# 321: Work, State, and Education

Committee of the Corporation, Academical Faculty (1828). Reports on the Course of Instruction in Yale College. 7.

Story behind the Passage

You know me as a sometimes critical, sometimes silly, sometimes emotional writer. Today, I am all of this together and in addition, I am in a very bleak mood. The pictures reaching us this morning from Afghanistan, like the ones from the past days, have given testimony to one of the biggest political failures of the past decades — if not this century, not knowing what will follow. One aspect which is becoming more and more prevalent now is the fact that the Taliban are starting to ban women and girls from going to work and continuing their education. There is nothing surpising to this and you do not have to be an expert on the region in order to know that this would be coming. Still, there are many things to think about and learn from this that have a lot to do with OUR lives and with OUR political dilemmas.

All of these, as you might guess from my philosophical standpoint of argumentation, starts and ends with the single individual.

One might wonder now what all this has to do with the topic of work and how this, in turn, is connected to the state and education, as I indicate in the title. The general answer can always be that everything on this planet is somehow connected. But that would, of course, be a really general and unsatisfactory answer. The more specific and thus easier answer is a personal one. I have been dealing with people from the business world for many years now and what I am seeing is partly encouraging and partly truly frightening. The encouraging aspect is the one of technological advancement and the embracing of new media tools to promote human wellbeing. The frightening aspect is the lack of thinking about all this. Yes, I know, thinking has come out of fashion but this exactly leads us back to the present dilemma: Thinking, in the sense of reflecting, human beings, this is my axiom, run less of a danger to make decisions that harm society and the individuals therein.

That exactly is the connection to Afghanistan.

Politicians who are unable to think and thus estimate

that ACTION is something that cannot be postponed for long

are dangerous.

The potential solutions to this, i.e., the forming of people — decision makers — who can think and act, has become a topic that accompanies me every day. And I can totally understand that regular readers might already be bored by it. If that is the case, so be it. In light of the events that we are witnessing, I have no other choice than to give into to the inner longing to express my thoughts, my worries, and my sadness about this. For the first time in my life, I do feel that we are moving backwards in every possible way. The fatal aspect is that it does not appear this way on the surface, because the supposed technological advancement evokes a feeling that we are on a speedy journey to an even more advanced and even more prosperous society.

That is an illusion.

The only point of reference I have to justify this claim, of course, is history. Human beings have, empirically speaking, no other ultimate reference point than to find clues for explaning the present based on what happened in the past. The only alternative one has is to argue based on supernatural and metaphysical phenomena. Even though, when talking about education, both are indeed connected, the latter would not satisfy the contemporary reader. But I am digressing here. What I mean is that many people I talk to in business, sorry to say this, draw no connections, whatsoever, between the thing they call “work,” the role their work plays in the state, and the links this has to education. This is what I want to reflect on today as a contribution to at least pondering how it can be that politicians are making decisions that lead to a disaster like this one in Afghanistan and how, this is important as well, other social and economic actors in the state have not been and currently are not able to prevent this.

My Learnings

“The two great points to be gained in intellectual culture, are the discipline and the furniture of the mind; expanding its powers, and storing it with knowledge.” This sentence from one of the opening pages of the Yale Report of 1828 might sound really old-fashioned, even aristocratic. In short, it sounds like something that nobody would listen to anymore because it is supposedly outdated. Well, guess what, many of our present-day practices and norms stem from time periods that reach back even farther in history. The most prominent example is the university whose origins, structures, and partly curricula are rooted in the Middle Ages. But I guess, we are now seeing that this will change. Just like the convent schools went into decline as the universities were formed, so the universities might be pushed away by — what exactly? Startups? Co-working spaces? Online short-quick-and dirty clips sponsored by ads?

The Yale Report, to make it very short, was drafted in order to defend the Liberal Arts education. At the time, society in the U.S. was undergoing a very similar situation that we find today. Industrialization was happening and people wanted more “practical” education, no dead languages like Greek and Latin, no theology or literature classes. This, of course, was not the first time that this happened. As mentioned above, history is filled with epochs in which education was somehow forced to respond to the changes in the world. That is nothing outrageously surprising. On the contrary, it is necessary and you might even argue it is an aspired and welcome effect because education has the goal of “producing” men and women who set into motion social change.

Still, the draftsmen of the paper defended the liberal education. I am not going into details of this here because I have talked about the Liberal Arts several times before and you find much information about the history online. For readers who are not familiar with the concept of the Liberal Arts: It goes back to the seven liberal arts subjects which students in the first university of the Middle Ages had to study prior to, possibly, earning a graduate degree in a professional field, e.g., law or medicine. The U.S. later adopted this model and founded the liberal arts colleges, including Yale. The general goal of the liberal education, at least this is what you usually read in connection with the democratic ideal of the U.S., was to produce well-rounded and responsible citizens who would then be able to take high-ranking positions in the state. Here is how the authors of the report phrase this goal in contradistinction to a merely practical professional curriculum:

“We doubt whether the powers of the mind can be developed, in their fairest proportions, by studying languages alone, or mathematics alone, or natural or politicl science alone. As the bodily frame is brought to its highest perfection, not by one simple and uniform motion, but by a variety of exercises; so the mental faculties are expanded, and invigorated, and adapted to each other, by familiarity with different departments of science.” (Yales Report 9)

This metaphor of the body as a holistic organism which requires not just one particular kind of training but a mixture is powerful to explain the function of the liberal arts curriculum to educate and form minds that are able to contribute their level best to society, especially in public administration. Even in the Middle Ages, this, and this is important for today’s discussion, did not exclude practical experience because many of these students had already worked in “normal” jobs on the side; including trade and commerce. This in and of itself already explains one connection to what “work” actually means. And that is not different from today, even though we obviously do not think about it that much. Whether I work in a bank, as a plumber, or as a business man in a corporation — all these activities which form “work” serve a collective purpose. They together ensure that the population of a state, nowadays even the world, is provided with certain goods that are necessary for human survival and that the respective organization which is needed to maintain this system of production is well-managed. In order to do this, as an overarching framework, it helps if people do not kill each other in a civil war and that power is not abused. Hence, this is why we need bureaucracy and politics.

I am giving this very brief overview of political philosophy and economics 101 because it seems that this major connection between business and politics, between work and state, and between education and economics is somehow not seen anymore by many people, even though, not much has changed on the basis. That, the inability to see connections and patterns, in and of itself to me is a sign of what happens if a society abandons the liberal education. But there is another thing that worries me even more these days because it is making me really sad. You might argue that you personally do not care about the “state” when you go to work every morning or turn on your computer in your home office. That is fine. What I hoped, or what I deeply believed in at least, was that you worry about your personal happiness — your joy of life, fulfilment.

That seems to have been lost.

“What? No way!”

Is this what you are thinking now?

You are constantly thinking about happiness but education and work are exactly the things that prevent you from being happy?

That is exactly the error, the bug, so to speak, which seems to have entered the system — not just individual “hard drives,” also the collective consciousness or lack thereof. This error is to think that education was merely there for the state or for individual career purposes. No, it was actually intended to help the individual gain happiness. In the days of the Middle Ages, this state of happiness was mostly defined by the closeness to God. But you can find secular definitions as well. What is common to religious happiness and secular happiness is the idea that training your mind, becoming educated, helps you become happy — to feel a level of joy and fulfilment which cannot be attained if you lack the fundamental insights needed in order to live a life in health, peace, and a calm mind; basically all the things that you are now looking for in your yoga classes, psycho-therapy, or drugs.

Is this becoming a theological lecture, or what?

No, I am not a theologian. I am an observer thinking about how Afghanistan could happen the way it has been happening. Actually, the Taliban obviously know one thing even better than many people in our society: If you want to change a system, if you want to “abuse” it according to your own ideals, you start with education. That is one reason why they are already starting to send the girls home from school, as was reported this morning, despite claims they had been making to not do this. But back to “us,” to our own little Afghanistan, a civil war underneath the blanket of a rich and supposedly functioning democracy: The problem with a political elite like the one we seem to have now, and with a business elite of the kind we are seeing now, is that they do not see the connection between their inner joy, education, and the contribution of their own “work” to the functioning of the state. And the functioning of the state, in a global world, is obviously closely tied to the functioning of other states. That is nothing new either, it is just a bit more visible today with global news spreading quickly.

The important element in all these aspects is: institutions. We have institutions because they have a purpose (= from Latin institutionem (nominative institutio), “a disposition, arrangement; instruction, education,” noun of state from institutus). As soon as you want to do something on a larger scale and based on certain rules in a continuous manner, you need institutions. A company is an institution. The parliament is an institution. The university is an institution. What especially startups and digital entrepreneurs have been disrupting is not only existing institutions but even the idea of the institution as such. They are not talking about this in the way I do here. Maybe they do not even think about it. But the point is: All trends and criticisms of some so-called ‘establishment’ pretty much aims at showing that our traditional institutions are deeply flawed. And the argument is usually connected to a temporary argument, i.e., institutions are too slow to implement what needs to be implemented.

They are too slow to understand that lots of people will continue to die in Afghanistan.

Of course, institutions consist of individuals but pursuing this line of thought would sidetrack us even further. I just want to mention that we always have to see this connection between the stupidity or brilliance of individual decision makers and the institutional surroundings. In any case, I finally want to get back to this one sentence I have chosen from the Yale report above which is crucial and which will explain why institutions have a purpose after all, despite their often-criticized indolence: They are talking about discipline as one of the key elements of the liberal education in the text. And the passage also makes clear, that discipline is not merely an end of education, it is a tool, a key part of the method of educating individuals who can actually deal with the world — who can invest their WORK, meaningful action, into helping society. As the following passage indicates, this also includes the field of entrepreneurship and invention:

“Professional studies are designedly excluded from the course of instruction at college, to leave room for those literary and scientific acquisitions which, if not commenced there, will, in most cases, never be made. They will not grow up spontaneously, amid the bustle of business. We are not here speaking of those giant minds which, by their native energy, break through the obstructions of a defective education, and cut their own path to distinction. These are honorable exceptions to the general law; not examples for common imitation. Franklins and Marshalls are not found in sufficient numbers to fill a college. And even Franklin would not have been what he was, if there had been no colleges in the country. When an elevated standard of education is maintained, by the higher literary institutions, men of superior powers, who have not had access to these, are stimulated to aim at a similar elevation, by their own efforts, and by aid of the light which is thus shining around them.” (Yales Report 15)

This passage actually struck me in the face as I read it again and again while writing this post. Not only does it reveal so many timeless truths about the education system at large and the brilliant understanding of it which the authors of the report obviously displayed. It also mirrored an essential flaw in my own thinking and living which I had not fully grasped until very recently. But let us move slowly because it is important with this passage. The first finding is that the multi-disciplinary liberal arts education is something that, if it does not happen in the context of institutionalized and formal education, does not happen at all — unless you maybe have academic parents who feed you books instead of french fries starting in early childhood. It is also interesting that the explanation is that the “bustle of business” prevents this, which is exactly the case nowadays. Especially people in business — and many others — claim to not have time to read and think because of everyday stress and obligations. And because it is assumed that this goes on and on, the more people advance in their careers, the liberal education and what it does to the individual is never made up for. It is simply, more or less, skipped without proper replacement and thus lacking throughout the entire life time.

Yes, I know, I am now taking a toll on the reader’s patience and willingness to do close reading, but I am not done yet with the passage. The next truly remarkable thing is that the authors are strikingly aware of the general deficiency of the public education system. Their defense of the liberal arts does not at all stem from some arrogant position which favors supposedly classical education and believes in its eternal “rightfulness.” To the contrary, they know that the system is more or less shitty and that is also why they know that true geniuses, “giant minds,” are actually not being accounted for by mainstream education. In other words, they know that institutionalized education even harms these people. Still, they also know that these individuals will find a way to still their hunger for learning in various fields because they have, this is the underlying assumption here, a “natural” ability to do so. All others will need an institution and a mandatory curriculum to more or less force this general education on them. And it is interesting that they mention Franklin and Marshall as primary examples for this logic; two outstanding polymaths and also pragmatic leaders of their time.

The latter two thoughts, particularly the one about the inherent defectiveness of the education system and the conclusion that Franklins and Marshalls cannot set the standard for public education policies is the major reason why this paragraph practically smacked me in the face — in a positive way of bringing a finding to light that now somewhat makes me feel ashamed but also explains my own actions. What I am talking about is the tendency of human beings to think that others think alike and know exactly as much as they know (“curse of knowledge”). This will sound terribly arrogant but it is one of my key problems. Whenever I tried to preach in favor of the liberal arts in the past, I did so thinking that all others knew what I was talking about because I had assumed they had achieved similars insights. The insights are crucial, not the process itself, obviously. And that was the point with so many things in life. I thought that older people and people who had gone through similar life experiences had reached similar knowledge and related revelations. And then I got mad and later frustrated to the point of hermitage because I could not understand how people can argue the way they were arguing, knowing what they knew. But the point was: They most likely did not know what I was thinking they knew. And that is why trying to force them to see what I was talking about, would be cruel and not just. And just like I would have loved to study and learn with Franklin and other people like him, I have to accept that this is not for most people. I was wrong and therefore it was right to decide to not teach anymore.

Finally, before I get completely lost in my exegesis of this crucial passage, I want to come back to the important role of institutions and their effect on work as an essential element of a meaningful life. The implicit axiom in the passage but also in our still existing present education system is that institutions can help individuals achieve things that are simply not possible to be achieved by individuals alone (except for some exceptions, e.g., Franklin et al.). This is actually rooted in the religious origins of the university and the double mission which education always (up to the present age) had: practical and spiritual growth. And now, we are really getting to the point where I am getting even more emotional because I am really worried that we are not only seeing the continued rise of stupidity, we are also seeing the decline of any kind of ethical reflection, of morality — and ultimately of humanism; of the empathy one person needs in order to feel the need to help someone. What I am saying is that we have — we need — schools and universities because they require the discipline to go there and study. And guess what, even with all the YouTube and online education — HOW MUCH HAVE YOU PROFOUNDLY LEARNED FROM THIS?

You might say: a lot.

I believe you.

But you are wrong.

What you have probably learned is of the second kind of education which is also described in the report: practical knowledge and skills. The kind of character building that the Yale Report mentions and seeks to support, this is my firm conviction, can only be gained via a long and institutionalized process of education. This is what we are losing. And this has nothing to do with your individual intelligence and the will to learn. Think of St. Augustine. He basically admits in his Confessions that he hated formalized education for a long time. And he claims he did not learn much because he did not learn for the sake of learning. This is just the argument you find among the current student generation and especially startup founders make a lot of noise around this. “Schools and universities are bullshit, you do not learn anything there for life.”

Guess, what.

Augustine would not have become St. Augustine without the stuff he learned in formalized education — even though he might have hated it.

He had the discipline to learn it anyways.

Blessed are those who know what they do not know.

Instead, we have an over-funded elite of uneducated and ignorant assholes.

And they will be the politicians of the future.

They alrady are — partly.

Are you completely getting lost now what all of this has to do with the topic of work? A lot. I am claiming that the ability to think of your work in connection with the state and other issues on the collective level of society is developed in the liberal education system. And this education, in turn, needs discipline and it fosters discipline as a virtue, with virtues being an incremental part of a happy and fulfilling life. And virtues also bring us back to the disaster which is happening now. Yes, it is nice to have “hands-on” managers and “quick decision makers” among politicians. Both things are great and necessary. But these qualities cannot be formed in a merely technical education. They take a long time to form. They require character development in the finest sense.

And guess what, this path helps you gain individual happiness and true inner freedom from your bosses and other social pressures.

It is the kind of freedom and fulfilment which the girls and boys in Afghanistan are seeking.

But they cannot go to school anymore.

Because terrorists are stopping them.

And the world is watching.

And all I can do at this very moment is write about it.

How tragic and useless this feels.

But at least, I can write.

Even the ability to write is getting lost these days.

People can tweet and chat and send emoticons as modern hieroglyphs but spend thousands of Euros for content creators to produce real text.

Are we really going back to the Middle Ages?

Afghanistan is closer than you think.

We can all learn from it.

If we have ever learned to learn…

Reflection Questions

1) How is your work related to the functioning of the state?

2) Did you ever think about the origins of universities and education in the Middle Ages?

3) In how far is what happens in Afghanistan right now related to your life?