Let's try to understand the worldview Nate is referring to. On one hand,
there is a bunch of illiterate, conservative farmers, like those in Silicon
Valley who grow Apples and use every opportunity to suck their children
into their business denying them an enlightening potential of education. On
the other hand there is the Universal -- represented by US government. It
is so universal that it brings enlightenment to Iraqi children by starving
them to death; enlightens Yugoslavia by bombing them, enlightens developing
countries by pressing them to cut expenses on education and enlightens
American schools by installing metal detectors and putting heavily armed
guards in every classroom. Recently the universal has invented the Internet
but plans to put it under strict control to be used only for good (multi
million dollar instructions how to use cigars) and business.
The universal of the u.s. on the world stage I would see as a universal
outside the dialectical unity I was referring to. This universal being a
noun in the sense it only transforms or controls but in unable to be
transformed. This type of universal is appositional to democracy. I don't
argue for a universal in this sense. What I do see as needed, which I see
as potentially a new view of public education, is a universal as a verb
within the dynamic unity of particulars in which both the historical
univiversal and particulars are transformed. To use Yugoslavia as an
example I see very much the universal being nounized as in european unity.
In this sense there is a larger issue involved one in which national
autonomy (particulars) are destroyed so this european unity can be
nounized. I see this as a threat to democracy as I sense you do. What is
european is no longer a dynamic unity with various particulars in which
both are transformed, but one along with the imf and world bank only
transforms and controls particulars.
There is quite a "dialectics" between these hands. And I suspect that even
Nate is one among those conservative farmers. Actually, the word "even" was
extra, because, as I pointed out in my previous posting, I strongly believe
that the universal -- mainstream education is based on brainwashing(out)
needed for kids to turn them into consumers; consequently, is supported by
we know whom. So what is this discussion about then?
Conservitive farmer being particular and universal as noun or mainstream
education both are appositional to how I see education and democracy. They
both in my view make transformation less likely. I think we can have a
vision of public education which is more dynamic universal in which both
the universal and particulars are transformed.
Philosophically, I think Nate makes a mistake by reducing a triad to a
dyad. As far as I remember from my readings of Hegel, he was talking about
a triad -- the universal, the particular, and the unique (I don't know the
exact term that is used in English). So to make the dialectics work one
more element is to be added (and supported). I personally would never
(never say never) argue against the need of universal which I envision as a
policy issue and constructive support from the state to all schools that
exist in a country (setting up universal bottom line requirements is a form
of it). Every school, including public schools, is a particular realization
of the universal and systemically represents it. In a drop of water one may
see the whole world. But unless there is sufficient uniqueness of some of
the elements of the system, things are boring, homogenous, gray, and in an
urgent need of metal detectors. Only the unique makes dialectics work,
according to Hegel's philosophy, Moscovici's social psychology, my common
sense, Bill Clinton' political declarations. Whatever paradise you have
imagined, Nate, or think that you see ("best ever teachers in the world"),
it will never work until vouchers are there.
I don't see the universal even existing in of itself, it can only exist
within this dialectical unity. In this sense if the universal achieves a
level of content it can become very destructive as with your examples
earlier. The universal is a space in which at a particular time in history
certain particulars inhabit that space. In this sense I see it dangorous
talking about a universal with content or existing in itself. I sense and
I may be wrong that the universal of Hegal had content. In order for
democracy to occur other particulars need to inhabit that space which is
difficult if the universal has content.
Nate.