... at least that's how some folks seem to see it.
In the classical education discussion below, a poster asked how I handle the western-centric aspect. That's a good question, and Sarah gave a nice answer.
Classical, Latin-based education is, by definition, the study of Western thought and culture. We study this because 1) it is the main basis of our current culture; and 2) it contains much of the best art, literature and philosophy the world has ever produced. This means that my kids education will be based on Western works and ideas, and that all other cutures and works will be largely viewed, and judged, through that lens.
However, a method of education is a tool, and only a tool. Classical education can be used to present an education that is focused on one people alone, that is elitist and even racist. But when such a thing happens, it is more the fault of the parent and teacher than the method of education.
Once I had considered using some Waldorf materials in our homeschool. I was cautioned against it by one person, who told me that Rudolph Steiner's philosophies promoted anti-semitism and other forms of racism. Okay. Obviously I don't want that in my home, but I am also capable of filtering material and throwing out what we don't want.
In short, giving your kids a classical education does not mean they will have blinders on, and only know about dead white men. If learning about the world's diverse cultures, peoples, religions, thougts and arts are important to you, you will allow that interest to rub off on your children. You'll read books, attend performances, go to museums, and talk to live people. Focusing your academic work on one area doesn't have to spill over into the rest of your life.
However, classical education does not foster multiculturalism. Multicultural education tells us that all cultures are equally worthy of study. Classical education tells us that some cultures are more worthy of study than others. Classical education more traditionally encourages the student to be discerning, and make judgements based on the great works of Western civilization; multiculturalism would tell us that this is racist and demeaning. Multiculturalism tells us that we cannot presume to judge other cultures.
We've all seen glimpses of a world in which all cultures, all religions, all ideas are upheld as equally good and equally worthy. It's a nice idea, but ultimately a problematic one. It leads to a greater world understanding, yes, but it also leads to confusion about morals and values. It leads to a lack of discernment. We must judge, and judge well, in order to know bad from good, right from wrong. We can only judge based on our own criteria. If we have no criteria ... what do we do?
I do want my kids to study and have some understanding for other cultures. I think it's extremely important that they understand that our way is not the only way, our mindset is not the only mindset. It's important that they understand not only the benefits of our Western culture, but also our failings and drawbacks. Nor am I saying that these other cultures have nothing good to offer us; of course they do. But I'm not afraid of giving my kids a yardstick, and classical education provides a yardstick that has been useful for many hundreds of years.
Posted by Steph at December 1, 2004 12:54 PMMy vision's been clouded by that whole PC multiculturalism way of thinking, where all cultures, religions, and ideas are considered equally valuable. Deep down, I agree, it is a nice idea, but it just really doesn't work; you need a standard. And like Simmons says in Climbing Parnassus, you have to know the best to measure the rest against. Though it applies, the brand "elitist" still makes me uncomfortable.
Looks like I'll have to add In Defense of Elitism to my reading list now.
I just refuse to feel bad for believing that somethings are better than others. I went through school in a very post-modernist time and while I have no trouble saying that the post-modernist notions of 'everyone has their own truth' applies to social sciences, I absolutely refuse to believe that this means that we need to place all things on an equal footing when it comes to evaluating things.
A KKK member's perpective on a historical event is his perspective. From his point of view it is the truth, and post-modernism is important in pointing out that different people have different truths even when they experience the same event. That's important to know.
But it doesn't mean that Duchamp's Fountain is actually more important or more artistic than Picasso.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4059997.stm
I just don't have any guilt for believing that some things simply are better than others. Thank goodness for that!
For example, it drove me absolutely batty every time I heard an interview with an 'everyday American' before the election in which the person insisted that they liked Bush because he was like them and they felt he could come to their house for supper. I'm sorry. We're talking about the leadership of the country! I WANT the leader of my country to be a better person than me. I WANT the Prime Minister of Canada to be part of the educated elite. I want to be able to have my friends over for dinner. I will never evaluate candidates for Prime Minister according to whether they could chat with me.
I don't think you're an elitist or a racist. You're talking about having discernment.
Posted by: Sarah on December 2, 2004 11:46 AMOur oldest is only 3, so we haven't made the decision re: homeschool vs. private school. But it will definitely be a classical education, as you define it.
I've recently read TWTM and a whole lot of Douglas Wilson. In "The Case for Classical Christian Education", Wilson defends the emphasis on Western civilization thus: "We do not teach Western culture in a jingoistic fashion; rather, we believe that students who are taught to love their own culture will understand why other people love theirs. A man who honors his mother understands another man honoring his. In contrast, our society's multicultural experiment attempts to teach children to respect the cultures of others by instilling in them a practical contempt for their own. But global harmony will take far more than occasional food fairs with samples of international spicy foods." (p.85)
Posted by: Ellen on December 4, 2004 11:41 PMAh! Ellen, thank you for this quote! Although Douglas Wilson and I have to disagree on some very fundamental things, I most definitely agree with him on this.
In my previous life I took teacher education classes with the goal of teaching secondary English. We were required to take a class in multicultural education. And it was exactly that: how to incorporate food fairs, crafts, and highlight "stories of other cultures." It was crap. That kind of thing ends up belittling other cultures instead of fostering understanding.
At the end of the class we had a feast. We were each supposed to bring a dish from our own cultural heritage. I brought Southern pecan pie. That was wrong, apparently.
Posted by: Stephanie on December 5, 2004 09:33 AMGreat topic! I'm all for educated elitism- and that same education is available for anyone who strives to attain it. However, money can't buy manners, and sadly, many folks have forgotten that you don't have to be rich, arrogant, snobby, or condescending to be "elite". Even Zorak struggles with that very word, in spite of the distinction.
An aside, Sarah, I think with regard to the topic you mentioned, there's a huge difference ("gaping chasm" comes to mind) between "educated elite" (which we would arguably want) and "arrogant elitist aristocracy" (which, eh, not so much, necessarily). That was one factor with regard to Bush and his personality- not so much that he was "just like them" but that he didn't think he was "superior to" them, as humans (which was one facet of issues toward the other guy). I'm not sure that's coming out as articulately as it's running around in my head, but I hope so.
Anyhow, lovin' the Holiday Blogging, Steph! You rock!
Dy
Posted by: Dy on December 6, 2004 02:23 AM