168. Programming The Empty Child: The Underground
History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto from archive.org
Programming
The Empty Child
To get an act of faith this unlikely off the ground
there had to be some more potent vision
than Skinner could provide, some evidence more compelling than
reinforcement schedule data to
inspire men of affairs to back the project. There
had to be foundational
visions for the scientific quest.
One will have to stand for all, and the one I've selected for examination is among the most
horrifyingly influential books ever to issue from a human pen, a rival in every way to Frederick
Taylor's Scientific Management. The author was Jean Jacques Rousseau. The book, Emile, published in 1762.
Whether Rousseau had given his own five children away to the foundling home before
or after he wrote it, I can't say
for sure. Before, I'm told.
Emile is a detailed account of the total
transformation of a boy of ten under the precisely calculated behavioral ministrations of a psychological
schoolmaster. Rousseau showed the
world how to write on the empty child Locke had fathered; he supplied means
by which Locke's potent image
could be converted to methodology. It took only a quarter century for Germans to catch on to the
pick-and-shovel utility of dreamy Rousseau, only a little longer for Americans and English to do the same.
Once Rousseau was fully digested,
the temptation to see society's children as human resources proved
irresistible to those nations
which had gone furthest in developing the mineral resource, coal, and its useful spirits, heat and steam.
Rousseau's influence over pedagogy began
when empty child explanations of human
nature came to dominate. With emotional religion, village life, local
elites, and American tradition
reeling from hammer blows of mass immigration, the nation was broadly transformed at the beginning of the
twentieth century without much conscious public awareness of what was happening.
One blueprint for the great
transformation was Emile, an attempt to reestablish Eden using a procedure Rousseau called
"negative education." Before the book gets to protagonist Emile, we are treated to
this instructive vignette of an anonymous student:
The poor child lets himself be taken away, he turned to look
backward with regret, fell silent,
and departed, his eyes swollen with tears he dared not shed and his heavy
heart with the sigh he dared not
exhale.
Thus
is the student victim led to the schoolmaster. What happens next is reassurance
that such a scene will never claim
Emile:
Oh you [spoken to
Emile] who have nothing similar to fear; you, for whom no time of life is a time of constraint or
boredom; you, who look forward to the day without disquiet and to the night without impatience —
come, my happy and good natured pupil, come and console us."
Look at Rousseau's
scene closely. Overlook its sexual innuendo and you notice the effusion is couched entirely in
negatives. The teacher has no positive expectations at all; he promises an absence of pain,
boredom, and ill-temper, just what Prozac delivers. Emile 's instructor says the boy likes him because he knows
"he will never be a long time
without distraction" and because "we never depend on each
other."
This idea of negation
is striking. Nobody owes anybody anything; obligation and duty are illusions. Emile isn't happy; he's
"the opposite of the unhappy child." Emile will learn "to commit himself to the habit of not contracting
any habits." He will have no passionately held commitments, no outside interests, no enthusiasms, and
no significant relationships other
than with the tutor. He must void his memory of everything but the
immediate moment, as children
raised in adoption and foster care are prone to do. He is to feel, not think. He is to be emptied in
preparation for his initiation as a mindless article of nature.
The similarity of all this to a drugged
state dawns on the critical reader. Emile is to find negative freedom — freedom from attachment, freedom from
danger, freedom from duty and
responsibility, etc. But Rousseau scrupulously avoids a question anybody might
ask: What is this freedom for?
What is its point?
9.The
creepy tone of this authorial voice reminded me of a similar modern voice used
by a district school psychologist for the Londonderry, New Hampshire, public schools writing
in an Education Week article, "Teacher as Therapist" (October
1995): "Welcome. ...We
get a good feeling on entering this classroom.... M&M's for every correct
math problem [aren't necessary]. A smile, on the other hand, a "Good Job!" or a pat on the back may
be effective and all that is necessary. Smiling faces on papers (even at the
high-level) with special
recognition at the end of the week for the students with the most faces. ..can
be powerful.... By setting appropriate expectations within a system of positive recognition and
negative consequences, teachers become therapists."
No comments:
Post a Comment