Hi List,

  I posted this on the Div 24 Theoretical and Philosophical Psych List and thought I would cross post it here.

G

 

 

Thanks for everyone’s stimulating comments here, re the Christian Smith article. (BTW, he is an interesting scholar, whose work on the sociology of the person I recommend).

 

For me, when I read the BS in higher ed article, I thought of the issues in terms of the “WKID” knowledge hierarchy.

 

Let’s start with the fact that the mission of universities could be many things, potentially. Indeed, clearly it currently serves a number of functions. First and foremost, they serve a credentialing function (the degree from the institution is a badge of worth—signaling status which employers like). Universities also now serve a student developmental function (we have basically created an extension on development, the “young adult period” and it is now where young adults of means who seek status spend their final period before becoming full adults). And they serve a technical training function (i.e., prep them for jobs to make capital). And, finally, they potentially serve a Wisdom and Knowledge function (overlapping with a classic liberal arts view of education). That is, the top half of the WKID knowledge hierarchy.

 

However, as I discuss in this blog, big ideas for knowledge (and, by implication, wisdom) have, for a host of reasons, been in short supply and had limited influence. And this means they have lost their capacity to serve a centripetal, organizing function for the mission of universities. And the weakening of that central force has been coupled with strengthening the neo-liberal capitalist forces of consumerism, fostering a cool place to live for four years, a status signal. Thus, instead of cultivating knowledge and wisdom (arguably because there is a complete absence of consensus on how to think about these things any more), the modern institutions are selling themselves to the parent-student consumers (telling them, “look at this cool fountain,” or “look at all these services,” or “this will be a FUN experience!”), sell themselves as credentials (“look, we rank 16^th in the country, you get a degree from here and you will be hired”), and selling themselves to technical knowledge (learn accounting, learn how to research this narrow problem, learn how to be a hotel/restaurant manager, etc).

 

So, I read the Smith critique and nodded along because I see this. But I think the BS is building up for a reason that has much to do with the fault of the academy. The Academy has its beginnings, at least in Western Civilization, with Socrates and Plato and Artistotle, who sought to cultivate the love of authentic knowledge. Such notions have evolved such that very few people think or talk that way anymore. Just look at the status of philosophy itself. To me, for those who don’t like the current state of affairs in the purpose and function of universities in this country, this is a call for the academy itself to return to the question of whether or not there is such a thing as Big Knowledge and/or Deep Wisdom. Do we know what that is? Do we know what it is not?

 

Although these are not good times for intellectual integrity, maybe we can use these dark times to start the pendulum swinging the other way. For, whatever you think of our current President, it is crystal clear that he is opposite of traditional knowledge and wisdom. So maybe we can use this moment, via a salient exemplar of the antithesis, to revisit the thesis of whether or not our universities might actually have knowledge and wisdom to offer.   

Best,

Gregg

 

 

 

What you are proposing, Chris, is to have separate institutions for education and training. That’s all good, but in my humble opinion, you cannot have democracy without educated citizenry.

 

 

Milan

 

 

Perhaps it would help to think of separating institutionally education to “do” something from education to “be” something (a citizen, a mensch, a worthy mate, etc.).  The “do” something institution could focus on efficient training, and the “be” something institution could properly focus on how human beings have struggled to understand how best to live.   (There would be no reason, really, to keep all those “do” something departments together, so they could fragment at will.)

 

Salaries in the “be” something institution would be predictably low, and teaching there would have to have part of its reward seeing young minds begin to grasp their agency regarding who they are and where they are going.  Would anyone go to the “be” something institution?  Yes, some would gladly go, and far-seeing corporations might require both of their potentially management employees.  Persons in any job that could impact the life of others in a policy sense should be required to “pass” in his/her studies in the “be” something institution.  It would be interesting to see if our society would eventually recognize that the whole society would benefit from everyone studying how to “be” something.  In the interim, I’m sorry to say, the woeful ignorance of the American voter would continue unchecked, but at least a step like this would allow everyone to see the problem more clearly.

Chris Ebbe

 

 

 

Gregg,

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Society for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [log in to unmask]">society-for-theoretical-and-philosophical-psychology+[log in to unmask].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Society for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [log in to unmask]">society-for-theoretical-and-philosophical-psychology+[log in to unmask].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The information contained in this electronic transmission is intended for the person(s) or entity to whom it is addressed. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality. This material may contain confidential or personal information which may be subject to the provisions of Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material immediately.

L'information contenue dans ce message électronique est destinée uniquement au destinataire ou aux destinataires visés. La transmission de ce message à une personne autre que son destinataire ou ses destinataires visés ne supprime en rien l'obligation d'en respecter la confidentialité. Ce message peut contenir des renseignements de nature confidentielle ou personnelle qui pourraient être soumis aux dispositions de la Loi de 2004 sur la protection des renseignements personnels sur la santé. L'examen, la retransmission, la diffusion et toute autre utilisation de l'information contenue dans ce message par des personnes autres que le destinataire ou les destinataires visés sont interdits. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et en avertir l'expéditeur.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Society for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [log in to unmask]"> society-for-theoretical-and-philosophical-psychology+[log in to unmask].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Society for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [log in to unmask]"> society-for-theoretical-and-philosophical-psychology+[log in to unmask].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.