First, from the complexity of an advanced society, schools distill what is most important and present this in a progressive order. And second, schools discard what is no longer of value or relevant (the obsolete makes way for the new).
What I find most interesting is Dewey's third point. He recognizes that any society is made up of many societies--not just the large socio-economic, ethnic, racial, cultural, and geographic divisions, but political associations, community organizations and clubs, professional associations, families, our street corner, and on and on--all with their own customs and traditions as well as aims, beliefs, and aspirations. Given all this diversity, Dewey states,
...it is the office of the school environment to balance the various elements in the social environment, and to see to it that each individual gets an opportunity to escape from the limitations of the social group in which h was born, and to come into living contact with a broader environment (p. 21).In other words, it's not just that education is a path, academically, to a better life, by which I mean the opportunity to choose one's future from more knowledge, greater experience, a wider range of skills, and broader perspective. It is also that schools are a social path to one's future based on a better understanding of the breadth of dynamics at play in a complex modern society. However, I'm not sure I understand how Dewey sees this social aspect coming about. To say that a school "balances" various elements suggests that the elements retain their distinct identity within the larger whole. However, later in the chapter Dewey states that the demand for schools in a complex society is to "provide something like a homogeneous and balanced environment for the young" (p. 22). I'm not sure I can reconcile homogeneous which indicates tending toward being the same with balanced which allows for separation. I feel the need to quote Mr. Dewey at length.
Only in this way can the centrifugal forces set up by juxtaposition of different groups within one and the same political unit be counteracted. The intermingling in the school of youth of different races, differing religions, and unlike customs creates for all a new and broader environment. Common subject matter accustoms all to a unity of outlook upon a broader horizon than is visible to the members of any group while it is isolated. The assimilative force of the American public schools is eloquent testimony to the efficacy of the common and balanced appeal (p. 22).It is possible that to "assimilate" is to integrate something from another source (another group, culture, etc.) into oneself--that is, to add it on without losing our own identity. However, the common interpretation of assimilation is, I think, that one's own identity is subsumed into some larger whole. Moreover, "centrifugal forces" move away from a center; to counteract those forces would be to pull inward toward a core, which in American society has historically been Anglo-centric.
I continue to be amazed by the degree to which figures in the early 20th century (Dewey, James, Whitehead) seem to anticipate complex circumstances we tend to feel are peculiar to our own later time--in this case, the issue of multiculturalism in schools. Of course, the question of whether America is a melting pot or a tossed salad isn't peculiar to any time, but has run throughout our history. I can see that finding a way to "balance" multiple identities and still somehow accommodate "a unity of outlook upon a broader horizon" (without being limited to an Anglo-centric spyglass) is not just a politically-correct, but a just ambition. I'm trying to distinguish whether it is Dewey's ambition as well as how realistic it may be for us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment