Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Salad Bob's avatar

Your assessment is missing a lot of social realities of the time. Child labor laws were not enacted, poverty segregation, and sexism were still rampant. Institutions were educating for the elite and wealthy. As access increased, and diversity grew, education systems had to make it accessible and realistic for the average human being. We also have to mindful of the human being classic education was trying to produce. It was producing an elitist class dissociated from their human instincts and structured to hold up European culture as the civilizing force against an archaic and primitive humanity. This education produced the world we live in today, and clearly much was still missed.

The imperative of understanding the world we live in and its roots is hard placed on an education system. Because it's cerebral, it misses the embodied reality. We need a culturally literate society, but that cannot be mandated with culture. And the coercion, force, and brutality that classical education imposed on young children, does not build whole souls. Unfortunately, neither does modern education. Comparing one with other misses all the cultural advancements we've made, ignores the problems we have still not solved, and promotes eurocentrism, elitism, and intellectualism over a truly well society.

Andrew Panik's avatar

Why should people be expected to know Latin but not Arabic? Equal numbers of classic works have been written in both. Why should people read Chaucer but not Guanzhong? Why is Brahms more important than Coltrane? The idea that certain cultural knowledge is somehow better than others tired at best and ethnocentric at worst.

138 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?