Are we still there? Haven’t we made progress?

I guess not. It still seems an utmost necessity to radically change the education we provide for our children and young adults (and older adults too). And is it again, or still, the time to focus much more on the development of critical thinking and exploring skills than on reiterating knowledge bits? Even if these knowledge bits talk about peace and democracy. 

Despite everything we have achieved since, we still do not have thriving democracies where the rule of law is fully respected and where human rights are not only the professed values but are actually the basis of the lived experience of all of us. And, we do not have peace at all. On the contrary we are experiencing a period of increasing escalation and wars getting closer and closer.  We live in “interesting times” as the Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times” goes.

 Apparently this saying is wrongly attributed to the Chinese. It seems more likely that it originates in a speech of Joseph Chamberlain and was used and transformed by his son Austen. Quote Investigator® – Tracing QuotationsQuote Investigatorhttps://quoteinvestigator.com

The book talks about the necessity to educate young people to become crap detectors.  And I may add that we need generations of crap detectors. 

Crap detectors are needed.

Young people who are able to explore their own group critically, with an anthropological interest and stance, while of course also belonging to the group or to better to say to several groups. As we all know – or could know, at least – belonging is not a one-dimensional experience and space. We belong to many groups and sub groups and we manage these multiple belongings and critiques. This actually is what makes up our individuality and our uniqueness. Albeit, in recent years it seems that this plain truth is quickly dropped and forgotten at the behest and to the benefit of identity groups, preferably sexually, racially, ethnically or religiously defined. 

Crap detectors are needed.

To understand that the naming of a problem does not mean that we all agree on the way to solve the problem. That is actually the whole point. It is pretty easy to notice, point out and agree that “thing X or Y” poses a problem. Where people differ is the way they propose to go about solving the problem. “This boat is not built for so many people ” – right that may be a fact. But does that mean that we have to leave half of the people on the island to starve to death and save the other half with the boat.

Another example. “There is too much CO2 in the air. Let’s forbid private jets.” Sounds great, if you take CO2 footprint by person. But it will not solve the problem. It’ll only reduce CO2 by a negligible amount. If on the other hand we reduce flights in general by making them more expensive to pay for “greener” fuel, there will be a lot less CO2 in the air. 

Or if we finally start reducing the organised production of waste. Take the example of endless seasonal collections of clothes produced to be thrown away in a few months or even weeks (bought or unsold) and exported to another continent where there are mountains of unused clothes.  We also could apply a similar strategy to the production of other goods (keyword: lasting quality vs throw-away goods). We then might be able to reduce CO2 by a lot more and quicker.  And there are many more examples of the rampant stupidity and intellectual laziness that led us to the place at which we are standing now.

For all that we need crap detectors. 

We need people able and willing to think for themselves, to check their arguments for validity, to base their thinking as much as possible on verifiable facts, to be prepared to negotiate and debate, stand up for their right to explore and their right to ask for proof instead of protest as a performative undertaking.  We do not need more misguided publicity. What we need is critical thinking and doing that leads to manageable solutions that people can and will rally round. 

Invitation.

I will read the book again. I liked it alot when I read it the first time at the age of 20. I think I understood some of it, probably all, but I guess I did not understand then the depth of the gulf that separates people who honestly want to act for a better world and the ones who do not care about the world and the direction it is going as long as they can have what they (think) they need at any given moment.

Let’s read it together! “Teaching as a subversive activity” by Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner (1969) and then exchange our notes and see what we can make of it in the 20ies of the 21st century.