The New Illiteracy
Christopher Lasch
[Christopher Lasch (b. 1932) was educated at Harvard
and Columbia and has taught history at a number of universities since
1957, including the University of Iowa, Northwestern, and currently
the University of Rochester. Among his many books on American history,
culture, and politics are The New Radicalism in America,
1889-1963, Haven in a Heartless Wodd: The Family Besieged, and
The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing
Expectations (1979), from which the following essay is taken.]
The extension of formal schooling to groups formerly excluded from it
is one of the most striking developments in modern history. The
experience of Western Europe and the United States in the last 200
years suggests that mass education provides one of the principal
foundations of economic development, and modernizers throughout the
rest of the world have tried to duplicate the achievement of the West
in bringing education to the masses. Faith in the wonder-working
powers of education has proven to be one of the most durable
components of liberal ideology, easily assimilated by ideologies
hostile to the rest of liberalism. Yet the democratization of
education has accomplished little to justify this faith.
Conservative and radical critics of the education system agree on a
central contention -- that intellectual standards are inherently
elitist. Radicals attack the school system on the grounds that it
perpetuates an obsolescent literary culture, the "linear"
culture of the written word, and imposes it on the masses. Efforts to
uphold standards of literary expression and logical coherence,
according to this view, serve only to keep the masses in their place.
Educational radicalism unwittingly echoes the conservatism that
assumes that common people cannot hope to master the art of reasoning
or achieve clarity of expression, and that forcibly exposing them to
high culture ends, inevitably, in abandonment of academic rigor.
Forced to choose between these positions, those who believe in
critical thought as an indispensable precondition of social or
political progress might well renounce the very possibility of
progress and side with the conservatives, who at least recognize
intellectual deterioration when they see it and do not attempt to
disguise it as liberation. But the conservative interpretation of the
collapse of standards is much too simple. Standards are deteriorating
even at Harvard, Yale and Princeton. A faculty committee at Harvard
reports, "The Harvard faculty does not care about teaching."
According to a study of general education at Columbia, teachers have
lost "their common sense of what kind of ignorance is
unacceptable." As a result, "Students reading Rabelais's
description of civil disturbances ascribe them to the French
Revolution. A class of twenty-five had never heard of the Oedipus
complex -- or of Oedipus. Only one student in a class of fifteen could
date the Russian Revolution within a decade."
Mass education, which began as a promising attempt to democratize the
higher culture of the privileged classes, has ended by stupefying the
privileged themselves. Modern society has achieved unprecedented rates
of formal literacy, but at the same time it has produced new forms of
illiteracy.
In 1966, high school seniors scored an average of 467 points on the
verbal section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test -- hardly cause for
celebration. Ten years later they scored only 429. Scores on the
mathematical part of the test dropped from an average of 495 to 470.
Many publishers have simplified textbooks in response to complaints
that a new generation of students raised on television, movies and
what one educator calls "the antilanguage assumptions of our
culture" finds existing textbooks unintelligible. The decline of
intellectual competence cannot be accounted for, as some observers
would have it, on the reactionary assumption that more students from
minority and low-income groups are taking tests, going to college and
thus dragging down the scores. The proportion of these students has
remained unchanged over the last ten years; meanwhile the decline of
academic achievement has extended to elite schools as well as to
community colleges, junior colleges and public high schools. Every
year, 40 to 60 percent of the students at the University of California
find themselves required to enroll in remedial English. At Stanford,
only a quarter of the students in the class entering in 1975 managed
to pass the university's English placement test, even though these
students had achieved high scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. At
private high schools, average test scores in math and English dropped
by eight and ten points in a single year, between 1974 and 1975.
Even at the top schools in the country, students' ability to use
their own language, their knowledge of foreign languages, their
reasoning powers, their stock of historical information and their
knowledge of the major literary classics have all undergone a
relentless process of deterioration. Nor is this functional illiteracy
confined to freshmen and sophomores. Scores on the Graduate Record
Examination have also declined.
In view of all this evidence, it should not surprise us that
Americans are becoming increasingly ignorant about their own rights as
citizens. According to a recent survey 47 percent of a sample of
17-year-olds, on the verge of becoming eligible voters, did not know
the simple fact that each state elects two United States senators.
More than half of the 17-year-olds and more than three-fourths of the
13-year-olds in the survey could not explain the significance of the
Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. One of every
eight 17-year-olds believed that the President does not have to obey
the law, and one of every two students at both ages believed that the
President appoints members of Congress. Half the 13-year-olds thought
that the law forbids anyone to start a new political party. Hardly any
of the students in either group could explain what steps the
Constitution entitles Congress to take in order to stop a President
from fighting a war without Congressional approval. If an educated
electorate is the best defense against arbitrary government, the
survival of political freedom appears uncertain at best. Large numbers
of Americans now believe that the Constitution sanctions arbitrary
executive power, and recent political history, with its steady growth
of presidential power, can only have reinforced such an assumption.
What has become of the early republican dream?
The common school system grew out of the democratic revolution, which
created a new type of citizenship based on equality before the law and
limited government -- a "government of laws, not men." The
model citizen of early republican theory knew what his rights were and
defended them from infringement by his fellow citizens and by the
state. He could not be fooled by demagogues or overawed by the learned
obfuscations of professional wise men. Appeals to authority left him
unimpressed. Always on the alert for forgery, he had, moreover, enough
worldly wisdom about men's motives, understanding of the principles of
critical reasoning and skill in the use of language to detect
intellectual fraud in whatever form it presented itself.
Training such exemplary citizens obviously required a new system of
education -- though far more important, in the minds of early
republican theorists, was the consideration that it presupposed a
nation of small property holders and a fairly equal distribution of
wealth. Republican education had as its object, in Jefferson's words,
"to diffuse knowledge more generally through the mass of the
people." It stressed what the 18th century would have called
useful knowledge, especially ancient and modern history, which
Jefferson hoped might teach the young to judge "the actions and
designs of men, to know ambition under every disguise it may assume;
and knowing it, to defeat its views."
Beginning with the Irish in the 1840s, the immigration of politically
backward elements, as they were commonly regarded, sharpened the fear,
already an undercurrent in American social thought, that the United
States would regress to a hated old-world pattern of class conflict,
hereditary poverty and political despotism. In the climate of such
anxieties, educational reformers like Horace Mann and Henry Barnard
won a hearing for proposals to set up a national system of compulsory
education and to broaden the curriculum beyond the purely intellectual
training envisioned by earlier reformers. From this time on, the
problem of acculturating the immigrant population never wandered far
from the center of the American educational enterprise. Because the
task of initiation presented itself in this form, the American school,
in contrast to the European, placed heavy emphasis on the nonacademic
side of the curriculum. The democratic aim of bringing the fruits of
modern culture to the masses gave way in practice to a concern with
education as a form of social control. Even in the 1830s, the common
school already commended itself, in part, as a means of subtly
discouraging the masses from aspiring to "culture."
The differences between American and European systems of public
education should not be exaggerated. Both systems from the beginning
combined democratic and undemocratic features; as the political
objective of public education gave way to a growing preoccupation with
industrial objectives, the undemocratic features became more and more
pronounced.
At first, 19th-century students of society saw a close connection
between political and economic "initiation." They conceived
of industrial training as an extension of the training required for
republican citizenship. The same habits of mind that made good
citizens-self-reliance, self-respect, versatility-appeared to be
essential to good workmanship. By bringing modern culture to the
masses, the school system would also inculcate industrial discipline
in the broadest sense of the term. What industrial discipline meant to
an earlier and now almost extinct democratic tradition was best
expressed by one of its last exponents, Veblen, who believed that
modern industry nourished in the producing classes "iconoclastic"
habits of mind-skepticism, a critical attitude toward authority and
tradition, a "materialistic" and scientific outlook and a
development of the "instinct of workmanship" beyond anything
possible in earlier forms of society.
During the period around the turn of the century -- the same period
in which "Americanization" became the semiofficial slogan of
American educators -- a second and much cruder form of industrial
education, stressing manual training and vocational education, crept
into the public schools under the watchword of "efficiency."
George Eastman, after complaining that black people were "densely
ignorant," concluded that "the only hope of the Negro race
and the settlement of this problem is through proper education of the
Hampton-Tuskegee type, which is directed almost wholly toward making
them useful citizens through education on industrial lines." In
1908, a group of businessmen urged the National Education Association
to introduce more courses in commercial and industrial subjects into
the elementary curriculum. Seventy percent of the pupils in elementary
schools, they pointed out, never went on to high school, and the best
training for these students was "utilitarian first, and cultural
afterward."
In response to a public outcry about the high rate of academic
failure in the schools, an outcry that swelled to a chorus around
1910, educators introduced systems of testing and tracking that had
the effect of relegating academic "failures" to programs of
manual and industrial training (where many of them continued to fail).
Protests against genteel culture, overemphasis on academic subjects, "gentleman's
education" and the "cultured ease in the classroom, of
drawing room quiet and refinement" frequently coincided with an
insistence that higher education and "culture" should not in
any case be "desired by the mob." The progressive period
thus saw the full flowering of the school as a major agency of
industrial recruitment, selection and certification.
Down into the thirties and forties, those groups with a cultural
tradition that valued formal learning, notably the Jews, managed to
make use of the system, even a a system increasingly geared to the
purpose of industrial recruitment, as a lever of collective
self-advancement. Under favorable conditions, the school's emphasis on
"Americanism" and its promotion of universal norms had a
liberating effect, helping individuals to make a fruitful break with
parochial ethnic traditions. When Randolph Bourne (a favorite of
radical historians, who believe his critique of education anticipates
their own) extolled cultural pluralism, he had in mind as a model not
the intact immigrant cultures of the ghettos but the culture of the
twice-uprooted immigrant intellectuals he met at Columbia.
The reforms of the progressive period gave rise to an unimaginative
educational bureaucracy and a system of industrial recruitment that
eventually undermined the ability of the school to serve as an agency
of intellectual emancipation; but it was a long time before the bad
effects of these changes became pervasive. As educators convinced
themselves, with the help of intelligence tests, that most of the
students could never master an academic curriculum, they found it
necessary to devise other ways of keeping them busy. The introduction
of courses in homemaking, health, citizenship and other nonacademic
subjects, together with the proliferation of athletic programs and
extracurricular activities, reflected the dogma that schools had to
educate the "whole child"; but it also reflected the
practical need to fill up the students' time and to keep them
reasonably contented.
Educational reformers brought the family's work into the school in
the hope of making the school an instrument not merely of education
but of socialization as well. Dimly recognizing that in many
areas-precisely those that lie outside the formal
curriculum-experience teaches more than books, educators then
proceeded to do away with books: to import experience into the
academic setting, to re-create the modes of learning formerly
associated with the family, to encourage students to "learn by
doing." Having imposed a deadening academic curriculum on every
phase of the child's experience, they demanded, too late, that
education be brought into contact with "life."
In practice, this advice dictated a continuing search for undemanding
programs of study. The search reached new heights in the forties, when
the educational establishment introduced another in a series of
panaceas -- education for "life adjustment." In Illinois,
proponents of life adjustment urged schools to give more attention to
such "problems of high school youth" as "improving
one's personal appearance," "selecting a family dentist"
and "developing and maintaining wholesome boy-girl relationships."
Elsewhere, observers reported hearing classroom discussions on such
topics as "How can I be popular?" "Why are my parents
so strict?" "Should I follow my crowd or obey my parents'
wishes?"
Given the underlying American commitment to the integral high school
-- the refusal to specialize college preparation and technical
training in separate institutions -- make-work programs, athletics,
extracurricular activities and the pervasive student emphasis on
sociability corrupted not merely the vocational and life-adjustment
programs but the college preparatory course as well. The concept of
industrial discipline deteriorated to the point where intellectual and
even manual training became incidental to the inculcation of orderly
habits. The more closely education approximated this empty ideal,
however, the more effectively it discouraged ambition of any sort,
except perhaps the ambition to get away from school by one expedient
or another.
By the fifties, two groups of critics emerged. The first, led by
Arthur Bestor, Albert Lynd, Mortimer Smith and the Council for Basic
Education, denied that the school should socialize the "whole
child," assume the functions of the family and the church or
serve as an agency of industrial recruitment. They argued that the
school's only responsibility was to provide basic intellectual
training and to extend this training to everyone. They deplored
anti-intellectualism but also condemned the tracking system.
A second group of critics-reformers like Vannevar Bush, James B.
Conant and Vice Admiral Hyman G. Rickover -- attacked American
education not because it was both anti-intellectual and undemocratic
but because it failed to turn out enough scientists and high-level
technicians. After the Russians launched a space capsule in 1957, this
kind of criticism forced educators to institute new methods of
training in science and mathematics, which stressed assimilation of
basic concepts rather than memorization of facts. Although they called
for a return to basics, they did not question the school's function as
an instrument of military and industrial recruitment; they merely
sought to make the selection process more efficient.
Under the Selective Service Act of 1951, passed at the height of the
Korean War, military service became a universal obligation except for
those who managed to qualify for academic exemption. The system of
academic deferment, when combined with educational reforms designed to
recruit a scientific and technical elite, created a national system of
manpower selection in which minorities and the poor provided recruits
for a vast peacetime army, while the middle class, eager to escape
military service, attended college in unprecedented numbers.
The National Defense Education Act of 1958, designed to speed up
production of engineers and scientists, gave added impetus to the boom
in higher education, which lasted until the early 1970s. Meanwhile,
the schools devoted increasing attention to the identification of able
students and the discouragement of others. More efficient systems of
tracking, together with increased emphasis on math and science,
recruited growing numbers of college students but did little to
improve their training. Efforts to extend techniques first perfected
by teachers of the "new math" into the social sciences and
humanities produced students deficient in factual knowledge and
intolerant of instruction that did not address their need for "creativity"
and "self-expression."
Institutions of cultural transmission (school, church, family), which
might have been expected to counter the narcissistic trend of our
culture, have instead been shaped in its image, while a growing body
of progressive theory justifies this capitulation on the ground that
such institutions best serve society when they provide a mirror
reflection of it.
In the sixties, spokesmen for the civil rights movement and later for
black power attacked the gross injustice of the educational system.
The disparity in the academic performance of black and white
schoolchildren dramatized the failure of American education more
clearly than any other issue. Precisely for this reason, educators had
always attempted to explain it away either on the grounds of racial
inferiority or, when racism became scientifically unacceptable, on the
grounds of "cultural deprivation." As Kenneth B. Clark
pointed out, "Social scientists and educators, in the use and
practice of the concept of cultural deprivation, have unintentionally
provided an educational establishment that was already resistant to
change . . . with a justification for continued inefficiency, much
more respectable and much more acceptable in the middle of the
twentieth century than racism.
The struggle over desegregation brought to the surface the inherent
contradiction between the American commitment to universal education
on the one hand and the realities of a class society on the other.
Conflicts over educational policy in the fifties had made it clear
that the country faced a choice between basic education for all and a
complicated educational bureaucracy that functioned as an agency of
manpower selection. The same issue, often clouded by overheated
rhetoric, underlay the more bitter struggles of the sixties and
seventies. For black people, especially for upwardly mobile blacks in
whom the passion for education burns as brightly as it ever did in
descendants of the Puritans or in Jewish immigrants, desegregation
represented the promise of equal education in the basic subjects
indispensable to economic survival, even in an otherwise illiterate
modern society: reading, writing and arithmetic. Black parents, it
would seem, clung to what seems today an old-fashioned-from the point
of view of educational "innovators," a hopelessly
reactionary -- conception of education.
Thoroughly middle-class in its ideological derivation, the movement
for equal education nevertheless embodied demands that could not be
met without a radical overhaul of the entire educational system -- and
of much else besides. It flew in the face of long-established
educational practice. It contained implications unpalatable not merely
to entrenched educational bureaucrats but to progressives, who
believed that education had to be tailored to the "needs" of
the young, that overemphasis on academic subjects inhibited "creativity"
and that too much stress on academic competition encouraged
individualism at the expense of cooperation. The attempt to revive
basic education, on the part of blacks and other minorities, cut
across the grain of educational experimentation-the open classroom,
the school without walls, the attempt to promote spontaneity and to
undermine the authoritarianism allegedly rampant in the classroom.
In the late sixties, as the civil rights movement gave way to the
movement for black power, radicals in the educational world began to
identify themselves with a new theory of black culture, an inverted
version of the theory of cultural deprivation, which upheld the ghetto
subculture as a functional adaptation to ghetto life, indeed as an
attractive alternative to the white middle-class culture of
competitive achievement. Radicals now criticized the school for
imposing white culture on the poor. Black-power spokesmen, eager to
exploit white-liberal guilt, joined the attack, demanding separate
programs of black studies, an end to the tyranny of the written word,
instruction in English as a second language.
The educational radicalism of the late sixties, for all its
revolutionary militance, left the status quo intact and even
reinforced it. In default of radical criticism, it remained for
moderates like Kenneth Clark to make the genuinely radical point that
"black children or any other group of children can't develop
pride by just saying they have it, by singing a song about it, or by
saying I'm black and beautiful or I'm white and superior." Racial
pride, Clark insisted, comes from "demonstrable achievement."
Against the "self-righteous, positive sentimentalism" of
school reformers like Jonathan Kozol and Herbert Kohl, veterans of the
civil rights movement argued that teachers do not need to love their
students as long as they demand good work from them. In upholding
standards and asking everybody to meet them, teachers convey more
respect for their students, according to these spokesmen for the much
maligned Negro middle class, than they convey when they patronize the
culture of the ghetto and seek, as Hylan Lewis put it, to "gild a
noisome lily."
The whole problem of American education comes down to this: In
American society, almost everyone identifies intellectual excellence
with elitism. This attitude not only guarantees the monopolization of
educational advantages by the few; it lowers the quality of elite
education itself and threatens to bring about a reign of universal
ignorance.
Recent developments in higher education have progressively diluted
its content and reproduced, at a higher level, the conditions that
prevail in the public schools. The collapse of general education; the
abolition of any serious effort to instruct students in foreign
languages; the introduction of many programs in black studies, women's
studies and other forms of consciousness raising for no other purpose
than to head off political discontent; the ubiquitous inflation of
grades-all have lowered the value of a university education at the
same time that rising tuitions place it beyond reach of all but the
affluent.
What precipitated the crisis of the sixties was not simply the
pressure of unprecedented numbers of students (many of whom would
gladly have spent their youth elsewhere) but a fatal conjuncture of
historical changes: the emergence of a new social conscience among
students activated by the moral rhetoric of the New Frontier and by
the civil rights movement, and the simultaneous collapse of the
university's claims to moral and intellectual legitimacy. Instead of
offering a rounded program of humane learning, the university now
frankly served as a cafeteria from which students had to select so
many "credits." Instead of diffusing peace and
enlightenment, it allied itself with the war machine. Eventually, even
its claim to provide better jobs became suspect.
At the same time, the student movement embodied a militant
anti-intellectualism of its own, which corrupted and eventually
absorbed it. Demand for the abolition of grades, although defended on
grounds of high pedagogical principle, turned out in practice -- as
revealed by experiments with ungraded courses and pass-fail options --
to reflect a desire for less work and a wish to avoid judgment on its
quality. The demand for more "relevant" courses often boiled
down to a desire for an intellectually undemanding curriculum, in
which students could win academic credits for political activism,
self-expression, transcendental meditation, encounter therapy and the
study and practice of witchcraft. Even when seriously advanced in
opposition to sterile academic pedantry, the slogan of relevance
embodied an underlying antagonism to education itself-an inability to
take an interest in anything beyond immediate experience.
In the seventies, the most common criticism of higher education
revolves around the charge of cultural elitism. Two contributors to a
Carnegie Commission report on education condemn the idea that "there
are certain works that should be familiar to all educated men" as
inherently an "elitist notion." The Carnegie Commission
contributors argue that since the United States is a pluralist
society, "adherence exclusively to the doctrines of any one
school . . . would cause higher education to be in great dissonance
with society."
Given the prevalence of these attitudes among teachers and educators,
it is not surprising that students at all levels of the educational
system have so little knowledge of the classics of world literature.
At a high school "without walls" in New Orleans, students
can receive English credits for working as a disc jockey at a radio
station and reading How to Become a Radio Disc Jockey and Radio
Programming in Action. In San Marino, California, the high school
English department increased its enrollments by offering electives in
"Great American Love Stories," "Myths and Folklore,"
"Science Fiction" and "The Human Condition."
Those who teach college students today see at first hand the effect
of these practices, not merely in the students' reduced ability to
read and write but in the diminished store of their knowledge about
the cultural traditions they are supposed to inherit. With the
collapse of religion, biblical references, which formerly penetrated
deep into everyday awareness, have become incomprehensible, and the
same thing is now happening to the literature and mythology of
antiquity -- indeed, to the entire literary tradition of the West,
which has always drawn so heavily on biblical and classical sources.
In the space of two or three generations, enormous stretches of the "Judaeo-Christian
tradition," so often invoked by educators but so seldom taught in
any form, have passed into oblivion. The effective loss of cultural
traditions on such a scale makes talk of a new Dark Age far from
frivolous. Yet this loss coincides with an information glut, with the
recovery of the past by specialists and with an unprecedented
explosion of knowledge -- none of which, however, impinges on everyday
experience or shapes popular culture.
The resulting split between general knowledge and the specialized
knowledge of the experts, embedded in obscure journals and written in
language or mathematical symbols unintelligible to the layman, has
given rise to a growing body of criticism and exhortation. The ideal
of general education in the university, however, has suffered the same
fate as basic education in the lower schools. Even those college
teachers who praise general education in theory find that its practice
drains energy from their specialized research and thus interferes with
academic advancement. Administrators have little use for general
education, since it does not attract foundation grants and large-scale
government support. Students object to the reintroduction of
requirements in general education because the work demands too much of
them and seldom leads to lucrative employment.
Under these conditions, the university remains a diffuse, shapeless
and permissive institution that has absorbed the major currents of
cultural modernism and reduced them to a watery blend, a mind-emptying
ideology of cultural revolution, personal fulfillment and creative
alienation. Donald Barthelme's parody of higher learning in Snow
White -- like all parody in an age of absurdities -- so closely
resembles reality as to become unrecognizable as parody.
Beaver College is where she got her education. She studied Modern
Woman, Her Privileges and Responsibilities: the nature and nurture
of women and what they stand for, in evolution and in history,
including household, upbringing, peacekeeping, healing and devotion,
and how these contribute to the rehumanizing of today's world. Then
she studied Classical Guitar I, utilizing the methods and
techniques of Sor, Tarrega, Segovia, etc. Then she studied English
Romantic Poets II: Shelley, Byron, Keats. Then she studied Theoretical
Foundations of Psychology: mind, consciousness, unconscious mind,
personality, the sell, interpersonal relations, psychosexual norms,
social games, groups, adjustment, conflict, authority, individuation,
integration and mental health. Then she studied Oil Painting I,
bringing to the first class, as instructed, Cadmium Yellow Light,
Cadmium Yellow Medium, Cadmium Red Light, Alizarine Crimson,
Ultramarine Blue, Cobalt Blue, Viridian, Ivory Black, Raw Umber,
Yellow Ochre, Burnt Sienna, White. Then she studied Personal
Resources I and II: self-evaluation, developing the courage to
respond to the environment, opening and using the mind, individual
experience, training, the use of time, mature redefinition of goals,
action projects. Then she studied Realism and Idealism in the
Contemporary Italian Novel: Palazzeschi, Brancati, Bilenchi,
Pratolini, Moravia, Pavese, Levi, Silone, Berto, Cassola, Ginzburg,
Malaparte, Calvino, Gadda, Bassani, Landolfi. Then she studied
-- A latter-day Madame Bovary, Snow White is a typical victim of mass
culture, the culture of commodities and consumerism with its
suggestive message that experiences formerly reserved for those of
high birth, deep understanding or much practical acquaintance of life
can be enjoyed by all without effort, on purchase of the appropriate
commodity. Snow White's education is itself a commodity, the
consumption of which promises to "fulfill her creative potential,"
in the jargon of pseudo-emancipation.
Snow White's instructors assume that higher learning ideally includes
everything, assimilates all of life. And it is true that no aspect of
contemporary thought has proved immune to educationalization. The
university has boiled all experience down into "courses" of
study-a culinary image appropriate to the underlying ideal of
enlightened consumption.
|