|
by Marion Brady
Published in Phi Delta Kappan Feb 1993
In human affairs, means tend to become ends. Running-the-hospital activity
(a means) gradually replaces helping sick people (an end) as the
hospital's main goal. "Wake up. It's time to take your sleeping pill."
Running the post office (a means) becomes more important than delivering
the mail (an end). "Letters with incorrect zip codes will not be
delivered." Running the army (a means) eventually replaces defense (an
end) as the military's primary objective. "Fill out this form in
triplicate and present it to the duty officer for first approval. Then
report to . . ." The sick require care. The mail must go through. The
enemy must be kept at bay. Disturbers of the peace must be punished or
isolated. God must be pleased. To these ends, humans create
problem-solving procedures. But a strange thing happens. Maintaining the
procedures soon becomes more important than solving the problems. In The
Evolution of Civilizations, Carroll Quigley argues convincingly that this
process, sometimes called institutionalization, is a major factor in the
decline and disappearance of whole civilizations. People who have had
extensive dealings with bureaucracies are not likely to be surprised by
Quigley's contention.
The confusing of means with ends plagues education no less than other
institutions--most insidiously in the area of curriculum. At some time
during the elementary years, probably not far beyond the crayons and
scissors stage, the curriculum begins to take its form not from a
thoughtful analysis of what the young need to know, but from the
traditional academic disciplines. The content of instruction may not at
first be formally labelled as biology, political science, physics, or
economics, but it is from specialized studies such as these that the
content is derived.
The disciplines began as means, and they have become ends. Now, in most
classrooms, the reality the disciplines were designed to illuminate is of
less consequence than the history, vocabulary, methodology, and procedures
of the disciplines themselves. Even those who are most aware of the
inadequacies of specialized studies--the interdisciplinarians--do not
reject them. They know that human experience is ill-served by attempts to
make it fit within the boundaries of isolated studies. However, instead of
going back to human experience (the real thing) to look for fresh
approaches to its description and analysis, they continue to tinker with
the disciplines, convinced that there must be some way to bolt them
together to make them do what they are supposed to do.
Despite their nearly universal use as organizers of education, the
traditional disciplines are not the best available tools for teaching
about reality. If we looked at them critically, we would see that they are
poor material from which to build a general education curriculum. They
ignore vast and important areas of knowledge. They give instruction no
overarching aim. They have nothing to say about the relative importance of
various kinds of knowledge. They do not give students a mental framework
for organizing and relating what they are taught. Because they cannot be
made to integrate with each other, they fail to disclose the systemic
nature of reality. In the workplace and in certain other contexts, the
benefits of specialization are demonstrable. In general education, the
specialization necessitated by a slavish reliance on the disciplines is
counterproductive. In fact, "discipline-based general education" is an
oxymoron.
I will point out an alternative to the disciplines as a basis for
organizing general education. (I say "point out" rather than "propose"
because we already know about and use the alternative. However, we are not
generally conscious of our everyday approach to categorizing experience
and therefore have not taken formal steps to systematize it.) What I will
be describing is simple--so simple that many will consider it foolish--yet
it can provide students with a comprehensive model of reality, allow them
to organize their thinking about themselves and the world around them
thoughtfully and deliberately, and give them ways to deal successfully
with matters far more complex than can be dealt with when reality is
marked off according to the familiar disciplines.
First, let me offer some preliminary observations. I have said that the
alternative to the traditional disciplines is simple. For that very
reason, some scholars will refuse to take it seriously, believing that
nothing so straightforward could be worthwhile. Others may find the
alternative so familiar they will be unable to think of it as a structure
for disciplined study. Still others may see in the approach a threat to
the disciplinary specialization they find so comfortable and useful. (I
remind them that what I am describing is a basis for a general education
curriculum--a comprehensive guide to reality. The validity of the
traditional disciplines is neither being threatened nor questioned.
Specialized study will always play an important role in education, just as
more detailed regional maps are useful in conjunction with those providing
a global perspective.)
As I noted above, one consequence of the attempt to build a curriculum
from fragments of the disciplines is the lack of an agreed-upon,
overarching aim. I propose such an aim: survival. Let us select what is to
be taught by measuring its probable contribution to human survival.
Is the study of the origin of the universe essential to human survival?
No. Is the study of ancient Mesopotamia essential to human survival? I
think not. Should algebra be part of the human survival curriculum? Again,
no. I am not arguing that quantum physics, ancient history and algebra are
not important or that they should not be taught. I am saying that these
specializations, the other specializations presently being taught, and the
many others yet to be discovered do not belong in the general education
curriculum.
Perceptive scholars in all fields can point out ways in which their
disciplines contribute to human survival. But mere contribution is not
enough. With so much to do, with so little time in which to do it, and
with so much at stake, we surely have no alternative but to make the core
of the curriculum that which is essential to survival. All else should be
elective, to be pursued by those with aptitude and interest.
What do we need to know in order to survive? There are five kinds of
essential information.
First, we need to know about our physical environment. The world that
sustains us, both natural and human made, must be understood--not
everything about it, but that which without question bears on survival.
The list of topics to consider might look like this: Location,
configuration, climate, resources, constructions, wealth, tools, clothing,
symbols, toxins, sounds and smells, and art and artifacts.
This component of a general education discipline could be assembled by
geographers, biologists, geologists, linguists, historians,
meteorologists, technologists, physicists, architects and educators. These
matters should be studied, year after year, at ever-increasing levels of
complexity. Students should explore them in the contexts of their
classrooms, schools, neighborhoods, and regions; in the context of their
native society as it once was, is now, and as it could become; and in the
contexts of other societies near and far whose actions could bear on their
fate.
Language, mathematics and graphics skills should be developed and used as
they are needed. They should not be treated, as they often are now, as
mere games having little to do with the real world.
Second, we need to know about the humans who occupy these physical
environments--not about their acquired cultural traits, but about their
inherent characteristics and capabilities. This aspect of the discipline
could be designed by physical anthropologists, demographers,
physiologists, biologists, psychologists, and educators. The curriculum
should include population figures, age distribution, sex ratios, and
inherent characteristics and potentials.
Once again, students should study these matters at ever-increasing levels
of complexity, examinining them in terms of those who occupy their
classrooms, schools, neighborhoods, and regions; in terms of members of
their native societies as they once were, are now, and as they could
become; and in terms of other societies near and far whose actions could
bear on their fate. Once again, skill development should be an integral
part of instruction, flowing naturally from the task at hand.
Third, we need to know what states of mind underlie human action. This
aspect of study is concerned with ideas, beliefs, values and assumptions
about matters such as time, space, nature, causation, physical reality,
the supernatural, self, others, the good life, acceptable action, the
purpose of existence, and directions of change. This component of the
curriculum could be assembled by intellectual historians, cultural
anthropologists, philosophers, linguists, artists, theologians,
psychologists, sociologists, and educators.
These kinds of ideas--cultural assumptions--are the adhesives that hold
societies together. Nothing we can know about ourselves or other
humans--indeed, nothing we can know--is more important. Ideas, beliefs and
values are the wellsprings of action, the foundations of all cultures, the
drivers of all histories. Whereas traditional general education may
include the other curricular components thus far described, it all but
ignores the study of the deep-seated ideas that bind together groups of
humans, explaining their histories, their present actions, and their
probable future directions.
Fourth, we need to know how assumptions and beliefs manifest themselves in
human behavior, particularly in patterns for work, worship, education,
making decisions, owning, communicating, controlling behavior, exchanging
wealth, socializing, play, residency, status, defense and aggression,
maintaining societal boundaries, expressing emotion, maintaining
population, aesthetic expression, social service, and distributing
goods/services. Sociologists, economists, cultural anthropologists,
political scientists, social psychologists, educators, linguists, and
historians could cooperate in selecting and organizing the content of this
aspect of the curriculum.
These four lists suggest about 50 instructional emphases. Each of these,
in turn, can be broken down into any number of subtopics. For example, in
the component of the curriculum having to do with assumptions and beliefs
underlying human action, one focus of study is "the self". Of course, this
single includes many topics, the study of any one of which could occupy
students indefinitely. Consider the following series of questions.
Back To Top
Back To Articles
|
