4 ms·

I'm not familiar with the idea that there was a 'postmodern revolution' in education (or even what that would look like?) What changes are you referring to?

by bbctol 9y ago

sillysaurus3 9y ago
Education as job training rather than education for intrinsic value.
- accountyaccount 9y ago
  Makes sense considering the U.S. is a society where you have no value unless you work. The presiding political party doesn't think you should have food and housing unless you have a job.
  - mmirate 9y ago
    > you have no value unless you work This subjunctive clause, stands alone as a true statement. How else does one earn money?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > This subjunctive clause, stands alone as a true statement. How else does one earn money? Well, one can gain money from passive rents on capital without work.
    - accountyaccount 9y ago
      You're equating value with money. I wasn't.
      - mmirate 9y ago
        > You're equating value with money. Well, unless we regress from currency to bartering, value is measured in money.
- Terr_ 9y ago
  Historically speaking, I suspect there's a correlation between "virtue-focused" schooling and bodies of predominantly-upper-class students who are already nearly guaranteed to get an entry-level job in a prestigious field. The study is designed to help them compete inside a more-rarefied social circle. Meanwhile, other students were in apprenticeships or going somewhere that focused on the on the three R's of readin', ritin', and 'rithmatic. If the amount of virtue-schooling is decreasing per-capita over time, that may just be regression to a centuries-long mean.
  - clock_tower 9y ago
    > Historically speaking, I suspect there's a correlation between "virtue-focused" schooling and bodies of predominantly-upper-class students who are already nearly guaranteed to get an entry-level job in a prestigious field. The study is designed to help them compete inside a more-rarefied social circle. Absolutely. The "liberal" in "liberal education" means "free from having to earn a living" -- education for the independently rich, the ruling class, to ensure that they can rule wisely, justly, and prudently. Those who don't have property yet have always been better off with a technical education -- a category which historically even included law and medicine.
pmoriarty 9y ago
See "The Myth of the Postmodern University".[1] What the above article is missing, however, is that "postmodernism" in English departments, Cultural Studies, Women's Studies, etc, has been long been boogymen among right-wingers like David Horowitz,[2] who don't like criticism or questioning of the oppressive social systems they benefit from and take the position that where such criticism is dominant, conservative and right-wing views are marginalized. That's really what's at the core of complaints against "postmodernism" in universities. [1] - http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2008/10/the-myth-of-the.html http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2008/10/the-myth-of-th... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  Oppressive social systems? You mean like the capitalist patriarchy boogeyman? I'm all for questioning social systems because goodness knows the ones we have contain many problems. But the article you linked is from 2004 and out of date with regards to what is happening. Postmodernism in universities is moving into the social sciences and attempting to destroy the bedrock of modern Western civilization. It wouldn't be so bad if proponents had something better to replace it with - but all they have is a labored version of Marxism that increases racism and segregation, and lowers meritocracy through identity politics. Social equity is the goal, but increased oppression will be the result.
  - pmoriarty 9y ago
    "Oppressive social systems? You mean like the capitalist patriarchy boogeyman?" I mean things like racism, misogyny, colonialism, social inequality, and yes, even the oppressive aspects of capitalism -- which actually do exist, much as some would like to spin capitalism as an untarnished blessing on the world. "But the article you linked is from 2004 and out of date with regards to what is happening. Postmodernism in universities is moving into the social sciences and attempting to destroy the bedrock of modern Western civilization." What is the bedrock of Western civilization, pray tell? And how does what's happening in the social sciences threaten it? "It wouldn't be so bad if proponents had something better to replace it with - but all they have is a labored version of Marxism that increases racism and segregation, and lowers meritocracy through identity politics. Social equity is the goal, but increased oppression will be the result." This has been the line of the so-called conservatism with a smile, which pretends to care for the downtrodden, the oppressed, and minorities. That line might fool many today who have little familiarity with history, but is real stretch for those who've seen the conservative boot stomp down again and again on those they are now pretending to concern themselves with. No, conservatism has always been concerned primarily with protecting and advancing the interests of the rich and powerful, and there's no indication that they've suddenly turned a new leaf and suddenly love their historical victims.
lr4444lr 9y ago
I think the parent comment is overstating the case, but the insinuation of critical race theory into some administrators' thinking is very troubling.
pnathan 9y ago
The essence of the shift in the postmodern worldview is the belief that truth and virtues are subjective; that communications are fundamentally impossible due to the differences between people; at the same time, teaching and the knowledge of the old are predicated on a mode of oppression. This has largely been laughed off by STEM people, because it is hilariously wrong. Unfortunately, it got into the liberal arts and humanities and poisoned their ability to make virtue judgments and compelling moral cases. Historically in the US, the complaints are more from the conservative POV, but I'd not let that deter you. Bloom's Closing of the American Mind is probably one of the more famous ones. The Sokal Hoax was a famous shot of the matter. There's more than a small amount of "gerroff my lawn" in the critiques, but the substance is more than just moaning about "kids these days", it's a deep philosophical worldview difference that has ramifications across society.
- woodruffw 9y ago
  The subjectivity of truth[1] and morality is relativism; focus on oppression and power is an element of critical theory. Both are regularly conflated with postmodernism, but neither is intrinsically postmodernist - relativism predates it by approximately forever, and (contemporary) critical theory is a child of the postmodernism of the 1980s and 1990s (with origins in the late 1930s). There are good reasons to be skeptical of both, but it's a gross exaggeration to say that they've "poisoned" the humanities. My experience as a philosophy major has been full of extreme (and deserved) skepticism towards relativism. Critical theory has grown in popularity, but it's nowhere near the boogeyman that many (including my peers in STEM!) seem to make of it. Individuals vary, of course, but "postmodernism" never took over the liberal arts. It's just another school of thought, and not a particularly popular one at that. Edit: [1]: I don't want to give the impression that most (or even any) relativists believe that all truths are relative. This would, again, be a tremendous mischaracterization - most are not interested in challenging empirical truths. Instead, most relativists are skeptical about the absoluteness of moral truths. I happen to be a (somewhat firm) moral realist, so that's all very silly to me. However, it's the difference between a completely incoherent view (all truths are relative) and a coherent view that I think is probably incorrect (moral truths are not absolute).

I'm not familiar with the idea that there was a 'postmodern revolution' in education (or even what that would look like?) What changes are you referring to?

by bbctol 9y ago

I'm not familiar with the idea that there was a 'postmodern revolution' in education (or even what that would look like?) What changes are you referring to?

sillysaurus3 9y ago

Education as job training rather than education for intrinsic value.

accountyaccount 9y ago
Makes sense considering the U.S. is a society where you have no value unless you work. The presiding political party doesn't think you should have food and housing unless you have a job.
- mmirate 9y ago
  > you have no value unless you work This subjunctive clause, stands alone as a true statement. How else does one earn money?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > This subjunctive clause, stands alone as a true statement. How else does one earn money? Well, one can gain money from passive rents on capital without work.
  - accountyaccount 9y ago
    You're equating value with money. I wasn't.
    - mmirate 9y ago
      > You're equating value with money. Well, unless we regress from currency to bartering, value is measured in money.
Terr_ 9y ago
Historically speaking, I suspect there's a correlation between "virtue-focused" schooling and bodies of predominantly-upper-class students who are already nearly guaranteed to get an entry-level job in a prestigious field. The study is designed to help them compete inside a more-rarefied social circle. Meanwhile, other students were in apprenticeships or going somewhere that focused on the on the three R's of readin', ritin', and 'rithmatic. If the amount of virtue-schooling is decreasing per-capita over time, that may just be regression to a centuries-long mean.
- clock_tower 9y ago
  > Historically speaking, I suspect there's a correlation between "virtue-focused" schooling and bodies of predominantly-upper-class students who are already nearly guaranteed to get an entry-level job in a prestigious field. The study is designed to help them compete inside a more-rarefied social circle. Absolutely. The "liberal" in "liberal education" means "free from having to earn a living" -- education for the independently rich, the ruling class, to ensure that they can rule wisely, justly, and prudently. Those who don't have property yet have always been better off with a technical education -- a category which historically even included law and medicine.

pmoriarty 9y ago

See "The Myth of the Postmodern University".[1] What the above article is missing, however, is that "postmodernism" in English departments, Cultural Studies, Women's Studies, etc, has been long been boogymen among right-wingers like David Horowitz,[2] who don't like criticism or questioning of the oppressive social systems they benefit from and take the position that where such criticism is dominant, conservative and right-wing views are marginalized. That's really what's at the core of complaints against "postmodernism" in universities. [1] - http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2008/10/the-myth-of-the.html http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2008/10/the-myth-of-th... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz

hyperdunc 9y ago
Oppressive social systems? You mean like the capitalist patriarchy boogeyman? I'm all for questioning social systems because goodness knows the ones we have contain many problems. But the article you linked is from 2004 and out of date with regards to what is happening. Postmodernism in universities is moving into the social sciences and attempting to destroy the bedrock of modern Western civilization. It wouldn't be so bad if proponents had something better to replace it with - but all they have is a labored version of Marxism that increases racism and segregation, and lowers meritocracy through identity politics. Social equity is the goal, but increased oppression will be the result.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  "Oppressive social systems? You mean like the capitalist patriarchy boogeyman?" I mean things like racism, misogyny, colonialism, social inequality, and yes, even the oppressive aspects of capitalism -- which actually do exist, much as some would like to spin capitalism as an untarnished blessing on the world. "But the article you linked is from 2004 and out of date with regards to what is happening. Postmodernism in universities is moving into the social sciences and attempting to destroy the bedrock of modern Western civilization." What is the bedrock of Western civilization, pray tell? And how does what's happening in the social sciences threaten it? "It wouldn't be so bad if proponents had something better to replace it with - but all they have is a labored version of Marxism that increases racism and segregation, and lowers meritocracy through identity politics. Social equity is the goal, but increased oppression will be the result." This has been the line of the so-called conservatism with a smile, which pretends to care for the downtrodden, the oppressed, and minorities. That line might fool many today who have little familiarity with history, but is real stretch for those who've seen the conservative boot stomp down again and again on those they are now pretending to concern themselves with. No, conservatism has always been concerned primarily with protecting and advancing the interests of the rich and powerful, and there's no indication that they've suddenly turned a new leaf and suddenly love their historical victims.

lr4444lr 9y ago

I think the parent comment is overstating the case, but the insinuation of critical race theory into some administrators' thinking is very troubling.

pnathan 9y ago

The essence of the shift in the postmodern worldview is the belief that truth and virtues are subjective; that communications are fundamentally impossible due to the differences between people; at the same time, teaching and the knowledge of the old are predicated on a mode of oppression. This has largely been laughed off by STEM people, because it is hilariously wrong. Unfortunately, it got into the liberal arts and humanities and poisoned their ability to make virtue judgments and compelling moral cases. Historically in the US, the complaints are more from the conservative POV, but I'd not let that deter you. Bloom's Closing of the American Mind is probably one of the more famous ones. The Sokal Hoax was a famous shot of the matter. There's more than a small amount of "gerroff my lawn" in the critiques, but the substance is more than just moaning about "kids these days", it's a deep philosophical worldview difference that has ramifications across society.

woodruffw 9y ago
The subjectivity of truth[1] and morality is relativism; focus on oppression and power is an element of critical theory. Both are regularly conflated with postmodernism, but neither is intrinsically postmodernist - relativism predates it by approximately forever, and (contemporary) critical theory is a child of the postmodernism of the 1980s and 1990s (with origins in the late 1930s). There are good reasons to be skeptical of both, but it's a gross exaggeration to say that they've "poisoned" the humanities. My experience as a philosophy major has been full of extreme (and deserved) skepticism towards relativism. Critical theory has grown in popularity, but it's nowhere near the boogeyman that many (including my peers in STEM!) seem to make of it. Individuals vary, of course, but "postmodernism" never took over the liberal arts. It's just another school of thought, and not a particularly popular one at that. Edit: [1]: I don't want to give the impression that most (or even any) relativists believe that all truths are relative. This would, again, be a tremendous mischaracterization - most are not interested in challenging empirical truths. Instead, most relativists are skeptical about the absoluteness of moral truths. I happen to be a (somewhat firm) moral realist, so that's all very silly to me. However, it's the difference between a completely incoherent view (all truths are relative) and a coherent view that I think is probably incorrect (moral truths are not absolute).