Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, recently made the following comment : "You have one identity. The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly ... Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity."
It's an outlook like this which I think explains Facebooks ongoing problems with privacy. If the head of the company really believes that we are simple one-dimensional social creatures (and coincidentally more easily mappable and manipulatible for advertising, then it never really will be the ultimate social networking solution. What I would love in facebook is exactly the opposite, a layered identity which I can tweak for various levels of acquaintance. Does that mean I have a 'lack of integrity'? I don't think so, because simply wanting to not publicize certain information to certain people, does not mean I have malicious intent. What Zuckerberg seemingly fails to understand is the boundary of the private sphere is not simply between me and everyone in the world I have had no contact with, rather it is specifically an intricate layering of relationships within the network of people I do know, but with varying degrees. Indeed, since I have no contact and may never meet the 'everybody else' then I actually care less about them knowing my 'private' stuff, since it will have no impact on my life. It would be as if keeping things 'private' meant keeping them secret from aliens or people in the past or distance future - it makes the term meaningless. Which of course would make things a lot easier for the likes of facebook!
Similarly, private does not mean 'secret'. The point of a 'secret' is it is restricted but useful knowledge. The recipe for coke is a 'secret' but whether I have a loose toenail is not. In both cases the possessor has information others do not, and is reluctant to share it with others, but in the latter case it is 'information' only to me, and not is irrelevant to them. And this is another element of private affairs - it is not that they are necessarily hidden from others, they are just more comfortably kept that way, since they are nobody elses business. Of course, just as I don't ultimately care if soimeone on the other side of the planet who I will never meet knows about my daily life, if it's not relevant for others, and they don't care, then the logic could be that they then won't pay attention, so it doesn't need to be private in the first place. But the reason this is not the case highlights perhaps the main reason why we want to keep things private, and this is not about our integrity, but the integrity of others.
Being honest, I am perfectly 'ok' with what I do in all my social levels. At the end of the day, I personally am not going to be embarrassed or regret what happened in any sphere; however, I wouldn't want all levels open to everyone, because I would worry about how others would view it, and how it would affect their interaction with me. Take for example political or religious views. I stand by my viewpoints, so if it came to it, would defend them in front of everyone. But, I also know not all people would agree with me, some might take offence, or (more the issue) some might disagree, and being less than perfect individuals, might act in hostile or malicious ways, or even just handle me differently. Now of course, for my closest friends this is not the case (they wouldn't be my close friends if it were), but I know am involved with much more people than this. To most it may not matter, but to some it does, and one reason why private spheres exist and are respected (in some societies anyway) is they allow us to interact and deal with others who may not agree with us, since for day to day practical matters this agreement is not necessary. Maybe if we all lived in some gigantic commune where everybody knew everything about everybody else then we'd all adapt and attitudes would change, but we don't. And a reason why we aren't likely to in any near future is that information is open to interpretation, and widespread disemination runs the risk of people getting the wrong end of the stick. To have a functioning society, made up of different individuals, requires bubbles of private space, but mechanisms for them to interact. For Zuckerbergs Utopia to exist society would either have to be very homogenous, or very small, and the web community is about as low scoring on both these counts as is imaginable.
I really think that just as social networking (and hats off to facebook for making the most of it) taps into a major force in the modern world, the game is for the taking for the company that can really tune it to how people really view it. Roll on diaspora!
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Faith schools and the role of indoctrination
Watching Richard Dawkin's "faith school menace" raised again for me the whole topic of the difference issue of the role of indoctrination in education.
For me, the are two intertwined themes involved in the program. Firstly, at a macro level, there is the problem of society self-segregating on the basis of faith. This I think is clearly a significant issue for any multicultural society, since it at best merely fosters an insular and closed-mind outlook, at worst is actively divisive and detrimental to social cohesion and integration. The second issue is the question of, within those faiths and faith schools, what is the impact on the individual education and development of the children. The program illustrated the first of these themes by referring to the sectarianism in Northern Ireland, and the second by a subtle ridiculing of a faith guided science teacher's understanding of evolution (and her only slightly less confused pupils).
In both examples however, there were some statements which went to the heart of the issue, namely, the concept of indoctrination.
In the Northern Ireland example, one of his inerviewees demanded to know whether Dawkins thought it was a basic human right for parents to determine how their children are educated. This at first seems something hard to disgree with, but Dawkins repeatedly dodged the question. His problem I think was, while it sounds like an intuitive right of the parents, for him the rights of the child are also involved, and he is aware that the power of education to mould and shape our personalities means it is a double-edged sword. Passing on values and outlook is not only a desirable thing but arguably also a duty, but things become more complicated if the values are unacceptable. Would we tolerate domineering and cult-style parents 'brainwashing' their children with horrific views? I doubt it, and if not, then we, like Dawkins, could not agree to the interviewee's point, no matter how sensible it first sounds.
Simply put, Dawkins (and again I would largely agree with him) actually has issues with some people's values, whether these are explicitly important to them, or merely bundled into their declared faith without much thought on their part.
But this then leads into a much larger and complicated area - namely how much society as whole should do to influence the values which are propagated to the next generation. While a simple liberal assumption might be that it shouldn't do anything, and doesn't, the reality is it most definitely does, especially through it's educational insitutions. Hence if those institutions have differing value sets, then it is a problem.
I don't however want to go deeper into this topic here (even if I knew what to say), but in this instance we can extricate ourselves because normally, fundamentalists and some religious doctrines excepted, the moral values transmitted in faith schools do not vary so much from society's in general, at least not enough to cause a problem. Also (again fundamentalists apart) while parents might like their children having the same 'background' as they did, and hence feel some identification with a faith school which openly touts being of their background, I seriously doubt moral value education plays much of a role in their choice of school (again, because for the most part the values are so coherent across schools, even of different faiths). What is surely most important for them is the 'practical' education their child receives, and how it prepares it for one particular social role - a job.
It is from this perspective that faith schools are particularly worrying. Again it was one of the interviewees that crystalized this point, although this time it was Dawkins asking the question, and his point being proven without him saying anything. At a muslim school, he was interested to know how they were being taught certain areas of science which their teacher openly admitted disagreeing with on grounds of faith. The teachers were claiming each student independently weighed up the arguments and they all invariably came down on the side of faith. This fact showed how powerful the influence of faith teaching is, since even when they were being taught (albeit one couldn't tell how well) the scientific knowledge, they were uniformly rejecting it. It was however when he asked one student for some examples, and got some ridiculous non-scientific 'fact' about how salt and fresh water don't mix, that one saw just how worrying the practical implications are. It was summed up poignanlty by his simple but sad follow up : "and you're the one who wants to be a doctor isn't it?". The poor girl probably didn't see the ridiculousness of her situation, but the point was clear to us - if this she was going to come out of school with such a confused and useless understanding of simple physics, then what hope had she of ever achieving such a job. As a side not it is important too not to think it is an islamic only issue (no other faith school was brave enough to let him in) since Christian and other religions also have many views contrary to science. In the Christian case lay people might think these are not really seriously taken, but they are part of the catechism and the teachers are inevitably more devout.
For me the point is that indoctrination IS involved, but a special kind of indoctrination. In the case of science etc. it is an indoctrination into the world view that our society uses and relies upon. Even a relativist has to agree that whatever about the ultimate superiority of any particular world view, WITHIN a given system, such as our society, then there is a hierarchy. Believing salt water separates from fresh might be your own perogative, but is not going to help you get a job. Of course, as the revolutions in science have shown, even the 'establishment' views are not perfect, but they are the best there is at any given time for the roles and functions around at the time. And, most most importantly, and what massively differentiates this kind of indoctrination from the religious type, is it has an inbuilt self-correction mechanism, which allows these revolutions to take place. Again, at an abstract level it migth be argued whether it might be better to live in blissful ignorance with unchanging truths out of an ancient book, but again 'better' here would need not to include wanting a job.
So the question really is not whether education should be indoctrination, it is and it must be, but what, and how much, indoctrination is justified in the context of schooling. I.e. which values should be impressed on all (via a mandatory curriculum), which should be supported but not overly dictated, and which should be excluded.
My view is that government should be more open about what values it is promoting, and encourage debate and support; however this active behaviour needs to be tempered with a restraint as to which values are covered. But since there is promotion going on anyway, directly or indirectly, planned or not, then this can only be a change for the better. In the case of faith schools then, for subjects such as science a national curriculum should be mandatory, and contradictory teaching not supported (it might be a step too far to outright ban it!). The science example shows how sometimes faith values are simply not compatible with the purpose of the insitution. This is not to force the values on people outside of that setting, but inside the government funded institution it should call the shots.
This is particularly important given the evidence presented that children generally tend to prefer the most fantastical (and purposeful -i.e. theological) explanation for a problem, so modern world view has already it's work cut out (and probably exactly why it is a modern one, since it probably took so long to overcome our childlike tendencies).
A point worth making is that faith in schools per se is not necessarily a problem - many people, possibly Dawkins himself - have emerged unscathed from schools run by religious orders. However it may be in the past there was less interference in secular subjects. It could well be that with religious partipation on the wane, some religious bodies are more proactive involved outside of their initial domains, and this is a new and growing problem. Or, as seems to be the case in the UK, schools, 'acadamies' are being setup by people with a very clear agenda.
So just because faith schooling wasn't an issue in the past, doesn't mean it isn't one now.
For me, the are two intertwined themes involved in the program. Firstly, at a macro level, there is the problem of society self-segregating on the basis of faith. This I think is clearly a significant issue for any multicultural society, since it at best merely fosters an insular and closed-mind outlook, at worst is actively divisive and detrimental to social cohesion and integration. The second issue is the question of, within those faiths and faith schools, what is the impact on the individual education and development of the children. The program illustrated the first of these themes by referring to the sectarianism in Northern Ireland, and the second by a subtle ridiculing of a faith guided science teacher's understanding of evolution (and her only slightly less confused pupils).
In both examples however, there were some statements which went to the heart of the issue, namely, the concept of indoctrination.
In the Northern Ireland example, one of his inerviewees demanded to know whether Dawkins thought it was a basic human right for parents to determine how their children are educated. This at first seems something hard to disgree with, but Dawkins repeatedly dodged the question. His problem I think was, while it sounds like an intuitive right of the parents, for him the rights of the child are also involved, and he is aware that the power of education to mould and shape our personalities means it is a double-edged sword. Passing on values and outlook is not only a desirable thing but arguably also a duty, but things become more complicated if the values are unacceptable. Would we tolerate domineering and cult-style parents 'brainwashing' their children with horrific views? I doubt it, and if not, then we, like Dawkins, could not agree to the interviewee's point, no matter how sensible it first sounds.
Simply put, Dawkins (and again I would largely agree with him) actually has issues with some people's values, whether these are explicitly important to them, or merely bundled into their declared faith without much thought on their part.
But this then leads into a much larger and complicated area - namely how much society as whole should do to influence the values which are propagated to the next generation. While a simple liberal assumption might be that it shouldn't do anything, and doesn't, the reality is it most definitely does, especially through it's educational insitutions. Hence if those institutions have differing value sets, then it is a problem.
I don't however want to go deeper into this topic here (even if I knew what to say), but in this instance we can extricate ourselves because normally, fundamentalists and some religious doctrines excepted, the moral values transmitted in faith schools do not vary so much from society's in general, at least not enough to cause a problem. Also (again fundamentalists apart) while parents might like their children having the same 'background' as they did, and hence feel some identification with a faith school which openly touts being of their background, I seriously doubt moral value education plays much of a role in their choice of school (again, because for the most part the values are so coherent across schools, even of different faiths). What is surely most important for them is the 'practical' education their child receives, and how it prepares it for one particular social role - a job.
It is from this perspective that faith schools are particularly worrying. Again it was one of the interviewees that crystalized this point, although this time it was Dawkins asking the question, and his point being proven without him saying anything. At a muslim school, he was interested to know how they were being taught certain areas of science which their teacher openly admitted disagreeing with on grounds of faith. The teachers were claiming each student independently weighed up the arguments and they all invariably came down on the side of faith. This fact showed how powerful the influence of faith teaching is, since even when they were being taught (albeit one couldn't tell how well) the scientific knowledge, they were uniformly rejecting it. It was however when he asked one student for some examples, and got some ridiculous non-scientific 'fact' about how salt and fresh water don't mix, that one saw just how worrying the practical implications are. It was summed up poignanlty by his simple but sad follow up : "and you're the one who wants to be a doctor isn't it?". The poor girl probably didn't see the ridiculousness of her situation, but the point was clear to us - if this she was going to come out of school with such a confused and useless understanding of simple physics, then what hope had she of ever achieving such a job. As a side not it is important too not to think it is an islamic only issue (no other faith school was brave enough to let him in) since Christian and other religions also have many views contrary to science. In the Christian case lay people might think these are not really seriously taken, but they are part of the catechism and the teachers are inevitably more devout.
For me the point is that indoctrination IS involved, but a special kind of indoctrination. In the case of science etc. it is an indoctrination into the world view that our society uses and relies upon. Even a relativist has to agree that whatever about the ultimate superiority of any particular world view, WITHIN a given system, such as our society, then there is a hierarchy. Believing salt water separates from fresh might be your own perogative, but is not going to help you get a job. Of course, as the revolutions in science have shown, even the 'establishment' views are not perfect, but they are the best there is at any given time for the roles and functions around at the time. And, most most importantly, and what massively differentiates this kind of indoctrination from the religious type, is it has an inbuilt self-correction mechanism, which allows these revolutions to take place. Again, at an abstract level it migth be argued whether it might be better to live in blissful ignorance with unchanging truths out of an ancient book, but again 'better' here would need not to include wanting a job.
So the question really is not whether education should be indoctrination, it is and it must be, but what, and how much, indoctrination is justified in the context of schooling. I.e. which values should be impressed on all (via a mandatory curriculum), which should be supported but not overly dictated, and which should be excluded.
My view is that government should be more open about what values it is promoting, and encourage debate and support; however this active behaviour needs to be tempered with a restraint as to which values are covered. But since there is promotion going on anyway, directly or indirectly, planned or not, then this can only be a change for the better. In the case of faith schools then, for subjects such as science a national curriculum should be mandatory, and contradictory teaching not supported (it might be a step too far to outright ban it!). The science example shows how sometimes faith values are simply not compatible with the purpose of the insitution. This is not to force the values on people outside of that setting, but inside the government funded institution it should call the shots.
This is particularly important given the evidence presented that children generally tend to prefer the most fantastical (and purposeful -i.e. theological) explanation for a problem, so modern world view has already it's work cut out (and probably exactly why it is a modern one, since it probably took so long to overcome our childlike tendencies).
A point worth making is that faith in schools per se is not necessarily a problem - many people, possibly Dawkins himself - have emerged unscathed from schools run by religious orders. However it may be in the past there was less interference in secular subjects. It could well be that with religious partipation on the wane, some religious bodies are more proactive involved outside of their initial domains, and this is a new and growing problem. Or, as seems to be the case in the UK, schools, 'acadamies' are being setup by people with a very clear agenda.
So just because faith schooling wasn't an issue in the past, doesn't mean it isn't one now.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
When progress runs backward
I always find it quite sad when I read about the moon landings, or more precisely how the ambitions of space travel have fallen sharply back to Earth since the days of the Apollo program. Perhaps Icarus might have been a better moniker, since it seems man flew so high, only to crash back down for a long time.
The recent trigger for this was an article in the Observer on the 4oth anniversary of the landings. Apart from the fact that the moon is again beyond our reach, it was also somehow depressing to be reminded that with the space shuttle being retired, then even the options of just getting into orbit are being reduced. There is of course a new program talked about, but without real and new funding it's unlikely it'll be actually realized.
Given how space is the epitome of what is beyond our natural reach, and hence illustrates the triumph of collective humanity over given nature, there's something tragic in the fact that I could say to my son, when his grandfather was young they put men on the moon, when his father was young they put people in space...and when in the coming years while he is still young, they probably won't do either. Surely technology, progress even, was supposed to run the other way?
However, when one thinks about it, it all makes sense. Brutally put, glamour and one upmanship aside (which was after all a large part of the drive for the apollo mission) there isn't a lot of advantage in putting humans in space, and a hell of a lot of cost and risk. What always astonishes me, after the fact that the Apollo crew were using slide rules and sextants, and t below even the most basic smartphone, is just how hard getting out of orbit really still is. getFrom my understanding getting to the moon is another ballgame entirely to just the 'standard' trips to the space station etc. I.e. it's not just because we can't be bothered, it's just that it's still damn hard and dangerous! Which of course makes the original achievement all the more impressive.
And being honest, nostalgia (even if I missed Apollo, I played with space Lego in the shuttle heyday) and wow factor apart, I also don't think it's worth it. The pinacle of humanity's power it might represent, but it didn't do a whole lot of good for that humanity tself. While such projects of course have real technological offshoots, and spawn perhaps even more important aspiration, the sums involved are mind blowing, and given the problems here on earth, one has to weigh up the morality of it all. Of course a dollar not sent into space does not mean a dollar on malaria research, but still blood and treasure are spent which could be used for other things.
Aspiration is needed, and makes more of this world than we are given, but a balance in what we aim for is needed, so we waste our time neither in the gutter nor the stars. As Daedalus said to his son, I guess I could now say to mine : "Don't fly to low, or the waves will weigh down your wings, nor too high, lest the sun may burn them".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
copies of the referenced articles are saved here :
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)