Spaceship Earth
The fable seems to be a bit more for the teachers and other adults than it does for the kids. It is a narrative for the community to shape the way that they educate the kids. This is OK but not what I was expecting.
I like his emphasis on teaching subjects as histories. I see this fitting very well in with the Fallen Angels narrative too. I think he gets a little silly when he talks about astronomy (that thinking others might be out there can give kids meaning) and Star Trek. (Then again I have never been too much into SciFi.) I do like what he has to say about archeology and anthropology. I am interested in see what he says later about literature. I think a lot of what he wants to do with those two fields (and by way of teaching subjects as histories) can be done easily inside of existing literature classes. Literature is not just reading comprehension and not just made up stories. They are stories that can elucidate the human condition and should be take seriously in that respect. I think it is a shame that they are not, and I see using anthropology and archeology to to that is a way of bowing to the modern scientific obsession with data and evidence. Why can't you use myths, stories and poetry to do what he wants to with anthropology and archeology? Because they are not taken seriously, and I would assert that it is because they lack data and evidence.
His questioning of subjects I think is good. We have it in mind that certain subjects are core subjects and useful, but I think the justification for those classification are out of date or simply forgotten and unexamined. We need to examine those and reevaluate. Unfortunately, I think he is right that those sorts of decisions are made with far too much influence from economics and politics.
The main point of the narrative and fable is that we need to take care of what it around us: people, things and nature. I like this and I think it is an important lesson/awareness that is lacking these days. But I don't care for the Spaceship Earth way of putting it and I am not sure that it deserves to be a major narrative or god. I think it is a good minor deity.
This was my least favorite of the narratives, and I still can find a lot that I liked in this chapter. I am looking forward to the next.
posted by Zophorian at 7:12 AM
2 Comments:
This is an unusual chapter. The fable is okay, but certainly not for students (as Zo rightly says). I was expecting the fable to be about Spaceship Earth! --Something that kids could buy into. Once he puts forth the fable, he backtracks rather quickly and agrees that much of it is untenable, impractical. Then he swivels his focus to something entirely different: the discussion of subjects germane to Spaceship Earth. Isn't this engineering?
I find his choices eccentric. (His discussion of astronomy is downright silly. Why would he appeal to Star Trek?) This is not to say I don't like these subjects: I do. For me, anthropology (or cultural geography) is extremely important. Good "social studies" courses are interdisciplinary and will combine elements of archaeology and anthropology, as well as sociology and economics. I really do not understand what he means by archaeology, especially if the distinct methods are left out. It sounds like a fairly generic study of ancient civilizations. (He really likes the Sumerians.) But again he calls this period "prehistory" only to mention civilizations that came into existence only after the invention of writing and are thus historical (not prehistorical).
Here's my take on the chapter. If we want to build an ideology of caretaking, he suggests these three subjects with three very specific themes in mind. For archaeology, he wants us to see how good stewardship of the earth allowed certain civilizations to flourish. Jared Diamond's tome Collapse talks about the counterpoint, which is equally important to learn. For anthropology, he wants teachers to emphasize the commonalities we share. And, for astronomy, he wants us to learn about the "oneness" of all things, as well as the special and precarious place we occupy in the universe.
These are good things to learn. It is ideological, and the prescription he writes not only gives us the WHY but partial HOWs (the content of the curriculum). This is one criticism I have of his work as a whole: We really cannot separate the WHYs and the HOWs. They are interconnected.
I agree AJ that anthropology and archeology are stretches for what he is talking about. (Maybe the alliteration came first and the subjects later. The only difference between the two, the way he talks about them, is that one deals with more contemporary peoples-- anthropology-- and the other ancient-- archeology. (And you are right when you point out that he talks of pre-history when he shouldn't. I missed that when I was reading.) I think what he is trying to emphasize (or should be) is survival, co-existence stewardship. Then to show how peoples and times are different but still so similar. It is a good idea, but the choice of archeology and anthropology are not well thought out.
Aj is spot on when he says that HOW and WHY are interconnected. Postman does go from the WHY into the HOW, from narrative into a bit of engineering. I think is good because he is starting with the WHY and moving into the HOW. The WHY should be seen as the foundation, the origin. What I think he is criticizing earlier in the book is the fact that so many people deal with the HOW and ignore the WHY, or get to the WHY only after the HOW is established. HOW needs to be addressed, but having a good WHY will make many debates about the HOW easier to resolve or simply irrelevant.
Post a Comment
<< Home