4 ms·

Yeah the tone and style of the text kinda bugged me. Who talks like that? I'm definitely sympathetic to the kind of ideas he's advocating, but it's dressed up

by chubot 3y ago

Yeah the tone and style of the text kinda bugged me. Who talks like that? I'm definitely sympathetic to the kind of ideas he's advocating, but it's dressed up in a language that makes it seem untrue. It's not surprising to me that he has a Ph.D. Picking something random from the beginning of Tools for Conviviality: https://co-munity.net/system/files/ILLICH%201973_tools_for_convivality_1.pdf https://co-munity.net/system/files/ILLICH%201973_tools_for_c... For several years at CIDOC in Cuernavaca we have conducted critical research on the monopoly of the industrial mode of production and have tried to define conceptually alternative modes that would fit a postindustrial age. ... Alternative devices for the production and marketing of mass education are technically more feasible and ethically less tolerable than compulsory graded schools. Such new educational arrangements are now on the verge of replacing traditional school systems in rich and in poor countries. They are potentially more effective in the conditioning of job−holders and consumers in an industrial economy. They are therefore more attractive for the management of present societies, more seductive for the people, and insidiously destructive of fundamental values. I think what he's saying is something like: > Schools use metrics likes grades that are slanted towards the goals of an industrial economy. This isn't the only way of organizing society, or the most ethical way. So let's consider alternatives. There is an extreme amount of passive voice in his writing (and yes I know passive voice can be useful; it's not used well here.) e.g. I'm having a lot of trouble parsing this part: are technically more feasible and ethically less tolerable than compulsory graded schools Is he actually saying that alternatives to mass education are LESS ethically tolerable than compulsory graded schools? That feels like the OPPOSITE of what he says elsewhere. If he actually used the active voice, it would be clear WHO considers it ethically less tolerable. So yeah my initial impression is this writing is very bad.

quacked 3y ago
> Is he actually saying that alternatives to mass education are LESS ethically tolerable than compulsory graded schools? Yes, but he's hiding his point in poor phrasing. Compulsory, graded schools are one solution for disseminating mass education. Another solution for disseminating mass education are personalized learning platforms run by algorithms, or video courses that are taught by a teacher far away from the student. These futuristic, alternative solutions are "technically more feasible and ethically less tolerable".
markhahn 3y ago
it's old-fashioned, for sure. and therefore less clear to a modern reader. but it's not that far from the kind of "turgid" prose you find even today in some academic fields (where being difficult to read is desired because a reader may conflate syntactic difficulty with conceptual challenge). it does come off as performative and thus annoying.

by chubot 3y ago

quacked 3y ago

> Is he actually saying that alternatives to mass education are LESS ethically tolerable than compulsory graded schools? Yes, but he's hiding his point in poor phrasing. Compulsory, graded schools are one solution for disseminating mass education. Another solution for disseminating mass education are personalized learning platforms run by algorithms, or video courses that are taught by a teacher far away from the student. These futuristic, alternative solutions are "technically more feasible and ethically less tolerable".

markhahn 3y ago

it's old-fashioned, for sure. and therefore less clear to a modern reader. but it's not that far from the kind of "turgid" prose you find even today in some academic fields (where being difficult to read is desired because a reader may conflate syntactic difficulty with conceptual challenge). it does come off as performative and thus annoying.