In 1933, John Dewey, wondering how an alien race might see the American educational landscape pondered, “The Utopians believed that the pattern which exists in economic society in our time affected the general habits of thought; that because personal acquisition and private possession were such dominant ideals in all fields, even if unconsciously so, they had taken possession of the minds of educators to the extent that the idea of personal acquisition and possession controlled the whole educational system.”

Essentially, the pursuit and capturing of money has become the purpose of education. And by extension, the purpose of society, and perhaps, the purpose of life itself.

1933 to 2018.

More math instead of ceramics or psychology. More science instead of music or sociology. Be it in K12 schools or in universities, we have been, and continue to support the pointed move toward training rather than providing our communities with a well-rounded education. The loss of our “liberal arts” in education is not new. John Dewey saw it in 1933. While schooling to some extent has swung back and forth between more humane liberal studies and often narrowly focused “skill based and test score” grounding, on the whole, society has not.

We march toward money, in orderly rows, with our “student success” flags waving and heartily singing songs about “grit” or “data” or “perseverance.” We are designing the future of our academic institutions based on reactions to our current fiscal crisis.

We have learned and trained people to build houses, but we do not know how to use them or live in them.

The hammering of nails and specific measures made are simple tasks compared finding meaning in the construction of homes and the bettering of society. Imagine if every carpentry course included conversations around the meaning of home? Maybe, as James Baldwin noted, “Perhaps home is not a place but simply an irrevocable condition.” What kind of builders might we have in the future if they discovered through schooling that the purpose of building homes was not to make money, but to create a sense of home for everyone.

“It was during these conversations that I learned to appreciate how completely the whole concept of acquiring and storing away things (training) had been displaced by the concept of creating attitudes by shaping desires and developing the needs that are significant in the process of living (liberal arts.)
John Dewey 1933, with my words in parenthesis

We have trained people to dig through the earth, but not how to care for the earth. We can train miners and mechanics and repair people. “Training” is what you can do to a dog. Education, is something different. How to do a thing is the first question. And the easiest to answer. The question of Why?” is far more difficult. Education looks to answer both. In education, it is where the notion of liberal arts comes from.

We have learned to make weapons, but not how to use them with wisdom. Perhaps the finest example of the drive for money, is seen in the history of weaponry. Used to conquer nations for gold or oil, or to make the heathens good (place religion name here) the “training” to create and use weapons has rarely bumped into the questions that might have improved our world. Making and using weapons are easy tasks. Understanding, and acting on the more noble reasons for the same are far more complex and ask us questions about works like “virtue” or “ethics.”

I do think that any instructor, in any course, can help students wonder about the “why” of the course content. And I know that many do. But, I think that the loss of required humanities courses, or the devaluing of them in any context will only serve to make us more narrow in thought, less adaptable, and more dangerous to our planet.

A little space to wonder why. Some time and air to breathe.