but just a collection of observations and interpretations. I have nothing but respect for those who came before, and suggest change only because change is occurring around us, and not because we have been shrouded in ignorance. I would caution the reader to consider what I propose, and accept it only after sufficient scrutiny, observation, and experimentation reveals some truth.
Because I'm no poet, I'll start with a quote from a Lebanese Arab, written in 1923. Do you know who it is?:
No man can reveal to you aught but that which already lies half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge.
The teacher who walks in the shadow of the temple, among his followers, gives not of his wisdom but rather of his faith and his lovingness.
If he is indeed wise he does not bid you enter the house of HIS wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind.
The astronomer may speak to you of his understanding of space, but he cannot give you his understanding.
The musician may sing to you of the rhythm which is in all space, but he cannot give you the ear which arrests the rhythm nor the voice that echoes it.
And he who is versed in the science of numbers can tell of the regions of weight and measure, but he cannot conduct you thither.
For the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man.
There is a difference between remembering and learning. Most of those who were charged with the education of my generation didn’t seem to understand this, or else they valued remembering over learning. This was even more true for my father’s peer group and, I imagine, still more so for his predecessors. Remembering is a skill, to be sure, and one with particular value, for it helps us piece things together (we must first survey the pieces). But the product of that construction – understanding – is a different matter altogether. Remembering has specific application, and otherwise has value only during this process of synthesis; information is incidental and almost always has an expiration date. Understanding, however, changes us forever. We change every time we discover new truths for ourselves, passing landmarks on our intellectual journey. In this way, we move past our old selves and our old truths, constructing ourselves anew. But perhaps the most important part of this process is the struggle that comes with assembling new truths. The terrifying experience of departing from the bedrock of previous understanding in order to consider a new, perhaps better picture for our reality, is one that affords us a powerful opportunity. Through fear, uncertainty and setbacks, we persevere, rising up with a new sense of our capacity for risk-taking and problem solving. This is how I suggest we conceive of learning, and the details of this process are as unique as each of us. As a science teacher, I make it my mission to teach students to pursue truth--their own truth--through empirical methods. I work to encourage them to seek truth on their own terms, so as to challenge themselves to take risks and refine their method for approaching problems. My goals for students go far beyond the content of the courses that I teach. I seek to support their personal development; to prepare them for the never-ending barrage of novel challenges that life will most certainly present them with.
This is a strong departure from the educational paradigm of the past century, whose motivating force was principally fear: fear of failure, and fear of our own weaknesses (fear of fear). For this, we have constructed artificial incentives, carrots and sticks, to herd the flock through the sieve of educational content standards. Those who pass through, having demonstrated an ability to satisfy their instructors’ contrived metrics, move on to refine their academic technique, perhaps making a few discoveries along the way, but just as likely gaining little in the way of an expanded worldview. Those unfortunate enough to be caught in the sieve built of someone else’s idea of truth, having little skill in acquiring knowledge about a static reality that is researchable in books, flounder in judgment of their inadequacy, groping for an identity not rooted in information treasure-hunting and “point” acquisition.
It has frequently been remarked that no matter how much money and resources we put into public education, we have little change in the outcome for students. This problem is very complex, and I think reflects a larger social quagmire that most educators are reluctant to address, but I propose that one aspect to the solution is a shift in education (and society) away from a material game of acquisition toward a deeper, more transcendental kind of educational nurturing. I don’t propose that we abandon the idea of knowledge altogether, but rather that we allow knowledge to be the byproduct of peoples’ development and refinement of their techniques for acquiring understanding. I believe that good knowledge is inevitable if we seek truth effectively.
The universe is chaotic. We are floating in a frigid airless expanse full of scorching radiation and giant projectiles. To make matters worse, things are continuously changing; weather is marginally predictable, resources run out, geological events alter the face of the planet, suns explode, the universe expands... Our existence is extremely tenuous, or at least it seems. A natural reaction to this is one that we, in our civilization, embraced some millennia ago: to create safeguards against the forces of change--to remove, or at least reduce, the unpredictability of the natural world. Such has been the charge of technological innovation, and we have had great success, at least in the short-term. We have managed to control the cycles of water in order to maintain a steady supply of food. We have developed ways of tapping into chemical energy stored in the earth to keep our towns lit at night and our homes a comfortable temperature. We have made the necessities of life so consistently available that people have time now to fret over what sort of shoes might go best with their new designer handbag. From our perspective, the chaotic has become rather static, though that is largely illusory. While we work hard to control the natural order, natural systems quietly busy themselves patiently assembling a counter to our structures. Soils deplete, the atmosphere changes, forests turn to desert, and rivers fill with soil. Eventually, all of man’s greatest creations are destined to be overwhelmed by the transitory nature of all things.
There is a major psychological consequence for this shift toward an artificially controlled ideal. In a static reality the universe is knowable; it is possible, in theory, to acquire a grasp of all that is, to become knowledgeable. And we have been at it for some time now. We hold in high regard those who are best at knowing, and feel ashamed of what we don't know. Naturally, our educational system reflects this. We are taught to seek knowledge, operate within a structured, rigid construct, and pursue a particular ideal character, regardless of our individual uniquenesses. We are assessed only on our organizational skills and our mental capacity for, and dedication to, collecting details. Meanwhile, genuine understanding and the tools to acquire understanding are often neglected entirely. With our sense of self now reliant upon knowledge, we cling to our internal libraries of static information, protecting them, occasionally to our detriment.
This mental game of acquisition has a physical parallel; there is a material outcome of this training. In the tangible world, many of us in our society find ourselves obsessed with objects. Our civilization is built on the idea of a life full of stable and secure possessions, cordoned off from others. We are protective of what is ours, and fence in our corner of the world, mirroring the confining and limiting nature of our intellectual reality.
And people face prejudice and discrimination based on the sorts of acquisitions they've made. Most subsets of culture have their own ideal image of success, complete with brand names and unique knowledge. There are private unofficial clubs whose job it is to keep possession of the great many things that have been collected by members over the generations (and some quite official ones). And there are similarly isolated groups who've been disenfranchised out of pursuing these things because the tools to acquire them are either alien or deliberately kept out of reach. Our obsession with things has lead to a modern caste system, maintained, in part, by a mythology that involves transcendence - the American dream.
There is a conflict. We are products of the universe, and the universe is continuously in flux. Our nature is to work within this chaotic sea of change, but yet we fight to control it, and ourselves, and we waste a tremendous amount of energy doing it. We limit ourselves to something static and almost immediately obsolete in the quest to bolster an ego whose foundation is unnatural.
But there is another way. We can choose to value the pursuit of understanding and wisdom, with no judgment for where one might find themselves on that journey. We can live for the journey, rather than comparing ourselves to some artificially constructed end product. We can teach our children the processes by which they might seek understanding, and trust them to find their own truths, in their own way. We can embrace diversity, flexibility, and the artistic nature of exploration.
I heard something beautiful the other day from a professional on the cutting edge of science education. She said, "if you're not comfortable with uncertainty, then you cannot do science. In other words, the process of pursuing truth is an uncertain one, and nothing but your own validation (or that of your collaborators) will guide you along the way. And this gets right to the essence of the matter. Rather than seek a discrete set of information as evidence of success, a scientifically proficient student would simply have a refined method by which she seeks truth. She would be able to state, with confidence, her conclusions, whatever they might be, and include a summary of her uncertainty. If her method were well-developed, then she would likely encounter some quality knowledge, but that knowledge would be almost incidental. What is much more valuable is the ability to distill truth, and to navigate in unknown territory. Her life will almost certainly be studded with innumerable obstacles that she will need to negotiate, and the greater her skill, the more she will gain from each challenge. Further, the kinds of knowledge that she acquires will have a greater likelihood of possessing ingenuity and artistic beauty, as it will reflect every stage of her unique journey.
I talk about science because it is the area that I study. But this is only one road and one skill set. There are paths for all of us, though the unifying idea is the search - the journey. If we honor each person's path through life, we can begin to do something bold and transformative for society.
Many academic-minded students have all but mastered the skills required to achieve success in that environment. They say and do the things required to achieve good marks, which requires significant organization (both physical and mental) and prudent communicative reservation. But these same people might have little or no ability to deal with situations with which they are unfamiliar. A colleague recently completed a linear study of a group of high school kids with which he worked for four years. He gave them a well-developed assessment of reasoning skills (Lawson’s) at the beginning of 9th grade, at the end of 10th grade, and then again at the end of 12th grade. He then compared their results to their grades in science and their overall GPA. Most alarmingly, he found 0.0000 correlation between reasoning skills and GPA for all three assessments. As you might imagine, their GPA also had nothing to do with their improvement in reasoning, and perhaps most surprising, their science performance also had no relationship to either their reasoning or their improvement in reasoning.
Perhaps the best example of what I’m talking about might be art. If you wanted to teach a person how to paint, you wouldn’t necessarily just tell him to reproduce a particular painting. While this might be a useful exercise, it will not help him become an artist. What is more important is that he learn skills: certain sorts of brush strokes, how to use different brushes, how to mix paints in a variety of ways, etc. And when he does something that you didn’t teach him, you wouldn’t scold him, but praise his creativity. You also might want to help him find images that are inspiring, or learn how to connect his technique with emotions or his imagination. The point is that if he is going to create something that has meaning for him, he need only learn a set of skills/processes, and then move forward in his own way. He should practice the creative process until he finds his certain knack for self-expression. And even then he might find that sculpting affords him a more ready avenue for artistic expression. Such is the case with every form of learning. The best thing we can do for students is to help them refine their process, to help them learn the skills that will lead to the development of their own methodology, which will hopefully then be a sound one (if it isn’t working, we can guide refinements). With this equipment their journey can be full of adventure, challenge, and passion, rather than stress, fear, and disappointment.
We are killing our kids’ inherent tendency to explore. Human beings are seekers by nature, and all of us have a unique quest. We explore and figure out, driven by our personal passions toward an unknown destination. We are not meant to compromise, and there is no excuse for compromise in today’s world - where we have the means to satisfy every person’s basic needs such that their minds can be liberated for the journey. I’m not saying that every person is destined to be a monk or wandering mystic. There are some of us who, without external influence, would find ourselves working as accountants or electricians. There is a lot of satisfaction to be found in that work. I’m not even suggesting that this paradigm shift would necessarily alter anyone’s life choices in any significant way. All I’m saying is that it would change the spirit in which many of us do things. We would be driven by the empowerment that comes with making choices for ourselves, rather than by the impression of necessity. Most every challenge in our lives could be an opportunity instead of an inconvenience.
Here are some of the possible changes that would take place in the world if we stopped fighting to control possessions and embraced the journey, the chaos, so as to finally begin working with the nature of things instead of against it: [to be inserted later… the list keeps growing]
I propose that we shift our paradigm. We should move from a vision of the world as discrete, static, and controllable to one that embraces the continuous flow of things. Our innovation has been sorely limited by an insistence on a sessile attachment to what came before (while history is very instructive, it is certainly not deterministic). Our capabilities have been bridled by an artificial perimeter to our reality, and those who have broken out of the box have either been heralded as genius-heroes or crucified for their heretical objection to their contrived containment (or both). We have shown what we can do when we put our minds to something, now the next step of our social evolution is to step back away from our egos, view the world and ourselves as we truly are, and return to the endless flow of change.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Obscenity
Ever notice how popular romantic comedies or otherwise good-spirited entertainment these days almost universally features very wealthy people, often with little explanation as to how they manage to be very wealthy? Also, take a look at similar genre films from the 80s and note how they generally featured middle class folks - blue collar workers or perhaps academics (who don't make much more than blue collar folks). When I was a kid, every one of my teachers had a house, and most of them had spouses who didn't HAVE TO work to support their families, which included, on average, 2 kids. I am a teacher, and a new father. There is no way that I will ever be able to buy a home for my family, unless my wife also works and earns at least as much money as I do. And even then, we could never buy in the communities in which we have lived recently. But let's say that we sacrifice much; we eat frugally, take no vacations, use public transportation, entertain ourselves cheaply or for free, and work a lot of overtime. I'm sure that with careful budgeting we can eventually scrape together enough to buy a modest house, and we might be able to pay it off by the time we're in our 70s or so, so long as we don't try to pay for our son to go to college, or have another kid. In the mean time, what kind of life have we lived? We spent minimal time with our son and enjoyed ourselves even less - save for the joy we get from our work... hopefully. Now, maybe it's not so bleak as it seams. Perhaps I'm just feeling a little overwhelmed right now and I'm not seeing something that will become clear later, but for the time being, it sure seems to me that a person has to sacrifice something, or a lot, in order to have a modicum of security. All I would like is a little house, a reasonable schedule, and no fear of eventual poverty. As it stands, I don't know whether illness, serious injury, banking fine print, or whatever might cast us down into a very uncomfortable situation.
But let me back up a little here. I had a student this year who remarked (I'll paraphrase), "you're a really smart guy. Why are you wasting your time teaching? You don't have to be smart or talented to teach. You could be doing something much better." After some probing, I learned that "better" to him meant "more profitable." This got me thinking... I chose teaching as a career because I love people. I love connecting with people, and I love the idea that I can do something to improve the lot in life for at least a sliver of the population. I am dedicated to teaching, and it is not an easy job. I would say that, on average, while teaching full time, I am 'working' in one form or another, a good 70 hours per week. And there is really no break in the summer, when I find myself reflecting on the efficacy of what I did the previous year, planning new approaches that might improve my results. I can say that I have a passion for the work, and I think that as a result I am fairly effective. Now, my dedication has no financial incentive. Money is an abstraction that has been made a necessity by the structure of our society. It seems that if a person can find something that (s)he enjoys doing and does well, something that society needs done, that they should expect to be able to live a decent life while doing it. The fact that there are many professions for which the compensation is much more modest than teaching, and/or the expectations are such that those folks have no chance of living a balanced, healthy life (my cousin works for John Deere, and is expected to work, high pressure, in the office 12-15 hours/day for his salary), is cause for alarm.
There is a sickness in our "civilization," and we are not the worst off, though we might be the most obscene. Nowhere else is wealth so highly concentrated, and yet the facts of daily life so atrocious for a majority of the citizens. This represents horrendous mismanagement of resources. To make matters worse, many of our best minds are being squandered, either through their application to commit financial crime, or because they are not being nurtured (in the case of some of our brilliant poor). If you grow up in this country in a situation that isn't privileged, the American dream will not likely become a reality. You will find yourself poorly educated, without adequate health care, under-qualified for decent work, and eligible only for ridiculous sorts of loans if you want to invest in yourself or your ideas. The middle class is about dead.
We are heading toward a sad, dark place visited by many societies throughout history on their way toward a brutal self-destruction. Even those who are profiting from this deteriorating arrangement are in danger, and if they think they can insulate themselves with the ever-growing disparity between themselves and the masses, they are delusional. History does not favor injustice. Only by cooperating can people succeed in the long run. Isolation and separation are the tricks of the doomed. Before too much damage has been done, we will have to re-evaluate and re-build ourselves. IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE TO HAVE SOCIAL JUSTICE, A MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING, AND TO DO IT SUSTAINABLY. All we have to do is commit to it. Mainly, those with all the power have to commit to it - a difficult thing considering all that they will have to "give up." I put that in quotes because they will gain so much more, but that which they will gain is not given much value in the current scheme, while that which will have to be given up is highly prized, though without actual value. There is no price tag on human dignity.
But let me back up a little here. I had a student this year who remarked (I'll paraphrase), "you're a really smart guy. Why are you wasting your time teaching? You don't have to be smart or talented to teach. You could be doing something much better." After some probing, I learned that "better" to him meant "more profitable." This got me thinking... I chose teaching as a career because I love people. I love connecting with people, and I love the idea that I can do something to improve the lot in life for at least a sliver of the population. I am dedicated to teaching, and it is not an easy job. I would say that, on average, while teaching full time, I am 'working' in one form or another, a good 70 hours per week. And there is really no break in the summer, when I find myself reflecting on the efficacy of what I did the previous year, planning new approaches that might improve my results. I can say that I have a passion for the work, and I think that as a result I am fairly effective. Now, my dedication has no financial incentive. Money is an abstraction that has been made a necessity by the structure of our society. It seems that if a person can find something that (s)he enjoys doing and does well, something that society needs done, that they should expect to be able to live a decent life while doing it. The fact that there are many professions for which the compensation is much more modest than teaching, and/or the expectations are such that those folks have no chance of living a balanced, healthy life (my cousin works for John Deere, and is expected to work, high pressure, in the office 12-15 hours/day for his salary), is cause for alarm.
There is a sickness in our "civilization," and we are not the worst off, though we might be the most obscene. Nowhere else is wealth so highly concentrated, and yet the facts of daily life so atrocious for a majority of the citizens. This represents horrendous mismanagement of resources. To make matters worse, many of our best minds are being squandered, either through their application to commit financial crime, or because they are not being nurtured (in the case of some of our brilliant poor). If you grow up in this country in a situation that isn't privileged, the American dream will not likely become a reality. You will find yourself poorly educated, without adequate health care, under-qualified for decent work, and eligible only for ridiculous sorts of loans if you want to invest in yourself or your ideas. The middle class is about dead.
We are heading toward a sad, dark place visited by many societies throughout history on their way toward a brutal self-destruction. Even those who are profiting from this deteriorating arrangement are in danger, and if they think they can insulate themselves with the ever-growing disparity between themselves and the masses, they are delusional. History does not favor injustice. Only by cooperating can people succeed in the long run. Isolation and separation are the tricks of the doomed. Before too much damage has been done, we will have to re-evaluate and re-build ourselves. IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE TO HAVE SOCIAL JUSTICE, A MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING, AND TO DO IT SUSTAINABLY. All we have to do is commit to it. Mainly, those with all the power have to commit to it - a difficult thing considering all that they will have to "give up." I put that in quotes because they will gain so much more, but that which they will gain is not given much value in the current scheme, while that which will have to be given up is highly prized, though without actual value. There is no price tag on human dignity.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
A new(?) vision for understanding
Maybe I'm taking it too far, but I've started to suspect that one fundamental piece to many of our troubles is a habit of mind that is essentially a social appendix. That is, a characteristic of our society which was once useful and is now potentially problematic. I'm referring to the industrial mindset, dating back to the 19th century. We are still producing citizens that would excel in an industrial society, but now we have a new environment demanding a new mentality. The age of industry has been replaced with a new era, and it is time to change our way of doing things to keep pace, and to avoid disaster.
During the industrial revolution, we lept ahead of much of the world economically in part because of a wealth of resources, but perhaps more so because of a new approach to business: the factory model. Mass industry brought with it the assembly line, which simultaneously helped us to become a world leader by lowering cost and increasing production, and changed the selection pressure for social success. The blue collar worker was spawned and his temperament was uniquely reliable; his focus especially narrow. He was a specialist of the lowest order (eventually), brilliantly talented when it came to attaching a U-17 flange to a D-90 steel pipe, but knowing little at all about the final product that required this particular operation (along with a multitude of other, similarly specific tasks). His was, ideally, not a questioning mind, but an obedient and disciplined one, with an eye for precision, and a profound stamina. And our educational system both helped to create and maintain this, by adopting a model that emphasized those traits. This was no conspiracy. As with the schools today, teachers, parents, and peers alike wanted for the kids growing up to be marketable as employees, so their model was encouraged.
There were others in society though: executives, politicians, planners - a population unto itself and wholly outside the ranks of the blue collars - among whom innovation, big-picture ideas, questioning, creativity, and individualism was fostered, and strangely it became these few titans whose iconic faces represented the whole of our nation. These free minds carried the baton for America - the land of the free - while the majority, the foot soldiers tasked with the actual building up of our great nation, continued to live a life of intellectual subjugation.
Well times have changed. With the success of the workers rights movement, the titans of industry have exported most blue collar jobs to places where people can be hired to work as drones for as little (monetarily) as possible, while our resources have been depleted or protected and we've had to rely increasingly on cheaper, more plentiful booty overseas. The strength of America has come less and less from our manufacturing sector. We have had to get creative to maintain our standard of living, relying on innovation and cleverness to find new ways to bring in capital. Some have chosen to apply sophisticated algorithms to global financial markets to redistribute perceived resources toward America. Others have gone the route of the great innovators of old, and come up with new and improved technologies that can be exported as ideas to those other foreign manufacturers. But whatever the case, we have started to become a global brain trust. It is still subject to debate as to whether this can carry us.
Regardless of the very ugly past that is responsible for it, our country is blessed now with a fantastic diversity of peoples. The cultural milieu is rich and this confluence of many perspectives lends itself to some potentially brilliant innovation, if only we can find a way to cultivate it. At the same time, those with the means to do so, do all they can to extract revenue from domestic sources: from us. If you happen to be selling something for which you have to create a market, (that is, something that is not intrinsically valuable) it turns out that the most effective environment in which to do this is one where the citizens are isolated from one another. Intimate communities rarely fall victim to one blunder en mass, whereas picked off one by one, an entire population can become a market for something that is fundamentally without value. It is the mentality used by most every predator on the planet: isolate your prey from the group. The relic programmability of industrial workers does wonders for this as well, since repetitive directives leave us wanting without understanding why. Also, it seems to be the case that artificial value can be enhanced by altering the perceived environment toward one in which the product is suddenly more valuable. Such is the case for much of our media, and ironically it is that same media that is charged with creating that environment. Indirect self-promotion through the output of an artificial environment in which that same output is deemed a necessity. I could go on...
All this information is very confusing for someone who has little to no training in either the methods being employed on them or the more general skill of independent evaluation. As has always been the case, the graduate of an industrial-model education is ideally suited to cater to the free-thinking class. But we have largely moved past the industrial era, at least in America. It is time that we create a system that promotes the sort of production that we really need now: ideas. We should embrace our global role as a brain trust, and make it not the odd dropout who generates the next big thing, but tap into that arsenal of perspectives that is our population.
Years of programming have taught people that they should know, that knowing is the standard measurement of a person's worth. This drives a pipeline of pseudo information pumped into the heartland of our country, designed to serve the ego need to be in the know by cramming complicated issues into simplistic boxes. We lap it up because it feels better to have a sense of understanding than it does to be uncertain and skeptical. Religious fundamentalism has a similar origin and appeal. We would be better people if we were to conquer our fear of ignorance so that we can come to grips with the ignorance that we all have and face that terrifying uncertainty. The nature of the world and universe is quite chaotic. Change is the paradigm of reality. As much as we'd like to be able to nail down the now that we're dealing with; as appealing and knowable a static existence is, to know the world is to know change. This, as you can imagine, compounds our ignorance when it comes to 'things,' products. Processes, on the other hand, can get us much closer to understanding, even if we'll never completely 'know.'
I propose that we re-structure society to foster this new collective consciousness. That means that we must change how we think of education. Here is how the evolution might look:
1st pillar: cater to the basic needs of the citizenry. That is, needs for survival (food, shelter, health care). Duh. We have long ago moved beyond a life with perpetual threat of death. Our capacity for production and distribution is such that all people can be served this base level of dignity. There is no excuse for the situation as it stands. This, I acknowledge, is likely the hardest part of my plan. Perhaps we can just start with America here.
1st stage: change the emphasis of schools from product to process, teaching kids how to be creative, thorough, cooperative, and confident (or how to achieve confidence); to pursue understanding rather than knowing. In doing so, people will learn how to get what they need, how to organize their lives and how to acquire information critically. Not to say that information should be made irrelevant. Rather, it should be the framework for teaching critical thought, with skepticism and questioning even of fundamental premises encouraged. The importance of knowledge rather than skill becomes significant only when students begin to specialize, at which point they will need the foundation upon which to build their personal exploration. But early on, through compulsory schooling, the process and skills are far more important than any specific information. They are, after all, flooded with information at all times, and if they don't know what to do with that, then they'll find themselves pawns in a game that they're not aware of.
2nd pillar: cater to the second major human need - connection to one another. This, too can be taught, in schools, and in communities (the two will eventually be seamlessly integrated together). Which brings us to the 2nd stage:
2nd stage: fully integrate education and community to promote social connections, identification with the needs of others, and connection to the history of their fellow citizens. Accomplished initially through total school transparency and open communication, but advancing further by bringing educational experiences to all community members, culminating in the execution of education by all, supported by education professionals who are charged with bringing new and innovative techniques and ideas to the group.
3rd pillar: provide many outlets for every person to express themselves creatively. Teach people that their unique brand of thinking and approaching challenges is valued, and offer as many ways as possible for them to communicate their experience. Not to say that this trumps basic social courtesy, but allow a buffer within which each of us has the freedom and training to share what is uniquely ours.
3rd stage: Our society fully embraces the changing, infinite, and utterly unknowable preferring to pursue understanding through the exploration of processes. Information is relegated to its rightful place as (nearly always) temporary scaffolding that we use to elevate ourselves to a point where we can consider a new perspective and discover the next tower of discovery. This objective of understanding pervades all of society, such that our education, as is the case now (though many of us reject the idea that we're still being educated after a certain age because that is to admit ignorance - see final paragraph), is occurring constantly and productively right up to our death, mutually benefiting everyone in their dual roles as instructors and students.
During the industrial revolution, we lept ahead of much of the world economically in part because of a wealth of resources, but perhaps more so because of a new approach to business: the factory model. Mass industry brought with it the assembly line, which simultaneously helped us to become a world leader by lowering cost and increasing production, and changed the selection pressure for social success. The blue collar worker was spawned and his temperament was uniquely reliable; his focus especially narrow. He was a specialist of the lowest order (eventually), brilliantly talented when it came to attaching a U-17 flange to a D-90 steel pipe, but knowing little at all about the final product that required this particular operation (along with a multitude of other, similarly specific tasks). His was, ideally, not a questioning mind, but an obedient and disciplined one, with an eye for precision, and a profound stamina. And our educational system both helped to create and maintain this, by adopting a model that emphasized those traits. This was no conspiracy. As with the schools today, teachers, parents, and peers alike wanted for the kids growing up to be marketable as employees, so their model was encouraged.
There were others in society though: executives, politicians, planners - a population unto itself and wholly outside the ranks of the blue collars - among whom innovation, big-picture ideas, questioning, creativity, and individualism was fostered, and strangely it became these few titans whose iconic faces represented the whole of our nation. These free minds carried the baton for America - the land of the free - while the majority, the foot soldiers tasked with the actual building up of our great nation, continued to live a life of intellectual subjugation.
Well times have changed. With the success of the workers rights movement, the titans of industry have exported most blue collar jobs to places where people can be hired to work as drones for as little (monetarily) as possible, while our resources have been depleted or protected and we've had to rely increasingly on cheaper, more plentiful booty overseas. The strength of America has come less and less from our manufacturing sector. We have had to get creative to maintain our standard of living, relying on innovation and cleverness to find new ways to bring in capital. Some have chosen to apply sophisticated algorithms to global financial markets to redistribute perceived resources toward America. Others have gone the route of the great innovators of old, and come up with new and improved technologies that can be exported as ideas to those other foreign manufacturers. But whatever the case, we have started to become a global brain trust. It is still subject to debate as to whether this can carry us.
Regardless of the very ugly past that is responsible for it, our country is blessed now with a fantastic diversity of peoples. The cultural milieu is rich and this confluence of many perspectives lends itself to some potentially brilliant innovation, if only we can find a way to cultivate it. At the same time, those with the means to do so, do all they can to extract revenue from domestic sources: from us. If you happen to be selling something for which you have to create a market, (that is, something that is not intrinsically valuable) it turns out that the most effective environment in which to do this is one where the citizens are isolated from one another. Intimate communities rarely fall victim to one blunder en mass, whereas picked off one by one, an entire population can become a market for something that is fundamentally without value. It is the mentality used by most every predator on the planet: isolate your prey from the group. The relic programmability of industrial workers does wonders for this as well, since repetitive directives leave us wanting without understanding why. Also, it seems to be the case that artificial value can be enhanced by altering the perceived environment toward one in which the product is suddenly more valuable. Such is the case for much of our media, and ironically it is that same media that is charged with creating that environment. Indirect self-promotion through the output of an artificial environment in which that same output is deemed a necessity. I could go on...
All this information is very confusing for someone who has little to no training in either the methods being employed on them or the more general skill of independent evaluation. As has always been the case, the graduate of an industrial-model education is ideally suited to cater to the free-thinking class. But we have largely moved past the industrial era, at least in America. It is time that we create a system that promotes the sort of production that we really need now: ideas. We should embrace our global role as a brain trust, and make it not the odd dropout who generates the next big thing, but tap into that arsenal of perspectives that is our population.
Years of programming have taught people that they should know, that knowing is the standard measurement of a person's worth. This drives a pipeline of pseudo information pumped into the heartland of our country, designed to serve the ego need to be in the know by cramming complicated issues into simplistic boxes. We lap it up because it feels better to have a sense of understanding than it does to be uncertain and skeptical. Religious fundamentalism has a similar origin and appeal. We would be better people if we were to conquer our fear of ignorance so that we can come to grips with the ignorance that we all have and face that terrifying uncertainty. The nature of the world and universe is quite chaotic. Change is the paradigm of reality. As much as we'd like to be able to nail down the now that we're dealing with; as appealing and knowable a static existence is, to know the world is to know change. This, as you can imagine, compounds our ignorance when it comes to 'things,' products. Processes, on the other hand, can get us much closer to understanding, even if we'll never completely 'know.'
I propose that we re-structure society to foster this new collective consciousness. That means that we must change how we think of education. Here is how the evolution might look:
1st pillar: cater to the basic needs of the citizenry. That is, needs for survival (food, shelter, health care). Duh. We have long ago moved beyond a life with perpetual threat of death. Our capacity for production and distribution is such that all people can be served this base level of dignity. There is no excuse for the situation as it stands. This, I acknowledge, is likely the hardest part of my plan. Perhaps we can just start with America here.
1st stage: change the emphasis of schools from product to process, teaching kids how to be creative, thorough, cooperative, and confident (or how to achieve confidence); to pursue understanding rather than knowing. In doing so, people will learn how to get what they need, how to organize their lives and how to acquire information critically. Not to say that information should be made irrelevant. Rather, it should be the framework for teaching critical thought, with skepticism and questioning even of fundamental premises encouraged. The importance of knowledge rather than skill becomes significant only when students begin to specialize, at which point they will need the foundation upon which to build their personal exploration. But early on, through compulsory schooling, the process and skills are far more important than any specific information. They are, after all, flooded with information at all times, and if they don't know what to do with that, then they'll find themselves pawns in a game that they're not aware of.
2nd pillar: cater to the second major human need - connection to one another. This, too can be taught, in schools, and in communities (the two will eventually be seamlessly integrated together). Which brings us to the 2nd stage:
2nd stage: fully integrate education and community to promote social connections, identification with the needs of others, and connection to the history of their fellow citizens. Accomplished initially through total school transparency and open communication, but advancing further by bringing educational experiences to all community members, culminating in the execution of education by all, supported by education professionals who are charged with bringing new and innovative techniques and ideas to the group.
3rd pillar: provide many outlets for every person to express themselves creatively. Teach people that their unique brand of thinking and approaching challenges is valued, and offer as many ways as possible for them to communicate their experience. Not to say that this trumps basic social courtesy, but allow a buffer within which each of us has the freedom and training to share what is uniquely ours.
3rd stage: Our society fully embraces the changing, infinite, and utterly unknowable preferring to pursue understanding through the exploration of processes. Information is relegated to its rightful place as (nearly always) temporary scaffolding that we use to elevate ourselves to a point where we can consider a new perspective and discover the next tower of discovery. This objective of understanding pervades all of society, such that our education, as is the case now (though many of us reject the idea that we're still being educated after a certain age because that is to admit ignorance - see final paragraph), is occurring constantly and productively right up to our death, mutually benefiting everyone in their dual roles as instructors and students.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
community part 83
Thought: One of the major issues facing education (and indeed society) these days is the change away from the local, small-scale, community focused citizen to the large scale, specialized, professional citizen of the world. The inclusion of millions into one's extended 'circle' invevitably leads to a decrease in personal/shared responsibility in most, and lends itself to a sense of individualism permissible or even justified by anonymity and isolation (people don't have to commit to you so your relationships decrease in intimacy, and you don't have to consider how you're affecting them as much). A foundation of all productive enterprise is social, and intimate relationships with others is what determines our degree of social satisfaction.
We are incredibly motivated by our social interactions, and indeed when we look at many of the great historic figures touted for their skill and effect towards large scale peace, they are all people who found ways to feel intimately connected to ALL people.
Another thought loosely on the same vein: The standards for employment in our society need to change. 40+ hour work weeks are not sustainable, and don't serve to maintain healthy communities. Communities require communication; channels should remain open and be perpetuated such that all members of the community can feel connected to one another. The fatigue that results from long hours "on the clock" works against this.
Empowerment is also essential. The spirit of a community withers without a strong emphasis on the arts, such that creativity can become an integral component of everything that takes place. Only then can people feel perpetually fulfilled. Balance, communication (connection), creativity; the 3 pillars of strong community.
We are incredibly motivated by our social interactions, and indeed when we look at many of the great historic figures touted for their skill and effect towards large scale peace, they are all people who found ways to feel intimately connected to ALL people.
Another thought loosely on the same vein: The standards for employment in our society need to change. 40+ hour work weeks are not sustainable, and don't serve to maintain healthy communities. Communities require communication; channels should remain open and be perpetuated such that all members of the community can feel connected to one another. The fatigue that results from long hours "on the clock" works against this.
Empowerment is also essential. The spirit of a community withers without a strong emphasis on the arts, such that creativity can become an integral component of everything that takes place. Only then can people feel perpetually fulfilled. Balance, communication (connection), creativity; the 3 pillars of strong community.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
What is it all for
We, almost all of us, work and strive toward some end. We struggle to achieve some...thing(s).. goals; visions of what the future should look like. But what do we get in the end? Is the struggle worth it? Is our vision of ourselves one that brings anything meaningful?
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately. No... I've been doing a lot of .. not thinking lately. Soul searching maybe. Seeking sounds better. And this particular chapter began with these questions. It's taken a while, but I believe that I just had a breakthrough and that I now have something to say about the subject that's worth sharing:
Too often these visions of our own future are cluttered with unnecessary details. When we work with things - honing our skills, developing talents and such, we tend - at least in the circles that I run in - to get lost in those things. That is, we lose sight of the actual good that those skills can provide. It's easy to do, because the real value of things has nothing to do with those things at all. [I have to be careful here, as these thoughts are difficult to express in a way that is sensical - let me try to come up with an example] It is so easy to think that the purpose of say, mowing a lawn, is to have good looking grass. It is easy to think that designing a classroom lesson is expressly for conveying knowledge. It's easy to think these things because it just makes "sense" that you do something so that you might have something to show for it. Well, I'm here to announce, to whomever is ready to hear it, that that is not why you do something.
When we are TRULY LIVING, everything that we do, we do for the art of it. Many of us are not truly living... most of us at any given moment.
Whether we know it or not, we are beings in pursuit of artistic expression - in all forms.
Each action, done right, is itself a priceless art form.
True art is life acknowledged by itself.
Life, artistically performed, is a gateway to all of the beauty in the universe.
That gateway exists inside every one of us, and inside every thing, and inside every action, should we choose to see it.
No choice is above or below any other.
No thing is above or below any other.
All is perfect and beautiful.
This is true love (forgive me for some sentimentality here) - unconditional and unlimited, and we are all capable of this ACT.
This is the only act that has any payoff in the end, and there are infinite roads to it.
Nothing is a mistake, there is just doing art or learning to do art.
And, to make matters... better, we will all live art eventually, even those who seem farthest from it. It is inevitable.
When we fail to see this beauty, we are waiting... not living. I am guilty of waiting for almost the entirely of my life. I believe almost all of us are. There may have been a few who were/are fully immersed in life - divine ones. But all of us have that experience from time to time. We are all occasionally completely present in the universe, and in those moments we are, too, divine.
I believe we should devote ourselves to living artfully. I feel that the best choice we can make is to embrace whatever choices we make and exist completely in them.
I think that all of us are infinitely more than we give ourselves credit for, and that regardless of what it might look like, we can all achieve more than any THING could ever amount to.
If this makes no sense, perhaps this idea is too soon for you. All real truths are at least somewhat paradoxical.
This is the most truthful thing I think I've ever said.
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately. No... I've been doing a lot of .. not thinking lately. Soul searching maybe. Seeking sounds better. And this particular chapter began with these questions. It's taken a while, but I believe that I just had a breakthrough and that I now have something to say about the subject that's worth sharing:
Too often these visions of our own future are cluttered with unnecessary details. When we work with things - honing our skills, developing talents and such, we tend - at least in the circles that I run in - to get lost in those things. That is, we lose sight of the actual good that those skills can provide. It's easy to do, because the real value of things has nothing to do with those things at all. [I have to be careful here, as these thoughts are difficult to express in a way that is sensical - let me try to come up with an example] It is so easy to think that the purpose of say, mowing a lawn, is to have good looking grass. It is easy to think that designing a classroom lesson is expressly for conveying knowledge. It's easy to think these things because it just makes "sense" that you do something so that you might have something to show for it. Well, I'm here to announce, to whomever is ready to hear it, that that is not why you do something.
When we are TRULY LIVING, everything that we do, we do for the art of it. Many of us are not truly living... most of us at any given moment.
Whether we know it or not, we are beings in pursuit of artistic expression - in all forms.
Each action, done right, is itself a priceless art form.
True art is life acknowledged by itself.
Life, artistically performed, is a gateway to all of the beauty in the universe.
That gateway exists inside every one of us, and inside every thing, and inside every action, should we choose to see it.
No choice is above or below any other.
No thing is above or below any other.
All is perfect and beautiful.
This is true love (forgive me for some sentimentality here) - unconditional and unlimited, and we are all capable of this ACT.
This is the only act that has any payoff in the end, and there are infinite roads to it.
Nothing is a mistake, there is just doing art or learning to do art.
And, to make matters... better, we will all live art eventually, even those who seem farthest from it. It is inevitable.
When we fail to see this beauty, we are waiting... not living. I am guilty of waiting for almost the entirely of my life. I believe almost all of us are. There may have been a few who were/are fully immersed in life - divine ones. But all of us have that experience from time to time. We are all occasionally completely present in the universe, and in those moments we are, too, divine.
I believe we should devote ourselves to living artfully. I feel that the best choice we can make is to embrace whatever choices we make and exist completely in them.
I think that all of us are infinitely more than we give ourselves credit for, and that regardless of what it might look like, we can all achieve more than any THING could ever amount to.
If this makes no sense, perhaps this idea is too soon for you. All real truths are at least somewhat paradoxical.
This is the most truthful thing I think I've ever said.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
A political rant
A response to a "tea party" advocate who complained about our spending and our taxation, claiming that taxation hurts the economy and national debt hurts the economy. That seemed like a contradiction to me and I couldn't help myself. As always, I invite any comments:
The debt problem is bipartisan. The most expensive periods in our recent history were overseen by republican administrations. Not to say dems do anything much better (we're still spending like fools), but the answer isn't republicans. Don't let the "tea party" propaganda convince you of that. They don't offer a real solution. Your own statement is a contradiction, which makes sense because it's their talking point. You can't complain about our debt AND taxes. Taxes is how governments raise money to get out of debt. There's no solution there. Our economy isn't dependent on us spending so much as it is on us profiting from other countries' resources (and our own, though those are less profitable because we insist on some reasonable level of compensation and responsibility for the extraction). That imperial profit scheme is reliant on corporate multinationals, which the government needs to tax in order to pay for our services. That's how it has worked, more and more, for the past century, as we have switched from our domestic resources to those of other countries. Which is why we're in these expensive wars with no end. Which is the real reason why we're in debt. The imperialism game has gotten really expensive lately, which is to say, we're losing the game lately. What we need is a real revolution. Grass roots. Transformation of our society on an individual and community level. We need to seek domestic sustainability, fiscal sustainability (and, by default, environmental too), and turn to our innovation as the source of international relations and exchange. America needs to become the brain trust that it can be and has been in the past. No more petty fruitless bickering with the likes of Glenn Beck and Limbaugh antagonizing and drumming up irrational fear. Trust one another, at least locally, and lean on one another so that we can be more effective, like voltron.
The debt problem is bipartisan. The most expensive periods in our recent history were overseen by republican administrations. Not to say dems do anything much better (we're still spending like fools), but the answer isn't republicans. Don't let the "tea party" propaganda convince you of that. They don't offer a real solution. Your own statement is a contradiction, which makes sense because it's their talking point. You can't complain about our debt AND taxes. Taxes is how governments raise money to get out of debt. There's no solution there. Our economy isn't dependent on us spending so much as it is on us profiting from other countries' resources (and our own, though those are less profitable because we insist on some reasonable level of compensation and responsibility for the extraction). That imperial profit scheme is reliant on corporate multinationals, which the government needs to tax in order to pay for our services. That's how it has worked, more and more, for the past century, as we have switched from our domestic resources to those of other countries. Which is why we're in these expensive wars with no end. Which is the real reason why we're in debt. The imperialism game has gotten really expensive lately, which is to say, we're losing the game lately. What we need is a real revolution. Grass roots. Transformation of our society on an individual and community level. We need to seek domestic sustainability, fiscal sustainability (and, by default, environmental too), and turn to our innovation as the source of international relations and exchange. America needs to become the brain trust that it can be and has been in the past. No more petty fruitless bickering with the likes of Glenn Beck and Limbaugh antagonizing and drumming up irrational fear. Trust one another, at least locally, and lean on one another so that we can be more effective, like voltron.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
morality of profit
Consequences of Achieving the American Dream
I worked for a moving company once. It was in my early 20's, I'd just moved to Anchorage, Alaska, and it seemed like a solid source of income for the summer. This place had a bunch of young misfits boxing up and delivering people's earthly belongings. They were a fun group, but perhaps the most memorable acquaintance that I made was with a soft-spoken, middle-aged, black man named Jerry. Over the course of the summer, information about Jerry gradually leaked from my co-workers. As it turned out, this unassuming guy had kept his nose to the grindstone, double-shifting as a mover and long shoreman for 30 odd years, even started his own little freight company, and had amassed a small fortune.
Years earlier, I had worked in Sun Valley, Idaho, helping to facilitate a weeks-long banquet for some of the wealthiest people in the world. There, the annual Allen and Company retreat was a much anticipated event. Locals lined up to catch any drippings that overflowed from the cash cornucopia rolling through town. I was one of those - living off the fat of kings. I began to wonder what events or choices had brought these rich people to their position in life and later learned of some of the atrocities that their respective business operations had lead to. I grew suspicious of the very wealthy, a mindset that remained for years. And then I met Jerry. I began to see that the circumstances that lead to financial success were not so fixed or rigid; that acquired resources need not come at a heavy cost to others. More importantly, I learned to empathize with the profiteer. I saw how people often feel entitled to wealth when the sweat of their labor stains every dollar. Before that summer, I thought of profit quite negatively, but Jerry was irresistibly respectable. He was meagerly educated, but he was hard-working, cautious, gracious, and frugal, and he was going to retire soon, a wealthy man. I wondered if some of the Allen and Company group had had a similar experience. I wondered whether their wealth began with hard work and deserved success; if the adverse fallout of their transactions might go unnoticed by them for some other, justifiable reason, or if I had been right all along - that the pursuit of profit can blind us from the real and complete effects of our actions. Finally, I wondered whether any of them, from Jerry, with his humble success story, to the billionaire CEOs in Sun Valley, had ever stopped to consider what their actions said about their own personal character, or if they had simply started down a path and eventually lost sight of their larger purpose, like so many of us do. Our American mythology is riddled with tales of pioneering individuals who face remarkable odds and battle their way to a life of plenty. The imagery conjured up in these stories is often of overcoming external obstacles with perseverance - the competitive spirit. It has become standard American dogma to espouse competition as synonymous with freedom - we are feisty after all. In America, we have the freedom to "make it" by carving out a big slice of the pie. But nowhere do the stories go further, describing the consequences of achieving the American dream.
Asked whether profit is moral, and I immediately think about a wresting of resources (taking slices out of the pie). Clearly, there are some who feel that profit is as natural as breathing; that even discussing its morality is a nonsensical or wasted exercise. Others find the idea of profit repulsive, on the grounds that profiting creates both 'winners' and 'losers,' while all people are entitled to certain human dignities which are inevitably denied to some who happen to be on the wrong end of the exchange. And then there are those who fall in the middle, claiming that perhaps some profit is fine so long as all people are assured the opportunity to live in relative safety and comfort. I don't wish to debate this particular issue. I see plenty of examples of individuals from all over this spectrum. Rather, I feel that there is a deeper issue, one that underlies any discussion of the morality of wealth creation and distribution: the issue of context. If we are to analyze the morality of profit, we must understand the value system that brings about profit in the first place, since only in a system of shared values can we agree on what is moral.
Profit is the byproduct of competition, so this is really about the morality of competition. Since morality is measured against one's value system, it would serve this discussion to describe the values associated with the competitive model. I will attempt to outline the values underlying both ends of the spectrum, from "profit is absolutely and always moral" to "profit inevitably leads to humanitarian atrocities."
In the extreme case of absolute free-market competition, which moralizes virtually any profit, the requisite values are harsh and divisive. Atop the list is individualism. In the absolute pursuit of profit, each individual is responsible for his/her personal outcome, and should not expect others to contribute to his/her success unless it serves those individuals as well. Further, in order to prevent any cooperative opposition, one is rewarded for isolating others from one another. Next, since all wealth is derived, directly or indirectly, from natural resources, natural resources must be considered commodities. Also, in order to prioritize personal competitive achievement, one must think only in time frames shorter than one or two human lifetimes.
In absolute competition, internal exchanges of resources tend to be cyclic - passing from hand to hand and eventually back again - or else pile up conspicuously in the hands of the most successful individuals. Acquisitions from afar, on the other hand, serve the dual function of being both less noticeable and more favorable for local citizens. Separating from distant people also helps to justify their losses as the inevitable outcome of competition, and helps to alienate them. Separation from others, once again, supports the competitive model.
One of the most highly touted values associated with absolute free-market competition is that everyone has an equal opportunity. According to the model, an individual's success is determined by their choices. Poor people are poor because they made bad choices. This value is debatable since it assumes that the differences between peoples' achievement is even a point of discussion. An alternative is the assumption that individuals simply have variable abilities and thus, one's outcome is the product of their intrinsic 'worth.' In any case, there must be some justification for the disparity that results from competition.
From what I was able to gather during my months with Jerry, I would have to say that despite his success in profiting from people's need to transport goods, this list of values is far from his own. Rather, I think he might identify with the equal opportunity and individual responsibility values, but not necessarily the resources as commodities or imperialism values. Such is likely the case for most Americans, who might subscribe to some of these values, or at least variations of them. As far as the Allen and Company billionaires, I imagine that perhaps a few of them would identify with this entire list of values, or else their choices might point to them, even if they consciously claim otherwise. Instead they might use the classic "it's just business" justification for any contradiction between their stated values and their professional choices.
As a teacher, a member of a socialized institution, I find myself surrounded by individuals whose values are quite contrary to those from the competitive model. While there is certainly a spectrum of teachers, and there is even a strong element of competition embedded in our academic institutions, there seems to be a significant tendency toward non-competitive values for which virtually no profit is moral. I will call this the communal or cooperative model, and attempt to describe the values associated with absolute cooperation.
First and foremost, the communal model emphasizes cooperation and connection, even with distant peoples. Communities, as systems of individuals, function best when each member contributes to the good of the whole, and the more inclusive the whole, the greater the body of talent/resources on which all can draw. Cooperative behavior, as we have seen to great effect in our industrial society, can lead to incredible efficiency. Also highly valued in this model is sustainability. Since the communal mode focuses on the well-being of the group, all decisions must consider the long-term consequences for the community. Perhaps the backbone of the communal/cooperative model is the idea that all individuals have equal inherent worth despite varied circumstance or abilities. In order to work for the common good, one must value all members of the community equally. As soon as a person starts to value themselves above or below another, competitive values emerge. Further, in this model no one person or thing can truly be considered independent of the whole.
The only examples of this sort of value system that I'm aware of are in cases with aboriginal peoples, and even then I'm almost certain that they contend with nearly perpetual occurrences of individuals violating these values. In order to maintain this system, everyone must sacrifice a degree of their autonomy, which is a lesson that doesn't come easily to most people and certainly doesn't jive with the traditional American attitude.
Whether or not either of these ends of the spectrum is feasible, I would challenge the reader to consider where they stand. One of the real freedoms that all of us have is the freedom to choose our own value system, which is what makes moral arguments both extremely complicated and often very heated. I wonder, however, whether many of us ever stop to consider the implications of our values. I know that in my case, values arose quite passively, as the product of both my upbringing and my life experiences. I imagine that for many this is also the case - circumstances bring about beliefs. But we are not prisoners of our circumstances. We have a choice. I suggest we take a moment to figure out where we stand, whether our choices agree with that stance, and whether our values reflect our best self.
I worked for a moving company once. It was in my early 20's, I'd just moved to Anchorage, Alaska, and it seemed like a solid source of income for the summer. This place had a bunch of young misfits boxing up and delivering people's earthly belongings. They were a fun group, but perhaps the most memorable acquaintance that I made was with a soft-spoken, middle-aged, black man named Jerry. Over the course of the summer, information about Jerry gradually leaked from my co-workers. As it turned out, this unassuming guy had kept his nose to the grindstone, double-shifting as a mover and long shoreman for 30 odd years, even started his own little freight company, and had amassed a small fortune.
Years earlier, I had worked in Sun Valley, Idaho, helping to facilitate a weeks-long banquet for some of the wealthiest people in the world. There, the annual Allen and Company retreat was a much anticipated event. Locals lined up to catch any drippings that overflowed from the cash cornucopia rolling through town. I was one of those - living off the fat of kings. I began to wonder what events or choices had brought these rich people to their position in life and later learned of some of the atrocities that their respective business operations had lead to. I grew suspicious of the very wealthy, a mindset that remained for years. And then I met Jerry. I began to see that the circumstances that lead to financial success were not so fixed or rigid; that acquired resources need not come at a heavy cost to others. More importantly, I learned to empathize with the profiteer. I saw how people often feel entitled to wealth when the sweat of their labor stains every dollar. Before that summer, I thought of profit quite negatively, but Jerry was irresistibly respectable. He was meagerly educated, but he was hard-working, cautious, gracious, and frugal, and he was going to retire soon, a wealthy man. I wondered if some of the Allen and Company group had had a similar experience. I wondered whether their wealth began with hard work and deserved success; if the adverse fallout of their transactions might go unnoticed by them for some other, justifiable reason, or if I had been right all along - that the pursuit of profit can blind us from the real and complete effects of our actions. Finally, I wondered whether any of them, from Jerry, with his humble success story, to the billionaire CEOs in Sun Valley, had ever stopped to consider what their actions said about their own personal character, or if they had simply started down a path and eventually lost sight of their larger purpose, like so many of us do. Our American mythology is riddled with tales of pioneering individuals who face remarkable odds and battle their way to a life of plenty. The imagery conjured up in these stories is often of overcoming external obstacles with perseverance - the competitive spirit. It has become standard American dogma to espouse competition as synonymous with freedom - we are feisty after all. In America, we have the freedom to "make it" by carving out a big slice of the pie. But nowhere do the stories go further, describing the consequences of achieving the American dream.
Asked whether profit is moral, and I immediately think about a wresting of resources (taking slices out of the pie). Clearly, there are some who feel that profit is as natural as breathing; that even discussing its morality is a nonsensical or wasted exercise. Others find the idea of profit repulsive, on the grounds that profiting creates both 'winners' and 'losers,' while all people are entitled to certain human dignities which are inevitably denied to some who happen to be on the wrong end of the exchange. And then there are those who fall in the middle, claiming that perhaps some profit is fine so long as all people are assured the opportunity to live in relative safety and comfort. I don't wish to debate this particular issue. I see plenty of examples of individuals from all over this spectrum. Rather, I feel that there is a deeper issue, one that underlies any discussion of the morality of wealth creation and distribution: the issue of context. If we are to analyze the morality of profit, we must understand the value system that brings about profit in the first place, since only in a system of shared values can we agree on what is moral.
Profit is the byproduct of competition, so this is really about the morality of competition. Since morality is measured against one's value system, it would serve this discussion to describe the values associated with the competitive model. I will attempt to outline the values underlying both ends of the spectrum, from "profit is absolutely and always moral" to "profit inevitably leads to humanitarian atrocities."
In the extreme case of absolute free-market competition, which moralizes virtually any profit, the requisite values are harsh and divisive. Atop the list is individualism. In the absolute pursuit of profit, each individual is responsible for his/her personal outcome, and should not expect others to contribute to his/her success unless it serves those individuals as well. Further, in order to prevent any cooperative opposition, one is rewarded for isolating others from one another. Next, since all wealth is derived, directly or indirectly, from natural resources, natural resources must be considered commodities. Also, in order to prioritize personal competitive achievement, one must think only in time frames shorter than one or two human lifetimes.
In absolute competition, internal exchanges of resources tend to be cyclic - passing from hand to hand and eventually back again - or else pile up conspicuously in the hands of the most successful individuals. Acquisitions from afar, on the other hand, serve the dual function of being both less noticeable and more favorable for local citizens. Separating from distant people also helps to justify their losses as the inevitable outcome of competition, and helps to alienate them. Separation from others, once again, supports the competitive model.
One of the most highly touted values associated with absolute free-market competition is that everyone has an equal opportunity. According to the model, an individual's success is determined by their choices. Poor people are poor because they made bad choices. This value is debatable since it assumes that the differences between peoples' achievement is even a point of discussion. An alternative is the assumption that individuals simply have variable abilities and thus, one's outcome is the product of their intrinsic 'worth.' In any case, there must be some justification for the disparity that results from competition.
From what I was able to gather during my months with Jerry, I would have to say that despite his success in profiting from people's need to transport goods, this list of values is far from his own. Rather, I think he might identify with the equal opportunity and individual responsibility values, but not necessarily the resources as commodities or imperialism values. Such is likely the case for most Americans, who might subscribe to some of these values, or at least variations of them. As far as the Allen and Company billionaires, I imagine that perhaps a few of them would identify with this entire list of values, or else their choices might point to them, even if they consciously claim otherwise. Instead they might use the classic "it's just business" justification for any contradiction between their stated values and their professional choices.
As a teacher, a member of a socialized institution, I find myself surrounded by individuals whose values are quite contrary to those from the competitive model. While there is certainly a spectrum of teachers, and there is even a strong element of competition embedded in our academic institutions, there seems to be a significant tendency toward non-competitive values for which virtually no profit is moral. I will call this the communal or cooperative model, and attempt to describe the values associated with absolute cooperation.
First and foremost, the communal model emphasizes cooperation and connection, even with distant peoples. Communities, as systems of individuals, function best when each member contributes to the good of the whole, and the more inclusive the whole, the greater the body of talent/resources on which all can draw. Cooperative behavior, as we have seen to great effect in our industrial society, can lead to incredible efficiency. Also highly valued in this model is sustainability. Since the communal mode focuses on the well-being of the group, all decisions must consider the long-term consequences for the community. Perhaps the backbone of the communal/cooperative model is the idea that all individuals have equal inherent worth despite varied circumstance or abilities. In order to work for the common good, one must value all members of the community equally. As soon as a person starts to value themselves above or below another, competitive values emerge. Further, in this model no one person or thing can truly be considered independent of the whole.
The only examples of this sort of value system that I'm aware of are in cases with aboriginal peoples, and even then I'm almost certain that they contend with nearly perpetual occurrences of individuals violating these values. In order to maintain this system, everyone must sacrifice a degree of their autonomy, which is a lesson that doesn't come easily to most people and certainly doesn't jive with the traditional American attitude.
Whether or not either of these ends of the spectrum is feasible, I would challenge the reader to consider where they stand. One of the real freedoms that all of us have is the freedom to choose our own value system, which is what makes moral arguments both extremely complicated and often very heated. I wonder, however, whether many of us ever stop to consider the implications of our values. I know that in my case, values arose quite passively, as the product of both my upbringing and my life experiences. I imagine that for many this is also the case - circumstances bring about beliefs. But we are not prisoners of our circumstances. We have a choice. I suggest we take a moment to figure out where we stand, whether our choices agree with that stance, and whether our values reflect our best self.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)