All for one and one for the money

“The ultimate aim of production is not production of goods, but the production of free human beings associated with one another on terms of equality.” – Noam Chomsky paraphrasing John Dewey

This is where I wanted to start my presentation on socioeconomic equality in education today, but pressed for time, I knew I wouldn’t be able to present the whole argument, which I borrowed from a lecture by Noam Chomsky that was given at Loyola University in Chicago on October 19, 1994, and printed in a collection of essays called Chomsky on MisEducation (2000, Donaldo Macedo, ed.).

Chomsky argues that this basic commitment, which forms the basis of Dewey’s theories of education and democracy, is at odds with a major component of modern intellectual life that was being constructed in the U.S. at the time of his writings (the 1920’s and 30’s): state capitalist industrial society and the rule of private power.

The ideas of Dewey, which are rooted in Enlightenment ideals, opposed those ideas of the capitalist, authoritarian state. So, while Dewey was talking about “free human beings associated with one another in terms of equality” – which leads us to think about education, “the great equalizer” – the people in power in the capitalist system were promoting accumulation of wealth and domination, an “all for ourselves” and “nothing for other people” kind of attitude.

At this point, education became largely about teaching people to abandon humanism and replace it with the capitalist ideologies that promote production, and lots of it – we’ve got our bottom lines to think about, after all. But it’s confusing, because our political system is a democracy, and our schools are governed by the people. And as teachers, we’re supposed to mold young people into good, productive citizens of the democracy.

But what kind of democracy are we talking about? Are we talking about the democracy in which the heads of state in their high, fine houses on hills make policies that determine the fate of people they don’t consort with, rather, prefer to remain ignorant and productive for “the system,” or are we talking about the kind of democracy that John Dewey was talking about, the kind where every one human being is free, working together for a common good that was "democratically conceived"?

When I talk about equality in education in terms of socioeconomic status, Dewey’s ideals (eloquently expressed by Chomsky) are the ones that I have in mind. And when I read in The Ann Arbor News that the dropout rate has more to do with being economically disadvantaged than any other social status, then I think, maybe that’s where we need to start.

When you consider, also, that the privatization of everything because of the free market places the burden of such basic human needs as health care and raising families on the backs of already cash-strapped people, then it’s no wonder that so many kids whose parents work long hours to make ends meet have problems with alcoholism and drug use and succumb to violence. (The implications on education are obvious.)

It’s intended to be that way for the rich to stay rich and the impoverished to stay in their place. Resources are finite and if the ultra-rich continue to hold all the money and power, then there won’t be enough left for everyone else. When it comes right down to it, it’s simple arithmetic.

So isn’t it convenient to blame the poor instead, since they’re so lazy and ignorant, and such an easy target?

Imagine if I’d just said that about a racial group.