But I don't want this view to suggest that I think teaching is a mechanical process, in which relationships don't matter and values aren't influenced. Far from it. Within this framework it is still possible for teachers to promote good or evil toward their students. An example of the latter came up in a post by Albert Mohler, in which an English professor at Northwestern indicates his goal of indoctrinating students:
“The children of red states will seek a higher education,” he explains, “and that education will very often happen in blue states or blue islands in red states. For the foreseeable future, loyal dittoheads will continue to drop off their children at the dorms. After a teary-eyed hug, Mom and Dad will drive their SUV off toward the nearest gas station, leaving their beloved progeny behind.”
Then what? He proudly claims: “And then they are all mine.”That is creepy. Not the fact that the worldview of the professor will affect the students; as Mohler points out:
All teaching involves ideology and intellectual commitments. There is no position of authentic objectivity. Every teacher, as well as every student, comes into the classroom with certain intellectual commitments.It's not the fact that the teacher is sharing his own ideology---or even that he is trying to influence the ideology of his students---that makes this approach to teaching bad. It's the fact that "winning" the ideological war is the only objective expressed here. This professor doesn't care about the objectives of the students, and he doesn't even seem to care about the students' virtuous character. All he cares about is shifting the student's worldview to be more in line with his own. That's not education. That's brainwashing.
In subtle contrast to this terrifying approach to teaching, Chris links to someone's personal account of having his worldview dismantled by a professor. But this wasn't the work of someone lying in wait to pounce on an unsuspecting eighteen-year-old (or at least, it doesn't seem so). This was the patient, relationship building of someone who genuinely wants a student to understand the world better:
It was John who—in the course of one extended conversation on the political thought of John Locke—broke through my well-armored adolescent Marxism and first introduced me to the challenges of intellectual history. He managed this by the simple device of listening very intently to everything I said, taking it with extraordinary seriousness on its own terms, and then picking it gently and firmly apart in a way that I could both accept and respect.
That is teaching. It is also a certain sort of liberalism: the kind that engages in good faith with dissenting (or simply mistaken) opinions across a broad political spectrum.Was this second teacher also brainwashing his student? Possibly. But it is at least as possible that he was trying to help build the student's character, or make him a more productive thinker with the capacity to enjoy the subtleties of philosophical thought.
So we have here two cases of teachers who seem to be ignoring the student-perspective goals of consumption, productivity, and signaling. While I believe thinking about teaching in the way I do precludes the brainwashing of the first teacher, I hope I can say it doesn't prevent the care and relational efforts of the latter.
4 comments:
This is an important point, I think, which complicates the model of students qua rational agents engaging in market transactions. The goal of an education is, in some sense, for the student to change the things he wants.
No, the teacher's goal in education is to change what the student wants. The student may also want to change his tastes, but if he does, he wants to do so his way, not his teacher's. Which might explain the often adversarial relationship between teachers and their students.
As for my part, I can't object to a brain being washed if it ends up cleaner. The only problem with the liberal professor is that he is indoctrinating them in wickedness.
Alexander, I can't say I know where this view of education comes from. The only thing that will truly change the deepest things a student wants is replacing a heart of stone with a heart of flesh. Human teachers don't do that. For that matter, even Christ didn't do that with his teaching itself. Those who were truly His sheep heard His voice and followed His teaching. The teaching isn't what made them into His sheep.
The sower's seed grew when it landed in good soil; the seed doesn't make the ground good. Similarly, the sermon on the mount shows us what righteousness is, but like that great pedagogue The Law, it doesn't change our desires. Only God does that, and if a teacher sets out to be God to his students, then he is wrong regardless of how much righteousness is in the words he shares.
I agree with Joel that the goal of the student may be to change what he wants. In as much as that's true, though, the student is really seeking consistency, that is, to change some things he wants to be more in line with other wants he already deems as more important or valuable. Trying to change one's appetite for pornography because one wishes to love only the things Christ loves would be an example of this.
I actually didn't say that this goal of "changing what the student wants" belongs to the student himself. That's very nearly paradoxical.
...which is why people should studyliteratureandhireme!
Post a Comment