education

Good article, WV.

Both Dewey and Morris were amazing thinkers, though I probably lean more toward Morris overall in outlook . . . I think he’d be comfortable calling himself a “libertarian socialist,” which is the closest label to my own views, if I have to take one . . . but he also used just “socialist,” or “communist,” or “anarchist-communist” at times.

Have mentioned the book before, but to me, it’s a must-read for leftists. And it’s short (to help the time-stressed) — too short, in my view, cuz it was excellent and I wanted more. The author’s focus is on the Paris Commune of 1871, which was a profoundly important event for Morris . . . and several other left-anarchist thinkers in the book, especially Elisee Reclus and Petr Kropotkin, along with Morris.

Dewey was an American pragmatist, so I can see him thinking we should educate based on what’s doable here and now, but as the article says, radically expanding our imaginations was key for both men . . .

This passage debunking erroneous definitions of “utopian thinking” is key as well. IMO, leftists are doing the political right’s work for it when they glibly bash that expansion of the imagination, that search for a better formation of society by using “utopian” as a slur. Marx did this at times, too, and he shouldn’t have. It’s a misunderstanding of the project.

Neither Morris nor Dewey ever contended that utopia is an ideal fixed-state society of perfection, or that it could promise unalloyed happiness and a colorless
end to history. On the contrary, utopia is a process the outcomes of which cannot be guaranteed and, therefore, the role, for example, of fate, suffering, and tragedy in human affairs must be taken into account.

From this point of view utopian thinking is neither an exercise in futile dreaming nor is it nostalgia for a world or theoretical system that has been lost. Instead, utopian thought aims at what Ruth Levitas refers to as the imaginary reconstitution of society and it is best understood
as method. Thus, utopianism is less concerned at the theoretical level with specific an education
in conceiving alternative modes of life—imagination as hypothesis rather than as the provision of static blueprints.

In this respect, an evident experimentalism and
lack of dogmatism marks out their understandings of experience. As approached by Morris and Dewey the utopian process, as a matter of course, acknowledges the
contingent, the prosaic, the tentative, and the provisional in human affairs. In words that I think both Morris and Dewey would admire, utopian experience and education can be said to be crafted from “things with which [we are] familiar, simple things . . . recognizable as the things touched by the hands during the day . . . All
drawn with admirable simplicity and excellent design — all a unity —.” These words express a common attitude that marks their respective approaches to utopianism and utopian education.

Quick general comment:

To me, if we can’t radically expand the imaginary of every single kid in America during those formative years, it’s simply never going to happen for most. Not under capitalism. Once they move into the job world and become a cog in the machine, become commodities themselves, in search of other commodities to consume, fight over, fight against, etc. etc. it’s too late. And society has basically committed mass child abuse.

There is no better time to open their minds to the endless possibilities of better worlds, through art, music, literature, philosophy, etc. etc. . . . as we also teach them math, science and critical thinking skills. And all of this can be integrated holistically into teaching how to imagine wildly different forms of Being, and wildly different foundations for Being.

Of course, under capitalism, that’s not allowed. Cuz, if kids actually grew up believing “anything is possible” then they’d reject capitalism outright, and the powers that be know this. Which is why they’re so busy telling kids via all means possible that “anything is possible” within the extremist, soul-crushing and extremely narrow confines of the capitalist system. As long as they paint by the numbers they can do “anything” pre-approved. “Lean in and go for it!! Ye future entrepreneurs (cogs in the machine)!!”

Mackeyser wrote:

Well, all that philosophizing is fine and well, but what about my conundrum???

I assume you’re referring to which school you sent your own kids to, the arts school or the regular public school. This from me is some free wandering within the general confines of the same topic.

This to me is always a personal decision. In my view we rightly support public schools by paying for them, and we support them out of principle. I am not for using those public funds to support private schools of any kind. That’s even in the individual instance, Mack, like yours, where particular local issues make it a difficult choice. Maybe there are some alternative ways to think of this, ones that don’t hand the ball and the game to religious and right libertarian special interests?

In terms of the adequacy or inadequacy of any given public school, at the level of principle, that to me is always a local issue. Conditions aren’t always the same. Both my kids did absolutely fine in public schools and one had special medical conditions involved that directly impacted learning. Different schools have different issues with special needs kids. That changes, I assume, from district to district and state to state.

My view is that we simply cannot afford as a society to make public school funding optional in any way shape or form that robs public schools of their general mandate. That’s on top of the fact that the people who have taken over the charter school movement are basically asking us to fund directly religious schools. That is completely unacceptable.

Way back when, in a previous century, I attended a jesuit prep high school. In retrospect, in spite of being at the time a troublesome and generally half-hearted student, I like what they offered. But I would never endorse using public money to support that school. And that’s even granting that in my case anyway there was no religious orientation directing the curriculum—it was just a secular school under the jesuit banner. Even given that, they crossed a line by being identified with a religious orientation, and to me that line has to be absolute IMO.

.