We have a serious problem on this blog. Many times in numerous posts have I read the words "individuality" and "individual achievement" used to describe a goal toward which students should, ideally, strive (or be guided). Another issue that has been raised, is the question of whether we are capable, in an evolutionary context, of creating a system of education that doesn't require the herding of "pigeons," such that one's goal would inevitably be one of either dominating the pigeons in one's vicinity, or of being one of the few to break free of the educational stranglehold placed on the "pigeons" in the first place. I'll address our pigeonhood later.
The problem with individuality, and my feeling, can be stated as follows: how are we defining "individual achievement," and how does our definition fit into the greater cultural context? Ah, but this brings us to another problem! Once we've operationally defined "individual achievement," we won't be able to compare our educational system as easily to those of other countries (assuming that individuality is even considered to be an important aspect of the culture in question); we will no longer be able to bounce around the globe like a wanna-be chameleon on an educational pogo stick. We'll be confined to our own country and our own set of cultural values to work around; not those of other nations. Wow. What a thought.
So let's get that taken care of, just for the sake of making some headway here, and pursuing my argument further (because believe you me, I am headed somewhere with this): Individuality/Individual Achievement (assume that they are synonymous in that one cannot exist without the other) can be defined as the extent to which the individual develops and pursues his/her personal interests (including interests both academic and Darwinian) within and eventually without of an academic setting. If anyone has a problem with this, then I invite you to respond to the post and by all means, chew me out beyond recognition.
Given that definition, let's move on to this "pigeonhood" everyone's been raving about. I'll shoot straight for the jugular here, and take on the question of what's wrong with having "pigeons." So, what's wrong with a society that embraces a class of pigeons? We need them don't we? Sad though it may be, we truly do need our pigeons, it seems...
Someone raised this argument during the discussion today and I had too many problems with the logic behind it to start arguing the person in class. The question of whether pigeons (the poor, or the blue collar working class) are necessary, ties, very handily, directly back to our evolutionary capacity to educate. A previous blogger (somewhere above here, I'm assuming) posed the question of whether, given the necessity of having pigeons in a society, we were evolutionarily capable of properly and fairly educating our young. Well, to start, there is no necessity for a pigeon class. In fact, as a person who considers himself fairly well-read in evolutionary biology, I feel safe making the claim that we should avoid the formation of a "pigeon class" wherever possible. Stay with me here.
The very process of evolution, itself, on a cellular level, functions on the basis of altruism and self-sacrifice among cells; that is to say that each individual cell of any given organism does not operate solely on self-value and "individualism," so to speak. It's commonly understood, instead, that if a cell can make a sacrifice for the sake of another cell that will result in greater gain to the organism as a whole than it will a cost to the cell, itself, it will make the sacrifice. The same, of the evolutionary process, is true of the organisms themselves, including humans.
Take, as a brief example, the Fire Ant (the Fire Ant standing in place of the cell and the species as a whole standing to represent the organism of which the cells make part). This is a species of predatory ants that travel in massive, flowing hordes, devouring anything they happen to wash over while making their rounds among the forest floors. Now, say, for instance, they cross a snail. The first ants to attack the snail will become entrenched in, and begin to suffocate in, the snail's residual slime. Eventually, of course, this defense mechanism is moot and the poor little snail is overpowered and devoured, but there's still the problem of the few ants stuck and dying in the slime. Before vacating the site, the other ants will rush the slime, and selflessly rescue their trapped kin. Clearly this is at some cost to them, as it puts them at risk of getting stuck, and it gives them later pick of the snail meat being carried by the others, but they do it nonetheless. Why (I hear you ask)? Because saving these twenty-or-so ants allows for greater stability within the group, more protection on the way back, increases the odds of their being rescued should they be slimed next time, and gives a greater chance of the reproduction of the species. It also results in more mouths to feed, but if the ants worked solely on this principle (that of 'more food for me'), the species would die out within months, their numbers decreasing exponentially with each assault. A whole other plethora of such examples could be given regarding the Vampire Bat, the Wombat, the Chimpanzee, and the Human, among others.
This points an accusatory finger directly back at the pigeon issue, and why it costs us more than we gain, to have a "pigeon" class in the first place. Unlike the points implied earlier, our Darwinian origins, in fact, suggest a society without a large group of it's people relegated to an ultimately useless "pigeon" class, and thus a society with an educational system that does not promote "pigeonhood" among it's students; but rather one that condemns it in every respect as an abomination to the species (or in many cases, group/country/state) and to evolution, itself.
The No Child Left Behind Act is the farthest possible policy from the sort described above. It promotes a system in which the students are herded in one direction or another, pushed into one subject or the next, and "individual achievement" is virtually inhibited at every turn. The whole of society, of course, for the sake of evolution, I argue, should be organized according to sociability and cooperation. But where must one go if it is one's wish to restructure society? You start with the schools. NCLB is steadily dragging us in the opposite direction.
To further illustrate this point, and to finally end this blog post, I'd like to close with a quote:
"The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress... The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay."
– Peter Kropotkin
3 comments:
The individual achievement in regard to the NCLB discussion has less do to with freedom to pursue personal flights of fancy and everything to do with what kind of workforce America needs.
The regimented drilling and stripping of self found in developing nations such as China and India serves a particular purpose. That purpose is the creation of a stable base or infrastructure upon which to build the future of the said country. America, by contrast, already has that infrastructure in place.
What America needs, in terms of economy and the advancement of the nation, are creative and innovative individuals to come up with the technologies, to build the companies, and to generate the brainstorms that will herald the country into a brighter future.
Brainwashed, collective automatons aren't very good at the originality concept, but they sure as hell test well.
Which, as an aside, is something that slipped by wholesale. That we've been bashing the tests, teaching for the tests, having tests take away from real learning, etc, yet turn around and wax poetic about 9 hour school days and drab uniforms.
Getting back on topic, even Japan, before falling into the years long economic slump in which it currently resides, came up with nothing particularly novel. They took existing American technologies and ideas, and modified them. Honda may rule the roost now, but Henry Ford did not read hiragana.
That is the individual achievement being discussed, that pandering, sycophantic politicians and American companies used to de facto dominance have seemingly forgotten.
Next, I can only call your interpretation of evolution hopelessly optimistic. Certainly, many species cooperate and do “selfless” things to ensure the survival of other members. Human beings are certainly social animals; anyone claiming to the contrary is highly deluded. Yet the biggest common thread that you missed in your analysis was that of groupings. The fire ants, and chimps, and humans, will do something selfless for a perceived member of their own. Should they run into a competing band of critters, this selfless heroism of the noble savage turns into brutal murder.
Chimps dashing the brains of baby primates on the rocks, cape bees infiltrating other hives to plant their own queens to destroy them from the inside out, and the long and sordid history of human war ought to point you in the true direction that evolution favors. It’s us vs. them, a dog eat dog world. “Altruism” makes sense in the context of your tribe, if you’re not helping your genes specifically to pass on; you’re building alliances that will help those genes less directly but all the same. In humans, the tribes have gotten so myriad and oftentimes large that it is difficult to perceive people from groups that appear initially too different to fit the model to be partaking in genetic self preservation. There are a few counterarguments to this, most of which boil down to pointing out anomalous behaviors such as not having children, etc. To which I preemptively say, every batch has defects, with over 6 billion of us on this rock, there’s bound to be many.
Societies in which equality for everyone is possible and without the existence of an underclass fall into two categories. The first are Utopias, and they don’t exist. The second are Communist/Socialist regimes, and they failed horribly, due to the conflict with essential biology. No matter how good it feels to pretend that everyone is created equal, this is not the case. Equal rights have been confused with all manner of intuitively pleasant self deceptions in the zealous but futile effort to reduce all humans to the same common denominator.
I will never run as fast as an Olympic gold medalist, and a Special Olympics gold medalist will never think on the same level as a college professor. These inherent differences are why there always have been inherent hierarchies in every human grouping since before recorded history. They have been called different things, they have operated under different economies, but they have always existed, and they always will. It’s a noble goal to try to elevate us beyond our humanity, but ultimately it is effort wasted (at best) or used as a lie to grab more power for your particular group (most often the case).
This has run long enough, and I think the main points have been made. Further discussion is at your discretion.
That comment was by Denis, btw.
Admirable, those ants! It is quite grand an idea that they may all be able to survive. Reading what you wrote, Peter, phased me a wee bit. How grand it would be if we could all pull together, to grab on another out of the slime- to use your analogy.
However, with our current system (of education as well as society in general), I do not believe that such a feat is possible. I am coming from a somewhat different direction from Dennis, so although some points may seem repetitive, I am moved to make them nonetheless. As previously stated in class(to which you refer), if resources are limited, they should be utilized so that a few people may be spared, or offered greater resources, rather than sacrificing the livelihood of ALL individuals in question.
On the other hand, one could argue that creating a class of pigeons may result in mob rule of sorts. (See: Marx) Some say that this phenomenon is already occurring to some extent, but is manipulated by those who are chiefly in power (the pigeon-keepers, if you will). We did, of course, allude to this idea.
The question becomes, then- what sort of system is possible? Are we ABLE to create the human version of your fire ants? Ants of course do not have our large cerebral cortices, nor have they are social classifications. They simply know that they are, and that the creature next to them is important to their survival, because their instinct is thus. Perhaps we have forgotten our instincts. Perhaps they are altered by our environment. But no matter the case, I believe that we came to the consensus that many factors are involved when it comes to the issue of "academic achievement." Either we create a Harrison Bergeron-type story (minus those individuals who controlled), or... evolve to something more. This evolution would not be due to natural selection of bodies of time; rather it would need to be rapid, and conscious- unscientific ideas perhaps, but I would not argue that science is the entirety of existence. However all facets affecting the growth of every individual must change in order to suffice this picturesque dialogue. I haven't faith in any such occurrence.
-Christy F
Post a Comment