You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
C.S. Lewis on “The Essential Evil” of Schools
I don’t find that the author of that article and C.S. Lewis are in agreement. C.S. Lewis is acknowledging the human capacity for competition and further pointing out how public school was an environment that aroused this quality of competition insofar as to be a primary behavioral trait. He further points out how ugly or perverted this competitive trait can be. But, more importantly, C.S. Lewis is pointing out a correlation between exposure to public school setting and how competitive one can grow to be. He is not pointing out that public school causes us to be competitive as he notes it is an inherent trait to human nature. I, however, find that the author of that webpage was making such an inference.
Although, C.S. Lewis does attribute causality of the “meanness” to this competitive trait, i.e. it is competition that causes one to be “mean.” ‘Meanness’ implying some immoral quality (Which I referenced as ‘ugly or perverted’ above). What C.S. Lewis accuses the public school of doing is stimulating an overwhelming commitment to competition, thus holding the public school as evil for promoting such a trait.
So, while I am no fan of public schools, I think it would be logically erroneous to agree with C.S. Lewis here as there is no reason to accept that competition or competitive behavior is immoral or that an earnest desire to win is inherently immoral. C.S. Lewis holds that it is this desire and commitment to it that causes “meanness.”
What I think C.S. Lewis is trying to conceptually isolate and condemn is acts of aggression — which I would agree with. However, due to his broad accusation, he has inadvertently condemned competition, aggressive behavior (more specifically: healthy), ambition, and general desire to win or be a winner.
Unfortunately, I think some of his error in his thinking is caused by accepting the original sin fallacy. Such a belief causes one to skew human behavior by creating a bias that designates the individual (including the self) as being inherently immoral at the onset. Thus, one can only be evil or less evil, but never virtuous unless ordained by god. “Accept Jesus and you can be forgiven.”
So, such thinking leads to assertions like: Aggression (“meanness” above) is caused by an overwhelming commitment to competition (i.e. ambition) which the public school setting promotes, therefore the public school is evil.
Truth is that public schools are neither immoral (i.e. evil) or moral (i.e. good). They’re just a venue. And, ironically, the service provided is just horrible from a standpoint of merit because there is a lack of competition in the market. But, that’s mostly because we live in a society that still holds value in centralized institutions.
I appreciate C.S. Lewis’ analysis of the school experience. David, I like your point that competition or that sorting out the social order isn’t “evil.” I disagree about public schools being “evil,” I think they absolutely are, but because they are public and enforced and you can’t freely chose alternatives. With a free educational market, it’s very possible that schools with single age classrooms would appear, and I don’t think those would be inherently “evil.”
I want to respond to the author’s last two questions, “But is the social environment of today’s schools really that healthy? Or, is it rather an abnormal and unhealthy social environment that often thwarts learning?”
I think that the typical public school is an abnormal and unhealthy social environment and that it can thwart learning. By having 20-40 (or more…) kids of the same age, the kids have to constantly compete with each other in potentially nasty ways in order to figure out the “social order.” When you have mixed ages, it’s much easier to figure out who’s at the top and who’s at the bottom and with the right environment, you are going to have kids helping each other and feeling safe to learn because they know where they stand. It’s no longer a matter of the next fight or next test or next social quibble (which can be very damaging emotionally) as tends to happen when they are so close in age, size, and intelligence. Not saying they won’t fight or disagree or get frustrated, but it will be less about beating the kid ahead of them (literally or on a test or whatever) or focusing on how to get “in” with the right crowd.
I’m not sure we actually disagree. I think you’re attributing more to “public school” than I am. I left it as a venue, i.e. a building. Can buildings be evil? Buildings have no agency, so I must say no.
So, what are we trying to isolate? What specific human action? I think the term ‘indoctrination’ fits best. And, maybe I’m just nit picking with all this, but overall, if one accepts the public realm vs private realm dichotomy, then I have yet to rule out that a public school could be absent of indoctrination thereby being a viable learning center. i.e. I don’t see why a public school’s nature is one that inherently imposes indoctrination.
When looked at from a standpoint of property ownership, public schools are simply <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>ownership in common</span> — as opposed to sole-proprietorship or partnership. So, how does ownership in common cause the property to become evil? So, clearly ownership is not contributing factor unless we’re accepting the act of ownership is evil or at least potentially evil. Personally, I have no reason to accept such a supposition.
So, from there we can ponder how the property is used. And, once again, there we find consistency with respect to other properties. e.g. Gun ownership is not immoral or “evil”, but using it to murder people is. Likewise, using the public school (a venue owned in common) as a proxy for indoctrination is where I find our shared grievance lies.
Thus, I conclude that it is the indoctrination that is evil, not the venue.
We here a similar argument from liberals re markets. Their sentiment being, “Markets are evil.” And, I hold the same perspective: “No, markets can’t be evil because they’re just a venue (virtual or real) where trade is performed.”
That’s a great expansion, I appreciate it. This is definitely challenging me.
“Thus, I conclude that it is the indoctrination that is evil, not the venue.” Yes, I agree with this. The forced indoctrination that is present in schools is not good, it’s very bad, and, yeah, evil.
I should clarify, when I say public school, I am thinking about primary and secondary institutions. Elementary schools, junior highs, middle schools, high schools. At these levels, in most states, you cannot freely opt out. You can opt out, but it isn’t free, and there are strong incentives (coercion?) to follow approved curriculums.
All that being said, I’m not convinced that public schools are not evil. They are taking money not freely given in order to force education on people in a very narrow way. The buildings, the teachers, the curriculums are not inherently evil, that I agree, but the system is evil. The system that brings these things together, funds them through taxation, and restricts, forces, and incentivises (coerces?) select methods, is evil. I don’t think when you say public school that you can just talk about the building. Or just the curriculum. When you say public school, people think of the funding, the education, the teachers, the administration, the whole system. So, in this context, I am still comfortable saying that public schools are evil.
—–
I have further questions on your argument. But didn’t want to rewrite that other stuff.
I don’t think I understand what you mean with “public realm vs private realm dichotomy.”
From a property stand point, common ownership doesn’t cause it to be evil. Yeah, ownership is not good or evil. I agree.
I don’t think that common ownership = public ownership or vice versa. I don’t have enough knowledge to expand on this well, but I think this is right. I’m not willing to cede this opinion, yet. If an entire neighborhood got together and agreed to build a school, that would be common ownership. Taxing a neighborhood and then building a school is not common ownership.
Public schools are not commonly owned, freely agreed upon buildings. And even if indoctrination is not imposed, something is being forced. Attendance, funding, etc. I would still conclude that public schools are evil.
I think this has to mean that I think public buildings are evil. As silly as it sounds to make an inanimate object evil, if a building is publicly owned, then it’s evil. Because I don’t think public ownership exists. The word public is somehow implying that coercion and force is being used. So it’s not the object that I think is evil, it’s …. I don’t know how to finish that sentence. I need to go read some more…
This is challenging for me as well, and I am very much enjoying the conversation with you. So, let’s see where this all goes..
When the term ‘public school’ is typically used it invokes an aggregate composed of various abstract objects as well as the real object. (And, between the two of us we’ve identified many of them.) And, I don’t think it is erroneous to do this. These aggregates make communication easier, although sometimes they cause challenges for philosophers seeking to develop precise understandings of the world around them. For example, “Are we dealing with an abstraction or something tangible (i.e. real)?” And to expand on that further using another example: It is the distinction among ‘individual’, ‘people’, ‘nation’, and ‘government’ that allows us to develop concepts like statism. In the past, when ‘nation’ was used the term invoked the people. The terms were one in the same. And, in some context it still does refer to people in a vague sense. However, if I asked you, “Please show me nation X,” odds are you would show me a map and point to the appropriate geographic location. Overall point is that whatever you show me, it will be a reflection of the associations you’ve made with the term.
While I’m sure this is all obvious to you, what I’m essentially getting at is the importance of keeping this in mind whenever classifying or categorizing something. And, in this case we’re trying to identify something as evil. What exactly are we trying to identify as evil? And, just as with math where the equation has to work forward as it does backwards, we must verify our conclusion: Does that identification actually fit?
That said, where I find we have discord is in identifying the element that can appropriately be identified as evil. And, for me to consider something evil, that something must be capable of conscious agency as we are dealing with morality here when we use the term ‘evil’. So, if one was to claim, “Guns are evil,” “The market is evil,” or “Public schools are evil,” what that individual would be doing is anthropomorphizing objects absent of conscious agency — which is fine as a literary device, but not philosophy.
And, just like a good doctor would, we want to precisely identify the source of the ailment as opposed to confusing the symptoms with the ailment. So, if you’re in agreement with me thus far, I hope I’ve made a good argument why “public school” is not sufficient. We have to go deeper into the aggregate and find exactly what element is evil.
And I find you’re unknowingly hinting at it here (bold emphasis added) when you say, “All that being said, I’m not convinced that public schools are not evil. They are taking money not freely given in order to force education on people in a very narrow way.”
To take something implies agency. ‘Public school’ is an aggregate of the mind as explained above, so it itself is a product of agency — although mostly in an abstract sense. Abstract objects do not have agency. Instead, what we have occurring is a group of individuals acting in the name of the state and for the idea of public schools. And, it is their actions that we find grievance with. A grievance being a moral objection.
So, isn’t the public school a symptom of the “evil” rather than the evil itself?
I’ll leave my response here for now. I’ll answer the 2nd half (the questions) later, possibly tomorrow.
Re the 2nd half:
I apologies for the delay in response. Here is a thread I made about Private Realm and Public Realm:
Evil is the product of moral violations. And while I understand the associations you’re making, I think we can get a lot more specific as to where the moral violations lie. And, it’s in violation of two principles as follows:
(1) Non-aggression Principle; and,
(2) Principle of Equal Consideration (moral theory re contracts).
Public schools are a symptom of these 2 violations. Thus, not the ailment (if you will).
