The Graves of Academe by Richard Mitchell (best chinese ebook reader .txt) đ
- Author: Richard Mitchell
- Performer: 0-671-63937-4
Book online «The Graves of Academe by Richard Mitchell (best chinese ebook reader .txt) đ». Author Richard Mitchell
In America Revised (Atlantic-Little, Brown, 1979) by Frances FitzGerald, you will find a full and demoralizing description of how school history books come to be the perversions that they are. And more recently there was a little-noticed but illuminating example of the nature of school âlearning materialsâ in a Hilton Kramer essay in The New York Times on the aftermath of the great Picasso retrospective. The schools are just as good at teaching the right appreciation of art as they are at teaching worthy sexual attitudes, and the Picasso show brought forth not only an âeducationalâ film in which the painter was portrayed, surely to the stupefaction of those with some mere information, as an exemplary parent and role model, but also a teachersâ guide in which Picasso is identified as a Fauve playing with bright colors. Thatâs bad enough, but his imaginary enlistment in fauvism is also said to have been a result of his abandonment of experimentation with bright colors. And the cover of the teachersâ guide bore a large âPicassoâ signature superimposed on a lovely photograph of a studio littered with painterâs paraphernalia and handsome canvases, certainly appreciable, but, to anyone having a little knowledge, easily identifiable as the work of Mirïżœ.
As bad as this ludicrous display of ignorance is, there is something worse, which Hilton Kramer probably doesnât suspect any more than you do, and that is that no one in the schools is likely to be troubled or embarrassed by such a display. Well, so what? Looking at Mirïżœâs studio is also a worthy use of leisure, and a niggling attention to trivial details is exactly the kind of elitism that has always inhibited right emotional response. So there. It is in the same spirit that educationists can blithely justify the omission, in an American history text, of any reference to the Civil War.
The making of a schoolbook is analogous to the classroom rap session in which the ill-informed are supposed to reach understanding through the recitation of slogans and notions and by relating to one another. There are differences, however. For the captive children pretending to formulate âgood judgment as to means and methodsâ for the promotion of some worthy social end and developing âhabits of cordial cooperation in social undertakings,â as prescribed in Cardinal Principles, the whole thing is obviously a game. Only a teacher, or an especially dull or cowed student, could take it seriously. But the committees and task forces that devise (you cannot say âwriteâ) those non-books used in the school take their work very seriously indeed. There is profit in it Even prestige. So we can be confident that the âbooks,â and all the other wondrously diverse and cunningly packaged âlearning materialsâ out of which sex education will be taught, will be acceptable to the ideology of educationism both simplified and tendentious, careless of mere information and careful in the elicitation of right response in the cause of social adjustment. In other words, this ânewâ campaign intended to remedy whole hosts of social and personal disorders is different from the old program of education as social manipulation only in extentâand, of course, expense. In both cases, much greater.
As our schools now embark on a massive campaign of sexual rehabilitation for all of American youth, we can naturally expect that they will give it all they have, which means, of course, that what they donât have they wonât give it. What they do have, all they have, is that earnest devotion to the power of suggestion in the cause of social and psychological manipulation, and, although their decades of devotion to pious social adjustment may not be the only cause of our present disorders, they have certainly not prevented them. Now the necessary concomitant of the social adjustment theory of education is the denigration of intellectual discipline, for the sake of which the command of fundamental processes was slighted in Cardinal Principles. Perhaps itis a bit rash, however tempting, to say it is exactly because the schools have been preaching vapid and sentimental sermons for sixty years that hosts of our newborn children and their mothers will become permanent wards of the state, but it is not a bit rash to suspect that widespread and crippling social disorders of all kinds are directly caused by ignorance an thoughtlessness. There is only one remedy for ignorance an thoughtlessness, and that is literacy. Millions and million of American children would today stand in no need of sex education, or consumer education or intercultural education or any of those fake educations, if they had had in the first place an education.
We have seen above, for instance, that what is called intercultural education is a shabby dodge by which students and teachers may be excused from the study of history, anthropology, geography, language, literature, philosophy, and who can count what else. That all makes for a long and detailed discussion, but an equivalent and simpler model of the genesis of fake educations can be seen in the trendy and popular consumer education. We are told that we need consumer education because people are easily duped by misleading advertising, cannot figure out the per-ounce price of ketchup, and imagine that they can live on Twinkies and Coca-Cola. (When teenaged mothers raise their illegitimate children on Twinkies and Coca-Cola, that reinforces the need for sex education and also family living education.) The consumer who is duped by misleading advertising does not need consumer education; he needs to know how to read. The housewife who canât figure out what ketchup costs does not need consumer education; she needs to know how to cipher. And as to those who want to live on Twinkies and Coca-Cola, frankly thatâs their own damn business and we ought to leave them alone, but we might legitimately provide them with knowledge about biology and chemistry first and then leave them alone. Our problems come not from ignorance and thoughtlessness about sex any more than from ignorance and thoughtlessness about ketchup, they just come from ignorance and thoughtlessness, which are preserved and nourished in our schools by those whose profits lie in âsolvingâ the problems they have created.
Literacy is like the kingdom of Heaven. Those who seek it first will find that other things are added unto them. Literacy is not the same as Basic Minimum Competence, but, if we provide an emphasis that seems not to have occurred to the principle-makers, it might indeed be described as the command of the fundamental processes of word and number. The power of number, to be sure, is not usually included in âliteracy,â but it should be, for it is through the ability to command the techniques both of word and number that we can know and think. There is no other way. To say that we can âknowâ or âthinkâ in other ways is to blur those words into uselessness so that rather than making fine distinctions they can point vaguely in the direction of any events at all that seem to take place invisibly in the mind. It is exactly that reluctance to seek or even tolerate fine distinctions that makes the muddled jargon of the educationists what it is, and it is not surprising, therefore, that those who have neglected literacy should look for some presumed other ways of knowing and thinking. This makes it possible to excuse or even to justify the failure to teach literacy by claiming that it doesnât have to be taught anyway. Consider the following, a brief and unfortunately oversimplified piece from The Underground Grammarian:
The Idea of Expressing Feelings In New Mexico
It had to happen. Last month we granted the worldâs first DEd, horroris causa, and now everybody wants one. Two new candidates present themselves, and they are not some silly educationists but bona fide associate professors of English out at what they call Eastern New Mexico University.
Laid-back folk. Arlene Zekowski, Stanley Berne. Hate apostrophes. Rules. Arbitrary. Down sentences! Up feelings expressing! Up Zekowski! Up Berne! Right on!
Or, if you prefer, On right! âWeâre professors of English,â says Berne. (Hm. Shouldnât that be âWere professors of Englishâ?) âWe are concerned with the idea of expressing feelings. Arbitrary rules of grammar prohibit that.â (Cmon, be patient. Sure he talks that tired old grammar, but only because he has to get to we elitists.) Hes wright. No, thats not expressing feelings. He rite! Wordsworth feeling-expressing fouled-up by verb-subject agreement. Shakespeare shot downâDonne undone by nonrestrictive clauses. Whitman comatose from commas.
Zekowski: âGrammar is elitism. I wish to destroy what is dead, lifeless and snobbish.â Hows that for boring from within? âArbitrary sentence structure is logical,â she complains, âbut the brain isnât logical. [How true!] You donât think in sentences. You think in terms of patterns and images. Itâs random association.â And further: âMany advertisements donât use sentences or grammar. They use words to create images.â (Exactly how they use the words she doesnât say. Could be they sprinklem here and there, collage-wise. Cool. Just think. If Das Kapital had been done like that, we wouldnât have all this damn trouble now. Thereâs nothing more dangerous than a bunch of logical sentences, but what would you expect from an elitist like Marx?)
If thereâs one thing we love around here, itâs the classing of icons, and we support the idea of expressing feelings 1,000 percent. Thatâs exactly what we should be teaching these kids. For one thing, itâs a cinch, like playing tennis with the net down, as Frost put it. Another: if we let them in on the secrets of logical sentences and coherent discourse, the ignorant little bastards will go on to take away some of our cushiest jobs, perhaps even as associate professors of English, and that will be the end of lifeless elitism as we know it.
However, while we applaud Zekowski and Berne for their cunning subterfuge, and while we admit that it is the first duty of a DEd to cook up schemes for job security, we cannot give them their degrees just yet. Their plan sounds good off paper, but when they write their grammarless English, we read: âOnce upon a time ago. But now nevermore.â Cute and expressive of feeling, sure, but clogged up with grammar. Maybe next year.
Following the appearance of that article, I heard from many readers who accused me of inventing Berne and Zekowski. How silly. Bernes and Zekowskis are generated spontaneously out of the primordial nutrient broth of
Comments (0)