01.01.2015 Views

All About Mentoring Spring 2011 - SUNY Empire State College

All About Mentoring Spring 2011 - SUNY Empire State College

All About Mentoring Spring 2011 - SUNY Empire State College

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

54<br />

that is unfortunately frozen into law in the<br />

Arizona statute, in the insistence that we are<br />

or can be human persons apart from our<br />

membership in groups with other humans.<br />

With Aristotle, Dewey says: “Individuals<br />

who are not bound together in associations,<br />

whether domestic, economic, religious,<br />

political, artistic or educational, are<br />

monstrosities” (Dewey, 1962). This is not to<br />

deny the legal and ethical responsibility of<br />

each individual for what that person does or<br />

does not do, but to recognize that becoming<br />

an accountable individual is an essentially<br />

social process.<br />

Dewey noted that the opening of a new<br />

continent in America shaped the older,<br />

feudal individualism into a romantic form,<br />

with the energies of individuals focused<br />

on opportunities for personal gain, yet<br />

in the aggregate serving “national life”<br />

(Dewey, 1962). This is the same view that<br />

grounds the contemporary ethos of personal<br />

aggrandizement. We are to pursue our own<br />

interests, becoming entrepreneurs one and<br />

all, and scorning the common or collective<br />

effort implied by any project, policy or<br />

endeavor that is public rather than private.<br />

5. Historically, progressive education is<br />

viewed as breaking with mainstream ideas<br />

about the role and purposes of education,<br />

but it also can be seen as embodying this<br />

same romantic view of the individual<br />

person. Progressive education led the way<br />

in this country in recognizing the interest of<br />

the learner as crucial to significant learning,<br />

but in the version that characterized some<br />

of its leading institutions (e.g., Goddard<br />

<strong>College</strong>, Union Institute, <strong>SUNY</strong> <strong>Empire</strong><br />

<strong>State</strong> <strong>College</strong>), the fundamental assumption<br />

was that the individual exists prior to social<br />

experience, and is given with all those<br />

characteristics that determine interaction.<br />

The Goddard philosophy starts with the<br />

individual. It holds that each person is<br />

truly unique, has his own needs, has to<br />

contend with a special set of problems,<br />

possesses talents peculiar to him, and<br />

is worthy of the respect and love of his<br />

fellow men. It assumes that learning<br />

is inherent, natural, individual, active<br />

and the means to self-fulfillment. It says<br />

that education is the reconstruction<br />

of experience of the individual by<br />

himself for himself, but that it also is a<br />

transactional process through which the<br />

learner is constantly taking something<br />

from his environment and giving<br />

something to it. It is a social as well as<br />

an individual process and it involves all<br />

of the personality, that which we call<br />

intellectual as well as the emotional and<br />

the physical. (Davis, 1996)<br />

The opening assumption that learning is<br />

individual in this statement trumps the<br />

subsequent characterization of it as a social<br />

process, and ignores the social purpose of<br />

education and growth as postulated by<br />

Dewey. It also disregards his criticism (and<br />

Kilpatrick’s [Beyer, 1997]) of the notion<br />

that “the consciousness of each person is<br />

wholly private, a self-enclosed continent,<br />

intrinsically independent of the ideas,<br />

wishes, purposes of everybody else” (Dewey,<br />

1916). The goal of self-fulfillment here is<br />

an individual goal. This point is more than<br />

a theoretical subtlety, since it was very<br />

influential in determining the orientation<br />

of the programs initiated at Goddard and<br />

elsewhere, and in the primacy in those<br />

programs of the individual learning contract<br />

or study plan and independent studies<br />

over the exchanges of ideas, questions and<br />

responses in which “knowing” occurs.<br />

That is not to say that there were no<br />

group settings included in the programs,<br />

but typically they were occasions for the<br />

display and presentation of individual<br />

projects, rather than regular opportunities<br />

for the collaborative construction of<br />

understandings. In this respect, certain<br />

interpretations of Dewey’s thinking and<br />

their implementations did not depart<br />

from mainstream American educational<br />

philosophy, which has generally treated<br />

learning as a solitary pursuit, with learners<br />

side-by-side, but rarely together.<br />

6. It also is interesting to find that this last<br />

citation from Dewey appears on many<br />

websites these days as evidence of the<br />

insidious, pernicious and un-American<br />

socialist tendencies of Dewey and<br />

Deweyeans. This misreading could be<br />

reinforced by the language of the question<br />

he put as a corollary to the critique of<br />

atomistic individualism: “Given feelings,<br />

ideas, desires, which have nothing to<br />

do with one another, how can actions<br />

proceeding from them be controlled in a<br />

social or public interest” (Dewey, 1916).<br />

Control of the sovereign individual is exactly<br />

the bugaboo, the taboo, the evil empire<br />

that we are to combat and that threatens us<br />

and our persons, according to the thinking<br />

that seems to inform both the Arizona<br />

school legislation and much current political<br />

invective. Reading Dewey’s “controlled”<br />

to mean “focused” or “directed” would<br />

be more consonant with his overall<br />

position, although the roots of the darker<br />

interpretation are deep in our history and<br />

culture. While the depiction of the natural<br />

and ideal human condition as the unfettered<br />

competition of completely autonomous<br />

persons – each owing nothing to the others –<br />

may appeal, it has long had its detractors.<br />

Hobbes is the most obvious. Anarchy and<br />

civil war cannot support civilization, and<br />

he thought that we would give up a good<br />

part of our liberties to avoid social chaos.<br />

Total freedom leading to unfreedom, total<br />

responsibility leading to irresponsibility:<br />

is this the true foundation of progressive<br />

educational thought<br />

References<br />

Beyer, L. E. (1997). William Heard<br />

Kilpatrick: (1871-1965) [Electronic<br />

version]. PROSPECTS: The Quarterly<br />

Review of Comparative Education,<br />

XXVII, No. 3, pp. 470-85.<br />

Davis, F. K. (1996). Things were different<br />

in Royce’s Day: Royce S. Pitkin as<br />

progressive educator: A perspective<br />

from Goddard <strong>College</strong>, 1950-1967.<br />

Adamant, VT: Adamant Press.<br />

Dewey. J. (1916). Democracy and education.<br />

Retrieved from http://www.ilt.columbia.<br />

edu/publications/Projects/digitexts/<br />

dewey/d_e/chapter22.html<br />

Dewey, J. (1962 ,1930). Individualism old<br />

and new. In J.J. McDermott (Ed.) The<br />

philosophy of John Dewey: Vol. II, The<br />

lived experience (pp. 608-620). New<br />

York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.<br />

Lacey, M. (<strong>2011</strong>, Jan. 8). Rift in Arizona as<br />

Latino class is found illegal. The New<br />

York Times. Retrieved from http://<br />

www.nytimes.com/<br />

Shear, M. (<strong>2011</strong>, Jan. 12). Palin calls<br />

criticism ‘Blood libel.’ The New York<br />

Times. Retrieved from http://www.<br />

nytimes.com/<br />

suny empire state college • all about mentoring • issue 39 • spring <strong>2011</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!