Re: Democracy, Federal Government, and Education

From: Oudeyis (victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il)
Date: Wed Dec 24 2003 - 04:54:59 PST


Jay,
Francis Bacon is most commonly referred to as the originator of the Notion
that "knowledge is Power." Less often quoted is his, "Nothing doth more
hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise."

The power of knowledge and its misuse and mismanagement by those in a
position to fund the accumulation of knowledge is one of the more ancient
contradictions that bedevil humanity. It is not hard to visualize a
frustrated and angry Plato dashing off that disaster that is now called "The
Republic" in response to the long chain of foolishly nearsighted decisions
that characterize the Athenian Democracy in the last years of the
Pelopennesian War and thereafter. Naturally, all attempts to realize "The
Republic" created even worse misuse and mismanagement of knowledge than the
kind of rule it was to replace. Gene has indicated the calamity visited
upon large sectors of Russian science by the wise directorship of the CPSU
from the 1930's till its self-abdication in the 1990's.

Social philosphy - social science if you will - is the most vulnerable of
all sciences to the interferences of the powerful - be they wealth,
politicians or the well-placed intellectual. After all, the difference
between social science and ideology is infintisimal if measureable at all.
So, it is not surprising that much of the most interesting social science is
done by exiles: e.g. Confucist, Hobbes, and Marx and by marginalized
intellectuals: e.g. Machivelli, Veblen, and Ilyenkov. The history of social
science in Israel is an excellent case in point. Martin Buber, the founder
and first chairman (1948-1950) of Hebrew University's Sociology department,
was a srong advocate of continual critical review and reconstruction of
government. He was, among other things, one of the most outspoken and
active critics of government policies regarding the Palestinians during the
first years of the State of Israel. After only two years of chairmanship of
the department he was replaced by his student, S. N. Eisenstadt (chairman of
the dept. from 1950-1968) whose sociology was a particularly dry and
unimaginative version of the Functionalism of Homans, Merton, and Parsons.
No less an important feature of Eisenstadt's academic success was his
silence on some of the more critical issues of Israel's national policies -
like the Palestinian question. The non-critical, indeed, anticritical
functionalist paradigm became - and to some degree still is (Parsons
Functionalist Theory is still a mandatory subject for soc. majors here) -
the dominant sociology of Israel academia up to the 1990s. The result, was
and is the virtual neutralization of the very institutions that were, in
principle, to specialize in scientific analysis of Israel's social and
political condition.

One of the first jobs I had here was to research marginal youth culture in a
development town as part of a project for "solving the Black Panther
problem." The project was more or less invented by an Israeli youth
movement politruk, financed by a major funding organization, and researched
by a combined effort of the Hebrew U's sociology department and the Ministry
of Education. The research project was to be what you so aptly call "the
medical approach;" an ethnological examination of the target population
before and after institution of the project. Actually, this kind of
research more resembles the before and after advertisement trick used to
sell tooth paste and facial creme than it does rigorous medical research.
Even the most cursory investigation showed
1. that the target population was virtually indefinable whatever the
measures used,
2. that the project, developed by politicians and intellectuals from
metropolitan Israel, was unlikely to be realized in any way similar to the
intents of its inventor and of its funders since it took no account of local
social and political conditions, and
3. that the project had taken on a "life of its own" and had become the
arena of a faction fight between established town government and a group of
young turks - the real Black Panthers - who wanted to turn it into an
instrument for mobilizing popular support.
This last development was a particularly sensitive one since it directly
challenged well-established local institutions for bringing in the vote in
local and national elections. So we were entertained by an interesting and
sometimes exciting set to between various local and national arms of the
government regarding the fate of the project.
In short, the whole "medical" approach was irrelevant to the actual issues
involved in the introduction of the project, and the project failed, after
a few years of pathetic efforts to establish and revive it. It certainly did
not solve the "Black Panther problem" or have much influence on the youth of
the town.

Significant social science and serious education must be subversive since
they treat states that are transient and complex and thereby challenge all
those with vested interests in keeping things "as they are." To expect
that wealthy funders, politicians, and administrators will recognize the
importance - to them and their policies - of a critical approach to social
analysis is really asking too much from what are usually people with very
real fears of the future and with an amazing capacity to ignore and reject
any data or even research into material that contradicts their hopes of what
will be.

For a better 2004 than was 2003.

Victor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Lemke" <jaylemke@umich.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:23 PM
Subject: RE: Democracy, Federal Government, and Education

>
> The current US administration _is_ trying to interfere in social science
> research, especially in education, mainly because they do not want to see
> funding going to any sort of research that is likely to come up with
> findings that contradict their politically expedient (or ideologically
> motivated) policies.
>
> I have heard credibly from various people who have talked informally with
> administration policy people that they are quite candid about this. They
> just don't see why their agencies should fund research that goes against
> adminstration policy. The same attitude was behind the edict to remove all
> elements of official Dept of Ed websites that went against administration
> policy, and the efforts to remove the ERIC database system in all respects
> in which it represented an independent mode of access to research along
the
> same lines. There have been numerous protests from education
organizations,
> library organizations, etc.
>
> There is, I think, a very close parallel with some unfortunate Soviet
> precedents. One way of seeing all research as political is to consider
> research primarily in terms of its potential political effects, and to act
> as politicians generally do, to support their friends and screw their
> enemies. The present US administration is very much a product of the
> "culture wars", the right-wing reaction against the modest gains of the
> left in academic circles since the 1960s. The doctrine of the culture
wars,
> from the right, was that the left was using its academic power (slight as
> it was) to push a political agenda, and that therefore it was perfectly
> fair to use political influence to counter them/us. The US administration
> takes the same position.
>
> The attempt to define legitimate methodology in social science research
has
> nothing to do with an interest in research methods. It has to do with
> concerns about the outcomes of the research. By and large it is
> ethnographic and discourse-based research about what actually happens in
> schools and classrooms, what teachers and students and parents really
think
> and value, etc. that best shows the emptiness and dysfunctional effects of
> administration policies and rhetoric about educational reform. I suppose
it
> is possible that large-scale quantitative studies could and someday will
> come to the same conclusions, but meanwhile the administration can direct
> massive research funding to its friends, who will produce the kind of
> research that once "proved" that smoking tobacco was not harmful, that
> marijuana damaged your chromosomes, that global warming was not a problem,
> and that more money would not improve overcrowded urban schools with leaky
> roofs.
>
> Merry Christmas!
>
> THE CARLYLE GROUP
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 02:05 PM 12/23/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dear everybody-
> >
> >I'm worry that Federal government is a business of defining what science
is
> >in general and what science is in educational research in specific. ERIC
has
> >become the first (??) victim of such interference. Michael Castle, the
> >Republican congressman from Delaware (there is only one congress person
from
> >this tiny state), defined "scientific research" in education as following
> >the rigid medical model (i.e., pre- and post-test with control groups).
He
> >plays the clue role now in defining Bush's policies in area of education
and
> >research. I wonder if this Republican revolution is the second wave of
> >Lysenko-type of management of Science by the State. In my view, the State
> >has to be separated from discussions of what is scientific - the question
> >that has to be left to the fields of science practices themselves - as
part
> >of separation of power.
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >Eugene
> >PS Lysenko was an academician (not a congressman although) appointed by
> >Stalin to define "the scientific" biology and agriculture resulted in
> >physical persecutions of Soviet scholars who studied genetics that was
> >defamed as "bourgeois pseudo-science". The US style of Lyseknoanism is
to
> >cut federal funding to so-called "unscientific research" and suppress
public
> >access to publications of research the current government does not like.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: N*** [mailto:vygotsky who-is-at nateweb.info]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:31 PM
> > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > Subject: Re: Democracy, Federal Government, and Education
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > I think that one has to read it very liberally is the
> > > key. It is not straight forward like the federal role
> > > in commerce and capital. In fact, I believe many New
> > > Deal programs and the 1960's increasing role in
> > > education was argued on such premises. It was not the
> > > federal goverments "authentic" role in these domains,
> > > but rather their analogy to the federal goverments
> > > role in regulating commerce and capital.
> > >
> > > I think Jesse Jackson Jr.'s approach to "rewriting"
> > > the consitution is right on. Note your quote on
> > > "general welfare" in contrast to "specific" welfare.
> > > Specific welfare's such as the right to healthcare,
> > > housing, jobs, education etc.
> > >
> > > There of course is the age old liberatarian argument
> > > of the relationship between the federal goverments
> > > role in education and Dewey's thoughts on democracy. I
> > > think this tension is felt all over the country with
> > > implementing the LACBA (Leave All Children Behind Act)
> > > and local values about education.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Bill Barowy <wbarowy@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > > [This posting apparently did not go through
> > > > yesterday, hence my earlier test.
> > > > Could not be sure until the archives proved so this
> > > > morning. Here's a second
> > > > try.]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Concerning the role of the Federal Government in
> > > > Education, and whether it
> > > > should be considered "interfering" or "doing it's
> > > > job", I think a little
> > > > historical analysis might help. (CHAT to the
> > > > beckoning?) In its preamble,
> > > > the US Constitution establishes the object to
> > > > "promote the general Welfare,
> > > > and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
> > > > and our Posterity". If we
> > > > interpret this statement inclusively and liberally ,
> > > > the US gov role in
> > > > education appears secured, "our Posterity" arguably
> > > > encompassing our
> > > > children.
> > > >
> > > > Dewey in "Democracy and Education" does argue so:
> > > >
> > > > "Upon the educational side, we note first that the
> > > > realization of a form of
> > > > social life in which interests are mutually
> > > > interpenetrating, and where
> > > > progress, or readjustment, is an important
> > > > consideration, makes a democratic
> > > > community more interested than other communities
> > > > have cause to be in
> > > > deliberate and systematic education. The devotion
> > > > of democracy to education
> > > > is a familiar fact. ... A democracy is more than a
> > > > form of government; it is
> > > > primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint
> > > > communicated experience.
> > > > The extension in space of the number of individuals
> > > > who participate in an
> > > > interest so that each has to refer his own action to
> > > > that of others, and to
> > > > consider the action of others to give point and
> > > > direction to his own, is
> > > > equivalent to the breaking down of those barriers of
> > > > class, race, and
> > > > national territory which kept men from perceiving
> > > > the full import of their
> > > > activity. ... A society which is mobile, which is
> > > > full of channels for the
> > > > distribution of a change occurring anywhere, must
> > > > see to it that its members
> > > > are educated to personal initiative and
> > > > adaptability" (p. 87-88)
> > > >
> > > > There is more to read before, after, and in between
> > > > what's quoted , which I
> > > > find fascinating in its considerations of education
> > > > and democracy.
> > > > Personally, within any given duration I might not
> > > > agree with the means and
> > > > ways with which the Federal Government invests
> > > > itself in education, but in
> > > > understanding democracy at a fundamental level I
> > > > *cannot* hold this
> > > > investment itself to be invalid.
> > > >
> > > > Oh yeah, on a similar note -- we will have some
> > > > opportunity soon to review a
> > > > second draft constitution for CHSIG, which has gone
> > > > through a first draft and
> > > > commentary by some SIG officers past and present.
> > > > It'll appear some time in
> > > > the next week or so on a web site and perhaps also
> > > > in email for discussion by
> > > > the membership. Stay tuned. I'm open to
> > > > suggestions for this process.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -----------------
> > > > bb
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =====
>
>
> Jay Lemke
> Professor
> University of Michigan
> School of Education
> 610 East University
> Ann Arbor, MI 48104
>
> Tel. 734-763-9276
> Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
> Website. www.umich.edu/~jaylemke



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST