Author: Emmet Roche

One of the biggest questions that I have about education, which I think lacks a concrete answer, regards its purpose in reference to time.

 

During one of my high school English classes, I specifically remember that after my teacher had stated an arbitrary fact that indeed no one in the class had known, he said something along the lines of “I mean to tell you this not because I suspect it is something new that most of you have probably have not heard of before” (education= expanding our knowledge, database, vocabulary, etc), “instead I say things like this because of the effect that I think it will have in the present—in this classroom” (education= gaining momentary pieces of information that expose us to trains of thought, which shape us and impact us as we experience them). The two very different ways of looking at obtaining knowledge presented here bring up the following question: is education more about being able to draw on past archives (perhaps going out of my way to remember this new fact that my teacher presented and sometime in the future, being able to relay it back to someone else) or is education more about accepting that our contact with new material will shape us as we come in contact with it, and then sort of just moving on as somewhat changed people? Or is there some sort of in-between?

 

I realize that this question is quite epistemological and therefore branches out past the topic of education in a classroom setting. Moran admits that “the modes of interdisciplinarity discussed in [Literature Into Culture]  are characterized by their uncertainty about how knowledge is formulated and how disciplines fit together.” The education system, too, simply takes a position on “how knowledge is formulated and how the disciplines fit together” and sculpts a whole system that, too, embodies these epistemological ideals. It does makes sense that knowledge would be organized in such a way, but it also reveals the inconsistency within the system.

As I’m sure many of you are aware, there are conversations happening today regarding the presence of artificial intelligence, the increasing connectedness between humans and technology, and what all of this means for the future of humanity. I think it’s a conversation that many people dismiss immediately because of its seemingly ridiculous assertions, but I think it’s a conversation that is worth having.

The 2013 Movie “Her” introduces the world’s first artificially intelligent operating system, which is basically assigned to someone depending on their response to a few questions. The lonely Theodore purchases his very own operating system, which he ends up falling in love with. “Her” recognizes its absurdity…it is a pretty absurd movie. But I don’t think it should be dismissed simply because of its absurdity. I think it actually contains a lot of arguments that are worth thinking about and I think it’s actually scary how relatable it is. The operating system that Theodore falls in love with is portrayed as extremely human, which may be one of the biggest issues that people have with the movie, but, nevertheless, his relationship with his operating system is indeed quite similar to the ways that people engage with technology today. I’ve included the trailer for the movie below if anyone wants to get a better picture of what the movie is like.

In one of her talks regarding the ‘Alone Together’ idea —which focuses on the increasing occurrence of technology co-existing with people within social situations; e.g. everyone being on their phones on the subway— Sherry Turkle makes some bold claims about the consequences of technology within our lives (specifically social situations). One of the situations Turkle comments on is the difference between the birthday parties of fifteen year olds today versus the birthday parties of fifteen year olds from a number of years ago. Turkle basically says that fifteen year old parties from the past were solely based off of human interaction. Today, however, less interaction between people is necessary because of the easy-to-access technology inside of our pockets, providing comfort and an escape from whatever social situation one wants to escape from. What are the consequences of having such a comforting and accessible way of exiting social situations? I’ve included the link of Turkle’s talk if anyone wants to get a better idea of her arguments here.

The ideas put forward in “Her” and Turkle’s talk both comment on the intrusion of technology in our lives, something that has happened incredibly fast and with very observable effects. In the conclusion of Moran’s Interdisciplinarity, Moran says “Interdisciplinary could therefore be seen as a way of living with the disciplines more critically and self-consciously” (181). Indeed, that is exactly the optimism presented and widely accepted with technology. We hope to live with it “critically and self-consciously.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzV6mXIOVl4

 

Discussions regarding  interdisciplinarity seem to almost always focus on: the validity of the rise of new disciplines, the increasing interconnectedness between disciplines, the relations between science and literature in particular, and the function and place of disciplines within modern day (and future) colleges. Of course, these discussions can lead to so many more, and, as Moran has proven, interdisciplinarity deals with so many more topics than those listed above. Interestingly (or maybe not), Moran’s arguments and statements about interdisciplinarity are only worth thinking about if we accept, just as Moran does, the inherent value of education. But who wouldn’t, right?

I was almost astounded when coming across something in my Anthropology textbook, Window on Humanity: A Concise Introduction to Anthropology. Conrad Kottak writes “Luis Inacio da Silva, or Lula, a former factory worker with only a fourth-grade education, served two terms (ending in 2011) as one of the Western Hemisphere’s most popular leaders” (403). An understandable immediate reaction, as mine was, is to feel completely dumbfounded. How could someone with only a fourth grade education be suitable to take the role of President of Brazil? Interestingly, Kottak almost seems to suggest that he was a suitable fit, saying “Brazil’s lower class (indeed the entire nation) benefited socioeconomically when one of its own was elected president” (403). Here, it seems that Kottak is making the bold claim that presidency is more about being able to relate to and understand the people, rather than being quite educated and therefore having a certain knowledge regarding which decisions would likely benefit the people. Our ethnocentric view, biased in many ways because of our American cultural views on the circumstances surrounding presidency, makes us prone to be critical of this president.

According to Kottak, however, he was “one of the Western Hemisphere’s most popular leaders” (403). Discussions regarding interdisciplinarity surround themselves in the root of education influence, therefore leading us to not even consider questioning the value of education in itself. I don’t mean to argue that education isn’t valuable, but maybe the conversation surrounding interdisciplinarity needs to begin somewhere that is less grounded and more inclusive. Indeed, this may not be the conversation that Moran wants to have, but it can still be one that is valuable too.

Literature is definitely recognized as possessing somewhat uniting qualities— both bringing people of extremely different backgrounds together while also stressing the usefulness of human interaction and relations. Moran frequently quotes Richard Hoggart in chapter two of Interdisciplinarity. One of these quotes reads “literature is uniquely concerned with the total human response, with ‘the quality of life,’ in the fullest sense we are able to imagine” (50-51). First of all, it seems like quite a bold claim to make that a “total human response” is even something that exists and something that we are capable of comprehending. Second, to attribute literature as being uniquely concerned with this seems to praise literature without actually providing a thorough argument as to why and how literature concerns itself with “the total human response.” I’m just not so sure that such a thing exists.

Moran talks about Hoggart’s text The Uses of Literacy, which consists of the first section ‘An “Older” Order’ and a second section ‘Yielding Place to New’. The first section “describes a traditional working-class culture organized around family and neighbourhood rituals, and is largely sympathetic and celebratory” and the second section “laments the dangerous influence of a new form of Americanized popular culture on working class life, a ‘candy floss world’ of popular songs, ‘spicy’ magazines, and titillating novels” (49-50). Even without having read these two sections of Moran’s text, I’m sure we can all imagine the numerous differences between the interests, everyday lives, and cultures between these “old” and “new” generations of people. Even using our own parents as examples, I’m sure most of us can see the vast differences between the ways in which they grew up and the ways we have grown up. With time comes change, and all we can do, as the complex people that we are, is to adapt and deal with these changes in the ways we feel are best.

Now imagine how much more drastic these cultural differences are between us and, lets say, a small African village. Obviously not taking language barriers into consideration here, but how well do you think we’d be able to relate to these people? I’d say we’d have a much better shot with people like our parents—an older generation indeed, but still one that encompasses somewhat similar ideals and values as us. And I think this is one of the harshest realities out there—that we are completely oblivious to the significance that lies in the differences between us and other people out there. Of course, there has to be some level of acceptance here in order to continue functioning and living our lives in the way that our culture and area restricts us to, but I feel like there also must be some sort of push for curiosity and determination in order to create connections and draw meaning from these differences too.

So, when I read Hoggart’s claim that literature is “uniquely concerned with the total human response, with ‘the quality of life,’ in the fullest sense we are able to imagine,” I can’t help but feel skeptical as to how such a thing is possible. What is the total human response?

I’d say most of us consider ourselves curious people, right?  But how curious are we really? How much of our lives do we live comforted by the beliefs of language which are based on theory? How much of our everyday lives, both inside and outside of the classroom, are controlled by the beliefs that we have which are all based on theory?

In Interdisciplinarity, Moran talks about how it is regarded as common sense that we use language as a way of expressing ourselves and our relationships to others and the world. As members of the Geneseo community, we can all definitely agree that language is useful in this sense. Language allows us to feel comfort in knowing that we can always communicate with others around us. According to Moran, language “allows most people to  get up in the morning and and live their everyday lives without constantly questioning the nature of individual identity or external reality.” Moran then says “Within academia, disciplines are a similar form of common sense, allowing us to keep doing what we do without continually speculating about its purpose, limits, and ultimate worth.”

So, how curious are we really? How often do we strive for comfort? How often do we strive to feel that we are contributing to a certain discipline, when we may in fact know very little about it? Maybe disciplines, in themselves, are simply a way of distracting us from the identity crises that we would otherwise be having. Maybe seeking to gain a lot of knowledge about one discipline is limiting in a sense. Maybe the act of picking up a book and reading is sometimes almost instinctive- taking us back to the comfort and peacefulness of our own minds.  Maybe we need to speculate more, and think about the ways in which theories regarding language, itself, conform us to some particular system of ideas within our discipline.