What if, however, I took her advice to mean that the broad range of benefits derived from eating it made spinach a panacea? What if I perceived her statement that it had "all-around goodness" to mean that it was all I need to keep the ol' engine purring? You probably think that I'd have to be some kind of kook to take it this way - fair enough. It's amazing, though, how many people approach the realms of philosophy and theology this way. One concept, one perception, as a type of cosmic cure-all. Case in point in Wednesday's BBC Magazine.
Perhaps the author of the article, Manil Suri, had a word limit imposed on him by the publication, or was pressured into giving a very brief precis of a broader concept. Still, I find it shocking that a supposedly well-respected academic could make such a bold (arrogant?) statement in so few words. What exactly does he mean when he states we should not "get irritated or invoke God or tradition" when helping our children answer basic questions? Is he implying that we are "misleading the malleable" by teaching them to explore questions of spirituality? His parochial belief in the superiority of "basic humanist principles" - blatantly revealed by his equating of them with "common sense" - reeks of the type of dogmatism that he would seem to oppose.
Furthermore, doesn't Suri's identification of a logic-ideology dichotomy seem shamelessly ideological in itself? The New Oxford American Dictionary defines ideology as "the ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class, or individual." In my opinion, his clear conviction of - indeed, obsession with - the preeminence of rationalist philosophy places him in a category of intellectual enslavement comparable only to the most extreme religious fundamentalists that he would presumably disparage. Again, it's possible that he's not as tunnel-visioned as he comes across in this article; however, his word choice and audacious style makes it difficult for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Finally, I'm concerned with the sociological/psychological/emotional implications of bringing up our children based on such principles. Of course, logical reasoning skills need to be at the centre of any educational strategy; they are, after all, one of the core faculties that allow us to function in everyday life. However, if we teach them that all answers can be found using pure logic as we understand it, we're inevitably setting them up for a life of disappointment and breakdown. Even worse, we're denying them the hope, joy, and wonder that should be definitive of any childhood, and indeed adulthood.
I thought that the photo at the top of the article was really telling. Here you have a young man, probably in his pre-teens, sitting at a desk in a modern, metallic-looking study area of some sort. He's wearing a t-shirt that seems to glorify "success" and "achievement" - note the soaring eagle, the great symbol of ascent and regality - and is probably doing a math problem, judging by his choice of a pencil as a writing instrument. The backdrop is an outer-space view of Earth, and seems to bathe the entire room in an exciting blue glow. Science is king in this scene, the vehicle that will propel this kid through the atmosphere of mediocrity to the unknown elite heights.
As I consider it more, the Suri's way of thinking doesn't just have philosophical and spiritual implications for the development of children, although these are profound. This mindset also has the potential to prevent young people from becoming true neighbors to those around them. Where do virtues such as empathy, grace and humility fit into his paradigm? They don't seem to, as I see it, and that's a very sad thing. Ironically, this makes Suri's "logical" proposition one of the most unreasonable that I've heard in quite a while.
0 comments:
Post a Comment