How can the educator act responsibly toward the student? How can the Teacher and the Student both be true moral agents? It has been my experience that each and every person has a particular viewpoint that he or she thinks is best. Educators do have a vision of reality. We do have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. We hold particular values. And it is because of our values that we teach others. We believe our values have enabled us to achieved a certain degree of peace, and we want others to also experience it. Otherwise, why would we ever be sad about what others value? Why would we ever think myself and others could ever be happier? We can discuss different ideas concerning the source and origin of values, whether they are inherent or they are received from culture. Regardless of where one stands on this argument the point is mute in this matter. It seems to be human is to hold to some particular values, and to reject others. Knowledge is not Neutral. Knowledge is value-laden; it cannot to encountered in a state of pure disengagement. When we engage reality, we develop commitments to particular values. “Holding” to the values entails commitment.
Commitment to something is a form of faithfulness. It is having a faithful relationship to the value, saying: “I believe this is best, and barring convincing evidence otherwise, I will continue to believe this is best.” When one thinks that their values are better for humanity, one tries to spread those values. Why has Cannibalism [nearly] ceased? Is it because those who hold that it is better to be non-cannibalistic have propagated that value. That propagation included arguing the superiority of the value. It would be faithless to not propagate the value; it would be hypocritical in one’s commitment. But is the propagation of values truly achievable? Can I force someone to take the values I hold dear? What kind of propagation activities are acceptable? I interpret Cosmopolitanism to hold that the line between acceptable and unacceptable propagation of values is the distinction between Interaction versus Isolation, that is not allowing contact with others holding alternative values. Interaction is characterized by Dialogue. Isolationism is characterized by Withdrawal. Indoctrination is a kind of withdrawal. It is a closed-fisted approach to education. A teacher cannot be valueless, neutral in his or her values. Those values will be present in the curriculum, in the classroom, in the school. The teacher rightly hopes the student adopts them. But the right attitude of the teacher toward the student is one in which the teacher recognizes the student’s ability and right to accept or reject those values. To not grasp this is transform education into indoctrination. In indoctrination, a true Teacher-Student relationship does not exist. Like the Positivist, the Indoctrinator is convinced that there is only one way, and that the present and the future, the degree of happiness the Teacher and Student can achieve, are tightly bold together. In that moment, the person is no longer an educator, rather he or she is attempting to be a savior. We fail in our responsibility to Others when our intention is Saving them.
I want to clarify this statement. There may be times when we are called to act in order to prolong and enrich another’s life. It is right to rescue a child from drowning. We may provide funds which may help others acquire food. We may stand with another in a time of hardship. But this is not saving them. Life is precious, to be sure, and everyday is a gift. But everyone dies eventually. Salvation is outside the scope of humanity. It is outside the scope of human relationship. This is true for the Apostle and his Disciple, for the Citizens, whether one is a tax-paying property owner or whether one is homeless. It is true for the Child Molester. It is true for the Teacher – Student relationship.
While I may be able to argue against Child Molestation, and even prevent the act, I should not succumb to the idea that I can reprogram a Child Molester, and change his heart. I think he can change, and I think I may have the opportunity to share in that change by engaging with the man concerning our differences, but I do not think I am the ultimate source of the change. To be the ultimate source of the change means I could take credit for the change. I could claim I “saved” the man from the terrible, inferior value. But I cannot “save” a Child Molester. I cannot change him. Nor do I believe he could change himself alone. To do so would be to hold a view similar to the Positivist.
If I do believe I can save the other, then I naturally ask: What must I do? What steps must be taken? What is desired is an enumeration the things I am required to do for the Other. Such questions expose a desire for a defined, limited list, which one can use to check off and ultimately use to make the case that duty has been fulfilled, obligations have been met and responsibility has ceased. In the realm of Education, we can find arguments about how we owe the student an equipping for the future, for the relationships into which they will enter, for the labor at which they will toil, for the citizenship they will participate, for the eternity they must cross over into. But this way of looking at the issue opens up a whole can of worms. When is the student equipped? When is he or she “prepared?” It causes one to ask: What is the demarcations? At what point will this person no longer be a student? The other side of this stance is that it places the Student as an impediment to the Teacher’s desired state. The question: “At what point will this person no longer be a student?” can also be understood as: “At what point will I no longer be responsible for this person’s education?” The Teacher wants to be free of responsibility, of guilt. He wants to save himself. Our responsibility to others is to acknowledge our limitations. The salvation of the Other is not something we can accomplish.
The Teacher’s Moral and Spiritual Responsibility
Against Indoctrination: Cosmopolitanism and its Implications for the Moral and Spiritual Dimensions of Education
How can the educator act responsibly toward the student? How can the Teacher and the Student both be true moral agents? It has been my experience that each and every person has a particular viewpoint that he or she thinks is best. Educators do have a vision of reality. We do have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. We hold particular values. And it is because of our values that we teach others. We believe our values have enabled us to achieved a certain degree of peace, and we want others to also experience it. Otherwise, why would we ever be sad about what others value? Why would we ever think myself and others could ever be happier? We can discuss different ideas concerning the source and origin of values, whether they are inherent or they are received from culture. Regardless of where one stands on this argument the point is mute in this matter. It seems to be human is to hold to some particular values, and to reject others. Knowledge is not Neutral. Knowledge is value-laden; it cannot to encountered in a state of pure disengagement. When we engage reality, we develop commitments to particular values. “Holding” to the values entails commitment.
Commitment to something is a form of faithfulness. It is having a faithful relationship to the value, saying: “I believe this is best, and barring convincing evidence otherwise, I will continue to believe this is best.” When one thinks that their values are better for humanity, one tries to spread those values. Why has Cannibalism [nearly] ceased? Is it because those who hold that it is better to be non-cannibalistic have propagated that value. That propagation included arguing the superiority of the value. It would be faithless to not propagate the value; it would be hypocritical in one’s commitment. But is the propagation of values truly achievable? Can I force someone to take the values I hold dear? What kind of propagation activities are acceptable? I interpret Cosmopolitanism to hold that the line between acceptable and unacceptable propagation of values is the distinction between Interaction versus Isolation, that is not allowing contact with others holding alternative values. Interaction is characterized by Dialogue. Isolationism is characterized by Withdrawal. Indoctrination is a kind of withdrawal. It is a closed-fisted approach to education. A teacher cannot be valueless, neutral in his or her values. Those values will be present in the curriculum, in the classroom, in the school. The teacher rightly hopes the student adopts them. But the right attitude of the teacher toward the student is one in which the teacher recognizes the student’s ability and right to accept or reject those values. To not grasp this is transform education into indoctrination. In indoctrination, a true Teacher-Student relationship does not exist. Like the Positivist, the Indoctrinator is convinced that there is only one way, and that the present and the future, the degree of happiness the Teacher and Student can achieve, are tightly bold together. In that moment, the person is no longer an educator, rather he or she is attempting to be a savior. We fail in our responsibility to Others when our intention is Saving them.
I want to clarify this statement. There may be times when we are called to act in order to prolong and enrich another’s life. It is right to rescue a child from drowning. We may provide funds which may help others acquire food. We may stand with another in a time of hardship. But this is not saving them. Life is precious, to be sure, and everyday is a gift. But everyone dies eventually. Salvation is outside the scope of humanity. It is outside the scope of human relationship. This is true for the Apostle and his Disciple, for the Citizens, whether one is a tax-paying property owner or whether one is homeless. It is true for the Child Molester. It is true for the Teacher – Student relationship.
While I may be able to argue against Child Molestation, and even prevent the act, I should not succumb to the idea that I can reprogram a Child Molester, and change his heart. I think he can change, and I think I may have the opportunity to share in that change by engaging with the man concerning our differences, but I do not think I am the ultimate source of the change. To be the ultimate source of the change means I could take credit for the change. I could claim I “saved” the man from the terrible, inferior value. But I cannot “save” a Child Molester. I cannot change him. Nor do I believe he could change himself alone. To do so would be to hold a view similar to the Positivist.
If I do believe I can save the other, then I naturally ask: What must I do? What steps must be taken? What is desired is an enumeration the things I am required to do for the Other. Such questions expose a desire for a defined, limited list, which one can use to check off and ultimately use to make the case that duty has been fulfilled, obligations have been met and responsibility has ceased. In the realm of Education, we can find arguments about how we owe the student an equipping for the future, for the relationships into which they will enter, for the labor at which they will toil, for the citizenship they will participate, for the eternity they must cross over into. But this way of looking at the issue opens up a whole can of worms. When is the student equipped? When is he or she “prepared?” It causes one to ask: What is the demarcations? At what point will this person no longer be a student? The other side of this stance is that it places the Student as an impediment to the Teacher’s desired state. The question: “At what point will this person no longer be a student?” can also be understood as: “At what point will I no longer be responsible for this person’s education?” The Teacher wants to be free of responsibility, of guilt. He wants to save himself. Our responsibility to others is to acknowledge our limitations. The salvation of the Other is not something we can accomplish.