School, Self-Esteem, and the “Real World”
by Giulianna LamannaWhat universities were to conservatives in past decades, primary and secondary school appear to be now. Last year, FOX News ran a powerfully unimportant story on teachers switching from red ink to purple ink for fear that red ink is too harsh and hurts a child’s self-esteem. More recently, two members of the ultra-conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, published One Nation Under Therapy: How the Helping Culture is Eroding Self-Reliance, the first chapter of which deals with the banning of dodgeball and tag in some schools.
Far be it from me to defend the school system. More than anything, I find it amusing that they’re trying to increase children’s self-esteem by nit-picking at the tiniest little details, while the point of compulsory schooling from the beginning has been to destroy any sense of self-worth by forcing the children to rely on the system for everything they accomplish. As John Taylor Gatto so eloquently puts it in The Six-Lesson Schoolteacher, “[W]e must wait for other people, better trained than ourselves, to make the meanings of our lives. It is no exaggeration to say that our entire economy depends upon this lesson being learned. Think of what would fall apart if kids weren’t trained in the dependency lesson: The social-service businesses could hardly survive, including the fast-growing counseling industry; commercial entertainment of all sorts, along with television, would wither if people remembered how to make their own fun; the food services, restaurants and prepared-food warehouses would shrink if people returned to making their own meals rather than depending on strangers to cook for them. Much of modern law, medicine, and engineering would go too — the clothing business as well — unless a guaranteed supply of helpless people poured out of our schools each year. We’ve built a way of life that depends on people doing what they are told because they don’t know any other way.”
But that’s not a problem; like Gatto said, it’s an important part of the system. Overwhelmingly, the things people react badly to are the “red ink” stories above, and the complaints usually add up to, “Teachers are coddling our kids! They’re not teaching kids how to survive in the real world! In the real world, no one cares about your self-esteem! To survive in the real world, you have to suck it up, forget about your feelings, and work hard to get to the top! If kids don’t learn now how to compete, they’ll never survive in the real world!” (Did you manage to catch the common theme, or did I not italicize enough?)
Let’s take a look at this “real world” of which conservatives are so enamored. As far as I’ve been able to deduce, this “real world” came about roughly 10,000 years ago, a few million years after we hominids had come about (I like to call ‘em “homies,” ’cause I’m a dork like that) and a few billion years after the earth was formed. Pretty much as soon as the “real world” was created, it was off like a shot, murdering its neighbors, desertifying lush river valleys, and fostering a population explosion.
Now let’s take a look at the oft-forgotten lands beyond this “real world” of ours. For the purposes of this article, I’ll refer to it as the “unreal world.” This bizarro society has been around since the beginning of humanity. We spent 99% of our existence as a species in the “unreal world.” As a matter of fact, a few humans still live in the “unreal world,” despite the “real world”’s best efforts to kill them off. In the “unreal world,” one does not need to compete to survive, because your fellow unreal worldians can care for you if you find yourself unable to do something for whatever reason (sickness, pregnancy, whatever) - and you can care for them in return, if need be. All competition is friendly, because whether it’s you who bags the biggest deer or your friend, everyone eats well that night.
In the “unreal world,” children’s games are very different. Professor Irving Finkel was interviewed about the Brazilian Indigenous Games Project, and had this to say about children’s games in the “unreal world”:
When you see the children specially playing these games, the children are completely happy and it reminds you which is something you can forget in the modern world which we live, that the function of games is pleasure, entertainment and happiness. And here you see very simple games in an unspoiled environment where they have their real function, which is to bring people together to give them common activity, to give happiness, to give enjoyment.
Compare that to dodgeball. In fact, just compare that to the attitude with which “real world” children play. I remember joining soccer intramurals in elementary school. Back then, as now, I was a horrible athlete. I dragged down many a team with my clumsy kicking and bad defense. As a result, the other kids yelled at me for ruining their game. I was astonished; who actually cared about this? I thought it was about having fun. I believe I attended exactly one after-school soccer game before quitting. As I’ve grown older, I find myself reacting the same way in response to an equally childish game: the world of business.
It is instructive to occasionally remind oneself that this “real world” is neither real, nor the world. A few cursory flips through any basic anthropology book is enough to demonstrate that a hyper-competitive society is far from being the only society humans can build - or have built. It’s also far from being the most efficient or effective society humans have built. As I said before, bands and tribes have worked perfectly well for millions of years. Civilization, on the other hand, has to grow and grow and grow until eventually there’s no more land to farm and no more natives to slaughter and no more natural resources to exploit. Eventually, it must implode - and if the ever-increasing effects of peak oil are any indication, it’ll be reaching that point fairly soon. To refer to this disastrous experiment as the “real world” is not only self-absorbed and eurocentric, it’s also pretty damn stupid. But even stupider is wanting to prepare one’s children for such a dysfunctional society.
After all, I was taught in my fruity-tooty Social Studies class that humans create societies to improve their lives. So what kind of society forces people to abandon their most basic human needs and desires in order to better serve the system? What kind of society requires training young children to forget about their feelings and the feelings of others so they can single-mindedly chase material goods? Who actually benefits from this? Some people get more money, but who gets more happiness? Who actually gets to slow down and be human? If we created society to serve people, how can we excuse the fact that people must now serve society?
As so many people forget, civilization is not the “real world.” Civilization is our creation, through and through. And while that does mean that we’ve created a monster, it also means that we can abandon it and create something better. A society that serves humans, instead of the other way around. A society where you’re allowed to be a human and feel human emotions. We had it, once. And we could have it again, anytime we like. Like the prodigal son of the gospel, we ran away from our home for a little while and ran amok, but we’re always welcome back.
Welcome to the unreal world. Welcome home.
My dad and I have had many a conversation where he talks about “the real world”. “The real world” is why I am in debt $600, is why I used to be (and still am, though not as much) continually punished for not “doing well” in school, is why I am missing IshCon, a concert tonight, and could possibly be stranded without the internet soon.
Apparently, everything in my life is wholly and completely unreal. I think he expects me to grow out of this “phase”. He keeps comparing me to his old fundamentalist christian days, saying I am a zealot, that I am blind, etc. I guess some things never change - I guess he still is a conservative zealot, supporting civilization and spreading his “accountability” and “responsibility” and “real world” memes. What is so ironic, to me, is that he is in seminary, training to become a Unitarian Universalist minister. And if you know anything about Unitarian Universalism, you’ll know that it has a very liberal and understanding perspective of life and it’s interconnections. I guess I should give him credit for trying, but until he is able to stop thinking that what he is doing is “just being a good parent”, then I have a problem giving him any credit at all.
So, thank you for your welcome, and for the refuge that I have found at IshCon, here, and many of the myriad links I have found here.
Peace,
Devin
By the way, here are a couple other good resources on schooling and pedagogy:
Alfie Kohn. Specifically, you might be interested in his essay on Self Esteem. (Here)
Alfie Kohn also has several books that seem to be in line with the anti-society way of thinking: No Contest: The Case Against Competition, Punished by Rewards, The Brighter Side of Human Nature - Altruism and Empathy in Everyday Life, Beyond Discipline - From Compliance to Community… as well as a few others listed here. Although he is somewhat blindly influenced by the memes of civilization, he remains one of the strongest critics of the establishment.
Pedagogy of the Oppressed - a fascinating book by Paulo Freire, and one that I am still working on. A worldwide underground bestseller, since it contains several revolutionary themes.
Comment by Devin — 7 May 2005 @ 5:15 PM
Maybe I’m just misreading this again, but a couple of thoughts occur to me as I read this:
Think of what would fall apart if kids weren’t trained in the dependency lesson: The social-service businesses could hardly survive, including the fast-growing counseling industry; commercial entertainment of all sorts, along with television, would wither if people remembered how to make their own fun; the food services, restaurants and prepared-food warehouses would shrink if people returned to making their own meals rather than depending on strangers to cook for them. Much of modern law, medicine, and engineering would go too — the clothing business as well — unless a guaranteed supply of helpless people poured out of our schools each year.
Is it just me, or is this a completely absurd hypothesis? Granted, much of our edcuational system is designed to make people dependent on the system, but let’s not go overboard here. I mean, there wouldn’t be restaurants unless people were helpless? Most people aren’t helpless in that respect. The vast majority of most restaurants’ customers are perfectly capable of cooking on their own. They choose to go to a restaurant because it’s more convenient. Teaching people how to do things on their own won’t change that. Do you really think that any average person can learn how to practice law, medicine, and engineering as well as any laywer, doctor, or engineer? I don’t think so. That’s the reason we have specializations. Now, you could try to learn all those skills on your own so that John Taylor Gatto won’t think you’re helpless. But the phrase “jack of all trades and master of none” springs to mind.
This guy makes it sound like it’s possible to ever be completely self-sufficient when the reality is that humans have always been dependent on others for survival. The problem has nothing to do with a person’s “dependence” on professionals.
Let’s take a look at this “real world” of which conservatives are so enamored. As far as I’ve been able to deduce, this “real world” came about roughly 10,000 years ago, a few million years after we hominids had come about (I like to call ‘em “homies,” ’cause I’m a dork like that) and a few billion years after the earth was formed. Pretty much as soon as the “real world” was created, it was off like a shot, murdering its neighbors, desertifying lush river valleys, and fostering a population explosion.
I’m not sure it’s really useful to define the “real world” as being civilization. It’s most commonly used as a distinction within civilized society. For instance, it is often used to distinguish between the working world and the academic world. I don’t think any of us would suggest that a college professor is somehow outside of civilization. If anything, the “real world” is whatever the person saying it thinks of as normal.
I can just imagine a time when 99% of humanity is living in tribes and they look at one of those few civilized folks and say, “Just wait until you get out there into the real world”
In the “unreal world,” one does not need to compete to survive, because your fellow unreal worldians can care for you if you find yourself unable to do something for whatever reason (sickness, pregnancy, whatever) - and you can care for them in return, if need be. All competition is friendly, because whether it’s you who bags the biggest deer or your friend, everyone eats well that night.
To say that one does not need to compete in a non-civilized society requires a rather extreme stretch of the imagination. Tribe members still have to compete for food and resources. You may be able to count on the support of your fellow tribesmen, but you do have to compete with other tribes and possibly even other species. Think of it as the difference between Deathmatch and Capture the Flag. The competition is still there. All that changes are the rules of the game. Competition is just a part of nature.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 8 May 2005 @ 8:23 AM
I mean, there wouldn’t be restaurants unless people were helpless? Most people aren’t helpless in that respect. The vast majority of most restaurants’ customers are perfectly capable of cooking on their own. They choose to go to a restaurant because it’s more convenient. Teaching people how to do things on their own won’t change that.
Are you sure? These, to me, do not seem like statements backed by a lot of evidence. The vast majority of most restaurants’ customers? What about all the fast food restaurants, and all of the people who frequent those daily, sometimes even two, three times a day? How many people truly know how to cook a meal on their own, let alone a healthy one? I think this might be a clue as to why Americans are so obese…
In general, I think he’s correct, looking at the whole picture. How much independent survival value do the overwhelming majority of high school graduates have? Just about zero. I don’t think he’s arguing for a self-sufficient individualistic world, but good grief, just having SOME self-sufficiency would be a major improvement. I think that’s all he’s saying… not that he’s saying people should be capable of surving completely on their own.
I don’t know. Maybe you are a bit removed from compulsory school, or had an entirely different experience than me. But even the intellectual “elite” in high school are completely whipped by the system. True non-conformists are exceedingly rare in this regard. Most people I know have no separate identity from the system. Most of the people I see are helpless dependents.
Remember, he’s keeping the context limited to high school graduates, not necessarily college graduates - even though college grads don’t have much survival value either.
As for your other points, about the “real world”, I think those are, in general, valid. Art, philosophy, music, and other liberal arts are also not part of the “real world”, apparently. What is termed “real” seems to mean business, money, politics, and being a part of a corporate entity. What an awful reality.
Peace,
Devin
Comment by Devin — 8 May 2005 @ 5:46 PM
Are you sure? These, to me, do not seem like statements backed by a lot of evidence. The vast majority of most restaurants’ customers? What about all the fast food restaurants, and all of the people who frequent those daily, sometimes even two, three times a day? How many people truly know how to cook a meal on their own, let alone a healthy one? I think this might be a clue as to why Americans are so obese…
Well, I don’t think there’s been much research done on the subject. Maybe I’m overestimating the average person’s ability. But I’m pretty sure that most of us, even at a high school level, have at some point mastered the concept of, “Fire makes things hot.”
In general, I think he’s correct, looking at the whole picture. How much independent survival value do the overwhelming majority of high school graduates have? Just about zero.
Which has nothing to do with those people’s knowledge of law, medicine, or engineering or their preferences regarding restaurant food or television. Yeah, people in our society have an incredibly low survival value, but this guy is just taking the idea to a ridiculous extreme.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 10 May 2005 @ 8:31 AM
“She,” Devin, “she.” Giuli is female, and I’ve yet to meet the man who didn’t disgust me on that level.
Mike,
It’s not absurd at all. Specialization is one of the criteria of civilization (the second of Childe’s primary criteria, which you’ll recall me discussing in “The Meaning of Civilization“). Specialization arose in order to create a dependent class, and the kind of endemically lopsided economy that agriculture requires in order to be tenable. In tribal societies, there is sometimes a kind of pseduo-specialization, but everyone is at least familiar with what everyone else does. Even shamans hunt, and every hunter makes tools. The best toolmaker may spend most of his time making tools, but he’ll still be gathering food every so often. True specialization exists only in civilization, so I’d hardly identify it as a good thing.
Dependence on one another is universal; dependence on “professionals” is dangerous.
Maybe, maybe not. The term is so vague, and never really defined, it could go either way, depending on who’s saying it. I think Giuli’s analysis is spot-on (you may even recognize the phraseology, “neither real, nor the world,” and its inspiration from some of our previous epic debates….). While you’re right that it more often emphasizes the nuts-and-bolts of capitalist civilization in particular, I don’t think that damages Giuli’s point much.
As we discussed in person, the differences between the cut-throat, constant competition we face in civilization, and the low-level competition in nature are extreme. Where we face constant, ruthless competition from all corners, competition in nature is rarely even noticeable. The principle of scarcity–that there are fewer resources than people want–underpins all civilized economy. In nature, however, resources are so abundant that its limits are only rarely taxed. While competition in particular times and places can be lethal, this is an exception, not the rule. In civilization, such competition is endemic.
Also, living the majority of one’s daily life in a non-competitive circle or “team” drastically changes one’s experience of competition. It removes it from one’s daily existence and buffers it, in much the same way that being employed by another (as opposed to being self-employed) buffers one’s experience of the risks of doing business. In the tribe, one’s day to day experience is defined not by competition, but by cooperation–with the rest of the tribe. While it is in some sense true that the tribe is sometimes in competition with other tribes (and other species) for resources, this is usually of such low importance that it can easily be overlooked.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 May 2005 @ 9:07 AM
He, as in John Taylor Gatto. dot dot dot…
Comment by Devin — 10 May 2005 @ 11:06 PM
The vast majority of most restaurants’ customers are perfectly capable of cooking on their own. They choose to go to a restaurant because it’s more convenient. Teaching people how to do things on their own won’t change that.
It is? This is something I talked to a past roommate about–I tended to want to stay home and cook something and he would often go out–sometimes just to taco bell, sometimes to much nicer restaurants. He argued that cooking was too much work.
Let’s look at this from within a capitalist framework–even here, this assertion does not hold up. By the time he could get in his car, drive to taco bell, go through the drive through, and come back with food, he had usually been gone, depending on the time of day, 20-30 minutes. He usually spent about $5, without considering gas and all that. (Needless to say, nice restaurants amplify the expenses and time utilised considerably.) In that same amount of time, for a substantially smaller cost, I could have made a similar meal, but with higher-quality ingredients and better results. When he stuck around to participate, rather than sitting in traffic and looking out the window and being annoyed by other drivers, we were able to hang out, talk, catch up, and get the general satisfaction of the process of cooking, with generally similar or lesser expenses in terms of time. Again, cooking at home is always cheaper, which means my time at work has been better utilised and more freed up. I’m not sure eating out is more convenient, except I have to clean up a little less.
Basically, I would simply say that cooking is a more pleasurable activity than driving to taco bell and eating that crap, and it helps me not have to work so much to support myself, so I have more time to spend in pleasurable activity.
I think the point is that we are so accustomed to relying on someone else to do other things for us whenever possible, and we’re so used to thinking about things necessary to survive as being miserable and dreary (like work and school) that we generally try to avoid, whenever possible, doing anything. Leisure has become a state of inactivity, and that’s pretty messed up.
Comment by Kevin — 21 October 2006 @ 4:37 PM
Kevin wrote:
True. Also, cooking already is the pleasurable activity, for the most part, especially when you have company to help with preparing the food, washing the dishes and all this.
I think in the end it all comes down to being a cultural thing. If it raises your social prestige to a) own a car, b) be able to use it as you please, c) go to restaurants, d) be seen going there, and e) be able to have others work for you, even just for cooking, then you are probable going to do the things necessary to afford that.
If you are part of a culture which values the opposite to that, encouraging staying at home, being frugal, taking care of your own basic wellbeing and that of your loved ones, then you are going to do that. I think that this is what tribalism is all about.
It gets difficult the very moment that your sources of income are linked to a certain abstract level of social status, documented in titles, diplomas, money in the bank and things like that, and that most, or all, of the other means of making a living are under lock and key. Which is of course the situation in the civilised world, leading us to the somewhat perverse hope that things will collapse rather sooner than later to enable ourselves, or at least the children and grandchildren, to be able to live in a more humane way.
Comment by Michael K. — 22 October 2006 @ 4:17 AM