Commenting on Sidney Hook's theory of education in a democracy
Geoffrey Moore
Author, speaker, advisor, best known for Crossing the Chasm, Zone to Win and The Infinite Staircase. Board Member of nLight, WorkFusion, and Phaidra. Chairman Emeritus Chasm Group & Chasm Institute.
Sidney Hook was a contemporary of John Dewey, and like Dewey, he was deeply interested in education and its role in supporting democracy.?A recent article focused on Hook’s ideas, organized around seven key claims he asserts:
I think it is worth spending some time discussing each one of these claims, specifically in light of America’s current struggles with its democratic institutions and what it will take for a coming generation to address them.?In this post, I will comment on the first two, with more to come in future posts.
For most of my adult life, I have simply taken this claim for granted.?Present circumstances, however, no longer allow for that.?The deeply polarized political discourse underway in almost every country on the planet is fueling a direct assault on the legitimacy of critical, independent thought.?At the core of this assault is a digital media system that amplifies headlines (claims) while subordinating the body of the article (evidence and warrants).?There is no conspiracy operating here—just a relentless battle for attention.?But the unintended consequence of this practice is to circulate claims without evidence, particularly in social media.?Again, if we are talking among family and friends, this is fine, if occasionally a bit tiresome.?On the other hand, when people are making claims in public forums about socially impactful issues surrounding elections, the pandemic, the right to bear arms, or the right to an abortion, it is simply not OK to let them pass without making their case.?That is what critical independent thinking requires—otherwise, it is just a case of bullying, with the loudest or most brutal voice winning, which is pretty much what we are seeing playing out at present.
In light of all the above, we need to seriously consider whether our current educational systems can actually deliver on this aim to develop the powers of critical, independent thought.?Traditionally—and this is a tradition in which I have participated both as a student and a teacher—critical thinking is taught through essay writing.?Topic sentences are claims.?Paragraphs provide evidence and other reasons why readers should support those claims.?Readers in turn critique these efforts, pointing out where claims are vague or ambiguous, where evidence is either lacking or not relevant, and where other reasons simply do not apply.?This is a relatively short, proven path to developing critical, independent thinking, provided it is supported by teachers who do not impose their opinions on their students, and classroom discussion which supports respectful engagement with opposing points of view.?We just need to make sure we prioritize it, beginning in high school and continuing into college.
One challenge we will need to overcome is the way in which teachers mark papers.?The current practice is to mark grammatical errors throughout the paper and then comment on the content at the end.?Everything about this practice is wrong.?Marking grammatical errors is tedious in the extreme for the teacher and has absolutely no impact on the future grammatical performance of the student.?Comments from the teacher on content are interesting, but what would be more interesting is to get comments from peers, ideally prior to submitting a final draft.?This is where you would get the best testing for claims, evidence, and warrants.?Once the paper is submitted, grading it is fine, with the proviso that suggestions for improvement are included, and students who choose to rework their papers in light of these suggestions can raise its grade.
Given these improved practices, teaching writing can have a material impact on students’ powers of critical, independent thought.?With that in mind, we can turn to Hook’s second goal for education:
领英推荐
2. It should attempt to induce sensitiveness of perception, significantly associated with the different receptiveness to new ideas, and imaginative sympathy with the experiences of others.
Reading this goal at the present time, I do not know whether to laugh or weep.?We are so far from this ideal I am embarrassed even to mention it.?But this goal represents the heart and soul of a liberal arts education and holds the key to why such an education is fundamental to the health of a democracy.?Without such a foundation, life indeed is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," a state of mind for a staggering number of public advocates.?So we have a very worthy goal here.?The question is, how could an educational system “attempt to induce” these qualities in its students?
Again, there is a proven path to follow here—in this case, classes in literature.?Readers of fiction typically identify with one or another of the characters in the work, leading them to experience the world from a different point of view, often in a deeply emotional way.?Class sessions encourage students to share such reading experiences, often to discover how different they are from one another despite everyone having read the same book.?As long as teachers make sure such diverse points of view can be surfaced and discussed in an environment of psychological safety, this practice does indeed build students’ imaginative sympathy both for the characters in the book and for fellow students whose experiences of the story and reactions to it differ from their own.?
There is a challenge here as well, however, that we need to overcome if we are to achieve Hook’s ambitious goal.?Literature classes are typically taught by English majors who have a strong commitment to the integrity of the works they choose to teach.?When students run roughshod over one of these texts, when their interpretations completely miss the mark as far as the teacher is concerned, many teachers feel compelled to correct such errors, to teach the text as it is meant to be understood.?
There is a fundamental disconnect built into this approach.?The experience of fiction represents a fusion of the author’s text with the reader’s imagination.?The result is a fantasy experience that is unique to each individual.?When it comes to commenting on that experience, each reader begins from a different starting point.?For professional students of literature, it is critical to respect the integrity of the text, largely by comparing multiple interpretations to converge on something as objectively accurate as possible.?But for generalist readers, it is more important to respect the integrity of the personal fantasy experience.?Invalidating that experience by explaining the “correct” way to read the text defeats the entire purpose of the exercise and is deeply discouraging to young people who are still looking to develop their own perspective and sensibility.?Many teachers understand this—you just have to hope your kids get one or more of them.
That’s what I think.?What do you think?
(Retired) Executive Advisor: Honing GTM Strategy, Sharpening Execution
2 年I admit I never thought about teaching using fiction this way; there's so much focus on what's "correct", and it's pervasive such that one doesn't think about challenging that orthodoxy. There's nothing wrong, and perhaps a lot that's right, for a teacher at some point to represent evidence for what the author's intent was--ideally from the source but absent that from consensus expert view. But not as correct; just as interesting. We've all seen unintended consequences, good and bad, from things said and written, so this shouldn't be a leap. Thanks Geoffrey Moore, you remain one of my intellectual and professional pillars. Privileged to have had the time with you I did during my Cisco days. All the best.
Chief Marketing Officer (Emeritus)
2 年100% agree. This is what's missing in our political discourse today!
Experienced C-Level Business Consultant | Solve Management Problems & Growth Problems | Business Funding | Solve Culture Issues | Management Success | Eliminate Blockers | Solve Software Issues | UI/UX | Chasm Crossing
2 年Point 1... is certainly true. Unfortunately, many have developed the habit of shouting down those they disagree with. And they do this with the most disagreeable vocalizations possible. It is a very thuggish psychology that prevails. I certainly wish that such antagonists would express their views without the vitriol. But I think I'd be Pollyanna.
Writer
2 年I heartily agree with your points about writing and critical thinking. I've long wanted to teach writing, and enjoy one-on-one tutoring and editing, in part for this reason -- you can show people what critical thinking is without even using that term, because everyone strives to be heard and is delighted to be understood; when people learn how they can achieve that with clear writing, they naturally (start to...) learn how to think. My writing teacher in college, Sandra Simon (may she rest in peace) called this process rhetorical analysis, and focused on it for most of our time with her. Every day we spent an hour with one of our paragraphs on the chalkboard, asking slowly word by word, sentence by sentence, does this fit here, does the reader see why it fits, and when not, *why* not, and then the rest of the story tumbles forth, when the author *thinks* about it, and realizes all the missing facts behind the implications and the missing arguments behind the mysterious claims. What can be done to further this important undertaking, Geoff? Could your firm promote writing programs in high schools? Grade schools? Community colleges? All of the above? Should we start a nationwide volunteer effort? All the best, Sarah