What’s the biggest social problem facing the western culture? Is it poverty and class warfare? Is it overpopulation? Is it economic inequality? Maybe it’s secularization or religion. Perhaps it’s militancy. Not sure what the biggest problem is, but a very big problem has to do with the “polarization of ideas.”
It appears one of the biggest changes in the last 60 years has been the shrillness of debate on almost any subject and an inherent fascism in people’s approach to disagreement.
Most political, social, and intellectual debates now are rife with ad hominem attacks. It is not enough to debate the issues. It is now necessary, It seems, to completely discredit and vilify those with opposing views. Hey, it’s a good way to avoid real issues.
Although in many ways it is impossible to reach ultimate truth (thus agreement), the concept of that impossibility has led many to assert there is no truth and, therefore, “whatever I say it is, it is – for me.” This is different than “my opinion is” and “your opinion is.” The result is that debates are no longer debates, but intellectual and verbal brawls.
It is true that everyone has a worldview through which they filter reality. This “worldview” does not preclude attempts to be objective. Watch an identical news story on CNN and then on Fox. You will clearly see bias in both (yes, both). Watch opposing ads before an election, and notice bias gone crazy. And each side will accuse the other of bias in reporting.
Obviously, this is easy to see in politics. If you are a Democrat, all Republicans tend to be seen as either right-wing fascists, insensitive and rich haves, and just plain literal thinkers (euphemism for stupid dolts). Anyone who disagrees with the so-called elite are merely misinformed and should not be taken seriously. All Democrats are seen as “commie pinko” or just hard-line socialists. And it gets a lot more “impolite” than that.
In discussions of religious positions, you have things happening that are extremes. You have so-called emergent types whose basic position is that differences are not important because all roads lead to the same place. You have groups who will split on almost any distinctive – even an unimportant one. And you have those who reject theism and even deism, positioning themselves as the rational, enlightened ones as opposed to the backwardness, primitiveness, and overall immaturity of any religious belief. This is markedly different than the truth (yes, I said truth) that these are all differing positions – all with equal status as at least worldviews
In education, there are vastly different philosophies on how to educate – especially in government funded schools. There is old math and new math; code based (phonics) vs. meaning based approaches to teaching reading; the role and quantity of testing; and a million other issues. In each case, the people of the opposing viewpoint are characterized as much more than disagreeing. They are wrong, unenlightened, not able to see plain facts, and a lot of other much more impolite things.
There are a number possible explanations for the “heatedness” of today’s debates. For many, the issues are 30 second sound-bites which preclude the in-depth thinking necessary to have a deep understanding of opposing viewpoints. Others are so wrapped up in their post-modern possession of their truth that the only option is to shout out the other person’s own truth. Yet another explanation is that we have all embraced the concept of worldview – consciously or unconsciously – so much that we filter out any potential validity of the other person’s worldview.
The most pernicious explanation for everything mentioned above is this: People tend to surround themselves solely with those they agree with. When everyone in your “idea tribe” think, act, dress, talk, and generally exist identically, you think that little “tribe” is normal and everyone not in that group are, well, at least, not quite as normal. In spite of vast quantities of available information, people cluster – perhaps for security – into idea groups. Safely surrounded in a cocoon of agreement, it is understandable why most debate has degenerated into ad hominem.
If your primary source of the news is Bill Mahar, Ann Coulter, Alan Colmes, or Sean Hannity, you are undoubtedly living securely in your idea cocoon. If you don’t know one person that voted for Bush, or Cheney, or Obama, or Gore, you probably are in an idea cocoon.
There is no question that we all tend to gravitate towards those with whom we agree. The problem lies in the inability to see any other viewpoint in other than diabolical, conspiratorial, or just plain stupid terms.
Now switching into first person mode (with just a bit of a red face).
Since I am not a talk show host, political commentator, journalist, or university tribal, I will use examples from the field of education (my profession for over 30 years) to illustrate.
During the 1950’s we were firmly ensconced in the Cold War which pitted Communist USSR and its satellite nations against the west (USA and western Europe as well as other allies). Part of that Cold War was competition in almost everything, but particularly technology. The USSR beat us into space by launching Sputnik in 1957. This event ignited the “space race.”
Not only did it ignite the space race, but it contributed to virtual hysteria about not measuring up to the Russians. One of the places hit hardest by this was the educational system. We needed to up the ante and produce more scientists.
Two years earlier, a book titled Why Johnny Can’t Read And What You Can Do About It was published. The author presented the U.S. education program as “look-say” like learning Chinese to be at odds with the teaching of reading in the rest of the world (presumably except China) which used a code-based or phonics approach. The book and author ignited a heated debate between code-based teaching of reading to other approaches. The debate – now termed “The Reading Wars” — seems to still be raging.
I was pretty much unaware of this churning as I was under 10 at the time. But I do remember being taught with Dick and Jane and it being primarily a whole-word learning approach. The reason everybody spoofs Dick and Jane is because of the stilted, repetitive vocabulary. This was the direct result of gradually teaching new words.
Many years later, Rudolf Flesch re-emerged in a Parent’s Magazine article making the same arguments. At that time, I was all grown up and working as a reading specialist. Most of the “reading tribe” including me regarded Flesch as an extremist, with an extremist point of view. Some even implied he was a fundamentalist-type in reading. The nation had moved toward phonics and was now moving back. We were all pretty eclectic at the time and many approaches were common. I fancied myself as being eclectic – flexible enough to match the approach to the student.
The pendulum had swung toward phonics in the 1950’s and 60’s and was in the middle of swinging back at the time of Flesch’s article. Unfortunately for Flesch and the schoolchildren of America, the pendulum continued that swing. By the late 1980’s, we were looking at learning to read as a natural extension of learning a language.
Thanks mostly to Noam Chomsky, learning to read was regarded as a natural process that would proceed naturally as learning to talk. This resulted in reading instruction designed to ignite motivation to read in a highly literate environment. Flesch and Chomsky could be regarded and were at opposite ends of the continuum. Both had valid points within their respective worldviews – perhaps not ultimate truth for either.
The Whole Language movement – as the result of Chomsky’s worldview and theory – turned reading instruction into a total meaning-emphasis approach. Reading was regarded as a psycholinguistic guessing game with students “sampling” the page to construct meaning. Although this would be denied by proponents, instruction in phonics moved so far to the periphery that it almost didn’t exist. Reading instruction became literature appreciation. This certainly was consistent with a worldview that reading was a process “hotwired” into children.
When I worked in the mid-1970’s with phonics fading as the predominant approach many teachers were not thrilled. Instruction was scripted, easy to follow, and easy to measure. During the 1980’s instruction was more complex because there were expectations of individualization, grouping, and more – merely quantity-wise – to teach. Whole language-based instruction was “feel-good” instruction for many because it emphasized affect and was plain more fun to teach.
Whole language was a worldview more than a theory. Proponents were absolutely certain of the superiority of this approach not only educationally, but philosophically. It presupposed a highly positive image of humanity eagerly grasping to learn if only the schools would stay out of the way. Debate about it was harsh, very ad hominem, and very I-they.
I never bought into whole language. I always thought it touchy-feeling wish fulfillment that cared little about reading, but more about loving stories and books. From 1988 until the end of the 90’s, I had a permanent wince on my face. Welcome to the minority. Whole language didn’t live up to its promises, spent a lot of time figuring out how not to be accountable for that, and began fading as “Balanced Literacy” took hold. Its proponents of whole language, of course, saw this as a mistake in spite of their dismal results.
Total phonics was extreme; Whole language was extreme; even “Balanced Literacy” was extreme in it pursuit of balance (of course, a reaction to the imbalance of whole language). Total phonics and whole language were so ensconced in their own worldviews – and so highly critical of any other approach and those espousing it – that what would have been a better approach wasn’t visible to either.
Here’s the rub: We are all effected by the predominant worldviews in some way or another. But if we know this, admit this when we’re part of the predominant, and try to look at other worldviews we might see something invisible from within the cocoon. After years of whole language, it pains me to say Rudolf Flesch didn’t look the same to me.
During the period after the turn of the century (for you older foks, I mean 2000), partially because of developments in reading theory, I found myself with the dreaded conclusion I might – want to or not – find myself agreeing with Rudolf Flesch. Had my own worldview changed that much?
As a former educator, I will usually start reading articles critical of American education. I even agree with a lot of the criticism. One of the most virulent critics of American education is Jonathan Kozol. Jonathan and I go way back to college in the 1970’s. No, not personally, but one of his books was required reading in my ed. psych. class. I even agreed with a lot of it – hey, it was the 70’s.
No Child Left Behind came along and I – like most teaching people – objected to its single-source accountability. I even learned Jonathan Kozol also disagreed with NCLB. Could it be happening again?
After two years of NCLB, our district made some changes to attempt to bolster up our lower performing schools. Most of us NCLB — “it’s not fair” and “it’s impossible” – critic types were filled with angst. The changes were difficult to implement, but we saw results
A year or so ago – after our third year of meeting our school-wide percent proficient goal – I thought about Kozol’s writings. The reason: We had been a failing urban school much like those in Mr. Kozol’s writings. We no longer were, mostly because of the pressure placed upon us by NCLB. In fact, our school had beat the odds quite consistently and was even characterized as the flagship school of the district (even though we had the highest poverty level by a large margin). I softened on NCLB and had to admit that , at least for us, it seemed to have been positive. But Kozol had enough issues with NCLB to go on a hunger strike.
We had accomplished this and our innovations were not really as large and brilliant as one would suppose. And no, we didn’t just teach test-taking all day. This lead me to ponder why we weren’t able to do it sooner which also made me wonder if our years of less stellar performance were artificial constructions (worldviews?). This then fed to my curiosity about Jonathan Kozol.
If those “artificial constructions” in our school were typical of what was happening across America, this was a tragedy.
Oh no, it was happening again. I was pretty uncomfortable by the fact I had at least partial agreements with Kozol and Flesch. Rudolf Flesch and Jonathan Kozol were probably polar opposites) – why did I keep getting pushed out of my worldview cocoon?
There’s that worldview again. As I indicate in other blog posts, everybody has a worldview. This worldview colors everything the person knows, thinks or opines. It also colors the way they put facts together.
One of Jonathan Kozol’s books was sitting around school, so I perused it. Kozol had/has a worldview and it ain’t “God Bless America.” But he takes facts, connects them together, and provides conclusions which do stem from the facts. After noting a lot of praise for the educational system in Cuba (I had also heard this in graduate school), it was clear Kozol’s worldview as it regards education in the USA goes way beyond any level of criticism that I could be comfortable with. Who is correct on this is not as important as the idea that I could agree with him on many points and be informed by his perspective,
I’m not going to speculate whether Jonathan Kozol or Rudolf Flesch can see beyond their particular worldviews. But certainly it would be a benefit for all of us to do so.
I will pontificate on the state of reading instruction in a different post, We may finally in that field be able to get past “my theory vs. your theory” because of studies on the brain. That also remains to be seen
No Child Left Behind has – whether wisely or otherwise – seen the need to exert incredible pressure on schools to perform. It holds schools inexorably accountable for results. This is a single-source type of accountability.
In more privileged schools, there are other variables to enhance school performance. In less privileged schools these variables can be absent or negative. This does not – as it has in the past – justify the achievement gap. In 2014, when 100% proficiency is mandated, it is likely most, if not all, schools will be lacking. I suspect Jonathan Kozol would agree and assert NCLB just turned urban schools into failure schools.
It will be ones worldview that will determine how this state of affairs in 2014 is interpreted. If nobody leaves their own worldview cocoon, shrill and acidic debate will follow – unlikely to produce usable results.
The same scenario as that of education could easily be documented in many spheres. The solution isn’t embracing worldview to the exclusion of meaningful consideration of other worldviews. It might be helpful for policymakers to not just hang around their fortress of agreement.
Think outside the box could just as easily be think/exist outside your personal agreement fortress.
Joe Johnston Sr.
Tags: ad hominem, America, approach, brawls, China, class warfare, cnn, debate, Dick, didn, economic inequality, education, instruction, intellectual debates, Jane, Johnny Can, language, Noam Chomsky, overpopulation, phonics, pinko, predominant, Read And, reading, religious positions, Rudolf Flesch, secularization, space, teaching, time, U.S., USA, USSR, western culture, western Europe, whole language, Worldview
Filed under: Education Rants, Random Rants | No Comments »
i
s a stage actor, hence one who pretends to be what he is not, equiv. to hypokr
(nesthai) (see 
Loading ...