It's by The Nation contributor, Alexander Cockburn (who also has a website called Counterpunch ), whose articles I have found interesting in the past. The main reason I bought the book is that it has a list of the top 100 books of the century, and I'm always on the lookout for interesting books. The book itself is pretty good and is divided into 5 subsections: Culture, Music, Art and Architecture, Sex, & Death. The essays are from various sources and most are interesting, a few very much so.I got a couple books off the list to start with and just finished the first one, Deschooling Society by Ivan Illich.
As the title suggest, the main thrust of the essay is to explore what schooling really is and to convince us that it is not only unnecessary, but harmful to society. To be quite honest I am apparently so institutionalized that I had never seriously considered that school could be anything other than benevolent. Sure, there are problems with the way schools are run, with what they teach, and with whom is taught, but with the whole idea of school? Illich starts with the question, how much of what you consider to have learned in your lifetime came directly from school? When I asked myself that question I had to agree that relatively little of what I consider useful knowledge was imparted to me through the institution of school. With this in mind we should consider then what exactly is the role of schools?Illich believes that schools are primarily indoctrination machines. They teach us how to behave in society. They teach us that learning can only be accomplished through schooling. They teach us to value certificates and degrees above actual practical knowledge.
"Everywhere the hidden curriculum of schooling initiates the citizen to the myth that bureaucracies guided by scientific knowledge are efficient and benevolent. ...[It] instills in the pupil the myth that increased production will provide a better life. ...[It] develops the habit of self-defeating consumption of services and alienating production, the tolerance for institutional dependence, and the recognition of institutional rankings."
Schools are also not available to everyone to the same degree and quality. They serve to keep the gap between rich and poor, learned and unlearned open and ever widening. And once you have school those who have been schooled are ever aware of their privilege, and those without of their lack, schooling keeps everyone locked in their positions while at the same time promising opportunities for advancement.
Schools keep secret (or institutionalized) knowledge secret. No one is allowed to skip ahead of the planned path. No one is free to choose their own path to knowledge, or even which knowledge to seek. Mandatory schooling gives children no choice in their own development. It deprives them of what each of us as humans feel is our right: free will. Why are children dehumanized in this way? Why do we pretend that children of 12 and above are unable to form even the most basic of notions of self-interest? Why is it okay to lock these people up in buildings for eight hours a day without regard to whether they want to be there or not? Maybe our answer nowadays is something like, what else do we do with them?
Illich proposes a system of "learning webs." These are systems in which people who want to learn are paired to people who have the knowledge. He envisions some kind of computer database where users could register skills they have and ones they wish to have and which would spit out contact information for meeting to take place. The book was published in the 70s when this might have seemed somewhat complicated but with the web now I don't see why (e:Paul) couldn't program something himself (this of course disregards the digital divide...). To me, it seems that the hardest part would be the necessary paradigm shift away from authoritarian teaching institutions and empowering certificates. Nowadays you can't walk a dog without some sort of license, everything has become institutionalized, subject to some higher authorities guidance.
Illich acknowledges that with deschooling would come many other changes (in fact he believes it is the most important part of any progressive revolution) in society. In utopian fashion he imagines a world where action is valued over making, where living is a matter of people and not objects. I agree that the world he describes is a better place than the material-oriented place we live today, and it saddens me to see the reality that 30 years of "progress" has had on education and culture in general in America. We are pouring more and more money into an educational system that is failing more and more children. We are placing ever more emphasis on the pieces of paper given those who have the access and patience to sit through years of compulsory and voluntary education. We are even saddling university graduates with unprecedented amounts of loans which ensures their direct entrance into the corporate world.
My thoughts used to run towards a more socialistic kind of school, where it was compulsory to a certain degree, than became a choice (at which level both vocational and liberal arts are offered), but remained a service rendered free of charge from the government. But it would remain an institution in and of itself, which now I question. Does learning need to happen only under professional auspices? Is compulsory education a benefit to society? These are my questions now, and I need a bit more time (and maybe some more reading, the next book on my list is called "Growing up Absurd") for my thoughts to settle.
