Iain Donnachaidh

February 3rd, 2009

(or Impoverished Minds and Cultural Drought)

It’s always tempting for people of a certain disposition to take a few events or phenomena that seem to be falling into a pattern and extrapolate them into grand sweeping assessments of some aspect of “The Big Picture.” For some people it’s not temptation, it’s uncontested practice. For me it’s tempting, very tempting sometimes, but a temptation is by definition an impulse to do something you really don’t want to do, or else want to be really moderate about doing.

It’s the way the human mind works — generalization is as much a survival skill as a sense of direction or having hands is. And the spirit of its simple wisdom is echoed in maxims that still see regular use today: Better safe than sorry and Better to err on the side of caution. If something seems threatening, those who assume it is have in all likelihood had a better survival rate and were thus more able to pass on their genes (and memes) to later generations, thus cementing the tendency into our species. And how does something that is unknown or not well understood seem threatening except by resembling things that we know from experience or even hearsay to be dangerous?

It’s also a cognitive shortcut that frees up mental energy to move on to the next thought, and to avoid becoming overwhelmed at the complexity of things. But since one of the faculties we make room for with this conservation of mental energy is consciousness itself — the ability not only to think, imagine, evaluate and reason, but also to turn these powers on ourselves in the act of introspection — we should be careful to keep some part of our minds on regarding out personal experiences and observations as what they are: personal observations and experiences, limited by time, place, person, perspective, suggestion, and expectation. And how much more for second- and third-hand information, which in addition to having all these same limitations, suffers the quality degradation of successive hearings, interpretations, and recollections — the act of human communication is by no stretch a lossless transfer of information, nor is it very often intended to be.

Thus we have to bear in mind what an infinitesimally tiny portion of “The Big Picture” any one individual (even the smartest, best-read, best-traveled or most “cultured” among us — which with any reasonable grasp on reality we can quickly ascertain is not oneself, whether you or me) is ever really able to make contact with in their life.

That said, I have been thinking a great deal about education; specifically the role of society — from parents to teachers (both as individual influences and as agents enforcing the mandated and structured influence of the State) to peers and other vertical, horizontal, or diagonal social influences associated with schooling — in fostering developing hearts and minds. I currently am an elementary school teacher in a foreign country, so this thought is not difficult to indulge with all kinds of observations that are constantly ready at hand to be made.

Let’s start with what’s easy to agree on. Feeling capable is a critical part of human development. The knowledge or sensation (which are two slightly different things) that one is good at something, that one understands some complex idea or possesses useful and interesting knowledge, or can do something many others cannot, builds self respect and confidence in a way that is neither cheap nor fleeting. Any first-hand appreciation of the hard work that it takes to acquire valuable knowledge, develop a skill, or master sophisticated thinking should necessarily forge a deep appreciation for the strong skills, knowledge, or thinking of others and thereby instill a sense of respect for them. The more one knows, can do, or can think complex thoughts the more one will gain respect for others’ knowledge, abilities, and complex thinking.

Practiced mutually and on a large scale, a society which regarded all individual abilities, knowledge, and complex thinking as virtues would move simultaneously in the direction of greater humility, greater self-confidence, and greater mutual respect for self and for others. Not to mention the very real gains that would be made in knowledge and ability.

The danger of unanimity in these values, of course, becomes excessive performative pressure from all sides. But one should mitigate thoughts of this danger with the consideration than unanimity in any set of values carries the same danger — in a society, for example, that unanimously values not committing murder or rape, certainly those inclined to murder or rape will suffer seemingly unbearable peformative pressure from all sides to act contrary to their native impulses. This, of course, assumes that there are such things as native impulses.

Since we can assume that this state of affairs, where murder and rape are widely discouraged not just by legal but also cultural forces, is a worthy trade for the stress placed upon murderers or rapists, or would-be murderers and rapists, it follows that a notion on unanimity of values (which in practice cannot exist, so what I am referring to is near-unanimity or vast majority agreement) must not be intrinsically disregarded as an evil.

Here is where I am inclined to move into cultural comparisons between my native culture(s) and my adoptive one.

…(continued)